Jimmy

En 2020 era un Cryptobro.

Ahora me toman en serio

[vitalik.eth @VitalikButerin]

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"
https://t.co/oVjwZog2lL

[Jimmy @OnlyCrypto___]

@IngenieroSeed Tienes alguna Wallet preferida? Basándote en motivos de seguridad claro

[Jimmy @OnlyCrypto___]

@sanchezcastejon Cerdo

[Iván Piña @ivan_pinab]

Escucha, Miserable, lo que es un crimen es que mi abuela después de estar toda la vida limpiando escaleras, cada vez que va al hospital, se tira más de 9 horas en la sala de espera con 80 años.

Lo que hace el gobierno es abandonar a sus compatriotas, los que se han dejado la piel por este país.

Sois basura.

[Jimmy @OnlyCrypto___]

@iceuve Que producto es que te paga un 4%?

[ZachXBT @zachxbt]

1/ Meet @WheresBroox (Broox Bauer), one of the multiple @AxiomExchange employees allegedly abusing the lack of access controls for internal tools to lookup sensitive user details to insider trade by tracking private wallet activity since early 2025.

[Jimmy @OnlyCrypto___]

@RufiEnLancha Estoy en el suelo

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

@WallStreetMav Some people desperately want civilizational suicide

[Jimmy @OnlyCrypto___]

@Apu_elrojo @Rindellirium Cuanto mejor les vaya a los empresarios, tendrán mejor situación para subir salarios.

Deja de pensar que Papá estado te tiene que dar de comer pringao.

[Jimmy @OnlyCrypto___]

@BenderOfuscado Derecho a vivir del resto. Subnormal

[Jimmy @OnlyCrypto___]

@Sovietpizza2 @Guillem09 Plánteate que esto pueda seguir subiendo y, la corrección (que solo tú eres capaz de predecir) deje los precios donde estén hoy en día.

Que confíes en que pueda haber una corrección no te garantiza que lleve los precios por debajo de donde están ahora.

[Jimmy @OnlyCrypto___]

@oscar_puente_ Como tendrás que estar de mierda hasta el cuello para que ahora informes de los sucesos en lugar de hacer el orangután

[Jimmy @OnlyCrypto___]

@HugoBonet @oscar_puente_ Ojalá su increíble gestión solo os afectara a los tontos como tú

[Putrefacha. @Putrefacha]

Soy ingeniero mecánico, y las vibraciones del AVE a 250 km/h no son normales. Las máquinas expuestas a ciclos repetidos de grandes esfuerzos por debajo de su límite elástico rompen a fatiga sí o sí después de un tiempo. NADIE diseña una máquina para operar en esas condiciones, el AVE es un misil de los años 90 que vuela bajo.

Es cuestión de tiempo que haya un desastre, mueran cientos de personas hechas papilla primero, y cenizas después. Saldrá Pedro Sánchez diciendo que él está bien, y patada palante hasta que el cuerpo aguante.

[Jimmy @OnlyCrypto___]

@PastanagaCrypto @Owlto_Finance tienes idea de por qué con 16k puntos salgo como no elegible?

[Jimmy @OnlyCrypto___]

@goonielor 10 por cabeza dice... y 15 en cines decentes + los consumibles

[Jimmy @OnlyCrypto___]

@yatedigoyoque Entonces no exijáis que los demás sean ONGs con sus bienes. Hipócrita

[Jimmy @OnlyCrypto___]

@veronikmellado Puedes entender q nuestro dinero va a parar a ellos y que por tanto seamos críticos?

[Jimmy @OnlyCrypto___]

@burgerqueenn_ El desconocimiento en estadística y matemáticas también parece ser una cualidad típica

[Jimmy @OnlyCrypto___]

@robchamo Pero si eso es la sala del IEB