You mention quantum computing.

Some wallets still "MAKE" you use the original P2PK output format for wallets, which is also dangerous if you accept certain explanations regarding advancements in Quantum computing.

It's worth considering that it is physically possible (like, within the bounds of reality) to break encryption like RSA, and should for all intents and purpose be considered insecure already.

If or when that happens, all internet encryption would break, unless major updates were deployed across the system quickly. Most of the web still runs on RSA. The S in HTTPS refers to a security model that relies on RSA (from my understanding, I'm not a security expert or anything.

Further, Bitcoin relies on the fact that dividing numbers is harder than multiplying them, but quantum computing algorithms that carry out mathematical calculations in multiple universes simultaneously can make certain division problems trivial...eventually.

By this logic, it's arguable that Satoshi's coins, which are behind p2pk, are a honeypot.

Anyway, my point is that there is a lack of explanation underpinning some "attack surface" arguments. There's no way to avoid all problems, problems, attacks, whatever, are inevitable. BUT, problems are soluble. The way we solve problems is by theorizing about them and fixing them. As long as we are not so scared that we try to all prevent problems, and instead are optimistic and proactive about growth and fixing problems, Bitcoin will be fine.

In this way, it's more worrying to me that people are considering CTV an "attack" on Bitcoin.

Philosophically, explanations (instead of physical force or fear/coercion) are the most important things for empowering people to make rational decisions for themselves. Not preventing people from options because they are too scary or dangerous. [Insert Yoda quote here, or, like "Fear is the mind killer" or something]

Sure, yeah, we're all mutually obligated to one another, too. In the case of Bitcoin, yes, that means that we have responsibility to maintain old UTXOs and old OP_CODES and stuff. But we can maintain old code at the same time as growing the user base and the option they have available. It's possible, and it's, counter-intuitively, the safest thing for Bitcoin. Much safer than trying to prevent progress because it's too scary.