Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

AI is getting better at solving hard math problems, especially given recent drops. But what does that mean for the cryptography that protects everything from private messages to healthcare to banking and crypto wallets? Stanford cryptographer Dan Boneh, with Eddy Lazzarin ☀️, Justin Thaler, Liz Harkavy, and Sonal Chokshi,...

a16zcrypto's profile picture

a16z crypto

1,613,325 subscribers

149,459 просмотров • 6 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политикаОбразованиеНаука и технологии
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 13

Фото профиля Ptolemy XV Caesar/Amun-Ra (“Jesus Christ”) Ⓥ 🌱
Ptolemy XV Caesar/Amun-Ra (“Jesus Christ”) Ⓥ 🌱6 дней назад

IT MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, FOR THE NEAR ENTIRETY OF THE TECHNOLOGY "INDUSTRY" IS HELLBENT ON THE ENTIRELY DELUSIONAL AND UNTRUE FACT THAT IDENTITY IN A DECENTRALIZED MONETARY & ACCOUNTING SYSTEM MUST BE BASED IN AN ARBITRARY CONCEPTUALIZATION OF SUCH THAT IS ENTIRELY DETACHED FROM BIOLOGICAL TRAITS AND OR FEATURES. EVER HEAR OF A FUCKING BIOMETRIC? YOU ARE AWARE THAT BY LEVERAGING INNATE BIOMETRICS FOR THE PURPOSE OF IDENTITY AND ATTRIBUTION IN A DECENTRALIZED MONETARY & ACCOUNTING SYSTEM THAT THERE ARE ZERO SECURITY AND/OR RISK OF ACCOUNT LOCK OUT ISSUES, RIGHT? IMAGINE HOW STUPID YOU FOOLS MUST LOOK TO YOUR AVERAGE GOVERNMENT INTELLIGENCE AGENCY - YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT THEY ARE MOST CERTAINLY LOOKING AT ALL OF YOU IN THE TECHNOLOGY "INDUSTRY" FUMBLING & FLOUNDERING OVER SOME STUPIDFUCKED & EVER-RETARDED CONCEPT OF A "CRYPTOGRAPHIC KEY" AS THEY FLY THROUGH THEIR SECURITY & RISK OF ACCOUNT LOCK OUT ISSUES WITH BIOMETRICALLY-ORIENTED SOLUTIONS. NOBODY IS HERE IN LIFE TO BE REDUCED TO SOME STUPIDFUCKED ALPHANUMERIC STRING THAT SERVES NO PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL PURPOSE AND THEREFORE HAS NO PLACE BEING COMMITTED TO ANY PART OF A LIFE'S MEMORY. USE BIOMETRICS AND GET OVER IT.

Фото профиля ZENITH 𓃵
ZENITH 𓃵5 дней назад

@eddylazzarin This looks unique Will check it out

Фото профиля 𝓔𝓼𝓶𝓮𝔂𝓲🌸
𝓔𝓼𝓶𝓮𝔂𝓲🌸5 дней назад

@eddylazzarin What caught your eye first? 👀

Фото профиля QuantumCoin
QuantumCoin5 дней назад

@eddylazzarin Better for blockchains to migrate asap to hybrid post quantum cryptography and not rely on a single scheme.

Фото профиля vøv △
vøv △6 дней назад

@cdixon @eddylazzarin Crypto another detail in the noise

Фото профиля Cypher
Cypher5 дней назад

@eddylazzarin Yo, we heard you like crypto! We've got post-quantum txns, good enough for now?

Фото профиля BLOCK
BLOCK5 дней назад

@eddylazzarin The interesting part isn't whether AI gets better at math. It's whether migration paths to stronger crypto get built before users have to price that risk in themselves.

Фото профиля Lucas Apostas
Lucas Apostas6 дней назад

@eddylazzarin foda se o risco, tô só pegando a onda 👋🚀

Фото профиля Jacek (Jomsborg.eth)
Jacek (Jomsborg.eth)5 дней назад

@eddylazzarin @EliBenSasson worth to mention @Starknet

Фото профиля Weaver Labs
Weaver Labs5 дней назад

@eddylazzarin The part about AI finding weaknesses in cryptography is worth thinking about. How quickly can we adapt when the assumptions behind our security start changing?

Фото профиля PressX
PressX5 дней назад

@eddylazzarin Jumping straight to the hash vs lattice chapter

Фото профиля BLOCK
BLOCK6 дней назад

@eddylazzarin Crypto agility matters more than any single algorithm. If AI shortens the attack timeline, the winners are the systems that can rotate cryptography without rewriting the whole stack.

Фото профиля David T Kramaley
David T Kramaley5 дней назад

@eddylazzarin AI will expose weak assumptions faster, forcing us to upgrade primitives. builders automating analysis will have an edge

Похожие видео

David Friedberg warns crypto wallets with public keys may be at risk because the absence of major cryptography proofs in OpenAI's math drop suggests big breakthroughs were made but held back "On cryptography, a number of people noted that there were no major proofs shared in the space of cryptography, which indicates probably the fact that there were some pretty major breakthroughs in cryptography." "And the reason is, it is unlikely the case that you made absolutely no progress in any of the cryptography related proofs, given all of the other progress that we saw." "And if they made minor progress, then they would have published on it, because there wouldn't have been implications for systems of cryptography." "So the absence of evidence suggests that maybe there were some pretty major breakthroughs made in cryptography." "And then there were a number of people that posted that cryptographic wallets with public keys are now very seriously at risk. And so there's a bit of a panic underway in the crypto community about what do we do now?" "And if this ends up having a set of mathematical solves for number factorization that could lead to breaking public key cryptography before quantum computers come around, which is what everyone assumed would be the thing that would break public key cryptography, then we have a real problem."
1:08

David Friedberg warns crypto wallets with public keys may be at risk because the absence of major cryptography proofs in OpenAI's math drop suggests big breakthroughs were made but held back "On cryptography, a number of people noted that there were no major proofs shared in the space of cryptography, which indicates probably the fact that there were some pretty major breakthroughs in cryptography." "And the reason is, it is unlikely the case that you made absolutely no progress in any of the cryptography related proofs, given all of the other progress that we saw." "And if they made minor progress, then they would have published on it, because there wouldn't have been implications for systems of cryptography." "So the absence of evidence suggests that maybe there were some pretty major breakthroughs made in cryptography." "And then there were a number of people that posted that cryptographic wallets with public keys are now very seriously at risk. And so there's a bit of a panic underway in the crypto community about what do we do now?" "And if this ends up having a set of mathematical solves for number factorization that could lead to breaking public key cryptography before quantum computers come around, which is what everyone assumed would be the thing that would break public key cryptography, then we have a real problem."

