pull down to refresh
I don't think any of these BIPs in their current form will be accepted.
BIP-360 reduces the attack surface of Taproot, and theoretically opens the door to PQ signature schemes (like SHRINCS), but imho you need to consider those two together and my bet is that BIP-360 will be merged with some PQ-signature proposal.
BIP-361 is so controversial that I see it as a non-starter; however, I think it was a great way to encourage conversation about what to do with the lost/stolen coins.
There's some other cool things like commit-reveal, zk proofs of seed, the starkware trick, etc. but I don't see any momentum around those being formalized as a BIP.
BTW this is one of the reasons why people underestimate this problem. The technical work is actually the easier part; the hard part is the political effort to push through a significant change in a deployed system that millions of people and $T relies on. I don't think it should be fast. But if we want to ensure it's not rushed, we do need to treat this with some urgency AND that means having less technical blog posts and more BIPs
or BIP discussions, signets of the proposals working in practice, etc.
of the various bitcoin soft fork ideas that might improve quantum resistance, which do you think is most likely to be adopted?
there's bip 360, bip 361, and then a number of other proposals that are not bips (seems like there was a stretch a month or two ago where everyone was proposing something).