Add draft BIP: pqcBitcoin Post-Quantum Cryptography for Bitcoin

QbitsCode commented at 7:34 pm on April 22, 2025: none

Delving discussion: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/implemented-post-quantum-cryptography-pqc-feature-into-bitcoin-core/1320

Add draft BIP: pqcBitcoin Post-Quantum Cryptography for Bitcoin dc5b9136de

murchandamus commented at 0:37 am on April 23, 2025: contributor

Hi @QbitsCode, if this is a collaboration with @ysangkok, how come there is only one author? Has there been a discussion of this proposal on the mailing list?

ysangkok commented at 1:33 am on April 23, 2025: contributor

I don’t have anything to do with this, don’t know why my email is on the commit

QbitsCode commented at 2:18 am on April 23, 2025: none

Hi @murchandamus :

No.
Yes, we had considerable discussions of this proposal on the mailing list.

jonatack commented at 2:25 am on April 23, 2025: member

Hi @QbitsCode, can you please add the link to the mailing list discussion of this proposal to your pull request description? (I took a quick look in the mailing list https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev but did not find it.)

jonatack added the label New BIP on Apr 23, 2025

QbitsCode commented at 3:34 am on April 23, 2025: none

You’re right — I mistakenly stated that the proposal was discussed on the mailing list. It was actually discussed in other forums, such as Delving Bitcoin: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/implemented-post-quantum-cryptography-pqc-feature-into-bitcoin-core/1320.

in bip-pqc-bitcoin.mediawiki:7 in dc5b9136de

0@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
1+BIP: Unassigned
2+Title: pqcBitcoin Post-Quantum Cryptography for Bitcoin
3+Author: Eid Al Subaie <ceo@qbitsest.com>
4+Status: Draft
5+Type: Standards Track
6+Created: 2025-04-22
7+License: BSD-2-Clause

murchandamus commented at 12:21 pm on April 23, 2025:

The preamble should use preformatted text:

0<pre>
1  BIP: ?
2  Title: pqcBitcoin Post-Quantum Cryptography for Bitcoin
3  Author: Eid Al Subaie <ceo@qbitsest.com>
4  Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-?
5  Status: Draft
6  Type: Standards Track
7  Created: ?
8  License: BSD-2-Clause
9</pre>

QbitsCode commented at 1:21 pm on April 23, 2025:

Thanks for the feedback. This draft is part of a broader ongoing initiative to explore post-quantum cryptography for Bitcoin. We’ll initiate the discussion on the mailing list and continue refining the proposal in my fork as suggested.

in bip-pqc-bitcoin.mediawiki:23 in dc5b9136de

18+- Ensure Bitcoin’s resilience in the face of future technological advancements, maintaining trust in its decentralized model.
19+
20+== Specification ==
21+The proposed solution introduces the use of post-quantum cryptography to Bitcoin's transaction signing process. It integrates cryptographic primitives that are resistant to quantum computing-based attacks.
22+
23+### Proposed Algorithm

murchandamus commented at 12:24 pm on April 23, 2025:

I wonder whether this and the two instances below were supposed to be section headers:

0=== Proposed Algorithm ===

in bip-pqc-bitcoin.mediawiki:20 in dc5b9136de

15+This proposal aims to:
16+- Protect Bitcoin from quantum-enabled attacks by integrating post-quantum cryptographic algorithms.
17+- Provide a roadmap for transitioning to quantum-safe cryptographic techniques while maintaining Bitcoin's decentralization and security.
18+- Ensure Bitcoin’s resilience in the face of future technological advancements, maintaining trust in its decentralized model.
19+
20+== Specification ==

murchandamus commented at 12:29 pm on April 23, 2025:

The Specification section should describe the syntax and semantics detailed enough to allow implementation of the feature. This is just a description for an approach.

in bip-pqc-bitcoin.mediawiki:46 in dc5b9136de

41+The implementation includes the following:
42+- A **PQC-enabled wallet** that supports generating quantum-safe addresses and signing transactions using NTRU-based signatures.
43+- A **modified Bitcoin node** that validates both ECDSA and PQC signatures, ensuring compatibility with both old and new addresses during the transition period.
44+- **Test vectors** that demonstrate the functionality and security of the proposed cryptographic methods when applied to Bitcoin transactions.
45+
46+== Rationale ==

murchandamus commented at 12:30 pm on April 23, 2025:

Given that this is the third or fourth PQ proposal in a few months, it would be especially appreciated if the Rationale got into alternative approaches.

murchandamus changes_requested

murchandamus commented at 12:38 pm on April 23, 2025: contributor

This document does not describe the proposed feature in sufficient detail and is not a stage where it should be a pull request to this repository. The Specification section seems like a good starting point for a conversation on the mailing list about the approach. It would be preferable if the proposal had seen more discussion and the document were further developed before being submitted here. We recommend that authors iterate on a pull request against their own fork of the BIPs repository at the early sketch stage as it doesn’t make sense to bombard other subscribers of this repository with notifications while the proposal is just starting to take shape.

I’m going to turn this into a draft pull request, but I would recommend that it be closed and reopened at a later time when the proposal is fleshed out more.

Also, please look into why your commit is labeled as having been authored by Janus—that’s just weird.

murchandamus marked this as a draft on Apr 23, 2025

cryptoquick commented at 2:39 am on April 30, 2025: none

Because the details aren’t specified, it’s not quite clear how this would differ from BIP-360. As Murch mentioned, it would make sense to at least contrast this with that BIP. There seems to be some overlap, and the parts that don’t overlap, such as PQC KEM, might be better specified as a separate BIP. If I were to make a suggestion, maybe this BIP could focus on Group 2 algorithms (for communication between nodes and wallets, as the pqc-bitcoin readme states) and BIP-360 would cover Group 1. Do you think that might make sense?

QbitsCode commented at 9:22 pm on May 6, 2025: none

@cryptoquick Thanks for your suggestion on pqcBitcoin. We’re considering your point in our evaluation. So, what you’re saying take Group 1 out as it covered in your BIP-360 and just foucs on Group 2 algorithms for communications between nodes, and wallets. It makes sense but let me tell the following:

Main objective of pqcBitcoin was a holistic implementation pqc repo.
If we go this suggestion, we need to know how to integrate your BIP-360 (seems Group 1) and Group 2.

Add draft BIP: pqcBitcoin Post-Quantum Cryptography for Bitcoin #1832