📅 Original date posted:2015-01-20
📝 Original message:On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:47:04PM -0500, Matt Whitlock 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.
The law concerns itself with what should be done, not what can be done.
Bitcoin the technology doesn't have a concept of "ownership" - that's a
legal notion, not a mathematical one.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000001a5e1dc75b28e8445c6e8a5c35c76637e33a3e96d487b74c
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150120/58de4e30/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2…a2np2
2023-06-07 15:28:48
in reply to nevent1q…f42j
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 15:28:48Event JSON
{
"id": "b3cca5eb3b78f5356d7521607449913b83de308668c8e3c5dfa531ed9faed65b",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686151728,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3369ddafb224d798820fc530790b9f373d035b330fde54815689bebe9c1aa553",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"41ed6534c34f43a5430c14ff41e9b80a3de6cbc54496f8e7771011b1c3dc8e33",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f00d0858b09287e941ccbc491567cc70bdbc62d714628b167c1b76e7fef04d91"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-01-20\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:47:04PM -0500, Matt Whitlock wrote:\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\nThe law concerns itself with what should be done, not what can be done.\n\nBitcoin the technology doesn't have a concept of \"ownership\" - that's a\nlegal notion, not a mathematical one.\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n00000000000000001a5e1dc75b28e8445c6e8a5c35c76637e33a3e96d487b74c\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 650 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150120/58de4e30/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "b1f5641b18f54084273591709b13681b5321f5e54b69ba21a4cd4fe5be6113647f8c9c9e5912c548ea2c954a2b35454b04a12f871bc3e497a2e87f2ccb78d98f"
}