Oh, there is another thing that I urge you to research. If you go by the constitution and the spirit it was written in (as in, all people are essentially good, whatever that word means), the exchange that accepted those tokens is also liable for aiding in theft.
That was my reason for saying that freezing those accounts is unnecessary, just to inform everyone not to accept any transactions involving them, as that opens you personally to liability. That is not censorship from BPs, but self censure in the spirit of the constitution.
I'd also like to urge whoever was that whose account money were moved to go to arbitration against the exchange in question. Blockchain makes it trivial to see which exchange it was (and some exchanges are also Block Producers), so they should know better.
The problem with this idea, although good in spirit, is that China is a protectionist country and doesn't allow foreign entities to receive judgement against Chinese domiciled businesses. International law is not upheld in communist China. Unless the victim is Chinese, which I've been told he is Korean, he's out of luck.
good view, not sure if it require more effort, be less o more chaotic
what are the differences between an account that can not send any transactions and a frozen account?
Freeze of the account happens on BP level. That is, there is a command that makes eosio software reject any transactions from that account, but since there are 21 producing BPs that requires running on all of them with an updated list.
But for exchanges to selfcensor, at the start they just needed to send those tx back to that account to block it. Now that there are tools that allow you to create new accounts the situation becomes harder, but the blockchain is transparent so it is doable.
I'd think it is something that is more important than discussing the dress code for the participation in the conference calls.