IntoTheNight

Deployed 80% of remaining cash today. I feel 80% confident we will not see anything lower than my previous ladders of ~$16,790, ~$15,640, ~17,000, and today at ~$17,450.

@axios Here's a novel idea- Iran closes the straight but Iranian ships can pass? Bomb the Iranian ships. Tit for tat. All ships pass or none.

U.S.-Iran talks end with no agreement, Vance says trib.al/CEbaYf0

@Cryptoking Gonna have to change your handle to poker king

FINAL DAY!!! I am chip leader with 17 people left… Drop ur best piece of advice 🙏🤝

I’ll believe Iran is charging a toll in $BTC when I see a tx linked to a vessel’s toll payment. Otherwise it’s just the IRGC trolling the western filthy fiat financial system.

@nic_carter Yeah, the "bitcoiners" should just post they are upgrading in 2029. Everything solved.

Personally, I think bitcoiners are being quite stupid by making this their cause celebre. There’s 0 reason to die on this hill. Every internet and tech company will make an announcement like this or just quietly transition without a fuss in the next couple years. Soon bitcoin will be the only piece of critical infrastructure without a PQ transition. And it will look like brittle, obsolete tech. How could you possibly persuade someone to invest in it then?

Cloudflare has moved up its target for full PQ transition to 2029 (Keep in mind, they have already transitioned significant amounts of traffic)

@udiWertheimer FUD.

You are too far gone. Nothing can be said to change your mind because you are incapable of learning or accepting anything new. I think you are just salty AF you missed the biggest wealth transfer in history. You try to convince other people to be as dumb as you were because you can't stand seeing other people win. You cling on for dear life to a 5,000 year old asset that will eventually be a paperweight. Sell the boomer rocks, buy Bitcoin, and go into hiding for 5 years. Come back 10x richer and 10x less despised. This would be your best career move yet.

@westfortbitcoin @saylor He's acknowledged it many time. In fact, he mentioned my name twice during his keynote at the Bitcoin coference in Las Vagas last year, yet refused to debate me at that same conference.

Over the past five years, the price of Bitcoin is up by just 12%. Over the same time period, the NASDAQ is up 57.4%, the S&P 500 is up 59.4%, gold is up 163%, and silver is up 181%. If the appeal of Bitcoin is its superior long-term performance, why should anyone keep HODLing it?

Tell me how long you’ve been in crypto without telling me how long you’ve been in crypto

@nic_carter @neha Your articles are generally click bait. The quote was from the @neha article (which she fixed). Clearly, you didnt read it.

@UnseenNight @neha Which article is it that you dislike? Seems like your hallucinating a quote

My take on Bitcoin and quantum computing: nehanarula.org/2026/04/03/bit… tl;dr: I think the risk is high enough to warrant prioritizing designing, implementing, and evaluating post-quantum signature schemes and consensus upgrades in Bitcoin now.

Block is bringing back the bitcoin faucet. The original, launched by Gavin Andresen in 2010, gave away 5 BTC to anyone who solved a CAPTCHA. That's $500,000 per person at today's prices. The new version goes live April 6 at btc.day.

"My personal guess is sometime in the 2030-2035 range." Readers should know this is your speculation. Not facts. 1. The Google and Oratomic authors cite no such dates 2. Most quantum hardware experts would laugh at a 2030 timeline 3. You're not an expert in this field

Reminder to all that his q-day to 2030-2035 revision is just a personal update. The papers themselves provide zero calendar dates or hardware predictions. 10k–500k high-fidelity, error-corrected physical qubits with the required connectivity, magic-state factories, and decoders is still an enormous leap from today's ~1,000 noisy qubits (even Google's Willow-scale demos). Oratomic's neutral-atom path relies on unproven scaling of reconfigurable arrays and high-rate codes at crypto relevant depths. The papers are cautious and explicit about the gaps.

