Who is the thief? | Bitcointalksearch.org

NeuroticFish

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 6382

Looking for campaign manager? Contact icopress!

Quote from: Blazr on May 20, 2015, 06:46:32 AM

Random thought. Take this hypothetical situation:

Person A finds out via brute force that the private key 0xFFFF FFFF FFFF 1111 contains 10BTC and tells person B the Bitcoin address and person D the private key
Person B crafts a Bitcoin transaction that sends the 10BTC to Person C and gives that transaction to person D.
Person D signs this transaction with the private key provided by person A and gives it to Person E.
Person E broadcasts this signed transaction to the Bitcoin network.

Who is the thief?

Was it person A, who simply discovered the weak private key?
Person B who crafted a Bitcoin transaction ?
Person C who unknowingly received the stolen funds?
Person D who signed a transaction he did not make with a private key A gave him?
Person E who simply relayed a Bitcoin transaction?

So legally and morally speaking, which person do you consider to be the thief? which of these acts is considered "theft" to you?

A and B.
If you find a weakness, you are cool. If you share it to do evil, you are a villain.
And yeah, if you use the information to steal, even if it's not you who found it out, it's still theft.

Quote from: Blazr on May 21, 2015, 03:32:15 AM

Of course you can, you just can't sign it without the private key. Here is one I made up that spends the first 50BTC Satoshi mined:

At first read this was an absolute surprise. At second read it was a "ah! lol! now you have to get Satoshi to help out with the rest ... if he still has the priv key..."

Kyraishi

hero member

Activity: 952

Merit: 513

Quote from: Blazr on May 20, 2015, 06:46:32 AM

Random thought. Take this hypothetical situation:

Person A finds out via brute force that the private key 0xFFFF FFFF FFFF 1111 contains 10BTC and tells person B the Bitcoin address and person D the private key
Person B crafts a Bitcoin transaction that sends the 10BTC to Person C and gives that transaction to person D.
Person D signs this transaction with the private key provided by person A and gives it to Person E.
Person E broadcasts this signed transaction to the Bitcoin network.

Who is the thief?

Was it person A, who simply discovered the weak private key?
Person B who crafted a Bitcoin transaction ?
Person C who unknowingly received the stolen funds?
Person D who signed a transaction he did not make with a private key A gave him?
Person E who simply relayed a Bitcoin transaction?

So legally and morally speaking, which person do you consider to be the thief? which of these acts is considered "theft" to you?

All of them.

It is like someone - Person A - had the combination to a safe.
Person B opened the front door.
Person C kept an eye on things.
Person D opened the safe
Person E got the cash.

It was a gangbang Wink

louise123

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Quote from: Blazr on May 21, 2015, 03:32:15 AM

Quote from: louise123 on May 21, 2015, 02:06:26 AM

Quote from: Blazr on May 20, 2015, 06:46:32 AM

Random thought. Take this hypothetical situation:

Person A finds out via brute force that the private key 0xFFFF FFFF FFFF 1111 contains 10BTC and tells person B the Bitcoin address and person D the private key
Person B crafts a Bitcoin transaction that sends the 10BTC to Person C and gives that transaction to person D.
Person D signs this transaction with the private key provided by person A and gives it to Person E.
Person E broadcasts this signed transaction to the Bitcoin network.

Who is the thief?

Was it person A, who simply discovered the weak private key?
Person B who crafted a Bitcoin transaction ?
Person C who unknowingly received the stolen funds?
Person D who signed a transaction he did not make with a private key A gave him?
Person E who simply relayed a Bitcoin transaction?

So legally and morally speaking, which person do you consider to be the thief? which of these acts is considered "theft" to you?

I stopped at B.
That is not possible.
You cannot create a transaction for coins you do not own.

Of course you can, you just can't sign it without the private key.

OK, then in that case, I would say that the thief is person A, because he knowingly gave away a private key that didn't belong to him.

