[WIP] mining: Quantum Computing Resistent Address, PQC - QNot address #32224

1. 
   kayevo commented at 1:25 pm on April 5, 2025: none

   The problem:

   Quantum computing can, in the future, breaks the ECDSA algorithm used by Bitcoin.

   Already proposed solution:

   Hybrid signatures with the current signature algorithm plus a new computer-resistant algorithm. This solution has a serious problem where to a quantum computer breaks the UTXO and hack the blockchain its just necessary to know the public key used in the transaction. Right now, everybody shares its public key, so this is not solve the problem.

   My proposal solution:

   We had SegWit address type, then Taproot. Now I propose to create a new type of address called QNot. This address just use PQC algorithms. I choose as PQC algorithm the CRYSTALS-Dilithium. Every bitcoin migrated to this new QNot addresses will be quantum resistant.

   Benefits:

   The decision to go to an address PQC keeps with the users of the network. We don’t change all already stabled addresses. We don’t increase the needed resources to running a bitcoin node because we just implement PQC algorithms for new addresses with interest on it.

   Trade-offs:

   The resources needed for running a bitcoin node or mining bitcoin is increased as many as people migrate to the new QNot addresses.

2. test: test qnot signature algorithm. e1f42ddb09
3. 
   DrahtBot commented at 1:25 pm on April 5, 2025: contributor

   The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

   Code Coverage & Benchmarks

   For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/32224.

   Reviews

   See the guideline for information on the review process. A summary of reviews will appear here.

4. DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Apr 5, 2025
5. 
   DrahtBot commented at 2:25 pm on April 5, 2025: contributor

   🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. Debug: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/runs/40033366761

   Try to run the tests locally, according to the documentation. However, a CI failure may still happen due to a number of reasons, for example:

   • Possibly due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest commit of the target branch.

   • A sanitizer issue, which can only be found by compiling with the sanitizer and running the affected test.

   • An intermittent issue.

   Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.

6. 
   achow101 commented at 8:29 pm on April 5, 2025: member

   Network-wide consensus and/or P2P changes first need to be discussed with the greater community, e.g. the bitcoin-dev mailing list. Also, they need a BIP to be implemented in Bitcoin Core and other software that connects to the bitcoin P2P network.

   Furthermore, draft PRs with no actual code are not helpful to begin reviewing or testing.

7. achow101 closed this on Apr 5, 2025

   ---

8. 
   kayevo commented at 10:44 am on April 6, 2025: none

   Network-wide consensus and/or P2P changes first need to be discussed with the greater community, e.g. the bitcoin-dev mailing list. Also, they need a BIP to be implemented in Bitcoin Core and other software that connects to the bitcoin P2P network.

   Furthermore, draft PRs with no actual code are not helpful to begin reviewing or testing.

   Thank you for the explanations @achow101.

Contributors
kayevo DrahtBot achow101

Labels
CI failed