From: "'Mikhail Kudinov' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List" <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
To: Jason Resch <jasonresch@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] One Time Signatures as an Advantage?
Date: Thu, 21 May 2026 11:54:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPcK4uTy3Rj6NxhQPQhY0Ps8JFH1S8bDj29PW7autqTYhH4-kw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d3648bd4-03d3-4b98-92bf-d845302be349n@googlegroups.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3156 bytes --]
Stateful hash-based schemes have been recommended by NIST. See
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-208.pdf
. Also you might be interested to read about SHRINCS:
https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/shrincs-324-byte-stateful-post-quantum-signatures-with-static-backups/2158
.
Best,
Mikhail
On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 7:44 PM Jason Resch <jasonresch@gmail.com> wrote:
> NIST is standardizing SLH-DSA as a stateless, post-quantum-secure
> hash-based signature scheme. However, to achieve the stateless feature of
> being able to sign multiple messages, requires a significant size overhead.
>
> SLH-DSA (for parameters n=16, w=16) results in signatures that are 7,888
> bytes long.
>
> However, if statelessness isn't required, and this can be reduced to 900
> bytes for something like XMSS using the same parameters.
>
> Furthermore, if multiple signings per key are dropped as a requirement,
> and "one time signatures" are used (e.g. WOTS+) then this size reduces
> further to 560 bytes.
>
> This is a ~14× reduction in signature size for a feature that Bitcoin
> transactions not only don't need, but are strongly discouraged if not
> harmful. Using the same key more than once is only required if one is
> reusing the same address (discouraged), or if one is attempting some kind
> of double-spend attack.
>
> This could be seen as a sort of advantage: if one attempts to
> double-spend, they may expose their private key. This same property was an
> element of Chaum's digital cash: attempting to double-spend exposed you.
>
> Is there any advocacy for NIST to standardize stateful or one-time-use
> signature algorithms? They seem well-suited to the block-chain use case,
> where there is always global and persistent state, and keys ought not be
> re-used. Though this needs to be carefully managed by wallet software: to
> only expose a one-time-use address to handle a single transaction with a
> single payer, and never use a OTS address for any kind of public-facing or
> long-term donation address. Perhaps this complication makes OTS not worth
> introducing generally, but their space saving properties are attractive.
>
> Jason
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/d3648bd4-03d3-4b98-92bf-d845302be349n%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/d3648bd4-03d3-4b98-92bf-d845302be349n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAPcK4uTy3Rj6NxhQPQhY0Ps8JFH1S8bDj29PW7autqTYhH4-kw%40mail.gmail.com.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4166 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-21 10:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-20 17:41 [bitcoindev] One Time Signatures as an Advantage? Jason Resch
2026-05-21 9:54 ` 'Mikhail Kudinov' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List [this message]
2026-05-21 13:33 ` Jason Resch
2026-05-28 17:25 ` Murch
2026-06-04 11:01 ` [bitcoindev] One Time Signatures ≠ One Message Signed Peter Todd
2026-06-05 7:54 ` Anthony Towns
2026-06-08 10:04 ` Peter Todd
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAPcK4uTy3Rj6NxhQPQhY0Ps8JFH1S8bDj29PW7autqTYhH4-kw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=bitcoindev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=jasonresch@gmail.com \
--cc=mkudinov@blockstream.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox