Re: [Bitcoin-development] The legal risks of auto-updating wallet software; custodial relationships

2015-01-20 Thread Peter Todd
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] The legal risks of auto-updating wallet software; custodial relationships

2015-01-20 Thread Tamas Blummer
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

[Bitcoin-development] Request for Comment: Bitcoin Wallet Privacy Ratings Criteria

2015-01-20 Thread Kristov Atlas
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.

[Bitcoin-development] The legal risks of auto-updating wallet software; custodial relationships

2015-01-20 Thread Peter Todd
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] The legal risks of auto-updating wallet software; custodial relationships

2015-01-20 Thread Peter Todd
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] The legal risks of auto-updating wallet software; custodial relationships

2015-01-20 Thread Justus Ranvier
-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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] The legal risks of auto-updating wallet software; custodial relationships

2015-01-20 Thread Matt Whitlock
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] The legal risks of auto-updating wallet software; custodial relationships

2015-01-20 Thread Tamas Blummer
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] The legal risks of auto-updating wallet software; custodial relationships

2015-01-20 Thread Matt Whitlock
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] The legal risks of auto-updating wallet software; custodial relationships

2015-01-20 Thread Matt Whitlock
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.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] The legal risks of auto-updating wallet software; custodial relationships

2015-01-20 Thread Peter Todd
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] The legal risks of auto-updating wallet software; custodial relationships

2015-01-20 Thread Tamas Blummer
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:

Re: [Bitcoin-development] The legal risks of auto-updating wallet software; custodial relationships

2015-01-20 Thread Roy Badami
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

[Bitcoin-development] [softfork proposal] Strict DER signatures

2015-01-20 Thread Pieter Wuille
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

[Bitcoin-development] Why Bitcoin is and isn't like the Internet

2015-01-20 Thread 21E14
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] The legal risks of auto-updating wallet software; custodial relationships

2015-01-20 Thread odinn
-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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] [softfork proposal] Strict DER signatures

2015-01-20 Thread Rusty Russell
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Why Bitcoin is and isn't like the Internet

2015-01-20 Thread Aaron Voisine
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] The legal risks of auto-updating wallet software; custodial relationships

2015-01-20 Thread Justus Ranvier
-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