@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.
The creator of a "Bitcoin puzzle" (where funds are locked behind a private key that must be brute-forced) is intentionally creating a scenario where theft is incentivized. Even if they frame it as a game or challenge, the legal reality is:
They knowingly put funds in a position where unauthorized access is the only way to claim them.
They are effectively encouraging hacking/unauthorized access, which is illegal in most jurisdictions (e.g., under computer fraud, unauthorized access, or theft laws).
If the puzzle creator never relinquished ownership (e.g., by clearly stating "this is not yours until you solve X"), then solving the puzzle does not grant legal ownership, it’s still theft.
If they implied abandonment (e.g., "Whoever finds this can have it"), then it might be a gray area, but most legal systems don’t recognize brute-forcing as a legitimate claim method.
The puzzle creator could be legally liable because:
They structured a scheme that requires illegal actions (unauthorized access) to claim funds.
They knowingly set up a system that violates computer crime laws (e.g., CFAA in the U.S., similar laws in the EU/UK).
They may be seen as an accomplice to theft by deliberately creating conditions where theft is the only way to obtain the funds.
The puzzle creator is not innocent, they designed a system that requires illegal actions to claim funds. While they might argue it’s a "game," the law doesn’t generally recognize brute-forcing private keys as a legitimate way to transfer ownership.
It's not correct and you are mixing up “unauthorized access” with a public bounty.
The puzzle creator openly puts the coins in addresses meant to be cracked and even thanks the community for building new cracking tools. That is an implied green light: the only way to claim the prize is to derive the key, and the owner clearly intends that to happen. No computer system is being broken into and the funds are not protected by anything but the puzzle itself, so there is no “unauthorized access” under computer-crime laws. It is a public bounty, not theft.