Those bitcoins could easily be moved. If Satoshi or any other owner holds the private keys, when they detect any kind of insecurity or risk, they'll move them to a more secure location. I think we shouldn't make any drastic changes to Bitcoin in that regard, otherwise imagine what would follow... someone important is hacked or loses their keys, do we implement something to recover the hacked or lost money? It would become an unnecessary chain of adjustments.
We are going to reach a point where private keys can be derived from those addresses, so it won't be the owners who are claiming them. Therefore, this post is false and unnecessary. What you imply will follow has nothing to do with this proposal, nobody is "recovering" anything.
1) New P2PK outputs can't be created.
As I said, we should implement this right away and without this proposal -- this would make it a proposal that is not controversial, because the details of the hourglass proposal can always be debated on their merits and allegedly better variants of it can be proposed.
The effect desired is that there cannot be a mass sale of "quantum hacked" coins, and quantum hackers maybe could be tracked down until they can spend the coins.
What would tracking down do though if we are talking about dead addresses and addresses of people that have lost their keys or are deceased? In those cases, we can't really distinguish from the outside what has actually happened. Did the old owner wake up? Did they somehow find their lost keys? Or was this a compromise by quantum computers? We can calculate some probabilities but that is not irrefutable proof. It would be good for existing users and legal entities, but if those have not changed to updated and secure solutions in the meantime then they are just unprofessional.
Even if this is probably a very amateurish proposal I believe there's much room for improvement for Hourglass.
Yes, hence let's separate the P2PK banning from it.
It is not a bad limit. Realistically speaking, one would be foolish to still use P2PK and even more foolish to not spend it before this proposal or one similar to it goes live. Therefore, in practice this is not going to harm anybody aside from a few foolish people or entities -- and it will be only their own fault. We should never refuse to apply such measures because there may be some idiot somewhere that for whatever reason insists on using P2PK or keeping P2PK outputs. In any case, this kind of solution is much better than not doing anything at all or worse freezing coins. Slow reintroduction back into the circulating supply, and then the problem will be officially solved forever.
