Satoshi-Era Bitcoin Holder Moves 2,571,899% Gain to Thwart New York Court Case

A rare historic event has occurred on the Bitcoin blockchain as one of the oldest wallets from the so-called “Satoshi era” has come to life.

According to monitoring data from Galaxy Research, a transaction involving 40.00 BTC, worth around $3.09 million, was processed in block 965330. These assets had remained completely untouched since Nov. 5, 2011 — almost 15 years.

By moving the coins, the original owner of the address effectively demonstrated a net gain of 2,571,899%. In November 2011, the world’s first cryptocurrency was still in its infancy, with an average market price of only around $3 per coin.

New York lawyers are trying to claim “abandoned” $293 billion, but old wallets have started responding on-chain

Keeping a private key secure for a decade and a half is a rare example of discipline in the industry. However, this transaction represents more than simply taking profits.

The sender’s address is tagged on-chain as Noah Doe #38097. This tag directly links the wallet to a massive class-action lawsuit currently being heard by the New York State Supreme Court. A group of pseudonymous plaintiffs is attempting to obtain ownership rights to 39,069 dormant Bitcoin addresses worth a combined $293 billion, including early coins belonging to Satoshi Nakamoto himself.

The plaintiffs’ legal strategy is based on New York State’s 1958 lost property statutes. They argue that if cryptocurrency has not moved for more than five years, it is legally considered “abandoned,” meaning a third party can claim ownership of it.

To initiate the process, they conducted a “dust attack,” sending microtransactions carrying their tags to all 39,000 addresses in the expectation that the dormant wallets would not respond.

The latest movement of 40 BTC completely changes the legal landscape and thwarts the claimants’ plans. The on-chain transaction clearly demonstrates a key technological fact to the American court: the original investor still has full control of their private keys.

The address’s reactivation confirms that years of inactivity can represent long-term investing rather than abandonment of property, making the plaintiffs’ reasoning inapplicable to decentralized assets.