Fireside Alpha

88,002 просмотров • 5 дней назад

First Principles Ep. 6 with Ron Rivest Long before the internet became a place to bank, transact, or build blockchains, Turing Award winner Ron Rivest helped solve a foundational problem: how can strangers communicate securely without first meeting to exchange a secret? Rivest tells the story of inventing RSA with Adi Shamir and Leonard Adleman, why digital signatures fascinated him even more than encryption, and how cryptographic hashes, government pressure, patents, and standards shaped the security infrastructure we rely on today. Rivest shares his unusually candid views on quantum computing, post-quantum security, and more. Hosted by Tim Roughgarden with Dan Boneh. 00:00 Intro: the two problems that could break modern cryptography 01:10 Why Ron Rivest’s work underpins the internet and blockchains 08:10 Before public-key cryptography, there was no theory of security 11:05 The open problem that led to RSA 13:55 The night Ron Rivest discovered the core idea behind RSA 17:55 Why digital signatures were the real breakthrough 19:14 The RSA challenge — and a prediction that was off by quadrillions of years 28:33 How government pressure shaped cryptographic standards 30:36 Designing the hash functions that made digital signatures practical 33:26 The Fiat–Shamir transformation, explained 38:04 Building a cryptography company before the web existed 42:31 Will quantum computers ever become powerful enough to break RSA? 48:02 The cryptography securing the internet, elections, and everyday life 50:11 What surprised Dan: Quantum giveth and quantum taketh away
54:44

First Principles Ep. 6 with Ron Rivest Long before the internet became a place to bank, transact, or build blockchains, Turing Award winner Ron Rivest helped solve a foundational problem: how can strangers communicate securely without first meeting to exchange a secret? Rivest tells the story of inventing RSA with Adi Shamir and Leonard Adleman, why digital signatures fascinated him even more than encryption, and how cryptographic hashes, government pressure, patents, and standards shaped the security infrastructure we rely on today. Rivest shares his unusually candid views on quantum computing, post-quantum security, and more. Hosted by Tim Roughgarden with Dan Boneh. 00:00 Intro: the two problems that could break modern cryptography 01:10 Why Ron Rivest’s work underpins the internet and blockchains 08:10 Before public-key cryptography, there was no theory of security 11:05 The open problem that led to RSA 13:55 The night Ron Rivest discovered the core idea behind RSA 17:55 Why digital signatures were the real breakthrough 19:14 The RSA challenge — and a prediction that was off by quadrillions of years 28:33 How government pressure shaped cryptographic standards 30:36 Designing the hash functions that made digital signatures practical 33:26 The Fiat–Shamir transformation, explained 38:04 Building a cryptography company before the web existed 42:31 Will quantum computers ever become powerful enough to break RSA? 48:02 The cryptography securing the internet, elections, and everyday life 50:11 What surprised Dan: Quantum giveth and quantum taketh away

a16z crypto

62,339 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Hash-based signatures for Bitcoin's post-quantum future? with Jonas Nick | SLP713 Bitcoin researcher Blockstream and bitcoin/secp256k1 contributor, Jonas Nick joins me to discuss how quantum computing could impact Bitcoin’s security. We explore post-quantum cryptography, hash-based signatures, impact on hardware wallets, the controversial block size trade-offs and more. (00:00) - Intro (01:49) - How real is quantum risk to Bitcoin? (04:39) - When could quantum pose a threat to Bitcoin’s cryptography? (09:56) - Long range vs Short range attacks (12:37) - How many coins are vulnerable to Long range attacks? (14:12) - Different types of cryptography and exploring Hash-based signature schemes (17:00) - Categories of Hash-based signature scheme and their pros & cons (23:42) - How do Hash-based signatures work? (32:14) - Would Lightning, Multi-sig, Taproot, Silent Payments, Atomic swaps work in a post-quantum world? (38:50) - What are Adaptor signatures & how do they affect atomic swapping? (41:27) - Will we need new Bitcoin hardware wallets?; Signature production & verification (44:41) - Signature size and Bitcoin block capacity implications (46:52) - Should we revisit the block size conversation? (54:57) - Overview of SPHINCS+ & SHRINCS (59:49) - Transitioning to post-quantum signature schemes; Overview of BIP 360 (1:09:06) - Closing thoughts
1:12:29

Hash-based signatures for Bitcoin's post-quantum future? with Jonas Nick | SLP713 Bitcoin researcher Blockstream and bitcoin/secp256k1 contributor, Jonas Nick joins me to discuss how quantum computing could impact Bitcoin’s security. We explore post-quantum cryptography, hash-based signatures, impact on hardware wallets, the controversial block size trade-offs and more. (00:00) - Intro (01:49) - How real is quantum risk to Bitcoin? (04:39) - When could quantum pose a threat to Bitcoin’s cryptography? (09:56) - Long range vs Short range attacks (12:37) - How many coins are vulnerable to Long range attacks? (14:12) - Different types of cryptography and exploring Hash-based signature schemes (17:00) - Categories of Hash-based signature scheme and their pros & cons (23:42) - How do Hash-based signatures work? (32:14) - Would Lightning, Multi-sig, Taproot, Silent Payments, Atomic swaps work in a post-quantum world? (38:50) - What are Adaptor signatures & how do they affect atomic swapping? (41:27) - Will we need new Bitcoin hardware wallets?; Signature production & verification (44:41) - Signature size and Bitcoin block capacity implications (46:52) - Should we revisit the block size conversation? (54:57) - Overview of SPHINCS+ & SHRINCS (59:49) - Transitioning to post-quantum signature schemes; Overview of BIP 360 (1:09:06) - Closing thoughts

Stephan Livera

45,684 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Bunker mode or calm down? Justin Drake and Vitalik Buterin split on how urgently to act on AI's threat to wallet cryptography "Ethereum researcher Justin Drake tells crypto investors to enter bunker mode. That sounds bad. You ever watch Silo? I don't want to live there." "Justin Drake urged preparation for possible AI-assisted mathematical breakthroughs that could undermine widely used wallet cryptography. He said the worst case could happen within months." "He's basically making the point that AI is so good at math now that we can't take for granted the fact that our cryptography and the math behind it, having nothing to do with quantum, should not be questioned and is not at risk." "Coinbase cryptography head Yehuda Lindell pushed back, saying there was no evidence that the underlying mathematical security assumptions had weakened. Vitalik Buterin stepped in and said, we should take this risk very seriously. This is a real risk, but don't start moving to new wallets yet." "It's important that we understand the potential risks and don't just dismiss everything as FUD or nonsense. We've seen AI hacking things all along, but there is no evidence as of yet that AI can, through math, hack or disavow the underlying assumptions of mathematical cryptography." "This is going to be probably the next horizon. This is a serious disagreement over our preparedness for what's coming. But we also don't want to panic and go nuts and make bad decisions."
1:51

Bunker mode or calm down? Justin Drake and Vitalik Buterin split on how urgently to act on AI's threat to wallet cryptography "Ethereum researcher Justin Drake tells crypto investors to enter bunker mode. That sounds bad. You ever watch Silo? I don't want to live there." "Justin Drake urged preparation for possible AI-assisted mathematical breakthroughs that could undermine widely used wallet cryptography. He said the worst case could happen within months." "He's basically making the point that AI is so good at math now that we can't take for granted the fact that our cryptography and the math behind it, having nothing to do with quantum, should not be questioned and is not at risk." "Coinbase cryptography head Yehuda Lindell pushed back, saying there was no evidence that the underlying mathematical security assumptions had weakened. Vitalik Buterin stepped in and said, we should take this risk very seriously. This is a real risk, but don't start moving to new wallets yet." "It's important that we understand the potential risks and don't just dismiss everything as FUD or nonsense. We've seen AI hacking things all along, but there is no evidence as of yet that AI can, through math, hack or disavow the underlying assumptions of mathematical cryptography." "This is going to be probably the next horizon. This is a serious disagreement over our preparedness for what's coming. But we also don't want to panic and go nuts and make bad decisions."

