That's the backwards way of thinking and is a reason why some idiots still have money in P2PK wallets. Smart top holders should embrace advancements in technology as soon as they are mature enough, similarly how they adopted multisignatures. The speed of adoption must be adapted to the risk that is present -- one should not be stuck in demagogue ideologies like many users here are, especially WO "independent thinkers". In this case, speedier adoption of at least improvements in security using existing possibilities should happen. That doesn't make any sense unless they do not plan to use those wallets at all. "Regular SEGWIT" is also vulnerable to quantum computers as soon as one spending transaction is made. As of today, we do not know the amount of time that will be required to crack the keys. If it becomes possible to do it in real time, even using Segwit wallets that are not reused will be extremely risky. I don't think we will reach an era where the prior addresses don't exist anymore except under perfect circumstances. As of today, we could have banned P2PK addresses long ago and we still didn't. They are much less safe than P2PKH, yet we still have them supported. I guess you could argue the primary reason is because there are still UTXOs on them. Perhaps when quantum computers empty out all P2PK addresses then we can ban that address type for good, hopefully. Did you even read the thread at all? Whether it is a good idea is debatable, but that it would work is not debatable.
That's the backwards way of thinking and is a reason why some idiots still have money in P2PK wallets. Smart top holders should embrace advancements in technology as soon as they are mature enough, similarly how they adopted multisignatures. The speed of adoption must be adapted to the risk that is present -- one should not be stuck in demagogue ideologies like many users here are, especially WO "independent thinkers". In this case, speedier adoption of at least improvements in security using existing possibilities should happen. That doesn't make any sense unless they do not plan to use those wallets at all. "Regular SEGWIT" is also vulnerable to quantum computers as soon as one spending transaction is made. As of today, we do not know the amount of time that will be required to crack the keys. If it becomes possible to do it in real time, even using Segwit wallets that are not reused will be extremely risky. I don't think we will reach an era where the prior addresses don't exist anymore except under perfect circumstances. As of today, we could have banned P2PK addresses long ago and we still didn't. They are much less safe than P2PKH, yet we still have them supported. I guess you could argue the primary reason is because there are still UTXOs on them. Perhaps when quantum computers empty out all P2PK addresses then we can ban that address type for good, hopefully. Did you even read the thread at all? Whether it is a good idea is debatable, but that it would work is not debatable.

That's the backwards way of thinking and is a reason why some idiots still have money in P2PK wallets. Smart top holders should embrace advancements in technology as soon as they are mature enough, similarly how they adopted multisignatures. The speed of adoption must be adapted to the risk that is present -- one should not be stuck in demagogue ideologies like many users here are, especially WO "independent thinkers". In this case, speedier adoption of at least improvements in security using existing possibilities should happen. That doesn't make any sense unless they do not plan to use those wallets at all. "Regular SEGWIT" is also vulnerable to quantum computers as soon as one spending transaction is made. As of today, we do not know the amount of time that will be required to crack the keys. If it becomes possible to do it in real time, even using Segwit wallets that are not reused will be extremely risky. I don't think we will reach an era where the prior addresses don't exist anymore except under perfect circumstances. As of today, we could have banned P2PK addresses long ago and we still didn't. They are much less safe than P2PKH, yet we still have them supported. I guess you could argue the primary reason is because there are still UTXOs on them. Perhaps when quantum computers empty out all P2PK addresses then we can ban that address type for good, hopefully. Did you even read the thread at all? Whether it is a good idea is debatable, but that it would work is not debatable.

That's the backwards way of thinking and is a reason why some idiots still have money in P2PK wallets. Smart top holders should embrace advancements in technology as soon as they are mature enough, similarly how they adopted multisignatures. The speed of adoption must be adapted to the risk that is present -- one should not be stuck in demagogue ideologies like many users here are, especially WO "independent thinkers". In this case, speedier adoption of at least improvements in security using existing possibilities should happen. That doesn't make any sense unless they do not plan to use those wallets at all. "Regular SEGWIT" is also vulnerable to quantum computers as soon as one spending transaction is made. As of today, we do not know the amount of time that will be required to crack the keys. If it becomes possible to do it in real time, even using Segwit wallets that are not reused will be extremely risky. I don't think we will reach an era where the prior addresses don't exist anymore except under perfect circumstances. As of today, we could have banned P2PK addresses long ago and we still didn't. They are much less safe than P2PKH, yet we still have them supported. I guess you could argue the primary reason is because there are still UTXOs on them. Perhaps when quantum computers empty out all P2PK addresses then we can ban that address type for good, hopefully. Did you even read the thread at all? Whether it is a good idea is debatable, but that it would work is not debatable.