“If the network can freeze coins it decides are ‘vulnerable,’ is that still your keys your coins?”

Been chewing on the BIP-361 stuff since it dropped in April and I can't land on an answer I'm comfortable with, so I'm throwing it to people who know more than me.

Quick recap for anyone not following: Lopp and a few others proposed sunsetting legacy signatures to deal with the quantum threat. The Google Quantum AI research earlier this year pulled the timeline forward enough that "harvest now, decrypt later" stopped sounding like sci-fi. Roughly a third of all BTC sits in addresses with exposed public keys, Satoshi's ~1.1M included. The plan would eventually make those coins unspendable if they don't migrate.

And the logic isn't dumb. If a quantum attacker can drain old wallets, freezing them first protects the supply cap and everyone else's stack.

Here's where I get stuck.

The whole reason I'm here and not leaving my money in a bank is that nobody can freeze my coins. Not a government, not a dev, not a vote. "Your keys, your coins" never came with an asterisk that says "unless we decide your address looks risky."

So which is it?

If the network can vote to freeze coins it deems vulnerable, how is that not just confiscation with extra steps and a good reason attached? And if it genuinely can't, are we fine sitting on our hands waiting for someone to crack Satoshi's wallet live on a stream one day?

Every argument I read for one side makes the other sound worse. Where do you actually land on this, and what's the part of the counterargument you can't get past?