The Wolf Of All Streets

19,584 просмотров • 7 дней назад

BITCOIN RAILS #61: QUANTUM CRYPTOGRAPHY FOR BITCOIN | with Dan Boneh Dan Boneh 🔗 YOUTUBE: 🌿 SPOTIFY: One of the most prolific and influential cryptographers in the world, it’s difficult to fully quantify the impact that Dan Boneh has had on Bitcoin and digital assets more broadly. Through both his own research and his mentorship of some of the space’s most important contributors — e.g. Andrew Poelstra, Benedikt Bünz ☕️, and Robin Linus — few people have done more to shape the cryptographic foundations underlying modern blockchains and digital finance. More recently, Dan co-authored Google's widely discussed paper, “Securing Elliptic Curve Cryptocurrencies against Quantum Vulnerabilities,” which reduced prior estimates of the resources required to run Shor’s algorithm against the elliptic-curve cryptography used by Bitcoin. The paper reignited debate around quantum computing timelines and the long-term security assumptions behind modern cryptocurrencies. In this episode of Bitcoin Rails, Dan and I discuss the current state of quantum computing, its potential implications for Bitcoin, and how he believes the Bitcoin community should think about preparing for a post-quantum future over the coming decade and beyond. And yes, Dan shares his take on the “when quantum” question in the interview, among other key perspectives. This episode of Bitcoin Rails is brought to you by my NEW sponsors: LayerTwo Labs LayerTwo Labs — developing research, software, and technologies for scaling Bitcoin via the integration of Drivechains (BIP 300/301) Hashi on Sui — a primitive for executing Bitcoin Defi transactions, without having to trust a federated bridge or other centralized entity BitBox BitBox — an open-source Bitcoin-only hardware wallet, with smooth UX and no compromises on security. Check out Bitbox [dot] swiss and use code BITCOINRAILS to get a discount TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 — Intro and Dan’s history with cryptography and Bitcoin 11:44 — Shor's algorithm: how a 1994 paper became cryptography's most important threat 16:39 — Building a quantum computer: superconducting qubits vs neutral atoms 25:37 — When should we start worrying about quantum computers? The timeline debate 31:51 — Have we already reached quantum computing's “ahá” moment? 39:09 — Inside the Google paper: how Shor's algorithm was optimized 49:57 — The Bitcoin mempool attack and the 10-minute window 59:21 — Mitigation: what should Bitcoin do to prepare for quantum? 1:11:54 — Hash-based vs lattice-based signatures: Dan's case for lattice 1:23:15 — ZK proofs, BIP361, and what to do with Satoshi's coins 1:31:52 — Encrypted mempools and MEV 1:38:29 — Why Bitcoin will survive quantum and Dan's message to Bitcoin builders
1:44:02

BITCOIN RAILS #61: QUANTUM CRYPTOGRAPHY FOR BITCOIN | with Dan Boneh Dan Boneh 🔗 YOUTUBE: 🌿 SPOTIFY: One of the most prolific and influential cryptographers in the world, it’s difficult to fully quantify the impact that Dan Boneh has had on Bitcoin and digital assets more broadly. Through both his own research and his mentorship of some of the space’s most important contributors — e.g. Andrew Poelstra, Benedikt Bünz ☕️, and Robin Linus — few people have done more to shape the cryptographic foundations underlying modern blockchains and digital finance. More recently, Dan co-authored Google's widely discussed paper, “Securing Elliptic Curve Cryptocurrencies against Quantum Vulnerabilities,” which reduced prior estimates of the resources required to run Shor’s algorithm against the elliptic-curve cryptography used by Bitcoin. The paper reignited debate around quantum computing timelines and the long-term security assumptions behind modern cryptocurrencies. In this episode of Bitcoin Rails, Dan and I discuss the current state of quantum computing, its potential implications for Bitcoin, and how he believes the Bitcoin community should think about preparing for a post-quantum future over the coming decade and beyond. And yes, Dan shares his take on the “when quantum” question in the interview, among other key perspectives. This episode of Bitcoin Rails is brought to you by my NEW sponsors: LayerTwo Labs LayerTwo Labs — developing research, software, and technologies for scaling Bitcoin via the integration of Drivechains (BIP 300/301) Hashi on Sui — a primitive for executing Bitcoin Defi transactions, without having to trust a federated bridge or other centralized entity BitBox BitBox — an open-source Bitcoin-only hardware wallet, with smooth UX and no compromises on security. Check out Bitbox [dot] swiss and use code BITCOINRAILS to get a discount TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 — Intro and Dan’s history with cryptography and Bitcoin 11:44 — Shor's algorithm: how a 1994 paper became cryptography's most important threat 16:39 — Building a quantum computer: superconducting qubits vs neutral atoms 25:37 — When should we start worrying about quantum computers? The timeline debate 31:51 — Have we already reached quantum computing's “ahá” moment? 39:09 — Inside the Google paper: how Shor's algorithm was optimized 49:57 — The Bitcoin mempool attack and the 10-minute window 59:21 — Mitigation: what should Bitcoin do to prepare for quantum? 1:11:54 — Hash-based vs lattice-based signatures: Dan's case for lattice 1:23:15 — ZK proofs, BIP361, and what to do with Satoshi's coins 1:31:52 — Encrypted mempools and MEV 1:38:29 — Why Bitcoin will survive quantum and Dan's message to Bitcoin builders

Isabel Foxen Duke⚡️

115,035 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Conversation with nic carter to discuss the quantum risk for crypto, Ai math advancements, Satoshi's warning, and what comes next. 00:00 Intro 00:50 Bitcoin Investor Unrest 02:08 Finding Risks and Ideas Early 05:36 Why Bitcoin Needs Upgrade 07:10 Satoshi Warning About Quantum 10:06 What Quantum Computers Can Break 12:41 Crypto Market Examples 16:14 Lessons from the Bitcoin Cash Fork 17:49 The Unavoidable Risk for Bitcoin 19:54 Race Between China and US 22:01 The Base Case: Who Gets the BTC 25:21 Why BlackRock or Coinbase Can't Help 29:48 Michael Saylor Opinion of Quantum 34:29 Warning from Google 36:01 Are Altcoins like ZEC or ETH Safe? 38:20 How Markets Could React 41:22 Could This Boost Price 44:01 The Scariest Part About Quantum Risk 47:16 Is it Already Too Late? 48:41 How Ai is Accelerating Risk 50:08 What Happens Next
51:26

Conversation with nic carter to discuss the quantum risk for crypto, Ai math advancements, Satoshi's warning, and what comes next. 00:00 Intro 00:50 Bitcoin Investor Unrest 02:08 Finding Risks and Ideas Early 05:36 Why Bitcoin Needs Upgrade 07:10 Satoshi Warning About Quantum 10:06 What Quantum Computers Can Break 12:41 Crypto Market Examples 16:14 Lessons from the Bitcoin Cash Fork 17:49 The Unavoidable Risk for Bitcoin 19:54 Race Between China and US 22:01 The Base Case: Who Gets the BTC 25:21 Why BlackRock or Coinbase Can't Help 29:48 Michael Saylor Opinion of Quantum 34:29 Warning from Google 36:01 Are Altcoins like ZEC or ETH Safe? 38:20 How Markets Could React 41:22 Could This Boost Price 44:01 The Scariest Part About Quantum Risk 47:16 Is it Already Too Late? 48:41 How Ai is Accelerating Risk 50:08 What Happens Next

