--- title: The big chains where the question was asked and never answered description: Dogecoin and Litecoin both sign with ECDSA and neither has an adopted post-quantum plan. On Dogecoin, the request was filed in 2021 and closed. url: "https://hardyindex.com/news/exposed-majors-no-public-plan" section: Readiness history type: readiness-history published: 2026-08-12 updated: 2026-08-12 chains: dogecoin, litecoin methodology_version: 1.4 --- # The big chains where the question was asked and never answered **Dogecoin and Litecoin both sign with ECDSA on secp256k1, inherited from Bitcoin, and neither has an adopted post-quantum plan. On Dogecoin the question was formally raised in its own issue tracker in June 2021 and closed without an implementation. As of August 2026 we found no dated commitment for either.** *Published 12 August 2026. The rating below is current as of 2 October 2026. This is a security-readiness assessment, not investment advice.* Enormous holdings sit on chains whose own maintainers have not published a position, and on one of them you can read the request that went nowhere. ## What we checked, and how This piece makes a negative claim, and negative claims deserve more care than positive ones. We are not saying these chains have no post-quantum plan. We are saying something narrower and checkable: that on 12 August 2026, a review of each project's reference client repository, its issue tracker and its published materials did not turn up an adopted post-quantum proposal, an implementation, or a dated commitment to produce one. That is a statement about what a careful search found on a particular day. If you can point us at something we missed, send it with the link and we will publish the correction, because being corrected in public is the job. ## What these chains sign with Both are Bitcoin derivatives, and both inherited its cryptography. Transactions are signed with ECDSA over secp256k1, the same curve and the same hard problem, and therefore the same exposure to Shor's algorithm. They also inherited Bitcoin's better habit. An address is a hash of a public key, so a coin sitting in an address that has never been spent from has not published the key that protects it. That is a genuine buffer, and it is doing quiet work on every one of these chains. > **What the buffer does not cover.** The moment you spend, the public key is published and stays published. For anyone who has used the same address more than once, which is most people, the protective hash is already behind them. ## Dogecoin: asked in 2021, closed without an answer Dogecoin is the more interesting of the two, because the conversation is not absent. It is on the record and it went nowhere. From Dogecoin's own issue tracker. - **4 June 2021**: An issue titled "Update Dogecoin to be Post Quantum Resistant" is opened on the Dogecoin Core repository, arguing that elliptic-curve cryptography will become vulnerable and proposing the adoption of a NIST competition finalist. The issue is now closed, with no implementation, no branch and no accompanying proposal. Source: https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/issues/2241 There have been later community discussions too. What there has not been is a maintainer-adopted design, a specification, or a date. Saying nobody has raised it would be wrong. Saying nobody has answered it is fair. ## Litecoin: capable of changing, and not changing this Litecoin is the harder case to be sympathetic about, because it has demonstrated the exact capability that would be needed. It designed, implemented and activated MWEB, a substantial consensus change, across a live network. Whatever you think of that feature, shipping it proves Litecoin can coordinate a soft fork when it decides something matters. Applying that same capability to signatures is a decision nobody appears to have made. Our search found no post-quantum roadmap, improvement proposal or research programme specific to Litecoin. This matters more than it does for a small chain precisely because Litecoin is not small. Capability without a decision is a different failure from lacking the capability at all, and it is the more frustrating one. ## Where this leaves them Neither chain is in danger this year. No quantum computer exists that can derive a private key from a published one, and the honest estimates for such a machine are still measured in years. The rating is about preparation, and the absence being measured here is an absence of published intent rather than an absence of time. **Where this stands today.** - [Dogecoin](https://hardyindex.com/chains/dogecoin): Tier 5: Exposed, Hardy Score 11.0 of 100. - [Litecoin](https://hardyindex.com/chains/litecoin): Tier 5: Exposed, Hardy Score 12.5 of 100. As rated by the Hardy Index, current as of 2 October 2026. Ratings change when the evidence does, and every change is recorded at https://hardyindex.com/changelog.md. For context, here is the whole of that rung as it stands today, rendered live from the index. We have made the dated search described above for Dogecoin and Litecoin specifically. The others are rated on their own evidence, which you can read on each profile. - [IOTA (IOTA)](https://hardyindex.com/chains/iota): Hardy Score 18.5. Ed25519 (EdDSA over Curve25519 with SHA-512) for layer-1 transactions. - [Internet Computer (ICP)](https://hardyindex.com/chains/internet-computer): Hardy Score 14.5. BLS for consensus, certification and randomness; threshold ECDSA over secp256k1 and threshold Schnorr over bip340secp256k1 and ed25519 for chain-key signatures; Ed25519 or ECDSA for user identities. - [TON (TON)](https://hardyindex.com/chains/toncoin): Hardy Score 13.0. Ed25519, verified inside wallet smart contracts. - [Litecoin (LTC)](https://hardyindex.com/chains/litecoin): Hardy Score 12.5. ECDSA on secp256k1, inherited from Bitcoin. - [Bittensor (TAO)](https://hardyindex.com/chains/bittensor): Hardy Score 11.0. sr25519 (Schnorr over Curve25519) for coldkeys and hotkeys, the Substrate default. - [Dogecoin (DOGE)](https://hardyindex.com/chains/dogecoin): Hardy Score 11.0. ECDSA on secp256k1, inherited from Bitcoin. - [Avalanche (AVAX)](https://hardyindex.com/chains/avalanche): Hardy Score 10.5. ECDSA on secp256k1 across the C-Chain, X-Chain and P-Chain. - [Cronos (CRO)](https://hardyindex.com/chains/cronos): Hardy Score 8.5. ECDSA on secp256k1 for EVM accounts, Cosmos SDK secp256k1 for native accounts, Ed25519 for validator consensus identities. - [MemeCore (M)](https://hardyindex.com/chains/memecore): Hardy Score 8.5. ECDSA on secp256k1, inherited from Ethereum Virtual Machine compatibility. - [Hyperliquid (HYPE)](https://hardyindex.com/chains/hyperliquid): Hardy Score 7.0. ECDSA on secp256k1, via EIP-712 typed-data signing. ## What this means if you hold either Nothing to do today, and one thing to watch for. The signal that would change this rating is not a price move or an announcement about adoption. It is a specification: a named scheme, a proposal number and a date. Until one of those exists, the useful posture is the boring one. Assume the address you have spent from has a public key on the record, prefer fresh addresses where your wallet makes that easy, and treat any claim that these chains are quantum-safe as something to check rather than something to accept. On the evidence we can find, they are not, and nobody involved is currently saying otherwise. ## Where to go next - [Dogecoin: the full rating](https://hardyindex.com/chains/dogecoin.md): every dimension score, with the source behind each one. - [Litecoin: the full rating](https://hardyindex.com/chains/litecoin.md): every dimension score, with the source behind each one. - [Is my crypto safe from quantum computers?](https://hardyindex.com/guides/is-my-crypto-safe-from-quantum-computers.md): If you have seen the scary headlines about quantum computers and crypto, here is the calm version. What is true, what it means for the coins you hold, and what is worth doing about it. - [How to protect your crypto from quantum computers](https://hardyindex.com/guides/how-to-protect-crypto-from-quantum-computers.md): If you hold crypto and the quantum headlines have been bothering you, this is the practical version. Four steps, in order, with the limits of each one stated. ## Sources Every dated event above carries its own primary source. These are those sources, checked on the dates shown. 1. [Update Dogecoin to be Post Quantum Resistant (issue 2241)](https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin/issues/2241): Dogecoin Core (primary, checked 12 August 2026) 2. [Dogecoin Core reference client](https://github.com/dogecoin/dogecoin): Dogecoin Core (primary, checked 12 August 2026) 3. [Litecoin Core reference client](https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin): Litecoin Project (primary, checked 12 August 2026) 4. [BIP-360: Pay-to-Merkle-Root (P2MR)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0360.mediawiki): Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (primary, checked 12 August 2026) --- Cite as: The Hardy Index, "The big chains where the question was asked and never answered", https://hardyindex.com/news/exposed-majors-no-public-plan, published 12 August 2026.