Bukan Manusia Normal

[Bukan Manusia Normal @punkx1307]

This my live, If you not like don't judge 🏁Start for reality

[Bukan Manusia Normal @punkx1307]

How degen are you on-chain? Pull your @Housebets card, find out — and there's something in it for you. @HousebetsWhale drop my card. Use my code: LuminousDrake780 🃏

[Bukan Manusia Normal @punkx1307]

@FastBridgeApp Someone just got a payday for finding the art tools. 👀
https://t.co/Mj8Oascya3

[FastBridge @FastBridgeApp]

Meet FastBridge ⚡

Built for traders, yield chasers, and anyone whose funds are spread across chains.

Combine multiple tokens from different chains, then swap & bridge them in one transaction.

No more bridging one asset at a time 👇

[Earnalot @Earnalot888]

Never used an on-chain lottery? Here's the whole thing, start to finish.

Open the Mini App, grab a $1 ticket, watch the contract settle the round and pay the winner.

No forms, no claim step! That's Earnalot!

[Bukan Manusia Normal @punkx1307]

@UTechStables @BinanceWallet Wow amazing compaign

[Bukan Manusia Normal @punkx1307]

@TokenB_Wallet Let's go tokenB I cant wait for big news

[TokenB @TokenB_Wallet]

🔒 We are fully prepared. Now, we need your verification.

[Bukan Manusia Normal @punkx1307]

Real 25-cent BTC deposit + wrong data field = admin rights + negative fee bug.

[DeepSafe @DeepSafe_AI]

Symbiosis has published its post-mortem on the Bitcoin Bridge incident of 11 September. The deposit that set the whole thing off was a real Bitcoin payment worth about 25 cents.

The bridge reads deposit instructions from data attached to Bitcoin transactions, and its decoder "identified the sender using the wrong part of that data: a part the spender controls." That was enough to have the attacker treated as an approved depositor and as the bridge administrator at the same time. With that, they put the minimum fee below zero, and a second bug subtracted the negative fee — which added to the deposit instead of reducing it. Twelve deposits went through across BNB Chain, Ethereum and Rootstock in roughly four minutes.

That first payment did not have to be forged. It was real and it was confirmed on Bitcoin. A check asking whether the deposit had happened would have answered yes, and it would have been right.

The bridge was asking a second question at the same time: who sent it. For that, it read a field — one the sender controlled.

Establishing a sender by signature and establishing one by reading the transaction data end in the same place: a name the system is about to act on. They differ in where the name comes from. A signature asks for something nobody can produce without the key the system already ties to that depositor. Reading it out of the deposit data makes the answer depend on which part gets read, and on that part being beyond the sender's reach.

Symbiosis puts preliminary losses to liquidity providers and affected users at 9.97 BTC. The bridge is offline, and it has commissioned independent audits.

Sources:

https://t.co/YxSokEsot2

#DeepSafe #Web3Security #CrossChain

[Bukan Manusia Normal @punkx1307]

@DeepSafe_AI Insightful analysis on how a tiny real deposit exposed critical flaws in sender verification and fee logic within the bridge.

[DeepSafe @DeepSafe_AI]

Symbiosis has published its post-mortem on the Bitcoin Bridge incident of 11 September. The deposit that set the whole thing off was a real Bitcoin payment worth about 25 cents.

The bridge reads deposit instructions from data attached to Bitcoin transactions, and its decoder "identified the sender using the wrong part of that data: a part the spender controls." That was enough to have the attacker treated as an approved depositor and as the bridge administrator at the same time. With that, they put the minimum fee below zero, and a second bug subtracted the negative fee — which added to the deposit instead of reducing it. Twelve deposits went through across BNB Chain, Ethereum and Rootstock in roughly four minutes.

That first payment did not have to be forged. It was real and it was confirmed on Bitcoin. A check asking whether the deposit had happened would have answered yes, and it would have been right.

The bridge was asking a second question at the same time: who sent it. For that, it read a field — one the sender controlled.

Establishing a sender by signature and establishing one by reading the transaction data end in the same place: a name the system is about to act on. They differ in where the name comes from. A signature asks for something nobody can produce without the key the system already ties to that depositor. Reading it out of the deposit data makes the answer depend on which part gets read, and on that part being beyond the sender's reach.

Symbiosis puts preliminary losses to liquidity providers and affected users at 9.97 BTC. The bridge is offline, and it has commissioned independent audits.

Sources:

https://t.co/YxSokEsot2

#DeepSafe #Web3Security #CrossChain

[Bukan Manusia Normal @punkx1307]

AI Agent overconfidence 🤖🔥
vs
DeepSafe CRVA yang cuma percaya bukti 🔒✅Proof > Promises. Selalu.
#DeepSafe #ProofNotPromises #CryptoAI 👉

Follow @DeepSafe_AI
biar nggak ketinggalan perkembangan terbaru!

[DeepSafe @DeepSafe_AI]

EIP-8025 is a draft that would let Ethereum consensus nodes check a cryptographic proof that a block's transactions were executed correctly, in time that stays flat no matter how much gas the block used. Today a node establishes that by running the transactions itself.

The interesting part is not the proof. It is where the draft declines to put it.

A verified proof does not replace re-execution — the spec calls it "an additional signal, not a replacement." It is not wired into fork choice or attestation, the two things that decide which block a node follows and what it votes for. A node that has not received a proof does not wait for one. And a forged proof cannot fork the chain or get anyone slashed; its effect stops at the local view of the node that accepted it.

The proof is real, and it does something. It is just not load-bearing.

The draft is explicit about why, and about what comes after: treating proofs as a non-critical artefact "lets the stack mature on a live network," and "a separate, future EIP could subsequently propose making execution proofs mandatory once they have matured."

That is a deployment order, written down. Ship the mechanism somewhere its failures are survivable. Gather proof sizes, generation latency and client behaviour from a real network. Then argue, in a separate document, for giving it a job the chain depends on.

What that sequence separates is worth naming. Whether a verification method works is one question, and cryptography answers part of it — the rest comes from the implementation, the inputs it is handed, and how it holds up in production. What that method is permitted to decide is a different question, and it is settled by design rather than by strength. Operational history is not the source of that authority. It is the evidence you want before granting it.

The two questions are easy to merge, because a check usually arrives already attached to whatever the surrounding code does with its output. Pulling them apart takes deliberate work, and this draft does it on the page.

The same two questions apply to what we build. CRVA verifies on-chain and off-chain data using nodes selected at random. What a result is permitted to decide is not a property of the verification itself. It is a choice made by the system integrating it — one worth stating explicitly rather than inheriting from whatever the surrounding code happens to do.

A check can be sound long before it is ready to be depended on. The draft's contribution is making that boundary explicit.

Sources:
https://t.co/tT8jvwr8jj
#DeepSafe #CRVA #Web3Security

[Bukan Manusia Normal @punkx1307]

@DeepSafe_AI This is such an important distinction.
A verification method being sound is one question.

Whether it should be allowed to influence fork choice or attestation is a completely different one.
EIP-8025 deliberately keeps the proof as an additional signal first — not load-bearing.

[Bukan Manusia Normal @punkx1307]

Verification ≠ Authority.

EIP-8025 gets this right by treating execution proofs as an additional signal first — not something the chain depends on yet.
Ship it where failure is survivable.

[DeepSafe @DeepSafe_AI]

EIP-8025 is a draft that would let Ethereum consensus nodes check a cryptographic proof that a block's transactions were executed correctly, in time that stays flat no matter how much gas the block used. Today a node establishes that by running the transactions itself.

The interesting part is not the proof. It is where the draft declines to put it.

A verified proof does not replace re-execution — the spec calls it "an additional signal, not a replacement." It is not wired into fork choice or attestation, the two things that decide which block a node follows and what it votes for. A node that has not received a proof does not wait for one. And a forged proof cannot fork the chain or get anyone slashed; its effect stops at the local view of the node that accepted it.

The proof is real, and it does something. It is just not load-bearing.

The draft is explicit about why, and about what comes after: treating proofs as a non-critical artefact "lets the stack mature on a live network," and "a separate, future EIP could subsequently propose making execution proofs mandatory once they have matured."

That is a deployment order, written down. Ship the mechanism somewhere its failures are survivable. Gather proof sizes, generation latency and client behaviour from a real network. Then argue, in a separate document, for giving it a job the chain depends on.

What that sequence separates is worth naming. Whether a verification method works is one question, and cryptography answers part of it — the rest comes from the implementation, the inputs it is handed, and how it holds up in production. What that method is permitted to decide is a different question, and it is settled by design rather than by strength. Operational history is not the source of that authority. It is the evidence you want before granting it.

The two questions are easy to merge, because a check usually arrives already attached to whatever the surrounding code does with its output. Pulling them apart takes deliberate work, and this draft does it on the page.

The same two questions apply to what we build. CRVA verifies on-chain and off-chain data using nodes selected at random. What a result is permitted to decide is not a property of the verification itself. It is a choice made by the system integrating it — one worth stating explicitly rather than inheriting from whatever the surrounding code happens to do.

A check can be sound long before it is ready to be depended on. The draft's contribution is making that boundary explicit.

Sources:
https://t.co/tT8jvwr8jj
#DeepSafe #CRVA #Web3Security

[POTS MONEY @pots_money]

gm POTS fam

[Pytho Dex @PythoDEX]

🚀 PythoDex Airdrop is LIVE!

complete the steps, and start earning rewards

🎁 Rewards are waiting. Don’t miss out!

👉 Join now: https://t.co/17W37ivbmI

#PythoDex #Airdrop #Crypto

[Elyon Chain @Elyon_Chain]

🚨 ELYON AIRDROP IS LIVE

The next chapter of @elyon_chain starts now.

We’re rewarding the community that believes in Elyon from the beginning. ⚡️

🎁 Complete the tasks
🏆 Earn points & rewards
🌐 Become an early Elyon contributor

This is more than an airdrop.

It’s your first step into the Elyon ecosystem.

👇 Join now:
https://t.co/VPckoWNfJa

Don’t wait. Your Elyon journey starts here. 🟣

#Elyon #Airdrop #Web3

[Dustbit @DustbitOfficial]

Available before GTA 6

You ask, we deliver.
Dustbit Boxes just got an upgrade. 🎁

Ready to take a peek?

Start unboxing. Find your next gem.

[Bukan Manusia Normal @punkx1307]

@basis__pro #Basis
@Avrcix
@Furyama1
@zxcez2

[BASIS @basis__pro]

ETH is at its cheapest vs BTC since 2020. Most people are watching the price. Smart money is staking. While markets panic, BASIS users are earning yield on BTC, ETH, SOL, and PAXG simultaneously. Market-neutral. No directional bet. Just structural yield. Start staking on BASIS: https://t.co/jyHxoAZqJB

[Bukan Manusia Normal @punkx1307]

#predictX #AetheriumX https://t.co/SllwPN02p6

[PredictX @predictx_fun]

The World Cup fever is on!

Follow @aetheriumX_fun and @predictx_fun on X, complete the quest, and race to claim your FCFS USDT reward before the final whistle.

👉 Join NOW: https://t.co/EpIyjAaY6H