Pinned Tweet
Over 4 years at @a16zcrypto, I've found writing to be the best tool for exploring crypto’s complexity—from advising founders to constructing policy.
It’s a discovery engine that demands clarity, consistency and transparency.
Here are 10 posts I learned the most from writing:
It’s a discovery engine that demands clarity, consistency and transparency.
Here are 10 posts I learned the most from writing:
55
29
468
66,689
miles jennings retweeted
I am hiring a social media lead for a16z Frontier!! “We’re lucky enough to be living through one of the most consequential curves in human history today” — THIS is the time, come work with us now! ⚡️🔑🔭💥🗺️
a16z.com/about/jobs/?gh…
a16z.com/about/jobs/?gh…
60
20
288
41,374
miles jennings retweeted
Chris Dixon and Ben Horowitz on why a16z Crypto is now a16z Frontier, a fund for the "outer planet" founders building things that don't fit into any existing category:
"Years ago, [crypto] was sort of its own world with its own companies and its own investors. The lines have e kind of more part of the tech landscape."
"What we found with our vertical strategy is that there's still new things that fall outside of the verticals... And so by doing this, we will have the motion to invest in the very most interesting founders who are outer planets... It kind of fills a hole in the architecture."
"At the end of the day, more than categories, more than products, we invest in entrepreneurs, and so many of the most interesting entrepreneurs are outer planets, so this gives us a real way to get to them."
"Plenty of ideas that were not discussed today are probably more interesting and more creative. If for whatever reason they don't fit in the other kind of core areas at our firm, we're open-minded and willing to engage with those kinds of creative ideas."
@cdixon @bhorowitz
Full conversation: youtu.be/-9XQMHhpypc
"Years ago, [crypto] was sort of its own world with its own companies and its own investors. The lines have e kind of more part of the tech landscape."
"What we found with our vertical strategy is that there's still new things that fall outside of the verticals... And so by doing this, we will have the motion to invest in the very most interesting founders who are outer planets... It kind of fills a hole in the architecture."
"At the end of the day, more than categories, more than products, we invest in entrepreneurs, and so many of the most interesting entrepreneurs are outer planets, so this gives us a real way to get to them."
"Plenty of ideas that were not discussed today are probably more interesting and more creative. If for whatever reason they don't fit in the other kind of core areas at our firm, we're open-minded and willing to engage with those kinds of creative ideas."
@cdixon @bhorowitz
Full conversation: youtu.be/-9XQMHhpypc
24
21
213
35,583
The SEC's initial proposal for Reg Crypto Assets was an important first step towards creating a clear fundraising pathway for builders of blockchain networks.
Yesterday, @a16zcrypto submitted recommendations to make that pathway more useful and durable.
Yesterday, @a16zcrypto submitted recommendations to make that pathway more useful and durable.
11
10
55
6,072
miles jennings retweeted
The GENIUS Act marks a watershed moment in American finance, further cementing the United States as the crypto capital of the world. Just as President Abraham Lincoln’s National Currency Act of 1863 established a national framework for bank-issued currency, the GENIUS Act establishes a federal framework for payment stablecoins in the digital age.
The @USOCC's final rule carries that landmark legislation forward, providing a clear, practical foundation for private-sector innovation, competition, and American leadership in digital assets.
The @USOCC's final rule carries that landmark legislation forward, providing a clear, practical foundation for private-sector innovation, competition, and American leadership in digital assets.
348
2,448
12,320
611,922
miles jennings retweeted
The @USOCC released its final rule implementing the GENIUS Act requirements for payment stablecoin issuers under its purview. Thank you to @USComptroller Gould and the OCC for their leadership in advancing GENIUS implementation.
CCI appreciates that the OCC carefully considered public comments, including ours. The final rule follows the language of the GENIUS Act by eliminating the rebuttable presumption regarding rewards arrangements between issuers and affiliates or third parties. CCI looks forward to reviewing the final rule more closely.
CCI appreciates that the OCC carefully considered public comments, including ours. The final rule follows the language of the GENIUS Act by eliminating the rebuttable presumption regarding rewards arrangements between issuers and affiliates or third parties. CCI looks forward to reviewing the final rule more closely.
At the @USOCC, we have worked diligently and expeditiously to deliver the GENIUS Act final rule ahead of schedule to support President Trump's vision and @SecScottBessent's leadership to grow the economy and lead the global digital currency revolution.
