M

Lecturer assistant (Biology) for MOE in KRG.
living simply is the best lifestyle ever. interested in Crypto #QRL, marketing, travel and reading💪

[M @PlanQ_83]

#QRL_Is_The_Future

[vitalik.eth @VitalikButerin]

I don't recommend anyone scramble to move their funds to new wallets today. But we should take the risks to cryptography from AI-accelerated math seriously, and minimize our exposure to not just quantum-vulnerable cryptography, but also potentially AI-vulnerable cryptography.

The core new area of risk from this viewpoint is, unfortunately, ML-DSA / FHE / lattices.

(and it's also another reason, along with quantum, why ECDSA might fall even faster than expected, hence the "fresh address" recommendation)

So far most people have been in the mode of thinking "elliptic curves broken, hashes safe, lattices safe". But there is a good chance that the concrete security of lattices will take serious hits from the next two years of AI math.

The basic threat model is: factoring is something that naively takes 2^(n/2) time, but over decades smart people have found and optimized number field sieves, and degraded that to 2^O(n^(1/3)), which is why RSA keys and signatures need to be ~400 bytes (and not 64 bytes). What if there are skeletons in the closet like that, both for elliptic curves and lattices, that we are simply not smart enough to discover - but bots soon will be?

This is a major part of the reason why for the past year ethereum's lean roadmap has been going in the "hash-only" direction: no lattices, no ML-DSA, no Falcon, no lattice-based commitments inside ZK proofs, etc. Signatures in lean ethereum are all hash-based, either WOTS or SPHINCS-.

For signatures and proofs, we already know how to go hash-only. The bigger challenge is for *public-key encryption* - and this goes far beyond blockchains. Secure communication, anonymizing protocols, lots of things need public-key encryption.

And unfortunately there are long-standing mathematical theorems showing why public-key encryption cannot be done with hashes alone. You have to have some kind of trapdoor object that has at least one form of usable "structure" - either group theory (incl. isogenies) or lattices or code-based or potentially in the future even more newfangled and spooky things (local mixing?). But for anything that has structure, you should assume that AI will make at least some progress in breaking that structure. Here, one reasonable inference is that if you want to make something plausibly long-term secure, multiply the key sizes by 10.

To me that's a very plausible world and something not at all extreme to predict. If AI will bring us 50 years of math in 2 years, then that 50 years of math may very plausibly include a "naive factoring -> GNFS" level of improvement to our ability to break lattices. In that world, lattices will still exist, but they will have to be significantly bigger to guarantee the same level of safety.

And at those new larger sizes, hash-based constructions will beat lattice-based constructions on concrete efficiency in every use case where hash-based constructions are possible at all.

Theoretically, of course it's possible that hashes are broken too (eg. P = NP would imply that). But I think P = NP is very unlikely. And intuitively, it's much more likely that a mathematical object has exactly no exploitable structure (like hashes are intended to), than that a mathematical object has exactly ~3 forms of exploitable structure (for elliptic curves: associativity, Schoof, pairings) and not some secret fourth form of structure we have not yet discovered that greatly degrades its security (for elliptic curves, ECDLP and pairing security). Similar for LWE, SVP, RLWE and the zoo of lattice problems.

For this reason, we do not yet see any reason to worry and start padding the byte size of hashes (if we start to worry more, we would pad the round count first before doing anything to the byte size).

Concrete TLDR, my own personal views:

* Hash-based > lattice-based, in those situations where hash-based is possible at all
* For anything lattice-based, be much more paranoid on param sizes. Remember that blockchains are only a small portion of the cryptography story; this point goes far beyond blockchains and applies to eg. access to websites, secure messaging, Tor / VPNs ...
* For privacy protocols, strongly favor NOT putting encrypted notes onchain. Instead, send them offchain through some third-party mechanism.
* If it's not difficult for you, keeping your funds in addresses which have not yet been used to make a transaction is a good idea. If it's easy for you, do it. **But be careful about migrations; I personally have lost more money in botched migrations than I have lost in all hacks combined**.
* For multisig wallets, doing confirmations offchain is better than onchain, because this way the signatures of signer wallets do not get exposed to the public, so if ECDSA falls to AI much faster than expected, at least the multisig "gracefully degrades" to a 1-of-1 where the 1 is whoever was gathering the signatures - a much better place to be than "anyone can take the money"
https://t.co/oVjwZog2lL

[M @PlanQ_83]

@cryptowhalepro1 👍

[Luke Martin @VentureCoinist]

The new Google paper on quantum risks for cryptocurrencies lists only 3 projects as being post-quantum blockchains today

- Mochimo $MCM
- Abelian $ABEL
- Quantum Resistant Ledger $QRL

https://t.co/ujk0e2i3sl

[M @PlanQ_83]

#QRL
https://t.co/Yl3W8hijHG

[M @PlanQ_83]

@elonmusk Greed

[QRL: The Quantum Resistant Ledger @QRLedger]

Heard of "Harvest Now, Decrypt Later"?

Hackers are collecting encrypted data now with an aim to decrypt it once a sufficiently powerful quantum computer is available.

It’s a ticking time bomb with an unknown countdown. Your digital assets are already at risk.

But you can diffuse the quantum threat today with $QRL.

QRL is purpose-built with quantum-resistant technology, designed to protect your digital assets from both current and emerging quantum threats.

#PQC #PQcrypto #CyberSecurity #Blockchain

[Charles Edwards @caprioleio]

While I don't necessarily agree with how this is calculated. I think a target is good as it gives a visual we must work towards. If we haven't solved quantum by this point for Bitcoin... we're going down that creek without a paddle.

[M @PlanQ_83]

@elonmusk #QRL is the next safe heaven. @elonmusk

[M @PlanQ_83]

#QRL_IS_THE_FUTURE

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

Quantum computing is best done in the permanently shadowed craters on the Moon

[market(ing)man @Dboybruh]

$ionq CEO Niccolo de masi 👀🔥 - “quantum is accelerating at a pace humans are struggling to comprehend”

if you havnt taken the time to truly understand the profound impact on technology quantum will have you will likely will not understand how necessary it is we (USA 🇺🇸) come out on top in this technological race. long IONQ

[IonQ @IonQ_Inc]

IonQ CEO Niccolo de Masi shares how IonQ is leading the global race in quantum computing in the Washington Business Journal. “Intel won the CPU wars. Nvidia won the GPU wars. IonQ will win the QPU wars.”
An informative read: https://t.co/l18Ex8orNO

[QRL: The Quantum Resistant Ledger @QRLedger]

Zond is EVM-compatible, Web3-ready, and supports smart contracts, all familiar territory for #Ethereum developers.

The difference is that Zond is being built with post-quantum cryptography from the start.

You can work with the tools you already know, but on a foundation designed for what’s coming next.

Learn more here: https://t.co/4QySCuQzt4

$QRL #Zond #PostQuantum #EVM #Web3 #PQC

[NVIDIA AI Developer @NVIDIAAIDev]

A preview Into the future of #quantum-GPU computing:

At GTC Washington, D.C., we announced NVIDIA NVQLink, an open system architecture for tightly coupling the extreme performance of GPU computing with quantum processors to build accelerated quantum supercomputers.

In the expo hall, accelerated quantum computing was a centerpiece of the NVIDIA booth.

See our live blog: https://t.co/FmQxjlJEEm

[NVIDIA Newsroom @nvidianewsroom]

The era of quantum-GPU computing is here.

🚨 Announced at #NVIDIAGTC: NVIDIA unveils NVQLink — a high-speed interconnect linking quantum processors with the world's leading supercomputing centers.

[Jay Gambetta @jaygambetta]

We just entangled 120 qubits — the largest entangled state ever achieved on a quantum computer.

Read the full letter here: https://t.co/rOwPVoHos4

[M @PlanQ_83]

#QRL_IS_THE_FUTURE

[JuveTrading @JuveTrading]

$CCCX / $INFQ Infleqtion CEO talking about logical qubits, and equating successful quantum advancements to number of logical qubits

"Today, Infleqtion and a handful of companies have logical qubits; we announced we have 12."

How many does $IONQ, $RGTI, $QUBT or $QBTS have? 🤔

[Charles Edwards @caprioleio]

THE RACE IS ON

5 firms are forecasting multi-1000 logical Qubit capability within 5 years, enough to break Bitcoin. Hot on their heels are a dozen more firms tracking the same outcome a couple years later. The Quantum Race is a national security priority, and capital continues to flood the market at staggering pace. We must upgrade Bitcoin in 2026!

[Desmond @DesFrontierTech]

Regardless of noise or volatility, this is my North Star. Every field of applied science will eventually run on quantum. IonQ's not picking one use case. They're building the control layer that ties them all together. The rails for the entire stack. We're just getting started.

[M @PlanQ_83]

#QRL

https://t.co/CRv7dunUj8