[sneak]

Can someone with a background in law tell me if or why it wouldn't be legal to turn over bitcoin private keys, complying exactly with a request, while also using your own retained copies of those keys to sign transfer transactions sending all those bitcoins held by the previous (now compromised) keys to your new ones that are not covered by the subpoena?

It seems to me that you'd be complying exactly with their request, as furnishing a copy of data does not obligate you to delete your own.

[tptacek]

Isn't this like suggesting that when the image of an HDD is subpoenaed, you might first copy all the data off it, then wipe it, then image that? Because that trick doesn't work.

Relevant statute: 18 U.S.C. § 401. It's pretty broad.

[sneak]

I am talking about providing exactly what the subpoena is asking for, complying both in letter and in spirit.

And transferring your coins to different keys.

The subpoena isn't "for all keys, and no using them on the blockchain". It's just for the data. There is no such thing as ownership of bitcoin.

[teddyh]

> There is no such thing as ownership of bitcoin.

That’s like arguing that there is no such thing as ownership of land. (Which some have argued, but it is a bit tenuous.)

[sneak]

If I post my private key to a bitcoin on pastebin and 100 people download it, who owns that bitcoin the moment before someone does a sweep transaction when 101 strangers all have the private key?

[teddyh]

If I throw some money in the air towards a group of people, who owns it before one of them catches it?

I would guess that I still own it. In the same way, you still own the bitcoin until someone else does.

[sneak]

When you throw money and it's floating in the air and not in your hand, you can't spend it.

When I leak a private key and the coins remain unspent, I can still spend them.

Tossing money into the air clearly ends my ownership of it. Pastebinning bitcoin keys does not (at least until someone sweeps the coins somewhere else using that published key).

[gamblor956]

It's not strictly illegal. The government isn't asking you for your Bitcoins, its asking for your keys. It's like asking you for your account number but not the cash in the account. If the Government wanted to prevent the movement of your bitcoin assets, they would request an order barring outbound transfers. Alternatively, they'd simply move to seize the assets under some sort of forfeiture doctrine. (Forfeiture generally only applies to drug money or money acquired through the commission of a crime, but thanks to the Silk Road and other underground marketplaces, that will be the default presumption in most courts.)

In practice you'd be hard pressed to find prosecutors or judges who understand the conceptual difference between bitcoins and keys. The DoJ has a digital currency task force that is working on a legal blueprint for dealing with these sorts of issues, but it will be months before they get anywhere.

[carbocation]

Subverting the intent of a ruling or law is not viewed favorably, and can easily be fixed, if need be, by tighter wording.

[vbuterin]

I don't think it's subverting the intent to move the BTC out. The point of subpoenas is to get information, not resources; if you want resources the correct mechanism is a seizure. The court is probably just asking for everything it can just in case.

[sneak]

Is it the intent of this subpoena to confiscate their bitcoins? It doesn't seem to be.

[gojomo]

Have there been any cases where Bitcoin private keys have been requested?

I don't know of any, and it's not the case here.

(If law enforcement had a legal claim to the balances controlled by the keys, they'd craft their order or enforcement action to achieve that end. I think the sweep of funds to a new address, after the Ross Ulbrecht arrest, suggests they understand the key-control issues involved.)