Topic: Is stealing Bitcoins illegal? - page 6. (Read 24258 times)

Exactamundo. It is like sitting on a Byzantine council surrounded by goats baleetin', deciding what part of what doctrine is valid without consulting priests.

What type of legal practice are you involved in Nolo? Just for the sake of my own curiosity.

The discussion is about is it possible and if it is then how, it is not as simple as:

The overwhelming majority of what has been spouted in this thread is legal nonsense, put forth by people who have no legal education whatsoever.  

For those of us who do have a legal education, and quite a bit of experience in the courtroom, the issue is as clear as can be.  Bitcoins are intangible property.  Any jackassery that tries to claim, "but you're really only stealing a key, and yada yada yada", is just that. Jackassery.  Explain that theory to a judge and let me know how that works out for you.  Their eyes will glaze over.  

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.  

There really isn't any need to pass any additional laws to cover this subject.  

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.

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

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 hope I understand the basic principles of how Justice system works, and maybe I can contribute to the thread.

There is two core questions about Bitcoin:

1. Is it a property from Justice system point of view?
if it is
2. how to punish for stealing it?

Right now Bitcoin is beyond the scope of laws in most jurisdictions. The simplest way the scope can change is to declare through precedent or amending a law that bitcoin is property because it is. But, bitcoin, namecoin, litecoin etc. is a message that has core feature which differentiate it from any other type of message. Bitcoin is a record in distributed database that solves the Byzantine Generals' Problem. In another words it is a record in distributed database that is consistent among all it's users, and that's exactly the reason why it is possible for such record to have a value. And it can be declared that record in such database is property, because that's what makes it different from WoW gold or EVE ISKs.

But, punishing for theft won't be easy because possibility of finding those responsible depends on how bitcoins were stolen e.g. a case where bitcoins were stolen by virus from a home computer is different from case when bitcoins were stolen by exchange operator who run away with it.


Also, it's not directly related to the topic but there is other laws related to property that could be enforced if it is possible to prove in court that specific bitcoin transaction happened between two parties, possible technical implementation by Gavin.

Number of tests of hypothesis: 0

You can hardly call that well-tested.

Amazing, isn't it?

What part of Judge is unclear?
Why do you take the world of an associate from 'Oslwang law firm' over my word?  Because she wrote a blog entry?  Because she is saying what you want to hear?  Where are his words and not people interpreting them the way they want and do note that both your quotes use the words 'effectively' and 'in effect'.  Why the weasel words if what the judge said was so clear?

But you're still making the same mistake; you're trying to use plain usage of the words to extrapolate their legal meaning.  With out reading the ruling (does England not post them online for some reason?) you don't know the scope of what the judgment was saying.
Perhaps his ruling was limited only to the requirements of property with regards to prosecution under the Computer Misuse Act.


Edit: And more to the point... HE STILL WASN'T CHARGED WITH THEFT!

Sure!



Indeed He did a lot more than just stealing - and those offenses are covered under that act.


(Quote from an associate at Olswang law firm)

http://www.olswang.com/articles/2011/06/virtual-currency-blurring-the-boundaries-between-gaming-and-gambling/

I don't have an opinion on this matter yet. I think that it's impossible to determine based on the information available.

I think there are a few countries where it may very well be a crime, and a few court decisions in a few countries makes it look likely.

I think to say that similar cases in a few countries = a specific truth in all countries is pretty nuts.

The fact you are 100% sure of this, despite the lack of specific evidence, leads me to believe that your conviction is based on zeal rather than any kind of intellectual analysis. It's based 100% on assumption, and yet you defend it to the death as an absolute truth. Bizarre.


That's true. Lack of filed charges isn't proof of anything. It just seemed like you were saying to him "Oh you don't think stealing Bitcoins is a crime, do you? Well go and steal some coins, you won't get away with it!"

Which is ridiculous when so many people have gotten away with doing just that. Everyone who has ever stolen a coin has successfully gotten away with it. It's a 100% avoidance of prosecution rate.

It does when you can't point to any.  Sodomy laws for example... yah no one -really- enforces them anymore (and would probably be thrown out if they tried) but there is plenty of cases that one can point to that it is in fact illegal to do so.
You can't do that with digital item theft.  The best I was able to find is one case of domain name theft that might have set some applicable law... but the guy pled out and there was no appeals so it didn't actually set any precedent.