Blazr

hero member

Activity: 882

Merit: 1006

Quote from: louise123 on May 21, 2015, 02:06:26 AM

Quote from: Blazr on May 20, 2015, 06:46:32 AM

Random thought. Take this hypothetical situation:

Person A finds out via brute force that the private key 0xFFFF FFFF FFFF 1111 contains 10BTC and tells person B the Bitcoin address and person D the private key
Person B crafts a Bitcoin transaction that sends the 10BTC to Person C and gives that transaction to person D.
Person D signs this transaction with the private key provided by person A and gives it to Person E.
Person E broadcasts this signed transaction to the Bitcoin network.

Who is the thief?

Was it person A, who simply discovered the weak private key?
Person B who crafted a Bitcoin transaction ?
Person C who unknowingly received the stolen funds?
Person D who signed a transaction he did not make with a private key A gave him?
Person E who simply relayed a Bitcoin transaction?

So legally and morally speaking, which person do you consider to be the thief? which of these acts is considered "theft" to you?

I stopped at B.
That is not possible.
You cannot create a transaction for coins you do not own.

Of course you can, you just can't sign it without the private key. Here is one I made up that spends the first 50BTC Satoshi mined:

Code:

{
   "hash": "8eaa62498d7b3ae141cd2f633b4ddfe34915a0dbd614f5daa29e18537def9265",
   "ver": 1,
   "vin_sz": 22,
   "vout_sz": 1,
   "lock_time": 0,
   "size": 4003,
   "in": [
   {
   "prev_out": {
   "hash": "0e3e2357e806b6cdb1f70b54c3a3a17b6714ee1f0e68bebb44a74b1efd512098",
   "n": "0"
   },

   "sequence": 4294967295
   },
   {
   "prev_out": {
   "hash": "d6be34ccf6edddc3cf69842dce99fe503bf632ba2c2adb0f95c63f6706ae0c52",
   "n": "1"
   },
   "sequence": 4294967295
   },
   {
   "prev_out": {
   "hash": "cb2679bfd0a557b2dc0d8a6116822f3fcbe281ca3f3e18d3855aa7ea378fa373",
   "n": "0"
   },
   "sequence": 4294967295
   },
   {
   "prev_out": {
   "hash": "dfdf0b375a987f17056e5e919ee6eadd87dad36c09c4016d4a03cea15e5c05e3",
   "n": "1"
   },

   "sequence": 4294967295
   },
   {
   "prev_out": {
   "hash": "fd87f9adebb17f4ebb1673da76ff48ad29e64b7afa02fda0f2c14e43d220fe24",
   "n": "0"
   },

   "sequence": 4294967295
   },
   {
   "prev_out": {
   "hash": "36ebe0ca3237002acb12e1474a3859bde0ac84b419ec4ae373e63363ebef731c",
   "n": "1"
   },

   "sequence": 4294967295
   },
   {
   "prev_out": {
   "hash": "d658ab87cc053b8dbcfd4aa2717fd23cc3edfe90ec75351fadd6a0f7993b461d",
   "n": "5"
   },

   "sequence": 4294967295
   },
   {
   "prev_out": {
   "hash": "ffd901679de65d4398de90cefe68d2c3ef073c41f7e8dbec2fb5cd75fe71dfe7",
   "n": "0"
   },

   "sequence": 4294967295
   },
   {
   "prev_out": {
   "hash": "a66dddd42f9f2491d3c336ce5527d45cc5c2163aaed3158f81dc054447f447a2",
   "n": "0"
   },

   "sequence": 4294967295
   },
   {
   "prev_out": {
   "hash": "065ef6b1463f552f675622a5d1fd2c08d6324b4402049f68e767a719e2049e8d",
   "n": "86"
   },

   "sequence": 4294967295
   },
   {
   "prev_out": {
   "hash": "cea36d008badf5c7866894b191d3239de9582d89b6b452b596f1f1b76347f8cb",
   "n": "31"
   },

   "sequence": 4294967295
   },
   {
   "prev_out": {
   "hash": "a3a6f902a51a2cbebede144e48a88c05e608c2cce28024041a5b9874013a1e2a",
   "n": "0"
   },

