Update PQ signature table

Author: EthanHeilman

bip-0360.mediawiki

@@ -622,45 +622,39 @@ using P2QRH outputs.
 == Security ==
 
 {| class="wikitable"
-|+ Candidate quantum-resistant signature algorithms ordered by largest to smallest NIST Level V signature size
+|+ Candidate quantum-resistant signature algorithms ordered by largest to smallest
 |-
-! Signature Algorithm !! Year First Introduced !! Signature Size !! Public Key Size !! Cryptographic Assumptions
+! Signature Algorithm !! Year First Introduced !! NIST Level !! Signature Size !! Public Key Size !! Cryptographic Assumptions
 |-
-| [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamport_signature Lamport signature] || 1977 || 8,192 bytes || 16,384 bytes ||
+| [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamport_signature Lamport signature] || 1977 || - || 8,192 bytes || 16,384 bytes ||
 Hash-based cryptography
 |-
-| [https://eprint.iacr.org/2011/191.pdf Winternitz signature] || 1982 || 2,368 bytes<ref name="winternitz">Winternitz
+| [https://eprint.iacr.org/2011/191.pdf Winternitz signature] || 1982 || - || 2,368 bytes<ref name="winternitz">Winternitz
 signatures are much smaller than Lamport signatures due to efficient chunking, but computation is much higher,
 especially with high values for w. Winternitz values are for w of 4. It's worth noting that Winternitz signatures can
 only safely be used one time per public key. If addresses are reused, private key information might be leaked, allowing
 attackers to spend future outputs assigned to the same address.</ref> || 2,368 bytes || Hash-based cryptography
 |-
-| [https://sphincs.org/data/sphincs+-r3.1-specification.pdf SPHINCS+ Rd. 3.1 (FIPS 205 - SLH-DSA)] || 2015 || 29,792
-bytes || 64 bytes || Hash-based cryptography
+| [https://sphincs.org/data/sphincs+-r3.1-specification.pdf SPHINCS+ Rd. 3.1 (FIPS 205 - SLH-DSA - SHAKE-128s)] || 2015 || 1 || 32 bytes || 7,856 bytes || Hash-based cryptography
 |-
 | [https://eprint.iacr.org/2011/484.pdf XMSS]<ref name="xmss">XMSS, which is based on Winternitz, uses a value of 108
 for its most compact signature size, with only a 4.6x (2.34/0.51) increase in verification time. Signing and key
 generation are not considered a significant factor because they are not distributed throughout the entire Bitcoin
-network, which take place only inside of wallets one time.</ref> || 2011 || 15,384 bytes || 13,568 bytes ||
+network, which take place only inside of wallets one time.</ref> || 2011 || - ||  15,384 bytes || 13,568 bytes ||
 Hash-based cryptography (Winternitz OTS)
 |-
-| [https://pq-crystals.org/dilithium/ CRYSTALS-Dilithium (FIPS 204 - ML-DSA)] || 2017 || 4,595 bytes || 2,592 bytes ||
+| [https://pq-crystals.org/dilithium/ CRYSTALS-Dilithium (FIPS 204 - ML-DSA)] || 2017 || 2 || 1,312 bytes || 2,420 bytes ||
 Lattice cryptography
 |-
-| [https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/457.pdf pqNTRUsign] || 2016 || 1,814 bytes || 1,927 bytes || Lattice cryptography (NTRU)
+| [https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/457.pdf pqNTRUsign] || 2016 || - || 1,814 bytes || 1,927 bytes || Lattice cryptography (NTRU)
 |-
-| [https://falcon-sign.info FALCON (FIPS 206 - FN-DSA)] || 2017 || 1,280 bytes || 1,793 bytes || Lattice cryptography
+| [https://falcon-sign.info FALCON (FIPS 206 - FN-DSA)] || 2017 || 1 || 897 bytes || 666 bytes || Lattice cryptography
 (NTRU)
 |-
-| [https://eprint.iacr.org/2022/1155.pdf HAWK] || 2022 || 1,261 bytes || 2,329 bytes || Lattice cryptography
+| [https://eprint.iacr.org/2022/1155.pdf HAWK] || 2022 || 1 || 1,024 bytes || 555 bytes || Lattice cryptography
 |-
-| [https://sqisign.org SQIsign] || 2023 || 335 bytes || 128 bytes || Supersingular Elliptic Curve Isogeny
+| [https://sqisign.org SQIsign] || 2023 || 1 || 65 bytes || 148 bytes || Supersingular Elliptic Curve Isogeny
 |-
-| [https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/760.pdf SQIsign2D-West] || 2024 || 294 bytes || 130 bytes || Supersingular Elliptic
-Curve Isogeny
-|-
-| [https://eprint.iacr.org/2023/436.pdf SQIsignHD] || 2023 || 109 bytes (NIST Level I) || Not provided ||
-Supersingular Elliptic Curve Isogeny
 |}
 
 As shown, supersingular elliptic curve quaternion isogeny signature algorithms represent the state of the art in