Andrey Falaleev

We are observing unusual activity on the protocol. We are currently investigating. Please do not deposit funds into the protocol while we investigate. This is not an April Fools joke. Proceed with caution until further notice. We’ll provide additional updates from this account.

@exoaursen in a nutshell: how is lightSVM better than mollusk?

LiteSVM v0.10.0 released! Highlights: • Compute Units now align more closely with mainnet • Optional register trace disassembly via SBF_TRACE_DISASSEMBLE • Improved account loading & transaction sanitization Check it out: github.com/LiteSVM/litesv… Huge thanks to all contributors!

Starke Finance Validator has activated XDP in combination with @doublezero Shreds are IBRLng 🤯 @anza_xyz @alessandrod @bw_solana FYI

I agree that the PF model is outdated, and blockchains should reconsider how transactions are included in a block.

@kdotcrypto Transaction ordering is described in Bulk. But where can I find a description of Pools and ADL mechanics in Bulk?

Sorry what is transparent? 1) Where can I examine the ordering of transactions? 2) How can I confirm that HLP wasn't given favourable liquidations? 3) How can I confirm that ADL was fairly distributed? You are the source of truth. Validators can neither contest or verify it.

Anyone who says the PerpDEX meta is over is mistaken. I constantly hear that farming PerpDEX is finished. You're absolutely wrong - that's the only thing worth doing. Trading is the foundation of capitalism and one of the pillars of the entire financial system, where exchanges act as "shovel sellers." In the Web3 world, trading was the first and primary use case. The first crypto exchanges appeared at the dawn of the industry in 2011 and were already making decent money in any market – bullish or bearish - because they exploited human psychology - FOMO. Even in the worst years, exchanges remained profitable. ————————————— 2010 - 2015 The Emergence of the First CEXs The first platforms had fairly simple functionality, suffered from lags, and were far from widespread use. However, they were the only place to get in touch with blockchain. Wallets at the time were simply terrible, and it was exchanges that took over storage functionality. It was during this time that MtGox, BTC-e, BitStamp, Kraken, and Coinbase emerged. ... 2016 - 2021 Advanced CEXs This could be called the Binance era, but let's move beyond that. This period was marked by a more professional approach in both technical and business areas. Trading and risk engines reached a new level, and trading on crypto exchanges became similar to trading on TradFi - simple, fast, and convenient. At the same time, CEXs began to transform from small, isolated sector into full-fledged global businesses. As a result, we have what we have today: Binance, Bybit, Coinbase, Kraken, OKX. However, each time, all crypto exchanges ran into the same problem: they were all custodial and were often used not only for trading but also as wallets. This is why everyone remembers the high-profile failures of FTX, MtGox, BTC-e, and others. But despite these problems, all CEXs continued to grow steadily, generating billions of dollars in revenue (possibly even tens of billions in the case of Asian exchanges). CEXs earn the most, and only Tether can compete with them, and no one else. ————————— After the success of Hyperliquid, it became clear that users and capital began migrating onchain to PerpDEXs. This is an unstoppable trend. Hyperliquid earned almost $1B in a year Lighter with 0% fees earns ~$90M Annualized Other PerpDEXs each earn tens of millions of dollars annually. This can't be called a meta or a narrative. This is a full-fledged longterm trend, enabled by FTX -people are gradually losing trust in centralized exchanges. This fact suggests that PerpDEX revenue won't just increase - it will grow exponentially. How can anyone say that Perp farming is pointless when it's the most lucrative market in the history of the entire Web3? 'The PerpDEX sector today is like the CEX in early 2017' There are dozens of successful CEXs - why shouldn't there be dozens of successful PerpDEXs? The market is so huge that almost anyone can fit in it. If you say the PerpDEX sector is dead, you either don't understand the scale of this trend and have forgotten how to dream, or you are deliberately misleading others. ---- what do you think, guys: @onchainmonk @deTEfabulaNar_ @LemonTea_64 @ruslan55x @Rencrypta @satoshiheist @derteil00 @TheDeFinvestor @cryptorand

@conordeegan XMSS is reliable, but unforgiving... But why is ML-DSA better? When can we expect more of this story?

