Essentially, this is a question of which you think is worse: confiscation, or theft.
IMO, confiscation is worse than theft because it involves a top-down consensus level decision to forcibly invalidate someone's coins. To me, that totally invalidates Bitcoin's value proposition as a self custodial decentralized system.
The relative downside of theft is that if the thief dumps their stolen Bitcoin into the market, that lowers the price of Bitcoin. From the perspective of the person stolen from, confiscation or theft makes no difference.
Thus, I'd summarize the tradeoffs this way:
For the person whose coins are confiscated/stolen: Confiscation and theft are equivalent.
For the Bitcoin price: Theft is worse than confiscation
For the Bitcoin ethos: Confiscation is worse than theft.
IMO, price can always recover. And making decisions based on price is fiat-driven NGU thinking. I think the damage to Bitcoin ethos would be much worse, including for price, in the long-run.
I don't agree with this BIP.
Essentially, this is a question of which you think is worse: confiscation, or theft.
IMO, confiscation is worse than theft because it involves a top-down consensus level decision to forcibly invalidate someone's coins. To me, that totally invalidates Bitcoin's value proposition as a self custodial decentralized system.
The relative downside of theft is that if the thief dumps their stolen Bitcoin into the market, that lowers the price of Bitcoin. From the perspective of the person stolen from, confiscation or theft makes no difference.
Thus, I'd summarize the tradeoffs this way:
IMO, price can always recover. And making decisions based on price is fiat-driven NGU thinking. I think the damage to Bitcoin ethos would be much worse, including for price, in the long-run.