Many discussions about Bitcoin center on the technology itself, but I really appreciated how this episode also focused on another core element: users.
Hardware wallets are foundational to Bitcoin's ecosystem, and the network's path the quantum resistance is in some ways two-pronged.
Not only will users eventually need to migrate to post-quantum address types — those who self-custody will need new devices offering similar protections.
On top of that, this episode covers the risks associated with stateful signatures. It's something that I've noticed more discussion on recently.
Under SHRINCS, Bitcoin's leading candidate for a PQ scheme, users who accidentally reuse stateful signatures open themselves to key forgery.
Still, @tsusanka explores some safeguards that could ultimately limit thefts in a PQ world.
Trezor CTO on Post-Quantum Bitcoin’s “Stateful Signature Problem” | TOMÁŠ SUŠÁNKA
🔗 YouTube: https://t.co/u2LNFLuBJJ
🌿 Spotify: https://t.co/g1fN8wITPs
As Bitcoin researchers get closer to consensus on hash-based post-quantum signature schemes like SHRINCS, hardware wallet manufacturers are weighing architectural decisions to protect users from the pitfalls of stateful signatures.
In this episode of MFTV, Trezor CTO @tsusanka unpacks the efficiency and security tradeoffs of SHRINCS, a stateful scheme in which reusing signing state can have serious security consequences. Preventing that reuse will become a critical responsibility for wallet developers if SHRINCS is adopted by the network, which is looking more likely as pressure mounts for Bitcoin to make a move.
@tsusanka shares the specific architectural choices Trezor is considering to support safe handling of SHRINCS and reduce the potentially catastrophic “footgun” risks associated with this new scheme. He also unpacks Trezor’s internal approach to quantum-prepping its hardware wallets, explaining why the company released a post-quantum device late last year — well before a Bitcoin network upgrade was in view.
TIMESTAMPS:
🎙️ 00:00 Intro
⚛️ 05:38 When quantum computing truly entered the chat
🏗️ 07:08 The three layers of Trezor hardware
🏭 12:10 Embedding post-quantum keys at the manufacturing level
🏷️ 15:13 The “quantum-ready” marketing debate
⚖️ 19:47 Stateful vs. stateless signatures
🧮 26:55 Hash-based vs. lattice-based cryptography
⏳ 39:53 Operational friction for merchants
🔍 50:32 The open-source vs. closed-source hardware debate
🤖 52:52 Handling AI-generated bug bounty reports
🤝 01:04:12 Accepting compromises for a post-quantum standard
While Sušánka recognizes that SHRINCS may be the conservative cryptographic choice because it relies on the same cryptographic assumptions as SHA-256, he is “kind of torn on the topic because maintaining the state is a burden.”
“For example, you can have two Trezors with the same recovery seed. How do you share the state between those two? You really don’t,” he added.
Bitcoin’s leading candidate for a post-quantum signature scheme, SCHRINCS, features stateful signatures that make transactions efficient — but introduce potentially catastrophic security vulnerabilities when misused.
“It’s our job to make it in a secure way,” argues @Trezor CTO @tsusanka, in reference to the built-in safeguards being considered for safer implementation of the scheme by hardware wallets.
More on this in the coming weeks from SHRINCS co-authors @blksresearch
Many discussions about Bitcoin center on the technology itself, but I really appreciated how this episode also focused on another core element: users.
Hardware wallets are foundational to Bitcoin's ecosystem, and the network's path the quantum resistance is in some ways two-pronged.
Not only will users eventually need to migrate to post-quantum address types — those who self-custody will need new devices offering similar protections.
On top of that, this episode covers the risks associated with stateful signatures. It's something that I've noticed more discussion on recently.
Under SHRINCS, Bitcoin's leading candidate for a PQ scheme, users who accidentally reuse stateful signatures open themselves to key forgery.
Still, @tsusanka explores some safeguards that could ultimately limit thefts in a PQ world.
Trezor CTO on Post-Quantum Bitcoin’s “Stateful Signature Problem” | TOMÁŠ SUŠÁNKA
🔗 YouTube: https://t.co/u2LNFLuBJJ
🌿 Spotify: https://t.co/g1fN8wITPs
As Bitcoin researchers get closer to consensus on hash-based post-quantum signature schemes like SHRINCS, hardware wallet manufacturers are weighing architectural decisions to protect users from the pitfalls of stateful signatures.
In this episode of MFTV, Trezor CTO @tsusanka unpacks the efficiency and security tradeoffs of SHRINCS, a stateful scheme in which reusing signing state can have serious security consequences. Preventing that reuse will become a critical responsibility for wallet developers if SHRINCS is adopted by the network, which is looking more likely as pressure mounts for Bitcoin to make a move.
@tsusanka shares the specific architectural choices Trezor is considering to support safe handling of SHRINCS and reduce the potentially catastrophic “footgun” risks associated with this new scheme. He also unpacks Trezor’s internal approach to quantum-prepping its hardware wallets, explaining why the company released a post-quantum device late last year — well before a Bitcoin network upgrade was in view.
TIMESTAMPS:
🎙️ 00:00 Intro
⚛️ 05:38 When quantum computing truly entered the chat
🏗️ 07:08 The three layers of Trezor hardware
🏭 12:10 Embedding post-quantum keys at the manufacturing level
🏷️ 15:13 The “quantum-ready” marketing debate
⚖️ 19:47 Stateful vs. stateless signatures
🧮 26:55 Hash-based vs. lattice-based cryptography
⏳ 39:53 Operational friction for merchants
🔍 50:32 The open-source vs. closed-source hardware debate
🤖 52:52 Handling AI-generated bug bounty reports
🤝 01:04:12 Accepting compromises for a post-quantum standard
@isabelfoxenduke@Trezor@tsusanka If anyone is interested in this topic, I’d recommend watching this episode that features Ledger’s Charles Guillemet (@P3b7_): https://t.co/LnIKYZljEc