Bit_boy

Development of quantum computing might kill the Bitcoin network
I researched all the data and learn everything about it.
/➮ Recently, BlackRock warned us about potential risks to the Bitcoin network
🕷 All due to the rapid progress in the field of quantum computing.
🕷 I’ll add their report at the end - but for now, let’s break down what this actually means.
/➮ Bitcoin's security relies on cryptographic algorithms, mainly ECDSA
🕷 It safeguards private keys and ensures transaction integrity
🕷 Quantum computers, leveraging algorithms like Shor's algorithm, could potentially break ECDSA
/➮ How? By efficiently solving complex mathematical problems that are currently infeasible for classical computers
🕷 This will would allow malicious actors to derive private keys from public keys
Compromising wallet security and transaction authenticity
/➮ So BlackRock warns that such a development might enable attackers to compromise wallets and transactions
🕷 Which would lead to potential losses for investors
🕷 But when will this happen and how can we protect ourselves?
/➮ Quantum computers capable of breaking Bitcoin's cryptography are not yet operational
🕷 Experts estimate that such capabilities could emerge within 5-7 yeards
🕷 Currently, 25% of BTC is stored in addresses that are vulnerable to quantum attacks
/➮ But it's not all bad - the Bitcoin community and the broader cryptocurrency ecosystem are already exploring several strategies:
- Post-Quantum Cryptography
- Wallet Security Enhancements
- Network Upgrades
/➮ However, if a solution is not found in time, it could seriously undermine trust in digital assets
🕷 Which in turn could reduce demand for BTC and crypto in general
🕷 And the current outlook isn't too optimistic - here's why:
/➮ Google has stated that breaking RSA encryption (tech also used to secure crypto wallets)
🕷 Would require 20x fewer quantum resources than previously expected
🕷 That means we may simply not have enough time to solve the problem before it becomes critical
/➮ For now, I believe the most effective step is encouraging users to transfer funds to addresses with enhanced security,
🕷 Such as Pay-to-Public-Key-Hash (P2PKH) addresses, which do not expose public keys until a transaction is made
🕷 Don’t rush to sell all your BTC or move it off wallets - there is still time
🕷 But it's important to keep an eye on this issue and the progress on solutions
Report: sec.gov/Archives/edgar…
➮ Give some love and support
🕷 Follow for even more excitement!
🕷 Remember to like, retweet, and drop a comment.
#TrumpMediaBitcoinTreasury #Bitcoin2025 $BTC

Candlestick patterns are a powerful tool in technical analysis, offering insights into market sentiment and potential price movements. By recognizing and interpreting these patterns, traders can make informed decisions and increase their chances of success. In this article, we'll explore 20 essential candlestick patterns, providing a comprehensive guide to help you enhance your trading strategy and potentially earn $1000 a month.
Understanding Candlestick Patterns
Before diving into the patterns, it's essential to understand the basics of candlestick charts. Each candle represents a specific time frame, displaying the open, high, low, and close prices. The body of the candle shows the price movement, while the wicks indicate the high and low prices.
The 20 Candlestick Patterns
1. Doji: A candle with a small body and long wicks, indicating indecision and potential reversal.
2. Hammer: A bullish reversal pattern with a small body at the top and a long lower wick.
3. Hanging Man: A bearish reversal pattern with a small body at the bottom and a long upper wick.
4. Engulfing Pattern: A two-candle pattern where the second candle engulfs the first, indicating a potential reversal.
5. Piercing Line: A bullish reversal pattern where the second candle opens below the first and closes above its midpoint.
6. Dark Cloud Cover: A bearish reversal pattern where the second candle opens above the first and closes below its midpoint.
7. Morning Star: A three-candle pattern indicating a bullish reversal.
8. Evening Star: A three-candle pattern indicating a bearish reversal.
9. Shooting Star: A bearish reversal pattern with a small body at the bottom and a long upper wick.
10. Inverted Hammer: A bullish reversal pattern with a small body at the top and a long lower wick.
11. Bullish Harami: A two-candle pattern indicating a potential bullish reversal.
12. Bearish Harami: A two-candle pattern indicating a potential bearish reversal.
13. Tweezer Top: A two-candle pattern indicating a potential bearish reversal.
14. Tweezer Bottom: A two-candle pattern indicating a potential bullish reversal.
15. Three White Soldiers: A bullish reversal pattern with three consecutive long-bodied candles.
16. Three Black Crows: A bearish reversal pattern with three consecutive long-bodied candles.
17. Rising Three Methods: A continuation pattern indicating a bullish trend.
18. Falling Three Methods: A continuation pattern indicating a bearish trend.
19. Marubozu: A candle with no wicks and a full-bodied appearance, indicating strong market momentum.
20. Belt Hold Line: A single candle pattern indicating a potential reversal or continuation.
Applying Candlestick Patterns in Trading
To effectively use these patterns, it's essential to:
- Understand the context in which they appear
- Combine them with other technical analysis tools
- Practice and backtest to develop a deep understanding
By mastering these 20 candlestick patterns, you'll be well on your way to enhancing your trading strategy and potentially earning $1000 a month. Remember to stay disciplined, patient, and informed to achieve success in the markets.
#CandleStickPatterns
#tradingStrategy
#TechnicalAnalysis
#DayTradingTips
#tradingforbeginners