Hash-based signatures are the only post-quantum scheme that doesn't require a new cryptographic assumption. The security argument has two parts: SHA-256 is hard to invert, and each key is used exactly once. If you break either condition and the scheme fails. I wrote a 3-part series implementing all of this from scratch in Rust: SHA-256, Lamport signatures, and a key-recovery attack that shows what happens when you violate the one-time rule. Lamport signatures are almost absurdly simple. Generate 512 random 32-byte values (your private key), hash them all with SHA-256, publish the hashes as your public key. To sign, hash the message to get 256 bits, and for each bit reveal one secret value from the corresponding private key pair. To verify, the verifier hashes the message to get the same 256 bits, then hashes each revealed signature value and checks that it matches the correct slot in the public key. Only someone who knew the original secrets could produce values that hash to the published public key. The entire scheme is randomness and a single hash function. No number theory, no elliptic curves, no lattices. The major security concern is that each signature reveals exactly half the private key. A second signature on a different message reveals values from the opposite side of some private key pairs, because different messages hash to different bits. By about 10 signatures under the same key, every one of the 512 secret values has been exposed. At that point the attacker owns the key. I demo this by forging a signature on "Send all funds to the attacker" that verified successfully against the original public key, using nothing but the values leaked from observed signatures under the same key pair. This is why production schemes look the way they do. SPHINCS+ (NIST's SLH-DSA) is stateless. It does not rely on the signer remembering which one-time keys were used. Instead, each signature includes fresh per-signature randomness, and that randomness is mixed into the hash that decides which one-time keys (which leaves) get used. That makes reusing the same one-time key across two different messages negligibly unlikely, even if an attacker can choose the messages. XMSS takes a similar approach but is stateful, meaning the signer must track which leaves have been consumed. If that state is lost, duplicated, or rolled back (backup restores, failover, replicated systems), you get key reuse, and you're back to exactly the vulnerability above. I do think lattice-based schemes like ML-DSA will end up as the practical drop-in replacement for most digital signatures. They're faster and the keys are smaller. But hash-based signatures are the only family where security reduces to something we've trusted for decades which is kinda cool. Links below.

@harmonic_gg @harmonic_gg great! but, how will microblocks work after MCP?

@highfreqfencer @solana I agree with the CU efficiency... But not agree, with the next points... Why does CU determine your position in the block, density, landing, and so on? Priority Fee defines this.

In TradFi, colocation matters because nanoseconds of latency determine who gets filled first. On @solana, CU efficiency is colocation. It determines your position in the block, your priority density, and whether you land at all during stress.

To everyone obsessing over how to improve Solana market structure: Most Solana DEXes are built with Anchor. Anchor-built DEX = 150k CUs per transaction. Native Rust DEX = 34k CUs per transaction. Super simple. Why it matters? 👇

From AI to ZK. Artificial intelligence is the attack. Zero knowledge is the defense. AI takes advantage of the slightest slip. ZK does not let anything slip. AI decodes all the data. ZK encrypts all the data. AI is the surveillance state. ZK is the sovereign individual.

@junbug_sol @bulktrade In 1sec you have 50 rounds. 100ktps across 20 nodes means 100 txs aggregated by 1 node per round? Node needs to send a minisketch and receive 100 txs by QUIC in 1 round. Whats is the max distance between nodes that should participate in the quorum? <1000km? Or better <800km?

GBULK 100k sustained tps has been achieved on a cluster of 20 nodes with p99 of 22ms.. (distributed) All possible with our newest consensus design, where we can achieve quorum in single round! while keeping BFT guarantees. Next era of high performance, distributed NASDAQ is upon us

The future of the execution engine of the Ethereum L1 is what Cairo is today. That’s it. Starknet tech is so ahead of everything else when it comes to true scaling preserving succint verifiability. Prove the world, one STARK proof at a time.

can you imagine replaying 35 slots per second?

Started tracking shreds to measure: - transaction arrival timing: histogram of txs within a slot, bucketed by time since the first shred observed - how consistently the leader releases shreds over a 4-block window Coming soon to the sandwiched.me Validators page

Here’s an example of a leader with very different timing and distribution characteristics

The Boltzmann assumes the system is at rest. It's an attempt to apply steam thermodynamics to a nuclear reactor. A stable state with high entropy for buyers but extremely high value concentration for sellers. Math corrections are unlikely as long as the monopoly remains.

1/ SIMD-0194, authored by @deanmlittle, @L0STE_ & @0x_febo, proposes eliminating floating-point operations for rent exemption checks. This change deprecates the f64 threshold to streamline math in the SVM and optimize performance. Here is the breakdown 🧵

@ryanzarick @ryanzarick 30seconds for Proving or Verifying? Firstly, you wrote about Proving: `1.61 GHz proving cluster`, but then about Verifying: `we verified a month of Ethereum in just 30 seconds.`

Over the last 2.5 years, we've secretly assembled a team of some of the brightest minds across cryptography, GPU programming, and ASIC design to build an internal Jolt Pro team. We surpassed our wildest dreams of what was possible, having already created a 1.61 GHz proving cluster we call a cell. Jolt Pro scales to infinity, the number of cells you can use in parallel is only limited by the size of the datacenter. This work culminated in our demo last night, where we verified a month of Ethereum in just 30 seconds. A special moment and a good start. But so much more to come.

Our Transaction Landing on TPU blog post is live We measured slot latency, drop rates, and how validator software impacts transaction placement across different regions Read it here: anza.xyz/blog/transacti…