Comment
Author: Admin | 2025-04-28
Acting as a strict security gain. Due to the larger size of quantum-resistant transactions, there have also been discussions around potentially combining the addition of quantum-resistant signatures with a block size increase. There is also the possibility of using Scalable Transparent ARguments of Knowledge (STARKs), which is zero-knowledge (ZK) proof technology, as another route for bringing quantum resistance to Bitcoin, which would come with added privacy and scalability benefits. This functionality could be enabled via OP_CAT or another opcode specifically for verifying ZK-proofs.“STARK support in Bitcoin could let miners non-interactively aggregate quantum resistant signatures into a single STARK, replacing the signatures with a single STARK,” Heilman told Magazine.“This would eliminate the main drawback of such signature schemes and could also have privacy benefits. Many people, myself included, are looking into this, but this work is still early, and such changes are not very simple or easy.”That said, STARKs are more practical for more flexible and malleable crypto systems, such as Ethereum or Solana. Indeed, Ethereum creator Vitalik Buterin has previously opined on the use of STARKs in a quantum emergency.In terms of the potential of using STARKs or other methods for quantum computing resistance even for non-upgraded addresses (as Buterin has outlined), Hunter Beast states, “It might be possible . . . The only problem with this approach is that while adding ZK opcodes is a soft fork, there’ll likely be little agreement on which ones to add, and even if there is, for it to work. They would also need to disable all transactions that aren’t made with modern HD wallets (ones that accept mnemonic seeds and produce new addresses each time they’re used). A hardcoded private key won’t work, and it’s also uncertain how that would work with multisig. So, no, it’s not really practical to do that.”Bitcoiners
Add Comment