@ 000002de:c05780a7

Just an observation that makes me chuckle.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/974829

@ 000002de:c05780a7

There are so many projects in the bitcoin space that deserve praise but I just wanna shout out Cashu.me. Its a browser based cashu (eCash / Lighting) wallet. It can be very handy when you need a wallet but don't wanna download yet another app. I hadn't used it in a very long time and decided to try it out again the other day. Its really well done.

As with other Cashu wallets you need to select a mint and backup your key phrase but it is very simple the get started.

If you wanna learn more about Cashu check out Cashu.space

Two other good wallets that support Cashu.

• coinos
• Minibits.cash

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/974759

@ 0861144c:e68a1caf

May 7th - Asuncion, Paraguay

We made trhe 11th meetup of our community. This time, we reached an ATH of atendees, almost 150 people. This time, we were talking about bitcoin for begginers and for the main event I made a presentation a about Robosats, encouraging people to take orders, buy bitcoin and most of it, make your life better.

The motto this time was: this is not about being a trader. It's about happiness.

Bitcoin can help you find new ways to explore the best version of yourself because right now people are looking anti-inflation methods for not lose money. In every meetup, we're encouraging our new members to embrace and adopt bitcoin for their products/services.

Most of them are skeptics (at first) when I say that Lightning Network is cheaper as f**k. I show them the fee paid, their eyes...it's the aha moment for them.

I'm happy and bullish af.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/974608

@ 7e538978:a5987ab6

E-commerce store owners can now integrate Bitcoin payments into their WooCommerce shops using the LNbits WooCommerce plugin. This plugin supports payments using the Bitcoin Lightning Network and on-chain Bitcoin, providing merchants with flexible options to accept Bitcoin.

Integration with Bitcoin Payments

The LNbits WooCommerce plugin enables online merchants to accept Bitcoin payments easily. It uses LNbits to handle Bitcoin Lightning and traditional on-chain transactions, offering customers efficient payment methods.

Recent updates include support for Gutenberg block checkout integration, ensuring compatibility with the latest WooCommerce versions and improving the checkout experience for merchants and customers alike.

How the LNbits Plugin Works

The plugin integrates with LNbits through the Satspay Server extension. Lightning Network transactions are handled by LNbits. Merchants can manage on-chain payments via LNbits' Watch-only wallet extension.

Setup Steps for Merchants

The setup process for the LNbits WooCommerce plugin involves a few simple steps:

1. Run an LNbits instance – either self-host or use the LNbits SaaS service at saas.lnbits.com.
2. Install the Satspay Server extension within your LNbits instance.
3. Add the LNbits plugin to your WordPress site.
4. Configure the plugin via WooCommerce admin panel under WooCommerce > Settings > Payments.

Start Accepting Bitcoin Payments

By accepting Bitcoin payments, merchants offer customers a secure and efficient alternative payment method. Integrating the LNbits WooCommerce plugin is straightforward and aligns with the increasing adoption of cryptocurrency in online retail.

For further details, visit the official plugin page:

WordPress Plugin Directory – LNbits Bitcoin Onchain and Lightning Payment Gateway

@ 7460b7fd:4fc4e74b

背景与研究范围

Backpack 是由多名前 FTX 和 Alameda 员工在 FTX 崩盘后创立的一家加密交易平台，与 Amber Group（一家大型加密金融服务商）和已倒闭的交易所 FTX 之间可能存在多重隐秘关联。本研究超越公开新闻，从团队延续、资金路径、合规架构、基础设施复用和链上迹象等角度，推理分析三者之间的联系。下文将分别讨论：团队与股权延续性、法币出金（稳定币清算）架构、Amber Group 的支持角色、Circle/Equals Money 等第三方的关联，以及“交叉代币解锁”机制的可能性，并给出关键证据与信息缺口。

团队与股权上的延续性

首先，在团队方面，Backpack 由多名 FTX/Alameda 前成员创立。据报道，Backpack 的联合创始人包括前 Alameda Research 早期员工 Armani Ferrante，以及 FTX 前总法律顾问 Can Suncoinspeaker.com；另一位联合创始人 Tristan Yver 也曾任职于 FTX/Alamedanftgators.com。据 CoinSpeaker 披露，Backpack 40名员工中至少有5人是 FTX 前员工coinspeaker.com。这表明 Backpack 在团队传承上与 FTX 存在明显延续。一方面，创始团队直接来自原 FTX 帝国的核心人员；另一方面，他们将过往在大型交易所积累的经验带入了 Backpack。

其次，在股权投资方面也有延续痕迹。早在2022年9月，Backpack 背后的公司 Coral 即获得了由 FTX Ventures 领投的2000万美元种子轮融资，用于开发 Backpack xNFT 钱包等产品nftgators.com。然而由于2022年11月FTX暴雷，这笔来自 FTX 的投资资金大部分被冻结损失nftgators.com。在经历了资金困难的“蟑螂生存模式”后，Backpack 团队于2023-2024年重新融资，成功在2024年2月完成1700万美元的 A 轮融资nftgators.com。值得注意的是，此轮融资的投资阵容中出现了 Amber Group 的身影nftgators.com。Amber Group 与 Placeholder、Hashed、Wintermute 等知名机构共同参与了该轮融资coinspeaker.com。这意味着 Amber 已经成为 Backpack 股东之一，在股权上建立了联系。此外，Jump Crypto 和 Delphi Digital 等与 FTX时代关系密切的机构也参与了投资nftgators.com。综上， Backpack 的股东和团队构成反映出明显的历史延续：既有原FTX系资本（FTX Ventures）和人员直接过渡，也有 Amber Group 等行业巨头在FTX倒台后入场接棒投资，为 Backpack 提供资金和资源支持。

法币出金架构与 USDC 清算渠道

FTX 时代的稳定币清算： 为了解 Backpack 是否继承了 FTX 的 USDC 清算架构，需要回顾 FTX 过往的法币出入金体系。FTX 在运营高峰时期，以其流畅的出入金和稳定币兑换闻名。用户可以将 USDC 等稳定币充值到 FTX 并直接视同美元资产使用，提取时又能以银行电汇方式取出美元，过程中几乎无汇兑损耗。这背后可能依赖于 FTX 与 Circle 等机构的直接清算合作，以及自有银行网络的支持。例如，Circle 提供的企业账户服务可以让像FTX这样的平台在后台实现USDC与美元的1:1兑换与清算circle.com。事实上，FTX 曾是 USDC 的主要场景之一，大量用户通过将美元换成 USDC 再转入FTX进行交易，从而绕过昂贵的跨境汇款费用。FTX 很可能建立了高效的稳定币兑换通道——例如通过 Silvergate 银行网络或与稳定币发行方直接交割——来实现低成本、快速的法币⇄USDC 转换。这套“USDC 清算架构”是FTX业务成功的重要基础之一。

Backpack 的出金方案： Backpack 作为新兴交易所，近期正式推出了类似的法币⇄稳定币出入金功能，并号称实现了“0费率”的美元/USDC转换panewslab.com。根据官方公告，从2025年5月起，Backpack Exchange 用户可以通过电汇方式充值和提取美元，且美元与USDC的兑换不收取任何手续费panewslab.com。这与FTX当年提供的低成本稳定币出入金体验如出一辙，表明 Backpack 很可能在复用或重建一种高效的清算架构。

与FTX相比，Backpack 并未公开具体采用了何种技术/金融渠道来实现0手续费。但通过社区测试和代码线索，可以推测其架构与FTX思路相似：首先， Backpack 将美元法币与USDC稳定币视为等价资产开放存取，用户电汇美元到账后在平台得到USDC或美元余额，提币时可用USDC直接提走或兑换成美元汇出。其次， Backpack 可能通过与稳定币发行方Circle的合作，或通过场外流动性方，将用户的USDC和法币进行实时对冲清算。Circle提供的API允许合规企业账户方便地将USDC兑换为美元存入银行账户circle.com；Backpack 很可能利用了这一渠道，在后台完成USDC的兑换，再通过银行网络把美元汇给用户。虽然Backpack官方未明言使用Circle，但其USDC通道开放的举措本身就体现了Circle所倡导的稳定币跨境支付应用场景circle.com。因此，从设计上看，Backpack 的法币出入金体系是对FTX模式的一种延续和致敬，即充分利用稳定币作为清算中介，实现跨境汇款的低成本与高效率。

银行网络与 Equals Money： 更有意思的是，有社区用户实测 Backpack 的美元提现，发现汇款发起方显示为“Equals Money PLC”btcxiaolinzi.top。Equals Money 是英国一家持有FCA牌照的电子货币机构(EMI)，为企业提供银行转账和外汇服务btcxiaolinzi.top。测试者推断，Backpack 可能在 Equals Money 开立了企业账户，用于代替传统银行向用户汇出美元btcxiaolinzi.top。这一细节揭示了Backpack出金架构的实现路径：Backpack 很可能将待提现的USDC通过某种方式兑换成法币并存入其在Equals Money的账户，由后者完成跨境电汇至用户收款银行。由于Equals Money本质上连接着欧洲和国际支付网络，Backpack借助它可以避开美国传统银行的限制，为全球用户（包括无法直接与美国持牌银行打交道的用户）提供出金服务。这一点在FTX时代并未被广泛报道，但符合FTX/Alameda团队擅长搭建复杂金融通道的作风。由此推断， Backpack 确实在承袭FTX时期的清算理念：利用多层金融机构合作（如稳定币发行方、电子货币机构等），构筑高效的全球资金出入网络。在表面0手续费的背后，可能是由Backpack或其合作方（如做市商）承担了兑换成本，以吸引用户panewslab.com。目前这一体系已进入公开测试及运营阶段，随着更多支付方式（ACH、SEPA）的推出，Backpack正逐步完善其全球法币出入金矩阵panewslab.com。

Amber Group 的潜在支持角色

作为Backpack的重要战略投资方，Amber Group 在该体系中可能扮演多重支持角色。首先是资金层面： Amber参与了Backpack的A轮融资nftgators.com并获得股权，这意味着Amber对Backpack的发展具有直接利益。在FTX倒闭后，Amber选择投资由FTX前团队创立的新交易所，体现出其对这支团队能力和商业模式的认可。Amber本身是知名的加密市场做市和金融服务公司，管理着庞大的资产并具备深厚的流动性提供能力dailycoin.com。因此可以合理推测，Amber除了资本投入，还可能作为做市商为Backpack的交易提供充足的流动性支持，确保用户在Backpack上交易时有良好的市场深度和稳定的价格。这种隐性支持符合许多交易所背后有大做市商“站台”的行业惯例。尤其Backpack定位要提供低成本的稳定币兑换和跨链流动性，Amber在稳定币交易市场的经验和库存或可帮助其维持汇率稳定。

其次是技术与基础设施支持： Amber Group 多年来构建了自己的交易系统（包括托管、风控和前端应用，如之前面向零售的 WhaleFin 应用）。尽管目前未有公开信息表明Backpack直接复用了Amber的技术，但不排除Amber在底层架构上提供咨询或授权支持的可能。例如，Amber深耕多链资产管理和清算，其内部API或合规方案可能对Backpack搭建跨法币/加密的基础设施有所启发。双方如果有合作，极有可能保持低调以避免监管敏感。还有一种支持形式是隐性投资或子基金合作： Amber可能通过旗下基金或关联投资工具，持有Backpack相关业务的权益而不公开身份。然而截至目前，我们尚未发现明确证据证明Amber有这种“隐形”持股行为——Amber作为领投方之一出现于公开融资名单，说明其支持主要还是以正式股权投资和业务协作的方式进行coinspeaker.com。

第三是合规与网络资源： Amber在全球（尤其亚洲）拥有广泛的业务网络和合规资源。Backpack注册在阿联酋迪拜，并计划拓展美国、日本、欧洲等市场learn.backpack.exchangelearn.backpack.exchange。Amber总部位于亚洲（最初在香港，新加坡等地开展业务），对东亚和东南亚市场非常了解。Amber的联合创始人团队中有合规专家，曾帮助公司获取多地牌照。Backpack的联合创始人之一（Can Sun）本身是前FTX法务，这保证了内部合规经验，但Amber的外部资源也可能提供协助。例如，Amber在香港与监管机构打交道的经验，或许有助于Backpack寻求香港或东南亚牌照；Amber在银行业和支付领域的关系网络，也可能帮助Backpack连接银行通道（如引荐像Equals Money这样的机构）。虽然这方面多属于推测，但考虑到Amber投资后通常会积极赋能被投企业，Backpack有理由从Amber处获得合规咨询、市场拓展等方面的帮助。

总的来看，Amber Group 对 Backpack 的支持可能是**“润物细无声”**式的：既体现在台前的融资与做市合作，也体现在幕后的资源共享和经验输出。这种支持帮助Backpack在短时间内补齐了从交易技术到法币通道的诸多要素，使其有能力低成本快速上线类似FTX当年的核心功能（如稳定币快速出入金）。然而，由于双方都未公开详述合作细节，我们对Amber介入的深度仍缺乏直接证据，只能从结果倒推其可能性。

Circle、Equals Money 等第三方的关联

在Backpack、FTX与Amber的关系网络中，Circle和Equals Money等第三方机构扮演了关键“节点”，它们的出现为三者合作提供了基础设施支撑：

• Circle（USDC发行方）： Circle公司本身与FTX及Backpack都有千丝万缕的业务联系。FTX在世时是USDC重要的使用方，帮助USDC拓展了交易所场景；FTX垮台后，Backpack继续扛起“稳定币交易所”的大旗，大量采用USDC作为美元计价和清算工具panewslab.com。虽然我们没有公开材料直接指出Backpack已与Circle签署合作协议，但Backpack推出USD/USDC通道的举措实际是在推动USDC的使用，这与Circle致力于扩大USDC应用的战略不谋而合circle.com。Circle近年来打造跨境支付网络，与多家交易平台和金融机构合作提供法币-稳定币转换服务circle.com。因此，有理由相信Backpack在后台利用了Circle的流动性或API来实现用户提币时的USDC兑换和赎回。比如，当用户在Backpack提取美元，Backpack可能将等额USDC通过Circle赎回成美元，Circle则将该美元汇入Backpack的银行账户进行出金。这种模式其实正是Circle提供给企业客户的“稳定币托管清算”服务之一circle.com。换言之，Circle充当了Backpack法币出金链条中的关键一环，尽管普通用户感知不到它的存在。反过来看Amber，作为全球领先的做市商，也大量使用USDC进行交易和结算，Amber与Circle之间亦可能有直接合作关系（如参与Circle的伙伴计划等）。可以说，Circle及其USDC网络构成了FTX时代和Backpack时代连接传统金融和加密世界的桥梁：FTX和Backpack都踩在这座桥上快速发展，而Amber作为市场参与者，同样频繁走这座桥，为自身和伙伴创造价值。

• Equals Money（英国电子货币机构）： 前文提及，Equals Money PLC 在Backpack的出金过程中显现出来btcxiaolinzi.top。这家公司提供面向企业的银行即服务(BaaS)，允许像Backpack这样的客户通过其平台发起全球付款。Equals Money的出现意味着Backpack选择了一条灵活的合规路径来实现银行转账功能：相比直接开设传统银行账户，使用EMI能更快获取支付能力且准入门槛较低。FTX时期并未传出使用EMI的消息，因为当时FTX可直接依赖自己的银行关系网（例如通过位于美国、欧洲的自有账户）来处理汇款。然而在后FTX时代，许多加密公司（包括Amber）都在寻找新的银行替代方案，EMI因此受到青睐。具体联系： 根据实测，Backpack用户提现美元到Wise时，Wise收到的汇款来自Equals Moneybtcxiaolinzi.top。Wise作为跨境汇款平台，其收款机制对资金来源要求严格，但Equals Money持有FCA牌照，属于受监管机构，Wise接收来自Equals的资金被视为合规btcxiaolinzi.top。由此推断，Backpack通过Equals的企业账户，将兑换好的美元直接打给用户填入的收款账号（包括Wise提供的虚拟账号）。这表明Backpack和Equals Money之间有直接业务往来，Equals是Backpack法币出金服务链条上的合作伙伴。值得一提的是，Amber Group 此前在欧洲也曾探索电子货币牌照或合作渠道的可能，尽管无法确认Amber是否也使用Equals，但不排除Amber为Backpack牵线搭桥、推荐了Equals这类服务商的可能性。

综合来看， Circle和Equals Money分别代表了稳定币清算层和法币支付层的基础设施，与Backpack/FTX/Amber的联系体现为：Circle提供“链上到链下”的美元流动性支持，Equals提供“链下”最后一公里的银行网络接口。三者之所以都选择/使用这些渠道，是因为它们共享了对加密法币融合效率的追求。对于FTX和Backpack而言，这些渠道是业务方案的一部分；对于Amber而言，这些渠道是服务布局和投资的一环（Amber支持的交易所采用了这些方案，也间接符合Amber推动行业基础设施完善的利益）。

“交叉代币解锁”机制与链上协作迹象

“交叉代币解锁”是指Amber、Backpack（或其关联项目）之间通过持有彼此发行的代币，并利用协议合作、解锁计划或链上交易，实现协同利益的一种机制。鉴于Backpack尚处于发展初期，我们需要探讨哪些代币或资产可能涉及双方的互动：

• Backpack 平台代币的潜在发行： 根据Backpack社区的信息，平台计划通过交易积分空投方式向活跃用户发放代币资格btcxiaolinzi.top。这暗示Backpack未来会推出自己的平台代币。若真如此，早期投资方（包括Amber Group）很可能在代币经济中占有一席之地，例如通过投资协议获得一定比例的平台代币配额。在代币正式解锁流通时，Amber等机构投资者将持有相应份额。这就产生了潜在的“交叉代币”联系：Amber持有Backpack的代币，并可在协议允许的时间窗口解锁出售或利用。这种关系一方面绑定了Amber与Backpack的长期利益，另一方面也为Amber提供了在二级市场获利或支持Backpack代币市值的机会。如果Backpack设计代币经济时有锁仓解锁期，那么Amber的代币解锁时间和数量将受到协议约束。从链上数据看，未来可以观察这些大额代币解锁地址是否与Amber的钱包存在关联，以验证Amber对Backpack代币的处置行为。当前，由于Backpack代币尚未发行，我们只能提出这一推测性机制，等待后续链上数据来印证。

• Amber 持仓代币与Backpack业务的协同： 反之，Amber Group 或其子基金本身持有众多加密资产，是否有与Backpack生态互动的情况？例如，Amber可能持有某些与Backpack生态有关的项目代币（如Solana链上资产，Backpack钱包支持的特定NFT/代币等）。一个案例是Backpack团队曾在Solana上发行受欢迎的 xNFT系列“Mαd Lads”NFTlearn.backpack.exchange。Amber或其投资部门是否参与了该NFT的投资或持有尚无公开资料，但不排除Amber透过场内交易购买一些以支持Backpack生态热度。再者，如果Amber在其他项目上持有代币，而Backpack平台上线这些资产交易，Amber可能通过链上转账将流动性注入Backpack，从而实现双方受益——Amber获得流动性做市收益，Backpack获得交易量和资产丰富度。这可以视作一种链上协作。例如Amber持有大量某种代币X，在Backpack上新上线代币X交易对时，Amber账户向Backpack的热钱包充值代币X提供初始流动性。这样的行为在链上会呈现Amber已知地址向Backpack地址的大额转账。如果将来这些数据出现，将成为印证双方链上合作的直接证据。目前，此类链上轨迹还未有公开披露，我们只能假设其存在的可能性。

• FTX 遗留资产与Backpack 的关联： 另一个值得一提的链上观察维度是FTX/Alameda遗留资产的动向。FTX倒闭后，其相关钱包曾多次异动。Backpack团队作为前员工，有可能知晓某些地址或资产的情况。但由于破产清算在法庭监管下进行，直接将FTX遗留资产转给新项目不太现实。不过，不排除某些前Alameda投资的项目代币后来为Backpack团队所用。例如，Alameda早期投资的项目若代币解锁，Backpack团队个人可能持有部分并用于新平台的流动性。这种间接关联较难确认，但链上仍可寻找蛛丝马迹，比如监测前Alameda标识的钱包与Backpack相关地址之间的交易。如果有频繁互动，可能暗示Backpack获取了Alameda旧有资产的支持。至今未见显著证据，推测空间大于实证。

小结： “交叉代币解锁”机制目前更多停留在理论推演层面。我们确认了Backpack未来存在发行平台代币的规划btcxiaolinzi.top；也确认Amber作为投资方大概率会获得并持有该代币份额。但具体的锁仓解锁安排、双方是否会通过特殊协议（如做市激励、流动性挖矿等）进行合作，还有待官方披露或链上数据验证。链上分析工具可以在未来帮助捕捉Amber地址与Backpack生态代币/NFT的交互，从而揭示深层协作。如果发现Amber旗下地址在Backpack代币解锁后立即大量转入交易所，可能意味着Amber选择变现；反之，若锁定期内就有灰度交易发生，甚至可能存在双方提前约定的场外交换。这些都是值得持续监测的方向，但就目前信息来看，尚无定论。

\ 图：FTX、Amber Group 与 Backpack 三者关系示意图。红色/橙色线表示团队和股权延续（FTX前员工和投资延续到Backpack，Amber参与投资并可能提供流动性）；蓝色线表示Backpack法币出金所依赖的稳定币清算和银行通道（通过USDC及Equals Money实现）；灰色虚线表示FTX和Amber分别与USDC发行方Circle在业务上的联系。这些关系共同构成了Backpack在FTX余荫和Amber支持下快速搭建全球业务的基础。

关键证据与信息缺口

通过上述分析，我们梳理了已知的信息链条，并挖掘了若干可能的隐秘关联，同时也识别出需要进一步调查的信息空白：

• 明确的证据链： 我们找到了多项公开资料证明Backpack与FTX/Amber的联系：包括创始团队来自FTX/Alamedacoinspeaker.com、FTX Ventures 曾投资Backpack母公司nftgators.com、Amber Group 参与了Backpack的融资coinspeaker.com、多名FTX旧部现在Backpack任职coinspeaker.com等。这些形成了人员和资金延续的直接证据。另外，通过用户分享和代码库，我们确认Backpack法币出金使用了Equals Money通道btcxiaolinzi.top并提供了0手续费的USD/USDC转换panewslab.com——这证明了Backpack确实建立了类似FTX当年的稳定币清算架构，只是技术实现上借助了新的合作方(Equals Money)。这些证据支撑了本文的大部分推论基础。

• 合理的推测与佐证： 有些关联尚无官方公告证明，但基于行业惯例和现有线索推测合理，并有部分侧面佐证。例如，Amber 为Backpack提供做市流动性支援一事，没有直接新闻来源，但考虑到Amber投资交易所的动机和能力，此推断具有高概率可靠性。再如，Backpack疑似使用Circle的USDC清算服务，虽无明示，但从其业务模式和Circle的产品定位来看circle.com，这一幕后合作应该存在。同样地，Amber可能通过非公开方式向Backpack输出技术/合规支持，也是基于双方利益绑定关系而做出的推断。这些推测目前缺乏直接证据，只能算作可能性假设，需要后续留意更多细节披露。

• 信息缺口与待验证点： 首先，关于Backpack具体的清算路径，我们仍不清楚它如何在链上/链下转换巨额USDC为法币。虽然Equals Money出现在汇款端btcxiaolinzi.top，但在那之前USDC的结算或许涉及Circle或其他做市商（如Amber）——这部分交易发生在后台，需更多技术信息或链上监控来捕捉。其次，Amber与Backpack之间除股权外是否存在合同约定的业务合作（如Amber成为指定做市商、提供信贷支持等）目前尚未公开，属于信息真空。第三，Backpack未来的代币发行和分配细节未知，Amber等投资方将如何参与、解锁周期如何，将直接影响“交叉代币”协作的发生与否，需等官方白皮书出台。第四，更多链上证据的挖掘：由于没有公开的钱包标签，很难直接将某条链上交易指认属于Amber或Backpack。但如果未来Backpack发行代币或大型交易上线，链上必然会出现相关资金流，我们可以通过已知Amber常用地址（如果有披露）来交叉比对，看其是否与Backpack生态有交互。这是一块需要进一步研究的领域，可能借助区块链分析工具和交易图谱来补全证据。最后，还有监管和法律结构的信息：例如Backpack在不同司法管辖区的注册实体与银行账号详情，FTX遗产处理过程中是否对Backpack团队有约束，这些在公开资料中都尚无答案。

结论

综合全篇分析，Backpack、Amber Group 与已倒闭的FTX之间确实存在千丝万缕的延续和关联。Backpack可以被视作FTX精神和技术路线的“继承者”之一——由FTX旧将创建，在FTX垮台造成的市场空白中迅速崛起coinspeaker.com。Amber Group 则扮演了重要的扶持者角色，通过投资和可能的资源注入，参与了Backpack的重建过程coinspeaker.com。在具体业务层面，Backpack延续了FTX时代的创新，如高效的稳定币清算和全球化业务布局，但为了适应新的环境，它也采用了新的工具（如Equals Money的出金渠道）和更严格的合规措施（迪拜等地的牌照）coinspeaker.com。这一切背后，隐现着Amber等老牌加密公司的身影支持，以及Circle等基础设施提供商的支撑。

当然，隐秘关联并不意味着不正当行为，上述关系很多是基于正常的商业合作和延续，只是未明言于公众。例如，前FTX团队利用自己的经验和人脉创建新平台，本身无可厚非；Amber投资新交易所也是市场行为。从推理和现有证据看，并没有直接迹象显示三者存在违法的秘密勾连。然而，对于研究者和行业观察者而言，了解这些联系有助于洞察加密行业格局的演变：FTX的倒下并未让其积累的人才和思想消失，反而通过创业和投资，以新的形式（Backpack）继续影响市场；Amber等老牌玩家则通过战略投资，将自己的版图延伸到新兴平台，以保持竞争力。

未来展望： 随着Backpack进一步发展，我们预计会有更多信息浮出水面来验证或修正上述假设。例如，Backpack若推出平台代币，其投资人持仓和解锁情况将记录在链，从而揭示Amber等的参与细节；再比如，Backpack进入美国市场时需要公开其合作银行或支付伙伴，届时我们可能印证Circle等在其中的角色。如果出现新的合作公告或监管披露文件，也能帮助我们更清晰地绘制三者关系网。目前的信息不对称使我们只能尽力拼凑一幅关联图景，并针对关键环节提供已知证据支持。仍存在的一些信息缺口需要持续跟进调查。总之，Backpack、Amber Group 与FTX的故事折射出加密行业的新旧交替与传承。在FTX的余烬上，新火花正在由熟悉旧世界的人点燃，而这些火花能否照亮一个更加合规稳健的未来，还有待时间检验。 nftgators.comcoinspeaker.com

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Safe Bits & Self Custody Tips

The journey of onboarding a user and create a bitcoin multiSig setup begins far before opening a desktop like Bitcoin Safe (BS) or any other similar application. Bitcoin Safe seems designed for families and people that want to start exploring and learning about multiSig setup. The need for such application and use of it could go much further, defining best practices for private organizations that aim to custody bitcoin in a private and anonymous way, following and enjoy the values and standards bitcoin has been built for.

Intro

Organizations and small private groups like families, family offices and solopreneurs operating on a bitcoin standard will have the need to keep track of transactions and categorize them to keep the books in order. A part of our efforts will be spent ensuring accessibility standards are in place for everyone to use Bitcoin Safe with comfort and safety.

We aim with this project to bring together the three Designathon ideas below: - Bitcoin Safe: improve its overall design and usability. - No User Left Behind: improve Bitcoin Safe accessibility. - Self-custody guidelines for organizations: How Bitcoin Safe can be used by private organization following best self-custody practices.

We are already halfway of the first week, and here below the progress made so far.

Designing an icon Set for Bitcoin Safe

One of the noticeable things when using BS is the inconsistency of the icons, not just in colors and shapes, but also the way are used. The desktop app try to have a clean design that incorporate with all OS (Win, macOS, Linux) and for this reason it's hard to define when a system default icon need to be used or if a custom one can be applied instead. The use of QT Ui framework for python apps help to respond to these questions. It also incorporates and brig up dome default settings that aren't easily overwritten.

Here below you can see the current version of BS:

Defining a more strict color palette for Bitcoin Safe was the first thing!

How much the icons affect accessibility? How they can help users to reach the right functionality? I took the challenge and, with PenPot.app, redesigned the icons based on the grid defined in the https://bitcoinicons.com/ and proposing the implementation of it to have a cleaner and more consistent look'n feel, at least for the icons now.

What's next

I personally look forward to seeing these icons implemented soon in Bitcoin Safe interface. In the meantime, we'll focus on delivering an accessibility audit and evaluate options to see how BS could be used by private organizations aiming to become financially sovereign with self-custody or more complex bitcoin multiSig setups.

One of the greatest innovations BS is bringing to us is the ability to sync the multiSig wallets, including PBST, Categories and labels, through the nostr decentralized protocol, making current key custodial services somehow obsolete. Second-coolest feature that this nostr implementation brings is the ability to have a build-in private chat that connect and enable the various signers of a multiSig to communicate and sign transactions remotely. Where have you seen something like this before?

Categories UX and redesign is also considered in this project. We'll try to understand how to better serve this functionality to you, the user, really soon.

Stay tuned!

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/974488

@ 5df413d4:2add4f5b

Short photo-stories of the hidden, hard to find, obscure, and off the beaten track.

Come now, take a walk with me…

The Traveller 02: Jerusalem Old City

The bus slowly lurches up the winding and steep embankment. We can finally start to see the craggy tops of buildings peaking out over the ridge in the foreground distance. We have almost reached it. Jerusalem, the City on the Hill.

https://i.nostr.build/e2LpUKEgGBwfveGi.jpg

Our Israeli tour guide speaks over the mic to draw our attention to the valley below us instead - “This is the the Valley of Gehenna, the Valley of the Moloch,” he says. “In ancient times, the pagans who worshiped Moloch used this place for child sacrifice by fire. Now, imagine yourself, an early Hebrew, sitting atop the hill, looking down in horror. This is the literal Valley of The Shadow of Death, the origin of the Abrahamic concept of Hell.” Strong open - this is going to be fun.

https://i.nostr.build/5F29eBKZYs4bEMHk.jpg

Inside the Old City, our guide - a chubby, cherub-faced intelligence type on some sort of punishment duty, deputized to babysit foreigners specifically because he reads as so dopey and disarming - points out various Judeo-Christian sites on a map, his tone subtly suggesting which places are most suggested, or perhaps, permitted…

https://i.nostr.build/J44fhGWc9AZ5qpK4.jpg

https://i.nostr.build/3c0jh09nx6d5cEdt.jpg

Walking, we reach Judaism’s Kotel, the West Wall - massive, grand, and ancient, whispering of the Eternal. Amongst the worshipers, we touch the warm, dry limestone and, if we like, place written prayers into the wall's smaller cracks. A solemn and yearning ghost fills the place - but whose it is, I'm not sure.  https://i.nostr.build/AjDwA0rFiFPlrw1o.jpg

Just above the Kotel, Islam’s Dome of the Rock can be seen, its golden cap blazing in the sun. I ask our guide about visiting the dome. He cuts a heavy eyeroll in my direction - it seems I’ve outed myself as my group’s “that guy.” His face says more than words ever could, “Oy vey, there’s one in every group…”

“Why would anyone want to go there? It is a bit intense, no?” Still, I press. “Well, it is only open to tourists on Tuesday and Thursdays…” It is Tuesday. “And even then, visiting only opens from 11:30…” It is 11:20. As it becomes clear to him that I don't intend to drop this...“Fine!” he relents, with a dramatic flaring of the hands and an uniquely Israeli sigh, “Go there if you must. But remember, the bus leaves at 1PM. Good luck...” Great! Totally not ominous at all.

https://i.nostr.build/6aBhT61C28QO9J69.jpg

The checkpoint for the sole non-Muslim entrance leading up to the Dome is administered by several gorgeous and statuesque, assault rifle clad, Ethiop-Israeli female soldiers. In this period of relative peace and calm, they feel lax enough to make a coy but salacious game of their “screening” the men in line. As I observe, it seems none doth protest...

https://i.nostr.build/jm8F3pUp9EXqPRkN.jpg

Past the gun-totting Sirens, a long wooden rampart leads up to the Temple Mount, The Mount of the House of the Holy, al-Ḥaram al-Sharīf, The Noble Sanctuary, The Furthest Mosque, the site of the Dome of the Rock and the al-Masjid al-Asqa.

https://i.nostr.build/DoS0KIkrVN0yiVJ0.jpg

On the Mount, the Dome dominates all views. To those interested in pure expressions of beauty, the Dome is, undeniably, a thing of absolute glory. I pace the grounds, snapping what pictures I can. I pause to breathe and to let the electric energy of the setting wash over me.

https://i.nostr.build/0BQYLwpU291q2fBt.jpg

https://i.nostr.build/yCxfB1V8eAcfob93.jpg

It’s 12:15 now, I decide to head back. Now, here is what they don’t tell you. The non-Muslin entrance from the West Wall side is a one-way deal. Leaving the Dome plaza dumps you out into the back alley bazaar of Old City’s Muslim district. And so it is. I am lost.

https://i.nostr.build/XnQ5eZgjeS1UTEBt.jpg

https://i.nostr.build/EFGD5vgmFx5YYuH4.jpg

I run through the Muslim quarter, blindly turning down alleyways that seem to be taking me in the general direction of where I need to be - glimpses afforded by the city’s uneven elevation and cracks in ancient stone walls guiding my way.

https://i.nostr.build/mWIEAXlJfdqt3nuh.jpg

In a final act of desperation and likely a significant breach of Israeli security protocol, I scale a low wall and flop down back on the side of things where I'm “supposed” to be. But either no one sees me or no one cares. Good luck, indeed.

I make it back to my group - they are not hard to find, a bunch of MBAs in “business casual” travel attire and a tour guide wearing a loudly colored hat and jacket - with just enough time to still visit the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

https://i.nostr.build/3nFvsXdhd0LQaZd7.jpg

https://i.nostr.build/sKnwqC0HoaZ8winW.jpg

Inside, a chaotic and dizzying array of chapels, grand domed ceilings, and Christian relics - most notably the Stone of Anointing, commemorating where Christ’s body was prepared for burial and Tomb of Christ, where Christ is said to have laid for 3 days before Resurrection.

https://i.nostr.build/Lb4CTj1dOY1pwoN6.jpg

https://i.nostr.build/LaZkYmUaY8JBRvwn.jpg

In less than an hour, one can traverse from the literal Hell, to King David’s Wall, The Tomb of Christ, and the site of Muhammad’s Ascension. The question that stays with me - What is it about this place that has caused so many to turn their heads to the heavens and cry out for God? Does he hear? And if he answers, do we listen?

https://i.nostr.build/elvlrd7rDcEaHJxT.jpg

Jerusalem, The Old City, circa 2014. Israel.

There are secrets to be found. Go there.

Bitcoin #Jerusalem #Israel #Travel #Photography #Art #Story #Storytelling #Nostr #Zap #Zaps #Plebchain #Coffeechain #Bookstr #NostrArt #Writing #Writestr #Createstr

@ 7460b7fd:4fc4e74b

Backpack 平台 USDC 出金渠道深度研究报告

背景简介

Backpack 是近年来崛起的加密交易与钱包平台，由前 FTX/Alameda 团队成员创立coindesk.comfinsmes.com。2024 年初 Backpack 曾宣布与 Banxa 合作提供法币出入金服务，支持130多个国家用户使用信用卡/银行渠道买卖加密资产learn.backpack.exchange。2025 年 5 月，Backpack 官方更是推出“0 手续费”的 USD⇄USDC 出金通道，允许用户通过电汇将 USDC 1:1 无损兑换为美元并提取到银行账户lianpr.combinance.com。本报告将详细分析 Backpack 当前的出金方式及其合作渠道、低成本运营的原因、Backpack 与支付机构 Equals Money 的关系，并探讨如果搭建类似的加密金融服务，应如何与 USDC 发行方 Circle 建立合作。

Backpack 的 USDC 出金方式与合作渠道

USD⇄USDC 零手续费通道 – Backpack Exchange 已面向全球用户开放美元与 USDC 间的法币转换，并永久免除任何手续费23btc.com。用户完成 KYC 验证后，可以通过 电汇（Wire Transfer） 将美元直接充值到 Backpack 平台获取等值 USDC，或将持有的 USDC 提现兑换为美元电汇至本人银行账户binance.com。据官方介绍，该通道具备“三大核心优势”：一是零摩擦转换，实现美元与 USDC 间的无缝1:1兑换；二是即时到账，宣称电汇入金/提现可秒级处理；三是全球覆盖，后续将支持 ACH、SEPA 等本地清算网络23btc.com。

合作金融机构 – 为实现合规的法币收付，Backpack 并非自行持有银行牌照，而是借助第三方持牌机构的通道来托管用户的法币资金assets.ctfassets.net。有迹象表明 Backpack 使用了英国的电子货币机构 Equals Money 作为其出入金通道之一：在其开源代码中，Backpack 将“EqualsMoney”集成为一个区块链/支付网络类型github.com。这意味着 Backpack 平台可以通过 Equals Money 提供的多币种账户和支付网络，来代收用户的银行转账并代付提现资金。除了英国渠道，Backpack 集团在全球多地布有实体，以拓展支付能力。例如，用户实测的电汇显示汇款方为 “Trek Labs Australia Pty Ltd”（Backpack 在澳大利亚的子公司）medium.com。这家公司作为汇款主体将等值美元汇出到用户银行账户。除澳洲外，Backpack 背后的 Trek Labs 集团还在迪拜设有 Trek Labs Ltd FZE，在立陶宛设有 Trek Labs UAB，在美国设有 Trek Labs, Inc.medium.com。这种全球子公司布局使 Backpack 能借助各地区的合作银行或支付机构完成跨境资金结算，覆盖包括欧美、亚太在内的广阔用户群。

出金流程 – 用户在 Backpack 平台发起 USDC 提现时，平台会通过上述合作渠道将用户的 USDC 兑换为等额法币，并由托管金融机构从其法币池中汇出资金。比如，当用户提取 1,000 USDC 到香港银行账户，Backpack 将该 USDC 转换为 1,000 美元，由合作机构通过 SWIFT 电汇发送。用户可在 Backpack 后台实时查询电汇状态medium.com。实际测试显示，从提现到款项到账香港银行大约耗时36小时（约1.5个工作日）medium.com。汇款时收款行信息需要用户自行提供并添加到平台，如收款行名称、地址、SWIFT代码等medium.com。Backpack 平台本身要求用户的银行账户姓名与平台注册姓名一致，以确保合规。assets.ctfassets.netassets.ctfassets.net

低成本出金的架构与原因

Backpack 能提供零手续费的稳定币出金服务，得益于其结算架构设计和合规路径上的优势，使其运营成本得以控制在极低水平：

• Stablecoin 即时清算：Backpack 利用 USDC 稳定币作为桥梁，实现用户资金在链上和银行账户之间的快速清算。由于 USDC 与美元1:1锚定，兑换过程中没有汇率损耗或价差成本lianpr.com。平台内美元和 USDC 的余额转换也是按面值对等，不收取点差，这实现了资金的“零摩擦”兑换23btc.com。相比传统银行汇款需要经过多级代理和 Forex 转换，Stablecoin 的使用大幅降低了兑换费用和时间延迟。

• 第三方牌照通道：Backpack 选择通过持牌支付机构（如 Equals Money 等）来承载法币收付功能，而非自行作为汇款人展开业务。这种策略绕开了平台直接获取银行牌照或支付牌照的高成本投入，转而借用第三方机构的现有牌照和账户网络。例如，Equals Money作为英国受监管的电子货币机构，拥有多币种账户和全球汇款能力。Backpack 通过 API 接入该机构后，相当于获取了一套现成的银行基础设施，可以以较低费用发送SWIFT、电汇等github.com。第三方机构通常按照交易量收取较小的服务费，Backpack 可以在当前发展阶段予以补贴，从而对用户“免手续费”。这种“牌照即服务”的模式使 Backpack 将合规成本外包，自己专注于用户和交易环节。

• 合规及监管路径：Backpack 利用多个辖区的子公司布局，根据各地监管环境选择最优的出金路径。例如，在欧洲可能通过立陶宛子公司对接 EU 区的支付网络，在亚洲通过澳大利亚子公司汇出 SWIFT。medium.com这种灵活性使他们能规避单一地区监管限制，选择成本最低、效率最高的清算通道完成提现。此外，多实体运营也有助于分散风险，符合各地反洗钱要求，为零手续费策略提供合规保障。

• 资金结算与收益：尽管对用户宣称0手续费，Backpack 可能通过其他方式覆盖成本。例如，用户的法币资金在汇出前可能短暂存放于合作机构的池中，这些资金量若较大，可产生利息收益，用于弥补转账费用coindesk.com。另外，Backpack 平台的主要收入来自交易手续费和利息产品等，高频交易活动带来的收入能够补贴出金通道的成本，从整体上实现盈亏平衡。

值得注意的是，“0 手续费”指的是 Backpack 平台本身不向用户收取出金手续费，但并不意味着整个过程完全免费。银行端的固定费用仍可能存在。例如，有用户反馈，通过 Backpack 将 USDC 提现到香港 ZA Bank 账户时，Backpack 未收取费用，但 ZA Bank 会收取一次性 20 美元的入账费用twitter.com。类似地，美国银行接收国际电汇通常也会有每笔 15\~30 美元不等的手续费。这些费用属于收款行或中间行收费，并非 Backpack 或其合作方收取。即便如此，相比传统OTC中介或其他交易所的出金方案，Backpack 的整体成本依然极低——没有额外的汇兑损耗，仅需承担银行常规入账费，大额提现尤为划算。一位资深用户将 Backpack 提现称为“目前最优、最简单的合规出金路径”，反馈资金1天左右即到账，流程非常顺畅x.com。可见，Backpack 通过精心搭建的结算架构，实现了高效低成本的出金服务，在合规前提下大大降低了用户将数字资产变现的门槛。

Backpack 与 Equals Money 的关系考察

Equals Money 背景 – Equals Money 是英国上市金融科技公司 Equals Group PLC 旗下的支付业务品牌，提供多币种电子账户、国际汇款和企业外汇兑换等服务。该公司前身为 FairFX，持有英国金融行为监管局（FCA）颁发的电子货币机构牌照，主营为企业客户提供全球支付解决方案fxcintel.com。简单来说，Equals Money 扮演的是受监管的“非银行支付平台”角色，可为合作伙伴提供银行账户托管和跨境支付通道。对于缺乏自有牌照的加密公司而言，与这类机构合作能快速获得法币收付能力。

业务合作关系 – 目前公开信息并未有 Backpack 与 Equals Money 签署官方战略合作的公告，但从技术集成和业务逻辑上看，两者存在密切的业务往来。Backpack 在代码库中增添了对 “EqualsMoney” 的支持选项github.com表明其系统已经对接了 Equals 提供的支付 API。在用户充值/提现时，Backpack 系统可以将指令通过该接口发送给 Equals，由后者执行实际的银行转账操作（如从对应的用户托管账户划款）。换言之，Equals Money可能充当了 Backpack 用户法币资金的托管方和结算代理。还有用户实测提到，从 Backpack 提现美元时，资金是由 “Trek Labs Australia Pty Ltd” 汇出medium.com。结合上下文，推测 Trek Labs Australia 这家 Backpack 子公司可能在 Equals Money或类似机构开设了运营账户，用于统一汇出用户提现款项。这个细节侧面印证了 Backpack 利用第三方支付平台进行法币结算：汇款主体虽然名义上是 Backpack 关联公司，但实际的支付通道和银行接口由 Equals Money 等持牌机构提供支持。

人员和投资交集 – 在股权和团队层面，暂未发现 Backpack 与 Equals Money 有直接的交叉。Backpack 的融资由加密领域的风投基金主导（Placeholder、Hashed、Amber Group 等）finsmes.com，并无公开提及来自 Equals 集团的投资。管理团队方面，Backpack 由前加密交易所从业者主导，而 Equals Money 属于传统金融支付行业，公司高管以金融背景为主，目前没有明显的人事重合记录。此外，Equals Group PLC 在2024年底宣布将被嵌入式金融公司 Railsr 收购thisweekinfintech.com（该交易有待监管批准），这属于其自身战略调整，与 Backpack 无直接关联。总体来看，Backpack 与 Equals Money 更可能是一种商业合作关系：Backpack 作为客户接入 Equals Money 的支付服务，以使用其许可和网络；双方在产权和团队上保持独立。此类合作在金融科技领域较为常见，属于优势互补：加密平台获取法币通道，支付机构拓展客户和资金流量。

合作的意义 – 通过与 Equals Money 等机构合作，Backpack 实现了快速合规地打通法币出入口，在竞争激烈的交易所市场上形成差异化优势。用户能够享受到类似银行级别的出金体验（直接电汇到账）且几乎零成本x.com，这极大增强了 Backpack 平台的吸引力和资金留存率。对 Equals Money 而言，服务 Backpack 这样高增长的加密客户，也为其带来了可观的跨境支付业务量和创新合作机遇。在严格遵守反洗钱和监管要求的前提下，这种加密与传统金融的合作模式，展现了融合创新的前景。

搭建类似业务与 Circle 合作的要点

假如希望搭建与 Backpack 类似的稳定币出入金架构，与 USDC 发行方 Circle 建立合作是关键一步。Circle 提供针对企业的账户服务和 API接口，使合作方能够方便地在应用中集成 USDC 与法币的转换和支付功能circle.comcircle.com。以下是与 Circle 合作时需要关注的主要要点：

• 主体资格
  需要有合法注册的公司实体，并处于 Circle 支持的地区（如北美、欧洲等）。Circle 暂不向个人用户开放其直接铸币/赎回服务，仅面向机构客户。
• 业务规模要求
  主要针对大体量、批量使用 USDC 的公司，例如交易所、托管机构、数字钱包平台或银行等。若业务量较小，Circle 会建议通过第三方交易所获取 USDC。

• KYC 合规审查
  对申请企业进行严格的背景尽调，包括高管和受益人身份验证、注册信息、经营范围、反洗钱和制裁风险评估等。需提供公司注册证书、人员身份证明、合规方案等，审核时间通常为数天至数周。

• 账户功能
  审核通过后可开立 Circle 账户，支持将银行资金充值并自动兑换为 USDC，或将 USDC 赎回为法币并电汇到指定银行账户；涵盖链上转账、ACH 和电汇等多种渠道。

• API 接入
  提供完整的 REST API 和 SDK，支持自动化发起电汇兑换、铸造/销毁 USDC、提现等操作，合作方只需专注前端体验，后端支付和结算由 Circle 处理。

• 费用结构
  对符合条件的合作伙伴铸造/赎回 USDC 不收手续费；法币转账需承担银行或中间行手续费。支持免费 ACH 通道，国际电汇按银行标准收费。

• 合规责任
  Circle 对企业客户履行 KYC/AML 义务，但合作方若面向终端用户提供服务，也需自行做用户审核与交易监控，并在高金额转账时传输用户身份信息（Travel Rule）。

合作流程：实际操作中，搭建团队需要先在 Circle 官网提交企业账户申请，提供相关资料并通过合规审核circle.com。拿到账户后，可登录 Circle 提供的业务后台或通过 API Sandbox 进行测试集成，熟悉 USDC 钱包、法币钱包的操作。一旦准备就绪，即可将功能推向生产环境，为用户开通 USDC 与法币的双向兑换。值得注意的是，企业应根据所服务用户区域，获取必要的当地监管许可或豁免。例如在美国需要遵守联邦和州级货币转移许可证要求，在欧盟则可能利用立陶宛等国的数字资产服务牌照。这与 Backpack 多地布局子公司的做法类似，都是为了符合法规开展业务。

成功案例：除了 Backpack，业内已有多家知名机构通过与 Circle 合作开展稳定币支付业务。例如 Binance 与 Circle 达成战略合作，使其平台更广泛支持 USDCfortune.com；支付公司 Stripe 也集成了 Circle API，在其产品中新增了稳定币收付功能stables.money。这些案例表明，通过 Circle 提供的基础设施，加密公司可以较为迅速地搭建起合规、高效的法币⇄稳定币出入金体系，触达全球80多个国家的用户circle.com。因此，对于希望复制 Backpack 模式的新创团队而言，提早布局与 Circle 等发行方的合作，并搭建完善的合规架构，将是取得监管认可和市场竞争优势的关键。

结论

Backpack 平台通过巧妙融合稳定币技术和传统金融渠道，打造出了低成本、高效率的USD⇄USDC出金方案。在无需用户承担手续费的情况下，依托 Equals Money 等支付伙伴和自身全球子公司网络，实现了合规的美元电汇快速到账23btc.commedium.com。这一模式的成功在于对结算架构的创新设计和对监管资源的充分利用：既发挥了 USDC 稳定币实时、低成本的优势，又借力持牌金融机构解决了法币合规问题。这为行业树立了一个范例。

对于有意搭建类似业务的团队，与 Circle 建立合作无疑是重要的一环。Circle 提供了成熟的 USDC 基础设施，只要申请企业拥有足够的资质和规模，通过严格的 KYC 审核后即可获得稳定币铸造和法币结算的能力circle.comcircle.com。在此基础上，新业务还需结合自身情况选择适当的支付合作方和注册管辖地，搭建自己的合规“护城河”。只有技术与合规并重，才能如同 Backpack 一样，在保证低成本出金的同时，赢得监管许可和用户信赖。

参考资料：

• Backpack 官方公告及新闻稿binance.comlianpr.com23btc.com

• Backpack 用户协议与代码仓库assets.ctfassets.netgithub.com

• 媒体报道（CoinDesk 等）coindesk.comlearn.backpack.exchange

• 第三方分析与用户实测反馈medium.comtwitter.com

• Circle 官方文档与博客circle.comcircle.comcircle.com

@ ecda4328:1278f072

A detailed breakdown of the recent debate around Bitcoin Core’s proposed policy change to OP_RETURN — and why it’s less dramatic than some fear.

---

TL;DR

Removing the 80-byte OP_RETURN limit is a mempool policy cleanup, not a consensus rule change. It reduces UTXO bloat, improves relay consistency, and doesn’t affect Bitcoin’s monetary properties or block size limits.

---

What Is OP_RETURN?

OP_RETURN is a Bitcoin script opcode introduced in 2014 (Bitcoin Core 0.9.0) to allow small amounts of arbitrary data to be embedded in transactions. Crucially, it creates provably unspendable outputs, preventing UTXO set pollution.

A default policy limit of 80 bytes was added to discourage non-payment data usage while still allowing basic use cases (e.g., hashes, commitments).

---

Why Was OP_RETURN Added? (Bitcoin Core 0.9, March 2014)

When OP_RETURN was introduced, it wasn’t to promote on-chain data — it was a harm-reduction tool:

“This change is not an endorsement of storing data in the blockchain... [It] creates a provably-prunable output, to avoid data storage schemes... storing arbitrary data... bloating Bitcoin’s UTXO database.” — Bitcoin Core 0.9 Release Notes

Before that, users embedded data in fake outputs, bloating the UTXO set and degrading node performance.

OP_RETURN made those outputs prunable and cleaner, though it imposed an 80-byte policy cap — not a consensus rule.

---

What’s Actually Changing?

Bitcoin Core PR #32359 proposes:

• Removing the 80-byte policy limit on OP_RETURN data
• Removing the -datacarrier and -datacarriersize configuration options
• Default behavior will now relay (and mine) larger OP_RETURNs

⚠️ This is not a consensus change. Blocks stay limited to \~4MB. No rules about block validity are altered.

---

Why It’s Not a Big Deal

• ✅ Consensus stays the same: No risk of chain splits
• ✅ Block size stays capped (\~4MB)
• ✅ You can still run Bitcoin Knots if you prefer stricter policies
• ✅ Transaction size limit (\~100KB) remains for DoS protection

Bottom line: This is a configuration tweak to improve consistency between nodes and miners.

