undefined | Better HN

0 pointsfilleokus4y ago0 comments

Of course it depends on jurisdiction, but it would be really interesting to see what would happen if someone got their hands on keys of some commercial organizations’ wallet and then publicly announced (according to the premise that they are the rightful owner). E.g by using a PRNG-weakness in some HSM or something, i.e no entry into their networks etc.

My guess is that the court would recognize the first owner as the “real” owner, especially if they can show that they controlled the address up until some point.

In a similar vain condictio indebiti is a principle in maybe jurisdictions, where a receiver of a wrongful payment is required to return it. Even if the payment is made with crypto, the principle would probably stand if it’s practical to enforce.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

timdaub4y ago· 2 in thread

Does a court even have a mandate over something that it cannot enforce anyways? What's the point of a court deciding something about Bitcoin ownership? I'd just embarass itself, wouldn't it?

filleokusOP4y ago

I think my point is that Bitcoin isn’t different (in some aspects) compared to other asset.

If a company accidentally sent a bundle of cash via registered mail to the wrong person, the recipient (if known) would probably have to return that cash after a court ruling.

If Coinbase made an erroneous transfer of BTC to one of their customers (whose identities they know), the recipient would probably have to return the bitcoins after a court ruling.

If the recipient of the mailed cash is unknown, or the person associated with the receiving wallet is unknown, then the court could obviously do nothing. But that inability is a function of the knowledge about the parties involved, not of the underlying technologies.

Bitcoin obviously makes it much easier to be unknown to the judicial system. But in my view, for it to be completely not-theft, the recipient should be able to announce publicly what he has done without fear of repercussions.

Similar to how e.g digging up historical artifacts in some jurisdictions is a legal way to gain ownership of something that previously had a different owner.

timdaub4y ago

yeah but re-generating a private key as a secondary owner isn't akin to any ownership concept in the real world and so I doubt that the law already has a playbook on how to handle such a situation.

Re-generating a private key for outputs that have spendable Bitcoins isn't like sending letters to the wrong person.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse