Taking a stab at summarizing as objectively as possible here:

Issue: Is it a good idea to replace Paycoin or fork Paycoin in such a way as to substantially reduce or eliminate the control and economic interests of Homero Garza and GAW?

Arguments in favor (in outline format):

1) There is a large and dedicated (some might say too dedicated) community of newbies holding Paycoin who have lost tons of money and will turn their backs on crypto forever if Paycoin is not saved for them in some form.

2) There are a number (not sure how many) of active developers in Team Paycoin who want to make this work, so why not let them try?

3) If successful, it would at the very least eliminate or reduce Garza's ability to profit further from the scam by selling off his pre-mined coins and hyper-inflationary Prime Controllers in the future (past is done, nothing we can do about that).

Cons - arguments against:

1) It was not just Garza, he had help and there is suspicion that some or all of the very developers trying to save Paycoin are doing so for their own benefit, so that they can reap the benefits of the Prime Controller hyperinflation and pre-mined coins for themselves.  This allows the scam to continue albeit with possibly different "owners"

2) The coin was a scam coin, and allowing it to continue to exist in any form is bad precedent/will encourage more scam coins

3) It is impossible to eliminate all of Garza's stash of pre-mined coins and hyperinflation generated coins since he has been mixing and transferring these amongst thousands of wallets, intermingled with customer hot wallets, etc.

4) Eliminating Garza's stash, even if possible, violates a fundamental moral premise underlying crypto that coins should not be destroyed or banned

5) Arguably, eliminating Garza's stash, even if possible, would be illegal as theft or conversion of property rights (this is the main subject of the exchanges between PaulRevere and myself, as I disagree with this particular point strongly).

I think that summarizes the main lines of argument, if I missed an argument let me know and I will add it.

FWIW, my position for clarity's sake is: ONLY IF all or substantially all of Garza's stash can be eliminated, and IF the centralized control and hyperinflation associated with Prime Controllers can be entirely eliminated (no Prime Controllers, every wallet stakes the same), then it could be worth doing if only to show the Paycoin holders that the larger cryptocommunity is not like the scammers they have been dealing with.  I do not, however, know whether that could be done.  Paul Revere's points about the impossibility of blacklisting all of Garza's wallets are sound and his blockchain analysis over the past few weeks has shown a lot of mixing and obfuscation; and if there is **any** possibility that Garza could end up benefiting from Paycoin 2.0, then it should not be done. But I don't see any harm in exploring ways that the community might be able to identify an blacklist Garza's stash, to see if there is some feasible alternative.

Note: The discussion presumes that in its original incarnation, Paycoin was a scam coin that was designed to and did result in a massive pre-mine and massive hyperinflation that benefited disproportionately Garza, GAW and the holders of so-called Prime Controllers, to the detriment of everyone else who merely bought Paycoin; and that Garza and GAW were integral to the exploitation of this scam.  Posts debating *that* presumption should be had in the original thread.