
Sean Bowe
2.1K posts

Sean Bowe
@ebfull
Zcash developer and crypto researcher, Encrypted Money at Planetary Scale (https://t.co/Mx9wf4StDk)






Yesterday @litecoin published the MWEB security incident post-mortem. Read it first if you want to follow this thread: litecoin.com/news/litecoin-… Credit to LF for the detailed report. But there's one lesson missing from "lessons learned", and it's the most important one. 🧵



@zooko Thank you chad ! I will hodl to these with my life. The note you added means a lot more than the amount. ❤️


@apruden08 @mert @pakaqe Turnstiles defend against this threat in Zcash already by capping the damage of inflation bugs, isolating them to the shielded pool they occur in. This is a general defense; merely making things quantum resistant would never fully address the problem you're pointing out.

Project Eleven CEO (@apruden08) reveals Zcash is not quantum resistant like Bitcoin: "A lot of this ZEC in circulation is not in a shielded pool, it's just public." "And the problem there is, taking advantage of those assumptions means not only can you potentially steal coins, but you can actually mint money and do so in a way that's totally undetectable."

@therollupco @apruden08 Zcash authorizes transactions with ephemeral, re-randomized keys, while the SNARK links them using symmetric primitives that are quantum-resilient. This means we can swap the SNARK at any time as quantum nears. User funds remain safely spendable throughout.


@therollupco @apruden08 Zcash authorizes transactions with ephemeral, re-randomized keys, while the SNARK links them using symmetric primitives that are quantum-resilient. This means we can swap the SNARK at any time as quantum nears. User funds remain safely spendable throughout.



Coin Center’s Seven Takeaways from the Storm Verdict: ▪️ 1. The sole conviction—unlicensed money transmission (18 U.S.C. § 1960)—turns mainly on legal/regulatory interpretation (“does this count as money transmission?”), not jury fact-finding. ▪️ 2. The court, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, discounted FinCEN’s stated guidance on what counts as “money transmission” in crypto and treated the category as broader than “control of customer funds.” ▪️ 3. With “money transmission” defined that broadly, the jury’s room to decide facts was narrow; the court’s interpretation largely dictated the outcome. ▪️ 4. DOJ’s prior “end regulation by prosecution” memo didn’t fully resolve §1960 issues left things open for continued prosecution; the DOJ dropped the failure-to-register theory but not the “knowingly transmitting criminal funds” theory. Coin Center’s view: both hinge on “transmitting” and are improper against developers excluded by FinCEN guidance. ▪️ 5. The BRCA (Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act), now attached to CLARITY and passed by the House, would confirm that non-controlling developers aren’t money transmitters. It can’t help Roman retroactively, but the Senate should pass it in upcoming market-structure debates. ▪️ 6. Coin Center fellow Michael Lewellen is suing DOJ for a declaration that publishing/maintaining his software isn’t unlicensed money transmission. Coin Center will continue supporting this effort to correct the legal interpretation. ▪️ 7. Coin Center is sorry Roman faces sentencing on a theory that contradicts the regulator’s guidance. He should appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss; Coin Center will assist however possible.









