First of all, you can take someone to Court for stealing your coins and each judge will give a different opinion.
Some will find it theft, others will not. It all depends on what Judge you get, since there is no uniform law.

Second, you don't understand what "updating our law" would do.
Bitcoin was designed as a system to exist outside the control of governments and laws.
That is the reasons why Satoshi designed the network the way he did. It wasn't just for shits.
The system does not grant the users, miners, or developers any rights and it is use at your own risk.

So, for governments to create laws about bitcoin and what it is and how it works and when theft
and ownership exists, they will need to have regulative ability and direct control within and over
the network. That is a direct violation of the Bitcoin network, Satoshi's intent, and the social contract.
That would make each developer legally responsible and liable to thefts, failures, bug and etc. That
would also make users obligated to register each address to their personal governmental ID. Miners
and node operator will also need to register with governmental agencies. And so on and so forth.

If you want the governments to directly determine theft and such, you are advocating Bitcoins destruction.
If you want laws for bitcoin or that "help" bitcoin, be careful what you wish for, because it is poison.

Stealing requires ownership, Bitcoin network grants no legal ownership rights.

---

He didn't get in trouble for "stealing bitcoins", that is a BS headline for lay people.
He broke many crimes unrelated to bitcoin and violated certain regulations required as a federal agent.
He was not charged with "theft of property" aka stolen bitcoins, because there is no such law.

Almost all things are regulated under law, whether you are aware of it or not.
Currently, bitcoin is not regulated and as such, there are no laws that determine a users rights.

What is really sad is that Bitcoin was designed so that there is nothing you can do and you don't know that.
That was the whole point and the reason why Bitcoin works and is not currently regulated.

If you could get your coins back or "do something about it" then there is no point in using bitcoin.
If you want the ability to do something if theft or accident, why aren't you using paypal?

Laws come from legislation.
For there to be a law that defines bitcoin and what constitutes it's theft, there needs to be clarification and legislation.
For bitcoin to fall into either cybercrime or digital/electronic fraud, there will need to be additions to those laws.

No, there can be no law(s) on stolen bitcoins.
There are too many factors that need to be taken into account that the average legal system can
not determine. For example, there needs to be a mechanism to prove you still don't have the "stolen" coins.

That above website does not even mention mining or consensus algorithms.
This site tried to explain the "innovation of the blockchain" without explaining how Satoshi made it function.

A blockchain is the "proof-of-work chain" that Satoshi stated in the whitepaper.
A blockchain is not just a distributed editable ledger, but also mining and tokens.

No, bitcoin is not private property since users are not granted any property rights
from the Bitcoin blockchain or any other related system, such as the developers.
People who regard bitcoin as a private property have no understanding of law or
Bitcoin in general.

If a users of Bitcoin has purchased bitcoin, it does not grant the buyer any rights.
If a users of Bitcoin has private key control of bitcoin, it does not grant the controller any rights.
If a user participates within the Bitcoin network, it is done at their own risk and without any guarantees.

Legal and technical ownership or possession of bitcoin within the Bitcoin network does not exist.
You can not own a ledger entry within a decentralized blockchain.

Until a government creates a law that defines what rights Bitcoin users have, they have none.

We agree there are malicious and nefarious forces at work attempting to bring all types of systems
down, whether those systems are governments, computer networks, Bitcoin, or just an individual's rights.
And I agree with your belief that the average Bitcoin user is probably a white male between the ages of 18-35,
but unfortunately a large amount of them are more interested in the fast cash aspects then anything else. I think
many would easily decide to fully centralized the network, allow blacklisting of coins, destroy the immutability aspect,
and other things that IMO is anti-Bitcoin, as long as they can get a few hundred more on the exchange price. Majority
are looking in the very short term, and have no interest in the long unless it is seen as adding value toward the btc price.

I also hope that one day we can create a new type of system that Bitcoin could be applied to that could allow it to function
outside and not be dependent upon the internet, though currently I can't even imagining such a thing. If it is possible, I
would guess it will only come about way in the future (2035-2075 AD?) and would incorporate some type of subspace
communication like in Startrek. Then it would be unstoppable and be a true sci-fi futuristic currency.

Thanks for a more interesting conversation. We are mostly on the same page.

I'm not making more of an issue, I am only working through your own statement.
If you go onto a forum such as this, and make a comment, it is assumed that you are willing to back
it up or debate the issue, otherwise you are just a sig campaigner participating in the very greed you
are denouncing exists in the bitcoin community with unsupported garbage. (You are debating though).

After some clarification, you are saying that in your belief, there may be no distinction between a
tyrannical country like North Korea, which is murdering its own citizens, or Russia where there are no basic
rights of speech or press, and the leaders assassinate their political rivals, with the USA or other European
Countries which use rendition when interrogating non-citizen enemy combatants. Since that is your belief,
your original statement makes more sense, though I disagree with it. You are essentially arguing that all
governments and countries that exist today are equally guilty of being tyrannical, irrelevant on where
they fall on the scale.

