Okay.  AnyOnE wannA hElP me wIth mY CaSe?  In case I act liek a headcase or nutcase (or pillowcase?), feel free to showcase the post as example how not to (insert suitable word with "case" in it here).

^ He did nothing wrong, if you send Bitcoins to someone you sent them, we don't need the government to decide this and start ruling the bitcoin world.


"Who's to say he didn't?" isn't evidence, that's my point.   "Who's to say" the real criminals didn't just see an opportunity to keep people off their trail?

If they are on the same host, that's proof he did it!  If they are on different, oh well that just means he is playing 11th dimensional chess and faking everyone out!  That's what I mean about wanting him to be guilty.  It's fitting the facts to the conclusion that Bruce did it.  I think a more objective look at the MyBitcoin situation is that they stone cold got away with it and there are no solid trails, so far at least.

It's just what happens here when the natives get angry at someone.  Look at what they are doing to this poor guy:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40934.msg500238#msg500238

I really like this place but it's a shame good guys like Bruce and Ben are being torn down for their success.

Bitcoin provides network access.  Bitcoins do not.  There is nothing intrinsically valuable about a Bitcoin.  Your references to market value are invalid because the market is not legally recognized as such.  "Value in use" and "value in exchange" are consequently irrelevant.  If what you are saying is true legally, then copyright laws wouldn't need to exist as everything would be a form of copyright since anyone could claim that there is value (and thus ownership) associated with anything you generate or type on your computer.  

Property is determined by its value, and this value must be proven according to existing law.  What you seem to be getting at is that there is an electrical cost associated with the generation of a Bitcoin, and just as the clothmaker would say that there is a manufacturing/time cost associated with the production of the cloth, there is a manufacturing/time cost associated with the production of a Bitcoin.  But there is also a manufacturing/time cost associated with anything I type on the internet, on any post, in any text document, etc., yet this information can legally be 'stolen' and exchanged freely without any legal consequence so long as there is no copyright protection.  So, the definitions you gave are invalid with regard to certain lawful applications, thus rendering their use in this argument invalid.

Property is nomen generalissimum, and extends to every species of valuable right and interest, including real and personal property, easements, franchises, and other incorporeal hereditaments. Lawrence v. Hennessy, 65 S. W. 717, 719, 165 Mo. 659; Boston & L. R. Corp. v. Salem & L. R. Co., 68 Mass. (2 Gray) 35; Scranton v. Wheeler, 21 Sup. Ct 48, 59, 179 U. S. 141, 45 L. Ed, 12G; Caro v. Metropolitan El. Ry. Co., 46 N. Y. Super. Ct. (14 Jones & S.) 164, 168; Metropolitan City Ry. Co. v. Chicago W. D. Ry. Co., 87 111. 317; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Commissioners of Highways of Town of Mattoon, 43 N. E. 1100, 1101, 161 111. 247; Southern Kansas Ry. Co. v. Oklahoma City, 69 Pac. 1050, 12 Okl. 82.

In its modern sense, confined to that which may be touched by the hand or seen by the eye. What is called "tangible property" has come to be, in most great enterprises, but the embodiment physically of an underlying life; a life that in its contribution to success is immeasurably more effective than mere physical embodiment Such, for example, are properties built upon franchises, on grants of government, on good will on trade-names, and the like. It is needless to say that to every Ingredient of property thus made up, the intangible as well as the tangible, that which is discernible to mind only as well as that susceptible to physical touch, equity extends appropriate protection. National Tel. News Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co. (U. S.) 119 Fed. 294, 299, 56 C. C. A. 19S, 60 L. R. A. 805.

Rackspace is a great company I spoke with them over the phone when first signing up for the webhosting. That said I didn't check about their garuntee for their file hosting, I will call them and see what their policies are on data garuntees. I checked their file hosting costs and it's 15 cents per Giga-byte. So we should be alright on the bill pay. In the event that rackspace loses my files I have the offline wallet in a encrypted file on a hard drive in a safe place at my house along with the same copy on a USB stick in an undisclosed location. Rackspace is just a backup in the event something happens to my whole town such as huge natural disasters such as for instance I live near an inactive volcano, tiny earthquakes happen, and I live near a forest so my hardware could be prone to forest fires aswelll but I have full coverage as far as insurance goes so my hardware is insured but I doubt my data is.

In UK I am almost certain that small claims court would rule in favour of claimant. I would not even bother talking to a legal bod about this. Just would file money claim online and follow the procedure. Would also prepare a few expert witness affidavits. In Oregon your  mileage may vary, obviously.

