From:                                         Kelvin F.K. Low <kelvin.low@gmail.com>

Sent:                                           Thursday 13 February 2025 01:02

To:                                               Wilde, Mark; Steve Hedley; obligations@uwo.ca

Cc:                                               Daniel Seng

Subject:                                     Re: Bitcoin and Restitution

 

Not ironic at all since all of our virtual world, whether digital files in the metaphorical cloud or this crypto nonsense is very much rooted in the physical world. Everything is on some hard disk somewhere and transmitted through some sort of cable for the most part, something Daniel Seng (NUS) and I emphasise in a forthcoming article for LIT: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4308631. 

 

If multiple copies exist, then this sort of situation (where you have to dig up your private key stored on a hard drive) will be less of an issue since in the tech lingo, there won't be a single point of failure. But of course, then you run into a different problem (in the crypto context) - thieves now have multiple hard drives to steal. So you avoid having a single point of failure for accidental loss by creating multiple points of failure for theft? This is the future of finance? 🙄

 

Kelvin 

 

From: Wilde, Mark <Mark.Wilde@city.ac.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 6:19:34 PM
To: Steve Hedley <S.Hedley@ucc.ie>; obligations@uwo.ca <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: Re: Bitcoin and Restitution

 

Somewhat ironic that something which is the epitome of our virtual brave new world ends up having to be dug up like buried treasure!

 

Mark

 

 

From: Steve Hedley <S.Hedley@ucc.ie>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 6:50 PM
To: obligations@uwo.ca <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: Bitcoin and Restitution

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and believe the content to be safe.

 

A postscript to Howells v Newport City Council, recently discussed in this forum.  As the article notes, the case is under appeal.

 

Man who binned 7,500 Bitcoin drive now wants to buy entire landfill to dig it up (The Register, 11/2/25)

 

 

 

 

From: Samuel Beswick <sbeswick@sjd.law.harvard.edu>
Sent: Friday 10 January 2025 21:28
To: Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: Re: Bitcoin and Restitution

 

[EXTERNAL] This email was sent from outside of UCC.

It also has a third thing, which I am interested in: the claimant's "desperate argument" to extend time for filing suit in reliance on section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980. There's been a flurry of case law on limitation discoverability over the past four years which I canvas in the next LMCLQ issue. The court here properly dismissed that argument.

 

On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 at 06:09, Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

An amusing case, combining two of the things I am interested in.

 

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2025/22.html

 

The claimant, by mistake, in 2013 deposits a hard drive containing the key to his Bitcoin wallet in a landfill site in Newport. Claims that the Bitcoin now worth in excess of £600m (more than the value of the landfill site. Or, indeed, Newport.)

 

Seeks a declaration that either the council digs up the site to find it, or allows his team of experts to do so.

 

Claim is struck out. Lots of “proprietary restitutionary” stuff.

 

Rob