The biggest issue we are having with such proposals is that
Reassigning breaks the principle of absolute ownership and undermine such protocol.
Not at all, it would be from wallets that are verifiably lost thus ownership must therefore have ceased.
Who defines the Multisig participants? How can centralization be prevented?
Recall laws in man's hand can be misuse unlike numbers and codes.
Democracy. It is the very foundation of our society, the building blocks of the free world. One wallet, one vote. (Obviously wallets must be linked to a real person, but this is a technical problem which is pretty much solved today). Centralisation wouldn't be possible due to the democratic principle. Also, side note, numbers and codes can most certainly be misused.
About the abandoned term? What year would count as abandoned?
There would be a deadline to move coins. Coins that are not moved by that time would be classified as either lost or unwanted. No one loses out.
This would really help in utilising the lost coins but the ones championing it is an issue in my opinion.
Let's not rule out the risk of paper Bitcoin (rehypothcation).
Where would the hypothecation be?
All I can hear from op's post is centralization... Yes we have to be aware about the possibility of the quantum era, but this isn't a solution honestly. It's more like giving millions of keys to a centralised body and calling it a cure to the quantum Madness. Bitcoin is meant to stay decentralised no matter the changes that may take place to prevent the quantum threat..
It's not supposed to be a solution to the quantum era. This is taking advantage of the likely requirement that will occur which is that everyone who currently has bitcoin will be required to move their wallets to quantum resistant wallets or something along those lines. If that is the case, to miss out on the potential for utilising such vast amounts of capital for the collective good seems a wasted opportunity.
Obviously this would be a major concern because we have so many holders on the look up for BTC. They literally have not even touched a penny since they accumulated them till date.. do we they call them abandoned? Yes many might have lost their keys or the owners or those coins long gone but, that doesn't determine the fact that it makes the whole concept of BTC less decentralised and more of centralised...
As I mentioned above, these would be verifiably lost. There would be a deadline to move coins. Coins that are not moved by that time would be classified as either lost or unwanted. I don't see how this makes BTC any less decentralised. If anything, it does the opposite.