Today marks the birth of a new industry having a federal framework for payment stablecoins in the digital age. It also brings us back to our original mission when the OCC was charged with the responsibility for organizing and administering a system of nationally chartered banks and a uniform national currency.
4
11
25
4,649
miles jennings retweeted
A few reflections on the lattice vs. hash-only debate that our recent Aerie post sparked:
1. Cryptographic ossification for blockchains was never safe. Until the day we know with certainty that P ≠ NP, that finding short vectors in lattices is intractable, that Keccak effectively behaves like a random oracle in deployed SNARKs, and that every single bug has been eliminated from our codebases, blockchains cannot ossify. That is simply not how safe systems are built. Issues will arise, and the system will have to respond.
It’s a double standard to reject lattices because blockchains are hard to upgrade if lattices break, while counting on upgrades if AI breaks your hash function or finds a critical zkVM bug.
The best counterargument is that hash-only designs are more agile: if your hash function breaks, just swap out the hash. But we must aspire to a higher level of agility than this. Indeed, as I cover next, if SNARK recursion itself turns out to degrade security, the proposed hash-only blockchain designs would need to be rethought from the ground up.
2. The real security debate is not lattices vs. hashes — it is lattices vs. building everything on SNARK recursion. That’s because “hash-only” is not really hash-only: it rests on hashes plus the soundness of deep SNARK recursion. Ethereum’s roadmap relies on exactly that: hash-based aggregation needs recursion to keep up with a slot’s worth of signatures, and EIP-8288 would send other signature schemes and users’ own proofs through the same recursive pipeline. In contrast, Aerie proves a slot’s worth of signatures on one laptop without any recursion.
All deployed post-quantum SNARKs rely on the Random Oracle Methodology (via Fiat–Shamir) to establish their security. This is an idealization we know fails in the real world: we have explicit counterexamples where “SNARKs” coming out of this methodology are totally insecure when instantiated with any concrete hash function.
We generally ignore these counterexamples in part because they only arise when proving contrived, self-referential statements about the very hash function used by the SNARK verifier.
But proving statements about the verifier’s own hash function is the exact thing you do in SNARK recursion. That’s why the security of recursive SNARKs can’t be established even in the random oracle model.
On top of that, the standard security proofs for recursion (in other models) suffer an “extractor runtime” blowup that is exponential in the recursion depth, suggesting that security may degrade as more recursion is applied. Yet Ethereum’s own EIP-8288 enables unlimited-depth recursion, even as it lists soundness of recursive SNARKs as a trust assumption. Proofs in more idealized models avoid the blowup, but they mainly tell us that an attack on SNARK recursion would have to exploit the concrete hash function, which is exactly what the Fiat–Shamir attacks above do.
To be clear, we don’t know of any outright attacks on SNARK recursion, and I very much hope it is secure. But some of us who have studied the question have a lingering sense that an attack may be possible in some settings. And if AI is going to supercharge cryptanalysis, there is no reason to expect it to spare Fiat–Shamir for SNARKs, let alone SNARK recursion, both of which have had far less scrutiny than lattices.
So, I do not concede that a “recursion everywhere” hash-only approach is clearly more conservative than one built on standard lattice assumptions.
3. “Just wrap everything in a hash-based SNARK” (like EIP-8288) faces challenges.
Aggregating signatures and proofs off-chain into a single block-level proof is a powerful design independent of the hash-only vs. lattice debate, and I am not telling people to avoid it. But claiming, as Vitalik Buterin did this week, that users can run whatever cryptography they want locally and wrap it in a client-side leanVM proof glosses over major hurdles.
For example, leanVM today is a minimal VM designed almost entirely to prove hash-based signatures and recursion, not general-purpose computation. And binary-field SNARKs like leanVM remain slow at proving the integer multiplications that lattice cryptography does en masse.
I am optimistic that many of these zkVM challenges can be met (including via my own work, binary-field Twist and Shout, which are now implemented in Magnetar). But regardless, if lattices can make aggregation simpler and faster, then they should be leveraged. We need to be agile no matter what.
4. For chains whose reason for existence is privacy, I truly struggle to understand the pushback. Public-key encryption (and fast single-server PIR) cannot be built from hashes alone, at least not in any black-box way. If lattices break, it is going to be very, very hard for these chains to provide acceptable levels of privacy and functionality. For a project whose entire reason for existence is privacy, a loss of confidentiality is an existential failure. Next to that, a second signature upgrade (after the first one, from elliptic curves alone to, hopefully, a hybrid lattice scheme) is easy.
