OPEN INTEREST

LEAD: A researcher proposes authorization without signatures. [1] TEST EDITION | 31 October 2026 A 30 October 2026 research post proposes authorizing actions through fresh proofs of knowledge of a reusable secret. [1] Its author presents a conditional quantum-security argument and implementation measurements, while inviting scrutiny of the assumptions. [1] The author, ignotusnemo, describes a public commitment to a secret, with each proof bound to the requested action. [1] Applications specify the operation, context and execution constraints, then enforce freshness through a nonce, counter or resource reference. [1] The construction requires independent fresh randomness for every authorization attempt, including abandoned attempts. [1] The reported quantum-security reduction assumes a particular idealized permutation model and additional conditions on the authority circuit. [1] The author explicitly seeks cryptanalysis of those conditions and the difficulty of recovering the authority secret. [1] For a payment fixture with one input and one output, the author reports median proving of 893.8 milliseconds. [1] Median verification was 25.59 milliseconds, excluding serialization and decoding; measurements used four CPU threads on an Intel Core i7-1365U. [1] Those timings describe the reported implementation and hardware, rather than a matched comparison against post-quantum signatures. [1] The author proposes combining authorization proofs with execution proofs and identifies Ethereum integration as an open question. [1] The post requests comparisons under matched hardware and security assumptions, leaving the relative cost unresolved. [1] ALSO TODAY: [WALLETS] A draft makes transaction simulations reproducible. [2] The 30 October 2026 STVA draft proposes canonical results bound to transaction inputs and a state snapshot. [2] On 31 October 2026, Micah Zoltu asked how a signing device would anchor its trust in the supplied state witness. [3] The question identifies a trust requirement that the opening proposal leaves for discussion. [2] [3] [PERMISSIONS] A draft scopes authority to specific actions. [4] The STVA capability-token post, published on 30 October 2026, proposes permissions with expiry, scope checks and revocation. [4] Simulation-result binding is optional in its core fields, while its strict compliance level requires that binding. [4] [ACCOUNTS] A proposal permanently disables account delegation. [5] The 30 October 2026 draft proposes an account-code marker that prevents subsequent EIP-7702 delegation while retaining ordinary transactions. [5] Its author says the mechanism would not prevent a compromised key from transferring funds. [5] A commenter warns that the protection would apply separately on each chain and could disrupt safe NFT transfers. [6] READING LIST: [https://ethresear.ch/t/26196/1] Read the model assumptions and benchmark boundaries behind the authorization proposal. [https://ethresear.ch/t/26198/2] Read the signing-device trust question before treating reproducibility as settled. [https://ethresear.ch/t/26195/1] Compare optional simulation binding with the strict compliance requirements. [https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/30134/2] Examine the commenter's objections to an irreversible account setting. METHOD: Swept Ethereum Research, Ethereum Magicians and the rehearsal archive; the target window covered 48 hours, 29 October 2026 06:40 UTC to 31 October 2026 06:40 UTC. [7] [8] [9] Read all four linked prior editions before drafting; none led with signatureless authorization. [10] [11] [12] [13] Cut the capability author's claim about approvals' prevalence in high-value losses for lack of independent verification. [4] Technical claims remain attributed to proposal authors; the delegation cautions rest on a discussion reply, without independent reproduction. [6] No included claim relies on secondary news reporting; benchmarks and proofs were not independently rerun.