Hey Jonas, I've been busy over the holidays but just got around to reading your delving post on SHRINCS. Big +1 from me, perhaps not in the exact form you propose - i suspect a more modular approach would make standardization easier - But in principle this would be awesome to have as an option. It has pitfalls, but until more size-efficient stateless schemes like SQIsign mature, stateful HBS schemes are the smallest signatures available. Full thoughts on delving here <https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/shrincs-324-byte-stateful-post-quantum-signatures-with-static-backups/2158/7?u=conduition>
regards, conduition On Tuesday, December 16, 2025 at 3:30:58 AM UTC-5 Jonas Nick wrote: > Hi Boris, > > Just to add to what Mike said: one of the most interesting questions is > whether > MPC considerations should inform parameter selection. As of right now, the > generic MPC approach seems rather impractical, but that shouldn't > discourage > experimentation and further research. It's possible to imagine scenarios > where > 85-minute signing is acceptable. > > Moreover, stateful signature schemes like SHRINCS [0] only require a few > hashes > in the best case, which would make MPC-based N/N multisig significantly > more > tractable than with full SPHINCS+. However, since SHRINCS signatures are > already > small, the absolute space savings are smaller. > > [0] > https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/shrincs-324-byte-stateful-post-quantum-signatures-with-static-backups/2158 > > Jonas > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/58e6a5e3-8705-43f5-8187-724b8e3a62den%40googlegroups.com.
