It is the closest comparison in terms of governance and forcing a change though. It is important to know that a rollback of individual addresses is not possible in Bitcoin so there will never be something similar like the DAO situation in terms of the details. However, in terms of governance it is the closest thing. The DAO situation was quite controversial even if it had majority support that was carefully engineered by its leader and other key people with financial interests. Here I would also like to now that the ability to rollback individual addresses is a bug and not a feature as altcoin proponents believe. This createdcreates a very bad precedent for creating collusive quick forks in order to bail out individuals as it was already the case. With Bitcoin a hard workfork would undo everything that has happened after the block to which we are rolling back and this hasthus such an action would have a lot more extensive and unknown implications. This serves as an additional deterrent to those that may consider such idiotic ideas of the old financial system.

There is a strong chance that even a simple majority consensus will be impossible on this (not to even mention the supermajority consensus requirement that is traditionally required or desired in Bitcoin), so the key question will be "What then?". My cypherpunk sense tells me that there will be many people who will reject any proposal in these lines. As a compromise I could maybe accept freezing of P2PKH addresses as those were a flaw in the original design of the system, but not more than that. Whoever still has such an address is using Bitcoin wrong.

It is the closest comparison in terms of governance and forcing a change though. It is important to know that a rollback of individual addresses is not possible in Bitcoin so there will never be something similar like the DAO situation in terms of the details. However, in terms of governance it is the closest thing. The DAO situation was quite controversial even if it had majority support that was carefully engineered by its leader and other key people with financial interests. Here I would also like to now that the ability to rollback individual addresses is a bug and not a feature as altcoin proponents believe. This created a very bad precedent for creating collusive quick forks in order to bail out individuals as it was already the case. With Bitcoin a hard work would undo everything that has happened after the block to which we are rolling back and this has a lot more extensive and unknown implications. This serves as an additional deterrent to those that may consider such idiotic ideas of the old financial system.

There is a strong chance that even a simple majority consensus will be impossible on this (not to even mention the supermajority consensus requirement that is traditionally required or desired in Bitcoin), so the key question will be "What then?". My cypherpunk sense tells me that there will be many people who will reject any proposal in these lines.

It is the closest comparison in terms of governance and forcing a change though. It is important to know that a rollback of individual addresses is not possible in Bitcoin so there will never be something similar like the DAO situation in terms of the details. However, in terms of governance it is the closest thing. The DAO situation was quite controversial even if it had majority support that was carefully engineered by its leader and other key people with financial interests.

There is a strong chance that even a simple majority consensus will be impossible on this, so the key question will be "What then?".