ex-tradfi | toolmaker | playing with Schrödinger profits

Joined January 2024
poverty has actually always meant lack of ability to harness and channel energy no age will put this on grand display more than ours
4
229
quite happy that the simulation overlords arranged the arrow of time such that crypto happened in the game before the explosion of ai the reverse scenario would have been catastrophic on all axes
crypto is pretty much just getting started as an industry
4
rustynode retweeted
Many of you don't understand how serious this is, so let me break it down. In computer science there is a famous kind of puzzle called 3-SAT. You are given a long list of yes-or-no switches and a set of rules about how they must be arranged, and you have to find a combination that satisfies every rule. The obvious way to solve it is to try every combination, but each new switch doubles the number of possibilities, so a puzzle with a few hundred switches would take longer than the age of the universe to brute force. For decades, the smartest people in the field found clever tricks that made this a little faster, but every trick still hit the same wall: the time required kept exploding as the puzzle grew. About 25 years ago, two computer scientists, Russell Impagliazzo and Ramamohan Paturi, working with Francis Zane, turned that wall into a formal idea. They proposed the Exponential Time Hypothesis, which says this explosion is not a failure of human cleverness but a law of nature. No algorithm, however brilliant, will ever solve 3-SAT without the time blowing up exponentially. Nobody could prove it, but almost everyone believed it, and it became one of the foundations of modern computer science. Researchers used it as a measuring stick. If you could show that solving some other problem quickly would also crack 3-SAT quickly, you had shown that problem was hopelessly hard too. Hundreds of papers, across scheduling, graphs, logic and much more, rest on this one assumption. Now an internal AI model at OpenAI claims to have broken it. It says it found an algorithm that solves these puzzles meaningfully faster than the hypothesis allows, and it has checked the proof in a computer verification system called Lean. And here is the remarkable part: the very people who proposed the hypothesis, Impagliazzo and Paturi, along with MIT's Ryan Williams, are now leading the public review of whether a machine has disproved their own idea. So what happens next? If the disproof holds, a large part of theoretical computer science has to be revisited. Every result that said "this problem cannot be solved faster, assuming ETH" loses its foundation, and researchers will have to work out which of those walls were real and which were simply where we stopped looking. It does not mean everything becomes easy. The new algorithm is still slow in absolute terms and this is not the famous P versus NP problem being solved. But it means our map of what is possible was wrong in a place we were very confident about, and it was an AI that redrew it. If the disproof fails, the hypothesis survives and the field breathes out, but we will still have watched an AI produce serious, checkable work on one of the deepest questions in the discipline, closely enough that the founders of the idea had to take it seriously. Either way, something has shifted.
An internal model at OpenAI has produced a claimed refutation of ETH! Russell Impagliazzo, Mohan Paturi, and I have been asked to help organize an open and independent examination of this claim. 1/4
238
1,056
148
11,660
908,585
ETH=Exponential Time Hypothesis I think academics should be sensitive to the fact that acronyms are not globally deduped. Just write the full meaning.
An internal model at OpenAI has produced a claimed refutation of ETH! Russell Impagliazzo, Mohan Paturi, and I have been asked to help organize an open and independent examination of this claim. 1/4
17
rustynode retweeted
not only am i not worried about the crypto community's ability to handle the upcoming ai/quantum threat, i will venture to say that in the next 2 yrs the world will realize crypto is far better prepared for it than the rest of the internet and finance. we've had a trillion dollar *irreversible* honey pot for a decade, producing a far more battletested system and adversarial security culture than pretty much anywhere else on earth.
