The Digital Chamber blockchain association, which unites over 250 key market players — from crypto exchanges to banks and investment giants — has filed an amicus brief with the New York Supreme Court, demanding the dismissal of a lawsuit concerning rights to inactive Bitcoin wallets. The case involves a precedent that could undermine the very concept of self-custody of digital assets.
The essence of the lawsuit, filed by an anonymous plaintiff, Noah Doe, and two Wyoming-registered companies, is absurdly simple: they seek to claim ownership of Bitcoins that have not been moved for years. According to their logic, prolonged inactivity of an address is a sign of abandonment of ownership, meaning the assets can be "found" and appropriated.
"The plaintiffs seek to claim ownership of hundreds of billions of dollars in digital assets simply because those assets have not been moved or spent," the Digital Chamber's brief emphasizes.
However, the association rightly points out a fundamental flaw: the plaintiffs did not create these addresses, do not control them, and, most importantly, do not possess the private keys. Their "discovery" is merely a record of public keys copied from the blockchain onto USB drives. In essence, they are trying to pass off scanning a public ledger as discovering tangible property.
Legal Fiction and a "Cloud of Uncertainty"
According to the Digital Chamber, granting such claims would create a "cloud of uncertainty" affecting not only the crypto industry but also traditional financial markets. If the court accepts the plaintiffs' theory, any asset that shows no activity for an extended period could be declared abandoned and transferred to third parties.
Bitcoin lawyer Ian Cohen, who also filed an amicus curiae brief, pointed out another nuance: the treasure trove law was created for physical objects, not for data from a public blockchain. Moreover, if the assets were indeed considered abandoned, by law they should revert to the state, not to a private individual.
Private Keys: Paper Right vs. Real Control
Even if the plaintiffs win in court, they will face an insurmountable obstacle: without private keys, they cannot dispose of the coins. As the Digital Chamber rightly notes, "the declaration the plaintiffs seek would provide a paper title of ownership unconnected to either possession or access to the property." This is pure legal fiction with no practical meaning.
Notably, one of the defendants in the case, operating under the pseudonym John Doe 33, has already filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. He claims to control one of the addresses on the list and calls the plaintiffs' claims an attempt to pass off their own USB drives as found property. According to Galaxy's Head of Research, Alex Thorn, this wallet contains 5,000 BTC (approximately $300 million) that have not moved since April 2014.
Dormant Addresses Awaken: Acceleration of On-Chain Activity
Interestingly, amid the litigation, owners of "dormant" addresses have begun to show activity. According to Thorn, in June 2026, 31 addresses from the plaintiffs' list moved 17,527 BTC — a sharp acceleration compared to February, when movement was detected on only five addresses totaling 4,834 BTC.
On July 5, address 1KV47, which had been inactive for nearly 15 years (since August 2011), moved 30 BTC worth approximately $1.88 million. This is the first on-chain signal in a decade and a half.
In total, the plaintiffs' list includes 39,069 inactive addresses, which are estimated to hold about 3.799 million BTC. This list even includes addresses publicly linked to Satoshi Nakamoto, as well as the infamous address 1Feex associated with the Mt. Gox hack.
My analysis: This lawsuit is not just a legal oddity but a direct attack on the fundamental principle of Bitcoin: "not your keys, not your coins." If the court sides with the plaintiffs, it would create a dangerous precedent, allowing the ownership of any long-term holdings to be challenged. The reality is that without a private key, even a court ruling will not grant access to the funds, but the process itself could paralyze the market for a long time and undermine trust in self-custody. The industry must prepare for a long and tough legal battle for the right to hold its assets in peace.