I don’t want the government to dictate what I use, which is exactly why I wanted to use a different wallet with the Lightning Network, but apparently it’s not as cheap as we’d like, and maybe that’s why Bitcoin isn’t suitable for small, everyday payments.

Bitcoin has already done it. In this case, we're talking about old and lost addresses.

Bitcoin’s most important goal is to be uncensorable, regardless of whether it is used for good or for criminal purposes. Any attempt to influence anything by interfering with private addresses would spell the end of the illusion that such a thing is possible.

In my opinion, the difference is that Bitcoin has already been fixed. It’s like an old version of an app that’s been improved, but the old one has a bug. Anyone who can will switch to the new version. In reality, nothing is actually lost.

We don’t even know if that will ever happen. Even with a quantum computer, it would be extremely expensive. Only someone with vast resources could do it, and the incentive for me wouldn’t be very great at all. Even if they managed to steal the coins, they wouldn’t be able to sell them quickly enough and would lose a significant portion of their value.

I’m thinking about Bitcoin. If the addresses are frozen, my trust in the network will vanish, along with any hope that we’ll ever have real, uncensored money. I’m not interested in Bitcoin’s value in fiat currency, but in its importance to humanity as a whole.

It’s better for 1/3 of the supply to return to the market and for the price to drop temporarily than for trust in Bitcoin to be permanently undermined and for it to never again be what we want it to be.

Absolutely. I don't even consider it hacking. It's like an old version of an app. Everyone has the option to use the new, more stable version, and the old one is no longer supported.

I am against, because it contradicts Bitcoin’s core principle of being uncensored, decentralized, and without intermediaries. In my opinion, any interference with private addresses is far worse than hacking, because hacking is carried out by a malicious actor, whereas the attempt to save the addresses demonstrates that the developers themselves have power over other people’s property. For me, this would be a turning point in trust in the network, even if done with good intentions. Bitcoin was created precisely to prevent this. Even in the first block, it states that banks should not be bailed out. Everyone must bear their own responsibility. Even if the old addresses are hacked, no one will lose anything, because they are lost anyway. Anyone can move their coins to a new address, if they can. Sometimes, when you try to help someone, you end up hurting everyone else much more.

I used to use Wallet of Satoshi, but it was stopped; now it can only be used as a self-custodial wallet in Europe, where there’s a crackdown on Bitcoin. Right now, at least for me, the Lightning Network—instead of being easier, faster, and cheaper—is actually less cost-effective than on-chain transactions.