I think you misunderstood me: I was talking about the field of IT Security in general. Here it doesn't work to only think about what is the most likely thing to happen; you need to speculate at least a bit beyond that.

Well, your not wrong in that I am trying to promote my discovery, and hoping that it will be seen as an interesting an useful contribution to the field. In terms of "FUD," I don't think you really need to be too worried about that. I'm quite certain that there are ways for Bitcoin to mitigate the attack vector, as long as the community doesn't completely dismiss it as being impossible, and ignores it. (I could imagine that this might only make any would-be attackers more bold, by the way.)

In my preprint, I suggest that Bitcoin might switch to PoS. But as you rightly point out, there's no central authority, and this move could therefore potentially cause a hard fork. Although, if PoW is deemed insecure, then it is not unrealistic that by far the majority of Bitcoin investors would choose to invest in the new version.

However, I've also recently come to think that there might be a middle-ground solution where Bitcoin adopts PoS only as a soft fork. This is also what I've talked about recently in my discussion with @HeRetiK above.

Personally, I don't see why Bitcoin would then want to also cling to PoW necessarily, and to the fact that their users and investors have to continue carrying the daily electricity bill of the miners (ultimately), now and in perpetuity, but that's just my own personal view; you seem to think that this bill is worth it, and I'm sure that there are a great number of other people who do.