I am okay with Kimi 3.1 deliberately leaving out top-end offensive cyber capabilities from their training data. Discriminating against use cases is MUCH less bad than discriminating against users. And the world does need all the time it can get to prepare, harden, check old code, (properly) formally verify new code, etc before the full weight of very powerful cyber attacks is upon us. And if this first big wave of AI risk is not handled well, then we may well get a dystopia of highly locked down models, KYC gating on everything, highly intrusive surveillance on everything, a society where you may be a second or third or fourth-class citizen in terms of model access based on your credentials and nationality.

BTC went up 5.6% in two months. Raydium went up 178%. Uniswap 80%. Aero 77%. I dug into what the winners had in common. It wasn't that they were cheap.

Today, we are announcing $28M in total funding, including our $15M Series A led by @tether with participation from @NorthIslandVC 🧵

Index and crypto perps are now live on Coinbase for Agents. Long or short indices tracking the top 500 US equities, the top 100 tech stocks, the top 10 AI companies, the top 10 Chinese stocks, or the top 10 aerospace & defense equities. Plus, over 20 tokens. Straight from your agent.

Vitalik：以太坊不该再为每种密码学加功能，计算放在链下，链上只验证结果 最近圈内在争论，以太坊要不要支持"格密码学"这种新型加密方案，用在账户和钱包上。Starknet创始人Eli Ben-Sasson就认为，格密码学太新了，应该再等三到五年，看看AI能不能把它攻破。 Vitalik回复Eli Ben-Sasson观点提出：预编译合约和EVM都不适合承载大多数密码学支持，因为两者都要占用有限的链上数据空间，吞吐量超过约8MB/s就会承压。 他主张走EIP-8288路线：用户在本地使用任意签名方案并生成STARK证明，再通过递归聚合提交上链。链上只验证计算结果，不接收原始数据。 用他的话说，以太坊"不是一条区块链，而是一台密码学世界计算机"。这样既能支持各类密码学方案，又能让链保持精简，以后也不必再新增预编译。

Tether Invests in AIsa to Expand Its Push into AI-Powered Payments and Programmable Money Learn more: tether.io/news/tether-invest…

感谢大家参与 26/10/12 期 Web3BuidlerTech 联合 @ETHPanda_Org 带来的每周简报！ 本周主要内容：区块链 & AI 快讯、Quick Slots 在 Hegota 的进展、Nethermind 对于 AI 的使用情况、Justin Drake 呼吁掩体模式、以太坊主网升级、9月加密安全报告等等。 视频链接：youtu.be/9mwRzB5Xwno

感谢大家参与 26/10/12 期 Web3BuidlerTech 联合 @ETHPanda_Org 带来的每周简报！ 本周主要内容：区块链 & AI 快讯、Quick Slots 在 Hegota 的进展、Nethermind 对于 AI 的使用情况、Justin Drake 呼吁掩体模式、以太坊主网升级、9月加密安全报告等等。 视频链接：youtu.be/9mwRzB5Xwno

Funniest part of the fireside chat was how Vitalik kept referring to AI as bots 😄 Which is true, LLMs are just smarter bots. To the extent that vitalik said he's stopped reading textbooks and now just goes back & forth with an LLM to learn new concepts until he explains it in his own words without any corrections from the bot Around the halfway point Vitalik pulled his classic switcharoo to question balaji instead of the other way around He first asked how network state is doing with all its ups and downs. Balaji gave an interesting answer around how most people don't keep a score card with governments, it's either 0-0 for most people or else 0-1 in favor of government My own commentary here is balaji feels proud of having given a bloody nose to the malyasian government, which has emerged with a poorer rep among investors and unhappy populations that wanted the investment He also seemed quite excited about the partnership with the kazakhstan government, with network school getting university credentials, an offline exam that results in job placements, tokenizing real estate via REIT and more Just as harvard was at its pinnacle before the internet era gave more power to stanford, network state school is poised as the successor by printing out the social media network into a physical jurisdiction One other point Vitalik delved into was around succession planning, sharing his own trauma at constantly being asked for direction during popups Network school has "minimum necessary balaji" concept they work around ,with the goal of decentralization being not going from 1 to 0 leaders so much as 1 to many leaders Vitalik jokes thats it's happening in Ethereum since justin drake has managed to piss of people with tweets as much as him 😆 Overall it's made me much more likely to visit network school in astana, although maybe not during the winter -20 degrees celsius time

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" firefly.social/post/x/210783…