hg

It was great to take part in the @MITBitcoinClub Expo, joining a panel on post-quantum cryptography and interacting with Bitcoin Core developers and leading cryptographers. As quantum machines mature, running Shor's Algorithm or its variants at scale is becoming increasingly plausible, directly challenging Elliptic Curve Cryptography, which underpins Bitcoin and Ethereum. Bitcoin’s security relies on private keys. However, once a transaction is made, the public key is revealed. With a sufficiently powerful quantum computer, that public key could be used to recover the private key and take control of the funds. This fundamentally changes the security assumptions of the entire ecosystem. The solutions are not straightforward. Post-quantum schemes exist (e.g., Falcon and Dilithium), but signatures are often 10–100x larger. Since signatures dominate transaction size, this would mean fewer transactions per block, higher fees, slower propagation, and increased centralization pressure. A naive transition risks disrupting Bitcoin’s economic balance. Upgrading Bitcoin is also inherently difficult. The system resists change by design, and history (e.g., the 2017 split into Bitcoin Cash) shows how contentious even relatively simpler upgrades can be. A post-quantum transition would require global coordination and a large-scale migration of funds. There is also a deeper question: a significant fraction of coins that are likely lost becomes vulnerable in a quantum scenario. Should they be left as a bounty, or somehow reclaimed? There is no clear consensus. Quantum computing is advancing rapidly and poses a systemic risk to digital assets. The window to prepare is limited, and the challenges are both technical and social. Can Bitcoin be upgraded, or will its core assumptions be tested beyond repair? P.S.: I believe @qubitcoinx (originally inspired by Bitcoin) will become both quantum-secure and quantum-friendly.

It was great to take part in the @MITBitcoinClub Expo, joining a panel on post-quantum cryptography and interacting with Bitcoin Core developers and leading cryptographers. As quantum machines mature, running Shor's Algorithm or its variants at scale is becoming increasingly plausible, directly challenging Elliptic Curve Cryptography, which underpins Bitcoin and Ethereum. Bitcoin’s security relies on private keys. However, once a transaction is made, the public key is revealed. With a sufficiently powerful quantum computer, that public key could be used to recover the private key and take control of the funds. This fundamentally changes the security assumptions of the entire ecosystem. The solutions are not straightforward. Post-quantum schemes exist (e.g., Falcon and Dilithium), but signatures are often 10–100x larger. Since signatures dominate transaction size, this would mean fewer transactions per block, higher fees, slower propagation, and increased centralization pressure. A naive transition risks disrupting Bitcoin’s economic balance. Upgrading Bitcoin is also inherently difficult. The system resists change by design, and history (e.g., the 2017 split into Bitcoin Cash) shows how contentious even relatively simpler upgrades can be. A post-quantum transition would require global coordination and a large-scale migration of funds. There is also a deeper question: a significant fraction of coins that are likely lost becomes vulnerable in a quantum scenario. Should they be left as a bounty, or somehow reclaimed? There is no clear consensus. Quantum computing is advancing rapidly and poses a systemic risk to digital assets. The window to prepare is limited, and the challenges are both technical and social. Can Bitcoin be upgraded, or will its core assumptions be tested beyond repair? P.S.: I believe @qubitcoinx (originally inspired by Bitcoin) will become both quantum-secure and quantum-friendly.