Summary: We don’t know for sure what is secure and what isn’t. We are all weighing unquantifiable risks against each other, and we do not need to agree on a total order on them. But hash-only solutions face many open engineering challenges, and they are not more “conservative” in the way some have argued. Some of those challenges are entirely prosaic and have nothing to do with bugs or cryptography, like hardware support for custom schemes whose hash function is still undecided. I hope we can overcome those challenges within the appropriate timelines, but they must be acknowledged and portrayed realistically.
Overall, cryptographic agility and defense in depth (e.g., hybrid signatures) are the answer, which is why we are building both lattice-Jolt and hash-Jolt. In practice, the positions are less polarized than social media discourse suggests: for example, StarkWare is working to make Falcon verification cheap (falcon.provably.fast), which is great to see.
Here is the (apparently) controversial take I am sticking to: Conditioned on agility, whenever lattices make systems simpler or more functional, we should embrace them rather than default to “hash-only” designs. Lattices are what the rest of the world will depend on, with decades of study and hardening behind them, and at the system level, less functional often means less secure. Where hash-only designs are just as simple and functional, by all means use them.
1. Cryptographic ossification for blockchains was never safe. Until the day we know with certainty that P ≠ NP, that finding short vectors in lattices is intractable, that Keccak effectively behaves like a random oracle in deployed SNARKs, and that every single bug has been eliminated from our codebases, blockchains cannot ossify. That is simply not how safe systems are built. Issues will arise, and the system will have to respond.
It’s a double standard to reject lattices because blockchains are hard to upgrade if lattices break, while counting on upgrades if AI breaks your hash function or finds a critical zkVM bug.
The best counterargument is that hash-only designs are more agile: if your hash function breaks, just swap out the hash. But we must aspire to a higher level of agility than this. Indeed, as I cover next, if SNARK recursion itself turns out to degrade security, the proposed hash-only blockchain designs would need to be rethought from the ground up.
2. The real security debate is not lattices vs. hashes — it is lattices vs. building everything on SNARK recursion. That’s because “hash-only” is not really hash-only: it rests on hashes plus the soundness of deep SNARK recursion. Ethereum’s roadmap relies on exactly that: hash-based aggregation needs recursion to keep up with a slot’s worth of signatures, and EIP-8288 would send other signature schemes and users’ own proofs through the same recursive pipeline. In contrast, Aerie proves a slot’s worth of signatures on one laptop without any recursion.
All deployed post-quantum SNARKs rely on the Random Oracle Methodology (via Fiat–Shamir) to establish their security. This is an idealization we know fails in the real world: we have explicit counterexamples where “SNARKs” coming out of this methodology are totally insecure when instantiated with any concrete hash function.
We generally ignore these counterexamples in part because they only arise when proving contrived, self-referential statements about the very hash function used by the SNARK verifier.
But proving statements about the verifier’s own hash function is the exact thing you do in SNARK recursion. That’s why the security of recursive SNARKs can’t be established even in the random oracle model.
On top of that, the standard security proofs for recursion (in other models) suffer an “extractor runtime” blowup that is exponential in the recursion depth, suggesting that security may degrade as more recursion is applied. Yet Ethereum’s own EIP-8288 enables unlimited-depth recursion, even as it lists soundness of recursive SNARKs as a trust assumption. Proofs in more idealized models avoid the blowup, but they mainly tell us that an attack on SNARK recursion would have to exploit the concrete hash function, which is exactly what the Fiat–Shamir attacks above do.
To be clear, we don’t know of any outright attacks on SNARK recursion, and I very much hope it is secure. But some of us who have studied the question have a lingering sense that an attack may be possible in some settings. And if AI is going to supercharge cryptanalysis, there is no reason to expect it to spare Fiat–Shamir for SNARKs, let alone SNARK recursion, both of which have had far less scrutiny than lattices.
So, I do not concede that a “recursion everywhere” hash-only approach is clearly more conservative than one built on standard lattice assumptions.
3. “Just wrap everything in a hash-based SNARK” (like EIP-8288) faces challenges.
Aggregating signatures and proofs off-chain into a single block-level proof is a powerful design independent of the hash-only vs. lattice debate, and I am not telling people to avoid it. But claiming, as Vitalik Buterin did this week, that users can run whatever cryptography they want locally and wrap it in a client-side leanVM proof glosses over major hurdles.
