A huge protocol advancement is coming for $IXIOS V1.1
Conceptualized for years, engineered to greatly enhance blockchain performance
Every serious protocol will look at it and potentially there's gonna be an interest spike which will lead to blockchains racing to integrate
If only the problem was just the digital signatures. But i know a blockchain that is going to be *fully quantum safe* and that blockchain is $IXIOS
But not a major blockchain.. yet.
While Bitcoin debates whether to freeze vulnerable coins and Ethereum forms research committees, TRON is building.
Today I'm announcing that TRON is officially launching its post-quantum upgrade initiative. TRON will be the first major public blockchain to deploy NIST-standardized post-quantum cryptographic signatures on mainnet.
Quantum security shouldn't be a debate. It should be a feature. We will ensure that no TRON user ever loses their assets to quantum threats.
Technical roadmap coming soon.
@CryptoGirlNova Some people are just cruel and they think they are entitled to cuss and bring other people down just cause you don't share their views/ opinions. social media act as a great filter . Easier to dehumanize other people when you see them as just their words.
Ixios Roadmap Updated
The quantum threat is advancing rapidly, and we must begin upgrading to post-quantum addresses immediately.
The upcoming AegisPQ upgrade will bring post-quantum MLDSA87 addresses to Ixios.
https://t.co/cOBc5BYkIf
@OfficialTravlad Centralizes systems are way easier to upgrade, they don't have coordination and consesus challenges as much as Blockchains have. Dollars can always be printed, Bitcoin can't be printed. Once it's gone it's gone.
@stackhodler@Gary_Brode Also i would add, you can re-print dollars. You cant print more Bitcoin. Once it's gone, it's gone. And there's no way to prove what's a legit tx and what is not.
I used to think the same thing
But the thing I was missing is that it's way easier to upgrade the security of a centralized financial institution than a decentralized blockchain
The strength of centralized entities is that they can move quickly and upgrade overnight
Decentralized required coordination and consensus
Upgrading Bitcoin to be quantum safe is no longer optional.
"but the threat is overblown!!"
All that matters is the perception of the threat.
And right now, the perception of the threat is enough to scare serious capital away.
Denial / ostrich mode on this is not going to help.
The good news is that a successful upgrade is a real bull catalyst for an asset starving for new bullish catalysts.
And it's something that is entirely in our control.
But we need rapid progress on this.
And that starts with all of us acknowledging the threat.
Or at the very least, acknowledging the reality of the perception of the threat.
The fact that we're below the 2021 highs after the most bullish developments imaginable (massive ETF inflows, non-stop buying from Saylor...) is proof that something is broken.
Quantum safe Bitcoin is a $1 million+ asset.
Quantum vulnerable Bitcoin is not.
Humanity needs finite money that cannot be seized or debased.
If quantum risk removes seizure resistance, then Bitcoin cannot fulfill its promise.
Simple as that.
@BlocksNThoughts I wouldn't jump to conclusions too quickly. Market has been rewarding bad actors and low attention-span quick-flippers
But. We are about to witness a *big* reset with current cryptography becoming obsolete. Market always finds a way to humble everyone. Game is still on.
My critique of this and other recent reports (Ark) is that they don't add real substance, but create a false sense of security. If anything, it's actually creates *more* of a reason to panic, because the upshot is people not paying attention when they should.
A positive contribution would have been:
- A comparison of the various signatures being proposed
- an analysis of the vulnerable UTXOs, and why they are vulnerable (spoiler alert: MPC custody workflows make key rotation prohibitively complex)
- A dependency tree of the infrastructure built around the current model, and a Gantt chart looking at who will have to do what, when
- An attempt to quantify somehow the time and complexity required to actually make these changes. E.g. should we run this on testnet for a month? 10 months? 80 years?
- An actual position on the burn vs. re-allocate debate
Just saying it won't be a problem doesn't make it true. It just defers to a later date (potentially beyond Q-Day) when the hard analysis actually needs to be done.
The implicit hope baked in here is that quantum is (a) far away and (b) will be clearly telegraphed. Neither of those are guaranteed.