> That is possible, but given the recent 2029 timelines from large Internet providers, I think it's prudent to prepare for Q-Day even if it never arrives.

the article you linked supports my position.

    > the fear of the quantum doomsayers is based on a completely valid observation: the internet has put nearly all of its cryptographic eggs into the single basket of the hidden subgroup problem.

    > By the time the next phase of standardization is over, we can expect to have algorithms based on at least three or four different mathematical problems. If one of the selected problems were to fall to advances in quantum or classical algorithms, there are readily-available replacements that are highly unlikely to be affected by attacks on the fallen cryptosystems.

> you made the argument that we should abandon ECC by not doing hybrid,

Where did I ever make that argument? In both TFA and my previous blog post, I've made it abundantly clear that I'm pro-hybrid.

My argument is simply:

1. The claimed benefits of ECDH hybridization evaporate immediately the moment Q-Day happens. No one disputes this.

2. Harvest Now, Decrypt Later (HNDL) is the primary threat we face today during the uncertain times where we don't know if Q-Day will ever happen.

Advocating for PQ+ECC hybrids over PQ is fine. But fear-mongering about PQ in this threat model is self-defeating: Once Q-Day happens, your only source of security is PQ anyway, so if we're going to do hybrids with today's threat model in mind, PQ+PQ is the way you really want to go (and PQ+PQ+EC if you really want EC). The blog post you're commenting on says this explicitly.

I'm not anti-hybrid. I'm anti "this is an NSA ploy" bullshit. And the IETF mailing list thread I'm mentioning is stuffed with this kind of irritating conspiracy theory rhetoric. I even link to, and quote, two examples of this.