[quote author=gmaxwell link=topic=5511762.msg64628622#msg64628622
If the users of Bitcoin feel so threatened by these unmoved early coins that they're willing to ungratefully violate privacy of Bitcoin's creator, a person who might not even own those coins, in an act which might harm the creator seriously but not even address the concern ... they could instead just adopt a fork that makes those early unmoved coins forever inaccessible. -- and perhaps let whomever owns them come out to argue against it.
[/quote]

Your proposal to adopt a fork that makes the early unmoved coins inaccessible is a creative and technically sound solution, but I wonder if it might set a dangerous precedent. If we start introducing forks based on social pressure or fear of large holders, it could erode the neutrality of Bitcoin and its 'code is law' philosophy. What’s to stop future forks from being initiated for other reasons of perceived 'danger' or unfairness? It could spiral into a situation where anyone with significant holdings becomes a target.

Additionally, there's a technical consideration: the immutability of the blockchain is one of Bitcoin's core features, and even an opt-in fork that nullifies early coins could be seen as violating that principle. While it may temporarily solve the issue, it could also sow division within the community and weaken the overall trust in Bitcoin's unchangeable nature.

Ultimately, the early coins represent an interesting dilemma, but perhaps the best course of action is to uphold Bitcoin’s foundational values of privacy, neutrality, and immutability. In a way, leaving the coins untouched serves as a reminder of those principles.