TLDR
- The Digital Chamber filed an amicus brief opposing the Bitcoin wallet lawsuit.
- The lawsuit seeks ownership of 39,069 dormant Bitcoin addresses.
- The wallets listed contain around 3.7 million to 3.8 million Bitcoins.
- Some of the wallets mentioned in the lawsuit transferred 17,527 Bitcoin in June.
- A defendant named John Doe 33 filed a motion to dismiss the case.
The Digital Chamber filed an amicus brief in New York’s lost property case seeking ownership of 39,069 dormant Bitcoin addresses, including wallets associated with early Bitcoin mining activity.
The Blockchain Trade Association opposed the lawsuit, arguing that treating inactive wallets as abandoned property could create uncertainty for self-custodial users. The listed addresses contain an estimated 3.7 million to 3.8 million bitcoins, 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 the dormant Bitcoin addresses under New York’s lost property law.
Amicus curiae brief for digital chamber files
Digital room Deposit It is the second amicus curiae brief in the case. The group asked the court to reject the plaintiffs’ ownership theory, saying that dormant wallets should not be treated as abandoned property.
The trade association said the lawsuit could create “a spreading cloud over ownership across self-custody wallets.” The phrase refers to potential legal uncertainty about wallet ownership if inactivity alone could support a claim.
The Digital Chamber also said that such a ruling would affect “fundamental principles of digital property ownership.” Its brief warned that the problem could extend beyond cryptocurrencies and affect broader financial markets.
The filing was supported by CahillNXT and attorney Stephen Paley of Brown Rudnick. The Digital Chamber says it represents more than 250 members, including exchanges, banks, investment firms and digital asset companies.
The lawsuit targets 39,069 Bitcoin addresses
The suit seeks ownership of 39,069 Bitcoin addresses Which the plaintiffs claim is asleep. The wallets include addresses linked to Satoshi Nakamoto’s early mining activity and one linked to the 2011 Mt.Gox hack.
The addresses listed contain an estimated 3.7 million to 3.8 million bitcoins. At recent prices approaching $63,200, this amount is worth more than $230 billion.
Prosecutors reportedly valued each wallet at less than $10 in an attempt to make the claim under New York’s lost property law. Critics argue that the value of Bitcoin held by addresses makes this framework legally and practically disputed.
The case raises a fundamental question about ownership of cryptocurrencies: whether inactivity on the blockchain can be used to challenge control of assets when private keys are unknown or unavailable.
Dormant Bitcoin wallets start moving
Some of the Bitcoin addresses mentioned in the lawsuit have shown activity since the case was filed. At least 31 listed addresses transferred 17,527 bitcoins in June, said Alex Thorne, head of research at Galaxy Digital.
This came after five listed addresses transferred 4,834 BTC in February. One address, “1KV47,” transferred 30 bitcoins worth about $1.88 million on Saturday, its first transaction in nearly 15 years.
The movements indicate that some wallet controllers may still have access to the private keys. It also complicates any claim that prolonged inactivity alone proves abandonment.
Even if the plaintiffs win a legal claim, controlling bitcoin will still require private keys. The lawsuit did not resolve how a court order could move assets from addresses without access to those keys.
Defendant seeks dismissal
The case was entered by a pseudonymous party using the name “John Doe 33,” claiming control of one of the dormant wallets listed in the lawsuit. The person filed a notice to appear and a motion to dismiss.
John Doe 33 argued that the case should be dismissed and described the defendant as a “real human being,” not static blockchain data. This filing directly challenges the idea that a Bitcoin address alone can be treated as a party.
A New York Supreme Court judge halted proceedings in the case before the July 14 hearing. The stay blocks any move toward a default judgment while the court reviews early appeals.
