Why Is Quantum Resistant Ledger (QRL) Slow?

The short answer

Quantum Resistant Ledger (QRL’s) slowness comes mostly from design trade-offs made to be quantum-safe: it uses hash-based, stateful signatures (XMSS/XMSS^MT) that make transactions heavier, verification and wallet-management more complex, and the chain itself larger. Operational choices (PoW consensus, conservative confirmation rules by services/exchanges, and lower miner/hash power) add more delay. Together these factors explain why users sometimes see network times of tens of minutes (or hours for exchange deposits).

The source of the data for this article is: theqrl.org

What Is Quantum Resistant Ledger?

1) Quick primer: what QRL did differently

Quantum Resistant Ledger was built from day-one to resist attacks from quantum computers. Instead of ECDSA or Ed25519 signatures (vulnerable to Shor’s algorithm), QRL uses XMSS / XMSS^MT — hash-based, NIST-standardized, post-quantum signatures. That choice is the origin of almost every downstream trade-off.

2) The core technical reason: XMSS is heavy and stateful

Here are the properties of XMSS that matter for speed and throughput:

One-time (or limited-use) signature roots: XMSS is built from one-time signature (OTS) primitives arranged in a Merkle tree. Each leaf/key pair is intended for a limited number of uses to keep security proofs intact. That forces careful per-address state tracking and means wallets must never reuse an OTS index.
Large signatures and verification cost: Hash-based signatures are significantly larger (more bytes) than ECDSA/EdDSA signatures and require more hashing to create and verify. Larger transactions = larger blocks = slower propagation and heavier node I/O.
Statefulness → serialization & coordination overhead: Every time an address signs, its OTS index must increment and be published/checked. That statefulness introduces extra checks, makes hot-wallet usage more dangerous (risk of double-use if two signing devices are out of sync), and drives conservative confirmation/wallet patterns that look “slow” to end users.

(Short version: security for the future costs bytes and coordination today.)

Quantum Resistant Ledger of — Withdrawal time of Quantum Resistant Ledger.

3) Network architecture & consensus — how QRL processes blocks

Quantum Resistant Ledger uses a Proof-of-Work style consensus and has historically targeted slower block cadences and conservative emission rules to preserve decentralization and security. PoW networks depend on available hash power — if mining activity is low, block discovery and reorg risk management affect perceived latency.
Blocks containing many large XMSS signatures increase block size and node processing time (mining + validation + propagation), which reduces effective throughput and increases confirmation delays.

4) Why you can see >30 minutes for some operations (concrete causes)

There are several different “times” users observe; they all add up:

A. Network propagation & validation latency

Larger transactions and heavier signature verification increase the time nodes take to validate a block and re-broadcast it. This raises the chance validators wait longer for confirmations before accepting a block as final. (Source: XMSS and block validation cost).

B. Conservative confirmation requirements (exchanges & services)

Many exchanges set hundred(s) of block confirmations as their deposit threshold to avoid chain reorg risk. Example: some QRL-related threads/documents reference 300 blocks for exchange deposits — if the effective block cadence or required confirmations are long, that becomes hours. (300 blocks × block time = many hours). If nodes or exchanges assume a 1-minute block or use larger safety margins, deposits can easily stretch to multiple hours or beyond.

C. Low miner/hash activity and network throughput limits

If the active mining hash power is low, block discovery can be inconsistent and mempools can back up — increasing the time until a transaction is included. Coupled with larger block sizes, throughput (TPS) remains low.

D. Node sync / initial block download (IBD) & chain bloat

Because each historical transaction uses large signatures, the blockchain grows faster in bytes than comparable ECDSA chains. New nodes or wallets performing initial sync must process and verify a lot of hashing work and large signatures, which slows node sync (sometimes many hours) and thus produces the perception of a slow network for first-time users.

E. Wallet handling & statefulness safety delays

Wallets that implement safe XMSS must ensure OTS indices are not reused. Some wallets queue or deliberately delay broadcasting until state is confirmed to avoid OTS reuse (especially across multiple devices). Those safety mechanisms can add seconds-to-minutes per user action.

