[village-idiot]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the following two things are true about bitcoin addresses:

1. Once I know your public key, it’s trivial to prove that an address belongs to you, since an address is nothing more than the hash of a public key. 2. If I don’t know your public key when you receive funds, figuring it out is impossible. But once you spend that money, I now know the public key that received those funds, since only the private key associated with the original address could sign a new transactions.

Those two alone should make recreating the tree of transactions a purely mechanical process, with a much lower cost than what it took to create the original chain. At this point it’s a bit like any other de-anonymizes toon attack, with the benefit of some entities being known and coercable, and some users helpfully posting addresses on their social media accounts.

On the garnishment front: this kind of depends on scope. But the one thing we’ve seen is that all monetary security goes out the window when the attacker can take possession of you. This is why using technical solutions to such scenarios have always struck me as a bit silly.

[SquishyPanda23]

New keypairs are often created, it's not the case that a person has a single keypair that they use for all transactions.

E.g. once you fund key A, immediately send the funds to new keys B, C, and D that are not publicly associated with you.