any legal guys that know about 'trusts' please read

[franky1]

is there any way we can legally protect our bitcoins by declaring that we are not the beneficiary/recipient  (beneficiary/recipient of bitcoin is technically the blockchain) but where we are purely the executor/administrator of the bitcoin funds.

where by bitcoin transactions cannot be used as evidence against the administrator or any bitcoins be seized as they are in trust as opposed to directly owned by a person

i ask this in response to the whole bitlicence saga of the near future, where by people will be looking for different ways to keep new york away from just taking coins. either due to the blockchain declared as a private trust, or out of new york jurisdiction.

we cant simply let other countries make laws for us, we need to know what common law or legal statutes exist to protect us from them automatically and from the beginning

[cbeast]

New York is filled with douchebags (present company excluded, of course), can't we just collectively ignore any IP in their jurisdiction? Let's ignore their miners and transactions. Can't we just force them to use TOR and other dark technologies?

Your question is a good one. How can anyone prove any transaction of another? Courts tend to just claim everything and make you pay legal fees to prove otherwise. America has the best legal system money can buy. Stop expecting justice. You always have to fight for justice. The question is should you fight on their terms or yours?

edit: let's say hypothetically you trust your father to keep a copy of your private keys in his safe deposit box because you are going overseas and you know that if you keep it in your own safe deposit box it will go to probate if you die. Any bank or probate officer could make said bitcoins disappear with plausible deniability. Then also hypothetically, your father unexpectedly dies instead. You move your bitcoins and then his probate court claims you stole his bitcoins because they now have your old paper backup.

The fact is, there is no precedent because there has never been a virtual asset like bitcoin before. The best thing to do is protect your own fourth amendment right using cryptography.

[franky1]

New York is filled with douchebags (present company excluded, of course), can't we just collectively ignore any IP in their jurisdiction? Let's ignore their miners and transactions. Can't we just force them to use TOR and other dark technologies?

Your question is a good one. How can anyone prove any transaction of another? Courts tend to just claim everything and make you pay legal fees to prove otherwise. America has the best legal system money can buy. Stop expecting justice. You always have to fight for justice. The question is should you fight on their terms or yours?

edit: let's say hypothetically you trust your father to keep a copy of your private keys in his safe deposit box because you are going overseas and you know that if you keep it in your own safe deposit box it will go to probate if you die. Any bank or probate officer could make said bitcoins disappear with plausible deniability. Then also hypothetically, your father unexpectedly dies instead. You move your bitcoins and then his probate court claims you stole his bitcoins because they now have your old paper backup.

The fact is, there is no precedent because there has never been a virtual asset like bitcoin before. The best thing to do is protect your own fourth amendment right using cryptography.

i understand every point you make and fully agree. but i would say that bitcoin would only go into probate if you 'declare' it as being yours (your the beneficiary/owner) where as by bitcoins nature the blockchain is the beneficiary as the blockchain is the only place that 'receives'/'holds'/'possesses' bitcoin. (it never touches a persons pulsating hand or an account registered in their name). thus unless declaring yourself as beneficiary(registering bitcoin as being yours), then by bitcoins very nature we must be the executors/administers of the fund and never the holder/possessor.

having the private key does not mean that someone is the recipient (beneficiary). it purely means they have access to administer the funds

put it another way.
if a father(administrator) sets up a trust fund for his children(beneficiaries) the father can move the funds from one child to another any way he seems fit. yet because his children are the ones that will ultimately hold/possess the fund, the father is not liable for when the kids refrain from acknowledging license fee's later in life. (bitcoin is always the child that holds/owns the value, no human is ever the bitcoin child/beneficiary).

and as for the 4th amendment. my paper wallet is mixed in a 500 character string. even if they find the paper, good luck figuring out which order it goes in.

im more concerned with removing humans as being 'beneficiaries' thus avoiding any probable cause to even need to utilize 4th amendment rights or even have to enter a court due to bitcoin use. thus not having to fight on their terms

just like how karpeles managed to separate himself from the funds he 'administered' and then appointed someone else to be the administrator of the mtgox property

[needFREElunch]

Any trust will need to have a beneficiary (at least one, but often more then one) and a set of circumstances under which assets held in the trust can be disbursed to the beneficiary.

