I would expect that it won't be long for someone to suggest a core change which blocks or otherwise restricts transactions against those early addresses. This would dispel the spectre of the early days and then maybe Satoshi can step out of the shadows and claim credit for his work without risking his life or that of his family/friends.
If bitcoin survives and grows, I think that it is quite likely that the protocol will be amended with a government-mandated "black list" of coins that cannot be moved, and a "white list" of transactions that must be accepted even without a valid signature.
If bitcoin succeeds, it is even possible that the current blockchain will have to be junked, and a new blockchain be restarted with suitable legal constraints and devices.
In either case, the bitcoiners who understand the goals of bitcoin will surely scream and claim (with reason) that those violations of the basic principles render the coin worthless. The other 99% will not even understand what the fuss is about, and will mostly ignore the changes, or even approve them...
I understand your point but this is a problem and there would be many hurdles to jump before it could happen.
A single government would not be able to enforce this so this would first require global, multi-national agreement.
Also at the moment the P2P network allows anyone to join from anywhere so this would need a core change to implement a black/white list.
Once the miners/transaction processors are globally regulated they would all need to agree to a transaction black/white list.
At this stage the global body could block transactions.
However I think this is highly unlikely since the global body would be VERY difficult to create. We barely have a united nations and even then they don't agree most of the time and have little legal global clout. This would be a major roadblock stopping the global authority but lets pretend one is created.
Next they would have to get multi-national agreement for a regulated/limited list of miners/transaction processors. Only companies would be allowed and they would have to register in order to be allowed in the P2P club. Again this would be very difficult but lets pretend it can happen.
Finally the all the various multi-national companies on the P2P network would have to agree to block those fixed addresses on the black list. The initial list would probably be easy to negotiate but new addresses would be a problem. Lets say company ABC has an account the US authorities want blocked and they get the global body to agree, adding their wallet address to the black list. If say China disagree what's to stop them from not accepting that latest version of the black list ? The transaction would be blocked in the US but a block processed in China would accept the transaction.
while technically possible I think such a system would be politically impractical.
Finally yes this could result in a hard-fork with a *government* block chain and a *public* block chain. There would then be a political battle of sorts while government pushed companies (eg Bitpay) to accept their version of the blockchain truth vs the competing network.
If by a "new blockchain" you ultimately mean starting again from block 0 then this would be a new currency and I'd say good luck to them. I think some of the main players are already looking to use the blockchain tech like this between themselves and I think there was a report saying the bank of England might issue a digital currency. The bitcoin blockchain will still carry on regardless though.