When people hear “native bridge,” they often think of it as just another nice-to-have feature. I used to think that too, but on Dusk it’s absolutely central. The bridge isn’t optional; it’s part of the protocol’s backbone. The idea is simple: one asset, one security model, one economic system across all three layers. There’s no wrapping, no custodians, no synthetic tokens pretending to be neutral.
Wrapped assets are convenient in theory, but in reality, they create risk. Custodial exposure, legal ambiguity, extra attack surfaces—these problems only become obvious when something goes wrong. Dusk avoids all of that. The DUSK you stake on DuskDS is the same DUSK you use on DuskEVM or DuskVM. The bridge doesn’t lock your tokens and mint IOUs elsewhere. Value moves directly inside the protocol. That matters because most bridge exploits happen when wrapping is involved. Remove the wrapping, and you remove a whole class of failure points.
The bridge is validator-run and built into the protocol itself. It’s not outsourced, there’s no multisig committee, no “temporary admin keys” left around forever. If you trust the chain, you trust the bridge. If the chain fails, everything fails together. That symmetry isn’t a bug—it’s intentional.
What I really like is how this keeps things simple for users. DUSK does different jobs across layers without fragmenting the economy. On DuskDS, it secures the network through staking and governance. On DuskEVM, it’s gas for contracts and exchanges. On DuskVM, it pays for privacy-preserving computations. Different roles, one token, one supply. No internal competition, no dilution.
From my experience, the complexity stays inside the protocol, not on me as a user. I don’t have to rebalance or migrate manually. My balances stay the same, but I get access to new layers automatically. Even migration from ERC-20 and BEP-20 DUSK into the native environment is seamless—it’s cleanup, not a growth hack.
Bridges have historically been the most exploited component in crypto. That’s because they sit between systems with different rules and ask users to trust the glue code. Dusk removes that problem entirely. If you’re building regulated markets, custody-compliant systems, or privacy-sensitive apps, wrapped assets and external bridges aren’t acceptable. Institutions won’t tolerate them, and regulators won’t approve them.
This native bridge isn’t flashy or trendy. It’s boring, conservative, and correct. And honestly, those are the kinds of infrastructure decisions that only get fully appreciated after the flashy alternatives fail.
@Dusk #Dusk $DUSK
#dusk

Most blockchains try to solve everything in one layer and then wonder why everything ends up slow, expensive, or broken. I like what Dusk did instead. They split the protocol into three layers—not to look fancy, but because regulated finance doesn’t tolerate shortcuts. This three layer setup isn’t decoration. It’s how Dusk keeps integration costs low, scales safely, and stays compliant without duct tape.
DuskDS is where finality actually happens. It’s the base layer, doing the boring but critical work: consensus, staking, data availability, native bridging, settlement. This is where the network decides what’s final and what isn’t. Unlike optimistic rollups that make you wait days and hope nobody challenges the state, DuskDS verifies everything upfront. A pre-verifier powered by MIPS checks validity before anything is written. Once something settles here, it’s really settled. Traders, institutions, and regulated markets need that certainty. To keep nodes accessible, DuskDS doesn’t store heavy execution state, it keeps compact validity proofs and lets execution happen higher up. DUSK is used here for staking, governance, and settlement. This is where security lives.
DuskEVM is where developers actually show up. Let’s be honest, Ethereum tooling dominates. Fighting that reality is pointless. DuskEVM lets developers deploy standard Solidity contracts with tools like Hardhat and MetaMask. That makes life easier and avoids the “empty ecosystem” problem many chains face. But it’s not just a copy of Ethereum. DuskEVM integrates Hedger, which adds auditable confidentiality directly into execution using zero-knowledge proofs and homomorphic encryption. That enables things normal EVM chains can’t do: obfuscated order books, confidential transactions, private strategies, all while staying auditable. Institutions can use familiar contracts without exposing sensitive data. Here, DUSK is used as gas—real usage driving real demand.
DuskVM is where privacy goes all the way. This layer isn’t familiar to most people, but it’s where applications that cannot compromise live. While DuskEVM adds privacy in an account-based model, DuskVM is full privacy by design. It uses a UTXO-based Phoenix transaction model optimized for anonymity and a virtual machine called Piecrust. Piecrust already exists inside DuskDS, but separating it makes deep privacy logic more efficient. This is where advanced cryptographic applications live—not DeFi clones, but systems that need strong privacy by default. DUSK is used as gas here too, so all economic activity flows in the same system.
All three layers are connected by a trustless native bridge. DUSK moves between them without wrapping or custodians, which removes a huge class of risk and legal ambiguity. One token flows across the whole stack, unifying security, governance, and economic activity instead of fragmenting value. It’s not flashy, but it’s clean, and that matters over the long term.
From the outside, this setup might look slow or heavy. That’s true. But regulated systems can’t afford shortcuts. Each layer solves a specific problem without interfering with the others. Most chains collapse because everything is tangled together—break one part and the whole thing breaks. Dusk avoids that.
I think this is exactly why Dusk feels slow but also why it might last. It’s not overengineering—it’s defensive engineering. Every layer exists because something breaks without it. Most crypto stacks are built to look simple. Dusk is built to behave correctly under real-world pressure. People will keep calling it complex until simple systems fail in real markets, and then suddenly this design will feel obvious.
@Dusk #dusk #Dusk $DUSK

Most crypto projects love to pretend you have to choose: privacy or regulation, freedom or law, anonymity or adoption. I’ve seen it play out too many times—projects pick a side loudly, then act surprised when the other side blocks them forever. Dusk doesn’t play that game. They treat privacy and compliance as engineering problems, not ideological battles. And that’s exactly why it feels different. It doesn’t try to please the maximalists on either side, which is usually where serious infrastructure actually lives.
Dusk handles privacy through math, not secrecy. Most systems just hide everything and hope nobody asks questions. That breaks the moment serious money shows up. Dusk uses zero-knowledge proofs so transactions can be verified without revealing sensitive data. Balances, fees, and ownership are checked mathematically without putting identities or amounts on a public ledger. Inside the EVM layer, Hedger combines zero-knowledge proofs with homomorphic encryption. Smart contracts can operate on encrypted data—update balances, execute logic, enforce rules—without ever seeing the raw values. It’s expensive, complex, and slow to build, which is why most chains don’t bother.
What I find really smart is selective auditability. Dusk separates public transparency from regulatory verification. Regulators can verify compliance with cryptographic attestations without ever getting raw data dumps. The public sees nothing sensitive, competitors see nothing sensitive, but compliance still exists. Compliance is enforced by math, not by paperwork. Rules like transfer restrictions, KYC checks, or eligibility conditions are built directly into smart contracts. If a transaction breaks the rules, it simply doesn’t execute—no discretion, no human override.
Dusk also doesn’t force everything into one transaction model. It runs dual systems depending on what the application needs. Phoenix is the private model, UTXO-based and optimized for confidentiality—perfect for institutional settlement and private trading. Moonlight is transparent, account-based, similar to Ethereum, for public tokens and simple transfers. Developers can pick the right tool for their use case, and the protocol doesn’t pretend one size fits all. That flexibility matters more than people realize.
They also solve institutional problems most chains ignore. Obfuscated order books, for example, hide intent and exposure so institutions can operate safely without front-running risks. Dusk built the Confidential Security Contract standard for tokenized securities, allowing dividends, governance, and asset management in a private, compliant environment. This isn’t DeFi experimentation—it’s real market infrastructure.
Through partnerships like NPEX, Dusk enables one-time KYC across the network. Users verify themselves once and operate without repeated intrusions. That’s huge for UX and data protection. Constant KYC is frustrating and leaks information; cryptographically enforced, one-time verification works the way institutions actually need it.
Dusk isn’t Monero or Zcash. It’s not trying to escape oversight. It’s making oversight compatible with privacy. That difference is massive. Privacy here is functional, not ideological. It protects commercial secrets, personal data, and market integrity while still respecting the law. It’s boring, yes, but it works in the real world.
I think Dusk is doing the kind of privacy that nobody cheers for until it becomes unavoidable. This isn’t rebellious privacy. It’s professional privacy—the kind institutions demand and regulators tolerate. Most privacy projects will never build that bridge. Dusk already did it, quietly and deliberately. If on-chain finance grows up, this approach is the one that actually lasts—not fast, not flashy, but permanent.

