• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

psionl0 said:
That sounds like a question of law.

I don't know if the legal system would treat cryptos the same way as other assets/property but, if so, then there must be plenty of precedents that handle cases where a defendant has been ordered to return an asset but fails to do so.
Click to expand...

Sure. For a physical asset the court can issue a Writ of Replevin which empowers law enforcement to take the asset and hand it to its rightful owner. Like to see that work with a crypto wallet.
 
jeremyp said:
Still no actual argument then.
Click to expand...
Just because you are too lazy to go back over the 13+years that this thread has been running and count how many times I rebutted this nonsense doesn't mean that I don't have an argument.

jeremyp said:
OK I'll concede that you didn't deny the blockchain is an append only database. However, you certainly can put bad data into it. A fraudulent transaction is bad data. It's a transaction that should not have happened. I can't think of worse data than that.
Click to expand...
It is absolutely pathetic of you to try and claim that there is no difference between a transaction that was not authorized by the wallet holder and a transaction that was authorized by the wallet holder but based on fraud.
 
psionl0 said:
Why can't that also work with a digital asset?
Click to expand...

What kind of scenario are you thinking of? Because most of the ones I'm considering involve a hosting organization that must follow US law and judicial orders in order to operate. The organization hosting the digital asset can execute the transfer. There is no such organization in the case of Bitcoin.

The police can't reach into a person's brain and get the information necessary to transfer the cryptocurrency. They can jail the person, possibly. But that doesn't collect the funds.
 
Last edited:
Dr.Sid said:
Do you claim standard bank won't accept fraudulent transaction of this kind ?
Click to expand...
No.

But a bank transaction can be reversed when it becomes apparent that the original transaction was fraudulent. This is a huge advantage for credit cards over Bitcoin and one reason why BTC or other crypto currencies will never supplant the current banking system.
 
psionl0 said:
Just because you are too lazy to go back over the 13+years that this thread has been running and count how many times I rebutted this nonsense doesn't mean that I don't have an argument.
Click to expand...
I've counted the number of times you have successfully rebutted the argument. It's zero.

It is absolutely pathetic of you to try and claim that there is no difference between a transaction that was not authorized by the wallet holder and a transaction that was authorized by the wallet holder but based on fraud.
Click to expand...
I'm not claiming that.

Edit: these are clearly two different kinds of bad data, but both are bad data.

Furthermore, there have been plenty of cases where BTC has been transferred from a wallet without authorisation by the wallet holder. All it needs is for a criminal to obtain the password by deception or cracking.
 
Last edited:
jeremyp said:
I've counted the number of times you have successfully rebutted the argument. It's zero.
Click to expand...
List the posts you examined or it never happened.

jeremyp said:
Edit: these are clearly two different kinds of bad data, but both are bad data.
Click to expand...
Immutability can be an advantage or a disadvantage. Cash can also be subject to the same kind of "bad data".
 
Last edited:
gnome said:
The police can't reach into a person's brain and get the information necessary to transfer the cryptocurrency.
Click to expand...
Do you really think that cryptos only exist in one's mind? I see no difference between obtaining a digital asset by fraud or theft and obtaining other property by fraud or theft then disposing of the property before the legal system can get involved.
 
jeremyp said:
No.

But a bank transaction can be reversed when it becomes apparent that the original transaction was fraudulent. This is a huge advantage for credit cards over Bitcoin and one reason why BTC or other crypto currencies will never supplant the current banking system.
Click to expand...

That's very different from the ledger being compromised. Also that's why many people, and not just criminals, value crypto over banks.
 
psionl0 said:
Do you really think that cryptos only exist in one's mind?
Click to expand...

No. I don't even know why you're asking. I'm referring to the information needed to access the wallet.

I see no difference between obtaining a digital asset by fraud or theft and obtaining other property by fraud or theft then disposing of the property before the legal system can get involved.
Click to expand...

In the case of crypto you don't even need to dispose of the property. It's simply inaccessible to anyone without voluntarily giving it up.

If the disposed of property can be found, it theoretically can be reclaimed by its proper owner.
 
gnome said:
If the disposed of property can be found, it theoretically can be reclaimed by its proper owner.
Click to expand...
So if the scammmer/thief has the property but makes sure that nobody else can find it then you simply have the same situation as with cryptos (except that we know where the cryptos are).

Stop speculating on how the legal system should treat cryptos (in comparison to other assets) and try to find out how the legal system actually deals with it.
 
Last edited:
Well it's true that bank has bigger authority over the money than the client. And banks can move your money without your approval, for example when ordered by court of law.
That is not possible with crypto. Only owner of the wallet, or anyone having the keys, can manipulate the data. There is no authority above them.
 
psionl0 said:
So if the scammmer/thief has the property but makes sure that nobody else can find it then you simply have the same situation as with cryptos (except that we know where the cryptos are).

Stop speculating on how the legal system should treat cryptos (in comparison to other assets) and try to find out how the legal system actually deals with it.
Click to expand...

I just pointed out how they are different. Hiding or disposing of property requires effort, reduces its availability to the crook, and risks failing anyway. For crypto that's completely unnecessary.
 
gnome said:
I just pointed out how they are different. Hiding or disposing of property requires effort, reduces its availability to the crook, and risks failing anyway. For crypto that's completely unnecessary.
Click to expand...
That is unbelievably ignorant!

A scammer might be able to deny receiving some property but they can't deny receiving crypto (unless you use something like Monero).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom