I agree that it seems like if miners aren't making very much from fees, so hashrate will decrease as the subsidy goes down or there will need to be an increase of miners who are willing to mine at a loss (eg heatpunks, or people who are politically motivated, or perhaps stranded energy).
But I think it is not a benefit of quantum resistant signatures that they are larger. As I said in our other thread (#1463880):
I think bitcoin should aim for the maximum throughput of transactions constrained only by security and ease of ability to run a node. if there's "too much" blockspace and miners aren't making enough, that seems to be a sign of weak interest in Bitcoin. I don't think that gets fixed by making transactions bigger.
I agree that it seems like if miners aren't making very much from fees, so hashrate will decrease as the subsidy goes down or there will need to be an increase of miners who are willing to mine at a loss (eg heatpunks, or people who are politically motivated, or perhaps stranded energy).
But I think it is not a benefit of quantum resistant signatures that they are larger. As I said in our other thread (#1463880):
I think bitcoin should aim for the maximum throughput of transactions constrained only by security and ease of ability to run a node. if there's "too much" blockspace and miners aren't making enough, that seems to be a sign of weak interest in Bitcoin. I don't think that gets fixed by making transactions bigger.
Good poll question, though!