Salomon Brothers
American company Salomon Brothers I started To the mass mailing of notifications to old bitcoin addresses. Thus, the bank intends to limit the access of other participants to this cryptocurrency using the “doctrine of leaving property”. At the same time, the company is supposed to be in the interests of a certain client of the applicant.
The newsletter occurs using the OP_RETURN function, and the message itself contains a “notification for the owner” calling for a site on which you can find a form for filling.
OP_RETURN is an operating code through which you can leave records in the bitcoin blockchain up to 80 bytes and do not contact UTXO (inexplicable outputs). Simply put, with its help you can create some tags with information in the Bitcoin blockchain, which will be publicly available. With the help of such a mechanism, the company is trying to notify the old owners of bitcoins.
Ownership of bitcoins
The applicants claim that they act within the so -called “doctrine of property refusal” (Doctrine of Abandonment). In a broad sense, this doctrine is associated with the idea of transferring ownership of the new owner (for example, the state), if the old owner refused the property, for example, having abandoned it, and at the same time he does not get in touch, he does not have heirs and so on.
Previously, the discussion in the crypto community regarding the alienation of property rights in relation to bitcoin and other cryptocurrency in 2025 arose against the background of discussions of resonant bill AB 1052 in the state of California in the USA.
According to this legislative initiative, if the owner keeps assets in a caste -like way (for example, on a crypto -focus) and does not show any activity for three years or more, then they can get the status “Unclaimed“(Non -Corrected). The problem is that the bill AB 1052, firstly, applies only to the caste-diode method of storage, and, secondly, it provides for the transfer of property in favor of the state departments of the state of California.
On the other hand, Salomon Brothers does not appeal specifically to the text of the bill, but to a wider legal structure, interpreting it in their favor and sending out notifications even to those who can store bitcoins non-coddish-that is, those who personally own closed keys locally, and do not trust their exchange or other casteano-mediator.
Legal issue
From a technical point of view, the fact of owning bitcoins is confirmed very simply – the one who owns closed keys can manage cryptocurrency. No wonder in the crypto community there is a well -known maxim: “Not your keys are not your bitcoins.”
In general, the first cryptocurrency, inspired by early cipher -pants and cryptoanarchists, was developed as a self -sufficient form of digital property. Therefore, no bureaucratic rituals, titles, certificates, certificates and other permits of the state model determine the possibility of owning bitcoin and make transactions from a technical point of view.
In other words, from the fact that Salomon Brothers will send such a notification, and the owner will ignore it on the declared 90 day, there will be no access to closed keys to the bank.
On the other hand, recently, more and more crypto enthusiasts have been concerned about the hypothetical threat from quantum computers. In particular, the head of Tether Paolo Ardoino voices the point of view according to which in the future with the help of quantum computers it will be possible to access lost bitcoins, which will remain at unprotected addresses.
The head of Naoris Protocol reacted to what was happening, David Carvalho, who declaredthat Salomon Brothers turned the Bitcoin blockchain into the “Ads Board” with their actions, and that crypto enthusiasts do not make enough effort to protect against a quantum threat. Therefore, many believe that the actions of Salomon Brothers can create a dangerous precedent in the future. Although at the moment they cannot take possession of closed keys, they are already trying to assign ownership of other people’s bitcoins through state institutions. Accordingly, after a few years, they can hypothetically create problems for real owners.
It is worth noting that there is no legal force through OP_RETURN now. Moreover, to recognize property through “Doctrine of Abandonment”, a court decision would probably be required, which may not be in favor of Salomon Brothers. In addition, the bank’s actions look controversial because of the issue of jurisdiction-after all, the owner of the cryptocurrency can literally be in another country and at the same time be a full owner.
In general, the bank’s initiative looks extremely dubious and hardly achievable. But can people who direct their requirements act in completely different interests?
Alternative version
There is a possibility that the owners of old bitcoin addresses are faced with a fraudulent scheme of a different kind. Analysts BITMEX Research They paid attention Attackers on behalf of Salomon Brothers can engage in notifications of notifications. Experts believe that hiding behind an authoritative and well -known brand, they actually carry out a dust attack through the OP_RETURN function, social engineering and phishing in order to obtain personal data.
The classic dust attack is associated with the mass mailing of microtransactions to user addresses. Often it is accompanied by the sending of “dust” (minor sums of cryptocurrency, for example, several Satoshi) from a pre -generated address. This dosage address will visually resemble the address with which the user often interacts. For example, some characters will coincide at the very beginning and/or at the end. This is done so that the user mistakenly copies the address of the attacker from the story at the next transaction and accidentally transferred cryptocurrency to him.
In the case of notification sending, the scheme may be somewhat more complicated: on the site that claims to be connected to the Salomon Brothers brand, two ways to confirm ownership of bitcoins are mentioned. The first way is to make a transaction. It is logical that in this case the owner will actually confirm that his address is not abandoned and he (or his casteodian) own keys. The second method is more interesting – the company requires filling out a special form. It must be indicated in it: the region of residence, the mailing address, the name of the user, the address of the wallet, in respect of which the notification was received, and even report whether the user owns closed keys personally and whether they are lost.
Thus, there is a possibility that with the help of such notifications, someone is trying to get personal information about the owners of old bitcoin wallets with decent amounts on the balance sheet. Therefore, the same Bitmex Research analysts called users in no case do not fill out such forms.
Conclusion
Although notifications from those who act on behalf of Salomon Brothers and are controversial from a legal point of view, they can threaten those who provide personal data. Technically, other people’s bitcoins cannot be assigned without closed keys, but attempts to declare them “ownerless” through disputed legal constructions create a dangerous precedent. All this once again reminds that it is important for BTC owners to store the keys in safety and with caution relate to any such notifications and forms for filling out.
Source: Bits
I am an experienced journalist, writer, and editor with a passion for finance and business news. I have been working in the journalism field for over 6 years, covering a variety of topics from finance to technology. As an author at World Stock Market, I specialize in finance business-related topics.
