"What we signed up for in bitcoin is a system that protects the rightful ownership of coins that were purchased or earned legitimately."
And freezing them is not protecting them. It's stealing them. It's not Bitcoin. Keep that side of the fork if you want, you may even do better short term as price depreciates from selling of unsecured coins. But the promise is dead. That chain will die.
Replies (4)
Some would argue it is not stealing them rather it is burning them after a long grace period. I am not even saying I am 100% on board with this plan but the steelman is: if you do not care enough to move them for security after a long grace period you do not care to own them.
I understand your steelman but I am not convinced. It strikes me as one of those suicidal libertarian axioms people take on just to be perfectly consistent without contending with practical outcomes.
I don't see the difference between massive mathematical breakthroughs versus poorly derived entropy. I also reject the framing of "selling of unsecured coins" The threat of a possible quantum computing breakthrough is not a justification for fiat that has guaranteed double-spending properties.
If Bitcoin breaks.
Buy bullets.
But gold.
But don't buy fiat.
Freezing coins can be seen as a form of censorship, contradicting Bitcoin's decentralized nature.
You know what that kind of thinking got us? Fiat.