First off I don't know the rest of the world's law so I'm sticking with American.

Secondly you can't just posted news links and go AHH HA got you.
I said charged and convicted... the cops are not law experts and can arrest you for whatever they want to.  What the prosecutor charges someone with and more importantly what the judge actually rules on is what really matters.  That's what you need to see.  Not some reporter or street cop saying 'sounds like theft'

Thirdly even that link you posted I can show the profound misunderstanding surrounding your use of the word theft.
Lets take a look at some of the details.

Wow what a great sound bite!... hmm but wait.. it doesn't say what is actual crime was does it?  Stolen property.. yah yah what ever

TO GOOGLE!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/04/zynga-poker-chips-hacker-pleads-guilty_n_818288.html
"Charged with violating the Computer Misuse Act, Mitchell issued his guilty plea to Exeter Crown Court's Judge Philip Wassall, who said that Mitchell could face years behind bars for the theft"

http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/view/15706/hacker-steals-virtual-poker-chips-from-online-gaming-firm/
"At Exeter Crown Court, Ashley Mitchell pleaded guilty to five charges brought under the UK's Computer Misuse Act and the Proceeds from Crime Act"

http://socialtimes.com/want-to-steal-from-zynga-think-again-poker-thief-caught_b41057
"Ashley Mitchell, the infamous Zynga Poker hacker, plead guilty last week to multiple charges under the Computer Misuse Act and the Proceeds of Crime Act for stealing online poker chips in large amounts. However, according to sources, further information has come forth from a late witness."

Hmmm telling isn't it?  And I don't even know anything about British law but the fact he wasn't charged with theft but charged with computer crimes says something.

Haha man what a weirdo. 

This is the standard "SHUT UP ABOUT THE QUESTION" of the religious believer.  As such, I will ignore it.


Oh, believe me, I would in an instant... if it wasn't for the fact that the entire planet is infested with brainwashed idiots who, like you, are willing to ruin, cage, brutalize or murder anyone who disbelieves ("doesn't acknowledge" in your religious parlance) the Scripture you worship and analyze in your Bible Study threads...

...which, frankly, are an eyesore that lead nowhere.  If you wanted an answer to your stupid question, instead of trying to read the tea leaves of your Scripture, you should go and talk to one of your priests (I believe they are called "judges" or "lawyers" in your dogma), asking them for the Revealed Truth.


Religious-fueled anger all over again.  Not surprised.

That said, you're now on my ignore list for your gratuituous emotionally violent verbal abuse tirade.  Emotionally unstable individuals like you, who explode when someone questions their dogma, don't deserve the privilege of addressing decent humans.

It is taking something of value that does not belong to you.  Of course it is theft!  Any judge trying to rule otherwise would be out of their mind.

Lack of filed charges does not mean a crime hasn't been committed. No matter what type of crime.


Because of the very real court decisions I've linked to when it comes to the most similar cases available? Or maybe evidence is only evidence when it supports your opinion.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10207486


http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3466221.htm

There's plenty of support for the opinion that Bitcoin theft would be prosecuted as theft. There's very little (none, actually) to support it wouldn't. Your rudeness aside.

What the heck are you going on about?
If someone hacks your game account and deletes your avatar is it murder?  No but it's still illegal because hacking is illegal.

Taking someone's bitcoins may superficially match the common usage of the word stealing, but almost no court has taken that postion and I've tried to provide clear legal reasons why.  That however doesn't negates the fact it is still a crime to do so.

Yeap, reminds of the scientific discussions in "The Name of the Rose" the movie. Although I would disagree about the real underlying questions being asked here!

Actually this is a good point to start from.

A man stealing a loaf of bread.
Stealing of bread is also a self defense. The thief is defending his physical health and integrity of their body because without food he will die.

Justification of the above leads to next.

A woman stealing a pair of stockings.
This is also a self defense as she is a kleptomaniac.  She is defending her mental health, because without that she will go crazy.

Justification of the above leads to next.

A nation stealing other nation resources.
This is also a self defense as this nation is trying to defend their way of life and standard of living.

Hope, now you see where all that might go?


So, a crime is not a crime unless you get caught?

Or even better... Stealing is not a crime if the thief is authorized to steal your bitcoins? Authorized by whom? By the secret court authority that authorizes authorizers to authorize the authorized thieves?