   "sequence": 4294967295
   },
   {
   "prev_out": {
   "hash": "24087a08309ea5796ef139e65f13ce10db1e4465057b665b9d5102a640aac6be",
   "n": "0"
   },

   "sequence": 4294967295
   },
   {
   "prev_out": {
   "hash": "91b21c74b6b9cc168fc9a079d0aadf4acc90706196a7278cd674611a9104122e",
   "n": "0"
   },

   "sequence": 4294967295
   },
   {
   "prev_out": {
   "hash": "1b0235867691784492804fce22a18c2337c97d58a1c63fc275fe26137596d671",
   "n": "0"
   },

   "sequence": 4294967295
   },
   {
   "prev_out": {
   "hash": "7f66c5e6a8bb4b9e640dfcb097232c740a43481dc02817959f48c48d3436b583",
   "n": "0"
   },

   "sequence": 4294967295
   },
   {
   "prev_out": {
   "hash": "aba797b6afe2ca2123f086613d04aca0d2609d2ef209d81e27da907f2b535f69",
   "n": "1"
   },

   "sequence": 4294967295
   },
   {
   "prev_out": {
   "hash": "ead9f9c56783aedca6a40fea8af37e4227a53a830d2c50e5003c03993bc4154c",
   "n": "0"
   },

   "sequence": 4294967295
   },
   {
   "prev_out": {
   "hash": "a6be9f9f6c2194c9d593859e94a09a307ad4fd16179ea903de055c17b46a299c",
   "n": "0"
   },

   "sequence": 4294967295
   },
   {
   "prev_out": {
   "hash": "82e9cc08d424451e6ff1347a9ef62c88585fa658da3e36c7ce9a18de94726e8e",
   "n": "0"
   },

   "sequence": 4294967295
   },
   {
   "prev_out": {
   "hash": "b4c5b2884fd3490144824977b27b1a8495784d4c473b5b24ceab6703fd311d34",
   "n": "1"
   },

   "sequence": 4294967295
   },
   {
   "prev_out": {
   "hash": "571060bfdf239d7272415b502107f14a41e83834a762a38b6325e6217f48b97a",
   "n": "0"
   },

   "sequence": 4294967295
   }
   ],
   "out": [
   {
   "value": "50.02521292",
   "scriptPubKey": "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 f96960d826d30c1d936f078e7f8e12d8cbb5a86d OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG"
   }
   ]
}

louise123

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Quote from: Blazr on May 20, 2015, 06:46:32 AM

Random thought. Take this hypothetical situation:

Person A finds out via brute force that the private key 0xFFFF FFFF FFFF 1111 contains 10BTC and tells person B the Bitcoin address and person D the private key
Person B crafts a Bitcoin transaction that sends the 10BTC to Person C and gives that transaction to person D.
Person D signs this transaction with the private key provided by person A and gives it to Person E.
Person E broadcasts this signed transaction to the Bitcoin network.

Who is the thief?

Was it person A, who simply discovered the weak private key?
Person B who crafted a Bitcoin transaction ?
Person C who unknowingly received the stolen funds?
Person D who signed a transaction he did not make with a private key A gave him?
Person E who simply relayed a Bitcoin transaction?

So legally and morally speaking, which person do you consider to be the thief? which of these acts is considered "theft" to you?

I stopped at B.
That is not possible.
You cannot create a transaction for coins you do not own.

cinnamon_carter

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1018

It's about time -- All merrit accepted !!!

When i see published evidence this actually took place , i will give you my answer.

There are known weak, published privkeys that sometimes get a little btc however like the one brain wallet returns if you leave all the spaces empty.

Import that key into your wallet (maybe better yet a test wallet) and you will see some btc appear and vanish from time to time....

While hypothetical questions are often productive , may i suggest someone examine the transactions on the blockchain at the address i mentioned and see who is getting the btc in and out and by what method, I have not had time to do it yet.

Last time i checked there are up to 115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639936 priv keys possible.

