Who is "BCB" and why is he trying to insert himself between the victims and the government?  BCB is a man that has developed a reputation around here for getting results, when it comes to chasing down scammers. actually my bitch, id never higher a shlemiel lawyer who splices commas  Swing and a miss. Now, let's say you and I go toe-to-toe on bird law and see who comes out the victor? |
|
|
|
|
Excellent site. Very informative and user friendly.
|
|
|
|
Who is "BCB" and why is he trying to insert himself between the victims and the government? BCB is a man that has developed a reputation around here for getting results, when it comes to chasing down scammers. |
|
|
|
I'm guilty of posting in it, but this whole thread is asinine. Dozens of hypothesis of why stealing bitcoins wouldn't be illegal based on technicalities of what a bitcoin is by armchair legal scholars.
Sure, it's better to have Kings Rule without all this legal nonsense. /sarcasm The overwhelming majority of what has been spouted in this thread is legal nonsense, put forth by people who have no legal education whatsoever. For those of us who do have a legal education, and quite a bit of experience in the courtroom, the issue is as clear as can be. Bitcoins are intangible property. Any jackassery that tries to claim, "but you're really only stealing a key, and yada yada yada", is just that. Jackassery. Explain that theory to a judge and let me know how that works out for you. Their eyes will glaze over. If you remove intangible property from its rightful owner without their consent, with the intent to permanently deprive them of that intangible property you have committed theft. There really isn't any need to pass any additional laws to cover this subject. |
|
|
|
|
I'm guilty of posting in it, but this whole thread is asinine. Dozens of hypothesis of why stealing bitcoins wouldn't be illegal based on technicalities of what a bitcoin is by armchair legal scholars.
|
|
|
|
It's becoming increasingly difficult to collect TRC.
Bullshit - difficulty hasn't changed much for over 2 weeks now. Current average is even lower than before. Stop spreading rumours! Harsh. Hence the solid orange ignore tab I assume. But I disagree. It has spiked several times higher than it is now, but for the past couple of days it has averaged more than it has previously. (Highs & Lows do not = average) Plus, it doesn't take anything but common sense to realize with the BTC block reward halving, and ASICs the GPU BTC miners are not just going to roll over and die. They're going to go somewhere. There is Litecoin, serious competitor to Bitcoin, which actualy has strong foundations, differs from Bitcoin in important areas and thus has a value. If you think those who are mining Bitcoins now - because it's still profitable for them - are gonna jump on almost worthless and unstable coin, you are wrong. Terracoin is great for those who love high risk investments = such people are already investing in it. If you think guaranteed-profit people will change their behaviour and way of thinking after block reward halving and ASIC, you are wrong. Just because dozens of you agree 1000 TRC is worth 1 BTC it does not add any real value to Terracoin. It's still highly unstable network, which even a single person with not so much hashrate can ruin. It's still coin no one accepts anywhere, nor there is an exchange for it. With some people, you can easily hide the truth by speculating and playing on their greed, but I'm not one of them. Regardless of what you or anyone here - including all of you - have to say, I ain't gonna pay more than I think Terracoin is worth right now. If you don't like my offer, just ignore it, OK? Fair market value = what someone is willing to pay for something. And as long as there are people willing to pay .001BTC or more per TRC then that's its FMV. It doesn't mean you're willing to pay that amount. That's what leads to the whole buy/sell spreads on exchanges. |
|
|
|
It's becoming increasingly difficult to collect TRC.
Bullshit - difficulty hasn't changed much for over 2 weeks now. Current average is even lower than before. Stop spreading rumours! Harsh. Hence the solid orange ignore tab I assume. But I disagree. It has spiked several times higher than it is now, but for the past couple of days it has averaged more than it has previously. (Highs & Lows do not = average) Plus, it doesn't take anything but common sense to realize with the BTC block reward halving, and ASICs the GPU BTC miners are not just going to roll over and die. They're going to go somewhere. |
|
|
|
|
I've been selling at about a 1000:1 TRC:BTC ratio (.001BTC each), but now that difficulty is going up, I'm going to hold on to my TRC for a few days (unless I got a much higher offer), and see what comes of it. It's becoming increasingly difficult to collect TRC, and I expect it to become more so, as more and more GPU miners jump off of BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Phinnaeus Gage. I wouldn't give you the scammer tag, but perhaps what you should do is edit your signature just to say "Don't lend me money" or something along those lines. Yes, you could edit that at any time, but as long as you're paying your loans back, even if just a little bit late, and making good faith efforts, I would say the scammer tag isn't appropriate. To me the scammer tag implies some degree of intent to scam.
You just have a problem. You know you have a problem, and maybe you should talk to Gamblers Anonymous. Maybe you have in the past, I'm not sure. I wish you the best of luck! We all have our demons, some are just more destructive in our lives than others.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey guys, I got quite busy there for awhile with offline work, so I haven't been around to answer your legal questions lately.
