Re: Proof of Bitcoin address ownership

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.


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?
>
>
>