No known technology can crack this right now and maybe ever.

edit one in your watered down example how do we know that person a,b,c,d,e are all different people ?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: Kprawn on May 21, 2015, 01:23:13 AM

The question :

What did person A do to stop any criminal actions being done, from the decision he took? If I pick up a bag of money, I must hand it in at the police station.

If I told someone else about it, and they do something criminal with it, I am party to the crime and if it can be proven in a court of law, I would be charged as a accomplice.

The better decision would be to report it, and then claim a possible reward from the owner, if it was offered.

Would you not want the same treatment, if the role was swapped and you were the owner of the BTC?

The thread is asking about the thief. What he did doesn't make him a thief. It could make him a criminal if he was charged with enough evidence.
Person B and D are the thieves (and potentially C).
E being a node that isn't aware of anything can't be blamed.

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1074

The question :

What did person A do to stop any criminal actions being done, from the decision he took? If I pick up a bag of money, I must hand it in at the police station.

If I told someone else about it, and they do something criminal with it, I am party to the crime and if it can be proven in a court of law, I would be charged as a accomplice.

The better decision would be to report it, and then claim a possible reward from the owner, if it was offered.

Would you not want the same treatment, if the role was swapped and you were the owner of the BTC?

npham

newbie

Activity: 15

Merit: 0

Person A is my answer

whats the answer?

12coins

member

Activity: 420

Merit: 10

The thieves are B and D. ?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: harkonnen on May 20, 2015, 11:12:40 PM

The law is not stupid. Person C is stupid.
Stupidity of not knowing is guilty these days.
You got pulled over for speeding, but you can't say you didn't know the speed limit. Judge can consider the situation, and lower the penalty, but you are still guilty of not knowing.

"Person C unknowingly/unintentionally received stolen fund"
Come on, don't be so naive. In reality and in most of cases, Person C knows where this fund came from which is not so legal source.

You're talking nonsense. Stop with this. The chances of someone sending you 10 BTC by mistake are the same as some thief sending it to you.
As I've already stated Person C did nothing wrong. His wrongdoing will start if he refuses to cooperate.

Quote from: sirnoah on May 21, 2015, 12:55:45 AM

all of them?

No. Stop replying before reading the thread.

sirnoah

newbie

Activity: 55

Merit: 0

all of them?

harkonnen

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: R2D221 on May 20, 2015, 09:08:33 PM

Quote from: johnyj on May 20, 2015, 08:45:09 PM

In reality, from money laundering law enforcement point of view, C is usually the one to blame, because the dirty money ends up at C's address

If that is true, then the law is pretty stupid, in my opinion.

The law is not stupid. Person C is stupid.
Stupidity of not knowing is guilty these days.
You got pulled over for speeding, but you can't say you didn't know the speed limit. Judge can consider the situation, and lower the penalty, but you are still guilty of not knowing.

"Person C unknowingly/unintentionally received stolen fund"
Come on, don't be so naive. In reality and in most of cases, Person C knows where this fund came from which is not so legal source.

harkonnen

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: ?? on ??

Bitcoin, ultimately, is simply information. So, before we even have this conversation, we have to have this one: Can you "own" information?

I say, at best, you can control private keys by keeping them secret. If you fail to keep them secret at any step (from creation to storage), then you don't "own" the bitcoins associated with them.

I guess you could try to label a person "good" or "bad" by what they do with discovered information which was supposed to be kept a secret, but ultimately, I don't think you can label them a thief (nor punish them for how they use the information).

Information can be owned.
For an example, your password is yours. Don't tell anyone and it's yours forever. It's just impossible to own by sole owner once secret info leaked out.

With your logic, following is very true.
An intruder in your house is pointing a gun at you(brute force). You have to tell him the combination and location of safe that holds your gold and stack of cash. You failed to keep your secret, therefore you don't own the wealth associated with the info(combination and location). And intruder didn't do anything illegal.

