Thanks for the answer. However, I'd like to point out a few things: first, the whole point of bitcoin is that it is a global decentralized network ungoverned by any regional authority. Second, hacking into addresses is not equivalent to hacking into computers, because the money is not stored on computers - rather, they are stored on the public network (blockchain). Finally, it's hard to locate the owner (other than sending him messages encoded in transactions), as bitcoin addresses are almost untraceable. Therefore, I'm not sure if the laws you mentioned apply to the case of bitcoin......

@Anonymous 1. The people are in one or more jurisdictions; 2. the blockchain is held in computers; 3. it may well be difficult to trace the owner, like a wallet without any identifying information in it, it's irrelevant to the point that the jurisdiction may nevertheless require 'reasonable' steps and/or informing the authorities

@Anonymous Cipherpunks are keen on the idea of creating stuff that cannot be regulated as a practical matter, but that doesn't change the legal position. From a legal point of view this is merely being an undetected criminal.

The interesting about the first and second paragraphs is that if the person crack the key by computer, it is a crime, but if the person crack the key by pen and paper, it is not.

There is no gain of access to a program or data. Data is all public. The ownership of some virtual number stored somewhere on the internet is a very strange concept for and no doubt for the law. Ownership of a private key is also a strange concept. You own it if you know it basically. I think there might be other more generic laws about intentions and actions that may apply though.

@lvella the fact I haven't mentioned such an offence doesn't mean there is no such offence.

I certainly know more than one jurisdiction where, if I went to the police informing them of such a find, they would send me away and tell me to not bother them with such "nerd sh*t", because they don't have the slightest idea what it even means.

@akostadinov A cryptographic private key isn't very different from a physical key and lock from a legal standpoint. If I own a building and have a key to its lock, just because I lose the key and someone else picks it up or they copy it without my consent doesn't mean they own the building or have my permission to use their key to enter it. Obviously the exact laws applied might be a little different because it's online but the basic concept of property ownership doesn't change just because the property is digital.

@akostadinov The project's website lbc.cryptoguru.org/about makes a distinction between (A) searching for 'colliding private keys' and (B) claiming possession of funds found that way. It claims A is not illegal but B might be illegal depending on one's jurisdiction. I think the question is about B, not A. The person runs some code to get unauthorised access to funds that aren't his and transfers the funds to another account with intent to take possession of them.

@Lag, there are no actual funds. There are some numerical values in a public database that is not formally ruled by anything. These databases have been forked and modified without government regulations. Why shall government interfere if somebody finds a way to modify this database that nobody knew possible? On the other hand there might be some more generic law that comes in place based on person's intention.

@akostadinov I disagree they are merely "numerical values", they have value as a medium of exchange to some people - including those running this code. Also the question and project use the term 'funds'. "These databases have been forked and modified without government regulations" - that the government is unaware of something or has not regulated something doesn't mean no law has been broken at all.

@Lag, some people may name tree leaves as "funds". I think the question needs to be tried on a very high level court or new laws created to make situation clearer.

Imagine I set up a computer to give $100 to anyone who can factor a 200-digit number that is the product of two primes. (And make it clear that my intent is that anyone with the factors gets the money.) If you take the $100 by entering the factors in, you may have done many things, but you certainly didn't access my computer without authorization. That is how bitcoin private keys work.

@DavidSchwartz: Yeah, if I announce "These are my coins, but if you guess my private key you can have them", then the legal situation is clear. But if I announce "These are my coins and I don't authorize you to take them, even if you do guess my private key"? Or, if I don't make any announcement at all?

@DavidSchwartz In your scenario it seems to me that you have authorised people to take the $100 by entering the factors, so perhaps I have misunderstood it.

@lvella, the crime isn't finding the private key. It's making use of the discovered private key to access the bitcoins.

@NateEldredge the problem I have with that statement is right at the start when you say "these are my coins" - how are they yours?

@Lag Yes, that's precisely how blockchains work. People who operate the software authorize people to take funds by providing particular numbers to those computers. Using those numbers to access the software isn't unauthorized because that's how the authorized use of those computers works.

@DavidSchwartz, People that operate the software is "everybody that runs the software". It is totally voluntary basis. It is as much you or I as much as anybody else. There is no entity to make or enforce the rules. AFAIK nobody set rules for you to join the network. People think that they own something because they believe nobody else can operate with their tiny number in the blockchain. If this premise is not true, then nobody would believe in that value anyway. If a method is discovered to recover private keys, that would mean the whole value of all bitcoins will in an instant become 0.

@DavidSchwartz the whole reason people use cryptographic schemes like RSA and Diffie-Hellman is because they don't intend for anyone to be able to factor the prime in question, nor do they intend for anyone who obtains a key they accidentally revealed to the public to use it.

@DavidSchwartz it's like you're saying if they managed to steal a billion dollars of bitcoins from you because they managed to factor that prime, you would congratulate them on a job well done. I mean maybe you would on principle. But then you would promptly switch to some other encryption scheme.

@DavidSchwartz I don't think mere participation of the unknown 'owner' in the blockchain constitutes authorisation to others to gain access to and transfer any bitcoins they find that the 'owner' may have thought he 'owned'. Perhaps I continue to misunderstand your position and need it spelling out.

@DavidSchwartz: I don't get the logic that by using a piece of software, one implicitly authorizes everything that the software makes possible. By that logic, by locking my bike on a public bike rack, I am implicitly authorizing anyone with a duplicate key (or a pair of bolt cutters) to take it away. After all, I am fully aware that the laws of physics make this possible. So we'd conclude that all those people in jail for bike theft were wrongfully convicted...

@akostadinov: See irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/…. The U.S. federal government, at least, does consider Bitcoin to be actual property (at least for purposes of taxing it). Your claim that "There are some numerical values in a public database that is not formally ruled by anything" requires some support.

@NateEldridge trying to draw parallels with the real world will be problematic on this case but this isn't really a corollary of "anyone who knows my bike lock code can take my bike" - it's more like "anyone who knows my bike lock code can tell someone else the bike is theirs because they know the code, and the other person will believe them ...

because we live in a world with no other third party (eg the store you bought the bike from plus the receipt you hold for it) to say "yeah the tall guy with the brown hair owns that bike"

The difficult arises when two people can legitimately say they know the code to the lock, and bothbare trying to assert to the third party that the bike is theirs and they have authority to transfer it. The third party doesn't really have any way of knowing the truth, nor does it care. If you apply some rule like "the person who knew the lock code first is the owner" all it does is shift the problem to deciding who knew the code first

(In fact the entire premise of "the bike is theirs" is difficult to apply because it's never really anyone's, it just acquires some attached value when transferred and it's usually in motion. It more like finders keepers with the exception that no one can really keep it because anyone can find it. In this regard it's really more like buried pirate treasure and anyone can take some drugs, draw a map on a trip, follow the map when sober and find the gold then move it somewhere else