Topic: Your keys, your bitcoin? - page 5. (Read 1138 times)

But the argument stated on OP is that what if someone stole the private key.  How can the court determine who is the original owner since they can both sign a message on that address.  It is not correct to say that it is impossible for two people own the same address because it is not empty since you are saying that if the address is empty, it is possible for two people to own them.  The right thin should be, it is possible for two people to own a single address if the original owner share it to the other person or the other person stole it from the owner.

In case of the third party custodial wallet such as exchange, this kind of rule might exempt them from taking responsibility if something bad happen because of the "not your key, not your Bitcoin' statement/law.

The problem with the "your key, your bitcoin" thing is that most of the time, people share their shit to others, sometimes intentionally (to brag about it), impress someone (you trust your date aren't you?) or in some cases accidentally (slips about it and ends up telling about it).

Did the court even explicitly mention private key ownership? The gist doesn't seem to revolve around it:


I'd also like to mention that it does create precedent, but probably only for forks. If "not your keys not your coins" is to be made generally applicable, exchanges would be laughing their way to the bank because they hold everyone's keys, and would therefore be the rightful owners of all the coins entrusted with them.

This is the simplest and direct to the point explanation to this topic.

Private keys feels like a power, it will make you have full control on your own asset, once you have it, you should keep it from other people.

But if you're holding a bitcoin, you will probably use it when you try to use an exchange. All of us do that, that's why in picking an exchange, you should look for a trusted and reputable exchange to prevent losses. Private keys should be kept properly and avoid use it in any wallet and exchange that you are not familiar with.

Literally it is not possible to find is the real owner of the private key but if the address involves some kind of transactions from exchange's wallet which belongs to you then it is possible to show the exchange's account details and the transaction details then can claim you are the real owner.

But never let anyone to steal your keys or else there won't be any bitcoin left in that address even if you can prove you are the real owner.

Yep, this law has to be there if bitcoin is legal asset in that particular country.

Well this is the case why those two sisters who were waitress back then and had argument over millions of dollars just because one of them thought to leave the party early as she thought bitcoin is nothing but the bubble.

After few years she returned with fights over who had what share and stuff like that. It's completely insane since she was the one who left the bitcoins with her sister and all the wallet details.

If we apply this law to them, then yeah the other sister who kept the keys is the winner.

"Justice made on the spot".  

Liberally if you are the only one that have access to your keys ,any coins that is going out or coming in you must be aware of it. Private key once it's exposed to public,is no longer garrett that you have 100% control over your bitcoin.

Indeed. And if it is a law, proving of ownership will really require strong evidences. That is why it always being discussed how important is securing you private keys and on what ways can you store it safely. In this case, your mind is the safest place.

Good question, but when legal/law is involved, IMO it should be handled case-by-case/depending on the condition.


How about 2-of-2 multi-signature address?

You have a strong point there OP, if the private key will be stolen, how could you prove your ownership in it when they can use it to sign a message themselves?

Basically, the solution I can say is to backtrack transactions or trace where you have used your bitcoin wallet address to transact or even to send message.

We have this very useful thread here on our forum which is : http://Stake your Bitcoin address here, wherein, it's purpose is to secure your bitcointalk account, but you can actually use your bitcointalk account to do the same thing with your bitcoin wallet.

It's impossible to have a bitcoin address owned by two people unless the address is empty.
Assuming two people own the private key of an address containing bitcoin, one of them will move the fund to a new address. The owner will be the person who has the private key of the new address.

There are one-way step-by-step processes (from k - private key to K - public key then end with A - Bitcoin address) and it is impossible to do backwards processes



https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook/blob/develop/ch04.asciidoc

It isn't needed to prove that a private key is yours. "Your keys" means that only you have an access to them. When you store coins on exchanges or custodial wallets, you aren't the real owner of your keys. In other words, coins aren't yours too.

That's why they say, keep your private keys safe. Imagine finding out what is the private key for that address: 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa

Everyone would be satoshi out of nowhere.

If someone gets access to your private keys, you can't prove that he isn't the owner as well. But the main problem is if you have funds in the address. If you have no funds what's the problem? Have you contacted to any important person that you'll communicate if you first prove you own an address?

This is a typical Bitcoin saying to make a person understand that, if you don't have the private keys to your Bitcoins, they're basically not yours anymore.. as in, someone else should have it then (a custodial wallet, an exchange etc) so you don't have control.

Inserting this as a law is messed up and the Bitcoin way of saying "what I find shall be mine". What I wonder is, what happens if three persons sign a message from the same address proving they all have ownership over it? lol. Moreover, this is so wrong when you think about third parties and allows even more abuse than KYC does.. so through this law, does it mean that once I send my BTC to a custodial wallet I definitely lose the ownership of my coins as they're not my privkeys anymore?

We have heard many times that bitcoins are not actually yours if private keys unlocking corresponding UTXOs are not in your possession. "Not your keys, not your coins." This postulate, this idea has became a law for people who value their financial sovereignty. Moreover, it is completely logical idea when it comes to bitcoin network itself and how things occur within the blockchain. In order for a transaction to be broadcasted it first needs to be signed with a private key and if you don't have such key, you can't spend those coins. They are not yours, they are just sitting somewhere inside blockchain.

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.

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.