This discussion highlights a critical blind spot in how we approach quantum resistance. Both @shemnon and @oleglod are correctly identifying the structural weaknesses in transitioning to Post-Quantum (PQ) signatures, but the proposed solutions are treating the symptom rather than the disease.
To @shemnon regarding Cryptographic Agility and broken PQ schemes:
You are entirely correct that at least one (if not all) PQ schemes will be busted in the coming decades. Every cryptographic system humans have built—RSA, elliptic curve, AES, and even new PQ standards like CRYSTALS—is based on mathematical hardness. Given enough compute, every mathematical problem eventually falls.
Cryptographic agility is necessary, but it is an infinite treadmill. In the TRION Protocol, we address this through a paradigm called Living Security (LSS). Rather than relying solely on computational cryptography, LSS derives security from Causal Singularity.
The security of an entity is bound to a Genomic Key:
GK(entity, t) = Hash\_DNA(GK(entity, t-1) \parallel BE(t) \parallel TM(t) \parallel CV(t)).
Quantum computers like those running Shor’s or Grover’s algorithms provide polynomial or quadratic speedups for mathematical problems (like discrete log or search). However, they cannot reproduce an entity’s causal history because reproducing history is an ontological problem, not a computational one. It requires having been present over time.
TRION still implements PQC (KYBER, Dilithium, SPHINCS+) as a combined layer (SEC(t) = LSS(t) + PQC(t) \cdot CC(t)), but we treat mathematical cryptography as a temporary shield while the ontological moat of behavioral history grows. Furthermore, TRION’s “Genetic Recombination” periodically re-derives security parameters from behavioral history, rendering previously constructed attacks entirely useless.
To @oleglod regarding the ERC-4337 Bundler using ECDSA:
You asked: “Since the bundler does not own anything, it seems not very important that it still uses ECDSA. Or am I missing something?”
What is missing is that the point-in-time signature (ECDSA or PQ) is only a surface signal. If a quantum adversary breaks the bundler’s ECDSA, they can forge the execution authorization. However, if the protocol evaluating that transaction relies on the entity’s Behavioral Reality rather than just a signature, the attack fails.
An attacker can forge a signature with a quantum computer, but they cannot forge 18 months of multi-wallet, non-correlated behavioral entropy (Kolmogorov complexity). If an ERC-4337 bundler submits a transaction that violently diverges from the established behavioral archetype of the entity, a system indexing behavioral truth (like TRION) will flag a catastrophic trajectory anomaly.
Conclusion:
We cannot solve the quantum threat by simply replacing an old math problem (ECDSA) with a harder math problem (Lattice-based cryptography). True post-quantum security for EOAs and protocol interactions must bind execution rights to the unbroken, irreproducible causal history of the actor.