Ledgers support a bunch of different coins, so it's not surprising to see them moving this way. But I can imagine implementing "quantum resistant" stuff is a great marketing tool for hardware wallets.
pull down to refresh
pull down to refresh
Ledgers support a bunch of different coins, so it's not surprising to see them moving this way. But I can imagine implementing "quantum resistant" stuff is a great marketing tool for hardware wallets.
Great, but these are not used by any blockchain today (as far as I am aware). This is putting the cart before the horse, and attempting to influence the direction of the underlying technology.
Blockchains are not "starting their migration", at least not today. We don't even have a credible path for ANY 'pre-CRQC' blockchain here. Keys too big bro. Come back with smaller keys if you want to encode them for all eternity.
What if... post quantum was worse than worthless, eg: actively harmful? Thanks for the increased surface area. Cryptoagility bloats the codebase. These implementations are large -- and likely full of bugs.
I want my hardware to support the underlying software implementation for its use case -- eg: key and signature generation for blockchains. The proactive implementation of cryptoprimatives that might be used one day --
What if we don't need it?
What if its broken?
What if the library leaks bits of the private key due to bugs?
I agree with you. Indeed, my understanding of ML-DSA at least is that it is a hash-based system, which means Bitcoin would have to hard fork and possibly increase blocksize. It's very much shitcoiner support.
What I wonder though is if we will see some of the multi-coin wallets do this as a way of trying to get market share ahead of any Bitcoin quantum resistant changes. Even though there is no guarantee of the sort of algorithm Bitcoin might adopt to introduce quantum resistance, just as a marketing tool of sorts.
I want cyst coin
https://twiiit.com/P3b7_/status/2074117513244229764