Like a politician who's asked about this in a town hall, but thinks that "our plan is to do absolutely nothing" doesn't sound very appealing.

The answer could be to just push further, and try solving harder problems.

In most places, you can only get recourse mortgages. You will be liable for the rest of the mortgage, if the value of the house drops so much that selling it doesn't cover the remaining debt.

House values dropping a lot is something that happens fairly rarely, but it tends to happen exactly during the times when you are most likely to be unable to pay your mortgage (recessions, industry downturns, etc.)

Does it deliver on the "realistic" part? My experience with most models is they make something that technically fulfills the ask, but often in a way that doesn't really capture my intent (this is with regular Claude Code though).

Most participants don't care about this. For almost everyone, the point of Bitcoin is to go up. As long as they can find enough buyers that also believe it will go up, the rest is optional. Especially if it's temporary, for a one-time migration.

Maybe large exchanges would try to step in to make a fresh chain based on their combined account data, and just drop the people relying on self-custody. But I doubt the market would go for it - the uncertainty would crash it hard enough that it would never recover.

And since there are millions of identical copies of the entire pre-attack ledger out there, this should not be that difficult.

Potential future buyers might reevaluate whether this whole thing has any monetary value, but that's a separate concern. Bitcoin's market value was never about the technical details.

Both scraping and on-demand agent-driven interactions erode that. So you could look at people doing the same to them as a sort of poetic justice, from a purely moral standpoint at least.