1. The quantum threat is not a matter of “one-time replacement,” but rather a transition of cryptographic systems. I’ve heard many times that quantum computers could threaten cryptocurrencies, but I only had a vague understanding of which cryptographic algorithms are actually in use and what needs to be changed—so I’ve long wanted to study the issue of quantum resistance in crypto. Starting with recent materials from Starknet @Starknet, I began reading up on the topic—and it’s not easy! 😅 Still, by tracing where cryptography is applied, I’ve gradually realized that I need to examine not just account signatures, but also zero-knowledge proofs for verifying computations, data storage, and network connectivity. First, while reading Starknet’s materials, I clarified the distinction between account signatures and STARK proofs. STARK proofs verify whether computations were performed correctly using a hash-based method. Since account designs allow users to change the signature verification rules used to approve transactions, they constitute a separate security domain—meaning one cannot infer the security properties of one from the other. Therefore, simply using STARKs does not guarantee that user accounts are quantum-resistant. I also noticed that Quantum Hub treats account signatures and Ethereum dependencies as separate concerns. In beginning this study, I’ve now formed one key question (and just having a question makes me feel proud of myself): When it becomes necessary to change cryptographic algorithms, how flexible can each component be adjusted? By examining Starknet’s published rationale alongside its remaining challenges, I believe I can gradually uncover the answer. I’ll take this opportunity to study step by step.