A New York court has paused proceedings in a case targeting nearly 40,000 dormant bitcoin wallets, after an attorney filed an amicus brief arguing the addresses are not abandoned. The action, which sought control over wallets collectively estimated to hold 3.8 million BTC, would have ranked among the largest bitcoin-related judgments on record.
Court Freezes Proceedings After Amicus Intervention
The judge ordered a freeze on further action following receipt of an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief that challenged the basis of the case. The brief contended that dormancy alone does not establish abandonment and urged the court to apply established property and due process standards before any disposition of digital assets.
Default judgments can be entered when defendants do not appear, but courts often entertain amicus input in complex or novel matters to ensure broader legal considerations are weighed—particularly in emerging areas such as digital asset custody and ownership.
Dispute Centers on ‘Abandoned’ Classification
The proceeding sought to treat tens of thousands of inactive bitcoin addresses as abandoned property. The amicus argument maintained that on-chain inactivity is not evidence of owner intent to relinquish rights, and that sweeping claims over large sets of addresses risk misclassifying long-term holders, lost-key situations, or estates in probate as abandonment without sufficient notice or evidentiary support.
If successful, the case could have set a significant precedent for how courts handle claims against dormant crypto addresses—an area where traditional unclaimed property concepts intersect with the pseudonymous and bearer-like nature of blockchain-held assets.
Context: Activity in Early-Era Bitcoin Addresses
The dispute comes amid periodic observations of renewed activity from early-era bitcoin, including coins mined or transacted around 2011. While such movements are not necessarily connected to the case, they underscore that lengthy periods of inactivity on-chain do not, by themselves, indicate loss or abandonment.
What Comes Next
With proceedings frozen, the court is expected to consider additional briefing and potentially schedule further hearings before determining how to proceed. No timeline for the next steps was immediately available.