It’s quite important man, people should have their private keys. For me, though, it’s not every wallet that I am making use of that I have the private keys, but I usually make sure that they are wallets that are very reliable.
Just like my Coinbase wallet, I don’t have the keys, but it’s quite secure. From what I have got to understand, Coinbase stores most of the cryptocurrencies that are stored on their platform with cold storage , so it’s very secure. And they are always working hard in improving their security and I don’t have issues with them. But that doesn’t mean I trust them, I also make use of Exodus, BitPay and Blockchain. Most important is using something that’s reliable, and also being very careful.
Topic: Your keys, your bitcoin? - page 3. (Read 1138 times)
If private key ownership is protected under law, and the person "owning" the private key, under law, can legally claim "your keys, your coins", then it might open opportunities for bad actors to scam people.
I am not sure if it can be protected under the law, if there is no chance to prove ownership of particular UTXO and also claim property rights over particular UTXO. The whole point of this thread to find out that. "Not your keys, not your bitcoin" law could be abused by exchanges and "Your keys, your bitcoin" law could be abused by users. Can bitcoin be regulated? Can we apply standard norms? There are lot of questions with no clear answer.
Plus what happened to self-sovereignty? What would be the point of Bitcoin?
Self-sovereignty implies responsibility for one's own money. Not everyone is ready for this. 
But Dave is innocent. No one has the right to take away what he has legally earned from Carol, even if the $100 bill was stolen. I believe ALL fiat bills have gone through a crime, is a random court order a threat to our savings?
The point of this is from the OP, a "your keys, your Bitcoin" law would, I believe, be unfair to the "Daves" of the situation.
Every person is innocent until proven otherwise. Even Carol would be innocent. Presumption of innocence. Not in every country is being considered, though. Some authorities haven't heard of international human rights. Jokes aside. The huge distinction between cash and bitcoin is that the former is issued by state and protected by state, but the latter is issued by mining based on game theory and protected by distributed consensus. Bitcoin poses a threat to legacy monetary system and, especially, to its reserve currency, which is currently US dollar. Governments are trying to undermine reputation of bitcoin, to demonize it in every possible way. One of the approaches that have been chosen to render bitcoin bad currency is to call bitcoin used in illicit activities taint, dirty, illegal. For them, bitcoin is not fungible currency. If Dave recieves dirty bitcoin, he will likely be considered criminal, he probably were laundering money for Carol!The point of this is from the OP, a "your keys, your Bitcoin" law would, I believe, be unfair to the "Daves" of the situation.
If private key ownership is protected under law, and the person "owning" the private key, under law, can legally claim "your keys, your coins", then it might open opportunities for bad actors to scam people.
Plus what happened to self-sovereignty? What would be the point of Bitcoin?
I have saved all my data in multiple places so that I never lost and no one doesn't know about these places 
Well most of us do,because these days if you have invested only in single location to put your cryptos the opportunity of being hacked is always there. Even Big exchanges becoming a victim so what more people like us who has a little security.
But of course Ledger is one of the safest that's why i also bought one recently,Now i know that my crypto assets are safer and i don't need to rely in "Your Keys ,Your Bitcoin " thing.
Always remember that we are the one who will held responsible in any losses so better make your way safe than regret later.
That's right. If you have a doubt to store your money on wallet online cause your key or passphrase might be hacked or something then having a hardware wallet could be better for you. A hardware wallet can give you a high percentage of keeping your coins at a safe place away from online where hackers loitering. In fact, I am planning to have one of them someday.
Now, in keeping our keys, it is indeed better to place it in multiple places and you might not really forget it. However, isn't will get a higher odds of getting finding your keys? because think of it, the more you store them in different places the more chances they might be discovered while comparing to the single place, it will be really tough for them to find your keys. But that doesn't matter just be sure that you are the only one who knows where your keys stored.
I have saved all my data in multiple places so that I never lost and no one doesn't know about these places
the more you save in many places you can forget one day, then what you want can not be achieved. use one that is very reliable and does not need too much but is sure to be safe. It is not recommended to accept any links that you are not sure you really need, there is something that could endanger your activities, and use the original internet anti virus which is quite helpful.
I have saved all my data in multiple places so that I never lost and no one doesn't know about these places
Well most of us do,because these days if you have invested only in single location to put your cryptos the opportunity of being hacked is always there. Even Big exchanges becoming a victim so what more people like us who has a little security.
