Is stealing Bitcoins illegal?

[Rudd-O]

Are you out of your fucking tree?
Jesus, what is wrong with you?

This is the standard "SHUT UP ABOUT THE QUESTION" of the religious believer.  As such, I will ignore it.

If you want to live in a fantasy where the lawmy Scripture has no impact on your life, then please, go and live that fantasy elsewhere. Certainly don't come in here and accuse us of living in a fantasy for acknowledging realitythe pieces of paper we fervently believe in,  

Oh, believe me, I would in an instant... if it wasn't for the fact that the entire planet is infested with brainwashed idiots who, like you, are willing to ruin, cage, brutalize or murder anyone who disbelieves ("doesn't acknowledge" in your religious parlance) the Scripture you worship and analyze in your Bible Study threads...

...which, frankly, are an eyesore that lead nowhere.  If you wanted an answer to your stupid question, instead of trying to read the tea leaves of your Scripture, you should go and talk to one of your priests (I believe they are called "judges" or "lawyers" in your dogma), asking them for the Revealed Truth.

you slowly melting cum-popsicle of a man.

Religious-fueled anger all over again.  Not surprised.

That said, you're now on my ignore list for your gratuituous emotionally violent verbal abuse tirade.  Emotionally unstable individuals like you, who explode when someone questions their dogma, don't deserve the privilege of addressing decent humans.

[1714896311]

1714896311

[1714896311]

1714896311

[1714896311]

1714896311

[CharlieContent]

...which, frankly, are an eyesore that lead nowhere.  If you wanted an answer to your stupid question, instead of trying to read the tea leaves of your Scripture, you should go and talk to one of your priests (I believe they are called "judges" or "lawyers" in your dogma), asking them for the Revealed Truth.

Haha man what a weirdo. 

[reyals]

I'd say the hypothesis was pretty well tested.

Lack of filed charges does not mean a crime hasn't been committed. No matter what type of crime.

It does when you can't point to any.  Sodomy laws for example... yah no one -really- enforces them anymore (and would probably be thrown out if they tried) but there is plenty of cases that one can point to that it is in fact illegal to do so.
You can't do that with digital item theft.  The best I was able to find is one case of domain name theft that might have set some applicable law... but the guy pled out and there was no appeals so it didn't actually set any precedent.

Also, I have no idea why you wish to claim with absolute certainty that Bitcoin theft would be regarded as a criminal offense by every court in the world, despite a lack of evidence for that point.

Because of the very real court decisions I've linked to when it comes to the most similar cases available? Or maybe evidence is only evidence when it supports your opinion.

Finnish police are investigating up to 400 cases of theft, with some members reporting the loss of up to €1000 (£840) worth of virtual furniture and other items, according to Detective Sergeant Marko Levonen.

"We have done five home searches in five cities in Finland," he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10207486

"The criminal judge effectively found that those poker chips were property and therefore they were capable of being stolen.

Even though the terms and conditions said they are not property, the judge found that because people put value in them they must have some sort of legal status.

Even more recently than that, the Dutch Supreme Court has recently found that when one user took away virtual items from another user without authorisation that constituted criminal theft.

So both of those cases involved the finding the virtual goods had legal status or were even property." - Jas Purewal, interactive entertainment lawyer

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3466221.htm

There's plenty of support for the opinion that Bitcoin theft would be prosecuted as theft. There's very little (none, actually) to support it wouldn't. Your rudeness aside.

First off I don't know the rest of the world's law so I'm sticking with American.

Secondly you can't just posted news links and go AHH HA got you.
I said charged and convicted... the cops are not law experts and can arrest you for whatever they want to.  What the prosecutor charges someone with and more importantly what the judge actually rules on is what really matters.  That's what you need to see.  Not some reporter or street cop saying 'sounds like theft'

Thirdly even that link you posted I can show the profound misunderstanding surrounding your use of the word theft.
Lets take a look at some of the details.

"The criminal judge effectively found that those poker chips were property and therefore they were capable of being stolen.

Even though the terms and conditions said they are not property, the judge found that because people put value in them they must have some sort of legal status.

Wow what a great sound bite!... hmm but wait.. it doesn't say what is actual crime was does it?  Stolen property.. yah yah what ever

TO GOOGLE!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/04/zynga-poker-chips-hacker-pleads-guilty_n_818288.html
"Charged with violating the Computer Misuse Act, Mitchell issued his guilty plea to Exeter Crown Court's Judge Philip Wassall, who said that Mitchell could face years behind bars for the theft"

http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/view/15706/hacker-steals-virtual-poker-chips-from-online-gaming-firm/
"At Exeter Crown Court, Ashley Mitchell pleaded guilty to five charges brought under the UK's Computer Misuse Act and the Proceeds from Crime Act"

http://socialtimes.com/want-to-steal-from-zynga-think-again-poker-thief-caught_b41057
"Ashley Mitchell, the infamous Zynga Poker hacker, plead guilty last week to multiple charges under the Computer Misuse Act and the Proceeds of Crime Act for stealing online poker chips in large amounts. However, according to sources, further information has come forth from a late witness."

