how much decentralization matters over time

This is why **crypto agility** is super important for blockchains. It refers to "the ability to replace and adapt cryptographic algorithms for protocols, applications, software, hardware, and infrastructures without interrupting the flow of a running system to achieve resiliency." It's not a buzzword. It's a design imperative that @NIST keeps urging everyone to adopt. However, we don't see anyone else in the crypto industry approaching the threat of quantum computing with this in mind. CKB is the **only** crypto agile blockchain in existence. And it wasn't purpose-built for this. It's simply one of the features of its low-level flexible architecture. A bold design that is now paying dividends. Follow us to learn more about how CKB solved quantum resistance.

Hey Nervos Fam, I’m building a $CKB directory app. Help decide which app image panels will be the default options, link to vote page in the replies, will be adding more applications to the list over the coming days so be sure to check back. #runckb

the idea that you can upgrade a blockchain without forking it will be as transformational as smart contracts were a decade ago

ifykyk github.com/nervosnetwork/rfc…

opportunists are the biggest risk to Bitcoin today

hi there, Trezor platform is open-source and everyone is welcomed to contribute. We’re starting by building the CKB implementation ourselves and aiming to integrate it into the ecosystem from there.

Tadge Dryja, the co-inventor of the Lightning Network, just dropped an update on Utreexo, one of the most underappreciated scaling projects in bitcoin. The problem is straightforward. Every bitcoin node that wants to validate transactions has to store the entire UTXO set, every unspent output on the network. Right now that's 11GB and growing. As more transactions hit the chain, as inscriptions and other data-heavy outputs pile up, every node operator has to store all of it. The UTXO set doesn't get pruned like old blocks can. It just grows. Utreexo eliminates the entire UTXO set from your node. Instead of storing 11GB of data, a Utreexo node stores less than 1KB of hashes and still fully verifies every transaction. It's not a light client. It's not trusting anyone else. It's full validation with radically less storage. The tradeoff has always been bandwidth. Utreexo nodes need to download extra proof data to verify transactions without storing the full set. Until recently, syncing the blockchain with Utreexo took 2-3x the data download of a normal node, pushing into terabytes. That problem is now being solved, new aggregator techniques from SwiftSync have eliminated the extra download overhead. The implementation is still being finalized, but the hard part appears to be behind them. Two things worth noting: First, Utreexo is quantum safe. The accumulator and aggregator are built entirely on hash functions, not elliptic curve cryptography. Whatever quantum computing does to bitcoin's signature scheme, it won't touch Utreexo. At a time when the quantum conversation is heating up, that's a meaningful design advantage. Second, Utreexo directly addresses the tension around "spam" on bitcoin. Inscriptions, BRC-20 tokens, and other data-heavy outputs bloat the UTXO set that every node has to carry. Pruning helps with old block data but doesn't touch the UTXO set. Utreexo makes the entire debate irrelevant, if your node doesn't store the UTXO set at all, the size of it doesn't matter. New releases are out for both utreexod (BTCD-based) and Floresta (rust-based, built with rust-bitcoin). Both are in testing mode, not ready for real funds yet, but ready for developers and node operators to try. This is the kind of quiet, foundational work that actually scales bitcoin at L1. No token. No VC round. No press tour. Just better engineering.

CKB: maps not roadmaps

EVM gave us smart contracts. RISC-V gives us real compute. #whyweckb

Silent payments is not just a new approach to static payment codes. It's the first serious contender to improve the address derivation system since HD wallets in 2013. HD wallets were a big win over single keys, and silent payments could be a similar leap forward.

Great idea! Here's a quick plot showing estimated transactions per second with different hash-based signature schemes. This one uses size-optimized parameters, verification-optimized below 👇

this are the vibes

This gets at the core of why the bitcoin quantum FUD is overblown. There certainly seems to be some progress on the theoretical front, but how close are we to actually building quantum computers with persistent uptime that can wage these attacks? Not saying it will never happen, but the leap from theoretical possibilities to application at scale is still unclear to me.

i give @VitalikButerin a ton of credit (for this among many other things), he is the only member of the philosopher king class who is willing to acknowledge CKB

Basically Google is saying "We've got a lot of ink on a whiteboard that says really threatening stuff...better hope we never take it seriously enough to try building the Hawaii-sized facility we'd need to pull it off!"

have never felt more confident that CKB is destined for a cinderella story than seeing a header full of big brains completely miss it in a 67 page paper with 300 citations you can use SPHINCS today with @quantumpurse Keep calm and carry on.

Going from ~1,000 noisy qubits to 500k fault-tolerant ones by 2029 isn’t just a "roadmap",… it’s a **physical miracle** or a massive bluff.

When evaluating the claim of deep bag-biased Quantum agitpropagandists, it’s always more useful to look at what they are NOT telling you. Recent claims suggest a Quantum computer using neutral atom arrays would require only (!) ~20,000 logical qubits to break Bitcoin. What they tell you is that this is significant because researchers at Caltech recently demonstrated a 6000 (!) logical qubits array. What they do NOT tell you is that those qubits weren’t not entangled, which is a requirement to run Shor’s algorithm. So what is the state of the art in terms of actually entangled logical qubits under the neutral atoms architecture? NINETY SIX (96) qubits. How long did they maintain coherence? 1-2 seconds. How long did the new Oratomic paper suggest the algorithm they designed should run? DAYS! So not only must state of the art in SIMPLE qubits entanglement increase more than 2 orders of magnitude, their ability to maintain coherence across circuit depth must be preserved ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND times longer than they currently do. Suffice to say they have no idea how to even get there but that shouldn’t get in the way of a headline worthy paper!

shoutout to everyone dunking on bitcoin going to take a lot more than a quantum computer