I don't know if you followed the news about the "Anthropic Challenge to Riemann Conjecture Failed" a few days ago: Anthropic conducted an experiment where they had an unpublished version of Claude's research seriously attempt to solve the Riemann hypothesis; Although it did not prove successful in the end, it unexpectedly pushed a mathematical record that had been advancing extremely slowly for decades, from 41.6% to 67.2% in one breath. A group friend asked me this question in a private chat: AI has already begun to break the Riemann hypothesis, which involves prime numbers. Modern cryptography is built on prime numbers, so the cryptography of Bitcoin may be cracked in the future. Will BTC be under long-term pressure as a result? I don't think there will be any impact in the short term; From a technical perspective, the ownership security of Bitcoin relies on the secp256k1 elliptic curve as its core. Simple understanding: I have a private key, which is obtained through mathematical operations to generate a public key. Others know the public key, algorithms, and even the entire set of mathematical rules, but it is still almost impossible to deduce the private key from the public key under existing computing conditions. The real reliance behind this is the elliptic curve discrete logarithm problem. The Riemann hypothesis mainly studies the relationship between the zero point of the Riemann zeta function and the distribution of prime numbers. Both sides certainly belong to the big field of number theory, but just because they both know the neighbor of "prime numbers", it cannot be said that once the Riemann hypothesis is proven, the Bitcoin private key will disappear naked the next day. How do we generally define security in cryptography? Many times, it is not an absolute unbreakable problem, but a cost issue. Assuming it takes 1 billion years to crack a private key, it is economically secure; If one day a new algorithm compresses it to one million years, it will still have no impact; If compressed to 100 years, the academic community will start to be very tense. Any system that relies on cryptography must accept a fact: A problem that is considered computationally infeasible today does not necessarily mean it will never be feasible. In a sense, human civilization has always been moving forward in this way. We first invented locks, and then someone researched how to unlock them; After the lock is pried open, invent a better lock. Cryptography, financial systems, cybersecurity, and even law are essentially a never-ending battle. AI may become both the smarter locksmith and the person who helps us design the next generation of locks. What I prefer to believe is that as long as the cost of attacks is still much higher than the benefits, as long as new risks can be detected in advance, and as long as the network still has the ability to migrate through consensus, then the security of Bitcoin will still hold true!