Skip to content

Conversation

@simonmasson
Copy link

This proposal creates a two contracts for:

  • Verifying a ML-DSA (FIPS-204 standard) signature
  • Verifying a ML-DSA-ETH signature (where the hash function has a lower gas cost).

This enables post-quantum secure signatures for Ethereum.

@simonmasson simonmasson requested a review from eth-bot as a code owner October 17, 2025 08:35
@eth-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

eth-bot commented Oct 17, 2025

File EIPS/eip-8051.md

Requires 1 more reviewers from @g11tech, @lightclient, @SamWilsn

@github-actions github-actions bot added c-new Creates a brand new proposal s-draft This EIP is a Draft t-core w-ci Waiting on CI to pass labels Oct 17, 2025
@eth-bot eth-bot added e-consensus Waiting on editor consensus e-review Waiting on editor to review labels Oct 17, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added w-ci Waiting on CI to pass and removed w-ci Waiting on CI to pass labels Oct 17, 2025
@@ -0,0 +1,261 @@
---
eip: 9999
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
eip: 9999
eip: 8051

Assigning next sequential EIP/ERC/RIP number.
Numbers are assigned by editors & associates.

Please also update the filename.

EIPS/eip-8051.md Outdated
title: Precompile for ML-DSA signature verification
description: Proposal to add precompiled contracts that perform signature verifications using the NIST-standard FIPS-204 ML-DSA and an EVM-friendly variant
author: Renaud Dubois (@rdubois-crypto), Simon Masson (@simonmasson)
discussions-to: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/add-eip-ml-dsa-verification/25857
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
discussions-to: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/add-eip-ml-dsa-verification/25857
discussions-to: https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-8051-ml-dsa-verification/25857

Updated with assigned number

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please update the discussions topic to use the template
https://ethereum-magicians.org/c/eips/5

@github-actions github-actions bot added w-ci Waiting on CI to pass and removed w-ci Waiting on CI to pass labels Oct 20, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the w-ci Waiting on CI to pass label Oct 20, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added the w-ci Waiting on CI to pass label Oct 20, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the w-ci Waiting on CI to pass label Oct 20, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link

The commit 1de80f2 (as a parent of fecd5a9) contains errors.
Please inspect the Run Summary for details.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the w-ci Waiting on CI to pass label Oct 20, 2025

## Reference Implementation

An implementation is provided in `assets` of this EIP. For the NIST-compliant version, KAT vectors of the NIST submission are valid.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@SamWilsn how best to handle reference implementation, again we have code attached in assets. How can we let people refer to full working code implementations?

@simonmasson instead of having full code attached, we prefer if you showcase the implementation through high level concepts/pseudo code instead of trying to attach a full working code

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looking at bls12 eip, which face similar problems, would test vectors be enough ?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

c-new Creates a brand new proposal e-consensus Waiting on editor consensus e-review Waiting on editor to review s-draft This EIP is a Draft t-core

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants