Stock Options just got an upgrade. Sell puts and calls. Explore covered calls and cash-secured puts. All finance. On Binance. Read more 👉 binance.com/en/support/annou…

I don't recommend anyone scramble to move their funds to new wallets today. But we should take the risks to cryptography from AI-accelerated math seriously, and minimize our exposure to not just quantum-vulnerable cryptography, but also potentially AI-vulnerable cryptography. The core new area of risk from this viewpoint is, unfortunately, ML-DSA / FHE / lattices. (and it's also another reason, along with quantum, why ECDSA might fall even faster than expected, hence the "fresh address" recommendation) So far most people have been in the mode of thinking "elliptic curves broken, hashes safe, lattices safe". But there is a good chance that the concrete security of lattices will take serious hits from the next two years of AI math. The basic threat model is: factoring is something that naively takes 2^(n/2) time, but over decades smart people have found and optimized number field sieves, and degraded that to 2^O(n^(1/3)), which is why RSA keys and signatures need to be ~400 bytes (and not 64 bytes). What if there are skeletons in the closet like that, both for elliptic curves and lattices, that we are simply not smart enough to discover - but bots soon will be? This is a major part of the reason why for the past year ethereum's lean roadmap has been going in the "hash-only" direction: no lattices, no ML-DSA, no Falcon, no lattice-based commitments inside ZK proofs, etc. Signatures in lean ethereum are all hash-based, either WOTS or SPHINCS-. For signatures and proofs, we already know how to go hash-only. The bigger challenge is for *public-key encryption* - and this goes far beyond blockchains. Secure communication, anonymizing protocols, lots of things need public-key encryption. And unfortunately there are long-standing mathematical theorems showing why public-key encryption cannot be done with hashes alone. You have to have some kind of trapdoor object that has at least one form of usable "structure" - either group theory (incl. isogenies) or lattices or code-based or potentially in the future even more newfangled and spooky things (local mixing?). But for anything that has structure, you should assume that AI will make at least some progress in breaking that structure. Here, one reasonable inference is that if you want to make something plausibly long-term secure, multiply the key sizes by 10. To me that's a very plausible world and something not at all extreme to predict. If AI will bring us 50 years of math in 2 years, then that 50 years of math may very plausibly include a "naive factoring -> GNFS" level of improvement to our ability to break lattices. In that world, lattices will still exist, but they will have to be significantly bigger to guarantee the same level of safety. And at those new larger sizes, hash-based constructions will beat lattice-based constructions on concrete efficiency in every use case where hash-based constructions are possible at all. Theoretically, of course it's possible that hashes are broken too (eg. P = NP would imply that). But I think P = NP is very unlikely. And intuitively, it's much more likely that a mathematical object has exactly no exploitable structure (like hashes are intended to), than that a mathematical object has exactly ~3 forms of exploitable structure (for elliptic curves: associativity, Schoof, pairings) and not some secret fourth form of structure we have not yet discovered that greatly degrades its security (for elliptic curves, ECDLP and pairing security). Similar for LWE, SVP, RLWE and the zoo of lattice problems. For this reason, we do not yet see any reason to worry and start padding the byte size of hashes (if we start to worry more, we would pad the round count first before doing anything to the byte size). Concrete TLDR, my own personal views: * Hash-based > lattice-based, in those situations where hash-based is possible at all * For anything lattice-based, be much more paranoid on param sizes. Remember that blockchains are only a small portion of the cryptography story; this point goes far beyond blockchains and applies to eg. access to websites, secure messaging, Tor / VPNs ... * For privacy protocols, strongly favor NOT putting encrypted notes onchain. Instead, send them offchain through some third-party mechanism. * If it's not difficult for you, keeping your funds in addresses which have not yet been used to make a transaction is a good idea. If it's easy for you, do it. **But be careful about migrations; I personally have lost more money in botched migrations than I have lost in all hacks combined**. * For multisig wallets, doing confirmations offchain is better than onchain, because this way the signatures of signer wallets do not get exposed to the public, so if ECDSA falls to AI much faster than expected, at least the multisig "gracefully degrades" to a 1-of-1 where the 1 is whoever was gathering the signatures - a much better place to be than "anyone can take the money" firefly.social/post/x/210783…

sorry but it seems I'll be starting out on my journey as a dev today.

Tweet it into existence this month

FREE KICK MAGIC FROM LEO. 🎯✨

Hii i think we should be mutuals

i think there's something important i need to clarify about my trading style especially for those who insist on copytrading me i am a degen trader at heart i do NOT expect to win all my trades in fact, if i suddenly started winning everything, i'd be worried because that probably means i'm playing it too safe my entire strategy is built around finding and positioning early in the NEXT major narratives and metas often before anyone cares that means: i will lose a LOT of trades i will sometimes hold underwater positions for months i will sometimes enter way too early i will sometimes roundtrip some trades and sometimes i'll get lucky and hit a massive winner almost immediately that's the game i'm not trying to make a comfortable 2-3x on a large cap i'm a 'moon or bust' kind of trader i'm hunting for the massively asymmetric wins the 50x the 100x the 1,000x because the math changes completely when you're playing that game i'd happily buy 100 coins, lose on 80-90 of them and have just 10-20% become massive winners because those few winners can more than pay for the entire basket 10 times over that's also why you should NEVER blindly copytrade me i trade very differently from most people on CT a lot of traders post a coin with vague hype words or phrases like: 'trillions' 'flip the stock market' 'this is the future' and that's about it my entire personality on the other hand has been built around posting extremely wordy, in-depth thesis for even the smallest of my trades i'd rather explain exactly why i'm buying i usually lay out the thesis the data the catalysts the comparable projects and what i think is realistically possible so people can actually understand the trade and form their own thesis not blindly follow mine and this brings me to something else: my fomo wallet is my DEGEN WALLET yes, it went from five figures to $28m+ yes, it became the #1 all-time trading account on fomo in just a few months but none of that changes what the wallet was built for it was ALWAYS my degen wallet i have always been clear about that and the fact that treating it that way helped me reach 8 figures in a few months is EXACTLY why i'm going to keep doing it — and i honestly do not think that should surprise anyone! more trades more risk more losers more shots at asymmetric winners because i'm not trying to win every trade i'm trying to find the handful of trades that matter so please: don't copytrade me but if you're going to ignore that warning anyway at least understand the game i'm playing before you start whining because one of my trades that you copied goes wrong you're not copytrading a conservative portfolio you're copytrading a degen strategy designed to hunt extreme asymmetry know what you're getting into

Today I learned the lore behind @theunipcs name: Uni = Uniswap Pcs = Pancake Swap He used to trade a lot on ETH mainnet and BNB = Uniswap + Pancake Swap = Unipcs Creative He's also known as "Bonk Guy" because of his famous Bonk long Did you know about this?