I think I'm more on Lopp's side of this. I don't really see the burning of quantum-vulnerable coins as "a pre-emptive violation" of one of Bitcoin's principles, as the author of this article puts it. I see it more as a part of the overall upgrade package to post-quantum cryptography. As long as there's a long enough runway for people to upgrade before their coins are lost, I think this is a fair outcome.

The author of this article also argues against any large scale human intervention in bitcoin:

The problem is that every major upgrade to Bitcoin is going to be a large scale human intervention and open to subjective debate, as I wrote about in #849906. I think it's naive to think otherwise. I agree with the author that we need to be careful about large interventions, but it's implausible to think that we can just categorically reject anything that involves subjective judgment. Even the statement that we should reject such interventions is itself a subjective judgment, and a large scale intervention on the side of ossification.

Whoever can first steal coin with quantum will also be able to backdoor just about every system, if they haven't already, so the whole discussion is retarded.

People will move to more resistant addresses if they want when they want, alarmists trying to scare people into their interventionist shitfork are no different than BCashers.

I find Pieter Wuille's argument to be quite compelling:

"The alternative is that millions of BTC become vulnerable to theft; I cannot see how the currency can maintain any value at all in such a setting. And this affects everyone; even those which diligently moved their coins to PQC-protected schemes."

The idea that millions of bitcoin will flow to a single thief (with immense resources, who wields a powerful supercomputer) is a bit unsettling. But I'm not totally sold yet - a lot of drawbacks.

I am against it as well but I think they will be burned. Too many big players with too much on the line.

I can’t believe we’re seriously discussing burning someone else’s coins for any reason

Bitcoin has come a long way

the notion of burning coins through a hard fork is absurd. it's against the bitcoin ethos, and would undermine the entire project

I think we should let it be.

BTW, there's nothing stopping a group of wealthy bitcoiners to spens their bitcoin and start building their own quantum computer.

If the prize is something like 4 million bitcoin it might be worth a shot. Who would you rather have those sats, Google? Microsoft? Or a group that care about the network and have everything the own in it?

Am not aline with it and burning should have to take over

I’m against it as well