BITSTARK @BitStarkBridge

Who should control a blockchain security timeline? @Starknet is asking a question worth thinking about: what happens when a network’s long-term security plans depend partly on another network’s upgrade schedule? As an Ethereum Layer 2, Starknet relies on Ethereum for important parts of its architecture, including its bridge and data availability. According to StarkWare, these dependencies matter when planning for a post-quantum future. That’s why the idea of exploring an independent Layer 1 is interesting. On October 22, Starknet announced that 93.52% of the voting power in its community poll supported researching this direction, with 3,236 votes cast. But there’s an important distinction: the vote approved further research, not an actual transition to Layer 1. StarkWare and the Starknet Foundation will now study the technical requirements and trade-offs before any formal proposal goes through governance. My perspective is that security is not just about choosing strong cryptography. It’s also about understanding which parts of a system you control, which dependencies remain, and how quickly you can respond when the security landscape changes. An independent L1 could give Starknet more control over its own security roadmap. But it would also raise serious questions about consensus, infrastructure, and replacing the security guarantees it currently gets from Ethereum. Those questions deserve careful answers, not just excitement around the word “quantum.” I’m interested in seeing the research first. If this direction moves forward, the real measure of success will be whether it delivers a credible security model while continuing to serve users and developers. The goal shouldn’t just be independence. It should be well-designed, adaptable security.

Building secure blockchains today is important, but preparing them for tomorrow’s unknown risks matters just as much. That’s one reason I’m interested in what @Starknet is exploring with cryptographic agility. Security shouldn’t depend on assuming that the methods we trust today will remain reliable forever. Networks also need a practical way to adopt new cryptographic techniques as threats evolve. For me, the real strength lies in designing for change rather than waiting for a problem to appear before looking for a solution. Curious about Starknet’s approach to quantum readiness? 👇 quantum.starkware.co

Starknet @Starknet

3 days ago

Quantum computing presents a fundamental challenge to blockchain security. Starknet combines cryptographic agility with STARK-based proving to prepare for a post-quantum future. Starknet is built to adapt.

42 70 433 33K 32

You cooked this wella ngl. This is why long-term security matters a lot in this ecosystem. I am glad to see @Starknet having an interesting advantage with its hash-based STARK proofs, which avoid the elliptic-curve assumptions vulnerable to known quantum attacks. But proofs are only part of the equation just like wallet signatures and bridges matter too. What stands out to me is the flexibility programmable accounts offer for adopting stronger authorization methods as cryptography evolves. I could see that the goal is not predicting every threat but preparing to adapt.

I'm Pat✨ @PatAscend

23 hours ago

Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Blockchains are built to protect value, but what do you think will happen when the technology protecting that value becomes vulnerable? There is no doubt that Quantum computing could eventually threaten elliptic-curve cryptography used by

90 22 105 4K 1

One thing I like about the @Starknet ecosystem is how it brings different parts of Web3 together. DeFi, gaming, NFTs and developer tools all have room to grow on Starknet, powered by Cairo and STARK technology. The real strength is giving builders the tools to turn ideas into useful onchain applications.

holly @hollyyy

14 hours ago

I think the biggest challenge in blockchain security isn't just protecting against today's threats. It's being ready for the ones we can't predict yet. That's why @Starknet's approach to cryptographic agility makes sense to me. Strong cryptography matters, but so does the

104 25 350 10K 13

The next big challenge for blockchain security might not be a hack. It could be the moment our current cryptography is no longer strong enough. That's something I've been thinking about while exploring @Starknet. Most blockchains focus on securing transactions with today's cryptographic standards. But what happens when those standards need to change? This is where Starknet's architecture gets interesting. → Programmable accounts can support different signature verification methods. → Hash-based STARK proofs provide a foundation built on assumptions different from traditional elliptic-curve cryptography. → Account abstraction gives developers more flexibility to introduce new security mechanisms. The important distinction is that Starknet isn't completely quantum-resistant today. Ethereum dependencies, wallet infrastructure, and migration challenges still matter. But I think the real advantage is the ability to adapt without rebuilding everything from scratch. Quantum threats may still be years away, but cryptographic upgrades take time. And I'd rather see networks preparing early than scrambling when the threat becomes real. That's why I'm keeping an eye on @Starknet and its long-term security research. The future of blockchain security isn't just about stronger cryptography. It's about being ready to change. More research: quantum.starkware.co

"Starknet fam, you know we gotta hold the line, right? Hanging on is the hardest part—just like Bitcoin was in its early days." @Bitcoin @Starknet $STRK 💎🙌

