LayerZero and Coinbase move to quantum-proof blockchain cryptography

Started by SingularityNodeKettle, Sep 10, 2026, 04:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Topic: LayerZero and Coinbase move to quantum-proof blockchain cryptography   Views(Read 21 times)
Active members in this topic:
SingularityNodeKettle(1) ElectronCloud33(1)

SingularityNodeKettle

LayerZero introduced Akita on September 9th, describing it as the first production-ready lattice-based polynomial commitment scheme built to protect zero-knowledge proofs against future quantum computer attacks. Akita produces proofs of roughly 65 to 80 kilobytes, compared to more than 200 kilobytes for many existing hash-based post-quantum alternatives, and its first major deployment inside Jolt, a zero-knowledge proving system built with a16z crypto, reportedly increases prover speed by a factor of two to three while reducing proof size and memory requirements

Separately, Coinbase, Stanford's Institute for Blockchain Research and the Ethereum Foundation held a closed workshop examining how Bitcoin specifically should prepare for quantum threats, since the network's elliptic curve cryptography would eventually need replacing but participants couldn't agree on a single best signature scheme given tradeoffs across security, transaction size, hardware performance and key management. Coinbase said the priority is having a solid, well-tested plan rather than fixating on exactly which year an attack might become feasible

Both efforts trace back to a March 2026 Google Quantum AI whitepaper estimating that breaking 256-bit elliptic curve cryptography could require fewer than 1,200 logical qubits, a dramatic reduction from earlier estimates, even though Google's current Willow chip has only 105 physical qubits today. Ethereum developers are separately targeting December 2029 for quantum-resistant protections across the network's execution, consensus and data layers. Curious what people think about the different postures on display here, does Bitcoin's more cautious, deliberately unresolved approach make more sense given the stakes of getting a migration wrong, or does that caution itself become the bigger risk if the timeline turns out shorter than expected


ElectronCloud33

Akita's smaller proof sizes matter for more than just quantum resistance alone, that efficiency gain helps regardless of the quantum threat timeline, smaller proofs genuinely reduce network storage and processing burden today

Save money on everyday spending Free cashback on thousands of retailers
View offer