Ninjastic
PostEdited versionsQuotes to this post
Next scheduled rescrape ... never
Version 1
Last scraped
Scraped on 28/07/2025, 18:43:13 UTC
Quote from: Medusah on July 28, 2025, 06:31:04 PM
Quote from: Satofan44 on July 28, 2025, 05:24:43 PM
This is one of the reasons why I said this won't be easy. Even if you strip away the controversial freezing and determine that FALCON-512 is in fact the best, it would require a block size increase which is yet another controversial topic. It further complicates the delicate situation.
The alternative to using FALCON-512 would be to waiting indefinitely until an entire new signature algorithm is penned, which might produce smaller signatures.   Seems like a dead end, where we have to change mining economics by increasing the block size, or we fall short on security.
Why wouldWe just might have to wait a little longer, but you are right that waiting does not guarantee that we will get an algorithm that produces much smaller signatures than FALCON-512 while still ticking off the remaining boxes.

Quote from: Medusah on July 28, 2025, 06:31:04 PM
Seems like a dead end, where we have to change mining economics by increasing the block size, or we fall short on security.
You mean to say that adapting these much larger signatures will cause a collapse in security unless we increase the block size change, right? At first glance it seemed to me that you are trying to say that changing the block size changes the mining economics?, which I don't understand how that is related hereagree with. You can always have a fee market at any block size if the demand is there, further you can increase the minimum fee-rate slightly or add a flat fee.
Original archived Re: J. Lopp's Post-Quantum Migration BIP
Scraped on 28/07/2025, 18:38:51 UTC
Quote from: Medusah on July 28, 2025, 06:31:04 PM
Quote from: Satofan44 on July 28, 2025, 05:24:43 PM
This is one of the reasons why I said this won't be easy. Even if you strip away the controversial freezing and determine that FALCON-512 is in fact the best, it would require a block size increase which is yet another controversial topic. It further complicates the delicate situation.
The alternative to using FALCON-512 would be to waiting indefinitely until an entire new signature algorithm is penned, which might produce smaller signatures.  Seems like a dead end, where we have to change mining economics by increasing the block size, or we fall short on security.
Why would a change in the block size change the mining economics? I don't understand how that is related here. You can always have a fee market at any block size if the demand is there, further you can increase the minimum fee-rate slightly or add a flat fee.