[t0mas88]

No, but that's not the same. Signatures and checks are covered by terms & conditions (and law) that you must follow.

A better anology is if you figure out a mathematical advantage within the rules of a casino game, are you allowed to win? I believe you are, as long as it's within the rules of the game. And the casinos are smart enough to create rules against any lasting mathematical advantage.

[grumple]

I know how to pick locks. The locks are designed to open when pins are raised by a certain amount. Doesn't mean I have a right to anything I can unlock.

The intention of the system is to work to as security. Just because you find a way around the security doesn't mean that you are now immune to the law regarding ownership. When SHAX gets cracked, that doesn't give the person figuring it out a right to transfer all the money out of your bank account just because they figured out the math.

[postalrat]

If private keys are proof of ownership then what's the difference between keys generated before vs keys generated after. If both keys are valid then both have then both are proof.

[grumple]

Private keys are not proof of ownership, they are a technical implementation detail. That crypto has been poorly designed so that keys are all people have to prove ownership is a failure of design but doesn't fundamentally change the divisibility of ownership and access. This is easily observed with a shared wallet, for example coinbase's. If an employee stole their keys, I assure you that employee would enjoy a jail yard view for the next lifetime.