Is stealing Bitcoins illegal? - page 5.

Serith

sr. member

Activity: 269

Merit: 250

Quote from: SgtSpike on November 26, 2012, 12:41:59 PM

Quote from: Bitcoin Oz on November 25, 2012, 08:33:57 PM

It might be illegal but theres nothing you can do if someone takes your coins. If the only excuse to have a state is to enforce property law what point is the state if that is impossible ?

Illegality is a moot point without enforceability and if people know they can get away with something it will brinng out the worst in humanity.

What are you talking about? The court could order them to pay me, and that's that. If he refuses, and his wallet is password protected or otherwise inaccessible to others, then he stays in jail until he changes his mind.

The argument might be true that you cannot force a person to send Bitcoins back to their rightful owner if they have a strong password on their wallet, but you can certainly "encourage" a person to do so, and that's a far cry from "there's nothing you can do".

It is easy to leave no trace when stealing bitcoins, there will be no one for court to prosecute. Of course you can sacrifice liberty and make every transaction traceable to a person, but the side effects of the cure will be worst then the disease.

becoin

legendary

Activity: 3431

Merit: 1233

Quote from: SgtSpike on November 21, 2012, 06:07:07 PM

I completely disagree. I own the bitcoins in my wallet just as much as I own my plot of land according to county records or the dollars in my bank account according to my bank. It doesn't matter that the blockchain is made public. If someone stole my password to my bank account, they might have access to my funds, but that doesn't give them a right to my funds. Neither would the theft of my private keys give them a right to my bitcoins.

You can disagree, of course, but in both your examples (land ownership and bank account) there is a third party keeping independent records about who is the rightful owner. There is no third party in bitcoin, If you have the private key you have the bitcoin. This is why in bitcoin the private key IS the right!

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Bitcoin Oz on November 25, 2012, 08:33:57 PM

It might be illegal but theres nothing you can do if someone takes your coins. If the only excuse to have a state is to enforce property law what point is the state if that is impossible ?

Illegality is a moot point without enforceability and if people know they can get away with something it will brinng out the worst in humanity.

What are you talking about? The court could order them to pay me, and that's that. If he refuses, and his wallet is password protected or otherwise inaccessible to others, then he stays in jail until he changes his mind.

The argument might be true that you cannot force a person to send Bitcoins back to their rightful owner if they have a strong password on their wallet, but you can certainly "encourage" a person to do so, and that's a far cry from "there's nothing you can do".

bitcoinbear

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: Bitcoin Oz on November 25, 2012, 08:33:57 PM

It might be illegal but theres nothing you can do if someone takes your coins. If the only excuse to have a state is to enforce property law what point is the state if that is impossible ?

Illegality is a moot point without enforceability and if people know they can get away with something it will brinng out the worst in humanity.

Could you expand on the idea that "theres nothing you can do if someone takes your coins"? What if somebody takes your cash, wouldn't you expect the state to make them give it back? Or if somebody takes off with your car? How is bitcoin any different?

Bitcoin Oz

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

Wat

It might be illegal but theres nothing you can do if someone takes your coins. If the only excuse to have a state is to enforce property law what point is the state if that is impossible ?

Illegality is a moot point without enforceability and if people know they can get away with something it will brinng out the worst in humanity.

legitnick

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Only if you get caught Wink

Rudd-O

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: SgtSpike on November 21, 2012, 06:07:07 PM

Quote from: becoin on November 20, 2012, 01:18:23 AM

Quote from: Nolo on November 19, 2012, 05:59:46 PM

If you remove intangible property from its rightful owner without their consent, with the intent to permanently deprive them of that intangible property you have committed theft.

Stealing bicoins is a theft, no doubt. But it is not that simple, Nolo.

The complexity comes from the public/private nature of bitcoin as digital asset. You can not 'remove' bitcoins from its owner because bitcoins do not move. They stay on the blockchain. The blockchain is a public property!

Also, who is the 'rightful' owner? The complexity comes from the fact that the private key gives you this right and nothing else! There is no third party keeping records about rightful owners. Remember, the private key IS the right. If you have the private key you have the right!

Another aspect is how the rightful owner will prove in court that they are deprived of their private key against their will? In fact, this would be the most difficult practical question to deal with.

I completely disagree. I own the bitcoins in my wallet just as much as I own my plot of land according to county records or the dollars in my bank account according to my bank. It doesn't matter that the blockchain is made public. If someone stole my password to my bank account, they might have access to my funds, but that doesn't give them a right to my funds. Neither would the theft of my private keys give them a right to my bitcoins.

Well said. While possession is nine tenths of ownership, that other ten percent is god damn important. All too often people think that, just because some piece of paper was written, or because someone gained possession of your stuff, suddenly you have lost any entitlement to keep and protect what was yours. That is, of course, ridiculous, because it's a horrible confusion between what is and what ought to be.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: becoin on November 20, 2012, 01:18:23 AM

Quote from: Nolo on November 19, 2012, 05:59:46 PM

If you remove intangible property from its rightful owner without their consent, with the intent to permanently deprive them of that intangible property you have committed theft.

