That’s the cri de cœur of Benjamin A. Rogovy & Carol J. Castellon Miranda, Docket No. 17513-24, filed 10/10/25, but it’s Ben’s story.

Ben was an early blockchainer, a cryptocurrency devotée whose permanently-ledgered dealings will survive, unchanged and unchanging, even the extinction of humanity (or so one of my nearest-and-dearest who actually understands this stuff tells me) so long as electromagnetism lasts.

Ben fears his personal cryptocurrency dealings, if revealed on the trial, will enable cryptovillains to track and defraud him.

Who but Judge Ronald L.  (“Ingenuity”) Buch, from whom no puzzlement is long immured, to solve Ben’s problem?

This he does by casting the cloak of Rule 103 upon any and all documents containing “(A)ny identifying information relating to Petitioners’ activity, or the activity of any of Petitioners’ affiliates, with respect to digital assets, including: a. Wallet addresses; b. Public keys; c. Private keys; d. Transaction hashes; e. Any account information on any exchange (including usernames, account numbers, and email addresses associated therewith; and f. Exact quantities of digital assets transferred in a particular transaction.” Order, at p. 4. To the extent any thereof are needed to decide Ben’s case, they should be submitted enclosed with a Motion to Seal.

Here’s Judge Ingenuity Buch writing his own “Bitcoin for Idiots.”

“Bitcoin exists on a blockchain, which is a public ledger of cryptocurrency transactions. A Bitcoin wallet holds private keys which represent ownership of the Bitcoin that exists on the blockchain. The wallet address is a shortened version of the public key, which is a long string of alphanumeric characters. When Bitcoin is transferred on the blockchain from one wallet address to another, a unique identifier called a ‘transactional hash’ is generated and recorded on the blockchain. Public keys, wallet addresses, transactional hashes, specific transactional amounts, and balances all exist publicly on the blockchain.” Order, at pp. 1-2. (Footnote omitted).

And here’s the kicker, which may well serve as a template for the Bitcoin tsunami that I confidently predict is boiling up.

“This case involves the question of whether transactions involving digital assets led to unreported income by Petitioners. Information concerning the nature of Petitioners’ cryptocurrency transactions may be necessary to deciding this case and of public interest. But the wallet addresses, transactional hashes, and precise amounts of the Bitcoin transactions do not fall within the public interest and their exposure may result in annoyance or embarrassment.” Order, at p. 4.

Thus, while as IRS argues, a lot of this stuff may be publicly available (see Order, at p. 3), personally-identifiable information should be protected.