My latest: My Takeaways from Google’s and Oratomic’s Quantum Resource Estimate papers murmurationstwo.substack.com/p/my-takeaways…

8/ April 2026 update: Monthly payment: 0.0188 BTC Total received: .08189722 BTC Current value: $5,489 Return: -12% Total credit card rewards: 0.02936967 BTC Current value: $1,968.12 Return: -17.60% 19 payments to go!

7/ March 2026 update: Monthly payment: 0.01820689 BTC Total received: .06309788 BTC Current value: $4,251.22 Return: -15% Total credit card rewards: 0.02060578 Current value: $1,394.36 Return: -22.22% 20 payments to go!

1/ Back in November, @coinbase ran a Coinbase One member promo: Send them qualifying crypto and get 3% matched in BTC, paid out monthly over 2 years. I was skeptical, read every line of the terms, then sent $1M in BTC anyway. First payout just hit. Here’s how it’s going so far

@MrBeast Good idea. I heard they are no longer allowing videos.

I’m deleting my YouTube channel

Hey @grok can you explain to this guy why he is worrying too much about quantum? He doesn't listen to anyone else maybe you can get through to him.

@EricBalchunas People are actually smarter you think. No such machine exists today (and still a chance it NEVER will).

Google: quantum could break bitcoin sooner than expected Bitcoin: +2.6%

@nic_carter I cant wait until Google starts trying to hack bitcoin wallets

Treat these as interesting signals from credible teams and not settled science. Wait for peer review, reproductions, and critiques before rewriting security models. Hype machines gonna hype. -Neither paper is peer-reviewed. -Google's "ZK proof" verifies they compiled some circuit meeting those qubit/gate counts... but the actual optimized details stay secret (responsible disclosure, they say) -These are pure theory. Resource estimates on idealized future hardware. No one has run Shor's on cryptographically relevant scales. We're still orders of magnitude away from fault-tolerant machines with hundreds of logical qubits that stay stable. -History reminder: Quantum crypto-breaking timelines have been "5-10 years away" for decades.

