On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 08:43:57AM -0800, Daniel Stadulis wrote:
Hey Peter,
What would you say to the argument: given developers have auto update
capabilities they only have the ability to *give themselves* *the ability* to
have custodial rights?
Heh, well, courts tend not to have the
Justus,
In contrary.
Not being in the jurisdiction of the wallet provider makes it harder for the
user to reclaim funds taken by the wallet provider.
The legal hurdle to force confiscation through a wallet provider might also be
lower if the target user is not domestic.
Tamas Blummer
The Open Bitcoin Privacy Project is seeking public comment on our ratings
criteria for Bitcoin wallet privacy. Please provide your feedback within
the next week through Jan 23, 2015 to ensure that it will be considered for
version 1.0 of the document.
I was talking to a lawyer with a background in finance law the other day
and we came to a somewhat worrying conclusion: authors of Bitcoin wallet
software probably have a custodial relationship with their users,
especially if they use auto-update mechanisms. Unfortunately this has
potential legal
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:23:14PM -0500, Matt Whitlock wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 January 2015, at 10:46 am, Peter Todd wrote:
I was talking to a lawyer with a background in finance law the other day
and we came to a somewhat worrying conclusion: authors of Bitcoin wallet
software probably have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/20/2015 03:46 PM, Peter Todd wrote:
But ultimately we're not going to know until court cases start
happening. In the meantime probably the best advice - other than
getting out of the wallet business! - is to do everything you can
to prevent
On Tuesday, 20 January 2015, at 12:40 pm, Peter Todd wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 12:23:14PM -0500, Matt Whitlock wrote:
If you have the private keys for your users' bitcoins, then you are every
bit as much the owner of those bitcoins as your users are. There is no
custodial
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.
Tamas
On Tuesday, 20 January 2015, at 10:46 am, Peter Todd wrote:
I was talking to a lawyer with a background in finance law the other day
and we came to a somewhat worrying conclusion: authors of Bitcoin wallet
software probably have a custodial relationship with their users,
especially if they use
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.
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
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 b...@mattwhitlock.name wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 January 2015, at 6:44 pm, Tamas Blummer wrote:
Why is this? Well, in most jurisdictions financial laws a custodial
relationship is defined as having the ability, but not the right, to
dispose of an asset.
So if I leave my window open while I'm out and there's some cash on my
desk, visible from the street, then every passer by now has a
Hello everyone,
We've been aware of the risk of depending on OpenSSL for consensus
rules for a while, and were trying to get rid of this as part of BIP
62 (malleability protection), which was however postponed due to
unforeseen complexities. The recent evens (see the thread titled
OpenSSL 1.0.0p
This is a response to a wonderfully insightful recent post by Joichi Ito,
the Director of the MIT Media Lab. In it, Dr. Ito, notably a former Board
Member of ICANN, offered his thoughts on Why Bitcoin is and isn't like the
Internet and asked a most pertinent question: Whether there is an ICANN
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Um ~ jurisdiction of wallet provider?
If that's the (perhaps ot) bit you want to run on this thread then my
comments are:
Get out of web wallet businesses now. It's not a jurisdictional
question anymore, although I think there used to be very
Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com writes:
Hello everyone,
We've been aware of the risk of depending on OpenSSL for consensus
rules for a while, and were trying to get rid of this as part of BIP
62 (malleability protection), which was however postponed due to
unforeseen complexities. The
Ultimately the only way to insure bitcoin holdings is with an insurer
who themselves holds enough bitcoin to cover replacement of insured
funds. In the existing insurance industry, this is handled through a
system of re-insurance, where smaller firms are themselves insured
against catastrophic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/20/2015 12:48 PM, Tamas Blummer wrote:
The legal hurdle to force confiscation through a wallet provider
might also be lower if the target user is not domestic.
Depending on the threat model, the incentive to force confiscation
might also be
19 matches
Mail list logo
