#BlockchainQuantumSecurity
About BlockchainQuantumSecurity
AI-assisted math research may expose weaknesses in some proposed cryptography, while future quantum computers could threaten BTC and ETH signatures. No practical break of these signatures has been shown. NIST has issued post-quantum standards, and a US Energy Department quantum contest offers up to $215M in planned funding. Ethereum and Bitcoin developers are exploring upgrades; Coinbase has outlined key-management work. How can networks plan safe wallet migration and protect older addresses?
Populare
Cele mai recente
BlockchainQuantumSecurity Postări populare
Quantum computers threaten exposed private keys rather than blockchains, Europol warns
By: Naeem Farooq (nEmErAnA)
EU law enforcement agencies urged developers, exchanges, and users to initiate phased post-quantum migrations immediately to prevent future unauthorized fund transfers.$BTC $OKB #BlockchainQuantumSecurity
-2,18%
Instantaneu realizat la 12 oct. 2026, 11:40
Quantum risk is not an emergency trade signal: the source says no practical break of BTC or ETH signatures has been shown. The harder issue is operational. Post-quantum standards and upgrade research matter only if wallet migration can reach older addresses without turning key management into a new failure point. Preparedness should be measured by migration paths, not headlines.
#BlockchainQuantumSecurity
Breaking news: AI models predict 34%-76% risk of Bitcoin's cryptography break in 20 years due to quantum computing.
The time is much shorter in my honest opinion due to e^x with respect to quantum computing improvements and algorithm improvements - 3-5 years
Then zero for #Bitcoin
Goodbye #Bitcoin
Source:
JUST IN: Avalanche founder warns AI could steal billions by exploiting crypto software bugs before breaking ECDSA
Emin Gün Sirer says vulnerabilities in wallets, libraries and system code pose a more immediate risk than quantum attacks on existing cryptography, making software security the priority.
Post-quantum is slowly becoming a crypto meta, and I think there's a much bigger infrastructure shift developing behind it.
We've spent years discussing blockchain scalability, privacy, and interoperability.
But there's another problem that could eventually force major chains to redesign parts of their infrastructure.
The cryptography protecting billions of dollars in onchain assets may not remain secure forever.
And recent developments suggest developers are taking that possibility seriously.
➥ First, look at what changed in 2026.
In March, Google Quantum AI published research showing that breaking the elliptic-curve cryptography used by major blockchains could require significantly fewer resources than previously estimated.
Its research outlined an attack requiring approximately:
• 1,200 logical qubits
• 90 million Toffoli gates
These are theoretical resource estimates, not evidence that existing quantum computers can execute the attack.
Still, reducing the estimated resources changes how developers should think about migration timelines.
Bitcoin and Ethereum rely on elliptic-curve signatures to authorize transactions.
A sufficiently powerful quantum computer could potentially derive private keys from exposed public keys.
That makes wallet security one of the first areas requiring attention.
➥ Ethereum is already preparing.
In September 2026, the Ethereum Foundation outlined a target to make Ethereum L1 quantum-resistant across execution, consensus, and data by December 2029.
That's a major commitment.
The work involves replacing vulnerable cryptographic components, introducing more flexible account authentication, and upgrading validator signatures.
Ethereum isn't waiting for quantum computers to become an immediate threat.
It's preparing because changing the security architecture of a live blockchain takes years.
➥ Starknet is approaching the problem differently.
In July, an experimental quantum-resistant wallet successfully executed a transaction on Starknet mainnet.
The transaction reportedly cost around $0.06.
What's notable is that Starknet's account architecture allows wallets to change their signature verification logic without requiring a network-wide hard fork.
That's a useful advantage when cryptographic standards evolve.
StarkWare has also been experimenting with quantum-safe Bitcoin transactions.
According to its September research recap, optimization work reduced the estimated GPU computation cost from approximately $320 to $67.
That's roughly a 79% reduction.
The technology remains experimental, but reducing implementation costs is important if these systems are eventually going to scale.
➥ $SUI and newer networks are also entering the conversation.
$SUI has outlined plans to support post-quantum account authentication using NIST-standardized signature schemes.
Its roadmap targets native quantum-safe account support in Q1 2027.
Meanwhile, Quantus launched its post-quantum-focused mainnet in September and introduced its QTC token to the $NEAR ecosystem in October.
The approaches are different.
Ethereum is preparing to migrate an established network.
Starknet is using flexible account validation.
Sui is integrating new signature standards.
Quantus is building around post-quantum cryptography from the beginning.
➥ Here's where I think the investment thesis becomes more important.
Post-quantum security isn't necessarily about creating another category of coins.
It's about upgrading the cryptographic infrastructure that existing financial systems depend on.
That creates several areas worth researching:
→ Quantum-resistant wallets and account infrastructure
→ Post-quantum signature verification
→ Cryptographic agility and account abstraction
→ Quantum-resistant interoperability and custody
→ Infrastructure that reduces the computational cost of larger signatures
But there's an important distinction.
A blockchain adopting quantum-resistant cryptography doesn't automatically make its native token more valuable.
The technology can become essential without creating meaningful token demand.
