TLDR
- The Digital Chamber filed an amicus brief opposing the Bitcoin wallet lawsuit.
- The lawsuit seeks ownership of 39,069 dormant Bitcoin addresses.
- The listed wallets hold about 3.7M to 3.8M BTC.
- Some wallets named in the lawsuit moved 17,527 BTC in June.
- A defendant called John Doe 33 filed a motion to dismiss the case.
The Digital Chamber filed an amicus brief in a New York lost-property case seeking ownership of 39,069 dormant Bitcoin addresses, including wallets linked to early Bitcoin mining activity.
The blockchain trade association opposed the lawsuit, arguing that treating inactive wallets as abandoned property could create uncertainty for self-custody users. The listed addresses hold an estimated 3.7 million to 3.8 million BTC, worth more than $230 billion at recent Bitcoin prices.
The case was brought by “Noah Doe” and two Wyoming-based companies. The plaintiffs are seeking ownership of dormant Bitcoin addresses under New York lost-property law.
Digital Chamber Files Amicus Brief
The Digital Chamber’s filing is the second amicus brief in the case. The group asked the court to reject the plaintiffs’ ownership theory and said dormant wallets should not be treated as abandoned property.
The trade association said the lawsuit could create a “pervasive cloud on title across self-custody wallets.” The phrase refers to potential legal uncertainty over wallet ownership if inactivity alone can support a claim.
The Digital Chamber also said such a ruling would affect the “foundational principles of digital property ownership.” Its brief warned that the issue could reach beyond crypto and affect broader financial markets.
The filing was supported by CahillNXT and attorney Stephen Palley of Brown Rudnick. The Digital Chamber says it represents more than 250 members, including exchanges, banks, investment firms, and digital asset companies.
Lawsuit Targets 39,069 Bitcoin Addresses
The lawsuit seeks ownership of 39,069 Bitcoin addresses that plaintiffs claim are dormant. The wallets include addresses linked to Satoshi Nakamoto’s early mining activity and one tied to the 2011 Mt. Gox hack.
The listed addresses hold an estimated 3.7 million to 3.8 million BTC. At recent prices near $63,200, that amount is worth more than $230 billion.
The plaintiffs reportedly valued each wallet below $10 in an effort to bring the claim under New York’s lost-property statute. Critics argue that the value of the Bitcoin held by the addresses makes that framing legally and practically disputed.
The case raises a core question for crypto ownership: whether inactivity on a blockchain can be used to challenge control of assets when the private keys are unknown or unavailable.
Dormant Bitcoin Wallets Begin Moving
Some Bitcoin addresses named in the lawsuit have shown activity since the case was filed. Galaxy Digital head of research Alex Thorn said at least 31 listed addresses moved 17,527 BTC in June.
That followed five listed addresses that transferred 4,834 BTC in February. One address, “1KV47,” moved 30 BTC worth about $1.88 million on Saturday, its first transaction in nearly 15 years.
The movements suggest that some wallet controllers may still have access to private keys. They also complicate any claim that long inactivity alone proves abandonment.
Even if the plaintiffs win a legal claim, controlling the Bitcoin would still require private keys. The lawsuit has not resolved how a court order could transfer assets from addresses without access to those keys.
Defendant Seeks Dismissal
A pseudonymous party using the name “John Doe 33” has entered the case, claiming to control one of the dormant wallets listed in the lawsuit. The person filed a notice of appearance and a motion to dismiss.
John Doe 33 argued that the case should be voided and described the respondent as “a real human being,” not inanimate blockchain data. That filing directly challenges the idea that a Bitcoin address alone can be treated as a party.
A New York Supreme Court judge has stayed proceedings in the case before a July 14 hearing. The pause blocks any move toward default judgment while the court reviews early challenges.
