Anyone who dismisses the solution known as QRL will bitterly regret it.

[DiscoJoker]

The consequences of what is happening stem directly from the signature scheme Bitcoin adopted in 2009. Around 6.9 million BTC are in outputs with their public keys already exposed on the blockchain: the first coins mined using P2PK, reused addresses, and Taproot outputs, which publish the key by design. Satoshi’s coins are part of this group.

People will say that quantum computers are still far away. Taproot took more than three years from proposal to activation, and no one was required to adopt it. A fix for the quantum problem would require every holder to move their coins, on a network where no one has the authority to order anyone else to do so.

Three paths remain. First, nothing changes, and the first person to control a capable machine gains control of millions of coins. Second, a new type of address is introduced, such as BIP-360, optional by definition: it protects those who migrate, leaves lost or dormant coins permanently exposed, and even those who migrate reveal their key at the moment of the transaction, opening an attack window. Third, anything that has not migrated is frozen, and the network starts deciding which coins are valid. Who decides? A committee? A vote among developers? Does “don’t trust, verify” become “trust the committee”? Or is the strategy simply to hope that the quantum computer takes long enough? For anyone storing a lifetime’s worth of wealth in this system, that is an audacious bet.

None of the three preserves Bitcoin’s principles. A fourth path would require changing the genesis signature scheme, which amounts to rewriting the network.

Only QRL is ready, and I define “ready” by four conditions. Post-quantum signatures from genesis, with no fork or pending migration. Security based on hash functions, the minimal assumption, which a quantum attack weakens only quadratically, instead of recent mathematical constructions with only a few decades of cryptanalysis behind them. QRL has used XMSS, standardized in RFC 8391, since 2016. The question that is paralyzing Bitcoin was answered before it became a headline.

If you disagree, point out another network that meets all four conditions simultaneously. Or is the plan to debate this in 2035, with the machine already running? If the network has to choose between confiscation and theft, which side do you want to be on when the choice is made?

[Abiky]

The consequences of what is happening stem directly from the signature scheme Bitcoin adopted in 2009. Around 6.9 million BTC are in outputs with their public keys already exposed on the blockchain: the first coins mined using P2PK, reused addresses, and Taproot outputs, which publish the key by design. Satoshi’s coins are part of this group.

People will say that quantum computers are still far away. Taproot took more than three years from proposal to activation, and no one was required to adopt it. A fix for the quantum problem would require every holder to move their coins, on a network where no one has the authority to order anyone else to do so.

Three paths remain. First, nothing changes, and the first person to control a capable machine gains control of millions of coins. Second, a new type of address is introduced, such as BIP-360, optional by definition: it protects those who migrate, leaves lost or dormant coins permanently exposed, and even those who migrate reveal their key at the moment of the transaction, opening an attack window. Third, anything that has not migrated is frozen, and the network starts deciding which coins are valid. Who decides? A committee? A vote among developers? Does “don’t trust, verify” become “trust the committee”? Or is the strategy simply to hope that the quantum computer takes long enough? For anyone storing a lifetime’s worth of wealth in this system, that is an audacious bet.

None of the three preserves Bitcoin’s principles. A fourth path would require changing the genesis signature scheme, which amounts to rewriting the network.

Only QRL is ready, and I define “ready” by four conditions. Post-quantum signatures from genesis, with no fork or pending migration. Security based on hash functions, the minimal assumption, which a quantum attack weakens only quadratically, instead of recent mathematical constructions with only a few decades of cryptanalysis behind them. QRL has used XMSS, standardized in RFC 8391, since 2016. The question that is paralyzing Bitcoin was answered before it became a headline.

If you disagree, point out another network that meets all four conditions simultaneously. Or is the plan to debate this in 2035, with the machine already running? If the network has to choose between confiscation and theft, which side do you want to be on when the choice is made?

The Quantum Resistant Ledger (QRL) has long been touted as a solution to all of Blockchain's problems. Quantum computing-wise, of course. It was already ahead of its time by incorporating quantum signatures, among other security measures. Too bad it didn't get the attention it deserved. This is probably because other chains had better marketing/PR.

So QRL can have all the quantum resistance in the world, but without adoption, it won't be going anywhere. It's not about the tech, nor features. But rather real adoption from the mainstream. This includes developers, all the way down to investors and users alike. Who knows? Maybe QRL gets the attention from the masses once Quantum computing becomes a real threat. Bitcoin and other cryptos should learn about the project's moves, and act accordingly. Don't you think?

[duplan]

Fully Agreed!! 2x

The consequences of what is happening stem directly from the signature scheme Bitcoin adopted in 2009. Around 6.9 million BTC are in outputs with their public keys already exposed on the blockchain: the first coins mined using P2PK, reused addresses, and Taproot outputs, which publish the key by design. Satoshi’s coins are part of this group.

People will say that quantum computers are still far away. Taproot took more than three years from proposal to activation, and no one was required to adopt it. A fix for the quantum problem would require every holder to move their coins, on a network where no one has the authority to order anyone else to do so.

Three paths remain. First, nothing changes, and the first person to control a capable machine gains control of millions of coins. Second, a new type of address is introduced, such as BIP-360, optional by definition: it protects those who migrate, leaves lost or dormant coins permanently exposed, and even those who migrate reveal their key at the moment of the transaction, opening an attack window. Third, anything that has not migrated is frozen, and the network starts deciding which coins are valid. Who decides? A committee? A vote among developers? Does “don’t trust, verify” become “trust the committee”? Or is the strategy simply to hope that the quantum computer takes long enough? For anyone storing a lifetime’s worth of wealth in this system, that is an audacious bet.

None of the three preserves Bitcoin’s principles. A fourth path would require changing the genesis signature scheme, which amounts to rewriting the network.

Only QRL is ready, and I define “ready” by four conditions. Post-quantum signatures from genesis, with no fork or pending migration. Security based on hash functions, the minimal assumption, which a quantum attack weakens only quadratically, instead of recent mathematical constructions with only a few decades of cryptanalysis behind them. QRL has used XMSS, standardized in RFC 8391, since 2016. The question that is paralyzing Bitcoin was answered before it became a headline.

If you disagree, point out another network that meets all four conditions simultaneously. Or is the plan to debate this in 2035, with the machine already running? If the network has to choose between confiscation and theft, which side do you want to be on when the choice is made?

The Quantum Resistant Ledger (QRL) has long been touted as a solution to all of Blockchain's problems. Quantum computing-wise, of course. It was already ahead of its time by incorporating quantum signatures, among other security measures. Too bad it didn't get the attention it deserved. This is probably because other chains had better marketing/PR.

So QRL can have all the quantum resistance in the world, but without adoption, it won't be going anywhere. It's not about the tech, nor features. But rather real adoption from the mainstream. This includes developers, all the way down to investors and users alike. Who knows? Maybe QRL gets the attention from the masses once Quantum computing becomes a real threat. Bitcoin and other cryptos should learn about the project's moves, and act accordingly. Don't you think?

[DiscoJoker]

Fully Agreed!! 2x

The consequences of what is happening stem directly from the signature scheme Bitcoin adopted in 2009. Around 6.9 million BTC are in outputs with their public keys already exposed on the blockchain: the first coins mined using P2PK, reused addresses, and Taproot outputs, which publish the key by design. Satoshi’s coins are part of this group.

People will say that quantum computers are still far away. Taproot took more than three years from proposal to activation, and no one was required to adopt it. A fix for the quantum problem would require every holder to move their coins, on a network where no one has the authority to order anyone else to do so.

Three paths remain. First, nothing changes, and the first person to control a capable machine gains control of millions of coins. Second, a new type of address is introduced, such as BIP-360, optional by definition: it protects those who migrate, leaves lost or dormant coins permanently exposed, and even those who migrate reveal their key at the moment of the transaction, opening an attack window. Third, anything that has not migrated is frozen, and the network starts deciding which coins are valid. Who decides? A committee? A vote among developers? Does “don’t trust, verify” become “trust the committee”? Or is the strategy simply to hope that the quantum computer takes long enough? For anyone storing a lifetime’s worth of wealth in this system, that is an audacious bet.

None of the three preserves Bitcoin’s principles. A fourth path would require changing the genesis signature scheme, which amounts to rewriting the network.