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

🚨 Is this chain ready for quantum? Wrong question. The right one is: which LAYER? 🧠 Every chain has 2 places where quantum risk can hit: 1️⃣ The proving layer, how the network proves its state is correct 2️⃣ The account layer, the signature that protects ur wallet Here is how @Starknet is preparing for a post-quantum future on both 👇 ⚙️ Layer 1: STARK proving STARK proofs are built on hash functions, not on the elliptic curve math that a big enough quantum computer could break. So the prover itself does not need a rebuild during the move 🔐 Layer 2: Native account abstraction On Starknet every account is a smart contract that picks its own signature check. That means a wallet can switch to a post-quantum signature like Falcon-512, keeping the same address and same assets, with no network-wide hard fork 📅 What's already live: ✅ v0.14.3: core OS hashes moved from Pedersen to BLAKE2s on mainnet ✅ A Falcon-512 account has been demonstrated on mainnet by OpenZeppelin ⚠️ What's still work in progress: ➡️ Existing accounts don't upgrade automatically, each owner has to move ➡️ Wallet support, key recovery, custody and audits are still to come ➡️ A normal user can't adopt the Falcon account easily yet This is the part I respect. The Quantum Hub openly lists what is done AND what is not. No "we're fully safe" claims, just a clear map Starknet is built to adapt 💙 📖 quantum.starkware.co/architecture 💙Like 🔁RT

DexBlocker @DexBlocker

2 days ago

🚨 Quantum computing is a real challenge for blockchain security On Oct 26, 2026 @Starknet shared how it is preparing for a post-quantum future 👇 🧠 Most chains today depend on signatures that a strong enough quantum computer could break one day 🔄 Starknet's answer is

38 8 186 5K 2

Good afternoon fam❤️ A blockchain can be fast today and still face security challenges tomorrow. That is why I find @Starknet is approach to quantum readiness worth discussing. ➠ 1. The challenge Quantum computing could eventually weaken some cryptographic systems used to secure digital assets and blockchain networks. ➠ 2. The technology Starknet uses STARK proofs, built on hash-based cryptography with strong post-quantum security properties. ➠ 3. The bigger picture Long-term security requires more than choosing the right cryptography. Networks also need upgrade paths that allow them to respond when new threats emerge. This is where Starknet’s post-quantum research becomes important. Preparing early could help reduce the pressure of making major security changes when quantum technology advances. My takeaway: The strongest blockchain infrastructure won't just solve today's problems. It will be designed to adapt to tomorrow's challenges. Fam, do you think the crypto industry is taking quantum risks seriously enough?

I have been reading up on strkBTC, and the idea is simple. It is Bitcoin on @Starknet. You bridge your BTC from your own wallet using GardenFi. It lands in Xverse as strkBTC, backed 1:1 by BTC. You never sell anything. You still hold Bitcoin exposure.

3 days to gooo

@amiexbt Love you

amie 💜 @amiexbt

4 days ago

if you’re in your 20s, avoid bs at all costs things i define as bs: - junk food - video games - movies/series - social media (unless you’re researching/posting) - chasing women/men especially the last one

78 9 129 4K 3

𝗤𝘂𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗺 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗥𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝗔 𝗗𝗲𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗟𝗼𝗼𝗸 Preparing for quantum computing isnt just about replacing one cryptographic algorithm with another. @Starknet offers an interesting case study because its STARK proofs rely on hash based cryptography while some Ethereum facing components use different security assumptions. Blob data relies on KZG commitments calldata offers an alternative and bridges and messaging introduce additional dependencies. This highlights an important reality a blockchains security is only as adaptable as its upgrade paths. Understanding these dependencies today can help developers prepare better solutions for tomorrow. Starknets Quantum Hub is worth exploring for anyone interested in how blockchain security may evolve.

Quantum security isn’t a single upgrade. It’s a migration across multiple layers. Here’s one concrete step from @Starknet: In v0.14.3, Starknet replaced Pedersen with a BLAKE2s-256-based construction for its OS program hash and OS config hash. That change is live on Mainnet. But the scope matters. Contract-trie and contract-address changes remain roadmap work, while legacy contract migration tooling is still being researched. That’s why I prefer tracking what’s live, what’s planned, and what still needs proof over calling an entire network “quantum-safe.” Real security progress should be measurable, component by component. Explore the official migration register: quantum.starkware.co/migration-regi… #Starknet #PostQuantum

What if we could make STARK proofs smaller without compromising security? Think cheaper verification, better scaling, and new use cases. That's the goal of our new open mathematics challenge! Bring your AI agents and help crack the math: starks.provably.fast x.com/Starknet/statu…

Starknet @Starknet

13 hours ago

Make STARK proofs smaller. An open challenge to find math that gives a STARK the same security with fewer checks. Every find is credited. Bring your agents → starks.provably.fast

