content: update future-proofing page + add post-quantum cryptography subpage by konopkja · Pull Request #17946 · ethereum/ethereum-org-website

konopkja · 2026-04-08T20:35:55Z

Summary

Rewrites /roadmap/future-proofing/ with current information (2026 state), beginner-friendly tone matching the ethereum.org style guide
Creates new /roadmap/future-proofing/quantum-resistance/ subpage with deeper post-quantum cryptography coverage, following the established pattern of dedicated subpages for complex topics (like account-abstraction, verkle-trees, danksharding)

What changed in the parent page

Quantum resistance section: Replaces outdated "probably decades away" framing with honest, attributed assessment of current timelines. Adds EF Post-Quantum Security team, pq.ethereum.org, Vitalik's four-pronged vulnerability framework, EIP-8141 signature agility, and structured fork milestones
Simpler and more efficient Ethereum section: Reorganized into "delivered" (London, Dencun, Pectra, Fusaka) and "in progress" (Glamsterdam, Hegota). Each fork lists specific EIPs
Current progress section: Updated from Dencun (March 2024) to early 2026 state with honest assessment of what is and isn't in production
Added summaryPoints frontmatter to match other roadmap pages

New quantum-resistance subpage

Covers: why PQ matters, the four vulnerable areas (BLS, KZG, ECDSA, ZK-proofs), NIST standards table, EF approach and milestones (I*/J*/L*/M*), what users need to do, and 6 FAQ items using ExpandableCard components.

Editorial approach

All claims attributed to primary sources (Google Quantum AI paper, pq.ethereum.org, NIST, CoinDesk)
No fear-mongering: leads with "your funds are safe today" framing
Does not overplay Ethereum's readiness: "actively preparing, not quantum-safe"
Acknowledges open questions (dormant wallets, governance)
Date-stamps progress claims ("as of April 2026")
EIP-8141 described as "being considered for" Hegota, not confirmed

Sources verified

Claim	Source
~1,200 logical qubits	Google Research Blog (March 2026)
PQ milestones I/J/L/M	pq.ethereum.org
PQ as strawmap north star	strawmap.org
NIST FIPS 203/204/205	NIST
EF PQ team formation	CoinDesk

Closes #17943

Test plan

Verify both pages render correctly in local dev server
Check all internal links resolve (glossary terms, roadmap pages, developer docs)
Verify ExpandableCard components expand/collapse properly
Review on mobile viewport for readability
EF Post-Quantum Security team should review PQ subpage for technical accuracy
Re-verify EIP-8141 CFI status and Glamsterdam/Hegota timelines at merge time

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

…subpage Rewrites /roadmap/future-proofing/ with current information and creates a new /roadmap/future-proofing/quantum-resistance/ subpage with deeper coverage of post-quantum cryptography on Ethereum. Closes ethereum#17943 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

netlify · 2026-04-08T20:36:01Z

✅ Deploy Preview for ethereumorg ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	`ec2b7c1`
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/ethereumorg/deploys/69d7b63f766f1d00083f4bf2
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-17946.ethereum.it
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.
Lighthouse	7 paths audited Performance: 56 (no change from production) Accessibility: 94 (no change from production) Best Practices: 100 (no change from production) SEO: 98 (🔴 down 1 from production) PWA: 59 (no change from production) View the detailed breakdown and full score reports

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

myelinated-wackerow

Nice work -- well-sourced, good tone, no fear-mongering. A few items beyond the inline suggestions:

Must fix:

"Hegota" should be "Hegotá" throughout (5 occurrences across both files). The codebase consistently uses the accented form.

Should fix:

The 0.1% vs 5% dormant fund exposure comparison (FAQ: "Is Ethereum behind other blockchains on this?") needs attribution -- these are EF estimates, not independent figures. Consider adding "according to Ethereum Foundation estimates" or removing the Bitcoin comparison, which reads more promotional than educational.
Glamsterdam EIPs are described as "expected to include" but if they only have CFI status, "being considered for inclusion" would be more precise and consistent with how you describe EIP-8141.

Consider (soft suggestions):

"H1 2026" / "H2 2026" may not be clear to a global, non-native-English audience. "First half of 2026" / "second half of 2026" reads more naturally.
The NIST standards table (ML-KEM, ML-DSA, SLH-DSA) is useful reference but most readers of this page won't know what these mean. Consider whether it could move to "Further reading" or get a sentence of context for why these matter to a non-specialist.

