Re: [bitcoin-dev] Simple step one for quantum

From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32•com>
To: Olaoluwa Osuntokun <laolu32@gmail•com>,
	 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Simple step one for quantum
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 14:17:22 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJowKgLsXnbia-5MeOveOEGVLjCCLAQyeng1_bnbguFi3OiYmQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAO3Pvs9-Le1LJmY9KA2YXoOYu4rJ6ns3tJFWeMZffbed_59n6Q@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2195 bytes --]

FWICT: Streamlined NTRU Prime (sntrup) has no known patent issues.

Should be fine.

Regardless, a "double-wrapped bitcoin address of some kind" can be
specified, coded up and the relevant module replaced whenever the dust
settles.

I know Bitcoin doesn't (yet) have fee "weights", but i still think these
addresses should be called "heavier" if they are at al significantly slower
to validate.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 2:07 PM Olaoluwa Osuntokun <laolu32@gmail•com>
wrote:

> The NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography competition [1] results should be
> published "soon":
>
> https://groups.google.com/a/list.nist.gov/g/pqc-forum/c/fvnhyQ25jUg/m/-pYN2nshBgAJ
> .
>
> The last reply on that thread promised results by the end of March, but
> since that has come and gone, I think it's safe to expect results by the
> end
> of this month (April). FWIW, NTRU and NTRU Prime both made it to round 3
> for
> the public key encryption/exchange and digital signature categories, but
> both of them seem to be mired in some sort of patent controversy atm...
>
> -- Laolu
>
> [1]: https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/post-quantum-cryptography
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 5:36 PM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> First step could be just implementing a similar address type
>> (secp26k1+NTRU) and associated validation as a soft fork
>>
>> https://www.openssh.com/releasenotes.html#9.0
>>
>> Then people can opt-in to quantum safe addresses
>>
>> Still should work with schnorr and other things
>>
>> It's a lot of work to fold this in and it's a some extra validation work
>> for nodes
>>
>> Adding a fee premium for using these addresses in order to address that
>> concern seems reasonable
>>
>> I'm not saying I endorse any action at all.  Personally I think this is
>> putting the cart like six and a half miles in front of the horse.
>>
>> But if there's a lot of people that are like yeah please do this, I'd be
>> happy to make an NTRU bip or something.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3986 bytes --]