A Bitcoin address that had sat untouched for nearly 15 years executed its first outgoing transaction over the weekend, transferring 30 BTC worth approximately $1.88 million and reigniting attention on a landmark New York legal case targeting thousands of inactive wallets.
The Wallet and Its History
Blockchain data shared by Galaxy Research confirms that address ‘1KV47’ received its 30 BTC in August 2011 and made no outgoing transfer until this past Saturday. The address is one of 39,069 listed in a New York lawsuit filed by a pseudonymous plaintiff identified as ‘Noah Doe,’ alongside two Wyoming-based companies. The case seeks ownership of dormant Bitcoin holdings under the state’s lost-property law.
The listed addresses collectively hold an estimated 3.7 million BTC worth roughly $234 billion, according to Sani, founder of analytics platform Timechain Index. Among them are addresses widely associated with Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto.
A Broader Pattern of Awakening Wallets
The movement of ‘1KV47’ is not an isolated event. According to Galaxy Digital head of research Alex Thorn, dormant addresses tied to the lawsuit have been waking up at an accelerating pace. In February, five addresses moved 4,834 BTC. By June, that figure had jumped sharply: 31 addresses transferred 17,527 BTC during the month alone.
Legal Pushback Grows
The lawsuit is already facing resistance inside the courtroom. On Friday, a defendant identifying themselves as ‘John Doe 33,’ who claims control of one of the dormant addresses, filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that Bitcoin addresses are merely data strings and cannot be sued.
Edwin Mata, lawyer and CEO of tokenization platform Brickken, said that while a New York court can adjudicate rights in intangible property, it lacks authority to convert public addresses into ‘found’ property simply because a plaintiff copied those addresses onto a hard drive.
‘The core flaw is that inactivity is not abandonment. Under property law, abandonment generally requires intent to relinquish rights, and a dormant Bitcoin address proves none of that.’
Mata added that the addresses named in the suit could represent Bitcoin held in long-term cold storage, coins with lost private keys, or holdings whose owners simply choose not to move them. Without private keys to control the assets, he described the lawsuit’s foundation as ‘very weak.’
What Is at Stake
The case is expected to set a precedent for how inactive cryptocurrency holdings are treated under existing property law frameworks, with legal experts questioning whether inactivity alone can satisfy the legal standard for abandonment. No ruling has been made, and the defendant’s motion to dismiss has yet to be decided.
