Ever since Satoshi Nakamoto vanished in 2011, the Bitcoin addresses holding over a million coins have remained completely dormant. These "sleeping" bitcoins, along with numerous other long-inactive addresses on the network, have been among the most mysterious and contentious topics in the crypto world. Recently, Galaxy published an article revealing that this topic has resurfaced in a new legal battle.
Lawsuit Details: Targeting Satoshi's Addresses and Beyond
In March of this year, the New York Supreme Court quietly accepted a declaratory judgment lawsuit filed by Noah Doe (a pseudonym) and two unnamed Wyoming limited liability companies. The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare them the lawful owners of over 3.7 million Bitcoin associated with 39,069 addresses, worth approximately $274 billion at current prices. Among these addresses are 21,744 believed to belong to Satoshi Nakamoto, holding 1.09 million Bitcoin valued at about $83.7 billion. The legal grounds cited are Article 7-B of New York's Personal Property Law (the "Lost Property Law") and Section 3001 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules. The case is still pending, with no ruling issued yet.
Legal Theory: Treating Bitcoin as 'Lost Property'
The plaintiffs argue that addresses that have remained inactive for years should be classified as lost property, and that they, as "finders," are entitled to ownership. To support this claim, between June 30 and July 10, 2025, they sent so-called "abandonment notices" to each target address via Bitcoin's OP_RETURN script, attempting to mimic the legal process for handling lost items under traditional law. This novel attempt to fit decentralized digital assets into a lost-property framework is exceedingly rare in legal practice.
Limited Practical Effect: No Access to Private Keys
Even if the plaintiffs win a complete victory in court, the judgment would not grant them any private keys or technical means to move a single Bitcoin. They would receive only a declaratory court document, unable to physically access any coins. This makes clear that the lawsuit's objective is not to seize actual control of the assets but to create a state of legal contention.
True Goal: A 'Cloud on Title' with Far-Reaching Consequences
Galaxy's analysis points out that the real value of such a judgment lies in its ability to create a "cloud on title" — introducing legal uncertainty over the ownership of these Bitcoins. Should these coins ever appear in regulated financial venues such as exchanges or custodians, the plaintiffs could use the New York court ruling to raise ownership objections, potentially forcing those platforms to halt processing in order to avoid compliance risks. The strategy essentially weaponizes the law to plant a dispute minefield within the infrastructure of crypto finance. While the plaintiffs cannot touch the Bitcoins, they may influence the acceptability of these historically significant assets within the traditional financial system. This case also highlights the deep collision between cryptocurrency and conventional property law.