Stealing bicoins is a theft, no doubt. But it is not that simple, Nolo.

The complexity comes from the public/private nature of bitcoin as digital asset. You can not 'remove' bitcoins from its owner because bitcoins do not move. They stay on the blockchain. The blockchain is a public property!

Also, who is the 'rightful' owner? The complexity comes from the fact that the private key gives you this right and nothing else! There is no third party keeping records about rightful owners. Remember, the private key IS the right. If you have the private key you have the right!

Another aspect is how the rightful owner will prove in court that they are deprived of their private key against their will? In fact, this would be the most difficult practical question to deal with.

I completely disagree. I own the bitcoins in my wallet just as much as I own my plot of land according to county records or the dollars in my bank account according to my bank. It doesn't matter that the blockchain is made public. If someone stole my password to my bank account, they might have access to my funds, but that doesn't give them a right to my funds. Neither would the theft of my private keys give them a right to my bitcoins.

Rudd-O

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: bitcoinbear on November 21, 2012, 12:23:59 PM

Quote from: Rudd-O on November 20, 2012, 06:49:00 PM

Quote from: bitcoinbear on November 20, 2012, 12:38:53 PM

Quote from: justusranvier on November 20, 2012, 12:18:51 PM

Quote from: bitcoinbear on November 20, 2012, 12:07:08 PM

We should encourage our representatives to write laws

No.

Could we ask them to clarify existing laws then? Isn't that what they are there for?

No. They are there to prey on you. The whole "representatives are there to write just laws and defend the people" is just an *excuse* to prey on unsuspecting people who believe what these sociopaths say.

Maybe we could ask them to remove the laws we don't like then?

You can always ask. Meanwhile, the people who profit from these laws will give them millions of dollars to keep them there. The result will be that the laws will be intensified rather than removed.

Say you ask lawmakers to remove corn subsidies (because, uh, HFCS is poisoning people as we speak). The expected benefit for you, when risk is factored in, is on the order of a couple of cents or dollars, for a few hours of your time. Why would you even ask, then? But if you are a corn farmer who depends on those subsidies... well, you stand to lose millions of dollars if someone else asks lawmakers to remove corn subsidies. Millions of dollars. That will surely prompt you to give ~50K to the lawmakers' ~~bribe coffers~~ campaign fund.

What do you think the lawmaker is going to do? Do you think he will, on principle, remove the laws? OR do you think he's going to rationalize the corn farmer's corn-pone opinion and make it his own?

If you need practical answers to this question, look at the laws regarding corn subsidies today.

It's the standard concentrated vs diffuse incentives problem.

bitcoinbear

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: Rudd-O on November 20, 2012, 06:49:00 PM

Quote from: bitcoinbear on November 20, 2012, 12:38:53 PM

Quote from: justusranvier on November 20, 2012, 12:18:51 PM

Quote from: bitcoinbear on November 20, 2012, 12:07:08 PM

We should encourage our representatives to write laws

No.

Could we ask them to clarify existing laws then? Isn't that what they are there for?

No. They are there to prey on you. The whole "representatives are there to write just laws and defend the people" is just an *excuse* to prey on unsuspecting people who believe what these sociopaths say.

Maybe we could ask them to remove the laws we don't like then?

Rudd-O

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: bitcoinbear on November 20, 2012, 12:38:53 PM

Quote from: justusranvier on November 20, 2012, 12:18:51 PM

Quote from: bitcoinbear on November 20, 2012, 12:07:08 PM

We should encourage our representatives to write laws

No.

Could we ask them to clarify existing laws then? Isn't that what they are there for?

No. They are there to prey on you. The whole "representatives are there to write just laws and defend the people" is just an *excuse* to prey on unsuspecting people who believe what these sociopaths say.

Rudd-O

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: justusranvier on November 20, 2012, 12:18:51 PM

Quote from: bitcoinbear on November 20, 2012, 12:07:08 PM

We should encourage our representatives to write laws

No.

Seconded.

bitcoinbear

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: justusranvier on November 20, 2012, 12:18:51 PM

Quote from: bitcoinbear on November 20, 2012, 12:07:08 PM

We should encourage our representatives to write laws

No.

Could we ask them to clarify existing laws then? Isn't that what they are there for?

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: bitcoinbear on November 20, 2012, 12:07:08 PM

We should encourage our representatives to write laws

No.

bitcoinbear

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: SgtSpike on November 19, 2012, 05:53:52 PM

Quote from: Nolo on November 19, 2012, 05:13:33 PM

I'm guilty of posting in it, but this whole thread is asinine. Dozens of hypothesis of why stealing bitcoins wouldn't be illegal based on technicalities of what a bitcoin is by armchair legal scholars.

