his suggestion is certainly not as evil as the article make it sound.
It is
absolutely evil.
It proposes that the collective has a greater claim on one's bitcoin than the owner himself. If there is a risk of early hashless-address bitcoin being stolen by advances in cryptanalysis, the only party that has a legitimate right to manage that risk is the owner of those bitcoins.
Fucking period.
I can hardly believe all y'all covetous crass craven cretins are even entertaining the notion. Or publicly admitting to such an offense.
The problem is you are responding to the bogus OP, while the rest of us are, more or less, dealing more accurately with theymos' position:
When this topic first came up I assumed it was a prank or vicious smear against Theymos or something.
It is... The bitcoin.com article is full of lies, and the headline quote is a complete fabrication.
I really dislike the idea that a bitcoin investor has to keep up to speed with changes in the protocol or risk losing their investment.
That's just the nature of Bitcoin. It's pretty experimental still. Everyone's always known that Bitcoin's ECDSA will be utterly broken if anyone builds a sufficiently large quantum computer. When/if that happens, people who aren't paying attention are either going to have their coins stolen, or (as I
did propose) the coins will be destroyed slightly before they would've been stolen
if the owner fails to secure them. (I absolutely did
not propose targeting Satoshi's coins in particular, and my proposal would be a one-time response to the unusual and very serious issue of millions of coins becoming insecure at the same time.)
Maybe if I repost this a dozen more times people will stop reacting to the OP?