Today is a monumentous day for quantum computing and cryptography. Two breakthrough papers just landed (links in next tweet). Both papers improve Shor's algorithm, infamous for cracking RSA and elliptic curve cryptography. The two results compound, optimising separate layers of the quantum stack. The results are shocking. I expect a narrative shift and a further R&D boost toward post-quantum cryptography. The first paper is by Google Quantum AI. They tackle the (logical) Shor algorithm, tailoring it to crack Bitcoin and Ethereum signatures. The algorithm runs on ~1K logical qubits for the 256-bit elliptic curve secp256k1. Due to the low circuit depth, a fast superconducting computer would recover private keys in minutes. I'm grateful to have joined as a late paper co-author, in large part for the chance to interact with experts and the alpha gleaned from internal discussions. The second paper is by a stealthy startup called Oratomic, with ex-Google and prominent Caltech faculty. Their starting point is Google's improvements to the logical quantum circuit. They then apply improvements at the physical layer, with tricks specific to neutral atom quantum computers. The result estimates that 26,000 atomic qubits are sufficient to break 256-bit elliptic curve signatures. This would be roughly a 40x improvement in physical qubit count over previous state-of-the-art. On the flip side, a single Shor run would take ~10 days due to the relatively slow speed of neutral atoms. Below are my key takeaways. As a disclaimer, I am not a quantum expert. Time is needed for the results to be properly vetted. Based on my interactions with the team, I have faith the Google Quantum AI results are conservative. The Oratomic paper is much harder for me to assess, especially because of the use of more exotic qLDPC codes. I will take it with a grain of salt until the dust settles. → q-day: My confidence in q-day by 2032 has shot up significantly. IMO there's at least a 10% chance that by 2032 a quantum computer recovers a secp256k1 ECDSA private key from an exposed public key. While a cryptographically-relevant quantum computer (CRQC) before 2030 still feels unlikely, now is undoubtedly the time to start preparing. → censorship: The Google paper uses a zero-knowledge (ZK) proof to demonstrate the algorithm's existence without leaking actual optimisations. From now on, assume state-of-the-art algorithms will be censored. There may be self-censorship for moral or commercial reasons, or because of government pressure. A blackout in academic publications would be a tell-tale sign. → cracking time: A superconducting quantum computer, the type Google is building, could crack keys in minutes. This is because the optimised quantum circuit is just 100M Toffoli gates, which is surprisingly shallow. (Toffoli gates are hard because they require production of so-called "magic states".) Toffoli gates would consume ~10 microseconds on a superconducting platform, totalling ~1,000 sec of Shor runtime. → latency optimisations: Two latency optimisations bring key cracking time to single-digit minutes. The first parallelises computation across quantum devices. The second involves feeding the pubkey to the quantum computer mid-flight, after a generic setup phase. → fast- and slow-clock: At first approximation there are two families of quantum computers. The fast-clock flavour, which includes superconducting and photonic architectures, runs at roughly 100 kHz. The slow-clock flavour, which includes trapped ion and neutral atom architectures, runs roughly 1,000x slower (~100 Hz, or ~1 week to crack a single key). → qubit count: The size-optimised variant of the algorithm runs on 1,200 logical qubits. On a superconducting computer with surface code error correction that's roughly 500K physical qubits, a 400:1 physical-to-logical ratio. The surface code is conservative, assuming only four-way nearest-neighbour grid connectivity. It was demonstrated last year by Google on a real quantum computer. → future gains: Low-hanging fruit is still being picked, with at least one of the Google optimisations resulting from a surprisingly simple observation. Interestingly, AI was not (yet!) tasked to find optimisations. This was also the first time authors such as Craig Gidney attacked elliptic curves (as opposed to RSA). Shor logical qubit count could plausibly go under 1K soonish. → error correction: The physical-to-logical ratio for superconducting computers could go under 100:1. For superconducting computers that would be mean ~100K physical qubits for a CRQC, two orders of magnitude away from state of the art. Neutral atoms quantum computers are amenable to error correcting codes other than the surface code. While much slower to run, they can bring down the physical to logical qubit ratio closer to 10:1. → Bitcoin PoW: Commercially-viable Bitcoin PoW via Grover's algorithm is not happening any time soon. We're talking decades, possibly centuries away. This observation should help focus the discussion on ECDSA and Schnorr. (Side note: as unofficial Bitcoin security researcher, I still believe Bitcoin PoW is cooked due to the dwindling security budget.) → team quality: The folks at Google Quantum AI are the real deal. Craig Gidney (@CraigGidney) is arguably the world's top quantum circuit optimisooor. Just last year he squeezed 10x out of Shor for RSA, bringing the physical qubit count down from 10M to 1M. Special thanks to the Google team for patiently answering all my newb questions with detailed, fact-based answers. I was expecting some hype, but found none.

@Cryptoking @ShoheiOhtaniHQ hey @grok how much is this card worth?

Have this 1/1 @ShoheiOhtaniHQ Auto + Patch + 1/1… No prior sales data, any guess it’s worth?! Any interested buyers, DMs open

You @SenLummis have been one of the strongest advocates for crypto in the Senate, and many of us appreciate your leadership on the Clarity Act. However, the latest draft still bans stablecoin issuers and platforms from paying any passive yield to users simply for holding their tokens. Even when that yield comes directly from interest earned on the reserves backing the stablecoin. To many in the industry, this looks like the traditional banking lobby has once again succeeded in writing the rules to protect their deposit base at the expense of competition and innovation. My straightforward question is this: Why will you and your colleagues not simply allow a stablecoin issuer to pay a legitimate, transparent yield earned from their own reserves to American users? What is the actual policy reason for blocking this, beyond shielding legacy banks from fair market competition?