Page: 3

@BitMEX
@BitMEX

Dear BitMEX Users, Today, we share with a very heavy heart that BitMEX exchange will shut down its operations, effective 23 September 2026 at 04:00:00 UTC. The owner and operator of BitMEX, HDR Global Trading Limited, has made the difficult decision to close operations following a strategic review of the business. It may not look the same today, but we are proud of our 11+ year legacy and the role we played in shaping the crypto industry. We invented the 100x leverage perpetual swap, which for most of you, was the first step to your crypto trading journey. It is now the most traded financial product in the crypto industry, adopted by thousands of users and exchanges. And we remain proud of our robust security infrastructure, which has allowed us to maintain a flawless track record of 0 customer funds lost to hacks in our entire operating history. We want to reassure you that your assets remain fully safe and under your control during this transition period. This announcement is just to give enough time to ensure a smooth withdrawal process for everyone. From today we strongly encourage all users to close their positions and withdraw their funds as soon as convenient. For more details on the full process, please read our blog: https://www.bitmex.com/blog/bitmex-closu… BitMEX was once home to some of the greatest traders today. Our team has dedicated tremendous effort and passion into building the platform into what it is, and we are glad to have reached some of you during your time with us. To everyone who has traded, supported, and grown alongside us - thank you for your trust over the last 11 years. The BitMEX Team

Tweet image
x.com
@bread_
@bread_

Actually insane.

Tweet image
x.com
by timdaub.eth12332 🥝 • 8mo • x.com
@drakefjustin
@drakefjustin

Today is a monumentous day for quantum computing and cryptography. Two breakthrough papers just landed (links in next tweet). Both papers improve Shor's algorithm, infamous for cracking RSA and elliptic curve cryptography. The two results compound, optimising separate layers of the quantum stack. The results are shocking. I expect a narrative shift and a further R&D boost toward post-quantum cryptography. The first paper is by Google Quantum AI. They tackle the (logical) Shor algorithm, tailoring it to crack Bitcoin and Ethereum signatures. The algorithm runs on ~1K logical qubits for the 256-bit elliptic curve secp256k1. Due to the low circuit depth, a fast superconducting computer would recover private keys in minutes. I'm grateful to have joined as a late paper co-author, in large part for the chance to interact with experts and the alpha gleaned from internal discussions. The second paper is by a stealthy startup called Oratomic, with ex-Google and prominent Caltech faculty. Their starting point is Google's improvements to the logical quantum circuit. They then apply improvements at the physical layer, with tricks specific to neutral atom quantum computers. The result estimates that 26,000 atomic qubits are sufficient to break 256-bit elliptic curve signatures. This would be roughly a 40x improvement in physical qubit count over previous state-of-the-art. On the flip side, a single Shor run would take ~10 days due to the relatively slow speed of neutral atoms. Below are my key takeaways. As a disclaimer, I am not a quantum expert. Time is needed for the results to be properly vetted. Based on my interactions with the team, I have faith the Google Quantum AI results are conservative. The Oratomic paper is much harder for me to assess, especially because of the use of more exotic qLDPC codes. I will take it with a grain of salt until the dust settles. → q-day: My confidence in q-day by 2032 has shot up significantly. IMO there's at least a 10% chance that by 2032 a quantum computer recovers a secp256k1 ECDSA private key from an exposed public key. While a cryptographically-relevant quantum computer (CRQC) before 2030 still feels unlikely, now is undoubtedly the time to start preparing. → censorship: The Google paper uses a zero-knowledge (ZK) proof to demonstrate the algorithm's existence without leaking actual optimisations. From now on, assume state-of-the-art algorithms will be censored. There may be self-censorship for moral or commercial reasons, or because of government pressure. A blackout in academic publications would be a tell-tale sign. → cracking time: A superconducting quantum computer, the type Google is building, could crack keys in minutes. This is because the optimised quantum circuit is just 100M Toffoli gates, which is surprisingly shallow. (Toffoli gates are hard because they require production of so-called "magic states".) Toffoli gates would consume ~10 microseconds on a superconducting platform, totalling ~1,000 sec of Shor runtime. → latency optimisations: Two latency optimisations bring key cracking time to single-digit minutes. The first parallelises computation across quantum devices. The second involves feeding the pubkey to the quantum computer mid-flight, after a generic setup phase. → fast- and slow-clock: At first approximation there are two families of quantum computers. The fast-clock flavour, which includes superconducting and photonic architectures, runs at roughly 100 kHz. The slow-clock flavour, which includes trapped ion and neutral atom architectures, runs roughly 1,000x slower (~100 Hz, or ~1 week to crack a single key). → qubit count: The size-optimised variant of the algorithm runs on 1,200 logical qubits. On a superconducting computer with surface code error correction that's roughly 500K physical qubits, a 400:1 physical-to-logical ratio. The surface code is conservative, assuming only four-way nearest-neighbour grid connectivity. It was demonstrated last year by Google on a real quantum computer. → future gains: Low-hanging fruit is still being picked, with at least one of the Google optimisations resulting from a surprisingly simple observation. Interestingly, AI was not (yet!) tasked to find optimisations. This was also the first time authors such as Craig Gidney attacked elliptic curves (as opposed to RSA). Shor logical qubit count could plausibly go under 1K soonish. → error correction: The physical-to-logical ratio for superconducting computers could go under 100:1. For superconducting computers that would be mean ~100K physical qubits for a CRQC, two orders of magnitude away from state of the art. Neutral atoms quantum computers are amenable to error correcting codes other than the surface code. While much slower to run, they can bring down the physical to logical qubit ratio closer to 10:1. → Bitcoin PoW: Commercially-viable Bitcoin PoW via Grover's algorithm is not happening any time soon. We're talking decades, possibly centuries away. This observation should help focus the discussion on ECDSA and Schnorr. (Side note: as unofficial Bitcoin security researcher, I still believe Bitcoin PoW is cooked due to the dwindling security budget.) → team quality: The folks at Google Quantum AI are the real deal. Craig Gidney (@CraigGidney) is arguably the world's top quantum circuit optimisooor. Just last year he squeezed 10x out of Shor for RSA, bringing the physical qubit count down from 10M to 1M. Special thanks to the Google team for patiently answering all my newb questions with detailed, fact-based answers. I was expecting some hype, but found none.

x.com
@jacek0x
@jacek0x

So I guess there’s a rumor going around that @farcaster_xyz might get acquired. I have no insider info obviously, but we can at least look at where the chips have fallen. Farcaster has pivoted into trading. Base app has also pivoted into trading, so now they’re competitors. Farcaster has Clanker, Base has aligned with Zora, so they both have “launchers” (even if Zora is still its own independent team). Either way, Base is the bigger boy. My understanding is a lot of casts / network activity are coming from Base, though I’m not 100% sure that’s right. And so far it feels like the execution of the Base app has been met with… not a ton of enthusiasm? Expectations were definitely higher. Coinbase has deep pockets and distribution, sure. But if Robinhood had looked at all the trading platforms that existed when they launched, they probably would’ve never started. And Base isn’t the Robinhood of DeFi right now, not even close. So I don’t think this gets decided just by who has distribution and deep pockets today. A lot of outcomes are possible. Farcaster could still win here if they want to, and honestly someone else could too. That said, the team being quiet could mean a bunch of things. Maybe they took a quick break. Or maybe after acquiring Clanker and pivoting to trading, they’re heads down doing strategy + go-to-market + building the thing around that. I don’t really know. Either way it would be really sad to see the protocol get acquired by a giant like Coinbase. At that point the “decentralized social” thesis for Farcaster is basically gone, and us (or someone else) has to fork the protocol. Anyways this is all gossip. Gn degens.

x.com
@zaddycoin: The Permanent Underclass is a Productx.com
The Permanent Underclass is a Product
by rvolz.eth1470 🥝 • 8mo
State of DeFi Curation 2026vaults.fyi
State of DeFi Curation 2026
by macbudkowski.eth5762 🥝 • 1mo
More