Most Bitcoin will be clawed back due to widespread theft

[AnonyMint]

The OP may be a very clever fellow but he is no lawyer and would be well advised not to opine upon subjects about which he is clearly ignorant.

My father (and I am age 48) is a very high-powered attorney. I do suggest you have several attorneys comment on this matter.

I disagree with your assertion that I am ignorant and that I should not express my educated opinions. I have posted the Wikipedia link to the law that applies to stolen property.

The biggest myopia of Bitards is they somehow think the government doesn't want to (or can't) control currency any more  

The government will not give up its power willingly. They will bend the rules to their favor. Only rock solid anonymity can fend off the government and Bitcoin can never have that.

Disclaimer: I am not giving legal advice, please consult your own professional. I sharing my opinions. I am not responsible for what you do after reading my opinions.

Then I suggest you ask your father if the victim of a theft has an equitable  tracing remedy into a mixed fund where the new owner is a bona fide purchaser (hint - the answer is "no").

Cite case law. Otherwise you are just blowing out of your arse.

Ask your Dad

There is no case law that supercedes nemo dat quod non habet for something like Bitcoins.

If you disagree, cite case law.

[AnonyMint]

Or google bona fide purchaser without notice

You've been notified. The thefts are all over the mass media.

[davidgdg]

The OP may be a very clever fellow but he is no lawyer and would be well advised not to opine upon subjects about which he is clearly ignorant.

My father (and I am age 48) is a very high-powered attorney. I do suggest you have several attorneys comment on this matter.

I disagree with your assertion that I am ignorant and that I should not express my educated opinions. I have posted the Wikipedia link to the law that applies to stolen property.

The biggest myopia of Bitards is they somehow think the government doesn't want to (or can't) control currency any more  

The government will not give up its power willingly. They will bend the rules to their favor. Only rock solid anonymity can fend off the government and Bitcoin can never have that.

Disclaimer: I am not giving legal advice, please consult your own professional. I sharing my opinions. I am not responsible for what you do after reading my opinions.

Then I suggest you ask your father if the victim of a theft has an equitable  tracing remedy into a mixed fund where the new owner is a bona fide purchaser (hint - the answer is "no").

Cite case law. Otherwise you are just blowing out of your arse.

Ask your Dad

There is no case law that supercedes nemo dat quod non habet for something like Bitcoins.

If you disagree, cite case law.

The simple Nemo dat rule does not apply to mixed funds. Save us both some time and google "bona fide purchaser" or look up "tracing" on Wiki. Once you have done that we can talk.

[Zarathustra]

Most insiders and heroes here dont share your conspiracy theories.

I didn't say they do. I said they do speculate the Satoshi was NSA. Don't conflate two orthogonal things.

I'm not a cypherpunk

I am.

but I am nevertheless able to handle a device which can't being linked to myself.

Tell me more about your method, so I can tell you why you are technically ignorant of the fact that you are linked by the NSA.

I know of only two current ways to be truly anonymous.

Bingo.

[AnonyMint]

The OP may be a very clever fellow but he is no lawyer and would be well advised not to opine upon subjects about which he is clearly ignorant.

My father (and I am age 48) is a very high-powered attorney. I do suggest you have several attorneys comment on this matter.

I disagree with your assertion that I am ignorant and that I should not express my educated opinions. I have posted the Wikipedia link to the law that applies to stolen property.

The biggest myopia of Bitards is they somehow think the government doesn't want to (or can't) control currency any more  

The government will not give up its power willingly. They will bend the rules to their favor. Only rock solid anonymity can fend off the government and Bitcoin can never have that.

Disclaimer: I am not giving legal advice, please consult your own professional. I sharing my opinions. I am not responsible for what you do after reading my opinions.

Then I suggest you ask your father if the victim of a theft has an equitable  tracing remedy into a mixed fund where the new owner is a bona fide purchaser (hint - the answer is "no").

Cite case law. Otherwise you are just blowing out of your arse.

Ask your Dad

There is no case law that supercedes nemo dat quod non habet for something like Bitcoins.