Or your lover(whore) tricked you to spell the combination and secret location of your safe. She then tells her friend to get it. Her friend doesn't know the source of the info, and get the money. And you are telling me the bitches are not guilty, but you because you failed to keep the info secret.
Non-sense.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: R2D221 on May 20, 2015, 09:08:33 PM

Quote from: johnyj on May 20, 2015, 08:45:09 PM

In reality, from money laundering law enforcement point of view, C is usually the one to blame, because the dirty money ends up at C's address

If that is true, then the law is pretty stupid, in my opinion.

C must find a way to prove that he does not aware of the illegal transaction, but that's very difficult

You can easily prove that you know something, but you can't easily prove that you don't know something

ebliever

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1040

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: ebliever on May 20, 2015, 03:04:35 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Bitcoin, ultimately, is simply information. So, before we even have this conversation, we have to have this one: Can you "own" information?

I say, at best, you can control private keys by keeping them secret. If you fail to keep them secret at any step (from creation to storage), then you don't "own" the bitcoins associated with them.

I guess you could try to label a person "good" or "bad" by what they do with discovered information which was supposed to be kept a secret, but ultimately, I don't think you can label them a thief (nor punish them for how they use the information).

So you don't think anything bad happened with Mt. Gox? I think common sense says yes, information can hold value and can be owned and stolen. Information is stolen and otherwise misused in a criminal manner many times every day. Patent law, copyrights, stolen passwords and electronic funds theft (not just crypto but digital fiat as well) - this is all "just information" but people clearly value it as real property.

Yeah, something bad happened with MtGox, it's called fraud, but that has nothing to do with what is being discussed in this thread. MtGox customers didn't hold Bitcoin private keys, they held MtGox IOUs. MtGox customers had certain expectations of what kind of service MtGox was providing them. Those expectations were clearly not met.

I never said that information couldn't hold value, I suggested that you can't "own" it in the traditional sense of what we consider "ownership". As I said, you can control information in the sense that you can keep it secret. I also said that we could label someone "good" or "bad" if they do something with information which was supposed to be kept secret.

OK, we agree that the loss of funds at Mt. Gox was fraud. But did not the fraud consist of the misuse or abuse of information? I agree that information "ownership" is a challenging concept that needs to be defined carefully (and is worth pondering if I get insomnia tonight.

) For one, information can be duplicated with minimal effort, compared to the duplication of matter/energy property. But ownership of information, or rights relating to a body of information (with limits on duplication and dissemination of such information), has long been recognized relating to copyright of intellectual works, patents and so forth.

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: johnyj on May 20, 2015, 08:45:09 PM

In reality, from money laundering law enforcement point of view, C is usually the one to blame, because the dirty money ends up at C's address

If that is true, then the law is pretty stupid, in my opinion.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

In reality, from money laundering law enforcement point of view, C is usually the one to blame, because the dirty money ends up at C's address

So, either C return the bitcoin to the victim, or he enter the blacklist of police watch list, that's how it happens in reality. Law enforcement have no way to know any concrete information about A B D and E, in fact they can all be some lines of codes

A similar questionnaire:

Person A issued government bonds of 10 billion dollar and give them to person B
Person B bring those bonds to person C and Person C create 10 billion dollar and purchase those bonds from Person B
Person B then take those 10 billion dollar and give them to Person A
Person A then spend those 10 billion dollar and hand out salary to person D
Person D then pay 30% of those salary to person A, and person A use those money to pay bonds interest to person C
Person B is the stock holder of Person C

Who is the theif Grin

Erza

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1000

Quote from: thebenjamincode on May 20, 2015, 08:28:09 PM

i think its very hard to find a bitcoin address private key
that's why i also think its none Cheesy

I dont think that will be hard for a pro hacker. It will be like piece of cake for them to find out the address private key. My answer is A because he is a person that spread this rumour for the first time and ask other people to hacked it and C is not guilty because he doesnt know anything Cheesy

thebenjamincode

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 500

37iGtdUJc2xXTDkw5TQZJQX1Wb98gSLYVP

i think its very hard to find a bitcoin address private key
that's why i also think its none Cheesy

Topic: Who is the thief? (Read 2538 times)