content creator | nothing | thanks for playing
Education
Joined March 2024
- Tweets81.6K
- Following1.1K
- Followers1.5K
- Likes89.3K
Pinned Tweet
Gm CT.
its been a while here , thanks for the messages I lub you all
no new alpha 😔
the CT is dry but we keep pushing
running it back with @multiplifi and Kindred
have a great day and enjoy your weekend fams
cryptoverse.sui retweeted
Gm 🌞
Here is a technical detail worth understanding about Starknet.
STARK proofs rely on hash based cryptographic constructions. This differs from conventional elliptic curve signatures, which depend on mathematical problems that sufficiently capable quantum computers could threaten.
That difference gives STARK proving an important property when planning for a post quantum world.
But it is important not to mix up the layers.
A proof system establishes that a computation was performed correctly according to its rule. A digital signature establishes authorization. They solve different problems.
A blockchain needs both sound computation verification and secure transaction authorization.
Starknet's architecture is interesting because its proving approach and programmable accounts offer different pieces of a potential adaptation strategy.
The real engineering challenge is making sure those pieces, along with the rest of the protocol and its dependencies, fit together securely.
@Starknet
Gm everyone 🌞 and happy new week
WHY WALLET SECURITY STARTS AT THE ACCOUNT LEVEL
A wallet is often treated as a simple place to store crypto, but the account model behind it determines much more than that.
It determines how transactions are authorized and which rules must be satisfied before an action is accepted.
On Starknet, native account abstraction makes this logic programmable.
That matters because security requirements are not necessarily permanent. An account may need different validation rules as cryptographic methods evolve, and programmable validation gives developers a way to build those rules into account implementations.
This does not mean every wallet automatically upgrades itself or that users never need to migrate.
It means the account model provides useful flexibility at a layer where transaction authorization actually happens.
When discussing blockchain security, I think this deserves as much attention as the proof system itself.
Both the proof and the authorization mechanism matter.
@Starknet
Gm 🌞
Here is a technical detail worth understanding about Starknet.
STARK proofs rely on hash based cryptographic constructions. This differs from conventional elliptic curve signatures, which depend on mathematical problems that sufficiently capable quantum computers could threaten.
That difference gives STARK proving an important property when planning for a post quantum world.
But it is important not to mix up the layers.
A proof system establishes that a computation was performed correctly according to its rule. A digital signature establishes authorization. They solve different problems.
A blockchain needs both sound computation verification and secure transaction authorization.
Starknet's architecture is interesting because its proving approach and programmable accounts offer different pieces of a potential adaptation strategy.
The real engineering challenge is making sure those pieces, along with the rest of the protocol and its dependencies, fit together securely.
@Starknet
Gm everyone 🌞 and happy new week
WHY WALLET SECURITY STARTS AT THE ACCOUNT LEVEL
A wallet is often treated as a simple place to store crypto, but the account model behind it determines much more than that.
It determines how transactions are authorized and which rules must be satisfied before an action is accepted.
On Starknet, native account abstraction makes this logic programmable.
That matters because security requirements are not necessarily permanent. An account may need different validation rules as cryptographic methods evolve, and programmable validation gives developers a way to build those rules into account implementations.
This does not mean every wallet automatically upgrades itself or that users never need to migrate.
It means the account model provides useful flexibility at a layer where transaction authorization actually happens.
When discussing blockchain security, I think this deserves as much attention as the proof system itself.
Both the proof and the authorization mechanism matter.
@Starknet
cryptoverse.sui retweeted
It's time to rest and recharge for tomorrow
need to be more active on @rarelistio
lot of active campaign there
the one I'm interested in for now is @fomopoly_rh
see you tomorrow.
five active campaign currently on @rarelistio
Rarelist season 1
Project sphere
Rarelist referral party
Agent dojo
@fomopoly_rh
I'm picking Fomopoly for now.
It's time to rest and recharge for tomorrow
need to be more active on @rarelistio
lot of active campaign there
the one I'm interested in for now is @fomopoly_rh
see you tomorrow.
five active campaign currently on @rarelistio
Rarelist season 1
Project sphere
Rarelist referral party
Agent dojo
@fomopoly_rh
I'm picking Fomopoly for now.
cryptoverse.sui retweeted
Miden partner Mainnet is live!
with over 10,000 sign ups on early access @joinbread
checked my email and glad I'm in ☺️
- v0.16 testnet ✅
- partner Mainnet ✅
- public Mainnet loading ⏳
now let's run some transactions
@0xMiden
Miden partner Mainnet is live!
with over 10,000 sign ups on early access @joinbread
checked my email and glad I'm in ☺️
- v0.16 testnet ✅
- partner Mainnet ✅
- public Mainnet loading ⏳
now let's run some transactions
@0xMiden
You can bridge into Miden using bridge.miden.xyz
cryptoverse.sui retweeted
Gm everyone 🌞 and happy new week
WHY WALLET SECURITY STARTS AT THE ACCOUNT LEVEL
A wallet is often treated as a simple place to store crypto, but the account model behind it determines much more than that.
It determines how transactions are authorized and which rules must be satisfied before an action is accepted.
On Starknet, native account abstraction makes this logic programmable.
That matters because security requirements are not necessarily permanent. An account may need different validation rules as cryptographic methods evolve, and programmable validation gives developers a way to build those rules into account implementations.
This does not mean every wallet automatically upgrades itself or that users never need to migrate.
It means the account model provides useful flexibility at a layer where transaction authorization actually happens.
When discussing blockchain security, I think this deserves as much attention as the proof system itself.
Both the proof and the authorization mechanism matter.
@Starknet
Gm everyone 🌞
WHAT MAKES BLOCKCHAIN SECURITY READY FOR THE FUTURE?
The phrase independent L1 sounds straightforward, but the security implications deserves a closer look.
A blockchain does not operate in isolation just because it has its own execution environment.
Its security can involve transaction validation, proof systems, account signatures, bridges and data availability. Some of these components may depend on infrastructure maintained by another network.
That creates a coordination problem when cryptographic assumptions need to change.
Starknet exploring an independent L1 brings this question into focus: how much control should a network have over its own security upgrades, and which dependencies should it continue to maintain?
There is no need to pretend the answer is simple. Independence introduces its own engineering and governance questions.
What matters is examining those tradeoffs openly rather than treating the label L1 as a complete explanation of security.
@Starknet
Gm everyone 🌞 and happy new week
WHY WALLET SECURITY STARTS AT THE ACCOUNT LEVEL
A wallet is often treated as a simple place to store crypto, but the account model behind it determines much more than that.
It determines how transactions are authorized and which rules must be satisfied before an action is accepted.
On Starknet, native account abstraction makes this logic programmable.
That matters because security requirements are not necessarily permanent. An account may need different validation rules as cryptographic methods evolve, and programmable validation gives developers a way to build those rules into account implementations.
This does not mean every wallet automatically upgrades itself or that users never need to migrate.
It means the account model provides useful flexibility at a layer where transaction authorization actually happens.
When discussing blockchain security, I think this deserves as much attention as the proof system itself.
Both the proof and the authorization mechanism matter.
@Starknet
Gm everyone 🌞
WHAT MAKES BLOCKCHAIN SECURITY READY FOR THE FUTURE?
The phrase independent L1 sounds straightforward, but the security implications deserves a closer look.
A blockchain does not operate in isolation just because it has its own execution environment.
Its security can involve transaction validation, proof systems, account signatures, bridges and data availability. Some of these components may depend on infrastructure maintained by another network.
That creates a coordination problem when cryptographic assumptions need to change.
Starknet exploring an independent L1 brings this question into focus: how much control should a network have over its own security upgrades, and which dependencies should it continue to maintain?
There is no need to pretend the answer is simple. Independence introduces its own engineering and governance questions.
What matters is examining those tradeoffs openly rather than treating the label L1 as a complete explanation of security.
@Starknet
cryptoverse.sui retweeted
five active campaign currently on @rarelistio
Rarelist season 1
Project sphere
Rarelist referral party
Agent dojo
@fomopoly_rh
I'm picking Fomopoly for now.
Gm everyone 🌞
WHAT MAKES BLOCKCHAIN SECURITY READY FOR THE FUTURE?
The phrase independent L1 sounds straightforward, but the security implications deserves a closer look.
A blockchain does not operate in isolation just because it has its own execution environment.
Its security can involve transaction validation, proof systems, account signatures, bridges and data availability. Some of these components may depend on infrastructure maintained by another network.
That creates a coordination problem when cryptographic assumptions need to change.
Starknet exploring an independent L1 brings this question into focus: how much control should a network have over its own security upgrades, and which dependencies should it continue to maintain?
There is no need to pretend the answer is simple. Independence introduces its own engineering and governance questions.
What matters is examining those tradeoffs openly rather than treating the label L1 as a complete explanation of security.
@Starknet
five active campaign currently on @rarelistio
Rarelist season 1
Project sphere
Rarelist referral party
Agent dojo
@fomopoly_rh
I'm picking Fomopoly for now.
Gm everyone 🌞
WHAT MAKES BLOCKCHAIN SECURITY READY FOR THE FUTURE?
The phrase independent L1 sounds straightforward, but the security implications deserves a closer look.
A blockchain does not operate in isolation just because it has its own execution environment.
Its security can involve transaction validation, proof systems, account signatures, bridges and data availability. Some of these components may depend on infrastructure maintained by another network.
That creates a coordination problem when cryptographic assumptions need to change.
Starknet exploring an independent L1 brings this question into focus: how much control should a network have over its own security upgrades, and which dependencies should it continue to maintain?
There is no need to pretend the answer is simple. Independence introduces its own engineering and governance questions.
What matters is examining those tradeoffs openly rather than treating the label L1 as a complete explanation of security.
@Starknet
cryptoverse.sui retweeted
Gm everyone 🌞
WHAT MAKES BLOCKCHAIN SECURITY READY FOR THE FUTURE?
The phrase independent L1 sounds straightforward, but the security implications deserves a closer look.
A blockchain does not operate in isolation just because it has its own execution environment.
Its security can involve transaction validation, proof systems, account signatures, bridges and data availability. Some of these components may depend on infrastructure maintained by another network.
That creates a coordination problem when cryptographic assumptions need to change.
Starknet exploring an independent L1 brings this question into focus: how much control should a network have over its own security upgrades, and which dependencies should it continue to maintain?
There is no need to pretend the answer is simple. Independence introduces its own engineering and governance questions.
What matters is examining those tradeoffs openly rather than treating the label L1 as a complete explanation of security.
@Starknet
Gm everyone 🌞 and happy weekend
THE FUTURE OF BLOCKCHAIN SECURITY ISN'T STATIC
One mistake in security planning is assuming that a threat only deserves attention when it becomes an immediate emergency.
Good infrastructure teams work differently. They study possible weaknesses, evaluate alternatives and prepare migration paths before changes become unavoidable.
Quantum computing is a useful example for the blockchain industry.
The practical timing of future quantum attacks remains uncertain, but that uncertainty is not a reason to ignore the cryptographic assumptions behind today's systems.
Starknet's work on hash based STARK proofs and adaptable account validation is worth following because it addresses different parts of that challenge.
The work should not be confused with a claim that every component is already protected.
For me, the real takeaway is that resilience comes from preparation, honest assessments and the ability to respond when cryptographic standards evolve.
Security is a process, not a finish line.
@Starknet
Gm everyone 🌞
WHAT MAKES BLOCKCHAIN SECURITY READY FOR THE FUTURE?
The phrase independent L1 sounds straightforward, but the security implications deserves a closer look.
A blockchain does not operate in isolation just because it has its own execution environment.
Its security can involve transaction validation, proof systems, account signatures, bridges and data availability. Some of these components may depend on infrastructure maintained by another network.
That creates a coordination problem when cryptographic assumptions need to change.
Starknet exploring an independent L1 brings this question into focus: how much control should a network have over its own security upgrades, and which dependencies should it continue to maintain?
There is no need to pretend the answer is simple. Independence introduces its own engineering and governance questions.
What matters is examining those tradeoffs openly rather than treating the label L1 as a complete explanation of security.
@Starknet
Gm everyone 🌞 and happy weekend
THE FUTURE OF BLOCKCHAIN SECURITY ISN'T STATIC
One mistake in security planning is assuming that a threat only deserves attention when it becomes an immediate emergency.
Good infrastructure teams work differently. They study possible weaknesses, evaluate alternatives and prepare migration paths before changes become unavoidable.
Quantum computing is a useful example for the blockchain industry.
The practical timing of future quantum attacks remains uncertain, but that uncertainty is not a reason to ignore the cryptographic assumptions behind today's systems.
Starknet's work on hash based STARK proofs and adaptable account validation is worth following because it addresses different parts of that challenge.
The work should not be confused with a claim that every component is already protected.
For me, the real takeaway is that resilience comes from preparation, honest assessments and the ability to respond when cryptographic standards evolve.
Security is a process, not a finish line.
@Starknet
cryptoverse.sui retweeted
WEB3 NEEDS CREATORS, NOT JUST ATTENTION
Web3 projects need more than visibility. They need creators who can explain the vision, spark conversations, and help communities discover what’s being built.
That’s what makes @rarelistio interesting to me.
Rarelist connects creators with Web3 campaigns, giving them a space to create content, contribute to project awareness, and compete on creator leaderboards.