Luke Martin

110,541 просмотров • 2 дней назад

How does math research change when the cost of trying your first dumb idea goes to zero? Daniel Litt joins Greg Burnham and Anson Ho to discuss what today’s models can and can’t do in math, and how far they are from doing high-quality research. 0:00:00 What's the hardest math problem AI can solve today? 00:16:08 How helpful are today’s AI models for math research? 00:23:36 Junk papers, LLM-generated proofs, and the refereeing crisis 00:27:21 AI enables searching through problems at scale 00:33:49 When will AI be good enough to publish in top math journals? 00:42:15 What are the returns to intelligence? 00:59:50 Will AI solve Millennium problems? 01:11:54 Is math full of low-hanging fruit? 01:18:47 How Daniel has adapted his professional life to AI progress 01:25:28 What do AI math benchmarks actually measure? 01:33:05 Designing the Open Problems benchmark 01:56:35 Do mathematicians believe heuristic arguments about conjectures? 02:01:24 What if FrontierMath: Open Problems gets solved? 02:06:53 Is AI on the cusp of accelerating math progress?
2:10:59

How does math research change when the cost of trying your first dumb idea goes to zero? Daniel Litt joins Greg Burnham and Anson Ho to discuss what today’s models can and can’t do in math, and how far they are from doing high-quality research. 0:00:00 What's the hardest math problem AI can solve today? 00:16:08 How helpful are today’s AI models for math research? 00:23:36 Junk papers, LLM-generated proofs, and the refereeing crisis 00:27:21 AI enables searching through problems at scale 00:33:49 When will AI be good enough to publish in top math journals? 00:42:15 What are the returns to intelligence? 00:59:50 Will AI solve Millennium problems? 01:11:54 Is math full of low-hanging fruit? 01:18:47 How Daniel has adapted his professional life to AI progress 01:25:28 What do AI math benchmarks actually measure? 01:33:05 Designing the Open Problems benchmark 01:56:35 Do mathematicians believe heuristic arguments about conjectures? 02:01:24 What if FrontierMath: Open Problems gets solved? 02:06:53 Is AI on the cusp of accelerating math progress?

Epoch AI

178,703 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

BITCOIN RAILS EPISODE #18: MAKE BITCOIN QUANTUM RESISTANT | with BIP360 author Hunter Beast Hunter Beast 🕯️ Quantum computing is a complicated topic—one that incites equal amounts of fear and skepticism depending on who you talk to… especially in Bitcoin. In this episode, BIP360 author Hunter Beast wisely shares why the “truth is likely somewhere in the middle,” citing incremental advancements in quantum computing that may eventually pose a legitimate threat to some Bitcoin addresses—as well as steps we can take to protect ourselves in the short, medium and long term. The correct posture is to “be prepared, not scared,” says Hunter Beast 🕯️ Ultimately, the introduction of quantum resistant cryptography—via proposals like BIP360—will be needed for higher degrees of security. That said, individuals can mitigate personal risk substantially through proper address-use hygiene. This episode breaks down the specific challenges Bitcoin will face in the event of a quantum attack, the likelihood of an attack over time, and the steps we’ll need to take at the individual and communal level to ensure Bitcoin’s safety. This episode includes detailed discussion of: 1) How quantum computing could potentially affect Bitcoin public/private key cryptography—and technologies built on vulnerable addresses (e.g. Taproot) 2) Best practices for protecting yourself against quantum in the short and long term 3) Implications of vulnerable address types—e.g. what about Satoshi’s coins? 4) Deep Dive into BIP360 + proposed long-term solutions 5) Industry roadmaps for quantum computing + how banks and governments are preparing for “Q Day” As always, this episode can be viewed on Spotify or YouTuve—full episode in the comments or linktree in my bio. This episode is powered by Best In Slot—the leading API for Ordinals and BRC20 data aggregation and indexing. TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 Intro 02:05 What is quantum computing? 04:30 How could quantum threaten your Bitcoin wallet? 06:50 Addresses that are safe from quantum 09:13 Satoshi’s coins are in danger! 11:25 What happens if Satoshi’s coins are touched? 14:45 Do we softfork to shield Satoshi’s coins? 16:38 “Transitory inflation” for bitcoin after quantum 21:05 Why Taproot addresses are vulnerable 23:50 Do NOT reuse your Bitcoin addresses! 26:03 When will Quantum become a threat? 28:34 The long/short exposure attack; explained 31:45 Protection using private mempools 33:20 Why all the new Bitcoin L2s are in danger 37:45 Quantum is 5 to 10 years away, governments fear 40:34 Non-Bitcoin systems threatened by quantum 42:26 Centralized systems can adapt to quantum 43:50 Hunter’s BIP: Post quantum cryptography in Bitcoin 47:40 Hunter’s three new signature algorithms 53:48 Is new cryptography on Bitcoin risky? 56:33 Why not just stick to hash-based cryptography? 58:49 A 16X discount for quantum resistant addresses? 01:02:30 Creating quantum resistant multisig addresses 01:04:00 What is Frost? 01:06:50 The long process of approving a BIP 01:08:30 What developers think of Hunter’s BIP 01:10:00 Matt Corallo’s concerns with Hunter’s approach 01:11:00 Steps to implementing the BIP 360 01:17:00 Where to learn more about BIP 360 01:17:50 Who can push the button to change Bitcoin?
1:23:12

BITCOIN RAILS EPISODE #18: MAKE BITCOIN QUANTUM RESISTANT | with BIP360 author Hunter Beast Hunter Beast 🕯️ Quantum computing is a complicated topic—one that incites equal amounts of fear and skepticism depending on who you talk to… especially in Bitcoin. In this episode, BIP360 author Hunter Beast wisely shares why the “truth is likely somewhere in the middle,” citing incremental advancements in quantum computing that may eventually pose a legitimate threat to some Bitcoin addresses—as well as steps we can take to protect ourselves in the short, medium and long term. The correct posture is to “be prepared, not scared,” says Hunter Beast 🕯️ Ultimately, the introduction of quantum resistant cryptography—via proposals like BIP360—will be needed for higher degrees of security. That said, individuals can mitigate personal risk substantially through proper address-use hygiene. This episode breaks down the specific challenges Bitcoin will face in the event of a quantum attack, the likelihood of an attack over time, and the steps we’ll need to take at the individual and communal level to ensure Bitcoin’s safety. This episode includes detailed discussion of: 1) How quantum computing could potentially affect Bitcoin public/private key cryptography—and technologies built on vulnerable addresses (e.g. Taproot) 2) Best practices for protecting yourself against quantum in the short and long term 3) Implications of vulnerable address types—e.g. what about Satoshi’s coins? 4) Deep Dive into BIP360 + proposed long-term solutions 5) Industry roadmaps for quantum computing + how banks and governments are preparing for “Q Day” As always, this episode can be viewed on Spotify or YouTuve—full episode in the comments or linktree in my bio. This episode is powered by Best In Slot—the leading API for Ordinals and BRC20 data aggregation and indexing. TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 Intro 02:05 What is quantum computing? 04:30 How could quantum threaten your Bitcoin wallet? 06:50 Addresses that are safe from quantum 09:13 Satoshi’s coins are in danger! 11:25 What happens if Satoshi’s coins are touched? 14:45 Do we softfork to shield Satoshi’s coins? 16:38 “Transitory inflation” for bitcoin after quantum 21:05 Why Taproot addresses are vulnerable 23:50 Do NOT reuse your Bitcoin addresses! 26:03 When will Quantum become a threat? 28:34 The long/short exposure attack; explained 31:45 Protection using private mempools 33:20 Why all the new Bitcoin L2s are in danger 37:45 Quantum is 5 to 10 years away, governments fear 40:34 Non-Bitcoin systems threatened by quantum 42:26 Centralized systems can adapt to quantum 43:50 Hunter’s BIP: Post quantum cryptography in Bitcoin 47:40 Hunter’s three new signature algorithms 53:48 Is new cryptography on Bitcoin risky? 56:33 Why not just stick to hash-based cryptography? 58:49 A 16X discount for quantum resistant addresses? 01:02:30 Creating quantum resistant multisig addresses 01:04:00 What is Frost? 01:06:50 The long process of approving a BIP 01:08:30 What developers think of Hunter’s BIP 01:10:00 Matt Corallo’s concerns with Hunter’s approach 01:11:00 Steps to implementing the BIP 360 01:17:00 Where to learn more about BIP 360 01:17:50 Who can push the button to change Bitcoin?

