Is it stealing when you get the funds from an address you find?

[rico666]

Well - it's not stealing in Germany and in Japan. That much I know now.

Rico

[zodin]

if you found the fun accidentally then it is not stealing if you found intentionally using some source then it is really stealing and it is morally and lawfully not good.

[HanSchultz]

it is a case of morality,if you find some cash while you are walking down the aisle, would you take it ? ,i certainly will not ,but  here you are doing this on purpose and still claiming to be an innocent act and i wonder what your age is having these sort of doubts

[_Miracle]

Let's say you find an address which has funds on it. More precisely - of course - you find one of the private keys to that address.

case A)

You found that key by "brute force" aka lot's of effort and lots of luck. You seize the funds. Is it stealing?

case B)

Your wallet generates that address aka no effort and lots of lots of luck. The funds appear in your wallet balance. Is it stealing?

I'm asking, because a collision attack is considered infeasible. It seems not forbidden (because you can't forbid or effectively hinder this attack on a public ledger) - so is it illegal?

Let's assume two parties were known who made claims on the funds of a given address. One party X was the one who "really" put the funds in there, the other Y was the one who found the private key. If Y took the funds - would that legally be considered stealing?

I'm asking, because I have given this some thought while my computers are performing a Collision Attack feasibility study and in the meantime I had ... time. 

I found myself being legally quite bare in this matter. Especially regarding the question:

"Does one OWN a privkey/pubkey combination?" (I think no)
"Does one OWN the blockchain?" (obviously no)

But if one does own neither, how can he own the balance the blockchain defines as on that given address?
IMHO, the one OWNS the balance who owns the privkey/pubkey combination and that may very well be several persons.

And then? Can someone please bring at least some fundamental light into this matter for me?


Rico

I didn't even need to read your entire post.
Are you actually this "fundamentally" morally bankrupt?
If they were yours, and someone "found them", and didn't give them back: would that be stealing? Yes.

[noictib]

the case first i s totally a bug example of stealing but in the case second if you got the adress that is the same which is used by another then i will suggest you to leave that wallet because it may be possible that you deposit some amount of btc at that adress then the second person withdraw your btc then you will get loss , so never make things that is bad for someone .

[AgentofCoin]

...

I didn't even need to read your entire post.
Are you actually this "fundamentally" morally bankrupt?
If they were yours, and someone "found them", and didn't give them back: would that be stealing? Yes.

Morality is irrelevant.
The majority of the Bitcoin Network is designed and functions on amoral behavior.
You seem to be pretty ignorant of this based on your response.

[serjent05]

Depends on which country it happen. If it happened in the country where ownership of bitcoin is not honored then, even it is morally wrong, it is not a theft.  But if it happen to the country that impose a law and honor the ownership of bitcoin as asset or whatever, then it is stealing.  I think it is simple as that.  Morality is out of concept in bitcoin protocol.  Besides Government had already defeated the meaning of morality.

[romanticks]

I guess the number one is clear stealing legally and ethically, Number two is a grey zone but I still guess it's stealing, However being able to track down someone using these methods is almost impossible, letting alone prosecuting them under the law almost anywhere in the world.

[_Miracle]

...

I didn't even need to read your entire post.
Are you actually this "fundamentally" morally bankrupt?
If they were yours, and someone "found them", and didn't give them back: would that be stealing? Yes.

Morality is irrelevant.
The majority of the Bitcoin Network is designed and functions on amoral behavior.
You seem to be pretty ignorant of this based on your response.

Ok

[AgentofCoin]

...

I didn't even need to read your entire post.
Are you actually this "fundamentally" morally bankrupt?
If they were yours, and someone "found them", and didn't give them back: would that be stealing? Yes.

Morality is irrelevant.
The majority of the Bitcoin Network is designed and functions on amoral behavior.
You seem to be pretty ignorant of this based on your response.

Ok

I was not trying to be rude, if I came off as such.

To clarify myself, can stealing truly exist in an purposefully created amoral system?
For a wacky example, assume in another dimension, humans can kill other humans for a form
of advancement and that is socially acceptable and the rules and laws in this dimension, now
the question is: can a person commit murder in this place?
I don't think so and I think the OPs question about stealing is like this example.
(But in our world it is murder, and outside the Bitcoin blockchain, it is theft.)

[markyminer]

it is a case of morality,if you find some cash while you are walking down the aisle, would you take it ? ,i certainly will not ,but  here you are doing this on purpose and still claiming to be an innocent act and i wonder what your age is having these sort of doubts

but here the case is a little different, it is right that you will not take the cash but if some one accidentally got fund then it is his moral duty to return it and if he is not returning it then it will be stealing, 

[_Miracle]

...

I didn't even need to read your entire post.
Are you actually this "fundamentally" morally bankrupt?
If they were yours, and someone "found them", and didn't give them back: would that be stealing? Yes.

Morality is irrelevant.
The majority of the Bitcoin Network is designed and functions on amoral behavior.
You seem to be pretty ignorant of this based on your response.

Ok

I was not trying to be rude, if I came off as such.