Hmmm telling isn't it?  And I don't even know anything about British law but the fact he wasn't charged with theft but charged with computer crimes says something.

[CharlieContent]

Because of the very real court decisions I've linked to when it comes to the most similar cases available? Or maybe evidence is only evidence when it supports your opinion.

I don't have an opinion on this matter yet. I think that it's impossible to determine based on the information available.

I think there are a few countries where it may very well be a crime, and a few court decisions in a few countries makes it look likely.

I think to say that similar cases in a few countries = a specific truth in all countries is pretty nuts.

The fact you are 100% sure of this, despite the lack of specific evidence, leads me to believe that your conviction is based on zeal rather than any kind of intellectual analysis. It's based 100% on assumption, and yet you defend it to the death as an absolute truth. Bizarre.

Lack of filed charges does not mean a crime hasn't been committed. No matter what type of crime.

That's true. Lack of filed charges isn't proof of anything. It just seemed like you were saying to him "Oh you don't think stealing Bitcoins is a crime, do you? Well go and steal some coins, you won't get away with it!"

Which is ridiculous when so many people have gotten away with doing just that. Everyone who has ever stolen a coin has successfully gotten away with it. It's a 100% avoidance of prosecution rate.

[defxor]

I said charged and convicted... the cops are not law experts and can arrest you for whatever they want to.  What the prosecutor charges someone with and more importantly what the judge actually rules on is what really matters.  That's what you need to see.  Not some reporter or street cop saying 'sounds like theft'

"The criminal judge effectively found that those poker chips were property and therefore they were capable of being stolen.

Even though the terms and conditions said they are not property, the judge found that because people put value in them they must have some sort of legal status.

(Quote from Jas Purewal - interactive entertainment lawyer)

TO GOOGLE!

Sure!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/04/zynga-poker-chips-hacker-pleads-guilty_n_818288.html
"Charged with violating the Computer Misuse Act, Mitchell issued his guilty plea to Exeter Crown Court's Judge Philip Wassall, who said that Mitchell could face years behind bars for the theft"

Hmmm telling isn't it?

Indeed He did a lot more than just stealing - and those offenses are covered under that act.

the court in the Ashley Mitchell case in effect confirmed that virtual currency is "property" requiring legal protection. The historical approach to virtual currency being a purely a matter of contract law is outdated

(Quote from an associate at Olswang law firm)

http://www.olswang.com/articles/2011/06/virtual-currency-blurring-the-boundaries-between-gaming-and-gambling/

[reyals]

I said charged and convicted... the cops are not law experts and can arrest you for whatever they want to.  What the prosecutor charges someone with and more importantly what the judge actually rules on is what really matters.  That's what you need to see.  Not some reporter or street cop saying 'sounds like theft'

"The criminal judge effectively found that those poker chips were property and therefore they were capable of being stolen.

Even though the terms and conditions said they are not property, the judge found that because people put value in them they must have some sort of legal status.

(Quote from Jas Purewal - interactive entertainment lawyer)

TO GOOGLE!

Sure!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/04/zynga-poker-chips-hacker-pleads-guilty_n_818288.html
"Charged with violating the Computer Misuse Act, Mitchell issued his guilty plea to Exeter Crown Court's Judge Philip Wassall, who said that Mitchell could face years behind bars for the theft"

Hmmm telling isn't it?

Indeed He did a lot more than just stealing - and those offenses are covered under that act.

the court in the Ashley Mitchell case in effect confirmed that virtual currency is "property" requiring legal protection. The historical approach to virtual currency being a purely a matter of contract law is outdated

(Quote from an associate at Olswang law firm)

http://www.olswang.com/articles/2011/06/virtual-currency-blurring-the-boundaries-between-gaming-and-gambling/

What part of Judge is unclear?
Why do you take the world of an associate from 'Oslwang law firm' over my word?  Because she wrote a blog entry?  Because she is saying what you want to hear?  Where are his words and not people interpreting them the way they want and do note that both your quotes use the words 'effectively' and 'in effect'.  Why the weasel words if what the judge said was so clear?

But you're still making the same mistake; you're trying to use plain usage of the words to extrapolate their legal meaning.  With out reading the ruling (does England not post them online for some reason?) you don't know the scope of what the judgment was saying.
Perhaps his ruling was limited only to the requirements of property with regards to prosecution under the Computer Misuse Act.


Edit: And more to the point... HE STILL WASN'T CHARGED WITH THEFT!

[defxor]

Why do you take the world of an associate from 'Oslwang law firm' over my word?

Amazing, isn't it?

[bitcoinbear]

I have no idea why you want to claim that theft of bitcoins isn't theft, but I suggest you put your hypothesis to the test if you're so sure of yourself.