If you disagree, cite case law.

The simple Nemo dat rule does not apply to mixed funds. Save us both some time and google "bona fide purchaser" or look up "tracing" on Wiki. Once you have done that we can talk.

Incorrect.

http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=0KHWrbVW1_EC&lpg=PR12&ots=FZqXLNpjSI&dq=nemo%20dat%20quod%20non%20habet%20mixed%20funds&pg=PA692#v=onepage&q=nemo%20dat%20quod%20non%20habet%20mixed%20funds&f=false

The only exclusions from nemo dat are for bank accounts, checks, or anything pertaining to the official currency and financial system. Indeed as the case law above shows, you can't use nemo dat to trace through bank account balances that went negative.

You are misapplying that to assert no tracing on mixed funds, which in fact the opposite is implied by the above resource.

It clearly states that courts have used, "proportionate shares in any substitutable property".

How much more clear of a slamdunk refutation could I possibly find.  

[davidgdg]

The OP may be a very clever fellow but he is no lawyer and would be well advised not to opine upon subjects about which he is clearly ignorant.

My father (and I am age 48) is a very high-powered attorney. I do suggest you have several attorneys comment on this matter.

I disagree with your assertion that I am ignorant and that I should not express my educated opinions. I have posted the Wikipedia link to the law that applies to stolen property.

The biggest myopia of Bitards is they somehow think the government doesn't want to (or can't) control currency any more  

The government will not give up its power willingly. They will bend the rules to their favor. Only rock solid anonymity can fend off the government and Bitcoin can never have that.

Disclaimer: I am not giving legal advice, please consult your own professional. I sharing my opinions. I am not responsible for what you do after reading my opinions.

Then I suggest you ask your father if the victim of a theft has an equitable  tracing remedy into a mixed fund where the new owner is a bona fide purchaser (hint - the answer is "no").

Cite case law. Otherwise you are just blowing out of your arse.

Ask your Dad

There is no case law that supercedes nemo dat quod non habet for something like Bitcoins.

If you disagree, cite case law.

The simple Nemo dat rule does not apply to mixed funds. Save us both some time and google "bona fide purchaser" or look up "tracing" on Wiki. Once you have done that we can talk.

You are incorrect.

http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=0KHWrbVW1_EC&lpg=PR12&ots=FZqXLNpjSI&dq=nemo%20dat%20quod%20non%20habet%20mixed%20funds&pg=PA692#v=onepage&q=nemo%20dat%20quod%20non%20habet%20mixed%20funds&f=false

The only exclusions from nemo dat are for bank accounts, checks, or anything pertaining to the official currency and financial system. Indeed as the case law above shows, you can't use nemo dat to trace through bank account balances that went negative.

You are misapplying that to assert no tracing on mixed funds, which in fact the opposite is implied by the above resource.

It clearly states that courts have used, "proportionate shares in any substitutable property".

How much more clear of a slamdunk refutation could I possibly find. 

I'm perfectly happy to have a serious debate about this. But before I do so you really do need to do some proper research. Until then, I think we're back to "ask your dad".

[crazy_rabbit]

It's unlikely the bitcoin will be clawed back. Besides juridisctional issues, in 2011 when the theft might have happened, KYC and AML were not yet common things in the bitcoin world and most transactions were anonymous, with accounts with fake names. They aren't going to try and claw this back, it's too much of a mess.

[DooMAD]

case law
(...)
cite case law.

Excuse me, AnonyMyopic, but you're still forgetting (or deliberately ignoring) the fact that your case law doesn't apply to the rest of the planet.  Argument null and void.  No one cares what legal precedents your country might have, because it'll be different in every other country in the world.  Cite what you like, but it's irrelevant.  Just like everything else you've said in this thread.

I disagree with your assertion that I am ignorant and that I should not express my educated opinions. I have posted the Wikipedia link (...)

"I'm educated and can link to wikipedia."

Welcome to the internet.   

[AnonyMint]

I'm perfectly happy to have a serious debate about this. But before I do so you really do need to do some proper research. Until then, I think we're back to "ask your dad".

