Video wird geladen...
Video konnte nicht geladen werden
At OPNEXT 2026, our Director Jonas Nick explained how a soft fork could add post-quantum security to Bitcoin's Taproot tree. Outputs commit to both Schnorr and PQ keys. Schnorr signatures stay cheap. The PQ path sits dormant until a cryptographically relevant quantum computer emerges.
10,331 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten •via X (Twitter)
0 Kommentare
Keine Kommentare verfügbar
Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt
![BITCOIN RAILS #59: Post-Quantum Bitcoin Signatures (+ their tradeoffs) | with BIP 360 co-author Ethan ✨ is on BlueSky✨ Heilman 🐱 and Blockstream Head of Research Jonas Nick 🔗 YOUTUBE: 🌿 SPOTIFY: According to BIP 360 co-author Ethan Heilman, Bitcoin needs a minimum of two soft forks to become quantum resistant: P2MR (or an output type that can safely execute PQ signatures) + a post-quantum checksig (signature scheme). Ethan and the BIP 360 team (including myself and Hunter Beast 🕯️) introduced the P2MR part via a BIP 360 update late last year—but the question remains, what’s the most appropriate PQ signature scheme for Bitcoin? They all have substantive tradeoffs, but hash-based signatures seem to be leading technical discourse—likely due to recent optimizations by Jonas Nick and the broader Blockstream research team. It was an honor to sit down with both of these men - arguably the two most influential and productive cryptographers in Bitcoin quantum mitigation right now - for an in-depth review of the leading PQ signature schemes and a temperature check on Bitcoin’s post-quantum planning process. TBH, if you want to skip the noise and jump straight to the signal on quantum, this is the interview to watch. In this episode, we discuss: - What needs to happen at the soft fork, infra, and mitigation levels to fully quantum-harden Bitcoin - Recent updates to BIP 360 + breakdown of the leading hash-based signatures schemes for Bitcoin (SHRINCS + SHRIMPS) - Why we may actually get consensus around a stateful scheme for Bitcoin - Comparisons of hash-based signatures vs Lattice and Isogeny-based schemes - Assessing the risks of both waiting too long and acting too fast (and why quantum is a better threat to be facing than a potential classical attack) This episode of Bitcoin Rails is brought to you by my NEW sponsors: - LayerTwo Labs LayerTwo Labs — developing research, software, and technologies for scaling Bitcoin via the integration of Drivechains (BIP 300/301) - Hashi on Sui — a primitive for executing Bitcoin Defi transactions, without having to trust a federated bridge or other centralized entity - BitBox BitBox — an open-source Bitcoin-only hardware wallet, with smooth UX and no compromises on security. Check out Bitbox [dot] swiss and use code BITCOINRAILS to get a discount TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 Intro 02:18 Ethan’s Quantum Wakeup 05:18 How Blockstream Enters Post Quantum 09:25 BIP 360 Explained 12:11 How Bitcoin Transitions to PQ 17:35 Choosing Post Quantum Signatures 23:20 How Blockstream Created SHRINCS 27:22 Signature Budgets Importance Explained 41:13 What are SHRIMPS? 44:51 SHRIMPS vs SHRINCS 47:48 Why SLH-DSA Alone Won’t Cut It 49:24 Is a SHRIMPS + SHRINCS BIP Coming? 51:51 Blockstream’s Big Plans for Liquid 59:04 Quantum Readiness Roadmap 01:02:22 Importance of a PQ Recovery Plan 01:05:35 How Long Would a PQ Migration Take 01:11:17 Quantum Watchlist Recommendations](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2051672209454756108/amplify_video_thumb/2051671562672082952/img/GYI9mVH4-kcDz2Gz.jpg)
![BITCOIN RAILS #70: THE CASE FOR LATTICE-BASED SIGNATURES IN BITCOIN | with CTO of Ledger Charles Guillemet 🔗 YouTube: 🌿 Spotify: To date, post-quantum Bitcoin discussions have largely centered on which digital signature schemes offer the strongest cryptographic security against a quantum adversary. But cryptographic assumptions are only one dimension of security. Different signature schemes introduce different implementation and operational risks. How should Bitcoin weigh cryptographic conservatism against the complexity required to deploy that cryptography safely? While hash-based signatures are often favored for their conservative assumptions, CTO of Ledger, Charles Guillemet Charles Guillemet argues that evaluating primitives in isolation can obscure consequential risks at the systems level. Stateful hash-based schemes, in particular, introduce state-management requirements where operational or user error can have catastrophic consequences —despite their conservative cryptographic foundations. In this interview, Charles and I examine the tradeoffs of hash-based signatures and his case for greater consideration of lattice-based alternatives, i.e. ML-DSA. A very juicy episode for anyone seriously assessing Bitcoin's post-quantum design landscape. This episode of Bitcoin Rails is brought to you by: LayerTwo Labs LayerTwo Labs — developing research, software, and technologies for scaling Bitcoin via the integration of Drivechains (BIP 300/301) Hashi on Sui — a primitive for executing Bitcoin DeFi transactions, without having to trust a federated bridge or other centralized entity BitBox BitBox — an open-source Bitcoin-only hardware wallet, with smooth UX and no compromises on security. Check out Bitbox [dot] swiss and use code BITCOINRAILS to get a discount TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 — Intro 01:45 — How the quantum threat became real for Ledger 09:06 — NIST influence and what Ledger built into its SDK 21:25 — ML-DSA and why Falcon might not be the right choice 25:33 — The problem with hash-based signatures 31:38 — Stateful signatures and the throughput problem 36:48 — Does user error outweigh the security difference? 42:27 — Bitcoin post-quantum migration scenario 45:15 — Maintaining multisig capabilities in a post-quantum world 55:54 — NIST standardization process and the backdoor question 1:01:06 — Trezor's approach and device authentication 1:06:09 — Ledger’s approach to post-quantum signatures](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2092273519111385579/amplify_video_thumb/2092271558660165632/img/vLAew2F7HN1yExrB.jpg)
![BITCOIN RAILS #69: ZERO-KNOWLEDGE PROOFS FOR POST-QUANTUM BITCOIN | with Benedikt Bünz 🔗 YOUTUBE: 🌿 SPOTIFY: While many Bitcoiners remain hopeful the network will embrace zero-knowledge proofs for protocol-level use cases, practical adoption has remained limited outside of BitVM and a handful of experimental proposals. Most of the world’s ZKP research has circled around Ethereum and other ecosystems, where significant resources have been dedicated to advancing these systems, particularly for scaling and privacy applications. One of the most notable contributors to this research is Benedikt Bünz ☕️ — professor of cryptography at NYU and collaborator of Dan Boneh, who together inarguably form one of the strongest blockchain-applied cryptography teams in the world. The pair recently announced they’ll be leading the new post-quantum cryptography unit localhost research — the first dedicated PQ research effort within a major Bitcoin development organization. With Benedikt leading the charge on the use of zero-knowledge proofs for post-quantum mitigation, the question emerges: will the post-quantum transition be the catalyst to finally bring zero-knowledge proofs to Bitcoin's core protocol? In more detail, Benedikt and I discuss: - Why ZKPs haven’t been widely adopted by the Bitcoin technical community — and why the threat of quantum computers may change that posture going forward - How ZKPs could be used for signature batching to address larger post-quantum signatures in Bitcoin’s post-quantum era - Why Bitcoiners will likely prioritize hash-based signatures as an initial post-quantum scheme — rather than more efficient but less proven alternatives (e.g., lattice-based) - How ZKPs have evolved over the last decade and may finally be ready for Bitcoin’s strict requirements around trust assumptions - Why Benedikt and Dan are teaming up with localhost research to create the first post-quantum cryptography unit within a major Bitcoin development organization + what they hope to accomplish This episode of Bitcoin Rails is brought to you by: LayerTwo Labs LayerTwo Labs — developing research, software, and technologies for scaling Bitcoin via the integration of Drivechains (BIP 300/301) Hashi on Sui — a primitive for executing Bitcoin DeFi transactions, without having to trust a federated bridge or other centralized entity BitBox BitBox — an open-source Bitcoin-only hardware wallet, with smooth UX and no compromises on security. Check out Bitbox [dot] swiss and use code BITCOINRAILS to get a discount TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 — Intro 00:22 — Benedikt's background 04:10 — How Benedikt got into Bitcoin and cryptography 07:42 — First ZK project: proving exchange solvency after Mt. Gox 16:01 — ZK proofs explained 27:43 — How security gets popular & ZK proofs in Bitcoin 35:49 — Other applications of ZK proofs for Bitcoin 40:15 — Why ZK proofs haven't been adopted in Bitcoin 50:46 — Why the Bitcoin post-quantum transition needs ZK proofs 01:07:00 — Cryptographic agility and why lattices win 01:18:00 — The size problem and how SNARKs solve it 01:33:57 — Proving a Bitcoin block in a laptop in 1.5 seconds 01:37:12 — Bitcoin as the primary quantum target 01:40:47 — ZK proofs for seed phrase recovery](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2077037171521790155/amplify_video_thumb/2077029285437612032/img/adv6N-PXvunUqveH.jpg)
