As quantum computing and AI advance,
@Starknet is preparing for future cryptographic challenges through adaptable security infrastructure.
Explore its approach to cryptographic agility: https://quantum.starkware.co/ https://x.com/i/article/2118206354070413312
When Cryptography Changes, Can Blockchain Security Keep Up?
Technology is constantly changing, and the security systems protecting our digital world must evolve with it.
Think about the cryptography we rely on today. It protects financial transactions, secures digital identities, verifies ownership and keeps sensitive information private.
Much of the internet, including the blockchain industry, depends on mathematical problems that are considered difficult for conventional computers to solve.
But what happens when advances in computing change how difficult those problems are?
Quantum computing is one development that could challenge some of the cryptographic systems we currently trust. At the same time, increasingly capable artificial intelligence systems are opening new possibilities in mathematical research and cryptographic analysis.
These developments raise an important question for the blockchain industry: are we building security systems that can adapt when the mathematical assumptions protecting them eventually change?
This is where cryptographic agility becomes important.
The threats we cannot afford to ignore
Quantum computing introduces a different way of processing information, with the potential to solve certain mathematical problems much more efficiently than classical computers.
One of the most significant concerns is Shor’s algorithm. It demonstrates that a sufficiently powerful, fault-tolerant quantum computer could efficiently solve the mathematical problems underlying widely used public-key cryptographic systems, including RSA and elliptic-curve cryptography.
This matters to blockchain because many wallets use elliptic-curve digital signatures to authorise transactions. If an attacker could derive a private key from its corresponding public key, they could potentially gain control of the assets associated with that account.
This is not a claim that quantum computers can currently break blockchain cryptography at scale. The technology still faces substantial engineering challenges. However, preparing for such a possibility requires more than waiting until the threat becomes practical.
There is also another development worth watching: artificial intelligence.
AI is becoming increasingly useful in advanced mathematical research, allowing researchers to explore complex problems, identify patterns and investigate potential weaknesses in cryptographic algorithms.
A notable example came from Anthropic’s July 2026 research involving Claude Mythos Preview. Researchers reported an improved attack against HAWK, a digital signature scheme designed for a post-quantum environment. The research also identified an improved attack against a reduced-round version of AES.
Importantly, these findings did not break deployed production systems. HAWK was a candidate scheme, while the AES attack targeted a reduced version of the full algorithm.
Nevertheless, the research demonstrates something significant: AI can increasingly assist with examining the mathematical foundations of cryptographic systems, including systems specifically designed to withstand quantum attacks.
Quantum computing and AI-assisted mathematical research are different developments, but they reinforce the same lesson. The security assumptions we rely on today must remain open to continuous evaluation.
Why cryptographic agility matters
One response to these challenges is cryptographic agility.
In simple terms, cryptographic agility is the ability of a system to introduce, replace or upgrade cryptographic methods as security requirements change.
Consider a smartphone. When a vulnerability is discovered in its security system, the manufacturer can release an update that improves protection without requiring everyone to purchase a completely new device.
Blockchain infrastructure needs a similar level of flexibility.
If a signature algorithm becomes unsuitable, a network should have a way to introduce a more appropriate alternative. If a hash construction requires an upgrade, the network should be able to plan and execute that transition while preserving the integrity of its existing applications and data.
This is more complicated than installing a software update. Cryptographic changes can affect wallets, account validation, smart contracts, key management, recovery systems and other interconnected components.
That is why preparation must involve both strong cryptographic foundations and an architecture capable of adapting to new requirements.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) also recognises this need. Its June 2026 guidance on achieving cryptographic agility explains the importance of replacing and adapting cryptographic algorithms across protocols, applications, software, hardware and infrastructure while preserving security and ongoing operations.
For blockchain networks, this is an important long-term consideration.
How Starknet approaches the challenge
Starknet’s approach to preparing for potential quantum threats is built around three important areas: hash-based STARK proofs, programmable accounts and ongoing cryptographic migration.
Each addresses a different part of the security challenge.
1. Hash-based STARK proofs
@Starknet uses STARK technology to prove that computations have been executed correctly without requiring another party to repeat the entire computation.
What makes this particularly relevant to post-quantum security is the mathematical foundation behind the proving system.
STARK proofs rely on hash-based cryptographic constructions rather than elliptic-curve hardness assumptions.
This distinction matters because Shor’s algorithm threatens the mathematical assumptions behind elliptic-curve cryptography. It does not directly target the assumptions underlying Starknet’s hash-based proving architecture.
StarkWare’s S-two prover is the production prover securing Starknet, and the STARK proving layer was designed without relying on elliptic-curve hardness assumptions.
However, hash-based cryptography is not automatically immune to every quantum attack. Grover’s algorithm can affect the security margins of hash functions, making the selection of appropriate algorithms, parameters and implementations important.
It is also important to understand that this advantage applies to the proving layer. It does not automatically make every cryptographic component in @Starknet quantum-resistant.
The important takeaway is that Starknet already has a proving foundation that does not depend on the same mathematical assumptions threatened by Shor’s algorithm.
2. Programmable accounts
Another important part of Starknet’s architecture is native account abstraction.
On many blockchain networks, accounts depend on particular signature-verification methods to establish that a transaction is authorised. Changing those methods can require significant coordination and protocol-level upgrades.
Starknet’s programmable accounts provide a different approach.
Developers can define the validation logic used by an account and introduce different signature-verification methods without necessarily requiring a network-wide protocol upgrade.
For example, an account could be designed to verify transactions using a post-quantum signature scheme instead of relying on a traditional elliptic-curve signature.
This flexibility is important because protecting the proving system alone is not enough. Users also need a secure way to authorise transactions and maintain control of their assets.
Starknet’s Migration Register documents an OpenZeppelin Falcon-512 account demonstration on Mainnet, providing evidence that post-quantum signature verification can be integrated into its account model.
However, a demonstration does not mean every Starknet account is already quantum-resistant. Existing accounts do not automatically change their signature methods. Wallet support, key management, recovery, security audits and wider adoption remain important parts of the migration.
The advantage is that Starknet’s account architecture provides a route for introducing new signature methods without requiring every account to depend on one fixed verification approach.
3. Ongoing cryptographic migration
Having a hash-based proving system and programmable accounts provides important foundations, but preparing an entire blockchain for future cryptographic changes involves more than those two components.
This is why Starknet’s migration roadmap matters.
One example is Starknet v0.14.3, which replaced the Pedersen-based construction used for OS program and configuration hashes with a BLAKE2s-256-based construction. This change is live on Mainnet.
However, other parts of the migration remain ongoing.
Starknet’s published roadmap includes proposed changes to contract-state tries and per-contract storage tries. These are planned changes, not completed migrations.
There is also work to consider for existing smart contracts. Some contracts use Pedersen-based storage maps, and StarkWare is researching migration tooling to address how these deployments could transition. A public specification, released toolkit and developer workflow have not yet been published.
Ethereum-facing dependencies are another consideration. Starknet operates as an Ethereum Layer 2, and its normal data-availability path uses EIP-4844 blobs, which rely on Ethereum’s KZG commitment scheme. Calldata remains available as a fallback, while bridging and messaging introduce additional dependencies.
These details demonstrate why cryptographic migration is a broader engineering challenge.
Introducing a new cryptographic method is one part of the process. Ensuring that existing applications, stored data and interconnected infrastructure can transition safely is another.
Starknet’s Migration Register is useful because it distinguishes what is already live, what has been demonstrated, what is planned and what remains under research.
The bigger picture: Building for what comes next
One thing becomes clear when we examine quantum computing, AI-assisted mathematical research and the evolution of cryptography: security cannot depend entirely on assumptions that remain valid today.
A blockchain may have strong cryptographic foundations, but it must also consider how those foundations can evolve as technology advances.
Starknet’s approach brings together three important capabilities.
Its hash-based STARK proofs provide a proving foundation that does not rely on elliptic-curve hardness assumptions. Its programmable accounts allow developers to introduce new signature-verification methods. Its ongoing migration work addresses other cryptographic components, existing deployments and external dependencies.
These are different parts of a much larger preparation process, and they are at different stages of development. @Starknet should therefore be understood as preparing for potential quantum threats, rather than being described as fully quantum-resistant.
The most important lesson is that we do not need to predict every breakthrough in computing or mathematics before preparing for its consequences.
What the blockchain industry needs is infrastructure with strong security foundations and the flexibility to respond when existing methods need to change.
The future of blockchain security will depend not only on the cryptography we trust today, but also on our ability to adapt when tomorrow’s discoveries change what security requires.
Explore Starknet’s research and migration progress through the Quantum Hub: