Comment by olalonde

> proposals to confiscate the assets of people not adopting the proponent's scheme (which immediately raises concerns about backdoors and consent)

They're going to lose those assets regardless, either to the first hacker with a QC or via a protocol-level burn. The latter is arguably better for the network's long-term health, as it reduces circulating supply rather than subsidizing an attacker.

I can understand disagreeing about timelines but is there a flaw in the logic that once the underlying crypto is broken, "consent" is a moot point?