对中本聪比特币主张法律所有权案件最新进展：仍在审理阶段，律师要求避免单方面判决

Odaily Odaily News: Galaxy Digital Director of Research Alex Thorn has released an update on the litigation surrounding the "attempt to assert legal ownership over Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin." The case, filed by two anonymous Wyoming-based companies, seeks to have a court declare the addresses holding approximately 39,069 BTC that have long remained untouched as "abandoned property," thereby gaining legal title to the relevant BTC. The alleged asset value involved exceeds $200 billion, including some wallets believed to belong to the "Satoshi era":

1. On May 29, Bitcoin attorney Ian R. Cohen filed an amicus brief, with core arguments including: New York's lost property law does not apply to self-custodied Bitcoin; "dormancy" does not equal "abandonment"; the court has no jurisdiction over private keys. He emphasized that in the Bitcoin system, “control of the private key equals ownership,” and without control of the private key, one cannot claim the assets.

2. On June 4, Judge Kathy King granted Cohen's request for a hearing and issued a stay in the entire case, freezing subsequent proceedings until the formal trial. This move effectively prevented the plaintiffs from obtaining a ruling through a "default judgment" due to lack of response.

3. On June 18, the plaintiffs' attorney David Lin filed a motion to lift or narrow the stay, arguing that non-parties should not affect the case's progress and that if the defendants fail to appear, an amicus brief is unnecessary.

4. On June 19, Cohen filed a strong rebuttal, stating that the stay was proactively issued by the court itself, and that "lack of response" is precisely the structural problem of the case. The 39,069 addresses, as "defendants," are incapable of responding, so the court must rely on third-party opinions to avoid a unilateral judgment. He further questioned the plaintiffs' attempt to circumvent procedural thresholds by filing with a mere $10 claim amount, while trying to advance ownership determinations potentially involving hundreds of billions of dollars in Bitcoin. He also emphasized that on-chain data shows some addresses "marked as dormant" still moved funds during the litigation period, with at least 52 addresses transferring approximately 34,335 BTC (about $2.48 billion), including 29 addresses moving about 12,302 BTC after being "served," undermining the core premise of "abandoned assets."

Alex Thorn analyzed that the case remains in the trial phase. If a default judgment occurs, it could have far-reaching implications for the legal definition of self-custodied Bitcoin assets and trigger a long-term debate over whether dormant addresses equate to ownerless property.