People steal bitcoin all the time. Would you care to do that if the CCP did that to the Chinese?  

 Sure, why not - there will be forks for all sorts of reasons. 

 I’ve posted multiple times that I think Coinbase are going to be targeted when BTC goes up - if some group goes and robs Blackrock of 500k coins before the USGov can 6102 them, are we going to blacklist that too?

If the choice is between USGov 6102ing without impact and Noderunners blacklisting addresses, I’ll take the former.

They’ve just created a massive fucking honeypot again that some group can go after, rob, and send via irreversible transaction out of their custody.

No theft of Bitcoin should see wallets blacklisted. “Soft” blacklisted ok, but not via consensus. 

 That's your personal choice. 

I think if the US gov overtly stole some huge amount of bitcoin (>2M), there would be a consensus split, and then a fork that burns those coins. 

Personally I would run the fork, and use the fork coins, but still hold my coins on the original chain in case I'm wrong. 

 Every fork upto now failed, because the assumed unforkabilty adds value. There are always ways to handle perceived corruption on other levels. 

 Given that if the government steals coins, that means Bitcoin's legitimation, which is a win in itself.
Anyways, stolen coins are still valid coins because...they're just coins, such as stolen gold bars are still gold bars.

The fact that a lot of coins are sitting in one's priv keys, being the keys of a government or an individual, is somehow a natural evolution of how capital works. Bitcoin is not a Maoist dream in which every user holds the same amount of coins...so we must accept the existence of big coin stacks, like possibly a government's stack. 

 Why are you talking about Maoism?

Bitcoin is not gold, because you can't fork gold.

If there is a major consensus break, then there will be a fork. If that's your opinion, you will know which side of the fork to choose. 

 Yep  technically forks can happen, you're right. The problem behind hard forks is that once the opportunity of changing the rules is given, eventually people form lobbies to change other rules. If we just forked away because of government 6102 order, why can't we also include in the fork a supply increase? or a blocksize increase to 32GB? Or a dynamic blacklisting of adresses by miners? Or the seizure of Satoshi's coins? etc. 

If you think I'm just riffing, look at all the other protocols that hard forked in the past...that is the issue. Once the immutability is broken, you're done with the "immutability" narrative.

> Bitcoin is not gold because Bitcoin can fork.

Yes, but the only "gold-like Bitcoin " is the Bitcoin that technically respected the status quo...all the others are just shitcoin. 

 "if the oportunity of changing the rules is given" 

What are you talking about? No one needs permission to fork Bitcoin. It has happened many times, and will continue to happen. It's just a question of how much of the bitcoin economy forks away. It's part of the game theory.

Bitcoin is a consensus of humans, and they express their will through the code they use to validate their coins. If there is a big break in consensus, a fork will happen. You can't stop it.