mleku
· 3d
that quote is from the BIP-360 page
post quantum algorithms are a good thing. they are using merkle trees which layer hash functions. hashing the spend key into an address achieves the same thing, wi...
I guess I just strip it further back to the assumption that PQ sigs are even needed. My whole argument is that we need to verify the assumption of CQC again based on the physics Bitcoin demonstrates logically rather than our fiat assumptions. Joules, bits and blocks. Question, who are you trusting to claim such a threat? What is their incentive? I need someone to explain to me how discrete subplanck superposition poses a threat to Bitcoin, because that is the only logical architecture that resolves the measurement/double spend problem in physics while explaining the particle and the wave. The architecture is empirical in Bitcoin. Resolve the double spend and prove conservation without a quantized block of time; you cannot. If that’s the case, I need to be shown how CQC can remain plausible if time must be quantized at Planck scale. So yes, the physics matters greatly here, because I don’t trust anyone’s physics who is claiming there is a quantum threat and I will URSF.
The double spend problem is a physics problem. It’s a logic problem. It’s a conservation problem. It’s the measurement problem. There is way too much trust in Bitcoin and not enough verification. The double spend problem is not just a “money” problem; it has serious implications for the logic of our physics.
It would be quite a waste of time/energy if we find out we don’t need PQ sigs and that we are introducing more vulnerability into the chain by hubris in doing so. It stems from the idea that Bitcoin (not taproot) is broken or will be broken and needs to change. Nonsense.
If you argue that we need to improve cryptography because of AI, sure I’ll entertain and support this discussion. The threat is not quantum, it never has been, it never will be.
