Quote from: AnonyMint on March 02, 2014, 10:49:21 AM

Quote from: davidgdg on March 02, 2014, 10:42:02 AM

Quote from: AnonyMint on March 02, 2014, 10:37:13 AM

Quote from: davidgdg on March 02, 2014, 10:33:23 AM

Quote from: AnonyMint on March 02, 2014, 10:27:07 AM

Quote from: davidgdg on March 02, 2014, 10:24:57 AM

Quote from: AnonyMint on March 02, 2014, 10:02:37 AM

Quote from: davidgdg on March 02, 2014, 09:58:57 AM

The OP may be a very clever fellow but he is no lawyer and would be well advised not to opine upon subjects about which he is clearly ignorant.

My father (and I am age 48) is a very high-powered attorney. I do suggest you have several attorneys comment on this matter.

I disagree with your assertion that I am ignorant and that I should not express my educated opinions. I have posted the Wikipedia link to the law that applies to stolen property.

The biggest myopia of Bitards is they somehow think the government doesn't want to (or can't) control currency any more Roll Eyes

The government will not give up its power willingly. They will bend the rules to their favor. Only rock solid anonymity can fend off the government and Bitcoin can never have that.

Disclaimer: I am not giving legal advice, please consult your own professional. I sharing my opinions. I am not responsible for what you do after reading my opinions.

Then I suggest you ask your father if the victim of a theft has an equitable tracing remedy into a mixed fund where the new owner is a bona fide purchaser (hint - the answer is "no").

Cite case law. Otherwise you are just blowing out of your arse.

Ask your Dad

There is no case law that supercedes nemo dat quod non habet for something like Bitcoins.

If you disagree, cite case law.

The simple Nemo dat rule does not apply to mixed funds. Save us both some time and google "bona fide purchaser" or look up "tracing" on Wiki. Once you have done that we can talk.

You are incorrect.

http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=0KHWrbVW1_EC&lpg=PR12&ots=FZqXLNpjSI&dq=nemo%20dat%20quod%20non%20habet%20mixed%20funds&pg=PA692#v=onepage&q=nemo%20dat%20quod%20non%20habet%20mixed%20funds&f=false

The only exclusions from nemo dat are for bank accounts, checks, or anything pertaining to the official currency and financial system. Indeed as the case law above shows, you can't use nemo dat to trace through bank account balances that went negative.

You are misapplying that to assert no tracing on mixed funds, which in fact the opposite is implied by the above resource.

It clearly states that courts have used, "proportionate shares in any substitutable property".

How much more clear of a slamdunk refutation could I possibly find. Tongue

I'm perfectly happy to have a serious debate about this. But before I do so you really do need to do some proper research. Until then, I think we're back to "ask your dad".