For example, leanVM today is a minimal VM designed almost entirely to prove hash-based signatures and recursion, not general-purpose computation. And binary-field SNARKs like leanVM remain slow at proving the integer multiplications that lattice cryptography does en masse.
I am optimistic that many of these zkVM challenges can be met (including via my own work, binary-field Twist and Shout, which are now implemented in Magnetar). But regardless, if lattices can make aggregation simpler and faster, then they should be leveraged. We need to be agile no matter what.
4. For chains whose reason for existence is privacy, I truly struggle to understand the pushback. Public-key encryption (and fast single-server PIR) cannot be built from hashes alone, at least not in any black-box way. If lattices break, it is going to be very, very hard for these chains to provide acceptable levels of privacy and functionality. For a project whose entire reason for existence is privacy, a loss of confidentiality is an existential failure. Next to that, a second signature upgrade (after the first one, from elliptic curves alone to, hopefully, a hybrid lattice scheme) is easy.
Summary: We don’t know for sure what is secure and what isn’t. We are all weighing unquantifiable risks against each other, and we do not need to agree on a total order on them. But hash-only solutions face many open engineering challenges, and they are not more “conservative” in the way some have argued. Some of those challenges are entirely prosaic and have nothing to do with bugs or cryptography, like hardware support for custom schemes whose hash function is still undecided. I hope we can overcome those challenges within the appropriate timelines, but they must be acknowledged and portrayed realistically.
Overall, cryptographic agility and defense in depth (e.g., hybrid signatures) are the answer, which is why we are building both lattice-Jolt and hash-Jolt. In practice, the positions are less polarized than social media discourse suggests: for example, StarkWare is working to make Falcon verification cheap (falcon.provably.fast), which is great to see.
Here is the (apparently) controversial take I am sticking to: Conditioned on agility, whenever lattices make systems simpler or more functional, we should embrace them rather than default to “hash-only” designs. Lattices are what the rest of the world will depend on, with decades of study and hardening behind them, and at the system level, less functional often means less secure. Where hash-only designs are just as simple and functional, by all means use them.
27
60
255
30,671
miles jennings retweeted
.@circle set out to put dollars on the internet and make them work everywhere. Now @jerallaire thinks the main users of that infrastructure could be machines.
He joins @cdixon to talk about what comes after digital dollars, and what the agent economy needs when software can Highlights:
1:58 Circle’s original vision for programmable money
7:19 Why institutions started taking stablecoins seriously
12:04 Learnings from building a global financial network
15:03 What gives a stablecoin its moat?
26:28 Crypto’s growing adoption in the shadow of AI
28:11 From making existing things better to creating entirely new markets
32:59 The weirdest experiments being built on Arc
37:02 What happens when AI hires AI
38:04 Why the next big thing starts out looking like a toy
39:05 Can blockchains counter AI’s centralizing tendencies?
44:01 What the machine economy could look like in five years
He joins @cdixon to talk about what comes after digital dollars, and what the agent economy needs when software can Highlights:
1:58 Circle’s original vision for programmable money
7:19 Why institutions started taking stablecoins seriously
12:04 Learnings from building a global financial network
15:03 What gives a stablecoin its moat?
26:28 Crypto’s growing adoption in the shadow of AI
28:11 From making existing things better to creating entirely new markets
32:59 The weirdest experiments being built on Arc
37:02 What happens when AI hires AI
38:04 Why the next big thing starts out looking like a toy
39:05 Can blockchains counter AI’s centralizing tendencies?
44:01 What the machine economy could look like in five years
40
61
291
52,063
miles jennings retweeted
1/ Today we’re releasing Aerie: fast post-quantum signature aggregation, using lattice-based SNARKs for lattice-based Falcon signatures. On a laptop (CPU only), it aggregates roughly a full Ethereum slot’s worth of signatures (32,768) in 0.65 seconds.
45
82
524
49,978
miles jennings retweeted
Patrick is one of the sharpest people I’ve worked with in government. No one knows crypto policy better or worked harder to get market structure done. He negotiated the compromises needed to get Clarity out of committee and onto the Senate floor — without him it wouldn’t have gotten that far. The country owes him a debt of gratitude for his service at the White House, the Pentagon, and in uniform. Looking forward to seeing what he does next in the private sector. 🇺🇸
Serving in this administration has been the privilege of a lifetime.
From helping to stand up the most successful presidential transition in history alongside @howardlutnick and @EDSecMcMahon, to rebuilding our defense industrial base as PTDO Deputy Under Secretary for R&E and then Acting Director of OSC at @DeptofWar, to driving forward President Trump’s vision to make the United States the “crypto capital of the world” as Executive Director of the @WhiteHouse Crypto Council, I consider myself to have been the luckiest guy in the world over these past two years.
First and foremost, I want to thank @POTUS for the opportunity to serve the American people again in your second term. Your clear-eyed vision to ensure the United States remains the undisputed global superpower at this time of unprecedented technological change and geopolitical strife is critical to our nation’s future prosperity.
Second, I want to thank @DavidSacks for your visionary leadership and mentorship. I am so grateful to have been able to work with you and learn from you over the past year. Thank you also to @USWREMichael, James Mazol, @HarryYJung, Nick Elliot, Tyler Williams, @lukejpettit, Jonathan Hurowitz, Andrew Rittenhouse, Michael Friedman, @atitus7, @passalacqua_mj, @willscharf, @JamesCBraid, @MayMailman, Steve Levine, Patrick Butler, Zach Carstens, and countless others across the administration for being the best colleagues anyone could ask for. It was an honor to serve alongside you.
Lastly, thank you to @SECPaulSAtkins and @ChairmanSelig, @SecScottBessent, @USComptroller Gould, @SenatorTimScott, @SenLummis, @SenatorHagerty, @berniemoreno, @JohnBoozman, @SenThomTillis, @RepFrenchHill, and @RepBryanSteil for your partnership in advancing crypto policy over the past year with the passage of the GENIUS Act and our work to advance the CLARITY Act. With regulators and elected officials like you, I rest easy knowing the future of digital asset innovation in America is bright.
Regarding next steps, I’ll have to more to share soon. For now, I’ll say this: I am extremely bullish on America as we embark upon a new golden age of technological advancement across multiple frontiers. I’m grateful to have done my part to unleash American innovation while in government, and I look forward to advancing that same mission in the private sector! 🇺🇸
66
283
4,065
198,992
Patrick worked tirelessly for crypto.
No matter how difficult or unfair the problems thrown at the industry were, he stepped up with pragmatic solutions and leadership time and time again.
Thank you, Patrick.
No matter how difficult or unfair the problems thrown at the industry were, he stepped up with pragmatic solutions and leadership time and time again.
Thank you, Patrick.
Serving in this administration has been the privilege of a lifetime.
From helping to stand up the most successful presidential transition in history alongside @howardlutnick and @EDSecMcMahon, to rebuilding our defense industrial base as PTDO Deputy Under Secretary for R&E and then Acting Director of OSC at @DeptofWar, to driving forward President Trump’s vision to make the United States the “crypto capital of the world” as Executive Director of the @WhiteHouse Crypto Council, I consider myself to have been the luckiest guy in the world over these past two years.
First and foremost, I want to thank @POTUS for the opportunity to serve the American people again in your second term. Your clear-eyed vision to ensure the United States remains the undisputed global superpower at this time of unprecedented technological change and geopolitical strife is critical to our nation’s future prosperity.
Second, I want to thank @DavidSacks for your visionary leadership and mentorship. I am so grateful to have been able to work with you and learn from you over the past year. Thank you also to @USWREMichael, James Mazol, @HarryYJung, Nick Elliot, Tyler Williams, @lukejpettit, Jonathan Hurowitz, Andrew Rittenhouse, Michael Friedman, @atitus7, @passalacqua_mj, @willscharf, @JamesCBraid, @MayMailman, Steve Levine, Patrick Butler, Zach Carstens, and countless others across the administration for being the best colleagues anyone could ask for. It was an honor to serve alongside you.
Lastly, thank you to @SECPaulSAtkins and @ChairmanSelig, @SecScottBessent, @USComptroller Gould, @SenatorTimScott, @SenLummis, @SenatorHagerty, @berniemoreno, @JohnBoozman, @SenThomTillis, @RepFrenchHill, and @RepBryanSteil for your partnership in advancing crypto policy over the past year with the passage of the GENIUS Act and our work to advance the CLARITY Act. With regulators and elected officials like you, I rest easy knowing the future of digital asset innovation in America is bright.