Yes it looks like I'm going with the rackspace files hosting option considering the last tally of the vote/motion (motion id: 30):

Uh well i'm no programmer so i cant exactly read source code but i thought it was common knowledge that bitcoin was irreversible, surely someone with 400+ posts to this forum would know that. I am familiar with the basic concept of public key encryption though: you have a public key (your bitcoin address) and an encrypted private key. You must use the private key as your personal signature that the transfer you are initiating is a legit one (this is why bitcoin is considered "secure" from hackers), that you no longer wish to be the owner, and the recipient is supposed to be.

 There is absolutely no way to establish that BTC has any value whatsoever, though.

The word "value," in its commonly received signification, means the sum of money  a thing will produce to the seller when it is sold. We are aware that this is not abstractly the true measure of value. The quantity of labor and capital necessary to produce a given article, or, in other words, the actual  cost of its production. Is the true criterion of , Its worth. For instance, if a manufacturer | be asked the vafue of a yard of cloth, his opinion of the value will be determined by his calculation of the expense of producing a yard of cloth of similar quality. If we ask a retail dealer the value of a yard of cloth, his opinion of its value will be determined by the quantity of money such an article will produce in the market It is apparent that the marketable value may be affected by a multitude of circumstances which; will not in their results extend to the cost of  production. Value Is in its nature so vague 'and indefinite that no human scrutiny can | seize all its constituent parts, and therefore  opinions of value are admissible in evidence from the necessity of the case. Town of Rochester v. Town of Chester, 3 N. H. 349, j 358.
The word "value," It Is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called "value in use"; the other "value in exchange."  State v. Yates, 10 Ohio Dec. 150, 158, 19 Wkly. Law Bui. 150 (citing Smith, Wealth of Nations).
The value of property consists in its use, and he who owns the use forever, though it be on condition subsequent, la the true owner of the property for the time being. Wells v. City of Savannah, 21 Sup. Ct. 697, 702, 181 U. S. 531, 45 L. Ed. 986.

The primary meaning of "value" Is worth; and this worth is made up of the useful or estimable qualities of the thing. Ordinarily, when an article of sale is in the market, and has a market value, there is no difference between Its value and the
market price, and the law adopts the latter as the proper evidence of value. This Is not however, because "value" and "price" are really convertible terms, but only because they are ordinarily so In a fair market Kountz v. Kirkpatrick, 72 Pa. (22 P. F. Smith) 376. 386, 13 Am. Rep. 687.

As market value.
Bouvier, In his definition of value, says: "This term has two different meanings. It sometimes expresses the utility of an object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other articles with it The first may be called the 'value In use' and the latter the 'value in exchange.' Webster recognizes a difference between extrinsic and exchangeable value." But In condemnation proceedings "value" will be held to mean market value. Little Kock Junction Ky. v. Woodruff, 5 S. W. 792, 795, 49 Ark. 381, 4 Am. St. Rep. 51.

When applied to property, and no qualification is expressed or Implied, "value" moans the price which the property could command In the market. In re McGhee's Estate. 74 N. W. 695, 697. 105 Iowa. 9.

Value consists In the estimate or opinion of those influencing the market attachable to certain intrinsic qualities belonging to the article to be valued. Washington Ice Co. v. Webster, 68 Me. 449, 463.

Price synonymous
All the lexicographers, both law and general. In certain instances, give the words "value" and "price" as convertible and synonymous. As used in Code, c. 145, g 14, requiring an indictment for larceny to state the value of a thing stolen, if not synonymous with, it is at least equivalent to, the word "price," as used in an indictment charging the larceny of property of a certain price. State v. Sparks, 3 S. E. 40, 41, SO W. Va. 101.
Ordinarily, when an article of sale is in
the market and has a market value, there is no difference between its value and the market price, and the law adopts the latter as the proper evidence of the value. "Value" and "price" are, therefore, not synonymous, or the necessary equivalents of each other, though commonly "market value" and "market price" are legal equivalents. Theiss v. Weiss, 31 Atl. 63, 66, 166 Pa. 9, 45 Am. St Rep. 638 (citing Kountz v. Kirkpatrlck, 72 Pa. [22 P. F. Smith] 376, 13 Am. Rep. 687).
The primary meaning of "value" is ■worth. "Price" is not synonymous with "value," but frequently "market value" and "market price" are used synonymously. Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. Parsons, 32 Pac. 1083, 1084, 51 Kan. 40a
"'Value' is a word more comprehensive than 'price.' By the price of a thing, therefore, we shall henceforth understand Its val
ue in money; by the value or exchange value of a thing its general power of purchase; the command its position gives over purchasable commodities in general." Marriner v. John L. Roper Co., 16 S. E. 906, 907, 112 N. C. 164.

The terms "value of the use" of the premises, and "rental value," mean substantially the same thing. Alexander v. Bishop, 13 N. W. 744, 747, 59 Iowa, 572.

Section 76. Delivered By Mistake.
Where the owner of money or property delivers it to another by mistake and that person, knowing the mistake at the time he receives it, conceals the mistake intending at the time to appropriate it to his own use, he is guilty of larceny. Thus for example, when a bank by mistake handed the accused five hundred dollars more than his check called for, and the accused at the time he received the money
"Johnson vs. People, 113 111., 103. Hughes, Cr. Law, Sec. 402.
Section 77. Finding Goods And Appropriating.
So if one finds the goods of the owner in the highway or elsewhere, containing marks which identify the owner, and the one finding them converts the same to his own use with criminal intent, he is guilty of larceny; but otherwise if there be no marks to identify the owner.29
Section 80. Value Of The Property Taken.
The article or thing taken must be of some value to make it the subject of larceny and the value must be alleged and proven. It is especially necessary to prove the value of the property stolen for the purpose of determining whether the offense is grand or petit larceny; for grand larceny is a felony and petit larceny a misdemeanor.
But the value of several articles stolen at different times by distinct acts, although from the same person, cannot be added together to make the offense grand larceny.34
The value of an article or thing is its market value, and not what it may be worth to the owner.

A treatise on the law of crimes, Volume 2 By William Lawrence Clark, William Lawrence Marshall[/i]
In several cases, for example, it has been held that, when money or property is delivered to a person by mistake, the taking is not complete, and he does not acquire possession, until he discovers the mistake, and that he is guilty of larceny if he then forms and carries out an intent to appropriate the property or money to his own use. Reg. v. Ashwell, 16 Cox, C. C. 1, Beale's Cas. 566; State v. Ducker, S Or. 394.  

The wrongful appropriation of property mistakenly delivered appears to have been considered larceny at common 565*565 law only if, upon receipt, the recipient knew that it was mistakenly delivered and at that time formed the intent to keep it.[5] However, State v. Olds, 39 Wn.2d 258, 235 P.2d 165 (1951) and State v. Heyes, 44 Wn.2d 579, 269 P.2d 577 (1954), construing Rem. Rev. Stat. § 2601(4) (the statutory forerunner of RCW 9A.56.020(1)(c)), distinguished this statutory offense from common law larceny.[6] In State v. Olds, supra, the court expressly held that, in order to sustain a conviction under Rem. Rev. Stat. § 2601(4), no evidence of original felonious intent was necessary. One noted authority interpreted State v. Olds, supra, as holding that Washington's statutory offense of wrongfully appropriating misdelivered property is distinguishable from common law larceny:

The wrongful withholding of property delivered by mistake, with knowledge of the mistake acquired subsequent to the receipt, may be punishable by statute under the name of larceny, but it is an offense distinct from common law larceny.
(Italics ours.) R. Perkins, Criminal Law 254 n. 76 (2d ed. 1969).

[2] Thus, the common law of larceny required proof that the defendant's intent to steal concurred with his mistaken receipt of the property,[7] whereas, under RCW 9A.56.020(1)(c) 566*566 the "intent to deprive" must exist at the time of the appropriation. In the case at bench, Woll was charged with having committed the crime on or about April 18, 1979. Thus, under the charge and under the trial court's instruction, the prosecution had to prove defendant's intent on the date he transferred the funds — not the date or dates on which he subsequently spent the money. Under Washington law, "[t]he gravamen of the offense is the appropriation of the property after having received it". (Italics ours.) State v. Heyes, 44 Wn.2d at 588.

Good lord. You're calling other people stupid but you come across as borderline illiterate.

I appreciate the spirit, but still...

If that wager can be defined as:

---
I will pay you 100 BTC,
 if and when any Oregon court issues a judgment stipulating that
  BenDavis (whoever that is, legally in Oregon) is ordered to return the amount of Bitcoins received (call it 511 +/- 5%), or
  BenDavis is ordered pay plaintiff the market value (+/- 5%) at any given point in time of the Bitcoins received, or
  BenDavis is ordered to restore or otherwise facilitate the recovery of the "right of access" you mention here;
 provided such judgment is posted or referenced here, and
 the period of leave to file an appeal against the judgment has expired; BUT

On the other side, you will pay me 100 BTC,
 if and when there is a final disposition of an Oregon cause of legal action brought against BenDavis in this matter, and
 if that disposition does not include any of the three substantive orders specified above; BUT

That a transfer of this case to a US Federal court or other court outside of Oregon shall null the wager, AND
That the only monetary or performance sums considered for purposes of determining the winner of the wager shall be the Bitcoins in question or their equivalent in other currency and not any sums related to service of process, court fees, fines, trial costs, legal fees, etc.
---

Then I'll take that wager.