He doesn't have to put it to the test. Hundreds of other people have done that for him. There have been hundreds, if not thousands of Bitcoin thefts over the years, amounting to millions of dollars worth of coins.

Prosecutions - 0.
Criminal charges brought - 0.
Arrests - 0.

I'd say the hypothesis was pretty well tested.

Number of tests of hypothesis: 0

You can hardly call that well-tested.

[Serith]

I hope I understand the basic principles of how Justice system works, and maybe I can contribute to the thread.

There is two core questions about Bitcoin:

1. Is it a property from Justice system point of view?
if it is
2. how to punish for stealing it?

Right now Bitcoin is beyond the scope of laws in most jurisdictions. The simplest way the scope can change is to declare through precedent or amending a law that bitcoin is property because it is. But, bitcoin, namecoin, litecoin etc. is a message that has core feature which differentiate it from any other type of message. Bitcoin is a record in distributed database that solves the Byzantine Generals' Problem. In another words it is a record in distributed database that is consistent among all it's users, and that's exactly the reason why it is possible for such record to have a value. And it can be declared that record in such database is property, because that's what makes it different from WoW gold or EVE ISKs.

But, punishing for theft won't be easy because possibility of finding those responsible depends on how bitcoins were stolen e.g. a case where bitcoins were stolen by virus from a home computer is different from case when bitcoins were stolen by exchange operator who run away with it.


Also, it's not directly related to the topic but there is other laws related to property that could be enforced if it is possible to prove in court that specific bitcoin transaction happened between two parties, possible technical implementation by Gavin.

[Nolo]

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. 

[Serith]

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

[SgtSpike]

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. 

I think in instances like this, people just need to take a step back and think about the purpose of laws, and what the reasonable thing to do would be.  Is it reasonable to allow someone to get away with stealing other people's Bitcoins?  No.  Therefore, a law will be enacted against such theft, if one does not already exist that can be reasonably applied.

Whether a law currently exists or not is largely irrelevant - a law (or at the very least, a new precedent by judgement) will be created if necessary to ensure people's bitcoins are not stolen.

[Nolo]

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.  

[Serith]

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. 

I think in instances like this, people just need to take a step back and think about the purpose of laws, and what the reasonable thing to do would be.  Is it reasonable to allow someone to get away with stealing other people's Bitcoins?  No.  Therefore, a law will be enacted against such theft, if one does not already exist that can be reasonably applied.

Whether a law currently exists or not is largely irrelevant - a law (or at the very least, a new precedent by judgement) will be created if necessary to ensure people's bitcoins are not stolen.

The discussion is about is it possible and if it is then how, it is not as simple as:

Therefore, a law will be enacted against such theft

[CharlieContent]

For those of us who do have a legal education, and quite a bit of experience in the courtroom

What type of legal practice are you involved in Nolo? Just for the sake of my own curiosity.

[Rudd-O]

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. 

Exactamundo. It is like sitting on a Byzantine council surrounded by goats baleetin', deciding what part of what doctrine is valid without consulting priests.

[Rudd-O]

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

Yeah straw man and sarcasm, throw in a bone and you got a stew going baby. (But not a rational argument)

[Serith]

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

Yeah straw man and sarcasm, throw in a bone and you got a stew going baby. (But not a rational argument)

Apparently, my argument about "Kings Rule" is not as obvious as I thought and requires farther explanation.

By common sense bitcoin is property, but a verdict can not be based on common sense or opinion because then it's not law but Kings Rule. But, US Justice system based on precedential authority, which means it resembles Kings Rule when presented with case that has no precedent. In most countries justice system is not based on precedents, rather on written laws, which means that a judge can make a verdict only when situation matches law description. For example, court in France decided that it is not qualified to determine if bitcoin is a currency or not because bitcoin is not described by a law that they know.

[Rudd-O]

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

Yeah straw man and sarcasm, throw in a bone and you got a stew going baby. (But not a rational argument)

Apparently, my argument about "Kings Rule" is not as obvious as I thought and requires farther explanation.

By common sense bitcoin is property, but a verdict can not be based on common sense or opinion because then it's not law but Kings Rule. But, US Justice system based on precedential authority, which means it resembles Kings Rule when presented with case that has no precedent. In most countries justice system is not based on precedents, rather on written laws, which means that a judge can make a verdict only when situation matches law description. For example, court in France decided that it is not qualified to determine if bitcoin is a currency or not because bitcoin is not described by a law that they know.

Oh, good point, Roman Law countries have this "no law, no crime" fundamental principle, where existing statutes aren't to be interpreted by judges and then be registered as case law.

Just one more way in which law is just a collection of arbitrary opinions like any other Scripture :-)

[strideynet]

You would,be surprised. Some judges interpret not convey the law.

And anyway is a law needed.

When a child grows up they are not taught law references rather just some rules.
No stealing
No hurting
Etc etc.

When a child grows up he doesn't know no hurting is assault.


What is saying is its the few main laws. They probably don't even need to exist in the law books.