Video wird geladen...
Video konnte nicht geladen werden
Director of Blockstream Research, Jonas Nick, explains the case for hash-based post-quantum signatures in Bitcoin in one minute:
76,564 Aufrufe • vor 5 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)
