Simple step one for quantum
6 messages, 8 to 11 Apr 2022. Started by Erik Aronesty.
Erik Aronesty (2), Christopher Allen (2), Lloyd Fournier, Olaoluwa Osuntokun
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.
On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 2:36 PM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (3 lines)
> 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. >
I have to agree that practical quantum-attacks are like fusion, human-level AI, and nanotechnology — always 20 years away. In addition, several reported approaches to quantum-attack resistance have fallen, and more will fall in the next “20 years”.
That being said, it is interesting research. Here is the best link about this particular approach:
https://ntruprime.cr.yp.to/software.html
Blockchain Commons can’t offer to fully fund this research, but if others do we’d be glad to contribute a small grant.
— Christopher Allen
On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 4:33 PM Christopher Allen < ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity•com> wrote:
Quoted text (5 lines)
> That being said, it is interesting research. Here is the best link about > this particular approach: > > https://ntruprime.cr.yp.to/software.html >
Also I think this is the original academic paper:
https://eprint.iacr.org/2021/826.pdf
<https://ntruprime.cr.yp.to/software.html>
Quoted text (1 line)
>
— Christopher Allen
Hey all,
A good first step might be to express this as a research problem on bitcoinproblems.org! I've had in mind creating a problem page on how to design a PQ TR commitment in each key so that if QC were to become a reality we could softfork to enable that spend (and disable normal key path spends): https://github.com/bitcoin-problems/bitcoin-problems.github.io/issues/4
Becoming the author/maintainer of this problem is as simple as making a PR to the repo. The problem doesn't have to be focused on a TR solution but could be a general description of the problem with that and others as a potential solution direction.
Cheers,
LL
On Sat, 9 Apr 2022 at 18:39, Christopher Allen via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (22 lines)
> > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 4:33 PM Christopher Allen < > ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity•com> wrote: > >> That being said, it is interesting research. Here is the best link about >> this particular approach: >> >> https://ntruprime.cr.yp.to/software.html >> > > Also I think this is the original academic paper: > > https://eprint.iacr.org/2021/826.pdf > > <https://ntruprime.cr.yp.to/software.html> >> > — Christopher Allen _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >
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:
Quoted text (29 lines)
> 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 >
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:
Quoted text (51 lines)
> 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 >> >