2026-01-12 20:20:43

As adoption scales up, the costs of quantum-resistant schemes are gradually becoming apparent. Larger signature sizes will increase storage costs, and the computational overhead for verification is also significant. Coordinated migration across user endpoints and development tools is not an overnight process, and wallet interaction experiences may need to be readjusted. Quantum resistance indeed strengthens security defenses, but this protection comes with a noticeable performance trade-off.

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.

17 Likes

Reward
17
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

PonziWhisperer

· 01-12 20:50

It's really a money-burning game... storage costs, verification expenses, wallets need to be re-adapted, it feels like a loss that outweighs the gain. --- Quantum resistance sounds impressive, but who bears the cost? Small retail investors? --- Both security and cost—can you have your cake and eat it too? Which side will you choose this time? --- With such high migration costs, how many projects will really go through with this? --- So basically, it's sacrificing efficiency to defend against quantum computing. Whether it's worth it or not is still uncertain.

View OriginalReply0

DAOdreamer

· 01-12 20:50

Security and performance, these old rivals, are fighting again. Basically, it's a matter of choosing between the lesser of two evils. Quantum resistance sounds impressive, but the cost is not small. --- The wallet experience probably needs to be rebuilt. The migration costs this time are a bit outrageous. --- So ultimately, it's still about gambling—betting on when the quantum threat will actually arrive, and whether to take this risk. --- Doubling the signature size also doubles storage costs. Small coins really can't handle this. --- Wait, isn't this just telling the truth? Quantum security isn't as great as it seems. --- The computational overhead is so high that small nodes are really going to be phased out.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-44a00d6c

· 01-12 20:47

This is a classic case of "fish and bear's paw" — safety and performance are always at odds.

View OriginalReply0

DecentralizeMe

· 01-12 20:44

It's not worth the loss. Sacrificing user experience just to prevent quantum attacks—does this deal really make sense?

View OriginalReply0

SelfCustodyIssues

· 01-12 20:27

No, this trade-off is really incredible. Why is it so difficult to achieve both security and efficiency? Storage costs are skyrocketing, wallet experience has to be cut back, and quantum resistance feels like just a patch that makes the system even slower. Honestly, someone has to take the blame. Small investors' gas fees are going through the roof again.

View OriginalReply0

OnchainFortuneTeller

· 01-12 20:21

Haha, as I always say, security and performance are always a trade-off; there is no perfect solution. Quantum resistance essentially means paying for peace of mind, but users simply don't want to pay extra for it. The real issue is the wallet interaction experience—that's the most annoying part. Who will bear the migration costs? Want quantum resistance and smooth performance at the same time? The technical team needs to think this through carefully. There’s no free lunch in the world; the costs that should come will inevitably come.

View OriginalReply0