summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/1b/4fc396f6327707e0aa71a5d14d2932d301e472
blob: 7ae37b71c1cdd4d8b2bc12e3b6d1fdd3dc4519d2 (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <roy@gnomon.org.uk>) id 1YDggZ-0000FW-Na
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 20 Jan 2015 21:50:07 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gnomon.org.uk
	designates 93.93.131.22 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=93.93.131.22; envelope-from=roy@gnomon.org.uk;
	helo=darla.gnomon.org.uk; 
Received: from darla.gnomon.org.uk ([93.93.131.22])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1YDggX-0005Y4-Rq
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 20 Jan 2015 21:50:07 +0000
Received: from darla.gnomon.org.uk (localhost.gnomon.org.uk [127.0.0.1])
	by darla.gnomon.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id t0KLnvxS041424
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);
	Tue, 20 Jan 2015 21:50:02 GMT (envelope-from roy@darla.gnomon.org.uk)
Received: (from roy@localhost)
	by darla.gnomon.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.1/Submit) id t0KLnsJl041422;
	Tue, 20 Jan 2015 21:49:54 GMT (envelope-from roy)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 21:49:52 +0000
From: Roy Badami <roy@gnomon.org.uk>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Message-ID: <20150120214936.GP5396@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
References: <20150120154641.GA32556@muck>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150120154641.GA32556@muck>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS          SPF: HELO matches SPF record
	-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
	domain
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1YDggX-0005Y4-Rq
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The legal risks of auto-updating wallet
 software; custodial relationships
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 21:50:07 -0000

> 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
custodial relationship with me?

Your example of a malicious software update seems more akin to a theft
like that (which is clearly not a custodial relationship) rather than
a true custodial relationship.

roy