Mark Karpelès (former CEO of Mt. Gox) recently published a proposal for Bitcoin

[coinrifft]

Mark Karpelès (former CEO of Mt. Gox) recently published a proposal for Bitcoin hard fork to allow  ~79,956 BTC to be recovered.

Summary:

This proposal adds a consensus rule that allows spending the unspent outputs
locked to address 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF using a signature from
the MtGox recovery address 1zUrwsmiJxs19c8SJ8FyGZRXD1zUW77Wj, so that the
funds can be returned to MtGox creditors through the existing court-supervised
rehabilitation process.

The rule activates at a configurable block height (currently set to INT_MAX,
i.e. inactive) and requires community consensus on an activation date before it
has any effect.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34695



https://mempool.space/address/1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF

I'm no expert but I don't like this idea as it will really go against the tenant of Bitcoin and it might set a precedence. Not sure what the community is going to say here though. I have a feeling though that the majority will not like this proposal as well, and will not get any consensus.


You can read about Mt. Gox here: Bitcointalk history of MtGox and how a Bitcointalk post caught the MtGox hacker.

[Cookdata]

There is already a thread created by Merk Karpeles, Proposal: Consensus rule to recover 79,956 BTC stolen from MtGox

Not sure what the community is going to say here though. I have a feeling though that the majority will not like this proposal as well, and will not get any consensus.

The pull request was closed on Github, sometimes actions are louder than words.

[CryptSafe]

OP, from the looks, there is an already existing thread with respect to this topic you have created here. Maybe it would have been better you contributed to the discussion on the existing thread than creating a separate thread with same information here and this could be seen as spamming the platform and also at the same time multiple thread creation for same topic which is against the platform policies so I will advise you lock this thread immediately and continue the conversation in the existing thread if you care to do so just as Cookdata has said earlier about the existence of similar topics on the platform.