Discussion: Duplicate private keys - Who has Bitcoin ownership?

[kik1977]

That's a vary interesting discussion and I thank the OP for raising the point. Don't want to be long, just a few points. In my opinion, as already said in this topic, the "control" or "ownership" point is quite clear, you can own AND control, can "legally" own but have no control, control even without a lawful ownership. In the last two points I particularly refer to a case of theft.

Now we have to see if when I say "legally" I can really mean legally or I should rather say "morally"... Can you prove your bitcoins were stolen? technically yes, in the same way you can prove the same thing for anything else. Even better in the Bitcoin environment, you can literally (from an investigator perspective) follow the trail of the money and see exactly were the money is. It's like finding the booty after a robbery! Mmmmmh, BUT

Even if you can legally prove those were your bitcoins, even if you can prove they were stolen and even if you see where they are.. you can't return them to the legitimate owner without catching the thief. Even if.. can you force him to reveal the private key? I remeber some time ago an article saying that in the UK a person could be obliged by lwa to reveal the password of an encrypted file, but what if he says he has lost it? What if he says he doesn't remember it?
Do you have any knowledge about these points?     

[Adrian-x]

You only own what you can protect. Harsh reality.

Protecting private keys involves creating them securely and then obscuring them from others.

Bitcoin is far easier to protect than most things, people are just extremely lax when it comes to this because they have grown accustomed to paying others (police, lawyers, insurance, banks) to protect them.

+1

[lavalampoon]

In light of the current discussions about regulations and education of government entities,
I have some questions for the Bitcoin Foundation and the community about Bitcoin ownership:

• What is the stance of the Bitcoin Foundation and the community on the situation where more than one person has knowledge of a private key?
• Who owns the corresponding Bitcoin?

I know Satoshi said: "The owner of a coin is just whoever has its private key", but in case you say: "it depends on the way they obtained the knowledge of the private key":

e.g. How would you treat it differently if...

• a computer was hacked to learn it?
• it was read while somebody was accidentally exposing it?
• guessing was done through weakness in random number generation (either accidentally which it unlikely, or running a program)?
• agreements were made between two or more people to have shared knowledge?
• the person who made a/the transaction to the corresponding public key, is not the same as the person who generated they private key
• ... any scenario I missed?

And to make things more complicated

• How should we deal with these situations where knowledge is spread over different nationalities and/or borders?
• With the near impossibility of proving the act in disputes, would you still acknowledge theft or rather treat it as an inherent risk to using the Bitcoin technology?
• Where would you draw the line between morally wrong and legally wrong?

You own what you control. What you can control (but haven't yet) is capacity for control--capital. It is immoral to control or demand capital from a naturally lawful owner. Bitcoin hinders infringement of natural law; it can be thought of as a just government with the strength to resist attack. A choice to use bitcoin is a preference to live according to natural law whereby you decide how your ownership may be transferred and your capital transformed. With bitcoin someone has the option to behave in a way that risks the loss of some or all their own capital (by sharing of a private key). Bitcoin lacks a legal loophole by which ownership and capital can be immorally demanded from another.

The borders maintained by bitcoin are the blockchain rather than a physical boundary. The law of bitcoin is the rules/code by which the blockchain is maintained. Thieves will attempt to invade the borders of bitcoin to infringe upon natural rights. The borders have thus far shown to be resistant attack. Should bitcoin ever succumb to attack, it is a natural right of man to use a safer alternative and adopt new laws.

Natural law allows immorality to exist, but immorality is sustained through the consumption of the capital that is the product of moral acts. There is no need to care about the lamenting of a would-be thief. Even to death, we each control our own capital now. Let the thieves hunger so that they learn to work for their sustenance by way of service to others.

Thank you Satoshi for changing the world!

[BrianDeery]

Even in yesterday's society there exists analogs to this discussion.

One example that comes to mind is an organization or business that has a treasurer.  The checks drawn on the company accounts need the treasurer' signature.  They have the ability to empty the company account, convert it to cash, and consume it.  Only after a board vote would they actually have the right to do that.  The organization is the owner, not the treasurer holding the signatures.  This directly correlates to a treasurer holding private keys.  If the treasurer consumes the bitcoins, then the company has the right to sue the treasurer, just like in yesteryear.

[sebastian]

I Think more the Point of this thread, is if somebody generates a brainwallet with a known Word, and stores lots of BTC in this.
Then somebody other generates a brainwallet, but does use the same Word, by accident because he didnt know that the Word was "taken".
Then he suddenly finds lots of BTC in his account.

And propably, the question is if it would consistute "theft" to take this Money?


Generally, by law, its theft if you knew that it was illegit. But creating a brainwallet and finding lots of BTC in the account would be same as opening a bank account and finding lots of Money in the newly opened bank account.
Even if those Money belonged to lets say a previous customer, legally and technically, the Money is yours now since the bank account is in your name. The previous customer can impossibility prove that the Money in your new account is his, because he cannot prove that he didnt spent them, or got them when closing his bank account.


Its a wholy different thing if somebody by mistake puts Money in your account after it being opened, then by "condito indebiti", you are obliged by law to pay back the erronously paid Money.

[kcirazy]

Generally, by law, its theft if you knew that it was illegit. But creating a brainwallet and finding lots of BTC in the account would be same as opening a bank account and finding lots of Money in the newly opened bank account.

If there is no evidence that you acquired a private key by fraudulent means, should it be legal to transfer the bitcoins corresponding with that address?
What if I was the person that transferred bitcoins into that address? Shouldn't there be a way to get those bitcoins back? What do I need to do to prove that I owned the address or bitcoins (first)?

[User705]

As a matter of law, "ownership" and "control" are two distinct concepts.  Similarly, "power" and "right" are two distinct concepts. 

If I have car keys, I have control over the car associated with that key.  That is to say, I have the power to drive it around.  Whether I have ownership over the car depends upon a panoply of factual circumstances that are as varied as every day life.

Similarly, if I possess a private key, I have control over the coins associated with that key.  That is to say, I have the power to dispose of them.  Whether I have ownership over them depends upon a panoply of factual circumstances that are as varied as every day life.

A well thought out statement.  In our current world legal ownership is authorized by government but how would that be possible with bitcoin?  The moment bitcoin ownership comes by a third party authorization it stops being bitcoin.  And even if such a third party authorization comes about without any protocol changes it would be about as practical as tilting at windmills.