Making it public: I have moved the disputed 643.2771 BTC into an escrow account

[Anduril]

2) The FBI accepts "Kevin logged in within 15 minutes of the attacker" as enough evidence to arrest me and seize my wallet as evidence and/or I end up convicted and the FBI buys some new socks and night lights for the whole office with the balance.

Why in the seven blazes would the FBI be after you?

Serious question, what do you think they could possibly charge you with?

This is of course, assuming you are not the hacker, but if you were, you would not be here.

[Anduril]

Well, I don't know other country's laws that well, but here in germany the transactions would be invalid.
MtGox would have no choice and has to do a rollback.

Really? Can you be more specific as to what law applies in this case?

[Anduril]

I'm not totally sure I know all the details in this case, but according to Swedish law (IIRC) buying something in good faith doesn't give you possession of what you bought, in case it was previously stolen.

For example, if someone comes to you and offers to sell you diamonds at a discounted price, and you buy, that doesn't mean you can keep them if it turns out they were stolen in the first place.

That only applies to tangible goods. BTCs are an unregulated market in virtual currency, so theft laws do not apply. There was no theft, there was hacking, and Kevin was not the perpetrator.

[myrkul]

That only applies to tangible goods. BTCs are an unregulated market in virtual currency, so theft laws do not apply. There was no theft, there was hacking, and Kevin was not the perpetrator.

Sounds like Kevin wasn't the only one who got a buy order in fast.

[indio007]

This is why gov't exist. Because people are dishonorable dicks. There doesn't need to be a law. Kevin knowingly profitted from an illegal act and has CONFESSED to suspecting the market's performance was a result of an illegal act AT THE TIME HE PUT IN HIS BUY ORDER.

There is your mens rea people.

You don't need a law to know buying what is in essence someone else property is wrong. Bitcoins are a right to a service (a nonreversible multipeer authenticated data transfer and record keeping). They don't need to be tangible.

Kevin knows in his heart  that's why he keeps trying to rationalize this.

[tominator]

In my opinion, this whole debate has been nothing more than a publicity stunt by Kevin who is desperately trying to paint himself as a "good guy" in hopes that he wins over the hearts of the community so they rally behind him and persuade Mt. Gox to ultimately end up letting him keep all 200,000+ bitcoins.

The 643 BTC is just a distraction. The real thing Kevin is fighting to keep (without actually coming outright and saying it) is the motherload.

I'm sorry, but Kevin just needs to accept the fact that all those bitcoins were stolen and they need to be returned to their rightful owner(s), regardless of who that owner is. That's the right thing to do, and ultimately, the decision isn't even his (since the BTC are still all in the hands of Mt. Gox).

[Anduril]

Sounds like Kevin wasn't the only one who got a buy order in fast.

Hehe. I am serious though. Theft has very specific connotations (warning, this discussion is about UK law, but this is typical of most systems I am familiar with). Most intangible theft, that is, money transfers, securities, etc. are classified as fraud, and that would depend on BTCs having some form of legal value. At the moment, BTCs are at best in a legal grey area. I cannot imagine that any enforcement agency would take theft (or fraud) in BTCs seriously (yet).

Hacking however is a well recognised offence, so the hacker is certainly liable regardless of Bitcoin's legal status. But Kevin would not be liable for making an exchange.

[indio007]

Sounds like Kevin wasn't the only one who got a buy order in fast.

Hehe. I am serious though. Theft has very specific connotations (warning, this discussion is about UK law, but this is typical of most systems I am familiar with). Most intangible theft, that is, money transfers, securities, etc. are classified as fraud, and that would depend on BTCs having some form of legal value. At the moment, BTCs are at best in a legal grey area. I cannot imagine that any enforcement agency would take theft (or fraud) in BTCs seriously (yet).

Hacking however is a well recognised offence, so the hacker is certainly liable regardless of Bitcoin's legal status. But Kevin would not be liable for making an exchange.

your out of your mind. There is no gray legal area.Theft of service goes way back in  law. We are all trading a right to a  service. It's not frickin complicated.

[Anduril]

This is why gov't exist. Because people are dishonorable dicks. There doesn't need to be a law. Kevin knowingly profitted from an illegal act and has CONFESSED to suspecting the market's performance was a result of an illegal act AT THE TIME HE PUT IN HIS BUY ORDER.

Feeling guilty about something is not mean that a crime is committed, there has to be a crime. Here there is one clear act of hacking, but we cannot establish theft yet until we determine that BTCs are even subject of theft.

You don't need a law to know buying what is in essence someone else property is wrong. Bitcoins are a right to a service (a nonreversible multipeer authenticated data transfer and record keeping). They don't need to be tangible.

Ahh, you are talking about ethical conduct. Sure, Kevin keeping the BTCs would be ethically wrong, but is it illegal? You do need a law for determining that.

Bitcoin cannot have its pie and eat it too. It wants to be a decentralised system operating outside of the law and of government's jurisdiction. To do that, its legal status has to remain clouded, otherwise you would have regulators intervening. Unless that happens, law enforcement officials will laugh and treat this as the theft of gold in WoW.

[CharlieContent]

To be honest I kinda wish Kevin got away with all the coins.

For one thing, it would force Mt. Gox out of business when they had to compensate those who lost coins in the hack which I think most of us can agree is a good thing. Now that Bitcoins are actually worth a good chunk of change, it's preposterous to have the leading exchange be run by an idiot and a liar like MagicalTux.

For another, a very lucky innocent person would have received the windfall instead of a malicious hacker.

It would be a massive win/win.

Kevin: I stand to gain absolutely nothing, but I think you should get your $5m. The only person who should be punished is the person who allowed all this to happen: MagicalTux.

[stic.man]

Kevin deserves what he gets for ruining a perfectly good PFMS community

KEVIN WE HAD A GOOD THING GOING AND YOU THREW IT ALL AWAY

[Anduril]

your out of your mind. There is no gray legal area.Theft of service goes way back in  law. We are all trading a right to a  service. It's not frickin complicated.

Get your facts straight, you are talking of larceny and fraud.

Let us get the facts of the case straight so far. There was a hacking event. This is a criminal offence, no questions. The perpetrator accessed accounts (also a criminal offence), and tried to conduct a fraudulent transaction. This is where things get tricky legally. What was transferred in the eyes of the law?
- Currency? This would fall under many jurisdictions as either theft or fraud. No question about that.
- A service? Then it is larceny.
- Access to a key so that you can make a transfer of some intangible value from one ledger to another? Hacking at most.

As far as I understand, Kevin completed a transaction within the exchange, but the transaction has not really taken place (the BTCs have not been "deposited" to a wallet). If this is the case, firstly, there is no handling of stolen goods (even assuming that there is theft, which is not clear by far), so Kevin is not liable legally whatsoever.

[indio007]

I already established what was stolen. The right to a service. A continuous one at that because the record is kept on the network indefinitely and verified constantly.

It's no different than "digging a ditch" dollars.

I can't even believe we are having a tangibility argument in a world of nonredeemable fiat paper .

[Anduril]

I already established what was stolen. The right to a service. A continuous one at that because the record is kept on the network indefinitely and verified constantly.

Interesting question. Who do you have the service contract with? How did this contract come into existence?

I am assuming that you have a contract, quasi-contract, or similar legal source of obligations, as you are saying that you have a right.

[indio007]

your out of your mind. There is no gray legal area.Theft of service goes way back in  law. We are all trading a right to a  service. It's not frickin complicated.

Get your facts straight, you are talking of larceny and fraud.

Let us get the facts of the case straight so far. There was a hacking event. This is a criminal offence, no questions. The perpetrator accessed accounts (also a criminal offence), and tried to conduct a fraudulent transaction. This is where things get tricky legally. What was transferred in the eyes of the law?
- Currency? This would fall under many jurisdictions as either theft or fraud. No question about that.
- A service? Then it is larceny.
- Access to a key so that you can make a transfer of some intangible value from one ledger to another? Hacking at most.

As far as I understand, Kevin completed a transaction within the exchange, but the transaction has not really taken place (the BTCs have not been "deposited" to a wallet). If this is the case, firstly, there is no handling of stolen goods (even assuming that there is theft, which is not clear by far), so Kevin is not liable legally whatsoever.

There was a withdrawal.
Kevin has 600 plus coins (right to a service) in escrow.
There is a saying in the law. A man can't transfer any better title  than he owns. The thief has no title. Kevin has no title.
This is not new and novel.
Kevin is willfully obstructing the lawful owner from taking possession.
Why am I explaining this?
Is it amateur hour at the Apollo in here?

[indio007]

I already established what was stolen. The right to a service. A continuous one at that because the record is kept on the network indefinitely and verified constantly.

Interesting question. Who do you have the service contract with? How did this contract come into existence?

I am assuming that you have a contract, quasi-contract, or similar legal source of obligations, as you are saying that you have a right.

Bitcoins are created by confirming a block. That is performing a service for compensation. You solve a block, the network will solve blocks you create for a "network value" of up to 50 bitcoins + fees earned in return for your work.


I see right through the contract gibberish. I don't fall for distractions. These are rights under a license.  A grant of authority. That would make it more like a trust.

[Anduril]

There was a withdrawal.
Kevin has 600 plus coins (right to a service) in escrow.
There is a saying in the law. A man can't transfer any better title  than he owns. The thief has no title. Kevin has no title.
This is not new and novel.
Kevin is willfully obstructing the lawful owner from taking possession.
Why am I explaining this?
Is it amateur hour at the Apollo in here?

I am confused, are the 600 BTCs in the Escrow the same ones that were withdrawn? My understanding is that the transaction is way bigger than that, and that not all of the BTCs were transferred before the shut down, if that is not the case, then I completely withdraw my above argument.  

However, the heart of the argument remains. It seems like there are about 6 different theories as to what Bitcoin is in the eyes of the law. I've seen it refereed to as currency (therefore, it would be an illegal currency as only governments can issue currency in most jurisdictions). I've seen it referred to as a commodity (but it is not, it does not meet the legal requirement for one). It is not a security, and it is not a service. Each one of those would carry different legal consequences.

At the moment, the best legal security for BTC is not property law, but hacking laws.

[buttcoin]

If you want something to say Kevin, you can email me and I'll post it on my site.
http://buttcoin.org , the contact link is on the site.

[Flappy]

There was a withdrawal.
Kevin has 600 plus coins (right to a service) in escrow.
There is a saying in the law. A man can't transfer any better title  than he owns. The thief has no title. Kevin has no title.
This is not new and novel.
Kevin is willfully obstructing the lawful owner from taking possession.
Why am I explaining this?

Because this forum is full of home alone teens.

[Anduril]

Bitcoins are created by confirming a block. That is performing a service for compensation. You solve a block, the network will solve blocks you create for a "network value" of up to 50 bitcoins + fees earned in return for your work.

That does not answer my question. Who do you have the right against? To have a service right, you must have two parties. Who are you fulfilling the service for?

If there is no such contract, you have no right, simple as that. Using your "dollars for ditch" analogy, you have someone paying you to dig a ditch, hence the service contract (you know, offer, acceptance, consideration).

I see right through the contract gibberish. I don't fall for distractions. These are rights under a license.  A grant of authority. That would make it more like a trust.

It's not gibberish, you are the one who claims that BTCs are a service right.

As to the rights under a licence, which licence would that be? (don't tell me the MIT Licence or I'll laugh). The only licence involved in any Bitcoin transaction is the program installation licence. No rights to a service arising from the MIT last time I read it.

I'd be even more surprised if you could claim a the existence of a trust from a software licence. Trusts can only exist from clear sources, such as a written trust, an oral agreement, a court order, or a will. Even implied trusts require the existence of a structured relationship between the parties. Good luck getting Bitcoin recognised as a trust in a court of law.