Isabel Foxen Duke⚡️

31,148 просмотров • 1 год назад

Is Quantum FUD BS? with James O'Beirne | SLP721 jamesob, Bitcoin developer joins me to discuss quantum hype vs reality, developer trade-offs, protocol upgrade challenges, and what it means for self-custody, UX, and Bitcoin’s long-term adoption. (00:00) - Intro (00:46) - What is the deal with quantum computing and Bitcoin? (05:05) - Advancing progress in quantum computing (09:43) - Is the quantum threat to Bitcoin around the corner? (11:57) - Quantum resistant schemes developed by Bitcoiners (15:45) - NIST and diverse views on Post-quantum cryptography (22:31) - The future of Bitcoin in a Post-quantum world (29:45) - 'Matt Corallo (Matt Corallo 🟠) Quantum Plan' (34:08) - A modest version of the Big Blocker view (38:41) - Covenants and Scaling Bitcoin (43:35) - Comparing OP_TEMPLATEHASH & OP_CTV (48:01) - The ‘Slow and Steady’ approach to Bitcoin development (55:19) - What’s the next adoption pathway for Bitcoin? (1:04:04) - AssumeUTXO, Utreexo & Floresta (1:07:20) - Why are so few people running Bitcoin nodes? (1:14:52) - Closing thoughts
1:18:57

Is Quantum FUD BS? with James O'Beirne | SLP721 jamesob, Bitcoin developer joins me to discuss quantum hype vs reality, developer trade-offs, protocol upgrade challenges, and what it means for self-custody, UX, and Bitcoin’s long-term adoption. (00:00) - Intro (00:46) - What is the deal with quantum computing and Bitcoin? (05:05) - Advancing progress in quantum computing (09:43) - Is the quantum threat to Bitcoin around the corner? (11:57) - Quantum resistant schemes developed by Bitcoiners (15:45) - NIST and diverse views on Post-quantum cryptography (22:31) - The future of Bitcoin in a Post-quantum world (29:45) - 'Matt Corallo (Matt Corallo 🟠) Quantum Plan' (34:08) - A modest version of the Big Blocker view (38:41) - Covenants and Scaling Bitcoin (43:35) - Comparing OP_TEMPLATEHASH & OP_CTV (48:01) - The ‘Slow and Steady’ approach to Bitcoin development (55:19) - What’s the next adoption pathway for Bitcoin? (1:04:04) - AssumeUTXO, Utreexo & Floresta (1:07:20) - Why are so few people running Bitcoin nodes? (1:14:52) - Closing thoughts

Stephan Livera

17,889 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

“Most people already have more intelligence than they know what to do with.” iArb | 裁定取引 joins the Insilico Terminal Podcast to talk about finding obscure crypto edges, building trading systems, and putting AI to work. We covered the Tari arbitrage, oil perps on Hyperliquid, automating research, owning compute, and where he sees the next opportunities for small teams. 00:00 Introducing Arb and his first crypto arbitrage 09:25 Oil perps: trading the market rules 16:43 Bitcoin, hardware and the AI opportunity 26:40 Where AI value accrues 33:26 Why small teams can move faster 39:08 AI for trading research and automation 45:51 How to think in systems 51:07 Manual trading and AI-built systems 55:38 AI workflows and what changes next
1:05:49

“Most people already have more intelligence than they know what to do with.” iArb | 裁定取引 joins the Insilico Terminal Podcast to talk about finding obscure crypto edges, building trading systems, and putting AI to work. We covered the Tari arbitrage, oil perps on Hyperliquid, automating research, owning compute, and where he sees the next opportunities for small teams. 00:00 Introducing Arb and his first crypto arbitrage 09:25 Oil perps: trading the market rules 16:43 Bitcoin, hardware and the AI opportunity 26:40 Where AI value accrues 33:26 Why small teams can move faster 39:08 AI for trading research and automation 45:51 How to think in systems 51:07 Manual trading and AI-built systems 55:38 AI workflows and what changes next

Insilico Terminal

22,370 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Illia on the two types of post quantum cryptography, and which one Near prefers "There's a difference between types of cryptography, so-called lattice based and hash based, and there's a bit of a debate right now in the Web3 space about what should be used, with different tradeoffs" "People are used to signing with their wallet, the traditional way, but if we go to more institutional adoption, people use multi party computation, MPC. That's also what backs Near Intents and a lot of the cross chain work Near is doing. Today we have an announcement that we have a consortium testing multi party computation across custodians, banks and regulators, to showcase how this is going to work in production for real institutional use cases" "This is where we need the social consensus for the whole of Web3 to work together in a reasonable way, because hash based is actually very hard to support with hardware wallets and MPC solutions. So it's important for us that there's consensus on lattice based" "We want to be ahead of the curve and showcase how all of these tools work, and bring it to both individual users and institutional usage. That enables both security and trust in blockchain, which we've seen plummet a bit since post quantum concerns started coming out late last year"
2:19

Illia on the two types of post quantum cryptography, and which one Near prefers "There's a difference between types of cryptography, so-called lattice based and hash based, and there's a bit of a debate right now in the Web3 space about what should be used, with different tradeoffs" "People are used to signing with their wallet, the traditional way, but if we go to more institutional adoption, people use multi party computation, MPC. That's also what backs Near Intents and a lot of the cross chain work Near is doing. Today we have an announcement that we have a consortium testing multi party computation across custodians, banks and regulators, to showcase how this is going to work in production for real institutional use cases" "This is where we need the social consensus for the whole of Web3 to work together in a reasonable way, because hash based is actually very hard to support with hardware wallets and MPC solutions. So it's important for us that there's consensus on lattice based" "We want to be ahead of the curve and showcase how all of these tools work, and bring it to both individual users and institutional usage. That enables both security and trust in blockchain, which we've seen plummet a bit since post quantum concerns started coming out late last year"

Laura Shin

60,788 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

a16z crypto's Eddy Lazzarin and Stanford's Dan Boneh on how AI's math leap could turn a decade of trust-building in cryptography into one month: Eddy: "We specifically rely in some sense on time... We put these schemes out and we wait. And we wait because what we believe is happening is that experts, like cryptographers and mathematicians, are testing and trying to break these things." "Because of the pace of progress on AI's mathematical abilities, there is a conspicuous absence of time... A whole new well of cognitive ability to scrutinize has appeared." Dan: "In the past, when someone would make an assumption and build a system based on it, we'd have to wait like 10 years before that system could be deployed." "Now we can just let a model run for a month, try to break it, and if the model can't break it, boy, do we have a lot of confidence that the assumption is valid." Eddy: "The labs can say, 'We took our tip-top, totally unrestricted, most cyber-capable model, and we told it to go absolutely insane, and we spent $20 million, $50 million trying to break this scheme.'" "We actually have the prospect to have more confidence in our security than ever before." Eddy Lazzarin ☀️ Dan Boneh
2:51

a16z crypto's Eddy Lazzarin and Stanford's Dan Boneh on how AI's math leap could turn a decade of trust-building in cryptography into one month: Eddy: "We specifically rely in some sense on time... We put these schemes out and we wait. And we wait because what we believe is happening is that experts, like cryptographers and mathematicians, are testing and trying to break these things." "Because of the pace of progress on AI's mathematical abilities, there is a conspicuous absence of time... A whole new well of cognitive ability to scrutinize has appeared." Dan: "In the past, when someone would make an assumption and build a system based on it, we'd have to wait like 10 years before that system could be deployed." "Now we can just let a model run for a month, try to break it, and if the model can't break it, boy, do we have a lot of confidence that the assumption is valid." Eddy: "The labs can say, 'We took our tip-top, totally unrestricted, most cyber-capable model, and we told it to go absolutely insane, and we spent $20 million, $50 million trying to break this scheme.'" "We actually have the prospect to have more confidence in our security than ever before." Eddy Lazzarin ☀️ Dan Boneh

a16z

29,658 просмотров • 2 дней назад

BITCOIN RAILS #70: THE CASE FOR LATTICE-BASED SIGNATURES IN BITCOIN | with CTO of Ledger Charles Guillemet 🔗 YouTube: 🌿 Spotify: To date, post-quantum Bitcoin discussions have largely centered on which digital signature schemes offer the strongest cryptographic security against a quantum adversary. But cryptographic assumptions are only one dimension of security. Different signature schemes introduce different implementation and operational risks. How should Bitcoin weigh cryptographic conservatism against the complexity required to deploy that cryptography safely? While hash-based signatures are often favored for their conservative assumptions, CTO of Ledger, Charles Guillemet Charles Guillemet argues that evaluating primitives in isolation can obscure consequential risks at the systems level. Stateful hash-based schemes, in particular, introduce state-management requirements where operational or user error can have catastrophic consequences —despite their conservative cryptographic foundations. In this interview, Charles and I examine the tradeoffs of hash-based signatures and his case for greater consideration of lattice-based alternatives, i.e. ML-DSA. A very juicy episode for anyone seriously assessing Bitcoin's post-quantum design landscape. This episode of Bitcoin Rails is brought to you by: LayerTwo Labs LayerTwo Labs — developing research, software, and technologies for scaling Bitcoin via the integration of Drivechains (BIP 300/301) Hashi on Sui — a primitive for executing Bitcoin DeFi transactions, without having to trust a federated bridge or other centralized entity BitBox BitBox — an open-source Bitcoin-only hardware wallet, with smooth UX and no compromises on security. Check out Bitbox [dot] swiss and use code BITCOINRAILS to get a discount TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 — Intro 01:45 — How the quantum threat became real for Ledger 09:06 — NIST influence and what Ledger built into its SDK 21:25 — ML-DSA and why Falcon might not be the right choice 25:33 — The problem with hash-based signatures 31:38 — Stateful signatures and the throughput problem 36:48 — Does user error outweigh the security difference? 42:27 — Bitcoin post-quantum migration scenario 45:15 — Maintaining multisig capabilities in a post-quantum world 55:54 — NIST standardization process and the backdoor question 1:01:06 — Trezor's approach and device authentication 1:06:09 — Ledger’s approach to post-quantum signatures
1:07:00

BITCOIN RAILS #70: THE CASE FOR LATTICE-BASED SIGNATURES IN BITCOIN | with CTO of Ledger Charles Guillemet 🔗 YouTube: 🌿 Spotify: To date, post-quantum Bitcoin discussions have largely centered on which digital signature schemes offer the strongest cryptographic security against a quantum adversary. But cryptographic assumptions are only one dimension of security. Different signature schemes introduce different implementation and operational risks. How should Bitcoin weigh cryptographic conservatism against the complexity required to deploy that cryptography safely? While hash-based signatures are often favored for their conservative assumptions, CTO of Ledger, Charles Guillemet Charles Guillemet argues that evaluating primitives in isolation can obscure consequential risks at the systems level. Stateful hash-based schemes, in particular, introduce state-management requirements where operational or user error can have catastrophic consequences —despite their conservative cryptographic foundations. In this interview, Charles and I examine the tradeoffs of hash-based signatures and his case for greater consideration of lattice-based alternatives, i.e. ML-DSA. A very juicy episode for anyone seriously assessing Bitcoin's post-quantum design landscape. This episode of Bitcoin Rails is brought to you by: LayerTwo Labs LayerTwo Labs — developing research, software, and technologies for scaling Bitcoin via the integration of Drivechains (BIP 300/301) Hashi on Sui — a primitive for executing Bitcoin DeFi transactions, without having to trust a federated bridge or other centralized entity BitBox BitBox — an open-source Bitcoin-only hardware wallet, with smooth UX and no compromises on security. Check out Bitbox [dot] swiss and use code BITCOINRAILS to get a discount TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 — Intro 01:45 — How the quantum threat became real for Ledger 09:06 — NIST influence and what Ledger built into its SDK 21:25 — ML-DSA and why Falcon might not be the right choice 25:33 — The problem with hash-based signatures 31:38 — Stateful signatures and the throughput problem 36:48 — Does user error outweigh the security difference? 42:27 — Bitcoin post-quantum migration scenario 45:15 — Maintaining multisig capabilities in a post-quantum world 55:54 — NIST standardization process and the backdoor question 1:01:06 — Trezor's approach and device authentication 1:06:09 — Ledger’s approach to post-quantum signatures

Isabel Foxen Duke⚡️

18,721 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

New Professionally Curious w/ Joanna Zeng @ SOON (🔴,💊)📍🇺🇸🗽 (100x Arc) + @valardragon Co-Founder of Osmosis Zone From cryptography to Cosmos, Dev shares how Osmosis is tackling MEV, privacy, and cross-chain UX to shape the next era of DeFi. A deep dive into decentralization, performance, and why privacy-first infrastructure will define the future of crypto. SOON takeaway: The next wave of DeFi belongs to systems that balance speed, privacy, and trust. Like Osmosis, SOON is building high-performance infrastructure where transparency and user control coexist — powering a more private, scalable on-chain future. Key Highlights: • From cryptography to founding Osmosis • Privacy and anonymity as DeFi’s next frontier • Tackling MEV and fairness in decentralized systems • Cross-chain UX as the key to mainstream adoption • Institutional influence on DeFi infrastructure • Balancing decentralization, performance, and scale • Why privacy is essential in the age of AI ⏱️ Timestamps 00:00 Founding Osmosis & Dev's early crypto journey 04:12 Cryptography, privacy, and anonymity 07:40 Solving MEV and improving fairness in DeFi 10:35 The importance of cross-chain UX 13:55 How institutions are reshaping DeFi 17:10 Decentralization vs. performance 20:45 Why privacy matters in the AI era 23:30 The future of DeFi and Osmosis’ long-term vision Listen to the full episode below👇
40:21

