Your keys, your bitcoin?

[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.