📅 Original date posted:2015-01-20
📝 Original message:I am not a lawyer, just thinking loud.
I think that technology is a strong argument before court, but I suspect that it is just that, as of now.
Tamas Blummer
On Jan 20, 2015, at 6:47 PM, Matt Whitlock <bip at mattwhitlock.name> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 20 January 2015, at 6:44 pm, Tamas Blummer wrote:
>> Knowing the private key and owning the linked coins is not necessarily the same in front of a court.
>>
>> At least in german law there is a difference between ‘Eigentum' means ownership and ‘Besitz’ means ability to deal with it.
>> Being able to deal with an asset does not make you the owner.
>
> So what we're telling the newbies in /r/bitcoin is plain wrong. Bitcoins *do* have an owner independent from the parties who have access to the private keys that control their disposition. That's pretty difficult to reconcile from a technological perspective.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150120/516a0e8b/attachment.html>;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150120/516a0e8b/attachment.sig>;
Tamas Blummer [ARCHIVE] /
npub1cc…ex8m8
2023-06-07 15:28:48
in reply to nevent1q…0rru
Author Public Key
npub1ccegg9n9lnx6huppxg43m95488yur7pfemkn3pz0agjws5ffvtts0ex8m8Published at
2023-06-07 15:28:48Event JSON
{
"id": "1ac959590783177ed75f9170bd9db864349717355267ddeae970f9f014a1b953",
"pubkey": "c632841665fccdabf021322b1d969539c9c1f829ceed38844fea24e8512962d7",
"created_at": 1686151728,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3369ddafb224d798820fc530790b9f373d035b330fde54815689bebe9c1aa553",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b3cca5eb3b78f5356d7521607449913b83de308668c8e3c5dfa531ed9faed65b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-01-20\n📝 Original message:I am not a lawyer, just thinking loud.\nI think that technology is a strong argument before court, but I suspect that it is just that, as of now.\n\nTamas Blummer\nOn Jan 20, 2015, at 6:47 PM, Matt Whitlock \u003cbip at mattwhitlock.name\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Tuesday, 20 January 2015, at 6:44 pm, Tamas Blummer wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Knowing the private key and owning the linked coins is not necessarily the same in front of a court.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e At least in german law there is a difference between ‘Eigentum' means ownership and ‘Besitz’ means ability to deal with it.\n\u003e\u003e Being able to deal with an asset does not make you the owner.\n\u003e \n\u003e So what we're telling the newbies in /r/bitcoin is plain wrong. Bitcoins *do* have an owner independent from the parties who have access to the private keys that control their disposition. That's pretty difficult to reconcile from a technological perspective.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150120/516a0e8b/attachment.html\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 496 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150120/516a0e8b/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "5f209ad17d214d7a290250c1dc81d0e9ff33443ccb305339bfc3dca0fdbe5f54060cc05317229cb3945da69ec4a9bac0b9d87e7d1b3a857300d3e524f19113f4"
}