Regarding next steps, I’ll have to more to share soon. For now, I’ll say this: I am extremely bullish on America as we embark upon a new golden age of technological advancement across multiple frontiers. I’m grateful to have done my part to unleash American innovation while in government, and I look forward to advancing that same mission in the private sector! 🇺🇸
3
6
46
3,852
miles jennings retweeted
bombshell report from the OCC out today confirming what we all suspected:
between 2020 and 2025, based on a review of 100,000 complaints, America’s largest banks systematically denied banking to lawful businesses based on political and reputational considerations rather than k, effectively appointing themselves arbiters of which industries deserved access to the financial system. digital assets was specifically named as one of the six most affected industries.
TLDR: we weren't imagining it. OCP2.0 was real.
between 2020 and 2025, based on a review of 100,000 complaints, America’s largest banks systematically denied banking to lawful businesses based on political and reputational considerations rather than k, effectively appointing themselves arbiters of which industries deserved access to the financial system. digital assets was specifically named as one of the six most affected industries.
TLDR: we weren't imagining it. OCP2.0 was real.
85
434
2,250
141,511
miles jennings retweeted
One of the core challenges that traditional financial institutions face when growing adoption of their crypto-related products has been the ability to reach KYCed customers who want to purchase these products. However, onchain KYC itself has not fully been solved.
I did a deep dive of current onchain KYC solutions, along with corresponding regulatory frameworks, alongside my @a16zcrypto partner @MicheleKorver. We also discuss the forthcoming Know Your Agent (KYA) landscape and emerging solutions.
I did a deep dive of current onchain KYC solutions, along with corresponding regulatory frameworks, alongside my @a16zcrypto partner @MicheleKorver. We also discuss the forthcoming Know Your Agent (KYA) landscape and emerging solutions.
22
8
140
19,783
miles jennings retweeted
The 2025 Los Angeles Dodgers are gonna Live Forever 💙✨
[Dodgers + Oasis]
[Dodgers + Oasis]
83
1,733
11,072
312,449
miles jennings retweeted
SBF in private, describing why he publicly pretended to be an altruist :
"It's a "dumb game we woke westerners play where we say all the right shibboleths and so everyone likes us"
Netflix:
He was an altruist who made a mistake
"It's a "dumb game we woke westerners play where we say all the right shibboleths and so everyone likes us"
Netflix:
He was an altruist who made a mistake
🎬 Netflix has confirmed that @cz_binance will also appear as a character in its latest crypto series, “The Altruists.”
The series follows the FTX collapse, focusing on SBF and his controversial relationship with Caroline Ellison.
CZ is just a supporting character. He doesn't ler.
I'm curious how Netflix will portray him.
And one more question: Does Netflix need CZ's permission and have to pay him for the rights to portray him in the series?
97
109
1,492
123,019
miles jennings retweeted
AI is getting better at solving hard math problems, especially given recent drops. But what does that mean for the cryptography that protects everything from private messages to healthcare to banking and crypto wallets?
Stanford cryptographer Dan Boneh, with @eddylazzarin, vy, and @smc90, makes sense of the warnings sounded recently. They cover:
- what’s fact vs. assumption
- what’s new and what risks cryptographers have long prepared for
- where quantum computing doesn't (and does) fit
- opportunities for builders
Highlights:
00:37 – What sparked the most recent debate about AI and cryptography
01:35 – Signal vs. noise: What the math does and doesn’t tell us
05:29 – Why cryptography depends on open problems
09:25 – Why the stakes go beyond blockchains
10:43 – How AI could strengthen confidence in cryptography
13:50 – Considerations for users and institutions
20:10 – Where AI and quantum threats overlap
22:32 – Building systems that can change cryptographic methods
23:59 – Hash-based versus lattice-based cryptography
33:07 – Opportunities for builders, and better security tools
38:14 – What comes next if there were a cryptographic break?
Stanford cryptographer Dan Boneh, with @eddylazzarin, vy, and @smc90, makes sense of the warnings sounded recently. They cover:
- what’s fact vs. assumption
- what’s new and what risks cryptographers have long prepared for
- where quantum computing doesn't (and does) fit
- opportunities for builders
Highlights:
00:37 – What sparked the most recent debate about AI and cryptography
01:35 – Signal vs. noise: What the math does and doesn’t tell us
05:29 – Why cryptography depends on open problems
09:25 – Why the stakes go beyond blockchains
10:43 – How AI could strengthen confidence in cryptography
13:50 – Considerations for users and institutions
20:10 – Where AI and quantum threats overlap
22:32 – Building systems that can change cryptographic methods
23:59 – Hash-based versus lattice-based cryptography
33:07 – Opportunities for builders, and better security tools
38:14 – What comes next if there were a cryptographic break?
60
97
424
170,200