Say I obtain "your" private key using the method quoted at the bottom of this post, if you don't own the key, and I'm not masquerading as you when I enter it into software on my computer, has a crime been committed? You will certainly experience a loss by my actions, should I transfer any Bitcoins accessed with that private key (alter the public ledger), but I can't figure out how you can claim there was a crime if no one owns information, in this case private Bitcoin keys or the ledger itself!
Well, if you get the key in a legit (if shady) manner, then it's not really a crime if you use that key to take the money... no more than it is if you found a key to an airport locker sitting on the sidewalk, and took the suitcase full of money you found within. It all comes down to
how you get the key.
Another flaw in the English language, "assignee", "assignment", and "assigning" all have definitions which involve property, as well as one's that don't. And for some reason, the only way "assignee of that key" makes any sense to me is if the key is now owned by the assignee as property. I also get very frustrated when definitions use another form of the word being defined.
<snicker-snack>
Now I'm just fucking lost. It makes so much more sense if the key is just considered property.
If it helps, I am using definition 3 of assign, and definition 5 of relation. The key, while it is solely in your possession, refers solely to you. This is more important in traditional cryptography than in cryptocurrency.
If you are lax in your security practices, I could theoretically photograph you backing up your private keys with QR codes, or on paper wallets, without violating your rights.
Indeed. Likewise with photographing physical keys and making a copy from that. Creepy, perhaps, but not sinister.
Sure, but then using that key requires that I trespass on your property or steal your property. If information isn't property, that isn't the case with Bitcoin private keys.
Not necessarily. Look at it like that airport locker I mentioned. That's the blockchain. The coins are the suitcase, and the key is, well, the key. Whoever has that key, or a copy of it, can open the locker and take the money. It all comes down to how you got your copy of the key.
The only thing that makes any sense to me is "you own it if you can prevent others from using it (protect), you don't own it if you can't". Similar to the self(property)-defense argument that "you don't own it if you can't protect it". That may sound brutal, but isn't this what it ultimately comes down to if someone or some group ignores your rights? This is why we (or at least I) will fight for the right to defend myself and others. Our ability to protect ourselves (our property) is our last resort against those who would attempt to take it by any means possible. This is why I am a huge fan of Bitcoin. It's so easy for me to protect "my" Bitcoins (private keys).
That seems reasonable, just remember that if your security is lax, and anyone can see your private keys, it's
your fault that you lost the suitcase.
