2 ms·

It does matter if it's a bitcoin, a car or a quarter. A bitcoin is completely virtual with no intrinsic value. The legal recourse that would occur in this cas

It does matter if it's a bitcoin, a car or a quarter. A bitcoin is completely virtual with no intrinsic value. The legal recourse that would occur in this case is undefined.

jacques_chester 15y ago
I think you've confused title with damages. If I own something, I have legal rights enforceable on it, regardless of whether anyone else thinks it's valuable. If I owned the bitcoins -- I suspect common law would have little difficult in identifying these as distinctly ownable -- then I have enforceable rights in them. I can ask the court to order those rights be respected. Property rights in virtual property is a fast-growing area of law, however, so: IANAL, TINLA.
- juiceandjuice 15y ago
  Ultimately, there's the way things should be and the way things are, and Bitcoin already has a stigma. Sure, it's not illegal right now, but that doesn't mean it's legal either. That's all I'm saying. Imagine the headlines: "Virtual currency used by drug traffickers stolen from users, courts play world's tiniest violin." If a drug dealer steals a kilo from another drug dealer he's not going to take it to the courts. Thinking you will be entitled to some form of legal recourse should something similar happen to you when trading bitcoins is, IMO, foolish at this point.
  - jacques_chester 15y ago
    > If a drug dealer steels a kilo from another drug dealer he's not going to take it to the courts. As you can imagine, courts do not uphold contracts where there is an unlawful objective ("I paid him to beat my boss and he didn't!") and in most jurisdictions you cannot obtain property rights in certain things (in others you can, but asking for enforcement exposes you to criminal prosecution so in practice it doesn't happen). Bitcoin is not a prohibited item and the exchange of bitcoins looks very much like contracts that don't have a unlawful objective. Put another way: courts would probably enforce rights for trades made on Mt Gox, but not on Silk Road. (IANAL, TINLA)
gte910h 15y ago
A bitcoin is little different than a piece of metal with regards to that. Of courts could do something strange (they often go OH MY COMPUTERS and shake their hands for a few years), but it is clearly a piece of intangible property.

It does matter if it's a bitcoin, a car or a quarter. A bitcoin is completely virtual with no intrinsic value. The legal recourse that would occur in this case is undefined.

jacques_chester 15y ago

I think you've confused title with damages. If I own something, I have legal rights enforceable on it, regardless of whether anyone else thinks it's valuable. If I owned the bitcoins -- I suspect common law would have little difficult in identifying these as distinctly ownable -- then I have enforceable rights in them. I can ask the court to order those rights be respected. Property rights in virtual property is a fast-growing area of law, however, so: IANAL, TINLA.

juiceandjuice 15y ago
Ultimately, there's the way things should be and the way things are, and Bitcoin already has a stigma. Sure, it's not illegal right now, but that doesn't mean it's legal either. That's all I'm saying. Imagine the headlines: "Virtual currency used by drug traffickers stolen from users, courts play world's tiniest violin." If a drug dealer steals a kilo from another drug dealer he's not going to take it to the courts. Thinking you will be entitled to some form of legal recourse should something similar happen to you when trading bitcoins is, IMO, foolish at this point.
- jacques_chester 15y ago
  > If a drug dealer steels a kilo from another drug dealer he's not going to take it to the courts. As you can imagine, courts do not uphold contracts where there is an unlawful objective ("I paid him to beat my boss and he didn't!") and in most jurisdictions you cannot obtain property rights in certain things (in others you can, but asking for enforcement exposes you to criminal prosecution so in practice it doesn't happen). Bitcoin is not a prohibited item and the exchange of bitcoins looks very much like contracts that don't have a unlawful objective. Put another way: courts would probably enforce rights for trades made on Mt Gox, but not on Silk Road. (IANAL, TINLA)

gte910h 15y ago

A bitcoin is little different than a piece of metal with regards to that. Of courts could do something strange (they often go OH MY COMPUTERS and shake their hands for a few years), but it is clearly a piece of intangible property.