Put together, these effects frequently explain why some Quantum Resistant Ledger flows can take tens of minutes or even hours (especially for exchange deposits or wallet syncs), even if raw block time is relatively short.

5) Example calculation to illustrate the exchange-deposit case

Suppose an exchange requires 300 confirmations, and the network aims for ~60-second target block time (documented QRL block cadence in some materials).
300 confirmations × 60 seconds = 18,000 seconds ≈ 5 hours.
So even with a 1-minute block target, conservative confirmation policies turn what looks like “a short block time” into multi-hour waits. Threads and docs from the Quantum Resistant Ledger community reference precisely this practical reality.

6) Deep dive: XMSS parameters that affect performance

RFC-8391 (the XMSS standard) exposes parameters that directly trade off speed vs signature size vs key-space:

Tree height (h) and number of layers (d) in XMSS^MT: larger height = more OTS keys and larger signatures; more layers can reduce signature size or speed up key generation depending on configuration. Tuning these parameters alters how many one-time signatures you get per key and how big/slow signatures are.

Meaning: design choices matter. QRL chose parameter ranges that favor long-term safety (more one-time keys, larger signatures) over small, fast signatures.

7) Could QRL be made faster?

Yes — but each fix trades off with the quantum guarantee or requires major protocol work:

Use different PQC schemes
- Move from stateful hash-based signatures to stateless post-quantum schemes (e.g., some lattice-based signatures). But these schemes come with different security assumptions and may not have the same long-term proofs. Changing would be a major protocol migration and risks centralization/compatibility headaches.
Layer-2 / off-chain scaling
- Build payment channels or rollups that settle frequently off-chain and only commit compressed checkpoints on-chain. This preserves on-chain quantum safety for settlement while removing UX latency. Non-trivial to design given XMSS statefulness, but possible.
Parameter tuning
- Adjust XMSS^MT tree heights and layer counts to reduce signature sizes at the cost of fewer signatures per key or other trade-offs. This is an optimization rather than a fundamental fix. RFC8391 discusses the tradeoffs.
Improve client & node software
- Faster, parallelized hashing, signature verification off-loading to optimized native libraries, and better bandwidth/propagation heuristics reduce latency without touching consensus.
Economic & policy changes
- Encourage miners and node operators to increase hash-rate and peering; change exchange confirmation policies if reorg risk can be reduced by other means (but exchanges are conservative by necessity).

Each approach has pros and cons — none are “press a button” fixes.

8) What users/traders should know and practical tips

Expect long exchange deposit times: check exchange confirmation counts and multiply by block time. Don’t assume “minutes” for deposits.
Avoid wallets that share private keys across devices: XMSS statefulness makes that a recipe for accidentally reusing OTS keys and losing funds. Use wallet software that coordinates OTS indexes safely.
Be patient with new node syncs: initial sync can be hours because of large signature verification. Use fast snapshot/bootstrap options where available.
For developers: consider Layer-2 designs, optimize signature verifiers, and carefully tune XMSS parameters for your use case.

9) Where QRL’s trade-offs make sense

Remember the original goal: survivability of keys and ledgers once powerful quantum computers exist. Hash-based, provably secure signatures give a very high assurance level today — and that is valuable insurance. The design deliberately sacrifices some user convenience and throughput to deliver that property. For custodial services, institutions with long-term asset horizons, and defensive allocations, that trade-off is rational.

10) Conclusion

Quantum Resistant Ledger is slow because post-quantum safety is expensive in bytes, compute, and operational complexity. XMSS/XMSS^MT makes signatures bigger, wallets stateful, nodes busier, and exchanges more cautious — producing real world delays sometimes measured in tens of minutes or hours. Improvements are possible, but they either require major protocol changes (with new security trade-offs) or additional engineering (Layer-2, faster clients, parameter tuning).

Subscribe to newsletter

Top 5 This Week

Related Posts