Tulip claims vs Someone else (claiming ownership)

[MikeJ_NpC]

I am just wondering what others think about the legal aspects behind TULIP and Nakamotos wallets....

For argument sake, yes they have filed court arguments claiming to be the owners of the wallets, ... But what if someone else had the keys to these accounts?
Basically having the keys establishes ownership to the wallet(s) but also since these are dormant basically abandoned wouldn't this be all that is needed? or due to the attempts by Wright and Tulip would this need to be battled out in court? More so the country which these would be moved or claimed in would be relevant as well, ... So i am just wondering about that scenario... any thoughts?

Frankly anyone who would control these would essentially be Nakamoto i guess in essence...

Thank you.

[1715232386]

1715232386

[1715232386]

1715232386

[1715232386]

1715232386

[1715232386]

1715232386

[1715232386]

1715232386

[DooMAD]

Faketoshi doesn't control most, if any, of the keys he's claiming he does.  Idiot dug himself a hole and now looks even more foolish than he normally does.  The courts can't do anything to Bitcoin itself, so it doesn't matter all that much what they decide to do.

It's likely that the real owners of those keys value their privacy because they're sitting on a vast fortune, so chances are you might never find out who they are or whether they are satoshi or not.

[odolvlobo]

For argument sake, yes they have filed court arguments claiming to be the owners of the wallets, ... But what if someone else had the keys to these accounts?
Basically having the keys establishes ownership to the wallet(s) but also since these are dormant basically abandoned wouldn't this be all that is needed? or due to the attempts by Wright and Tulip would this need to be battled out in court? More so the country which these would be moved or claimed in would be relevant as well, ... So i am just wondering about that scenario... any thoughts?

Having the private keys means having control over the bitcoins, but it does not necessarily mean having legal ownership of the bitcoins.

[HeRetiK]

[...]

For argument sake, yes they have filed court arguments claiming to be the owners of the wallets, ... But what if someone else had the keys to these accounts?
Basically having the keys establishes ownership to the wallet(s) but also since these are dormant basically abandoned wouldn't this be all that is needed?

[...]

Wright has already been outed by signed messages of a couple of the addresses he claims ownership on, so yes, someone else has (some of) the keys:

"Craig Steven Wright is a liar and a fraud. He doesn't have the keys used to sign this message. The Lightning Network is a significant achievement. However, we need to continue work on improving on-chain capacity. Unfortunately, the solution is not to just change a constant in the code or to allow powerful participants to force out others. We are all Satoshi."

Probably not satoshi, but defnitely not Wright's coins.