I would suggest the same for bitcoin. That the holder of the private key must have free and clear title to the bitcoins represented by the private key.
Of course, just like paper currency, the acquisition of a private key by fraudulent means should be illegal.
Do you mean to say that:
- The first to establish proof of control (knowledge of the private key) should have legal ownership?
- And without such proof, acquisition of the private key by any means should not be illegal?
Not quite. My point is tangental to Santori's ownership/control analogy. I'm suggesting that once someone loses control of a bitcoin address, and the new controlling party spends those coins, then those coins should be able to be spent freely by subsequent owners. More specifically there should be no blacklist attempt to quarantine tainted coins.
I am not suggesting that acquisition of a bitcoin address by any means should be legal.