To clarify myself, can stealing truly exist in an purposefully created amoral system?
For a wacky example, assume in another dimension, humans can kill other humans for a form
of advancement and that is socially acceptable and the rules and laws in this dimension, now
the question is: can a person commit murder in this place?
I don't think so and I think the OPs question about stealing is like this example.
(But in our world it is murder, and outside the Bitcoin blockchain, it is theft.)

We don't need to be in another dimension: we call this war, and we do it every day, right here in this dimension for as long as recorded history. It doesn't make it ok, it simply makes it: the way things are.

The OP had a question, I stated my opinion, you disagreed with me and called me ignorant < that's your opinion and you are free to it ;-) keep it; it's probably "the truth".

But this is not:
"The majority of the Bitcoin Network is designed and functions on amoral behavior."

The network was meant to function without trust, it is a program, it requires no morality. We are not questioning the morality of the program.
It was a question posed by a person regarding an action they would carry out.

This isn't Plato's Republic, it's bitcoin talk.
And the question isn't a complicated moral conundrum.
Is it stealing? Yes. However which friggen way you would want to justify it.

[AgentofCoin]

...

I didn't even need to read your entire post.
Are you actually this "fundamentally" morally bankrupt?
If they were yours, and someone "found them", and didn't give them back: would that be stealing? Yes.

Morality is irrelevant.
The majority of the Bitcoin Network is designed and functions on amoral behavior.
You seem to be pretty ignorant of this based on your response.

Ok

I was not trying to be rude, if I came off as such.

To clarify myself, can stealing truly exist in an purposefully created amoral system?
For a wacky example, assume in another dimension, humans can kill other humans for a form
of advancement and that is socially acceptable and the rules and laws in this dimension, now
the question is: can a person commit murder in this place?
I don't think so and I think the OPs question about stealing is like this example.
(But in our world it is murder, and outside the Bitcoin blockchain, it is theft.)

We don't need to be in another dimension: we call this war, and we do it every day, right here in this dimension for as long as recorded history. It doesn't make ok it simply makes it the way things are.

...

No. War is actually a form of state sanctioned killing, as long as it falls within Geneva Conventions.
So war is not murder under the legal understanding. The question I was asking was in a world where
killing is acceptable on a daily basis, such as for parking spots and job promotions. My point was that
the bitcoin blockchain is not only a "trustless, program requiring no morality, and etc"., but legally it is
something much more. The Bitcoin blockchain is its own world with rules that are contradictory to our
current view of the world and its systems, and this is why the governments currently can not regulate it.
Theft, conspiracy, collusion, manipulation, and etc are illegal in normal regulated financial systems, but
in Bitcoin it is what allows it to function.

But this is not:
"The majority of the Bitcoin Network is designed and functions on amoral behavior."

The network was meant to function without trust, it is a program it requires no morality. We are not questioning the morality of the program.
It was a question posed by a person regarding an action they would carry out.

This isn't Plato's Republic, it's bitcoin talk.
And the question isn't a complicated moral conundrum.
Is it stealing? Yes. However which friggen way you would want to justify it.

Bitcoin does not grant any users any legal rights or guarantees of or in the Bitcoin system.
Bitcoin has no central authority to determine ownership or rightful possession of any bitcoins.
The whole system is voluntary and only functions due to its ability to not conform to established laws.

Theft from a legal view is determined when a type of property is wrongfully or illegally taken by another.
In the bitcoin system, since no rights exist or are granted, theft does not exist except as a valid system
of conveyance of bitcoins. For example, the Bitcoin blockchain does not care who has stolen them, neither
do the devs or miners, and that the only users who do care are the legally regulated exchanges that will freeze
the stolen coins if they are deposited within their site since they are required to conform to money laws and rules.
If the coins never enter the exchanges, the thief will be allowed by the blockchain to continue its control and
movement of those coins. The bitcoin blockchain will not freeze those coins or make judgements of those coins.

Since Bitcoin itself is currently unregulated, theft is fully allowable, considered a realistic possibility, and ultimately
is considered acceptable when it occurs. If you pay attention to the forum posts of when actual coins are stolen from
someone, most of the responses to that user is that it was due to their own actions and not due to the thief breaking
some sort of code or rule or law. The user who lost their coins has no form of recourse or appeal to the system itself.

Because of all the foregoing and other undiscussd issues, bitcoin users actually do not legally own any bitcoins.
They have no rights to the coins or the system and most governments do not grant any rights or protections to it.
So "stealing" is really only a moral question and not a legal question with Bitcoin, and the OPs post was a legal question
in Legal section of this forum.

I am not trying to justify theft, I'm just explaining why I think certain legal standards may not exist in Bitcoin.
If a day comes when those standards are applied to Bitcoin within the network itself, Bitcoin is dead and over.

[kryptqnick]

My guess is that it is obviously stealing in the case A, because the question is like, when I get the key from one's house and take the money from out there is it stealing? Yes, it is. Case B is not that easy. You might have recieved the money accidentally and then it would be better to return it. But somebody might have wanted to surprise you and send you money or it was a robot giving random tips for some actions. Case B is half-stealing, I think.