DATA & FIGURES
The current post-quantum signature schemes approved by NIST are 10 to 100 times larger than Bitcoin's existing signature schemes, with ML-DSA-44 scheme having 2,420 bytes per signature. Increasing Bitcoin's block size could be a solution, but it would require every node to carry, store, and verify much more data, which could lead to centralization. ZK STARKs, on the other hand, could compress large signatures into smaller proofs, with StarkWare's StarkNet project aiming to become quantum secure through a three-phase transition.
THE SCENARIO
The Bitcoin network is under pressure to become quantum secure, with Ethereum targeting 2029 for its transition to post-quantum and Solana also experimenting with adding post-quantum signatures. The Bitcoin community is split between increasing block size and implementing ZK STARKs, with experts like Eli Ben-Sasson and Marin Ivezic weighing in on the debate. The outcome of this debate will have significant implications for the future of the Bitcoin network and its ability to scale and become more secure.
DIRECT QUOTE
"So for that you need massive scale. And for that, you need things like signature aggregation and just increasing the block size isn't enough." — Eli Ben-Sasson, co-founder of StarkWare
BBN INSIGHT
The integration of post-quantum signature schemes into Bitcoin poses significant challenges, including slower transaction speeds and increased centralization. However, ZK STARKs could provide a solution by compressing large signatures into smaller proofs, making it possible for the network to scale and become more secure. The Positive Side of implementing ZK STARKs is that it could enable the network to reach mass adoption and become more efficient, while the Negative Side is that it could be a complex and challenging process to implement. Meanwhile, increasing block size could provide a temporary solution, but it could also lead to centralization and decreased security.