Quantova

Building a Post Quantum Layer 1 from the ground up. Not upgrading cryptography, redesigning consensus, execution, and verification for new constraints. If you’re working on infrastructure, research, or exploring this space, open to connect.

@thedailyblock Good plan

🚨JUST IN: Bitcoin developers explore quantum-resistant upgrades, as concerns grow over future threats to its core cryptography.

@_Checkmatey_ The challenge is that PQC changes validation cost, bandwidth, and policy assumptions, so the migration touches relay, mempool, and block construction

A few thoughts on quantum: The debate around "if" vs "when" a CRQC comes to market is a fruitless one. You won't convince either side to switch, because there is little observable progress, and the risk is there may not be until its too late. The risk a CRQC comes to market is existential if Bitcoin doesn't have a credible plan of action. Risk is probability x consequence, and even if the probability is low, the consequence is 100%. Thus any sane actor should see developing a plan as worth the effort. Arguments that Bitcoin devs are doing nothing appear to be false. Arguments that 'we're all good, do nothing' are also mistaken. Reality is in between, it's a solveable issue, folks are working on it, AND we do NOT have a credible plan yet. Rushing PQ-cryptography is a massive risk, and is the wrong approach. Not developing a credible set of BIPs, is also a mistake. Coinbase and Nic absolutely have an incentive...to protect their bags and business models, which are massively long Bitcoin. They may also have incentives which are misaligned with Bitcoin, and yet that still doesn't disqualify their opinions. Coinbase has millions of BTC folks, they are the 'longest' entity in the world. Question them yes, but assuming pure malice without considering that they are capitalists looking after their interests, is frankly retarded. I'm a Bitcoiner who is massively long the asset (holdings and business), and I try my best to adopt a reasonable middle ground opinion of things. The two extremes of 'emergency' and 'no problem' are both wrong, because they do not understand the simple equation of risk = probability x consequence. I fully support the development of PQ BIPs for Bitcoin. I very much look forward to learning about the proposals, discussing the trade-offs, and doing what little I can to form consensus, and parse the complexities. Having a plan, and not needing it, is far better than needing a plan, and not having one. The truth is in the middle, and there is little benefit to debating in the quagmire of 'will-it, won't it' ever show up. A CRQC may never show up. In that case, the plan stays in the BIP repo as copy and unmerged, but fully reviewed code. What is a totally fucked result, is if we assume a CRQC won't show up, and then it does. Don't fuck this up, the middle ground is the correct path to walk. Probability x Consequence. Small number x 100% loss == take it seriously.

@MinswapIntern Source?

BREAKING NEWS: GOOGLE VALIDATES CARDANO AS SECOND-MOST QUANTUM-READY BLOCKCHAIN 😱😱😱 Tech titan Google ranks $ADA as the #2 quantum-ready blockchain, spotlighting its advanced defenses against future quantum threats. This positions Cardano as a top contender for institutional trust in a rapidly evolving crypto landscape.

@solananew PQC changes network limits and cost models, not just signatures

🚨BREAKING: SOLANA TESTS QUANTUM-RESISTANT CRYPTO WITH PROJECT ELEVEN — HITS 40× SIGNATURE SIZE AND 90% SLOWDOWN!!!🚨

@cryptodotnews PQC is fundamentally changes throughput, latency, and cost models

BREAKING: Solana tests quantum-resistant signatures as early data shows 40× larger signatures and roughly 90% slower network performance

Strong approach Post-quantum is a protocol level constraint That’s exactly why Quantova is built with PQ assumptions across consensus, execution, and verification from day one

@WuBlockchain Phased rollout makes sense Curious how they handle the mixed security state with opt in PQ signatures

Circle announced the quantum-resistant roadmap for its L1 blockchain Arc, adopting a phased approach to full-stack quantum resistance across wallets, private state, validators, and infrastructure. The mainnet will introduce post-quantum signatures with an opt-in model. Circle added that quantum computing could threaten public-key cryptography by 2030 or earlier and warned of “harvest now, decrypt later” risks.

PQ schemes (e.g., lattice/hash-based) introduce: - larger σ → bandwidth & state growth - higher verification cost → validator load - altered cost models → consensus implications This shifts security from purely cryptographic assumptions → protocol + network constraints

The critical issue is time-bounded extraction If an adversary can solve ECDLP within the Δ between broadcast and inclusion: - exposed pubkeys (P2PK, reused P2PKH) become targets - mempool becomes an adversarial surface - fee ordering enables replacement attacks

Quantum computing threatens blockchain security at the primitive level Shor’s algorithm reduces ECDLP over secp256k1 to polynomial time, breaking the one way assumption behind ECDSA/EdDSA Security moves from ~128-bit hardness → effectively bounded by quantum resources

@Joseph_Kearney Fair point The conversation should be about how to prepare, not whether the risk exists

Embarrassing at best. Some of the biggest names in quantum computing explicitly say this is an issue. And you get a group of amateurs to come on your show and say it's not a issue. Then you just make up how physics works 😂. I said it last time you posted this shit. Zero probability, scientifically is absolute certainty, are these "physicists" willing to personally guarantee that there is a "ZERO" risk.

@EliBenSasson Agreed

Some users don't care too much about decentralization. Some users don't think too much about security in general, or post-quantum security in particular. Some users don't care about verifiability and all this technical stuff. That's understandable. But builders should care about it. A lot. All the time. That's the job.

@Cloudflare How should systems reason about security once it becomes time dependent (latency, exposure windows)?

We’re recording a new ThisWeekinNET.com episode soon with Bas Westerbaan, Principal Research Engineer at Cloudflare, on post-quantum cryptography. What does post-quantum mean right now? Why is it back in the news? What should people know? Reply here with your questions.

@CryptoTimes_io @coinbase @brian_armstrong Post-quantum migration is no longer optional

🚨TODAY: @coinbase ramps up efforts on post-quantum security. Urging coordinated action as @brian_armstrong says the industry must address quantum risks “sooner rather than later.”

@asanso @GiulioRebuffo how are you handling key lifecycle and reuse bounds with this setup?

Dropping a new testnet for post-quantum signatures. This one implements the PQ signature scheme we’ve been discussing so far: Falcon and an ephemeral key. Would love feedback from folks kicking the tires. More details soon. Kudos to @GiulioRebuffo. link👇

@AbdelStark @blksresearch Does batching SHRIMPS inside STARKs actually offset the signature size + verification overhead?

Provable SHRIMPS: Post-quantum hash-based signatures verified in Cairo with STARK proofs. As usual @blksresearch is killing it on the post quantum bitcoin research. SHRIMPS 🦐 is so cool that I made provable shrimps, it could be useful to for batch shrimps signature verification. Don't panic, as @adam3us said: "SHRIMPS & bitcoin quantum readiness > quantum FUD."

@CasaHODL @lopp @nic_carter 1) If verification costs increase under PQ schemes, how does that impact block size and throughput assumptions? 2) Can Bitcoin maintain decentralization under heavier validation load?

Two quantum papers in one week, both with estimates way below previous projections. Google is now targeting 2029 for their post-quantum cryptography transition. We're hosting a Space with @lopp and @nic_carter this Thursday at 1 PM ET to discuss what this means for Bitcoin and the path forward. What questions do you want answered? x.com/i/spaces/1aJbd…

@pumatheuma @SuccinctLabs ZK based disclosure might become a standard but attackers don’t need to prove capability, defenders do, not clear that balance holds

Google's Quantum AI team used @SuccinctLabs zkVM SP1 for responsible disclosure of a new SOTA quantum algorithm. Their paper presents a 20x more efficient implementation of Shor's algorithm for cracking secp256k1 keys: the elliptic curve used by Bitcoin and Ethereum. They believe the attack is so dangerous that instead of publishing the circuits, they instead published a ZKP that the circuits exist. I wonder if ZK proof of exploit becomes a broader theme in vulnerability disclosures going forward.

Google released a paper showing 256-bit ECC may require <500k physical qubits to break in minutes Once key extraction fits within operational windows, mempool and key exposure assumptions break down. Post-quantum migration is no longer optional. That’s exactly the problem Quantova is built to address

@cryptogoos Post-quantum migration is becoming critical

🚨BREAKING: Binance founder CZ says quantum computing is not a threat to crypto. CZ says crypto can upgrade, adapt, and survive post-quantum.