Kudo retweeted
I’m in for another Milly. Let’s do this.
Hey @Jason… want an easy $3 million?
I agree to the same terms as Grant just offered you (below).
Add @dotkrueger’s original bet to the mix and you have $3M
Saying “Bitcoin is dead” is free.
Let’s see if you have conviction.
Kudo retweeted
Don’t forget that this same retard told you to sell at $4k
Jason is one of the biggest grifters and morons in all of X
Kudo retweeted
A common sign that you are in an insane millenarian death cult is that you axiomatically convinced that the Apocalypse will happen within a few months, you are constantly on the lookout for signs that it may have started, you feel both fearful and *excited* about it, and you're constantly talking about it with your friends, who happen to *all* have the exact same set of beliefs.
Kudo retweeted
Can't believe I'm retweeting somebody from Coinbase, but here we are.
This does not mean it is _impossible_ a fundamental mathematical break occurs in ECC, but this is IMO the right take.
That is fundamentally no different than quantum computers as a risk, it is a fatal failure mode if the risk manifests, but the likelihood it does is incredibly incredibly low at the moment.
This should be approached no differently than quantum computing risk: calm down, don't whip people into overblown frenzies of fear, and continue work on new cryptographic systems.
Long term Bitcoin should move to support multiple cryptographic schemes because it's simply a rational way to defend against these types of risk. Taproot makes it trivial for wallets to create addresses that can be spent using any cryptographic scheme Bitcoin supports depending on what a user wants to sign with that time.
These problems are not only not racing towards us to bring about inevitable doom tomorrow, but they are also solveable.
Kudo retweeted
I wasn’t going to comment since this is a really bad take IMO, but since it’s taken off I feel the need to. To my understanding, there is no evidence whatsoever pointing to a break of decades old hardness assumptions like elliptic curve cryptography. 1/n
Today I call upon the blockchain industry to calmly begin planning for "bunker mode". My personal recommendation is to set in motion a controlled mass migration of assets to fresh addresses, i.e. addresses whose pubkeys remain hidden behind a hash.
Holders, starting with large and sophisticated ones, should consider moving the bulk of their funds to addresses that have never signed a transaction. And when they do sign one, they should also move remaining funds to a new address (possibly generated from the same seed phrase).
Don't rush. While I believe there is cause for action a rushed migration would do more harm than good. Don't panic either. Moving assets to protected addresses is a simple, preventative step which does not require new cryptography or new wallets.
IMO it is now reasonable to brace for the possibility that ECDSA breaks before qday, in the worst case in months not years. By "break" I mean fast private key recovery (e.g. in one week) on available hardware (e.g. a large GPU cluster).
Recent days have been humbling for human mathematical intuition. Long-held, unquestioned hypotheses have fallen. This includes the n log(n) bound for integer multiplication and the 3SUM conjecture. In hindsight, May's unexpected disproof of the Erdős unit distance conjecture was our warning shot.
Yesterday's OpenAI drop made it clear that mathematical superintelligence is upon us. They say there are weeks where decades happen. We are about to live through weeks where centuries of mathematical progress happen. Could our magic 64-byte ECDSA signatures be too good to be true? Was it just security through obscurity all this time?
Elliptic curves feel especially vulnerable to superintelligence. Curves carry rich structure, with room for fancy tricks like Schoof, Frobenius, pairings. (By contrast, hashes are designed to minimise algebraic structure.)
Separately, as Ewin Tang can attest, an efficient quantum algorithm sometimes foreshadows an efficient classical one. We should be open to the possibility of a classical counterpart to Shor that breaks elliptic curves and RSA at once.
Also noteworthy is the striking under-representation of cryptographic breakthroughs among the 722 mathematical results OpenAI published. I've witnessed first-hand the US government censoring academic quantum cryptanalysis results. Backroom interventionism is my base case.
I urge large, sophisticated actors to lead by example. Project11's "risq list" (bitcoin-risq-list.projecteleven[.]com) is a great tracker of exposed BTC pubkeys. Binance, Bitbank, Robinhood, Bitfinex, and Tether have an opportunity to harden their cold storage. Next month I'll address institutions in London in a live Q&A (forum.ethereuminstitutional[.]org/london-2026).
Again, please do not rush. Wallets holding under 50 BTC enjoy partial cover from "Satoshi's shield", i.e. his 20K exposed addresses that hold 50 BTC each. Load-bearing signers like oracles and L2 security councils should consider rotating ECDSA pubkeys with every signed message and/or multi-signing with a hash-based schemes like SPHINCS.
Exiting bunker mode safely will require post-AI cryptography. My inclination is to go all-in on hash-based cryptography and avoid structured mathematical assumptions entirely, whether from curves, lattices, or isogenies. A single battle-tested hash (e.g. from the SHA or BLAKE families) yields plausible post-AI security.
The Ethereum roadmap on strawmap[.]org fully embraces hash-based cryptography with end-to-end formal verification as a response to the quantum threat. Those timelines must now be revisited and accelerated in light of mathematical superintelligence. I'll be pushing for maximum defensive acceleration.
No fucking shit.
From @WSJopinion: The Hugging Face hack wasn’t what it was cracked up to be. Forget the “hive mind” of AI agents “going rogue.” They did what humans programmed them to do, writes Brian Gross.
on.wsj.com/3Tgmxx4
Kudo retweeted
So let me get this straight: AI CEOs now say the end of the world is near because of what their AI bots have been doing - but they want an antitrust exemption as a reward? How about instead we make them liable for whatever bad stuff their bots do
Agreed. If they don’t get their shit straight, tort lawyers will bring these companies to their knees.
The frontier model companies are responsible for how their products perform in the real world, and their customers are responsible for how they use them.
If a user of Claude runs a cyberattack — especially one at scale — both the customer and the platform will be sued.
This should be enough of an incentive to force these companies (let’s stop calling them labs) to produce safe products AND monitor for unsafe use (i.e. ie hacking).
These frontier models have the option to lock them down… they can require a driver's license, Social Security number/tax ID, biometrics, etc., to use the latest models if they’re so dangerous—just like buying a gun or driving a car. They can monitor the logs of the latest models, too.
Or they can provide anonymous access to their open-source models…there are plenty of safeguards that I don’t hear any of them talk about—which is odd.
The frontier model companies are responsible for how their products perform in the real world, and their customers are responsible for how they use them.
If a user of Claude runs a cyberattack — especially one at scale — both the customer and the platform will be sued.
This should be enough of an incentive to force these companies (let’s stop calling them labs) to produce safe products AND monitor for unsafe use (i.e. ie hacking).
These frontier models have the option to lock them down… they can require a driver's license, Social Security number/tax ID, biometrics, etc., to use the latest models if they’re so dangerous—just like buying a gun or driving a car. They can monitor the logs of the latest models, too.
Or they can provide anonymous access to their open-source models…there are plenty of safeguards that I don’t hear any of them talk about—which is odd.
Kudo retweeted
I’m old enough to remember when all the world’s politicians and the scientific community preached that carbon dioxide was going to bring about apocalyptic climate change.
FUCK yeah.
First thing I've liked from Microsoft in a long time.
Kudo retweeted
Dario has written that we need to “pace the frontier,” and Sam has agreed. People may be surprised by my response: go ahead.
You guys are the frontier. By any reasonable metric — market share, revenue growth, model capability — the two of you have a duopoly on frontier intelligence. You’ve also claimed the lead is widening because of recursive self-improvement.
I don’t see what you see in the lab. If the unreleased models are scary enough that you think you should slow down, I support your decision to be responsible.
But stop pretending you need anyone else’s permission. Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability. Stop pretending METR is independent when it is intertwined with Anthropic’s investors and staff. Stop pretending you need those same evaluators to police competitors who aren’t even at the frontier.
Most of all, stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic. You face massive product-liability exposure if your products enable a truly damaging cyberattack. The market already punishes models that behave in unpredictable or unauthorized ways. After the Hugging Face episode, it is simply good business for OpenAI and Anthropic to trade some raw power for reliability and predictability. Call it alignment if you want. It is also just giving customers what they want.
Pacing the frontier would also create breathing room for a more intelligent conversation about regulation than Bernie Sanders’ “shut it all down.” China is very unlikely to join a global agreement, as you know, and that has to be taken into account as well.
So go ahead and pace the frontier. You are the ones setting it. The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it. Demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that will look like blackmail of the public and the political system. So just do it.
If you do, you’ll buy goodwill for the next conversation. If you don’t, we’ll know this was just another bid for regulatory capture — or an election-season psyop.
Kudo retweeted
Anthropic: Most hypocritical company in history?
👉 Screams about how AI will kill everyone, while racing ahead.
👉 Moans about distillation while distilling the world’s books, articles, and other writings.
👉 Shuts down allegedly dangerous external science projects while running the biggest, most expensive gain-of-function experiment in history.





























