no_secrets

if you are talking about blockchain/defi, why are you citing the opinions of others as if that gives any extra merit here, instead of looking at on-chain statistics what is the probability a protocol will get hacked given that it is open source vs if it's closed source? look at ethereum vs solana for instance should be pretty obvious the former is significantly higher. you can compute the conditional probabilities yourself if you want the obvious game theoretic reasoning is that it's much easier for a human to find severe flaws in code that both they and AI can read without anything that obfuscates the program behavior. citing a bunch of people does not change that

For some reason, AI has convinced people that closed-source software is the way forward. It's not. Security through obscurity isn't security. Anyone claiming otherwise is too dumb to understand the problem and thus must not propose solutions. Speak less, listen more.

do you - use codex w/ gpt 5.5 - give it knowledge base of past valid and past invalid findings - give it tool calling and testing abilities on the codebase associated with the bounty program - have it empirically validate the findings independently without relying on the reporter's PoC, then compare independent root cause analysis to reporter claims + PoC - automate this at least partially if you don't do all these things then you are not making maximal use of the tools available to solve this triaging problem compound this with the fact that your reply here looks extremely AI assisted if not AI generated. you are likely complaining about others' alternate uses of that which you benefit from (which is not going away, so adapt)

Oh man… Read that back, because you've just contradicted yourself. Reviewing submissions is the job. Nobody's complaining about that. The problem is specifically Al-generated reports that the researcher didn't bother to validate first. Triagers already use AI to help with evaluation. That's not the gotcha you think it is. The issue isn't whether we have tools, it's that those tools still need a human to chase down whether a confident-sounding "critical impact" claim is actually real, and whether the PoC reproduces on chain. Al helps. It doesn't eliminate the work, especially when the inbound is also AI. Now look at the logic of your own position. SRs are spraying AI submissions into the queue. The queue gets worse. You get frustrated that your report isn’t moving fast enough. So your conclusion is that triagers are doing low-quality work and leaning too hard on AI. That doesn’t add up. You can’t blame the triage pipeline for slow throughput in the same breath that you’re cheerleading for flooding it with unvalidated AI reports. Pick a lane.

Also, if your AI agent workflow is "submit to BBP and see how they respond," you haven't validated. You've outsourced validation to the triage team. Use the AI. But write a real PoC, test it against on-chain state, and submit only what you'd stake your reputation on. The platform is where verified findings get checked, not where your agent learns what's real.

@bbl4de_xyz @immunefi LFG

I just found a confirmed bug on @immunefi #immunefitribe immunefi.com/s/ss/?severity…

@Donkortess56 @filosofiadoalto @miniapeur

@flowidealism lol

@outpxce Maybe good opsec is so rare that it is signal moreso than it hides people

@4gontuk Congrats 🔥🔥🔥🔥

Now I know how it feels to find a live crit, time to find more and secure another protocol🫡

@jaginger @frankmaraschino @gphelpsIII @TheJFreakinC Yes yes apply all the conditions you need until it makes sense. You seem to love and hate amendments at the same time

@no___secrets___ @frankmaraschino @gphelpsIII @TheJFreakinC In the context of enforcing immigration law where a MUNICIPAL EXECUTIVE ORDER says they can't (and that's what we were taking about) they absolutely can ignore that stupid XO. Stop being retarded.

🚨BREAKING: ICE/Border Patrol agents are proving once again that they are not targeting violent criminals… They are targeting children and families. On Sunday, agents were caught illegally operating in Minneapolis public parks, in direct violation of city orders, and then tear-gassing spaces designed for kids and families. This happened at Powderhorn Park. In the video, ICE agents are seen aggressively driving into the parking lot of a public park, on a Sunday… a day when families and children regularly sled, play, and gather there. U.S. citizens are already in the park. They begin recording and blowing whistles. An ICE agent then chases a U.S. citizen through the park, tackles him to the ground, and handcuffs him. While that’s happening, other agents begin deploying tear gas, throwing canisters at U.S. citizens who are nowhere near them, filling the parking lot and the park itself with smoke. Tear gas causes respiratory distress, burning eyes, nausea, and panic… effects that are especially dangerous for children. And agents illegally deployed chemical agents anyway, in an open public park, with families nearby. That is excessive use of force, and child endangerment. And they did all of it while being explicitly prohibited from operating in the park in the first place… The Minneapolis Mayor’s Executive Order 2025-02 bans civil immigration enforcement staging on city property. On January 7th, 2026, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board unanimously passed a resolution aligning with that order, explicitly prohibiting ICE from staging or operating in parks. ICE did it anyway. And it didn’t stop there… Later, that same day, around 12:45 PM, ICE agents were seen sitting in Folwell Park, another public park. A woman approaches them, calmly cites the order, and tells them they are not allowed to be there and need to leave. ICE/Border Patrol are choosing spaces where children gather instead of places where actual crimes occur, then responding to public scrutiny by assaulting civilians and deploying chemical weapons. If ICE/Border Patrol are willing to do this in broad daylight, on a Sunday, in front of families, while being filmed, after being explicitly told they are not allowed to be there… Then they are not enforcing the law. They are endangering children and assaulting anyone who dares to exercise their First Amendment rights, and say that’s not okay.

