hodler

21 Feb 2026, 11:43

Cardano Welcomes New Smart Contract Release Ahead of Intra Era Hard Fork

Cardano's intra-era hard fork to protocol version 11 introduces targeted improvements across Plutus performance, ledger consistency and node-level security.

21 Feb 2026, 01:43

Ethereum’s hard turn signals rising pressure from high-performance rivals

Ethereum’s recent protocol upgrades suggest more than incremental improvements as high-performance competitors chip away at its dominance. Vitalik Buterin detailed the plan to build what he called a “cypherpunk principled non-ugly Ethereum” — not as a replacement chain, but as a tightly integrated evolution of the existing system. The proposal follows ETH developers formally scheduling Fork-Choice Enforced Inclusion Lists (FOCIL) for the forthcoming Hegota hard fork (currently targeted for late 2026). And with account abstraction updates and long-term architectural changes, that transition signals a broader recalibration of Ethereum’s roadmap at a time when rivals are catching up. The development comes as BNP Paribas Asset Management taps Ethereum for a new blockchain pilot, this time issuing a tokenised share class of a French‑domiciled money market fund. The tokenized shares, issued onchain using BNP Paribas’ AssetFoundryTM platform, will give gated access via a “permissioned access model on ETH … whereby holdings and transfers are restricted to eligible and authorised participants, in line with applicable regulatory requirements,” according to the announcement. Ethereum targets rival chains with Base-Layer overhaul and ZK integration FOCIL, known as EIP-7805, aims to improve Ethereum’s censorship resistance at the protocol level by forcing validators to include all transactions. The mechanism would allow validator committees to apply fork-choice rules and inclusion lists to force the inclusion of transactions. If the proposed block fails to include legitimate public mempool transactions, the chain can fork, allowing inclusion within a limited number of slots at once. The native account abstraction mechanism is introduced in EIP-8141 and is also in the pipeline for Hegota. Ethereum’s scaling strategy has relied for years on a rollup-first roadmap, driving execution into Layer 2 networks but leaving the base layer relatively lean. But Buterin’s recent rhetoric points to a different emphasis. Instead of relying solely on rollups to improve scalability and ease user experience, Ethereum is turning its attention to improving the architecture of its base layer. Buterin has also advised longer-term structural changes. This includes embedding zero-knowledge (ZK) proofs into Layer 1 validation in a proposed “Beam Chain”. The timing is notable. High-performance Layer 1 chains like Solana have become popular for their high throughput, low fees, and simplified user experience, despite their monolithic architecture. With Ethereum’s growing modularity, these networks handle transaction processing on a single layer, reducing fragmentation. While the blockchain network’s multiple rollup model has improved scalability, it has also made issues more complex — specifically around liquidity, bridging, and user experience. As rival ecosystems seek simplicity and speed, Ethereum seems set to recalibrate. Buterin recently likened those upcoming changes to what he described as a “jet engine changes in-flight” of sorts, referencing the network’s 2022 move to proof-of-stake. He even considered multiple potentially larger transformations of Ethereum (state tree rewrites, leaner consensus, ZK-native validation, virtual machine changes). Base-layer upgrades reinforce security and neutrality Instead of fragmentation through Layer 2s and competing EVM-based chains, Ethereum’s leadership seems set upon recapturing architectural control back at the base layer. The “hard turn” has less to do with delivering throughput and more with upholding the features that the network itself was built around: censorship resistance, neutrality, and cryptographic robustness. The extent to which this recalibration is a defensive move, a stand against its high-performance rivals, or a natural evolution of Ethereum’s roadmap remains open to debate. But what is unambiguous is that Ethereum is no longer willing to rely solely on rollups for its future growth. To that end, as high-speed rivals recalibrate expectations for blockchain performance, Ethereum is betting that hardening its core — while streamlining its long-term architecture — will help position it as the industry’s bedrock settlement layer. The bet may pay off in the next phase, starting with Hegota. Want your project in front of crypto’s top minds? Feature it in our next industry report, where data meets impact.

20 Feb 2026, 16:13

Can Bitcoin Handle the Threat from Quantum Computing?

Quantum computing has recently become one of the biggest open questions in Bitcoin, particularly for institutions . Not because a breakthrough is considered imminent, but because long-horizon tail risks matter. If quantum machines ever reached the right scale, they could theoretically target the cryptography upon which Bitcoin relies, raising uncomfortable questions not only about security but what happens to long-dormant coins if key recovery ever becomes feasible. What’s changed isn’t the underlying risk model — it’s that the ecosystem is now starting to treat it as an engineering and governance problem, not just a thought experiment. That includes everything from emphasising basic wallet hygiene to longer-range upgrade paths like BIP 360. Before any of that, though, it’s worth being clear on what quantum actually threatens — and how. What Quantum Changes: Shor vs. Grover Bitcoin ownership relies on digital signatures — ECDSA historically, with Taproot supporting Schnorr signatures ( BIP340 ). Both rely on the same elliptic curve, secp256k1. Private keys generate public keys through elliptic-curve mathematics. Reversing that relationship — deriving a private key from a public key — is considered infeasible for classical computers. A fault-tolerant quantum computer capable of running Shor’s algorithm at cryptographically relevant scale, however, could theoretically solve the elliptic-curve discrete logarithm problem, allowing an attacker to forge valid signatures and steal funds. Of secondary concern is Grover’s algorithm . It doesn’t “break” SHA-256 , but it could reduce the work needed to find a valid proof-of-work output, potentially altering mining economics and introducing centralisation concerns — though only if a quantum miner can outpace today’s ASICs, an engineering feat well beyond running Grover itself. Shor-related concerns are therefore considered more urgent because they target Bitcoin’s ownership layer in a more immediate sense in the event of any meaningful quantum breakthrough. Exposure Profiles: Long vs. Short Shor is only relevant, however, once a public key becomes visible on-chain. Coins vulnerable to long exposure are those whose public keys are visible when a UTXO is created or remain visible for extended periods. These include early Bitcoin P2PK (pay-to-public-key) outputs, reused addresses that tie funds to keys revealed during earlier spends, and Taproot (P2TR) outputs, which commit to a (tweaked) public key in the UTXO itself. In these cases, public keys are visible well before any spend, representing a “harvest now, attack later” threat if quantum capability matures. Modern wallet outputs such as P2PKH (legacy) and P2WPKH (SegWit) use hashed-pubkey constructions that only reveal the public key once the output is spent. The exposure window here is far shorter — and less practical at scale — requiring an attacker to derive the private key and broadcast a conflicting spend within the few blocks needed for the legitimate transaction to confirm. Estimates of how many coins are exposed vary. Some analyses claim that 20–50% of supply could be vulnerable under broad threat assumptions. Others argue this conflates theoretical exposure with practical exploitability, especially where risk is limited to short “mempool race” windows or where exposed coins are dispersed across many smaller UTXOs. One widely cited report places the concentrated, materially exposed subset closer to ~10,200 BTC. The key takeaway is that the threat is real but not uniform — and the attack surface, in practice, narrower than it sounds. The Fault-Tolerance Bottleneck All of the above presupposes fault-tolerant quantum computers operating at cryptographically relevant scale. Breaking Bitcoin’s elliptic-curve signatures would likely require millions of physical qubits operating with sufficient error correction to yield the stable logical qubits such attacks depend on. One recent report suggests this could require machines roughly 100,000× more powerful than those publicly known today. Views on when — or even whether — this will happen vary, with many serious discussions clustering in the mid-2030s to mid-2040s. What is less disputed is that if meaningful capability ever materialises, any response will need to have been coordinated well in advance. Migration and Post-Quantum Standards The main challenge to any response lies in how Bitcoin transitions to something resilient to quantum threats under throughput limits, uneven incentives and contentious governance trade-offs. In 2024, NIST finalised post-quantum standards including lattice-based ML-DSA (Dilithium) and SLH-DSA (SPHINCS+), anchoring the candidate set large systems are converging on. For Bitcoin, any migration would likely be staged: introducing new, safer output types and wallet defaults, and potentially a transition period involving hybrid spends that require classical and post-quantum proofs. Trade-offs are unavoidable — post-quantum signatures tend to be larger and heavier to verify, increasing bandwidth and validation costs. There are multiple plausible directions beyond any single proposal, including new post-quantum-capable output types, hybrid signature policies during transition, and wallet-default shifts designed to reduce long-lived public-key exposure over time. A soft fork is the most likely mechanism for introducing new output types. A hard fork is possible, but it is a messy solution risking chain splits if stakeholders disagree. BIP 360: P2MR as Incremental Hardening BIP 360 — recently merged into the BIPs repository — is the most concrete attempt yet to translate “quantum readiness” into an incremental, Bitcoin-native proposal. It introduces a new output type, Pay-to-Merkle-Root (P2MR), designed to operate similarly to Taproot but with key-path spending removed. Specifically, it aims to reduce reliance on long-lived embedded public keys most at risk from “harvest now, attack later,” without forcing Bitcoin to immediately select and deploy heavyweight post-quantum signature schemes. Conceptually, P2MR is “Taproot-like script trees, but no key-path.” Spends must reveal a script path and a Merkle proof, which is less compact than a Taproot key-path spend. The trade-off is larger witnesses in exchange for reducing a long-exposure pattern threatened by Shor. BIP 360 frames P2MR as foundational rather than final. It directly addresses long-exposure patterns, while mempool-race scenarios and the broader shift to post-quantum signatures would require separate follow-on work. Crucially, the proposal also surfaces an issue any credible migration plan must reckon with: even with opt-in upgrades and changing wallet defaults, a meaningful portion of the UTXO set may remain on legacy outputs for a very long time. Dormant holdings, lost keys, institutional custody constraints, and simple inertia create UTXOs that may never voluntarily move. If cryptographically relevant quantum capability ever arrives, some long-exposed coins whose owners are unreachable could, in principle, be swept by whoever can derive their keys. Even if that is “just” theft rather than protocol failure, the consequences could be severe: it would undermine confidence, trigger emergency policy responses, and — in the case of large dormant clusters — raise fears of sudden supply becoming liquid. Proposals to freeze or otherwise treat unmigrated coins differently, however, raise politically explosive questions about immutability, neutrality, and property rights. Proposals to freeze or otherwise treat unmigrated coins differently, however, raise politically explosive questions about immutability, neutrality, and property rights. The risk of deadlock is why planning early matters, even if timelines remain uncertain. Risks, Reality and Readiness Quantum is a real, long-horizon challenge for Bitcoin. It isn’t, however, an existential cliff edge. The risk is uneven, tied to specific exposure profiles and subject to hardware timelines that remain genuinely uncertain. Importantly, it’s not arriving into a vacuum: developers are already sketching credible migration paths: the kind of long-range planning that matters as much to institutions as it does to anyone holding Bitcoin for the long term. The hardest part for now is coordination. Any transition will be slow — potentially taking years — contested and complicated by coins that never move. But Bitcoin is conservative by design, and that conservatism is a feature, making staged, opt-in change possible without forcing everyone onto a single rushed deadline. Taproot is a recent reminder that meaningful upgrades can ship when the case is clear and incentives align. Taken together, that points to the only posture that really makes sense for now: as with everything, preparation beats panic — and Bitcoin still has time to prepare. The post Can Bitcoin Handle the Threat from Quantum Computing? appeared first on Bitfinex blog .

