“Blockchain designers have the tools needed to transition to a post-quantum era. “Now it’s a matter of will,” concludes a report from Circle, the issuer of the USDC token, with this phrase, referring to how cryptocurrency networks can be protected from quantum computing.
According to a report published on January 6, some experts believe that a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could Threatening current cryptocurrencies by 2030.
In that sense, CriptoNoticias has presented multiple expert opinions in the past. For example, Adam Back, co-founder of Blockstream and well-known bitcoiner developer. quantum attacker 10 or 20 years from now.
Ignacio Hagopian, a collaborator at the Ethereum Foundation (EF), agrees with Buck. However, quantum developer Steve Tipeconic said, please consider that risk is inevitable.
According to Circle, what parts of cryptocurrency networks need to change?
The Circle team is clear that not all cryptocurrencies are at risk. Hash functions such as SHA-256 (used in Bitcoin) remain secure for quantum computing.
Next, building on Scholl’s potential attacks on quantum algorithms, the report focuses on various structures that need to be updated or transitioned towards the post-quantum era.
Consensus and validators
Networks that use Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanisms, such as Ethereum, require validators to cryptographically sign blocks and votes that support network consensus.
According to the Circle team, Ethereum plans to use XMSS due to the future risks that quantum computing poses to these signature schemes (Extended Merkle Signature Schemehash-based signatures) and Poseidon2, a hash function optimized for blockchain technology.
However, XMSS requires tracking the number of times a signer has signed, and this is doable for validators. However, it is a problem for general users.
transaction signature
Cryptocurrency networks currently use very compact digital signatures. For example, ECDSA (Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm), used by Bitcoin and Ethereum, produces the following signature: Approximately 65 bytes per transaction.
Post-quantum alternatives (designed to resist attacks by quantum computers) will be significantly larger. ML-DSA, a NIST-approved standard, requires a signature of approximately 2,420 bytes.
In the same analysis, Ethereum evaluated Falcon with signatures of around 666 bytes, while Aptos Chain proposed SLH-DSA with over 7,800 bytes per signature, according to the Circle report.
The dilemma is clear. As security increases, transactions become heavier; And more prudent trading means paying higher fees.
Smart contracts, addresses, and zero-knowledge proofs
Smart contracts enable the selection of programmable post-quantum signatures, but the task is It faces risks due to its complexity.
Additionally, users must migrate their addresses before.Q-day” (The day quantum becomes practical) If they have already released their public key.
Circle cites estimates that it would take approximately 76 days of continuous processing to migrate all Bitcoin UTXOs (unused outputs). 33% of all Bitcoin (BTC) is currently at risk By reusing addresses.
In this regard, developer Tippeconnick told CriptoNoticias that since Ethereum has a “broader cryptographic aspect,” Quantum is harder to protect against than Bitcoin.
Next, a technology known as zero-knowledge proofs (ZK proof) is widely used in Ethereum’s second layer network, relies on elliptic curves, and does not resist quantum attacks. According to Circle, the future will require more robust systems; Higher size and validation costs.
Wallets and facility storage
HSM (hardware security modulephysical modules that store keys) that are compatible with post-quantum cryptography are beginning to emerge.
The Circle believes that crypto networks need to define standards soon, otherwise the so-calledQ-Day”.
CriptoNoticias has already reported, for example, that the Trezor Safe 7 hardware wallet implements anti-quantum shielding.
MPC and multifarm
In the institutional space, it is common for large cryptocurrency holders to use MPC (multiparty computingmultiparty computing) and threshold signatures to distribute control of the private key among multiple parties.
Currently, these schemes rely on elliptic curves, so they also need to be replaced with quantum-resistant alternative schemes.
secure connection
The TLS 1.3 protocol is used to encrypt communications between nodes, validators, wallets, and services interacting with cryptocurrency networks and already supports post-quantum algorithms.
Providers such as Google and Amazon Web Services (AWS) are quietly moving toward hybrid methods that combine classical and post-quantum cryptography. The other side is practical: Public keys can range from a few dozen bytes to over 1,000 bytes.will require more storage and bandwidth.
Finally, Circle concludes that quantum computing is not an immediate threat, but it is. Structural challenges that need to be resolved: “The question now is the will to do it.”
In parallel, regulators are putting pressure on financial institutions to: Deploy quantum protection as soon as possibleHowever, it also makes sense to wait until the final standards studied by organizations such as NIST are consolidated (Circle cautions).
In this context, the company asserted that “the entire crypto industry needs a quantum migration roadmap,” noting that it is already evaluating ways to reduce the cost of address migration and prepare its products for that scenario.
(Tag translation) Bitcoin (BTC)
