This proposed fork is super controversial and is unlikely to gain acceptance from the majority of the Bitcoin community.

Key points:

1. This isn't just a regular upgrade - it's a change in ownership rules.

Bitcoin is built on the principle: “whoever has the private key, they are the owner.”

If coins can be seized for being deemed “inactive,” then:
Ownership becomes debatable.
Trust in the system plummets.

2. This fork is likely to become an alternative chain, not a replacement for Bitcoin.

Similar to occurrences like:
Bitcoin Cash,
Bitcoin SV.

The result?
- The original Bitcoin remains dominant.
- The fork becomes a new asset with its own community (often much smaller).

3. The narrative of “reviving dead coins” is a long debate.

Pros:
Supply becomes more “active.”
Could improve liquidity.

Cons (this one's heavier):
It’s not a lost coin — just dormant.
Includes holdings of Satoshi Nakamoto.

Changing it = violating the fundamental principle of decentralization.

4. The biggest risk: a dangerous precedent.
If today inactive coins can be seized,

Tomorrow new rules could emerge:
Old coins subjected to forced taxation,
Certain wallets restricted,
Rules changing according to majority interests.

This is what hardcore Bitcoin community fears the most.

#MarketRebound #StrategyBTCPurchase

$BTC @Bitcoin #bitcoin
{future}(BTCUSDT)