⭐ Merited by vapourminer (1)
What if pools and wallet companies and devs decided (for the interests of their multi-billion business) to block terrorist wallets, e.g. because of US authorities threatening the whole community? 
you are comparing apples and oranges!
your other arguments are like saying our browsers must not have stopped rejecting SHA1 SSL certificates because some people might be lazy in upgrading their certificate to a more secure hash algorithm even though there was a transition period given to everyone to move to new algorithms! instead they should have given the "lazy server" a workaround to push their SHA1 certificates as valid!!!
And it is not all about laziness (which is absolutely a right), people may be away for a long period of time from tech news, maybe they are paranoid about tracking/surveillance systems being watching them and trying to locate them, whales may feel uncomfortable with moving their strategic wallets, some may possibly lose their keys temporarily, others may have deposited their keys in a safe box to be handed to the heirs in a special occasion, ...
Plus, if missing a deadline should have a penalty it is not necessarily losing all funds. In my proposal users that you are calling them lazy have tp pay for it but in a reasonable way.
If Bitcoin wants to be digital gold, you can't be having arbitrary countdowns in which you are going to lose all of your affected funds unless you move them from A to B. That is what has been my point for a while.
However, what do you really and concisely propose? I have not seen convincing arguments, when it comes to avoiding the need for funds being moved in case of an exploit on the algorithm (QC attack or otherwise).
Perhaps it's something we can't avoid, and every generation or so, you will need to do this, at least once in your lifetime.
With gold, the analogy could be that you may need to reallocate all of your holdings... the place in which they are sitting isn't supposedly safe forever.