I understand this, and I think that the bridge makes sense if the only protective workaround available on "Q-day" are extremely bloaty signature schemes. I really think that that would be an engineering failure on L1 though, because even the stateful schemes provide imho a better tradeoff than using `OP_CAT` to protect the masses (which, how I understand it, is also stateful); the mempool pressure would be insane, even with bridges.

So that's why I'm saying could-have. It can work as a hedge against the worst case scenario, but it shouldn't be the solution that says: "yo we can chill now, all is taken care of".

I'm still in favor of GSR, and still in favor of P2MR. Just I want to be extremely cautious about what we label a `solution` and what we label a `workaround`.

optimism

the post says PQ signatures on L1 are one of the items in scope

How do I send sats to someone on another bridge?

presumably using something like Boltz, or going through L1

bitcoin

Responding to the quantum threat to bitcoin - @lightcoin

Scoresby

>  without a PQ solution on L1

the post says PQ signatures on L1 are one of the items in scope

>  How do I send sats to someone on another bridge?

presumably using something like Boltz, or going through L1