Your keys, your bitcoin?

[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?

[1715244006]

1715244006

[1715244006]

1715244006

[1715244006]

1715244006

[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?