W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > November 2017

Re: Proof of Bitcoin address ownership

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 13:23:52 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok3CPR-MfNNvQvhuWSjbrM0j1qrjkP=9_=Lb5uC8_9wgjA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rick Dudley <a.frederick.dudley@gmail.com>
Cc: W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
so, bitcoins can't really be stolen as they're not really 'owned'?

any further thoughts on the implications?

On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 at 00:16 Rick Dudley <a.frederick.dudley@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The short answer is given your implicit definition not ownership (which
> seems close to the legal one) procession of a private key does not qualify
> as ownership of anything. The blockchain community generally disagrees with
> the law on this subject out necessity and a fondness for a particular type
> of crypto-anarchism. I try to avoid talking about ownership because of its
> legal implications and instead talk about control.
>
> -Rick
>
> On Nov 2, 2017 05:18, "Timothy Holborn" <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Question.
>
> Say two actors have a private key to a bunch of Bitcoin. One removes the
> Bitcoin, the other claims it was their Bitcoin.
>
> Given a Bitcoin address is effectively data, how does anyone own it?
>
> are there some sort of data laws that provides the means to "own" the
> private key? Or the address?
>
> I'm fairly sure people don't own their biometric signatures, so how could
> they own a Bitcoin if they couldn't own their address?
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 2 November 2017 13:24:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:42 UTC