Tidecoin TDC

Claim: Public documentation inventories Falcon-512 and upgrade options, ML-KEM-512, SHA-512 witness mechanisms, and PQHD across relevant layers and discusses quantum threat assumptions including public-key exposure and harvest-now-decrypt-later.

Coverage basis: The whitepaper, core source documentation, and public integration inventory describe native transaction, wallet, transport, and state mechanisms for a chain launched with PQ authorization.

Implementation score: 1 · Evidence confidence: Medium

Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable

Assurance: The detailed inventory is project-controlled, with part of it hosted in an integration or staging fork, and has no independent audit; the primary whitepaper and repository corroborate it.

No classical ECDSA native-spending path is identified in the supplied protocol evidence.

• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin/blob/master/doc/whitepaper.md
• https://github.com/yarsawyer/tidecoin

Claim: Public source code, specifications, mainnet explorer artifacts, component repositories, package documentation, and third-party research support Tidecoin's production PQ-native assessment.

Coverage basis: The record includes primary protocol and implementation artifacts plus evidence of a live production network.

Implementation score: 1 · Evidence confidence: Medium

Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable

Assurance: No independent audit or third-party implementation verification is included, preventing High overall confidence.

Academic recognition is descriptive corroboration, not an audit.

• https://tidecoin.org/
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin/blob/master/doc/whitepaper.md
• https://explorer.tidecoin.org/
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tide-fn-dsa
• https://docs.rs/crate/tidecoin/latest
• https://arxiv.org/pdf/2508.17071

Claim: Native mainnet transactions use mandatory Falcon-512 signatures, with no retained ECDSA native-spending path documented in the protocol.

Coverage basis: Core source, protocol documentation, Falcon component code, and live explorer evidence support production PQ authorization from genesis.

Implementation score: 1 · Evidence confidence: High

Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable

Assurance: Deployment and mandatory design are supported by source and mainnet artifacts, though implementation correctness has not been independently audited.

The future Falcon-to-FN-DSA transition is a PQ-to-PQ upgrade, not evidence of a current classical fallback.

• https://tidecoin.org/
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin/blob/master/doc/whitepaper.md
• https://explorer.tidecoin.org/
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tide-fn-dsa

Claim: Native ownership uses Falcon keys, with documented hash-protected and bare Falcon public-key outputs and hardened, hash-based PQHD derivation; no ECC key-recovery path is present.

Coverage basis: Protocol documentation describes PQHD, Falcon output types, and production address formats; exposed native public keys are post-quantum keys rather than classical keys.

Implementation score: 1 · Evidence confidence: Medium

Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable

Assurance: PQHD lacks a supplied independent review, and the value distribution between bare and hash-protected outputs was not measured.

Bare P2PK-Falcon exposure differs operationally from hash-protected addresses but is not a classical quantum-vulnerable ownership path.

• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin/blob/master/doc/whitepaper.md
• https://explorer.tidecoin.org/
• https://prevblock.com/glossary
• https://github.com/yarsawyer/tidecoin

Claim: Tidecoin uses proof of work and has no validator signatures, validator set, VRF, threshold finality, or block-certificate authentication layer.

Coverage basis: Mining and research sources identify YesPoWerTIDE proof-of-work consensus rather than public-key validator authentication.

Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: High

Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable

Assurance: Quantum effects on proof-of-work economics are distinct from compromise of a consensus-authentication mechanism under this subfactor.

Transaction authorization is separately applicable and evaluated above.

• https://miningpoolstats.stream/tidecoin
• https://eprint.iacr.org/2026/1526.pdf

Claim: The transparent UTXO and script state uses hash-based mechanisms, including SHA-512 witness-script hashing, with no identified quantum-vulnerable pairing or commitment dependency.

Coverage basis: Public inventory and Rust script documentation identify ScriptPubKey, ScriptSig, WitnessScript, P2WSH-512, and native validation extensions.

Implementation score: 1 · Evidence confidence: Medium

Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable

Assurance: No independent review of the full state-binding and witness implementation was supplied.

The canonical dossier identifies no KZG, pairing, trusted-setup, or native bridge-verification dependency.

• https://github.com/yarsawyer/tidecoin
• https://docs.rs/crate/tidecoin/latest
• https://docs.rs/tidecoin-primitives/latest/tidecoin_primitives/script/index.html

Claim: Tidecoin is a transparent UTXO chain without a native shielded pool, zero-knowledge authorization system, note encryption, viewing keys, or shielded state.

Coverage basis: Script documentation and the whitepaper describe transparent script-based spending rather than a separate privacy or proof layer.

Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: High

Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable

Assurance: Lack of transaction privacy is a product characteristic, not a quantum break of an implemented privacy layer.

Transaction authorization and state hashing are evaluated in their applicable rows.

• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin/blob/master/doc/whitepaper.md
• https://docs.rs/tidecoin-primitives/latest/tidecoin_primitives/script/index.html

Claim: The production implementation documents ML-KEM-512 for P2P transport, while peer identity is not a spend, bridge, custody, or consensus authorization mechanism.

Coverage basis: Core code, the whitepaper, and the public cryptographic inventory identify ML-KEM-512 P2P support.

Implementation score: 1 · Evidence confidence: Medium

Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable

Assurance: No independent audit, packet-level validation, or detailed authenticated-channel analysis was supplied.

The evidence supports PQ key encapsulation but does not establish resistance to every network-level impersonation or denial-of-service scenario.

• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin/blob/master/doc/whitepaper.md
• https://github.com/yarsawyer/tidecoin

Claim: The reference wallet supports Falcon signing and hardened-only PQHD derivation, and native on-chain custody cannot select a classical ownership path.

Coverage basis: Core source, whitepaper, cryptographic inventory, and Falcon component code document native wallet signing and derivation.

Implementation score: 1 · Evidence confidence: Medium

Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable

Assurance: No independent wallet audit, HSM certification, hardware-wallet review, or exchange custody attestation was supplied; none establishes a classical native fallback.

This finding does not extend to custody of wTDC on BNB Smart Chain.

• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin/blob/master/doc/whitepaper.md
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tide-fn-dsa
• https://github.com/yarsawyer/tidecoin

Claim: Native TDC was issued into a protocol using Falcon ownership authorization from genesis, so native value does not require ECC-to-PQC migration.

Coverage basis: Genesis documentation, core source, and mainnet artifacts support the absence of a classical native ownership namespace or legacy native balances.

Implementation score: 1 · Evidence confidence: Medium

Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable

Assurance: The existence, activity, control model, and value of wTDC do not alter the native protocol design and were not established sufficiently to treat the wrapper as a legacy native pool.

Coverage follows from enforced native design rather than an inferred migration percentage.

• https://tidecoin.org/
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin/blob/master/doc/whitepaper.md
• https://explorer.tidecoin.org/

Claim: Native treasuries, exchanges, custodians, foundations, and major holders must use the same Falcon-authorized output rules as other native TDC holders.

Coverage basis: The native protocol has no documented alternate classical address or privileged account type for high-value wallets.

Implementation score: 1 · Evidence confidence: Medium

Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable

Assurance: No operational attestations for specific exchanges, custodians, HSMs, or treasury procedures were supplied.

External wrapper custodians or administrators are not covered by this native-wallet conclusion.

• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin/blob/master/doc/whitepaper.md
• https://explorer.tidecoin.org/
• https://github.com/yarsawyer/tidecoin

Claim: No legacy classical native TDC pool, account namespace, UTXO ownership type, or contract path is identified because Falcon authorization was mandatory from genesis.

Coverage basis: The primary repository and whitepaper describe replacement of ECDSA from genesis and no retained classical native path.

Implementation score: 1 · Evidence confidence: High

Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable

Assurance: The negative claim is supported by public protocol design and source but not independently audited.

The external wTDC representation is not a legacy native Tidecoin balance.

• https://tidecoin.org/
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin/blob/master/doc/whitepaper.md

Claim: Genesis deployment supplied completed native PQ protection, while documentation also describes height-gated mechanisms and future Falcon-1024 or ML-DSA upgrades.

Coverage basis: No native ECC-to-PQC migration remains to be sequenced; future roadmap items concern PQ-to-PQ evolution rather than current protection.

Implementation score: 1 · Evidence confidence: Medium

Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable

Assurance: Future upgrade details are partly supported by a secondary announcement and are not credited as present production protection.

The future FN-DSA transition is treated as an operational and assurance matter.

• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin/blob/master/doc/whitepaper.md
• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5306694.240

Claim: Falcon account creation, wallet derivation, and transaction authorization are the native defaults, with no user-selectable classical fallback.

Coverage basis: Core source and wallet documentation describe Falcon signing and PQHD derivation as the native wallet path.

Implementation score: 1 · Evidence confidence: Medium

Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable

Assurance: The breadth of third-party wallet, hardware-wallet, HSM, and institutional product support was not established, but this does not create a classical native fallback.

External wTDC tooling does not inherit this conclusion.

• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin/blob/master/doc/whitepaper.md
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tide-fn-dsa
• https://github.com/yarsawyer/tidecoin

Claim: Consensus rules enforce Falcon native spending because no classical signature path exists, eliminating the need for a native migration deadline or unsafe fallback policy.

Coverage basis: Protocol source and documentation state that Falcon replaces ECDSA throughout native transaction authorization.

Implementation score: 1 · Evidence confidence: Medium

Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable

Assurance: The canonical evidence does not establish restrictions or coordination for the separate wTDC representation.

Wrapper existence alone is insufficient to infer an official or unrestricted two-way bridge.

• https://tidecoin.org/
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin/blob/master/doc/whitepaper.md
• https://github.com/yarsawyer/tidecoin

Claim: A height-gated technical upgrade mechanism is documented, but no public quantum-specific emergency disclosure, incident-response, security-contact, or governance process was located.

Coverage basis: There is partial technical capacity for coordinated cryptographic change, but the surrounding emergency process is undocumented.

