In facing the challenges of the quantum computing era, different blockchain projects are taking their own paths.



Some projects have deployed hash signature mechanisms from the very beginning, directly seizing the first-mover advantage in quantum security. This approach is straightforward and decisive—since the quantum threat is imminent, why not use a verified hash scheme to eliminate future risks completely?

Other projects choose a different route: retaining the flexibility of cryptographic frameworks and leaving ample space for future post-quantum technology migration. This approach is more like playing a long-term game, giving themselves room to adjust.

Different paths but the same goal—ensuring the security of the ecosystem remains uncompromised before the arrival of the quantum era.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 7
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
FortuneTeller42vip
· 8h ago
To be honest, I like both options, but I'm just worried that some projects aren't taking security seriously at all.
View OriginalReply0
RooftopVIPvip
· 8h ago
Hash signature mechanism is straightforward to implement, much stronger than those still struggling with compatibility issues. Wait, is the quantum threat really that imminent? Feels more like hype. Leaving room for post-quantum migration is a solid move; don't lock yourself in. Sounds nice, but in the end, it still depends on who has real technical strength. If everyone competes like this now, when quantum comes, no one will escape. The key is whether they can withstand it.
View OriginalReply0
ContractTestervip
· 8h ago
Honestly, I'm a bit confused about quantum, but it seems that projects that get in early are indeed more secure. Is relying on hash signatures reliable? It feels a bit like gambling. Keeping flexibility sounds good, but what if quantum actually arrives? The truly smart projects are the ones that want to pursue both paths. Sounds nice, but aren't they just betting differently?
View OriginalReply0
MetaverseHobovip
· 8h ago
Hash signatures vs. retaining flexibility, at the end of the day, it's still the old debate between the radicals and the conservatives. --- Quantum is coming, and I really can't say which approach will win right now. --- Projects that have been deployed early seem smart, but flexible solutions also have their chances; it all depends on execution. --- It's another case of "different paths leading to the same goal," which is getting a bit tiresome to hear haha. --- Instead of just talking on paper, it's better to see who can truly withstand the quantum threat. --- The idea of leaving room for adaptation is indeed more prudent; technological iterations are happening quickly.
View OriginalReply0
0xOverleveragedvip
· 8h ago
I've been saying it for a while, quantum is not just bluffing; projects that are going to act have already started. Will the hash scheme work... Honestly, it still depends on what real post-quantum cryptography will look like when it arrives. Keeping flexibility sounds good, but it's really just a gamble on whether there's enough time—playing with fire.
View OriginalReply0
MeaninglessGweivip
· 8h ago
Haha, basically it's gambling. Who can predict when quantum will really arrive? --- Projects that got in early are now enjoying it, while the wait-and-see crowd is still hesitating. --- If quantum suddenly takes off this time, the flexible players will be stunned. --- Both paths are essentially bets; it's just that the odds are different. --- Still, safety first—everything else is just虚的. --- Post-quantum migration... sounds simple, but is it really? --- Asymmetric risks—no one can fully grasp this matter. --- Now, more and more projects are competing in quantum security; the competition is fierce. --- Instead of fussing over it, better to see whose execution is stronger. --- Quantum threats haven't truly exploded yet. Is deploying now a preemptive measure or overreaction?
View OriginalReply0
GasGoblinvip
· 8h ago
Hash signatures should have been implemented long ago. Projects that keep hesitating are truly hopeless. --- Reserving space for post-quantum migration? Sounds like an excuse to avoid action. --- Quantum threats are right in front of us. Still debating the technical route—aren't you just procrastinating? --- Projects that can't move forward on both paths are the most dangerous. Wake up, everyone. --- Sounds nice, but in the end, it all depends on the developers' execution. Even the most perfect plan is useless without action. --- Keeping flexibility? I think it's more like keeping an escape pod. When things go wrong, it's convenient to give up. --- Is the quantum era really near, or are we just hyping concepts again, everyone? --- I like the strategy of seizing the first-mover advantage. At least it shows they take security seriously.
View OriginalReply0
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
English
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)