So, when you stated originally: "Try to put your selves in the shoes of those that face far greater punishment
and you may see that bitcoin is more fleeting than you are lead to believe." what context should I understand
that within? The United States Citizens or North Korean Citizens? Both?

Satoshi only attempted to create a independent currency that could function without governmental regulation
within the confides of a world that supports basic human rights, not tyranny. Satoshi didn't create bitcoin to
free the poor and let them be their own bank in a country where there is outright oppression and restrictions.
Bitcoin can never realistically function on any worthy level in States where the government is monitoring and
restricting telecommunication and internet, and physically punish their citizens for any illegal use. So, in a NWO
situation Bitcoin could never survive and in fact can never be designed to do so. In that world, the bitcoin
blockchain and other blockchains will be used to monitor and oppress the people.

My only point was that when the average bitcoin user comments that "it is too hard to ban" or "governments can
never make bitcoin illegal" or "they can't stop bitcoin", they are usually voicing their opinions in countries where
they have the right to make such comments and where bitcoin can be used without "far greater punishment", so
your basis that bitcoin "is more fleeting than you are lead to believe" is only contingent upon the NWO becoming
a reality. But until that time, their simple opinions are currently correct.

Then simply:
(1) Please provide a list of examples of the countries you were originally referring to?
       The countries that are less privileged and their governments are subjecting them to bodily harm.
(2) Do you think Bitcoin/bitcoin was designed to outmaneuver and survive in a tyrannical country?
       Or to go further, to outmaneuver and survive in a tyrannical world?

I think when the average bitcoin user says that governments can't ban or make illegal, they are not
using North Korea as their prime global representative in their belief, but most likely a more "normal"
country.

Yes, after a simple review, it does look suspicious, but I believe that is why the ex-wife settled
with the class. It is in the interest of all parties to lock this thing up and finish it. If individuals
want to sue the ex-wife for the $250k, it will likely cost too much to make it worth your wild.
Also, class members have already agreed to following the class representatives, so there is no
ability for them to sue.

In my opinion, this is the best you can get here without a full blown case with hundredths of
thousands of counsel fees.

Fighting over the $250k when she has 2 children will not fly in a Florida court also.
The Class Lawyers probably knew this and threw her a bone to get her to play along.

But IMO the property timeline and hack timeline does look very suspicious.

Your original response was in the context of governments that "[make] people do things they never
would have imagined to their own loved ones." and "Try to put your selves in the shoes of those that
face far greater punishment.". Those statements refers to oppressive regimens since it implies bodily
harm that is illegal in most if not all Western Countries, with rights that protect individuals as well as their
families. Interestingly, in most western countries today, the death penalty is outlawed, even for people
where there is video of their murder of another. So in most western countries today, even that is
considered "wrong" and not acceptable.

In addition, there are many mechanisms that exist in order to "correct" a failure of government that may
become more tyrannical or begin outright violating the laws. For you statement to be true, those nations
would need to be in martial law situations or the outright disbanding of the documents which grant the rights
to those citizens.

Normal governments are governments that are run by their own citizens, as opposed to the military, religious,
dictators, or other "self appointed leaders or council members". These are the types of governments you were
originally referring to, since in those countries it is possible that illegal bitcoin use could lead to "greater
punishments", then just fining or jail time.

Are you arguing that if Western Counties ban or make bitcoin illegal, they will suspend all known laws and start
having parents beating their children's feet with wooden poles and pulling the teeth out of their brother-in-law's
head, or leaving people in isolation for decades in secret prisons, because they transferred a bitcoin to another
person? I don't think so. Your original statement referred to "non-normal" governments.

If they become "tyrannical" one day, we are all done. Bitcoin was not designed to exist in a world were no one is
free. Bitcoin/bitcoin is dependent and contingent on freedom and freedom fighters.

When people are referring to "governmental powers" they are usually not referring to
an oppressive regime that is torturing and killing their own citizens. In that case, anyone
"caught" using Bitcoin/bitcoin would be effectively "eliminated" as the way to "regulate" its use.

But in normal countries, that is considered illegal and immoral, so your statement does not apply.
Currently, government attempts to "regulate by law" can not be incorporated into the Bitcoin network.

Your "bitcoin is fleeting" comment is pretty naive, since in your scenario Bitcoin/bitcoin use would be
the least of our worries. Western civilization, human rights, justice, and freedom would be over.

I think he is confusing the term "bankruptcy" with "bitcoin price going to zero", in the OP.
If not, then this person doesn't understand how Bitcoin is not a corporation or business.

