Some context on why this paper matters more than the “not yet practical” caveat might suggest 👇
McEliece dates back to 1978, making it one of the oldest public-key cryptosystems still regarded as post-quantum secure. That longevity and more than four decades of surviving cryptanalysis, has always been one of its strongest credentials.
In very simple terms, this new paper identifies a previously unknown weakness in Classic McEliece’s mathematical structure that makes existing attacks somewhat more effective.
It does not make the scheme practically breakable today, but it shows that even one of the oldest and most heavily studied post-quantum systems can still produce unexpected surprises.
So, while nothing deployed suddenly became unsafe, the paper demonstrates that even some of the oldest and most heavily scrutinized mathematics in post-quantum cryptography can still reveal structural surprises.
Just two weeks ago, HAWK, one of the field’s much younger schemes, was significantly weakened through AI-assisted cryptanalysis. Now one of its oldest has taken a theoretical dent from classical methods.
These are different attack vectors applied at different schemes, but the overarching lesson is the same:
No algorithm should be treated as the permanent answer. The durable property is being able to replace cryptography when the circumstances change.
CKB is currently the only blockchain in the industry built around that idea.
CKB does not hard-code one signature scheme as the only way to authorize transactions. Signature verification can be implemented through Lock Scripts, which means new cryptographic schemes can be deployed at the application layer without changing CKB’s consensus rules.
SPHINCS+ is already available on mainnet through this model. If a better post-quantum signature scheme emerges later, CKB can add support for it by deploying a new Lock Script and letting users migrate voluntarily, rather than requiring the entire network to replace its cryptography through a consensus upgrade.
This is what crypto agility looks like in practice.
„Er hat die Probleme unserer Welt noch nicht verstanden.“
Das war nur eine der Reaktionen auf Robert – meinen Bitcoin-kritischen Freund aus dem Studium, promovierter Ökonom und bislang hartnäckig Bitcoin-resistent.
Unser erstes Gespräch hat die Community ordentlich getriggert. Markus Turm musste nach kurzer Zeit abbrechen…
Und jetzt geht es in Runde 2.
Diesmal will ich Robert damit konfrontieren, warum er unsere Petition für den Erhalt der Bitcoin-Haltefrist nicht unterschrieben hat 🥲
Jetzt seid ihr dran: Was würdet ihr einem Bitcoin-kritischen Ökonomen gerne direkt ins Gesicht fragen?
Die besten nehme ich mit ins Gespräch.
Das erste Video kann man sich bis dahin hier auf X in voller Länge ansehen. Den YouTube-Link gibt es in den Kommentaren.
Übrigens: Die Haltefrist muss bleiben! Wer unsere Petition noch nicht unterschrieben hat: es ist Zeit ✍️✅
@Karl_Lauterbach Mal angenommen die 10 PV Paneele haben eine max. Leistung von 5kw und der LKW verbraucht angenommen nur 100kw dann kann man sich die Paneele auch gleich sparen, aber dann hätten politiker wie sie keinen Grund einen Post zu verfassen.
CKB is already prepared for a future that necessitates post-quantum cryptographic methods.
No hard forks are needed, no governance debates.
If you're concerned about the impact of quantum computing, you should learn about CKB.
https://t.co/R7RJsCRFH1