# Talk:Bitcoin buried in Newport landfill

The 8,000 Bitcoin are here https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/198aMn6ZYAczwrE5NvNTUMyJ5qkfy4g3Hi
There is only one private key not many private keys to this address (account)
I have therefore changed 
"In mid-2013, James Howells disposed of a laptop hard drive containing the private keys for 8,000 Bitcoin"
to
"In mid-2013, James Howells disposed of a laptop hard drive containing the private key for 8,000 Bitcoin" Brkic (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you able to verify that this address is the private key in question? After searching for this address, I found no reference to reliable sources, I have therefore reverted the edit. CNC (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, James Howells is looking at the address at 1:23 in this documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZr97E5PgzQ
https://i.ibb.co/hdnBwbL/address.jpg
I have therefore reverted the edit. Brkic (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I have added the reference you mention. To avoid a petty template on your talk page abut this reversion tha violates WP:BRD and WP:V, consider this an informal warning that if you continue to add unsourced content to articles (specially those where WP:BLP policy applies, such as this one), you may be blocked from editing, so please avoid from doing so in future. CNC (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no "Bitcoin buried in Newport landfill" it's not a "hard drive containing Bitcoin" It's a hard drive containing the privat key necessary to move the 8000 Bitcoin from one address in the blockchain to another address in the Bitcoin blockchain. The 8000 Bitcoin have not moved since 2009 when James Howells generated the 8000 Bitcoin by running the program Bitcoin Core on his laptop from 2009-02-22 to 2009-04-26 Brkic (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we know.  Do you think that when people used to say they were "surfing the internet" in the 1990s, that they were actually surfing?  Language is used in many different ways, and this is one of them.  Indeed, there is literally no Bitcoin buried in a Newport landfill, but the language we use to describe it that way is acceptable.  Words are not always used to mean literal things, and it gets even weirder when you start using words that have altogether different meanings depending on the context. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
To summarise, we go by what WP:RS says and describes it as such. In the body it references the private keys that are lost, but otherwise no need to enter into a philosophical debate over whether Bitcoin exists or not. CNC (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
This is not "a philosophical debate" the 8000 Bitcoin are at a certain address in the Blockchain network, that is up and running 24/7 all year round, ever since James Howells send the 8000 Bitcoin to this address.
It's only the private key (not private keys) to this address, that is on the hard drive buried in Newport landfill. It's just a fancy password, that he could have printed out or written on a paper. Brkic (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
You're right, this is not a philosophical debate, it's simply WP policy and guidelines. This is why it's described as "Bitcoin buried", because that is what is WP:DUE per WP:BALANCE of reliable sources. Unless you have reliable sources that contradict the current claim/description, then this "point" you are making is moot. Otherwise, no is one claiming that Bitcoin is literally buried, this is just figurative speech. What you are describing is a WP:FALSEBALANCE based on current sourcing (none so far).
Anyway, on the note of private key(s), I added the BBC and CNBC sources that describe "private key" singular, rather than plural. Because a documentary with Howells claiming it's a private key is not reliable, or is him pointing to a screen and saying "that's mine", it would require WP:INTEXT at bare minimum, and . CNC (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Your sentences
"Are you able to verify that this address is the private key in question?"
"a documentary with Howells claiming it's a private key is not reliable"
reveal that you do not understand what a Bitcoin private key is. And even if I say it's just a fancy password that gives you access to a particular Bitcoin address, that contains a certain amount of Bitcoin. You say it's false.
The address containing the 8000 Bitcoin in question looks exactly like this 198aMn6ZYAczwrE5NvNTUMyJ5qkfy4g3Hi The corresponding privat key that gives you access to the 8000 Bitcoin in question looks like this 5Kb8kLf9zgWQnogidDA76MzPL6TsZZY36hWXMssSzNydYXYB9KF (NB: Only the first digit (5) is correct, the next digit is K, H or J) In other words this is exact knowledge that you don't understand and therefore hide under WP policy. Brkic (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Good, we've confirmed there is no policy or guideline argument then. What an address "looks like" to you is irrelevant, unless there is a reliable source to verify the content you want to include. Otherwise yes, content should always be removed if it is not in line with policy and guidelines, especially if covered by WP:BLP, which this is. CNC (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
What content ? I changed "private keys" to "private key" twice in the article. Something you tried to stop because you had no clue about what a Bitcoin private key is and wasn't able to find out what it is either.
Maybe this could help you ? The Approved Judgment says:
"a hard drive containing the private key to his Bitcoin was deposited in error at Docksway Landfill Site, Newport"
"the Bitcoin “exist independently on the Blockchain, away from the hard drive"
"The position is no different in principle from what it would be if the record of the private key had been written on a piece of paper that had been put into the landfill. If the claimant had a separate record of the private key, he could use the private key to access the Bitcoin"
https://www.11kbw.com/content/uploads/Howells-v-Newport.pdf
Do you now understand that the Bitcoin private key, gives you access to the Bitcoin, that are on the Bitcoin Blockchain ? This is exact knowledge about how it works. Forget all the mumbo-jumbo talk. Brkic (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bitcoin buried in Newport landfill/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: CommunityNotesContributor (talk · contribs) 23:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 03:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Bit out of my usual scope, but I saw this on DYK and it looks like a fun article to review. Will give comments in the next few days. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor:


### Six GA Criteria
1. Article is well-written. Very minimal mistakes if any at all.
2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.
3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the subject.
4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.
5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.
6. Article uses no fair use media.


### Lead
-I feel the link to missing treasure is a bit misleading, since it isn't exactly buried treasure. The treasure hunt is what it is referred to as, so that is fine to keep, but the hyperlink to missing treasure feels excessive. 
-Specify if Howells suing is in the same month, because as of now it is unclear.


### Background
-Nakamoto is hyperlinked twice in this segment. Remove the second one. 


### Early Bitcoin Mining
-Looks good


### Disposal of hard drive
-Looks good


### Search attempts
-Looks good


### Litigation
-Looks good


### Opinion
-"Analytics firm Chainalysis estimated in 2020 that 3.7 million bitcoin (out of an all-time total of 21 million bitcoin) were lost like Howell's." Is Howell's bitcoin 3.7 million of the total, or is this just citing other incidents like Howell's? This sentence is confusing and I'm not quite sure what its purpose is. 


### Overall
-Looks pretty solid bar a few minor points. Will begin the spotcheck once the above are addressed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

 Fixed all above. Added missing treasure to see also instead, you're right it's very WP:EASTEREGG in hindsight. Otherwise removed the chainalysis statement, as in the article there is no direct connection to the landfill Bitcoin. CNC (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
@CommunityNotesContributor Spotcheck is mostly good.
-Minor nitpick, but source 12 only states that he was one of five online, not that he was among the first five bitcoin miners. Some of the other sources verify this, such as the The Times source, among others, though be wary if only he himself is saying this to say it's according to him.
-Source 10 is Business Insider, which is of dubious reliability with the exception of its culture section per Wikipedia:BUSINESSINSIDER. Double check the veracity of this source, as if it can't be attributed per the guidelines at the noticeboard, it will have to be removed.
-What are the reliability of Hammond's documentary, Benzinga, WION, and Decrypt?
Only real hiccups. Rest looks fine.  Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
 Fixed, apologies for slight delay, as for your question:
The documentary presented by Hammond is a good question. While Hammond is a notable presenter, the show is questionably notable. Having made some searching, there is enough coverage, even if most of it due to Hammond himself. The main reason for the external link is because it's referenced in the article, even if not that significantly. It's otherwise the only doc that exists.
Have removed WION per unclosed RfC and Benzinga per RSN discussion. I had otherwise always considered Decrypt reliable after seeing it's use elsewhere for Internet based coverage. More to point, the first cite isn't really needed, though is another reference with useful context; the second instance is claiming that the "Bitcoin price reached $97,000", which I don't think is an contentious claim to be making per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I searched on RSN but didn't find any discussions on the source though.
I'll wait to hear back from you before making any further changes. CNC (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@CommunityNotesContributor On Hammond, I'm not referring to his inclusion in the article nor the external link, I'm discussing the fact he's directly cited as a source multiple times in the article. As for Decrypt, does it have proper editorial bylines and such? If it's considered reliable elsewhere on-site and has standards I see no immediate issue with its inclusion. Rest of the changes seem good at a glance. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Oh my bad, have removed that source as shouldn't be required based on other references already available. Decrypt has editorial bylines, you could say it's team looks a bit under-qualified and it's hard to take the publication too seriously/ However the article was written by Beganski who has previously written for RS (which can't be said for most of them).[3] If however you think it's simpler to just remove, that it would only be missing a bitcoin valuation. CNC (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Ended up just removing decrypt and really didn't lose a lot there. CNC (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@CommunityNotesContributor that should be all then. Happy to pass! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks and appreciate your work reviewing the article. CNC (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree the article is still Good Status, no question there in my mind, but that doesn't mean there can't be some trimming. The "current valuation" is repeated several times. I'm not against its valuation being repeated in context, but it seems excessive. Additionally, I'd like to see relatively recent price updates made new again, especially in light of new efforts. I definitely think a progression of value relative to his search efforts is warranted, though. Electricmaster (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I see a restatement of the (near-)current value in the Opinion section. I will boldly remove the whole of the first paragraph in that section, as it is just a description of Howells' opinions on crypto. This also removes that restatement of the value. Pink Bee (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
That's fair enough, that paragraph would be better placed in a BLP rather than here per subject matter. Regarding price changes, it'd better simplified into a table and then only mentioned once in the lead and in the body I think. CNC (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mrs Ivy. Since you have now found a reliable source for the comments of Business Waste Ltd, and as the opinion is relevant to the article, I think your edit is OK. However, you have a declared conflict of interest with that company, and the only edits you've made since last July ([4] [5] [6]) have been to insert the comments of your company on this page, without mentioning your (PAID) COI in the edit summaries.
For others: I'm putting this here and not on MI's talk page because the connection is not obvious without reading the sources to find the company name and reading MI's user page to see the COI declaration, so it may have gone unnoticed. As it is relevant and now cited to a reliable source (The Register), I personally find it acceptable, but I wanted to highlight it in case others differ. Pink Bee (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

"The attempted recovery of the missing Bitcoin has been likened to a digital treasure hunt."
Isn't it just a treasure hunt?  The item being hunted is a physical hard disk drive whilst the contents may be digital, the article is about finding the physical object. The digital treasure hunt would start with trying to recover the data from the probably damaged drive if found.  And that's not particularly unusual.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.46.39 (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC)