That Scottish decision, while still the basis for bona fide acquisition of money in the UK and US, does not yet appear to apply for cryptocurrencies.
Your Wikipedia link cites a 2019 paper published in the Georgetown Technical Law Review whose analysis (https://georgetownlawtechreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/...) on page 415-6 says that 2016 US v 50.44 Bitcoins (https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-5044-bitcoins) determined "cryptocurrencies do not meet the UCC's definition of money" and thus bona fide acquisition is not sufficient to prevent the crypto from being legally seized from the possessor and returned to the original owner.
Some comments appear to have been lost. For example, there was a comment by runeks that started "There is no solution because you would end up punishing innocent people" and finished with a link to the Wikipedia about a 1749 case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawfurd_v_The_Royal_Bank
(I still have this page open on another device, from before the comment move was attempted.)