I don't think you can sue without revealing your identity to someone. This whole thing just reaks of ways to get him to reveal his identity which is highly sus.
My thought exactly after I read his suggestion LOL
Interestingly I believe that you can, at least in some instances. Although I don't believe it's realistic in this situation (or that PhoenixMiner would be inclined to try).
Courts can grant permission for a claimant to use a pseudonym under so-called anonymity orders, usually in domestic abuse cases and the like, or in the case of PhoenixMiner you could set up a shell company to mask the true ownership and have solicitors file a claim on behalf of the shell company.
I used to work as an asset manager for a company that purchased a lot of mortgages, they were regularly bundled up into SPVs with the servicers listed as directors and another offshore shell company as the beneficial interest (yay tax avoidance). Possession claims were filed by solicitors on behalf of the SPV, with documentation such as home at risk notices signed by approved individuals from the third-party mortgage servicer.
The true ownership was never disclosed. To my knowledge only one person ever tried to obtain it, they had a dubious theory that our servicers didn't have the right to bring a claim against them, and it was rejected by a district court judge.
That would be ridiculously complicated and expensive however, especially given the complexities and chances of success in filing such a claim in Slovenia (or wherever NiceHash are based) over a relatively trivial matter such as this. I just think it's fascinating that it's possible at all, and a little bit of a disturbing argument against shell companies if I was honest.
Thanks for the insight, it was an interesting read. I assume it was US state legislation, not federal? In either case though I guess this trick would be quite hard to pull in other parts of the world, but then I never had a close look into this matter.