₿/Quantum safe ❤️ /Jason❤️

Post-quantum migration is the throughput cliff nobody priced in. Today's chains rely on tiny signatures (~64 bytes - Ed25519 on Solana, ECDSA on Bitcoin and Ethereum). When quantum computers arrive, those break. The NIST replacements are 50-260x bigger - ML-DSA-65 weighs 3,309 bytes vs Ed25519's 64. Verification gets 2-3x slower too. Swap Ed25519 for post-quantum signatures with no other changes: - Solana craters from ~3,000 TPS to a few hundred - Bitcoin drops from ~7 TPS to below 1 - Ethereum L1 falls from ~15 to ~3-5 TPS And that's before Ethereum's real nightmare: BLS signature aggregation - the thing letting 12,000+ validators sign one block compactly - has no post-quantum equivalent yet. Without aggregation, every validator's signature ships and verifies separately. Block size and verification cost both explode. Sharded chains like NEAR have a clean way out. NEAR runs multiple parallel chains (shards), each independent. Post-quantum migration hits each shard the same way it hits Solana. But total throughput is per-shard capacity times number of shards. If 6 shards each drop 90%, total drops from 2,000 to 200 TPS. Scale to 60 shards, you're back at 2,000. The constraint shifts from cryptography to organization - more validators populating more shards. Both are already in the dynamic sharding roadmap. Monolithic chains can't replicate this. Solana has Firedancer - a ~10x client speedup good for absorbing PQ overhead once, but only once. Ethereum can push activity to L2s using quantum-safe proof systems - real strategy, helps user transactions, doesn't fix L1 consensus. Bitcoin has the worst path: no account abstraction, fixed block size, ECDSA-locked. The pattern: sharded chains scale out by adding shards. Monolithic chains scale up once, then wait on research breakthroughs (post-quantum aggregate signatures, hardware-accelerated verifiers). "Quantum threat" is sold as a 2030 problem. The architectural problem is now. The high-TPS narrative was always built on a specific cryptographic floor. That floor moves.

That sounds really bad. Which quantum-resistant algorithm will Bitcoin adopt? Will the network suffer from congestion?😭

🚨 INSIGHT: Post-quantum upgrades could cut throughput by 40–50% due to larger transaction data, per BNB Chain report.

Migrating Bitcoin to quantum-resistant is extremely difficult — it is going to zero, right? The obstacles to migration are as follows. 1. No suitable quantum-resistant algorithm 2. Hash-based and lattice-based algorithms have excessively large public keys and signatures 3. Migrating to quantum-resistant algorithms could cause severe on-chain congestion and even paralysis 4. Quantum-resistant algorithms result in a significant reduction in transaction efficiency 5. Increased node and transaction fees 6. Who has the authority to freeze or burn Satoshi’s addresses and other lost addresses 7. The aggregation threshold in quantum-resistant algorithms is challenging 8. Taproot makes the transition to quantum-resistant even more difficult 9. High hardware upgrade costs 10. 1MB block size is not suitable for quantum-resistant algorithms 11.Achieving global consensus is extremely difficult and more...