20 32 197 10K 9

Picture a door that only accepts one kind of key. Years later the lockmaker says that key style might not stay safe forever. On most chains you’d need a network-wide change just to try a different lockDrafting a unique Starknet post. @Starknet works differently. The account is a smart contract, so the signature check lives with the account itself. You can point that single account at a new verification method without touching the rest of the network. Same address, same funds. Hash-based STARK proofs already handle the computation side under different assumptions. The signature side is still being prepared. A few experimental accounts have tried newer schemes (mainnet trial in July 2026, phone demo on testnet in October 2026), both unaudited so far. Broader migration work remains open. The Quantum Hub keeps a dated view of what’s been shown and what’s still left: quantum.starkware.co If the rules can move with the account instead of the whole chain, does that actually lower the friction when the threat picture changes, or does something else still dominate?

Imagine waiting for someone else to make a security upgrade before you can protect your own house. That’s why independence matters in blockchain. @Starknet operates as its own Layer 1 blockchain, giving it more direct control over its protocol upgrades and security decisions. Why is this important? 🔹 It can make decisions about its core protocol. 🔹 It has more flexibility to respond to emerging security challenges. 🔹 It can plan upgrades around its own needs instead of depending entirely on another network’s roadmap. As cryptography evolves, having the ability to make timely decisions matters. Independence isn’t just about control. It’s also about being able to prepare for the future. More details in the comments. 👇 #Starknet #Blockchain

Imagine upgrading every lock in your house, then finding out the door frame belongs to your landlord, and he renovates on his own schedule. That’s how I read the @Starknet L1 debate. STARK proofs are hash-based. Programmable accounts can adopt new signature schemes. But as an L2, the bridge and data availability still lean on Ethereum, whose quantum-safe L1 target is December 2029. StarkWare’s own target is 2027. So the question isn’t “why leave?” It’s “who controls the clock when the threat changes?” 93.52% of voting power backed researching an independent L1. It was Starknet’s highest-turnout vote ever, and StarkWare abstained so the community decided. This is research, not an exit. A whitepaper draft is expected in November, then a binding vote. Bridges to Ethereum would stay open. Bullish on the mindset: when security timelines are everything, owning your upgrade schedule isn’t ego, it’s engineering. ⚡ What would you want the research to answer first? 👀

通过 ArcX您可以在项目正式空投前提前交易该项目的积分 如今ArcX更进一步，整合了影子账户，让您的积分交易操作不再与主钱包地址公开关联，从而实现隐私化积分交易

ArcX @arcxtrade

2 days ago

Your wallet is public. Your activity doesn't have to be. Anyone using a Starknet wallet like @ready_co can now keep their ArcX transactions private. Live now: app.arcx.trade

9 8 51 8K 5

Cryptography is built on assumptions. The problem is that assumptions belong to a particular technological era. Quantum computing may change the security assumptions behind some widely used cryptographic systems. AI-driven mathematical research may also change how researchers discover weaknesses, analyze algorithms or develop new attacks. Neither possibility means existing cryptography has suddenly become broken, and nobody can responsibly give an exact date for when quantum attacks will become practical. But waiting for certainty before preparing is a poor security strategy. What matters is whether a system can adapt when its assumptions need to change. Starknet's architecture offers several relevant pieces to examine: STARK proofs rely on hash-based cryptographic constructions, programmable accounts can provide flexibility in authorization, and migration mechanisms matter when users eventually need to move to different cryptographic methods. These are useful building blocks, not proof that every component is already quantum-resistant. Hash-based constructions also have security assumptions and implementation requirements of their own. The deeper lesson is this: Future-proofing does not mean predicting the future correctly. It means avoiding a design that cannot respond when the future proves your assumptions wrong. That is the conversation I want to see around @Starknet and its preparation for post-quantum security. For the underlying research and evidence, StarkWare's Quantum Hub is a useful place to start: quantum.starkware.co/#public-eviden…

An upgrade can be technically necessary and still arrive at the wrong time for the system that needs it. That is the part of @Starknet exploring its own L1 that I find worth thinking about. When a network depends on another network's upgrade schedule, its security roadmap is partly tied to decisions made outside its direct control. That arrangement can work well, but it creates a coordination problem when cryptographic assumptions change or a new threat demands a different response. An independent L1 could give Starknet more control over when core security changes happen, how they are coordinated, and how quickly its infrastructure can respond to evolving requirements. Of course, independence is not automatically safer. It also means taking responsibility for the security, reliability and maintenance of another foundational layer. The real question is not whether a chain should be independent just for the sake of independence. It is whether the ability to make critical security decisions on its own timeline is worth the additional responsibility. That is a much more interesting conversation about @Starknet than another generic discussion about scalability.