Bitcoin lawsuit over Satoshi wallets: Ian Cohen fights $238B revival attempt
Attorney Ian R. Cohen has filed a rebuttal opposing efforts to revive a New York case tied to Bitcoin (BTC) “Satoshi wallets.” The action seeks legal title over 39,069 Bitcoin wallet addresses, reportedly holding about $238 billion in BTC.
Cohen argues that dormant, self-custodied Bitcoin should not be treated as “abandoned property” under New York law. He also disputes the practical basis of the Bitcoin lawsuit, saying the “defendants” are pseudonymous addresses rather than identifiable owners, which could enable plaintiffs to pursue default judgments without meaningful opposition.
A key point in Cohen’s submission is that some of the targeted wallets show recent on-chain activity. This challenges claims that the coins are truly abandoned. Galaxy Digital researcher Alex Thorn previously stated that 52 named addresses moved a combined 34,335 BTC, with 29 of those addresses transferring 12,302 BTC after receiving notice of the lawsuit—an evidence argument that at least some private keys remain controllable.
The dispute follows an earlier stay ordered by the court after Cohen sought to join via amicus counsel. A related hearing for the amicus application is scheduled for July 14. Other crypto figures have questioned jurisdiction: Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz criticized how a New York court could assert authority over wallets with unknown, widely distributed owners.
The case has also drawn wider attention to long-dormant BTC holdings, including comparisons to proposals like CZ (Binance founder) suggesting future freezing of inactive wallets under a quantum-safe migration framework—though any change would require community consensus, not a single actor.
Neutral
This is a high-profile court dispute over Bitcoin title and whether dormant self-custodied BTC can be treated as “abandoned property” in New York. While the $238B figure and the involvement of alleged “Satoshi” wallets can attract attention, there is no immediate protocol change, exchange listing/delisting, or confirmed market-structure shock. That typically limits direct price impact.
However, the near-term effect is sentiment-sensitive: opponents argue that on-chain activity and non-abandonment weaken the plaintiffs’ case. If courts accept those arguments, the “revival” attempt may fade, reducing headline risk. If courts allow plaintiffs to proceed, it could raise uncertainty around long-dormant holdings and custody practices—similar to how past regulatory/jurisdiction scares (e.g., major enforcement actions or custody-related legal headlines) often move prices briefly through risk premium rather than fundamentals.
Longer term, the case could shape legal precedent for lost-property and jurisdiction over pseudonymous wallets, which may affect institutional risk models. Still, because the assets remain on-chain and no ruling is immediate, a trader’s actionable takeaway is mainly headline monitoring and volatility awareness rather than directional conviction.