What Does a Post-Quantum Migration Cost a Smart-City Ledger? Measured Overheads of ML-DSA Identities on Hyperledger Fabric

Smart-city ledgers must keep alerts and model provenance verifiable for decades, yet Hyperledger Fabric’s identities use the elliptic-curve digital signature algorithm (ECDSA) by default, which quantum computers could forge. On a post-quantum fork of Fabric 3.1.4, we issued every identity ML-DSA-44, -65 or -87 (FIPS 204) or hybrid ECDSA/ML-DSA-44 certificates and ran an alert-anchoring workload ten times at 10–100 clients. A transaction grows from 5.5 kB to 32.8, 44.2 and 59.5 kB; about 72% of it is four PEM-encoded certificates, and 22% is signatures. At 20 clients throughput falls from 170 to 134, 101 and 79 transactions per second. Ten ML-DSA-87 transactions exceed the test network’s 512 KB block-size preference; raising it to 1 MB doubled throughput at 10 clients and cut 99th-percentile latency from 2.08 s to 0.16 s. Rebuilt block files suggest that binary (DER) identities would save about 20% of a post-quantum transaction, and identity references about 73%. Client connections already negotiate hybrid X25519MLKEM768 key exchange, but peers and the orderer still authenticate with ECDSA keys. At 10 alerts per second, ledger growth per peer rises from 1.9 TB to 10.6–19.0 TB per year: the cost lies mainly in how Fabric stores identities.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Preprints.org
Published
2026-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202611.0133.v1
Primary Topic
Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
preprint

What Does a Post-Quantum Migration Cost a Smart-City Ledger? Measured Overheads of ML-DSA Identities on Hyperledger Fabric

Thawatchai Chomsiri, Suwichai Phunsa
Preprints.org
Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
preprint

What Does a Post-Quantum Migration Cost a Smart-City Ledger? Measured Overheads of ML-DSA Identities on Hyperledger Fabric

Thawatchai Chomsiri, Suwichai Phunsa
preprint en

Abstract

Smart-city ledgers must keep alerts and model provenance verifiable for decades, yet Hyperledger Fabric’s identities use the elliptic-curve digital signature algorithm (ECDSA) by default, which quantum computers could forge. On a post-quantum fork of Fabric 3.1.4, we issued every identity ML-DSA-44, -65 or -87 (FIPS 204) or hybrid ECDSA/ML-DSA-44 certificates and ran an alert-anchoring workload ten times at 10–100 clients. A transaction grows from 5.5 kB to 32.8, 44.2 and 59.5 kB; about 72% of it is four PEM-encoded certificates, and 22% is signatures. At 20 clients throughput falls from 170 to 134, 101 and 79 transactions per second. Ten ML-DSA-87 transactions exceed the test network’s 512 KB block-size preference; raising it to 1 MB doubled throughput at 10 clients and cut 99th-percentile latency from 2.08 s to 0.16 s. Rebuilt block files suggest that binary (DER) identities would save about 20% of a post-quantum transaction, and identity references about 73%. Client connections already negotiate hybrid X25519MLKEM768 key exchange, but peers and the orderer still authenticate with ECDSA keys. At 10 alerts per second, ledger growth per peer rises from 1.9 TB to 10.6–19.0 TB per year: the cost lies mainly in how Fabric stores identities.

Preprints.org
Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon
What Does a Post-Quantum Migration Cost a Smart-City Ledger? Measured Overheads of ML-DSA Identities on Hyperledger Fabric — Thawatchai Chomsiri, Suwichai Phunsa · Preprints.org (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS