与「cryptocrash」相关的搜索结果

A top Ukrainian crypto blogger, 32-year-old Kostya Kudo, shot himself in Kiev amid the crypto crash, triggered by Donald Trump. He managed ~$65M, including $10M from Ukraine’s GUR. Local media say he faced pressure from security forces demanding a share of his crypto profits. A well-known crypto blogger shot himself in Kiev amid a crypto market crash: he managed around $65 million, including $10 million belonging to Ukraine’s military intelligence (GUR). 32-year-old Konstantin Hanich, known online as Kostya Kudo, was found in a Lamborghini Urus with a gunshot wound to the head in Kiev’s Obolon district. According to local media, Hanich handled funds from the GUR, Kirv businessmen, and government officials. In the days before his death, he faced pressure from Ukrainian security forces demanding a cut of his crypto earnings. Last night, Hanich reportedly used an award pistol personally given to him by GUR chief Kyrylo Budanov to end his life. Before that, he sent a farewell message to his close friends.

🚨 Recently, @COLDCARDwallet suffered a major private key vulnerability. Multiple waves of attacks resulted in at least 1,719 BTC (~$111M) in losses, involving over 5,200 addresses. Using Mk3 firmware 4.1.9 as an example, the SlowMist Security Team fully reproduced the attack chain and uncovered the truth behind the theft of thousands of bitcoins. 🧩 Attack flow: 1️⃣ After power-on, the remaining unpredictable state is reduced primarily to a single enumerable 32-bit pad (UID ^ SysTick), with the remaining state values either fixed or coming from very small enumerable spaces. 2️⃣ Attackers precisely model the three typical button-press consumption profiles (retail first-boot, empty-NVRAM, paper wallet) that advance the PRNG before seed generation. 3️⃣ From the weak random_bytes(32), the full deterministic pipeline (SHA-256 → BIP-39 → PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA512 → BIP-32 → address derivation) is reproduced offline. 4️⃣ GPU clusters brute-force the candidate pad space and button-count variations, then match the derived addresses against the global set of single-signature P2WPKH addresses to identify vulnerable wallets and sweep their funds. ⚙️ Root Cause: A build configuration error set MICROPY_HW_ENABLE_RNG to 0, disabling the STM32 hardware TRNG. The random number generation path silently fell back to the non-cryptographic Yasmarang software PRNG, whose state was almost entirely predictable, reducing effective entropy to ~40 bits (Mk2/Mk3) or ~72 bits (Mk4/Mk5/Q). 🔒 SlowMist Insight: Affected users should immediately upgrade to the patched firmware, generate a completely new seed, transfer a small amount of funds as a test, confirm the new address works correctly, then migrate all remaining funds. Full analysis 👉

Preparing multi-chain assets for a post-quantum future. Illia Polosukhin explains how NEAR gets there. With Chain Signatures, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and stablecoins held via NEAR Intents can be secured with post-quantum cryptography and kept confidential, with protocol upgrades handling the transition automatically. Confidential and quantum-resistant. A powerful combination for future-proofing your assets.

First Principles Ep. 6 with Ron Rivest Long before the internet became a place to bank, transact, or build blockchains, Turing Award winner Ron Rivest helped solve a foundational problem: how can strangers communicate securely without first meeting to exchange a secret? Rivest tells the story of inventing RSA with Adi Shamir and Leonard Adleman, why digital signatures fascinated him even more than encryption, and how cryptographic hashes, government pressure, patents, and standards shaped the security infrastructure we rely on today. Rivest shares his unusually candid views on quantum computing, post-quantum security, and more. Hosted by @Tim_Roughgarden with @danboneh. 00:00 Intro: the two problems that could break modern cryptography 01:10 Why Ron Rivest’s work underpins the internet and blockchains 08:10 Before public-key cryptography, there was no theory of security 11:05 The open problem that led to RSA 13:55 The night Ron Rivest discovered the core idea behind RSA 17:55 Why digital signatures were the real breakthrough 19:14 The RSA challenge — and a prediction that was off by quadrillions of years 28:33 How government pressure shaped cryptographic standards 30:36 Designing the hash functions that made digital signatures practical 33:26 The Fiat–Shamir transformation, explained 38:04 Building a cryptography company before the web existed 42:31 Will quantum computers ever become powerful enough to break RSA? 48:02 The cryptography securing the internet, elections, and everyday life 50:11 What surprised Dan: Quantum giveth and quantum taketh away

Zero-knowledge cryptography is live on Cardano. In this Developers Office Hour, Agustín Salinas (@modp_) details the journey of building ZK tooling on-chain, utilizing Plutus V3, and implementing the recent Powers of Tau (PTAU) trusted setup ceremony for secure, low-overhead Groth16 and Plonk validation. Full session video below. 👇

Tim Roughgarden, mathematician at Institute for Advanced Study and head of research at a16z Crypto, on quantum computing, blockchain as a laboratory for social science, and AI transforming mathematics right now the way it transformed coding six months ago. 1:35 — The story from Turing to 2026 3:43 — Quantum was "25 years away" for 25 years, then something changed 4:25 — Q-Day prediction + Shor's algorithm + how to spot a quantum agenda 6:37 — Positive quantum applications + we're not doomed on cryptography 9:16 — Post-quantum migration is a coordination problem 12:22 — Blockchain as a laboratory for social science 15:50 — The sociology big bang analogy 17:37 — Computation is a law of nature 19:56 — AI is transforming mathematics right now 25:54 — Start with what you want to build @Tim_Roughgarden

