Erik Aronesty [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-04-11 📝 Original message:FWICT: Streamlined NTRU ...
📅 Original date posted:2022-04-11
📝 Original message: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 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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 at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220411/35824830/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message: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 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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 at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220411/35824830/attachment.html>;