I think in instances like this, people just need to take a step back and think about the purpose of laws, and what the reasonable thing to do would be. Is it reasonable to allow someone to get away with stealing other people's Bitcoins? No. Therefore, a law will be enacted against such theft, if one does not already exist that can be reasonably applied.

Whether a law currently exists or not is largely irrelevant - a law (or at the very least, a new precedent by judgement) will be created if necessary to ensure people's bitcoins are not stolen.

Laws do not just appear out of thin air by themselves. They require people to write them. We should encourage our representatives to write laws that make it clear that stealing bitcoins is illegal, and have them do it sooner rather than later.

becoin

legendary

Activity: 3431

Merit: 1233

Quote from: Nolo on November 19, 2012, 05:59:46 PM

If you remove intangible property from its rightful owner without their consent, with the intent to permanently deprive them of that intangible property you have committed theft.

Stealing bicoins is a theft, no doubt. But it is not that simple, Nolo.

The complexity comes from the public/private nature of bitcoin as digital asset. You can not 'remove' bitcoins from its owner because bitcoins do not move. They stay on the blockchain. The blockchain is a public property!

Also, who is the 'rightful' owner? The complexity comes from the fact that the private key gives you this right and nothing else! There is no third party keeping records about rightful owners. Remember, the private key IS the right. If you have the private key you have the right!

Another aspect is how the rightful owner will prove in court that they are deprived of their private key against their will? In fact, this would be the most difficult practical question to deal with.

strideynet

sr. member

Activity: 412

Merit: 250

You would,be surprised. Some judges interpret not convey the law.

And anyway is a law needed.

When a child grows up they are not taught law references rather just some rules.
No stealing
No hurting
Etc etc.

When a child grows up he doesn't know no hurting is assault.

What is saying is its the few main laws. They probably don't even need to exist in the law books.

Rudd-O

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: Serith on November 19, 2012, 10:16:46 PM

Quote from: Rudd-O on November 19, 2012, 09:15:50 PM

Quote from: Serith on November 19, 2012, 05:19:05 PM

Quote from: Nolo on November 19, 2012, 05:13:33 PM

I'm guilty of posting in it, but this whole thread is asinine. Dozens of hypothesis of why stealing bitcoins wouldn't be illegal based on technicalities of what a bitcoin is by armchair legal scholars.

Sure, it's better to have Kings Rule without all this legal nonsense. /sarcasm

Yeah straw man and sarcasm, throw in a bone and you got a stew going baby. (But not a rational argument)

Apparently, my argument about "Kings Rule" is not as obvious as I thought and requires farther explanation.

By common sense bitcoin is property, but a verdict can not be based on common sense or opinion because then it's not law but Kings Rule. But, US Justice system based on precedential authority, which means it resembles Kings Rule when presented with case that has no precedent. In most countries justice system is not based on precedents, rather on written laws, which means that a judge can make a verdict only when situation matches law description. For example, court in France decided that it is not qualified to determine if bitcoin is a currency or not because bitcoin is not described by a law that they know.

Oh, good point, Roman Law countries have this "no law, no crime" fundamental principle, where existing statutes aren't to be interpreted by judges and then be registered as case law.

Just one more way in which law is just a collection of arbitrary opinions like any other Scripture :-)

Serith

sr. member

Activity: 269

Merit: 250

Quote from: Rudd-O on November 19, 2012, 09:15:50 PM

Quote from: Serith on November 19, 2012, 05:19:05 PM

Quote from: Nolo on November 19, 2012, 05:13:33 PM

I'm guilty of posting in it, but this whole thread is asinine. Dozens of hypothesis of why stealing bitcoins wouldn't be illegal based on technicalities of what a bitcoin is by armchair legal scholars.

Sure, it's better to have Kings Rule without all this legal nonsense. /sarcasm

Yeah straw man and sarcasm, throw in a bone and you got a stew going baby. (But not a rational argument)

Apparently, my argument about "Kings Rule" is not as obvious as I thought and requires farther explanation.

By common sense bitcoin is property, but a verdict can not be based on common sense or opinion because then it's not law but Kings Rule. But, US Justice system based on precedential authority, which means it resembles Kings Rule when presented with case that has no precedent. In most countries justice system is not based on precedents, rather on written laws, which means that a judge can make a verdict only when situation matches law description. For example, court in France decided that it is not qualified to determine if bitcoin is a currency or not because bitcoin is not described by a law that they know.

Rudd-O

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: Serith on November 19, 2012, 05:19:05 PM

Quote from: Nolo on November 19, 2012, 05:13:33 PM

I'm guilty of posting in it, but this whole thread is asinine. Dozens of hypothesis of why stealing bitcoins wouldn't be illegal based on technicalities of what a bitcoin is by armchair legal scholars.

Sure, it's better to have Kings Rule without all this legal nonsense. /sarcasm

Yeah straw man and sarcasm, throw in a bone and you got a stew going baby. (But not a rational argument)

Topic: Is stealing Bitcoins illegal? - page 5. (Read 24258 times)