Isn't morally incorrect to not utilize money that might be lost? If you knew that it's likely for the owner to have lost access, wouldn't it be incorrect to "donate to everyone" instead of making a usage that's more morally correct, for example charity?
I would not move the Bitcoin at all. If they can prove they are the owner they can have it, if they can not then neither of us will have it, nor will they be donated or burned. I think this is the best way to do it and also the closest to what we consider to be 'moral' today.
Given that the OP published the exact amount of BTC in question (0.6104), is it possible to search all addresses that contain exactly that amount in case it is only one address?
Just wait for LoyceV's answer, they are probably preparing that just as we speak!
I would like to add that 0.6104 might actually not be the exact amount this paper wallet contains. So if anyone is looking through addresses, keep this in mind. Some wallets hide the last few digits, and OP's might have hidden them as well so it could be anything from 0.61040000 to 0.61049999. Should get a pretty short list of colliding results though, it is a pretty 'random' amount to have in a wallet.
-
Regards,
PrivacyG