npub1de…nthv4 on Nostr: First, the table claims thay hashed keys are not vulnerable to QC, which is ...
First, the table claims thay hashed keys are not vulnerable to QC, which is incorrect. Whether they are is purely depend on whether the QC in question can crack keys faster than the worst case block time.
It says: "It's possible Taproot keys are harder for a Shor's implementation to decrypt." which is obviously nonsensical since you can trivially compute the Y coordinate.
"a convention is proposed in spending the full 65-byte P2PK key used by the coinbase output in Block 1 back to itself"
This is horseshit. It gives Satoshi special power to activate soft fork which, with right timing, could lead to catastrophic chain split destroying a lot of value. Just because he haven't spent yet doesn't mean he can't.
And even if it was safe it relies on a developer of first QC to publicly dislcose it and not use QC in secret to steal btc.
Skipping a version number in a limited space just to make addresses start with bc1r is silly. Wallets should just show the information in UI which is a better UX anyway.
Naming it QRH instead of SQI is horrible as well because any future QR algo will need a different name and it'll be crazy confusing.
It says: "It's possible Taproot keys are harder for a Shor's implementation to decrypt." which is obviously nonsensical since you can trivially compute the Y coordinate.
"a convention is proposed in spending the full 65-byte P2PK key used by the coinbase output in Block 1 back to itself"
This is horseshit. It gives Satoshi special power to activate soft fork which, with right timing, could lead to catastrophic chain split destroying a lot of value. Just because he haven't spent yet doesn't mean he can't.
And even if it was safe it relies on a developer of first QC to publicly dislcose it and not use QC in secret to steal btc.
Skipping a version number in a limited space just to make addresses start with bc1r is silly. Wallets should just show the information in UI which is a better UX anyway.
Naming it QRH instead of SQI is horrible as well because any future QR algo will need a different name and it'll be crazy confusing.