New Professionally Curious w/ Joanna Zeng @ SOON (🔴,💊)📍🇺🇸🗽 (100x Arc) + @valardragon Co-Founder of Osmosis Zone From cryptography to Cosmos, Dev shares how Osmosis is tackling MEV, privacy, and cross-chain UX to shape the next era of DeFi. A deep dive into decentralization, performance, and why privacy-first infrastructure will define the future of crypto. SOON takeaway: The next wave of DeFi belongs to systems that balance speed, privacy, and trust. Like Osmosis, SOON is building high-performance infrastructure where transparency and user control coexist — powering a more private, scalable on-chain future. Key Highlights: • From cryptography to founding Osmosis • Privacy and anonymity as DeFi’s next frontier • Tackling MEV and fairness in decentralized systems • Cross-chain UX as the key to mainstream adoption • Institutional influence on DeFi infrastructure • Balancing decentralization, performance, and scale • Why privacy is essential in the age of AI ⏱️ Timestamps 00:00 Founding Osmosis & Dev's early crypto journey 04:12 Cryptography, privacy, and anonymity 07:40 Solving MEV and improving fairness in DeFi 10:35 The importance of cross-chain UX 13:55 How institutions are reshaping DeFi 17:10 Decentralization vs. performance 20:45 Why privacy matters in the AI era 23:30 The future of DeFi and Osmosis’ long-term vision Listen to the full episode below👇

SOON - Solana Optimistic Network (Mainnet Arc)

42,556 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

BITCOIN RAILS #69: ZERO-KNOWLEDGE PROOFS FOR POST-QUANTUM BITCOIN | with Benedikt Bünz 🔗 YOUTUBE: 🌿 SPOTIFY: While many Bitcoiners remain hopeful the network will embrace zero-knowledge proofs for protocol-level use cases, practical adoption has remained limited outside of BitVM and a handful of experimental proposals. Most of the world’s ZKP research has circled around Ethereum and other ecosystems, where significant resources have been dedicated to advancing these systems, particularly for scaling and privacy applications. One of the most notable contributors to this research is Benedikt Bünz ☕️ — professor of cryptography at NYU and collaborator of Dan Boneh, who together inarguably form one of the strongest blockchain-applied cryptography teams in the world. The pair recently announced they’ll be leading the new post-quantum cryptography unit localhost research — the first dedicated PQ research effort within a major Bitcoin development organization. With Benedikt leading the charge on the use of zero-knowledge proofs for post-quantum mitigation, the question emerges: will the post-quantum transition be the catalyst to finally bring zero-knowledge proofs to Bitcoin's core protocol? In more detail, Benedikt and I discuss: - Why ZKPs haven’t been widely adopted by the Bitcoin technical community — and why the threat of quantum computers may change that posture going forward - How ZKPs could be used for signature batching to address larger post-quantum signatures in Bitcoin’s post-quantum era - Why Bitcoiners will likely prioritize hash-based signatures as an initial post-quantum scheme — rather than more efficient but less proven alternatives (e.g., lattice-based) - How ZKPs have evolved over the last decade and may finally be ready for Bitcoin’s strict requirements around trust assumptions - Why Benedikt and Dan are teaming up with localhost research to create the first post-quantum cryptography unit within a major Bitcoin development organization + what they hope to accomplish This episode of Bitcoin Rails is brought to you by: LayerTwo Labs LayerTwo Labs — developing research, software, and technologies for scaling Bitcoin via the integration of Drivechains (BIP 300/301) Hashi on Sui — a primitive for executing Bitcoin DeFi transactions, without having to trust a federated bridge or other centralized entity BitBox BitBox — an open-source Bitcoin-only hardware wallet, with smooth UX and no compromises on security. Check out Bitbox [dot] swiss and use code BITCOINRAILS to get a discount TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 — Intro 00:22 — Benedikt's background 04:10 — How Benedikt got into Bitcoin and cryptography 07:42 — First ZK project: proving exchange solvency after Mt. Gox 16:01 — ZK proofs explained 27:43 — How security gets popular & ZK proofs in Bitcoin 35:49 — Other applications of ZK proofs for Bitcoin 40:15 — Why ZK proofs haven't been adopted in Bitcoin 50:46 — Why the Bitcoin post-quantum transition needs ZK proofs 01:07:00 — Cryptographic agility and why lattices win 01:18:00 — The size problem and how SNARKs solve it 01:33:57 — Proving a Bitcoin block in a laptop in 1.5 seconds 01:37:12 — Bitcoin as the primary quantum target 01:40:47 — ZK proofs for seed phrase recovery
1:43:41

BITCOIN RAILS #69: ZERO-KNOWLEDGE PROOFS FOR POST-QUANTUM BITCOIN | with Benedikt Bünz 🔗 YOUTUBE: 🌿 SPOTIFY: While many Bitcoiners remain hopeful the network will embrace zero-knowledge proofs for protocol-level use cases, practical adoption has remained limited outside of BitVM and a handful of experimental proposals. Most of the world’s ZKP research has circled around Ethereum and other ecosystems, where significant resources have been dedicated to advancing these systems, particularly for scaling and privacy applications. One of the most notable contributors to this research is Benedikt Bünz ☕️ — professor of cryptography at NYU and collaborator of Dan Boneh, who together inarguably form one of the strongest blockchain-applied cryptography teams in the world. The pair recently announced they’ll be leading the new post-quantum cryptography unit localhost research — the first dedicated PQ research effort within a major Bitcoin development organization. With Benedikt leading the charge on the use of zero-knowledge proofs for post-quantum mitigation, the question emerges: will the post-quantum transition be the catalyst to finally bring zero-knowledge proofs to Bitcoin's core protocol? In more detail, Benedikt and I discuss: - Why ZKPs haven’t been widely adopted by the Bitcoin technical community — and why the threat of quantum computers may change that posture going forward - How ZKPs could be used for signature batching to address larger post-quantum signatures in Bitcoin’s post-quantum era - Why Bitcoiners will likely prioritize hash-based signatures as an initial post-quantum scheme — rather than more efficient but less proven alternatives (e.g., lattice-based) - How ZKPs have evolved over the last decade and may finally be ready for Bitcoin’s strict requirements around trust assumptions - Why Benedikt and Dan are teaming up with localhost research to create the first post-quantum cryptography unit within a major Bitcoin development organization + what they hope to accomplish This episode of Bitcoin Rails is brought to you by: LayerTwo Labs LayerTwo Labs — developing research, software, and technologies for scaling Bitcoin via the integration of Drivechains (BIP 300/301) Hashi on Sui — a primitive for executing Bitcoin DeFi transactions, without having to trust a federated bridge or other centralized entity BitBox BitBox — an open-source Bitcoin-only hardware wallet, with smooth UX and no compromises on security. Check out Bitbox [dot] swiss and use code BITCOINRAILS to get a discount TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 — Intro 00:22 — Benedikt's background 04:10 — How Benedikt got into Bitcoin and cryptography 07:42 — First ZK project: proving exchange solvency after Mt. Gox 16:01 — ZK proofs explained 27:43 — How security gets popular & ZK proofs in Bitcoin 35:49 — Other applications of ZK proofs for Bitcoin 40:15 — Why ZK proofs haven't been adopted in Bitcoin 50:46 — Why the Bitcoin post-quantum transition needs ZK proofs 01:07:00 — Cryptographic agility and why lattices win 01:18:00 — The size problem and how SNARKs solve it 01:33:57 — Proving a Bitcoin block in a laptop in 1.5 seconds 01:37:12 — Bitcoin as the primary quantum target 01:40:47 — ZK proofs for seed phrase recovery