@Dusk #dusk #Dusk $DUSK

When I think about my data online, there’s always been this quiet unease. Photos, research, work files, even personal archives—they all live somewhere else, somewhere I don’t control. One policy change, one outage, one account lock, and everything can vanish. I’ve felt that sinking feeling when a link breaks or a file refuses to load, and it hits you not just as a technical problem, but as a loss of safety, dignity, and ownership. That’s why Walrus feels different to me.
Walrus isn’t just trying to shove files onto a blockchain. It treats large files as blobs, spreads them across a decentralized network, and uses Sui to coordinate who owns what, for how long, and under what rules. That separation between control and storage makes data programmable and verifiable, not fragile. For me, that changes how I think about building applications. When storage is reliable, it becomes a foundation instead of a risk.
I also appreciate the thought put into durability. Storing big data isn’t simple. Full replication is too expensive, simple erasure coding struggles when nodes churn, and adversaries can exploit naive systems. Walrus addresses this with Red Stuff, a two-dimensional erasure coding system that allows self-healing recovery. If part of a file goes missing, only the lost pieces are rebuilt, not the entire blob. It also works in asynchronous networks where messages arrive out of order, closing gaps attackers could exploit. For me, that’s reassuring because it treats real-world chaos as normal, not an edge case. Machines fail, nodes leave, networks slow down. A system that can quietly recover over time isn’t just technically smart—it feels trustworthy.
Seeing Walrus move into production made me realize this is more than theory. The mainnet is live with over 100 storage nodes, Epoch 1 started in March 2025, and builders can publish and retrieve blobs, use Walrus Sites, and stake WAL tokens to participate in network governance. That transition from concept to operational system signals real accountability. The code isn’t just smart; the network expects you to depend on it.
For builders, I like how practical the experience is. Testnet is a sandbox that doesn’t guarantee persistence, while mainnet is the production layer where real tokens and consistent functionality matter. That clarity shows respect for users—it tells you what’s safe and what isn’t.
WAL itself is more than a currency. It’s how the network aligns incentives. Staking secures the network, determines governance, and rewards honest participation. It’s not just finance—it’s accountability. Nodes that perform well are rewarded, and lazy or dishonest behavior is disincentivized. That’s the backbone of a decentralized system where reliability isn’t a slogan, it’s a property.
Privacy is handled realistically. Data is split across nodes, so no single actor holds a complete file, and encryption stays at the application level. In a world of leaks, surveillance, and silent policy changes, that’s exactly how I want to handle sensitive information. Verifiable availability becomes the baseline, encryption is the default, and my data stays under my control.
What excites me most is the potential for the next wave of applications. AI, datasets, media, and shared knowledge all need reliable storage. When storage is programmable and durable, creators can keep their work safe, communities can preserve shared knowledge, and builders can ship products without locking themselves into a single point of failure.
I’m not saying Walrus removes all risk forever—no system can—but it changes how storing something important feels. What used to be anxiety becomes quiet confidence. Your memories, your work, your creations stop being renters on the internet and start being residents. That, to me, is the kind of progress that doesn’t need to shout—it just makes me feel safe enough to build, to save, and to create.
@Walrus 🦭/acc #Walrus #walrus $WAL