But of course Ledger is one of the safest that's why i also bought one recently,Now i know that my crypto assets are safer and i don't need to rely in "Your Keys ,Your Bitcoin " thing.
Always remember that we are the one who will held responsible in any losses so better make your way safe than regret later.
But Dave is innocent. No one has the right to take away what he has legally earned from Carol, even if the $100 bill was stolen. I believe ALL fiat bills have gone through a crime, is a random court order a threat to our savings?
The point of this is from the OP, a "your keys, your Bitcoin" law would, I believe, be unfair to the "Daves" of the situation.
Every person is innocent until proven otherwise. Even Carol would be innocent. Presumption of innocence. Not in every country is being considered, though. Some authorities haven't heard of international human rights. Jokes aside. The huge distinction between cash and bitcoin is that the former is issued by state and protected by state, but the latter is issued by mining based on game theory and protected by distributed consensus. Bitcoin poses a threat to legacy monetary system and, especially, to its reserve currency, which is currently US dollar. Governments are trying to undermine reputation of bitcoin, to demonize it in every possible way. One of the approaches that have been chosen to render bitcoin bad currency is to call bitcoin used in illicit activities taint, dirty, illegal. For them, bitcoin is not fungible currency. If Dave recieves dirty bitcoin, he will likely be considered criminal, he probably were laundering money for Carol! The point of this is from the OP, a "your keys, your Bitcoin" law would, I believe, be unfair to the "Daves" of the situation.
No, that wasn't the point. Assume that Bob wrote the serial number down, and knows that innocent Dave is holding a $100 bill that Carol stole, AND Bob has evidence of the theft to show the police.
Does Bob have the right to take the $100 bill from innocent Dave, or not?
Does Bob have the right to take the $100 bill from innocent Dave, or not?
I better call my lawyer. Seriously, it depends on jurisdiction, local legislation, etc. In some countries one doesn't have private property rights, rights to protect private property, sometimes one doesn't have rights whatsoever.
Hypothetically speaking, no one has a right to take 100$ bill away from Dave until the court say so. But again, Bob shouldn't demand anything from Dave, though he could ask Dave to testify against Carol. Moreover, unlike bitcoin, dollar bills are perfectly fungible meaning the fact of theft per se is important, not specific banknotes. In case of bitcoin it is different. It is not important how much bitcoins in your possesion. What is important here is which UTXOs you control, what UTXOs you can unlock with your keys.
But Dave is innocent. No one has the right to take away what he has legally earned from Carol, even if the $100 bill was stolen. I believe ALL fiat bills have gone through a crime, is a random court order a threat to our savings?
The point of this is from the OP, a "your keys, your Bitcoin" law would, I believe, be unfair to the "Daves" of the situation.
No, that wasn't the point. Assume that Bob wrote the serial number down, and knows that innocent Dave is holding a $100 bill that Carol stole, AND Bob has evidence of the theft to show the police.
Does Bob have the right to take the $100 bill from innocent Dave, or not?
I better call my lawyer. Seriously, it depends on jurisdiction, local legislation, etc. In some countries one doesn't have private property rights, rights to protect private property, sometimes one doesn't have rights whatsoever. Hypothetically speaking, no one has a right to take 100$ bill away from Dave until the court say so. But again, Bob shouldn't demand anything from Dave, though he could ask Dave to testify against Carol. Moreover, unlike bitcoin, dollar bills are perfectly fungible meaning the fact of theft per se is important, not specific banknotes. In case of bitcoin it is different. It is not important how much bitcoins in your possesion. What is important here is which UTXOs you control, what UTXOs you can unlock with your keys. Does Bob have the right to take the $100 bill from innocent Dave, or not?
It’s not a law, people are saying that to let you know that if you don’t have your keys, you don’t have full control over your cryptocurrency. If your cryptocurrencies are stored in an offline wallet such Exodus that gives you total control, and you happen not to have the private keys, you won’t be able to get your cryptocurrencies back if you lose that wallet.
But if you have your wallet, even if you maybe mistakenly uninstall that wallet you will still get your cryptocurrencies back as long as you have your private keys. And also another reason they say that is because of those people that store all their coins on an exchange; when your coins are stored on an exchange, that exchange has control over your coins, because they have the private keys.