@jaginger @frankmaraschino @gphelpsIII @TheJFreakinC “the feds can do whatever they want” is plainly incorrect. Exit the denial stage pls

@no___secrets___ @frankmaraschino @gphelpsIII @TheJFreakinC LOL. Nothing I said was wrong fella. Now scram

@jaginger @frankmaraschino @gphelpsIII @TheJFreakinC Maybe don’t say things that are flatly wrong next time buddy And be grateful you live in a country where the feds cannot in fact “do whatever they want”

@no___secrets___ @frankmaraschino @gphelpsIII @TheJFreakinC You are making no logical point regarding immigration law. Nice try

@philipgporter Look into the mirror not the window

You are now deliberately concentrating your previously general statement that "the feds can do whatever they want" now that I have shown you how absurd it is. Now you have backpedaled to "the judges in every state" The supremacy clause does not mandate universal, unconditional override of state law. For that to be the case, it would imply that there is absolutely zero ambiguity in deciding which one applies in which situation. And that is false. The 10th amendment acknowledges this by delegating any powers not explicitly delegated to fed govt to the states. For heavens sake bro just understand what you are reading instead of looking for the little piece that confirms your biases (and no, i did not do this)

@no___secrets___ @frankmaraschino @gphelpsIII @TheJFreakinC Dude. "and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Under no possible circumstances does this allow a municipal executive order to override Federal immigration law. Stop being retarded.

No, it does not. Read your own sources before citing them “To prevent the federal government’s newly expanded powers from smothering state regulatory authority, the Court simultaneously narrowed the circumstances in which federal law displaced state law. Besides retreating from the “automatic” field preemption of the early twentieth century, the Court articulated a “presumption against preemption,” under which federal law does not displace state law “unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.”

@frankmaraschino @gphelpsIII @TheJFreakinC Dude. The Constitution literally says that the feds can do what they want. Might be better if you learn something before citing it

@FXStrypes @TypeErrorDev @HeroDividend He has sense of what matters, which is the result. Not three extra minutes that don’t contribute to the result That is why he is trusted to protect a country, and you are trusted with a cubicle and excel spreadsheet

@TypeErrorDev @HeroDividend They were hired to be in the office 9-5pm which they are. You’d think someone in the military would have a sense of time and punctuality

What would you do if you got this email?

@DMiller52325459 Nothing lame about pointing out the difference between nice pictures and what the human eye actually sees. Also I can still reply even if you didn’t address me and I don’t follow you. You do not control others’ words unless you restrict the post lol

@no___secrets___ This is 👆🏻 how you spend your time? I didn’t address you nor do you follow me, do you waste your time coming at people with that lame sauce… do better and I wish you a wonderful night ☺️

I’m rich because I’ve seen this with my own eyes. Show me how rich you are!

@tetsuoai He lied about the side lengths after sliding the triangles Also he moved the halves out slightly

Can you spot the flaw in this visual paradox? This "proof" claims 90 is greater than 92. Slick presentations fool us every day. In news, and in life. If someone can't show you receipts, be suspicious. What looks true and what is true aren't the same thing.

@iyugov @Math_files 👍

@no___secrets___ @Math_files Yes.

@iyugov @Math_files Alright bro Let $x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_{26} \in \mathbb{R}$. Compute: $$ (x_{25} - x_1)(x_{25} - x_2) \cdots (x_{25} - x_{26}) $$ You happy now?

@no___secrets___ @Math_files What's the problem of asking for a formal definition? Not so much cheap fun for everyone?

@iyugov @Math_files Stop being pedantic You know the alphabet and you know exactly what it implies

@Math_files "..." is not a mathematical operator. Be more formal.