Refuse to move funds tied to their nsec and instead ask zappers to send them funds with payment targets.

Without zaps, then? I can make a setting

The issue is. I don't think there is a form for the IRS that says "I received funds. They're in my name, but I'm saying no to them. I don't want them." You're leaving me with no choice except torch my nsec and go back to twitter.

You can just burn them if you don't want. Some clients are already adding it.

Well on one hand nyms often embrace spending permissionlessly.. so we may just spend it and say gfy. But since spends under typical anon conditions have no social graph associated this is the privacy problem. Ashigaru minimum pool size is 2,500,000 sats. Since all the funds are already associated then they could be consolidated and spent in a tx0 to break deterministic links. But there is still a clear path that this nsec did so. Perhaps the deniability is my nsec is compromised? Seems to me that ocz's for nyms under current conditions are only spendable to other nyms or are a locked in burned utxo clout badge until they are big enough balance to whirlpool. @Tim Bouma solution should likely solve the client implementations, so that public ocz's are not available easily by users and by and large engage with SP OCZ's in clients.

My problem with that thinking is that all private keys of all kinds, can receive funds in any blockchain. Anyone can lock funds to you in almost all chains, even frankly even banks. That doesnt mean you received them or want them in the eyes of the law

All the shitcoins are tax nightmares. They just don't seem to care and degens will do whatever degens do, mostly because they are clueless about the potential implications. That isn't a good arguement for doing the same. User intention doesn't change the tax code sadly. It is income and legally users are obligated to report. Boat accidents land people in jail. It isn't a sufficient defense to say, "I won't/can't spend this money only I control."