20 Feb 2026, 16:00

Cardano Hard Fork Expected Next Month, Leios Still ‘This Year’: Hoskinson

Charles Hoskinson said Cardano is tracking toward a hard fork “next month,” while the long-discussed Leios scalability work remains on schedule for “this year,” in a Feb. 19 livestream recorded after a trip through Japan and a stop at Consensus in Hong Kong. Hoskinson framed the next few weeks as a convergence point for two parallel roadmaps: Cardano’s protocol and developer-stack upgrades on one side, and the Midnight network launch he expects “coming next month” on the other, an effort he described as unusually difficult to execute even for teams with prior experience shipping major chains. Cardano Momentum: Midnight, LayerZero And USDCx In the livestream , Hoskinson spent his opening stretch recapping what he characterized as a productive Consensus week, pointing to “a lot of great announcements” and relationships around the Midnight ecosystem, including infrastructure and distribution names he said were involved with the network. He argued that the ability to launch a large, exchange-listed project like Midnight is itself a signal about Cardano’s maturity as a platform for “tier one” efforts. On the Cardano side, he highlighted a newly announced LayerZero integration that he said connects Cardano “to more than 80 blockchains,” positioning it as a step away from the perception that the network operates in isolation. In the same segment, Hoskinson pointed to USDCx as a stablecoin-like asset he said is designed for “these non-EVM systems,” and emphasized the user-experience work around exchange flows—“autoconvert,” as he described it, so users can move value “straight to the exchange, straight back from the exchange.” He also drew a distinction between USDCx and “basically USDC,” saying the tradeoff for Cardano users is an asset that, in his telling, preserves “privacy” and “can’t be frozen.” Hoskinson positioned that as “the best compromise” available for a “tier one stablecoin of that nature” in the Cardano ecosystem, while arguing that the LayerZero integration could open the door to “eight major stablecoins” over time, depending on integration sequencing. Hard Fork ‘Next Month,’ Leios ‘This Year’ The most concrete near-term timing signal came when Hoskinson addressed the protocol schedule directly, saying: “Cardano hard fork is happening I believe next month. But you know the community is kind of working its way through that and getting these things done.” In the same breath, he reiterated that Leios, Cardano’s scalability initiative, remains on track, noting recent travel and discussions with product manager Michael Smolenski about progress. “All things considered we’re pretty happy with the rate of progress of Cardano,” Hoskinson said, while also pointing to a new Plutus version, continued development of Aiken, and “node diversity coming this year,” alongside Leios. Hoskinson also flagged developer activity he expects in March, referencing a “Dev Builder Fest down in Argentina” and describing the “ integration of Pyth ” into the ecosystem, which he presented as the arrival of a “tier one Oracle” for Cardano. Beyond shipping timelines, Hoskinson used the livestream to argue that the industry’s central fight is shifting from enforcement actions to culture and narrative, particularly around non-custodial wallets and permissionless settlement. He warned about what he called “factions” that want crypto transactions routed through “permission federated networks owned and operated by large financial institutions,” and singled out US policy debates as part of that backdrop. “What’s not okay is to build a network that’s forever owned and operated by five or 10 or 20 banks and they basically lord and leverage that power and position over the users,” he said. “And once they have absolute control, they just simply flip a switch and you’re at their mercy and they own all your money. And unfortunately, the system is moving in that direction right now.” At press time, ADA traded at $0.2748.

20 Feb 2026, 13:46

Charles Edwards: Quantum Computing Could Lead To Bitcoin Undervaluation

Key Highlights: Charles Edwards suggests investors may already be pricing a “quantum discount,” valuing Bitcoin about 20% below fair value due to the future risk of “Q-Day”. The concern focuses on elliptic curve cryptography, which could be broken by advanced quantum machines within the next decade, prompting forward-looking market adjustments. Without timely quantum-resistant upgrades, the discount on Bitcoin’s valuation could widen further, as investors factor in rising probabilities of large-scale cryptographic disruption. Quantum computing has quickly become one of the threats to Bitcoin’s long-term value. A recent analysis shared by Charles Edwards, founder of Bitcoin and digital asset quant fund Capriole Investments, reveals that the market may already be pricing in a discount linked to the future threat posed by advanced quantum machines. According to Edwards’ analysis, rational investors could be valuing Bitcoin roughly 20% below its fair value today due to what he calls the statistical probability of “Q-Day,” the moment when quantum computers become capable of breaking the cryptography that secures the network. Quantum Computing : A Threat to Bitcoin’s Future? The concern focuses on elliptic curve cryptography, which lies at the base of Bitcoin’s wallet security and transaction signatures. Current projections show that within the next decade, quantum systems may reach the level required to break this encryption. Research cited in the report indicates that the probability of this happening could reach 60% by 2030 and 80% by 2031. These estimates are based on rapid advances in qubit development, with quantum firms reportedly doubling capacity every 18 months. Edwards argues that markets are forward looking. As a result, investors are already factoring this risk into current prices. The report introduces what it calls a “Quantum Discount Factor,” which adjusts Bitcoin’s fair value based on the likelihood that quantum threats emerge before the network upgrades its cryptography. The current estimate places that discount at 20% for 2026. If development of quantum-resistant solutions does not happen, the discount could rise to 40% next year and 60% the year after. The analysis further suggests that Bitcoin may have entered a critical phase described as the “Quantum Event Horizon” in 2025. This is the period when the estimated time remaining before Q-Day roughly aligns with the time needed to deploy and activate protocol upgrades across the network. Because Bitcoin operates through decentralized consensus, major technical changes often take years to design, test, and implement. Market behavior in the past year is cited as supporting evidence. According to Edwards, even with a favorable macro environment that included a post-halving supply reduction and strong global liquidity, Bitcoin recorded its first negative post-halving year and lagged behind traditional assets such as gold and major equity indices. The report links this underperformance to institutional investors adjusting their risk models in response to quantum computing developments. The paper also touches upon a common belief that traditional banks would be more exposed to quantum threats. It argues that centralized financial systems have more flexibility to upgrade security protocols quickly, freeze accounts, or reverse transactions if needed. Bitcoin’s decentralized structure does not allow for such measures. Edwards also added that a large portion of the total Bitcoin supply is associated with early wallets that have already exposed public keys on-chain. This makes them potential targets if quantum capabilities arrive suddenly. For security in a post-quantum environment, the network would need to migrate the majority of active coins to new addresses protected by quantum-resistant signatures. This process would need a formal Bitcoin Improvement Proposal and broad agreement among developers, miners, and users. The report notes that no finalized proposal currently exists, even as preliminary technical steps have begun to appear in recent code updates. Another challenge involves so-called lost or inactive coins. These holdings cannot be moved by their original owners, which raises the risk that a future attacker could gain control of them and release large amounts of Bitcoin onto the market. The report shares several possible ways, including time-based rules that could restrict unmigrated coins after a certain period. However, these measures do remain controversial within the community. Even with these risks, the report highlights early signs of progress. Developers have started laying groundwork for potential upgrades, and some institutional participants have launched dedicated initiatives to study quantum resilience. But, Edwards stresses that progress on quantum-resistant technology needs to accelerate. Also Read: Kevin O’Leary Flags Quantum Computing Risk Amid Bitcoin’s Volatility

