The proposal argues that the Japanese court-supervised rehabilitation process already exists and is actively distributing recovered assets to verified creditors. In theory, if the coins could be accessed, a legal framework is in place to allocate them.
Technically, the change would introduce a new script verification flag that substitutes the theft address’s public key hash with that of a recovery address at a specified activation height. The activation parameter is currently set to INT_MAX, meaning the rule remains inactive unless a future consensus decision alters that setting.
Arguments in favor center on restitution, the prolonged dormancy of the coins, and the limited scope of the change. Opponents, however, raise concerns about precedent, the sanctity of immutability, coordination risks, and moral hazard. In short: If the network bends once, where does it stop?
FAQ What is Mark Karpelès proposing?He is suggesting a Bitcoin hard fork that would allow 79,956 BTC tied to the 2011 Mt. Gox hack to be spent by a designated recovery address. Was the proposal adopted?No, it was auto-closed as spam on the Bitcoin Core GitHub and locked before extended discussion. Why is this considered controversial?The change would alter consensus rules to redirect a specific set of coins, raising concerns about immutability and precedent. Where will the discussion continue? Bitcoin Core contributor Pieter Wuille directed the proposal to the Bitcoin development mailing list for further debate.
