Quote from: Wanderingaran on Today at 08:31:06 PM

Quote from: Benjade on Today at 08:21:03 PM

Quote from: Wanderingaran on Today at 08:08:19 PM

Quote from: kTimesG on Today at 06:55:59 PM

Quote from: Benjade on Today at 06:50:24 PM

@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. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1306983.msg18765941#msg18765941

While the puzzle creator may intend for the funds to be claimed by cracking the key, that doesn’t automatically make it legal. Most jurisdictions don’t recognize brute-forcing as a valid way to transfer ownership. It’s still technically unauthorized access under computer crime laws. The creator’s forum posts might show intent, but unless they structured this as a binding contract or explicit waiver, the law could still view solvers as committing theft. In practice, nobody gets prosecuted because is pseudonymous and the creator isn’t complaining, but that doesn’t make it legally safe.

“Unauthorized access” only occurs when you defeat a safeguard without the owner’s permission.
The puzzle creator has already said “first to crack the key keeps the coins,” which is explicit consent, exactly like a bug-bounty program inviting you to hack their test server. Contract law treats that as a unilateral offer: perform the task, keep the reward. Once consent is public, brute-forcing the key is neither theft nor computer misuse, because the owner has waived exclusivity and the only “system” you touch is the open blockchain.

Here:
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act — 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a): every CFAA offense hinges on accessing a computer “without authorization” or “exceeding authorized access.” If the owner invites you to try, that element is missing. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030

And there:
DOJ charging policy for the CFAA (19 May 2022): prosecutors are told not to bring charges for “good-faith security research” when the owner has authorized the activity. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/department-justice-announces-new-policy-charging-cases-under-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act