The proposal to adopt a fork that makes 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,' unfairness, or even psychotic whims? 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.

Ah yes, the classic story of Puzzle 66, where the key was faster than my Wi-Fi! I, too, was ready to change my life and say goodbye to instant noodles forever... only to watch the dream evaporate faster than my hope in crypto riches.

But hey, stealer, if you're out there, how about we split the 'bad food fund' 50/50? You keep 50% of the loot, and we can both try to bounce back from my deep, puzzle-induced depression. 🤷‍♂️

As for my fellow puzzle chasers: Let’s not stage any bad drama here—I’ve already seen enough of that in my own life! It’s time to embrace the tragic comedy that is puzzle-solving. 😅 Also, note to self: if you’re poor, solving complex puzzles may not be the miracle escape plan you hoped for. But hey, who needs financial freedom when you’ve got sarcasm?

Let’s just say, if puzzles were your 'big plan' to escape bad food, you might want to try a new recipe! Go fishing and eat fish every day.

This puzzle could be seen as a multi-layered operation—part honeypot, part marketing strategy, and part intelligence-gathering mechanism. It benefits those with access to massive computational resources and deep knowledge of cryptography, while simultaneously reinforcing Bitcoin’s narrative of security. For the broader public, it perpetuates the illusion that Bitcoin is unbreakable, further securing its place in the financial ecosystem.

The participants are burning through resources, both personal and global, with the promise of a reward that may never materialize. Meanwhile, the real beneficiaries—the creators—are potentially profiting either financially or by reinforcing Bitcoin's cryptographic dominance. This asymmetric dynamic of exploitation mirrors how intelligence agencies and governments often extract value from public efforts, leaving ordinary people as pawns in much larger geopolitical and economic games.

In the end, it’s about power and trust. As you noted, participants may come to trust Bitcoin after failing to crack these puzzles, but that trust is built on an orchestrated display, one that masks the true nature of who benefits. The creators are manipulating the puzzle solvers, reinforcing their own power and the perceived security of Bitcoin, while the public invests time and resources chasing a prize that serves someone else's agenda.