Bitcoin Policy Institute Tries To Ghost The Ghost Of Satoshi 🪦

The Bitcoin Policy Institute (BPI) has filed a motion to intervene as a defendant in a New York lawsuit that seeks legal claims to up to 3.8 million dormant BTC, including coins attributed to Bitcoin's pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto. BPI is asking the court to dismiss the case, arguing it lacks merit.

The suit is premised on a New York property law theory under which self-custodied bitcoin held for more than five years can be claimed by anyone who downloads the holder's public address. In an X post announcing the filing, BPI said the case puts at risk bitcoin held long-term by ordinary holders, not just dormant early-network coins. "Our intervention serves to protect BPI's bitcoin, which we hold long-term like so many other bitcoin HODLers," the group said.

BPI framed its intervention as necessary to defend a wide class of self-custody users whose coins could theoretically be targeted under the same legal theory, regardless of whether they are linked to Satoshi. The filing, which names the institute as a defendant, comes as the plaintiff pursues a court-ordered path to ownership of the dormant coins.

The case has drawn attention across the crypto industry because of the scale of the BTC at stake, including 3.8 million coins tied to early addresses widely associated with Satoshi. BPI's motion argues the suit's interpretation of New York's Lost and Found Property law cannot be sustained as applied to self-custodied bitcoin and should be thrown out before reaching the merits.

The Bitcoin Policy Institute's filing arrives just days ahead of a scheduled hearing in the matter, according to the group's X post. The institute did not specify the exact date of the hearing, but said it was moving to intervene now to head off any default or adverse ruling that could bind other long-term holders. BPI has previously described itself as a non-partisan research and advocacy organization focused on Bitcoin policy in the United States.

The lawsuit remains pending in New York, and the court has not yet ruled on BPI's motion to intervene or on any motion to dismiss. The plaintiff has not publicly responded to the filing at the time of writing, and no party has been awarded any of the disputed BTC as the case proceeds.