But with a bank account they don't need physical access to the owner.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/25/british-cit...

Re th last link, it is possible that they recovered the fee paid to the affiliate of the ransomware gang that installed the ransomware. This is possibly because the affiliate was an informant for the FBI. So it wasn't really seizing it, more like returning it.

> As soon as they have physical access to the owner, it is seizable.

This is incorrect. If the owner doesn't reveal the private key, the government cannot seize the bitcoin.

Sure it's seizable, but it can be much harder (impossible?) to seize if the owner knows what they are doing.

> The world's #2 biggest holder of Bitcoin is the Bulgarian FBI. The #4 biggest holder of Bitcoin is the US FBI.

Source?

>Never underestimate the cryptanalytic power of whacking someone with a rubber hose until they give you their keys.

No forms of wealth is safe against torture, and I don't think people expect bitcoin to be any different. It's still vastly more secure than a bank account (which only requires a phone call to seize) and is trivially linked to your identity (as opposed to pseudonymous bitcoin addresses)