The "Computer Hardware Bitcoins" term is notable and I wonder to which statute it refers. What actions were taken or crime alleged where it would be important to characterize Bitcoins in this way?
I speculate that Ulbrict needs funds to pay attorneys fees. It may be he stipulated to a portion (or all) of the BTC as his in-exchange for unfreezing the asset and permitting its sale.
> The "Computer Hardware Bitcoins" term is notable and I wonder to which statute it refers.
It doesn't refer to a statute. It is a short form to refer to what is described in long form in the first paragraph of the notice as "THE BITCOINS CONTAINED IN WALLET FILES THAT RESIDED ON CERTAIN COMPUTER HARDWARE BELONGING TO ROSS WILLIAM ULBRICHT". (The same long description, and the explicit linkage of the same short form to that long description, is in the linked Stipulation and Order from the court allowing the sale.)
The stipulation also refers to the reason -- Ulbricht and the Government agreed to the sale to convert the bitcoins into dollars to protect both parties from risk due to volatility; the bitcoins are not being forfeited at this time, the forfeiture action will continue with the proceeds of the sale as the subject property rather than the bitcoins themselves.
I speculate that Ulbrict needs funds to pay attorneys fees. It may be he stipulated to a portion (or all) of the BTC as his in-exchange for unfreezing the asset and permitting its sale.