Your keys, your bitcoin?

[witcher_sense]

We have heard many times that bitcoins are not actually yours if private keys unlocking corresponding UTXOs are not in your possession. "Not your keys, not your coins." This postulate, this idea has became a law for people who value their financial sovereignty. Moreover, it is completely logical idea when it comes to bitcoin network itself and how things occur within the blockchain. In order for a transaction to be broadcasted it first needs to be signed with a private key and if you don't have such key, you can't spend those coins. They are not yours, they are just sitting somewhere inside blockchain.

Recently, California court made "Not your keys, not your bitcoins" a law thus made it so not only for bitcoiners, but also for people who used to rely on third parties to store "their" coins.

This news, despite its importance for bitcoin community, is not why this topic was created. What I am really interested in is a simple question which is does this law "Not your keys" work in an opposite direction?

"Your keys, your bitcoins" sounds logical too. But there is a small problem. It is relatively easy to prove that private key is not yours if you can't spend corresponding UTXO, you can't sign a message or in case it is stored inside exchange's wallet. But how can we prove the ownership of the private key?

Like I said, we can sign a message with private key and that is considered enough, no other evidence needed. But what if someone generated the exact private key or, more realistically, have stolen it, how would it possible to prove that victim is the real possesor of private key? What would California court say in this case? If they both can sign a message, do they both have a right to these coins? Are there any other methods to prove the ownership besides signing a message?

Because if it is not possible to prove the ownership of bitcoin private key in case several people besides actual owner know private key, then "Not your keys, not your bitcoins" doesn't make sense either. It is stupid to claim that, if there is no possible way to prove that keys were ever in possesion.

[1715249490]

1715249490

[1715249490]

1715249490

[1715249490]

1715249490

[1715249490]

1715249490

[1715249490]

1715249490

[1715249490]

1715249490

[20kevin20]

This is a typical Bitcoin saying to make a person understand that, if you don't have the private keys to your Bitcoins, they're basically not yours anymore.. as in, someone else should have it then (a custodial wallet, an exchange etc) so you don't have control.

Inserting this as a law is messed up and the Bitcoin way of saying "what I find shall be mine". What I wonder is, what happens if three persons sign a message from the same address proving they all have ownership over it? lol. Moreover, this is so wrong when you think about third parties and allows even more abuse than KYC does.. so through this law, does it mean that once I send my BTC to a custodial wallet I definitely lose the ownership of my coins as they're not my privkeys anymore?

[BlackHatCoiner]

That's why they say, keep your private keys safe. Imagine finding out what is the private key for that address: 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa

Everyone would be satoshi out of nowhere.

If someone gets access to your private keys, you can't prove that he isn't the owner as well. But the main problem is if you have funds in the address. If you have no funds what's the problem? Have you contacted to any important person that you'll communicate if you first prove you own an address?

[Rafael_Carrero]

It isn't needed to prove that a private key is yours. "Your keys" means that only you have an access to them. When you store coins on exchanges or custodial wallets, you aren't the real owner of your keys. In other words, coins aren't yours too.

[OcTradism]

There are one-way step-by-step processes (from k - private key to K - public key then end with A - Bitcoin address) and it is impossible to do backwards processes

The size of bitcoin’s private key space, (2256) is an unfathomably large number. It is approximately 1077 in decimal. For comparison, the visible universe is estimated to contain 1080 atoms.

https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook/blob/develop/ch04.asciidoc

[hosseinimr93]

It's impossible to have a bitcoin address owned by two people unless the address is empty.
Assuming two people own the private key of an address containing bitcoin, one of them will move the fund to a new address. The owner will be the person who has the private key of the new address.

[Debonaire217]

You have a strong point there OP, if the private key will be stolen, how could you prove your ownership in it when they can use it to sign a message themselves?

Basically, the solution I can say is to backtrack transactions or trace where you have used your bitcoin wallet address to transact or even to send message.

We have this very useful thread here on our forum which is : http://Stake your Bitcoin address here, wherein, it's purpose is to secure your bitcointalk account, but you can actually use your bitcointalk account to do the same thing with your bitcoin wallet.

[mardaed]

You have a strong point there OP, if the private key will be stolen, how could you prove your ownership in it when they can use it to sign a message themselves?

Basically, the solution I can say is to backtrack transactions or trace where you have used your bitcoin wallet address to transact or even to send message.

We have this very useful thread here on our forum which is : http://Stake your Bitcoin address here, wherein, it's purpose is to secure your bitcointalk account, but you can actually use your bitcointalk account to do the same thing with your bitcoin wallet.

Indeed. And if it is a law, proving of ownership will really require strong evidences. That is why it always being discussed how important is securing you private keys and on what ways can you store it safely. In this case, your mind is the safest place.

[Xembin]

Liberally if you are the only one that have access to your keys ,any coins that is going out or coming in you must be aware of it. Private key once it's exposed to public,is no longer garrett that you have 100% control over your bitcoin.

[so98nn]

[...]
This news, despite its importance for bitcoin community, is not why this topic was created. What I am really interested in is a simple question which is does this law "Not your keys" work in an opposite direction?

"Your keys, your bitcoins" sounds logical too. But there is a small problem. It is relatively easy to prove that private key is not yours if you can't spend corresponding UTXO, you can't sign a message or in case it is stored inside exchange's wallet. But how can we prove the ownership of the private key?
[...]

Yep, this law has to be there if bitcoin is legal asset in that particular country.

Well this is the case why those two sisters who were waitress back then and had argument over millions of dollars just because one of them thought to leave the party early as she thought bitcoin is nothing but the bubble.

After few years she returned with fights over who had what share and stuff like that. It's completely insane since she was the one who left the bitcoins with her sister and all the wallet details.

If we apply this law to them, then yeah the other sister who kept the keys is the winner.

"Justice made on the spot".  

[akram143]

Literally it is not possible to find is the real owner of the private key but if the address involves some kind of transactions from exchange's wallet which belongs to you then it is possible to show the exchange's account details and the transaction details then can claim you are the real owner.

But never let anyone to steal your keys or else there won't be any bitcoin left in that address even if you can prove you are the real owner.

[Latviand]

This is a typical Bitcoin saying to make a person understand that, if you don't have the private keys to your Bitcoins, they're basically not yours anymore.. as in, someone else should have it then (a custodial wallet, an exchange etc) so you don't have control.

This is the simplest and direct to the point explanation to this topic.

Private keys feels like a power, it will make you have full control on your own asset, once you have it, you should keep it from other people.

But if you're holding a bitcoin, you will probably use it when you try to use an exchange. All of us do that, that's why in picking an exchange, you should look for a trusted and reputable exchange to prevent losses. Private keys should be kept properly and avoid use it in any wallet and exchange that you are not familiar with.

[jseverson]

"Your keys, your bitcoins" sounds logical too. But there is a small problem. It is relatively easy to prove that private key is not yours if you can't spend corresponding UTXO, you can't sign a message or in case it is stored inside exchange's wallet. But how can we prove the ownership of the private key?

Did the court even explicitly mention private key ownership? The gist doesn't seem to revolve around it:

“There is no requirement that investors keep their coins on exchanges; they can always withdraw the coins to their own private wallets,” the court stated, adding that there was no evidence presented that “Coinbase had a duty, contractual or otherwise, to give plaintiff access to the Bitcoin Gold.”

I'd also like to mention that it does create precedent, but probably only for forks. If "not your keys not your coins" is to be made generally applicable, exchanges would be laughing their way to the bank because they hold everyone's keys, and would therefore be the rightful owners of all the coins entrusted with them.

[Lorence.xD]

The problem with the "your key, your bitcoin" thing is that most of the time, people share their shit to others, sometimes intentionally (to brag about it), impress someone (you trust your date aren't you?) or in some cases accidentally (slips about it and ends up telling about it).

[BitcoinPanther]

It's impossible to have a bitcoin address owned by two people unless the address is empty.
Assuming two people own the private key of an address containing bitcoin, one of them will move the fund to a new address. The owner will be the person who has the private key of the new address.

But the argument stated on OP is that what if someone stole the private key.  How can the court determine who is the original owner since they can both sign a message on that address.  It is not correct to say that it is impossible for two people own the same address because it is not empty since you are saying that if the address is empty, it is possible for two people to own them.  The right thin should be, it is possible for two people to own a single address if the original owner share it to the other person or the other person stole it from the owner.

In case of the third party custodial wallet such as exchange, this kind of rule might exempt them from taking responsibility if something bad happen because of the "not your key, not your Bitcoin' statement/law.

[witcher_sense]

What I understood from the replies above is that in order to prove ownership of private keys in case there is a situation when several people have access to it and therefore can sign a message, a public address should be linked to your identity and the very first transaction associated with that address must be also linked to your identity.

It is a very effective way to say I am the real owner, but not suitable for most bitcoiners since it implies that the whole bitcoin network is now regulated and every transaction is now being cleared by authorities. This is ridiculous and doesn't make any sense, because in such case, bitcoin wouldn't exist already.

If authorities cannot append KYC procedure and identity to every transaction and public address, they need to either ban the network, divide it(black market, grey market, white market) or abandon the idea of regulating it.

What do you think?

We have this very useful thread here on our forum which is : http://Stake your Bitcoin address here, wherein, it's purpose is to secure your bitcointalk account, but you can actually use your bitcointalk account to do the same thing with your bitcoin wallet.

Your keys, your account? What if someone steal private key used to sign a message, how can I prove that my account is mine?

[lepbagong]

The problem with the "your key, your bitcoin" thing is that most of the time, people share their shit to others, sometimes intentionally (to brag about it), impress someone (you trust your date aren't you?) or in some cases accidentally (slips about it and ends up telling about it).

things that are sometimes unintentional because of the arrogance that happens and want to show off what they have. but it is an ordinary human instinct that sometimes does not realize that what is done will have an impact on the losses that occur. There should be certain things that others shouldn't know but because of the high ego it can happen accidentally.

[plr]

It's impossible to have a bitcoin address owned by two people unless the address is empty.
Assuming two people own the private key of an address containing bitcoin, one of them will move the fund to a new address. The owner will be the person who has the private key of the new address.

It's possible if the address happen to be owned by husband and wife and since it's a conjugal property, two persons can own one address and one private keys any court will rule that what husband owns or wife owns at the time of their marriage can be considered conjugal properties
I consider Bitcoin as both investment and assets.

[fiulpro]

If the California Court Said *Not your keys , not your Bitcoin's* , will the court allow the scams if some third party source decided to suddenly shut down their wallets and decided that it was legal to not give the respective bitcoins to their owners ?

I do believe the court shouldn't have said something so bluntly.

I do believe now a days due to KYC the problem is much easier to solve in case of any dispute , since bank accounts and wallets is now most of the times linked therefore people should not be afraid to do it if... They are holding a huge amount of Bitcoins legally.

____

Plus I do believe that sharing your keys should only be done in cases where its absolutely necessary with a person you trust the most.

As for me my wallet provides an option where my bitcoins can go to my family if accidentally god forbid I died , therefore my mom will get access to my account and be contacted by the agency.

Explore your options, don't just share your private keys .

[imstillthebest]

im currently using a wallet that i dont held my private keys  . is this mean that i dont own the coins that i see inside my wallet ?  but the point is i can withdrew this coins or i can use this inside their platform  .

thats more important  but let say if im a trader or a investor that owns a large portion of coins dedicated only for those business i think ill prefer a wallet that i can hold my private keys with me .

[20kevin20]

im currently using a wallet that i dont held my private keys  . is this mean that i dont own the coins that i see inside my wallet ?  but the point is i can withdrew this coins or i can use this inside their platform  .

You only get the feeling of owning these coins. If the owner of that platform wants to take out your coins, they can do it. Think of it as sending some money to my card but being able to spend it and see the balance at any time. We both have access to it, and there may be even other parties (my family?) with access to it as well. I promise you they're yours, but how do you know they are going to stay yours in the future as well?

I think this is just overcomplicating the entire thing. Just get an open source, non-custodial wallet and keep your private keys wherever you keep your most valuable/important stuff. I don't understand why people choose custodial wallets over decentralized and open source ones. It's your money, why share it?

[AniviaBtc]

This is a typical Bitcoin saying to make a person understand that, if you don't have the private keys to your Bitcoins, they're basically not yours anymore.. as in, someone else should have it then (a custodial wallet, an exchange etc) so you don't have control.

This is self-explanatory, you don't have access, then it is not yours.

That's just easy to understand so as much as possible always keep in mind that private keys are very important when you are a bitcoin investor. Don't let other people steal it, know it, and have access to it so that your assets will become safe and secured in your own hands only. When you want to access an exchange, choose an exchange with good reviews.

[Vatimins]

     When i first heard about this news about California having this kind of law being passed, my first impression really was a positive one. I simply thought that it is nice having a new law regarding bitcoin which makes its name a bit more famous and would he recognized by more people. But when I read your post, I suddenly realized how scary the new law that the Californian's government has passed. I mean, a hell lot of things can go wrong with this law since it can be exploited in many ways. Man, I wish they had put more thought into this law before even passing it.

[Gozie51]

That's why they say, keep your private keys safe. Imagine finding out what is the private key for that address: 1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa

Everyone would be satoshi out of nowhere.

If someone gets access to your private keys, you can't prove that he isn't the owner as well. But the main problem is if you have funds in the address. If you have no funds what's the problem? Have you contacted to any important person that you'll communicate if you first prove you own an address?

Obviously it will not make much sense or importance if a private key is known and no coin is found there. Because you can generate another at will but the fear is losing a key with loads of coin. It won't be a good story haha.

I like to use a wallet I have control through the phrase.

[bitbunnny]

im currently using a wallet that i dont held my private keys  . is this mean that i dont own the coins that i see inside my wallet ?  but the point is i can withdrew this coins or i can use this inside their platform  .

thats more important  but let say if im a trader or a investor that owns a large portion of coins dedicated only for those business i think ill prefer a wallet that i can hold my private keys with me .

It's not that simple. You still owe your coins but to my opinion not having access to the private key is a bit risky. You have to actually have trust that no one else will not have access to your wallet by sharing the key with someone else or misuse it in some other way. I always prefere wallets that enable me access to the private key.

