A lawsuit filed in New York has sparked intense debate in both legal and cryptocurrency circles over the fate of nearly 39,000 dormant Bitcoin wallets. Noah Doe, the plaintiff, is demanding that official ownership rights of these long-unused wallets be transferred to him, raising unprecedented questions about how abandoned digital assets are treated under U.S. property law—an issue unfamiliar to Turkish legal tradition but critically relevant to the future of crypto assets.
Legal basis and plaintiff’s approach
On May 1, 2026, Noah Doe submitted a petition to the New York Supreme Court, basing his claim on Section 7-B of the New York Personal Property Law. Doe, joined by two Wyoming-based companies as co-plaintiffs, argues that these Bitcoin wallets are not stolen property or funds owned by exchanges; rather, he claims they are abandoned digital assets. The aim is to have the legal ownership and rights to the Bitcoin in these dormant wallets officially registered in their names.
According to court documents, Doe identified a total of 42,001 wallets as potentially ownerless using his own algorithmic method. Following notification to authorities and further review, 2,932 wallets were removed from the list, leaving 39,069 addresses as the focus of the legal proceedings. The central argument asserts that wallets with no identifiable owner should be eligible for legal and official transfer of ownership.
Technical and legal complexities
The lawsuit revolves around the procedures of owner notification, property transfer, and the definition of abandoned digital assets. Because Bitcoin wallets are controlled via private keys, courts cannot conventionally reassign ownership or provide access to these assets. Even if the ruling favors the plaintiffs, the outcome would likely be symbolic in nature—amounting to a legal registration, not functional control over the funds.
In June 2025, Noah Doe used “OP_RETURN” transactions to post messages on the blockchain, officially notifying wallet holders and relevant parties about the legal proceedings, and also initiated a public notice period that lasted until October 10, 2025, as required by law.
However, technical analysis revealed that most notifications were sent to “P2PKH” address types, while many of the dormant wallets utilize the older “P2PK” format. This raises a significant counterargument: the actual owners may not have been sufficiently notified through these technical channels.
Glossary: OP_RETURN – A special type of Bitcoin transaction that allows users to attach extra data, such as messages, to the blockchain in a permanent way.
Pivotal moment for crypto asset ownership
Many of the wallets in question are believed to be linked to early Bitcoin miners and key historical figures; some addresses could even be associated with Satoshi Nakamoto’s era, while others are rumored to have ties to the infamous Mt. Gox hack. Doe submitted a 901-page list of wallet addresses as part of his case file.
This action challenges the foundational “self-custody” principle of Bitcoin. Dormancy does not always indicate lost private keys; the owner may have passed away, left heirs, or simply be holding assets for the long term. Still, Doe contends that the lack of response to exhaustive notifications should be grounds for ownership transfer.
The attempt to apply classic property law to cryptocurrency holdings is provoking significant controversy. Since Bitcoin operates without any central authority, court decisions can only impact exchange policies, not the protocol itself; access remains impossible without possession of private keys, regardless of legal rulings.
