I loved the video, however I have found one wrong assumption: that "a lot of this rejection of this EIP is on the basis of principle as opposed ~ to what would actually happen". I do not think this is correct. Surely, many people just hate it based on the immutability principle, however after the DAO bailout, many have feared this exact moment; the time when EVERYONE asks for bailouts/recoveries/refunds. I saw a great post that illustrated this on r/ethereum titled "Why should the Parity Multisig Wallet be bailed out when all the other contract mistakes and Ether losses aren't? ". This is, in my view, the exact thing Vitalik and the part of ethereum community that backed the bailout said would not happen; that it would not set a precedent. That this was a one-time-only thing. If immutability is broken, the tech is no better than an excel sheet, where you can delete and undo anything just like you illustrated.

I think people are disturbed that not only the principle is bad, but that blockchains can and eventually will be editable. Censorable. Trust-ed, not trust-less. You are one of the smartest people that are in this space that I know of. Sure you do not day trade on leverage and make millions, but you are the man of critical thinking and deep research. Ask yourself: what will happen, when a financial crime is commited on the blockchain, masive amount of money disappears, there is a class-action against the ethereum foundation or literally anyone on the dev team, and the judge orders them to edit the chain and return the money, under the threat of inprisonment? They cannot say "no". There is already a "sleeping giant" like this with Nano development team, there are class-actions being prepared (maybe even filed, but I am not famiiar with this case) after the BitGrail hack. The defendants will stand before court, point the finger at Nano devs, and say "they stole our money, because they did not fork the chain". But Nano is immutable, and Ethereum may soon not be.