From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 12:47:04 -0500
Message-ID: <30930479.sqHpaOe3cY@crushinator>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.3 (Linux/3.16.5-gentoo; KDE/4.14.3; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <656E7756-5F0B-4594-B9F1-8CC68C7A5EE5@bitsofproof.com>
References: <20150120154641.GA32556@muck> <2236907.ZtrNgikFVR@crushinator>
	<656E7756-5F0B-4594-B9F1-8CC68C7A5EE5@bitsofproof.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The legal risks of auto-updating wallet
	software; custodial relationships
Precedence: list

On Tuesday, 20 January 2015, at 6:44 pm, Tamas Blummer wrote:
> Knowing the private key and owning the linked coins is not necessaril=
y the same in front of a court.
>=20
> At least in german law there is a difference between =E2=80=98Eigentu=
m' means ownership and =E2=80=98Besitz=E2=80=99 means ability to deal w=
ith 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. Bitcoin=
s *do* have an owner independent from the parties who have access to th=
e private keys that control their disposition. That's pretty difficult =
to reconcile from a technological perspective.