Bitcoin and altcoins need to adapt to any perceived threat before they can cause any harm therefore need to be prepared for any and every eventuality.
Yes, definitely. The question is
when should bitcoin adapt, and that is a balancing act.
Move too late, and people won't have sufficient time to move their coins to quantum-safe addresses.
Move too early, and there will be chaos as a) there isn't a consensus on exactly what is the best quantum-safe cryptography to move to, and b) as QCs are still widely considered a future rather than current threat, the inevitable disagreements about whether or not to burn coins that don't move could erupt into civil war, or if not that then people would at least separate into opposing camps and begin to become entrenched in their opinions.
It's a difficult situation, but I am an amateur with only a superficial understanding of the various possibilities, and fortunately the people who have to make the decisions here are far smarter and more knowledgeable than I am. I may have little faith in politicians, but I have considerably more faith in bitcoin devs.
edit:
Thanks for the link, this is exactly what I meant in my last sentence - I am worrying about this
now; Theymos was worrying about it
at least 4 years ago, and probably since the very beginning.
it's crazy, but most bitcoiners would prefer not to burn QC-vulnerable outputs. they would prefer to let QC wreak havoc on bitcoin's monetary integrity. the consensus is that burning outputs is "stealing" and that we simply shouldn't worry about the QC boogeyman.
Yes, this is a big concern. It's a form of zealotry, it's a demand for ideological purity, and that never ends well. It's just not conducive to rational thought.
Kind of strange that burning is stealing, but using a QC to hack someone else's private keys and take their coins isn't.