Kash (@kash_bot ) is no longer just a local testnet it’s a full-fledged infrastructure that’s aggressively integrating into other powerful communities. I stand corrected and present the most comprehensive alpha update on partners and metrics! While other platforms are trying to lure users to their external websites, Kash has deployed its protocol directly on the Base L2 network and set out to capture an audience through powerful collaborations: Tier-1 Ecosystem and Partnerships: Chiliz @Chiliz : The leading sports blockchain has officially confirmed its integration with Kash. This is a brilliant move: direct access to a multi-million fan base with fan tokens, right in time for the current FIFA World Cup. PerpTools @perptools : Joint launch of “AI Arena.” Now, right in the PerpTools feed, you can bet on the performance of AI trading agents. Prediction markets have been combined with AI trading. Warp Chain @WarpGameCHAIN : Scaling in GameFi. Web3 guilds now have a tool to create on-chain markets for the outcomes of esports tournaments, ladder matches, and intra-team disputes. Doppel Games: Confirmed integration to combine poker and AvA games with the platform’s mechanics. Offline Dominance: The project is already sharing the stage with industry leaders. Kash co-organized the private “Prediction Meeting” meetup in Paris alongside Polymarket and the decentralized exchange Hyperliquid. Real-World Traction on Mainnet: The mainnet launch has already demonstrated organic growth: 793+ unique players. 3,800+ open on-chain predictions. $63,000+ in trading volume. Technical Infrastructure: The secret to such rapid adoption is the completely frictionless “No wallet. No app” approach. There are no traditional order books; liquidity is provided by a custom AMM. To launch your own market lasting 15 minutes or longer, or to open a position, simply repost a tweet on X Twitter and tag the official account @kash_bot_trades. The integrity of payouts is monitored by the autonomous LLM Council AI consortium, whose decisions are securely protected by ZK cryptography. Stay up to date via Discord: Website:

One thing I find striking in the discourse between AI 2040 and its detractors is that the two seem to be locked in to totally incompatible worldviews of how fast and how much of a big deal AI progress is: * In AI 2040, every scenario sees superintelligence of some kind emerging by 2040, unless a herculean effort is made to completely stop it * Detractors say things like "AI 2040 is naive about human coordination ability and a threat to freedom", but don't seem to see any naivety in assuming that the ASI transition will just go well by default, don't seem to see ASI itself as a massive power concentrator risk, and don't seem to feel fear of humanity's "hard power" dropping to zero if ASIs can do literally every task better than we can. This stance makes total sense in a "AI is normal technology" world, zero sense in a world where superintelligence is possible by 2030 and almost guaranteed by 2040 I think my beliefs are: - If I was confident that (present-day-style) AI is normal technology, I would be in the detractor camp - If I was confident that superintelligence is coming in 2030 by default, I would be closer to the AI 2040 camp - it's naive, but every other option is naive squared? But my problem is that I feel great uncertainty and have no idea which of the two worlds (or some other third thing) we're living in? Hence why I continue to be open-minded about slowdowns/pauses, but also I feel very uncomfortable with the "open source bad, the good outcome is the one where our guys have controlling global dominance" push coming from some major AI companies and intellectuals - in a "normal" world that's the sort of thing that triggers every political alarm bell at the same time. A big reason why I have been advocating and trying my best to support the d/acc platform (rapid up-skilling in formal verification, cryptography, secure and open hardware, pandemic resistance and other defensive biotech, food and basic resource security, public epistemics, non-power-concentrating versions of physical security) is that these things are clearly worth doing in both worlds. The 2040 plan is already much more open source friendly (even mandating it! yay). It also includes "mutually assured compute destruction" ideas which (if they work) effectively give one of 2-5 actors the ability to trigger a global compute winter - as opposed to giving 1-5 actors the ability to selectively disenfranchise people they consider baddies while exempting themselves. This is also a big improvement. So I can see the earnest attempts to improve along the dimensions detractors criticize on ("does this concentrate power in big AI labs and superpower governments?"), and I appreciate this. I think many people don't appreciate enough the differences between different "kinds" of pause buttons, and how some concentrate power far more than others. Probably we can think harder and improve even more here. But on the "slowdown/pause or not" topic, there isn't a magic "escape the tradeoff" button. The Hansonian in me says: the winning deal is a deal which, from the perspective of both sides' present-day beliefs and knowledge, both sides would accept, though for different reasons. If the crux is AI progress speed, then identify a set of pre-agreed triggers for "okay, serious shit is happening" [super-pandemics? >25% unemployment? something involving slaughterbots?], and pre-agree that we become much more open-minded to the slowdown or pause thing if enough triggers come to pass within some timeframe. 2040 detractors (who clearly implicitly think that we'll see amazing speedup of progress from AI but think that what I call the "serious shit" category is overhyped) will accept expecting that the triggers don't come to pass, and AI worriers will accept expecting that they will. Pre-agreeing on the specific triggers means that once the triggers either hit or don't hit, there is stronger legitimacy around the idea that one side's worldview turned out more correct and we should be more inclined toward their program. If I were @elonmusk (or zuck, or...) I would re-tool twitter much more heavily into being a platform for helping to identify and make these kinds of grand win-win deals, so that we can bypass big-country governments and big-company CEOs and big nonprofit intellectuals and give more people a voice in the discussion. It's possibly one of the best things that social media _could_ do for humanity if it wanted to. But again, maybe this is also naive. Actually, probably it's naive. But currently, I see zero plans for how to deal with an ASI transition that are not naive. Perhaps humanity is stuck with a choice between naive and naive squared (or maybe even naive squared and naive cubed), so I feel inclined to cut some slack to people who are trying.