That's why I'm paying more attention to implementation, developer adoption, and actual network utility than projects simply adding "quantum" to their branding.
One final point.
NIST already finalized its first three post-quantum cryptography standards in 2024.
And in 2026, the migration conversation has become more urgent across both traditional technology companies and blockchain networks.
No one knows exactly when cryptographically relevant quantum computers will arrive.
But waiting until existing cryptography becomes vulnerable would leave very little time to coordinate a safe migration.
My view: post-quantum could become one of crypto's next major infrastructure narratives.
The question isn't which project mentions quantum resistance the loudest.
It's which networks can actually upgrade their security without compromising usability, performance, or decentralization.
That's where I'd focus my research.
My current watchlist:
$QANX → @QANplatform
$ZEC → @zcash
$CELL → @cellframenet
$ALGO → @Algorand
$NAORIS → @NaoXprotocol
$XDC → @XDCNetwork
$QRL → @QRLedger
$STRK → @Starknet
$ABEL → @PQabelian
$HBAR → @hedera
$IOTA → @iota
$CKB → @NervosNetwork
$XNT → @NeptunePrivacy
IIP-64: how IoTeX stays secure as it decentralizes, in a post-quantum, post-AI world.
This is an open proposal, not a done deal. It will go through public review, revisions, and a governance vote. We're sharing it early because this is not just an IoTeX problem. Every blockchain has to solve it.
Today, nearly every chain signs with ECDSA. It can fall two ways:
• Quantum: Shor's algorithm on a large enough quantum computer
• AI-accelerated math: a classical breakthrough that shows up as a paper, with no hardware warning
The second scenario is no longer far-fetched as AI may compress decades of math progress into a few years, and the structured math behind some "post-quantum" schemes could be the first to give.
The design: two locks, not one
• IIP-64 uses two NIST-standardized post-quantum signature families. Each is strong where the other is exposed:
• Hash-based (SLH-DSA, FIPS 205 / XMSS): security rests only on hash functions. No algebraic structure, so there is very little for an AI-discovered shortcut to grab onto. Very conservative, but large (~16 KB per signature).
• Lattice-based (ML-DSA, FIPS 204): compact and fast, the mainstream post-quantum standard. But it has algebraic structure, the kind of thing a mathematical breakthrough could weaken.
Why this matters more as we decentralize
More delegates means more signatures per block, and post-quantum signatures are 10–100x larger than ECDSA. So IIP-64 also specifies STARK-based signature aggregation, so the chain can grow its validator set without drowning in signature data.
A different philosophy from Ethereum
Ethereum's execution layer leans on account abstraction: every account can bring its own signature scheme. That's flexible, but it pushes a hard cryptographic choice onto every user and wallet.
IIP-64 makes the choice at the protocol level: a small, vetted menu, with a hybrid required where the stakes are highest. Plus a defined crypto-agility process, so if cryptanalysis moves, the protocol can rotate parameters or entire families without another address migration.
Also in the proposal
• Phased migration: bind PQ keys → require both → retire legacy
• Acceleration triggers for both quantum milestones and AI/classical breaks
• Recovery staged before a break: prove ownership now, use it later
We'd love cryptographers, researchers and other chains to review it, challenge it, and break it. Comments on the PR are open 👇
IonQ încheie un acord de până la 1,3 miliarde de dolari pentru a cumpăra firma de securitate cibernetică Elisity
12:20 PM EDT, 10/12/2026 (MT Newswires) -- IonQ (IONQ) a convenit să achiziționeze firma de securitate cibernetică Elisity într-o tranzacție integral în acțiuni în valoare de până la 1,3 miliarde de dolari, pe măsură ce compania de calcul cuantic se pregătește pentru atacuri din partea viitoarelor calculatoare cuantice.
Considerația include până la 150 de milioane de dolari în plăți legate de realizarea unor etape, a declarat IonQ luni. Compania va emite acțiuni la închiderea tranzacției în func
BTQ joined GQIG members and partners at imec in Leuven for the Quantum Infra Summit EU 2026, where Sean Hackett and Anastasia Marchenkova took the stage. As a founding member of GQIG, we’re advancing our Building Trusted Quantum portfolio across post-quantum cryptography, secure quantum networking, and hardware-accelerated security for AI and HPC, turning shared requirements into the standards that make critical infrastructure ready for the years ahead.
$BTQ
In case you haven’t noticed, the race to post-quantum cryptography (pqc) readiness is now full on.
One can make an argument that nothing else matters – as if we lose cryptography – most chains, wallets, tokens, DEX’s, and apps relying on elliptic curve signatures are now susceptible.
And the fact is – only a few insiders know how close we are to a credible cryptographic threat – everyone else is guessing, pushing narratives, or talking their bags (given the potential ramifications to those bags).
Roadmaps are now plentiful – but roadmaps without firm delivery dates, deployed solutions, or verifiable security won’t do much good when that day comes.
Meanwhile, AI continues to advance and it’s not going to wait around for “slow crypto” to upgrade.
Ironically, the biggest players are the most exposed. High-value targets, systemic risk, complex dependencies, and slow upgrade cycles.
Who’s going to get there first with an actual solution?
Trillion dollar question.