it will get dumber screenshot this

I know the internet (and particular this site) is largely people opining confidently and brazenly on a topic they've only thought about for like 20 minutes, but on this issue in particular things have truly reached staggering levels.

replace digital signatures with web3

Today I call upon the blockchain industry to calmly begin planning for "bunker mode". My personal recommendation is to set in motion a controlled mass migration of assets to fresh addresses, i.e. addresses whose pubkeys remain hidden behind a hash. Holders, starting with large and sophisticated ones, should consider moving the bulk of their funds to addresses that have never signed a transaction. And when they do sign one, they should also move remaining funds to a new address (possibly generated from the same seed phrase). Don't rush. While I believe there is cause for action a rushed migration would do more harm than good. Don't panic either. Moving assets to protected addresses is a simple, preventative step which does not require new cryptography or new wallets. IMO it is now reasonable to brace for the possibility that ECDSA breaks before qday, in the worst case in months not years. By "break" I mean fast private key recovery (e.g. in one week) on available hardware (e.g. a large GPU cluster). Recent days have been humbling for human mathematical intuition. Long-held, unquestioned hypotheses have fallen. This includes the n log(n) bound for integer multiplication and the 3SUM conjecture. In hindsight, May's unexpected disproof of the Erdős unit distance conjecture was our warning shot. Yesterday's OpenAI drop made it clear that mathematical superintelligence is upon us. They say there are weeks where decades happen. We are about to live through weeks where centuries of mathematical progress happen. Could our magic 64-byte ECDSA signatures be too good to be true? Was it just security through obscurity all this time? Elliptic curves feel especially vulnerable to superintelligence. Curves carry rich structure, with room for fancy tricks like Schoof, Frobenius, pairings. (By contrast, hashes are designed to minimise algebraic structure.) Separately, as Ewin Tang can attest, an efficient quantum algorithm sometimes foreshadows an efficient classical one. We should be open to the possibility of a classical counterpart to Shor that breaks elliptic curves and RSA at once. Also noteworthy is the striking under-representation of cryptographic breakthroughs among the 722 mathematical results OpenAI published. I've witnessed first-hand the US government censoring academic quantum cryptanalysis results. Backroom interventionism is my base case. I urge large, sophisticated actors to lead by example. Project11's "risq list" (bitcoin-risq-list.projecteleven[.]com) is a great tracker of exposed BTC pubkeys. Binance, Bitbank, Robinhood, Bitfinex, and Tether have an opportunity to harden their cold storage. Next month I'll address institutions in London in a live Q&A (forum.ethereuminstitutional[.]org/london-2026). Again, please do not rush. Wallets holding under 50 BTC enjoy partial cover from "Satoshi's shield", i.e. his 20K exposed addresses that hold 50 BTC each. Load-bearing signers like oracles and L2 security councils should consider rotating ECDSA pubkeys with every signed message and/or multi-signing with a hash-based schemes like SPHINCS. Exiting bunker mode safely will require post-AI cryptography. My inclination is to go all-in on hash-based cryptography and avoid structured mathematical assumptions entirely, whether from curves, lattices, or isogenies. A single battle-tested hash (e.g. from the SHA or BLAKE families) yields plausible post-AI security. The Ethereum roadmap on strawmap[.]org fully embraces hash-based cryptography with end-to-end formal verification as a response to the quantum threat. Those timelines must now be revisited and accelerated in light of mathematical superintelligence. I'll be pushing for maximum defensive acceleration.

the next golden age of CT drama is upon us

The truth is for too long, too many of us did not give enough weight to the warnings of AI safety activists, thinking the extreme scenarios were science fiction. I was one of those many, and I was wrong. Although I always supported a robust federal AI agency for safety, I should have in retrospect supported @Scott_Wiener SB 1047 which would have established state liability. The bulk of the California delegation was mistaken in writing a letter opposing that bill. I say this as someone who has endorsed Scott's opponent, Connie Chan, for Congress. On this issue, he was right. As I've studied this problem, and listened to the AI safety experts, I believe we not only need the federal approach I outlined above but also a robust state approach and mandatory insurance. I have always believed in transparency when I get a call wrong. I hope more lawmakers tackle this issue with the seriousness it deserves.

It is — and I cannot overstate this — completely fucking insane that this man is president

I hate to say it, but we may have crossed the stupid event horizon. Things may now be too stupid to recover to some sort of mildly non-stupid equilibrium. A singularity of sorts, but for stupid. A black hole of stupid.

Happy birthday @Arbitrum! 5 years ago in 2021 Arbitrum went live for the very first time as an @ethereum L2 Where it all began at Princeton as a research project led by our founders @sgoldfed, @hkalodner and @EdFelten And today we’re proud to see Arbitrum become the backbone of finance powering the programmable economy

the amount of living people who can pull off this line delivery has gone from one to zero