3 ms·

What does "Is that legal" actually _mean_ in this context? It's clearly not _illegal_ for me to own a private key. Bitcoin users generally accept that if they

What does "Is that legal" actually _mean_ in this context? It's clearly not _illegal_ for me to own a private key. Bitcoin users generally accept that if they lose sole access to their keys, they lose sole access to their funds. It's an opt-in system. The fact that such opt-in systems may be rendered impossible due to the application of force is a tremendous flaw in the legal system; it's not otherwise an interesting question. If I post this comment and claim it's public domain, and some legalistic construct pops through a side channel and claims that in my jurisdiction public domain doesn't exist; clearly my personal attribution takes precedence.

TheDong 8y ago
> It's clearly not _illegal_ for me to own a private key. How is that clearly true? Under the computer-fraud-and-abuse act, it's probably illegal for you to own information on my server I don't intend you to own (if you got it from my server at least). If I worked at a certificate authority and stole the signing key they used, quit, and began minting certificates, I can assure you I would be prosecuted and found guilty (both for damage to the company, for stealing company property, violating my contract, and probably a CFAA violation to boot). There are plenty of numbers that you can't legally have on your computer under certain circumstances [0]. All of this relates to "the color of bits"[1], which is to say what's legal and not legal depends on more than just the number. If you steal someone's private key, that's probably illegal. If you are given it or derive it by chance, it's possibly legal. If you use it to steal their bitcoin, even if derived by chance, that's probably illegal (the law doesn't really care about the details of bitcoin, it's still a thing of value that's owned by an individual). The law doesn't care that all those bits are the same; some of them are legal, some of them are not, and we as technical people don't like that. > claim it's public domain, and some legalistic construct pops through a side channel and claims that in my jurisdiction public domain doesn't exist; clearly my personal attribution takes precedence. That also doesn't seem clear to me. In reality, no one will care enough for it to be an issue, but it seems legally arguable. I would like to again refer you to the second post I linked. As a technical person, you don't want to think about how arbitrary and situational the law is, especially in technical issues that seem like they should be clearcut. The reality is much more complicated. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number [1]: http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
PeterisP 8y ago
In this context, "is this legal" refers to what actions with a key you know are permissible, depending on how you obtained that key. There may be things that you are physically able to do with it but are legally not allowed to, just as there may things you would be legally allowed to do, but may lack the capacity (if, for example, you've forgotten some passphrase). Control and ownership are two very different things in this regard. Bitcoin users generally accept that if they lose sole access to their keys, they lose sole control of their funds, but not ownership. For example, if I (for whatever reason) put a private key on a sheet of paper on my desk, and somebody sees that key, then I have lost effective control of that cryptocurrency, but not ownership; if that person would use that knowledge to deprive me of that currency, I would be entitled to have the court send angry armed men to extract compensation for that. It's quite comparable to the scenario where I have gold coins on my desk, and someone manages to take them - they have gained control of the coins, the physical reality enforces a rule where whoever holds the coins can hand them to others in exchange for goods and services (just as mathematical reality enforces a rule where whoever knows the private key can authorize Bitcoin transactions), but gaining control does not necessarily imply gaining ownership. Just as if a rich man gives their accountant the access codes to their electronic banking, and the keys to their safe, it does not mean that the accountant is legally free to do whatever they want with that money (even in the absence of a specific contract) - they have been given control, but not the ownership. And, of course, simply using Bitcoin does not constitute opting out of the common property rights. You could opt out by a specific contract, but simply being aware "that if they lose sole access to their keys, they lose sole access to their funds" does not mean waiving your legal rights for redress if your funds get taken (though it might be difficult to find the culprit), just as being aware of all the risks involved by drunkenly waving around a bag with gold coins in a seedy alley does not mean waiving your rights for redress if these coins get taken.

TheDong 8y ago

> It's clearly not _illegal_ for me to own a private key. How is that clearly true? Under the computer-fraud-and-abuse act, it's probably illegal for you to own information on my server I don't intend you to own (if you got it from my server at least). If I worked at a certificate authority and stole the signing key they used, quit, and began minting certificates, I can assure you I would be prosecuted and found guilty (both for damage to the company, for stealing company property, violating my contract, and probably a CFAA violation to boot). There are plenty of numbers that you can't legally have on your computer under certain circumstances [0]. All of this relates to "the color of bits"[1], which is to say what's legal and not legal depends on more than just the number. If you steal someone's private key, that's probably illegal. If you are given it or derive it by chance, it's possibly legal. If you use it to steal their bitcoin, even if derived by chance, that's probably illegal (the law doesn't really care about the details of bitcoin, it's still a thing of value that's owned by an individual). The law doesn't care that all those bits are the same; some of them are legal, some of them are not, and we as technical people don't like that. > claim it's public domain, and some legalistic construct pops through a side channel and claims that in my jurisdiction public domain doesn't exist; clearly my personal attribution takes precedence. That also doesn't seem clear to me. In reality, no one will care enough for it to be an issue, but it seems legally arguable. I would like to again refer you to the second post I linked. As a technical person, you don't want to think about how arbitrary and situational the law is, especially in technical issues that seem like they should be clearcut. The reality is much more complicated. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number [1]: http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

PeterisP 8y ago

In this context, "is this legal" refers to what actions with a key you know are permissible, depending on how you obtained that key. There may be things that you are physically able to do with it but are legally not allowed to, just as there may things you would be legally allowed to do, but may lack the capacity (if, for example, you've forgotten some passphrase). Control and ownership are two very different things in this regard. Bitcoin users generally accept that if they lose sole access to their keys, they lose sole control of their funds, but not ownership. For example, if I (for whatever reason) put a private key on a sheet of paper on my desk, and somebody sees that key, then I have lost effective control of that cryptocurrency, but not ownership; if that person would use that knowledge to deprive me of that currency, I would be entitled to have the court send angry armed men to extract compensation for that. It's quite comparable to the scenario where I have gold coins on my desk, and someone manages to take them - they have gained control of the coins, the physical reality enforces a rule where whoever holds the coins can hand them to others in exchange for goods and services (just as mathematical reality enforces a rule where whoever knows the private key can authorize Bitcoin transactions), but gaining control does not necessarily imply gaining ownership. Just as if a rich man gives their accountant the access codes to their electronic banking, and the keys to their safe, it does not mean that the accountant is legally free to do whatever they want with that money (even in the absence of a specific contract) - they have been given control, but not the ownership. And, of course, simply using Bitcoin does not constitute opting out of the common property rights. You could opt out by a specific contract, but simply being aware "that if they lose sole access to their keys, they lose sole access to their funds" does not mean waiving your legal rights for redress if your funds get taken (though it might be difficult to find the culprit), just as being aware of all the risks involved by drunkenly waving around a bag with gold coins in a seedy alley does not mean waiving your rights for redress if these coins get taken.