[milesfull]

That's why DEXes and non custody are our future

[zasad@]

That's why DEXes and non custody are our future

Any decentralized exchanges and exchange services operate on smart contracts.
If you connect your wallet to an unaudited smart contract, then you risk losing your coins.
Fraudsters can easily steal your money without knowing your private keys.
You need to be careful in both cases.

[Kez1817]

im currently using a wallet that i dont held my private keys  . is this mean that i dont own the coins that i see inside my wallet ?  but the point is i can withdrew this coins or i can use this inside their platform  .

thats more important  but let say if im a trader or a investor that owns a large portion of coins dedicated only for those business i think ill prefer a wallet that i can hold my private keys with me .

For example if you have fund to a different exchanges where you don't have own private key, it means you still owned it but it will have a bigger chance to lost from your hands because someone in exchange can have access in your wallet and have a chance to move your funds on their own wallet. That's why i didn't stay my funds in any crypto exchange for so long. If i earned profit ,I move immediately to my own wallet with private key so that more secured.

[The Cryptovator]

Technically there is no such way to prove ownership of private keys. That's how a decentralized system works. There is no way to record your IP during private keys creation. So no way to prove ownership of private keys. As you said in your last reply, the only way to reveal your privacy.  That's the reason why its important to keep safe your private keys. This isn't a centralized system and there are no records about you as a person.

[Stedsm]

@OP, what a difference you've come up with! Amazing, seriously!
I do agree that if a person has the exact private key that you own, then you're probably caught under a mess. Remember one thing though that if a private key gets compromised, no one's stupid enough to wait for even a second sweeping it off and taking those coins somewhere else (maybe to an exchange where s/she would sell it immediately). It's sometimes good not to have our coins in our possession but that time is when bad luck strikes, else our coins are best under our possession when we hold the private key. Why not buy a hardware wallet with an insurance instead?

[target]

Should the California court provide a thread in bitcointalk forum where people can provide their BTC address and sign a message? 

The court will probably just assume they both own the coins unless one of them can prove whether one stole the keys from the other. This is going to be hard. If they can both agree to flip a coin to resolve the issue, the easier for the court to settle.

[Stedsm]

Should the California court provide a thread in bitcointalk forum where people can provide their BTC address and sign a message? 

The court will probably just assume they both own the coins unless one of them can prove whether one stole the keys from the other. This is going to be hard. If they can both agree to flip a coin to resolve the issue, the easier for the court to settle.

Hey, I still got a method here that can help you prove your ownership.

Double-signature method

A way of proving yourselves at the time of doubt when any of your keys get stolen. You can use 2 unique addresses from 2 different wallets (and the wallets should allow you signing messages). You should sign one message from address X stating that the said address (X) is yours and that you are also going to sign the same message from address Y (that another wallet) that you possess the address X. Do it vice versa for address Y too. This way, you'll have your worth proven in times when your keys ever get stolen (it's like a 2FA) and now, don't tell me that both keys may get stolen (lolz). Just store both of them on 2 different devices (one of them should be kept on a device that always remains offline).

[maxreish]

-snip
 

It's possible if the address happen to be owned by husband and wife and since it's a conjugal property, two persons can own one address and one private keys any court will rule that what husband owns or wife owns at the time of their marriage can be considered conjugal properties
 I consider Bitcoin as both investment and assets.
 

 It makes sense. Even they will have to go to the court, law has something to do with sharing properties. Bitcoin's not exempted. If husband and wife knew the private keys, the both person owned it already.
 
 "Not your keys, not your bitcoin", that's why it's strongly advice not to share it with anyone and keep it in a very safe place because once the private keys are being taken away or even saw that by someone, it wouldn't be yours anymore.

[Saisher]

im currently using a wallet that i dont held my private keys  . is this mean that i dont own the coins that i see inside my wallet ?  but the point is i can withdrew this coins or i can use this inside their platform  .

thats more important  but let say if im a trader or a investor that owns a large portion of coins dedicated only for those business i think ill prefer a wallet that i can hold my private keys with me .

You own it as logn as your account is in good standing where you held your coins, that is why they always ask for KYC to verify the identity of the owner of the coins, this is for future reference in case of hacked ir suspicious activity in your account, they can disable your account if they see unusual activity in your account and eventually lose your account and your coins as well, your account is your private key in that site.

[erikoy]

Private Keys should be kept because this is the only proof that you own the bitcoin and not by someone else. Unlike having property like house and lot to have clear concrete evidence of ownership by having a certificate of ownership or transfer of certificate title with the name of the owner.

I truly was amazed by blockchain and how it works. My conception was wrong for thinking that bitcoin sits in the digital wallet but it is not.

[Wind_FURY]

Recently, California court made "Not your keys, not your bitcoins" a law thus made it so not only for bitcoiners, but also for people who used to rely on third parties to store "their" coins.

Send Craig Wright the link, I believe it will save him lots of money in legal fees. Haha.

This news, despite its importance for bitcoin community, is not why this topic was created. What I am really interested in is a simple question which is does this law "Not your keys" work in an opposite direction?

"Your keys, your bitcoins" sounds logical too. But there is a small problem. It is relatively easy to prove that private key is not yours if you can't spend corresponding UTXO, you can't sign a message or in case it is stored inside exchange's wallet. But how can we prove the ownership of the private key?

Like I said, we can sign a message with private key and that is considered enough, no other evidence needed. But what if someone generated the exact private key or, more realistically, have stolen it, how would it possible to prove that victim is the real possesor of private key? What would California court say in this case? If they both can sign a message, do they both have a right to these coins? Are there any other methods to prove the ownership besides signing a message?

Because if it is not possible to prove the ownership of bitcoin private key in case several people besides actual owner know private key, then "Not your keys, not your bitcoins" doesn't make sense either. It is stupid to claim that, if there is no possible way to prove that keys were ever in possesion.

Here's a shower thought. If I steal a $100 bill from you, but you can't prove it, can the court/legal system make it illegal for me to spend the $100?

[NeuroticFish]

"Your keys, your bitcoins" sounds logical too

It may sound logical, but it's not.
The possession of a private key can easily be one-to-many (one key, many people, as you said).

Because if it is not possible to prove the ownership of bitcoin private key in case several people besides actual owner know private key, then "Not your keys, not your bitcoins" doesn't make sense either. It is stupid to claim that, if there is no possible way to prove that keys were ever in possesion.

I think that you want to say something, but imho you're telling it wrong.
Bitcoin is about math (cryptography). If you have the proper key you can sign and spend. You are owner of those coins. The fact you may have not been the only owner is about semantics and inter-human relationships math and Bitcoin couldn't care less about them.

And in context of math (i.e. Bitcoin) I find your logic wrong.

[witcher_sense]

Here's a shower thought. If I steal a $100 bill from you, but you can't prove it, can the court/legal system make it illegal for me to spend the $100?

They can't and why would they even do that if I was not able to prove the fact you had stolen 100$ from me? Moreover, no one knows that specific banknote with specific number was actually mine, because I did forget to announce that to everyone.  If I lost it, I lost it. With private keys it is different. I generate a private key and send some coins to corresponding public address. It is a digital non-tangible thing that can be copied many times. If you steal a copy of it, I still have a copy and thus can prove that I at least know private key. We merely need to find out who are the real owner.

[Shasha80]

This is a lesson for all of us to always keep the private keys properly, because if we lose our private keys
or our private keys were successfully stolen by someone else. Then the Bitcoin in our wallets is not ours anymore,
"Not your keys, not your coins" or "Your keys, your bitcoin". Since there is no way to prove Bitcoin ownership,
always take good care of our private keys wallets.

[Wind_FURY]

Here's a shower thought. If I steal a $100 bill from you, but you can't prove it, can the court/legal system make it illegal for me to spend the $100?

They can't and why would they even do that if I was not able to prove the fact you had stolen 100$ from me? Moreover, no one knows that specific banknote with specific number was actually mine, because I did forget to announce that to everyone.  If I lost it, I lost it. With private keys it is different. I generate a private key and send some coins to corresponding public address. It is a digital non-tangible thing that can be copied many times. If you steal a copy of it, I still have a copy and thus can prove that I at least know private key. We merely need to find out who are the real owner.

OK. Another shower thought. What if Bob had his $100 stolen by Carol, and Carol bought something with it from Dave, who doesn't know it was stolen from Bob. The police later knew that it was a stolen $100 bill by Carol, and that it went to Dave. Then does the police have the right to take the $100 bill from Dave?

[witcher_sense]

OK. Another shower thought. What if Bob had his $100 stolen by Carol, and Carol bought something with it from Dave, who doesn't know it was stolen from Bob. The police later knew that it was a stolen $100 bill by Carol, and that it went to Dave. Then does the police have the right to take the $100 bill from Dave?

Bob can't prove that Carol has stolen a particular banknote with specific serial number on it. If one writes down the numbers on banknotes, one must be paranoid. Even if Bob did that and had a copy of a number, it wouldn't prove anything, because he could hand over the banknote to Dave earlier. What are you trying to say exactly? Knowing the serial number of specific banknote won't give you a right to spend it in case it was stolen.

[Cryptoreflector_666]

OK. Another shower thought. What if Bob had his $100 stolen by Carol, and Carol bought something with it from Dave, who doesn't know it was stolen from Bob. The police later knew that it was a stolen $100 bill by Carol, and that it went to Dave. Then does the police have the right to take the $100 bill from Dave?

Bob can't prove that Carol has stolen a particular banknote with specific serial number on it. If one writes down the numbers on banknotes, one must be paranoid. Even if Bob did that and had a copy of a number, it wouldn't prove anything, because he could hand over the banknote to Dave earlier. What are you trying to say exactly? Knowing the serial number of specific banknote won't give you a right to spend it in case it was stolen.

That's right. The numbering of banknotes is only necessary for detecting counterfeit banknotes, as well as for conducting various security operations to control financial flows in the country. For example, when a control purchase is made, in order to identify the authenticity of banknotes, they are numbered and recorded in the Protocol.

[coolcoinz]

OK. Another shower thought. What if Bob had his $100 stolen by Carol, and Carol bought something with it from Dave, who doesn't know it was stolen from Bob. The police later knew that it was a stolen $100 bill by Carol, and that it went to Dave. Then does the police have the right to take the $100 bill from Dave?

Bob can't prove that Carol has stolen a particular banknote with specific serial number on it. If one writes down the numbers on banknotes, one must be paranoid. Even if Bob did that and had a copy of a number, it wouldn't prove anything, because he could hand over the banknote to Dave earlier. What are you trying to say exactly? Knowing the serial number of specific banknote won't give you a right to spend it in case it was stolen.

I don't believe he meant the exact stolen bill but the equivalent. The simplified version would be: if someone stol a $100 from someone and then spent it to buy something from you, would the police be able to come to you asking for the bill (not the exact one but any $100) be returned?
In most cases the answer is no, but there were cases where someone stole a car and then sold it. In that situation the police would repossess the property in exchange for the money taken from the thief. In other words the transaction was nullified. The buyer would get back the money, the original owner would get the car back and the thief would get a sentence.

[lepbagong]

OK. Another shower thought. What if Bob had his $100 stolen by Carol, and Carol bought something with it from Dave, who doesn't know it was stolen from Bob. The police later knew that it was a stolen $100 bill by Carol, and that it went to Dave. Then does the police have the right to take the $100 bill from Dave?

Bob can't prove that Carol has stolen a particular banknote with specific serial number on it. If one writes down the numbers on banknotes, one must be paranoid. Even if Bob did that and had a copy of a number, it wouldn't prove anything, because he could hand over the banknote to Dave earlier. What are you trying to say exactly? Knowing the serial number of specific banknote won't give you a right to spend it in case it was stolen.

I don't believe he meant the exact stolen bill but the equivalent. The simplified version would be: if someone stol a $100 from someone and then spent it to buy something from you, would the police be able to come to you asking for the bill (not the exact one but any $100) be returned?
In most cases the answer is no, but there were cases where someone stole a car and then sold it. In that situation the police would repossess the property in exchange for the money taken from the thief. In other words the transaction was nullified. The buyer would get back the money, the original owner would get the car back and the thief would get a sentence.

The main problem is that if it is in the form of cash it will be difficult to prove it. but the police in my country were able to arrest a person with 2 pieces of evidence to support that there was a transaction against this.
For example, from a transaction witnessed by a third party and recorded by CCTV, this could be a valid proof that fraud has occurred and could be subject to punishment to restore or imprisonment through the court. each country may apply different ways of legal understanding.

[Wind_FURY]

OK. Another shower thought. What if Bob had his $100 stolen by Carol, and Carol bought something with it from Dave, who doesn't know it was stolen from Bob. The police later knew that it was a stolen $100 bill by Carol, and that it went to Dave. Then does the police have the right to take the $100 bill from Dave?

Bob can't prove that Carol has stolen a particular banknote with specific serial number on it. If one writes down the numbers on banknotes, one must be paranoid. Even if Bob did that and had a copy of a number, it wouldn't prove anything, because he could hand over the banknote to Dave earlier. What are you trying to say exactly? Knowing the serial number of specific banknote won't give you a right to spend it in case it was stolen.

No, that wasn't the point. Assume that Bob wrote the serial number down, and knows that innocent Dave is holding a $100 bill that Carol stole, AND Bob has evidence of the theft to show the police.

Does Bob have the right to take the $100 bill from innocent Dave, or not?

[darewaller]

It’s not a law, people are saying that to let you know that if you don’t have your keys, you don’t have full control over your cryptocurrency. If your cryptocurrencies are stored in an offline wallet such Exodus that gives you total control, and you happen not to have the private keys, you won’t be able to get your cryptocurrencies back if you lose that wallet.

But if you have your wallet, even if you maybe mistakenly uninstall that wallet you will still get your cryptocurrencies back as long as you have your private keys. And also another reason they say that is because of those people that store all their coins on an exchange; when your coins are stored on an exchange, that exchange has control over your coins, because they have the private keys.

[witcher_sense]

No, that wasn't the point. Assume that Bob wrote the serial number down, and knows that innocent Dave is holding a $100 bill that Carol stole, AND Bob has evidence of the theft to show the police.

Does Bob have the right to take the $100 bill from innocent Dave, or not?

