Dormant Bitcoin Address Moves $1.9 Million After 15 Years, Tied to New York Ownership Suit

A Bitcoin address that had been inactive for about 15 years moved roughly $1.9 million of the token, in a transfer tied to an ongoing New York lawsuit over ownership of dormant Bitcoin.

Cointelegraph reported on July 6 that the Bitcoin address "1KV47" sent 30 BTC to an external wallet on July 4. The holdings were worth about $1.88 million.

The address received the 30 BTC in August 2011 and had not made an outgoing transaction for about 15 years. Blockchain data shared by Galaxy Research showed the transaction was the address's first external transfer.

The address is one of 39,069 included in a New York lawsuit brought by "Noah Doe" and two Wyoming-based companies. The plaintiffs claim ownership of long-dormant Bitcoin holdings. The case could test how dormant digital assets may be treated under New York's lost-property law.

The lawsuit also includes addresses widely believed to be linked to Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto. Sani, founder of Timechainindex, estimated the addresses hold a combined 3.7 million BTC, worth about $234 billion.

Activity from dormant Bitcoin addresses cited in the New York case has picked up in recent months. Alex Thorn, head of research at Galaxy Digital, said 4,834 BTC moved from five related addresses in February, followed by 17,527 BTC from 31 addresses in June.

Whether dormant Bitcoin can be treated as lost property remains hotly disputed. A defendant identifying himself as "John Doe 33" filed a motion to dismiss on July 3. He said he controls one of the dormant Bitcoin addresses and argued that a Bitcoin address is merely a string of data, not something that can itself be the subject of litigation.

Edwin Mata, chief executive officer of tokenization platform Brickken and a lawyer, told Cointelegraph that a New York court may be able to rule on rights involving intangible property. But that does not give plaintiffs the authority to turn a public address into "found property" simply because they copied it onto a hard drive.

"The core defect is that inactivity does not mean abandonment," Mata said. Under property law, abandonment generally requires intent to give up one's rights, and a dormant Bitcoin address by itself proves none of that.

He added that the addresses cited in the lawsuit could contain coins held in long-term cold storage, coins whose private keys were lost, or coins whose owners have simply chosen not to move them.

Without the private keys needed to control the assets, the legal basis for the case is "very weak," Mata said.

The dispute underscores broader questions about how the law should treat Bitcoin holdings that have remained untouched for years. At the center of the case is whether a long stretch without transactions is enough to establish that ownership was abandoned or that the assets should be considered lost.