But if you have your wallet, even if you maybe mistakenly uninstall that wallet you will still get your cryptocurrencies back as long as you have your private keys. And also another reason they say that is because of those people that store all their coins on an exchange; when your coins are stored on an exchange, that exchange has control over your coins, because they have the private keys.
OK. Another shower thought. What if Bob had his $100 stolen by Carol, and Carol bought something with it from Dave, who doesn't know it was stolen from Bob. The police later knew that it was a stolen $100 bill by Carol, and that it went to Dave. Then does the police have the right to take the $100 bill from Dave?
Bob can't prove that Carol has stolen a particular banknote with specific serial number on it. If one writes down the numbers on banknotes, one must be paranoid. Even if Bob did that and had a copy of a number, it wouldn't prove anything, because he could hand over the banknote to Dave earlier. What are you trying to say exactly? Knowing the serial number of specific banknote won't give you a right to spend it in case it was stolen.
No, that wasn't the point. Assume that Bob wrote the serial number down, and knows that innocent Dave is holding a $100 bill that Carol stole, AND Bob has evidence of the theft to show the police.
Does Bob have the right to take the $100 bill from innocent Dave, or not?
OK. Another shower thought. What if Bob had his $100 stolen by Carol, and Carol bought something with it from Dave, who doesn't know it was stolen from Bob. The police later knew that it was a stolen $100 bill by Carol, and that it went to Dave. Then does the police have the right to take the $100 bill from Dave?
Bob can't prove that Carol has stolen a particular banknote with specific serial number on it. If one writes down the numbers on banknotes, one must be paranoid. Even if Bob did that and had a copy of a number, it wouldn't prove anything, because he could hand over the banknote to Dave earlier. What are you trying to say exactly? Knowing the serial number of specific banknote won't give you a right to spend it in case it was stolen.In most cases the answer is no, but there were cases where someone stole a car and then sold it. In that situation the police would repossess the property in exchange for the money taken from the thief. In other words the transaction was nullified. The buyer would get back the money, the original owner would get the car back and the thief would get a sentence.
The main problem is that if it is in the form of cash it will be difficult to prove it. but the police in my country were able to arrest a person with 2 pieces of evidence to support that there was a transaction against this.
For example, from a transaction witnessed by a third party and recorded by CCTV, this could be a valid proof that fraud has occurred and could be subject to punishment to restore or imprisonment through the court. each country may apply different ways of legal understanding.
OK. Another shower thought. What if Bob had his $100 stolen by Carol, and Carol bought something with it from Dave, who doesn't know it was stolen from Bob. The police later knew that it was a stolen $100 bill by Carol, and that it went to Dave. Then does the police have the right to take the $100 bill from Dave?
Bob can't prove that Carol has stolen a particular banknote with specific serial number on it. If one writes down the numbers on banknotes, one must be paranoid. Even if Bob did that and had a copy of a number, it wouldn't prove anything, because he could hand over the banknote to Dave earlier. What are you trying to say exactly? Knowing the serial number of specific banknote won't give you a right to spend it in case it was stolen.In most cases the answer is no, but there were cases where someone stole a car and then sold it. In that situation the police would repossess the property in exchange for the money taken from the thief. In other words the transaction was nullified. The buyer would get back the money, the original owner would get the car back and the thief would get a sentence.
OK. Another shower thought. What if Bob had his $100 stolen by Carol, and Carol bought something with it from Dave, who doesn't know it was stolen from Bob. The police later knew that it was a stolen $100 bill by Carol, and that it went to Dave. Then does the police have the right to take the $100 bill from Dave?
Bob can't prove that Carol has stolen a particular banknote with specific serial number on it. If one writes down the numbers on banknotes, one must be paranoid. Even if Bob did that and had a copy of a number, it wouldn't prove anything, because he could hand over the banknote to Dave earlier. What are you trying to say exactly? Knowing the serial number of specific banknote won't give you a right to spend it in case it was stolen.That's right. The numbering of banknotes is only necessary for detecting counterfeit banknotes, as well as for conducting various security operations to control financial flows in the country. For example, when a control purchase is made, in order to identify the authenticity of banknotes, they are numbered and recorded in the Protocol.
OK. Another shower thought. What if Bob had his $100 stolen by Carol, and Carol bought something with it from Dave, who doesn't know it was stolen from Bob. The police later knew that it was a stolen $100 bill by Carol, and that it went to Dave. Then does the police have the right to take the $100 bill from Dave?
