Validity of the security of something comes with time, no? MD5 was secure until it wasn't. What we do know is that current algorithms in use will come under attack from quantum computing at some point. So it makes sense to seek/research alternatives against that threat. Perhaps the "post-quantum" or "quantum-resistant" name is the snake oily part, but ultimately it is a worthwhile endeavor none-the-less. Whether any of the crop of "post-quantum" algos stand the test of time is simply a matter of time...
Discussion
Makes more sense to verify the threat than chase speculative alternatives. What happened to don’t trust, verify?
Quantum computing, as marketed, is still theory wrapped in trust, simulations, papers, promises. But who collapses the wavefunction in their system? A centralized lab? A grant-funded institution? A black box? That’s not science, it’s priesthood.
Meanwhile, Bitcoin already collapses entropy publicly, irreversibly, and energetically…..every ten minutes. No centralized observers. No claims. Just proof.
Bitcoin is the quantum computer.
It performs literal collapse and doesn’t depend on a trusted observer. It computes the literal quantum of time, energy, entropy and memory.
If quantum computing is truly about measuring uncertainty into truth, then the only system doing it at planetary scale without central control is Bitcoin. The rest is theory awaiting verification, and resembles something close to proof of stake.
So before we fork the protocol or adopt “post-quantum” snake oil, let’s answer the only question that matters:
Who observes the observer in your quantum system?
And why do you trust them more than the network that’s already doing it without trust?