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

Re: Proof of Bitcoin address ownership

From: Rick Dudley <a.frederick.dudley@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 13:59:27 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPGjnnVkQyNSamYG5f5uFrJJcy74Kcy8dTO-A-+b98CNPi6NWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Cc: W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
On Nov 2, 2017 08:53, "Timothy Holborn" <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 at 00:31 Rick Dudley <a.frederick.dudley@gmail.com>

> On Nov 2, 2017 08:24, "Timothy Holborn" <timothy.holborn@gmail.com> wrote:
> so, bitcoins can't really be stolen as they're not really 'owned'?
> any further thoughts on the implications?
> 1. I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice.

> 2. Although the law governs everywhere, blockchains generally don't know
> about it. So, theft happens at a different layer that has "ownership" and
> "identity" two things bitcoin does not have.
> 3. Bitcoin address blacklists are managed by individuals, not the
> blockchain. Legal exchanges cooperate with authorities to reclaim stolen
> coins, but miners/validators in the protocol do nothing.

so if you want 'ownership' then its best to be with an exchange / 'service

That's an interesting question. For normal people, I think a
registered/licensed/whatever exchange is still probably the best way to
store assets, but I get kinda queasy typing that. There are a couple of
custodial services, that are actually preferred, but they can be quite
"expensive". Most people who have the technical ability store their assets
on a hardware wallet and use best practices around that. I recommend people
use hardware wallets.

> 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 13:59:50 UTC

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