Bob can't prove that Carol has stolen a particular banknote with specific serial number on it. If one writes down the numbers on banknotes, one must be paranoid. Even if Bob did that and had a copy of a number, it wouldn't prove anything, because he could hand over the banknote to Dave earlier. What are you trying to say exactly? Knowing the serial number of specific banknote won't give you a right to spend it in case it was stolen. Here's a shower thought. If I steal a $100 bill from you, but you can't prove it, can the court/legal system make it illegal for me to spend the $100?
They can't and why would they even do that if I was not able to prove the fact you had stolen 100$ from me? Moreover, no one knows that specific banknote with specific number was actually mine, because I did forget to announce that to everyone. If I lost it, I lost it. With private keys it is different. I generate a private key and send some coins to corresponding public address. It is a digital non-tangible thing that can be copied many times. If you steal a copy of it, I still have a copy and thus can prove that I at least know private key. We merely need to find out who are the real owner.
OK. Another shower thought. What if Bob had his $100 stolen by Carol, and Carol bought something with it from Dave, who doesn't know it was stolen from Bob. The police later knew that it was a stolen $100 bill by Carol, and that it went to Dave. Then does the police have the right to take the $100 bill from Dave?
This is a lesson for all of us to always keep the private keys properly, because if we lose our private keys
or our private keys were successfully stolen by someone else. Then the Bitcoin in our wallets is not ours anymore,
"Not your keys, not your coins" or "Your keys, your bitcoin". Since there is no way to prove Bitcoin ownership,
always take good care of our private keys wallets.
or our private keys were successfully stolen by someone else. Then the Bitcoin in our wallets is not ours anymore,
"Not your keys, not your coins" or "Your keys, your bitcoin". Since there is no way to prove Bitcoin ownership,
always take good care of our private keys wallets.
Here's a shower thought. If I steal a $100 bill from you, but you can't prove it, can the court/legal system make it illegal for me to spend the $100?
They can't and why would they even do that if I was not able to prove the fact you had stolen 100$ from me? Moreover, no one knows that specific banknote with specific number was actually mine, because I did forget to announce that to everyone. If I lost it, I lost it. With private keys it is different. I generate a private key and send some coins to corresponding public address. It is a digital non-tangible thing that can be copied many times. If you steal a copy of it, I still have a copy and thus can prove that I at least know private key. We merely need to find out who are the real owner. 
"Your keys, your bitcoins" sounds logical too
It may sound logical, but it's not.
The possession of a private key can easily be one-to-many (one key, many people, as you said).
Because if it is not possible to prove the ownership of bitcoin private key in case several people besides actual owner know private key, then "Not your keys, not your bitcoins" doesn't make sense either. It is stupid to claim that, if there is no possible way to prove that keys were ever in possesion.
I think that you want to say something, but imho you're telling it wrong.
Bitcoin is about math (cryptography). If you have the proper key you can sign and spend. You are owner of those coins. The fact you may have not been the only owner is about semantics and inter-human relationships math and Bitcoin couldn't care less about them.
And in context of math (i.e. Bitcoin) I find your logic wrong.
Recently, California court made "Not your keys, not your bitcoins" a law thus made it so not only for bitcoiners, but also for people who used to rely on third parties to store "their" coins.
Send Craig Wright the link, I believe it will save him lots of money in legal fees. Haha.
Quote
This news, despite its importance for bitcoin community, is not why this topic was created. What I am really interested in is a simple question which is does this law "Not your keys" work in an opposite direction?
"Your keys, your bitcoins" sounds logical too. But there is a small problem. It is relatively easy to prove that private key is not yours if you can't spend corresponding UTXO, you can't sign a message or in case it is stored inside exchange's wallet. But how can we prove the ownership of the private key?
Like I said, we can sign a message with private key and that is considered enough, no other evidence needed. But what if someone generated the exact private key or, more realistically, have stolen it, how would it possible to prove that victim is the real possesor of private key? What would California court say in this case? If they both can sign a message, do they both have a right to these coins? Are there any other methods to prove the ownership besides signing a message?
Because if it is not possible to prove the ownership of bitcoin private key in case several people besides actual owner know private key, then "Not your keys, not your bitcoins" doesn't make sense either. It is stupid to claim that, if there is no possible way to prove that keys were ever in possesion.
Here's a shower thought. If I steal a $100 bill from you, but you can't prove it, can the court/legal system make it illegal for me to spend the $100?
Jump to: