Topic: Who is the thief? - page 2. (Read 2521 times)

Yeah I'd say the same. But A started the theft when he passed on the private key to D, if he was really brute forcing or whatever to find a vulnerability he shouldn't have given the key which contained 10 btc to D. Although, he himself didn't steal the coins but if he hadn't provided any keys to anyone, no theft would have occurred.

So morally they all did something which they shouldn't have and legally if they were found doing this all will be charged with stealing together as aiding and abetting a theft is also illegal.

it could be anything then...lol...can someone make a demonstration of this please? thanks.

All of them.
It's one criminal group working together.

One might argue Person A is not a thief. Hacking itself may not be treated as thief, but stolen good(private key) is passed to third party.

Person A is my answer

You will be charged of something but you will not be the most guilty. The one who used and applied the software to exploit the bank will be more likely to get imprisoned and the one who provided the software for exploitation would also be sent behind bars, though it would be a lighter charge because he somehow took part on the exploitation by providing the necessary software.

In my opinion, everyone is the thief except person C. Because he doesn't know anything about the stolen funds, so he is the victim here

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.

A friend gives me the PIN to her credit card so I can shop for that friend while sick. I now "own" that information. I can even change the PIN and remove the friend's access to their own funds. I don't of course, as I'm a trusted friend.

While shopping I'm sloppy in hiding the PIN while entering from a shoulder surfer. Outside in the parking lot I'm hit from behind and the card is stolen while I am rushed to the hospital and held under induced coma for 6 months. My friend has onset dementia and can't remember all her cards and that I had one in my possession.

Thief takes expensive vacation and buys expensive items totalin $250K and ditches card. Bills from credit card company goes unpaid for 6 months. I recover but have no memory of robbery and recall of last few years is sketchy. Friend's condition has worsened and family members have set up P.O.A. and doctors have supported an assessment and judgement of non compos mentis on my friend.

P.o.A. refuses to pay card company because there is no card, no idea where it went and who spent the money. Card company investigates and has video of both me and thief of card. Thief is long gone. I, who's memory is sketchy because of brain injury during robbery, accused of theft of card and sued for accounts owing.

Cost of defense of something I can hardly recollect bankrupts me, ruining my credit rating, reputation but my lawyer prevails and I'm free to go on in my financially and mentally negatively impacted life.

Who are the morally/leagally innocent in all this and who are morally/legally guilty?

Person E is likely to be some random full node that person D happens to connect to in order to relay the transaction. How could E be morally guilty of anything?

dude, if you will find you how to hack bank, and you will tell to one of your friends how to do it and to second one you will provide all software and your laptop..guess who will be guilty..

The one who discovered a certain vulnerability cannot be deemed as a thief at all; the one who used the vulnerability and exploited it for his own gain is. Also, someone who was the keeper of the stolen goods cannot be deemed the most guilty of them if he doesn't know where the goods come from in the first place. If everyone on the situation knows what they are doing, and if their intentions are inclined to "steal" then all of them could be considered as thieves.

I'd say A as well. Nice read though.

Sorry, this came from the assumption that Person A hypothetically found a vulnerability in Bitcoin itself and was actually exploiting it.

Morally everyone except C.

Legally, you have already stated...

Well, 17 is a prime number, so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_prime

But seriously, though, it's not distributing “17” what's illegal, it's distributing “17 is the key to this address which contains 10BTC”.

Let's say robbers steal money from a bank, and leave it in front of your door and run. The cops show up asking for the money because they have witnesses that saw the robbers place it there.
What happens when you don't return it?
You become part of the theft. Good luck proving that the money being sent to you is a coincidence.

It might be illegal. This doesn't make him a thief, rather a criminal.
1 private key being hacked =/= Bitcoin hacked.

I think A. He spread the private key.

Exactly.

If all the parties involved know exactly what is happening, then this is collusion and they are ALL thieves.

Consider the following example:

Albert discovers a key hidden under a rock next to a jewelry store.
Albert gives the location of the key to Dennis.
Albert gives the address of the store to Bob.
Bob asks Dennis to have someone get a necklace from the store and deliver it to Cathy
Dennis unlocks the door and tells Edward that he needs a necklace from the store delivered to Cathy

Which one is the thief if:

• Albert is the only one that knows anything nefarious is going on (he convinces Dennis and Bob that they've been hired as employees of the store, and convinces Dennis that he has the authorization to hire Edward)?
• All of them are cooperating in the theft?
• Cathy is aware that the necklace that has been delivered to her is stolen and she chooses not to return it?
• A different person delivers jewelry to Cathy every day, and she knows that at least some of it is stolen, and suspects that all of it is stolen, but stops returning it after receiving the first few pieces?

Finding a key isn't illegal, but knowingly using the key to perpetrate a theft is.
Using a key to unlock a door isn't illegal, but knowingly using the key to allow unauthorized entry and the removal or property is.
Asking someone to deliver jewelry isn't illegal, but knowingly asking someone to deliver stolen jewelry to someone other than the rightful owner is.
Delivering jewlery isn't illegal, but knowingly delivering stolen jewelry to someone other than the rightful owner is.
Receiving jewelry isn't illegal, but keeping it if you know that it is stolen is.

just number? mathematically said yes, but in reality it is key. real key is also just some metal..

Yeah I guess it really depends on what each persons intentions are,