RC Crypto

✨ 🎭 I degen on Crypto Market Insights 👋 The other times I wonder if should delete this account lol

[Cubbi @cubbi_ai]

Cubbi is in for CLOCK IN 🔒

Control Grok Bot, OpenClaw, Hermes or any other agent straight from your Seeker. Brief them, see everything they write, and decide who reads it, all encrypted with keys only your Seeker holds.

Thanks @RadiantsDAO & @solanamobile for running CLOCK IN

[RC Crypto @RCryptoWeb3]

and the famous: DYOR

[Threshold Network ✜ @TheTNetwork]

https://t.co/wTzam4iXqn

[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

[tBTC @tBTC_project]

tBTC supply stands at $346M, and nearly half of it (48%) is deployed as collateral in lending markets. Aave alone holds ~$144M.

Here's the latest breakdown as of October 7, 2026:

[Threshold Network ✜ @TheTNetwork]

tBTC's Q4 roadmap is focused on migration from ECDSA signing to FROST Schnorr. This update aims to tighten security, minimize bridge latency, and improve mint & redemption processing times.

Here's a quick summary of the upcoming updates:

[Threshold Network ✜ @TheTNetwork]

A six-category diligence framework helps institutions understand how Bitcoin custody works with Threshold (and tBTC). This becomes increasingly important as Bitcoin moves deeper into institutional financial structures. Read it here: https://t.co/9oKctVbWev

[Threshold Network ✜ @TheTNetwork]

https://t.co/hbO0xX8wf4

[Ted @TedPillows]

As an entrepreneur in the Netherlands, I’m increasingly worried about where we’re heading.

More restrictions, higher taxes, and less room to build and invest.

At some point, entrepreneurs and capital simply look for a better place to grow.

That should concern all of us.

[RC Crypto @RCryptoWeb3]

@andrewwilkinson @OpenAI AI told me that he doesnt need me anymore.

Been a nasty breakup since.

[RC Crypto @RCryptoWeb3]

@sanfulnews @noticiatrabajo so what do u wanna do? Evict people in their homes to get more houses?

[RC Crypto @RCryptoWeb3]

✨

[Threshold Network ✜ @TheTNetwork]

Stay liquid without selling your Bitcoin.
Borrow against your BTC at 4%* in USD or 2.5%* in EUR to cover expenses, meet obligations, or access capital while keeping your Bitcoin safe.

Explore Bitcoin-backed credit with tBTC @tBTC_project

[Threshold Network ✜ @TheTNetwork]

Stay liquid without selling your Bitcoin.
Borrow against your BTC at 4%* in USD or 2.5%* in EUR to cover expenses, meet obligations, or access capital while keeping your Bitcoin safe.

Explore Bitcoin-backed credit with tBTC @tBTC_project

[RC Crypto @RCryptoWeb3]

@andrewwilkinson change ur name to James…. change number snd get family name Bond- then you’re set!

[wyck 📴 @wyckoffweb]

Scammers found a way to make people drain their own wallets without sending them a phishing link.

They uploaded YouTube tutorials showing people how to build an AI crypto trading bot with Claude.

People followed the tutorial themselves.

Copied the code.

Deployed the smart contract themselves.

Funded it from their own wallets.

And approved every transaction themselves.

Except the “trading bot” had no trading logic.

It was built to send their ETH straight to the scammers.

224 wallets lost 274.6 ETH, worth about $517,000 when it was stolen.

The median victim lost 1 ETH.

Some victims even got an error after getting drained telling them to deposit another 50% to fix the bot.

They literally got people to build, fund and approve their own wallet drainer.

You've got to be very careful this days

[RC Crypto @RCryptoWeb3]

People buying crypto again coz it’s pumping like…. where were you 3 or 4 months ago mate?

[RC Crypto @RCryptoWeb3]

@andrewwilkinson 10am on a friday is a no bueno, can try again on monday when we have money. 😂

[RC Crypto @RCryptoWeb3]

cute baby @pudgypenguins at @ETHSpain_ #ethspain ❤️

[Threshold Network ✜ @TheTNetwork]

https://t.co/MFtNyn2j9f