That article (with fabricated quotes) shouldn't impact coins for which the public address has never been revealed.
Even if ECDSA is ever broken, you still would need the public key in order to crack the private key and to get the public key, you need a way to produce a valid public key that when hashed matches the address.
Or did Satoshi use public keys to pay himself? (I don't know).
But basically, value is only in danger when the public key is known and it isn't known from a Version 1 address unless you have spent outputs that used that address.
What you are referring to does not apply to Satoshi's coins and other early coins.
They used a tx format that has been discontinued since v0.8 that used IP addresses.
See the following:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=9334.msg134753#msg134753My understanding is that P2IP is vulnerable to quantum computing (in theory).
Theymos statements as to "Satoshi's Coins" originally was because his are the only "addresses"
remaining today that are the most vulnerable to QC, as well as the most likely to get selected for
cracking by QC (If I recall correctly).