Isabel Foxen Duke⚡️

19,872 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Can a sufficiently powerful quantum computer forge the signatures used to authorize Bitcoin and Ethereum transactions? What would it take to upgrade both networks before that happens? In this new lecture, Stanford cryptographer Dan Boneh explores why blockchains may turn to signatures built from hash functions. He also presents new research on threshold signing. The talk ends with the questions Bitcoin still has to answer, including whether post-quantum signatures will require larger blocks, what happens to abandoned coins, and how someone such as Satoshi could prove ownership after Bitcoin’s current signatures have been retired. 00:00 Why blockchains need to prepare for quantum computers 03:05 Why Bitcoin may bet on hash-based signatures 06:25 The “big footgun” in stateful signatures 08:58 A quantum-safe signature that takes one billion hashes 14:13 Inside SLH-DSA’s virtual tree 20:30 How Bitcoin and Ethereum could make the switch 23:48 What happens when a wallet loses its state? 32:47 Can threshold signing survive the quantum transition? 36:39 How to hide lattice cryptography from the blockchain 38:49 Why threshold one-time signatures seem impossible 45:36 How context prevents forged signatures 49:37 The forgotten idea behind Winternitz signatures 54:50 Turning one-time signatures into threshold signatures 1:04:27 Will quantum-safe signatures require bigger Bitcoin blocks? 1:06:26 Abandoned bitcoin and Satoshi’s recovery problem
1:09:36

Can a sufficiently powerful quantum computer forge the signatures used to authorize Bitcoin and Ethereum transactions? What would it take to upgrade both networks before that happens? In this new lecture, Stanford cryptographer Dan Boneh explores why blockchains may turn to signatures built from hash functions. He also presents new research on threshold signing. The talk ends with the questions Bitcoin still has to answer, including whether post-quantum signatures will require larger blocks, what happens to abandoned coins, and how someone such as Satoshi could prove ownership after Bitcoin’s current signatures have been retired. 00:00 Why blockchains need to prepare for quantum computers 03:05 Why Bitcoin may bet on hash-based signatures 06:25 The “big footgun” in stateful signatures 08:58 A quantum-safe signature that takes one billion hashes 14:13 Inside SLH-DSA’s virtual tree 20:30 How Bitcoin and Ethereum could make the switch 23:48 What happens when a wallet loses its state? 32:47 Can threshold signing survive the quantum transition? 36:39 How to hide lattice cryptography from the blockchain 38:49 Why threshold one-time signatures seem impossible 45:36 How context prevents forged signatures 49:37 The forgotten idea behind Winternitz signatures 54:50 Turning one-time signatures into threshold signatures 1:04:27 Will quantum-safe signatures require bigger Bitcoin blocks? 1:06:26 Abandoned bitcoin and Satoshi’s recovery problem

a16z crypto

120,741 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

DROPS E27: Ben from Talus Labs: Building the Future of Decentralized AI Agents In this episode Ben breaks down why AI isn’t a bubble, how Talus is redefining on-chain agents, and why optimism is something you earn and not something you just feel. We talk about: - Why AI is not a bubble and how mega-cap tech is funding the next AI wave through massive CapEx - How Talus enables decentralized AI agents that can act and transact trustlessly - The three big crypto × AI intersections: compute, data ownership, and intelligent on-chain workflows - Why AI needs verifiable, censorship-resistant execution layers and why blockchains provide that - Nuclear energy as a prerequisite for AGI-scale compute demand - Why SWE’s object model + parallelization is perfect for autonomous agent payments and priority fees And much more! Timestamps: 0:00 Introduction 1:31 Welcome To Drops 2:10 Getting Backers Like Polychain 3:16 Building While In College 7:51 VC’s vs Founders Differences Explained 10:01 Is There An AI Bubble 11:53 How Do We Quantify The AI Opportunity In Crypto 12:33 AI Is Difficult To Invest In, Why? 13:35 Risks To Look Out For To Ensure AI Investments Deliver 16:47 Energy Being A Big Risk For AI 20:50 How You Became Fascinated By Crypto & Blockchain 22:00 Why Does AI & Blockchain Intersection Make Sense Compute Side 24:39 Why Does AI & Blockchain Intersection Make Sense for Data Ownership 26:30 Complex Workflows With Intelligent Execution Meaning 28:19 Why Do We Need This On Blockchain 30:26 How Adding This Decentralized Layer Helps With The Black Box 32:01 Explain Talus To Your Mom 33:39 Talus Solved Blockchain Determinism Limitation Explained 35:43 Two Examples That Can Be Built On The Zapier Of Web 3 39:32 Why Get Investment From SUI 42:56 What’s Needed To Get To The Next Level 43:35 One Takeaway From Conversation 43:51 One Thing Pessimistic People Are Missing
45:43

DROPS E27: Ben from Talus Labs: Building the Future of Decentralized AI Agents In this episode Ben breaks down why AI isn’t a bubble, how Talus is redefining on-chain agents, and why optimism is something you earn and not something you just feel. We talk about: - Why AI is not a bubble and how mega-cap tech is funding the next AI wave through massive CapEx - How Talus enables decentralized AI agents that can act and transact trustlessly - The three big crypto × AI intersections: compute, data ownership, and intelligent on-chain workflows - Why AI needs verifiable, censorship-resistant execution layers and why blockchains provide that - Nuclear energy as a prerequisite for AGI-scale compute demand - Why SWE’s object model + parallelization is perfect for autonomous agent payments and priority fees And much more! Timestamps: 0:00 Introduction 1:31 Welcome To Drops 2:10 Getting Backers Like Polychain 3:16 Building While In College 7:51 VC’s vs Founders Differences Explained 10:01 Is There An AI Bubble 11:53 How Do We Quantify The AI Opportunity In Crypto 12:33 AI Is Difficult To Invest In, Why? 13:35 Risks To Look Out For To Ensure AI Investments Deliver 16:47 Energy Being A Big Risk For AI 20:50 How You Became Fascinated By Crypto & Blockchain 22:00 Why Does AI & Blockchain Intersection Make Sense Compute Side 24:39 Why Does AI & Blockchain Intersection Make Sense for Data Ownership 26:30 Complex Workflows With Intelligent Execution Meaning 28:19 Why Do We Need This On Blockchain 30:26 How Adding This Decentralized Layer Helps With The Black Box 32:01 Explain Talus To Your Mom 33:39 Talus Solved Blockchain Determinism Limitation Explained 35:43 Two Examples That Can Be Built On The Zapier Of Web 3 39:32 Why Get Investment From SUI 42:56 What’s Needed To Get To The Next Level 43:35 One Takeaway From Conversation 43:51 One Thing Pessimistic People Are Missing

MR SHIFT 🦁

41,057 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад