Richard Carback✓

@Cotabe_M @Giveth @thedaofund I can't thank the team @ETHCincoDeMayo enough for their hospitality at such a high quality event. 🙏🙏🙏 It was a true pleasure to share our work on PQ Transactions inside Ethereum! My slides are available here:

RT @joinwebzero: 10 years of @Zcash. 7 days until Free Society Hack Mumbai.

RT @quipnetwork: We’re in the final stretch to mainnet 🦋 Accounts, swaps, points, compute subnets, and QVM are live on testnet, and coming together in one app. One step left: an external chain audit. Thanks to everyone who’s been a part of this. Full update ↓

RT @vardi: Regarding the Exponential-Time Hypothesis, this is what I wrote a decade ago!

RT @bradmillscan: @quipnetwork @cadillion @rcarback @cyphertalkmedia if those coins move nobody can tell which one it is... satoshi's coins sit in P2PK outputs...i called this a second mining gold rush back in 2024, I think Satoshi did this on purpose.

Satoshi hid a second mining gold rush in the technoeconomic design of Bitcoin which kicks in right as Bitcoin hits $1 million & the block reward tapers off 🤯 I’m starting to realize Satoshi knew what was going to happen with quantum and chose to go with the widely adopted standards of ECDSA / SHA256 on purpose. He knew that it was the simplest most trusted/lowest barrier-to-entry way to get Bitcoin adopted by innovators & tech pioneers in the bootstrapping days. He knew millions of BTC (including his own) would be “lost” during the early days. He knew we could later upgrade Bitcoin to utilize new tech like Schnorr Signatures or quantum resistance. He designed FOMO into the genesis of Bitcoin with the difficulty adjustment, the block size cap (fee market) & the halving. Satoshi was also a studied monetary historian. We thought that the millions of BTC l in forgotten & lost keys were permanent reduced from the supply, but we were wrong. In 1708 the Spanish galleon San José was sunk by the British navy and went down with 6 MILLION ounces of gold. For centuries that gold, and up to $1 trillion more, was thought to be removed from the supply - until we developed technology to be able to find it and bring it back. It’s the same concept with Bitcoin, except there will never be more than 21 million Bitcoin. The supply of gold keeps increasing as technology advances - to the point where gold will be as abundant as our willingness to get it, just like credit. In Bitcoin’s case, the 21 million cap is the upper limit, governed by a unique concept of abundance through mutually assured scarcity. The path Bitcoin takes to upgrade to quantum resistance will be long, costly and unpredictable - but it will happen, and it likely will involve a voluntary migration of keys to a quantum resistant cryptographic scheme. What happens to all of the people who lost their keys? A quantum bounty. Digital sunken treasure. Just in time for digital intelligence. Just as Bitcoin takes its seat as the king of global reserve assets. In a time when that lost Bitcoin will be reclaimed by a better steward and protected by best practices. A second Bitcoin gold rush that only happens once 🤯 Satoshi was a time traveler.

RT @KusamaShield: Big news! Today we are launching Mixie! Send private invoices, auto convert, streamline Offramp to Revolut, Wise, Venmo etc without KYC or login. 60+ tokens 9 fiat pairs available 14 languages supported Available as a telegram and Signal bot! Use Today!👇👇👇

RT @hillelogram: It is a weird weird year to be a formal methods expert. Some unorganized thoughts on the new @AnthropicAI and @theoremlabs post on formal verification ( - This is very cool. - The main innovation is verifying a later stage of the program. Normally provers take the source code, LLM it into a theorem language, and then prove that, which means you have to make assumptions about source semantics and compilation properties. It's very easy to make a mistake in translating and prove the wrong thing! What they instead do is compile the code into assembly, and then (if I understand this correctly), compile that assembly into a theorem language (which they call LPS). So as long as the compiler is faithful you can skip the whole divergence problem. - I'm glad they clarify that you still have to trust the translation process, the "hardware, OS, OCaml" compiler, the LPS model, and also assume that the program is single threaded with fixed memory. The single biggest source of errors in formally verified code is when the proof assumes something that isn't true in practice. It's really, really important to state your assumptions! - I'm not clear why they need to compile the fuzzer into the theorem. Is it to act as a description of valid inputs and workload? Maybe to embed assertions in as theorems? - Holy crap, 180 million lines of Rocq. Is that more Rocq than exists in the world already? I notice they say a 600,000 line proof corresponds to roughly 20k CPU instructions. That would be like, 1-2k lines of source code at most? Really goes to show how inefficient this approach is and how it only works because you can throw LLMs at the problem. - This, probably deliberately, doesn't address the single biggest gap in AI-based verification: AIs cannot come up with good properties. Doesn't matter if you're doing unit testing, property testing, formal verification. I always assumed this was a "frontier labs haven't trained for it yet" thing, but if Anthropic hasn't talked about that here, maybe they've tried and haven't been successful yet. That's interesting to me. Instead, they take a known universal property (this code doesn't crash or get flagged by UBsan) and prove that instead. Still very useful, but makes it harder to generalize to proving arbitrary things about arbitrary programs. - Anybody reading the official post should also read their expert review appendix ( It points out some interesting things, like the fact that most of the code the LLM wrote wasn't used in the proof (over one billion lines of Rocq), that they had to prove the equivalence between fuzzed and unfuzzed programs, and (this is most interesting), some experiments find that the LLM-method of proofwriting may not scale to more complex things. - Also read the description of LPS ( to understand the limitations of the assembly -> Rocq compilation. In particular, it does not handle concurrency at all (which is one of the main use cases for formal methods!) or OS signals. Also it can't prove things about program arguments with slash characters, meaning they can prove stuff about `rm foo` but not `rm foo/bar`. - The official skill ( doesn't tell us much about the nature of FM and AI. Probably too much for me to hope of any skill. - Some of the article's specific caveats and throat clearings make me think someone at Anthropic reads my stuff ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

RT @rollergirlVi: She did it! In 2min @rheastatic came by the booth, downloaded the @zodl_app @Zcash wallet, and got herself set up to receive $ZEC. 💪🏻 That's the first step towards becoming immune from debanking, an issue affecting 63% of her colleagues! 😬 #ExxxoticaNJ

RT @Quad9DNS: Why You Should Be Using a Privacy-Centric DNS Service in 2025 #DNS #privacy #security

RT @satorinakamoto: i’m sorry that your warrantless surveillance regime was built on the assumption that people would never discover every single backdoor you put into their applications

Signal CVE-2026-113380 Allows hostile calls to keep the mic and camera on after calls have ended. Effects the app on every operating system.

RT @quipnetwork: ICYMI: @cadillion on @AGTPinsights this week at @money2020 in Las Vegas Full interview:

What is infuriating is that this is not the first time they have dealt with such issues, and it is such a loss to the people affected. The government here is deciding that a road needs to be closed because they don't like one of the shops on the street. Madness!

RT @TechloreInc: If you're not following the @Quad9DNS saga, you really need to be...huge attack on the open internet:

RT @cyphertalkmedia: 🎙️ New CypherTalk: @cadillion and @ourcarback of @quipnetwork join us to talk quantum. How much of the quantum threat is hype, and how much is real? Find out in this episode as we discuss the reality, threats, and opportunities. 🎧

RT @FutureDies: SHA-256 is not broken, but its security margin lost 1 more round this year: Last week I found a collision attack on reduced 39-round that improves prior art by over 30 bits and the first differential attack on that round better than generic search on @yukonresearch Hashsmash board. The attack rests on the same method as prior art ePrint 2026/1120 with new insights that first 2 state words could remain free, allowing a critical condition at step 16 rebuilt as a claw-search problem rather than a probabilistic filter. Took days of watching SAT logs, burning cores and arguing with Claude on what's possible to get a result close to generic search. Since my initial submission, other hashsmash participants sraiw, @cyberaxe, @privacymage, @lamb356_ and @geeknik pushed it down by over 6.5 bits, currently estimated at 118.15 bits. The tree of submissions is hard to follow, so I put the construction, insights and numbers into a blog and am working on detailed technical report. It's fascinating to see an initial structural observation develop into an improvement in the reduced-round collision frontier within days. AI is now a real aid in cryptanalysis and open collaboration speeds it up.

RT @quipnetwork: Putting our money where our mission is 🦋

Happy to share that @quipnetwork will be pledging 10,000 USD for @thedaofund PQ Wallet Security Initiative. If you run a project that works with Ethereum and care about quantum readiness, I hope you will join us:

RT @griffgreen: The private key is crypto's original sin. It's gotten so bad that I default recommend CEXs to people instead of self-custody. What is the easiest onboarding for new users into a safe non-custodial solution, where if they get phished they don't lose everything?

RT @quipnetwork: QVM launch via @TheStreet 🦋 Thanks to @tobiamure for covering.

RT @TheStreet: IBM, Amazon quantum pricing gets a challenger in Postquant Labs Read more:

RT @cadillion: Incredibly important work One underdiscussed drawback of "crypto agility" is the significant risk of ecosystem fragmentation—we didn't leave central banking behind just to lock ourselves in more walled gardens Let's align on standards that retain composition & interoperability