I've read the OP very well. And I understand what your point comes down to. But obviously you didn't read nor understood my response.
There is no - and I repeat - no (zero) justification to redistribute coins that are allegedly unused/abandoned/inaccessible for whatever reason. The only possible motive to do something like this is socialist greed, which is at the same time unfounded, because the buying power of each Bitcoin automatically increases anyway by the simple logic I've outlined
I don't really know what you actually read, but I made a clarification on my opening post (in the OP itself) and even marked it as important. I still think that you somehow missed that part since it does specifically address the issue which you are coming up with (or against) here, i.e. "coins that are allegedly unused/abandoned/inaccessible"...
Here is the clarification, if you don't mind reading it
What about adding some parameter which would basically say that the coins from this wallet shouldn't be moved under any circumstances with default being set to donating them after some period. That might work very much like organ donation, and the way voluntary consent is obtained (opt-in vs opt-out). In this case, both options can be used, i.e. in the case of an opt-out the coins of anyone who has not explicitly refused to donate them will be moved after the expiration of the timeout, or that timeout period could be set by default to infinity effectively meaning that the coins should never be moved. That would be the opt-in option, i.e. only the coins of those who have given explicit consent will be donated
As you can see, in the case of the opt-in option, coins won't be moved unless explicitly ordered to be moved
