Bitcoin has maintained its neutrality precisely because it only has value if it maintains its neutrality - the market in general will sell any fork that isn’t clearly in line with the properties of Bitcoin that matter.
But there are other market dynamics like supply that matter too. As Pieter puts it, Bitcoin only works if everyone in Bitcoin can agree to the secure set of cryptographic primitives in the system - for those not okay with pre-QC crypto and okay with “you had ten years to move your coins, and even if you forgot we’ll make sure you can still get them in every case we can”, they’ll strongly prefer the fork with fewer coins being sold (not just total supply, coins on the market!). IMO that’s a *very* reasonable position (again, as always, depending on exactly when/how/etc a CRQC is discovered/built), especially because that position *allows more bitcoiners to retain access to their bitcoin*.
quotingMaybe to emphasize the important point - if we have to move quickly, disabling insecure spend paths and allowing seedphrase proofs to spend coins is likely to recover substantially more coins than would be burned. Let’s say we wake up tomorrow to a breakthrough and a CRQC is clearly only a few years away now (highly unlikely but who knows). Given the low level of coins which would be able to migrate in time, it seems like seedphrase proofs are a *way* better option than just letting everything be stolen!
nevent1q…yz23
It depends so much on the specific scenario though - if it’s been 20 years since wallet started universally using some PQC scheme, the calculus is very different. This is also why it’s important to emphasize that we really can’t decide anything today and it’s up to a market to decide when/if these issues become real.