New York Lawsuit Takes Aim At 3.79 Million Dormant Bitcoin

bitcoinistОпубликовано 2026-05-25Обновлено 2026-05-25

Введение

A lawsuit filed in New York by "Noah Doe" and two Wyoming LLCs seeks a court declaration that approximately 39,069 long-dormant Bitcoin wallets, allegedly holding about 3.79 million BTC, are legally abandoned property. The plaintiffs claim to have identified the wallets, reported them to the NYPD, and conducted a notification campaign via blockchain messages and a webpage. They argue this satisfies New York's lost-property laws, transferring ownership rights to them. The claim includes addresses linked to Satoshi Nakamoto and early miners, though the complaint itself does not specify these attributions or the total BTC amount. The case centers on the novel legal argument that inactive self-custodied crypto addresses constitute recoverable abandoned property, despite the practical impossibility of accessing the funds without private keys. The campaign was connected to Salomon Brothers Strategic Advisors, a firm separate from the historic Wall Street entity.

A New York lawsuit is seeking a court declaration over tens of thousands of long-dormant Bitcoin addresses that one outside analysis says collectively hold about 3.79 million BTC. The case, brought by “Noah Doe” and two Wyoming LLCs, attempts to frame inactive self-custodied crypto addresses as abandoned property under New York lost-and-found law.

The filing, submitted in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, names ABC Company, XYZ Company and Noah Doe as plaintiffs, with “John Does 1–39,069” listed as respondents. It is not a court order awarding ownership. It is a summons and amended complaint seeking declaratory relief, meaning the plaintiffs are asking the court to recognize their claimed rights to the wallets and their contents.

According to the complaint, Doe allegedly identified three sets of dormant digital wallets between December 2024 and April 2025. The first group included 1,625 wallets, or 1,544 after duplicates were excluded. The second included 546 wallets. The third and largest group included 39,911 wallets. After exclusions and alleged owner responses, the plaintiffs say the case concerns 39,069 remaining wallets they describe as abandoned.

3.79 Million Bitcoin Caught In Bizarre NY Legal Fight

The complaint says Doe reported the wallet lists to the New York City Police Department on three separate occasions using USB drives. The NYPD later returned the drives, according to the filing. The plaintiffs argue that these steps satisfied New York lost-property procedures and that title vested in Doe under New York Personal Property Law § 257 before later assignments moved most of the claimed rights into ABC Company and XYZ Company.

The size of the claim is what has drawn attention across Bitcoin circles. Sani, the operator of TimechainIndex.com, said on X that the addresses listed in the case hold 3,791,121.17697938 BTC and include addresses attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto, early miners, Casascius Coins, lost coins, hackers and unidentified entities. That aggregate BTC figure and those attributions do not appear in the complaint’s body. The filing itself lists addresses and lays out the legal theory, but it does not state “Satoshi Nakamoto,” “Casascius,” or the 3.79 million BTC total.

The legal argument is unusual because it treats dormant Bitcoin addresses as recoverable property, even though the complaint acknowledges that cryptocurrency cannot be withdrawn without the relevant private key. The filing compares wallets to bank accounts, arguing that a digital wallet can be uniquely identified by blockchain protocol, address and transaction history. But that analogy is likely to draw scrutiny from Bitcoin-native observers because ownership of a bank account and control over a self-custodied Bitcoin UTXO operate very differently in practice.

The background to the lawsuit appears to trace back to a broad on-chain notice campaign tied to Salomon Brothers Strategic Advisors. The complaint says Doe retained Salomon Brothers in February 2025 as a strategic consultant to help develop a plan for notifying potential wallet owners and identifying wallets incorrectly included in the allegedly abandoned group. It later says a cyber/blockchain expert sent messages to wallet holders using OP_RETURN, while Salomon Brothers hosted a notice webpage.

Salomon Brothers publicly framed the campaign as an effort to address risks around abandoned wallets. In an August 2025 press release, the firm said abandoned wallets could become vulnerable to better-resourced attackers and argued that “securing wallets protects” other wallet holders. The release said notices had been inserted into long-dormant wallets and gave owners at least 90 days to respond, either by conducting an on-chain transaction with the private key or by using a form on a Salomon Brothers webpage.

That Salomon Brothers connection requires careful context. Galaxy Research described the entity involved as not the historic Wall Street firm that became part of Citigroup, but a newer organization that acquired the Salomon name. Salomon Brothers’ current website describes the firm as an “alliance of professional practices” providing services including financial advisory, real estate finance and research.

Galaxy’s analysis of the related OP_RETURN campaign described it as the “Great Bitcoin Dusting.” According to Galaxy, an unknown actor sent 41,523 OP_RETURN messages from 3,738 sender addresses to 39,423 recipient addresses, which together held 2,334,482.52 BTC when the messages were transmitted. Galaxy said the campaign had two phases: initial trial messages without Salomon links, followed by waves of messages that included links to Salomon’s website.

Galaxy also found that 98.82% of the notified addresses were legacy P2PKH addresses and that the average adjusted dormancy was about 2,171 days, or roughly 5.95 years. That detail matters because Sani separately argued that, for many old coin holders, including wallets attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto, notices were sent to P2PKH versions of addresses with no or only dust balances, while the real balances sit in older P2PK outputs. If accurate, that distinction could become central to the crypto community’s assessment of whether meaningful notice was ever delivered to the relevant holders.

The case now sits at the intersection of legal doctrine and protocol reality. The plaintiffs are asking a New York court to treat inactivity as abandonment and to recognize claimed ownership over wallets that have not moved for years. Bitcoin users, meanwhile, are likely to focus on a narrower but more fundamental issue: an address can be dormant because its owner is gone, because keys are lost, or because the holder has no intention of moving coins. On-chain, those cases can look identical.

At press time, BTC traded at $77,441.

Bitcoin hovers below the 20-week EMA, 1-week chart | Source: BTCUSDT on TradingView.com

Связанные с этим вопросы

QWhat is the core legal claim in the 'Noah Doe' New York lawsuit regarding dormant Bitcoin addresses?

AThe lawsuit argues that tens of thousands of long-dormant, self-custodied Bitcoin addresses constitute 'abandoned property' under New York lost-and-found law. The plaintiffs seek a court declaration recognizing their claimed ownership rights to these wallets after allegedly following state procedures for reporting found property.

QApproximately how much Bitcoin is implicated in the lawsuit according to an outside analysis, and what notable addresses are mentioned?

AAccording to an analysis by Sani of TimechainIndex.com, the addresses listed in the complaint collectively hold approximately 3.79 million BTC. The analysis states these include addresses attributed to Satoshi Nakamoto, early miners, Casascius Coins, lost coins, hackers, and other unidentified entities.

QWhat entity was involved in the notification campaign to the dormant wallet owners, and what method was used?

AThe plaintiffs retained Salomon Brothers Strategic Advisors to help develop a notification plan. A cyber/blockchain expert sent messages to wallet holders using OP_RETURN transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain, and Salomon Brothers hosted a webpage for owners to respond.

QWhat key distinction did the analysis from Galaxy Research make about the notification campaign's effectiveness?

AGalaxy Research noted that 98.82% of the notified addresses were legacy P2PKH addresses. Sani further argued that for many old coin holders (including those attributed to Satoshi), notices were sent to P2PKH versions of addresses with little to no balance, while the real balances resided in older, non-standard P2PK outputs, questioning whether meaningful notice was delivered.

QWhat is a fundamental practical challenge to the lawsuit's claim of ownership over these dormant wallets?

AA fundamental challenge is that ownership/control of a self-custodied Bitcoin wallet is cryptographically secured by a private key. The complaint acknowledges the coins cannot be withdrawn without the key. Therefore, a court order granting ownership does not inherently grant the ability to spend the coins, unlike with a traditional bank account.