Only QRL is ready, and I define “ready” by four conditions. Post-quantum signatures from genesis, with no fork or pending migration. Security based on hash functions, the minimal assumption, which a quantum attack weakens only quadratically, instead of recent mathematical constructions with only a few decades of cryptanalysis behind them. QRL has used XMSS, standardized in RFC 8391, since 2016. The question that is paralyzing Bitcoin was answered before it became a headline.

If you disagree, point out another network that meets all four conditions simultaneously. Or is the plan to debate this in 2035, with the machine already running? If the network has to choose between confiscation and theft, which side do you want to be on when the choice is made?

The Quantum Resistant Ledger (QRL) has long been touted as a solution to all of Blockchain's problems. Quantum computing-wise, of course. It was already ahead of its time by incorporating quantum signatures, among other security measures. Too bad it didn't get the attention it deserved. This is probably because other chains had better marketing/PR.

So QRL can have all the quantum resistance in the world, but without adoption, it won't be going anywhere. It's not about the tech, nor features. But rather real adoption from the mainstream. This includes developers, all the way down to investors and users alike. Who knows? Maybe QRL gets the attention from the masses once Quantum computing becomes a real threat. Bitcoin and other cryptos should learn about the project's moves, and act accordingly. Don't you think?

Fair point, and I won’t argue with the adoption part. Technology without users is a research paper, and QRL has had a marketing problem for years.

But the two problems are not symmetrical. Adoption can be built later, because attention shows up when a risk becomes visible. This also explains the price spikes whenever news comes out about some random person making a statement. Cryptography can’t be added later without a fork and a migration, which for the older chains means a fight over coins nobody moves.

And QRL isn’t standing still. QRL 2.0 (Project Zond) is knocking on the door. In short: it’s a full rebuild of the chain as proof-of-stake and EVM-compatible, so Solidity developers can bring their existing tools and contracts, with post-quantum signatures (NIST-standardized ML-DSA-87) at the base layer. That also removes the stateful-key constraint of XMSS. In other words, porting an Ethereum project means getting quantum resistance without learning a new stack. That’s the adoption path you’re describing, aimed at developers instead of waiting for the masses. This is already being audited by Trail of Bits, with 60% of the audit completed.

And the interest isn’t only coming from crypto people. Lockheed Martin has a patent, granted this year, for a secure communications system built on QRL’s architecture. With all of this in mind, it’s only a matter of time before the price reflects it. This brings us back to the title of this post.

Would you dismiss this option? There is no viable alternative today, and none seems likely to emerge in the long term that would be better than QRL.

[hugeblack]

I understand you are trying to promote QRL, but if that is the case, the discussion regarding the risks quantum computing poses to Bitcoin becomes pointless; you should reframe the topic.
None of the Proof-of-Stake projects have performed particularly well, and I do not believe anyone would invest in a project simply because it adopts quantum-resistant signature technologies—especially since many other cryptocurrencies make the same claim.
Let me ask you: do you have any actual investments in QRL?

[DiscoJoker]

I understand you are trying to promote QRL, but if that is the case, the discussion regarding the risks quantum computing poses to Bitcoin becomes pointless; you should reframe the topic.
None of the Proof-of-Stake projects have performed particularly well, and I do not believe anyone would invest in a project simply because it adopts quantum-resistant signature technologies—especially since many other cryptocurrencies make the same claim.
Let me ask you: do you have any actual investments in QRL?

With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, I'd like to examine the premise that a point becomes pointless depending on who makes it. By that standard, every Bitcoin discussion written by someone who owns Bitcoin should be dismissed on sight, and this forum would be remarkably quiet. The risk to ECDSA exists independently of me. So does BIP-360. Neither needs my portfolio to be true or false.

On Proof-of-Stake: Ethereum has been running on it since 2022, and it is difficult to describe the second-largest network in the sector as an underperformer. But I take the broader point. Consensus mechanisms don't decide whether a project survives, adoption does, which is what we were discussing before.

I also agree that quantum-resistant signatures are not, on their own, an investment thesis. I never said they were. What I said is that Bitcoin faces a dilemma with no clean exit, and I'm still waiting for someone to propose one. As for the "many other cryptocurrencies" making the same claim, I'd genuinely welcome names. Claiming is easy. Shipping since 2018 is a different category.

As for your question: I do hold QRL , and I'm happy to say so openly. The question I put to the thread, though, remains unanswered. Who decides what happens to the unmigrated coins?