@kTimesG Having a valid signature may satisfy the Bitcoin protocol, but off-chain it’s still treated as theft.
It's not theft if it never belonged to the one who claimed it theft.
I'd start there. By this logic, all the guys who solved puzzles so far are thieves.
By the same logic, if I add funds to private key 42, and I call it my assets, then I should sue whoever transfers the funds in the very next block. Correct?
Geez.
When someone solves the puzzle they broadcast a signed transaction; at that moment the prize is theirs. A bot that copies the same signature, adds a bigger fee, and slips ahead in the next block is hijacking value it didn’t earn. Regulators are already treating that pattern as theft, not “just being faster”:
U.S. v. Peraire-Bueno (SDNY, May 2024) – two brothers who rearranged pending Ethereum transactions to grab $25 M were charged with wire fraud and money-laundering.
https://wp.nyu.edu/compliance_enforcement/2024/05/22/crypto-experts-react-to-recent-sdny-ethereum-fraud-indictment/SafeMoon front-run (DoJ press release, Jun 2025) – a bot that intercepted another trader’s mempool transaction had its $680 K haul seized as stolen cryptocurrency.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/united-states-returns-over-680000-stolen-cryptocurrency-using-civil-asset-forfeitureEven research papers call it what it is: “Front-Running-as-a-Service Is Theft.”
https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2021/04/07/miners-front-running-as-a-service-is-theftEnglish law makes the same point: crypto is property, and taking it without consent is conversion (AA v Persons Unknown, 2019).
https://blogs.orrick.com/blockchain/english-high-court-recognizes-cryptoassets-to-be-a-form-of-property-considerations-following-aa-v-persons-unknown/So yes, if you fund key 42 with no conditions, whoever signs first owns it. In the puzzle, the first signer already exists; a bot that shoves their transaction aside is just pickpocketing at mempool speed.