Who decides what is "illegitimate means"? You? Me? Josh? Mage? TeamXPY? What Mage has been suggesting about seizing and burning coins is theft. FUCK Josh, this is not about him. If some group of people are allowed to to what they please with a crypto currency because they don't like someone the whole system is fucked- completely. The fact is that Homero created Paycoin and put most of them in his pocket. That makes them legitimate- regardless of what you think of the scamming prick. If you don't like it then don't buy any. Not liking how someone else decided to make a coin does not suddenly make it right to steal what is not yours. Josh owns them fucking coins, and stealing his coins will do a billion times more damage to the core principles of crypto than that scamming turd ever could no matter how many idiots he cons into buying them. If it is allowed to be done to one person (regardless of what you or I think of him- and trust me, I think Josh is a fucking turd) then crypto is not secure for anyone.
I don't think a decision of "legitimacy" is really needed. Seizing and burning are "old school" concepts, luckily in crypto it's relatively easy to create "parallel universes" so to speak. The coin would be forked, just like any coin can be forked for any reason. If someone (let's say PC owners) decide to follow the fork that keeps the PCs and their coins and their stake rates - that's fine. Those who follow the fork without PCs would have a separate ecosystem, and technically we could even have both forks listed on exchanges. Then the market could decide how much the coin is worth with or without PCs. Homero could still dump his coins, I'm sure there would always be some rinky-dink exchange willing to make a few satoshis on fees.
That's the idealistic scenario of course. The reality would be much more messy, it always is whenever Mr. Brilliant is involved. And I think there is a real chance we could see such hostile fork(s) emerging, seeing how things are going at the moment.