According to Galaxy Research, four inactive Bitcoin wallets transferred a total of 1,971.03 BTC (approximately $161 million) in the last two weeks, with the largest movement involving 1,260.78 BTC (about $100.63 million) that had lain untouched since 2016.
The earliest holdings showed extraordinary returns—one wallet from 2011 gained over 8.38 million percent—while a more recent transfer of 600 BTC (roughly $51.9 million), dormant since 2012, was executed early Tuesday.
Three of these wallets bore the “Noah Doe” label linked to a New York abandoned‑property lawsuit, continuing a 2026 pattern of decade‑old Bitcoin addresses coming back online.
The continuous reactivation of long‑dormant Bitcoin wallets shows no signs of abating, as another four ancient holdings shifted roughly $161 million in the same two‑week span.
Myriad: Predict Bitcoin’s Future Price
The oldest holdings delivered even larger percentage returns. A wallet inactive since March 2011, now holding 10.25 BTC valued at roughly $792,000, posted a gain exceeding 8.38 million percent from an average cost near $1. Additionally, 100 BTC that had lain untouched since November 2011, currently worth about $8.09 million, rose approximately 2.49 million percent.
The most recent movement occurred just hours ago. Early Tuesday, a wallet containing 600 BTC (about $51.9 million) transferred funds that had lain dormant since July 2012, a 14.2‑year hiatus that could have produced a gain surpassing 1 million percent.
Three of the four wallets were marked with a “Noah Doe” sender tag, referencing a New York lawsuit aiming to have thousands of dormant Bitcoin addresses deemed abandoned property. Wallets associated with this case have shown regular activity since a judge halted the proceedings in June.
This activity continues a trend that has shaped 2026’s on‑chain Bitcoin movements. An earlier wave saw six wallets shift about $40 million within a ten‑day period, and a Galaxy chart indicated that Bitcoin’s oldest cohort—coins untouched for ten years or more—is being activated at an uncommon rate.
These transfers attract attention because very few early‑era Bitcoin holders still possess their private keys, meaning each reactivation could signal the return of long‑lost supply to the market.
A transfer by itself does not indicate whether the holder is selling, consolidating, or changing custodians, and the on‑chain data did not identify the recipient of the most recent 600 BTC movement.