Stop playing hide&seek games and cite some case law.

I've already provided a resource which says nemo dat quod non habet applies in tracing into mixed funds.

Now it is your turn to cite something that refutes that. Otherwise you are just playing games.

DooMAD and crazy_rabbit, I'm happy if you convince yourselves to make the biggest mistake of life. Please proceed.

nemo dat quod non habet has been fundamental to Western civilization. You proceed in your Alice in Wonderland fantasy.

Besides the USA has succeeded in forcing every major country to acquiese to our FATCA law, which is much more intrusive into sovereignty than nemo dat quod non habet norms in western civilization.

DooMAD apparently you are in the UK and nemo dat quod non habet originates from your country.

I think you guys have a few screws loose.

[Zarathustra]

I think you guys have a few screws loose.

You are the one with some srews not only loose, but lost. You are a pseudoanarchist sociotard who believes that a mad max-type collapse of the society on the actual level doesn't lead into the mother of all dark ages in the history of the societies (collectivism), but instead into a 10-20 years lasting interruption of a prospering society (collectivism) only. Really funny.

[AnonyMint]

a mad max-type collapse of the society on the actual level doesn't lead into the mother of all dark ages in the history of the societies (collectivism), but instead into a 10-20 years lasting interruption of a prospering society (collectivism) only. Really funny.

I must concede that the odds favor your outcome, but I am hoping the Knowledge Age cyberpunks can rejuvenate production. However, it is quite depressing to see how ignorant (tunnel vision, boiling frogs, zombies) most people are even here in these supposedly enlightened forums of libertarian white males.

In either case, we need a more anonymous crypto-coin. Bitcoin won't suffice.

[Zarathustra]

a mad max-type collapse of the society on the actual level doesn't lead into the mother of all dark ages in the history of the societies (collectivism), but instead into a 10-20 years lasting interruption of a prospering society (collectivism) only. Really funny.

I must concede that the odds favor your outcome, but I am hoping the Knowledge Age cyberpunks can rejuvenate production.

HOPE? Hope for production? (which is an euphemism for destruction)
HOPE, that we can proceed with the 6th great extinction?
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/03/28/the-sixth-great-extinction-a-silent-extermination/

High hopes ...

In either case, we need a more anonymous crypto-coin. Bitcoin won't suffice.

With an anonymous crypto currency you can only destroy the society/economy. You can not maintain it, and that's the reason why we really need it.

[AnonyMint]

Zarathustra, you conflate orthogonal issues.

DooMAD, I like what is linked from your signature. One mistake is you seem to assume that Bitcoin is the certain solution.

[p-webcorp]

If the bitcoincommunity will try to creating an authority what block 'blacklisted' public addresses to send and receive transfers, if impossible to confirm the transfer, the value is vault =0. Haha, and no more hack, and no any country authoity to take anything.
Early implementation of this make bitcoin safer.
The only question is: who will create this one? if the community, then its cool, if a state organised something, then we are hecked...
Blocking the last 5000 'bitcoin-out' from mtgox, and if someone reclame the coins, just need to proove the origin(mining-buy).
If any transfer connected to familiar to employees to gox, then stay blocked, unlock=handling the private key to this coinauthority and they redistribute to the rightful owners.
(so the confiscated coins will be 0 values hihi)
With real money you can not make the same.

[Zarathustra]

Zarathustra, you conflate orthogonal issues.

DooMAD, I like what is linked from your signature. One mistake is you seem to assume that Bitcoin is the certain solution.

The issue that nearly nobody understands is that an economy has never been thing based. An economy is always debt based. Therefore the crypto currencies are tools to destroy the debt and with the debt the economy (society).

[davidgdg]

I'm perfectly happy to have a serious debate about this. But before I do so you really do need to do some proper research. Until then, I think we're back to "ask your dad".

Stop playing hide&seek games and cite some case law.

I've already provided a resource which says nemo dat quod non habet applies in tracing into mixed funds.

Now it is your turn to cite something that refutes that. Otherwise you are just playing games.

" the original payer will have an equitable proprietary interest in the monies so long as they are traceable into whomsoever's hands they come other than a purchaser for value of the legal interest without notice."

 Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC [1996] UKHL 12 (22 May 1996) at p. 26 per Lord Browne Wilkinson

Your turn

[vn]

Everything is traceable on the blockchain, unless it went through a mixer. Mixers are probably compromised by the NSA, and if not, this could taint all the coins coming out of the mixer, so you just proliferated the taint!

We don't even know how much theft is going on.

We don't know how much coin passed through criminal activities, thus can be confiscated due to Admirality Law.

BitCON is not the repudiation-proof system we thought it was. It is some kind of other wild, unpredictable chaos.

I don't know how big the mess will be. And I don't plan on hanging around with my life invested in Butt(hurt)coin to find out.

You are free to make your own risk assessment.

Listen to yourself....

[jonald_fyookball]

This is a idiotic conversation.   Once stolen coins are distributed/dispersed
Through the bitconomy , who are you going to try to "claw" them back from?
Everybody?

Poster is clearly trying to spread FUD and failing miserably.

[AnonyMint]

I'm perfectly happy to have a serious debate about this. But before I do so you really do need to do some proper research. Until then, I think we're back to "ask your dad".

Stop playing hide&seek games and cite some case law.

I've already provided a resource which says nemo dat quod non habet applies in tracing into mixed funds.

Now it is your turn to cite something that refutes that. Otherwise you are just playing games.

" the original payer will have an equitable proprietary interest in the monies so long as they are traceable into whomsoever's hands they come other than a purchaser for value of the legal interest without notice."

 Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC [1996] UKHL 12 (22 May 1996) at p. 26 per Lord Browne Wilkinson

Your turn

Hahaha. You misinterpreted the decision. So now I know you are not an attorney. Rather the decision reaffirms the equitable interest in mixed funds even if the recipient "had no knowledge at any relevant time that the contract was void".

http://www.ucc.ie/law/restitution/archive/englcases/westdeutsche.htm

He held the money to be recoverable by the bank either as money had and received by the council to the use of the bank, or as money which in equity the bank was entitled to trace into the hands of the council and have repaid out of the council's assets. He decided that the bank's right to restitution at common law arose from the fact that the payment made by the bank to the council was made under a purported contract which, unknown to both parties, was ultra vires the council and so void, no consideration having been given for the making of the payment. The decision by the judge, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal [1994] 1 W.L.R. 938, raised important questions in the law of restitution, which are of great interest to lawyers specialising in this field. Yet it is an extraordinary feature of the present appeal to your Lordships' House that the judge's decision on the substantive right of recovery at common law does not fall for consideration by your Lordships' House. The appeal of the council is confined to one point only - the question of interest.

The breadth of the submission

    Although the actual question in issue on the appeal is a narrow one, on the arguments presented it is necessary to consider fundamental principles of trust law. Does the recipient of money under a contract subsequently found to be void for mistake or as being ultra vires hold the moneys received on trust even where he had no knowledge at any relevant time that the contract was void? If he does hold on trust, such trust must arise at the date of receipt or, at the latest, at the date the legal title of the payer is extinguished by mixing moneys in a bank account: in the present case it does not matter at which of those dates the legal title was extinguished. If there is a trust two consequences follow: (a) the recipient will be personally liable, regardless of fault, for any subsequent payment away of the moneys to third parties even though, at the date of such payment, the "trustee" was still ignorant of the existence of any trust: see Burrows, "Swaps and the Friction between Common Law and Equity" [1995] R.L.R. 15; (b) as from the date of the establishment of the trust (i.e. receipt or mixing of the moneys by the "trustee") the original payer will have an equitable proprietary interest in the moneys so long as they are traceable into whomsoever's hands they come other than a purchaser for value of the legal interest without notice. Therefore, although in the present case the only question directly in issue is the personal liability of the local authority as a trustee, it is not possible to hold the local authority liable without imposing a trust which, in other cases, will create property rights affecting third parties because moneys received under a void contract are "trust property."

[AnonyMint]

Signing off now.