@Tom sadly I'm less technical in this space (my Crypto ended about 4 chapters before the end of the Handbook of Applied Cryptography) but I'll maybe hang about a bit more here as an impartial observer
@RoryAlsop looks like you're deeply embedded in industry. I'm sure banks are looking seriously at signing and the threat of quantum and attacks on RSA etc!
@RoryAlsop that seems reasonable to me, it's not like there aren't functional quantum-safe signature schemes. and from what I've heard about industry everything is thought of many years before it's a real problem (if the problem is known about)
yes, I would expect there are people wanting leaner schemes etc
@Tom they cheated in the sense as they didn't factor "general" numbers but rather numbers with specific properties, IIRC it was a relatively low distance between p and q that was required
@SEJPM I guess what I think is that with the field wide open for new algorithms in quantum it seems likely there will be more attacks possible, and so like I said it's smart to avoid the problem altogether. but I'll take your word for it on that case
@CodesInChaos yeah, my interest in signatures is only because I think I have an insight into doing it in a more-practical way than the other major schemes I've read about