Quote from: Wanderingaran on Today at 07:38:30 AM

Quote from: Kelvin555 on Today at 06:43:02 AM

What if we wake up tomorrow and someone signs multiple messages with addresses 140 to 160 saying he/she is the rightful owner of these coins, it was never a challenge, never intended for it to be bruteforced, an unfortunate circumstance happened and he/she went to jail for the last 10years, released recently and found out people are bruteforcing his/her coins, has now made a complaint to the authorities about this....
Would you still believe that bitcointalk forum post Huh

I think peoples' greed and lack of money clouds their judgment here.
If the owner wanted to prove legitimate ownership to these coins, nothing stops him signing a message with addresses 150, 155 and 160, state his intent about the coins and paste in a public forum.

A cryptographically signed message from a Bitcoin address is the strongest possible proof . Courts and investigators increasingly recognize such signatures as valid evidence (similar to a digital notarization). A forum post alone carries no weight without cryptographic verification. If the coins are genuinely "lost," courts may view brute-forcing as akin to finding abandoned property. However, if an owner emerges with proof, the brute-forcer could face liability for theft or unjust enrichment. If someone falsely claims ownership without cryptographic proof, they could face civil fraud claims or criminal charges (e.g., filing a false police report).
Courts treat BTC like money or assets, not "abandoned treasure." The risks far outweigh the fantasy rewards.

Why don’t we have these discussions about legality in any of these puzzle topics? I thought this was a Bitcoin forum. Sticky posts explaining that brute-forcing could be considered theft under certain conditions would help. This is the first time I’ve heard this explained here. Tongue