PQ signatures are significantly larger than regular ECDSA signatures used today. This proposal builds on BIP-360, which suggests a witness discount increase to mitigate this (not precisely specified, but external discussions by the author have suggested 16-64x). A discount would mean larger blocks, while no discount would mean higher transaction fees and even lower on-chain throughput. Are we entering a new blocksize war? A 64MB block size, in exchange for defense against a vulnerability that at this moment remains hypothetical, seems unlikely to pass without some controversy.

As long as a ZK recovery path is provided, this stays true to the ethos. The ethos was never“if it breaks we won’t fix it”. Responsible handling of this issue does not have to distort the ledger.

OTOH, if they freeze vulnerable wallets and don’t provide a recovery path, then Bitcoin becomes just another, less useful ethereum where intervention in the ledger is to be expected.

This would be interesting to see. Hopefully everyone who is sitting on their coins hears about this and moves them, then we'll really see how many coins are dead.

And no-one cares (about how significant this is).

so much for decentalization