Recent theoretical advances have substantially reduced the estimated quantum resources required to solve the elliptic-curve discrete-logarithm problem on comparable 256-bit curves. That does not mean that a practical attack exists today, but it does reduce the planning margin available for redesigning, reviewing, deploying and completing a protocol migration.

There is also a broader and worthwhile question about which consensus model is better suited to the quantum era. My own view is that a private Proof-of-Stake system such as Zarcanum and Zenith may ultimately be better positioned than Proof of Work, provided that its ownership, authorisation and eligibility mechanisms are migrated in time.

That comparison probably deserves a separate thread of its own. Ideally, HF7 should already introduce hybrid authorisation. At minimum, it should establish the transaction formats, wallet support and architectural boundaries required for an orderly post-quantum transition, rather than leaving Zano to improvise an emergency migration later.

I tend to believe the "quantum computing threat" is more fearmongering than actual reality, and I live accordingly, especially since I can't do much or anything about it personally.

I started out in crypto 13 years ago on a PoS project (BitShares & its' successors) and I came to realize the inherent flaw of PoS systems as a tool to provide financial freedom. "He who owns the gold makes the rules" is an ancient maxim that applies. PoS based consensus is corruptible by external inputs (mainstream finance) from the very institutions and forces that Satoshi Nakamoto invented blockchain tech to oppose.

PoW versus PoS is a separate consensus debate. Retaining PoW would not remove the need for an orderly post-quantum migration of Zano’s transaction and custody mechanisms.

PoS allows anyone with capital to purchase a large stake and this influence and eventually control the platform. This happens over time, usually slowly. Any mainstream financial institution or interested party can buy Zano and thus become a dominate stake holder, which is contrary to the privacy and freedom goals of what Satoshi Nakamoto invented blockchain tech for in the first place.

My main concern is whether HF7 is also being used as an opportunity to begin Zano's post-quantum preparation.

Microsoft now targets a scalable quantum computer by 2029, while US Executive Order 14412 has already turned post-quantum migration into a current engineering programme. This does not mean that Ed25519 will necessarily be broken in 2029, but designing, reviewing, deploying and completing a blockchain migration takes years.

Zano has a specific custody exposure: every unspent output publishes a one-time public key P = xG. The permanent wallet address may remain hidden, but if elliptic-curve discrete logarithms became tractable, the corresponding one-time spending secret x could be recovered directly from the output. Faster blocks and confirmations do not remove that exposure.

I am not suggesting that a complete post-quantum version of Zarcanum and Zenith must be finished before HF7. A more realistic first step would be to use HF7 to introduce:

• explicit cryptographic-domain versioning;
• support for a hybrid custody output requiring both classical and post-quantum authorization;
• wallet migration and backup foundations;
• and a clearer separation between Zenith's consensus semantics and its current elliptic-curve eligibility proof.

Zenith is not the problem. It may be the best opportunity to make an orderly cryptographic transition possible before it becomes an emergency.