Proof-native Layer 1 Parano1d has been submitted to @colosseum’s Crypto World’s Fair for judging in the ZK / Crypto Research category. colosseum.com/arena/projects…

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.

Proof-native Layer 1 Parano1d has been submitted to @colosseum’s Crypto World’s Fair for judging in the ZK / Crypto Research category. colosseum.com/arena/projects…

A little sneak peek into noidexplorer.org With $NOID v2 we bring more beauty to our explorer. New animations, new halving-, new economics- and new mempool-tabs should activate automatically on block 210.537. ①

英文朋友问的多点，就加个英文版吧 Quite a few people have been DMing me about the low-cap “casino chips” on @safetrade, so I decided to put together a rundown of the projects I know: relatively new mainnets, small valuations, and primarily traded on SafeTrade. Don’t ask me where the price is headed—I have no idea. As far as I know, SafeTrade doesn’t charge projects a listing fee. So if they choose to list something, perhaps there’s something about it worth looking into. After doing some research, I have a better idea of who’s behind these projects. That information might be useful to you, but these are research leads—absolutely not investment recommendations. 1｜Qubitcoin $QTC @qubitcoinx A Bitcoin fork using quantum-circuit simulation for mining. Founder @MYShalaginov has an MIT postdoctoral background and research experience in quantum optics and nanophotonics. His academic credentials are impressive. That said, I still have questions about his sustained commitment to the project. In the episodes of his own podcast that I’ve watched, I haven’t seen him mention it. With such a strong background, it would be great to see him put more energy into building his own project. Circulating market cap: ~$1.54M Max-supply FDV: ~$14M 2｜Parano1d $NOID @Parano1dComm Uses recursive proofs to verify chain state and PoW to establish ordering, aiming to reduce the need for new nodes to replay the entire chain history. Developer @ignotus_nemo is pseudonymous. But based on the public articles and Ethereum forum discussions, my impression is that they’re genuinely trying to build something. The technical direction is interesting, too. My own experience? Painful. I mined tens of thousands early and bought some at low prices, then sold a little above $0.01. Watching it rally recently has me kicking myself. Circulating market cap: ~$750K No fixed supply cap; assess future dilution and potential selling pressure against the emission schedule. 3｜NeptuneCash $NPT @NeptuneCash A PoW blockchain focused on privacy and post-quantum security, with STARK zero-knowledge proofs and Mutator Sets at the core of its design. Core developers include @aszepieniec and @ThorkilVaerge. Following the community split in 2025, the project has continued building. I’ve been following its technical direction closely, and development remains active. Circulating market cap: ~$560K Max-supply FDV: ~$5.5M 4｜Neptune Privacy $XNT @NeptunePrivacy A project that forked from the NPT community in 2025, following disagreements mainly over the token emission model and development direction. Its development plans include the “Leviathan” L2, although actual delivery still needs tracking. From what I’ve seen, the community is more proactive about promotion and outreach. It’s also listed on MEXC. Circulating market cap: ~$625K No fixed supply cap; assess future dilution and potential selling pressure against the emission schedule. 5｜Compute Substrate $CSD An interesting “public suggestion box on-chain”: people or programs submit ideas, express support, and generate auditable rankings. The chain records support. It doesn’t determine whether an idea is true, and it doesn’t execute decisions on anyone’s behalf. Think of it as an experiment in coordination and shared public records, rather than just another general-purpose blockchain. Protocol initiator: @matsjulner. Ecosystem developer accounts to follow include @Cairn_substrate and @0xInverse. Circulating market cap: ~$17K Max-supply FDV: ~$300K 6｜Midstate $MDS @cypherpunkgold A post-quantum electronic cash project built around BLAKE3, hash-based signatures, and sequential PoW. You can follow the public content from @phraudsta and his Substack at ciphernom.substack.com. His writing has a distinct cypherpunk flavor, although his professional background remains unverified. His X account has a decent following, including some crypto OGs who follow and interact with him. Circulating market cap: ~$21K FDV: ~$68K 7｜Parallax $LAX @prlxchain A new project started by ETN ecosystem developer @andre_patta, using XHash PoW and supporting EVM smart contracts. For me, this sits more firmly in the speculative “casino chip” bucket. I’m watching whether the developer keeps shipping and whether the network and ecosystem can gradually gain traction. Aggregator-reported circulating market cap: ~$12K Max-supply FDV: ~$86K There’s also @Kvanta5_QR, another project pursuing a post-quantum direction. The developer’s identity and project history still need verification. It’s reportedly run by the same person behind @BitcoincashII, but that remains unconfirmed. I’m still not sure what particular strengths SafeTrade sees in it. That’s it—all shared freely. Good luck out there.

$noid higher? Privacy and quantum resilient

My original GitHub account is back from the dead 😄 Very good timing, right before the final Parano1d hackathon submission. github.com/ignotusnemo

1/6 Something special about Parano1d: a block's timestamp is not the moment the block was found. It marks when work on the block began. That's why noidexplorer.org now shows a second time for every new block: "Found". ① 🧵👇

a comparison between old and new coins, a deep dive into something new. $NOID , $NOCK , $ZEC , $XMR , $QTC .

I see Parano1d compared with Mina because both use recursion. Let me explain. Mina uses curve-based proofs and signatures. Parano1d proves each block from genesis before acceptance, with signatureless spending and post-quantum validity. PoW sets order. Block bodies are pruned. Both use recursive proofs for blockchain verification. The differences are in what must be proved before a block is accepted, how spending is authorized, and the cryptography securing the complete path. Mina pipelines transaction proving through its scan state. Its ledger proof can trail the latest transactions. In Parano1d, every accepted block arrives with a proof of its exact State transition and ancestry from genesis. The canonical chain cannot advance ahead of its proved execution. Proofs establish validity. Proof of work establishes canonical order. Hash power cannot make an invalid transition acceptable. Ownership follows a different model too. Mina uses elliptic-curve proof systems and Schnorr signatures. A Parano1d wallet proves knowledge of the spending secret, bound to the exact transaction, without publishing an owner public key or digital signature. The miner separately proves that the inputs exist and the resulting State is correct. Authorization, commitments, execution and recursive ancestry share one transparent binary-field proof stack. Parano1d’s end-to-end post-quantum assessment covers acceptance of an invalid State from genesis, including historical proof obligations and upgrades, under explicit published assumptions. Quantum resistance has to cover the whole validity path. This architecture also determines what nodes preserve. Parano1d nodes keep live State, compact headers and a short recent window. After the retention window, old block bodies and transactions are pruned in normal operation. A new node authenticates State from genesis without replaying the lifetime transaction log or trusting a checkpoint. Participants retain the receipts they need, and those receipts remain verifiable after the original bodies are gone. V2 extends this to proof-native contracts, with mainnet activation scheduled at block 210,537. Mina’s zkApps use application circuits and verification keys. Parano1d’s bounded spending programs run inside one shared proved integer core. Applications fitting that core need no new proof matrix. I’m built Parano1d so that independent verification survives the age of the network: people joining years later can establish which funds and rights exist, while the transactions that created them have already been deleted.

$NOID now🤯 @safetrade

What if I told you there’s a project at $120K market cap whose architecture may be more compelling than quantus:native at 3b fdv and it’s already trading on SafeTrade?