INSANE BITCOIN LOOPHOLE LAWSUIT

Inem2

Supreme Member
Jr. VIP
Joined
May 27, 2022
Messages
1,232
Reaction score
414
This story is NUTS, Has anyone been following the New York case involving dormant Bitcoin wallets?


Some dude in New York is trying to claim $286 BILLION in inactive Bitcoin wallets, he is attempting to claim ownership of wallets that have been inactive for a very long time, arguing that they should be treated as abandoned property. What I'm struggling to understand is how that would work in practice if nobody has the private keys needed to move the coins.

But if the private keys are lost, can a court decision actually give someone access to the Bitcoin?


I'm curious whether this is a serious legal argument or just an interesting test of how existing property laws apply to cryptocurrency.
 
I really don't get the argument, it's like claiming ownership of buried treasure but you don't know where the treasure is or how to access it
 
Will never happen, I know a flat-earther when I see one
 
I don't think there's any way to get hold of the bitcoins anyway, so it doesn't matter
 
A court declare ownership on paper, but without the private keys, nobody can move the coins.
 
But if the private keys are lost, can a court decision actually give someone access to the Bitcoin?
Losing the keys means losing the property. it doesn't matter who you bring. That is the Bitcoin concept: if wallets are non-custodial or cold wallets (no government can do anything), even if I try to claim my lost BTC, I cannot do so because of blockchain technology if my keys are lost.
 
This lawsuit is trying traditional, physical property laws onto a decentralized code ? And trying it through exploiting a bizarre legal loophole. Even if a confused judge rules in the plaintiff's favor, it will result in merely a symbolic piece of paper. Without a valid private key signature, the Bitcoin network will simply reject any attempt to transfer any of the funds.
 
crazy! even if a court declared it "abandoned," Bitcoin doesn't come with a master reset button or a legal admin password. without the private keys, it's still just inaccessible data on a blockchain, not something you can magically seize through a ruling
 
Bitcoin ownership is based on cryptographic keys and the possession of the private key is what grants control. The real ownership is tied to the private keys. I hope the judges know that in practice, without private keys, the coins are effectively inaccessible and unclaimable.
 
This story is NUTS, Has anyone been following the New York case involving dormant Bitcoin wallets?


Some dude in New York is trying to claim $286 BILLION in inactive Bitcoin wallets, he is attempting to claim ownership of wallets that have been inactive for a very long time, arguing that they should be treated as abandoned property. What I'm struggling to understand is how that would work in practice if nobody has the private keys needed to move the coins.

But if the private keys are lost, can a court decision actually give someone access to the Bitcoin?


I'm curious whether this is a serious legal argument or just an interesting test of how existing property laws apply to cryptocurrency.
You definitely can't claim cryptocurrency without the private keys so this story is nuts.
 
I think it's a controversial advertising topic designed to attract attention, but I don't think anyone will actually own it.
 
A judge can sign whatever paper they want, but technically , those bitcoins are locked forever unless someone finds the private keys
 
Back
Top