I better call my lawyer. Seriously, it depends on jurisdiction, local legislation, etc. In some countries one doesn't have private property rights, rights to protect private property, sometimes one doesn't have rights whatsoever. Hypothetically speaking, no one has a right to take 100$ bill away from Dave  until the court say so. But again, Bob shouldn't demand anything from Dave, though he could ask Dave to testify against Carol. Moreover, unlike bitcoin, dollar bills are perfectly fungible meaning the fact of theft per se is important, not specific banknotes. In case of bitcoin it is different. It is not important how much bitcoins in your possesion. What is important here is which UTXOs you control, what UTXOs you can unlock with your keys.

[Wind_FURY]

No, that wasn't the point. Assume that Bob wrote the serial number down, and knows that innocent Dave is holding a $100 bill that Carol stole, AND Bob has evidence of the theft to show the police.

Does Bob have the right to take the $100 bill from innocent Dave, or not?

I better call my lawyer. Seriously, it depends on jurisdiction, local legislation, etc. In some countries one doesn't have private property rights, rights to protect private property, sometimes one doesn't have rights whatsoever.

Hypothetically speaking, no one has a right to take 100$ bill away from Dave  until the court say so. But again, Bob shouldn't demand anything from Dave, though he could ask Dave to testify against Carol. Moreover, unlike bitcoin, dollar bills are perfectly fungible meaning the fact of theft per se is important, not specific banknotes. In case of bitcoin it is different. It is not important how much bitcoins in your possesion. What is important here is which UTXOs you control, what UTXOs you can unlock with your keys.

But Dave is innocent. No one has the right to take away what he has legally earned from Carol, even if the $100 bill was stolen. I believe ALL fiat bills have gone through a crime, is a random court order a threat to our savings?

The point of this is from the OP, a "your keys, your Bitcoin" law would, I believe, be unfair to the "Daves" of the situation.

[witcher_sense]

But Dave is innocent. No one has the right to take away what he has legally earned from Carol, even if the $100 bill was stolen. I believe ALL fiat bills have gone through a crime, is a random court order a threat to our savings?

The point of this is from the OP, a "your keys, your Bitcoin" law would, I believe, be unfair to the "Daves" of the situation.

Every person is innocent until proven otherwise. Even Carol would be innocent. Presumption of innocence. Not in every country is being considered, though. Some authorities haven't heard of international human rights. Jokes aside. The huge distinction between cash and bitcoin is that the former is issued by state and protected by state, but the latter is issued by mining based on game theory and protected by distributed consensus. Bitcoin poses a threat to legacy monetary system and, especially, to its reserve currency, which is currently US dollar. Governments are trying to undermine reputation of bitcoin, to demonize it in every possible way. One of the approaches that have been chosen to render bitcoin bad currency is to call bitcoin used in illicit activities taint, dirty, illegal. For them, bitcoin is not fungible currency. If Dave recieves dirty bitcoin, he will likely be considered criminal, he probably were laundering money for Carol!

[Reatim]

I have saved all my data in multiple places so that I never lost and no one doesn't know about these places

Well most of us do,because these days if you have invested only in single location to put your cryptos the opportunity of being hacked is always there.
Even Big exchanges becoming a victim so what more people like us who has a little security.

But of course Ledger is one of the safest that's why i also bought one recently,Now i know that my crypto assets are safer and i don't need to rely in "Your Keys ,Your Bitcoin " thing.


Always remember that we are the one who will held responsible in any losses so better make your way safe than regret later.

[elisabetheva]

I have saved all my data in multiple places so that I never lost and no one doesn't know about these places

the more you save in many places you can forget one day, then what you want can not be achieved. use one that is very reliable and does not need too much but is sure to be safe.

It is not recommended to accept any links that you are not sure you really need, there is something that could endanger your activities, and use the original internet anti virus which is quite helpful.

[blckhawk]

I have saved all my data in multiple places so that I never lost and no one doesn't know about these places

Well most of us do,because these days if you have invested only in single location to put your cryptos the opportunity of being hacked is always there.
Even Big exchanges becoming a victim so what more people like us who has a little security.

But of course Ledger is one of the safest that's why i also bought one recently,Now i know that my crypto assets are safer and i don't need to rely in "Your Keys ,Your Bitcoin " thing.


Always remember that we are the one who will held responsible in any losses so better make your way safe than regret later.

That's right. If you have a doubt to store your money on wallet online cause your key or passphrase might be hacked or something then having a hardware wallet could be better for you. A hardware wallet can give you a high percentage of keeping your coins at a safe place away from online where hackers loitering. In fact, I am planning to have one of them someday.

Now, in keeping our keys, it is indeed better to place it in multiple places and you might not really forget it. However, isn't will get a higher odds of getting finding your keys? because think of it, the more you store them in different places the more chances they might be discovered while comparing to the single place, it will be really tough for them to find your keys. But that doesn't matter just be sure that you are the only one who knows where your keys stored.

[Wind_FURY]

But Dave is innocent. No one has the right to take away what he has legally earned from Carol, even if the $100 bill was stolen. I believe ALL fiat bills have gone through a crime, is a random court order a threat to our savings?

The point of this is from the OP, a "your keys, your Bitcoin" law would, I believe, be unfair to the "Daves" of the situation.

Every person is innocent until proven otherwise. Even Carol would be innocent. Presumption of innocence. Not in every country is being considered, though. Some authorities haven't heard of international human rights. Jokes aside. The huge distinction between cash and bitcoin is that the former is issued by state and protected by state, but the latter is issued by mining based on game theory and protected by distributed consensus. Bitcoin poses a threat to legacy monetary system and, especially, to its reserve currency, which is currently US dollar. Governments are trying to undermine reputation of bitcoin, to demonize it in every possible way. One of the approaches that have been chosen to render bitcoin bad currency is to call bitcoin used in illicit activities taint, dirty, illegal. For them, bitcoin is not fungible currency. If Dave recieves dirty bitcoin, he will likely be considered criminal, he probably were laundering money for Carol!

If private key ownership is protected under law, and the person "owning" the private key, under law, can legally claim "your keys, your coins", then it might open opportunities for bad actors to scam people.

Plus what happened to self-sovereignty? What would be the point of Bitcoin?

[witcher_sense]

If private key ownership is protected under law, and the person "owning" the private key, under law, can legally claim "your keys, your coins", then it might open opportunities for bad actors to scam people.

I am not sure if it can be protected under the law, if there is no chance to prove ownership of particular UTXO and also claim property rights over particular UTXO. The whole point of this thread to find out that. "Not your keys, not your bitcoin" law could be abused by exchanges and "Your keys, your bitcoin" law could be abused by users. Can bitcoin be regulated? Can we apply standard norms? There are lot of questions with no clear answer.

Plus what happened to self-sovereignty? What would be the point of Bitcoin?

Self-sovereignty implies responsibility for one's own money. Not everyone is ready for this.

[bearexin]

It’s quite important man, people should have their private keys. For me, though, it’s not every wallet that I am making use of that I have the private keys, but I usually make sure that they are wallets that are very reliable.

Just like my Coinbase wallet, I don’t have the keys, but it’s quite secure. From what I have got to understand, Coinbase stores most of the cryptocurrencies that are stored on their platform with cold storage , so it’s very secure. And they are always working hard in improving their security and I don’t have issues with them. But that doesn’t mean I trust them, I also make use of Exodus, BitPay and Blockchain. Most important is using something that’s reliable, and also being very careful.

