Topic: Is it stealing when you get the funds from an address you find? - page 4. (Read 6780 times)

I checked with my insurer (I insure my coins) and he tells me that id stolen my BTC are absolutely something the police are legally obligated to investigate and that the thief is open to both civil and criminal prosecution.
However you are asking the right questions about how practical it is to recover lost bitcoin.  I have no idea how they would determine who the thief is in the absence of other clues, or how you could logically prove that you were robbed.  Then again, this is true for a lawnmower also. I suppose the police would try their best in an investigation. My hunch is that they would be unsuccessful. That's why I prefer insurance.

If you know the owner of the address and still you are not going to give it back to him then it is defiantly stealing but if you don't know the person then you have to distribute the money in the needy people but have no right to keep it with yourself and to use it.

It is stealing, but doesn't matter.  The odds of that happening are so small they are effectively literally zero.

Agreed, that from a moral point of view, if someone took someone else's coins without permission, it's theft.

The legal issue is that, the Bitcoin protocol can not classify it as that, since then every tx would be theft, since there
is no way to prove that the tx was not theft, other than from control of the keys. If the tx occurs, then that person
controls the keys and thus has provided the only proofs the Bitcoin network requires.

In comparison, in banks or other systems that we use each day, you could prove something by showing titles, deeds,
other paperwork, Personal IDs, passports, certain certifications, certain governmental ID numbers, tax ID numbers,
signed contracts, signed agreements, signed loan documents, and other things that could be used as evidence for you
to prove ownership, and thus, entitled to a recovery.



Agreed, that everything legal, is subject to the jurisdiction and their laws as it relates to Bitcoin/bitcoin, so my statements
may not apply to some jurisdictions where laws have been created to grant certain rights to btc, even when the Bitcoin Protocol
itself can not and shall not grant such rights or assurances.

I should probably add, that for me - from a moral perspective - it is stealing.

OTOH - also from a moral perspective  - I consider some performances of some employees as stealing the company funds, because they get something for nothing.  Not sure if that would be considered stealing from a legal perspective.

And "Legal" this part of the forum has in its name.

I suppose the question cannot be answered in general, as it seems to depend at least on the jurisdiction. See another thread here, where the legal interpretation in Japan is pointed out. "Bitcoins cannot be owned". Most legislative constructs require ownership as prerequisite to theft.

In Germany you actually do OWN the paper Eur money, so you are even allowed to burn it if you like. Different story in US and completely different story in Thailand.

Given the fact, that in Japan Bitcoins cannot be owned, legally, if you went to Japan and performed there a collision attack or seizure of BTC funds, it would legally not be stealing. Now even when you left Japan, you probably would be the rightful owner of the seized bitcoins because you did not steal them. Of course only after you actually left the Japanese jurisdiction, because there you could not be "owner" of bitcoins.


Rico

No, you don't understand what I am saying.
Your example does not work since a car (and other types of major property) has title ownership papers.
Bitcoin has no such proofs and that is intentional in this system. Your only proof is control of keys.

The US Government has no obligation in law in help get your btc back UNLESS it was secured,
such as with exchanges or businesses. As long as you deal with bitcoin within the Bitcoin Network,
there is no remedy. When you move your btc to something else, like Coinbase, then that is the only
time the US government would have ability by law and proceed with their investigation/processes.

Here are some questions:
1. If someone swept my btc from my address outside a regulated system, what is the mechanism and
protocols to legally and realistically help me get my btc back?
2. What are the proofs that are used to prove that I didn't transfer the btc myself and made a false claim?

I think there is a lot more to it than that?
By the same logic you could steel my car and claim that I gave up any rights to it when I bought it. Bitcoin IS my property and the government (at least in the US) has an obligation to assist me if I was robbed. They took their taxes when they claimed it was mine, now they must act. Which is why they can tax me in the first place.  So while the police may not know what a bitcoin is, I have protection for my assets.

Its stealing from the moral point of view irrespective of how you want to paint it because the money didn't just appear there out of the blue someone put it there for his own use which in true fact, you've denied him/her of that purpose so from the moral point again its stealing no matter the circumstances that ledn to it... My 2 cents...

That is not how Bitcoin works.

When you convert your money into bitcoin, you no longer own that money or claim rights to that money.
You now are participating within the Bitcoin system and that system does not provide rights of ownership.
So, you willingly decided to wave your ownership rights, to gain control rights within a non regulated financial system.

Whether you worked for the btc or not, is irrelevant in this type of legal theory.

In Bitcoin, if someone "stole" your btc out from your address, who do you go to for remedy?
The Bitcoin Devs? The Bitcoin miners? There is no one who is legally responsible.
Because there is no legal responsibility, there is no ownership, then there is no theft.
In addition, you can not appeal to the Bitcoin network itself to help return your stolen btc.

If there is no legally responsible supervising party, there can be no ownership.
Bitcoin was designed to not have such a party or to be such a system.

Definition of stealing: Taking something that does not belong to you.

So if you worked for your money, then it's yours whether you decide to store it as bitcoins or as raw cash kept in a round pot and buried out in your yard. Fact still remains the money belongs to you.

If you did not work for the money and you "suddenly" find yourself in possession of money WITHOUT the consent of the owner, you should RETURN it. If you don't, then that's stealing.

Yes, this would be cracking and then stealing. It is like breaking into a bank vault and then taking the money.

No, this would be chance and "finders keepers". It is like finding money in the street and you have choice on what to do.
Take or turn in. (If you take from a system that is governed by laws or regulations, "take" as above, will be theft.)


A provably purposeful collision attack, if successful, IMO is cracking and thus leads to theft, which is illegal.


Depends on how Y managed to get the privatekey. Every way, other than collision accident, is likely theft.


You can not OWN anything in Bitcoin, you can only CONTROL certain aspects, such as privatekeys.
OWNing something is applying certain rights to the thing. You have no rights within Bitcoin.
Bitcoin allows you to control your keys to secure your portion in the bitcoin blockchain, but
the bitcoin blockchain does not grant you OWNERSHIP over those bitcoins.

For example, paper money is OWNED by the governments and their treasuries/etc,
but they allow the banks and you to CONTROL it temporarily for use.
Bitcoin is the government, blockchain(bitcoin) is the treasury, and your privatekey is your use(control).


As stated above, you do not own anything in Bitcoin, including the balance in an address. You only control it.
In Bitcoin, there is no way to determine who rightfully controlled the keys first (unless ID message
signed upon first tx) so it is not actually possible within the protocol to prove who "owns" what, and thus,
issues of ownership can not exist within the system.

As a side note, if you transferred your bitcoins to a company or site, and that site gets hacked or etc
and your coins are stolen from the company, you only have a right for refund/return by that company
since they took on the liability and must conform to certain regulations and laws. Not only does Bitcoin
not accept any liability, but also does not conform to any regulations and laws, and thus, is the reasoning
that by using bitcoin and controlling your own privatekeys, they say: "Be your own bank".  You are
singularly responsible and (in theory of low probability of collision) control your keys.

It's still stealing.  See theft by finding.
I don't know if it's a crime though.  It's a crime for things like wallet with money in it but for bitcoin I have no idea.

Case A)
Since you are trying to bruteforce it then I think that it is pure stealing
Case B)
I think that you should be very lucky to generate the same address as someone's else, but in this case better is to generate a new address and leave it.

Let's say you find an address which has funds on it. More precisely - of course - you find one of the private keys to that address.

case A)

You found that key by "brute force" aka lot's of effort and lots of luck. You seize the funds. Is it stealing?

case B)

Your wallet generates that address aka no effort and lots of lots of luck. The funds appear in your wallet balance. Is it stealing?

I'm asking, because a collision attack is considered infeasible. It seems not forbidden (because you can't forbid or effectively hinder this attack on a public ledger) - so is it illegal?

Let's assume two parties were known who made claims on the funds of a given address. One party X was the one who "really" put the funds in there, the other Y was the one who found the private key. If Y took the funds - would that legally be considered stealing?

I'm asking, because I have given this some thought while my computers are performing a Collision Attack feasibility study and in the meantime I had ... time. 

I found myself being legally quite bare in this matter. Especially regarding the question:

"Does one OWN a privkey/pubkey combination?" (I think no)
"Does one OWN the blockchain?" (obviously no)

But if one does own neither, how can he own the balance the blockchain defines as on that given address?
IMHO, the one OWNS the balance who owns the privkey/pubkey combination and that may very well be several persons.

And then? Can someone please bring at least some fundamental light into this matter for me?


Rico