This is a slippery slope fallacy to imply that if we let the miners decide the blocksize, then they could then decide on anything else.
Fallacious because making EC blocksize part of the code does not automatically create EC for other parts of the code.
BU's code as written already allows miners to steal anyone's BTC because it doesn't verify signatures on transactions in "old" blocks, but the apparent age of a block is controlled by miners.
https://news.bitcoin.com/theymos-bitcoins-satoshi-destroyed/
That is a made-up article with completely fabricated quotes.
My proposal is that
if quantum computers make it a very high risk that millions of lost BTC will be "un-lost", then those BTC should be destroyed (not redistributed) before they can be taken by thieves. Everyone would have years to move their coins into secure addresses before this would happen, and anyone who failed to do so would almost certainly have their coins stolen due to weakened crypto anyway. From this proposal, dishonest people jumped to the idea that because it's
possible that Satoshi's coins could be destroyed by this, that therefore I was proposing destroying Satoshi's coins, when that is absolutely not the point, and in fact an undesirable outcome. The ideal outcome would be that everyone would move their coins to secure addresses and that no coins would need to be destroyed.