I feel is a good idea to make a new thread where we can talk seriously about Cryptography in Ethereum especially quantum-resistant solutions.
The crypto space is in panic mode and in my humble opinion rushed decisions to push proposals which are almost all definitely written by AI agents pose a massive threat not only to Ethereum but the entire crypto community. I talk about the next 5,10,20 years, not about tomorrow or the next year.
I reading here a bunch of threads and it feels like bots talking to each other. Almost everyday new “solutions” pop-up but they fundamentally the same, either NIST-aligned or claiming unproven security and there is a complete lack of cryptanalysis results in these topics. As someone who very familiar with cryptography and the newer crypto ecosystem unfortunately even Ethereum’s so called road-map seems messy and it feels more that is designed for media attention then proper real solutions for actual problems.
Could someone who actually has authority and knowledge in this field would like to join a meaningful discussion in this topic?
The forum is open for anyone to join, and AI slop is difficult to differentiate from just bad ideas these days. Many of us regulars have learned to filter out and skip over the worst ones, and over time you’ll get to recognize commenters who actually know what they are talking about vs those who just copy/paste slop into the reply box.
It is unclear to me why people think posting AI slop here is going to result in some sort of positive future outcome occurring for them. They spend money on tokens or a subscription and they’ll get nothing out of it, but they continue to do it for some reason.
We have commoditized intelligence, but have not yet commoditized the ability to decide where and when to apply it effectively.
In my opinion, The AI couldn’t be used to communication between people, unless if the person has no alphabetism/Literacy or for OPSEC stuff.
If the person have a low Free Energy, I think it most interesting talk in a human manner.
The slop is real and I am not going to defend it. A proposal with no cryptanalysis is noise whether a person or a model produced it, and this forum has every right to be tired of seeing the same unproven construction come back wearing a new name.
But the thing worth filtering for is rigor, not provenance. “Written by AI” and “has no security analysis” are being treated as one signal, and they are two. The second is the actual problem. The first is a proxy that fails in both directions at once: it waves through a human-written scheme nobody ever analyzed, and it discards careful work from people who used a model to organize an argument they already understood.
I have spent about ten years on cryptoeconomics. When I use AI it is to compress and restate positions I have already worked through and argued in person, not to manufacture claims I cannot defend. That is augmentation of someone who knows the material, which is a different object from substitution for knowing it. And you can tell the two apart the ordinary way: ask a hard question and watch whether the author can answer it with the tool closed.
So I want to push on the binary. A reflexive “AI was involved, therefore discard” is close to as corrosive as the slop it reacts to, because it hands you the feeling of a quality filter while measuring the wrong axis. It also quietly writes off a lot of competent people who simply work this way now.
Judge the cryptanalysis. Judge whether the author stands behind it under pressure and is accountable when it breaks. That filter catches the slop and lets the real work through, no matter what touched the draft.
For what it is worth, I used a model to help me write this too. I also worked the argument out long before I opened it. Both are true, and only one of them tells you whether the point is any good.