In the complex and ever-evolving landscape of cryptocurrency, unexpected events can spark curiosity and confusion among investors and analysts alike. One such event has emerged, involving a company using the historic “Salomon Brothers” name. This entity is at the center of a peculiar incident involving Bitcoin, known as a “dusting” attack that has led to significant intrigue. This unusual campaign involved sending thousands of on-chain legal notices through OP_RETURN messages, potentially laying the groundwork for claiming abandoned cryptocurrency wallets. However, the feasibility of seizing control without access to private keys remains uncertain.

Bitcoin’s Dusting Dilemma: Legal Notices and Ownership Disputes

Unraveling the Dusting Campaign

Research by Galaxy Research has shed light on this sophisticated operation, where 41,523 OP_RETURN messages were dispatched from 3,738 sender addresses to 39,423 recipient addresses. These wallets collectively held approximately 2.334 million BTC at the time. The bulk of these addresses, about 98.82%, were legacy P2PKH addresses that exhibited a long period of inactivity, averaging around 2,171 days or roughly 5.95 years.

The campaign unfolded over the summer, commencing with trial transactions in late June. These initial attempts lacked any “Salomon” references and were followed by July and August messages incorporating the term “LEGAL NOTICE” in uppercase, alongside URLs directing recipients to Salomon Brothers’ website. Despite encountering early challenges like a broken URL, the sender adapted through continuous testing and monitoring.

Legal Implications and Ownership Claims

The instructions within these messages urged wallet owners to visit a webpage claiming the wallet appeared to be lost or abandoned. It further stated that a Salomon client had assumed “constructive possession” of it. Owners were given a 90-day period to prove control either by moving funds on-chain or submitting relevant documentation. Failing to respond could result in the assumption of relinquishment of rights to the content, with a deadline set for October 10, 2025.

The concept of “constructive possession” is intriguing, especially when applied to Bitcoin. It typically refers to possession without direct physical control, such as having keys to a safe deposit box. In the context of cryptocurrencies, this translates to having the ability to sign off on transactions.

Technical Integrity and Legal Standing

Galaxy’s findings emphasize that the campaign does not highlight any flaws within the Bitcoin protocol or indicate any compromise of private keys. Most of the targeted scripts, being legacy P2PKH, are considered less vulnerable to certain hypothetical attack vectors than other types of addresses. Nonetheless, the scale and the explicit nature of the notices imply a possible pursuit of legal action against unresponsive wallets, albeit the legal feasibility remains debatable.

The campaign also coincided with noticeable on-chain activity from long-dormant wallets. After an initial wave of messages in early July, a wallet linked to an early Bitcoin holder moved approximately 80,000 BTC, prompting speculation about whether the dusting served as a prompt for inactive addresses. However, it remains unclear if this was incidental or a strategic move.

Salomon’s public statements frame this initiative as a mere compliance measure aimed solely at wallet owners, emphasizing that the client is neither a hacker nor attempting phishing. However, the language used, which suggests that unclaimed wallets will be deemed abandoned post the 90-day window, raises concerns among Bitcoin enthusiasts who view private keys as the ultimate authority over digital assets.

The Legal Battlefield Ahead

The future trajectory of this situation will likely be determined more by judicial interpretation than technical innovation. Abandoned-property laws vary across U.S. states, and even where digital currencies are acknowledged, enforcing a court order to gain on-chain control is complex. Without private keys, a claimant cannot initiate a transaction; and without a willing custodian or intermediary, there’s no external mechanism to enforce control. Galaxy’s analysis suggests that while the campaign is sophisticated, converting “constructive possession” into spendable BTC faces substantial practical and legal challenges.

Currently, the situation leaves a lingering signal. It demonstrates that OP_RETURN can serve more than symbolic purposes—it can convey quasi-legal directives at scale. Whether this action will have legal standing or remain a mere blip in Bitcoin’s history will test the limits between cryptographic security and legal claims.

What is a Bitcoin dusting attack?

A Bitcoin dusting attack involves sending tiny amounts of Bitcoin, often less than a cent, to numerous wallet addresses. The purpose is to “dust” these wallets, potentially tracking their activities and connecting them to known identities for analysis or malicious intents.

How does constructive possession apply to Bitcoin?

Constructive possession traditionally means having control without direct physical custody, like holding keys to a storage box. In the cryptocurrency world, this concept is challenging due to the cryptographic nature of ownership, where control is defined by direct access to private keys.

Is Salomon Brothers involved in legal ownership disputes over Bitcoin?

The Salomon Brothers name has recently been linked to a dusting campaign, which involved sending legal notices to inactive Bitcoin wallets. However, converting these claims into legal ownership faces significant challenges, as private keys remain the true determinant of control in cryptocurrency markets.

What should Bitcoin holders do if they receive a legal notice?

Bitcoin holders should first verify the authenticity of any received notice. If the notice appears legitimate, consulting a legal expert familiar with cryptocurrency laws is advisable to understand potential implications and appropriate actions.