Can you provide me the info that Gleb found about the property being purchased after the hack?
That would be very interesting to see. If you can prove the wife knew about the hack prior to the
house purchase it could be argued that she conspired with Big Vern to hide "stolen funds" by using
that State's marital laws as cover.

But, according to this article: http://www.coindesk.com/digital-currency-exchange-cryptsy-ceos-wife-asset-documents/
The wife filed injunctive relief to prevent Big Vern from liquidating the assets and fleeing the country.
So I think, if she really conspired, she wouldn't have tried to stop him, since she was playing along.
Seems also that Big Vern had a Chinese mistress, so it is unlikely he give a shit about her.

In my ignorant opinion, he is a big time scammer who scammed lots of people, including his own family.

Banning or making Bitcoin illegal is not really a concern for the Bitcoin network.
It will only be a problem for users who are holding for speculative purposes or get rich quick schemes.

The only true concern is governmental regulation invading and attaching into the network itself.
It would be very hard for them to do, but not impossible. That would destroy the very reason for using Bitcoin.
For example, there will be "clean vs. dirty" coins, address registrations, and address blacklistings and coin freezes.

According to this: http://www.coindesk.com/cryptsy-class-action-settlement/

She had a divorce settlement with Big Vern where she received a portion of the joint property.
Now the class plaintiffs have filed claiming that property was purchased with cryptsy users funds.
That is purely speculative and needs to be determined by the Court system.

In order to accelerate it and not waste loads of time and money, she had agreed to a settlement with
the class, where she gets to keep her portion of the house and waives the rest to be liquidated and given
to the class members. This is the best choice for all since if the class or other individuals wish to fight for
the full amount, the only people who will gain is most likely the lawyer's fees.

Unless you can prove it was purchased with "stolen money" and that she knew, she would be entitled to it.
She would also be granted special consideration by the Judge if she has young children.

A settlement like this is smart without a document that can prove she conspired with Big Vern.
It is likely she was unaware since he has fled to China and she remains in the United States.

Class actions are great if the party or parties being sued has massive amounts of money.
If they don't, and you need to liquidate most of the property, then the class members will
only get fractions of what was lost. This seems to be one of those cases.

She wouldn't receive 250k from the class action against his company, but in the divorce settlement/judgement.
She would be entitled to half of all income he made with the company, before class action suits or etc.
So 250k to her and the remaining 250k (his) is subject to the class action or creditors or whatever.

Are you sure her payout is coming from the class action legal representatives?

No. War is actually a form of state sanctioned killing, as long as it falls within Geneva Conventions.
So war is not murder under the legal understanding. The question I was asking was in a world where
killing is acceptable on a daily basis, such as for parking spots and job promotions. My point was that
the bitcoin blockchain is not only a "trustless, program requiring no morality, and etc"., but legally it is
something much more. The Bitcoin blockchain is its own world with rules that are contradictory to our
current view of the world and its systems, and this is why the governments currently can not regulate it.
Theft, conspiracy, collusion, manipulation, and etc are illegal in normal regulated financial systems, but
in Bitcoin it is what allows it to function.




Bitcoin does not grant any users any legal rights or guarantees of or in the Bitcoin system.
Bitcoin has no central authority to determine ownership or rightful possession of any bitcoins.
The whole system is voluntary and only functions due to its ability to not conform to established laws.

Theft from a legal view is determined when a type of property is wrongfully or illegally taken by another.
In the bitcoin system, since no rights exist or are granted, theft does not exist except as a valid system
of conveyance of bitcoins. For example, the Bitcoin blockchain does not care who has stolen them, neither
do the devs or miners, and that the only users who do care are the legally regulated exchanges that will freeze
the stolen coins if they are deposited within their site since they are required to conform to money laws and rules.
If the coins never enter the exchanges, the thief will be allowed by the blockchain to continue its control and
movement of those coins. The bitcoin blockchain will not freeze those coins or make judgements of those coins.

Since Bitcoin itself is currently unregulated, theft is fully allowable, considered a realistic possibility, and ultimately
is considered acceptable when it occurs. If you pay attention to the forum posts of when actual coins are stolen from
someone, most of the responses to that user is that it was due to their own actions and not due to the thief breaking
some sort of code or rule or law. The user who lost their coins has no form of recourse or appeal to the system itself.

Because of all the foregoing and other undiscussd issues, bitcoin users actually do not legally own any bitcoins.
They have no rights to the coins or the system and most governments do not grant any rights or protections to it.
So "stealing" is really only a moral question and not a legal question with Bitcoin, and the OPs post was a legal question
in Legal section of this forum.

I am not trying to justify theft, I'm just explaining why I think certain legal standards may not exist in Bitcoin.
If a day comes when those standards are applied to Bitcoin within the network itself, Bitcoin is dead and over.

If you provide the TXID, members should be able to tell what the issue is.
Your payment is likely coming from an unconfirmed prior tx, if your tx has an appropriate fee.