Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 894C0C002C for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 21:34:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F60841AB for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 21:34:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.402 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.248, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=q32-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P8M2zmPgU_cj for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 21:34:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-lf1-x130.google.com (mail-lf1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::130]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31DC784137 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 21:34:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-x130.google.com with SMTP id d40so9610562lfv.11 for ; Fri, 08 Apr 2022 14:34:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=q32-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=TAf4YU/rJiie7zavrZQxxTLjXC1flC2f8K22praBOWw=; b=Gj1uTqMPjLn8ZXaB8BLcizZzdwWkxhEZqspP2U5F/n9huYgo9difQ9BCKOLoe0dzUl S7WfpXQVrxByYzHibkR/EdxaGtclRIq1MwwFFe/Mr4meu+opEXI8ms6DlKJ7PJ6FQe6S VkCOWAq2lCD/cz5pR8cXmHn6c4FjGQWQJsmvfL8MPXF/Jm2OF7FYQqM1TF/M/LKhC/zm BHINtGf+yk5u4elz4K+qGB63Y5ywpEm0jI8iMJmqNNXVK8sw6j4vJv1XdZ0f7VYK0u96 7xaNTn+xz3JtIZvC9AVxkVTWGToqLF90sew9Kk/LJx0Px9Ww5rrilJKXAsAFanEpnGAy SFOQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=TAf4YU/rJiie7zavrZQxxTLjXC1flC2f8K22praBOWw=; b=d28NFyv4GXC55+AXqWnJE1BJfzrrnqfYPmO4cInA/hywNx+wniylpo5riIR3pSF+vz 5rHuNDZSkGlocidnKMANi0If1BD8zyw24KAknnTdrYGb0tpIFQ9WgQteLeYF/UMnH9GQ YMr+tMxO4fRpjBiK6nuamqt073bfbDGSRwgmeDR69yK87eLQSjsrE0NEk/6FzPVdy9UZ tJRQCZ/DqfzG/Kr0D3/nC3B7lNdX407aNiyj/J3PBNqK242UgPvlW2sApXERVuFCN50j oO4faQr6ov8/d2bTZlshgQ0+KumOwl1rfBFhQs2FctA6skf+tmxRFIL+MpPa9AqfAOun iZDA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Yl86Qf7LkFLdp0Lw0663RwJOaCc06YCmEqiWhdyjyL+eJ6Jft /7OoW2IB5l2bRiOWYJY6qQzNvlqWl/fi23QxF2VNN1lJiWpx X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzalLvXUIHr8XFOl73R4w+1WD18nMzVJLIb3zfE6I5o9tO76rBLBE+XiN4IgbySMYF2wwwdh2xTur0QdnWlvT8= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:22cb:b0:453:6438:5bfa with SMTP id g11-20020a05651222cb00b0045364385bfamr13634534lfu.308.1649453659571; Fri, 08 Apr 2022 14:34:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Erik Aronesty Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:34:07 -0400 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000073cb4c05dc2b5bfd" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 21:36:05 +0000 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Simple step one for quantum X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 21:34:23 -0000 --00000000000073cb4c05dc2b5bfd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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. --00000000000073cb4c05dc2b5bfd Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
First step could be just implementing a= similar address type (secp26k1+NTRU) and associated validation as a soft f= ork=C2=A0

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 o= f work to fold this in and it's a some extra validation work for nodes<= /div>

Adding a fee premium for= using these addresses in order to address that concern seems reasonable

I'm not saying I endor= se any action at all.=C2=A0 Personally I think this is putting the cart lik= e 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.



--00000000000073cb4c05dc2b5bfd--