107
291
77
2,343
160,426
normally reference value != realizable value due to tx costs, routing mechanics, etc but now adding some toxic extras: 🟠 insufficient exit liquidity 🟠 weak price alignment 🟠 incomplete promise to the user just takes the entire experience to the gutters
I feel scammed by @coinbase and @base, and here's why. Two weeks ago, I bought 3.99 tokenized Reddit shares (RDDTc) on Base. I used the token contract address listed on the official Base website. The tokens are issued by Coinbase and backed 1:1 by shares held in regulated custody. Reddit is listed there under Coinbase Tokenized Stocks, along with its prospectus and contract address. Today, I tried to sell my shares. Here's what I found: Underlying stock value: ~$590 @aeroxyz sell quote: ~$0.20 @Uniswap sell quote: ~$150 How is this acceptable? I contacted @CoinbaseSupport, but they replied that, for the best chance of getting a price close to the stock's market value, I should use Coinbase's official tokenized stocks interface on the Base website. But there's no sell option there. My concern isn't whether the token itself is legitimate. My concern is LIQUIDITY. Tokenized stocks have been live on Base for over 60 days, yet many still have almost no DEX liquidity. Out of 100+ tokenized stocks on Base, I've noticed that only around 15–20 have sufficient liquidity. Many others have less than $5K in liquidity. On October 11, I raised this issue with @jessepollak. Jesse replied: "It's coming, y'all are fast!" But we're still facing the same problem. We bought tokenized stocks because we expected to be able to trade them whenever we wanted. What's the point of bringing stocks onchain if users can't sell them at a reasonable price? Some tokenized stocks, like Apple, have sufficient liquidity, and trading works smoothly. So we know the experience can work. But for many other stocks, the situation is completely different. I've also noticed some tokenized stocks trading at significant premiums compared to their underlying shares. @base and @coinbase need to address two major problems: 1. Liquidity: Provide or incentivize sufficient liquidity across tokenized stocks, not just a handful of popular ones. 2. Price alignment: Improve price alignment so tokenized shares trade close to the value of their underlying stocks. If tokenized stocks are supposed to represent real shares backed 1:1, users deserve clarity about how liquidity, pricing, and redemption actually work. This is feedback, NOT FUD. I love Base. 💙 I build on Base, I support the ecosystem, and I genuinely want it to grow. But loving an ecosystem doesn't mean staying silent when something is wrong. Real feedback is necessary for real growth. Onchain stocks need onchain liquidity. @base @coinbase @jessepollak Let's fix this.
20
rustynode retweeted
🚀 Introducing DeepInfer, our in-house inference framework, now fully open source! Powering DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash at scale with high throughput and low latency. We’re sharing our production stack to help the community lower compute costs, reduce energy use, and make AI more affordable. 🔗 github.com/deepseek-ai/DeepI… 1/4
1,644
4,894
2,333
43,285
6,774,605
rustynode retweeted
New from our STEM Fellows Program: Designing more efficient quantum circuits with Claude. Given plain-language instructions, Claude Mythos 5 designed quantum circuits that improve on the best published ones, sometimes by an order of magnitude or more. More efficient circuits reduce the resources needed by quantum algorithms, which could bring quantum computing applications in chemistry and materials science within reach sooner. Read more: anthropic.com/research/desig…
482
618
355
5,503
926,300
some of the most important cryptographic curve parameters were generated using a simple 1990s C pseudorandom number generator seeded with Unix timestamps
34
I'm now warming to the idea that an interesting consequence of RSI is that the system may improve faster without becoming more intelligent
17
a strong corollary from this is that the production of intelligence will become increasingly automated
The architecture of most RSI systems are similar to control system loops
24
Your mission if you choose to continue is to learn to ask the most important questions The underlying idea is that not everything is important Sounds cliché but this is not fully internalized yet
12
The architecture of most RSI systems are similar to control system loops
1
1
37
zkVM only proves the execution of a specific program it says nothing about the correctness of that program a perfectly sound zkVM can faithfully prove a program containing bugs
15