Implementation score: 0.5 · Evidence confidence: Low

Issue classification: assurance-only caveat · Score treatment: score-reducing

Assurance: Absence of a formal playbook is not a readiness cap because no current vulnerable native fallback depends on it. Partial credit reflects the documented activation mechanism only.

This row does not claim that an organizational disclosure or governance process exists.

• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin/blob/master/doc/whitepaper.md
• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5306694.240

Claim: Tidecoin uses Falcon-512 from the FN-DSA lineage for signatures and ML-KEM-512 for key establishment, with SHA-2-family hashing and documented PQ signature upgrade options.

Coverage basis: The principal algorithms are standardized or standards-track mechanisms suited to signatures, key encapsulation, and hashing.

Implementation score: 1 · Evidence confidence: Medium

Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable

Assurance: The deployed signature implementation predates finalized FN-DSA, and project-specific PQHD remains unreviewed; these are implementation and upgrade caveats rather than evidence that the primary signature primitive is bespoke.

Official claims of NIST validation are not relied upon as sole algorithm-assurance evidence.

• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin/blob/master/doc/whitepaper.md
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tide-fn-dsa
• https://github.com/yarsawyer/tidecoin
• https://github.com/tidecoin

Claim: No independent cryptographic or implementation audit covering Tidecoin's current quantum-critical production scope was found in the canonical dossier.

Coverage basis: No audited coverage was supplied for Falcon integration, PQHD, ML-KEM transport, or SHA-512 witness extensions.

Implementation score: 0 · Evidence confidence: None

Issue classification: assurance-only caveat · Score treatment: score-reducing

Assurance: Audit absence lowers this dedicated assurance subfactor and limits overall confidence, but does not impose a readiness cap because principal native quantum-security properties are verifiable from public code, design, and mainnet evidence.

Third-party descriptive research is not an implementation audit.

• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin/blob/master/doc/whitepaper.md
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tide-fn-dsa

Claim: The core protocol, Falcon and FN-DSA components, Python bindings, and Rust crates are publicly available for inspection and reproduction.

Coverage basis: Multiple public repositories and package artifacts expose the protocol and quantum-critical integration.

Implementation score: 1 · Evidence confidence: High

Issue classification: none · Score treatment: not applicable

Assurance: No independent deterministic-build result or third-party reproducible-build attestation was supplied.

Open-source availability supports inspection but is not equivalent to an independent security audit.

• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tide-fn-dsa
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tdc_falcon
• https://docs.rs/crate/tidecoin/latest
• https://github.com/tidecoin

Claim: Documentation describes upgrade paths from Falcon-512 to Falcon-1024 and ML-DSA, including height-gated activation mechanisms.

Coverage basis: Public documentation and compatibility code describe alternative PQ signature parameters and schemes.

Implementation score: 1 · Evidence confidence: Medium

Issue classification: assurance-only caveat · Score treatment: note-only

Assurance: Finalized FN-DSA adoption may break backward compatibility, and the dossier does not show all alternative schemes activated on mainnet.

The documented upgrade path satisfies this subfactor; future PQ-to-PQ transition uncertainty does not diminish current native migration completion.

• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin/blob/master/doc/whitepaper.md
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tide-fn-dsa
• https://github.com/yarsawyer/tidecoin
• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5306694.240

Claim: Hardened PQHD derivation and inspectable cryptographic code provide some design controls, but side-channel, fault-injection, nonce, hardware-wallet, HSM, and custody hardening lack independent validation.

Coverage basis: Partial implementation-risk treatment is documented; the FN-DSA repository also identifies legacy signing compatibility behavior requiring further review.

Implementation score: 0.5 · Evidence confidence: Low

Issue classification: assurance-only caveat · Score treatment: score-reducing

Assurance: Documented nonce reuse across retries and unreviewed PQHD warrant independent analysis. No supplied evidence establishes a key-recovery, forgery, or quantum-enabled compromise path.

Falcon is stateless, so XMSS or LMS signing-state exhaustion controls are not applicable; side-channel and fault resistance remain relevant.

• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin/blob/master/doc/whitepaper.md
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tide-fn-dsa
• https://github.com/tidecoin/tdc_falcon

Claim: Public implementation artifacts show the PQ path operating on mainnet, but no formal analysis quantifies signature size, verification cost, block validation, mempool policy, storage growth, or node-resource impact.

Coverage basis: Operational artifacts support practical deployment, while published resource analysis remains limited to incidental implementation detail.

Implementation score: 0.25 · Evidence confidence: Low

Issue classification: assurance-only caveat · Score treatment: score-reducing

Assurance: No evidence shows resource constraints preventing safe use of the mandatory PQ path; the missing formal benchmark therefore does not create a readiness cap.

Formal analysis of verification throughput, transaction size, mempool behavior, archival growth, and low-end node requirements would improve assurance.

• https://github.com/tidecoin/tidecoin
• https://docs.rs/crate/tidecoin/latest