Either that or their backend wallet software was completely messed up, which is not a hard stretch to those who have seen and analyzed some of their code. Once lost, the private keys are almost impossible to recover. However, Mark probably doesn't realize there is a possibility of public recourse for locked up wallets and he will continue not to realize this until he opens candid dialogs with the community. Yes, there should and will be a way to revive dead/lost coins if the magnitude of impact is as large as what's being speculated in this case. If Mark start being honest and communicating he will see the collaborative power of the community. Here is a quick run-down proposals on reviving dead coins:
1. The effort needs to be justified and warranted by the case. The loss must exceed certain threshold (e.g. > 100K) and its recovery must be for the common public interest.
2. The claiming party must produce proof that can indisputably substantiate their claims, such as the address or addresses where the dead coins are sitting at as well as all relevant evidence showing how it happened.
3. There must be a public announcement and advertisement of the revival request for a reasonable amount of time (e.g. 3-6 mo depending on the amount) to prevent potential harm to innocent 3rd parties.
4. There then should be some kind of voting and census process to ensure the majority of the community and the miners won't object to it.
5. After all of these, the request should be made to the core dev team.
6. A revival measure should only be hardcoded in the next public release of the client and the mining software. These are extraordinary measures, and they should be regarded as major historical events leading to the greater maturity of Bitcoin. Thus, leaving these limited "corrections" in the code is well justified and a good refection to Bitcoin's future elegancy.
7. Such measures are deemed to be controversial by some within the community. Idealists may consider such measures flat violations of Bitcoin's self-governence and zero tolerance of human intervention. Others may view such measures as detrimental to the system's objectivity and thus a stain to Bitcoin network's long-term security and integrity. These people just need to be either persuaded or out voted.
If we are talking about a lost private key scenario then I think your suggestion has merit, but at the same time it's a
very slippery slope to get onto. Re-animating a large block of lost coins on the grounds of public interest is commendable, but I can't see that being the case here if the outcome is simply to give Gox back access to their coins. It's doesn't matter how big a voting consensus you try and get, at the end of the day you are trying to go against the basic tenant of Bitcoin and what it stands for.
The only truly democratic way that adheres to Bitcoin principles that might work here would be for you to fork the current blockchain to resurrect the coins and then let the public decide whether to adopt your "recovered" blockchain or keep using the old one.
One last thing to consider: If Gox's private keys to 750K BTC has truly been lost forever, then any BTC people have in their own private wallets are now just that bit rarer making them more valuable in the long run.
Human nature being what it is - do you see a majority of people voting for something that devalues the coins they currently hold?
I'm a big fan of technologies but I also believe technologies were invented to serve the greater common good and better lives of human beings. I don't see how such beliefs could contradict with Bitcoin's basic tenants. Human nature calls for righting the wrongs. We do agree someone forgot his paypal password is not the website's fault, but...you guessed what I'm about to say. I'm optimistic about the majority of the Bitcoin adopters voting for a transaction overwrite if there is a strong justifiable cause for it, and I believe doing so would only further strengthen the public's faith in the new currency and thus a stronger support to its value.