[pawanjain]

If they have really made it as a law then I think it's great because this will make many people aware of how bitcoin should be used.
There are many people who buy bitcoin and store it on exchanges and later complaint when the exchanges get hacked.
This kind of law will encourage people to hold the private keys of their bitcoin addresses.

Like I said, we can sign a message with private key and that is considered enough, no other evidence needed. But what if someone generated the exact private key or, more realistically, have stolen it, how would it possible to prove that victim is the real possesor of private key? What would California court say in this case? If they both can sign a message, do they both have a right to these coins? Are there any other methods to prove the ownership besides signing a message?

One can only sign a message if he has the private key to that address.
Owning the private key pretty much declares the address as yours and there is nothing that can be done if you own the private key of any address.

[verita1]

This is one more reason that confirms that we should not keep Bitcoin and crypto on exchanges. "Not your keys, not your coins". The case looks as if the plaintiff was unaware of the latest updates on Bitcoin gold on Coinbase and had to withdraw his coins before the coin received no further support.

[Krislaw]

The chances of this happening (two people having same private key) is very low. The purpose of the other party having access to the key is to steal coins. You can't trace that except it's an empty wallet.

What the court advised in the article is about keeping your coins in where you can control them and not be like the guy that sued Coinbase and lost the case because he left his coin there. He learned the hard way.

[Crptomagma]

It’s always advised to keep your key secret and in secure location. Your Bitcoin is safe at owners risk and keeping in secure location. If bitcoin key isn’t secure enough having access to the wallet would be easy. If a wallet details and key isn’t secure an intruder or fraudster will claim the wallet and in these case it’s would be difficult to identify the original owner of the wallet. As bitcoin is decentralized and anonymous it’s security strength depends on the key used by the user to operate the wallet.

[Yamifoud]

The chances of this happening (two people having same private key) is very low. The purpose of the other party having access to the key is to steal coins. You can't trace that except it's an empty wallet.

Not even a single chance that private keys will be the same. As we created a new Bitcoin wallet, it generates also a different keys that is why there is no possibility that it will be similar to the previous wallets created.

What the court advised in the article is about keeping your coins in where you can control them and not be like the guy that sued Coinbase and lost the case because he left his coin there. He learned the hard way.

If you have your keys, you have you Bitcoin as well, but if that keys hands to another person, definitely it won't be your anymore. Just like making a buying/selling stockl to other person. Even without the law stated like that, opnce it is not at your control, it can't be yours then. The fact that someine hacks your account, stole you bitcoin, and stransfer to another wallet, you can never get it back for sure.

[CarnagexD]

The chances of this happening (two people having same private key) is very low. The purpose of the other party having access to the key is to steal coins. You can't trace that except it's an empty wallet.

What the court advised in the article is about keeping your coins in where you can control them and not be like the guy that sued Coinbase and lost the case because he left his coin there. He learned the hard way.

Not so sure why there shod be so much debate as to what it really means. It just means to be responsible for your own stuff and don't blame others for your mistakes. Delving too much in not your keys, not yours logic would only mean certain chaos as this promotes thievery in the community. So if I found your keys, then you are in no way responsible of holding them back against me

[BTCappu]

what if someone generated the exact private key or, more realistically, have stolen it, how would it possible to prove that victim is the real possesor of private key? What would California court say in this case?

Lol someone generating the same private keys? Nah I don’t think that’s ever going to be possible, in fact it’s not possible and I have not seen it happen before. We should only talk about someone stealing your private keys, and what the court is going to do in a case like that?

Well, there might still be other ways to prove that you’re the one who really created the wallet or maybe not, that’s what I can’t tell for sure. If, at the time before the keys were stolen, that you have already signed a message on the address to prove ownership, at this point there wouldn’t be any need for argument, because that message will be there already.

[vapourminer]

The chances of this happening (two people having same private key) is very low. The purpose of the other party having access to the key is to steal coins. You can't trace that except it's an empty wallet.

Not even a single chance that private keys will be the same. As we created a new Bitcoin wallet, it generates also a different keys that is why there is no possibility that it will be similar to the previous wallets created.

yes there is a possibility two identical private keys can be generated. after all, its just a random number and theres no database to check. and the various systems generating the keys sure wont be checking that key with others to see whats what.

its just so vanishingly small for duplicate private keys to be generated its not worth worrying about.

[CasherUp]

You have to be clear about something when you say "Your keys" it means that only you have access to them without the need for a third party or anything, greetings

[witcher_sense]

You have to be clear about something when you say "Your keys" it means that only you have access to them without the need for a third party or anything, greetings

In theory, the very fact that I generated a particular private key makes me a valid owner of this private key. In other words, I did some work so that I could generate it, made an effort to get a unique sequence of numbers. The private key is consequently my property, and now I have a right to defend my property or do with it whatever I desire. In practice, however, it is very problematic to prove my ownership of keys because a private key, in essence, is just a number, and I cannot possess numbers. Moreover, I can't even prove the fact that I was the first who generated a unique number.

[FACE 2 FACE]

It seems to me that the question raised by the author of the topic is quite timely. How can you correlate a specific person with a specific private key? If someone spies on your notes in a notebook, then naturally he will become the owner of this private key in the same way as you yourself.

I got an idea. What if the binding of a private key to a specific person will carried out on the basis of some chip that identifies this person built into his body?) Then no one will doubt that only one person can own this private key. or as an option, a person, in addition to the private key itself, must have a certain second factor - like a yubikey or something else.

I understand - my thoughts are rather "raw", but maybe this will lead someone to another right idea.

[vapourminer]

It seems to me that the question raised by the author of the topic is quite timely. How can you correlate a specific person with a specific private key? If someone spies on your notes in a notebook, then naturally he will become the owner of this private key in the same way as you yourself.

I got an idea. What if the binding of a private key to a specific person will carried out on the basis of some chip that identifies this person built into his body?) Then no one will doubt that only one person can own this private key. or as an option, a person, in addition to the private key itself, must have a certain second factor - like a yubikey or something else.

that introduces a third party you need to trust (the chip maker say). bitcoin is designed to be trustless. and security keys get lost or break. who issues them and the replacements? another party to trust.

bitcoin security is based on math, mainly the astronomical odds of finding a duplicate key. its the only thing needed atm. just protect your keys. which is admittedly harder for some than others.

[okala]

This is a very though question that need an urgent answer if the private key is not yours since it stored on the blockchain and any one that have access to the private key automatically becomes the owner of the coin then signing a message does little or no help at all the Court need to make an adjustments to that clues in the law.

[Blue MoonFlower]

Absolutely. That's the importance of our private keys, that we need to store and keep it to ourselves or in any places that we think it is secured enough. We should be the only one person responsible to our digital wallets and the control over the coins/assets that we stored inside it. If it isn't ours, then probably it belongs to anybody else 

[witcher_sense]

It seems to me that the question raised by the author of the topic is quite timely. How can you correlate a specific person with a specific private key? If someone spies on your notes in a notebook, then naturally he will become the owner of this private key in the same way as you yourself.

I got an idea. What if the binding of a private key to a specific person will carried out on the basis of some chip that identifies this person built into his body?) Then no one will doubt that only one person can own this private key. or as an option, a person, in addition to the private key itself, must have a certain second factor - like a yubikey or something else.

