This sums up the whole thread , right ?

rpietila is good peoples!

it's going to the moon, that's what

maybe

 

We will have to agree to disagree: i) For you cryptographically signed messages have no significance, ii) for me they have a very strong significance.

You do not "own" the coins; the private keys "own" the coins. Using the private key of an addy holding 10k BTC of your coins to sign a message stating than the owner is an individual other than you has a very strong significance for me and I wouldn't do it. As a start, I would be worried about that individual claiming in the future that that priv keys were stolen from him. Sure no judge would understand nothing about this (yet), so you might be right about the lack of "practical" significances as there are no legal precedents on that sense - but I bet there will be a lot of practical significances in the futures. I believe we will see a lot of smart properties/contracts implemented on the blockchain and a lot of legally binding agreements based on message-signing with addresses privkeys.

In any case: I don't think rpietila has 10k BTC nor the access to someone with 10k BTC willing to sign on his behalf the following message: "these 10k BTC belong to Risto Pietila"

Lol. This is the stupidest fucking thread derail in the history of bitcointalk.

Welcome to the Wall Observer.

This thread has always been a mix of:

i) infinite trolling
ii) a lot of off-topic ramblings
iii) some deep philosophical discussion
iv) very little TA

Plus, is kinda on-topic: Rpietila says in this thread (and all over the forum) he has 10k BTC and, specifically, that he uses them to manipulate the market.

We could just use less ego-filled chatter and more crypto proof.

Indeed, this whole discussion and peer bullying is stupid. Enough with the Rpietila bashing.

Let the guy speak his mind, the same as we all do. I know lots of people don't like the way he expresses himself or agree with his analysis, but be honest now..

I'd much rather read any of rpietila's post (I always find them interesting and thought-provoking, even when I disagree with what he's saying or how) than most of the sub-par content I'm used to finding both here and  in other places like Reddit.

Let's bask in how different we all are and how rich that makes us. No need to alienate people, specially active people who contribute original content on a regular basis.

I can understand how you would come to that conclusion if you are of the opinion that the signed message is of great significance, and from a theoretical standpoint it's not unreasonable to think so.

My thinking is that you can currently make no practical legal claim based on a signed message for the reasons described, and therefore it does not represent any kind of transfer of ownership.

In any event, I would be willing to sign such a message for a relatively nominal fee, since I'd just transfer the coins afterward. I'm sure I'm not the only one that would, either, even if you wouldn't.

So I wouldn't accept it as evidence if Risto DID sign such a message, although it would go a long way toward making me believe he does control so many coins.

Yes, it will be interesting to see how a court case deals with verified sigs. But they'd also have to link verified sigs to a person's identity. That may not be so easy either as multiple people could have access, hacks, and other reasons.

I'd change it this:  "these 10k BTC belong to Risto Pietila aka bitcointalk.org username: rpietila" This is so people like me know there's a probable link to his forum account.