Reviewed with Claude Opus 4.6

wackerow · 2026-04-08T21:28:11Z

Thanks @konopkja! Review above, overall looking great ❤️

The redirect rule `/roadmap/future-proofing/:path+` was catching all subpaths and redirecting them to the parent page. This prevented the new quantum-resistance subpage from rendering. Other roadmap sections (pectra, fusaka, merge) allow subpages without such a redirect. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

- Fix Hegota → Hegotá throughout (5 occurrences) - Remove duplicate h1 in quantum-resistance subpage (template renders it) - Change "decades" → "centuries" for Ethereum security model framing - Expand ECDSA at first use in subpage - Add attribution to dormant fund exposure figure, remove Bitcoin comparison - Change "expected to include" → "being considered for inclusion" for Glamsterdam/Hegotá - Replace "H1/H2 2026" with "first/second half of 2026" for global audience - Add context sentence before NIST standards table - Apply mnelsonBT's copy improvements: summaryPoints, quantum intro, EF team description, leanVM 250x compression detail, ECDSA vulnerability explanation Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

konopkja · 2026-04-09T12:38:07Z

All review feedback has been addressed in 45a5e95 and 76f7b1d:

Must fix (myelinated-wackerow):

✅ Hegota → Hegotá throughout both files

Should fix (myelinated-wackerow):

✅ 0.1% vs 5% comparison: removed the Bitcoin comparison, added "According to Ethereum Foundation estimates" attribution
✅ Glamsterdam EIPs: changed from "Expected to include" to "Being considered for inclusion" for consistency with EIP-8141 language

Consider (myelinated-wackerow):

✅ "H1 2026"/"H2 2026" → "first half of 2026"/"second half of 2026"
✅ NIST table: added context sentence explaining why these standards matter to a non-specialist

All inline suggestions from mnelsonBT applied:

✅ summaryPoints rewrite
✅ Quantum intro copy improvements
✅ EF team "most proactive defender" description
✅ leanVM 250x compression detail
✅ ECDSA vulnerability expansion
✅ Data availability bullet added

All inline suggestions from myelinated-wackerow applied:

✅ Removed duplicate h1 (template renders frontmatter title)
✅ "decades" → "centuries"
✅ Expanded ECDSA at first use

- Add internal links to fork names (Pectra, Fusaka, Dencun, London, Glamsterdam) - Rewrite current progress summaries (simplification, PQ sections) - Add PSE and lean week Cambridge links to further reading - Rewrite subpage intro with proactive framing - Rename section header to "Why post-quantum cryptography matters" - Update summaryPoint to reference "Lean Ethereum" roadmap - Add Shor's algorithm reference and Abelian groups context - Rename "How close" to "When will quantum computers threaten Ethereum" - Add NIST ECDSA deprecation timeline (2030 deprecation, 2035 disallowed) - Add "Lean Ethereum" roadmap framing to conclusion Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

konopkja · 2026-04-09T13:22:47Z

All 31 inline review comments addressed and replied to. Latest push (ac5f6fd) includes the remaining suggestions: fork page links, Lean Ethereum framing, Shor's algorithm reference, NIST ECDSA deprecation timeline, PSE and lean week further reading links, and copy improvements throughout.

- Rename section to "Four areas vulnerable to quantum attack" - Add link to Vitalik's X post for PQ roadmap - Reframe approach as "Lean Consensus roadmap" - Expand leanXMSS/leanVM with size details (3000 vs 96 bytes, 250x) - Simplify ECDSA vulnerability wording - Rewrite STARK approach for clarity - Add link to NIST standards announcement - Link leanEthereum GitHub organization - Add NIST Alignment bullet to current activity - Rewrite target milestone language - Reference Hegota fork in user action section - Expand "Is Ethereum behind" FAQ - Add PSE, lean week, ACD breakout calls, YouTube playlists, Bankless podcast, Superpositioned to further reading - Simplify parent page further reading, add strawmap.org Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

konopkja · 2026-04-12T08:20:20Z

@myelinated-wackerow @mnelsonBT All feedback has been addressed and all 48 review threads are resolved. Ready for re-review when you get a chance.

konopkja requested review from minimalsm, pettinarip and wackerow as code owners April 8, 2026 20:35

github-actions bot added the content 🖋️ This involves copy additions or edits label Apr 8, 2026

myelinated-wackerow requested changes Apr 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread public/content/roadmap/future-proofing/quantum-resistance/index.md Outdated

Comment thread public/content/roadmap/future-proofing/quantum-resistance/index.md Outdated

Comment thread public/content/roadmap/future-proofing/quantum-resistance/index.md Outdated