I understand - my thoughts are rather "raw", but maybe this will lead someone to another right idea.

I would say that your proposal is quite an efficient solution to the problem of proving ownership of private keys. However, as vapourminer correctly noted, for such a verification system to function as intended, we would have to deal with numerous third-parties, which in itself is unacceptable when it comes to decentralized systems such as Bitcoin. We would have to reveal our identities, sacrifice our right to privacy, entrust our lives to those who would be implanting the chips into our bodies. Besides, such chips might come with different backdoors and software for tracking your current location and history of purchases. That would give governments additional tools to control you.

[FACE 2 FACE]

I would say that your proposal is quite an efficient solution to the problem of proving ownership of private keys. However, as vapourminer correctly noted, for such a verification system to function as intended, we would have to deal with numerous third-parties, which in itself is unacceptable when it comes to decentralized systems such as Bitcoin. We would have to reveal our identities, sacrifice our right to privacy, entrust our lives to those who would be implanting the chips into our bodies. Besides, such chips might come with different backdoors and software for tracking your current location and history of purchases. That would give governments additional tools to control you.

Yes, of course, if we were forced to use this kind of implantable microchips, then naturally this, too, theoretically could give rise to another vector of attacks from hackers, and there is no doubt that government intelligence agencies would also take advantage of these opportunities. But now this attacks would be directed not at the user of the wallet or his laptop. Now hackers would attack directly the manufacturers of these microchips.

But despite this, I still like this idea, because in this way it would very likely solve the problem of identifying the owner of the private key.

And, yes, I perfectly understand that if everyone began to use such identifying microchips, then, in addition to hacker attacks, this could also lead to even more terrible things - for example, if the chip was located in the hand, or somewhere under the human skin, and if it was a certain public figure, then for sure there would be some completely reckless personalities who would not have disdained by committing physical attacks on carriers of such chips in order to extract them from bodies.

And if such wallets will contain millions or tens of millions of dollars, then, I'm sure that after some time it would become our everyday reality.

The movie Looper with Bruce Willis comes to mind for some reason. There, a plot was played up in which people were hunted in an unusual way, because it was impossible to kill such people with ordinary means precisely because of various kinds of identifiers that were used in the future on our planet.

But despite these new vectors of dangers that may take place, I still think that society will gradually move in this direction - the identification of everything and everyone on this planet.

In the meantime, for any rich guy, one single rule is still relevant: "If you want to stay rich, keep your private key a secret from everyone."

[nelson4lov]

im currently using a wallet that i dont held my private keys  . is this mean that i dont own the coins that i see inside my wallet ?  but the point is i can withdrew this coins or i can use this inside their platform  .

Yeah, you can withdraw your coin, but are you aware that leaving your bitcoin on such platform is just like saving your money in someone else's pocket, if the platform gets hacked do you know your bitcoin will be gone, do you also know the owner of that platform has access to your account and can take you all your coins if he likes, that's why its best you save your coin in wallets that you have full control over, that's storing it in  a wallet you babe private keys to.

[Sapphire915]

Of course. It is my keys, it is my bitcoin and mine only. Unless, I will share it with anybody else, which is so impossible. Maybe, we can show and tell the keys to our loved ones and only that, I guess. Others here are right, we cant definitely share our digital wallets to anyone. We alone can owned and have the full control to our assets stored in our wallets and we must secure the keys properly to avoid the losses.

[Mr.sprin]

private keys are not to be shared with other people only bitcoin owners know about it, if someone wants to share the private key with other people then that is very stupid.
I keep my private key not online I write it on paper and I keep my private key in a safe and that's only I who know.

[Nhebu]

The chances of this happening (two people having same private key) is very low. The purpose of the other party having access to the key is to steal coins. You can't trace that except it's an empty wallet.

What the court advised in the article is about keeping your coins in where you can control them and not be like the guy that sued Coinbase and lost the case because he left his coin there. He learned the hard way.

Actually, the chances of having two private keys is impossible. The algorithms around creating keys are impossible to reverse nor create another new. The combination of letters and numbers make it more hard to predict and generated again. It has more chances of hitting a thunder than having another keys. If that happens, it might be a bug for both parties.

[Salauddin1994]

Not only in the case of bitcoin but also in the case of investing in other currencies the private key should never be shared with anyone in doing so they easily gain access to our wallet and steal everything once lost it is never possible to find fire. This is why the private key must be kept in a reliable place or no one can steal it using the google 2fa code if someone logs in to your site you get access to it i put my private key in Notepad.

[hridoyb]

Bitcoin wallet protected by private key so you cannot access your wallet without the private key. Your bitcoin will be gone if anyone finds your key or given a private key to any phishing site. Your key your bitcoin means that if anyone store asset any exchanger he/she is not the owner of this wallet so if anyone holds coin on bitcoin wallet and has a private key then he is the original owner.

[Alucard1]

One private key equals one person, if the private key is not yours then the bitcoin or the funds inside that wallet is not yours as well, this is somehow similar when there is someone who steals your private key and then transfers all your funds to other wallet address, that is why securing your private key is also similar on securing your funds. without proper securing then your money will get lost easily.

[3meek]

I don't know what the California Court will say, but I know that private keys need to be kept very well, so that no one will ever be able to steal them!
On the other hand - if consider that one family uses one Ledger, the coins belong to the family and not to one person... By this logic, I will assume that if someone stole a private key, he is now the co-owner of your bitcoins!

[Nhor1011]

Of course, your keys your bitcoin. If you didn't own the private key then the funds is not yours. Simply, because you can't access the funds in a wallet with out a private key. If you have your private key then is is easy to access your fund and that is the proof that the funds is belongs to you. That's why you are the only liable to your wallet and funds ,so, take care of your private key.

[Axelseseclevz]

 "Not your keys, not your bitcoins" that's clear, if you don't have private key ,you can't open your wallet and you can't use your funds. So, what if your private key stolen by someone, it means your funds is now his fund and not yours, right? We really need to protect and secure our private key so that we can't lose our funds if ever.

[FACE 2 FACE]

If the relationship with your own wife is not very prosperous, then the private key should be kept secret even from her. Otherwise, at some tense moment of your married life, she will transfer your joint bitcoins to her personal address, to which you will no longer have a private key.

But this is fraught with the fact that quarrels can occur in families because of this. Because the one who owns the private key also owns this money.

On the other hand, if you bought these bitcoins with your joint money, this means that both of you will need to know the private key to the address where they are located. A certain dilemma arises in this case.

[Debonaire217]

In that way, it is really essential not to disclose our private key or paste it somewhere on our device. We should write it instead, or purchase a hardware wallet in order to completely hide our private keys. If it is possible to generate a private key the same as ours, then our account could be compromised if it matches the address we are using.

I am still believing in the phrase "Not your keys, Not your Bitcoin", It is just that, we can't use a centralized wallet which is favorable to us in terms of transaction, withdrawal, and deposit. Neither the exchange cannot also provide us the private key to the account we are using. With that regard, I can't see the importance of why they need to pass a law concerning not your keys, not your bitcoin if people will benefit from using a centralized exchange. Perhaps the best thing to do is to don't make these exchange wallets our main storage of funds, and only use it when we are trading.

[coolcoinz]

Bunch of speculation in the first post that is really easy to counter. For instance:

But what if someone generated the exact private key.

