I was surprised to see the debate this raised. Gaining consensus is priority number one. That is hard because OGs don't like the term "freeze." The proposal isn't writing rules to freeze particular keys, it is preventing use of signatures that are unsecure. So all holders would be given time to transition to private keys that are secure against post quantum capabilities. I think Lopp frames the right questions and counterpoints.
I've raised my thoughts on this as well and posted some ideas on how to transition. I actually agree it doesn't make sense to leave open a method where quantum computing can steal keys.
Closing that gap may come at the expense of some that fail to ever transition, but if they've been given years to transition, there isn't a strong argument that it isn't fair. Securing the chain needs to happen.
I've followed the quantum resistant coin category for a long time as a holder of Qanplatform.
While many of the projects in the space talk about how they hope to capitalize from users seeking assets already prepared, I still view that as a long shot play. Which is why most have moved toward building utilty chains.
I think there is a large market incoming as all systems will be making upgrades. Combining cryptography transition methods and blockchain utility will offer solutions enterprises want. And they don't have the same decentralized challenges to overcome. They can start implementing now, and we are seeing that happen.
Glad to see the shift where nearly all coins are working on their approach. It will be messy- some will falter and some will emerge. It's worth paying attention to.