20 Feb 2026, 10:31

First Permissioned Offer Created on XRP DEX

The XRP Ledger has reached a new milestone with the first permissioned offer executed on its decentralized exchange. This event marks the launch of a functionality that allows participants to set compliance requirements for trading. Accounts can now specify that only KYC-verified participants may engage with their offers, creating a regulatory-aligned environment for digital asset trading. Details of the First Transaction The transaction, recorded on February 18, 2026, involved an offer to pay 5.89 XRP in exchange for 589 RLUSD. It was designated as “PERMISSIONED” and linked to a specific DomainID. This demonstrates the integration of the newly activated permissioned DEX amendment , which operates in sequence with previously established permissioned domains. Vet (@Vet_X0), a validator on the XRP Ledger, shared the details of this transaction. The launch of this feature enables trading that specifies compliance requirements. This move is a game-changer for XRP, as this sequence of protocol upgrades removes barriers that previously hindered institutional adoption . First permissioned offer was created on the XRP DEX. You can now trade on the XRP DEX and specify compliance requirements that have to match in order to trade with you. E.g only KYC'ed accounts. pic.twitter.com/v18QMxIvBN — Vet (@Vet_X0) February 18, 2026 Role of Permissioned Domains Permissioned domains on the XRP Ledger define zones where account participation is controlled through on-chain credentials. These credentials serve as proof of identity or compliance, ensuring that only verified entities can interact within the domain. By associating permissioned offers with a DomainID, the ledger enforces these compliance rules on trades. This framework allows institutions to engage with digital assets on-chain while adhering to regulatory obligations, including anti-money-laundering and know-your-customer standards. How the Permissioned DEX Operates The permissioned DEX maintains the speed and efficiency of the public XRP Ledger while introducing structured access. Each domain can operate as a separate market, with order books restricted to participants meeting credential requirements. Trades occur exclusively within the domain’s permissioned framework, but the ledger’s decentralized settlement ensures reliability and transparency. Institutions can now place offers knowing that all counterparties meet predetermined compliance criteria. This step is critical for regulated entities entering digital asset markets. We are on X, follow us to connect with us :- @TimesTabloid1 — TimesTabloid (@TimesTabloid1) June 15, 2025 Significance for Institutional Adoption This development aligns with ongoing efforts to expand institutional participation in digital assets. The combination of credentials, permissioned domains, and the permissioned DEX enables regulated trading without compromising the ledger’s open infrastructure. Participants can verify counterparties on-chain, reducing the need for external oversight. This creates a controlled trading environment that still benefits from XRP’s fast settlement. By providing tools for identity verification, domain-based restrictions, and credentialed participation, XRP positions itself as a digital asset capable of bridging regulatory requirements with decentralized finance. Disclaimer : This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author’s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloid’s opinion. Readers are advised to conduct thorough research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses. Follow us on X , Facebook , Telegram , and Google News The post First Permissioned Offer Created on XRP DEX appeared first on Times Tabloid .