Похожее

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

Three Years Later: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's launch, I made 20 predictions about its future. Now, in mid-2026, I've used AI agents to fact-check each one against the latest data. Overall, most major directional forecasts were correct, with only one outright error (incorrectly stating GPT-4 had 100 trillion parameters). Key successes included predicting that RAG and retrieval architectures would become the standard for handling knowledge and hallucinations, that natural language interfaces (LUI) would create a massive new industry layer beyond the models themselves, and that China would develop viable large language models, significantly closing the performance gap with Western counterparts within about three years. Predictions about the absence of mass unemployment, the rise of a new "robot network" for agent communication, and ChatGPT not possessing consciousness also held true in their core arguments. However, the "devil was in the details." Errors frequently involved specific numbers, timelines, or overlooking distributional effects. I tended to overestimate the speed of adoption (e.g., for agent networks) while underestimating the ultimate scale of capabilities or costs (e.g., AI winning IMO gold without tools, or the extreme capital required for frontier models). Other misjudgments included: underestimating how AI would reinforce, not dissolve, information filter bubbles; incorrectly assuming AI-generated content would easily circumvent copyright (it has instead triggered record-breaking settlements); and misidentifying where value would be captured (it accrued overwhelmingly to the compute layer, like Nvidia, not just the application or model layers). Key lessons from reviewing these predictions are: 1) Directional and mechanistic insights are far more reliable than precise numbers or absolute statements. 2) There's a consistent bias to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude. 3) Errors often lie in missing distributional impacts within a generally correct aggregate trend. 4) Predictions phrased with nuance and caveats aged the best. 5) Some fundamental debates (e.g., on machine consciousness or the ultimate value chain) remain unresolved even after three years. This exercise is less about scoring the past and more about establishing rules for clearer thinking about the next three years of AI.

marsbit1 ч. назад

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

marsbit1 ч. назад

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

Looking Back After Three Years: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's debut and before GPT-4's release, I made over twenty predictions about AI's future based on limited information and intuition. Now, in May 2026, I revisited those forecasts using an AI-driven analysis with 41 Opus 4.8 agents to cross-reference them with the latest data. The assessment used symbols: ✅ Correct, 🟢 Mostly Correct, 🟡 Partially Correct, ❌ Incorrect. Overall, the directional judgments held up well, with only one major factual error regarding GPT-4's rumored parameter size (incorrectly cited as 100T). However, nuances and degrees of accuracy revealed more. **What Was Largely Correct:** Predictions about mechanisms and directions proved accurate. The rise of RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) as the standard architecture for combating AI hallucination was confirmed, as was the transformative potential of LUI (Language User Interface) in creating a new industry layer atop GUIs. The emergence of "robot networks" (agent-to-agent communication protocols) and China's rapid catch-up in developing capable large models (closing the performance gap with top models to ~2.7%) were also on point. The analysis affirmed that LLMs lack consciousness and that the Turing Test merely measures perceived intelligence. **What Was Off Target:** Errors often involved specific numbers, over-optimistic timelines, or misjudged distributions. The prediction that value would primarily accrue to the application layer was half-right but missed NVIDIA's dominance as the profitable infrastructure layer. Forecasts about AI circumventing copyright issues and fostering a "global common ground" by averaging human viewpoints were incorrect; instead, major copyright settlements occurred and AI personalization is increasing. Estimates for model training costs ("$5-10 billion cap") were significantly off, underestimating frontier costs and overestimating replication costs. The notion that LLMs could never do complex math without tools was disproven by later models winning IMO gold. **Key Patterns from the Review:** 1. **Direction over precision:** Judgments about mechanisms and trends were more reliable than specific numbers or definitive statements. 2. **Timing bias:** There was a tendency to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude and transformation. 3. **The distribution blind spot:** Aggregate-level correctness often masked uneven impacts (e.g., on young professionals' employment). 4. **The value of qualifiers:** Predictions framed with caution (e.g., "reportedly," "for now," "prototype in 2-3 years") aged better. 5. **Some debates continue:** Issues like the nature of "emergent abilities" or machine consciousness remain unresolved. This three-year review highlights that while seeing the big picture is crucial, humility regarding specifics, timelines, and disparate impacts is essential for future forecasting.

