Post Quantum Security

Research results for a possible path to post quantum security for Cosmos: A realistic post-quantum upgrade path for Cosmos would probably be gradual: first add support for quantum-safe signatures in the SDK, then make chains opt in, then let IBC/light clients evolve to trust those new signatures without breaking old chains. NIST already says organizations should begin migrating now, and its core PQC standards are ML-KEM, ML-DSA, and SLH-DSA. What has to change The main risk for Cosmos is not “encryption” in the abstract; it is the signature layer that secures validator keys, user accounts, and light-client verification. Quantum computers would threaten classic signature schemes such as those based on elliptic curves, so the ecosystem would need new signature algorithms that remain secure against Shor-style attacks. For Cosmos, that means the SDK would need new cryptographic primitives, wallet software would need to generate and store new key types, and node software would need to verify both legacy and post-quantum signatures during a transition. Likely migration stages • Add optional PQC support in the Cosmos SDK. A community project already proposed integrating…

Excerpt (1196 of 3867 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

One thing I think will become a major issue during a PQC transition is validator performance overhead.
Larger signatures and heavier verification costs could have a noticeable impact on fast-finality chains and high-throughput IBC activity, especially in ecosystems like Cosmos where efficiency and low latency are critical.

It will be interesting to see how much optimization is possible before hybrid modes become too expensive at scale.

Thank you for contributing to this conversation!

I want to be mindful of the fact that blockchain ecosystems like Cosmos are heavily consensus-driven, so most post-quantum discussions naturally focus on upgrading signatures, wallets, validators, and encryption methods. Those things matter, but the bigger picture continues to be overlooked. For effective protection against quantum computing, you don’t just need better locks — you need fewer doors. That means reducing attack surfaces, minimizing unnecessary complexity, reducing dependency on mutable databases, and collapsing invalid states earlier before they become exploitable later. The larger and more complicated a system becomes, the more opportunities exist for weaknesses to emerge under more advanced computational models. Post-quantum security can’t be resolved as a cryptography problem alone since it is fundamentally an architectural issue. Future resilient systems in Cosmos will need to move toward: • smaller attack surfaces, • more deterministic execution, • reduced state complexity, • less unnecessary persistence, • and more efficient validation models. This is one of the reasons I created FENS (Flow Efficiency Natural State), a programming…

Excerpt (1199 of 1470 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