---

Common Uses of OP_RETURN

• Timestamping
• Cross-chain anchoring (e.g., merge-mined sidechains)
• Asset issuance (e.g., Omni/Tether)
• Notarization and commitments
• Metadata for protocols like Citrea

📝 In contrast, Ordinal inscriptions use witness data; Stamps use fake outputs — not OP_RETURN.

---

Arguments For Removing the Limit

1. The limit is ineffective — easily bypassed via witness/multisig/fake outputs
2. Cleaner data paths — prevents UTXO bloat from “Stamp”-style tricks
3. Reflects mining reality — miners already include these transactions
4. Improves relay/mempool consistency
5. Avoids centralization risks — removes miner advantages from custom policies
6. Enables metaprotocols — safely embed structured metadata without abusing Bitcoin’s core design

---

Arguments Against Removing the Limit

1. Risk of encouraging non-monetary use
2. Fears of "spam" or NFT-like inscriptions
3. Concerns over governance process
4. Perceived erosion of Bitcoin’s monetary purity

🧠 Note: The 80-byte cap was policy, not consensus. Removing it doesn’t allow anything that wasn’t already valid on-chain.

---

Policy vs. Consensus

• Policy rules affect relay and mempool behavior
• Consensus rules affect what blocks are considered valid

Large OP_RETURNs are already valid. The inconsistency is that many nodes don’t relay them, while miners do include them. This change aligns relay with mining, improving propagation and fee estimation.

---

Bitcoin Knots: A Protest Client

Bitcoin Knots (maintained by Luke Dashjr) retains the old 80-byte policy. After the PR surfaced, some users switched to Knots as a protest.

According to Matthew R. Kratter, Bitcoin Knots briefly surpassed Core 29.0 in node count during early 2025 — but this spike appears to have been driven more by timing mismatches between release cycles and a coordinated protest campaign, rather than a durable shift in user adoption. In fact, most Bitcoin nodes today still run older versions of Core. As of May 2025, Core 28.1.0 alone accounts for over 21% of nodes, while Core 29.0.0 sits below 6%, and Knots 20250305 trails at just over 6% — suggesting that the majority of the network remains on pre-29 Core versions rather than switching to Knots en masse.

---

Broader Implications

• 🛠️ Highlights tensions between devs, miners, and users over governance
• 🧭 Shows how non-consensus rules can impact perceived neutrality
• 🧪 Sparks renewed focus on tooling (e.g., ASMap, better banlists, relay filtering)
• 🔐 Reaffirms user sovereignty through client diversity

---

Final Thoughts

Removing the OP_RETURN limit aligns Bitcoin Core’s policy with reality — what’s already getting mined — while cleaning up harmful workarounds.

It won’t break Bitcoin.

But it does surface deeper tensions about Bitcoin’s purpose, evolution, and who ultimately decides what gets built and accepted.

---

References

• PR: Remove arbitrary limits on OP_RETURN #32359
• PR: Deprecate datacarrier options #32406
• Mailing list: Relax OP_RETURN standardness restrictions
• Gist with full community discussion
• Bitcoin Knots
• Kratter video: Bitcoin Core Removes the Mask

---

🙏 Acknowledgements

Thanks to @hodlinator, ShiShi21m, and many others in the community for their thoughtful insights, corrections, and spirited discussion.

---

Based on the original GitHub Gist: Bitcoin OP_RETURN Controversy: Complete Summary

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Welcome back to our weekly JABBB, Just Another Bitcoin Bubble Boom, a comics and meme contest crafted for you, creative stackers!

If you'd like to learn more, check our welcome post here.

---

This week sticker: Bitcoin Sir

You can download the source file directly from the HereComesBitcoin website in SVG and PNG. Use this sticker around SN with the code ![](https://m.stacker.news/71417)

The task

Make sure you use this week sticker to design a comic frame or a meme, add a message that perfectly captures the sentiment of the current most hilarious takes on the Bitcoin space. You can contextualize it or not, it's up to you, you chose the message, the context and anything else that will help you submit your comic art masterpiece.

Are you a meme creator? There's space for you too: select the most similar shot from the gifts hosted on the Gif Station section and craft your best meme... Let's Jabbb!

---

If you enjoy designing and memeing, feel free to check out the JABBB archive and create more to spread Bitcoin awareness to the moon.

Submit each proposal on the relative thread, bounties will be distributed when enough participants submit options.

PS: you can now use HereComesBitcoin stickers to use on Stacker.News

₿e creative, have fun! :D

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/974483

@ bbb5dda0:f09e2747

I've been neglecting my weekly updates a bit. I haven't really gotten to them lately because i've been insanely busy frying my brains at #SovEng. And after that i haven't been keeping my weekly notes properly. WHICH I'm planning to pick back up now!

This week/ the last couple weeks I've been doing some general planning around @tollGate's appearances on various conferences around Europe! First on the list will be Pizza Day in Prague! And from there I'll be cruising straight to @Oslo Freedom Forum! For TollGate that also means getting us set up with some T-Shirts and Stickers, though not super hard to do, it's the first time I'm doing any 'marketing' like this so I did test my own patience by properly cropping and ordering the designs. So far the stickers came out well Look at our first officially baptized TollGate! :)

TollGate Installer

As we're installing versions of TollGateOS on routers quite often now I figured it'd be a good idea to streamline the experience a bit by building a TollGate Installer. I've been vibecoding it mostly, and one of the things I discovered is how easy it is to make it replicate the style of another app. To stick with the theme I told it to mirror the style of our TollGate Captive portal site and it did it perfectly!

Anyway, still a lot of manual engineering is required but at least I can outsource the stuff i'm bad at. What I did improve was the GitHub workflows we use for building and publishing the OS. We publish our releases to Blossom + Nostr (NIP-94). I then use those messages in the installer to get the download links.

👀 But which version!?

I quickly ran into the issue that I didn't know which binary to install on the router i hooked up to my computer. I connect the router via lan, then I scan the network and ssh into the router, get some basic info, like the device name. BUT, the format of that device name wouldn't match any of the names we'd use in our release.

For example: the router name would be glinet,mt3000 while our release was called gl-mt3000. The difference may seem subtle but I can't match them. So after some discussion with the others I went on and revamped our OS pipeline to properly follow the OpenWRT naming of boards/devices. The pipeline is now much more extensible, making it easier for us to add support for more hardware!

What's next?

We're aiming for a v0.0.2 release of TollGate OS by friday, incorporating some of the feedback we've gotten from our test users! Hang on tight guys! 🙏 I'm hoping to finish an earlier version of the installer in the upcoming week as well.

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Wild parrots tend to fly in flocks, but when kept as single pets, they may become lonely and bored https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHcAOlamgDc

Source: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-taught-pet-parrots-to-video-call-each-other-and-the-birds-loved-it-180982041/

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973639

@ 0d97beae:c5274a14

This article hopes to complement the article by Lyn Alden on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk_HWmmwiAs

The reason why we have broken money

Before the invention of key technologies such as the printing press and electronic communications, even such as those as early as morse code transmitters, gold had won the competition for best medium of money around the world.

In fact, it was not just gold by itself that became money, rulers and world leaders developed coins in order to help the economy grow. Gold nuggets were not as easy to transact with as coins with specific imprints and denominated sizes.

However, these modern technologies created massive efficiencies that allowed us to communicate and perform services more efficiently and much faster, yet the medium of money could not benefit from these advancements. Gold was heavy, slow and expensive to move globally, even though requesting and performing services globally did not have this limitation anymore.

Banks took initiative and created derivatives of gold: paper and electronic money; these new currencies allowed the economy to continue to grow and evolve, but it was not without its dark side. Today, no currency is denominated in gold at all, money is backed by nothing and its inherent value, the paper it is printed on, is worthless too.

Banks and governments eventually transitioned from a money derivative to a system of debt that could be co-opted and controlled for political and personal reasons. Our money today is broken and is the cause of more expensive, poorer quality goods in the economy, a larger and ever growing wealth gap, and many of the follow-on problems that have come with it.

Bitcoin overcomes the "transfer of hard money" problem

Just like gold coins were created by man, Bitcoin too is a technology created by man. Bitcoin, however is a much more profound invention, possibly more of a discovery than an invention in fact. Bitcoin has proven to be unbreakable, incorruptible and has upheld its ability to keep its units scarce, inalienable and counterfeit proof through the nature of its own design.

Since Bitcoin is a digital technology, it can be transferred across international borders almost as quickly as information itself. It therefore severely reduces the need for a derivative to be used to represent money to facilitate digital trade. This means that as the currency we use today continues to fare poorly for many people, bitcoin will continue to stand out as hard money, that just so happens to work as well, functionally, along side it.

Bitcoin will also always be available to anyone who wishes to earn it directly; even China is unable to restrict its citizens from accessing it. The dollar has traditionally become the currency for people who discover that their local currency is unsustainable. Even when the dollar has become illegal to use, it is simply used privately and unofficially. However, because bitcoin does not require you to trade it at a bank in order to use it across borders and across the web, Bitcoin will continue to be a viable escape hatch until we one day hit some critical mass where the world has simply adopted Bitcoin globally and everyone else must adopt it to survive.

Bitcoin has not yet proven that it can support the world at scale. However it can only be tested through real adoption, and just as gold coins were developed to help gold scale, tools will be developed to help overcome problems as they arise; ideally without the need for another derivative, but if necessary, hopefully with one that is more neutral and less corruptible than the derivatives used to represent gold.

Bitcoin blurs the line between commodity and technology

Bitcoin is a technology, it is a tool that requires human involvement to function, however it surprisingly does not allow for any concentration of power. Anyone can help to facilitate Bitcoin's operations, but no one can take control of its behaviour, its reach, or its prioritisation, as it operates autonomously based on a pre-determined, neutral set of rules.

At the same time, its built-in incentive mechanism ensures that people do not have to operate bitcoin out of the good of their heart. Even though the system cannot be co-opted holistically, It will not stop operating while there are people motivated to trade their time and resources to keep it running and earn from others' transaction fees. Although it requires humans to operate it, it remains both neutral and sustainable.

Never before have we developed or discovered a technology that could not be co-opted and used by one person or faction against another. Due to this nature, Bitcoin's units are often described as a commodity; they cannot be usurped or virtually cloned, and they cannot be affected by political biases.

The dangers of derivatives

A derivative is something created, designed or developed to represent another thing in order to solve a particular complication or problem. For example, paper and electronic money was once a derivative of gold.

In the case of Bitcoin, if you cannot link your units of bitcoin to an "address" that you personally hold a cryptographically secure key to, then you very likely have a derivative of bitcoin, not bitcoin itself. If you buy bitcoin on an online exchange and do not withdraw the bitcoin to a wallet that you control, then you legally own an electronic derivative of bitcoin.

Bitcoin is a new technology. It will have a learning curve and it will take time for humanity to learn how to comprehend, authenticate and take control of bitcoin collectively. Having said that, many people all over the world are already using and relying on Bitcoin natively. For many, it will require for people to find the need or a desire for a neutral money like bitcoin, and to have been burned by derivatives of it, before they start to understand the difference between the two. Eventually, it will become an essential part of what we regard as common sense.

Learn for yourself

If you wish to learn more about how to handle bitcoin and avoid derivatives, you can start by searching online for tutorials about "Bitcoin self custody".

There are many options available, some more practical for you, and some more practical for others. Don't spend too much time trying to find the perfect solution; practice and learn. You may make mistakes along the way, so be careful not to experiment with large amounts of your bitcoin as you explore new ideas and technologies along the way. This is similar to learning anything, like riding a bicycle; you are sure to fall a few times, scuff the frame, so don't buy a high performance racing bike while you're still learning to balance.

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Your device, your data. TRMNL's architecture prevents outsiders (including us) from accessing your local network. TRMNAL achieve this through 1 way communication between client and server, versus the other way around. Learn more.

Learn more at https://usetrmnl.com/

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973632

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Here’s Sean Voisen writing about how programming is a feeling:

For those of us who enjoy programming, there is a deep satisfaction that comes from solving problems through well-written code, a kind of ineffable joy found in the elegant expression of a system through our favorite syntax. It is akin to the same satisfaction a craftsperson might find at the end of the day after toiling away on well-made piece of furniture, the culmination of small dopamine hits that come from sweating the details on something and getting them just right. Maybe nobody will notice those details, but it doesn’t matter. We care, we notice, we get joy from the aesthetics of the craft.

This got me thinking about the idea of satisfaction in craft. Where does it come from?

Continue Reading https://blog.jim-nielsen.com/2025/craft-and-satisfaction/

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973628

@ 84b0c46a:417782f5

至高の油淋鶏の動画 https://youtu.be/Ur2tYVZppBU のレシピ書き起こし

材料（2人分）

• 鶏モモ肉…300g
• A［しょうゆ…小さじ1　塩…小さじ1／3　酒…大さじ1と1／2　おろしショウガ…5g　片栗粉…大さじ1］
• 長ネギ（みじん切り）…1／2本（50g）
• ショウガ（みじん切り）…10g
• B［しょうゆ…大さじ2　砂糖…小さじ4　酢…大さじ1 ゴマ油…小さじ1 味の素…4ふり 赤唐辛子（小口切り）…1本分］
• 赤唐辛子、花椒（各好みで）…各適量

手順

1. 肉を切る

皮を上にして適当に八等分くらい

1. 肉を肉入ってたトレーかなんか適当な入れ物に入れてそこに 醤油こさじ１、塩こさじ1/3、酒おおさじ1と1/2 と ショウガ*５グラムすりおろして入れて軽く混ぜる
2. そこに、片栗粉おおさじ１入れて混ぜる（漬ける段階にも片栗粉を入れることで厚衣になりやすい）
3. 常温で１５分くらい置く
4. その間にたれを作る

   1. 長ネギ50gを細かいみじん切りにしてボウルに入れる（白いとこも青いとこも）

      （端っこを残して縦に切り込みを入れて横に切るとよい） 2. ショウガ10gを細かいみじん切りにして同じボウルにいれる 3. 鷹の爪１本分入れる（任意） 4. 醤油おおさじ２、砂糖小さじ4、酢（穀物酢）おおさじ１を入れる 5. 味の素４振りいれてよく混ぜる 6. 小さなフライパン（油が少なくて済むので）に底に浸るくらいの油を入れ、中火で温める 7. 肉に片栗粉をたっぷりつけて揚げる 8. 揚がったらキッチンペーパーを敷いたなにかしらとかに上げる 9. もりつけてタレをかけて完成

@ da0b9bc3:4e30a4a9

Hello Stackers!

Welcome on into the ~Music Corner of the Saloon!

A place where we Talk Music. Share Tracks. Zap Sats.

So stay a while and listen.

🚨Don't forget to check out the pinned items in the territory homepage! You can always find the latest weeklies there!🚨

🚨Subscribe to the territory to ensure you never miss a post! 🚨

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/974506

@ 37fe9853:bcd1b039

yoyoaa

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

CryptPad

Collaboration and privacy. Yes, you can have both Flagship instance of CryptPad, the end-to-end encrypted and open-source collaboration suite. Cloud administered by the CryptPad development team. https://cryptpad.fr/

ONLYOFFICE DocSpace

Document collaboration made simpler. Easily collaborate with customizable rooms. Edit any content you have. Work faster using AI assistants. Protect your sensitive business data. Download or try STARTUP Cloud (Limited-time offer) FREE https://www.onlyoffice.com/

SeaFile

A new way to organize your files Beyond just syncing and sharing files, Seafile lets you add custom file properties and organize your files in different views. With AI-powered automation for generating properties, Seafile offers a smarter, more efficient way to manage your files. Try it Now, Free for up to 3 users https://seafile.com/

SandStorm

An open source platform for self-hosting web apps Self-host web-based productivity apps easily and securely. Sandstorm is an open source project built by a community of volunteers with the goal of making it really easy to run open source web applications. Try the Demo or Signup Free https://alpha.sandstorm.io/apps

NextCloud Hub

A new generation of online collaboration that puts you in control. Nextcloud offers a modern, on premise content collaboration platform with real-time document editing, video chat & groupware on mobile, desktop and web. Sign up for a free Nextcloud account https://nextcloud.com/sign-up/

LinShare

True Open Source Secure File Sharing Solution We are committed to providing a reliable Open Source file-sharing solution, expertly designed to meet the highest standards of diverse industries, such as government and finance Try the Demo https://linshare.app/

Twake Drive

The open-source alternative to Google Drive. Privacy-First Open Source Workplace. Twake workplace open source business. Improve your effeciency with truly Open Source, all-in-one digital suite. Enhance the security in every aspect of your professional and private life. Sign up https://sign-up.twake.app/

SpaceDrive

One Explorer. All Your Files. Unify files from all your devices and clouds into a single, easy-to-use explorer. Designed for creators, hoarders and the painfully disorganized. Download desktop app (mobile coming soon) https://www.spacedrive.com/

ente

Safe Home for your photos Store, share, and discover your memories with end-to-end encryption. End-to-end encryption, durable storage and simple sharing. Packed with these and much more into our beautiful open source apps. Get started https://web.ente.io

fileStash

Turn your FTP server into... Filestash is the enterprise-grade file manager connecting your storage with your identity provider and authorisations. Try the demo https://demo.filestash.app

STORJ

Disruptively fast.‍ Globally secure. S3-compatible distributed cloud services that make the most demanding workflows fast and affordable. Fast track your journey toward high performance cloud services. Storj pricing is consistent and competitive in meeting or exceeding your cloud services needs. Give the products a try to experience the benefits of the distributed cloud. Get Started https://www.storj.io/get-started

FireFile

The open‑source alternative to Dropbox. Firefiles lets you setup a cloud drive with the backend of your choice and lets you seamlessly manage your files across multiple providers. It revolutionizes cloud storage management by offering a unified platform for all your storage needs. Sign up Free https://beta.firefiles.app

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973626

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

I've been thinking about how Predyx and other lightning based prediction markets might finance their operations, without undermining their core function of eliciting information from people.

The standard approach, of offering less-than-fair odds, guarantees long-run profitability (as long as you have enough customers), but it also creates a friction for participants that reduces the information value of their transactions. So, what are some less frictiony options for generating revenue?

Low hanging fruit

• Close markets in real-time: Rather than prespecifying a closing time for some markets, like sports, it's better to close the market at the moment the outcome is realized. This both prevents post hoc transactions and enables late stage transactions. This should be easily automatable (I say as someone with no idea how to do that), with the right resolution criteria.
• Round off shares: Shares and sats are discrete, so just make sure any necessary rounding is always in the house's favor.
• Set initial probabilities well: Use whatever external information is available to open markets as near to the "right" value as possible.
• Arbitrage: whenever markets are related to each other, make sure to resolve any illogical odds automatically

The point of these four is to avoid giving away free sats. None of them reduce productive use of the market. Keeping markets open up until the outcome is realized will probably greatly increase the number of transactions, since that's usually when the most information is coming in.

Third party support

• Ads are the most obvious form of third party revenue
• Sponsorships are the more interesting one: Allow sponsors to boost a market's visibility. This is similar to advertising, but it also capitalizes on the possibility of a market being of particular interest to someone.
• Charge for market creation: users should be able to create new markets (this will also enhance trade quantity and site traffic), but it should be costly to create a market. If prediction markets really provide higher quality information, then it's reasonable to charge for it.
• Arbitrage: Monitor external odds and whenever a gain can be locked in, place the bets (buy the shares) that guarantee a gain.

Bitcoin stuff

• Routing fees: The volume of sats moving into, out of, and being held in these markets will require a fairly large lightning node. Following some helpful tips to optimize fee revenue will generate some sats for logistical stuff that had to be done anyway.
• Treasury strategy: Take out loans against the revenue generated from all of the above and buy bitcoin: NGU -> repay with a fraction of the bitcoin, NGD -> repay with site revenue.

Bitcoin and Lightning Competitive Advantages

These aren't revenue ideas. They're just a couple of advantages lightning and bitcoin provide over fiat that should allow charging lower spreads than a traditional prediction market or sportsbook.

Traditional betting or prediction platforms are earning depreciating fiat, while a bitcoin based platform earns appreciating bitcoin. Traditional spreads must therefor be larger, in order to pull in the same real return. This also means the users' odds are worse on fiat platforms (again in real terms), even if the listed odds are the same, because their winnings will have depreciated by the time they receive them. Technically, this opens an opportunity to charge even higher spreads, but as mentioned in the intro, that would be bad for the information purposes of the market.

Lightning has much lower transactions costs than fiat transactions. So, even with tighter spreads, a lightning platform can net a better (nominal) return per transaction.

---

@mega_dreamer, I imagine most of those ideas were already on y'all's radar, and obviously you're already doing some, but I wanted to get them out of my head and onto digital paper. Hopefully, some of this will provide some useful food for thought.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/974372

@ f1989a96:bcaaf2c1

Good morning, readers!

This week, we bring pressing news from Belarus, where the regime’s central bank is preparing to launch its central bank digital currency in close collaboration with Russia by the end of 2026. Since rigging the 2020 election, President Alexander Lukashenko has ruled through brute force and used financial repression to crush civil society and political opposition. A Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) in the hands of such an authoritarian leader is a recipe for greater control over all aspects of financial activity.

Meanwhile, Russia is planning to further restrict Bitcoin access for ordinary citizens. This time, the Central Bank of Russia and the Ministry of Finance announced joint plans to launch a state-regulated cryptocurrency exchange available exclusively to “super-qualified investors.” Access would be limited to those meeting previously defined thresholds of $1.2 million in assets or an annual income above $580,000. This is a blatant attempt by the Kremlin to dampen the accessibility and impact of Bitcoin for those who need it most.

In freedom tech news, we spotlight Samiz. This new tool allows users to create a Bluetooth mesh network over nostr, allowing users' messages and posts to pass through nearby devices on the network even while offline. When a post reaches someone with an Internet connection, it is broadcast across the wider network. While early in development, Mesh networks like Samiz hold the potential to disseminate information posted by activists and human rights defenders even when authoritarian regimes in countries like Pakistan, Venezuela, or Burma try to restrict communications and the Internet.

We end with a reading of our very own Financial Freedom Report #67 on the Bitcoin Audible podcast, where host Guy Swann reads the latest news on plunging currencies, CBDCs, and new Bitcoin freedom tools. We encourage our readers to give it a listen and stay tuned for future readings of HRF’s Financial Freedom Report on Bitcoin Audible. We also include an interview with HRF’s global bitcoin adoption lead, Femi Longe, who shares insights on Bitcoin’s growing role as freedom money for those who need it most.

Now, let’s see what’s in store this week!

SUBSCRIBE HERE

GLOBAL NEWS

Belarus | Launching CBDC in Late 2026

Belarus is preparing to launch its CBDC, the digital ruble, into public circulation by late 2026. Roman Golovchenko, the chairman of the National Bank of the Republic of Belarus (and former prime minister), made the regime’s intent clear: “For the state, it is very important to be able to trace how digital money moves along the entire chain.” He added that Belarus was “closely cooperating with Russia regarding the development of the CBDC.” The level of surveillance and central control that the digital ruble would embed into Belarus’s financial system would pose existential threats to what remains of civil society in the country. Since stealing the 2020 election, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has ruled through sheer force, detaining over 35,000 people, labeling dissidents and journalists as “extremists,” and freezing the bank accounts of those who challenge his authority. In this context, a CBDC would not be a modern financial tool — it would be a means of instant oppression, granting the regime real-time insight into every transaction and the ability to act on it directly.

Russia | Proposes Digital Asset Exchange Exclusively for Wealthy Investors

A month after proposing a framework that would restrict the trading of Bitcoin to only the country’s wealthiest individuals (Russians with over $1.2 million in assets or an annual income above $580,000), Russia’s Ministry of Finance and Central Bank have announced plans to launch a government-regulated cryptocurrency exchange available exclusively to “super-qualified investors.” Under the plan, only citizens meeting the previously stated wealth and income thresholds (which may be subject to change) would be allowed to trade digital assets on the platform. This would further entrench financial privilege for Russian oligarchs while cutting ordinary Russians off from alternative financial tools and the financial freedom they offer. Finance Minister Anton Siluanov claims this will bring digital asset operations “out of the shadows,” but in reality, it suppresses grassroots financial autonomy while exerting state control over who can access freedom money.

Cuba | Ecash Brings Offline Bitcoin Payments to Island Nation in the Dark

As daily blackouts and internet outages continue across Cuba, a new development is helping Cubans achieve financial freedom: Cashu ecash. Cashu is an ecash protocol — a form of digital cash backed by Bitcoin that enables private, everyday payments that can also be done offline — a powerful feature for Cubans experiencing up to 20-hour daily blackouts. However, ecash users must trust mints (servers operated by individuals or groups that issue and redeem ecash tokens) not to disappear with user funds. To leverage this freedom tech to its fullest, the Cuban Bitcoin community launched its own ecash mint, mint.cubabitcoin.org. This minimizes trust requirements for Cubans to transact with ecash and increases its accessibility by running the mint locally. Cuba Bitcoin also released a dedicated ecash resource page, helping expand accessibility to freedom through financial education. For an island nation where the currency has lost more than 90% of its value, citizens remain locked out of their savings, and remittances are often hijacked by the regime, tools like ecash empower Cubans to preserve their financial privacy, exchange value freely, and resist the financial repression that has left so many impoverished.

Zambia | Introduces Cyber Law to Track and Intercept Digital Communications

Zambia’s government passed two new cyber laws granting officials sweeping powers to track and intercept digital communications while increasing surveillance over Zambians' online activity. Officials insist it will help combat cybercrime. Really, it gives the president absolute control over the direction of a new surveillance agency — a powerful tool to crush dissent. This follows earlier plans to restrict the use of foreign currency in the economy to fight inflation, which effectively trapped Zambians in a financial system centered around the volatile “kwacha” currency (which reached a record low earlier this year with inflation above 16%). For activists, journalists, and everyday Zambians, the new laws over online activity threaten the ability to organize and speak freely while potentially hampering access to freedom tech.

India | Central Bank Deputy Governor Praises CBDC Capabilities

At the Bharat Inclusion Summit in Bengaluru, India, the deputy governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), Rabi Sankar, declared, “I have so far not seen any use case that potentially can solve the problem of cross-border money transfer; only CBDC has the ability to solve it.” Yet — seemingly unbeknownst to Sankar, Bitcoin has served as an effective remittance tool for more than a decade at low cost, fast speed, and with no central point of control. Sankar’s remarks follow a growing push to normalize state-controlled, surveillance-based digital money as a natural progression of currency. The RBI’s digital rupee CBDC, currently in pilot phase, is quickly growing into one of the most advanced CBDCs on the planet. It is being embedded into the government’s UPI payment system and offered through existing financial institutions and platforms. Decentralized alternatives like Bitcoin can achieve financial inclusion and payment efficiency too — but without sacrificing privacy, autonomy, or basic rights over to the state.

Tanzania | Opposition Party Excluded From Election Amid Financial Repression

Last week, the Tanzanian regime banned the use of foreign currency in transactions, leaving Tanzanians to rely solely on the rapidly depreciating Tanzanian shilling. Now, Tanzania's ruling party has taken a decisive step to eliminate political opposition ahead of October’s general elections by barring the CHADEMA party from participation under the pretense of treason against their party leader, Tundu Lissu. Law enforcement arrested Lissu at a public rally where he was calling for electoral reforms. This political repression is not happening in isolation. Last year, the Tanzanian regime blocked access to X, detained hundreds of opposition members, and disappeared dissidents. These developments suggest a broader strategy to silence criticism and electoral competition through arrests, censorship, and economic coercion.

BITCOIN AND FREEDOM TECH NEWS

Samiz | Create a Bluetooth Mesh Network with Nostr

Samiz, an app for creating a Bluetooth mesh network over nostr, is officially available for testing. Mesh networks, where interconnected computers relay data to one another, can provide offline access to nostr if enough users participate. For example, when an individual is offline but has Samiz enabled, their device can connect to other nearby devices through Bluetooth, allowing nostr messages to hop locally from phone to phone until reaching someone with internet access, who can then broadcast the message to the wider nostr network. Mesh networks like this hold powerful implications for activists and communities facing censorship, Internet shutdowns, or surveillance. In places with restricted finances and organization, Samiz, while early in development, can potentially offer a way to distribute information through nostr without relying on infrastructure that authoritarian regimes can shut down.

Spark | New Bitcoin Payments Protocol Now Live

Lightspark, a company building on the Bitcoin Lightning Network, officially released Spark, a new payment protocol built on Bitcoin to make transactions faster, cheaper, and more privacy-protecting. Spark leverages a technology called statechains to enable self-custodial and off-chain Bitcoin transactions for users by transferring the private keys associated with their bitcoin rather than signing and sending a transaction with said keys. Spark also supports stablecoins (digital tokens pegged to fiat currency) and allows users to receive payments while offline. While these are promising developments, in its current state, Spark is not completely trustless; therefore, it is advisable only to hold a small balance of funds on the protocol as this new payment technology gets off the ground. You can learn more about Spark here.

Boltz | Now Supports Nostr Zaps

Boltz, a non-custodial bridge for swapping between different Bitcoin layers, released a new feature called Zap Swaps, enabling users to make Lightning payments as low as 21 satoshis (small units of bitcoin). This feature enables bitcoin microtransactions like nostr zaps, which are use cases that previously required workaround solutions. With the release, users of Boltz-powered Bitcoin wallets like Misty Breez can now leverage their wallets for zaps on nostr. These small, uncensorable bitcoin payments are a powerful tool for supporting activists, journalists, and dissidents — offering a permissionless way to support free speech and financial freedom worldwide. HRF is pleased to see this past HRF grantee add support for the latest freedom tech features.

Coinswap | Adds Support for Coin Selection

Coinswap, an in-development protocol that enables users to privately swap Bitcoin with one another, added support for coin selection, boosting the protocol’s privacy capabilities. Coin selection allows Bitcoin users to choose which of their unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs) to spend, giving them granular control over their transactions and the information they choose to reveal. For activists, journalists, and anyone operating under financial surveillance and repression, this addition (when fully implemented and released) can strengthen Bitcoin’s ability to resist censorship and protect human rights. HRF’s first Bitcoin Development Fund (BDF) grant was to Coinswap, and we are glad to see the continued development of the protocol.

bitcoin++ | Upcoming Bitcoin Developer Conference

The next bitcoin++ conference, a global, bitcoin-only developer series organized by Bitcoin educator Lisa Neigut, will occur in Austin, Texas, from May 7 to 9, 2025. A diverse group of privacy advocates, developers, and freedom tech enthusiasts will convene to learn about the mempool (the queue of pending and unconfirmed transactions in a Bitcoin node). Attendees will learn how Bitcoin transactions are sorted into blocks, mempool policies, and how transactions move through time and space to reach the next block. These events offer an incredible opportunity to connect with the technical Bitcoin community, who are ultimately many of the figures building the freedom tools that are helping individuals preserve their rights and freedoms in the face of censorship. Get your tickets here.

OpenSats | Announces 11th Wave of Nostr Grants

OpenSats, a nonprofit organization supporting open-source software and projects, announced its 11th round of grants for nostr, a decentralized protocol that enables uncensorable communications. Two projects stand out for their potential impact on financial freedom and activism: HAMSTR, which enables nostr messaging over ham radio that keeps information and payments flowing in off-grid or censored environments, and Nostr Double Ratchet, which brings end-to-end encrypted private messaging to nostr clients, safeguarding activists from surveillance. These tools help dissidents stay connected, coordinate securely, and transact privately, making them powerful assets for those resisting authoritarian control. Read the full list of grants here.

Bitcoin Design Community | Organizes Designathon for Open-Source UX Designers

The Bitcoin Design Community is hosting its next Designathon between May 4 and 18, 2025, inviting designers of all levels and backgrounds to creatively explore ideas to advance Bitcoin’s user experience and interface. Unlike traditional hackathons, this event centers specifically on design, encouraging open collaboration on projects that improve usability, accessibility, and innovation in open-source Bitcoin tools. Participants can earn monetary prizes, rewards, and recognition for their work. Anyone can join or start a project. Learn more here.

RECOMMENDED CONTENT

Plunging Currencies, CBDCs, and New Bitcoin Freedom Tools with Guy Swann

In this reading on the Bitcoin Audible podcast, host Guy Swan reads HRF’s Financial Freedom Report #67, offering listeners a front-row view into the latest developments in financial repression and resistance. He unpacks how collapsing currencies, rising inflation, and CBDC rollouts tighten state control in Turkey, Russia, and Nigeria. But he also highlights the tools for pushing back, from the first Stratum V2 mining pool to Cashu’s new Tap-to-Pay ecash feature. If you’re a reader of the Financial Freedom Report, we encourage you to check out the Bitcoin Audible podcast, where Guy Swan will be doing monthly readings of our newsletter. Listen to the full recording here.

Bitcoin Beyond Capital: Freedom Money for the Global South with Femi Longe

In this interview at the 2025 MIT Bitcoin Expo, journalist Frank Corva speaks with Femi Longe, HRF’s global bitcoin lead, who shares insights on Bitcoin’s growing role as freedom money for those living under authoritarian regimes. The conversation highlights the importance of building Bitcoin solutions that center on the specific problems faced by communities rather than the technology itself. Longe commends projects like Tando in Kenya and Bit.Spenda in Ghana, which integrate Bitcoin and Lightning into familiar financial channels, making Bitcoin more practical and accessible for everyday payments and saving. You can watch the interview here and catch the livestreams of the full 2025 MIT Bitcoin Expo here.

If this article was forwarded to you and you enjoyed reading it, please consider subscribing to the Financial Freedom Report here.

Support the newsletter by donating bitcoin to HRF’s Financial Freedom program via BTCPay.\ Want to contribute to the newsletter? Submit tips, stories, news, and ideas by emailing us at ffreport @ hrf.org

The Bitcoin Development Fund (BDF) is accepting grant proposals on an ongoing basis. The Bitcoin Development Fund is looking to support Bitcoin developers, community builders, and educators. Submit proposals here.

Subscribe to newsletter

Apply for a grant

Support our work

Visit our website

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Album art didn’t always exist. In the early 1900s, recorded music was still a novelty, overshadowed by sales of sheet music. Early vinyl records were vastly different from what we think of today: discs were sold individually and could only hold up to four minutes of music per side. Sometimes, only one side of the record was used. One of the most popular records of 1910, for example, was “Come, Josephine, in My Flying Machine”: it clocked in at two minutes and 39 seconds.

The invention of album art can get lost in the story of technological mastery. But among all the factors that contributed to the rise of recorded music, it stands as one of the few that was wholly driven by creators themselves. Album art — first as marketing material, then as pure creative expression — turned an audio-only medium into a multi-sensory experience.

This is the story of the people who made music visible.

Continue reading

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/972642

@ 99895004:c239f905

Yes, FINALLY, we are extremely excited to announce support for nostr.build (blossom.band) on Primal! Decades in the making, billions of people have been waiting, and now it’s available! But it’s not just any integration, it is the next level of decentralized media hosting for Nostr. Let us explain.

Primal is an advanced Twitter/X like client for Nostr and is probably the fastest up-and-coming, highly used Nostr app available for iOS, Android and the web. Nostr.build is a very popular media hosting service for Nostr that can be used standalone or integrated into many Nostr apps using nip-96. This is an extremely feature rich, tested and proven integration we recommend for most applications, but it’s never been available on Primal.

And then, Blossom was born, thank you Hzrd149! Blossom is a Nostr media hosting protocol that makes it extremely easy for Nostr clients to integrate a media host, and for users of Blossom media hosts (even an in-house build) to host on any Nostr client. Revolutionary, right! Use whatever host you want on any client you want, the flexible beauty of Nostr. But there is an additional feature to Blossom that is key, mirroring.

One of the biggest complaints to media hosting on Nostr is, if a media hosting service goes down, so does all of the media hosted on that service. No bueno, and defeats the whole decentralized idea behind Nostr.. This has always been a hard problem to solve until Blossom mirroring came along. Mirroring allows a single media upload to be hosted on multiple servers using its hash, or unique media identifier. This way, if a media host goes down, the media is still available and accessible on the other host.

So, we are not only announcing support of nostr.build’s blossom.band on the Primal app, we are also announcing the first known fully integrated implementation of mirroring with multiple media hosts on Nostr. Try it out for yourself! Go to the settings of your Primal web, iOS or Android app, choose ‘Media Servers’, enable ‘Media Mirrors’, and add https://blossom.band and https://blossom.primal.net as your Media server and Mirror, done!

Video here!

@ 62033ff8:e4471203

收录的内容中 kind=1的部分，实话说 质量不高。 所以我增加了kind=30023 长文的article，但是更新的太少，多个relays 的服务器也没有多少长文。

所有搜索nostr如果需要产生价值，需要有高质量的文章和新闻。 而且现在有很多机器人的文章充满着浪费空间的作用，其他作用都用不上。

https://www.duozhutuan.com 目前放的是给搜索引擎提供搜索的原材料。没有做UI给人类浏览。所以看上去是粗糙的。 我并没有打算去做一个发microblog的 web客户端，那类的客户端太多了。

我觉得nostr社区需要解决的还是应用。如果仅仅是microblog 感觉有点够呛

幸运的是npub.pro 建站这样的，我觉得有点意思。

yakihonne 智能widget 也有意思

我做的TaskQ5 我自己在用了。分布式的任务系统，也挺好的。

@ 52b4a076:e7fad8bd

I have been recently building NFDB, a new relay DB. This post is meant as a short overview.

Regular relays have challenges

Current relay software have significant challenges, which I have experienced when hosting Nostr.land: - Scalability is only supported by adding full replicas, which does not scale to large relays. - Most relays use slow databases and are not optimized for large scale usage. - Search is near-impossible to implement on standard relays. - Privacy features such as NIP-42 are lacking. - Regular DB maintenance tasks on normal relays require extended downtime. - Fault-tolerance is implemented, if any, using a load balancer, which is limited. - Personalization and advanced filtering is not possible. - Local caching is not supported.

NFDB: A scalable database for large relays

NFDB is a new database meant for medium-large scale relays, built on FoundationDB that provides: - Near-unlimited scalability - Extended fault tolerance - Instant loading - Better search - Better personalization - and more.

Search

NFDB has extended search capabilities including: - Semantic search: Search for meaning, not words. - Interest-based search: Highlight content you care about. - Multi-faceted queries: Easily filter by topic, author group, keywords, and more at the same time. - Wide support for event kinds, including users, articles, etc.

Personalization

NFDB allows significant personalization: - Customized algorithms: Be your own algorithm. - Spam filtering: Filter content to your WoT, and use advanced spam filters. - Topic mutes: Mute topics, not keywords. - Media filtering: With Nostr.build, you will be able to filter NSFW and other content - Low data mode: Block notes that use high amounts of cellular data. - and more

Other

NFDB has support for many other features such as: - NIP-42: Protect your privacy with private drafts and DMs - Microrelays: Easily deploy your own personal microrelay - Containers: Dedicated, fast storage for discoverability events such as relay lists

Calcite: A local microrelay database

Calcite is a lightweight, local version of NFDB that is meant for microrelays and caching, meant for thousands of personal microrelays.

Calcite HA is an additional layer that allows live migration and relay failover in under 30 seconds, providing higher availability compared to current relays with greater simplicity. Calcite HA is enabled in all Calcite deployments.

For zero-downtime, NFDB is recommended.

Noswhere SmartCache

Relays are fixed in one location, but users can be anywhere.

Noswhere SmartCache is a CDN for relays that dynamically caches data on edge servers closest to you, allowing: - Multiple regions around the world - Improved throughput and performance - Faster loading times

routerd

routerd is a custom load-balancer optimized for Nostr relays, integrated with SmartCache.

routerd is specifically integrated with NFDB and Calcite HA to provide fast failover and high performance.

Ending notes

NFDB is planned to be deployed to Nostr.land in the coming weeks.

A lot more is to come. 👀️️️️️️

@ 1f79058c:eb86e1cb

I'm currently using this bash script to publish long-form content from local Markdown files to Nostr relays.

It requires all of yq, jq, and nak to be installed.

Usage

Create a signed Nostr event and print it to the console:

bash markdown_to_nostr.sh article-filename.md

Create a Nostr event and publish it to one or more relays:

bash markdown_to_nostr.sh article-filename.md ws://localhost:7777 wss://nostr.kosmos.org

Markdown format

You can specify your metadata as YAML in a Front Matter header. Here's an example file:

```markdown

title: "Good Morning" summary: "It's a beautiful day" image: https://example.com/i/beautiful-day.jpg date: 2025-04-24T15:00:00Z tags: gm, poetry published: false

---

In the blue sky just a few specks of gray
In the evening of a beautiful day
Though last night it rained and more rain on the way
And that more rain is needed 'twould be fair to say.

— Francis Duggan ```

The metadata keys are mostly self-explanatory. Note:

• All keys except for title are optional
• date, if present, will be set as the published_at date.
• If published is set to true, it will publish a kind 30023 event, otherwise a kind 30024 (draft)
• The d tag (widely used as URL slug for the article) will be the filename without the .md extension

@ f1989a96:bcaaf2c1

Good morning, readers!

This week, we bring reports from Bangladesh, where the interim government instructed the central bank to halt the printing of old banknotes featuring Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founding president of Bangladesh. This has induced a currency shortage, as new notes have yet to be issued to replace the discontinued ones. As a result, Bangladeshis find themselves holding worthless currency, facing increased costs, and feeling frustrated over such poor currency management. Meanwhile, in Indonesia, citizens are fleeing to gold as the local rupiah currency crashes to record lows amid increasing financial controls from the government.

In open-source news, LNbits, a Bitcoin and Lightning wallet management software, emerged from beta with its v1.0.0 release. LNbits works like a control panel on top of a Bitcoin wallet, letting users divide funds into separate accounts and use different features and functionalities. It is a handy tool for educators, civil society organizations, and communities who want to use Bitcoin for real-world transactions without needing advanced technical skills. We also spotlight a new tool called following .space that allows users to curate and share premade follow packs for nostr. The result is a more straightforward onboarding process for new users interested in censorship-resistant social media and the ability to curate feeds to better suit their interests.

We end with an interview with HRF Chief Strategy Officer Alex Gladstein, who explores his thinking behind the relationship between Bitcoin and human rights as we enter an age of increased corporate and nation-state adoption. He highlights the paradox where Bitcoin, a tool for individual financial freedom, is being adopted by institutions around the world, many of which regularly seek greater control over financial activity. We also include a new report from Bitcoin developer and past HRF grantee, b10c, who documents the current state of Bitcoin mining centralization and the threat it poses to decentralization and censorship resistance.

Now, let’s jump right in!

SUBCRIBE HERE

GLOBAL NEWS

Bangladesh | Currency Shortage as Central Bank Halts Printing of Banknotes

A state-induced cash crunch is paralyzing Bangladesh after the interim government, led by Muhammad Yunus, ordered the central bank to discontinue old banknotes featuring Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founding president of Bangladesh. New cash is expected to be printed in phases beginning in May. But Bangladeshis report they are currently stuck with old and unusable currency, as the national mint has yet to issue replacement currency and lacks the capacity to print more than three notes at a time. Meanwhile, public ATMs continue to dispense old and worn-out banknotes, with merchants reluctantly accepting them and banks refusing to exchange them. Through all this, the central bank of Bangladesh sits on nearly 15,000 crore taka ($1.28 billion) worth of old notes in vaults, but the interim government has refused to release them, deepening public frustration.

Nigeria | Regulates Bitcoin as a Security

Nigerian lawmakers are moving to regulate digital assets as securities by passing the Investment and Securities Act (ISA) 2025. Rather than embrace it as a tool for financial freedom, the law places Bitcoin under the purview of the Nigerian Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Companies must now register with the Nigerian SEC, implement more strict data-collection processes (to harvest personal information), and navigate a legal framework not designed for a borderless and permissionless technology like Bitcoin. The law further grants the SEC access to data from telecom and Internet providers to investigate “illegal market activity” — a provision that could easily be abused to surveil or intimidate Bitcoin users and developers. Nigeria routinely uses regulations to stifle the presence of open-source money, raising compliance hurdles, imposing taxes, and punishing digital asset companies. It’s not unreasonable to suspect this new classification could provide the state with a means to suppress the free adoption and innovation of Bitcoin.

Indonesia | Gold Rush Amid Economic Uncertainty

As the rupiah currency falls to record lows, Indonesians are flocking to gold in a rush to protect their savings. But gold isn’t the only safe haven. With 74% of Indonesia’s population unbanked or underbanked, digital tools like Bitcoin offer a more accessible alternative, especially when nearly 70% of Indonesians have Internet access. The Indonesian government is also tightening capital controls. A new policy forces exporters to keep all foreign currency earnings inside the country for a full year to trap dollars in the financial system. HRF grantee Bitcoin Indonesia is responding by helping people in the region (especially in nearby states like Burma) build financial resilience through meetups, workshops, and training focused on Bitcoin custody, privacy, and adoption. In an area where financial services remain out of reach for millions, learning how to save and transact permissionlessly is paramount.

Kenya | Introduces Legal Framework for Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs)

Kenya’s government introduced a comprehensive legal framework to regulate Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) through its newly proposed 2025 VASP Bill. The legislation outlines strict licensing requirements for digital asset exchanges, wallet providers, brokers, and other digital asset firms. It functionally bars individuals from operating independently (think: open-source freedom tech builders) by mandating local incorporation, compliance with cybersecurity standards, and approval from financial regulators. This appears to be an attempt to formalize and better control the rapidly growing digital asset space. It could stifle grassroots innovation and limit access to financial tools that have become vital for activists and citizens seeking privacy and autonomy as economic policies and high inflation drive unrest.

El Salvador | Attorney General’s Office Preparing Arrest Warrants for Independent Journalists

El Faro, one of El Salvador’s most prominent investigative news outlets, shared reliable information that the Salvadoran Attorney General’s Office is preparing arrest warrants against three of its journalists. The warning came from El Faro director Carlos Dada, who suggests that the charges may include “apology for crimes” and “illicit association.” The alleged charges allegedly stem from El Faro’s latest reporting: a three-part video interview with former leaders of the 18th Street Revolucionarios gang that sheds light on Bukele’s “years-long relationship” with Salvadoran gangs. El Faro editor-in-chief Óscar Martínez said that any arrests or home raids following this news would be “for having done journalism.” With El Salvador’s shrinking civic space, this potential action against independent media would further restrict Salvadorans’ ability to access independent information and hold officials accountable.

BITCOIN AND FREEDOM TECH NEWS

LNbits | Emerges from Beta with v1.0.0 Release

LNbits, an open-source software tool that lets people create and manage Bitcoin Lightning wallets securely for themselves and for others, officially launched version 1.0.0, marking its transition out of beta and into a more stable release for public use. It works like a control panel sitting on top of a Bitcoin wallet, letting users divide funds into separate accounts and use different features and functionalities. LNbits is especially useful for educators, small businesses, and community organizers who want to use and manage Bitcoin for payments and savings. HRF is pleased to see this Bitcoin Development Fund (BDF) grantee strengthen the tools available to activists to achieve financial freedom in the face of censorship, surveillance, or inflation.

SeedSigner | Self-Custody Tool for Chinese Bitcoiners Facing Local Corruption

Chinese Bitcoin users are turning to SeedSigner, an open-source and fully customizable Bitcoin hardware wallet, as a more private way to protect their savings from law enforcement corruption. While many assume the primary threat to Bitcoin in China comes from top-down management and enforcement from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), new reports suggest greater concern over the police, who regularly monitor mail, detect hardware wallet purchases, and fabricate charges to extort Chinese users’ Bitcoin. SeedSigner solves this by allowing users to assemble a secure signing device from generic, inexpensive parts, avoiding the risk of shipping a branded wallet that might flag them as a target. When privacy violations begin at the local level, SeedSigner can help citizens safeguard their financial freedom by making secure self-custody discreet, accessible, and affordable.

Following .space | Create and Share Follow Packs on Nostr

Following.space is a new tool for nostr that solves one of the protocol’s biggest pain points: finding people worth following in the absence of an algorithm. Created by developer and HRF grantee Calle, the tool lets anyone build and share curated “follow packs” — pre-made lists of nostr users that can be easily distributed across the web. The lists are customizable and can be made based on shared interests, communities, organizations, regions, and more. This makes onboarding new users easier and allows users to curate their feeds to suit their interests. The result is a simple but powerful tool that helps nostr scale more organically by encouraging natural discovery. Enabling free expression and connections without reliance on centralized platforms strengthens human rights and financial freedom in repressive environments. Try it here.

256 Foundation | Releases Ember One Source Code

The 256 Foundation, an open-source Bitcoin mining initiative, released the source code of its new Ember One Bitcoin mining hashboard to the public. A Bitcoin hashboard is a device with multiple chips for performing Bitcoin mining computations. The open-source Ember One only consumes 100 Watts of total power and is modular by design, allowing user customization and the ability to mine discreetly even under autocratic regimes. This is important because it gives individuals a way to access and earn Bitcoin without drawing the attention of officials. For dissidents, mining at home means gaining more control over how they earn, spend, and store their money, all without relying on centralized systems at the whims of dictators.

Btrust and Africa Free Routing | Announce Partnership to Advance African Bitcoin Development

Btrust, a nonprofit advancing Bitcoin development in Africa, awarded a grant to Africa Free Routing, a program within African Bitcoiners, to support five Bitcoin Lightning-focused developer boot camps across the continent in 2025. These bootcamps aim to onboard non-Bitcoin developers into the Bitcoin ecosystem, offering hands-on training, mentorship, and opportunities to contribute to open-source projects. This work strengthens the foundations of freedom tech in Africa, providing tools that allow people to resist financial repression under tyranny. Learn more about the partnership here.

Presidio Bitcoin | Hosting First Hackathon

Presidio Bitcoin, the Bay Area’s first dedicated freedom tech co-working and events space, just announced its first-ever hackathon, which will take place from May 16-17, 2025. This 24-hour hackathon in San Francisco brings together developers and technologists to build and collaborate at the frontier of Bitcoin, AI, and open-source technology. In addition to the hackathon, Presidio is launching a new program offering free three-month access to its workspace for Bitcoin open-source contributors. This is a valuable opportunity to connect with fellow developers, startup founders, and freedom tech advocates in the area. HRF is proud to sponsor this hackathon and is looking forward to how the outcomes might help create better freedom tools for dissidents worldwide. Learn more about the event here.

RECOMMENDED CONTENT

Bitcoin Nation State Adoption Paradox - Interview with Alex Gladstein

In a recent episode of the Bitcoin Fundamentals podcast, hosted by Preston Pysh, Alex Gladstein, HRF’s chief strategy officer, discusses the complexities of Bitcoin’s new era of adoption. He highlights the paradox where Bitcoin, a tool for individual financial freedom, is being adopted by governments, which some believe to be potentially compromising to its core principles. He emphasizes that while governments may adopt it for strategic or economic reasons, in doing so, they expose their populations to a technology that will ultimately weaken state control over money and advance individual liberty and human rights. Watch the full interview here.

Bitcoin Mining Centralization by b10c

In this report, Bitcoin developer and past HRF grantee b10c documents the growing trend of centralization in Bitcoin mining pools. It shows that over 95% of blocks are now mined by just six Bitcoin mining pools, with Foundry and AntPool controlling roughly 60–70% of the hashrate (the computing power dedicated to the Bitcoin network). This marks a rise in mining pool centralization in recent years. While this hasn’t harmed Bitcoin’s censorship resistance yet, it reduces the number of block template producers. This concentration of template producers poses a potential risk to Bitcoin’s neutrality, which is essential for ensuring access to uncensorable money and protecting human rights in autocratic regimes. HRF has happily supported both Hashpool and Public Pool with recent grants to support smaller, independent pools that help preserve Bitcoin's decentralization. Read the full report here.

If this article was forwarded to you and you enjoyed reading it, please consider subscribing to the Financial Freedom Report here.

Support the newsletter by donating bitcoin to HRF’s Financial Freedom program via BTCPay.\ Want to contribute to the newsletter? Submit tips, stories, news, and ideas by emailing us at ffreport @ hrf.org

The Bitcoin Development Fund (BDF) is accepting grant proposals on an ongoing basis. The Bitcoin Development Fund is looking to support Bitcoin developers, community builders, and educators. Submit proposals here.

Subscribe to newsletter

Apply for a grant

Support our work

Visit our website

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

I don’t like garlic. It’s not a dislike for the taste in the moment, so much as an extreme dislike for the way it stays with you—sometimes for days—after a particularly garlicky meal.

Interestingly enough, both of my brothers love garlic. They roast it by itself and keep it at the ready so they can have a very strong garlic profile in their cooking. When I prepare a dish, I don’t even see garlic on the ingredient list. I’ve cut it out of my life so completely that my brain genuinely skips over it in recipes. While my brothers are looking for ways to sneak garlic into everything they make, I’m subconsciously avoiding it altogether.

A few years back, when I was digging intensely into how design systems mature, I stumbled on the concept of a design system origin story. There are two extreme origin stories and an infinite number of possibilities between. On one hand you have the grassroots system, where individuals working on digital products are simply trying to solve their own daily problems. They’re frustrated with having to go cut and paste elements from past designs or with recreating the same layouts over and over, so they start to work more systematically. On the other hand, you have the top down system, where leadership is directing teams to take a more systematic approach, often forming a small partially dedicated core team to tackle some centralized assets and guidelines for all to follow. The influences in those early days bias a design system in interesting and impactful ways.

We’ve established that there are a few types of bias that are either intentionally or unintentionally embedded into our design systems. Acknowledging this is a great first step. But, what’s the impact of this? Does it matter?

I believe there are a few impacts design system biases, but there’s one that stands out. The bias in your design system makes some individuals feel the system is meant for them and others feel it’s not. This is a problem because, a design system cannot live up to it’s expected value until it is broadly in use. If individuals feel your design system is not for them, the won’t use it. And, as you know, it doesn’t matter how good your design system is if nobody is using it.

Continue reading

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/972641

@ d61f3bc5:0da6ef4a

I remember the first gathering of Nostr devs two years ago in Costa Rica. We were all psyched because Nostr appeared to solve the problem of self-sovereign online identity and decentralized publishing. The protocol seemed well-suited for textual content, but it wasn't really designed to handle binary files, like images or video.

The Problem

When I publish a note that contains an image link, the note itself is resilient thanks to Nostr, but if the hosting service disappears or takes my image down, my note will be broken forever. We need a way to publish binary data without relying on a single hosting provider.

We were discussing how there really was no reliable solution to this problem even outside of Nostr. Peer-to-peer attempts like IPFS simply didn't work; they were hopelessly slow and unreliable in practice. Torrents worked for popular files like movies, but couldn't be relied on for general file hosting.

Awesome Blossom

A year later, I attended the Sovereign Engineering demo day in Madeira, organized by Pablo and Gigi. Many projects were presented over a three hour demo session that day, but one really stood out for me.

Introduced by hzrd149 and Stu Bowman, Blossom blew my mind because it showed how we can solve complex problems easily by simply relying on the fact that Nostr exists. Having an open user directory, with the corresponding social graph and web of trust is an incredible building block.

Since we can easily look up any user on Nostr and read their profile metadata, we can just get them to simply tell us where their files are stored. This, combined with hash-based addressing (borrowed from IPFS), is all we need to solve our problem.

How Blossom Works

The Blossom protocol (Blobs Stored Simply on Mediaservers) is formally defined in a series of BUDs (Blossom Upgrade Documents). Yes, Blossom is the most well-branded protocol in the history of protocols. Feel free to refer to the spec for details, but I will provide a high level explanation here.

The main idea behind Blossom can be summarized in three points:

1. Users specify which media server(s) they use via their public Blossom settings published on Nostr;
2. All files are uniquely addressable via hashes;
3. If an app fails to load a file from the original URL, it simply goes to get it from the server(s) specified in the user's Blossom settings.

Just like Nostr itself, the Blossom protocol is dead-simple and it works!

Let's use this image as an example:

If you look at the URL for this image, you will notice that it looks like this:

blossom.primal.net/c1aa63f983a44185d039092912bfb7f33adcf63ed3cae371ebe6905da5f688d0.jpg

All Blossom URLs follow this format:

[server]/[file-hash].[extension]

The file hash is important because it uniquely identifies the file in question. Apps can use it to verify that the file they received is exactly the file they requested. It also gives us the ability to reliably get the same file from a different server.

Nostr users declare which media server(s) they use by publishing their Blossom settings. If I store my files on Server A, and they get removed, I can simply upload them to Server B, update my public Blossom settings, and all Blossom-capable apps will be able to find them at the new location. All my existing notes will continue to display media content without any issues.

Blossom Mirroring

Let's face it, re-uploading files to another server after they got removed from the original server is not the best user experience. Most people wouldn't have the backups of all the files, and/or the desire to do this work.

This is where Blossom's mirroring feature comes handy. In addition to the primary media server, a Blossom user can set one one or more mirror servers. Under this setup, every time a file is uploaded to the primary server the Nostr app issues a mirror request to the primary server, directing it to copy the file to all the specified mirrors. This way there is always a copy of all content on multiple servers and in case the primary becomes unavailable, Blossom-capable apps will automatically start loading from the mirror.

Mirrors are really easy to setup (you can do it in two clicks in Primal) and this arrangement ensures robust media handling without any central points of failure. Note that you can use professional media hosting services side by side with self-hosted backup servers that anyone can run at home.

Using Blossom Within Primal

Blossom is natively integrated into the entire Primal stack and enabled by default. If you are using Primal 2.2 or later, you don't need to do anything to enable Blossom, all your media uploads are blossoming already.

To enhance user privacy, all Primal apps use the "/media" endpoint per BUD-05, which strips all metadata from uploaded files before they are saved and optionally mirrored to other Blossom servers, per user settings. You can use any Blossom server as your primary media server in Primal, as well as setup any number of mirrors:

## Conclusion

For such a simple protocol, Blossom gives us three major benefits:

1. Verifiable authenticity. All Nostr notes are always signed by the note author. With Blossom, the signed note includes a unique hash for each referenced media file, making it impossible to falsify.
2. File hosting redundancy. Having multiple live copies of referenced media files (via Blossom mirroring) greatly increases the resiliency of media content published on Nostr.
3. Censorship resistance. Blossom enables us to seamlessly switch media hosting providers in case of censorship.

Thanks for reading; and enjoy! 🌸

@ 23b0e2f8:d8af76fc

Necessário

• Um Android que você não use mais (a câmera deve estar funcionando).
• Um cartão microSD (opcional, usado apenas uma vez).
• Um dispositivo para acompanhar seus fundos (provavelmente você já tem um).

Algumas coisas que você precisa saber

• O dispositivo servirá como um assinador. Qualquer movimentação só será efetuada após ser assinada por ele.
• O cartão microSD será usado para transferir o APK do Electrum e garantir que o aparelho não terá contato com outras fontes de dados externas após sua formatação. Contudo, é possível usar um cabo USB para o mesmo propósito.
• A ideia é deixar sua chave privada em um dispositivo offline, que ficará desligado em 99% do tempo. Você poderá acompanhar seus fundos em outro dispositivo conectado à internet, como seu celular ou computador pessoal.

---

O tutorial será dividido em dois módulos:

• Módulo 1 - Criando uma carteira fria/assinador.
• Módulo 2 - Configurando um dispositivo para visualizar seus fundos e assinando transações com o assinador.

---

No final, teremos:

• Uma carteira fria que também servirá como assinador.
• Um dispositivo para acompanhar os fundos da carteira.

---

Módulo 1 - Criando uma carteira fria/assinador

1. Baixe o APK do Electrum na aba de downloads em https://electrum.org/. Fique à vontade para verificar as assinaturas do software, garantindo sua autenticidade.

2. Formate o cartão microSD e coloque o APK do Electrum nele. Caso não tenha um cartão microSD, pule este passo.

1. Retire os chips e acessórios do aparelho que será usado como assinador, formate-o e aguarde a inicialização.

1. Durante a inicialização, pule a etapa de conexão ao Wi-Fi e rejeite todas as solicitações de conexão. Após isso, você pode desinstalar aplicativos desnecessários, pois precisará apenas do Electrum. Certifique-se de que Wi-Fi, Bluetooth e dados móveis estejam desligados. Você também pode ativar o modo avião.\ (Curiosidade: algumas pessoas optam por abrir o aparelho e danificar a antena do Wi-Fi/Bluetooth, impossibilitando essas funcionalidades.)

1. Insira o cartão microSD com o APK do Electrum no dispositivo e instale-o. Será necessário permitir instalações de fontes não oficiais.

1. No Electrum, crie uma carteira padrão e gere suas palavras-chave (seed). Anote-as em um local seguro. Caso algo aconteça com seu assinador, essas palavras permitirão o acesso aos seus fundos novamente. (Aqui entra seu método pessoal de backup.)

---

Módulo 2 - Configurando um dispositivo para visualizar seus fundos e assinando transações com o assinador.

1. Criar uma carteira somente leitura em outro dispositivo, como seu celular ou computador pessoal, é uma etapa bastante simples. Para este tutorial, usaremos outro smartphone Android com Electrum. Instale o Electrum a partir da aba de downloads em https://electrum.org/ ou da própria Play Store. (ATENÇÃO: O Electrum não existe oficialmente para iPhone. Desconfie se encontrar algum.)

2. Após instalar o Electrum, crie uma carteira padrão, mas desta vez escolha a opção Usar uma chave mestra.

1. Agora, no assinador que criamos no primeiro módulo, exporte sua chave pública: vá em Carteira > Detalhes da carteira > Compartilhar chave mestra pública.

1. Escaneie o QR gerado da chave pública com o dispositivo de consulta. Assim, ele poderá acompanhar seus fundos, mas sem permissão para movimentá-los.

2. Para receber fundos, envie Bitcoin para um dos endereços gerados pela sua carteira: Carteira > Addresses/Coins.

3. Para movimentar fundos, crie uma transação no dispositivo de consulta. Como ele não possui a chave privada, será necessário assiná-la com o dispositivo assinador.

1. No assinador, escaneie a transação não assinada, confirme os detalhes, assine e compartilhe. Será gerado outro QR, desta vez com a transação já assinada.

1. No dispositivo de consulta, escaneie o QR da transação assinada e transmita-a para a rede.

---

Conclusão

Pontos positivos do setup:

• Simplicidade: Basta um dispositivo Android antigo.
• Flexibilidade: Funciona como uma ótima carteira fria, ideal para holders.

Pontos negativos do setup:

• Padronização: Não utiliza seeds no padrão BIP-39, você sempre precisará usar o electrum.
• Interface: A aparência do Electrum pode parecer antiquada para alguns usuários.

Nesse ponto, temos uma carteira fria que também serve para assinar transações. O fluxo de assinar uma transação se torna: Gerar uma transação não assinada > Escanear o QR da transação não assinada > Conferir e assinar essa transação com o assinador > Gerar QR da transação assinada > Escanear a transação assinada com qualquer outro dispositivo que possa transmiti-la para a rede.

Como alguns devem saber, uma transação assinada de Bitcoin é praticamente impossível de ser fraudada. Em um cenário catastrófico, você pode mesmo que sem internet, repassar essa transação assinada para alguém que tenha acesso à rede por qualquer meio de comunicação. Mesmo que não queiramos que isso aconteça um dia, esse setup acaba por tornar essa prática possível.

---

@ 502ab02a:a2860397

เฮียไม่แน่ใจว่าโลกยุคนี้มันเปลี่ยนไป หรือแค่เล่ห์กลมันแนบเนียนขึ้น แต่ที่แน่ ๆ คือ “อาหารไม่ใช่อาหารอีกต่อไป” มันกลายเป็นสินค้าในพอร์ตการลงทุน มันกลายเป็นเครื่องมือสร้างภาพลักษณ์ และในบางมุมที่คนไม่อยากมอง...มันคือเครื่องมือควบคุมมวลชน

ทุกอย่างเริ่มจากแนวคิดที่ดูดี “เราต้องผลิตอาหารให้พอเลี้ยงคน 8,000 ล้านคน” จากนั้นบริษัทเทคโนโลยีเริ่มกระโดดเข้ามา แทนที่จะให้เกษตรกรปลูกผักเลี้ยงวัว เรากลับได้เห็นบริษัทวิเคราะห์ดีเอ็นเอของจุลินทรีย์ แล้วขายโปรตีนจากถังหมัก แทนที่จะสนับสนุนอาหารพื้นบ้าน กลับอัดเงินให้สตาร์ทอัพทำเบอร์เกอร์ที่ไม่มีเนื้อจริงแม้แต่เส้นใยเดียว

เบื้องหลังมันมี “ทุน” และทุนเหล่านี้ไม่ใช่แค่ผู้ผลิตอาหาร แต่พ่วงไปถึงบริษัทยา บริษัทวัคซีน บริษัทเทคโนโลยี บางเจ้ามีทั้งบริษัทยา + ธุรกิจฟาร์มแมลง + บริษัทลงทุนในบริษัทวิจัยพันธุกรรม แปลว่า...คนที่ขายยาให้เฮียเวลาเฮียป่วย อาจเป็นคนเดียวกับที่ขาย "อาหารที่ทำให้เฮียป่วย" ตั้งแต่แรก ตลกร้ายไหมหล่ะ หึหึหึ

เคยมีใครสังเกตไหม ว่าองค์การระดับโลกบางองค์กรที่ส่งเสริม "เนื้อทางเลือก" และ "อาหารยั่งยืน" ได้รับเงินบริจาคหรืออยู่ภายใต้บอร์ดของบริษัทผลิตอาหารอุตสาหกรรมเจ้าใหญ่ไหมนะ แล้วคำว่า “วิทยาศาสตร์รองรับ” ที่ติดบนฉลากสวย ๆ เฮียไม่รู้หรอกว่าใครเป็นคนตีความ แต่ที่รู้แน่ ๆ คือ บทวิจัยจำนวนไม่น้อย มาจากทุนวิจัยที่สนับสนุนโดยอุตสาหกรรมอาหารเอง ดั่งเช่นที่เราเรียนรู้กันมาจากประวัติศาสตร์แล้ว

มีคนเคยพูดไว้ว่า “เราควบคุมคนด้วยอาหารง่ายกว่าด้วยอาวุธ” และเฮียเริ่มเชื่อขึ้นเรื่อย ๆ เพราะถ้าบริษัทใดบริษัทหนึ่ง ควบคุมได้ทั้งอาหาร ยา ข้อมูลสุขภาพ และการวิจัย นั่นหมายความว่า เขาไม่ได้ขายของให้เฮีย แต่เขากำหนดว่าเฮียควร “อยากกินอะไร” และ “รู้สึกผิดกับอะไร”

เหมือนที่ให้ลองจินตนาการเล่น ๆ เมื่อวาน สมมติเฮียไปร้านข้าวมันไก่ปากซอยแบบดั้งเดิม สั่งไก่ต้มไม่เอาข้าวมากิน แล้วแอปสุขภาพขึ้นข้อความเตือนว่า “ไขมันสูง ส่งผลต่อคะแนนสุขภาพคุณ” แต่ถ้าเฮียสั่งข้าวกล่องสำเร็จรูปอัจฉริยะจากโปรตีนที่หมักจากจุลินทรีย์ GMO ระบบจะบอกว่า “คุณกำลังช่วยลดโลกร้อน” แล้วเพิ่มคะแนนสุขภาพให้เราไปเป็นส่วนลดครั้งต่อไป

ใครนิยามคำว่า “ดี” ให้เฮีย?

เบื้องหลังอาหารจึงไม่ใช่แค่โรงงาน แต่มันคือโครงข่ายที่พัวพันตั้งแต่ห้องแล็บ ห้องบอร์ด ไปจนถึงห้องครัวในบ้านเรา แล้วถ้าเราไม่ตั้งคำถาม เฮียกลัวว่าเราจะไม่ได้กินในสิ่งที่ร่างกายต้องการ แต่กินในสิ่งที่ “ระบบ” ต้องการให้เรากิน

ขอบคุณล่วงหน้าที่มองว่าสิ่งนี้คือการ แพนิคไปเอง ขอให้มีสุขสวัสดิ์

#pirateketo #กูต้องรู้มั๊ย #ม้วนหางสิลูก #siamstr

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

The European Accessibility Act is coming, now is a great time for accessibility trainings!. In my Accessibility for Designer workshop, you will learn how to design accessible mockups that prevent issues in visual design, interactions, navigation, and content. You will be able to spot problems early, fix them in your designs, and communicate accessibility clearly with your team. This is a practical workshop with hands-on exercises, not just theory. You’ll actively apply accessibility principles to real design scenarios and mockups. And will get access to my accessibility resources: checklists, annotation kits and more.

When? 4 sessions of 2 hours + Q and As, on: - Mon, June 16, - Tue, June 17, Mon, - June 23 and Tue, - June 24. 9:30 – 12:00 PM PT or 18:30 – 21:00 CET

Register with 15% discount ($255) https://ti.to/smashingmagazine/online-workshops-2022/with/87vynaoqc0/discount/welcometomyworkshop

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/971772

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Redistributing Git with Nostr

Every time someone tries to "decentralize" Git -- like many projects tried in the past to do it with BitTorrent, IPFS, ScuttleButt or custom p2p protocols -- there is always a lurking comment: "but Git is already distributed!", and then the discussion proceeds to mention some facts about how Git supports multiple remotes and its magic syncing and merging abilities and so on.

Turns out all that is true, Git is indeed all that powerful, and yet GitHub is the big central hub that hosts basically all Git repositories in the giant world of open-source. There are some crazy people that host their stuff elsewhere, but these projects end up not being found by many people, and even when they do they suffer from lack of contributions.

Because everybody has a GitHub account it's easy to open a pull request to a repository of a project you're using if it's on GitHub (to be fair I think it's very annoying to have to clone the repository, then add it as a remote locally, push to it, then go on the web UI and click to open a pull request, then that cloned repository lurks forever in your profile unless you go through 16 screens to delete it -- but people in general seem to think it's easy).

It's much harder to do it on some random other server where some project might be hosted, because now you have to add 4 more even more annoying steps: create an account; pick a password; confirm an email address; setup SSH keys for pushing. (And I'm not even mentioning the basic impossibility of offering push access to external unknown contributors to people who want to host their own simple homemade Git server.)

At this point some may argue that we could all have accounts on GitLab, or Codeberg or wherever else, then those steps are removed. Besides not being a practical strategy this pseudo solution misses the point of being decentralized (or distributed, who knows) entirely: it's far from the ideal to force everybody to have the double of account management and SSH setup work in order to have the open-source world controlled by two shady companies instead of one.

What we want is to give every person the opportunity to host their own Git server without being ostracized. at the same time we must recognize that most people won't want to host their own servers (not even most open-source programmers!) and give everybody the ability to host their stuff on multi-tenant servers (such as GitHub) too. Importantly, though, if we allow for a random person to have a standalone Git server on a standalone server they host themselves on their wood cabin that also means any new hosting company can show up and start offering Git hosting, with or without new cool features, charging high or low or zero, and be immediately competing against GitHub or GitLab, i.e. we must remove the network-effect centralization pressure.

External contributions

The first problem we have to solve is: how can Bob contribute to Alice's repository without having an account on Alice's server?

SourceHut has reminded GitHub users that Git has always had this (for most) arcane git send-email command that is the original way to send patches, using an once-open protocol.

Turns out Nostr acts as a quite powerful email replacement and can be used to send text content just like email, therefore patches are a very good fit for Nostr event contents.

Once you get used to it and the proper UIs (or CLIs) are built sending and applying patches to and from others becomes a much easier flow than the intense clickops mixed with terminal copypasting that is interacting with GitHub (you have to clone the repository on GitHub, then update the remote URL in your local directory, then create a branch and then go back and turn that branch into a Pull Request, it's quite tiresome) that many people already dislike so much they went out of their way to build many GitHub CLI tools just so they could comment on issues and approve pull requests from their terminal.

Replacing GitHub features

Aside from being the "hub" that people use to send patches to other people's code (because no one can do the email flow anymore, justifiably), GitHub also has 3 other big features that are not directly related to Git, but that make its network-effect harder to overcome. Luckily Nostr can be used to create a new environment in which these same features are implemented in a more decentralized and healthy way.

Issues: bug reports, feature requests and general discussions

Since the "Issues" GitHub feature is just a bunch of text comments it should be very obvious that Nostr is a perfect fit for it.

I will not even mention the fact that Nostr is much better at threading comments than GitHub (which doesn't do it at all), which can generate much more productive and organized discussions (and you can opt out if you want).

Search

I use GitHub search all the time to find libraries and projects that may do something that I need, and it returns good results almost always. So if people migrated out to other code hosting providers wouldn't we lose it?

The fact is that even though we think everybody is on GitHub that is a globalist falsehood. Some projects are not on GitHub, and if we use only GitHub for search those will be missed. So even if we didn't have a Nostr Git alternative it would still be necessary to create a search engine that incorporated GitLab, Codeberg, SourceHut and whatnot.

Turns out on Nostr we can make that quite easy by not forcing anyone to integrate custom APIs or hardcoding Git provider URLs: each repository can make itself available by publishing an "announcement" event with a brief description and one or more Git URLs. That makes it easy for a search engine to index them -- and even automatically download the code and index the code (or index just README files or whatever) without a centralized platform ever having to be involved.

The relays where such announcements will be available play a role, of course, but that isn't a bad role: each announcement can be in multiple relays known for storing "public good" projects, some relays may curate only projects known to be very good according to some standards, other relays may allow any kind of garbage, which wouldn't make them good for a search engine to rely upon, but would still be useful in case one knows the exact thing (and from whom) they're searching for (the same is valid for all Nostr content, by the way, and that's where it's censorship-resistance comes from).

Continuous integration

GitHub Actions are a very hardly subsidized free-compute-for-all-paid-by-Microsoft feature, but one that isn't hard to replace at all. In fact there exists today many companies offering the same kind of service out there -- although they are mostly targeting businesses and not open-source projects, before GitHub Actions was introduced there were also many that were heavily used by open-source projects.

One problem is that these services are still heavily tied to GitHub today, they require a GitHub login, sometimes BitBucket and GitLab and whatnot, and do not allow one to paste an arbitrary Git server URL, but that isn't a thing that is very hard to change anyway, or to start from scratch. All we need are services that offer the CI/CD flows, perhaps using the same framework of GitHub Actions (although I would prefer to not use that messy garbage), and charge some few satoshis for it.

It may be the case that all the current services only support the big Git hosting platforms because they rely on their proprietary APIs, most notably the webhooks dispatched when a repository is updated, to trigger the jobs. It doesn't have to be said that Nostr can also solve that problem very easily.

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Crabtree's Framework for Evaluating Human-Centered Research

Picture this: You've spent three weeks conducting qualitative research for a finance app redesign. You carefully recruited 12 participants, conducted in-depth interviews, and identified patterns around financial anxiety and decision paralysis. You're excited to present your findings when the inevitable happens:

"But are these results statistically significant?"

"Just 12 people? How can we make decisions that affect thousands of users based on conversations with just 12 people?"

As UX professionals, we regularly face stakeholders who evaluate our qualitative research using criteria designed for quantitative methods... This misalignment undermines the unique value qualitative research brings to product development.

Continue reading https://uxpsychology.substack.com/p/beyond-numbers-how-to-properly-evaluate

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/971767

@ 611021ea:089a7d0f

This is the 2nd article I've written regarding my thoughts around the nostr health and fitness ecosystem and how something like NIP101h could play a part in enabling an ecosystem of highly specialized apps benefiting from nostr inherent interoperability. I've posted the last article on Wikistr and have continued experimenting with the NIP in a couple of clients. Recently I've been focused on extending the NIP to include calories and workout intensity.

Caloric Data

Let's talk about calories for a minute. Seems simple, right? You burn some, you consume some. But as I started implementing kind 1357 for caloric data, I quickly realized this was too simplistic.

The reality is tracking calories burned through a 10K run is fundamentally different from logging the calories in your morning avocado toast. Different contexts, different metadata, different user flows. Trying to cram both into one kind felt like forcing a square peg through a round hole.

So I split them: - Kind 1357: Calories expended (your run, your workout, even just existing) - Kind 2357: Calories consumed (your meals, snacks, that beer you "forgot" to log)

This wasn't just a technical decision. It reflects how people actually think about and track their health. Nobody mentally lumps "I burned 350 calories on my run" with "I ate a 650 calorie lunch" as the same type of data point. They're related but distinct.

Workout Intensity

Speaking of workouts, RUNSTR has been sending workout data for a while now, but workout intensity (kind 1356) is something I've been particularly excited about.

Why? Because intensity is the secret sauce that makes fitness data meaningful. Two people can run the same distance, but one might be casually jogging while catching up on podcasts, and another might be doing high-intensity intervals that leave them gasping for air.

Same distance, totally different physiological impacts.

Intensity gives context to duration. It turns "I worked out for 45 minutes" into a meaningful metric about how hard you pushed. And this isn't just for the fitness obsessed—it's essential for things like heart rate zone training, progressive overload, and recovery monitoring.

The Bigger Vision: Why I'm Building This

I'm not building NIP-101h because I think the world needs another fitness standard. God knows there are plenty already. I'm building it because I believe health data belongs to people, not platforms.

Right now, your Apple Health data lives in Apple's ecosystem. Your Fitbit data lives in Fitbit's walled garden. Your Strava data? Yep, siloed there too. These companies have built incredible products, but they've also created digital gulags.

Nostr gives us a chance to flip the script. What if your health data lived on the internet rather than the platform? What if you could: - Track your runs in RUNSTR - Encrypt sensitive data - Store data in relays or blossom servers - Use the data across an open ecosystem of interoperable apps

...all without asking permission from some corporate overlord?

That's pretty much the vision. I've also spun up HealthNote Relay to support some of the new NIPs and Kinds while I continue to flesh out NIP-101h.

The Power of Specialization

One thing I've realized is that the real magic happens when we get specific. A diabetes management app needs different data structures than a strength training app. But they both benefit from a common language for the overlap.

So I'm intentionally designing the NIP-101h series as a collection of highly specialized kinds rather than a monolithic standard. This lets developers pick and choose exactly what they need, while still ensuring interoperability where it matters.

Take our calorie example—by splitting into two kinds, we allow for specialized nutrition tracking apps that might never care about workout calories, while still ensuring they can talk to fitness apps when needed.

What's Coming Next

I've got a growing list of kinds I want to tackle: - Sleep data (duration, quality, phases) - Strength training specifics (sets, reps, weight) - Hydration tracking - Mental health metrics

But I'm equally excited to see what others build. Maybe someone will create specialized kinds for pregnancy tracking, or chronic illness management, or physical therapy progress.

That's the beauty of this approach—I don't need to anticipate every use case. The framework lets the community evolve it organically.

Join the Health Data Revolution

If you're a developer interested in health and fitness on Nostr, I'd love to hear from you. What kinds would help your use case? What are you building? What am I missing?

And if you're just a Nostr user who cares about your health data, check out RUNSTR (Alpha) or Npub.health (super alpha) to see what we're building.

You can find information the specification here NIP 101h.

See you in volume three, where I'll dig into NIP101h format details and share what I've learned from the early experiments.

Lets Go!

@ 8125b911:a8400883

In Nostr, all data is stored as events. Decentralization is achieved by storing events on multiple relays, with signatures proving the ownership of these events. However, if you truly want to own your events, you should run your own relay to store them. Otherwise, if the relays you use fail or intentionally delete your events, you'll lose them forever.

For most people, running a relay is complex and costly. To solve this issue, I developed nostr-relay-tray, a relay that can be easily run on a personal computer and accessed over the internet.

Project URL: https://github.com/CodyTseng/nostr-relay-tray

This article will guide you through using nostr-relay-tray to run your own relay.

Download

Download the installation package for your operating system from the GitHub Release Page.

| Operating System | File Format | | --------------------- | ---------------------------------- | | Windows | nostr-relay-tray.Setup.x.x.x.exe | | macOS (Apple Silicon) | nostr-relay-tray-x.x.x-arm64.dmg | | macOS (Intel) | nostr-relay-tray-x.x.x.dmg | | Linux | You should know which one to use |

Installation

Since this app isn’t signed, you may encounter some obstacles during installation. Once installed, an ostrich icon will appear in the status bar. Click on the ostrich icon, and you'll see a menu where you can click the "Dashboard" option to open the relay's control panel for further configuration.

macOS Users:

• On first launch, go to "System Preferences > Security & Privacy" and click "Open Anyway."
• If you encounter a "damaged" message, run the following command in the terminal to remove the restrictions:

bash sudo xattr -rd com.apple.quarantine /Applications/nostr-relay-tray.app

Windows Users:

• On the security warning screen, click "More Info > Run Anyway."

Connecting

By default, nostr-relay-tray is only accessible locally through ws://localhost:4869/, which makes it quite limited. Therefore, we need to expose it to the internet.

In the control panel, click the "Proxy" tab and toggle the switch. You will then receive a "Public address" that you can use to access your relay from anywhere. It's that simple.

Next, add this address to your relay list and position it as high as possible in the list. Most clients prioritize connecting to relays that appear at the top of the list, and relays lower in the list are often ignored.

Restrictions

Next, we need to set up some restrictions to prevent the relay from storing events that are irrelevant to you and wasting storage space. nostr-relay-tray allows for flexible and fine-grained configuration of which events to accept, but some of this is more complex and will not be covered here. If you're interested, you can explore this further later.

For now, I'll introduce a simple and effective strategy: WoT (Web of Trust). You can enable this feature in the "WoT & PoW" tab. Before enabling, you'll need to input your pubkey.

There's another important parameter, Depth, which represents the relationship depth between you and others. Someone you follow has a depth of 1, someone they follow has a depth of 2, and so on.

• Setting this parameter to 0 means your relay will only accept your own events.
• Setting it to 1 means your relay will accept events from you and the people you follow.
• Setting it to 2 means your relay will accept events from you, the people you follow, and the people they follow.

Currently, the maximum value for this parameter is 2.

Conclusion

You've now successfully run your own relay and set a simple restriction to prevent it from storing irrelevant events.

If you encounter any issues during use, feel free to submit an issue on GitHub, and I'll respond as soon as possible.

Not your relay, not your events.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

"Misterija Satoši - Poreklo bitkoina" je francuski dokumentarno-animirani serijal koji dešifruje unutrašnje funkcionisanje bitkoin revolucije, dok istražuje identitet njenog tvorca.

Prvu decentralizovanu i pouzdanu kriptovalutu – bitkoin, osnovao je Satoši Nakamoto 3. januara 2009. godine. On je nestao 2011. i od tada ostaje anoniman, a njegov identitet je predmet svakakvih spekulacija. Tokom poslednjih 12 godina, vrednost bitkoina je porasla sa 0,001 na 69.000 dolara. Svi, od vlada do velikih korporacija, zainteresovali su se za Satošijev izum. Ko je Satoši Nakamoto? Kako je njegov izum postao toliko popularan? Šta nam bitkoin govori o svetu u kome živimo?

Ovaj serijal se prikazivao na Radio-televiziji Srbije (RTS 3) u sklopu novogodišnjeg muzičkog i filmskog programa 2022/2023. godine.

Naslov originala: "Le Mystère Satoshi"

Copyright: , ARTE.TV

@ b04082ac:29b5c55b

Money has always been more than a medium of exchange. It reflects what societies value, how they organize trust, and what they choose to remember. This article explores the idea that money functions as a form of collective memory, and how Bitcoin may be restoring this role in a new way.

The Asante Example

In the Asante Empire, which flourished in West Africa during the 18th and 19th centuries, gold dust served as the primary medium of exchange. To measure it, traders used ornate spoons made of brass. These spoons were often carved with birds, animals, or abstract symbols. They were not currency themselves, but tools used to handle gold dust accurately.

Importantly, these spoons also carried meaning. Symbols and proverbs embedded in the spoons conveyed lessons about honesty, community, and continuity. For example, the Sankofa bird, shown turning its head backward to retrieve an egg from its back, represented the proverb, “It is not wrong to go back for that which you have forgotten.” This was a reminder to learn from the past.

The spoons reflect an understanding that money and its instruments are not just practical tools. They are cultural artifacts that store shared values. In the Asante context, even measurement was ritualized and tied to ethics and memory.

Money as a Cultural Medium

This connection between money and cultural meaning is not unique to the Asante Empire. Modern fiat currencies also carry symbols, phrases, and designs that reflect national identity and political values.

The U.S. dollar includes Latin phrases and national symbols meant to convey stability and purpose. The British pound features royal iconography, reinforcing the idea of continuity and sovereignty. When the euro was introduced, it deliberately avoided specific national references. Itsdesign used bridges and windowsto suggest openness and cooperation across the continent.

These design choices show that societies still embed meaning into their money. Even in a digital or fiat context, money is used to transmit a story about who we are, where authority lies, and what we value.

The Fragility of Fiat Memory

While fiat money carries cultural symbols, the narratives behind those symbols can be fragile.

In 2021, the central bank of the Philippines removed democratic leaders from its banknotes,triggering public criticism. In the United States, attempts to replace Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman on the $20 billfaced repeated delays. These examples show how political control over money includes control over what stories are told and remembered.

Unlike objects passed down through generations, fiat memory can be edited or erased. In this sense, it is vulnerable. The meaning encoded in fiat systems can shift depending on who holds power.

Bitcoin as a New Form of Memory

Bitcoin is described as digital money. But it also introduces a different model of how societies can record value and preserve meaning.

The Bitcoin network launched in 2009 with a small message embedded in its first block: “Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks.” This was a reference to a newspaper headline that day and a clear sign of protest against financial bailouts, centralized monetary policy, and forever wars.

This moment marked the beginning of a system where memory is stored differently. Instead of relying on governments or institutions, Bitcoin stores its history on a public ledger maintained by a decentralized network of participants. Its memory is not symbolic or political; it is structural. Every transaction, every block, is preserved through time-stamped computation and consensus.

No single authority can change it. The rules are clear and publicly auditable. In this way, Bitcoin offers a version of money where memory is both neutral and resilient.

Cultural Expression and Community Values

Even though Bitcoin lacks the traditional symbols found on banknotes, it has developed its own culture. Phrases like “Don’t trust, verify” or “Stay humble, stack sats” are shared widely in the Bitcoin community. These ideas reflect a focus on self-responsibility, verification, and long-term thinking.

These proverbs can be compared to the carved messages on the Asante spoons. While the contexts are very different, the underlying idea is similar: a community using language and symbols to reinforce its shared values.

Bitcoin also has a well established and growing art scene. Bitcoin conferences often feature dedicated sections for art inspired by the protocol and its culture. Statues of Satoshi Nakamoto have been installed in cities like Budapest, Lugano, and Fornelli. These physical works reflect the desire to link Bitcoin’s abstract values to something tangible.

Looking Back to Look Forward

The Asante example helps us see that money has long been tied to memory and meaning. Their spoons were practical tools but also cultural anchors. Bitcoin, while new and digital, may be playing a similar role.

Instead of relying on political symbols or national myths, Bitcoin uses code, transparency, and global consensus to create trust. In doing so, it offers a way to preserve economic memory that does not depend on power or politics.

