so...
the "social problem" is a (perhaps manufactured) crisis?
for example, nobody here can gauge the likelihood of QC in the next 10 yrs.
how is anybody deficient in information supposed to decide if they support a technical solution to a problem that may not exist?
so your slippery slope is an issue becoming precedent for making *technical changes* in response to threats we cant actually measure.
No one is advocating freezing QC-vulnerable spend paths any time soon. And if no CRQC ever appears, then no such freezing should ever occur! The question is only what to do if a CRQC is clearly going to exist within a relatively short time period - do you freeze and let people with seed phrases get their money, or do you let the CRQC operator steal it all?
yes that makes sense.
My point is about information availability and social consensus about it.
you're assuming people have shared *trusted* information sources to evaluate threats.
I'm thinking Matts point of view is developed from an assumption people do not share trusted information sources. As a result, social consensus about the reality of a threat could not emerge.
So instead of accurately measuring the real likelihood of a threat,
people can also get hype about a threat that is actually very low probability
or
people can get information that minimizes what may actually be a high probability threat.
Thinking that everyone shares your trust in the information sources you prefer is soooo mid-2000s 😂
its unfortunate.
but its the information space we live in now.
