You're pointing out a lot of interesting things there, @20k20:
2. "(...) whether Coinbase could provide plaintiff with access to the forked currency is not dispositive; the pertinent question is whether Coinbase had a contractual obligation to do so, and the undisputed evidence submitted by Coinbase shows it did not"
A huge missed chance... The Court does not have to answer the important question if Coinbase should give the private keys to the client, if possible and when asked, because the Plaintiff is founding his defense on the principle of breach of contract (which it's not) and not on the principle of his (possible) property rights of the private keys. In other words, the important question if an exchange user has the right to have access to his private keys, is left unanswered because it's impertinent for this case.
In a fair world, the customers should have access to the privkeys. But we unfortunately do
not live in a fair world, and if the contract doesn't specify the user has a right to the privkeys under custody, I guess the answer is "no"..
... or maybe the exact opposite? Since you're the owner of the keys, you have the right to have the privkeys, unless specified differently in the contract?
Exactly why I called it a "missed chance": I was very curious as to hear if the judge would decide that the privkeys are an integral part of your crypto property. The decision does repeat the Plaintiff's statement that "nothing advises the customer he may not be able to access the private keys for his forked digital currency", so in a way it feels as if the judge would have accepted that he indeed has the right to have access to his privkeys (unless stated otherwise), but since the Plaintiff is asking for his forked coins and not for his keys, the judge doesn't (and doesn't have to) answer this big question
It does look as if we are close to answering the question if not owning your keys indeed means you're not owning your coins. Or put differently: (if not stated otherwise in the User Agreement and when asked)
do exchanges have an obligation to provide you access to your private keys? To be continued soon...
If we take it as a comparison to banks, wouldn't privkeys be basically the backend of our bank accounts? I don't think handing out privkeys are an
obligation to be honest, although I would highly prefer that to be the case. Handing out privkeys may also be bad from a security point of view..
I concur: while BTC gets integrated in society, I'm quite sure that a large majority of people will prefer to keep it on user-friendly wallets and leave the risks of security breaches in the hands of insurance companies and governments. In the end, this is largely a discussion of freedom vs. security, I guess. No need to say that I have my own ideas and preferences on this subject, but I think everybody should be free to decide and pick his own way of saving his coins, just like we should be able to be free to do as we please with ANY of our property assets, be it your furniture, your house, your clouds, your car, or your crypto coins.
I could perfectly imagine exchanges giving people access to their privkeys if they want to. Of course, these users cannot expect insurance companies to cover all security risks, should they choose to have unlimited access to their keys. I see no legal or practical obstacle to this, as long as both parties agree, of course. In that way, the difference between fiat banks, who decide if and when you can get your money back vs. crypto exchanges, who hand out your privkeys if wanted, couldn't be accentuated more beautifully
The only true problem is, if the large majority is using exchange wallets without privkeys, most governments will be drooling to invent new rules and regulations, which will eventually count for ALL users, even those who do use their privkeys responsibly...
A possible explanation could be that in the meantime the Plaintiff's Bitcoin Gold value was way lower than at the moment of the fork. For this reason, having access to his private keys would have become less interesting anyway, from a financial point of view. Therefore, the argument of "Breach of contract" might have been preferred as a strategy of trying to get an indemnity from Coinbase with the BTCGold value at the time of the fork, instead of trying to obtain the private keys and those Bitcoin Gold coins, which had a much lower value now.
Bad strategy (imo) if so. Under the last instance, I would've at least tried to ask for the privkeys as a last resort.
Maybe the Plaintiff only discovered about this fork when it was too late, price too low already etc. As he had over 300 BTC on Coinbase, trying to get the coins at a price of $5-10 would probably not have been worth the shot. Trying to get an indemnity at the ATH value of almost $500 is a bit more interesting, heh
Again, I'm absolutely guessing, as I do not know if this is the real reason and I haven't read the trial judgment either, as stated above. Let's call it a rather educated guess
1. Read the frigging Terms of Use, before transferring your coins and make sure they're watertight. Would you buy a car or a smartphone or a TV without reading any reviews? Same goes for an exchange. KNOW WHAT YOU USE BEFORE USING IT.
Hehe, the old ToS problem.. To be honest, out of a million people, I'd be
surprised to find out that 100 read the ToS of a software/website before registering. 100 may be a generous number. People sign bank contracts without reading a single word out of it. This is how bad the ToS reading situation is. Fortunately, there are a few websites that have been reviewed on
ToS;DR. At least do
that if you're lazy enough to read terms before signing them.
There's so many people who repeat over and over again, that this market is unregulated, and there's thousands of shit threads on this forum that
"Bitcoin will need some regulation sooner or later", and many many more.
Again, in the BDI CAPITAL, LLC v. BULBUL INVESTMENTS LLC case, the judge literally stated: "Bitcoin investors are aware they are
operating in an unregulated market, and therefore it seems more reasonable to place the burden to ensure access to forked currency on the investors themselves. There is no requirement that investors keep their coins in exchanges; they can always withdraw the coins to their own private wallets. In the
unregulated cryptocurrency market, potential investors are well advised to ensure that the terms of service of the exchange they are using clearly spell out what the exchange's obligations are with respect to forked cryptocurrency, if any."
Oh sure, if you mean their hundreds of specially invented codes and rules f.i. for banks, or companies that work with food, or hotels, etc., then, indeed, this market is unregulated. Or if you mean by "unregulated" that governments and corporations have not (yet) (completely) stuck their fingers in our crypto affairs to regulate us (and get taxes), then, indeed, this market is not regulated.
The truth is of course:
this market is NOT unregulated. It's proven every day again on this forum: we have paid campaigns, loan sections, escrows, gaming and gambling sections, people who are buying and selling and trading in hundreds of ways constantly, etc. How could this be possible, if this market was unregulated? It's based on the right of private property (imo as a libertarian, it's the only rule that should exist and of which all agreements and decisions can be deduced). Of course, this also means users will have to take their responsibility and read the ToS, because there will be no government to "help" them out, if they missed out on the content in the contract they signed without reading. These people are indeed lazy and blind and will probably get poor fast, whilst hoping for the opposite.
Every day again, activity on this forum as well as elsewhere, and the huge amounts of successful crypto trades all over the world, are proof over and over again that WE DON'T NEED EXTRA REGULATION. (but this discussion would lead us too far off-topic, I guess...)