Chances of that are extremely low. I don't recall a single case where someone generated a key to a wallet containing unspent coins.

or, more realistically, have stolen it

Then you have to report theft. Usually people who have a lot of coins keep them on a hardware wallet with additional seed backup hidden somewhere.

how would it possible to prove that victim is the real possesor of private key?

You wouldn't have to prove anything as long as you have the backup and are able to withdraw coins to another address.

What would California court say in this case? If they both can sign a message, do they both have a right to these coins?

Do you believe someone who stole a private key would go to court to prove ownership instead of moving the coins to his address?

Are there any other methods to prove the ownership besides signing a message?

Moving the coins might be one of them.

[witcher_sense]

Chances of that are extremely low. I don't recall a single case where someone generated a key to a wallet containing unspent coins.

Yes, the probability of generating the same private key as yours is extremely low, however, we need to consider this variant to avoid any abuse of loopholes in our potential law.

Then you have to report theft. Usually people who have a lot of coins keep them on a hardware wallet with additional seed backup hidden somewhere.

The problem here is even if you report a theft, it doesn't prove that you rightful owner of the private key. It doesn't matter where you keep your coins because a malicious actor will also have a backup.

You wouldn't have to prove anything as long as you have the backup and are able to withdraw coins to another address.

Again, having a backup does not prove that you are the rightful owner: it is just information that can be stolen, copied, or generated by others. You obviously can't move your coins if you no longer in possession of the private key that unlocks UTXO. You also can't prove that it wasn't you who you moved them out of the wallet.

Do you believe someone who stole a private key would go to court to prove ownership instead of moving the coins to his address?

Doesn't that make our situation even worse?

Moving the coins might be one of them.

Okay, if a thief moved our coins, did he thus prove he is a valid owner?

[coolcoinz]

Do you believe someone who stole a private key would go to court to prove ownership instead of moving the coins to his address?

Doesn't that make our situation even worse?

Moving the coins might be one of them.

Okay, if a thief moved our coins, did he thus prove he is a valid owner?

Worse for the original owner, but not for the new owner, as it would allow that new owner to prove that he controls the coins and to argue that a year or 2 before he also was able to control the coins (even if that's a lie).
Moving coins proves you are the owner. Whether it's a valid owner is another thing. Valid enough to spend, that's for sure.

[Dsdaq]

the safest way to store your assets is by own your private keys, write it on a paper, and keep it somewhere safe. Remember “your keys, your Bitcoin; not your keys, not your Bitcoin. Also not recommended to keep it store on exchange no matter how secure you think it's, it's better when you want to trade deposit, trade and exit ASAP. But if you are talking of the prove of ownership to a private key that a big problem that need to be resolved soon before it's too late.

[SmokerFace]

I concur with the assertion "Your keys, your bitcoin". On the off chance that somebody has your private key, he can undoubtedly get into your wallet and take your all coins.
This what befalls me, I composed my private key into my book and one of my companions saw it and duplicate the whole private key.
I stooped composition or offering my private key to anybody after that incident.
You should always care for your key and password. That's the reason why bitcoins are highly risky to manage. Once it's gone it can never me retrieve.

[Anonylz]

I concur with the assertion "Your keys, your bitcoin". On the off chance that somebody has your private key, he can undoubtedly get into your wallet and take your all coins.
This what befalls me, I composed my private key into my book and one of my companions saw it and duplicate the whole private key.
I stooped composition or offering my private key to anybody after that incident.
You should always care for your key and password. That's the reason why bitcoins are highly risky to manage. Once it's gone it can never me retrieve.

when you say compose, do you mean coping or writing it down on your personal book and someone else saw it? why will you expose a book that contains your private key in such a way that someone else can even see it, to me it means you didn't store it in a place out of preying eyes,
"I stooped composition or offering my private key..." what do you mean by offering your private key! do you give it out to friends to see i can't seem to understand what you mean by that, because if what it says is what you mean, then you only have yourself to blame, you were careless and that could cost you.

[ekeh]

Bitcoin is a digital assets, that every user's has own private key and as a password, for any authorization transaction, where by need to be secured for a security reasons, hence, bitcoin private key is generated automatically, which has a backup phase for recovery. Therefore, you have said it all, your keys, you're bitcoin, for no reason, not good to share with anyone.

[Smartprofit]

When Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin, he created a system that did not need legal regulation.

The situation is similar with the circulation of cash (especially coins).  If the coins are in my pocket, then the ownership of this asset belongs to me.  If I have lost these coins (dropped them on the ground), then the ownership of the coins will pass to whoever finds them. 

Bitcoin's consensus algorithm is proof-of-work (POW).  Here is a similar situation - Satoshi Nakamoto did not count on agreements between people or on legal regulation.  Only the actual state of affairs matters.  Just the facts.  Actions, not words. 

This is the principle that Bitcoin is based on.

[erikoy]

It is more stupid when the real owner of that bitcoins let his keys being stolen by the hackers. Financial assets like bitcoins if being kept and compromise it will be directly move to a different wallet which the real owner could have no knowledge in accessing it. It is almost impossible to know that there could be two possible owner having the same wallet and private key. I will not believe if anything like this could happen or if it does then that would be a rare case.

[Viscore]

It is more stupid when the real owner of that bitcoins let his keys being stolen by the hackers.

No, you can't tell that. Did someone wanting it to happen? No, for sure. We are prone to this kind of sentiments and we can't sure also that we are guaranteed 100% secured.

Financial assets like bitcoins if being kept and compromise it will be directly move to a different wallet which the real owner could have no knowledge in accessing it. It is almost impossible to know that there could be two possible owner having the same wallet and private key. I will not believe if anything like this could happen or if it does then that would be a rare case.

Once the account has been hacked and all bitcoin inside had transferred to another wallet, we can no longer expect that we can get it back. Totally, we are in control yet since we don't have any key to prove that is yours. And that even you brought it in the court and claiming that is yours, it certainly be declined.

Your keys, your Bitcoin, no matter if that is hacked or not.

[bayu7adi]

Bitcoin is a digital assets, that every user's has own private key and as a password, for any authorization transaction, where by need to be secured for a security reasons, hence, bitcoin private key is generated automatically, which has a backup phase for recovery. Therefore, you have said it all, your keys, you're bitcoin, for no reason, not good to share with anyone.

It is different if we are custodial wallet users, indeed this is a bit of a contradiction to the title of this thraed, but there are still custodial wallet users. So when they create a wallet on an application or website, they will not get a private key to access the wallet. The existence of the private key is fully controlled by a third party that we trust.
Examples of companies for popular custodial wallets are Coinbase and Binance. There we will only get access in the form of login data that we get when registering, while the private key will still be stored by the company.
Some users prefer this method and ignore this word: "Your keys, your bitcoins". Because it has a layer of security that is better than hacker attacks, and they may not feel confident about being able to store their private keys.

[proTECH77]

Anyone who cannot have access to his keys, cannot have access to his bitcoin because you are the only one who can know how much is in the wallet. Once you can have access to your keys,you can also have access to your bitcoin. Your bitcoin is your bitcoin when you have all the address details to be know to you not public people to know all your keys details concerning bitcoin.
With a good wallet can make your money safe and also make you to have access to them at anytime you want to make use of it.