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
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
-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
-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
14 matches
Mail list logo
