People are going to say what they say. They might also reasonably say that cause Mark Karpeles was proposing a fork to reclaim the mtgox funds. But as much as you try to argue these are similar situations, they’re just really not?
Fundamentally, in a world where a CRQC exists and more will later, your fundamentally cannot have a concept of property rights for coins secured by ECC. “If you have the key” is nonsense when everyone has the key!
More generally, I posted this yesterday:
I think its actually an interesting question as to whether allowing a BIP 32+seedphrase-based recovery scheme that also necessarily freezes some coins as a result is more or less property-rights violating than doing nothing.
My view of Bitcoin's property rights has always been that someone who bought bitcoin, took self custody and wrote down the seedphrase 10 years ago then promptly forgot about bitcoin and went and lived their life should be able to retain access to their coins no matter what.
For that user specifically, a recovery path actually *retains* more property rights than it loses. But for patoshi its a different question. Obviously you can do a commit-before-Q-day-reveal-later scheme for patoshi to retain ownership without revealing whether they still have the private keys, but they do have to do something.
Its tricky but ultimately I don't think the "freezing coins is violating property rights so its bad" view is fully thought out - freezing some coins actually allows owners of other coins to retain the coins! Its far from black-and-white.