What I like about this model is the focus on participation. Instead of simply watching projects grow, creators can actively share ideas and help people understand them.
The real opportunity is to bring originality, consistency, and useful insights to every campaign.
In Web3, attention matters, but meaningful content matters more. 👀
WEB3 NEEDS CREATORS, NOT JUST ATTENTION
Web3 projects need more than visibility. They need creators who can explain the vision, spark conversations, and help communities discover what’s being built.
That’s what makes @rarelistio interesting to me.
Rarelist connects creators with Web3 campaigns, giving them a space to create content, contribute to project awareness, and compete on creator leaderboards.
What I like about this model is the focus on participation. Instead of simply watching projects grow, creators can actively share ideas and help people understand them.
The real opportunity is to bring originality, consistency, and useful insights to every campaign.
In Web3, attention matters, but meaningful content matters more. 👀
cryptoverse.sui retweeted
Weekly AURA is in @bulktrade
gained +220 AURA this week
see you again next week
gBulk.
Gm everyone 🌞 and happy weekend
THE FUTURE OF BLOCKCHAIN SECURITY ISN'T STATIC
One mistake in security planning is assuming that a threat only deserves attention when it becomes an immediate emergency.
Good infrastructure teams work differently. They study possible weaknesses, evaluate alternatives and prepare migration paths before changes become unavoidable.
Quantum computing is a useful example for the blockchain industry.
The practical timing of future quantum attacks remains uncertain, but that uncertainty is not a reason to ignore the cryptographic assumptions behind today's systems.
Starknet's work on hash based STARK proofs and adaptable account validation is worth following because it addresses different parts of that challenge.
The work should not be confused with a claim that every component is already protected.
For me, the real takeaway is that resilience comes from preparation, honest assessments and the ability to respond when cryptographic standards evolve.
Security is a process, not a finish line.
@Starknet
Weekly AURA is in @bulktrade
gained +220 AURA this week
see you again next week
gBulk.
Gm everyone 🌞 and happy weekend
THE FUTURE OF BLOCKCHAIN SECURITY ISN'T STATIC
One mistake in security planning is assuming that a threat only deserves attention when it becomes an immediate emergency.
Good infrastructure teams work differently. They study possible weaknesses, evaluate alternatives and prepare migration paths before changes become unavoidable.
Quantum computing is a useful example for the blockchain industry.
The practical timing of future quantum attacks remains uncertain, but that uncertainty is not a reason to ignore the cryptographic assumptions behind today's systems.
Starknet's work on hash based STARK proofs and adaptable account validation is worth following because it addresses different parts of that challenge.
The work should not be confused with a claim that every component is already protected.
For me, the real takeaway is that resilience comes from preparation, honest assessments and the ability to respond when cryptographic standards evolve.
Security is a process, not a finish line.
@Starknet
cryptoverse.sui retweeted
Gm everyone 🌞 and happy weekend
THE FUTURE OF BLOCKCHAIN SECURITY ISN'T STATIC
One mistake in security planning is assuming that a threat only deserves attention when it becomes an immediate emergency.
Good infrastructure teams work differently. They study possible weaknesses, evaluate alternatives and prepare migration paths before changes become unavoidable.
Quantum computing is a useful example for the blockchain industry.
The practical timing of future quantum attacks remains uncertain, but that uncertainty is not a reason to ignore the cryptographic assumptions behind today's systems.
Starknet's work on hash based STARK proofs and adaptable account validation is worth following because it addresses different parts of that challenge.
The work should not be confused with a claim that every component is already protected.
For me, the real takeaway is that resilience comes from preparation, honest assessments and the ability to respond when cryptographic standards evolve.
Security is a process, not a finish line.
@Starknet
Gm everyone ☀️ and happy Friday
WHAT IF CRYPTO COULD ADAPT BEFORE THREATS CHANGE?
I think cryptographic flexibility is an underrated part of blockchain design.
Most users care about whether their transactions work. They rarely think about what happens if the signature scheme protecting those transactions eventually needs change.
That question should matter to developers from day one.
Starknet has native account abstraction, which means accounts can define their own transaction validation logic. This provides a useful foundation for experimenting with alternative signature verification methods.
Instead of treating every cryptographic change as a problem that must be solved at the entire network level, some changes can be approached through account design.
There is still a difference between supporting a new verification method and safely migrating an entire ecosystem to it.
That distinction is important.
The strongest security architecture is not necessarily one that never changes. It is one that can evolve carefully when the evidence tells us change is necessary.
@Starknet
