Ethereum Daily ~ October 18, 2025
Presented by @inflynce
๐ Huobi Founder Launching ETH DAT
๐ผ Dankrad Leaves for Tempo
๐ฅ BETH Builder Grants
๐ Earn ETH by reading today's issue in the mini app below!
Biggest BNB Chain LP and Token locker just exit scammed for 6 million dollars
Current drained 2M usd +
Money is being sent to binance
One of the most tragic events being unfolded right now and no one is even aware ๐
I personally believe in privacy combined with decentralization
however i think ethereum foundation should also invest heavily in truly private hardware development
having privacy focused software is great however a chip on your device sending out information cant be stopped
I want to get a bit more public about the work we at the Kohaku Initiative inside the EF are doing
I notice there's hype but there's also confusion. Best way to clarify things is to speak candidly and openly about what I'm working on day-to-day
๐งตtime (bc i dont pay twitter $)
X is mass suspending crypto accounts
If you are not suspended you are super lucky!
ID verified accounts seem to be unaffected.
If you are not ID verified and you value your account i recommend you ID verify on X now.
If personal information remain private it would be good @X
At EthCC @VitalikButerin and @ncsgy did a presentation about our Kohaku initiative and both of them highlighted usage of AI agents / LLMs.
I am getting convinced that in the case of the "ethereum access layer" (aka wallets) we can harness AI to leap ethereum UX forward ๐งต
EF, last year: Hey, we want to listen to you users to make Ethereum better.
EF, now: Jk, we looked at the real world. We don't like building for it after all, we'll go back to building cypherpunk stuff only.
This is the EF going back to its old ways, undoing the changes from last year. I have feared this would happen because Vitalik clearly wasn't in with his heart.
But whatever they say about the "ecosystem" being able to take care of this, the fundamental problems remain:
- there are very few voices in ACD caring about real world Ethereum usage
- there is nobody doing Ethereum BD (everyone else who is doing this also has their own separate interests)
0/ Privacy in the Ethereum ecosystem is undergoing an evolution. A Renaissance, even, to sound a bit fancy.
What exactly is behind these changes and how might neo-Cypherpunk be involved?
A guest thread by @post_polar_ and @nicksvyaznoy.
How will vitalik.eth@base resolve once apps support interoperable addresses?
The ENS name resolves the account, while the chain suffix resolves the execution environment through the on.eth chain registry.
Both combine into a single interoperable address.
Now, the quantum resistance roadmap.
Today, four things in Ethereum are quantum-vulnerable:
* consensus-layer BLS signatures
* data availability (KZG commitments+proofs)
* EOA signatures (ECDSA)
* Application-layer ZK proofs (KZG or groth16)
We can tackle these step by step:
## Consensus-layer signatures
Lean consensus includes fully replacing BLS signatures with hash-based signatures (some variant of Winternitz), and using STARKs to do aggregation.
Before lean finality, we stand a good chance of getting the Lean available chain. This also involves hash-based signatures, but there are much fewer signatures (eg. 256-1024 per slot), so we do not need STARKs for aggregation.
One important thing upstream of this is choosing the hash function. This may be "Ethereum's last hash function", so it's important to choose wisely. Conventional hashes are too slow, and the most aggressive forms of Poseidon have taken hits on their security analysis recently. Likely options are:
* Poseidon2 plus extra rounds, potentially non-arithmetic layers (eg. Monolith) mixed in
* Poseidon1 (the older version of Poseidon, not vulnerable to any of the recent attacks on Poseidon2, but 2x slower)
* BLAKE3 or similar (take the most efficient conventional hash we know)
## Data availability
Today, we rely pretty heavily on KZG for erasure coding. We could move to STARKs, but this has two problems:
1. If we want to do 2D DAS, then our current setup for this relies on the "linearity" property of KZG commitments; with STARKs we don't have that. However, our current thinking is that it should be sufficient given our scale targets to just max out 1D DAS (ie. PeerDAS). Ethereum is taking a more conservative posture, it's not trying to be a high-scale data layer for the world.
2. We need proofs that erasure coded blobs are correctly constructed. KZG does this "for free". STARKs can substitute, but a STARK is ... bigger than a blob. So you need recursive starks (though there's also alternative techniques, that have their own tradeoffs). This is okay, but the logistics of this get harder if you want to support distributed blob selection.
Summary: it's manageable, but there's a lot of engineering work to do.
## EOA signatures
Here, the answer is clear: we add native AA (see https://t.co/YD9nIpsxcC ), so that we get first-class accounts that can use any signature algorithm.
However, to make this work, we also need quantum-resistant signature algorithms to actually be viable. ECDSA signature verification costs 3000 gas. Quantum-resistant signatures are ... much much larger and heavier to verify.
We know of quantum-resistant hash-based signatures that are in the ~200k gas range to verify.
We also know of lattice-based quantum-resistant signatures. Today, these are extremely inefficient to verify. However, there is work on vectorized math precompiles, that let you perform operations (+, *, %, dot product, also NTT / butterfly permutations) that are at the core of lattice math, and also STARKs. This could greatly reduce the gas cost of lattice-based signatures to a similar range, and potentially go even lower.
The long-term fix is protocol-layer recursive signature and proof aggregation, which could reduce these gas overheads to near-zero.
## Proofs
Today, a ZK-SNARK costs ~300-500k gas. A quantum-resistant STARK is more like 10m gas. The latter is unacceptable for privacy protocols, L2s, and other users of proofs.
The solution again is protocol-layer recursive signature and proof aggregation. So let's talk about what this is.
In EIP-8141, transactions have the ability to include a "validation frame", during which signature verifications and similar operations are supposed to happen. Validation frames cannot access the outside world, they can only look at their calldata and return a value, and nothing else can look at their calldata. This is designed so that it's possible to replace any validation frame (and its calldata) with a STARK that verifies it (potentially a single STARK for all the validation frames in a block).
This way, a block could "contain" a thousand validation frames, each of which contains either a 3 kB signature or even a 256 kB proof, but that 3-256 MB (and the computation needed to verify it) would never come onchain. Instead, it would all get replaced by a proof verifying that the computation is correct.
Potentially, this proving does not even need to be done by the block builder. Instead, I envision that it happens at mempool layer: every 500ms, each node could pass along the new valid transactions that it has seen, along with a proof verifying that they are all valid (including having validation frames that match their stated effects). The overhead is static: only one proof per 500ms. Here's a post where I talk about this:
https://t.co/rAUSJjW7WL
https://t.co/EtXpkaDll5
zkEVMs crushed the 2025 boss: real-time proving โ
2026 boss: 128-bit provable security๐พ
New blog post on the next level for Ethereum zkEVMs: three milestones, paving the path to mainnet-grade L1 zkEVMs.
https://t.co/mueR1JWW6c
Game on.
โจ Today's issue of Ethereum Daily is Presented by @primev_xyz
Watch a demo below of a FAST Ethereum mainnet tx from @primev_xyz, and add the FAST RPC to your wallet to make Ethereum FAST.
Ethereum L1 is painfully slow ๐ฉ
Can devs PLEASE fix this?!?
For 2+ years, the @primev team has been grinding to supercharge Ethereum mainnet.
Today: MILLISECOND preconfirmations... ON L1! ๐watch me send ETH blazing fast in this 18s vid