When I look at decentralized storage, I don’t think distribution itself is the hard part. The real challenge is availability when nodes constantly come and go and when the network has to assume adversarial behavior as a default, not an exception. Most systems end up choosing between two bad options: either full replication, which is safe but insanely expensive at scale, or basic erasure coding, which looks efficient on paper but becomes fragile and costly once repairs start piling up. That’s why Walrus’s Red Stuff caught my attention.
What Red Stuff does differently is how it handles failure and recovery. By using a two-dimensional erasure coding model, data is broken into structured slivers spread across nodes in a grid. If some of those slivers are lost, the system only needs to reconstruct what’s missing, not rebuild the entire blob. To me, that’s a huge deal, because it keeps repair bandwidth proportional to actual loss rather than total data size. At scale, that difference decides whether a storage network survives or collapses under its own maintenance costs.
I also like that Walrus doesn’t treat churn as an edge case. Nodes failing, networks partitioning, hardware dropping offline, this is the normal state of decentralized systems. Red Stuff is designed with that assumption baked in, which prevents the classic failure mode where everything looks fine until churn crosses a threshold and repair traffic overwhelms incentives.
Another important detail is how Red Stuff works in asynchronous networks. Messages don’t arrive in order, timing can’t be trusted, and attackers can exploit latency if the system assumes otherwise. Walrus addresses this by pairing Red Stuff with cryptographic commitments, so storage isn’t taken on faith. Nodes have to prove they still hold the data they claim to store, even in noisy or adversarial conditions.
That same mindset shows up in how Walrus handles change. Storage nodes rotate, committees change by epoch, and reconfiguration is expected, not feared. The protocol includes explicit mechanisms to maintain availability during these transitions instead of pausing the network or risking data loss.
I’m not blind to the risks here. Red Stuff is more complex than naive replication, and that complexity raises the bar for correct implementation and tooling. If operators don’t understand the system deeply or if bugs slip through, reliability could suffer. Long term, the challenge will be whether the network can sustain this sophistication without becoming operationally fragile.
Still, I see Red Stuff as a real step forward. It doesn’t promise a perfectly stable world. It accepts instability and makes it manageable. And honestly, that’s what real engineering in decentralized systems looks like.
#walrus @Walrus 🦭/acc
$WAL

I’ve been thinking a lot about Plasma and why it feels different from most Layer-1s we see today. To me, it’s one of the few blockchains that clearly knows what it wants to be. Instead of trying to support every possible use case at once, Plasma is built around a single, very real need in crypto: settling stablecoins quickly, cheaply, and reliably.
What stands out is how everything is designed with payments and financial activity in mind. Sub-second finality through PlasmaBFT and full EVM compatibility with PlasmaReth mean developers can deploy familiar Ethereum contracts, but the actual experience feels instant. In payments, remittances, and treasury flows, that kind of speed isn’t a “nice to have,” it’s a requirement.
I also like how Plasma treats stablecoins as the core of the system, not an add-on. Gasless USDT transfers and the ability to pay fees in stablecoins remove a lot of friction that has kept everyday users and even institutions on the sidelines. In many parts of the world, stablecoins already function like digital dollars, and Plasma feels designed for that reality rather than for speculation.
Liquidity is another area where Plasma is quietly proving itself. Seeing one of the largest on-chain lending players operate on the network signals real demand and efficient capital usage. Strong liquidity opens the door to lending, borrowing, settlement, and treasury operations that actually matter for a functioning financial system. That’s why Plasma feels alive, not like a theoretical or abandoned financial layer.
On the security side, the Bitcoin-anchored approach adds an extra layer of trust and neutrality, which is crucial if you’re serious about building long-term financial infrastructure. It makes Plasma more appealing not just to crypto-native users, but also to institutions that care deeply about censorship resistance and durability.
Overall, I don’t see Plasma as just another blockchain competing for attention. I see it as settlement rails for a stablecoin-driven economy, focused on familiar tools for developers, optimized performance for payments, deep liquidity, and strong security. If stablecoins are going to underpin global finance, I can see Plasma becoming part of the permanent infrastructure that supports that at scale.
@Plasma $XPL
#Plasma #Plasma

When I look at Vanar Chain, what stands out to me is how little it asks builders to change. Real adoption doesn’t happen when developers are forced to relearn tools or rebuild their entire workflow, and Vanar seems to understand that deeply. Instead of being loud or disruptive, it fits quietly into environments developers already know, becoming useful first and visible later.
I see Vanar as a Layer-1 that’s clearly built with mainstream applications in mind. It focuses on industries where users already exist gaming, entertainment, brands, AI, and immersive experiences rather than chasing abstract use cases. The team’s background with real game studios and global brands shows in how the infrastructure feels production-ready, not like an experiment or a demo.
What I appreciate is how Vanar turns blockchain complexity into something readable and practical through products like Virtua Metaverse and the VGN games network. It feels less like “use a blockchain” and more like “build a product that happens to use blockchain under the hood.”
From a technical side, everything is optimized for performance and low friction. Developers can spend their energy creating experiences instead of fighting architectural constraints. The VANRY token also plays a role in aligning incentives between builders, creators, and users, which is something many ecosystems talk about but rarely execute well.
I don’t think Vanar is trying to grab attention for the sake of it. By meeting developers where they already live and work, it’s quietly positioning itself as the infrastructure that can bring the next wave of users into Web3 without forcing it on them.
@Vanarchain $VANRY
#vanar #vanar