But I've got a light week or two coming up now, so if you have a question, shoot me a PM or email, and we'll try to get it worked out for you. Just let me know what state you're in, and whatever other details you feel are necessary.
The cost depends on the question, no two issues are completely alike, and it only gets rather pricey if I have to research an issue. But generally a question I can answer immediately we're looking at 1-2BTC. If it's going to take longer than that, I try to charge 2-3BTC per hour of research and writing time.
Hope to talk to you soon!
Disclaimer: I am NOT your attorney. Get your own attorney. Don't rely on anything I say for legal advice.
|
|
|
|
I pay 5 BTC if someone could order a debit card from a certain company for me.
They offer Mastercard debit cards and I have noticed that they are now accepting bitcoins for deposits.
Register on their website, order a card in your name and send it to me once you have received it. I will use it for withdrawing cash received as btc from web development work on behalf of clients.
I will of course also pay for the fee to register the card.
PM me if you are interested and I will send you all the details through an encrypted channel.
Wait a second. You want someone to order a debit card in their name, and then send it to you? I can't foresee anything going wrong with this plan...... |
|
|
|
The part you didn't bold is where I feel bitcoin falls in the Texas statute. "Intangible personal property" means a claim, interest (other than an interest in tangible property), right, or other thing that has value but cannot be seen, felt, weighed, measured, or otherwise perceived by the senses, although its existence may be evidenced by a document. The part you bolded was just a bunch of examples the TX legislature gave. It isn't meant to be an exclusive list. It's a complete list of examples and none come close to bitcoin. Maybe we can try Florida? (14) “Intangible property” includes, by way of illustration and not limitation: (a) Moneys, checks, drafts, deposits, interest, dividends, and income. (b) Credit balances, customer overpayments, security deposits and other instruments as defined by chapter 679, refunds, unpaid wages, unused airline tickets, and unidentified remittances. (c) Stocks, and other intangible ownership interests in business associations. (d) Moneys deposited to redeem stocks, bonds, bearer bonds, original issue discount bonds, coupons, and other securities, or to make distributions. (e) Amounts due and payable under the terms of insurance policies. (f) Amounts distributable from a trust or custodial fund established under a plan to provide any health, welfare, pension, vacation, severance, retirement, death, stock purchase, profit sharing, employee savings, supplemental unemployment insurance, or similar benefit. Still nothing that comes close to bitcoin. Your problem is you don't seem to understand that your wallet.dat is not 'filled' with bitcoins. It's just a big long number... it's the same as someone stealing your password. Even you should be able to see that charging someone with stealing a password is absurd. It's the actions you take with the stolen password that matter. So you can't STEAL bitcoins. You can only gain unauthorized access to the network and execute actions and that's covered under standard computer law. The real legal question is it's easy to see how someone can gain unauthorized access to a big monolithic server with a password but it would be interesting to see how the law comes down on unauthorized access to a p2p network with a private crypto key.... That's where the real legal loophole might be. I don't know what to say to that other than you've taken the position that you have taken, and are not willing to adopt a view contrary. Do you believe identity theft is legal? And please don't tell me I don't understand something. That's terribly rude, especially in light of the argument you are attempting to make. I really don't believe the law could be any more clear on the issue. Bitcoins have value. Stealing them is a crime. Both a state and federal crime (since you are involved in interstate commerce when the theft occurs). If you can cite to me any law whatsoever that seems to support your position that the theft of virtual goods that have value is not theft, then I would be very interested to read that. |
|
|
|
|
This is what I decided to go with. Works great, was cheap, $7 at Walmart, and is very stable.
Thanks everyone for the suggestions!
|
|
|
|
Property is simply any physical or intangible entity owned by a person. A bitcoin would be an intangible entity, just as a checking account would be an intangible entity.
From what I've read, it's not so simple. At least not in the US or the UK. It seems like intangible property is quite strictly defined, and Bitcoin doesn't really fall under any of the definitions. I don't understand this checking account comparison. I'm not sure how one would steal a checking account. Obviously they could steal the contents, that would be pretty simple, but to steal the actual account is a curious thought. It seems fairly impossible. It seems to me that you don't actually own a checking account. You own the money inside. The account is merely a way of keeping track of that money. Can you elucidate a bit on this idea so that I understand what you mean? I can't speak, to UK law, as I have no clue what it says. But in the US intangible property really isn't that strictly defined. It is basically anything you can't see or touch that has value. Since the previous poster used the Texas state statute, we'll stick to that. (6) "Intangible personal property" means a claim, interest (other than an interest in tangible property), right, or other thing that has value but cannot be seen, felt, weighed, measured, or otherwise perceived by the senses, although its existence may be evidenced by a document. It includes a stock, bond, note or account receivable, franchise, license or permit, demand or time deposit, certificate of deposit, share account, share certificate account, share deposit account, insurance policy, annuity, pension, cause of action, contract, and goodwill. Anything that has value yet cannot be perceived by the senses is intangible property. That strikes me as the very essence of a bitcoin. The state of TX then goes on to list numerous examples. Most of these are difficult to steal, I'll grant you. But if you do, you have committed theft. |
|
|
|
Failure to return an item is a civil matter in most cases because it's not the cops job to figure out the 'terms' of your agreement that led to the item not being returned. Of course I know nothing of chinese law.
