IVAN

2.2K posts

IVAN banner
IVAN

IVAN

@IVANLOMOLJO

Wallet & Community @0xMiden / Previously @playShrapnel

The Land of Promise Katılım Eylül 2021
575 Takip Edilen173 Takipçiler
IVAN
IVAN@IVANLOMOLJO·
Meet tons of truly amazing community members who have been with us through ups and downs. I can't tag you all, but you know who you are. 🫡
English
0
0
4
35
IVAN
IVAN@IVANLOMOLJO·
Personal News. It's been an honor and pleasure to work at Shrapnel and with the team for 4 years, and with that, I'm forever thankful for the opportunity and for trusting me to work with them all these years. Gained tons of knowledge and will treasure those experiences.
English
2
0
4
69
IVAN retweetledi
Miden
Miden@0xMiden·
Marcos Carlomagno from @OpenZeppelin on why we built Guardian. Miden's privacy is local-first, but that creates two problems: 1) lose the device, lose access 2) Share an account across signers, and there's no way to stay in sync without giving up state Guardian solves both.
English
33
23
110
6.3K
IVAN retweetledi
Miden
Miden@0xMiden·
Introducing the Privacy Podcast, hosted by our Head of Communications, former CoinDesk editor, Ben Schiller. Conversations with the technologists, cryptographers, regulators, and founders building the new privacy era.
English
16
11
88
2.6K
IVAN retweetledi
Miden
Miden@0xMiden·
Privacy infrastructure is becoming enterprise-ready. This week, XRP Ledger integrated zero-knowledge proofs and Stripe-backed Tempo launched Zones to enable interoperable private payments for enterprises on its network. But there's more.
Miden tweet media
English
27
15
97
6.9K
IVAN retweetledi
SHRAPNEL » Play Now on Steam
SHRAPNEL » Play Now on Steam@playSHRAPNEL·
Dashing into an enemy Stockpile mid-deposit with Swan and the CSG5 is genuinely disrespectful. I will keep doing it.
English
0
10
59
5.7K
IVAN retweetledi
SHRAPNEL » Play Now on Steam
SHRAPNEL » Play Now on Steam@playSHRAPNEL·
Play with the Devs, Win with Your Friends 🗓️Tomorrow 6-8 p. m. UTC Screenshot your team queued up in the menu → post it on X with #PlayWithDevs and tag @playSHRAPNEL → tag everyone in your lobby → Win a Steam GC (?) Valdacha awaits your service, Operators
SHRAPNEL » Play Now on Steam tweet media
SHRAPNEL » Play Now on Steam@playSHRAPNEL

Been waiting to get your friends into Shrapnel? Now you can — team matchmaking is live. Squad up and play against the Devs this Wednesday at 1pm PT / 8pm UTC. You and your whole team could walk away with $10 Steam gift cards. 🧵

English
2
3
36
3.9K
IVAN retweetledi
azeem
azeem@azeemk·
The Google quantum paper. The implications are not just technical. They are commercial. From my vantage, here is what changes. Every bank running due diligence on blockchain infrastructure has to ask whether the cryptography underneath it survives the next decade. The honest answer is… uncomfortable. When a bank selects core infrastructure, they are committing for seven to 10 years. At this point, any institution building on cryptography that could be obsolete by 2029 is taking on risk no compliance team will sign off on. For years now, quantum resistance was treated as a future problem. Something to migrate to eventually. That window just collapsed into a planning horizon. And migration is not simple. Retrofitting quantum resistant cryptography onto existing chains touches consensus, wallets, settlement logic. Every layer. The teams that treated this as something to bolt on later (which is many of them are going to struggle). This is why we built @0xMiden on STARKs. Hash based. Quantum resistant by design. Not because we predicted this paper, but because building financial infrastructure on cryptography with a known expiration date never made sense. What I'm hearing from institutional conversations confirms this. The agenda has shifted from questions about throughput to longevity. They ask about migration paths. They ask whether the team planned for this or is scrambling. Some will accelerate their quantum resistance roadmaps. Others will downplay the timeline. And some of us built for this moment from the beginning.
English
8
12
60
2.4K
IVAN retweetledi
Bobbin's Threadbare
Bobbin's Threadbare@bobbinth·
One other thing worth noting: this doesn't affect just EC signatures, many ZKP systems are affected just as much. Broadly speaking, modern ZKP systems use one of three types of cryptography under the hood: 1. Elliptic curves (whether paring-based or not) - these are used by most SNARKs. 2. Collision-resistant hashes - these are used in STARKs and Ligero, among others. 3. Lattices - these are relatively novel but up-and-coming systems. Quantum computers, like the ones mentioned in Google's paper, will straight up break anything that uses elliptic curves (e.g., it will be possible to create proofs for computations that never happened). Hash-based and Lattice based systems are not vulnerable - but out of these, only hash-based systems are probably secure (given the underlying hash function is secure). Another aspect of this is that data encrypted with EC-based cryptography and stored on-chain may be vulnerable even now. This is because of "harvest now, decrypt later" attacks. This is especially relevant for blockchains where data (even if encrypted) once stored on-chain is accessible forever. This is one of the reasons we chose STARKs for Miden from the start. Our proof system is hash-based (and thus resistant to Quantum computers), and we use state commitments rather than encrypted state. That sidesteps the harvest-now-decrypt-later problem entirely.
Justin Drake@drakefjustin

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.

English
11
13
51
7.5K