TL;DR
- Mark Karpelès, former CEO of Mt. Gox, proposed a Bitcoin hard fork on February 27, 2026, to recover 79,956 BTC stolen in 2011
- The funds, worth over $5.2 billion, have remained untouched in the same wallet for over 15 years
- The proposal was closed on GitHub in under 17 hours, following massive opposition from the Bitcoin community
- The case reactivates one of the crypto world's oldest and most contentious debates: can — and should — the Bitcoin network reverse transactions?
Karpelès Seeks to Change Rules to Save Billions
On Thursday, February 27, Mark Karpelès, the man who led the Mt. Gox exchange until its collapse in 2014, submitted a "pull request" directly to the Bitcoin Core repository on GitHub. The proposal involved a new consensus rule that would allow specific funds to be moved to a recovery address controlled by the Mt. Gox estate trustee — without anyone having access to the original private keys.
According to the research documentation, the 79,956 BTC in question have remained untouched in the wallet with the address known as "1Feex...sb6uF" since the Mt. Gox hack in June 2011. These funds currently have a total market value of over $5.2 billion.
Karpelès himself described the proposal as an attempt to start a discussion, not a finished solution. According to CoinDesk, the Mt. Gox trustee had been reluctant to pursue an on-chain recovery without prior approval from the Bitcoin community for a protocol change.
"Changing consensus rules every time a hack occurs undermines the very concept of Bitcoin" — critics on Bitcoin forums
Closed in 17 Hours
The reaction from the Bitcoin community was swift and unforgiving. The pull request was closed in just under 17 hours. Part of the rejection was procedural: Karpelès should have initiated the discussion on the Bitcoin developer mailing list before submitting code proposals. However, the substantive objections were far more fundamental.
Several Bitcoin Core contributors and creditors publicly rejected the proposal. The core argument is that private keys are the sole and absolute basis for ownership in Bitcoin — and that a protocol change overriding this principle, even in an obvious theft case, sets a dangerous precedent.
The Eternal Debate on Immutability
Bitcoin was designed around the principle that transactions are final and irreversible. This very characteristic is what many consider the network's most important quality — and what distinguishes it from the traditional financial system. Critics of Karpelès' proposal fear that one protocol change, no matter how justified it appears, opens the door for future claims after other hacks.
There is one historical parallel that consistently arises in these discussions: Ethereum chose in 2016 to execute a hard fork after the DAO hack to revert stolen funds. The decision split the community and resulted in two separate chains — Ethereum and Ethereum Classic. The Bitcoin community has consistently maintained that the network should not do the same.
Supporters of Karpelès' proposal, including some Mt. Gox creditors who have been awaiting settlement for over a decade, argue that it is about rectifying a historical injustice — not about changing the terms for legitimate transactions.
What Happens Next?
As of February 28, 2026, the proposal has been formally rejected, and there are no signs that it will be resubmitted in its current form. The Mt. Gox trustee continues the disbursement process with the approximately 200,000 BTC already under legal administration. The 79,956 BTC from the 2011 hack appear to remain in limbo — technically visible on the chain, but inaccessible.
The case illustrates that even with 15 years of technological development and a record-strong market situation, Bitcoin's most fundamental debates remain as contentious as ever.
