TLDR
- New York lawsuit It seeks to take control of 39,069 dormant Bitcoin wallets containing 3.79 million Bitcoins.
- David Schwartz scoffed at the claim, saying that only BSV might follow such a court order later.
- The complaint cites New York’s abandoned property law and NYPD reports for support in court.
- Bitcoin nodes will not transfer coins unless private keys or network rules are forcibly changed.
- The named portfolios include the alleged Satoshi Addresses, early miners, Casasius coins and wallets associated with hackers.
A lawsuit in New York has attracted attention across the cryptocurrency market. The case seeks to establish legal control over 39,069 dormant Bitcoin wallets. These wallets reportedly contain about 3.79 million Bitcoin.
David Schwartz, former CTO of Ripple, responded with a sharp post on X. He suggested that Bitcoin SV might be the only chain to follow such an order. His comment added new focus to the lawsuit.
Lawsuit targets dormant Bitcoin wallets
the lawsuit It was filed in New York in May 2026, according to the attached report. It seeks to name a claimant named Noah Doe as the legal owner. The claim covers dormant Bitcoin wallets with large balances.
The complaint cites New York’s abandoned property law. It also says reports have been filed with the NYPD. Plaintiffs used those deposits to support their claim to the wallets.
Someone just filed a lawsuit claiming ownership of 3.79 million Bitcoins from 39,000 dormant wallets including Satoshi’s wallet 👀
ripple @Joel Katz Basically he said: Sure, the court can rule whatever it wants… but good luck doing that without the private keys 😭 $ Bitcoin $XRP pic.twitter.com/YDzkNidg4N
— 𝗕𝗮𝗽𝗲XRP (@BankXRP) May 25, 2026
The addresses include wallets associated with early Bitcoin miners. It also includes wallets linked to Casascius coins and unknown holders. Some addresses are linked to alleged hackers and other unnamed entities.
The complaint also includes the names of wallets attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto. However, it is still difficult to prove early ownership of a Bitcoin wallet. Many titles from the period never moved coins.
Schwartz mocks court claim on BTC
David Schwartz responded after another X user questioned the issue. This user said the court might approve “something as stupid as this.” The same publication also said the ruling may have little real force.
Schwartz He replied with a short remark. “May BSV respect it,” he wrote. The comment refers to Bitcoin SV, a fork associated with Craig Wright.
His response pointed to a broader debate about blockchain control. Bitcoin does not have a central operator. For this reason, a court cannot order a single company to transfer dormant Bitcoin.
This statement also attracted attention because BSV has taken different governance paths. Critics say these choices make her more vulnerable to court pressure. Bitcoin proponents often reject this model.
Bitcoin nodes are likely to ignore any command
Bitcoin operates through independent nodes around the world. These nodes follow common network rules. They don’t change balances because of a lawsuit.
A court order may matter in a narrow case. This requires access to private keys. Without these keys, dormant wallets cannot spend coins.
The lawsuit may still spark legal controversy in New York. However he cannot force Bitcoin Program for moving coins. It also cannot identify the owners without strong evidence.
The case is now at the heart of the legal and cryptocurrency debate. It raises questions about abandoned property law and blockchain ownership. Currently, the Bitcoin network remains outside the court’s direct control