Anyway... I don't think you can really make a case for 'stealing' bitcoins since nothing has really been taken. Now all sorts of laws aginst unauthorized access may come into play since your wallet.dat is like a cryptologic signature and using that to execute unauthorized transactions would almost certinly run afoul of such laws.
I have seen this stated several times in this thread. I can't stress enough how wrong it is. An intangible piece of property is still property and still subject to theft. The extension of 18 U.S.C. § 641 to intangible property interests is consistent with both the plain language of the statute and the judicial construction of that language. The term "thing of value" is certainly broad enough to encompass both tangible and intangible properties and, in fact, has been construed to cover intangibles. See United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d at 71 - US Attorneys Criminal Resource Manual § 641 is the federal theft statute. Ok first off 641 is only for the governments money... so if you steal the fed's bitcoins 641 may come into play. Theft is normally under the state's jursidiction So here's Texas' take (6) "Intangible personal property" means a claim, interest (other than an interest in tangible property), right, or other thing that has value but cannot be seen, felt, weighed, measured, or otherwise perceived by the senses, although its existence may be evidenced by a document. It includes a stock, bond, note or account receivable, franchise, license or permit, demand or time deposit, certificate of deposit, share account, share certificate account, share deposit account, insurance policy, annuity, pension, cause of action, contract, and goodwill.Which one do you feel bitcoin falls under? You're right about the state action. The overwhelming majority of criminal charges are brought by the state. The feds don't have a straight up "theft" statute, as typically there has to be something more complicated than just stealing something before the feds even have jurisdiction, such as stealing something in interstate commerce. So §641 is one of the closest statutes you can get to, to see what the federal courts feel about the issue. The part you didn't bold is where I feel bitcoin falls in the Texas statute. "Intangible personal property" means a claim, interest (other than an interest in tangible property), right, or other thing that has value but cannot be seen, felt, weighed, measured, or otherwise perceived by the senses, although its existence may be evidenced by a document. The part you bolded was just a bunch of examples the TX legislature gave. It isn't meant to be an exclusive list. |
|
|
|
Failure to return an item is a civil matter in most cases because it's not the cops job to figure out the 'terms' of your agreement that led to the item not being returned. Of course I know nothing of chinese law.
Anyway... I don't think you can really make a case for 'stealing' bitcoins since nothing has really been taken. Now all sorts of laws aginst unauthorized access may come into play since your wallet.dat is like a cryptologic signature and using that to execute unauthorized transactions would almost certinly run afoul of such laws.
I have seen this stated several times in this thread. I can't stress enough how wrong it is. An intangible piece of property is still property and still subject to theft. The extension of 18 U.S.C. § 641 to intangible property interests is consistent with both the plain language of the statute and the judicial construction of that language. The term "thing of value" is certainly broad enough to encompass both tangible and intangible properties and, in fact, has been construed to cover intangibles. See United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d at 71 - US Attorneys Criminal Resource Manual § 641 is one of the many federal theft statutes. |
|
|
|
Well I'll answer the question that obviously you don't have to be an attorney to answer  A person commits theft of property if, with intent to deprive the owner of property, the person knowingly obtains or exercises control over the property without the owner's effective consent. So obviously, if you jack someone's wallet.dat, and they didn't tell you you could have it, you just committed the crime of theft. You're also going to be liable in tort for conversion. Do you think that Bitcoins fall under the legal definition of property? If so, why? Also, what do you think about situations where someone transfers Bitcoins under false pretences? I think the most compelling argument that stealing Bitcoins isn't illegal is the fact that Pirate's identity is known, yet he hasn't been prosecuted. The issue with pirate's prosecution isn't that what he did wasn't illegal, it is that no prosecutor that has jurisdiction to prosecute him has chosen to do so as of yet. Also, for the whole pirate issue, there is the question of "intent". Was it pirate's intent to steal the bitcoins? Or was he just incredibly negligent and therefore should face civil liability as opposed to criminal punishment? I don't know enough about that whole situation to go into alot of details on it. Property is simply any physical or intangible entity owned by a person. A bitcoin would be an intangible entity, just as a checking account would be an intangible entity. The common law definition of larceny relied on tangible personal property (something you could actually touch and carry away), but that distinction is pretty much gone today. Getting someone to transfer you bitcoins under false pretenses would subject the tortfeasor to civil damages for the misrepresentation. Whether any criminal charges could be brought would depend on the facts of the actual case, but if I was a prosecutor, the first thing I would think of is wire fraud. This involves providing information and transmitting documents through the mail or through electronic media in conjunction with an allegedly fraudulent plan or scheme. Many people are charged with this crime by the federal government, and do serious prison time. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