链捕手3 ч. назад

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

链捕手3 ч. назад

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

The article issues a stark warning about a potential AI investment bubble. It notes that while the AI boom shares similarities with the TMT bubble of the late 1990s, its scale is vastly larger, currently driving 93% of U.S. GDP growth. Major hyperscale cloud providers like Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Oracle are planning to invest trillions in AI data centers over the coming years. However, calculations based on analyst projections for 2025-2030 reveal a concerning math problem: expected capital expenditure growth far outpaces projected revenue growth. Even under an extremely optimistic scenario of zero costs, the implied return on investment for most of these tech giants (except Amazon) is deeply negative. This suggests that the current trajectory could lead to one of history's largest shareholder value destruction events. The piece outlines two potential escapes: AI generating vastly more revenue than currently anticipated—a near-impossible task—or a significant cutback in the planned investment splurge. The latter scenario could trigger a domino effect, severely impacting the entire tech supply chain (from Nvidia to TSMC), potentially pushing the U.S. economy into recession, and causing a major stock market downturn. The author suggests upcoming high-profile IPOs by companies like OpenAI and Anthropic might represent a transfer of risk from early investors to public market participants. While the peak of the hype cycle might sustain investment through 2026, the fundamental financial dilemma remains unresolved, setting the stage for a potential market correction in 2027 or 2028, similar to the years following Alan Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" warning.

marsbit4 ч. назад

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

marsbit4 ч. назад

From Tokens to Machine Labor: AI is Shifting from Tool to "Worker"

The article "From Token to Machine Labor: AI is Evolving from Tool to 'Worker'" argues that the business model for AI is shifting beyond simply selling computational resources (tokens, GPU hours) or model access. Instead, a new "machine labor market" is emerging, where the core economic transaction is the purchase of economically useful work directly performed by software. The central thesis is that AI pricing will evolve through four stages: 1) raw tokens, 2) standardized LLM capabilities (e.g., text generation), 3) industry-specific labor markets (e.g., legal review, radiology), and finally 4) a programmable results market where tasks like resolving a support ticket are bid on and priced based on outcome. In this future, buyers will care less about *which* model or GPU completes a task and more about whether the work meets specified standards for accuracy, latency, and cost. This transition reframes the impact of AI on human labor. Rather than simple replacement, it suggests a re-coordination where machines handle standardized, verifiable work, freeing humans for roles involving oversight, context management, responsibility, and final judgment. In some cases, this "last 1%" of human input becomes more valuable as it enables the other 99% to be automated. Furthermore, as AI reduces the cost of work, demand may expand, creating larger markets (e.g., 24/7 customer service) rather than just cheaper versions of existing ones. The article concludes that while infrastructure (GPUs, models, tokens) remains crucial upstream, the market is converging on a simpler, tradeable unit: machine labor that can be defined, measured, priced, and procured based on contractible specifications.

marsbit4 ч. назад

From Tokens to Machine Labor: AI is Shifting from Tool to "Worker"

marsbit4 ч. назад

Xiaomi MiMo's 99% Price Cut is Not Marketing! Luo Fuli Posts on X to Refute Critics

The price of Xiaomi's MiMo-V2.5 series API has been permanently reduced by up to 99%, specifically for the "Input (Cache Hit)" cost, which covers users re-reading historical context in long conversations. MiMo's head, Luo Fuli, published a detailed technical blog to clarify that this drastic price cut stems from genuine engineering breakthroughs, not a marketing stunt or a simple price war. The core of the achievement lies in six key engineering optimizations. First, the model architecture adopts a Hybrid Sliding Window Attention (SWA), reducing the memory footprint (KVCache) to 1/7th of a traditional model. Second, a dual-pool memory management system actually utilizes these savings, allowing a single GPU to handle over 5 times more concurrent users. Third, an upgraded prefix caching mechanism achieves a cache hit rate of 93-95% for repeated reads, meaning most such requests bypass GPU computation entirely. Fourth, a self-developed distributed cache (GCache) utilizes idle SSD space on existing GPU servers, eliminating additional storage costs. Fifth, an intelligent scheduling system (LLM-Router) efficiently routes requests to maximize cache reuse and performance. Sixth, Multi-Token Prediction (MTP) accelerates the model's text generation ("output") side. Together, these systemic optimizations dramatically lower the real computational cost per request, enabling the 99% price reduction for cached inputs while reportedly maintaining positive gross margins. Luo Fuli's disclosure aims to shift the narrative from "price war" to a demonstration of substantive AI engineering progress.

