Key facts
- A Bitcoin address dormant for nearly 15 years transferred 30 BTC worth approximately $1.88 million.
- The address had not made an outgoing transfer since receiving the BTC in August 2011.
- The transfer occurred as a New York lawsuit seeks ownership of thousands of inactive Bitcoin holdings.
- A defendant in the lawsuit argues that Bitcoin addresses are data strings and cannot be sued.
- Legal commentary suggests that inactivity does not constitute abandonment of property rights.
A Bitcoin address that had been dormant for nearly 15 years has moved 30 BTC, valued at approximately $1.88 million. This transaction occurred on a Saturday, marking the first outgoing transfer from the address since it received the coins in August 2011. The movement comes amid a New York lawsuit filed by "Noah Doe" and two Wyoming-based companies, which seeks to claim ownership of thousands of inactive Bitcoin holdings. The case aims to determine how such dormant cryptocurrency assets are treated under New York's lost-property law.
According to data from Galaxy Research, the address in question, "1KV47," received its 30 BTC in August 2011. The lawsuit lists 39,069 such dormant addresses, collectively holding an estimated 3.7 million BTC worth about $234 billion, as reported by Sani, founder of analytics platform Timechain Index. Recent activity indicates a trend of dormant addresses linked to the lawsuit becoming active; Alex Thorn, head of research at Galaxy Digital, noted that 31 such addresses transferred 17,527 BTC in June, a significant increase from the 4,834 BTC moved by five addresses in February.
Legal challenges to the lawsuit are emerging. A defendant identifying as "John Doe 33," who claims control over one of the listed dormant addresses, filed a motion to dismiss. The argument posits that Bitcoin addresses are merely data strings and cannot be subject to legal action. Edwin Mata, a lawyer and CEO of tokenization platform Brickken, commented that while New York courts can adjudicate rights in intangible property, simply copying public addresses to a hard drive does not convert them into "found" property. Mata further stated that inactivity does not equate to abandonment under property law, as abandonment typically requires an intent to relinquish rights, which a dormant address does not prove. The lawsuit's foundation is considered weak by Mata, as the addresses might represent assets in long-term cold storage, coins with lost private keys, or simply holdings intentionally kept inactive.