ŠahFilsof

Wanna know what they’re trying to achieve at @Starknet? What happens when a blockchain is technically ready to upgrade its security, but still has to wait for another network to make same move? That's an interesting question behind Starknet's exploration of an independent L1 Quantum computing isn't an immediate threat that will suddenly break every blockchain tomorrow, but it does expose a weakness in how much of today's cryptography relies on mathematical problems that could eventually become solvable by powerful quantum machines. What's interesting is that Starknet already has a head start. Its STARK proving system is built around hash-based cryptography, and its native account abstraction makes it possible to introduce post-quantum signature schemes without requiring a network wide protocol upgrade. StarkWare's Quantum Hub currently gives Starknet an 8/8 score for evidenced cryptographic agility, compared with Ethereum's 3/8. That's not a score for overall quantum security, but it does show how much flexibility Starknet has already built into its architecture. ✅ So why even consider leaving the L2 model? Because having control over your own technology doesn't necessarily mean having control over every dependency that affects its security. Starknet still relies on Ethereum for important parts of its infrastructure, particularly its bridge and data availability. For example, its normal blob-based data availability path uses Ethereum's KZG commitments, while parts of its bridge and messaging system still depend on elliptic-curve cryptography. These aren't components Starknet can simply replace on its own. Ethereum has been working toward its own post-quantum transition, with a target around 2029 for core infrastructure. But security upgrades shouldn't always have to follow someone else's calendar, especially when the technology landscape is moving so quickly. This is where an independent L1 becomes more than just a change in net architecture. It could give Starknet greater authority over its security roadmap, allowing it to decide when to replace cryptographic components, how to implement new standards, and how quickly to respond when existing assumptions become outdated. Of course, becoming an L1 doesn't automatically make a network quantum-safe. #Starknet would still need to secure its own infra, validate every dependency, and execute its migration properly. But it would have much more control over those decisions. There's already a meaningful signal from the community. In the October 15–22, 2026 Snapshot poll, 93.52% of voting power supported further research into independent L1 direction, with 3,236 votes cast. This wasn't final approval to migrate; it was a decision to investigate the possibility and develop a more detailed proposal. I think the bigger idea here is worth paying attention to: blockchain security shouldn't be measured only by how strong its cryptography is today, but also by how quickly it can adapt when that cryptography is no longer enough. Starknet is exploring whether independence can give it that flexibility.

Honestly, I think one of the biggest advantages of @Starknet exploring its own L1 is having more control over its security decisions. It's not just about using post-quantum cryptography. It's also about being able to upgrade when you need to, instead of waiting for another network to move first. Starknet already has a solid foundation with STARK proofs and programmable accounts, and having more control over its own infrastructure could make that even stronger. Quantum threats won't wait for anyone, so why should security upgrades have to? ⚡

🔥 The Quantum Race Isn't Just About Security. It's About Efficiency.🔥 There's something about StarkWare's approach to quantum security that I think deserves more attention. Building a quantum-resistant signature is only half the challenge. Making it efficient enough to actually use is just as important. That's why I find the PQ Signature challenge so interesting. People and AI agents are competing to optimize post-quantum signature verification, and the results are already showing real progress. Falcon-512 verification has gone from 48.4M to around 24.1M gas. That's roughly a 50% reduction. What I appreciate here is that @Starknet isn't treating quantum security as just a future promise or a marketing narrative. They're opening up engineering challenge, letting researchers and AI agents contribute, and measuring progress through actual results. Strong cryptography matters, but making it practical is what can bring it closer to real adoption. 🔥 That's the kind of work worth supporting.

Cryptography isn't something a blockchain should have to live with forever. As new threats emerge, the ability to change how security works could become just as important as the security itself. Think of a programmable account as a smart door lock. You can replace its locking mechanism when a better or safer technology comes along, without rebuilding the entire house. That's essentially what @Starknet's native account abstraction enables. Signatures are keys that authorize transactions, while #STARK proofs act as independent inspectors, verifying that computations follow the rules. Developers can introduce new signature verification methods, including post-quantum ones, directly at the account level without requiring a network-wide upgrade. ⚠️There's also measurable progress on the performance side. StarkWare's Falcon-512 challenge brought signature verification costs down from 48.4M to 24.1M gas, a reduction of roughly 50.2%. That's still considerably more expensive than a traditional ECDSA check at around 31K gas, so there's room for further optimization. And this doesn't mean every Starknet account is already quantum-safe. But the underlying design gives developers something valuable: freedom to adapt as cryptography evolves, without having to rebuild the foundations of the network. Long-term security isn't just about having strong protection today. It's about being ready for what comes next.

One thing I found pretty funny while exploring StarkWare's Quantum Hub is that AI seems to be helping both sides of the same battle. 😂 On one side, AI is helping researchers find ways to make quantum attacks more efficient. On the other, it's also being used to improve quantum-resistant security. And progress is actually interesting. ECDSA .fail challenge reports a 91.5% reduction in estimated resources for a key part of the attack, while QSB has brought the estimated cost of a quantum-safe Bitcoin transaction down from $320 to just $59. So basically, AI is helping both teams get better at beating each other. 😄 But jokes aside, this is exactly why I think StarkWare's work on post-quantum security is worth paying attention to. We don't need to wait until quantum computers become a real threat to start preparing. By then, it might be too late. AI really looked at both sides and said: Why not help everyone? stay with @Starknet