A controversial lawsuit seeking ownership of thousands of dormant Bitcoin wallets has taken a significant turn after dozens of the listed addresses suddenly became active on the blockchain. The latest on-chain movements have forced the plaintiffs to remove 44 Bitcoin wallets from the case, raising fresh doubts about whether long-inactive wallets can legally be considered abandoned property.
The development has strengthened arguments from legal experts and crypto advocates who believe that inactivity alone does not prove a Bitcoin wallet has been abandoned. As the case continues, it could set an important precedent for the future of self-custodied digital assets.
44 Bitcoin wallets removed from the lawsuit
According to Galaxy Research Head Alex Thorn, the legal team behind the so-called “abandoned Bitcoin” lawsuit has removed 44 wallets from its original list of defendants.
The lawsuit was filed by an anonymous plaintiff known as “Noah Doe”, along with two Wyoming-based entities, seeking legal ownership of thousands of dormant Bitcoin wallets under New York’s lost-and-found property laws.
Thorn revealed on July 8 that every one of the removed wallets had transferred Bitcoin after the lawsuit was filed.
Because the complaint itself stated that any wallet showing new blockchain activity would no longer qualify as abandoned, the plaintiffs were required to remove those addresses from the case.
The lawsuit targets more than 39,000 Bitcoin wallets
The legal action originally targeted 39,069 Bitcoin wallets holding an estimated 3.7 million BTC.
Among the listed addresses are wallets believed to be connected to:
- Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto
- Early Bitcoin miners
- The Mt. Gox hacker
The plaintiffs argue that these long-inactive wallets should legally be treated as abandoned property because they have remained untouched for many years.
However, many Bitcoin supporters strongly dispute that interpretation, noting that self-custodied wallets can remain inactive indefinitely while still being fully controlled by their owners.
On-chain activity weakens the abandonment claim
According to Thorn, the 44 removed wallets collectively held around 21,443 BTC when the lawsuit was first filed.
Since then, those addresses have moved a total of 46,334 BTC through blockchain transactions and now collectively hold approximately 3,097 BTC.
The movements are important because they directly challenge the lawsuit’s central argument that prolonged inactivity proves abandonment.
In reality, many Bitcoin holders intentionally store their assets in cold wallets for years without making any transactions. As long as they possess the private keys, the wallets remain under their control regardless of how long they stay inactive.
A similar example emerged earlier this year when a 30 BTC wallet became active after nearly 15 years without any on-chain movement, further weakening claims that inactivity automatically means ownership has been lost.
Legal opposition continues to grow
The lawsuit has already attracted strong legal opposition.
Attorney Ian R. Cohen previously challenged the case, arguing that dormant self-custodied Bitcoin cannot legally be classified as abandoned property simply because it has not moved on-chain.
His filing was submitted ahead of a July 14 hearing, where the court is expected to address several procedural issues. Until then, the court has paused further proceedings, preventing the plaintiffs from seeking a default judgment.
Digital Chamber warns of broader consequences
The Digital Chamber has also filed an amicus brief opposing the lawsuit.
The organization argues that accepting the plaintiffs’ interpretation of New York law could create a dangerous legal precedent affecting millions of cryptocurrency holders who choose to store their assets in self-custody.
Galaxy Research has also pointed out that even if the plaintiffs ultimately won the case, they would not gain access to the Bitcoin itself.
Without the private keys controlling those wallets, a court ruling would only provide a legal declaration of ownership. The actual coins would remain inaccessible unless they were later transferred to a regulated exchange or custodian.
Satoshi-linked wallets remain under scrutiny
One reason the lawsuit has attracted widespread attention is the inclusion of thousands of early Bitcoin addresses believed to be connected to Satoshi Nakamoto.
According to Galaxy Research, more than 21,000 Patoshi-pattern wallets—addresses widely believed by blockchain researchers to belong to Bitcoin’s creator—are included in the complaint.
Thorn maintains that there is no evidence suggesting the wallets are actually lost. Instead, the recent removal of active addresses reinforces the idea that blockchain inactivity does not necessarily indicate abandoned ownership.
What happens next?
Although the plaintiffs have removed 44 active wallets, thousands of addresses remain part of the lawsuit.
The latest update demonstrates that the defendant list is not fixed and may continue changing if additional wallets become active.
More importantly, the case is evolving into a broader legal debate over how courts should treat self-custodied cryptocurrency. The final outcome could influence future disputes involving dormant wallets, private key ownership, and digital asset property rights.
Final thoughts
The removal of 44 Bitcoin wallets from the ongoing New York lawsuit represents a significant setback for the plaintiffs’ abandonment argument. As more dormant wallets show signs of activity, it becomes increasingly difficult to claim that years of inactivity alone prove ownership has been lost.
With legal experts, industry organizations, and blockchain researchers closely watching the case, the lawsuit could become one of the most important legal battles surrounding Bitcoin ownership and self-custody in recent years.
