比特币大熊

这个月可以称得上是crypto 史上黑客最猖獗的月份了： 0418: @KelpDAO 被盗 $293M 0416: Grinex 被盗 $15M 0416: @rhea_finance 被盗 $18.4M 0412: @hyperbridge 被盗 $2.5M 0401: @DriftProtocol 被盗 $285M 累计被盗资产高达6亿美元。 更恐怖的是，这个月还有11天才结束。

x.com/i/article/2036…

【维权实锤】@Bitget_zh 的 TradFi 平台原油期货赚钱了不让提现！ @BitgetGlobal 赢不起？跨周末持仓 49 小时获利，竟被强行抹除 3 万美金盈利！ 本人于 3月7日 05:56 入场，下单后因为500被杠杆波动巨大，差点被爆仓，持仓跨周末 49 小时（承担巨大爆仓风险），3月9日 06:01 看到盈利手动平仓获利 29,117.5 USD。 官方竟定性为“跳空违规（Gap Trading）”要求扣除盈利！我有 iPhone 手动平仓完整录像（见视频）证明操作合规。@BitgetSupport 恶意定性，完全无视手动操作证据。 本次盈利源于原油主升趋势的正常交易判断，持仓跨越周末 48 小时闭市期，本人承担了全部风险。盈利完全合理合规！ 我已在 RFI 问卷提供一切证明资料。 赢了不给提现，输了本金归零，这就是 Bitget 的公平吗？请大家帮忙转发！ @GracyBitget @BitgetGlobal @xiejiayinBitget @Bitget_DACH @BitgetWalletCN #Bitget #Scam #Trading #维权 #MT5

【维权实锤】@Bitget_zh 的 TradFi 平台原油期货赚钱了不让提现！ @BitgetGlobal 赢不起？跨周末持仓 49 小时获利，竟被强行抹除 3 万美金盈利！ 本人于 3月7日 05:56 入场，下单后因为500被杠杆波动巨大，差点被爆仓，持仓跨周末 49 小时（承担巨大爆仓风险），3月9日 06:01 看到盈利手动平仓获利 29,117.5 USD。 官方竟定性为“跳空违规（Gap Trading）”要求扣除盈利！我有 iPhone 手动平仓完整录像（见视频）证明操作合规。@BitgetSupport 恶意定性，完全无视手动操作证据。 本次盈利源于原油主升趋势的正常交易判断，持仓跨越周末 48 小时闭市期，本人承担了全部风险。盈利完全合理合规！ 我已在 RFI 问卷提供一切证明资料。 赢了不给提现，输了本金归零，这就是 Bitget 的公平吗？请大家帮忙转发！ @GracyBitget @BitgetGlobal @xiejiayinBitget @Bitget_DACH @BitgetWalletCN #Bitget #Scam #Trading #维权 #MT5

Now, the quantum resistance roadmap. Today, four things in Ethereum are quantum-vulnerable: * consensus-layer BLS signatures * data availability (KZG commitments+proofs) * EOA signatures (ECDSA) * Application-layer ZK proofs (KZG or groth16) We can tackle these step by step: ## Consensus-layer signatures Lean consensus includes fully replacing BLS signatures with hash-based signatures (some variant of Winternitz), and using STARKs to do aggregation. Before lean finality, we stand a good chance of getting the Lean available chain. This also involves hash-based signatures, but there are much fewer signatures (eg. 256-1024 per slot), so we do not need STARKs for aggregation. One important thing upstream of this is choosing the hash function. This may be "Ethereum's last hash function", so it's important to choose wisely. Conventional hashes are too slow, and the most aggressive forms of Poseidon have taken hits on their security analysis recently. Likely options are: * Poseidon2 plus extra rounds, potentially non-arithmetic layers (eg. Monolith) mixed in * Poseidon1 (the older version of Poseidon, not vulnerable to any of the recent attacks on Poseidon2, but 2x slower) * BLAKE3 or similar (take the most efficient conventional hash we know) ## Data availability Today, we rely pretty heavily on KZG for erasure coding. We could move to STARKs, but this has two problems: 1. If we want to do 2D DAS, then our current setup for this relies on the "linearity" property of KZG commitments; with STARKs we don't have that. However, our current thinking is that it should be sufficient given our scale targets to just max out 1D DAS (ie. PeerDAS). Ethereum is taking a more conservative posture, it's not trying to be a high-scale data layer for the world. 2. We need proofs that erasure coded blobs are correctly constructed. KZG does this "for free". STARKs can substitute, but a STARK is ... bigger than a blob. So you need recursive starks (though there's also alternative techniques, that have their own tradeoffs). This is okay, but the logistics of this get harder if you want to support distributed blob selection. Summary: it's manageable, but there's a lot of engineering work to do. ## EOA signatures Here, the answer is clear: we add native AA (see eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-8141 ), so that we get first-class accounts that can use any signature algorithm. However, to make this work, we also need quantum-resistant signature algorithms to actually be viable. ECDSA signature verification costs 3000 gas. Quantum-resistant signatures are ... much much larger and heavier to verify. We know of quantum-resistant hash-based signatures that are in the ~200k gas range to verify. We also know of lattice-based quantum-resistant signatures. Today, these are extremely inefficient to verify. However, there is work on vectorized math precompiles, that let you perform operations (+, *, %, dot product, also NTT / butterfly permutations) that are at the core of lattice math, and also STARKs. This could greatly reduce the gas cost of lattice-based signatures to a similar range, and potentially go even lower. The long-term fix is protocol-layer recursive signature and proof aggregation, which could reduce these gas overheads to near-zero. ## Proofs Today, a ZK-SNARK costs ~300-500k gas. A quantum-resistant STARK is more like 10m gas. The latter is unacceptable for privacy protocols, L2s, and other users of proofs. The solution again is protocol-layer recursive signature and proof aggregation. So let's talk about what this is. In EIP-8141, transactions have the ability to include a "validation frame", during which signature verifications and similar operations are supposed to happen. Validation frames cannot access the outside world, they can only look at their calldata and return a value, and nothing else can look at their calldata. This is designed so that it's possible to replace any validation frame (and its calldata) with a STARK that verifies it (potentially a single STARK for all the validation frames in a block). This way, a block could "contain" a thousand validation frames, each of which contains either a 3 kB signature or even a 256 kB proof, but that 3-256 MB (and the computation needed to verify it) would never come onchain. Instead, it would all get replaced by a proof verifying that the computation is correct. Potentially, this proving does not even need to be done by the block builder. Instead, I envision that it happens at mempool layer: every 500ms, each node could pass along the new valid transactions that it has seen, along with a proof verifying that they are all valid (including having validation frames that match their stated effects). The overhead is static: only one proof per 500ms. Here's a post where I talk about this: ethresear.ch/t/recursive-st… firefly.social/post/farcaster…