MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJowKg+xgenKmyA7gHPmPV0VNF-PdAww2nAxBfS-Z7v5GcpeLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO3Pvs9-Le1LJmY9KA2YXoOYu4rJ6ns3tJFWeMZffbed_59n6Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO3Pvs9-Le1LJmY9KA2YXoOYu4rJ6ns3tJFWeMZffbed_59n6Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 14:17:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJowKgLsXnbia-5MeOveOEGVLjCCLAQyeng1_bnbguFi3OiYmQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Olaoluwa Osuntokun <laolu32@gmail.com>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005726c605dc64f528"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Simple step one for quantum
Precedence: list

--0000000000005726c605dc64f528
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

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
>>
>

--0000000000005726c605dc64f528
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;fon=
t-size:14.4px">FWICT: Streamlined NTRU Prime (</span><code style=3D"font-si=
ze:1.2em;color:rgb(0,0,0)">sntrup</code><span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);fon=
t-family:sans-serif;font-size:14.4px">) has no known patent issues.=C2=A0 =
=C2=A0<br><br>Should be fine.=C2=A0 <br><br>Regardless, a &quot;double-wrap=
ped bitcoin address of some kind&quot; can be specified, coded up and the r=
elevant module replaced whenever the dust settles.=C2=A0 =C2=A0<br><br>I kn=
ow Bitcoin doesn&#39;t (yet) have fee=C2=A0&quot;weights&quot;, but i still=
 think these addresses should be called &quot;heavier&quot; if they are at =
al significantly slower to validate.</span></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 2:07 PM =
Olaoluwa Osuntokun &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:laolu32@gmail.com">laolu32@gmail.c=
om</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex=
"><div dir=3D"ltr">The NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography competition [1] resul=
ts should be<br>published &quot;soon&quot;:<br><a href=3D"https://groups.go=
ogle.com/a/list.nist.gov/g/pqc-forum/c/fvnhyQ25jUg/m/-pYN2nshBgAJ" target=
=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/a/list.nist.gov/g/pqc-forum/c/fvnhyQ2=
5jUg/m/-pYN2nshBgAJ</a>.<br><br><div>The last reply on that thread promised=
 results by the end of March, but<br>since that has come and gone, I think =
it&#39;s safe to expect results by the end<br>of this month (April). FWIW, =
NTRU and NTRU Prime both made it to round 3 for<br>the public key encryptio=
n/exchange and digital signature categories, but<br>both of them seem to be=
 mired in some sort of patent controversy atm...<br><br>-- Laolu<br><br>[1]=
: <a href=3D"https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/post-quantum-cryptography" targ=
et=3D"_blank">https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/post-quantum-cryptography</a><=
br><div></div></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" c=
lass=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 5:36 PM Erik Aronesty via bitcoi=
n-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=
=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l=
eft:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto"><div dir=
=3D"auto">First step could be just implementing a similar address type (sec=
p26k1+NTRU) and associated validation as a soft fork=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D=
"auto"><br></div><a href=3D"https://www.openssh.com/releasenotes.html#9.0" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.openssh.com/releasenotes.h=
tml#9.0</a><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Then people can op=
t-in to quantum safe addresses</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D=
"auto">Still should work with schnorr and other things</div><div dir=3D"aut=
o"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">It&#39;s a lot of work to fold this in and i=
t&#39;s a some extra validation work for nodes</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br><=
/div><div dir=3D"auto">Adding a fee premium for using these addresses in or=
der to address that concern seems reasonable</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></d=
iv><div dir=3D"auto">I&#39;m not saying I endorse any action at all.=C2=A0 =
Personally I think this is putting the cart like six and a half miles in fr=
ont of the horse.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">But if=
 there&#39;s a lot of people that are like yeah please do this, I&#39;d be =
happy to make an NTRU bip or something.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><d=
iv dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br=
></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>

--0000000000005726c605dc64f528--