marsbit6 ч. назад

Xiaomi MiMo's 99% Price Cut is Not Marketing! Luo Fuli Posts on X to Refute Critics

marsbit6 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы

Популярные статьи

Тест по Bitcoin Биткоина

HTX Learn: Изучите Bitcoin halving и Заработаете Токены USDT

3.0k просмотров всегоОпубликовано 2024.04.16Обновлено 2024.04.16

Тест по Bitcoin Биткоина

Что такое $BITCOIN

ЦИФРОВОЕ ЗОЛОТО ($BITCOIN): Комплексный анализ Введение в ЦИФРОВОЕ ЗОЛОТО ($BITCOIN) ЦИФРОВОЕ ЗОЛОТО ($BITCOIN) — это проект на основе блокчейна, работающий в сети Solana, который стремится объединить характеристики традиционных драгоценных металлов с инновациями децентрализованных технологий. Хотя он носит имя Биткойн, часто называемого “цифровым золотом” из-за его восприятия как средства хранения ценности, ЦИФРОВОЕ ЗОЛОТО является отдельным токеном, предназначенным для создания уникальной экосистемы в ландшафте Web3. Его цель — позиционировать себя как жизнеспособный альтернативный цифровой актив, хотя детали его применения и функциональности все еще развиваются. Что такое ЦИФРОВОЕ ЗОЛОТО ($BITCOIN)? ЦИФРОВОЕ ЗОЛОТО ($BITCOIN) — это токен криптовалюты, специально разработанный для использования в блокчейне Solana. В отличие от Биткойна, который выполняет широко признанную роль хранения ценности, этот токен, похоже, сосредоточен на более широких приложениях и характеристиках. Примечательные аспекты включают: Инфраструктура блокчейна: Токен построен на блокчейне Solana, известном своей способностью обрабатывать высокоскоростные и недорогие транзакции. Динамика предложения: ЦИФРОВОЕ ЗОЛОТО имеет максимальное предложение, ограниченное 100 квадриллионами токенов (100P $BITCOIN), хотя детали о его обращающемся предложении в настоящее время не раскрыты. Утилита: Хотя точные функциональные возможности не описаны, есть указания на то, что токен может быть использован для различных приложений, потенциально связанных с децентрализованными приложениями (dApps) или стратегиями токенизации активов. Кто создатель ЦИФРОВОГО ЗОЛОТА ($BITCOIN)? На данный момент личность создателей и команды разработчиков, стоящих за ЦИФРОВЫМ ЗОЛОТОМ ($BITCOIN), остается неизвестной. Эта ситуация типична для многих инновационных проектов в области блокчейна, особенно тех, которые связаны с децентрализованными финансами и феноменом мем-криптовалют. Хотя такая анонимность может способствовать культуре, ориентированной на сообщество, она усиливает опасения по поводу управления и ответственности. Кто инвесторы ЦИФРОВОГО ЗОЛОТА ($BITCOIN)? Доступная информация указывает на то, что у ЦИФРОВОГО ЗОЛОТА ($BITCOIN) нет известных институциональных спонсоров или значительных венчурных капиталовложений. Проект, похоже, функционирует по модели пирингового взаимодействия, сосредоточенной на поддержке и принятии сообществом, а не на традиционных путях финансирования. Его активность и ликвидность в основном сосредоточены на децентрализованных биржах (DEX), таких как PumpSwap, а не на устоявшихся централизованных торговых платформах, что еще больше подчеркивает его подход, ориентированный на grassroots. Как работает ЦИФРОВОЕ ЗОЛОТО ($BITCOIN) Операционные механизмы ЦИФРОВОГО ЗОЛОТА ($BITCOIN) можно подробно описать на основе его дизайна блокчейна и характеристик сети: Механизм консенсуса: Используя уникальный механизм доказательства истории (PoH) Solana в сочетании с моделью доказательства доли (PoS), проект обеспечивает эффективную валидацию транзакций, что способствует высокой производительности сети. Токеномика: Хотя конкретные дефляционные механизмы не были подробно описаны, большое максимальное предложение токенов подразумевает, что оно может быть предназначено для микротранзакций или нишевых случаев использования, которые еще предстоит определить. Интероперабельность: Существует потенциал для интеграции с более широкой экосистемой Solana, включая различные платформы децентрализованных финансов (DeFi). Однако детали относительно конкретных интеграций остаются неуточненными. Хронология ключевых событий Вот хронология, которая подчеркивает значимые вехи, касающиеся ЦИФРОВОГО ЗОЛОТА ($BITCOIN): 2023: Первоначальное развертывание токена происходит в блокчейне Solana, отмеченное его адресом контракта. 2024: ЦИФРОВОЕ ЗОЛОТО приобретает видимость, когда оно становится доступным для торговли на децентрализованных биржах, таких как PumpSwap, позволяя пользователям обменивать его на SOL. 2025: Проект наблюдает спорадическую торговую активность и потенциальный интерес к инициативам, возглавляемым сообществом, хотя на данный момент не зафиксировано никаких значительных партнерств или технических достижений. Критический анализ Сильные стороны Масштабируемость: Основная инфраструктура Solana поддерживает высокие объемы транзакций, что может повысить полезность $BITCOIN в различных сценариях транзакций. Доступность: Потенциально низкая цена торговли за токен может привлечь розничных инвесторов, способствуя более широкому участию благодаря возможностям дробного владения. Риски Отсутствие прозрачности: Отсутствие публично известных спонсоров, разработчиков или процесса аудита может вызвать скептицизм относительно устойчивости и надежности проекта. Волатильность рынка: Торговая активность сильно зависит от спекулятивного поведения, что может привести к значительной волатильности цен и неопределенности для инвесторов. Заключение ЦИФРОВОЕ ЗОЛОТО ($BITCOIN) является интригующим, но неоднозначным проектом в быстро развивающейся экосистеме Solana. Хотя он пытается использовать нарратив “цифрового золота”, его отход от установленной роли Биткойна как средства хранения ценности подчеркивает необходимость более четкого различения его предполагаемой утилиты и структуры управления. Будущее принятие и усвоение, вероятно, будут зависеть от решения текущей непрозрачности и более четкого определения его операционных и экономических стратегий. Примечание: Этот отчет охватывает синтезированную информацию, доступную на октябрь 2023 года, и с тех пор могут произойти события.

99 просмотров всегоОпубликовано 2025.05.13Обновлено 2025.05.13

Что такое $BITCOIN

Fractal Bitcoin: масштабирование Биткоина с помощью рекурсивной системы

Fractal Bitcoin — масштабное Layer-1-решнение, созданное на базе кода Биткоина, позволяющего достигать бесконечного масштабирования с помощью рекурсивного подхода.

2.3k просмотров всегоОпубликовано 2025.06.30Обновлено 2025.06.30

Fractal Bitcoin: масштабирование Биткоина с помощью рекурсивной системы

Обсуждения

Добро пожаловать в Сообщество HTX. Здесь вы сможете быть в курсе последних новостей о развитии платформы и получить доступ к профессиональной аналитической информации о рынке. Мнения пользователей о цене на BTC (BTC) представлены ниже.

活动图片

Топ вопросы

Популярные категорииright-arrow

Популярные тегиright-arrow