Bitcoin Lawyer Battles to Safeguard $200 Billion in Satoshi-Linked Dormant BTC

The Lawsuit at a Glance

A legal dispute filed in New York Supreme Court seeks to claim ownership of approximately 39,069 Bitcoin wallet addresses holding an estimated 3.8 million BTC, valued at around $200-293 billion at current prices. The plaintiffs, operating under pseudonyms including Noah Doe and two anonymous Wyoming LLCs, argue these wallets represent abandoned or lost property under New York law.

The case draws particular attention to over 21,000 addresses potentially linked to Bitcoin's creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, holding roughly 1.09 million BTC. Plaintiffs contend that prolonged inactivity allows them to assert finder’s rights over these assets.

Attorney Ian Cohen Intervenes

Ian R. Cohen, a lawyer specializing in Bitcoin matters, filed to participate as amicus curiae. On June 4, Judge Kathy King granted a stay of proceedings and scheduled a hearing for July 14 to consider his involvement and broader issues.

Cohen argues that New York’s lost property statutes do not apply to Bitcoin held in self-custody. He emphasizes that ownership depends on control of private keys, and mere dormancy does not constitute abandonment. Courts lack jurisdiction over decentralized private keys held globally.

In his June 19 rebuttal, Cohen pushed back against plaintiffs’ attorney David D. Lin’s effort to lift the stay. He noted the stay was the court’s independent decision, not merely his request, and warned that proceeding could lead to a default judgment affecting billions in investor holdings without proper representation.

On-Chain Activity Undermines Abandonment Claims

Blockchain data has revealed significant movements from wallets named in the lawsuit, challenging the core premise of abandonment. Galaxy Research head Alex Thorn reported that 52 named addresses moved 34,335 BTC (approximately $2.48 billion) since the suit was filed, with 29 of them transferring 12,302 BTC after on-chain service notices.

One notable transaction on June 19 involved nearly 200 BTC moving from a 2012-era wallet specifically identified in the case. These transfers indicate that private keys remain active and accessible for many of the targeted addresses.

Broader Implications for Bitcoin Ownership

The case raises fundamental questions about applying traditional property law to decentralized digital assets. Cohen has highlighted that wallet software rarely displays legal notices embedded in transactions, likening service attempts to broadcasting into a void. He also questioned the use of anonymous plaintiffs for a dispute of this magnitude.

Legal experts following the matter note that success for the plaintiffs could set a dangerous precedent, potentially exposing millions of self-custodied Bitcoin holdings to similar claims based solely on inactivity. Conversely, a strong defense could reinforce the principle that private key control defines ownership in the Bitcoin network.

What Happens Next

The July 14 hearing will address Cohen’s amicus status and whether the stay should remain in place. The outcome could influence how courts worldwide handle disputes involving dormant cryptocurrencies and test the boundaries of jurisdiction over blockchain assets.

Bitcoin advocates view this as a critical defense of self-custody principles against attempts to reinterpret ownership through legacy legal frameworks. As on-chain evidence continues to emerge, the case underscores the unique challenges of merging traditional law with decentralized technology.