→ team quality: The Google Quantum AI team is highly capable; recent contributors have previously achieved large Shor optimizations, and the group provided detailed, fact‑based answers without hype

→ Bitcoin PoW: Grover‑based, commercially viable attacks on PoW are decades away, so attention should remain on ECDSA/Schnorr signature risks

→ error correction: Superconducting physical:logical ratios might fall under 100:1, bringing CRQC physical qubit counts toward ~100K; neutral‑atom platforms may use alternative codes that could push ratios

→ future gains: More low‑hanging optimizations likely remain; logical qubit counts for Shor could plausibly drop below 1K with further work

→ qubit counts: The size‑optimized variant needs ~1,200 logical qubits. With surface‑code error correction on superconducting hardware, that maps to ~500K physical qubits (≈400:1 physical:logical), though

→ fast vs slow clocks: Fast‑clock architectures (superconducting, photonic) run ~100 kHz; slow‑clock ones (trapped ion, neutral atom) run ~100 Hz, making some platforms ~1,000× slower and extending single‑key

→ latency optimizations: Two optimizations reduce wall‑clock time: parallelizing across devices and feeding the public key to the quantum computer mid‑run after a generic setup phase

→ cracking time: An optimized superconducting device could break keys in minutes because the circuit is only ~100M Toffoli gates; at ~10 µs per Toffoli on superconducting hardware, Shor runtime is on the

→ censorship: The Google paper uses a zero‑knowledge proof to show the algorithm without revealing optimizations. Expect state‑of‑the‑art algorithm details to be censored or self‑censored for various reasons;

→ q‑day: Confidence that a cryptographically relevant quantum attack could occur by 2032 has risen; there’s at least a ~10% chance that by 2032 a quantum computer could recover a secp256k1 private key

Initial assessment suggests the Google results are conservative; the Oratomic claims warrant caution because of exotic qLDPC codes and require further vetting

The second paper (Oratomic) builds on those logical improvements and applies physical‑layer tricks for neutral‑atom hardware, estimating ~26,000 atomic qubits to break 256‑bit elliptic curve signatures—≈40×

The first paper (Google Quantum AI) tailors logical Shor to target Bitcoin/Ethereum signatures, requiring ~1K logical qubits for secp256k1; with low circuit depth, a fast superconducting machine could

Today marks a major moment for quantum computing and cryptography: two breakthrough papers arrived that improve Shor’s algorithm and optimize different layers of the quantum stack, likely shifting the

Vultisig addresses the quantum attack vector at the protocol level: seedless Multi‑Party Computation (MPC) combined with a Threshold Signature Scheme (TSS) that already integrates quantum‑resistant

Quantum is knocking at the door…

🔹Or a combination: leave some tokens in the merge contract while bridging and staking the rest?

🔹Is the plan to merge to $TITN (arb), bridge to Base, and then stake to earn a share of around 70% of the fees? 🔹Will you merge and keep tokens in the merge contract for extra tokens and unclaimed $TITN

$TGT to $TITN migration Have you decided on your strategy?

This isn’t just a better user experience—it’s an entire DeFi reinvention."