Post-quantum security

Hash-based signatures

Also known as: SLH-DSA, SPHINCS+, LMS, HSS, FIPS 205

Hash-based signatures, including SLH-DSA (FIPS 205), LMS, and HSS, derive their security purely from hash functions, the most conservative post-quantum assumption available. Selected by several blockchain ecosystems for quantum resistance, they are mathematically incompatible with MPC, which requires algebraic structure hash functions lack.

The scheme MPC architectures cannot sign

Because hash functions have no algebraic structure, no threshold protocol can split a hash-based signing key among parties, so MPC-only custody cannot support these schemes at all. HSMs sign them within the hardware boundary today, natively or through functionality modules.

This asymmetry is central to custody due diligence: Taurus custody, HSM-rooted with no MPC dependency, supports every post-quantum signature family, including the hash-based schemes chosen by ecosystems such as Circle and Aptos and considered by Ethereum.

Hash-based signatures, explained

Why would a blockchain choose hash-based signatures?
Maximum assurance: security reduces to the hash function alone, with decades of analysis behind it. Ecosystems planning for the long term value that conservatism despite larger signatures.

Talk to our experts →

Post-quantum security

Hash-based signatures

Also known as: SLH-DSA, SPHINCS+, LMS, HSS, FIPS 205

Hash-based signatures, including SLH-DSA (FIPS 205), LMS, and HSS, derive their security purely from hash functions, the most conservative post-quantum assumption available. Selected by several blockchain ecosystems for quantum resistance, they are mathematically incompatible with MPC, which requires algebraic structure hash functions lack.

The scheme MPC architectures cannot sign

Because hash functions have no algebraic structure, no threshold protocol can split a hash-based signing key among parties, so MPC-only custody cannot support these schemes at all. HSMs sign them within the hardware boundary today, natively or through functionality modules.

This asymmetry is central to custody due diligence: Taurus custody, HSM-rooted with no MPC dependency, supports every post-quantum signature family, including the hash-based schemes chosen by ecosystems such as Circle and Aptos and considered by Ethereum.

Hash-based signatures, explained

Why would a blockchain choose hash-based signatures?
Maximum assurance: security reduces to the hash function alone, with decades of analysis behind it. Ecosystems planning for the long term value that conservatism despite larger signatures.

Talk to our experts →

Brand

Post-quantum security

Hash-based signatures

Also known as: SLH-DSA, SPHINCS+, LMS, HSS, FIPS 205

Hash-based signatures, including SLH-DSA (FIPS 205), LMS, and HSS, derive their security purely from hash functions, the most conservative post-quantum assumption available. Selected by several blockchain ecosystems for quantum resistance, they are mathematically incompatible with MPC, which requires algebraic structure hash functions lack.

The scheme MPC architectures cannot sign

Because hash functions have no algebraic structure, no threshold protocol can split a hash-based signing key among parties, so MPC-only custody cannot support these schemes at all. HSMs sign them within the hardware boundary today, natively or through functionality modules.

This asymmetry is central to custody due diligence: Taurus custody, HSM-rooted with no MPC dependency, supports every post-quantum signature family, including the hash-based schemes chosen by ecosystems such as Circle and Aptos and considered by Ethereum.

Hash-based signatures, explained

Why would a blockchain choose hash-based signatures?
Maximum assurance: security reduces to the hash function alone, with decades of analysis behind it. Ecosystems planning for the long term value that conservatism despite larger signatures.

Talk to our experts →

Brand

Post-quantum security

Hash-based signatures

Also known as: SLH-DSA, SPHINCS+, LMS, HSS, FIPS 205

Hash-based signatures, including SLH-DSA (FIPS 205), LMS, and HSS, derive their security purely from hash functions, the most conservative post-quantum assumption available. Selected by several blockchain ecosystems for quantum resistance, they are mathematically incompatible with MPC, which requires algebraic structure hash functions lack.

The scheme MPC architectures cannot sign

Because hash functions have no algebraic structure, no threshold protocol can split a hash-based signing key among parties, so MPC-only custody cannot support these schemes at all. HSMs sign them within the hardware boundary today, natively or through functionality modules.

This asymmetry is central to custody due diligence: Taurus custody, HSM-rooted with no MPC dependency, supports every post-quantum signature family, including the hash-based schemes chosen by ecosystems such as Circle and Aptos and considered by Ethereum.

Hash-based signatures, explained

Why would a blockchain choose hash-based signatures?
Maximum assurance: security reduces to the hash function alone, with decades of analysis behind it. Ecosystems planning for the long term value that conservatism despite larger signatures.

Talk to our experts →