pull down to refresh
Ah, but mostly the way Bitcoin works is that if you screw up when you send coins somewhere (either to a low entropy address or the wrong address) there ain't much you can do to get 'em back.
I think Graf is saying that for Bitcoin the distinction between cash abandoned on the street and cash left in an unlocked car is non-existent -- and that there are many such cases -- which leads him to say that there's something different about ownership when it comes to bitcoin. Maybe even it isn't possible.
Difficulty of recovery doesn’t matter in principle.
The issue is that the only evidence of ownership is knowing the seed phrase but multiple people can know it and you can’t make anyone stop knowing it.
Ok, so I’m realizing that homesteading of wallets is where the conceptual thorns are. I’ll need to read the arguments more thoroughly for myself.
From a legal standpoint, I’m not aware of any arguments that require particular levels of security. All that matters is whether you obtained the property legitimately (homesteading or voluntary transfer).
We know how homesteading works (mining), so that shouldn’t matter. If you check in on a low entropy wallet and find money there, you know those weren’t intended for you. Is that more like finding loose cash on the street (abandoned) or seeing loose cash in someone’s unlocked car (not abandoned)?
An interesting case could be where multiple people independently use the same seed phrase and are not aware that they are not the intended recipient of a transfer.