Quaverick

It is official. Chains still running quantum-vulnerable public-key algorithms now have a deadline to switch to the recommended algorithm. This is from NIST’s final report on the transition to post-quantum cryptography standards, and it asks @Starknet a fair question: if you are the most agile one, why are you still on elliptic curves? ____________ The simple answer is this. Starknet’s perfect agility score was not about already being post-quantum. It was about being able to switch cryptography without a hard fork. By design, it can move from elliptic curves to the recommended algorithms. The work is still ongoing in stages. Before that, let's walk through what NIST just locked in and what is already obtainable on Starknet. On 27 October, NIST published the final version of Transition to Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards. Two parts matter for high-impact chains: > Quantum-vulnerable public-key algorithms are deprecated after 2030 > And are disallowed after 2035 The vulnerable designs include ECDSA, EdDSA, and RSA, still used by most wallets today. As replacements, NIST points to: > ML-KEM-768 as the default for keys > ML-DSA and SLH-DSA for signatures > LMS and XMSS for hash-based schemes Starknet’s native account signature uses ECDSA on the STARK curve. That sits in the same NIST quantum-vulnerable bucket. But Starknet already runs a post-quantum signer for every user, and the account can swap that ECDSA lock for something like ML-DSA or Falcon, while keeping the same address and funds on the chain. They have already started the transition. Here is what is live so far: 1. The proving layer already uses STARKs, which are hash-based. That covers proofs, not account signatures. 2. Starknet v0.14.3 replaced Pedersen with a BLAKE2s-256 construction for OS program and configuration hashes. That is live on mainnet. 3. OpenZeppelin’s Falcon-512 accounts have moved real value on Starknet mainnet. Experimental and unaudited. Ordinary users cannot adopt it yet. 4. The Falcon Challenge cut verification gas roughly in half in under a week, which makes a post-quantum verifier cheap enough for real wallets to consider. @EliBenSasson has been saying this for weeks; every chain needs to migrate. Going post-quantum ready is no longer a choice. Five years from now, if your chain is still exploitable by quantum computers, it'd be serious a skill issue.

The post-quantum path @Starknet is taking is revealing more serious loopholes in blockchain design than I thought. StarkWare built a framework from NIST's 'general crypto-agility guidance' to test how agile blockchains are, and only one chain scored 8/8. Bitcoin itself passes 7 of the 8 tests, tied for second among the 10 chains scored, yet it faces one of the hardest migrations. NIST wrote the guidance but doesn't rate chains, so StarkWare built the 8 questions and scored the networks itself. It's a bit technical, but let's review it. ➥ Based on NIST's guidance on crypto agility, the 8 questions ask whether a chain can replace its cryptography and keep running: 1. Can an existing account switch to a new signature without a network upgrade? 2. Can its formats handle bigger keys and signatures? 3. Can one cryptographic part be replaced without redesigning the rest? 4. Can old and new signing run side by side undedr migration? 5. Has the transition been tested? 6. Can an attacker be stopped from forcing a weaker algorithm? 7. Can the old algorithm be switched off after migration? 8. Can existing data be migrated? A point only counts if the path works today under current rules. Anything that needs a future upgrade scores zero. Across 10 networks the scores are @Starknet 8, @Bitcoin 7, @Algorand 7, @NEARProtocol 7, @QRLedger 6, @Zcash 6, @ethereum 3, @solana 2, @Optimism 2 and @RobinhoodCrypto 1. ➥ The test that separates Starknet from the 7s is the first one. On Starknet every account is a smart contract, so a wallet can replace its signature check and keep its address and funds. StarkWare confirmed this with @ready_co. A coin on the Bitcoin network has to move to a new address to use new cryptography, and NEAR and Algorand accounts can only choose schemes the protocol has already switched on, nothing more. What I respect most is what the score does not claim. It is not a security rating. QRLedger scores 6 yet shows lower exposure on the same Hub, because its signatures are already hash-based. Starknet's standard accounts still sign with elliptic curves, and its post-quantum Falcon-512 account is an unaudited mainnet demo that ordinary users can't adopt yet. So my takeaway is that being able to change and having already changed are two different things, and a chain needs both. Next, I'll break down where Starknet stands on the second. For now, what's your take on this?