If you create a trust that says the assets can not be used for your benefit, nor can they be disbursed to you, then......well you guessed it.....the assets cannot be used for your benefit, nor can they be distributed to you. The assets would need to be handled exactly as spelled out in the trust agreement.

Looking at your profile, it doesn't look like you are engaged in any kind of trading bitcoin for fiat or fiat for bitcoin so the regulations in NY would not apply to you.

What you are doing is creating a solution to a problem that you do not have but your solution puts you in the worse possible position that you could possibly be in.

Disclaimer: I am not claiming to be qualified to give legal advice, but am claiming to be qualified to have common sense.

[franky1]

Any trust will need to have a beneficiary (at least one, but often more then one) and a set of circumstances under which assets held in the trust can be disbursed to the beneficiary.

If you create a trust that says the assets can not be used for your benefit, nor can they be disbursed to you, then......well you guessed it.....the assets cannot be used for your benefit, nor can they be distributed to you. The assets would need to be handled exactly as spelled out in the trust agreement.

Looking at your profile, it doesn't look like you are engaged in any kind of trading bitcoin for fiat or fiat for bitcoin so the regulations in NY would not apply to you.

What you are doing is creating a solution to a problem that you do not have but your solution puts you in the worse possible position that you could possibly be in.

Disclaimer: I am not claiming to be qualified to give legal advice, but am claiming to be qualified to have common sense.

this usename is a 'personal' username, completely separate from my 'business' activities.(all of which are lawful). but i was not thinking about family trusts, i was purely using that as that is the main form of trusts laymen know of. thus i used it as an example that they could theoretically understand.

but i do know that corporations/charities can form trusts where funds can be used for a multitude of things, all for the 'benefit' of the corporation/charity and not a human individual.

for instance even if the CFO of a company has authority to administer the finances of the company in anyway he wants (buy stock, pay other wages, pay himself a wage). if that CFO in his personal life got into debt or had to pay a court fine. the funds of the company wont be listed as his assets, as they are not 'owned' by him. he is just the administrator.

i hope this helps you all understand the way of thinking and the point i am trying to make.

inshort:
the blockchain is the trust/company and we are merely administrators

[Inotanewbie]

Any trust will need to have a beneficiary (at least one, but often more then one) and a set of circumstances under which assets held in the trust can be disbursed to the beneficiary.

If you create a trust that says the assets can not be used for your benefit, nor can they be disbursed to you, then......well you guessed it.....the assets cannot be used for your benefit, nor can they be distributed to you. The assets would need to be handled exactly as spelled out in the trust agreement.

Looking at your profile, it doesn't look like you are engaged in any kind of trading bitcoin for fiat or fiat for bitcoin so the regulations in NY would not apply to you.

What you are doing is creating a solution to a problem that you do not have but your solution puts you in the worse possible position that you could possibly be in.

Disclaimer: I am not claiming to be qualified to give legal advice, but am claiming to be qualified to have common sense.

this usename is a 'personal' username, completely separate from my 'business' activities.(all of which are lawful). but i was not thinking about family trusts, i was purely using that as that is the main form of trusts laymen know of. thus i used it as an example that they could theoretically understand.

but i do know that corporations/charities can form trusts where funds can be used for a multitude of things, all for the 'benefit' of the corporation/charity and not a human individual.

for instance even if the CFO of a company has authority to administer the finances of the company in anyway he wants (buy stock, pay other wages, pay himself a wage). if that CFO in his personal life got into debt or had to pay a court fine. the funds of the company wont be listed as his assets, as they are not 'owned' by him. he is just the administrator.

i hope this helps you all understand the way of thinking and the point i am trying to make.

inshort:
the blockchain is the trust/company and we are merely administrators

The CFO, or any other officer of any company cannot do anything he wants with company money. The CFO can only "pay himself" what he is authorized to pay himself, likely by either his boss or the board of directors. Anything that the CFO spends money on would need to be, alone, for the good of the company, or he would need to be directed to spend it a certain way.

The same would be true for an administer of a trust. If the trust agreement were to say that the administer of the trust gets paid $x per year (or x BTC per year) then the trust can only distribute that amount (the administer could decline all or part of the payment).

If the sole purpose of a trust is for the person running the trust to get paid (or this is how the majority of the funds are spent) then the trust would not hold up in court for purposes of keeping the assets separate.