The world becomes a lot easier to navigate once you realize that intelligence is in incredibly high supply, but courage always runs at a shortage This has always been true for many centuries, but now even more in the age of AI. Everyone will have access to super intelligence at the tip of their fingers But very few will actually use it to generate wealth and build unique things. The simple reason is because not enough people have the courage to do the work in order to get there Being smart is incredibly overrated. Willing to take risk is incredibly underrated
18
106
11
1,052
34,643
False beats Unknown Unknown beats True
17
rustynode retweeted
Today I call upon the blockchain industry to calmly begin planning for "bunker mode". My personal recommendation is to set in motion a controlled mass migration of assets to fresh addresses, i.e. addresses whose pubkeys remain hidden behind a hash. Holders, starting with large and sophisticated ones, should consider moving the bulk of their funds to addresses that have never signed a transaction. And when they do sign one, they should also move remaining funds to a new address (possibly generated from the same seed phrase). Don't rush. While I believe there is cause for action a rushed migration would do more harm than good. Don't panic either. Moving assets to protected addresses is a simple, preventative step which does not require new cryptography or new wallets. IMO it is now reasonable to brace for the possibility that ECDSA breaks before qday, in the worst case in months not years. By "break" I mean fast private key recovery (e.g. in one week) on available hardware (e.g. a large GPU cluster). Recent days have been humbling for human mathematical intuition. Long-held, unquestioned hypotheses have fallen. This includes the n log(n) bound for integer multiplication and the 3SUM conjecture. In hindsight, May's unexpected disproof of the Erdős unit distance conjecture was our warning shot. Yesterday's OpenAI drop made it clear that mathematical superintelligence is upon us. They say there are weeks where decades happen. We are about to live through weeks where centuries of mathematical progress happen. Could our magic 64-byte ECDSA signatures be too good to be true? Was it just security through obscurity all this time? Elliptic curves feel especially vulnerable to superintelligence. Curves carry rich structure, with room for fancy tricks like Schoof, Frobenius, pairings. (By contrast, hashes are designed to minimise algebraic structure.) Separately, as Ewin Tang can attest, an efficient quantum algorithm sometimes foreshadows an efficient classical one. We should be open to the possibility of a classical counterpart to Shor that breaks elliptic curves and RSA at once. Also noteworthy is the striking under-representation of cryptographic breakthroughs among the 722 mathematical results OpenAI published. I've witnessed first-hand the US government censoring academic quantum cryptanalysis results. Backroom interventionism is my base case. I urge large, sophisticated actors to lead by example. Project11's "risq list" (bitcoin-risq-list.projecteleven[.]com) is a great tracker of exposed BTC pubkeys. Binance, Bitbank, Robinhood, Bitfinex, and Tether have an opportunity to harden their cold storage. Next month I'll address institutions in London in a live Q&A (forum.ethereuminstitutional[.]org/london-2026). Again, please do not rush. Wallets holding under 50 BTC enjoy partial cover from "Satoshi's shield", i.e. his 20K exposed addresses that hold 50 BTC each. Load-bearing signers like oracles and L2 security councils should consider rotating ECDSA pubkeys with every signed message and/or multi-signing with a hash-based schemes like SPHINCS. Exiting bunker mode safely will require post-AI cryptography. My inclination is to go all-in on hash-based cryptography and avoid structured mathematical assumptions entirely, whether from curves, lattices, or isogenies. A single battle-tested hash (e.g. from the SHA or BLAKE families) yields plausible post-AI security. The Ethereum roadmap on strawmap[.]org fully embraces hash-based cryptography with end-to-end formal verification as a response to the quantum threat. Those timelines must now be revisited and accelerated in light of mathematical superintelligence. I'll be pushing for maximum defensive acceleration.
5,958
6,262
2,293
25,550
6,657,751
rustynode retweeted
Not to be all alarmist or anything, but a) this move in 10yr and 30yr isn’t oil or Iran related, and b) something in financial-world is going to break.
378
690
150
5,942
1,213,329
the timeline is fawning over opus 5.5 but interestingly 5.5-level prowess was supposed to be delivered in opus 4.8
1
22