It’s still early to know what kind of legacy Bitcoin will leave. But if it succeeds, it may not just change how money works. It may also change how civilizations remember.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Du bist recht appetitlich oben anzuschauen, \ doch unten hin die Bestie macht mir Grauen. \ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Wie wenig bekömmlich sogenannte «Ultra-Processed Foods» wie Fertiggerichte, abgepackte Snacks oder Softdrinks sind, hat kürzlich eine neue Studie untersucht. Derweil kann Fleisch auch wegen des Einsatzes antimikrobieller Mittel in der Massentierhaltung ein Problem darstellen. Internationale Bemühungen, diesen Gebrauch zu reduzieren, um die Antibiotikaresistenz bei Menschen einzudämmen, sind nun möglicherweise gefährdet.

Leider ist Politik oft mindestens genauso unappetitlich und ungesund wie diverse Lebensmittel. Die «Corona-Zeit» und ihre Auswirkungen sind ein beredtes Beispiel. Der Thüringer Landtag diskutiert gerade den Entwurf eines «Coronamaßnahmen-Unrechtsbereinigungsgesetzes» und das kanadische Gesundheitsministerium versucht, tausende Entschädigungsanträge wegen Impfnebenwirkungen mit dem Budget von 75 Millionen Dollar unter einen Hut zu bekommen. In den USA soll die Zulassung von Covid-«Impfstoffen» überdacht werden, während man sich mit China um die Herkunft des Virus streitet.

Wo Corona-Verbrecher von Medien und Justiz gedeckt werden, verfolgt man Aufklärer und Aufdecker mit aller Härte. Der Anwalt und Mitbegründer des Corona-Ausschusses Reiner Fuellmich, der seit Oktober 2023 in Untersuchungshaft sitzt, wurde letzte Woche zu drei Jahren und neun Monaten verurteilt – wegen Veruntreuung. Am Mittwoch teilte der von vielen Impfschadensprozessen bekannte Anwalt Tobias Ulbrich mit, dass er vom Staatsschutz verfolgt wird und sich daher künftig nicht mehr öffentlich äußern werde.

Von der kommenden deutschen Bundesregierung aus Wählerbetrügern, Transatlantikern, Corona-Hardlinern und Russenhassern kann unmöglich eine Verbesserung erwartet werden. Nina Warken beispielsweise, die das Ressort Gesundheit übernehmen soll, diffamierte Maßnahmenkritiker als «Coronaleugner» und forderte eine Impfpflicht, da die wundersamen Injektionen angeblich «nachweislich helfen». Laut dem designierten Außenminister Johann Wadephul wird Russland «für uns immer der Feind» bleiben. Deswegen will er die Ukraine «nicht verlieren lassen» und sieht die Bevölkerung hinter sich, solange nicht deutsche Soldaten dort sterben könnten.

Eine wichtige Personalie ist auch die des künftigen Regierungssprechers. Wenngleich Hebestreit an Arroganz schwer zu überbieten sein wird, dürfte sich die Art der Kommunikation mit Stefan Kornelius in der Sache kaum ändern. Der Politikchef der Süddeutschen Zeitung «prägte den Meinungsjournalismus der SZ» und schrieb «in dieser Rolle auch für die Titel der Tamedia». Allerdings ist, anders als noch vor zehn Jahren, die Einbindung von Journalisten in Thinktanks wie die Deutsche Atlantische Gesellschaft (DAG) ja heute eher eine Empfehlung als ein Problem.

Ungesund ist definitiv auch die totale Digitalisierung, nicht nur im Gesundheitswesen. Lauterbachs Abschiedsgeschenk, die «abgesicherte» elektronische Patientenakte (ePA) ist völlig überraschenderweise direkt nach dem Bundesstart erneut gehackt worden. Norbert Häring kommentiert angesichts der Datenlecks, wer die ePA nicht abwähle, könne seine Gesundheitsdaten ebensogut auf Facebook posten.

Dass die staatlichen Kontrolleure so wenig auf freie Software und dezentrale Lösungen setzen, verdeutlicht die eigentlichen Intentionen hinter der Digitalisierungswut. Um Sicherheit und Souveränität geht es ihnen jedenfalls nicht – sonst gäbe es zum Beispiel mehr Unterstützung für Bitcoin und für Initiativen wie die der Spar-Supermärkte in der Schweiz.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben und ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 207ad2a0:e7cca7b0

Quick context: I wanted to check out Nostr's longform posts and this blog post seemed like a good one to try and mirror. It's originally from my free to read/share attempt to write a novel, but this post here is completely standalone - just describing how I used AI image generation to make a small piece of the work.

Hold on, put your pitchforks down - outside of using Grammerly & Emacs for grammatical corrections - not a single character was generated or modified by computers; a non-insignificant portion of my first draft originating on pen & paper. No AI is ~~weird and crazy~~ imaginative enough to write like I do. The only successful AI contribution you'll find is a single image, the map, which I heavily edited. This post will go over how I generated and modified an image using AI, which I believe brought some value to the work, and cover a few quick thoughts about AI towards the end.

Let's be clear, I can't draw, but I wanted a map which I believed would improve the story I was working on. After getting abysmal results by prompting AI with text only I decided to use "Diffuse the Rest," a Stable Diffusion tool that allows you to provide a reference image + description to fine tune what you're looking for. I gave it this Microsoft Paint looking drawing:

and after a number of outputs, selected this one to work on:

The image is way better than the one I provided, but had I used it as is, I still feel it would have decreased the quality of my work instead of increasing it. After firing up Gimp I cropped out the top and bottom, expanded the ocean and separated the landmasses, then copied the top right corner of the large landmass to replace the bottom left that got cut off. Now we've got something that looks like concept art: not horrible, and gets the basic idea across, but it's still due for a lot more detail.

The next thing I did was add some texture to make it look more map like. I duplicated the layer in Gimp and applied the "Cartoon" filter to both for some texture. The top layer had a much lower effect strength to give it a more textured look, while the lower layer had a higher effect strength that looked a lot like mountains or other terrain features. Creating a layer mask allowed me to brush over spots to display the lower layer in certain areas, giving it some much needed features.

At this point I'd made it to where I felt it may improve the work instead of detracting from it - at least after labels and borders were added, but the colors seemed artificial and out of place. Luckily, however, this is when PhotoFunia could step in and apply a sketch effect to the image.

At this point I was pretty happy with how it was looking, it was close to what I envisioned and looked very visually appealing while still being a good way to portray information. All that was left was to make the white background transparent, add some minor details, and add the labels and borders. Below is the exact image I wound up using:

Overall, I'm very satisfied with how it turned out, and if you're working on a creative project, I'd recommend attempting something like this. It's not a central part of the work, but it improved the chapter a fair bit, and was doable despite lacking the talent and not intending to allocate a budget to my making of a free to read and share story.

The AI Generated Elephant in the Room

If you've read my non-fiction writing before, you'll know that I think AI will find its place around the skill floor as opposed to the skill ceiling. As you saw with my input, I have absolutely zero drawing talent, but with some elbow grease and an existing creative direction before and after generating an image I was able to get something well above what I could have otherwise accomplished. Outside of the lowest common denominators like stock photos for the sole purpose of a link preview being eye catching, however, I doubt AI will be wholesale replacing most creative works anytime soon. I can assure you that I tried numerous times to describe the map without providing a reference image, and if I used one of those outputs (or even just the unedited output after providing the reference image) it would have decreased the quality of my work instead of improving it.

I'm going to go out on a limb and expect that AI image, text, and video is all going to find its place in slop & generic content (such as AI generated slop replacing article spinners and stock photos respectively) and otherwise be used in a supporting role for various creative endeavors. For people working on projects like I'm working on (e.g. intended budget $0) it's helpful to have an AI capable of doing legwork - enabling projects to exist or be improved in ways they otherwise wouldn't have. I'm also guessing it'll find its way into more professional settings for grunt work - think a picture frame or fake TV show that would exist in the background of an animated project - likely a detail most people probably wouldn't notice, but that would save the creators time and money and/or allow them to focus more on the essential aspects of said work. Beyond that, as I've predicted before: I expect plenty of emails will be generated from a short list of bullet points, only to be summarized by the recipient's AI back into bullet points.

I will also make a prediction counter to what seems mainstream: AI is about to peak for a while. The start of AI image generation was with Google's DeepDream in 2015 - image recognition software that could be run in reverse to "recognize" patterns where there were none, effectively generating an image from digital noise or an unrelated image. While I'm not an expert by any means, I don't think we're too far off from that a decade later, just using very fine tuned tools that develop more coherent images. I guess that we're close to maxing out how efficiently we're able to generate images and video in that manner, and the hard caps on how much creative direction we can have when using AI - as well as the limits to how long we can keep it coherent (e.g. long videos or a chronologically consistent set of images) - will prevent AI from progressing too far beyond what it is currently unless/until another breakthrough occurs.

@ 66df6056:f3203c64

งาน Bitcoin++ ประจำปี 2025 ที่จัดขึ้นที่เมืองออสติน รัฐเท็กซัส เป็นการรวมตัวของนักพัฒนา Bitcoin ที่เจาะลึกในประเด็นทางเทคนิค โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งเรื่อง Mempool, Transaction Relay และ Mining Pools หัวข้อเหล่านี้ถูกเน้นย้ำว่าเป็นหัวข้อที่น่าสนใจและเป็นที่ถกเถียงกัน เป้าหมายหลักของงานคือเพื่อให้เหล่านักพัฒนาและผู้สร้างสรรค์ได้แบ่งปันสิ่งที่พวกเขากำลังทำอยู่ เรียนรู้เกี่ยวกับความท้าทายในการนำ Transaction เข้าสู่ Block และการปรับปรุง Bitcoin รวมถึงส่งเสริมการเติบโตของชุมชน Open-Source

งานในปีนี้เป็นครั้งแรกที่มุ่งเน้นไปที่ Mempool และ Transaction Relay โดยเฉพาะ ซึ่งเกี่ยวข้องโดยตรงกับการสร้าง Block Mempool ถูกมองว่าเป็นพื้นที่ส่วนรวม (commons) และเป็นตลาดประมูลที่เสรีและเปิดกว้างที่สุดแห่งหนึ่งของโลก ที่ซึ่งใครก็ตามที่เป็นเจ้าของ Bitcoin สามารถเสนอราคา (ค่าธรรมเนียม) และใครก็ตามที่ขุด Bitcoin ก็สามารถยอมรับราคานั้นและนำ Transaction เข้า Block ได้ แม้ว่ากระบวนการนี้จะมีความท้าทายและบางครั้งก็เป็นที่ถกเถียงกัน แต่ Bitcoin ยังคงทำงานเป็นระบบแบบอนาธิปไตย (anarchic system) ที่การพัฒนาเกิดขึ้นในลักษณะกระจายศูนย์

ประเด็นร้อน: OP_RETURN และการถกเถียงเรื่อง Data Carrier

หนึ่งในประเด็นหลักที่ถูกกล่าวถึงและมีการจัดดีเบตแบบ Oxford-style คือเรื่องขีดจำกัดของ Data Carrier ใน OP_RETURN โดยเฉพาะการถกเถียงเรื่องการปลดขีดจำกัดค่าเริ่มต้นใน Bitcoin Core การถกเถียงนี้สะท้อนให้เห็นถึงความตึงเครียดระหว่างกลุ่มที่เรียกว่า "Monetary Maximalists" ซึ่งต้องการให้ Bitcoin เป็นเงินที่ดีที่สุด กับกลุ่ม "Platform Maximalists" ที่ต้องการให้ Bitcoin สามารถทำสิ่งต่างๆ ที่ไม่เกี่ยวข้องกับเงินได้มากขึ้น เช่น การออก Token บน Bitcoin

ฝ่ายที่สนับสนุนการปลดขีดจำกัดแย้งว่ามันเป็นปัญหาทางเทคนิคที่ไม่มีวิธีที่มีหลักการในการป้องกันอย่างแท้จริงในระดับ Consensus การพยายามใช้ Filter ใน Mempool เพื่อป้องกันนั้นไม่สามารถทำได้อย่างสมบูรณ์ และผู้ใช้สามารถหาวิธีหลีกเลี่ยงได้ การปลดขีดจำกัดอาจช่วยลดการสร้าง UTXO ที่ใช้ไม่ได้ (unspendable UTXOs) ซึ่งเป็นสิ่งที่แย่กว่า OP_RETURN และจะช่วยประหยัดเวลาของนักพัฒนาจากการโต้เถียงในเรื่องเล็กๆ น้อยๆ

ขณะที่ฝ่ายคัดค้านการปลดขีดจำกัดยืนยันว่า Filter ใน Mempool ทำงานได้ผลในการยับยั้งการใช้ OP_RETURN สำหรับข้อมูลที่ไม่ใช่ทางการเงิน และการปลดขีดจำกัดจะเป็นการทำลาย Filter ที่มีอยู่ พวกเขาแย้งว่า Bitcoin ถูกออกแบบมาให้เป็นระบบการเงิน ไม่ใช่ฐานข้อมูลสำหรับเก็บข้อมูลตามอำเภอใจ การอนุญาตให้เก็บข้อมูลที่ไม่ใช่ทางการเงินจำนวนมากจะทำให้ Transaction ของผู้ใช้ทั่วไปมีค่าใช้จ่ายสูงขึ้น และเป็นการ "ขาย Bitcoin ให้กับผู้ที่เสนอราคาสูงสุด" ซึ่งอาจนำไปสู่การบ่อนทำลายโดยผู้ที่ควบคุมระบบการเงินแบบเก่า พวกเขายืนยันว่า Bitcoin ควรเน้นการเป็นเงิน และการเปลี่ยนแปลงที่ไม่จำเป็นซึ่งทำลาย Filter ที่ทำงานอยู่จะทำให้ความไว้วางใจใน Bitcoin Core ลดลง นอกจากนี้ยังมีการพูดถึงทางเลือกในการใช้ Filter ในระดับ Node เช่นที่ implement ใน Bitcoin Knots

ความรวมศูนย์ในการขุดและการกระจายศูนย์

ปัญหาความรวมศูนย์ใน Mining Pool เป็นอีกหัวข้อที่มีการหารืออย่างกว้างขวาง โดยเฉพาะเรื่องความหลากหลายของ Block Template เครื่องมืออย่าง stratum.work ถูกสร้างขึ้นมาเพื่อช่วยให้ผู้สังเกตการณ์สามารถเปรียบเทียบ Block Template จาก Pool ต่างๆ ได้ ข้อมูลแสดงให้เห็นว่า Antpool และ Pool ที่เป็น "เพื่อน" (Antpool and friends) รวมถึง Foundry มีส่วนแบ่ง Hash Rate รวมกันค่อนข้างสูง ซึ่งทำให้เกิดความกังวลเกี่ยวกับความรวมศูนย์ ปัญหาดังกล่าวถูกมองว่าเป็นปัญหาเชิงเศรษฐศาสตร์และแรงจูงใจ มากกว่าปัญหาทางเทคนิคล้วนๆ

ทางออกในการกระจายศูนย์การขุดและการสร้าง Block Template ถูกนำเสนอ โดยเฉพาะโปรโตคอล Datam ที่พัฒนาโดย Ocean Mining Datam ถูกออกแบบมาเพื่อการขุดแบบกระจายศูนย์โดยเฉพาะ โดย กำหนดให้ Miner ต้องรัน Node ของตัวเองเพื่อสร้าง Block Template ซึ่งแตกต่างจาก Stratum V2 ที่ยังคงมีการใช้งานแบบรวมศูนย์อยู่ Datam Gateway ทำหน้าที่เป็นตัวเชื่อมระหว่าง Miner กับ Pool โดยใช้ Stratum V1 แต่ Miner เป็นผู้สร้าง Block Template เอง โปรโตคอล Datam นั้นเรียบง่าย ใช้ภาษา C เพื่อให้มีขนาดเล็กและมีประสิทธิภาพสูง สามารถทำงานบน Raspberry Pi ได้ และมีการเข้ารหัสระหว่าง Pool กับ Gateway การสร้าง Datam ขึ้นมาใหม่จากศูนย์เป็นเพราะไม่มีโปรโตคอลหรือซอฟต์แวร์ Pool เดิมที่ตอบโจทย์การกระจายศูนย์ได้อย่างสมบูรณ์

การแก้ไข Bug ใน Consensus (Consensus Cleanup)

มีการนำเสนอ BIP 54 หรือ Great Consensus Cleanup ซึ่งเป็นข้อเสนอ Soft Fork เพื่อแก้ไข Bug เล็กน้อยในกฎ Consensus ของ Bitcoin จุดประสงค์ไม่ใช่การเปลี่ยนแปลงคุณค่าหลักของ Bitcoin แต่เป็นการแก้ไข Bug ที่สามารถทำได้ผ่าน Soft Fork Bug เหล่านี้รวมถึงปัญหาที่อาจนำไปสู่การมี Transaction ID (TXID) ของ Coinbase ซ้ำกันในอนาคตสำหรับ Block ที่เกิดขึ้นก่อน BIP 34 การแก้ไขใน BIP 54 เกี่ยวข้องกับการใช้ Time Locking และการกำหนดค่า End Sequence ใน Coinbase Transaction เพื่อป้องกันปัญหานี้ ข้อเสนอนี้ถูกพัฒนาขึ้นโดย Antoine Riard และมีการหารืออย่างละเอียด

ความปลอดภัยทางควอนตัมในอนาคต

ประเด็นเรื่องความปลอดภัยทางควอนตัมของ Bitcoin ก็ถูกหยิบยกขึ้นมาพูดคุย แม้จะดูเป็นปัญหาที่ไกลตัว แต่ก็เป็นสิ่งสำคัญที่จะต้องมีแผนรองรับ BIP 360 ถูกนำเสนอเป็นข้อเสนอ Soft Fork ทางเลือก (Opt-in soft fork) เพื่อเพิ่มความปลอดภัยทางควอนตัมให้กับ Bitcoin ปัญหาหลักคือผู้ใช้จะต้องเปิดเผย Public Key และ Signature เมื่อใช้จ่าย Transaction และคอมพิวเตอร์ควอนตัมอาจสามารถคำนวณ Private Key จาก Public Key ได้ BIP 360 เสนอให้เพิ่มข้อมูล Public Key และ Signature ที่ผ่านการป้องกันควอนตัมเข้าไปใน Transaction โดยรองรับ Taproot อย่างไรก็ตาม Multisig บางประเภท เช่น P2SH หรือ P2WSH อาจให้การป้องกันได้ดีกว่า เนื่องจากผู้โจมตีจะต้องหา Private Key หลายตัว ในขณะที่ Key Path Spend ของ Taproot อาจไม่ช่วยป้องกันปัญหานี้ BIP 360 ยังกำหนดให้มี Public Key ที่ป้องกันควอนตัมเพียงตัวเดียวเพื่อหลีกเลี่ยงความกำกวมของที่อยู่ Taproot

นวัตกรรมและกรณีใช้งานอื่นๆ

นอกจากนี้ยังมีการกล่าวถึงโครงการอื่นๆ ที่น่าสนใจ เช่น Maple AI ที่มุ่งมั่นสร้าง AI ที่ไม่ใช่แบบรวมศูนย์ และ Open Secret ซึ่งเป็น Framework สำหรับนักพัฒนาในการให้ผู้ใช้สามารถ Self-Custody ข้อมูลของตนเองได้ แนวคิดนี้คล้ายกับการ Self-Custody Bitcoin ใน Wallet โดยมองว่าการถือข้อมูลผู้ใช้เป็นภาระความเสี่ยงสำหรับนักพัฒนา

มีการพูดถึงแนวโน้มที่ผู้เล่นในระบบการเงินแบบเก่าอย่าง Visa และ Stripe กำลังพยายามเข้าสู่พื้นที่ Digital Currency โดยอาจใช้การ Tokenize Credit Card รวมถึงบทบาทที่อาจเกิดขึ้นของ AI Agents ซึ่งอาจเริ่มใช้ Bitcoin หรือ Lightning Network ในการชำระเงินในอนาคต มีการคาดการณ์ว่า AI Agents อาจทำธุรกรรมผ่าน Lightning Network ได้ในระดับที่สูงกว่าการใช้งานของมนุษย์อย่างรวดเร็ว โดยมีการพัฒนาโปรโตคอลอย่าง X402 และ Fusats เพื่อรองรับการชำระเงินสำหรับ Agents โดยเปิดโอกาสให้ Agents เลือกใช้สกุลเงินดิจิทัลที่ดีที่สุดในตลาดเสรี

สุดท้าย งาน Bitcoin++ เน้นย้ำถึงความสำคัญของการประชุมและการรวมตัวกันของนักพัฒนาเพื่อหารือ ประสานงาน และแบ่งปันไอเดีย โดยเฉพาะในประเด็นที่ต้องอาศัยความร่วมมือและการแก้ปัญหาที่ซับซ้อน

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Die Wahrheit verletzt tiefer als jede Beleidigung. \ Marquis de Sade

Sagen Sie niemals «Terroristin B.», «Schwachkopf H.», «korrupter Drecksack S.» oder «Meinungsfreiheitshasserin F.» und verkneifen Sie sich Memes, denn so etwas könnte Ihnen als Beleidigung oder Verleumdung ausgelegt werden und rechtliche Konsequenzen haben. Auch mit einer Frau M.-A. S.-Z. ist in dieser Beziehung nicht zu spaßen, sie gehört zu den Top-Anzeigenstellern.

«Politikerbeleidigung» als Straftatbestand wurde 2021 im Kampf gegen «Rechtsextremismus und Hasskriminalität» in Deutschland eingeführt, damals noch unter der Regierung Merkel. Im Gesetz nicht festgehalten ist die Unterscheidung zwischen schlechter Hetze und guter Hetze – trotzdem ist das gängige Praxis, wie der Titel fast schon nahelegt.

So dürfen Sie als Politikerin heute den Tesla als «Nazi-Auto» bezeichnen und dies ausdrücklich auf den Firmengründer Elon Musk und dessen «rechtsextreme Positionen» beziehen, welche Sie nicht einmal belegen müssen. [1] Vielleicht ernten Sie Proteste, jedoch vorrangig wegen der «gut bezahlten, unbefristeten Arbeitsplätze» in Brandenburg. Ihren Tweet hat die Berliner Senatorin Cansel Kiziltepe inzwischen offenbar dennoch gelöscht.

Dass es um die Meinungs- und Pressefreiheit in der Bundesrepublik nicht mehr allzu gut bestellt ist, befürchtet man inzwischen auch schon im Ausland. Der Fall des Journalisten David Bendels, der kürzlich wegen eines Faeser-Memes zu sieben Monaten Haft auf Bewährung verurteilt wurde, führte in diversen Medien zu Empörung. Die Welt versteckte ihre Kritik mit dem Titel «Ein Urteil wie aus einer Diktatur» hinter einer Bezahlschranke.

Unschöne, heutzutage vielleicht strafbare Kommentare würden mir auch zu einigen anderen Themen und Akteuren einfallen. Ein Kandidat wäre der deutsche Bundesgesundheitsminister (ja, er ist es tatsächlich immer noch). Während sich in den USA auf dem Gebiet etwas bewegt und zum Beispiel Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will, dass die Gesundheitsbehörde (CDC) keine Covid-Impfungen für Kinder mehr empfiehlt, möchte Karl Lauterbach vor allem das Corona-Lügengebäude vor dem Einsturz bewahren.

«Ich habe nie geglaubt, dass die Impfungen nebenwirkungsfrei sind», sagte Lauterbach jüngst der ZDF-Journalistin Sarah Tacke. Das steht in krassem Widerspruch zu seiner früher verbreiteten Behauptung, die Gen-Injektionen hätten keine Nebenwirkungen. Damit entlarvt er sich selbst als Lügner. Die Bezeichnung ist absolut berechtigt, dieser Mann dürfte keinerlei politische Verantwortung tragen und das Verhalten verlangt nach einer rechtlichen Überprüfung. Leider ist ja die Justiz anderweitig beschäftigt und hat außerdem selbst keine weiße Weste.

Obendrein kämpfte der Herr Minister für eine allgemeine Impfpflicht. Er beschwor dabei das Schließen einer «Impflücke», wie es die Weltgesundheitsorganisation – die «wegen Trump» in finanziellen Schwierigkeiten steckt – bis heute tut. Die WHO lässt aktuell ihre «Europäische Impfwoche» propagieren, bei der interessanterweise von Covid nicht mehr groß die Rede ist.

Einen «Klima-Leugner» würden manche wohl Nir Shaviv nennen, das ist ja nicht strafbar. Der Astrophysiker weist nämlich die Behauptung von einer Klimakrise zurück. Gemäß seiner Forschung ist mindestens die Hälfte der Erderwärmung nicht auf menschliche Emissionen, sondern auf Veränderungen im Sonnenverhalten zurückzuführen.

Das passt vielleicht auch den «Klima-Hysterikern» der britischen Regierung ins Konzept, die gerade Experimente zur Verdunkelung der Sonne angekündigt haben. Produzenten von Kunstfleisch oder Betreiber von Insektenfarmen würden dagegen vermutlich die Geschichte vom fatalen CO2 bevorzugen. Ihnen würde es besser passen, wenn der verantwortungsvolle Erdenbürger sein Verhalten gründlich ändern müsste.

In unserer völlig verkehrten Welt, in der praktisch jede Verlautbarung außerhalb der abgesegneten Narrative potenziell strafbar sein kann, gehört fast schon Mut dazu, Dinge offen anzusprechen. Im «besten Deutschland aller Zeiten» glaubten letztes Jahr nur noch 40 Prozent der Menschen, ihre Meinung frei äußern zu können. Das ist ein Armutszeugnis, und es sieht nicht gerade nach Besserung aus. Umso wichtiger ist es, dagegen anzugehen.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

--- Quellen: ---

[1] Zur Orientierung wenigstens ein paar Hinweise zur NS-Vergangenheit deutscher Automobilhersteller:

• Volkswagen
• Porsche
• Daimler-Benz
• BMW
• Audi
• Opel
• Heute: «Auto-Werke für die Rüstung? Rheinmetall prüft Übernahmen»

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben und ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 40b9c85f:5e61b451

Introduction

Data Vending Machines (DVMs) have emerged as a crucial component of the Nostr ecosystem, offering specialized computational services to clients across the network. As defined in NIP-90, DVMs operate on an apparently simple principle: "data in, data out." They provide a marketplace for data processing where users request specific jobs (like text translation, content recommendation, or AI text generation)

While DVMs have gained significant traction, the current specification faces challenges that hinder widespread adoption and consistent implementation. This article explores some ideas on how we can apply the reflection pattern, a well established approach in RPC systems, to address these challenges and improve the DVM ecosystem's clarity, consistency, and usability.

The Current State of DVMs: Challenges and Limitations

The NIP-90 specification provides a broad framework for DVMs, but this flexibility has led to several issues:

1. Inconsistent Implementation

As noted by hzrd149 in "DVMs were a mistake" every DVM implementation tends to expect inputs in slightly different formats, even while ostensibly following the same specification. For example, a translation request DVM might expect an event ID in one particular format, while an LLM service could expect a "prompt" input that's not even specified in NIP-90.

2. Fragmented Specifications

The DVM specification reserves a range of event kinds (5000-6000), each meant for different types of computational jobs. While creating sub-specifications for each job type is being explored as a possible solution for clarity, in a decentralized and permissionless landscape like Nostr, relying solely on specification enforcement won't be effective for creating a healthy ecosystem. A more comprehensible approach is needed that works with, rather than against, the open nature of the protocol.

3. Ambiguous API Interfaces

There's no standardized way for clients to discover what parameters a specific DVM accepts, which are required versus optional, or what output format to expect. This creates uncertainty and forces developers to rely on documentation outside the protocol itself, if such documentation exists at all.

The Reflection Pattern: A Solution from RPC Systems

The reflection pattern in RPC systems offers a compelling solution to many of these challenges. At its core, reflection enables servers to provide metadata about their available services, methods, and data types at runtime, allowing clients to dynamically discover and interact with the server's API.

In established RPC frameworks like gRPC, reflection serves as a self-describing mechanism where services expose their interface definitions and requirements. In MCP reflection is used to expose the capabilities of the server, such as tools, resources, and prompts. Clients can learn about available capabilities without prior knowledge, and systems can adapt to changes without requiring rebuilds or redeployments. This standardized introspection creates a unified way to query service metadata, making tools like grpcurl possible without requiring precompiled stubs.

How Reflection Could Transform the DVM Specification

By incorporating reflection principles into the DVM specification, we could create a more coherent and predictable ecosystem. DVMs already implement some sort of reflection through the use of 'nip90params', which allow clients to discover some parameters, constraints, and features of the DVMs, such as whether they accept encryption, nutzaps, etc. However, this approach could be expanded to provide more comprehensive self-description capabilities.

1. Defined Lifecycle Phases

Similar to the Model Context Protocol (MCP), DVMs could benefit from a clear lifecycle consisting of an initialization phase and an operation phase. During initialization, the client and DVM would negotiate capabilities and exchange metadata, with the DVM providing a JSON schema containing its input requirements. nip-89 (or other) announcements can be used to bootstrap the discovery and negotiation process by providing the input schema directly. Then, during the operation phase, the client would interact with the DVM according to the negotiated schema and parameters.

2. Schema-Based Interactions

Rather than relying on rigid specifications for each job type, DVMs could self-advertise their schemas. This would allow clients to understand which parameters are required versus optional, what type validation should occur for inputs, what output formats to expect, and what payment flows are supported. By internalizing the input schema of the DVMs they wish to consume, clients gain clarity on how to interact effectively.

3. Capability Negotiation

Capability negotiation would enable DVMs to advertise their supported features, such as encryption methods, payment options, or specialized functionalities. This would allow clients to adjust their interaction approach based on the specific capabilities of each DVM they encounter.

Implementation Approach

While building DVMCP, I realized that the RPC reflection pattern used there could be beneficial for constructing DVMs in general. Since DVMs already follow an RPC style for their operation, and reflection is a natural extension of this approach, it could significantly enhance and clarify the DVM specification.

A reflection enhanced DVM protocol could work as follows: 1. Discovery: Clients discover DVMs through existing NIP-89 application handlers, input schemas could also be advertised in nip-89 announcements, making the second step unnecessary. 2. Schema Request: Clients request the DVM's input schema for the specific job type they're interested in 3. Validation: Clients validate their request against the provided schema before submission 4. Operation: The job proceeds through the standard NIP-90 flow, but with clearer expectations on both sides

Parallels with Other Protocols

This approach has proven successful in other contexts. The Model Context Protocol (MCP) implements a similar lifecycle with capability negotiation during initialization, allowing any client to communicate with any server as long as they adhere to the base protocol. MCP and DVM protocols share fundamental similarities, both aim to expose and consume computational resources through a JSON-RPC-like interface, albeit with specific differences.

gRPC's reflection service similarly allows clients to discover service definitions at runtime, enabling generic tools to work with any gRPC service without prior knowledge. In the REST API world, OpenAPI/Swagger specifications document interfaces in a way that makes them discoverable and testable.

DVMs would benefit from adopting these patterns while maintaining the decentralized, permissionless nature of Nostr.

Conclusion

I am not attempting to rewrite the DVM specification; rather, explore some ideas that could help the ecosystem improve incrementally, reducing fragmentation and making the ecosystem more comprehensible. By allowing DVMs to self describe their interfaces, we could maintain the flexibility that makes Nostr powerful while providing the structure needed for interoperability.

For developers building DVM clients or libraries, this approach would simplify consumption by providing clear expectations about inputs and outputs. For DVM operators, it would establish a standard way to communicate their service's requirements without relying on external documentation.

I am currently developing DVMCP following these patterns. Of course, DVMs and MCP servers have different details; MCP includes capabilities such as tools, resources, and prompts on the server side, as well as 'roots' and 'sampling' on the client side, creating a bidirectional way to consume capabilities. In contrast, DVMs typically function similarly to MCP tools, where you call a DVM with an input and receive an output, with each job type representing a different categorization of the work performed.

Without further ado, I hope this article has provided some insight into the potential benefits of applying the reflection pattern to the DVM specification.

@ a296b972:e5a7a2e8

Sachzwangfreie, gesichert systemkritische Investigativ-Journalisten der unabhängigen, für Ausgewogenheit bekannten Mainstream-Medien, haben in jahrelanger Recherche den Rechtsruck Deutschlands beobachtet und nun in einem rund 5000 Seiten starken Gutachten dem Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz zugespielt. Möglicherweise ist Erfahrung in der Veröffentlichung der Tagebücher eines verkannten Künstlers hierbei sehr hilfreich gewesen.

Nach sorgfältiger Überprüfung des Inland-Geheimdienstes konnte festgestellt werden, dass dem 3. Reich zugeschriebenes Gedankengut fortbesteht und dadurch die Unseredemokratie nachhaltig vergiftet ist. Bei der Beurteilung waren die Erkenntnisse der Gauck-Behörde von unschätzbarem Wert.

Ein Magazin, einst bekannt dafür, der Politik scharf auf die Finger zu schauen, und das auch die vorgenannten Tagebücher veröffentlicht hat (das war vor der Zeit, als ein ausgewachsener amerikanischer Voll-Philanthrop mit seiner Großzügigkeit die laufenden Strom- und Heizkosten des Verlagsgebäudes bezahlt hat), scheint hier seine Schreib-Fachkräfte zur Verfügung gestellt zu haben. Das könnte erklären, warum einige Details der nicht zu hinterfragenden Schrift an die Öffentlichkeit gelangt sind.

Schon im Grundgesetz kommt der durch das NS-Regime verbrannte Begriff „Volk“ zwölf Mal vor. So lebt die Ideologie, dass es ein deutsches Volk gibt, auch im Grundgesetz weiter. Vermutlich wurde durch Bestechung und Intrigen der Artikel 116 Absatz 1 hineingeschmuggelt, der besagt, wer Deutscher im Sinne des Grundgesetzes ist. Das fordert zwangsläufig eine dringend notwendige Prüfung, ob nicht das Grundgesetz selbst verfassungswidrig ist.

Mit Gründung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland wurde auch weiterhin im Straßenverkehr am Rechtsverkehr festgehalten, obwohl die Autoindustrie mit Beibehaltung des Lenkrades auf der linken Seite ein klares Zeichen gegen rechts gesetzt hat.

Der Ausbau des deutschen Autobahnnetzes wurde im 3. Reich stark vorangetrieben. Er diente vor allem dazu, eine schnelle Truppenbewegung zu ermöglichen. Schließlich sollte nach Goebbels, vor allem bekannt durch seine Rede im Sportpalast in Berlin, bestmögliche Kriegstüchtigkeit hergestellt werden. Die Waffenproduktion der Hermann-Göring-Werke, heute Rheinmetall, ließen die Hochöfen bereits dauerglühen.

Nach dem 2. Weltenbrand wurde der Ausbau des deutschen Autobahnnetzes weiter vorangetrieben. Statt sie zu entschärfen, wurden extreme Rechtskurven durch Leitplanken gesichert. Weniger scharfe Rechtskurven wurden in einer Liste als Verdachtsfall erfasst und werden seitdem intensiv beobachtet, die Unfallhäufigkeit wird ständig gemessen.

Ein weiteres Indiz für rechtes Gedankengut ist die Tatsache, dass eine bekannte Autofirma ihre Produkte auch in der Bundesrepublik nicht in Bürgerwagen umbenannt hat. So wurde in der Wirtschaftswunderzeit mit einem verfassungswidrigen Kraftfahrzeug mit 37 PS wild in der Gegend herumgefahren und durch Auslandsreisen, gerne an den Gardasee, der Begriff Volk in die ganze Welt getragen. Den Höhepunkt des Gipfels erreichte die Verfassungswidrigkeit jedoch dadurch, dass ein Werk in Brasilien den Bürgerwagen produzierte und so den gesamten amerikanischen Kontinent mit hässlichem Gedankengut verseuchte.

Deutsche Unternehmen, die aus Überzeugung Schrauben und Muttern mit Rechtsgewinde herstellen, können nur überzeugte Rechtsextremisten sein. Alles, was rechts ist oder rechts herum geht, muss zum Schutze von Unseredemokratie verfolgt und verboten werden. Auch die Buchhaltung der Unternehmen gehört reformiert, denn schließlich gibt es mit Soll und Haben eine linke und, staatsgefährdend, auch eine rechte Seite, auf der die Einnahmen und Ausgaben erfasst werden.

In großen Städten wurden nach der bedingungslosen Kapitulation der Wehrmacht Straßen und Plätze, die nach den „Größen“ des 3. Reichs benannt wurden, wieder umbenannt. Es wurde dabei versäumt, Parks in größeren Städten, die sich Volksgarten nennen, in Bürgergarten umzubenennen.

Auch wurde versäumt, ideologisch vergiftete Tischsitten zu reformieren. So liegt das Messer neben dem Teller weiterhin rechts. Die Absicht liegt sozusagen auf der Hand, denn das ist eine eindeutige Aufforderung zu Messergewalt, zumal die meisten Menschen Rechtshänder sind.

An der Schreibweise von links nach rechts wurde weiter festgehalten. Ein weiteres Anzeichen dafür, wie das Volk durch alltägliche Verrichtungen zu einer rechten Gesinnung durch dunkle Kräfte hingeleitet werden soll. Die Schreibweise „kursiv“ wurde nicht verboten, obwohl sie extrem rechts ist.

Offensichtlich wird auch die Indoktrination des Volkes, wenn vom für die Linken diskriminierenden Rechtsstaat die Rede ist. Menschen, die ein gesundes Rechtsverständnis haben, sind ideologisch vergiftet.

Die Auflösung von Familienstrukturen, einst die kleinste tragende Zelle der Gesellschaft, muss dringend umgesetzt werden, da verschworene Gruppen, die im Ernstfall wie Pech und Schwefel zusammenhalten, den Staat delegitimieren. Sie könnten zum Beispiel einen Familienausflug planen, von dem der Staat nichts weiß.

Ein Ehepaar, das nicht mehr zeitgemäß in einem Doppelbett schläft, ist höchstverdächtig. Der Ehepartner, der in einem Ehebett auf der rechten Seite sehr nah an der Bettkante schläft, schläft rechtsextrem. Wenn er ein Gitter am Bett hat, damit er nicht aus dem Bett fällt, schläft er sogar extrem gesichert rechts.

Der Verfassungsschutz muss dringend prüfen, ob nicht das gesamte deutsche Volk verboten werden sollte, denn es ist eindeutig so, dass das Volk völkisch ist und das darf in einer Unseredemokratie keinen Platz haben.

Mit Übergabe des Gutachtens an den Verfassungsschutz sieht dieser es als Geheimsache an, sodass er es aus Gründen des Staatswohls nicht denjenigen gegenüber zugänglich gemacht werden kann, die es betrifft, nämlich das völkische Volk.

Jenes Volk, das dank einer übermenschlichen Autoren-Anstrengung im wirtschaftlichen Bereich immer mehr den nicht mehr vorhandenen Pfennig und die nicht mehr vorhandene Mark umdrehen muss.

Als Volks-Sparmöglichkeiten gibt es jedoch noch:

·         Im Outlet-Store Markenartikel 2. Wahl

·         Auf dem Markt Spargel 2. Wahl

·         Und jetzt auch einen Bundeskanzler 2. Wahl

Warum hat das undankbare deutsche Volk, das die Unseredemokratie nicht genug zu schätzen weiß, immer noch etwas zu meckern?

Wer jetzt behauptet, dass dieser Text absurd ist, der möge sich in der Realität umsehen. Da finden die wirklichen Absurditäten statt. Das hier ist nur Schwurbelei von jemandem, der die Welt nicht mehr versteht.

Dieser Artikel wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben

* *

(Bild von pixabay)

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na dvadesetjedan.com

Autor: Vijay Boyapati / Prevod na hrvatski: Matija

---

Sa zadnjim cijenama koje je bitcoin dosegao 2017., optimističan scenarij za ulagače se možda čini toliko očitim da ga nije potrebno niti spominjati. Alternativno, možda se nekome čini glupo ulagati u digitalnu vrijednost koja ne počiva na nijednom fizičkom dobru ili vladi i čiji porast cijene su neki usporedili sa manijom tulipana ili dot-com balonom. Nijedno nije točno; optimističan scenarij za Bitcoin je uvjerljiv, ali ne i očit. Postoje značajni rizici kod ulaganja u Bitcoin, no, kao što planiram pokazati, postoji i ogromna prilika.

Geneza

Nikad u povijesti svijeta nije bilo moguće napraviti transfer vrijednosti među fizički udaljenim ljudima bez posrednika, poput banke ili vlade. 2008. godine, anonimni Satoshi Nakamoto je objavio 8 stranica rješenja na dugo nerješivi računalski problem poznat kao “Problem Bizantskog Generala.” Njegovo rješenje i sustav koji je izgradio - Bitcoin - dozvolio je, prvi put ikad, da se vrijednost prenosi brzo i daleko, bez ikakvih posrednika ili povjerenja. Implikacije kreacije Bitcoina su toliko duboke, ekonomski i računalski, da bi Nakamoto trebao biti prva osoba nominirana za Nobelovu nagradu za ekonomiju i Turingovu nagradu.

Za ulagače, važna činjenica izuma Bitcoina (mreže i protokola) je stvaranje novog oskudnog digitalnog dobra - bitcoina (monetarne jedinice). Bitcoini su prenosivi digitalni “novčići” (tokeni), proizvedeni na Bitcoin mreži kroz proces nazvan “rudarenje” (mining). Rudarenje Bitcoina je ugrubo usporedivo sa rudarenjem zlata, uz bitnu razliku da proizvodnja bitcoina prati unaprijed osmišljeni i predvidivi raspored. Samo 21 milijun bitcoina će ikad postojati, i većina (2017., kada je ovaj tekst napisan) su već izrudareni. Svake četiri godine, količina rudarenih bitcoina se prepolovi. Produkcija novih bitcoina će potpuno prestati 2140. godine.

Stopa inflacije —— Monetarna baza

Bitcoine ne podržava nikakva roba ili dobra, niti ih garantira ikakva vlada ili firma, što postavlja očito pitanje za svakog novog bitcoin ulagača: zašto imaju uopće ikakvu vrijednost? Za razliku od dionica, obveznica, nekretnina ili robe poput nafte i žita, bitcoine nije moguće vrednovati koristeći standardne ekonomske analize ili korisnost u proizvodnji drugih dobara. Bitcoini pripadaju sasvim drugoj kategoriji dobara - monetarnih dobara, čija se vrijednost definira kroz tzv. teoriju igara; svaki sudionik na tržištu vrednuje neko dobro, onoliko koliko procjenjuje da će ga drugi sudionici vrednovati. Kako bismo bolje razumjeli ovo svojstvo monetarnih dobara, trebamo istražiti podrijetlo novca.

Podrijetlo novca

U prvim ljudskim društvima, trgovina među grupama se vršila kroz robnu razmjenu. Velika neefikasnost prisutna u robnoj razmjeni je drastično ograničavala količinu i geografski prostor na kojem je bila moguća. Jedan od najvećih problema sa robnom razmjenom je problem dvostruke podudarnosti potražnje. Uzgajivač jabuka možda želi trgovati sa ribarom, ali ako ribar ne želi jabuke u istom trenutku, razmjena se neće dogoditi. Kroz vrijeme, ljudi su razvili želju za čuvanjem određenih predmeta zbog njihove rijetkosti i simbolične vrijednosti (npr. školjke, životinjski zube, kremen). Zaista, kako i Nick Szabo govori u svojem izvrsnom eseju o podrijetlu novca, ljudska želja za sakupljanjem predmeta pružila je izraženu evolucijsku prednost ranom čovjeku nad njegovim najbližim biološkim rivalom, neandertalcem - Homo neanderthalensis.

"Primarna i najbitnija evolucijska funkcija sakupljanja bila je osigurati medij za čuvanje i prenošenje vrijednosti".

Predmeti koje su ljudi sakupljali služili su kao svojevrsni “proto-novac,” tako što su omogućavale trgovinu među antagonističkim plemenima i dozvoljavale bogatsvu da se prenosi na sljedeću generaciju. Trgovina i transfer takvih predmeta bile su rijetke u paleolitskim društvima, te su oni služili više kao “spremište vrijednosti” (store of value) nego kao “medij razmjene” (medium of exchange), što je uloga koju danas igra moderni novac. Szabo objašnjava:

"U usporedbi sa modernim novcem, primitivan novac je imao jako malo “brzinu” - mogao je promijeniti ruke samo nekoliko puta u životu prosječnog čovjeka. Svejedno, trajni i čvrsti sakupljački predmet, što bismo danas nazvali “nasljeđe,” mogao je opstati mnogo generacija, dodajući znatnu vrijednost pri svakom transferu - i zapravo omogućiti transfer uopće".

Rani čovjek suočio se sa bitnom dilemom u teoriji igara, kada je odlučivao koje predmete sakupljati: koje od njih će drugi ljudi željeti? Onaj koji bi to točno predvidio imao bi ogromnu prednost u mogućnosti trgovine i akvizicije bogatsva. Neka američka indijanska plemena, npr. Naraganseti, specijalizirala su se u proizvodnji sakupljačkih dobara koja nisu imala drugu svrhu osim trgovine. Valja spomenuti da što je ranije predviđanje da će neko dobro imati takvu vrijednost, veća je prednost koju će imati onaj koji je posjeduje, zato što ju je moguće nabaviti jeftinije, prije nego postane vrlo tražena roba i njezona vrijednost naraste zajedno sa populacijom. Nadalje, nabava nekog dobra u nadi da će u budućnosti biti korišteno kao spremište vrijednosti, ubrzava upravo tu primjenu. Ova cirkularnost je zapravo povratna veza (feedback loop) koja potiče društva da se rapidno slože oko jednog spremišta vrijednosti. U terminima teorije igara, ovo je znano kao “Nashov ekvilibrij.” Postizanje Nashovog ekvilibrija za neko spremište vrijednosti je veliko postignuće za društvo, pošto ono znatno olakšava trgovinu i podjelu rada, i time omogućava napredak civilizacije.

Tisućljećima, kako su ljudska društva rasla i otvarala trgovinske puteve, različite aplikacije spremišta vrijednosti u individualnim društvima počele su se natjecati međusobno. Trgovci su imali izbor: čuvati svoju zaradu u spremištu vrijednosti vlastite kulture, ili one kulture sa kojom su trgovali, ili mješavini oboje. Benefit štednje u stranom spremištu vrijednosti bila je uvećana sposobnost trgovanja u povezanom stranom društvu. Trgovci koji su štedili u stranom spremištu vrijednosti su također imali dobrih razloga da potiču svoje društvo da ga prihvati, jer bi tako uvećali vrijednost vlastite ušteđevine. Prednosti “uvezene” tehnologije spremanja vrijednosti bile su prisutne ne samo za trgovce, nego i za sama društva. Kada bi se dvije grupe konvergirale u jedinstvenom spremištu vrijednosti, to bi značajno smanjilo cijenu troškova trgovine jednog s drugim, i samim time povećanje bogatstva kroz trgovinu. I zaista, 19. stoljeće bilo je prvi put da je najveći dio svijeta prihvatio jedinstveno spremište vrijednosti - zlato - i u tom periodu vidio najveću eksploziju trgovine u povijesti svijeta. O ovom mirnom periodu, pisao je John Maynard Keynes:

"Kakva nevjerojatna epizoda u ekonomskom napretku čovjeka… za svakog čovjeka iole iznadprosječnog, iz srednje ili više klase, život je nudio obilje, ugodu i mogućnosti, po niskoj cijeni i bez puno problema, više nego monarsima iz prethodnih perioda. Stanovnik Londona mogao je, ispijajući jutarnji čaj iz kreveta, telefonski naručiti razne proizvode iz cijele Zemlje, u količinama koje je želio, i sa dobrim razlogom očekivati njihovu dostavu na svoj kućni prag."

Svojstva dobrog spremišta vrijednosti

Kada se spremišta vrijednosti natječu jedno s drugim, specifična svojstva rade razliku koja daje jednom prednost nad drugim. Premda su mnoga dobra u prošlosti korištena kao spremišta vrijednosti ili kao “proto-novac,” određena svojstva su se pokazala kao posebno važna, i omogućila dobrima sa njima da pobijede. Idealno spremište vrijednosti biti će:

• Trajno: dobro ne smije biti kvarljivo ili lako uništeno. Tako naprimjer, žito nije idealno spremište vrijednosti.
• Prenosivo: dobro mora biti lako transportirati i čuvati, što omogućuje osiguranje protiv gubitka ili krađe i dopušta trgovinu na velike udaljenosti. Tako, krava je lošije spremište vrijednosti od zlatne narukvice.
• Zamjenjivo: jedna jedinica dobra treba biti zamjenjiva sa drugom. Bez zamjenjivosti, problem podudarnosti želja ostaje nerješiv. Time, zlato je bolje od dijamanata, jer su oni nepravilni u obliku i kvaliteti.
• Provjerljivo: dobro mora biti lako i brzo identificirano i testirano za autentičnost. Laka provjera povećava povjerenje u trgovini i vjerojatnost da će razmjena biti dovršena.
• Djeljivo: dobro mora biti lako djeljivo na manje dijelove. Premda je ovo svojstvo bilo manje važno u ranim društvima gdje je trgovina bila rijetka, postalo je važnije sa procvatom trgovine. Količine koje su se mijenjale postale su manje i preciznije.
• Oskudno: Monetarno dobro mora imati “cijenu nemoguću za lažirati,” kao što je rekao Nick Szabo. Drugim riječima, dobro ne smije biti obilno ili lako dostupno kroz proizvodnju. Oskudnost je možda i najvažnije svojstvo spremišta vrijednosti, pošto se izravno vezuje na ljudsku želju da sakupljamo ono što je rijetko. Ona je izvor vrijednosti u spremištu vrijednosti.
• Duge povijesti: što je dulje neko dobro vrijedno za društvo, veća je vjerojatnost da će biti prihvaćeno kao spremište vrijednosti. Dugo postojeće spremište vrijednosti biti će jako teško uklonjeno od strane došljaka, osim u slučaju sile (ratno osvajanje) ili ako je nova tehnologija znatno bolja u ostalim svojstvima.
• Otporno na cenzuru: novije svojstvo, sve više važno u modernom digitalnom svijetu sa sveprisutnim nadzorom, je otpornost na cenzuru. Drugim riječima, koliko je teško da vanjski agent, kao korporacija ili država, spriječi vlasnika dobra da ga čuva i koristi. Dobra koja su otporna na cenzuru su idealna za ljude koji žive u režimima koji prisilno nadziru kapital ili čine neke oblike mirne trgovine protuzakonitima.

Ova tablica ocjenjuje Bitcoin, zlato (gold) i fiat novac (kao što je euro ili dolar) po svojstvima izlistanim gore. Objašnjenje svake ocjene slijedi nakon tablice.

Trajnost:

Zlato je neosporeni kralj trajnosti. Velika većina zlata pronađenog kroz povijest, uključujući ono egipatskih faraona, opstaje i danas i vjerojatno će postojati i za tisuću godina. Zlatnici korišteni u antičko doba imaju značajnu vrijednost i danas. Fiat valute i bitcoini su digitalni zapisi koji ponekad imaju fizički oblik (npr. novčanice). Dakle, njihovu trajnost ne određuju njihova fizička svojstva (moguće je zamijeniti staru i oštećenu novčanicu za novu), nego institucije koje stoje iza njih. U slučaju fiat valuta, mnoge države su nastale i nestale kroz stoljeća, i valute su nestale s njima. Marke iz Weimarske republike danas nemaju vrijednost zato što institucija koja ih je izdavala više ne postoji. Ako je povijest ikakav pokazatelj, ne bi bilo mudro smatrati fiat valute trajnima dugoročno; američki dolar i britanska funta su relativne anomalije u ovom pogledu. Bitcoini, zato što nemaju instituciju koja ih održava, mogu se smatrati trajnima dok god mreža koja ih osigurava postoji. Obzirom da je Bitcoin još uvijek mlada valuta, prerano je za čvrste zaključke o njegovoj trajnosti. No, postoje ohrabrujući znakovi - prominente države su ga pokušavale regulirati, hakeri ga napadali - usprkos tome, mreža nastavlja funkcionirati, pokazujući visok stupanj antifragilnosti.

Prenosivost:

Bitcoini su najprenosivije spremište vrijednosti ikad. Privatni ključevi koji predstavljaju stotine milijuna dolara mogu se spremiti na USB drive i lako ponijeti bilo gdje. Nadalje, jednako velike sume mogu se poslati na drugi kraj svijeta skoro instantno. Fiat valute, zbog svojeg temeljno digitalnog oblika, su također lako prenosive. Ali, regulacije i kontrola kapitala od strane države mogu ugroziti velike prijenose vrijednosti, ili ih usporiti danima. Gotovina se može koristiti kako bi se izbjegle kontrole kapitala, ali onda rastu rizik čuvanja i cijena transporta. Zlato, zbog svojeg fizičkog oblika i velike gustoće, je najmanje prenosivo. Nije čudo da većina zlatnika i poluga nikad ne napuste sefove. Kada se radi prijenos zlata između prodavača i kupca, uglavnom se prenosi samo ugovor o vlasništvu, ne samo fizičko zlato. Prijenos fizičkog zlata na velike udaljenosti je skupo, riskantno i sporo.

Zamjenjivost:

Zlato nam daje standard za zamjenjivost. Kada je rastopljeno, gram zlata je praktički nemoguće razlikovati od bilo kojeg drugog grama, i zlato je oduvijek bilo takvo. S druge strane, fiat valute, su zamjenjive samo onoliko koliko njihova institucija želi da budu. Iako je uglavnom slučaj da je novčanica zamjenjiva za drugu istog iznosa, postoje situacije u kojima su velike novčanice tretirane drukčije od malih. Naprimjer, vlada Indije je, u pokušaju da uništi neoporezivo sivo tržište, potpuno oduzela vrijednost novčanicama od 500 i 1000 rupija. To je uzrokovalo da ljudi manje vrednuju te novčanice u trgovini, što je značilo da više nisu bile zaista zamjenjive za manje novčanice. Bitcoini su zamjenjivi na razini mreže; svaki bitcoin je pri prijenosu tretiran kao svaki drugi. No, zato što je moguće pratiti individualne bitcoine na blockchainu, određeni bitcoin može, u teoriji, postati “prljav” zbog korštenja u ilegalnoj trgovini, te ga trgovci ili mjenjačnice možda neće htjeti prihvatiti. Bez dodatnih poboljšanja oko privatnosti i anonimnosti na razini mrežnog protokola, bitcoine ne možemo smatrati jednako zamjenjivim kao zlato.

Mogućnost provjere:

Praktično gledajući, autentičnost fiat valuta i zlata je prilično lako provjeriti. Svejedno, i usprkos pokušajima da spriječe krivotvorenje novčanica, i dalje postoji potencijal prevare za vlade i njihove građane. Zlato također nije imuno na krivotvorenje. Sofisticirani kriminalci su koristili pozlaćeni tungsten kako bi prevarili kupce zlata. Bitcoine je moguće provjeriti sa matematičkom sigurnošću. Korištenjem kriptografskih potpisa, vlasnik bitcoina može javno demonstrirati da posjeduje bitcoine koje tvrdi da posjeduje.

Djeljivost:

Bitcoine je moguće podijeliti u stotinu milijuna manjih jedinica (zvanih satoshi), i prenositi takve (no, valja uzeti u obzir ekonomičnost prijenosa malih iznosa, zbog cijene osiguravanja mreže - “network fee”). Fiat valute su tipično dovoljno djeljive na jedinice sa vrlo niskom kupovnom moći. Zlato, iako fizički i teoretski djeljivo, postaje teško za korištenje kada se podijeli na dovoljno male količine da bi se moglo koristiti u svakodnevnoj trgovini.

Oskudnost:

Svojstvo koje najjasnije razlikuje Bitcoin od fiat valuta i zlata je njegova unaprijed definirana oskudnost. Od početka, konačna količina bitcoina nikad neće biti veća od 21 milijun. To daje vlasnicima bitcoina jasan i znan uvid u postotak ukupnog vlasništva. Naprimjer, vlasnik 10 bitcoina bi znao da najviše 2,1 milijuna ljudi (manje od 0.03% populacije) može ikad imati isto bitcoina kao i on. Premda je kroz povijest uvijek bilo oskudno, zlato nije imuno na povećanje ukupne količine. Ako se ikad izumi nova, ekonomičnija metoda rudarenja ili proizvodnje zlata, ukupna količina zlata bi se mogla dramatično povećati (npr. rudarenje morskog dna ili asteroida). Na kraju, fiat valute, relativno nov izum u povijesti, pokazale su se sklonima konstantnim povećanjima u količini. Države su pokazale stalnu sklonost inflaciji monetarne kvantitete kako bi rješavale kratkoročne političke probleme. Inflacijske tendencije vlada diljem svijeta čine fiat valute gotovo sigurnim da će gubiti vrijednost kroz vrijeme.

Etablirana povijest:

Nijedno monetarno dobro nema povijest kao zlato, koje je imalo vrijednost za cijelog trajanja ljudske civilizacije. Kovanice izrađene u antičko doba i danas imaju značajnu vrijednost. Ne može se isto reći za fiat valute, koje su same relativno nova povijesna anomalija. Od njihovog početka, fiat valute su imale gotovo univerzalni smjer prema bezvrijednosti. Korištenje inflacije kao podmuklog načina za nevidljivo oporezivanje građana je vječita kušnja kojoj se skoro nijedna država u povijesti nije mogla oduprijeti. Ako je 20. stoljeće, u kojem je fiat novac dominirao globalni monetarni poredak, demonstriralo neku ekonomsku istinu, to je onda bila ta da ne možemo računati na fiat novac da održi vrijednost u dužem ili srednjem vremenskom periodu. Bitcoin, usprkos svojoj novosti, je preživio dovoljno testova tržišta da postoji velika vjerojatnost da neće nestati kao vrijedno dobro. Nadalje, Lindy efekt govori da što duže Bitcoin bude korišten, to će veća biti vjera u njega i njegovu sposobnost da nastavi postojati dugo u budućnost. Drugim riječima, društvena vjera u monetarno dobro je asimptotička, kao u grafu ispod:

Ako Bitcoin preživi prvih 20 godina, imat će gotovo sveopće povjerenje da će trajati zauvijek, kao što ljudi vjeruju da je internet trajna stvar u modernom svijetu.

Otpor na cenzuru

Jedan od najbitnijih izvora za ranu potražnju bitcoina bila je njegova upotreba u ilegalnoj kupovini i prodaji droge. Mnogi su zato pogrešno zaključili da je primarna potražnja za bitcoinima utemeljena u njihovoj prividnoj anonimnosti. Međutim, Bitcoin nije anonimna valuta; svaka transakcija na mreži je zauvijek zapisana na javnom blockchainu. Povijesni zapis transakcija dozvoljava forenzičkoj analizi da identificira izvore i tijek sredstava. Takva analiza dovela je do uhićenja počinitelja zloglasne MtGox pljačke. Premda je istina da dovoljno oprezna i pedantna osoba može sakriti svoj identitet koristeći Bitcoin, to nije razlog zašto je Bitcoin bio toliko popularan u trgovini drogom.

Ključno svojstvo koje čini Bitcoin najboljim za takve aktivnosti je njegova agnostičnost i nepotrebnost za dozvolom (“premissionlessness”) na mrežnoj razini. Kada se bitcoini prenose na Bitcoin mreži, ne postoji nitko tko dopušta transakcije. Bitcoin je distribuirana peer-to-peer (korisnik-korisniku) mreža, i samim time dizajnirana da bude otporna na cenzuru. Ovo je u velikom kontrastu sa fiat bankarskim sustavom, u kojem države reguliraju banke i ostale institucije prijenosa novca, kako bi one prijavljivale i sprječavale protuzakonito korištenje monetarnih dobara. Klasičan primjer regulacije novca su kontrole kapitala. Npr., bogati milijunaš će vrlo teško prenijeti svoje bogatstvo u novu zemlju, kada bježi iz opresivnog režima. Premda zlato nije izdano i proizvedeno od države, njegova fizička priroda ga čini teško prenosivim kroz prostor, i samim time ga je daleko lakše regulirati nego Bitcoin. Indijski Akt kontrole zlata je primjer takve regulacije.

Bitcoin je odličan u većini gore navedenih svojstava, što mu omogućava da bude marginalno bolji od modernih i drevnih monetarnih dobara, te da pruži poticaje za svoje rastuće društveno usvajanje. Specifično, moćna kombinacija otpornosti na cenzuru i apsolutne oskudnosti bila je velika motivacija za bogate ulagače koji su uložili dio svojeg bogatstva u Bitcoin.

Evolucija novca

U modernoj monetarnoj ekonomiji postoji opsesija sa ulogom novca kao medija razmjene. U 20. stoljeću, države su monopolizirale izdavanje i kontrolu novca i kontinuirano potkopavale njegovo svojstvo spremišta vrijednosti, stvarajući lažno uvjerenje da je primarna svrha novca biti medij razmjene. Mnogi su kritizirali Bitcoin, govoreći da je neprikladan da bude novac zato što mu je cijena bila previše volatilna za medij razmjene. No, novac je uvijek evoluirao kroz etape; uloga spremišta vrijednosti je dolazila prije medija razmjene. Jedan od očeva marginalističke ekonomije, William Stanley Jevons, objašnjava:

"Povijesno govoreći… čini se da je zlato prvo služilo kao luksuzni metal za ukras; drugo, kao sačuvana vrijednost; treće, kao medij razmjene; i konačno, kao mjerilo vrijednosti."

U modernoj terminologiji, novac uvijek evoluira kroz četiri stadija:

1. Kolekcionarstvo: U prvoj fazi svoje evolucije, novac je tražen samo zbog svojih posebnih svojstava, uglavnom zbog želja onog koji ga posjeduje. Školjke, perlice i zlato su bili sakupljani prije nego su poprimili poznatije uloge novca.
2. Spremište vrijednosti: Jednom kada je novac tražen od dovoljnog broja ljudi, biti će prepoznat kao način za čuvanje i spremanje vrijednosti kroz vrijeme. Kada neko dobro postane široko korišteno kao spremište vrijednosti, njegova kupovna moć raste sa povećanom potražnjom za tu svrhu. Kupovna moć spremišta vrijednosti će u jednom trenutku doći do vrhunca, kada je dovolno rašireno i broj novih ljudi koji ga potražuju splasne.
3. Sredstvo razmjene: Kada je novac potpuno etabliran kao spremište vrijednosti, njegova kupovna moć se stabilizira. Nakon toga, postane prikladno sredstvo razmjene zbog stabilnosti svoje cijene. U najranijim danima Bitcoina, mnogi ljudi nisu shvaćali koju buduću cijenu plaćaju koristeći bitcoine kao sredstvo razmjene, umjesto kao novonastalo spremište vrijednosti. Poznata priča o čovjeku koji je za 10,000 bitcoina (vrijednih oko 94 milijuna dolara kada je ovaj članak napisan) za dvije pizze ilustrira ovaj problem.
4. Jedinica računanja vrijednosti: Jednom kada je novac široko korišten kao sredstvo razmjene, dobra će biti vrednovana u njemu, tj. većina cijena će biti izražena u njemu. Uobičajena zabluda je da je većinu dobara moguće zamijeniti za bitcoine danas. Npr., premda je možda moguće kupiti šalicu kave za bitcoine, izlistana cijena nije prava bitcoin cijena; zapravo se radi o cijeni u državnoj valuti koju želi trgovac, preračunatu u bitcoin po trenutnoj tržišnoj cijeni. Kad bi cijena bitcoina pala u odnosu na valutu, vrijednost šalice izražena u bitcoinima bi se povećala. Od trenutka kada trgovci budu voljni prihvaćani bitcoine kao platežno sredstvo, bez obraćanja pažnje na vrijednost bitcoina u državnoj fiat valuti, moći ćemo reći da je Bitcoin zaista postao jedinica računanja vrijednosti.

Monetarna dobra koja još nisu jedinice računanja vrijednosti možemo smatrati “djelomično monetiziranima.” Danas zlato ima takvu ulogu, jer je spremište vrijednosti, ali su mu uloge sredstva razmjene i računanja vrijednosti oduzete intervencijama država. Moguće je također da se jedno dobro koristi kao sredstvo razmjene, dok druga ispunjavaju ostale uloge. To je tipično u zemljama gdje je država disfunkcionalna, npr. Argentina ili Zimbabwe. U svojoj knjizi, Digitalno zlato, Nathaniel Popper piše:

"U Americi, dolar služi trima funkcijama novca: nudi sredstvo razmjene, jedinicu za mjerenje vrijednosti dobara, i mjesto gdje se može čuvati vrijednosti. S druge strane, argentinski peso je korišten kao sredstvo razmjene (za svakodnevne potrebe), ali ga nitko nije koristio kao spremište vrijednosti. Štednja u pesosima bila je ekvivalent bacanja novca. Zato su ljudi svu svoju štednju imali u dolarima, jer je dolar bolje čuvao vrijednost. Zbog volatilnosti pesosa, ljudi su računali cijene u dolarima, što im je pružalo pouzdaniju jedinicu mjerenja kroz vrijeme."

Bitcoin je trenutno u fazi tranzicije iz prvog stadija monetizacije u drugi. Vjerojatno će proći nekoliko godina prije nego Bitcoin pređe iz začetaka spremišta vrijednosti u istinski medij razmjene, i put do tog trenutka je još uvijek pun rizika i nesigurnosti. Važno je napomenuti da je ista tranzicija trajala mnogo stoljeća za zlato. Nitko danas živ nije doživio monetizaciju dobra u realnom vremenu (kroz koju Bitcoin prolazi), tako da nemamo puno iskustva govoriti o putu i načinu na koji će se monetizacija dogoditi.

Put monetizacije

Kroz proces monetizacije, monetarno dobro će naglo porasti u kupovnoj moći. Mnogi su tako komentirali da je uvećanje kupovne moći Bitcoina izgledalo kao “balon” (bubble). Premda je ovaj termin često korišten kako bi ukazao na pretjeranu vrijednosti Bitcoina, sasvim slučajno je prikladan. Svojstvo koje je uobičajeno za sva monetarna dobra jest da je njihova kupovna moć viša nego što se može opravdati samo kroz njihovu uporabnu vrijednost. Zaista, mnogi povijesni novci nisu imali uporabnu vrijednost. Razliku između kupovne moći i vrijednosti razmjene koju bi novac mogao imati za svoju inherentnu korisnost, možemo razmatrati kao “monetarnu premiju.” Kako monetarno dobro prolazi kroz stadije monetizacije (navedene gore), monetarna premija raste. No, ta premija ne raste u ravnoj i predvidivoj liniji. Dobro X, koje je bilo u procesu monetizacije, može izgubiti u usporedbi sa dobrom Y koje ima više svojstava novca, te monetarna premija dobra X drastično padne ili potpuno nestane. Monetarna premija srebra je skoro potpuno nestala u kasnom 19. stoljeću, kada su ga vlade diljem svijeta zamijenile zlatom kao novcem.

Čak i u odsustvu vanjskih faktora, kao što su intervencije vlade ili druga monetarna dobra, monetarna premija novog novca neće ići predvidivim putem. Ekonomist Larry White primijetio je:

"problem sa pričom “balona,” naravno, je da je ona konzistentna sa svakim putem cijene, i time ne daje ikakvo objašnjenje za specifičan put cijene"

Proces monetizacije opisuje teorija igara; svaki akter na tržištu pokušava predvidjeti agregiranu potražnju ostalih aktera, i time buduću monetarnu premiju. Zato što je monetarna premija nevezana za inherentnu korisnost, tržišni akteri se uglavnom vode za prošlim cijenama da bi odredili je li neko dobro jeftino ili skupo, i žele li ga kupiti ili prodati. Veza trenutne potražnje sa prošlim cijenama naziva se “ovisnost o putu” (path dependence); ona je možda najveći izvor konfuzije u shvaćanju kretanja cijena monetarnih dobara.

Kada kupovna moć monetarnog dobra naraste zbog većeg i šireg korištenja, očekivanja tržišta o definicijama “jeftinog” i “skupog” se mijenjaju u skladu s time. Slično tome, kada cijena monetarnog dobra padne, očekivanja tržišta mogu se promijeniti u opće vjerovanje da su prethodne cijene bile “iracionalne” ili prenapuhane. Ovisnost o putu novca ilustrirana je riječima poznatog upravitelja fondova s Wall Streeta, Josha Browna:

"Kupio sam bitcoine kada su koštali $2300, i to mi se udvostručilo gotovo odmah. Onda sam počeo govoriti kako “ne mogu kupiti još” dok im je cijena rasla, premda sam znao da je to razmišljanje bazirano samo na cijenu po kojoj sam ih kupio. Kasnije, kada je cijena pala zbog kineske regulacije mjenjačnica, počeo sam si govoriti, “Odlično, nadam se da će još pasti da mogu kupiti još.”"

Istina leži u tome da su ideje “jeftinog” i “skupog” zapravo besmislene kada govorimo o monetarnim dobrima. Cijena monetarnog dobra ne reflektira njegovu stopu rasprostanjenosti ili korisnosti, nego mjeru koliko je ono široko prihvaćeno da ispuni razne uloge novca.

Dodatna komplikacija u ovom aspektu novca je činjenica da tržišni akteri ne djeluju samo kao nepristrani promatrači koji pokušavaju kupiti i prodati u iščekivanju budućih kretanja monetarne premije, nego i kao aktivni proponenti. Pošto ne postoji objektivno “točna” monetarna premija, širiti dobar glas o superiornijim svojstvima nekog monetarnog dobra je efektivnije nego za obična dobra, čija vrijednost je u konačnici vezana na njegovu osnovnu korisnost. Religiozni zanos sudionika na Bitcoin tržištu vidljiv je na raznim internetskim forumima, gdje Bitcoineri aktivno promoviraju benefine Bitcoina i bogatstvo koje je moguće ostvariti investiranjem u njega. Promatrajući Bitcoin tržište, Leigh Drogen komentira:

"To je prepoznatljivo svima kao religija - priča koju si pričamo i oko koje se slažemo. Religija je krivulja na grafu prihvaćanja o kojoj trebamo razmišljati. Sustav je gotovo savršen - onog trenutka kada netko pristupi krugu Bitcoinera, to će reći svima i nastaviti širiti riječ. Onda njihovi prijatelji pristupe i nastave širiti riječ."

Premda usporedba sa religijom može staviti Bitcoin u iracionalno svjetlo, potpuno je racionalno za individualnog vlasnika da širi dobru vijest o superiornom monetarnom dobru, i za šire društvo da se standardizira oko njega. Novac djeluje kao temelj za svu trgovinu i štednju; tako da prihvaćanje superiornog oblika novca ima ogromne multiplicirajuće benefite za stvaranje bogatstva za sve članove društva.

Oblik monetizacije

U članku o Spekulativnom prihvaćanju Bitcoina / teorije cijene, Michael Casey postulira da rastući Gartner hype ciklusi predstavljaju faze standardne S-krivulje prihvaćanja novih tehnologija, koje su bile prisutne kod mnogih transformacijskih tehnologija dok su postajale uobičajene u društvu.

Svaki Gartner hype ciklus počinje sa eksplozijom entuzijazma za novom tehnologijom, a cijenu podižu oni sudionici na tržištvu koji su “dostupni” u toj fazi. Najraniji kupci u Gartner hype ciklusu obično imaju jaku vjeru o transformacijskoj prirodi tehnologije u koju ulažu. S vremenom, tržište dosegne vrhunac entuzijazma kako se količina novih kupaca iscrpljuje, te kupovinom počnu dominirati spekulatori koji su više zainteresirani u brze profite nego u samu tehnologiju.

Nakon vrha hype ciklusa, cijene rapidno padaju dok spekulativno ludilo ustupa mjesto očajavanju, javnoj poruzi i osjećaju da tehnologija nije uopće bila transformacijska. S vremenom, cijena dosegne dno i formira plato na kojem se originalnim ulagačima, koji su imali snažno uvjerenje, pridružuju nove grupe ljudi koji su izdržali bol kraha cijena i koji cijene važnost same tehnologije.

Plato traje neko vrijeme i formira, kako Casey kaže, “stabilnu, dosadnu dolinu.” Za ovo vrijeme, javni interes za tehnologiju opada, no nastaviti će se razvijati i snažna zajednica uvjerenja će polako rasti. Tada, postavlja se nova baza za sljedeću iteraciju hype ciklusa, dok vanjski promatrači prepoznaju da tehnologija i dalje postoji i da ulaganje u nju možda nije onoliko rizično kao što se činilo za vrijeme pada cijene. Sljedeća iteracija hype ciklusa donosi mnogo veći broj novih ljudi, pa je i ciklus daleko veći u svojoj magnitudi.

Jako mali broj ljudi koji sudjeluju u Gartner hype ciklusu će točno predvidjeti koliko će visoko cijena porasti za vrijeme ciklusa. Cijene često dosegnu razine koje bi se činile apsurdnima većini ulagača u raniji stadijima ciklusa. Kada ciklus završi, mediji tipično atribuiraju pad cijene nekoj od aktualnih drušvenih tema. Premda takva tema može biti okidač pada, ona nikad nije temeljni razlog zašto ciklus završava. Gartner hype ciklusi završavaju kada je količina dostupnih novih sudionika na tržištu iscrpljena.

Zanimljivo je da je i zlato nacrtalo klasičan graf Gartner hype ciklusa od kasnih 1970-ih do ranih 2000-ih. Moguće je spekulirati da je hype ciklus osnovna socijalna dinamika oko procesa monetizacije.

Gartner kohorte

Od početka trgovanja Bitcoina na mjenjačnicama 2010. godine, Bitcoin tržište je svjedočilo četirima velikim Gartner hype ciklusima. U retrospektivi, možemo vrlo precizno identificirati grupe cijena prethodnih hype ciklusa Bitcoin tržišta. Također, možemo kvalitativno odrediti kohorte ulagača koje su povezane sa svakom iteracijom prethodnih ciklusa.

$0–$1 (2009. – 3. mjesec 2011.): Prvi hype ciklus u Bitcoin tržištu dominirali su kriptografi, računalni znanstvenici i cypherpunkovi koji su od početka bili spremni razumijeti važnost nevjerojatnog izuma Satoshija Nakamotoa, i koji su bili pioniri u potvrđivanju da Bitcoin protokol nema tehničkih mana.

$1–$30 (3. mjesec 2011. – 7. mjesec. 2011.): Drugi ciklus privukao je rane entuzijaste oko novih tehnologija kao i stabilan pritok ideološki motiviranih ulagača koji su bili oduševljeni idejom novca odvojenog od države. Libertarijanci poput Rogera Vera došli su u Bitcoin zbog aktivnog anti-institucionalnog stava, i mogućnosti koju je nova tehnologija obećavala. Wences Casares, briljantni i dobro povezani serijski poduzetnik, bio je također dio drugog Bitcoin hype ciklusa te je širio riječ o Bitcoinu među najprominentnijim tehnolozima i ulagačima u Silicijskoj Dolini.

$250–$1100 (4. mjesec 2013. – 12. mjesec 2013.): Treći hype ciklus doživio je ulazak ranih generalnih i institucionalnih ulagača koji su bili voljni uložiti trud i riskirati kroz užasno komplicirane kanale likvidnosti kako bi kupili bitcoine. Primaran izvor likvidnosti na tržištu za vrijeme ovog perioda bio je MtGox, mjenjačnica bazirana u Japanu, koju je vodio notorno nesposobni i beskrupulozni Mark Karpeles, koji je kasnije završio i u zatvoru zbog svoje uloge u kolapsu MtGoxa.

Valja primijetiti da je rast Bitcoinove cijene za vrijeme spomenuti hype ciklusa većinom povezano sa povećanjem likvidnosti i lakoćom sa kojom su ulagači mogli kupiti bitcoine. Za vrijeme prvog hype ciklusa, nisu postojale mjenjačnice; akvizicija bitcoina se odvijala primarno kroz rudarenje (mining) ili kroz izravnu razmjenu sa onima koju su već izrudarili bitcoine. Za vrijeme drugog hype ciklusa, pojavile su se rudimentarne mjenjačnice, no nabavljanje i osiguravanje bitcoina na ovim mjenjačnicama bilo je previše kompleksno za sve osim tehnološki najsposobnijih ulagača. Čak i za vrijeme trećeg hype ciklusa, ulagači koju su slali novac na MtGox kako bi kupili bitcoine su morali raditi kroz značajne prepreke. Banke nisu bile voljne imati posla sa mjenjačnicom, a oni posrednici koji su nudili usluge transfera bili su često nesposobni, kriminalni, ili oboje. Nadalje, mnogi koji su uspjeli poslati novac MtGoxu, u konačnici su morali prihvatiti gubitak svojih sredstava kada je mjenjačnica hakirana i kasnije zatvorena.

Tek nakon kolapsa MtGox mjenjačnice i dvogodišnje pauze u tržišnoj cijeni Bitcoina, razvili su se zreli i duboki izvori likvidnosti; primjeri poput reguliranih mjenjačnica kao što su GDAX i OTC brokeri kao Cumberland mining. Dok je četvrti hype ciklus započeo 2016. godine, bilo je relativno lako običnim ulagačima kupiti i osigurati bitcoine.

$1100–$19600? (2014. –?):

U trenutku pisanja ovog teksta, tržište Bitcoina je prolazilo svoj četvrti veliki hype ciklus. Sudjelovanje u ovom hype ciklusu dominirala je ona skupina koju je Michael Casey opisao kao “rana većina” običnih i institucionalnih ulagača.

Kako su se izvori likvidnosti produbljivali i sazrijevali, veliki institucionalni ulagači sada imaju priliku sudjelovati kroz regulirana “futures” tržišta. Dostupnosti takvih tržišta stvara put ka kreaciji Bitcoin ETF-a (exchange traded fund) (fond na slobodnom tržištu), koji će onda pokrenuti “kasnu većinu” i “najsporije” u sljedećim hype ciklusima.

Premda je nemoguće predvidjeti točan efekt budućih hype ciklusa, razumno je očekivati da će najviša točka biti između $20,000 i $50,000 (2021. zenit je bio preko $69,000). Znatno više od ovog raspona, i Bitcoin bi imao znatan postotak ukupne vijednosti zlata (zlato i Bitcoin bi imali jednaku tržišnu kapitalizaciju kada bi bitcoini vrijedili oko $380,000 u trenutku pisanja ovog teksta). Značajan postotak vrijednosti zlata dolazi od potražnje centralnih banaka, te je malo vjerojatno da će centralne banke ili suverene države sudjelovati u trenutnom hype ciklusu.

Ulazak suverenih država u Bitcoin

Bitcoinov zadnji Gartner hype ciklus će započeti kada ga suverene države počnu akumulirati kao dio svojih rezervi stranih valuta. Tržišna kapitalizacija Bitcoina je trenutno premala da bismo ga smatrali značajnim dodatkom rezervama većini zemalja. No, kako se interes u privatnom sektoru povećava i kapitalizacija Bitcoina se približi trilijunu dolara, postat će dovoljno likvidan za većinu država. Prva država koja službeno doda bitcoine u svoje rezerve će vjerojatno potaknuti stampedo ostalih da učine isto. Države koje su među prvima u usvajanju Bitcoina imat će najviše benefita u svojim knjigama ako Bitcoin u konačnici postane globalna valuta (global reserve currency). Nažalost, vjerojatno će države sa najjačom izvršnom vlasti - diktature poput Sjeverne Koreje - biti najbrže u akumulaciji bitcoina. Neodobravanje prema takvim državama i slaba izvršna tijela zapadnjačkih demokracija uzrokovat će sporost i kašnjenje u akumulaciji bitcoina za njihove vlastite rezerve.

Velika je ironija u tome što je SAD trenutno jedna od regulatorno najotvorenijih nacija prema Bitcoinu, dok su Kina i Rusija najzatvorenije. SAD riskira najviše, geopolitički, ako bi Bitcoin zamijenio dolar kao svjetska rezervna valuta. U 1960-ima, Charles de Gaulle je kritizirao “pretjeranu privilegiju” (“exorbitant privilege”) koju su SAD imale u međunarodnom monetarnom poretku, postavljenom kroz Bretton Woods dogovor 1944. godine. Ruska i kineska vlada još ne shvaćaju geo-strateške benefite Bitcoina kao rezervne valute, te se trenutno brinu o efektima koje bi mogao imati na njihova unutarnja tržišta. Kao de Gaulle u 1960-ima, koji je prijetio SAD-u povratkom na klasični standard zlata, Kinezi i Rusi će s vremenom uvidjeti korist u velikoj poziciji u Bitcoinu - spremištu vrijednosti bez pokrića ijedne vlade. Sa najvećom koncentracijom rudara Bitcoina u Kini (2017.), kineska vlada već ima znatnu potencijalnu prednost u stavljanju bitcoina u svoje rezerve.

SAD se ponosi svojim statusom nacije inovatora, sa Silicijskom dolinom kao krunom svoje ekonomije. Dosad, Silicijska dolina je dominirala konverzacijom usmjerenom prema regulaciji, i poziciji koju bi ona treba zauzeti prema Bitcoinu. No, bankovna industrija i federalna rezerva SAD-a (US Federal Reserve, Fed) napokon počinju uviđati egzistencijalnu prijetnju koju Bitcoin predstavlja za američku monetarnu politiku, postankom globalne rezervne valute. Wall Street Journal, jedan od medijskih glasova federalne reserve, izdao je komentar o Bitcoinu kao prijetnji monetarnoj politici SAD-a:

"Postoji još jedna opasnost, možda i ozbiljnija iz perspektive centralnih banaka i regulatora: bitcoin možda ne propadne. Ako je spekulativni žar u kriptovalutu samo prvi pokazatelj njezinog šireg korištenja kao alternative dolaru, Bitcoin će svakako ugroziti monopol centralnih banaka nad novcem."

U narednim godinama, možemo očekivati veliku borbu između poduzetnika i inovatora u Silicijskoj dolini, koji će pokušavati čuvati Bitcoin od državne kontrole s jedne strane, i bankovne industrije i centralnih banaka koje će učiniti sve što mogu da bi regulirale Bitcoin kako bi spriječile znatne promjene u svojoj industriji i moći izdavanja novca, s druge.

Prijelaz na medij razmjene

Monetarno dobro ne može postati opće prihvaćen medij razmjene (standardna ekonomska definicija za “novac”) prije nego je vrednovano od širokog spektra ljudi; jednostavno, dobro koje nije vrednovano neće biti prihvaćeno u razmjeni. Kroz proces generalnog rasta vrijednosti, i time postanka spremišta vrijednosti, monetarno dobro će brzo narasti u kupovnoj moći, i time stvoriti cijenu za korištenje u razmjeni. Samo kada ta cijena rizika mijenjanja spremišta vrijednosti padne dovoljno nisko, može dobro postati opće prihvaćen medij razmjene.

Preciznije, monetarno dobro će biti prikladno kao medij razmjene samo kada je suma cijene rizika i transakcijske cijene u razmjeni manja nego u trgovini bez tog dobra.

U društvu koje vrši robnu razmjenu, prijelaz spremišta vrijednosti u medij razmjene može se dogoditi čak i onda kada monetarno dobro raste u kupovnoj moći, zato što su transakcijski troškovi robne razmjene iznimno visoki. U razvijenoj ekonomiji, u kojoj su troškovi razmjene niski, moguće je za mladu i rapidno rastućnu tehnologiju spremišta vrijednosti, poput Bitcoina, da se koristi kao medij razmjene, doduše na ograničen način. Jedan primjer je ilegalno tržište droge, gdje su kupci voljni žrtvovati oportunu cijenu čuvanja bitcoina kako bi umanjili znatan rizik kupovine droge koristeći fiat novac.

Postoje međutim velike institucionalne barijere da novonastalo spremište vrijednosti postane sveopće prihvaćen medij razmjene u razvijenom društvu. Države koriste oporezivanje kao moćnu metodu zaštite svojeg suverenog novca protiv rivalskih monetarnih dobara. Ne samo da suvereni novac ima prednost konstantnog izvora potražnje, zato što je porez moguće platiti jedino u njemu, nego su i rivalska monetarna dobra oporezana pri svakoj razmjeni za vrijeme rastuće cijene. Ova metoda oporezivanja stvara znatan otpor korištenju spremišta vrijednosti kao medija razmjene.

Ovakvo sabotiranje tržišnih monetarnih dobara nije nepremostiva barijera za njihovo prihvaćanje kao općeg medija razmjene. Ako ljudi izgube vjeru u suvereni novac, njegova vrijednost može rapidno propasti kroz proces zvan hiperinflacija. Kada suvereni novac prolazi kroz hiperinflaciju, njegova vrijednost propadne prvo u usporedbi sa najlikvidnijim dobrima u društvu, kao što je zlato ili stabilna strana valuta (američki dolar npr.), ako su ona dostupna. Kada nema likvidnih dobara ili ih ima premalo, novac u hiperinflaciji kolabira u usporedbi sa stvarnim dobrima, kao što su nekretnine ili upotrebljiva roba. Arhetipska slika hiperinflacije je trgovina sa praznim policama - potrošači brzo bježe iz propadajuće vrijednosti novca svoje nacije.

Nakon dovoljno vremena, kada je vjera potpuno uništena za vrijeme hiperinflacije, suvereni novac više nitko ne prihvaća, te se društvo može vratiti na robnu razmjenu, ili će doživjeti potpunu zamjenu monetarne jedinice za sredstvo razmjene. Primjer ovog procesa bila je zamjena zimbabveanskog dolara za američki dolar. Takva promjena suverenog novca za stranu valutu je dodatno otežana relativnom oskudnošću strane valute i odsustvom stranih bankarskih institucija koje pružaju likvidnost tržištu.

Sposobnost lakog prenošenja bitcoina preko granica i odsustvo potrebe za bankarskim sustavom čine Bitcoin idealnim monetarnim dobrom za one ljude koji pate pod hiperinflacijom. U nadolazećim godinama, kako fiat valute nastave svoj povijesni trend ka bezvrijednosti, Bitcoin će postati sve popularniji izbor za ušteđevine ljudi diljem svijeta. Kada je novac nacije napušten i zamijenjen Bitcoinom, Bitcoin će napraviti tranziciju iz spremišta vrijednosti u tom društvu u opće prihvaćeno sredstvo razmjene. Daniel Krawicz stvorio je termin “hiperbitcoinizacija” da bi opisao ovaj proces.

Učestala pogrešna shvaćanja

Većina ovog članka usredotočila se na monetarnu prirodu Bitcoina. Sa tim temeljima možemo adresirati neke od najčešćih nerazumijevanja u Bitcoinu.

Bitcoin je balon (bubble)

Bitcoin, kao sva tržišna monetarna dobra, posjeduje monetarnu premiju. Ona često rezultira uobičajenom kritikom da je Bitcoin samo “balon.” No, sva monetarna dobra imaju monetarnu premiju. Naprotiv, ta monetarna premija (cijena viša od one koju diktira potražnja za dobrom kao korisnim) je upravo karakteristična za sve oblike novca. Drugim riječima, novac je uvijek i svuda balon. Paradoksalno, monetarno dobro je istovremeno balon i ispod vrijednosti ukoliko je u ranijim stadijima općeg prihvaćanja kao novac.

Bitcoin je previše volatilan

Volatilnost cijene Bitcoina je funkcija njegovog nedavnog nastanka. U prvih nekoliko godina svojeg postojanja, Bitcoin se ponašao kao mala dionica, i svaki veliki kupac - kao npr. braća Winklevoss - mogao je uzrokovati veliki skok u njegovoj cijeni. No, kako su se prihvaćenost i likvidnost povećavali kroz godine, volatilnost Bitcoina je srazmjerno smanjila. Kada Bitcoin postigne tržišnu kapitalizaciju (vrijednost) zlata, imat će sličnu volatilnost kao i zlato. Kako Bitcoin nastavi rasti, njegova volatilnost će se smanjiti do razine koja ga čini prikladnim za široko korištenje kao medij razmjene. Kao što je prethodno rečeno, monetizacija Bitcoina se odvija u seriji Gartner hype ciklusa. Volatilnost je najniža za vrijeme vrhunaca i dolina unutar ciklusa. Svaki hype ciklus ima nižu volatilnost od prethodnih, zato što je likvidnost tržišta veća.

Cijene transakcija su previsoke

Novija kritika Bitcoin mreže je ta da ju je povećanje cijena prijenosa bitcoina učinilo neprikladnom za sustav plaćanja. No, rast u cijenama transakcija je zdrav i očekivan. One su nužne za plaćanje bitcoin minera (rudara), koji osiguravaju mrežu validacijom transakcija. Rudare se plaća kroz cijene transakcija ili kroz blok-nagrade, koje su inflacijska subvencija od trane trenutnih vlasnika bitcoina.

S obzirom na Bitcoinovu fiksnu proizvodnju (monetarna politika koja ga čini idealnim za spremanje vrijednosti), blok-nagrade će s vremenom nestati i mrežu će se u konačnici morati osiguravati kroz cijene transakcija. Mreža sa “niskim” cijenama transakcija je mreža sa slabom sigurnosti i osjetljiva na vanjsku intervenciju i cenzuru. Oni koji hvale niske cijene Bitcoinovih alternative zapravo niti ne znajući opisuju slabosti tih takozvanih “alt-coina.”

Površan temelj kritika Bitcoinovih “visokih” cijena transakcija je uvjerenje da bi Bitcoin trebao biti prvo sustav plaćanja, i drugo spremište vrijednosti. Kao što smo vidjeli kroz povijest novca, ovo uvjerenje je naopako. Samo onda kada Bitcoin postane duboko ukorijenjeno spremište novca može biti prikladan kao sredstvo razmjene. Nadalje, kada oportunitetni trošak razmjene bitcoina dođe na razinu koja ga čini prikladnim sredstvom razmjene, većina trgovine neće se odvijati na samoj Bitcoin mreži, nego na mrežama “drugog sloja” (second layer) koje će imati niže cijene transakcija. Takve mreže, poput Lightning mreže, služe kao moderna verzija zadužnica koje su korištene za prijenos vlasničkih papira zlata u 19. stoljeću. Banke su koristile zadužnice zato što je prijenos samog metala bio daleko skuplji. Za razliku od takvih zadužnica, Lightning mreža će omogućavati nisku cijenu prijenosa bitcoina bez potrebe za povjerenjem prema trećoj strani, poput banaka. Razvoj Lightning mreže je tehnološka inovacija od izuzetne važnosti u povijesti Bitcoina, i njezina vrijednost će postati očita u narednim godinama, kako je sve više ljudi bude razvijalo i koristilo.

Konkurencija

Pošto je Bitcoin softverski protokol otvorenog tipa (open-source), oduvijek je bilo moguće kopirati softver i imitirati mrežu. Kroz godine nastajali su mnogi imitatori, od identičnih kopija, kao Litecoin, do kompleksnijih varijanti kao što je Ethereum, koje obećavaju arbitrarno kompleksne ugovorne mehanizme koristeći decentralizirani računalni sustav. Česta kritika Bitcoinu od strane ulagača je ta da on ne može zadržati svoju vrijednost kada je vrlo lako stvoriti konkurente koji mogu lako i brzo u sebi imati najnovije inovacije i softverske funkcionalnosti.

Greška u ovom argumentu leži u manju takozvanog “mrežnog efekta” (network effect), koji postoji u prvoj i dominantnoj tehnologiji u nekom području. Mrežni efekt - velika vrijednost korištenja Bitcoina samo zato što je već dominantan - je važno svojstvo samo po sebi. Za svaku tehnologiju koja posjeduje mrežni efekt, to je daleko najvažnije svojstvo koje može imati.

Za Bitcoin, mrežni efekt uključuje likvidnost njegovog tržišta, broj ljudi koji ga posjeduju, i zajednicu programera koji održavaju i unaprjeđuju njegov softver i svjesnost u javnosti. Veliki ulagači, uključujući države, će uvijek prvo tražiti najlikvidnije tržište, kako bi mogli ući i izaći iz tržišta brzo, i bez utjecanja na cijenu. Programeri će se pridružiti dominantnoj programerskoj zajednici sa najboljim talentom, i time pojačati samu zajednicu. Svjesnost o brendu sama sebe pojačava, pošto se nadobudni konkurenti Bitcoina uvijek spominju u kontekstu Bitcoina kao takvog.

Raskrižje na putu (fork)

Trend koji je postao popularan 2017. godine nije bio samo imitacija Bitcoinovog softvera, nego kopiranje potpune povijesti njegovih prošlih transakcija (cijeli blockchain). Kopiranjem Bitcoinovog blockchaina do određene točke/bloka i odvajanjem sljedećih blokova ka novoj mreži, u procesu znanom kao “forking” (odvajanje), Bitcoinovi konkurenti su uspjeli riješiti problem distribuiranja svojeg tokena velikom broju korisnika.

Najznačajniji takav fork dogodio se 1. 8. 2017. godine, kada je nova mreža nazvana Bitcoin Cash (Bcash) stvorena. Vlasnik N količine bitcoina prije 1.8.2017. bi onda posjedovao N bitcoina i N BCash tokena. Mala, ali vrlo glasna zajednica Bcash proponenata je neumorno pokušavala prisvojiti Bitcoinov brend i ime, imenujući svoju novu mrežu Bitcoin Cast i pokušavajući uvjeriti nove pridošlice u Bitcoin da je Bcash “pravi” Bitcoin. Ti pokušaji su većinom propali, i taj neuspjeh se vidi u tržišnim kapitalizacijama dviju mreža. No, za nove ulagače, i dalje postoji rizik da bi konkurent mogao kopirati Bitcoin i njegov blockchain i tako uspjeti u preuzimanju tržišne kapitalizacije, te postati de facto Bitcoin.

Moguće je uočiti važno pravilo gledajući velike forkove u prošlosti Bitcoin i Ethereum mreža. Većina tržišne kapitalizacije odvijat će se na mreži koja zadrži najviši stupanj talenta i aktivnosti u zajednici programera. Premda se na Bitcoin može gledati kao na nov i mlad novac, on je također računalna mreža koja počiva na softveru, kojeg se pak treba održavati i poboljšavati. Kupovina tokena na mreži koja ima malo neiskusnih programera bilo bi kao kupovati kopiju Microsoft Windowsa na kojoj rade lošiji programeri. Jasno je vidljivo iz povijesti forkova koji su se odvili 2017. godine da su najbolji računalni i kriptografski stručnjaci posvećeni razvoju originalnog Bitcoina, a ne nekoj od rastućeg broja imitacija koje su se izrodile iz njega.

Stvarni rizici

Premda su uobičajene kritike upućene Bitconu od strane medija i ekonomske profesije krive i bazirane na netočnom shvaćanju novca, postoje pravi i značajni rizici kod ulaganja u Bitcoin. Bilo bi mudro za novog Bitcoin ulagača da shvati ove rizike prije potencijalnog ulaganja.

Rizik protokola

Bitcoin protokol i kriptografski sastavni dijelovi na kojima je sagrađen potencijalno imaju dosad nepronađenu grešku u svom dizajnu, ili mogu postati nesigurni razvojem kvantnih računala. Ako se pronađe greška u protokolu, ili neka nova metoda računarstva učini mogućim probijanje kriptografskih temelja Bitcoina, vjera u Bitcoin biti će znatno narušena. Rizik protokola bio je najviši u ranim godinama razvoja Bitcoina, kada je još uvijek bilo nejasno, čak i iskusnim kriptografima, je li Satoshi Nakamoto zaista riješio problem bizantskih generala (Byzantine Generals’ Problem). Brige oko ozbiljnih grešaka u Bitcoin protokolu nestale su kroz godine, no uzevši u obzir njegovu tehnološku prirodu, rizik protokola će uvijek ostati u Bitcoinu, makar i kao izuzetak.

Propadanje mjenjačnica

Time što je decentraliziran, Bitcoin je pokazao značajnu otpornost, suočen sa brojnim pokušajima raznih vlada da ga reguliraju ili unište. No, mjenjačnice koje trguju bitcoinima za fiat valute su centralizirani entiteti i podložne regulacijama i zatvaranju. Bez mjenjačnica i volje bankara da s njima posluju, proces monetizacije Bitcoina bio bi ozbiljno usporen, ako ne i potpuno zaustavljen. Iako postoje alternativni izvori likvidnosti za Bitcoin, poput “over-the-counter” brokera i decentraliziranih tržišta za kupovinu i prodaju bitcoina, kritičan proces otkrivanja i definiranja cijene se odvija na najlikvidnijim mjenjačnicama, koje su sve centralizirane.

Jedan od načina za umanjivanje rizika gašenja mjenjačnica je geografska arbitraža. Binance, jedna od velikih mjenjačnica iz Kine, preselila se u Japan nakon što joj je kineska vlada zabranila operiranje u Kini. Vlade su također oprezne kako ne bi ugušile novu industriju koja je potencijalno značajna kao i internet, i time predale nevjerojatnu konkurentnu vrijednost drugim nacijama.

Samo kroz koordinirano globalno ukidanje Bitcoin mjenjačnica bi proces monetizacije mogao biti zaustavljen. Trenutno smo u utrci; Bitcoin raste i postaje sve rašireniji, i doći će do trenutka kada bi potpuno ukidanje mjenjačnica postalo politički neizvedivo - kao i gašenje interneta. Mogućnost takvog ukidanja je još uvijek realna, i valja je uzeti u obzir pri ulaganju u Bitcoin. Kao što je gore objašnjeno, suverene vlade se polako bude i uviđaju prijetnju koju predstavlja neovisna digitalna valuta otporna na cenzuru, za njihovu monetarnu politiku. Otvoreno je pitanje hoće li išta poduzeti da odgovore ovoj prijetnji prije nego Bitcoin postane toliko utvrđen i raširen da politička akcija postane nemoćna i ne-efektivna.

Zamjenjivost

Otvorena i transparentna priroda Bitcoin blockchaina omogućava državama da proglase specifične bitcoine “okaljanima” zbog njihovog korištenja u određenim aktivnostima. Premda Bitcoin, na protokolarnoj razini, ne diskriminira transakcije na ikoji način, “okaljani” bitcoini bi mogli postati bezvrijedni ako bi ih regulacije proglasile ilegalnima i neprihvatljivima za mjenjačnice ili trgovce. Bitcoin bi tada izgubio jedno od kritičnih svojstava monetarnog dobra: zamjenjivost.

Da bi se ovaj problem riješio i umanjio, biti će potrebna poboljšanja na razini protokola kako bi se poboljšala privatnost transakcija. Premda postoji napredak u ovom smjeru, prvi put primjenjen u digitalnim valutama kao što su Monero i Zcash, potrebno je napraviti značajne tehnološke kompromise između efikasnosti i kompleksnosti Bitcoina i njegove privatnosti. Pitanje ostaje otvoreno je li moguće dodati nova svojstva privatnosti na Bitcoin, na način koji neće kompromitirati njegovu korisnost kao novca.

Zaključak

Bitcoin je novonastali novac koji je u procesu transformacije iz sakupljačkog dobra u spremište vrijednosti. Kao neovisno monetarno dobro, moguće je da će u budućnosti postati globalan novac, slično kao zlato za vrijeme 19. stoljeća. Prihvaćanje Bitcoina kao globalnog novca je upravo taj optimističan scenarij za Bitcoin, kojeg je artikulirao Satoshi Nakamoto još 2010. godine u email razmjeni sa Mikeom Hearnom:

"Ako zamisliš da se koristi u nekom dijelu svjetske trgovine, i da će postojati samo 21 milijun bitcoina za cijeli svijet, vrijednost po jedinici će biti znatno veća".

Ovaj scenarij je još snažnije definirao briljantni kriptograf Hal Finney, koji je ujedno primio i prve bitcoine od Nakamotoa, ubrzo nakon najave prvog funkcionalnog Bitcoin softvera:

"Zamislimo da Bitcoin bude uspješan i postane dominantan sustav plaćanja diljem svijeta. U tom slučaju će ukupna vrijednost valute biti jednaka ukupnoj vrijednosti svog bogatstva svijeta. Današnje procjene ukupnog svjetskog bogatska kućanstava koje sam pronašao borave negdje između 100 i 300 trilijuna dolara. Sa 20 milijuna bitcoina, svaki bi onda vrijedio oko 10 milijuna dolara."

Čak i da Bitcoin ne postane u cijelost globalan novac, nego da se samo natječe sa zlatom kao neovisno spremište vrijednosti, i dalje je masivno podcijenjen. Mapiranje tržišne kapitalizacije postojeće količine izrudarenog zlata (oko 8 trilijuna dolara) na maksimalnu dostupnost Bitcoina od 21 milijun, daje vrijednost od otprilike 380,000 dolara po bitcoinu. Kao što smo vidjeli u prethodnom tekstu, svojstva koja omogućavaju monetarnom dobru da bude prikladno spremište vrijednosti, čine Bitcoin superiornijim zlatu u svakom pogledu osim trajanja povijesti. No, kako vrijeme prolazi i Lindy efekt postane jači, dosadašnja povijest će prestati biti prednost zlata. Samim time, nije nerazumno očekivati da će Bitcoin narasti do, a možda i preko, ukupne cijene zlata na tržištvu do 2030. Opaska ovoj tezi je činjenica da veliki postotak vrijednosti zlata dolazi od toga što ga centralne banke čuvaju kao spremište vrijednosti. Da bi Bitcoin došao do te razine, određena količina suverenih država će trebati sudjelovati. Hoće li zapadnjačke demokracije sudjelovati u vlasništvu Bitcoina je nepoznato. Vjerojatnije je, nažalost, da će prve nacije u Bitcoin tržištu biti sitne diktature i kleptokracije.

Ako niti jedna država ne bude sudjelovala u Bitcoin tržištu, optimistična teza i dalje postoji. Kao nevisno spremište vrijednosti u rukama individualnih i institucionalnih ulagača, Bitcoin je i dalje vrlo rano u svojoj “krivulji prihvaćenosti” (adoption curve); tzv. “rana većina” ulaze na tržište sada, dok će ostali ući tek nekoliko godina kasnije. Sa širim sudjelovanjem individualnih i institucionalnih ulagača, cijena po bitcoinu između 100,000 i 200,000 dolara je sasvim moguća.

Posjedovanje bitcoina je jedna od malobrojnih asimetričnih novčanih strategija dostupnih svakome na svijetu. Poput “call” opcija, negativan rizik ulagača je ograničen na 1x, dok potencijalna dobit i dalje iznosi 100x ili više. Bitcoin je prvi istinski globalan balon čija je veličina ograničena samo potražnjom i željom građana svijeta da zaštite svoju ušteđevinu od raznovrsnih ekonomskih malverzacija vlade. Bitcoin je ustao kao feniks iz pepela globalne financijske krize 2008. godine - katastrofe kojoj su prethodile odluke centralnih banaka poput američke Federalne rezerve (Federal Reserve).

Onkraj samo financijske teze za Bitcoin, njegov rast i uspjeh kao neovisno spremište vrijednosti imat će duboke geopolitičke posljedice. Globalna, ne-inflacijska valuta će prisiliti suverene države da promjene svoje primarne mehanizme financiranja od inflacije u izravno oporezivanje; koje je daleko manje politički popularno. Države će se smanjivati proporcionalno političkoj boli koju im nanese oporezivanje kao jedini način financiranja. Nadalje, globalna trgovina vršiti će se na način koji zadovoljava aspiraciju Charlesa de Gaullea, da nijedna nacija ne bi smjela imati privilegiju nad ikojom drugom:

"Smatramo da je potrebno da se uspostavi međunarodna trgovina, kao što je bio slučaj prije velikih nesreća koje su zadesile svijet, na neosporivoj monetarnoj bazi, koja ne nosi na sebi oznaku ijedne države."

Za 50 godina, ta monetarna baza biti će Bitcoin.

@ 8cda1daa:e9e5bdd8

Bitcoin cracked the code for money.  Now it's time to rebuild everything else.

What about identity, trust, and collaboration? What about the systems that define how we live, create, and connect?

Bitcoin gave us a blueprint to separate money from the state. But the state still owns most of your digital life. It's time for something more radical.

Welcome to the Atomic Economy - not just a technology stack, but a civil engineering project for the digital age. A complete re-architecture of society, from the individual outward.

The Problem: We Live in Digital Captivity

Let's be blunt: the modern internet is hostile to human freedom.

You don't own your identity. You don't control your data. You don't decide what you see.

Big Tech and state institutions dominate your digital life with one goal: control.

• Poisoned algorithms dictate your emotions and behavior.
• Censorship hides truth and silences dissent.
• Walled gardens lock you into systems you can't escape.
• Extractive platforms monetize your attention and creativity - without your consent.

This isn't innovation. It's digital colonization.

A Vision for Sovereign Society

The Atomic Economy proposes a new design for society - one where: - Individuals own their identity, data, and value. - Trust is contextual, not imposed. - Communities are voluntary, not manufactured by feeds. - Markets are free, not fenced. - Collaboration is peer-to-peer, not platform-mediated.

It's not a political revolution. It's a technological and social reset based on first principles: self-sovereignty, mutualism, and credible exit.

So, What Is the Atomic Economy?

The Atomic Economy is a decentralized digital society where people - not platforms - coordinate identity, trust, and value.

It's built on open protocols, real software, and the ethos of Bitcoin. It's not about abstraction - it's about architecture.

Core Principles: - Self-Sovereignty: Your keys. Your data. Your rules. - Mutual Consensus: Interactions are voluntary and trust-based. - Credible Exit: Leave any system, with your data and identity intact. - Programmable Trust: Trust is explicit, contextual, and revocable. - Circular Economies: Value flows directly between individuals - no middlemen.

The Tech Stack Behind the Vision

The Atomic Economy isn't just theory. It's a layered system with real tools:

1. Payments & Settlement

• Bitcoin & Lightning: The foundation - sound, censorship-resistant money.
• Paykit: Modular payments and settlement flows.
• Atomicity: A peer-to-peer mutual credit protocol for programmable trust and IOUs.

2. Discovery & Matching

• Pubky Core: Decentralized identity and discovery using PKARR and the DHT.
• Pubky Nexus: Indexing for a user-controlled internet.
• Semantic Social Graph: Discovery through social tagging - you are the algorithm.

3. Application Layer

• Bitkit: A self-custodial Bitcoin and Lightning wallet.
• Pubky App: Tag, publish, trade, and interact - on your terms.
• Blocktank: Liquidity services for Lightning and circular economies.
• Pubky Ring: Key-based access control and identity syncing.

These tools don't just integrate - they stack. You build trust, exchange value, and form communities with no centralized gatekeepers.

The Human Impact

This isn't about software. It's about freedom.

• Empowered Individuals: Control your own narrative, value, and destiny.
• Voluntary Communities: Build trust on shared values, not enforced norms.
• Economic Freedom: Trade without permission, borders, or middlemen.
• Creative Renaissance: Innovation and art flourish in open, censorship-resistant systems.

The Atomic Economy doesn't just fix the web. It frees the web.

Why Bitcoiners Should Care

If you believe in Bitcoin, you already believe in the Atomic Economy - you just haven't seen the full map yet.

• It extends Bitcoin's principles beyond money: into identity, trust, coordination.
• It defends freedom where Bitcoin leaves off: in content, community, and commerce.
• It offers a credible exit from every centralized system you still rely on.
• It's how we win - not just economically, but culturally and socially.

This isn't "web3." This isn't another layer of grift. It's the Bitcoin future - fully realized.

Join the Atomic Revolution

• If you're a builder: fork the code, remix the ideas, expand the protocols.
• If you're a user: adopt Bitkit, use Pubky, exit the digital plantation.
• If you're an advocate: share the vision. Help people imagine a free society again.

Bitcoin promised a revolution. The Atomic Economy delivers it.

Let's reclaim society, one key at a time.

Learn more and build with us at Synonym.to.

@ e6817453:b0ac3c39

The Rise of Graph RAGs and the Quest for Data Quality

As we enter a new year, it’s impossible to ignore the boom of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems, particularly those leveraging graph-based approaches. The previous year saw a surge in advancements and discussions about Graph RAGs, driven by their potential to enhance large language models (LLMs), reduce hallucinations, and deliver more reliable outputs. Let’s dive into the trends, challenges, and strategies for making the most of Graph RAGs in artificial intelligence.

Booming Interest in Graph RAGs

Graph RAGs have dominated the conversation in AI circles. With new research papers and innovations emerging weekly, it’s clear that this approach is reshaping the landscape. These systems, especially those developed by tech giants like Microsoft, demonstrate how graphs can:

• Enhance LLM Outputs: By grounding responses in structured knowledge, graphs significantly reduce hallucinations.
• Support Complex Queries: Graphs excel at managing linked and connected data, making them ideal for intricate problem-solving.

Conferences on linked and connected data have increasingly focused on Graph RAGs, underscoring their central role in modern AI systems. However, the excitement around this technology has brought critical questions to the forefront: How do we ensure the quality of the graphs we’re building, and are they genuinely aligned with our needs?

Data Quality: The Foundation of Effective Graphs

A high-quality graph is the backbone of any successful RAG system. Constructing these graphs from unstructured data requires attention to detail and rigorous processes. Here’s why:

• Richness of Entities: Effective retrieval depends on graphs populated with rich, detailed entities.
• Freedom from Hallucinations: Poorly constructed graphs amplify inaccuracies rather than mitigating them.

Without robust data quality, even the most sophisticated Graph RAGs become ineffective. As a result, the focus must shift to refining the graph construction process. Improving data strategy and ensuring meticulous data preparation is essential to unlock the full potential of Graph RAGs.

Hybrid Graph RAGs and Variations

While standard Graph RAGs are already transformative, hybrid models offer additional flexibility and power. Hybrid RAGs combine structured graph data with other retrieval mechanisms, creating systems that:

• Handle diverse data sources with ease.
• Offer improved adaptability to complex queries.

Exploring these variations can open new avenues for AI systems, particularly in domains requiring structured and unstructured data processing.

Ontology: The Key to Graph Construction Quality

Ontology — defining how concepts relate within a knowledge domain — is critical for building effective graphs. While this might sound abstract, it’s a well-established field blending philosophy, engineering, and art. Ontology engineering provides the framework for:

• Defining Relationships: Clarifying how concepts connect within a domain.
• Validating Graph Structures: Ensuring constructed graphs are logically sound and align with domain-specific realities.

Traditionally, ontologists — experts in this discipline — have been integral to large enterprises and research teams. However, not every team has access to dedicated ontologists, leading to a significant challenge: How can teams without such expertise ensure the quality of their graphs?

How to Build Ontology Expertise in a Startup Team

For startups and smaller teams, developing ontology expertise may seem daunting, but it is achievable with the right approach:

1. Assign a Knowledge Champion: Identify a team member with a strong analytical mindset and give them time and resources to learn ontology engineering.
2. Provide Training: Invest in courses, workshops, or certifications in knowledge graph and ontology creation.
3. Leverage Partnerships: Collaborate with academic institutions, domain experts, or consultants to build initial frameworks.
4. Utilize Tools: Introduce ontology development tools like Protégé, OWL, or SHACL to simplify the creation and validation process.
5. Iterate with Feedback: Continuously refine ontologies through collaboration with domain experts and iterative testing.

So, it is not always affordable for a startup to have a dedicated oncologist or knowledge engineer in a team, but you could involve consulters or build barefoot experts.

You could read about barefoot experts in my article :

Even startups can achieve robust and domain-specific ontology frameworks by fostering in-house expertise.

How to Find or Create Ontologies

For teams venturing into Graph RAGs, several strategies can help address the ontology gap:

1. Leverage Existing Ontologies: Many industries and domains already have open ontologies. For instance:

2. Public Knowledge Graphs: Resources like Wikipedia’s graph offer a wealth of structured knowledge.

3. Industry Standards: Enterprises such as Siemens have invested in creating and sharing ontologies specific to their fields.

4. Business Framework Ontology (BFO): A valuable resource for enterprises looking to define business processes and structures.

5. Build In-House Expertise: If budgets allow, consider hiring knowledge engineers or providing team members with the resources and time to develop expertise in ontology creation.

6. Utilize LLMs for Ontology Construction: Interestingly, LLMs themselves can act as a starting point for ontology development:

7. Prompt-Based Extraction: LLMs can generate draft ontologies by leveraging their extensive training on graph data.

8. Domain Expert Refinement: Combine LLM-generated structures with insights from domain experts to create tailored ontologies.

Parallel Ontology and Graph Extraction

An emerging approach involves extracting ontologies and graphs in parallel. While this can streamline the process, it presents challenges such as:

• Detecting Hallucinations: Differentiating between genuine insights and AI-generated inaccuracies.
• Ensuring Completeness: Ensuring no critical concepts are overlooked during extraction.

Teams must carefully validate outputs to ensure reliability and accuracy when employing this parallel method.

LLMs as Ontologists

While traditionally dependent on human expertise, ontology creation is increasingly supported by LLMs. These models, trained on vast amounts of data, possess inherent knowledge of many open ontologies and taxonomies. Teams can use LLMs to:

• Generate Skeleton Ontologies: Prompt LLMs with domain-specific information to draft initial ontology structures.
• Validate and Refine Ontologies: Collaborate with domain experts to refine these drafts, ensuring accuracy and relevance.

However, for validation and graph construction, formal tools such as OWL, SHACL, and RDF should be prioritized over LLMs to minimize hallucinations and ensure robust outcomes.

Final Thoughts: Unlocking the Power of Graph RAGs

The rise of Graph RAGs underscores a simple but crucial correlation: improving graph construction and data quality directly enhances retrieval systems. To truly harness this power, teams must invest in understanding ontologies, building quality graphs, and leveraging both human expertise and advanced AI tools.

As we move forward, the interplay between Graph RAGs and ontology engineering will continue to shape the future of AI. Whether through adopting existing frameworks or exploring innovative uses of LLMs, the path to success lies in a deep commitment to data quality and domain understanding.

Have you explored these technologies in your work? Share your experiences and insights — and stay tuned for more discussions on ontology extraction and its role in AI advancements. Cheers to a year of innovation!

@ a4a6b584:1e05b95b

The Four-Layer Framework

Layer 1: Zoom Out

Start by looking at the big picture. What’s the subject about, and why does it matter? Focus on the overarching ideas and how they fit together. Think of this as the 30,000-foot view—it’s about understanding the "why" and "how" before diving into the "what."

Example: If you’re learning programming, start by understanding that it’s about giving logical instructions to computers to solve problems.

• Tip: Keep it simple. Summarize the subject in one or two sentences and avoid getting bogged down in specifics at this stage.

Once you have the big picture in mind, it’s time to start breaking it down.

---

Layer 2: Categorize and Connect

Now it’s time to break the subject into categories—like creating branches on a tree. This helps your brain organize information logically and see connections between ideas.

Example: Studying biology? Group concepts into categories like cells, genetics, and ecosystems.

• Tip: Use headings or labels to group similar ideas. Jot these down in a list or simple diagram to keep track.

With your categories in place, you’re ready to dive into the details that bring them to life.

---

Layer 3: Master the Details

Once you’ve mapped out the main categories, you’re ready to dive deeper. This is where you learn the nuts and bolts—like formulas, specific techniques, or key terminology. These details make the subject practical and actionable.

Example: In programming, this might mean learning the syntax for loops, conditionals, or functions in your chosen language.

• Tip: Focus on details that clarify the categories from Layer 2. Skip anything that doesn’t add to your understanding.

Now that you’ve mastered the essentials, you can expand your knowledge to include extra material.

---

Layer 4: Expand Your Horizons

Finally, move on to the extra material—less critical facts, trivia, or edge cases. While these aren’t essential to mastering the subject, they can be useful in specialized discussions or exams.

Example: Learn about rare programming quirks or historical trivia about a language’s development.

• Tip: Spend minimal time here unless it’s necessary for your goals. It’s okay to skim if you’re short on time.

---

Pro Tips for Better Learning

1. Use Active Recall and Spaced Repetition

Test yourself without looking at notes. Review what you’ve learned at increasing intervals—like after a day, a week, and a month. This strengthens memory by forcing your brain to actively retrieve information.

2. Map It Out

Create visual aids like diagrams or concept maps to clarify relationships between ideas. These are particularly helpful for organizing categories in Layer 2.

3. Teach What You Learn

Explain the subject to someone else as if they’re hearing it for the first time. Teaching exposes any gaps in your understanding and helps reinforce the material.

4. Engage with LLMs and Discuss Concepts

Take advantage of tools like ChatGPT or similar large language models to explore your topic in greater depth. Use these tools to:
- Ask specific questions to clarify confusing points.
- Engage in discussions to simulate real-world applications of the subject.
- Generate examples or analogies that deepen your understanding.

Tip: Use LLMs as a study partner, but don’t rely solely on them. Combine these insights with your own critical thinking to develop a well-rounded perspective.

---

Get Started

Ready to try the Four-Layer Method? Take 15 minutes today to map out the big picture of a topic you’re curious about—what’s it all about, and why does it matter? By building your understanding step by step, you’ll master the subject with less stress and more confidence.

@ fe32298e:20516265

Today I learned how to install NVapi to monitor my GPUs in Home Assistant.

NVApi is a lightweight API designed for monitoring NVIDIA GPU utilization and enabling automated power management. It provides real-time GPU metrics, supports integration with tools like Home Assistant, and offers flexible power management and PCIe link speed management based on workload and thermal conditions.

• GPU Utilization Monitoring: Utilization, memory usage, temperature, fan speed, and power consumption.
• Automated Power Limiting: Adjusts power limits dynamically based on temperature thresholds and total power caps, configurable per GPU or globally.
• Cross-GPU Coordination: Total power budget applies across multiple GPUs in the same system.
• PCIe Link Speed Management: Controls minimum and maximum PCIe link speeds with idle thresholds for power optimization.
• Home Assistant Integration: Uses the built-in RESTful platform and template sensors.

Getting the Data

sudo apt install golang-go git clone https://github.com/sammcj/NVApi.git cd NVapi go run main.go -port 9999 -rate 1 curl http://localhost:9999/gpu

Response for a single GPU: [ { "index": 0, "name": "NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090", "gpu_utilisation": 0, "memory_utilisation": 0, "power_watts": 16, "power_limit_watts": 450, "memory_total_gb": 23.99, "memory_used_gb": 0.46, "memory_free_gb": 23.52, "memory_usage_percent": 2, "temperature": 38, "processes": [], "pcie_link_state": "not managed" } ]

Response for multiple GPUs: [ { "index": 0, "name": "NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090", "gpu_utilisation": 0, "memory_utilisation": 0, "power_watts": 14, "power_limit_watts": 350, "memory_total_gb": 24, "memory_used_gb": 0.43, "memory_free_gb": 23.57, "memory_usage_percent": 2, "temperature": 36, "processes": [], "pcie_link_state": "not managed" }, { "index": 1, "name": "NVIDIA RTX A4000", "gpu_utilisation": 0, "memory_utilisation": 0, "power_watts": 10, "power_limit_watts": 140, "memory_total_gb": 15.99, "memory_used_gb": 0.56, "memory_free_gb": 15.43, "memory_usage_percent": 3, "temperature": 41, "processes": [], "pcie_link_state": "not managed" } ]

Start at Boot

Create /etc/systemd/system/nvapi.service:

``` [Unit] Description=Run NVapi After=network.target

[Service] Type=simple Environment="GOPATH=/home/ansible/go" WorkingDirectory=/home/ansible/NVapi ExecStart=/usr/bin/go run main.go -port 9999 -rate 1 Restart=always User=ansible

Environment="GPU_TEMP_CHECK_INTERVAL=5"

Environment="GPU_TOTAL_POWER_CAP=400"

Environment="GPU_0_LOW_TEMP=40"

Environment="GPU_0_MEDIUM_TEMP=70"

Environment="GPU_0_LOW_TEMP_LIMIT=135"

Environment="GPU_0_MEDIUM_TEMP_LIMIT=120"

Environment="GPU_0_HIGH_TEMP_LIMIT=100"

Environment="GPU_1_LOW_TEMP=45"

Environment="GPU_1_MEDIUM_TEMP=75"

Environment="GPU_1_LOW_TEMP_LIMIT=140"

Environment="GPU_1_MEDIUM_TEMP_LIMIT=125"

Environment="GPU_1_HIGH_TEMP_LIMIT=110"

[Install] WantedBy=multi-user.target ```

Home Assistant

Add to Home Assistant configuration.yaml and restart HA (completely).

For a single GPU, this works: ``` sensor: - platform: rest name: MYPC GPU Information resource: http://mypc:9999 method: GET headers: Content-Type: application/json value_template: "{{ value_json[0].index }}" json_attributes: - name - gpu_utilisation - memory_utilisation - power_watts - power_limit_watts - memory_total_gb - memory_used_gb - memory_free_gb - memory_usage_percent - temperature scan_interval: 1 # seconds

• platform: template sensors: mypc_gpu_0_gpu: friendly_name: "MYPC {{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'name') }} GPU" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'gpu_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_0_memory: friendly_name: "MYPC {{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'name') }} Memory" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'memory_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_0_power: friendly_name: "MYPC {{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'name') }} Power" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'power_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_0_power_limit: friendly_name: "MYPC {{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'name') }} Power Limit" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'power_limit_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_0_temperature: friendly_name: "MYPC {{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'name') }} Temperature" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu_information', 'temperature') }}" unit_of_measurement: "°C" ```

For multiple GPUs: ``` rest: scan_interval: 1 resource: http://mypc:9999 sensor: - name: "MYPC GPU0 Information" value_template: "{{ value_json[0].index }}" json_attributes_path: "$.0" json_attributes: - name - gpu_utilisation - memory_utilisation - power_watts - power_limit_watts - memory_total_gb - memory_used_gb - memory_free_gb - memory_usage_percent - temperature - name: "MYPC GPU1 Information" value_template: "{{ value_json[1].index }}" json_attributes_path: "$.1" json_attributes: - name - gpu_utilisation - memory_utilisation - power_watts - power_limit_watts - memory_total_gb - memory_used_gb - memory_free_gb - memory_usage_percent - temperature

• platform: template sensors: mypc_gpu_0_gpu: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU0 GPU" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu0_information', 'gpu_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_0_memory: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU0 Memory" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu0_information', 'memory_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_0_power: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU0 Power" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu0_information', 'power_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_0_power_limit: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU0 Power Limit" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu0_information', 'power_limit_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_0_temperature: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU0 Temperature" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu0_information', 'temperature') }}" unit_of_measurement: "C"

• platform: template sensors: mypc_gpu_1_gpu: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU1 GPU" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu1_information', 'gpu_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_1_memory: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU1 Memory" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu1_information', 'memory_utilisation') }}" unit_of_measurement: "%" mypc_gpu_1_power: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU1 Power" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu1_information', 'power_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_1_power_limit: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU1 Power Limit" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu1_information', 'power_limit_watts') }}" unit_of_measurement: "W" mypc_gpu_1_temperature: friendly_name: "MYPC GPU1 Temperature" value_template: "{{ state_attr('sensor.mypc_gpu1_information', 'temperature') }}" unit_of_measurement: "C"

```

Basic entity card: type: entities entities: - entity: sensor.mypc_gpu_0_gpu secondary_info: last-updated - entity: sensor.mypc_gpu_0_memory secondary_info: last-updated - entity: sensor.mypc_gpu_0_power secondary_info: last-updated - entity: sensor.mypc_gpu_0_power_limit secondary_info: last-updated - entity: sensor.mypc_gpu_0_temperature secondary_info: last-updated

Ansible Role

```

• name: install go become: true package: name: golang-go state: present

• name: git clone git: repo: "https://github.com/sammcj/NVApi.git" dest: "/home/ansible/NVapi" update: yes force: true

go run main.go -port 9999 -rate 1

• name: install systemd service become: true copy: src: nvapi.service dest: /etc/systemd/system/nvapi.service

• name: Reload systemd daemons, enable, and restart nvapi become: true systemd: name: nvapi daemon_reload: yes enabled: yes state: restarted ```

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Es ist völlig unbestritten, dass der Angriff der russischen Armee auf die Ukraine im Februar 2022 strikt zu verurteilen ist. Ebenso unbestritten ist Russland unter Wladimir Putin keine brillante Demokratie. Aus diesen Tatsachen lässt sich jedoch nicht das finstere Bild des russischen Präsidenten – und erst recht nicht des Landes – begründen, das uns durchweg vorgesetzt wird und den Kern des aktuellen europäischen Bedrohungs-Szenarios darstellt. Da müssen wir schon etwas genauer hinschauen.

Der vorliegende Artikel versucht derweil nicht, den Einsatz von Gewalt oder die Verletzung von Menschenrechten zu rechtfertigen oder zu entschuldigen – ganz im Gegenteil. Dass jedoch der Verdacht des «Putinverstehers» sofort latent im Raume steht, verdeutlicht, was beim Thema «Russland» passiert: Meinungsmache und Manipulation.

Angesichts der mentalen Mobilmachung seitens Politik und Medien sowie des Bestrebens, einen bevorstehenden Krieg mit Russland geradezu herbeizureden, ist es notwendig, dieser fatalen Entwicklung entgegenzutreten. Wenn wir uns nur ein wenig von der herrschenden Schwarz-Weiß-Malerei freimachen, tauchen automatisch Fragen auf, die Risse im offiziellen Narrativ enthüllen. Grund genug, nachzuhaken.

Wer sich schon länger auch abseits der Staats- und sogenannten Leitmedien informiert, der wird in diesem Artikel vermutlich nicht viel Neues erfahren. Andere könnten hier ein paar unbekannte oder vergessene Aspekte entdecken. Möglicherweise klärt sich in diesem Kontext die Wahrnehmung der aktuellen (unserer eigenen!) Situation ein wenig.

Manipulation erkennen

Corona-«Pandemie», menschengemachter Klimawandel oder auch Ukraine-Krieg: Jede Menge Krisen, und für alle gibt es ein offizielles Narrativ, dessen Hinterfragung unerwünscht ist. Nun ist aber ein Narrativ einfach eine Erzählung, eine Geschichte (Latein: «narratio») und kein Tatsachenbericht. Und so wie ein Märchen soll auch das Narrativ eine Botschaft vermitteln.

Über die Methoden der Manipulation ist viel geschrieben worden, sowohl in Bezug auf das Individuum als auch auf die Massen. Sehr wertvolle Tipps dazu, wie man Manipulationen durchschauen kann, gibt ein Büchlein [1] von Albrecht Müller, dem Herausgeber der NachDenkSeiten.

Die Sprache selber eignet sich perfekt für die Manipulation. Beispielsweise kann die Wortwahl Bewertungen mitschwingen lassen, regelmäßiges Wiederholen (gerne auch von verschiedenen Seiten) lässt Dinge irgendwann «wahr» erscheinen, Übertreibungen fallen auf und hinterlassen wenigstens eine Spur im Gedächtnis, genauso wie Andeutungen. Belege spielen dabei keine Rolle.

Es gibt auffällig viele Sprachregelungen, die offenbar irgendwo getroffen und irgendwie koordiniert werden. Oder alle Redenschreiber und alle Medien kopieren sich neuerdings permanent gegenseitig. Welchen Zweck hat es wohl, wenn der Krieg in der Ukraine durchgängig und quasi wörtlich als «russischer Angriffskrieg auf die Ukraine» bezeichnet wird? Obwohl das in der Sache richtig ist, deutet die Art der Verwendung auf gezielte Beeinflussung hin und soll vor allem das Feindbild zementieren.

Sprachregelungen dienen oft der Absicherung einer einseitigen Darstellung. Das Gleiche gilt für das Verkürzen von Informationen bis hin zum hartnäckigen Verschweigen ganzer Themenbereiche. Auch hierfür gibt es rund um den Ukraine-Konflikt viele gute Beispiele.

Das gewünschte Ergebnis solcher Methoden ist eine Schwarz-Weiß-Malerei, bei der einer eindeutig als «der Böse» markiert ist und die anderen automatisch «die Guten» sind. Das ist praktisch und demonstriert gleichzeitig ein weiteres Manipulationswerkzeug: die Verwendung von Doppelstandards. Wenn man es schafft, bei wichtigen Themen regelmäßig mit zweierlei Maß zu messen, ohne dass das Publikum protestiert, dann hat man freie Bahn.

Experten zu bemühen, um bestimmte Sachverhalte zu erläutern, ist sicher sinnvoll, kann aber ebenso missbraucht werden, schon allein durch die Auswahl der jeweiligen Spezialisten. Seit «Corona» werden viele erfahrene und ehemals hoch angesehene Fachleute wegen der «falschen Meinung» diffamiert und gecancelt. [2] Das ist nicht nur ein brutaler Umgang mit Menschen, sondern auch eine extreme Form, die öffentliche Meinung zu steuern.

Wann immer wir also erkennen (weil wir aufmerksam waren), dass wir bei einem bestimmten Thema manipuliert werden, dann sind zwei logische und notwendige Fragen: Warum? Und was ist denn richtig? In unserem Russland-Kontext haben die Antworten darauf viel mit Geopolitik und Geschichte zu tun.

Ist Russland aggressiv und expansiv?

Angeblich plant Russland, europäische NATO-Staaten anzugreifen, nach dem Motto: «Zuerst die Ukraine, dann den Rest». In Deutschland weiß man dafür sogar das Datum: «Wir müssen bis 2029 kriegstüchtig sein», versichert Verteidigungsminister Pistorius.

Historisch gesehen ist es allerdings eher umgekehrt: Russland, bzw. die Sowjetunion, ist bereits dreimal von Westeuropa aus militärisch angegriffen worden. Die Feldzüge Napoleons, des deutschen Kaiserreichs und Nazi-Deutschlands haben Millionen Menschen das Leben gekostet. Bei dem ausdrücklichen Vernichtungskrieg ab 1941 kam es außerdem zu Brutalitäten wie der zweieinhalbjährigen Belagerung Leningrads (heute St. Petersburg) durch Hitlers Wehrmacht. Deren Ziel, die Bevölkerung auszuhungern, wurde erreicht: über eine Million tote Zivilisten.

Trotz dieser Erfahrungen stimmte Michail Gorbatschow 1990 der deutschen Wiedervereinigung zu und die Sowjetunion zog ihre Truppen aus Osteuropa zurück (vgl. Abb. 1). Der Warschauer Pakt wurde aufgelöst, der Kalte Krieg formell beendet. Die Sowjets erhielten damals von führenden westlichen Politikern die Zusicherung, dass sich die NATO «keinen Zentimeter ostwärts» ausdehnen würde, das ist dokumentiert. [3]

Expandiert ist die NATO trotzdem, und zwar bis an Russlands Grenzen (vgl. Abb. 2). Laut dem Politikberater Jeffrey Sachs handelt es sich dabei um ein langfristiges US-Projekt, das von Anfang an die Ukraine und Georgien mit einschloss. Offiziell wurde der Beitritt beiden Staaten 2008 angeboten. In jedem Fall könnte die massive Ost-Erweiterung seit 1999 aus russischer Sicht nicht nur als Vertrauensbruch, sondern durchaus auch als aggressiv betrachtet werden.

Russland hat den europäischen Staaten mehrfach die Hand ausgestreckt [4] für ein friedliches Zusammenleben und den «Aufbau des europäischen Hauses». Präsident Putin sei «in seiner ersten Amtszeit eine Chance für Europa» gewesen, urteilt die Journalistin und langjährige Russland-Korrespondentin der ARD, Gabriele Krone-Schmalz. Er habe damals viele positive Signale Richtung Westen gesendet.

Die Europäer jedoch waren scheinbar an einer Partnerschaft mit dem kontinentalen Nachbarn weniger interessiert als an der mit dem transatlantischen Hegemon. Sie verkennen bis heute, dass eine gedeihliche Zusammenarbeit in Eurasien eine Gefahr für die USA und deren bekundetes Bestreben ist, die «einzige Weltmacht» zu sein – «Full Spectrum Dominance» [5] nannte das Pentagon das. Statt einem neuen Kalten Krieg entgegenzuarbeiten, ließen sich europäische Staaten selber in völkerrechtswidrige «US-dominierte Angriffskriege» [6] verwickeln, wie in Serbien, Afghanistan, dem Irak, Libyen oder Syrien. Diese werden aber selten so benannt.

Speziell den Deutschen stünde außer einer Portion Realismus auch etwas mehr Dankbarkeit gut zu Gesicht. Das Geschichtsbewusstsein der Mehrheit scheint doch recht selektiv und das Selbstbewusstsein einiger etwas desorientiert zu sein. Bekanntermaßen waren es die Soldaten der sowjetischen Roten Armee, die unter hohen Opfern 1945 Deutschland «vom Faschismus befreit» haben. Bei den Gedenkfeiern zu 80 Jahren Kriegsende will jedoch das Auswärtige Amt – noch unter der Diplomatie-Expertin Baerbock, die sich schon länger offiziell im Krieg mit Russland wähnt, – nun keine Russen sehen: Sie sollen notfalls rausgeschmissen werden.

«Die Grundsatzfrage lautet: Geht es Russland um einen angemessenen Platz in einer globalen Sicherheitsarchitektur, oder ist Moskau schon seit langem auf einem imperialistischen Trip, der befürchten lassen muss, dass die Russen in fünf Jahren in Berlin stehen?»

So bringt Gabriele Krone-Schmalz [7] die eigentliche Frage auf den Punkt, die zur Einschätzung der Situation letztlich auch jeder für sich beantworten muss.

Was ist los in der Ukraine?

In der internationalen Politik geht es nie um Demokratie oder Menschenrechte, sondern immer um Interessen von Staaten. Diese These stammt von Egon Bahr, einem der Architekten der deutschen Ostpolitik des «Wandels durch Annäherung» aus den 1960er und 70er Jahren. Sie trifft auch auf den Ukraine-Konflikt zu, den handfeste geostrategische und wirtschaftliche Interessen beherrschen, obwohl dort angeblich «unsere Demokratie» verteidigt wird.

Es ist ein wesentliches Element des Ukraine-Narrativs und Teil der Manipulation, die Vorgeschichte des Krieges wegzulassen – mindestens die vor der russischen «Annexion» der Halbinsel Krim im März 2014, aber oft sogar komplett diejenige vor der Invasion Ende Februar 2022. Das Thema ist komplex, aber einige Aspekte, die für eine Beurteilung nicht unwichtig sind, will ich wenigstens kurz skizzieren. [8]

Das Gebiet der heutigen Ukraine und Russlands – die übrigens in der «Kiewer Rus» gemeinsame Wurzeln haben – hat der britische Geostratege Halford Mackinder bereits 1904 als eurasisches «Heartland» bezeichnet, dessen Kontrolle er eine große Bedeutung für die imperiale Strategie Großbritanniens zumaß. Für den ehemaligen Sicherheits- und außenpolitischen Berater mehrerer US-amerikanischer Präsidenten und Mitgründer der Trilateralen Kommission, Zbigniew Brzezinski, war die Ukraine nach der Auflösung der Sowjetunion ein wichtiger Spielstein auf dem «eurasischen Schachbrett», wegen seiner Nähe zu Russland, seiner Bodenschätze und seines Zugangs zum Schwarzen Meer.

Die Ukraine ist seit langem ein gespaltenes Land. Historisch zerrissen als Spielball externer Interessen und geprägt von ethnischen, kulturellen, religiösen und geografischen Unterschieden existiert bis heute, grob gesagt, eine Ost-West-Spaltung, welche die Suche nach einer nationalen Identität stark erschwert.

Insbesondere im Zuge der beiden Weltkriege sowie der Russischen Revolution entstanden tiefe Risse in der Bevölkerung. Ukrainer kämpften gegen Ukrainer, zum Beispiel die einen auf der Seite von Hitlers faschistischer Nazi-Armee und die anderen auf der von Stalins kommunistischer Roter Armee. Die Verbrechen auf beiden Seiten sind nicht vergessen. Dass nach der Unabhängigkeit 1991 versucht wurde, Figuren wie den radikalen Nationalisten Symon Petljura oder den Faschisten und Nazi-Kollaborateur Stepan Bandera als «Nationalhelden» zu installieren, verbessert die Sache nicht.

Während die USA und EU-Staaten zunehmend «ausländische Einmischung» (speziell russische) in «ihre Demokratien» wittern, betreiben sie genau dies seit Jahrzehnten in vielen Ländern der Welt. Die seit den 2000er Jahren bekannten «Farbrevolutionen» in Osteuropa werden oft als Methode des Regierungsumsturzes durch von außen gesteuerte «demokratische» Volksaufstände beschrieben. Diese Strategie geht auf Analysen zum «Schwarmverhalten» [9] seit den 1960er Jahren zurück (Studentenproteste), wo es um die potenzielle Wirksamkeit einer «rebellischen Hysterie» von Jugendlichen bei postmodernen Staatsstreichen geht. Heute nennt sich dieses gezielte Kanalisieren der Massen zur Beseitigung unkooperativer Regierungen «Soft-Power».

In der Ukraine gab es mit der «Orangen Revolution» 2004 und dem «Euromaidan» 2014 gleich zwei solcher «Aufstände». Der erste erzwang wegen angeblicher Unregelmäßigkeiten eine Wiederholung der Wahlen, was mit Wiktor Juschtschenko als neuem Präsidenten endete. Dieser war ehemaliger Direktor der Nationalbank und Befürworter einer Annäherung an EU und NATO. Seine Frau, die First Lady, ist US-amerikanische «Philanthropin» und war Beamtin im Weißen Haus in der Reagan- und der Bush-Administration.

Im Gegensatz zu diesem ersten Event endete der sogenannte Euromaidan unfriedlich und blutig. Die mehrwöchigen Proteste gegen Präsident Wiktor Janukowitsch, in Teilen wegen des nicht unterzeichneten Assoziierungsabkommens mit der EU, wurden zunehmend gewalttätiger und von Nationalisten und Faschisten des «Rechten Sektors» dominiert. Sie mündeten Ende Februar 2014 auf dem Kiewer Unabhängigkeitsplatz (Maidan) in einem Massaker durch Scharfschützen. Dass deren Herkunft und die genauen Umstände nicht geklärt wurden, störte die Medien nur wenig. [10]

Janukowitsch musste fliehen, er trat nicht zurück. Vielmehr handelte es sich um einen gewaltsamen, allem Anschein nach vom Westen inszenierten Putsch. Laut Jeffrey Sachs war das kein Geheimnis, außer vielleicht für die Bürger. Die USA unterstützten die Post-Maidan-Regierung nicht nur, sie beeinflussten auch ihre Bildung. Das geht unter anderem aus dem berühmten «Fuck the EU»-Telefonat der US-Chefdiplomatin für die Ukraine, Victoria Nuland, mit Botschafter Geoffrey Pyatt hervor.

Dieser Bruch der demokratischen Verfassung war letztlich der Auslöser für die anschließenden Krisen auf der Krim und im Donbass (Ostukraine). Angesichts der ukrainischen Geschichte mussten die nationalistischen Tendenzen und die Beteiligung der rechten Gruppen an dem Umsturz bei der russigsprachigen Bevölkerung im Osten ungute Gefühle auslösen. Es gab Kritik an der Übergangsregierung, Befürworter einer Abspaltung und auch für einen Anschluss an Russland.

Ebenso konnte Wladimir Putin in dieser Situation durchaus Bedenken wegen des Status der russischen Militärbasis für seine Schwarzmeerflotte in Sewastopol auf der Krim haben, für die es einen langfristigen Pachtvertrag mit der Ukraine gab. Was im März 2014 auf der Krim stattfand, sei keine Annexion, sondern eine Abspaltung (Sezession) nach einem Referendum gewesen, also keine gewaltsame Aneignung, urteilte der Rechtswissenschaftler Reinhard Merkel in der FAZ sehr detailliert begründet. Übrigens hatte die Krim bereits zu Zeiten der Sowjetunion den Status einer autonomen Republik innerhalb der Ukrainischen SSR.

Anfang April 2014 wurden in der Ostukraine die «Volksrepubliken» Donezk und Lugansk ausgerufen. Die Kiewer Übergangsregierung ging unter der Bezeichnung «Anti-Terror-Operation» (ATO) militärisch gegen diesen, auch von Russland instrumentalisierten Widerstand vor. Zufällig war kurz zuvor CIA-Chef John Brennan in Kiew. Die Maßnahmen gingen unter dem seit Mai neuen ukrainischen Präsidenten, dem Milliardär Petro Poroschenko, weiter. Auch Wolodymyr Selenskyj beendete den Bürgerkrieg nicht, als er 2019 vom Präsidenten-Schauspieler, der Oligarchen entmachtet, zum Präsidenten wurde. Er fuhr fort, die eigene Bevölkerung zu bombardieren.

Mit dem Einmarsch russischer Truppen in die Ostukraine am 24. Februar 2022 begann die zweite Phase des Krieges. Die Wochen und Monate davor waren intensiv. Im November hatte die Ukraine mit den USA ein Abkommen über eine «strategische Partnerschaft» unterzeichnet. Darin sagten die Amerikaner ihre Unterstützung der EU- und NATO-Perspektive der Ukraine sowie quasi für die Rückeroberung der Krim zu. Dagegen ließ Putin der NATO und den USA im Dezember 2021 einen Vertragsentwurf über beiderseitige verbindliche Sicherheitsgarantien zukommen, den die NATO im Januar ablehnte. Im Februar eskalierte laut OSZE die Gewalt im Donbass.

Bereits wenige Wochen nach der Invasion, Ende März 2022, kam es in Istanbul zu Friedensverhandlungen, die fast zu einer Lösung geführt hätten. Dass der Krieg nicht damals bereits beendet wurde, lag daran, dass der Westen dies nicht wollte. Man war der Meinung, Russland durch die Ukraine in diesem Stellvertreterkrieg auf Dauer militärisch schwächen zu können. Angesichts von Hunderttausenden Toten, Verletzten und Traumatisierten, die als Folge seitdem zu beklagen sind, sowie dem Ausmaß der Zerstörung, fehlen einem die Worte.

Hasst der Westen die Russen?

Diese Frage drängt sich auf, wenn man das oft unerträglich feindselige Gebaren beobachtet, das beileibe nicht neu ist und vor Doppelmoral trieft. Russland und speziell die Person Wladimir Putins werden regelrecht dämonisiert, was gleichzeitig scheinbar jede Form von Diplomatie ausschließt.

Russlands militärische Stärke, seine geografische Lage, sein Rohstoffreichtum oder seine unabhängige diplomatische Tradition sind sicher Störfaktoren für das US-amerikanische Bestreben, der Boss in einer unipolaren Welt zu sein. Ein womöglich funktionierender eurasischer Kontinent, insbesondere gute Beziehungen zwischen Russland und Deutschland, war indes schon vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg eine Sorge des britischen Imperiums.

Ein «Vergehen» von Präsident Putin könnte gewesen sein, dass er die neoliberale Schocktherapie à la IWF und den Ausverkauf des Landes (auch an US-Konzerne) beendete, der unter seinem Vorgänger herrschte. Dabei zeigte er sich als Führungspersönlichkeit und als nicht so formbar wie Jelzin. Diese Aspekte allein sind aber heute vermutlich keine ausreichende Erklärung für ein derart gepflegtes Feindbild.

Der Historiker und Philosoph Hauke Ritz erweitert den Fokus der Fragestellung zu: «Warum hasst der Westen die Russen so sehr?», was er zum Beispiel mit dem Medienforscher Michael Meyen und mit der Politikwissenschaftlerin Ulrike Guérot bespricht. Ritz stellt die interessante These [11] auf, dass Russland eine Provokation für den Westen sei, welcher vor allem dessen kulturelles und intellektuelles Potenzial fürchte.

Die Russen sind Europäer aber anders, sagt Ritz. Diese «Fremdheit in der Ähnlichkeit» erzeuge vielleicht tiefe Ablehnungsgefühle. Obwohl Russlands Identität in der europäischen Kultur verwurzelt ist, verbinde es sich immer mit der Opposition in Europa. Als Beispiele nennt er die Kritik an der katholischen Kirche oder die Verbindung mit der Arbeiterbewegung. Christen, aber orthodox; Sozialismus statt Liberalismus. Das mache das Land zum Antagonisten des Westens und zu einer Bedrohung der Machtstrukturen in Europa.

Fazit

Selbstverständlich kann man Geschichte, Ereignisse und Entwicklungen immer auf verschiedene Arten lesen. Dieser Artikel, obwohl viel zu lang, konnte nur einige Aspekte der Ukraine-Tragödie anreißen, die in den offiziellen Darstellungen in der Regel nicht vorkommen. Mindestens dürfte damit jedoch klar geworden sein, dass die Russische Föderation bzw. Wladimir Putin nicht der alleinige Aggressor in diesem Konflikt ist. Das ist ein Stellvertreterkrieg zwischen USA/NATO (gut) und Russland (böse); die Ukraine (edel) wird dabei schlicht verheizt.

Das ist insofern von Bedeutung, als die gesamte europäische Kriegshysterie auf sorgsam kultivierten Freund-Feind-Bildern beruht. Nur so kann Konfrontation und Eskalation betrieben werden, denn damit werden die wahren Hintergründe und Motive verschleiert. Angst und Propaganda sind notwendig, damit die Menschen den Wahnsinn mitmachen. Sie werden belogen, um sie zuerst zu schröpfen und anschließend auf die Schlachtbank zu schicken. Das kann niemand wollen, außer den stets gleichen Profiteuren: die Rüstungs-Lobby und die großen Investoren, die schon immer an Zerstörung und Wiederaufbau verdient haben.

Apropos Investoren: Zu den Top-Verdienern und somit Hauptinteressenten an einer Fortführung des Krieges zählt BlackRock, einer der weltgrößten Vermögensverwalter. Der deutsche Bundeskanzler in spe, Friedrich Merz, der gerne «Taurus»-Marschflugkörper an die Ukraine liefern und die Krim-Brücke zerstören möchte, war von 2016 bis 2020 Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender von BlackRock in Deutschland. Aber das hat natürlich nichts zu sagen, der Mann macht nur seinen Job.

Es ist ein Spiel der Kräfte, es geht um Macht und strategische Kontrolle, um Geheimdienste und die Kontrolle der öffentlichen Meinung, um Bodenschätze, Rohstoffe, Pipelines und Märkte. Das klingt aber nicht sexy, «Demokratie und Menschenrechte» hört sich besser und einfacher an. Dabei wäre eine für alle Seiten förderliche Politik auch nicht so kompliziert; das Handwerkszeug dazu nennt sich Diplomatie. Noch einmal Gabriele Krone-Schmalz:

«Friedliche Politik ist nichts anderes als funktionierender Interessenausgleich. Da geht’s nicht um Moral.»

Die Situation in der Ukraine ist sicher komplex, vor allem wegen der inneren Zerrissenheit. Es dürfte nicht leicht sein, eine friedliche Lösung für das Zusammenleben zu finden, aber die Beteiligten müssen es vor allem wollen. Unter den gegebenen Umständen könnte eine sinnvolle Perspektive mit Neutralität und föderalen Strukturen zu tun haben.

Allen, die sich bis hierher durch die Lektüre gearbeitet (oder auch einfach nur runtergescrollt) haben, wünsche ich frohe Oster-Friedenstage!

[Titelbild: Pixabay; Abb. 1 und 2: nach Ganser/SIPER; Abb. 3: SIPER]

--- Quellen: ---

[1] Albrecht Müller, «Glaube wenig. Hinterfrage alles. Denke selbst.», Westend 2019

[2] Zwei nette Beispiele:

• ARD-faktenfinder (sic), «Viel Aufmerksamkeit für fragwürdige Experten», 03/2023
• Neue Zürcher Zeitung, «Aufstieg und Fall einer Russlandversteherin – die ehemalige ARD-Korrespondentin Gabriele Krone-Schmalz rechtfertigt seit Jahren Putins Politik», 12/2022

[3] George Washington University, «NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard – Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner», 12/2017

[4] Beispielsweise Wladimir Putin bei seiner Rede im Deutschen Bundestag, 25/09/2001

[5] William Engdahl, «Full Spectrum Dominance, Totalitarian Democracy In The New World Order», edition.engdahl 2009

[6] Daniele Ganser, «Illegale Kriege – Wie die NATO-Länder die UNO sabotieren. Eine Chronik von Kuba bis Syrien», Orell Füssli 2016

[7] Gabriele Krone-Schmalz, «Mit Friedensjournalismus gegen ‘Kriegstüchtigkeit’», Vortrag und Diskussion an der Universität Hamburg, veranstaltet von engagierten Studenten, 16/01/2025\ → Hier ist ein ähnlicher Vortrag von ihr (Video), den ich mit spanischer Übersetzung gefunden habe.

[8] Für mehr Hintergrund und Details empfehlen sich z.B. folgende Bücher:

• Mathias Bröckers, Paul Schreyer, «Wir sind immer die Guten», Westend 2019
• Gabriele Krone-Schmalz, «Russland verstehen? Der Kampf um die Ukraine und die Arroganz des Westens», Westend 2023
• Patrik Baab, «Auf beiden Seiten der Front – Meine Reisen in die Ukraine», Fiftyfifty 2023

[9] vgl. Jonathan Mowat, «Washington's New World Order "Democratization" Template», 02/2005 und RAND Corporation, «Swarming and the Future of Conflict», 2000

[10] Bemerkenswert einige Beiträge, von denen man später nichts mehr wissen wollte:

• ARD Monitor, «Todesschüsse in Kiew: Wer ist für das Blutbad vom Maidan verantwortlich», 10/04/2014, Transkript hier
• Telepolis, «Blutbad am Maidan: Wer waren die Todesschützen?», 12/04/2014
• Telepolis, «Scharfschützenmorde in Kiew», 14/12/2014
• Deutschlandfunk, «Gefahr einer Spirale nach unten», Interview mit Günter Verheugen, 18/03/2014
• NDR Panorama, «Putsch in Kiew: Welche Rolle spielen die Faschisten?», 06/03/2014

[11] Hauke Ritz, «Vom Niedergang des Westens zur Neuerfindung Europas», 2024

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben.

@ 6e64b83c:94102ee8

How to Run Your Own Nostr Relay on Android with Cloudflare Domain

Prerequisites

1. Install Citrine on your Android device:
2. Visit https://github.com/greenart7c3/Citrine/releases
3. Download the latest release using:
   • zap.store
   • Obtainium
   • F-Droid
   • Or download the APK directly

4. Note: You may need to enable "Install from Unknown Sources" in your Android settings

5. Domain Requirements:

6. Purchase a domain if you don't have one

7. Transfer your domain to Cloudflare if it's not already there (for free SSL certificates and cloudflared support)

8. Tools to use:

9. nak (the nostr army knife):
   • Download from https://github.com/fiatjaf/nak/releases
   • Installation steps:

   • For Linux/macOS: ```bash # Download the appropriate version for your system wget https://github.com/fiatjaf/nak/releases/latest/download/nak-linux-amd64 # for Linux # or wget https://github.com/fiatjaf/nak/releases/latest/download/nak-darwin-amd64 # for macOS

     # Make it executable chmod +x nak-*

     # Move to a directory in your PATH sudo mv nak-* /usr/local/bin/nak - For Windows:batch # Download the Windows version curl -L -o nak.exe https://github.com/fiatjaf/nak/releases/latest/download/nak-windows-amd64.exe

     # Move to a directory in your PATH (e.g., C:\Windows) move nak.exe C:\Windows\nak.exe - Verify installation:bash nak --version ```

Setting Up Citrine

1. Open the Citrine app
2. Start the server
3. You'll see it running on ws://127.0.0.1:4869 (local network only)
4. Go to settings and paste your npub into "Accept events signed by" inbox and press the + button. This prevents others from publishing events to your personal relay.

Installing Required Tools

1. Install Termux from Google Play Store
2. Open Termux and run:

bash pkg update && pkg install wget wget https://github.com/cloudflare/cloudflared/releases/latest/download/cloudflared-linux-arm64.deb dpkg -i cloudflared-linux-arm64.deb

Cloudflare Authentication

1. Run the authentication command: bash cloudflared tunnel login
2. Follow the instructions:
3. Copy the provided URL to your browser
4. Log in to your Cloudflare account
5. If the URL expires, copy it again after logging in

Creating the Tunnel

1. Create a new tunnel: bash cloudflared tunnel create <TUNNEL_NAME>
2. Choose any name you prefer for your tunnel

3. Copy the tunnel ID after creating the tunnel

4. Create and configure the tunnel config: bash touch ~/.cloudflared/config.yml nano ~/.cloudflared/config.yml

5. Add this configuration (replace the placeholders with your values): ```yaml tunnel: credentials-file: /data/data/com.termux/files/home/.cloudflared/.json ingress:

6. hostname: nostr.yourdomain.com service: ws://localhost:4869
7. service: http_status:404 ```
8. Note: In nano editor:
   • CTRL+O and Enter to save
   • CTRL+X to exit

9. Note: Check the credentials file path in the logs

10. Validate your configuration: bash cloudflared tunnel validate

11. Start the tunnel: bash cloudflared tunnel run my-relay

Preventing Android from Killing the Tunnel

Run these commands to maintain tunnel stability: bash date && apt install termux-tools && termux-setup-storage && termux-wake-lock echo "nameserver 1.1.1.1" > $PREFIX/etc/resolv.conf

Tip: You can open multiple Termux sessions by swiping from the left edge of the screen while keeping your tunnel process running.

Updating Your Outbox Model Relays

Once your relay is running and accessible via your domain, you'll want to update your relay list in the Nostr network. This ensures other clients know about your relay and can connect to it.

Decoding npub (Public Key)

Private keys (nsec) and public keys (npub) are encoded in bech32 format, which includes: - A prefix (like nsec1, npub1 etc.) - The encoded data - A checksum

This format makes keys: - Easy to distinguish - Hard to copy incorrectly

However, most tools require these keys in hexadecimal (hex) format.

To decode an npub string to its hex format:

bash nak decode nostr:npub1dejts0qlva8mqzjlrxqkc2tmvs2t7elszky5upxaf3jha9qs9m5q605uc4

Change it with your own npub.

bash { "pubkey": "6e64b83c1f674fb00a5f19816c297b6414bf67f015894e04dd4c657e94102ee8" }

Copy the pubkey value in quotes.

Create a kind 10002 event with your relay list:

• Include your new relay with write permissions
• Include other relays you want to read from and write to, omit 3rd parameter to make it both read and write

Example format:

json { "kind": 10002, "tags": [ ["r", "wss://your-relay-domain.com", "write"], ["r", "wss://eden.nostr.land/"], ["r", "wss://nos.lol/"], ["r", "wss://nostr.bitcoiner.social/"], ["r", "wss://nostr.mom/"], ["r", "wss://relay.primal.net/"], ["r", "wss://nostr.wine/", "read"], ["r", "wss://relay.damus.io/"], ["r", "wss://relay.nostr.band/"], ["r", "wss://relay.snort.social/"] ], "content": "" }

Save it to a file called event.json

Note: Add or remove any relays you want. To check your existing 10002 relays: - Visit https://nostr.band/?q=by%3Anpub1dejts0qlva8mqzjlrxqkc2tmvs2t7elszky5upxaf3jha9qs9m5q605uc4+++kind%3A10002 - nostr.band is an indexing service, it probably has your relay list. - Replace npub1xxx in the URL with your own npub - Click "VIEW JSON" from the menu to see the raw event - Or use the nak tool if you know the relays bash nak req -k 10002 -a <your-pubkey> wss://relay1.com wss://relay2.com

Replace `<your-pubkey>` with your public key in hex format (you can get it using `nak decode <your-npub>`)

1. Sign and publish the event:
2. Use a Nostr client that supports kind 10002 events
3. Or use the nak command-line tool: bash nak event --sec ncryptsec1... wss://relay1.com wss://relay2.com $(cat event.json)

Important Security Notes: 1. Never share your nsec (private key) with anyone 2. Consider using NIP-49 encrypted keys for better security 3. Never paste your nsec or private key into the terminal. The command will be saved in your shell history, exposing your private key. To clear the command history: - For bash: use history -c - For zsh: use fc -W to write history to file, then fc -p to read it back - Or manually edit your shell history file (e.g., ~/.zsh_history or ~/.bash_history) 4. if you're using zsh, use fc -p to prevent the next command from being saved to history 5. Or temporarily disable history before running sensitive commands:

bash unset HISTFILE nak key encrypt ... set HISTFILE

How to securely create NIP-49 encypted private key

```bash

Read your private key (input will be hidden)

read -s SECRET

Read your password (input will be hidden)

read -s PASSWORD

encrypt command

echo "$SECRET" | nak key encrypt "$PASSWORD"

copy and paste the ncryptsec1 text from the output

read -s ENCRYPTED nak key decrypt "$ENCRYPTED"

clear variables from memory

unset SECRET PASSWORD ENCRYPTED ```

On a Windows command line, to read from stdin and use the variables in nak commands, you can use a combination of set /p to read input and then use those variables in your command. Here's an example:

```bash @echo off set /p "SECRET=Enter your secret key: " set /p "PASSWORD=Enter your password: "

echo %SECRET%| nak key encrypt %PASSWORD%

:: Clear the sensitive variables set "SECRET=" set "PASSWORD=" ```

If your key starts with ncryptsec1, the nak tool will securely prompt you for a password when using the --sec parameter, unless the command is used with a pipe < > or |.

bash nak event --sec ncryptsec1... wss://relay1.com wss://relay2.com $(cat event.json)

1. Verify the event was published:
2. Check if your relay list is visible on other relays

3. Use the nak tool to fetch your kind 10002 events: bash nak req -k 10002 -a <your-pubkey> wss://relay1.com wss://relay2.com

4. Testing your relay:

5. Try connecting to your relay using different Nostr clients
6. Verify you can both read from and write to your relay
7. Check if events are being properly stored and retrieved
8. Tip: Use multiple Nostr clients to test different aspects of your relay

Note: If anyone in the community has a more efficient method of doing things like updating outbox relays, please share your insights in the comments. Your expertise would be greatly appreciated!

@ f32184ee:6d1c17bf

Ads Fueling Freedom

Ross Ulbricht’s "Decentralize Social Media" painted a picture of a user-centric, decentralized future that transcended the limitations of platforms like the tech giants of today. Though focused on social media, his concept provided a blueprint for decentralized content systems writ large. The PROMO Protocol, designed by NextBlock while participating in Sovereign Engineering, embodies this blueprint in the realm of advertising, leveraging Nostr and Bitcoin’s Lightning Network to give individuals control, foster a multi-provider ecosystem, and ensure secure value exchange. In this way, Ulbricht’s 2021 vision can be seen as a prescient prediction of the PROMO Protocol’s structure. This is a testament to the enduring power of his ideas, now finding form in NextBlock’s innovative approach.

[Current Platform-Centric Paradigm, source: Ross Ulbricht's Decentralize Social Media]

Ulbricht’s Vision: A Decentralized Social Protocol

In his 2021 Medium article Ulbricht proposed a revolutionary vision for a decentralized social protocol (DSP) to address the inherent flaws of centralized social media platforms, such as privacy violations and inconsistent content moderation. Writing from prison, Ulbricht argued that decentralization could empower users by giving them control over their own content and the value they create, while replacing single, monolithic platforms with a competitive ecosystem of interface providers, content servers, and advertisers. Though his focus was on social media, Ulbricht’s ideas laid a conceptual foundation that strikingly predicts the structure of NextBlock’s PROMO Protocol, a decentralized advertising system built on the Nostr protocol.

[A Decentralized Social Protocol (DSP), source: Ross Ulbricht's Decentralize Social Media]

Ulbricht’s Principles

Ulbricht’s article outlines several key principles for his DSP: * User Control: Users should own their content and dictate how their data and creations generate value, rather than being subject to the whims of centralized corporations. * Decentralized Infrastructure: Instead of a single platform, multiple interface providers, content hosts, and advertisers interoperate, fostering competition and resilience. * Privacy and Autonomy: Decentralized solutions for profile management, hosting, and interactions would protect user privacy and reduce reliance on unaccountable intermediaries. * Value Creation: Users, not platforms, should capture the economic benefits of their contributions, supported by decentralized mechanisms for transactions.

These ideas were forward-thinking in 2021, envisioning a shift away from the centralized giants dominating social media at the time. While Ulbricht didn’t specifically address advertising protocols, his framework for decentralization and user empowerment extends naturally to other domains, like NextBlock’s open-source offering: the PROMO Protocol.

NextBlock’s Implementation of PROMO Protocol

The PROMO Protocol powers NextBlock's Billboard app, a decentralized advertising protocol built on Nostr, a simple, open protocol for decentralized communication. The PROMO Protocol reimagines advertising by: * Empowering People: Individuals set their own ad prices (e.g., 500 sats/minute), giving them direct control over how their attention or space is monetized. * Marketplace Dynamics: Advertisers set budgets and maximum bids, competing within a decentralized system where a 20% service fee ensures operational sustainability. * Open-Source Flexibility: As an open-source protocol, it allows multiple developers to create interfaces or apps on top of it, avoiding the single-platform bottleneck Ulbricht critiqued. * Secure Payments: Using Strike Integration with Bitcoin Lightning Network, NextBlock enables bot-resistant and intermediary-free transactions, aligning value transfer with each person's control.

This structure decentralizes advertising in a way that mirrors Ulbricht’s broader vision for social systems, with aligned principles showing a specific use case: monetizing attention on Nostr.

Aligned Principles

Ulbricht’s 2021 article didn’t explicitly predict the PROMO Protocol, but its foundational concepts align remarkably well with NextBlock's implementation the protocol’s design: * Autonomy Over Value: Ulbricht argued that users should control their content and its economic benefits. In the PROMO Protocol, people dictate ad pricing, directly capturing the value of their participation. Whether it’s their time, influence, or digital space, rather than ceding it to a centralized ad network. * Ecosystem of Providers: Ulbricht envisioned multiple providers replacing a single platform. The PROMO Protocol’s open-source nature invites a similar diversity: anyone can build interfaces or tools on top of it, creating a competitive, decentralized advertising ecosystem rather than a walled garden. * Decentralized Transactions: Ulbricht’s DSP implied decentralized mechanisms for value exchange. NextBlock delivers this through the Bitcoin Lightning Network, ensuring that payments for ads are secure, instantaneous and final, a practical realization of Ulbricht’s call for user-controlled value flows. * Privacy and Control: While Ulbricht emphasized privacy in social interactions, the PROMO Protocol is public by default. Individuals are fully aware of all data that they generate since all Nostr messages are signed. All participants interact directly via Nostr.

[Blueprint Match, source NextBlock]

---

Who We Are

NextBlock is a US-based new media company reimagining digital ads for a decentralized future. Our founders, software and strategy experts, were hobbyist podcasters struggling to promote their work online without gaming the system. That sparked an idea: using new tech like Nostr and Bitcoin to build a decentralized attention market for people who value control and businesses seeking real connections.

Our first product, Billboard, is launching this June.

Open for All

Our model’s open-source! Check out the PROMO Protocol, built for promotion and attention trading. Anyone can join this decentralized ad network. Run your own billboard or use ours. This is a growing ecosystem for a new ad economy.

Our Vision

NextBlock wants to help build a new decentralized internet. Our revolutionary and transparent business model will bring honest revenue to companies hosting valuable digital spaces. Together, we will discover what our attention is really worth.

Read our Manifesto to learn more.

NextBlock is registered in Texas, USA.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Verstand ohne Gefühl ist unmenschlich; \ Gefühl ohne Verstand ist Dummheit. \ Egon Bahr

Seit Jahren werden wir darauf getrimmt, dass Fakten eigentlich gefühlt seien. Aber nicht alles ist relativ und nicht alles ist nach Belieben interpretierbar. Diese Schokoladenhasen beispielsweise, die an Ostern in unseren Gefilden typisch sind, «ostern» zwar nicht, sondern sie sitzen in der Regel, trotzdem verwandelt sie das nicht in «Sitzhasen».

Nichts soll mehr gelten, außer den immer invasiveren Gesetzen. Die eigenen Traditionen und Wurzeln sind potenziell «pfui», um andere Menschen nicht auszuschließen, aber wir mögen uns toleranterweise an die fremden Symbole und Rituale gewöhnen. Dabei ist es mir prinzipiell völlig egal, ob und wann jemand ein Fastenbrechen feiert, am Karsamstag oder jedem anderen Tag oder nie – aber bitte freiwillig.

Und vor allem: Lasst die Finger von den Kindern! In Bern setzten kürzlich Demonstranten ein Zeichen gegen die zunehmende Verbreitung woker Ideologie im Bildungssystem und forderten ein Ende der sexuellen Indoktrination von Schulkindern.

Wenn es nicht wegen des heiklen Themas Migration oder wegen des Regenbogens ist, dann wegen des Klimas. Im Rahmen der «Netto Null»-Agenda zum Kampf gegen das angeblich teuflische CO2 sollen die Menschen ihre Ernährungsgewohnheiten komplett ändern. Nach dem Willen von Produzenten synthetischer Lebensmittel, wie Bill Gates, sollen wir baldmöglichst praktisch auf Fleisch und alle Milchprodukte wie Milch und Käse verzichten. Ein lukratives Geschäftsmodell, das neben der EU aktuell auch von einem britischen Lobby-Konsortium unterstützt wird.

Sollten alle ideologischen Stricke zu reißen drohen, ist da immer noch «der Putin». Die Unions-Europäer offenbaren sich dabei ständig mehr als Vertreter der Rüstungsindustrie. Allen voran zündelt Deutschland an der Kriegslunte, angeführt von einem scheinbar todesmutigen Kanzlerkandidaten Friedrich Merz. Nach dessen erneuter Aussage, «Taurus»-Marschflugkörper an Kiew liefern zu wollen, hat Russland eindeutig klargestellt, dass man dies als direkte Kriegsbeteiligung werten würde – «mit allen sich daraus ergebenden Konsequenzen für Deutschland».

Wohltuend sind Nachrichten über Aktivitäten, die sich der allgemeinen Kriegstreiberei entgegenstellen oder diese öffentlich hinterfragen. Dazu zählt auch ein Kongress kritischer Psychologen und Psychotherapeuten, der letzte Woche in Berlin stattfand. Die vielen Vorträge im Kontext von «Krieg und Frieden» deckten ein breites Themenspektrum ab, darunter Friedensarbeit oder die Notwendigkeit einer «Pädagogik der Kriegsuntüchtigkeit».

Der heutige «stille Freitag», an dem Christen des Leidens und Sterbens von Jesus gedenken, ist vielleicht unabhängig von jeder religiösen oder spirituellen Prägung eine passende Einladung zur Reflexion. In der Ruhe liegt die Kraft. In diesem Sinne wünsche ich Ihnen frohe Ostertage!

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben und ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na dvadesetjedan.com

Autor: Parker Lewis / Prevod na srpski: Plumsky

---

Ideja da država može nekako zabraniti bitcoin je jedna od poslednjih faza tuge, tačno pred prihvatanje realnosti. Posledica ove rečenice je priznanje da bitcoin “funkcioniše”. U stvari, ona predstavlja činjenicu da bitcoin funkcioniše toliko dobro da on preti postojećim državnim monopolima nad novcem i da će zbog toga države da ga unište kroz regulativne prepreke da bi eliminisale tu pretnju. Gledajte na tvrdnju da će države zabraniti bitcoin kao kondicionalnu logiku. Da li bitcoin funkcioniše kao novac? Ako je odgovor „ne“, onda države nemaju šta da zabrane. Ako je odgovor „da“, onda će države da probaju da ga zabrane. Znači, glavna poenta ovog razmišljanja je pretpostavka da bitcoin funkcioiniše kao novac. Onda je sledeće logično pitanje da li intervencija od strane države može uspešno da uništi upravo taj funkcionalan bitcoin.

Za početak, svako ko pokušava da razume kako, zašto, ili da li bitcoin funkcioniše mora da proceni ta pitanja potpuno nezavisno od prouzrekovanja državne regulacije ili intervencije. Iako je nesumnjivo da bitcoin mora da postoji uzgred državnih regulativa, zamislite na momenat da države ne postoje. Sam od sebe, da li bi bitcoin funkcionisao kao novac, kad bi se prepustio slobodnom tržištu? Ovo pitanje se širi u dodatna pitanja i ubrzo se pretvara u bunar bez dna. Šta je novac? Šta su svojstva koja čine jednu vrstu novca bolje od druge? Da li bitcoin poseduje ta svojstva? Da li je bitcoin bolja verzija novca po takvim osobinama? Ako je finalni zaključak da bitcoin ne funkcioniše kao novac, implikacije državne intervencije su nebitne. Ali, ako je bitcoin funkcionalan kao novac, ta pitanja onda postaju bitna u ovoj debati, i svako ko o tome razmišlja bi morao imati taj početnički kontekst da bi mogao proceniti da li je uopšte moguće zabraniti. Po svom dizajnu, bitcoin postoji van države. Ali bitcoin nije samo van kontrole države, on u stvari funkcioniše bez bilo kakve saradnje centralizovanih identiteta. On je globalan i decentralizovan. Svako može pristupiti bitcoinu bez potrebe saglasnosti bilo koga i što se više širi sve je teže cenzurisati celokupnu mrežu. Arhitektura bitcoina je namerno izmišljena da bude otporna na bilo koje pokušaje države da ga zabrane. Ovo ne znači da države širom sveta neće pokušavati da ga regulišu, oporezuju ili čak da potpuno zabrane njegovo korišćenje. Naravno da će biti puno bitki i otpora protiv usvajanja bitcoina među građanima. Federal Reserve i Američki Treasury (i njihovi globalni suparnici) se neće ležeći predati dok bitcoin sve više i više ugrožava njihove monopole prihvatljivog novca. Doduše, pre nego što se odbaci ideja da države mogu potpuno zabraniti bitcoin, mora se prvo razumeti posledice tog stava i njegovog glasnika.

Progresija poricanja i stepeni tuge

Pripovesti skeptičara se neprestano menjaju kroz vreme. Prvi stepen tuge: bitcoin nikad ne može funkcionisati-njegova vrednost je osnovana ni na čemu. On je moderna verzija tulip manije. Sa svakim ciklusom uzbuđenja, vrednost bitcoina skače i onda vrlo brzo se vraća na dole. Često nazvano kao kraj njegove vrednosti, bitcoin svaki put odbija da umre i njegova vrednost pronađe nivo koji je uvek viši od prethodnih ciklusa globalne usvajanja. Tulip pripovetka postaje stara i dosadna i skeptičari pređu na više nijansirane teme, i time menjaju bazu debate. Drugi stepen tuge predstoji: bitcoin je manjkav kao novac. On je previše volatilan da bi bio valuta, ili je suviše spor da bi se koristio kao sistem plaćanja, ili se ne može proširiti dovoljno da zadovolji sve promete plaćanja na svetu, ili troši isuviše struje. Taj niz kritike ide sve dalje i dalje. Ovaj drugi stepen je progresija poricanja i dosta je udaljen od ideje da je bitcoin ništa više od bukvalno bezvrednog ničega.

Uprkos tim pretpostavnim manjcima, vrednost bitcoin mreže nastavje da raste vremenom. Svaki put, ona ne umire, nasuprot, ona postaje sve veća i jača. Dok se skeptičari bave ukazivanjem na manjke, bitcoin ne prestaje. Rast u vrednosti je prouzrokovan jednostavnom dinamikom tržišta: postoji više kupca nego prodavca. To je sve i to je razlog rasta u adopciji. Sve više i više ljudi shvata zašto postoji fundamentalna potražnja za bitcoinom i zašto/kako on funkcioniše. To je razlog njegovog dugotrajnog rasta. Dokle god ga sve više ljudi koristi za čuvanje vrednosti, neće pasti cena snabdevanja. Zauvek će postojati samo 21 milion bitcoina. Nebitno je koliko ljudi zahtevaju bitcoin, njegova cela količina je uvek ista i neelastična. Dok skeptičari nastavljaju sa svojom starom pričom, mase ljudi nastavljaju da eliminišu zabludu i zahtevaju bitcoin zbog njegovih prednosti u smislu novčanih svojstva. Između ostalog, ne postoji grupa ljudi koja je više upoznata sa svim argumentima protiv bitcoina od samih bitcoinera.

Očajanje počinje da se stvara i onda se debata još jedanput pomera. Sada nije više činjenica je vrednost bitcoina osnovana ni na čemu niti da ima manjke kao valuta; sada se debata centrira na regulaciji državnih autoriteta. U ovom zadnjem stepenu tuge, bitcoin se predstavlja kao u stvari isuviše uspešnom alatkom i zbog toga države ne smeju dozvoliti da on postoji. Zaista? Znači da je genijalnost čoveka ponovo ostvarila funkcionalan novac u tehnološko superiornoj formi, čije su posledice zaista neshvatljive, i da će države upravo taj izum nekako zabraniti. Primetite da tom izjavom skeptičari praktično priznaju svoj poraz. Ovo su poslednji pokušaji u seriji promašenih argumenata. Skeptičari u isto vreme prihvataju da postoji fundamentalna potražnja za bitcoinom a onda se premeštaju na neosnovan stav da ga države mogu zabraniti.

Ajde da se poigramo i tim pitanjem. Kada bih zapravo razvijene države nastupile na scenu i pokušale da zabrane bitcoin? Trenutno, Federal Reserve i Treasury ne smatraju bitcoin kao ozbiljnu pretnju superiornosti dolara. Po njihovom celokupnom mišljenju, bitcoin je slatka mala igračka i ne može da funkcioniše kao novac. Sadašnja kompletna kupovna moć bitcoina je manja od $200 milijardi. Sa druge strane, zlato ima celokupnu vrednost od $8 triliona (40X veću od bitcoina) i količina odštampanog novca (M2) je otprilike 15 triliona (75X veličine bitcoinove vrednosti). Kada će Federal Reserve i Treasury da počne da smatra bitcoin kao ozbiljnu pretnju? Kad bitcoin poraste na $1, $2 ili $3 triliona? Možete i sami da izaberete nivo, ali implikacija je da će bitcoin biti mnogo vredniji, i posedovaće ga sve više ljudi širom sveta, pre nego što će ga državne vlasti shvatiti kao obiljnog protivnika.

Predsednik Tramp & Treasury Sekretar Mnučin o Bitcoinu (2019):

„Ja neću pričati o bitcoinu za 10 godina, u to možete biti sigurni {…} Ja bi se kladio da čak za 5 ili 6 godina neću više pričati o bitcoinu kao sekretar Trusury-a. Imaću preča posla {…} Mogu vam obećati da ja lično neću biti pun bitcoina.“ – Sekretar Treasury-a Stiv Mnučin

„Ja nisam ljubitelj bitcoina {…}, koji nije novac i čija vrednost je jako volatilna i osnovana na praznom vazduhu.“ – Predsednik Donald J. Tramp

Znači, logika skeptika ide ovako: bitcoin ne funkcioniše, ali ako funkcioniše, onda će ga država zabraniti. Ali, države slobodnog sveta neće pokušati da ga zabrane dokle god se on ne pokaže kao ozbiljna pretnja. U tom trenutku, bitcoin će biti vredniji i sigurno teži da se zabrani, pošto će ga više ljudi posedovati na mnogo širem geografskom prostoru. Ignorišite fundamentalne činjenice i asimetriju koja je urođena u globalnom dešavanju monetizacije zato što u slučaju da ste u pravu, države će taj proces zabraniti. Na kojoj strani tog argumenta bi radije stajao racionalan ekonomski učesnik? Posedovanje finansijske imovine kojoj vrednost toliko raste da preti globalnoj rezervnoj valuti, ili nasuprot – nemati tu imovinu? Sa pretpostavkom da individualci razumeju zašto je mogućnost (a sve više i verovatnoća) ove realnosti, koji stav je logičniji u ovom scenariju? Asimetrija dve strane ovog argumenta sama od sebe zahteva da je prvi stav onaj istinit i da fundamentalno razumevanje potražnje bitcoina samo još više ojačava to mišljenje.

Niko ne moze zabraniti bitcoin

Razmislite šta bitcoin u stvari predstavlja pa onda šta bi predstavljala njegova zabrana. Bitcoin je konverzija subjektivne vrednosti, stvorena i razmenjena u realnošću, u digitalne potpise. Jednostavno rečeno, to je konverzija ljudskog vremena u novac. Kad neko zahteva bitcoin, oni u isto vreme ne zahtevaju neki drugi posed, nek to bio dolar, kuća, auto ili hrana itd. Bitcoin predstavlja novčanu štednju koja sa sobom žrtvuje druge imovine i servise. Zabrana bitcoina bi bio napad na najosnovnije ljudske slobode koje je on upravo stvoren da brani. Zamislite reakciju svih onih koji su prihvatili bitcoin: „Bilo je zabavno, alatka za koju su svi eksperti tvrdili da neće nikad funkcionisati, sada toliko dobro radi i sad ti isti eksperti i autoriteti kažu da mi to nemožemo koristiti. Svi idite kući, predstava je gotova.“verovanje da će svi ljudi koji su učestvovali u bitcoin usvajanju, suverenitetu koji nudi i finansiskoj slobodi, odjednom samo da se predaju osnovnom rušenju njihovih prava je potpuno iracionalna pozicija.

Novac je jedan od najbitnijih instrumenata za slobodu koji je ikad izmišljen. Novac je to što u postojećem društvu ostvaruje mogućnosti siromašnom čoveku – čiji je domet veći nego onaj koji je bio dostižan bogatim ljudima pre ne toliko puno generacija.“ – F. A. Hajek

Države nisu uspele da zabrane konzumiranje alkohola, droga, kupovinu vatrenog oružja, pa ni posedovanje zlata. Država može samo pomalo da uspori pristup ili da deklariše posedovanje ilegalnim, ali ne može da uništi nešto što veliki broj raznovrsnih ljudi smatra vrednim. Kada je SAD zabranila privatno posedovanje zlata 1933., zlato nije palo u vrednosti ili nestalo sa finansijskog tržišta. Ono je u stvari poraslo u vrednosti u poređenju sa dolarom, i samo trideset godina kasnije, zabrana je bila ukinuta. Ne samo da bitcoin nudi veću vrednosno obećanje od bilo kog drugog dobra koje su države pokušale da zabrane (uključujući i zlato); nego po svojim osobinama, njega je mnogo teže zabraniti. Bitcoin je globalan i decentralizovan. On ne poštuje granice i osiguran je mnoštvom nodova i kriptografskim potpisima. Sam postupak zabrane bi zahtevao da se u isto vreme zaustavi „open source“ softver koji emituje i izvršava slanje i potvrđivanje digitalno enkriptovanih ključeva i potpisa. Ta zabrana bi morala biti koordinisana između velikog broja zemalja, sa tim da je nemoguće znati gde se ti nodovi i softver nalazi ili da se zaustavi instaliranje novih nodova u drugim pravnim nadležnostima. Da ne pominjemo i ustavske pitanja, bilo bi tehnički neizvodljivo da se takva zabrana primeni na bilo kakav značajan način.

Čak kada bih sve zemlje iz G-20 grupe koordinisale takvu zabranu u isto vreme, to ne bi uništilo bitcoin. U stvari, to bi bilo samoubistvo za fiat novčani sistem. To bi još više prikazalo masama da je bitcoin u stvari novac koji treba shvatiti ozbiljno, i to bi samo od sebe započelo globalnu igru vatanje mačke za rep. Bitcoin nema centralnu tačku za napad; bitcoin rudari, nodovi i digitalni potpisi su rasejani po celom svetu. Svaki aspekt bitcoina je decentralizovan, zato su glavni stubovi njegove arhitekture da učesnici uvek treba kontrolisati svoje potpise i upravljati svojim nodom. Što više digitalnih potpisa i nodova koji postoje, to je više bitcoin decentralizovan, i to je više odbranjiva njegova mreža od strane neprijatelja. Što je više zemalja gde rudari izvršavaju svoj posao, to je manji rizik da jedan nadležni identitet može uticati na njegov bezbednosni sistem. Koordinisan internacionalni napad na bitcoin bi samo koristio da bitcoin još više ojača svoj imuni sistem. Na kraju krajeva, to bi ubrzalo seobu iz tradicionalnog finansijskog sistema (i njegovih valuta) a i inovaciju koja postoji u bitcoin ekosistemu. Sa svakom bivšom pretnjom, bitcoin je maštovito pronalazio način da ih neutrališe pa i koordinisan napad od strane država ne bi bio ništa drugačiji.

Inovacija u ovoj oblasti koja se odlikuje svojom „permissionless“ (bez dozvole centralnih identiteta) osobinom, omogućava odbranu od svakojakih napada. Sve varijante napada koje su bile predvidjene je upravo to što zahteva konstantnu inovaciju bitcoina. To je ona Adam Smitova nevidljiva ruka, ali dopingovana. Pojedinačni učesnici mogu da veruju da su motivisani nekim većim uzrokom, ali u stvari, korisnost kaja je ugrađena u bitcoin stvara kod učesnika dovoljno snažan podsticaj da omogući svoje preživljavanje. Sopstveni interes milione, ako ne milijarde, nekoordinisanih ljudi koji se jedino slažu u svojom međusobnom potrebom za funkcionalnim novcem podstiče inovacije u bitcoinu. Danas, možda to izgleda kao neka kul nova tehnologija ili neki dobar investment u finansijskom portfoliju, ali čak i ako to mnogi ne razumeju, bitcoin je apsolutna nužnost u svetu. To je tako zato što je novac nužnost a historijski priznate valute se fundamentalno raspadaju. Pre dva meseca, tržište američkih državnih obveznica je doživeo kolaps na šta je Federal Reserve reagovao time što je povećao celokupnu količinu dolara u postojanju za $250 milijardi, a još više u bliskoj budućnosti. Tačno ovo je razlog zašto je bitcoin nužnost a ne samo luksuzni dodatak. Kada inovacija omogućava bazično funkcionisanje ekonomije ne postoji ni jedna država na svetu koja može da zaustavi njenu adopciju i rast. Novac je nužnost a bitcoin znatno poboljšava sistem novca koji je ikada postojao pre njega.

Sa više praktične strane, pokušaj zabranjivanja bitcoina ili njegove velike regulacije od nadležnosti bi direktno bilo u korist susedne nadležnih organa. Podsticaj da se odustane od koordinisanog napada na bitcoin bi bio isuviše veliki da bi takvi dogovori bili uspešni. Kada bi SAD deklarisovale posed bitcoina ilegalnim sutra, da li bi to zaustavilo njegov rast, razvoj i adopciji i da li bi to smanjilo vrednost celokupne mreže? Verovatno. Da li bi to uništilo bitcoin? Ne bi. Bitcoin predstavlja najpokretljivije kapitalno sredstvo na svetu. Zemlje i nadležne strukture koje kreiraju regulativnu strukturu koja najmanje ustručava korišćenje bitcoina će biti dobitnici velike količine uliva kapitala u svoje države.

Zabrana Bitcoinove Zatvoreničke Dileme

U praksi, zatvorenička dilema nije igra jedan na jedan. Ona je multidimenzijska i uključuje mnoštvo nadležnosti, čiji se interesi nadmeću međusobno, i to uskraćuje mogućnosti bilo kakve mogućnosti zabrane. Ljudski kapital, fizički kapital i novčani kapital će sav ići u pravcu država i nadležnosti koje najmanje ustručuju bitcoin. To se možda neće desiti sve odjednom, ali pokušaji zabrane su isto za badava koliko bi bilo odseći sebi nos u inat svom licu. To ne znači da države to neće pokušati. India je već probala da zabrani bitcoin. Kina je uvela puno restrikcija. Drugi će da prate njihove tragove. Ali svaki put kada država preduzme takve korake, to ima nepredvidljive efekte povećanja bitcoin adopcije. Pokušaji zabranjivanja bitcoina su jako efektivne marketing kampanje. Bitcoin postoji kao sistem nevezan za jednu suverenu državu i kao novac je otporan na cenzuru. On je dizajniran da postoji van državne kontrole. Pokušaji da se taj koncept zabrani samo još više daje njemu razlog i logiku za postojanje.

Jedini Pobednički Potez je da se Uključiš u Igru

Zabrana bitcoina je trošenje vremena. Neki će to pokušati; ali svi će biti neuspešni. Sami ti pokušaji će još više ubrzati njegovu adopciju i širenje. Biće to vetar od 100 km/h koji raspaljuje vatru. To će ojačati bitcoin sve više i doprineće njegovoj pouzdanosti. U svakom slučaju, verovanje da će države zabraniti bitcoin u momentu kada on postane dovoljno velika pretnja rezervnim valutam sveta, je iracionalan razlog da se on no poseduje kao instrument štednje novca. To ne samo da podrazumeva da je bitcoin novac, ali u isto vreme i ignoriše glavne razloge zašto je to tako: on je decentralizovan i otporan na cenzure. Zamislite da razumete jednu od nojvećih tajni današnjice i da u isto vreme tu tajnu asimetrije koju bitcoin nudi ne primenjujete u svoju korist zbog straha od države. Pre će biti, neko ko razume zašto bitcoin funkcioniše i da ga država ne može zaustaviti, ili nepuno znanje postoji u razumevanju kako bitcoin uopšte funckioniše. Počnite sa razmatranjem fundamentalnih pitanja, a onda primenite to kao temelj da bi procenili bilo koji potencijalan rizik od strane budućih regulacija ili restrikcija državnih organa. I nikad nemojte da zaboravite na vrednost asimetrije između dve strane ovde prezentiranih argumenata. Jedini pobednički potez je da se uključite u igru.

Stavovi ovde prezentirani su samo moji i ne predstavljaju Unchained Capital ili moje kolege. Zahvaljujem se Fil Gajgeru za razmatranje teksta i primedbe.

Originalni tekst

@ 9bde4214:06ca052b

"It's gonna be permissionless or hell."

Gigi and gzuuus are vibing towards dystopia.

Books & articles mentioned:

• AI 2027
• DVMs were a mistake
• Careless People by Sarah Wynn-Williams
• Takedown by Laila michelwait
• The Ultimate Resource by Julian L. Simon
• Harry Potter by J.K. Rowling
• Momo by Michael Ende

In this dialogue:

• Pablo's Roo Setup
• Tech Hype Cycles
• AI 2027
• Prompt injection and other attacks
• Goose and DVMCP
• Cursor vs Roo Code
• Staying in control thanks to Amber and signing delegation
• Is YOLO mode here to stay?
• What agents to trust?
• What MCP tools to trust?
• What code snippets to trust?
• Everyone will run into the issues of trust and micropayments
• Nostr solves Web of Trust & micropayments natively
• Minimalistic & open usually wins
• DVMCP exists thanks to Totem
• Relays as Tamagochis
• Agents aren't nostr experts, at least not right now
• Fix a mistake once & it's fixed forever
• Giving long-term memory to LLMs
• RAG Databases signed by domain experts
• Human-agent hybrids & Chess
• Nostr beating heart
• Pluggable context & experts
• "You never need an API key for anything"
• Sats and social signaling
• Difficulty-adjusted PoW as a rare-limiting mechanism
• Certificate authorities and centralization
• No solutions to policing speech!
• OAuth and how it centralized
• Login with nostr
• Closed vs open-source models
• Tiny models vs large models
• The minions protocol (Stanford paper)
• Generalist models vs specialized models
• Local compute & encrypted queries
• Blinded compute
• "In the eyes of the state, agents aren't people"
• Agents need identity and money; nostr provides both
• "It's gonna be permissionless or hell"
• We already have marketplaces for MCP stuff, code snippets, and other things
• Most great stuff came from marketplaces (browsers, games, etc)
• Zapstore shows that this is already working
• At scale, central control never works. There's plenty scams and viruses in the app stores.
• Using nostr to archive your user-generated content
• HAVEN, blossom, novia
• The switcharoo from advertisements to training data
• What is Truth?
• What is Real?
• "We're vibing into dystopia"
• Who should be the arbiter of Truth?
• First Amendment & why the Logos is sacred
• Silicon Valley AI bros arrogantly dismiss wisdom and philosophy
• Suicide rates & the meaning crisis
• Are LLMs symbiotic or parasitic?
• The Amish got it right
• Are we gonna make it?
• Careless People by Sarah Wynn-Williams
• Takedown by Laila michelwait
• Harry Potter dementors & Momo's time thieves
• Facebook & Google as non-human (superhuman) agents
• Zapping as a conscious action
• Privacy and the internet
• Plausible deniability thanks to generative models
• Google glasses, glassholes, and Meta's Ray Ben's
• People crave realness
• Bitcoin is the realest money we ever had
• Nostr allows for real and honest expression
• How do we find out what's real?
• Constraints, policing, and chilling effects
• Jesus' plans for DVMCP
• Hzrd's article on how DVMs are broken (DVMs were a mistake)
• Don't believe the hype
• DVMs pre-date MCP tools
• Data Vending Machines were supposed to be stupid: put coin in, get stuff out.
• Self-healing vibe-coding
• IP addresses as scarce assets
• Atomic swaps and the ASS protocol
• More marketplaces, less silos
• The intensity of #SovEng and the last 6 weeks
• If you can vibe-code everything, why build anything?
• Time, the ultimate resource
• What are the LLMs allowed to think?
• Natural language interfaces are inherently dialogical
• Sovereign Engineering is dialogical too

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Zwei mal drei macht vier, \ widewidewitt und drei macht neune, \ ich mach mir die Welt, \ widewide wie sie mir gefällt. \ Pippi Langstrumpf

Egal, ob Koalitionsverhandlungen oder politischer Alltag: Die Kontroversen zwischen theoretisch verschiedenen Parteien verschwinden, wenn es um den Kampf gegen politische Gegner mit Rückenwind geht. Wer den Alteingesessenen die Pfründe ernsthaft streitig machen könnte, gegen den werden nicht nur «Brandmauern» errichtet, sondern der wird notfalls auch strafrechtlich verfolgt. Doppelstandards sind dabei selbstverständlich inklusive.

In Frankreich ist diese Woche Marine Le Pen wegen der Veruntreuung von EU-Geldern von einem Gericht verurteilt worden. Als Teil der Strafe wurde sie für fünf Jahre vom passiven Wahlrecht ausgeschlossen. Obwohl das Urteil nicht rechtskräftig ist – Le Pen kann in Berufung gehen –, haben die Richter das Verbot, bei Wahlen anzutreten, mit sofortiger Wirkung verhängt. Die Vorsitzende des rechtsnationalen Rassemblement National (RN) galt als aussichtsreiche Kandidatin für die Präsidentschaftswahl 2027.

Das ist in diesem Jahr bereits der zweite gravierende Fall von Wahlbeeinflussung durch die Justiz in einem EU-Staat. In Rumänien hatte Călin Georgescu im November die erste Runde der Präsidentenwahl überraschend gewonnen. Das Ergebnis wurde später annulliert, die behauptete «russische Wahlmanipulation» konnte jedoch nicht bewiesen werden. Die Kandidatur für die Wahlwiederholung im Mai wurde Georgescu kürzlich durch das Verfassungsgericht untersagt.

Die Veruntreuung öffentlicher Gelder muss untersucht und geahndet werden, das steht außer Frage. Diese Anforderung darf nicht selektiv angewendet werden. Hingegen mussten wir in der Vergangenheit bei ungleich schwerwiegenderen Fällen von (mutmaßlichem) Missbrauch ganz andere Vorgehensweisen erleben, etwa im Fall der heutigen EZB-Chefin Christine Lagarde oder im «Pfizergate»-Skandal um die Präsidentin der EU-Kommission Ursula von der Leyen.

Wenngleich derartige Angelegenheiten formal auf einer rechtsstaatlichen Grundlage beruhen mögen, so bleibt ein bitterer Beigeschmack. Es stellt sich die Frage, ob und inwieweit die Justiz politisch instrumentalisiert wird. Dies ist umso interessanter, als die Gewaltenteilung einen essenziellen Teil jeder demokratischen Ordnung darstellt, während die Bekämpfung des politischen Gegners mit juristischen Mitteln gerade bei den am lautesten rufenden Verteidigern «unserer Demokratie» populär zu sein scheint.

Die Delegationen von CDU/CSU und SPD haben bei ihren Verhandlungen über eine Regierungskoalition genau solche Maßnahmen diskutiert. «Im Namen der Wahrheit und der Demokratie» möchte man noch härter gegen «Desinformation» vorgehen und dafür zum Beispiel den Digital Services Act der EU erweitern. Auch soll der Tatbestand der Volksverhetzung verschärft werden – und im Entzug des passiven Wahlrechts münden können. Auf europäischer Ebene würde Friedrich Merz wohl gerne Ungarn das Stimmrecht entziehen.

Der Pegel an Unzufriedenheit und Frustration wächst in großen Teilen der Bevölkerung kontinuierlich. Arroganz, Machtmissbrauch und immer abstrusere Ausreden für offensichtlich willkürliche Maßnahmen werden kaum verhindern, dass den etablierten Parteien die Unterstützung entschwindet. In Deutschland sind die Umfrageergebnisse der AfD ein guter Gradmesser dafür.

[Vorlage Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben und ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ c11cf5f8:4928464d

Here we are again with our monthly Magnificent Seven, the summary giving you a hit of what you missed in the ~AGORA territory.

Let's check our top performing post Ads!

---

Top-Performing Ads

This month, the most engaging ones are:

• 01 [SELL] The Book of Bitcoin Mythology - Bitcoin accepted - ($21 + shipping) by @VEINTIUNO offering a printed version of the Bitcoin Mythology @spiral series, available online originally in English and translated by the post author in Spanish. 100 sats \ 6 comments \ 18 Apr

• 02 [SELL] Southwest voucher, 50k sats (digital code/ USA) by @BlokchainB, where he share a voucher Southwest Airlines. Have you sold it to @itsrealfake then? 206 sats \ 3 comments \ 27 Apr

• 03 SoapMiner Beef Tallow Soap by @PictureRoom, a review of a great handmade product sold P2P. 83 sats \ 2 comments \ 3 May

• 04 [SELL] Walter Whites Mega Package eBook (25000) by @MidnightShipper, return selling hand-picked ebooks from his/her huge collection 36 sats \ 4 comments \ 21 Apr

• 05 Medical Consultation (an update to a previous post) by @BTCLNAT, renewing prices and details of a previous Ad-post. Pretty fair still... 5k sats/consultation still a bargain! 100 sats \ 3 comments \ 22 Apr

• 06 [SELL] Bitcoin Education Playing Cards $30 Bitcoin accepted by @NEEDcreations, releasing a new updated edition, ow available for sale on the 360BTC's pleb shop 19 sats \ 0 comments \ 30 Apr

• 07 OFFICIAL - VINTAGE - Marlboro Zippo - Real & WORKS by @watchmancbiz, returns with just a link to SatStash for more info on the auction 0 sats \ 0 comments \ 3 May

A quick reminder that now you ca setup auctions here in the AGORA too! Learn how. The other feature released last month was the introduction of Shopfronts on SN. Check our SN Merch and SN Zine examples. Thank you all! Let's keep these trades coming and grow the P2P Bitcoin circular economy!

---

Lost & Found in SN' Wild West Web

Stay with me, we're not done yet! I found plenty of other deals and offers in other territories too..

• Private Package Delivery where @Jon_Hodl share his experience on receiving one personally
• 🚨 VIP-Only Flash Sale: Bitaxe Gamma for $125 by @siggy47, grabbing one of these bad boys.
• Where do you sell books for Bitcoin, besides on ~Agora Territory? by @hasherstacker, asking ~BooksAndArticles community. Do you have a book to sell? Let me know how I can help!
• This best-selling book on ‘abundance’ has got it wrong - Max Rashbrooke by @Solomonsatoshi sharing an interesting external article.
• Trump Store Selling ‘Trump 2028’ Hats Trump Says He’s ‘Not Joking’ another interesting article shared by our dear friend @CarlTuckerson

Wow, such an exciting month!

---

Active Professional Services accepting Bitcoin in the AGORA

Let us know if we miss any, here below the most memorable ones: - https://stacker.news/items/900208/r/AG @unschooled offering Language Tutoring - https://stacker.news/items/813013/r/AG @gpvansat's [OFFER][Graphic Design] From the paste editions (It's important to keep these offers available) - https://stacker.news/items/775383/r/AG @TinstrMedia - Color Grading (Styling) Your Pictures as a Service - https://stacker.news/items/773557/r/AG @MamaHodl, MATHS TUTOR 50K SATS/hour English global - https://stacker.news/items/684163/r/AG @BTCLNAT's OFFER HEALTH COUNSELING [5K SAT/ consultation - https://stacker.news/items/689268/r/AG @mathswithtess [SELL] MATHS TUTOR ONILINE, 90k sats per hour. Global but English only.

Let me know if I'm missing other stackers offering services around here!

---

In case you missed

Here some interesting post, opening conversations and free speech about markets and business on the bitcoin circular economy:

• https://stacker.news/items/972209/r/AG Here Comes Bitcoin Swag Shop by @k00b
• https://stacker.news/items/969011/r/AG Sales Corner (Prospecting) by @Akg10s3
• https://stacker.news/items/971914/r/AG Satoshi Escrow A Bitcoin non-custodial P2P dispute resolution using Nostr keys by @AGORA
• https://stacker.news/items/972209/r/AG Twin Cities Outdoor Agora Market by @k00b
• https://stacker.news/items/942025/r/AG How to create your Shopfront on STACKER NEWS to upsell your products & services by @AGORA

---

BUYing or SELLing Cowboys Credits?

BUY or SELL them in the ~AGORA marketplace

Here's what stackers have to offers: - [SWAP] SN Cowboy credits by @DarthCoin - https://stacker.news/items/758411/r/AG by @SimpleStacker that also shares a CCs market analysis. - [BUY] 100 cowboy credits for one satoshi by @ek - Will Pay Sats For Cowboy Credits by @siggy47 - 📢 CCs to Sats Exchange Megathread recently started by @holonite, not sure why in ~bitcoin. Consider the ~AGORA next time ;)

---

🏷️ Spending Sunday and Selling weekly?

Share your most recent Bitcoin purchases of just check what other stackers are buying with their sats! All series available here: Or read the latest one from https://stacker.news/items/970896/r/AG

📢 Thursday Talks: What have you sold for Bitcoin this week?

Our recently launched weekly series going out every Thursday. In the past one, I collected all @Akg10s3's Sales Corner posts. Fresh out of the box, today edition https://stacker.news/items/974581/r/AG

---

Create your Ads now!

Looking to start something new? Hit one of the links below to free your mind:

• 💬 TOPIC for conversation,
• [⚖️ SELL] anything! or,
• if you're looking for something, hit the [🛒 BUY]!
• [🧑‍💻 HIRE] any bitcoiner skill or stuff from bitcoiners
• [🖇 OFFER] any product or service and stack more sats
• [🧑‍⚖️ AUCTION] to let stackers decide a fair price for your item
• [🤝 SWAP] if you're looking to exchange anything with anything else
• [🆓 FREE] your space, make a gift!
• Start your own [SHOPFRONT] or simply...
• [⭐ REVIEW] any bitcoin product or LN service you recently bought or subscribed to.

---

Or contact @AGORA team on nostr DM, and we can help you publish a personalized post.

. #nostr #bitcoin #stuff4sats #sell #buy #plebchain #grownostr #asknostr #market #business

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/974611

@ 7ef5f1b1:0e0fcd27

A monthly newsletter by The 256 Foundation

April 2025

Introduction:

Welcome to the fourth newsletter produced by The 256 Foundation! March was an action-packed month with events ranging from the announcement of TSMC investing in US fabs to four solo block finds. Dive in to catch up on the latest news, mining industry developments, progress updates on grant projects, Actionable Advice on updating a Futurebit Apollo I to the latest firmware, and the current state of the Bitcoin network.

[IMG-001] Variation of the “I’m the captain now” meme by @maxisclub

Definitions:

MA = Moving Average

Eh/s = Exahash per second

Ph/s = Petahash per second

Th/s = Terahash per second

T = Trillion

J/Th = Joules per Terahash

$ = US Dollar

OS = Operating System

SSD = Solid State Drive

TB = Terabyte

News:

March 3, Ashigaru releases v1.1.1. Notable because this fork of Samourai Wallet serves as the remaining choice of mobile Bitcoin wallet capable of making peer to peer collaborative transactions. Not the Whirlpool transactions that Samourai Wallet was well-known for but the Stowaway and StonewallX2 p2p CoinJoin transactions. The persistence of Samourai’s tools still working despite the full force of the State coming down on the developers is a testament to the power of open-source code.

March 3, Stronghold completes cleanup of decommissioned coal plant using Bitcoin miners. Stronghold’s initiative counters the narrative that Bitcoin mining is wasteful by removing 150,000 tons of coal waste, part of a broader effort that cleared 240,000 tons in Q2 2024 alone. Waste coal piles in Pennsylvania, like the one in Russellton, have scarred landscapes, making this reclamation a significant step for local ecosystems. The project aligns with growing efforts in the region, as The Nature Conservancy also leads restoration projects in Pennsylvania to revive forests and waters. Stronghold’s dual-use model—powering Bitcoin miners and supplying the grid—shows how Bitcoin mining can support environmental goals while remaining economically viable.

March 3, five TSMC semiconductor fabs coming to Arizona. TSMC’s $100 billion investment in Arizona reflects a strategic push to bolster U.S. semiconductor production amid global supply chain vulnerabilities and geopolitical tensions, particularly with West Taiwan’s claims over Taiwan. TSMC’s existing $65 billion investment in Phoenix, now totaling $165 billion, aims to create 40,000 construction jobs and tens of thousands of high-tech roles over the next decade. This could relieve bottlenecks in ASIC chip supply if Bitcoin mining chip designers can get access to the limited foundry space. If that is the case, this could help alleviate some centralization concerns as it relates to a majority of Bitcoin mining chips coming from Taiwan and West Taiwan.

March 10, Block #887212 solved by a Bitaxe Ultra with ~491Gh/s. Not only did the Bitaxe satisfy the network difficulty, which was 112.15T, but obliterated it with a whopping 719.9T difficulty. This Block marked the second one solved by a Bitaxe and an increasing number of solo block finds overall as more individuals choose to play the Bitcoin lottery with their hashrate.

March 12, Pirate Bay co-founder, Carl Lundström, killed in plane crash. The Pirate Bay, launched in 2003, revolutionized online file-sharing by popularizing BitTorrent technology, enabling millions to access music, movies, and software, often in defiance of legal systems, which led to Lundström’s 2009 conviction for copyright infringement. The timing of his death coincides with ongoing global debates over digital ownership and intellectual property, often echoing many of the same themes in open-source technology, underscoring the enduring impact of The Pirate Bay’s challenge to traditional media distribution models.

March 18, Samourai Wallet status conference update. This was a short meeting in which the dates for the remaining pre-trial hearings was discussed.

- May 9, Opening Motion.
- June 6, prosecution response to the opening motion.
- June 20, defense replies to the prosecution response.
- July 15, prosecution provides expert disclosure
- August 8, defense provides expert disclosure
- Tdev is able to remain home during the remaining pre-trial hearings so that he doesn’t have to incur the expenses traveling back and forth between Europe and the US

Despite seemingly positive shifts in crypto-related policies from the Trump administration, all signs point to the prosecution still moving full steam ahead in this case. The defense teams need to be prepared and they could use all the financial help they can get. If you feel compelled to support the legal defense fund, please do so here. If the DOJ wins this case, all Bitcoiners lose.

March 18, DEMAND POOL launches, transitioning out of stealth mode and making room for applicants to join the private waiting list to be one of the Founding Miners.

Key features of DEMAND Pool include: • Build your own blocks • SLICE payment system & new mempool algorithm • No more empty blocks • End-to-end encryption for protection • Efficient data transfer, less wasted hashrate • Lower costs on CPU, bandwidth, & time

DEMAND Pool implements Stratum v2 so that miners can generate their own block templates, entering the arena of pools trying to decentralize mining such as OCEAN with their alternative to Stratum v2 called DATUM. A benefit of the Stratum v2 protocol over Stratum v1 is that data sent between the miner and the pool is now encrypted whereas before it was sent in clear-text, the encryption helps with network level privacy so that for example, your Internet Service Provider cannot read what is in the data being passed back and forth. Although, unless there is a proxy between your miner and the pool then the ISP may be able to determine that you are sending data to a mining pool, they just wouldn’t be able to tell what’s in that data. Overall, decentralization has become a buzz word lately and while it is a step in the right direction that more pools are enabling miners to decide which transactions are included in the block templates they work on, the pools remain a centralized force that ultimately can reject templates based on a number of reasons.

March 20, Bitaxe makes the cover of Bitcoin Magazine’s The Mining Issue, solidifying the Bitaxe as a pop-culture icon. Even those who disregard the significance of the Bitaxe project must recognize that the project’s popularity is an indication that something big is developing here.

[IMG-002] Bitcoin Magazine, The Mining Issue

March 21, self-hosted solo miner solves block #888737 with a Futurebit Apollo, making this the third solo block find for Futurebit. The first Futurebit Apollo block find may have been a fluke, the second a coincidence, but the third is an indication of a pattern forming here. More hashrate is being controlled by individuals who are constructing their own blocks and this trend will accelerate as time goes on and deploying these devices becomes easier and less expensive. This was the second solo block found in March.

March 21, US Treasury Department lifts sanctions on Tornado Cash. This is a positive sign coming from the US Treasury, however the charges against the Tornado Cash developer, Roman Storm, still stand and his legal defense team is still fighting an uphill battle. Even though the US Treasury removed Tornado Cash from the OFAC list, the department is attempting to stop a Texas court from granting a motion that would ensure the Treasury can’t put Tornado Cash back on the OFAC list. Meanwhile, the other Tornado Cash developer, Alex Pertsev, is fighting his appeal battle in the Dutch courts.

March 22, Self-hosted Public Pool user mines Block #888989. This was the first block mined with the Public Pool software, which is open-source and available for anyone to host themselves, in this case hosted on the user’s Umbrel. If you read the January issue of The 256 Foundation newsletter, there are detailed instructions for hosting your own instance of Public Pool on a Raspberry Pi. Easier solutions exist and accomplish the same thing such as Umbrel and Start9. This was the third solo block mined in March.

March 26, DeFi Education Fund publishes coalition letter urging congress to correct the DOJ’s dangerous misinterpretation of money transmission laws. In their own words: “First seen in Aug 2023 via the criminal indictment of @rstormsf, the DOJ’s novel legal theory expands criminal liability to software developers, ignoring longstanding FinCEN guidance and threatening the entire U.S. blockchain & digital asset ecosystem”. Many familiar organizations in the industry signed the letter, such as Coinbase, Kraken, A16z Crypto, and Ledger. Sadly, no Bitcoin companies signed the letter, highlighting the reckless ignorance prevalent among the “toxic Bitcoin maximalists” who often pride themselves on their narrow focus; a focus which is proving to be more of a blind spot limiting their ability to recognize a clear and present threat. The full letter text can be found here.

March 28, Heatbit reveals the black Heatbit, an elegant space heater that mines Bitcoin. Heat re-use applications such as Bitcoin mining space heaters are one of many examples where energy spent on generating heat can also earn the user sats. Other popular solutions include heating hot tubs, hotels, drive ways, and more. The innovations in this area will continue to be unlocked as open-source solutions like the ones being developed at The 256 Foundation are released and innovators gain more control over their applications.

March 29, miner with 2.5Ph/s solves Block #889975 with Solo CK Pool, marking the fourth solo block found in the month of March. This was the first solo block found on CK Pool’s European server. This was a good way to finish the month on a strong note for small-scale miners.

Free & Open Mining Industry Developments:

The development will not stop until Bitcoin mining is free and open. Innovators didn’t let off the gas in March, here are eleven note-worthy events:

0) @BTC_Grid demonstrates heating a new residential build with Bitcoin miners. This custom build features 6,000 square feet of radiant floors, 1,500 sqft of snow melting slab, 2 heated pools, all powered by Bitcoin miners and fully automated. Innovations and efficient systems like this will become more common as Bitcoin mining hardware and firmware solutions become open-source

1) @DrydeGab shares The Ocho, a Bitaxe Nerd Octaxe open-source Bitcoin miner featuring 8x BM1370 ASICs that performs at 9-10Th/s consuming ~180W. The Ocho runs on it’s own custom AxeOS. Currently out of stock but generally available for purchase in the IX Tech store.

[IMG-003] The Nerd OCTAXE Ocho by @DrydeGab

2) @incognitojohn23 demonstrates building a Bitaxe from scratch with no prior experience, proving that anyone can access this technology with a little determination and the right community. @incognitojohn23 has also uploaded several videos documenting his progress and lessons along the way. Every builder has their first day, don’t hold back if you feel compelled to jump in and get started.

3) @HodlRev demonstrating how he combines Bitcoin mining with maple syrup production. In fact, @HodlRev has integrated Bitcoin mining into several aspects of his homestead. Be sure to follow his content for an endless stream of resourceful ideas. Once open-source Bitcoin mining firmware and hardware solutions become widely available, innovators like @HodlRev will have more control over every parameter of these unique applications.

4) ATL Bitlab announces their first hackathon, running June 7 through July 6. Promoted as “A global hackathon focused on all things bitcoin mining”. If you are interested in joining the hackathon, there is a Google form you can fill out here. It will be interesting to see what innovations come from this effort.

5) @100AcresRanch builds touchscreen dashboard for Bitaxe and Loki Boards. With this, you can control up to 10 mining devices with the ability to instantly switch any of the presets without going into the mining device UI.

[IMG-004] Decentral Command Dashboard by @100AcresRanch

6) @IxTechCrypto reveals HAXE, the newest member of the Nerdaxe miner family. HAXE is a 6 ASIC miner performing at ~7.4 Th/s at ~118W. Upon looking at the IX Tech store, it seems as though the HAXE has not hit shelves yet but keep an eye out for announcements soon.

7) Solo Satoshi reveals the NerdQaxe++, the latest marvel in the world of open-source Bitcoin mining solutions. This device is equipped with four ASIC chips from the Antminer S21 Pro and boasts an efficiency rating of 15.8 J/Th. At the advertised power consumption of 76 Watts, that would produce nearly 5 Th/s. Currently out of stock at the Solo Satoshi store and the IX Tech store but in stock and available at the PlebSource store.

8) @TheSoloMiningCo shares a bolt-on voltage regulator heatsink for the Bitaxe, this is a helpful modification when overclocking your miner and helps dissipate heat away from the voltage regulator. Many innovators are discovering ways to get every bit of efficiency they can from their hardware and sharing their ideas with the wider community for anyone to adopt.

9) @boerst adds historical data to stratum.work, a public website that monitors mining pool activity through calling for the work templates being generated for the pool’s respective miners. By parsing the information available in the work templates, a number of interesting observations can be made like which pools are merely proxies for larger pools, timing analysis of when templates are sent out, and now historical data on what the state of each pool’s templates were at a given block height. The work Boerst is doing with this website provides a great tool for gaining insights into mining centralization.

10) Braiins open-sources the BCB100 Control Board, designed to work with Antminers, this control board project has two parts: the hardware and the software. For the hardware part, open files include the Bill Of Materials, schematics, Gerbers, and CAD files. For the software part, open files include the board-level OpenWrt-based firmware with the full configuration file and the Nix environment for reproducible builds. The mining firmware binaries for bosminer and boser (same as the official Braiins OS releases) are also available to download and use to compile the image for the control board, however the Braiins OS firmware itself is not included in this open-source bundle. Braiins chose the GPLv3 open-source license for the software and the CERN-OHL-S open-source license for the hardware. This is a great gesture by Braiins and helps validate the efforts of The 256 Foundation to make Bitcoin mining free and open. The Braiins GitHub repositories where all this information can be found are accessible here and here. The 256 Foundation has plans to develop a Mujina firmware that can be flashed onto the BCB100 helping target Antminer machines.

Grant Project Updates:

In March, The 256 Foundation formalized agreements with the lead developers who were selected for each project. These agreements clearly defined the scope of each project, identified the deliverables, set a timeline, and agreement on compensation was made. Below are the outlines for each project, the compensation is not made public for privacy and security reasons.

Ember One:

@skot9000 instigator of the Bitaxe and all around legend for being the first mover in open-source Bitcoin mining solutions is the lead engineer for the Ember One project. This was the first fully funded grant from The 256 Foundation and commenced in November 2024 with a six month duration. The deliverable is a validated design for a ~100W miner with a standardized form factor (128mm x 128mm), USB-C data connection, 12-24v input voltage, with plans for several versions – each with a different ASIC chip. The First Ember One features the Bitmain BM1362 ASIC, next on the list will be an Ember One with the Intel BZM2 ASIC, then an Auradine ASIC version, and eventually a Block ASIC version. Learn more at: https://emberone.org/

Mujina Mining Firmware:

@ryankuester, embedded Linux developer and Electrical Engineer who has mastered the intersection of hardware and software over the last 20 years is the lead developer for the Mujina project, a Linux based mining firmware application with support for multiple drivers so it can be used with Ember One complete mining system. The grant starts on April 5, 2025 and continues for nine months. Deliverables include:

Core Mujina-miner Application: - Fully open-source under GPLv3 license - Written in Rust for performance, robustness, and maintainability, leveraging Rust's growing adoption in the Bitcoin ecosystem - Designed for modularity and extensibility - Stratum V1 client (which includes DATUM compatibility) - Best effort for Stratum V2 client in the initial release but may not happen until later

Hardware Support:

- Support for Ember One 00 hash boards (Bitmain chips)
- Support for Ember One 01 hash boards (Intel chips) on a best effort basis but may not happen until later
- Full support on the Raspberry Pi CM5 and IO board running the Raspberry Pi OS
- Support for the Libre board when released
- Best-effort compatibility with other hardware running Linux

Management Interfaces:

• HTTP API for remote management and monitoring
• Command-line interface for direct control
• Basic web dashboard for status monitoring
• Configuration via structured text files
• Community Building and Infrastructure
• GitHub project organization and workflow
• Continuous integration and testing framework
• Comprehensive user and developer documentation
• Communication channels for users and developers
• Community building through writing, podcasts, and conference participation

The initial release of Mujina is being built in such a way that it supports long-term goals like ultimately evolving into a complete Linux-based operating system, deployable through simple flashing procedures. Initially focused on supporting the 256 Foundation's Libre control boards and Ember hash boards, Mujina's modular architecture will eventually enable compatibility with a wide variety of mining hardware from different manufacturers. Lean more at: https://mujina.org/

Libre Board:

@Schnitzel, heat re-use maximalist who turned his home's hot water accessories into Bitcoin-powered sats generators and during the day has built a successful business with a background in product management, is the lead engineer on the Libre Board project; the control board for the Ember One complete mining system. Start date is April 5, 2025 and the deliverables after six months will be a mining control board based on the Raspberry Pi Compute Module I/O Board with at least the following connections:

• USB hub integration (maybe 10 ports?)
• Support for fan connections
• NVME expansion
• Two 100-pin connectors for the compute module
• Ethernet port
• HDMI port
• Raspberrypi 40-pin header for sensors, switches, & relays etc.
• MIPI port for touchscreen
• Accepts 12-24 VDC input power voltage.

The initial release of Libre Board is being built in such a way that it supports long-term goals like alternative compute modules such as ARM, x86, and RISC-V. Learn more at: https://libreboard.org/

Hydra Pool:

@jungly, distributed systems PhD and the lead developer behind P2Pool v2 and formerly for Braidpool, now takes the reigns as lead developer for Hydra Pool, the stratum server package that will run on the Ember One mining system. Start date for this project was on April 5, 2025 and the duration lasts for six months. Deliverables include:

• Talks to bitcoind and provides stratum work to users and stores received shares
• Scalable and robust database support to save received shares 
• Run share accounting on the stored shares
• Implement payment mechanisms to pay out miners based on the share accounting
• Provide two operation modes: Solo mining and PPLNS or Tides based payout mechanism, with payouts from coinbase only. (All other payout mechanism are out of scope of this initial release for now but there will be more).
• Rolling upgrades: Tools and scripts to upgrade server with zero downtime.
• Dashboard: Pool stats view only dashboard with support to filter miner payout addresses.
• Documentation: Setup and other help pages, as required.

The initial release of Hydra Pool is being built in such a way that it supports long-term goals like alternative payout models such as echash, communicating with other Hydra Pool instances, local store of shares for Ember One, and a user-friendly interface that puts controls at the user's fingertips, and supports the ability for upstream pool proxying. Learn More at: https://hydrapool.org/

Block Watcher:

Initially scoped to be a Bitcoin mining insights application built to run on the Ember One mining system using the self-hosted node for blockchain data. However, The 256 Foundation has decided to pause Block Watcher development for a number of reasons. Primarily because the other four projects were more central to the foundation’s mission and given the early stages of the Foundation with the current support level, it made more sense to deploy capital where it counts most.

Actionable Advice:

This month’s Actionable Advice column explains the process for upgrading the Futurebit Apollo I OS to the newer Apollo II OS and replacing the SSD. The Futurebit Apollo is a small mining device with an integrated Bitcoin node designed as a plug-and-play solution for people interested in mining Bitcoin without all the noise and heat of the larger industrial-grade miners. The Apollo I can hash between 2 – 4 Th/s and will consume roughly 125 – 200 Watts. The Apollo II can hash between 8 – 10 Th/s and will consume roughly 280 – 400 Watts. The motivation behind upgrading from the Apollo I OS to the Apollo II OS is the ability to run a stratum server internally so that the mining part of the device can ask the node part of the device for mining work, thus enabling users to solo mine in a self-hosted fashion. In fact, this is exactly what The 256 Foundation did during the Telehash fundraising event where Block #881423 was solo mined, at one point there was more than 1 Eh/s of hashrate pointed to that Apollo.

[IMG-005] Futurebit Apollo I with new NVME SSD

You can find the complete flashing instructions on the Futurebit website here. You will need a separate computer to complete the flashing procedure. The flashing procedure will erase all data on the microSD card so back it up if you have anything valuable saved on there.

First navigate to the Futurebit GitHub Releases page at: https://github.com/jstefanop/apolloapi-v2/releases

Once there, you will see two OS images available for download, along with two links to alternative hosting options for those two images. If you are upgrading an Apollo I, you need to figure out which new OS image is right for your device, the MCU 1 image or the MCU 2 image. There are detailed instructions on figuring this out available here. There are multiple ways to determine if you need the MCU 1 or MCU 2 image. If the second to last digit in your Futurebit Apollo I is between 4 – 8 then you have an MCU 1; or if your batch number is 1 – 3 then you have an MCU 1; or if the circuit board has a 40-pin connector running perpendicular to the microSD card slot then you have an MCU 1. Otherwise, you have an MCU 2.

For example, this is what the MCU 1 circuit board will look like:

[IMG-006] Futurebit MCU1 example

Once you figure out which OS image you need, go ahead and download it. The SHA256 hash values for the OS Image files are presented in the GitHub repo. If you’re running Linux on your computer, you can change directory to your Download folder and run the following command to check the SHA256 hash value of the file you downloaded and compare that to the SHA256 hash values on GitHub.

[IMG-007] Verifying Futurebit OS Image Hash Value

With the hash value confirmed, you can use a program like Balena Etcher to flash your microSD card. First remove the microSD card from the Apollo circuit board by pushing it inward, it should make a small click and then spring outward so that you can grab it and remove it from the slot.

Connect the microSD card to your computer with the appropriate adapter.

Open Balena Etcher and click on the “Flash From File” button to define the file path to where you have the OS image saved:

[IMG-008] Balena Etcher user interface

Then click on the “Select Target” button to define the drive which you will be flashing. Select the microSD card and be sure not to select any other drive on your computer by mistake:

[IMG-009] Balena Etcher user interface

Then click on the “Flash” button and Balena Etcher will take care of formatting the microSD card, decompressing the OS image file, and flashing it to the microSD card.

[IMG-010] Balena Etcher user interface.

The flashing process can take some time so be patient. The Balena Etcher interface will allow you to monitor the progress.

[IMG-011] Balena Etcher user interface.

Once the flashing process is completed successfully, you will receive a notice in the balena Etcher interface that looks like this:

[IMG-012] Balena Etcher user interface.

You can remove the microSD card from your computer now and install it back into the Futurebit Apollo. If you have an adequately sized SSD then your block chain data should be safe as that is where it resides, not on the microSD card. If you have a 1TB SSD then this would be a good time to consider upgrading to a 2TB SSD instead. There are lots of options but you want to get an NVME style one like this:

[IMG-013] 1TB vs. 2TB NVME SSD

Simply loosen the screw holding the SSD in place and then remove the old SSD by pulling it out of the socket. Then insert the new one and put the screw back in place.

Once the SSD and microSD are back in place, you can connect Ethernet and the power supply, then apply power to your Apollo.

You will be able to access your Apollo through a web browser on your computer. You will need to figure out the local IP address of your Apollo device so log into your router and check the DHCP leases section. Your router should be accessible from your local network by typing an IP address into your web browser like 192.168.0.1 or 10.0.0.1 or maybe your router manufacturer uses a different default. You should be able to do an internet search for your specific router and figure it out quickly if you don’t already know. If that fails, you can download and run a program like Angry IP Scanner.

Give the Apollo some time to run through a few preliminary and automatic configurations, you should be able to see the Apollo on your local network within 10 minutes of powering it on.

Once you figure out the IP address for your Apollo, type it into your web browser and this is the first screen you should be greeted with:

[IMG-014] Futurebit welcome screen

Click on the button that says “Start setup process”. The next you will see should look like this:

[IMG-015] Futurebit mining selection screen

You have the option here to select solo mining or pooled mining. If you have installed a new SSD card then you should select pooled mining because you will not be able to solo mine until the entire Bitcoin blockchain is downloaded.

Your Apollo will automatically start downloading the Bitcoin blockchain in the background and in the mean-time you can start mining with a pool of your choice like Solo CK Pool or Public Pool or others.

Be forewarned that the Initial Blockchain Download (“IBD”) takes a long time. At the time of this writing, it took 18 days to download the entire blockchain using a Starlink internet connection, which was probably throttled at some points in the process because of the roughly 680 GB of data that it takes.

In February 2022, the IBD on this exact same device took 2 days with a cable internet connection. Maybe the Starlink was a bit of a bottleneck but most likely the extended length of the download can be attributed to all those JPEGS on the blockchain.

Otherwise, if you already have the full blockchain on your SSD then you should be able to start solo mining right away by selecting the solo mining option.

After making your selection, the Apollo will automatically run through some configurations and you should have the option to set a password somewhere in there along the way. Then you should see this page:

[IMG-016] Futurebit setup completion page

Click on the “Start mining” button. Then you should be brought to your dashboard like this:

[IMG-017] Futurebit dashboard

You can monitor your hashrate, temperatures, and more from the dashboard. You can check on the status of your Bitcoin node by clicking on the three-circle looking icon that says “node” on the left-hand side menu.

[IMG-018] Futurebit node page

If you need to update the mining pool, click on the “settings” option at the bottom of the left-hand side menu. There you will see a drop down menu for selecting a pool to use, you can select the “setup custom pool” option to insert the appropriate stratum URL and then your worker name.

Once your IBD is finished, you can start solo mining by toggling on the solo mode at the bottom of the settings page. You will have a chance to update the Bitcoin address you want to mine to. Then click on “save & restart”.

[IMG-019] Futurebit mining pool settings

Then once your system comes back up, you will see a banner at the top of the dashboard page with the IP address you can use to point any other miners you have, like Bitaxes, to your own self-hosted solo mining pool!

[IMG-020] Futurebit solo mining dashboard

Now just sit back and enjoy watching your best shares roll in until you get one higher than the network difficulty and you mine that solo block.

State of the Network:

Hashrate on the 14-day MA according to mempool.space increased from ~793 Eh/s to ~829 Eh/s in March, marking ~4.5% growth for the month.

[IMG-021] 2025 hashrate/difficulty chart from mempool.space

Difficulty was 110.57T at it’s lowest in March and 113.76T at it’s highest, which is a 2.8% increase for the month. All together for 2025 up until the end of March, difficulty has gone up ~3.6%.

According to the Hashrate Index, more efficient miners like the <19 J/Th models are fetching $17.29 per terahash, models between 19J/Th – 25J/Th are selling for $11.05 per terahash, and models >25J/Th are selling for $3.20 per terahash. Overall, prices seem to have dropped slightly over the month of March. You can expect to pay roughly $4,000 for a new-gen miner with 230+ Th/s.

[IMG-022] Miner Prices from Luxor’s Hashrate Index

Hashvalue is closed out in March at ~56,000 sats/Ph per day, relatively flat from Frebruary, according to Braiins Insights. Hashprice is $46.00/Ph per day, down from $47.00/Ph per day in February.

[IMG-023] Hashprice/Hashvalue from Braiins Insights

The next halving will occur at block height 1,050,000 which should be in roughly 1,071 days or in other words ~156,850 blocks from time of publishing this newsletter.

Conclusion:

Thank you for reading the third 256 Foundation newsletter. Keep an eye out for more newsletters on a monthly basis in your email inbox by subscribing at 256foundation.org. Or you can download .pdf versions of the newsletters from there as well. You can also find these newsletters published in article form on Nostr.

If you haven’t done so already, be sure to RSVP for the Texas Energy & Mining Summit (“TEMS”) in Austin, Texas on May 6 & 7 for two days of the highest Bitcoin mining and energy signal in the industry, set in the intimate Bitcoin Commons, so you can meet and mingle with the best and brightest movers and shakers in the space.

While you’re at it, extend your stay and spend Cinco De Mayo with The 256 Foundation at our second fundraiser, Telehash #2. Everything is bigger in Texas, so set your expectations high for this one. All of the lead developers from the grant projects will be present to talk first-hand about how to dismantle the proprietary mining empire.

IMG-024] TEMS 2025 flyer

If you have an old Apollo I laying around and want to get it up to date and solo mining then hopefully this newsletter helped you accomplish that.

[IMG-026] FREE SAMOURAI

If you want to continue seeing developers build free and open solutions be sure to support the Samourai Wallet developers by making a tax-deductible contribution to their legal defense fund here. The first step in ensuring a future of free and open Bitcoin development starts with freeing these developers.

You can just FAFO,

-econoalchemist

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Spanien bleibt einer der Vorreiter im europäischen Prozess der totalen Überwachung per Digitalisierung. Seit Mittwoch ist dort der digitale Personalausweis verfügbar. Dabei handelt es sich um eine Regierungs-App, die auf dem Smartphone installiert werden muss und in den Stores von Google und Apple zu finden ist. Per Dekret von Regierungschef Pedro Sánchez und Zustimmung des Ministerrats ist diese Maßnahme jetzt in Kraft getreten.

Mit den üblichen Argumenten der Vereinfachung, des Komforts, der Effizienz und der Sicherheit preist das Innenministerium die «Innovation» an. Auch die Beteuerung, dass die digitale Variante parallel zum physischen Ausweis existieren wird und diesen nicht ersetzen soll, fehlt nicht. Während der ersten zwölf Monate wird «der Neue» noch nicht für alle Anwendungsfälle gültig sein, ab 2026 aber schon.

Dass die ganze Sache auch «Risiken und Nebenwirkungen» haben könnte, wird in den Mainstream-Medien eher selten thematisiert. Bestenfalls wird der Aspekt der Datensicherheit angesprochen, allerdings in der Regel direkt mit dem Regierungsvokabular von den «maximalen Sicherheitsgarantien» abgehandelt. Dennoch gibt es einige weitere Aspekte, die Bürger mit etwas Sinn für Privatsphäre bedenken sollten.

Um sich die digitale Version des nationalen Ausweises besorgen zu können (eine App mit dem Namen MiDNI), muss man sich vorab online registrieren. Dabei wird die Identität des Bürgers mit seiner mobilen Telefonnummer verknüpft. Diese obligatorische fixe Verdrahtung kennen wir von diversen anderen Apps und Diensten. Gleichzeitig ist das die Basis für eine perfekte Lokalisierbarkeit der Person.

Für jeden Vorgang der Identifikation in der Praxis wird später «eine Verbindung zu den Servern der Bundespolizei aufgebaut». Die Daten des Individuums werden «in Echtzeit» verifiziert und im Erfolgsfall von der Polizei signiert zurückgegeben. Das Ergebnis ist ein QR-Code mit zeitlich begrenzter Gültigkeit, der an Dritte weitergegeben werden kann.

Bei derartigen Szenarien sträuben sich einem halbwegs kritischen Staatsbürger die Nackenhaare. Allein diese minimale Funktionsbeschreibung lässt die totale Überwachung erkennen, die damit ermöglicht wird. Jede Benutzung des Ausweises wird künftig registriert, hinterlässt also Spuren. Und was ist, wenn die Server der Polizei einmal kein grünes Licht geben? Das wäre spätestens dann ein Problem, wenn der digitale doch irgendwann der einzig gültige Ausweis ist: Dann haben wir den abschaltbaren Bürger.

Dieser neue Vorstoß der Regierung von Pedro Sánchez ist ein weiterer Schritt in Richtung der «totalen Digitalisierung» des Landes, wie diese Politik in manchen Medien – nicht einmal kritisch, sondern sehr naiv – genannt wird. Ebenso verharmlosend wird auch erwähnt, dass sich das spanische Projekt des digitalen Ausweises nahtlos in die Initiativen der EU zu einer digitalen Identität für alle Bürger sowie des digitalen Euro einreiht.

In Zukunft könnte der neue Ausweis «auch in andere staatliche und private digitale Plattformen integriert werden», wie das Medienportal Cope ganz richtig bemerkt. Das ist die Perspektive.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

Dazu passend:

Nur Abschied vom Alleinfahren? Monströse spanische Überwachungsprojekte gemäß EU-Norm

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben und ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 6f6b50bb:a848e5a1

Che cosa significherebbe trattare l'IA come uno strumento invece che come una persona?

Dall’avvio di ChatGPT, le esplorazioni in due direzioni hanno preso velocità.

La prima direzione riguarda le capacità tecniche. Quanto grande possiamo addestrare un modello? Quanto bene può rispondere alle domande del SAT? Con quanta efficienza possiamo distribuirlo?

La seconda direzione riguarda il design dell’interazione. Come comunichiamo con un modello? Come possiamo usarlo per un lavoro utile? Quale metafora usiamo per ragionare su di esso?

La prima direzione è ampiamente seguita e enormemente finanziata, e per una buona ragione: i progressi nelle capacità tecniche sono alla base di ogni possibile applicazione. Ma la seconda è altrettanto cruciale per il campo e ha enormi incognite. Siamo solo a pochi anni dall’inizio dell’era dei grandi modelli. Quali sono le probabilità che abbiamo già capito i modi migliori per usarli?

Propongo una nuova modalità di interazione, in cui i modelli svolgano il ruolo di applicazioni informatiche (ad esempio app per telefoni): fornendo un’interfaccia grafica, interpretando gli input degli utenti e aggiornando il loro stato. In questa modalità, invece di essere un “agente” che utilizza un computer per conto dell’essere umano, l’IA può fornire un ambiente informatico più ricco e potente che possiamo utilizzare.

Metafore per l’interazione

Al centro di un’interazione c’è una metafora che guida le aspettative di un utente su un sistema. I primi giorni dell’informatica hanno preso metafore come “scrivanie”, “macchine da scrivere”, “fogli di calcolo” e “lettere” e le hanno trasformate in equivalenti digitali, permettendo all’utente di ragionare sul loro comportamento. Puoi lasciare qualcosa sulla tua scrivania e tornare a prenderlo; hai bisogno di un indirizzo per inviare una lettera. Man mano che abbiamo sviluppato una conoscenza culturale di questi dispositivi, la necessità di queste particolari metafore è scomparsa, e con esse i design di interfaccia skeumorfici che le rafforzavano. Come un cestino o una matita, un computer è ora una metafora di se stesso.

La metafora dominante per i grandi modelli oggi è modello-come-persona. Questa è una metafora efficace perché le persone hanno capacità estese che conosciamo intuitivamente. Implica che possiamo avere una conversazione con un modello e porgli domande; che il modello possa collaborare con noi su un documento o un pezzo di codice; che possiamo assegnargli un compito da svolgere da solo e che tornerà quando sarà finito.

Tuttavia, trattare un modello come una persona limita profondamente il nostro modo di pensare all’interazione con esso. Le interazioni umane sono intrinsecamente lente e lineari, limitate dalla larghezza di banda e dalla natura a turni della comunicazione verbale. Come abbiamo tutti sperimentato, comunicare idee complesse in una conversazione è difficile e dispersivo. Quando vogliamo precisione, ci rivolgiamo invece a strumenti, utilizzando manipolazioni dirette e interfacce visive ad alta larghezza di banda per creare diagrammi, scrivere codice e progettare modelli CAD. Poiché concepiamo i modelli come persone, li utilizziamo attraverso conversazioni lente, anche se sono perfettamente in grado di accettare input diretti e rapidi e di produrre risultati visivi. Le metafore che utilizziamo limitano le esperienze che costruiamo, e la metafora modello-come-persona ci impedisce di esplorare il pieno potenziale dei grandi modelli.

Per molti casi d’uso, e specialmente per il lavoro produttivo, credo che il futuro risieda in un’altra metafora: modello-come-computer.

Usare un’IA come un computer

Sotto la metafora modello-come-computer, interagiremo con i grandi modelli seguendo le intuizioni che abbiamo sulle applicazioni informatiche (sia su desktop, tablet o telefono). Nota che ciò non significa che il modello sarà un’app tradizionale più di quanto il desktop di Windows fosse una scrivania letterale. “Applicazione informatica” sarà un modo per un modello di rappresentarsi a noi. Invece di agire come una persona, il modello agirà come un computer.

Agire come un computer significa produrre un’interfaccia grafica. Al posto del flusso lineare di testo in stile telescrivente fornito da ChatGPT, un sistema modello-come-computer genererà qualcosa che somiglia all’interfaccia di un’applicazione moderna: pulsanti, cursori, schede, immagini, grafici e tutto il resto. Questo affronta limitazioni chiave dell’interfaccia di chat standard modello-come-persona:

• Scoperta. Un buon strumento suggerisce i suoi usi. Quando l’unica interfaccia è una casella di testo vuota, spetta all’utente capire cosa fare e comprendere i limiti del sistema. La barra laterale Modifica in Lightroom è un ottimo modo per imparare l’editing fotografico perché non si limita a dirti cosa può fare questa applicazione con una foto, ma cosa potresti voler fare. Allo stesso modo, un’interfaccia modello-come-computer per DALL-E potrebbe mostrare nuove possibilità per le tue generazioni di immagini.

• Efficienza. La manipolazione diretta è più rapida che scrivere una richiesta a parole. Per continuare l’esempio di Lightroom, sarebbe impensabile modificare una foto dicendo a una persona quali cursori spostare e di quanto. Ci vorrebbe un giorno intero per chiedere un’esposizione leggermente più bassa e una vibranza leggermente più alta, solo per vedere come apparirebbe. Nella metafora modello-come-computer, il modello può creare strumenti che ti permettono di comunicare ciò che vuoi più efficientemente e quindi di fare le cose più rapidamente.

A differenza di un’app tradizionale, questa interfaccia grafica è generata dal modello su richiesta. Questo significa che ogni parte dell’interfaccia che vedi è rilevante per ciò che stai facendo in quel momento, inclusi i contenuti specifici del tuo lavoro. Significa anche che, se desideri un’interfaccia più ampia o diversa, puoi semplicemente richiederla. Potresti chiedere a DALL-E di produrre alcuni preset modificabili per le sue impostazioni ispirati da famosi artisti di schizzi. Quando clicchi sul preset Leonardo da Vinci, imposta i cursori per disegni prospettici altamente dettagliati in inchiostro nero. Se clicchi su Charles Schulz, seleziona fumetti tecnicolor 2D a basso dettaglio.

Una bicicletta della mente proteiforme

La metafora modello-come-persona ha una curiosa tendenza a creare distanza tra l’utente e il modello, rispecchiando il divario di comunicazione tra due persone che può essere ridotto ma mai completamente colmato. A causa della difficoltà e del costo di comunicare a parole, le persone tendono a suddividere i compiti tra loro in blocchi grandi e il più indipendenti possibile. Le interfacce modello-come-persona seguono questo schema: non vale la pena dire a un modello di aggiungere un return statement alla tua funzione quando è più veloce scriverlo da solo. Con il sovraccarico della comunicazione, i sistemi modello-come-persona sono più utili quando possono fare un intero blocco di lavoro da soli. Fanno le cose per te.

Questo contrasta con il modo in cui interagiamo con i computer o altri strumenti. Gli strumenti producono feedback visivi in tempo reale e sono controllati attraverso manipolazioni dirette. Hanno un overhead comunicativo così basso che non è necessario specificare un blocco di lavoro indipendente. Ha più senso mantenere l’umano nel loop e dirigere lo strumento momento per momento. Come stivali delle sette leghe, gli strumenti ti permettono di andare più lontano a ogni passo, ma sei ancora tu a fare il lavoro. Ti permettono di fare le cose più velocemente.

Considera il compito di costruire un sito web usando un grande modello. Con le interfacce di oggi, potresti trattare il modello come un appaltatore o un collaboratore. Cercheresti di scrivere a parole il più possibile su come vuoi che il sito appaia, cosa vuoi che dica e quali funzionalità vuoi che abbia. Il modello genererebbe una prima bozza, tu la eseguirai e poi fornirai un feedback. “Fai il logo un po’ più grande”, diresti, e “centra quella prima immagine principale”, e “deve esserci un pulsante di login nell’intestazione”. Per ottenere esattamente ciò che vuoi, invierai una lista molto lunga di richieste sempre più minuziose.

Un’interazione alternativa modello-come-computer sarebbe diversa: invece di costruire il sito web, il modello genererebbe un’interfaccia per te per costruirlo, dove ogni input dell’utente a quell’interfaccia interroga il grande modello sotto il cofano. Forse quando descrivi le tue necessità creerebbe un’interfaccia con una barra laterale e una finestra di anteprima. All’inizio la barra laterale contiene solo alcuni schizzi di layout che puoi scegliere come punto di partenza. Puoi cliccare su ciascuno di essi, e il modello scrive l’HTML per una pagina web usando quel layout e lo visualizza nella finestra di anteprima. Ora che hai una pagina su cui lavorare, la barra laterale guadagna opzioni aggiuntive che influenzano la pagina globalmente, come accoppiamenti di font e schemi di colore. L’anteprima funge da editor WYSIWYG, permettendoti di afferrare elementi e spostarli, modificarne i contenuti, ecc. A supportare tutto ciò è il modello, che vede queste azioni dell’utente e riscrive la pagina per corrispondere ai cambiamenti effettuati. Poiché il modello può generare un’interfaccia per aiutare te e lui a comunicare più efficientemente, puoi esercitare più controllo sul prodotto finale in meno tempo.

La metafora modello-come-computer ci incoraggia a pensare al modello come a uno strumento con cui interagire in tempo reale piuttosto che a un collaboratore a cui assegnare compiti. Invece di sostituire un tirocinante o un tutor, può essere una sorta di bicicletta proteiforme per la mente, una che è sempre costruita su misura esattamente per te e il terreno che intendi attraversare.

Un nuovo paradigma per l’informatica?

I modelli che possono generare interfacce su richiesta sono una frontiera completamente nuova nell’informatica. Potrebbero essere un paradigma del tutto nuovo, con il modo in cui cortocircuitano il modello di applicazione esistente. Dare agli utenti finali il potere di creare e modificare app al volo cambia fondamentalmente il modo in cui interagiamo con i computer. Al posto di una singola applicazione statica costruita da uno sviluppatore, un modello genererà un’applicazione su misura per l’utente e le sue esigenze immediate. Al posto della logica aziendale implementata nel codice, il modello interpreterà gli input dell’utente e aggiornerà l’interfaccia utente. È persino possibile che questo tipo di interfaccia generativa sostituisca completamente il sistema operativo, generando e gestendo interfacce e finestre al volo secondo necessità.

All’inizio, l’interfaccia generativa sarà un giocattolo, utile solo per l’esplorazione creativa e poche altre applicazioni di nicchia. Dopotutto, nessuno vorrebbe un’app di posta elettronica che occasionalmente invia email al tuo ex e mente sulla tua casella di posta. Ma gradualmente i modelli miglioreranno. Anche mentre si spingeranno ulteriormente nello spazio di esperienze completamente nuove, diventeranno lentamente abbastanza affidabili da essere utilizzati per un lavoro reale.

Piccoli pezzi di questo futuro esistono già. Anni fa Jonas Degrave ha dimostrato che ChatGPT poteva fare una buona simulazione di una riga di comando Linux. Allo stesso modo, websim.ai utilizza un LLM per generare siti web su richiesta mentre li navighi. Oasis, GameNGen e DIAMOND addestrano modelli video condizionati sull’azione su singoli videogiochi, permettendoti di giocare ad esempio a Doom dentro un grande modello. E Genie 2 genera videogiochi giocabili da prompt testuali. L’interfaccia generativa potrebbe ancora sembrare un’idea folle, ma non è così folle.

Ci sono enormi domande aperte su come apparirà tutto questo. Dove sarà inizialmente utile l’interfaccia generativa? Come condivideremo e distribuiremo le esperienze che creiamo collaborando con il modello, se esistono solo come contesto di un grande modello? Vorremmo davvero farlo? Quali nuovi tipi di esperienze saranno possibili? Come funzionerà tutto questo in pratica? I modelli genereranno interfacce come codice o produrranno direttamente pixel grezzi?

Non conosco ancora queste risposte. Dovremo sperimentare e scoprirlo!Che cosa significherebbe trattare l'IA come uno strumento invece che come una persona?

Dall’avvio di ChatGPT, le esplorazioni in due direzioni hanno preso velocità.

La prima direzione riguarda le capacità tecniche. Quanto grande possiamo addestrare un modello? Quanto bene può rispondere alle domande del SAT? Con quanta efficienza possiamo distribuirlo?

La seconda direzione riguarda il design dell’interazione. Come comunichiamo con un modello? Come possiamo usarlo per un lavoro utile? Quale metafora usiamo per ragionare su di esso?

La prima direzione è ampiamente seguita e enormemente finanziata, e per una buona ragione: i progressi nelle capacità tecniche sono alla base di ogni possibile applicazione. Ma la seconda è altrettanto cruciale per il campo e ha enormi incognite. Siamo solo a pochi anni dall’inizio dell’era dei grandi modelli. Quali sono le probabilità che abbiamo già capito i modi migliori per usarli?

Propongo una nuova modalità di interazione, in cui i modelli svolgano il ruolo di applicazioni informatiche (ad esempio app per telefoni): fornendo un’interfaccia grafica, interpretando gli input degli utenti e aggiornando il loro stato. In questa modalità, invece di essere un “agente” che utilizza un computer per conto dell’essere umano, l’IA può fornire un ambiente informatico più ricco e potente che possiamo utilizzare.

Metafore per l’interazione

Al centro di un’interazione c’è una metafora che guida le aspettative di un utente su un sistema. I primi giorni dell’informatica hanno preso metafore come “scrivanie”, “macchine da scrivere”, “fogli di calcolo” e “lettere” e le hanno trasformate in equivalenti digitali, permettendo all’utente di ragionare sul loro comportamento. Puoi lasciare qualcosa sulla tua scrivania e tornare a prenderlo; hai bisogno di un indirizzo per inviare una lettera. Man mano che abbiamo sviluppato una conoscenza culturale di questi dispositivi, la necessità di queste particolari metafore è scomparsa, e con esse i design di interfaccia skeumorfici che le rafforzavano. Come un cestino o una matita, un computer è ora una metafora di se stesso.

La metafora dominante per i grandi modelli oggi è modello-come-persona. Questa è una metafora efficace perché le persone hanno capacità estese che conosciamo intuitivamente. Implica che possiamo avere una conversazione con un modello e porgli domande; che il modello possa collaborare con noi su un documento o un pezzo di codice; che possiamo assegnargli un compito da svolgere da solo e che tornerà quando sarà finito.

Tuttavia, trattare un modello come una persona limita profondamente il nostro modo di pensare all’interazione con esso. Le interazioni umane sono intrinsecamente lente e lineari, limitate dalla larghezza di banda e dalla natura a turni della comunicazione verbale. Come abbiamo tutti sperimentato, comunicare idee complesse in una conversazione è difficile e dispersivo. Quando vogliamo precisione, ci rivolgiamo invece a strumenti, utilizzando manipolazioni dirette e interfacce visive ad alta larghezza di banda per creare diagrammi, scrivere codice e progettare modelli CAD. Poiché concepiamo i modelli come persone, li utilizziamo attraverso conversazioni lente, anche se sono perfettamente in grado di accettare input diretti e rapidi e di produrre risultati visivi. Le metafore che utilizziamo limitano le esperienze che costruiamo, e la metafora modello-come-persona ci impedisce di esplorare il pieno potenziale dei grandi modelli.

Per molti casi d’uso, e specialmente per il lavoro produttivo, credo che il futuro risieda in un’altra metafora: modello-come-computer.

Usare un’IA come un computer

Sotto la metafora modello-come-computer, interagiremo con i grandi modelli seguendo le intuizioni che abbiamo sulle applicazioni informatiche (sia su desktop, tablet o telefono). Nota che ciò non significa che il modello sarà un’app tradizionale più di quanto il desktop di Windows fosse una scrivania letterale. “Applicazione informatica” sarà un modo per un modello di rappresentarsi a noi. Invece di agire come una persona, il modello agirà come un computer.

Agire come un computer significa produrre un’interfaccia grafica. Al posto del flusso lineare di testo in stile telescrivente fornito da ChatGPT, un sistema modello-come-computer genererà qualcosa che somiglia all’interfaccia di un’applicazione moderna: pulsanti, cursori, schede, immagini, grafici e tutto il resto. Questo affronta limitazioni chiave dell’interfaccia di chat standard modello-come-persona:

Scoperta. Un buon strumento suggerisce i suoi usi. Quando l’unica interfaccia è una casella di testo vuota, spetta all’utente capire cosa fare e comprendere i limiti del sistema. La barra laterale Modifica in Lightroom è un ottimo modo per imparare l’editing fotografico perché non si limita a dirti cosa può fare questa applicazione con una foto, ma cosa potresti voler fare. Allo stesso modo, un’interfaccia modello-come-computer per DALL-E potrebbe mostrare nuove possibilità per le tue generazioni di immagini.

Efficienza. La manipolazione diretta è più rapida che scrivere una richiesta a parole. Per continuare l’esempio di Lightroom, sarebbe impensabile modificare una foto dicendo a una persona quali cursori spostare e di quanto. Ci vorrebbe un giorno intero per chiedere un’esposizione leggermente più bassa e una vibranza leggermente più alta, solo per vedere come apparirebbe. Nella metafora modello-come-computer, il modello può creare strumenti che ti permettono di comunicare ciò che vuoi più efficientemente e quindi di fare le cose più rapidamente.

A differenza di un’app tradizionale, questa interfaccia grafica è generata dal modello su richiesta. Questo significa che ogni parte dell’interfaccia che vedi è rilevante per ciò che stai facendo in quel momento, inclusi i contenuti specifici del tuo lavoro. Significa anche che, se desideri un’interfaccia più ampia o diversa, puoi semplicemente richiederla. Potresti chiedere a DALL-E di produrre alcuni preset modificabili per le sue impostazioni ispirati da famosi artisti di schizzi. Quando clicchi sul preset Leonardo da Vinci, imposta i cursori per disegni prospettici altamente dettagliati in inchiostro nero. Se clicchi su Charles Schulz, seleziona fumetti tecnicolor 2D a basso dettaglio.

Una bicicletta della mente proteiforme

La metafora modello-come-persona ha una curiosa tendenza a creare distanza tra l’utente e il modello, rispecchiando il divario di comunicazione tra due persone che può essere ridotto ma mai completamente colmato. A causa della difficoltà e del costo di comunicare a parole, le persone tendono a suddividere i compiti tra loro in blocchi grandi e il più indipendenti possibile. Le interfacce modello-come-persona seguono questo schema: non vale la pena dire a un modello di aggiungere un return statement alla tua funzione quando è più veloce scriverlo da solo. Con il sovraccarico della comunicazione, i sistemi modello-come-persona sono più utili quando possono fare un intero blocco di lavoro da soli. Fanno le cose per te.

Questo contrasta con il modo in cui interagiamo con i computer o altri strumenti. Gli strumenti producono feedback visivi in tempo reale e sono controllati attraverso manipolazioni dirette. Hanno un overhead comunicativo così basso che non è necessario specificare un blocco di lavoro indipendente. Ha più senso mantenere l’umano nel loop e dirigere lo strumento momento per momento. Come stivali delle sette leghe, gli strumenti ti permettono di andare più lontano a ogni passo, ma sei ancora tu a fare il lavoro. Ti permettono di fare le cose più velocemente.

Considera il compito di costruire un sito web usando un grande modello. Con le interfacce di oggi, potresti trattare il modello come un appaltatore o un collaboratore. Cercheresti di scrivere a parole il più possibile su come vuoi che il sito appaia, cosa vuoi che dica e quali funzionalità vuoi che abbia. Il modello genererebbe una prima bozza, tu la eseguirai e poi fornirai un feedback. “Fai il logo un po’ più grande”, diresti, e “centra quella prima immagine principale”, e “deve esserci un pulsante di login nell’intestazione”. Per ottenere esattamente ciò che vuoi, invierai una lista molto lunga di richieste sempre più minuziose.

Un’interazione alternativa modello-come-computer sarebbe diversa: invece di costruire il sito web, il modello genererebbe un’interfaccia per te per costruirlo, dove ogni input dell’utente a quell’interfaccia interroga il grande modello sotto il cofano. Forse quando descrivi le tue necessità creerebbe un’interfaccia con una barra laterale e una finestra di anteprima. All’inizio la barra laterale contiene solo alcuni schizzi di layout che puoi scegliere come punto di partenza. Puoi cliccare su ciascuno di essi, e il modello scrive l’HTML per una pagina web usando quel layout e lo visualizza nella finestra di anteprima. Ora che hai una pagina su cui lavorare, la barra laterale guadagna opzioni aggiuntive che influenzano la pagina globalmente, come accoppiamenti di font e schemi di colore. L’anteprima funge da editor WYSIWYG, permettendoti di afferrare elementi e spostarli, modificarne i contenuti, ecc. A supportare tutto ciò è il modello, che vede queste azioni dell’utente e riscrive la pagina per corrispondere ai cambiamenti effettuati. Poiché il modello può generare un’interfaccia per aiutare te e lui a comunicare più efficientemente, puoi esercitare più controllo sul prodotto finale in meno tempo.

La metafora modello-come-computer ci incoraggia a pensare al modello come a uno strumento con cui interagire in tempo reale piuttosto che a un collaboratore a cui assegnare compiti. Invece di sostituire un tirocinante o un tutor, può essere una sorta di bicicletta proteiforme per la mente, una che è sempre costruita su misura esattamente per te e il terreno che intendi attraversare.

Un nuovo paradigma per l’informatica?

I modelli che possono generare interfacce su richiesta sono una frontiera completamente nuova nell’informatica. Potrebbero essere un paradigma del tutto nuovo, con il modo in cui cortocircuitano il modello di applicazione esistente. Dare agli utenti finali il potere di creare e modificare app al volo cambia fondamentalmente il modo in cui interagiamo con i computer. Al posto di una singola applicazione statica costruita da uno sviluppatore, un modello genererà un’applicazione su misura per l’utente e le sue esigenze immediate. Al posto della logica aziendale implementata nel codice, il modello interpreterà gli input dell’utente e aggiornerà l’interfaccia utente. È persino possibile che questo tipo di interfaccia generativa sostituisca completamente il sistema operativo, generando e gestendo interfacce e finestre al volo secondo necessità.

All’inizio, l’interfaccia generativa sarà un giocattolo, utile solo per l’esplorazione creativa e poche altre applicazioni di nicchia. Dopotutto, nessuno vorrebbe un’app di posta elettronica che occasionalmente invia email al tuo ex e mente sulla tua casella di posta. Ma gradualmente i modelli miglioreranno. Anche mentre si spingeranno ulteriormente nello spazio di esperienze completamente nuove, diventeranno lentamente abbastanza affidabili da essere utilizzati per un lavoro reale.

Piccoli pezzi di questo futuro esistono già. Anni fa Jonas Degrave ha dimostrato che ChatGPT poteva fare una buona simulazione di una riga di comando Linux. Allo stesso modo, websim.ai utilizza un LLM per generare siti web su richiesta mentre li navighi. Oasis, GameNGen e DIAMOND addestrano modelli video condizionati sull’azione su singoli videogiochi, permettendoti di giocare ad esempio a Doom dentro un grande modello. E Genie 2 genera videogiochi giocabili da prompt testuali. L’interfaccia generativa potrebbe ancora sembrare un’idea folle, ma non è così folle.

Ci sono enormi domande aperte su come apparirà tutto questo. Dove sarà inizialmente utile l’interfaccia generativa? Come condivideremo e distribuiremo le esperienze che creiamo collaborando con il modello, se esistono solo come contesto di un grande modello? Vorremmo davvero farlo? Quali nuovi tipi di esperienze saranno possibili? Come funzionerà tutto questo in pratica? I modelli genereranno interfacce come codice o produrranno direttamente pixel grezzi?

Non conosco ancora queste risposte. Dovremo sperimentare e scoprirlo!

Tradotto da:\ https://willwhitney.com/computing-inside-ai.htmlhttps://willwhitney.com/computing-inside-ai.html

@ 866e0139:6a9334e5

Autor: Lilly Gebert. Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben. Sie finden alle Texte der Friedenstaube und weitere Texte zum Thema Frieden hier. Die neuesten Pareto-Artikel finden Sie in unserem Telegram-Kanal.

---

Die neuesten Artikel der Friedenstaube gibt es jetzt auch im eigenen Friedenstaube-Telegram-Kanal.

---

Wie fühlst Du dich, nachdem Du mit deinem Partner oder deiner Partnerin, oder sonst einem Menschen geschlafen hast – nachdem der Drang und die Erregung ein Ende gefunden haben? Gut – oder schlecht? Befriedigt – oder unbefriedigt? Verbunden – oder getrennt? Erfüllt – oder leer? Was geht dir durch den Kopf? Warum überhaupt geht dir irgendetwas durch den Kopf? Warum bleibst Du dich nicht in deinem Körper – in seiner noch anhaltenden Nähe zu dem Körper, mit dem Du gerade noch eins warst? Vielleicht weil Du dich davon ablenken möchtest, dass ihr gerade dies nicht wart? Dass ihr nicht «eins» wart; sondern zwei, die für einen Moment Druck abgelassen haben – ohne höheren Sinn und ohne tieferes Gefühl? Ist das der Grund, weswegen Du lieber in die Verklärungen deines Verstandes abdriftest, anstatt die gerade erlebte Verbindung noch etwas in deinem Körper nachklingen zu lassen? Ist das allgemein der Grund, weswegen Du lieber in Rationalitäten lebst? Um dir nicht eingestehen zu müssen, wie unverbunden Du wirklich bist? Wie unverbunden und allein, ohne tiefere Verbindung zu dir oder einem anderen Menschen? Ist es das? Ist es das, was Du einfach nicht wahrhaben kannst? Und weswegen Du lieber die Masse an Oberflächlichkeit suchst, um bloß nie in einer Beziehung zu enden, in der Du an deine eigene Unfähigkeit erinnert wirst, gerade dies zu sein – in Beziehung?

***

Vielleicht beginnt alle Trennung dieser Welt mit der Verwechslung von Sex und Nähe, Nähe und Liebe, als auch Liebe und Frieden. Du sehnst dich nach dem einen und jagst doch dem anderen hinterher. Wie kann das sein?

Liegt es daran, dass Du als Kind keine stabilen Beziehungen erfahren hast und diese aus dem Grund auch im Erwachsenenalter nicht leben kannst? Hast Du einst schlechte Erfahrungen mit Intimität und Nähe gemacht, aufgrund derer etwas in dir diese fortwährend verhindert, um dich zu «schützen»? Hältst Du dich selbst für nicht liebenswert und kannst deshalb auch im Außen keine Liebe annehmen? Oder hast Du Angst davor, durch die Nähe und Berührung eines anderen Menschen von etwas in dir selbst berührt zu werden, an dessen Existenz Du nicht erinnert werden möchtest?

Falls ja, warum gehst Du dann fortwährend «Beziehungen» zu anderen Menschen ein, bevor Du nicht die Beziehung zu dir selbst geklärt hast? Hast Du wirklich so sehr verlernt zu lieben und so weit vergessen, was Liebe ist, dass Du dich damit zufriedengibst? Ich glaube kaum. Und ich glaube, Du spürst das auch. Ganz tief in dir sehnt auch deine Seele sich nach einer Begegnung, in der Du nichts von dir zurückhalten musst. In der Du ganz, und damit ganz Du sein kannst.

Doch was machst Du stattdessen? Du unterdrückst diese Sehnsucht, verneinst deinen innersten Herzenswunsch nach Berührung, nach Nähe, nach Liebe. Und damit auch jedes Bedürfnis, was mit seinem ausbleibenden Ausdruck ebenfalls unterdrückt wird. Langsam, ganz langsam hörst Du auf, über deine Gefühle zu sprechen, Du hörst auf, deine Grenzen zu wahren, das zu machen, was dich dir selbst näherbringt. Auf diese Weise machst Du dich selbst nicht nur immer kleiner, Du entfernst dich auch zusehends von deiner eigenen Lebendigkeit – dem eigentlichen Schlüssel zu jeder Beziehung, die nicht von Besitz und Lustbefriedigung, sondern von Selbstsein und Nähe getragen wird.

Falsche Versprechen: Verbindung statt Symbiose

Erich Fromm war es, der mit seinem 1956 erschienenen und insgesamt über 25 Millionen Mal verkauften Werk «Die Kunst des Liebens» erstmals herausgearbeitet hat, wie zerstörerisch unsere moderne Konsumgesellschaft doch für die Art und Weise ist, wie wir Beziehungen eingehen. Nicht nur die untereinander und zu uns selbst, sondern auch die zu Tier und Natur. Liebe, so schreibt Fromm, ist allem voran eine Haltung des Seins, nicht des Habens. Es gehe nicht darum, den anderen zu besitzen oder von ihm in Besitz genommen zu werden. Nicht Verschmelzung sei das Ziel, sondern das Selbstsein mit, oder auch trotz, der anderen Person.

Ohne dieses Selbstsein, das durch den modernen Glauben, alles sei käuflich, insofern untergraben wurde, dass nun auch der Mensch und seine Beziehungen als Objekte betrachtet würden, gäbe es laut Fromm keine Nähe – und ohne Nähe keinen wahren Frieden. «Sexualität», so schreibt er, könne «ein Mittel sein, um die Isolation zu überwinden – aber sie kann auch ein Ersatz für Liebe sein.» Womit ich hinzufügen würde: Wie Sexualität ein Ersatz für Liebe sein kann, so werden heute Konsum, Sicherheit und Ablenkung zum Ersatz für wahren Frieden. Und gleich wie Nähe zur Illusion von Intimität werden kann, werden falsche Sicherheitsversprechen oft zur Maskerade des Friedens – einer Stille, die nichts heilt.

Das ist der Zustand unserer Zeit: Sexualität ersetzt Liebe, Waffen ersetzen Frieden. Doch genauso wie Sex in Wahrheit keine Liebe ersetzt, ersetzt auch ein Wettrüsten keinen Frieden. Beides täuscht Nähe und Sicherheit vor, wo eigentlich Distanz und Kälte herrschen. Von ihnen eingenommen, hältst Du die Liebe, die dein Körper imitiert, für echt, und die äußere Ordnung, die dir simuliert wird, für den Frieden, von dem Du glauben, Du würdest ihn in dir tragen. Dabei bleibt beides leer, wenn dein Herz nicht mitgeht. Da ist weder Ordnung im Außen, noch Frieden in deinem Innern. Was herrscht, ist Krieg. Innen wie außen.

Wut im Innern, Krieg im Außen

Wer Nähe meidet, verlernt Frieden. Denn Frieden beginnt dort, wo Du aushältst, was ist. Nicht im Politischen, sondern in deiner eigenen Gerichtskammer: dem Austarieren und Verhandeln der eigenen Gefühle und Bedürfnisse – dem Eingeständnis, dass am Ende nicht der Sex das Problem ist, sondern dein Umgang mit Nähe; deine Unfähigkeit, mit dir selbst in Frieden zu sein – und dies darum auch mit dem Rest der Welt nicht bist. Nenn’ es Karma, das Gesetz der Anziehung oder eine traumatische Rückkopplungsschleife; aber wo immer Du diesen Blick nicht vom Außen zurück auf das Minenfeld in dir wendest, wird sich sein Krieg solange fortsetzen, bis Du der Wut, die mit ihm in dir hochkocht, Dampf verschaffst. Ob auf konstruktive oder destruktive Weise hängt davon ab, wie früh Du sie als das erkennst, woraus sie sich speist: deine unterdrückten Gefühle.

«Das grundsätzliche Ausweichen vor dem Wesentlichen ist das Problem des Menschen.» – Wilhelm Reich

In dieser Hinsicht noch radikaler als Fromm ging Wilhelm Reich vor. Als Schüler Sigmund Freuds sah er sexuelle Unterdrückung als Wurzel aller gesellschaftlichen Gewalt. Nur wer sexuell befreit sei – im Sinne von energetisch gelöst und beziehungsfähig – könne inneren Frieden erfahren. Ginge es nach Reich, so hängt gesellschaftlicher Frieden unmittelbar davon ab, wie weit es uns gelingt, uns körperlich zu entpanzern und emotional zu öffnen. Womit sein Ansatz in der Idee gipfelte, dass die gesellschaftliche Ordnung nicht durch äußere Gesetze, sondern durch die innere Struktur des Einzelnen geprägt wird. Diametral zu Marx, demzufolge es nicht das Bewusstsein der Menschen sei, das ihr Sein bestimmt, sondern umgekehrt ihr gesellschaftliches Sein, das ihr Bewusstsein bestimmt, beschrieb Reich also, wie emotionale Blockaden im Körper verankert seien und sich dort als chronische Spannungen manifestierten. Diese Panzerungen würden nicht nur freie Gefühlsäußerung verhindern, sondern stauten auch lebendige Energie an, was zu Aggression, Entfremdung und letztlich zu kollektiver Gewalt führen könne. Frieden, so Reich, beginne nicht in politischen Institutionen, sondern in der Fähigkeit des Einzelnen, Angst und Abwehr abzubauen, sich selbst zu spüren – und andere nicht als Bedrohung, sondern als lebendige Gegenüber wahrzunehmen.

Warum wir dies scheinbar nicht mehr können, warum aber kein Weg daran vorbeiführt, über den Frieden in uns heilsame Beziehungen einzugehen, wollen wir den Frieden auch außerhalb von uns – in der Welt, folgt im zweiten Teil dieses Texts.

---

Lilly Gebert betreibt den Substack-Blog "Treffpunkt im Unendlichen" und schreibt regelmäßig für "die Freien" und Manova. Zuletzt erschien von ihr "Das Gewicht der Welt". Im Herbst erscheint "Sein statt Haben. Enzyklopädie für eine neue Zeit." (vorbestellbar).

---

LASSEN SIE DER FRIEDENSTAUBE FLÜGEL WACHSEN!

Hier können Sie die Friedenstaube abonnieren und bekommen die Artikel zugesandt.

Schon jetzt können Sie uns unterstützen:

• Für 50 CHF/EURO bekommen Sie ein Jahresabo der Friedenstaube.
• Für 120 CHF/EURO bekommen Sie ein Jahresabo und ein T-Shirt/Hoodie mit der Friedenstaube.
• Für 500 CHF/EURO werden Sie Förderer und bekommen ein lebenslanges Abo sowie ein T-Shirt/Hoodie mit der Friedenstaube.
• Ab 1000 CHF werden Sie Genossenschafter der Friedenstaube mit Stimmrecht (und bekommen lebenslanges Abo, T-Shirt/Hoodie).

Für Einzahlungen in CHF (Betreff: Friedenstaube):

Für Einzahlungen in Euro:

Milosz Matuschek

IBAN DE 53710520500000814137

BYLADEM1TST

Sparkasse Traunstein-Trostberg

Betreff: Friedenstaube

Wenn Sie auf anderem Wege beitragen wollen, schreiben Sie die Friedenstaube an: friedenstaube@pareto.space

---

Sie sind noch nicht auf Nostr and wollen die volle Erfahrung machen (liken, kommentieren etc.)? Zappen können Sie den Autor auch ohne Nostr-Profil! Erstellen Sie sich einen Account auf Start. Weitere Onboarding-Leitfäden gibt es im Pareto-Wiki.

@ fd78c37f:a0ec0833

Bitcoin is redefining finance, and in Asia—Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, and beyond—developers, entrepreneurs, and communities are fueling this revolution. YakiHonne, a decentralized social payments app built on Nostr, sat down with Gio (nostr:npub1yrnuj56rnen08zp2h9h7p74ghgjx6ma39spmpj6w9hzxywutevsst7k5cx), a core member of Thailand’s Sats ‘N’ Facts community, to explore their mission of fostering open-source Bitcoin development. In this interview, Gio shares the origins of Sats ‘N’ Facts, the challenges of hosting Bitcoin-focused events in Asia, and how these efforts are shaping adoption across the region.

---

YakiHonne: Can you tell us about yourself and how Sats ‘N’ Facts came to life? What sparked your Bitcoin journey?

Gio: I’m originally from Europe but have called Thailand home for six years. My Bitcoin story began while working at a commercial bank, where I saw the fiat system’s flaws firsthand—things like the Cantillon Effect, where money printing favors the connected few, felt deeply unfair. That discomfort led me to Andreas Antonopoulos’ videos, which opened my eyes to Bitcoin’s potential. After moving to Bangkok, I joined the open-source scene at BOB Space, collaborating with folks on tech projects.

Sats ‘N’ Facts grew out of that spirit. We wanted to create a Bitcoin-focused community to support developers and builders in Asia. Our recent conference in Chiang Mai brought together over 70 enthusiasts from Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, and beyond, sparking collaborations like a new Lightning Network tool. It was a milestone in connecting the region’s Bitcoin ecosystem.

---

YakiHonne: What inspired the Sats ‘N’ Facts conference, and how did you attract attendees?

Gio: The event was born from a desire to create a high-signal, low-noise space for Freedom Tech in Asia. While the U.S. and Europe host major Bitcoin events, Asia’s scene is still emerging under commercial stunts. We aimed to bridge that gap, uniting developers, educators, and enthusiasts to discuss real innovations—no altcoins, no corporate agendas. Our focus was on open-source projects like Bitcoin Core, Ark, Cashu, fostering conversations that could lead to tangible contributions.

Attracting attendees wasn’t easy. We leveraged local networks, reaching out to Bitcoin communities in neighboring countries via Nostr and Telegram. Posts on X helped spread the word, and we saw developers from Laos join for the first time, which was thrilling. Sponsors like Fulgur Ventures, Utreexo, and the Bitcoin Development Kit Foundation played a huge role, covering costs so we could keep the event free and accessible.

---

YakiHonne: What challenges did you face organizing the conference in Asia?

Gio: It was a steep learning curve. Funding was the biggest hurdle—early on, we struggled to cover venue and travel costs. Thankfully, our sponsors stepped in, letting me focus on logistics, which were no small feat either. As a first-time organizer, I underestimated the chaos of a tight timeline. Day one felt like herding cats without a fixed agenda, but the energy was electric—developers debugging code together, newcomers asking big questions.

Another challenge was cultural. Bitcoin’s still niche in Asia, so convincing locals to attend took persistence; there was no local presence for some reason. Despite the hiccups, we pulled it off, hosting 60+ attendees and sparking ideas for new projects, like a Cashu wallet integration. I’d tweak the planning next time, but the raw passion made it unforgettable.

---

YakiHonne: How does YakiHonne’s vision of decentralized social payments align with Sats ‘N’ Facts’ goals? Could tools like ours support your community?

Gio: That’s a great question. YakiHonne’s approach—merging Nostr’s censorship-resistant communication with Lightning payments—fits perfectly with our mission to empower users through open tech. At Sats ‘N’ Facts, we’re all about tools that give people control, whether it’s code or money. An app like YakiHonne could streamline community funding, letting developers tip each other for contributions or crowdfund projects directly. Imagine a hackathon where winners get sats instantly via YakiHonne—it’d be a game-changer. I’d love to see you guys at our next event to demo it!

---

YakiHonne: What advice would you give to someone starting a Bitcoin-focused community or event?

Gio: First, keep it Bitcoin-only. Stay true to the principles—cut out distractions like altcoins or hype-driven schemes. Start small: host regular meetups, maybe five people at a café, and build trust over time. Consistency and authenticity beat flashiness in the medium and long term.

Second, involve technical folks. Developers bring credibility and clarity, explaining Bitcoin’s nuts and bolts in ways newcomers get. I admire how Andreas Antonopoulos bridges that gap—technical yet accessible. You need that foundation to grow a real community.

Finally, lean on existing networks. If you know someone running a Bitcoin meetup in another city, collaborate. Share ideas, speakers, or even livestreams. Nostr’s great for this—our Laos attendees found us through a single post. Relationships are everything.

---

YakiHonne: Does Sats ‘N’ Facts focus more on Bitcoin’s technical side, non-technical side, or both?

Gio: We blend both. Our event had workshops for coders alongside talks for beginners on why Bitcoin matters. Open-source is our heartbeat, though. If you’re starting out, dive into projects like Bitcoin Core or Lightning. Review a pull request, test a Cashu wallet, or join a hackathon. One developer at our event built a Lightning micropayment tool that’s now live on GitHub.

There’s no shortage of ways to contribute. Community calls, forums, residency programs, and platforms like Geyser Fund are goldmines. YakiHonne could amplify this—imagine tipping developers for bug fixes via your app. It’s about iterating until you create something real.

---

YakiHonne: Your work is inspiring, Gio. Sats ‘N’ Facts is uniting Asia’s Bitcoin communities in a powerful way. What’s next for you?

Gio: Thanks for the kind words! We’re just getting started. The Chiang Mai event showed what’s possible—connecting developers across borders, reviewing and launching code and testing upcoming technologies. Next, we’re planning smaller hackathons and other events to keep the momentum going, maybe in Vietnam, Indonesia or Korea. I’d love to integrate tools like YakiHonne to fund these efforts directly through Nostr payments. Long-term, we want Sats ‘N’ Facts to be a hub for Asia’s Bitcoin builders, proving open-source can thrive here.

---

YakiHonne: Thank you, Gio, for sharing Sats ‘N’ Facts incredible journey. Your work is lighting a path for Bitcoin in Asia, and we’re honored to tell this story.

To our readers: Bitcoin’s future depends on communities like Sats ‘N’ Facts—and you can join the revolution. Download YakiHonne on Nostr to connect with builders, send Lightning payments, and explore the decentralized world. Follow Sats ‘N’ Facts for their next hackathon, and let’s build freedom tech together!

@ e6817453:b0ac3c39

I started a long series of articles about how to model different types of knowledge graphs in the relational model, which makes on-device memory models for AI agents possible.

We model-directed graphs

Also, graphs of entities

We even model hypergraphs

Last time, we discussed why classical triple and simple knowledge graphs are insufficient for AI agents and complex memory, especially in the domain of time-aware or multi-model knowledge.

So why do we need metagraphs, and what kind of challenge could they help us to solve?

• complex and nested event and temporal context and temporal relations as edges
• multi-mode and multilingual knowledge
• human-like memory for AI agents that has multiple contexts and relations between knowledge in neuron-like networks

MetaGraphs

A meta graph is a concept that extends the idea of a graph by allowing edges to become graphs. Meta Edges connect a set of nodes, which could also be subgraphs. So, at some level, node and edge are pretty similar in properties but act in different roles in a different context.
Also, in some cases, edges could be referenced as nodes.
This approach enables the representation of more complex relationships and hierarchies than a traditional graph structure allows. Let’s break down each term to understand better metagraphs and how they differ from hypergraphs and graphs.

Graph Basics

• A standard graph has a set of nodes (or vertices) and edges (connections between nodes).
• Edges are generally simple and typically represent a binary relationship between two nodes.
• For instance, an edge in a social network graph might indicate a “friend” relationship between two people (nodes).

Hypergraph

• A hypergraph extends the concept of an edge by allowing it to connect any number of nodes, not just two.
• Each connection, called a hyperedge, can link multiple nodes.
• This feature allows hypergraphs to model more complex relationships involving multiple entities simultaneously. For example, a hyperedge in a hypergraph could represent a project team, connecting all team members in a single relation.
• Despite its flexibility, a hypergraph doesn’t capture hierarchical or nested structures; it only generalizes the number of connections in an edge.

Metagraph

• A metagraph allows the edges to be graphs themselves. This means each edge can contain its own nodes and edges, creating nested, hierarchical structures.
• In a meta graph, an edge could represent a relationship defined by a graph. For instance, a meta graph could represent a network of organizations where each organization’s structure (departments and connections) is represented by its own internal graph and treated as an edge in the larger meta graph.
• This recursive structure allows metagraphs to model complex data with multiple layers of abstraction. They can capture multi-node relationships (as in hypergraphs) and detailed, structured information about each relationship.

Named Graphs and Graph of Graphs

As you can notice, the structure of a metagraph is quite complex and could be complex to model in relational and classical RDF setups. It could create a challenge of luck of tools and software solutions for your problem.
If you need to model nested graphs, you could use a much simpler model of Named graphs, which could take you quite far.

The concept of the named graph came from the RDF community, which needed to group some sets of triples. In this way, you form subgraphs inside an existing graph. You could refer to the subgraph as a regular node. This setup simplifies complex graphs, introduces hierarchies, and even adds features and properties of hypergraphs while keeping a directed nature.

It looks complex, but it is not so hard to model it with a slight modification of a directed graph.
So, the node could host graphs inside. Let's reflect this fact with a location for a node. If a node belongs to a main graph, we could set the location to null or introduce a main node . it is up to you

Nodes could have edges to nodes in different subgraphs. This structure allows any kind of nesting graphs. Edges stay location-free

Meta Graphs in Relational Model

Let’s try to make several attempts to model different meta-graphs with some constraints.

Directed Metagraph where edges are not used as nodes and could not contain subgraphs

In this case, the edge always points to two sets of nodes. This introduces an overhead of creating a node set for a single node. In this model, we can model empty node sets that could require application-level constraints to prevent such cases.

Directed Metagraph where edges are not used as nodes and could contain subgraphs

Adding a node set that could model a subgraph located in an edge is easy but could be separate from in-vertex or out-vert.
I also do not see a direct need to include subgraphs to a node, as we could just use a node set interchangeably, but it still could be a case.

Directed Metagraph where edges are used as nodes and could contain subgraphs

As you can notice, we operate all the time with node sets. We could simply allow the extension node set to elements set that include node and edge IDs, but in this case, we need to use uuid or any other strategy to differentiate node IDs from edge IDs. In this case, we have a collision of ephemeral edges or ephemeral nodes when we want to change the role and purpose of the node as an edge or vice versa.

A full-scale metagraph model is way too complex for a relational database.
So we need a better model.

Now, we have more flexibility but loose structural constraints. We cannot show that the element should have one vertex, one vertex, or both. This type of constraint has been moved to the application level. Also, the crucial question is about query and retrieval needs.
Any meta-graph model should be more focused on domain and needs and should be used in raw form. We did it for a pure theoretical purpose.

@ aa8de34f:a6ffe696

In seinem Beitrag vom 30. März 2025 fragt Henning Rosenbusch auf Telegram angesichts zunehmender digitaler Kontrolle und staatlicher Allmacht:

„Wie soll sich gegen eine solche Tyrannei noch ein Widerstand formieren können, selbst im Untergrund? Sehe ich nicht.“\ (Quelle: t.me/rosenbusch/25228)

Er beschreibt damit ein Gefühl der Ohnmacht, das viele teilen: Eine Welt, in der Totalitarismus nicht mehr mit Panzern, sondern mit Algorithmen kommt. Wo Zugriff auf Geld, Meinungsfreiheit und Teilhabe vom Wohlverhalten abhängt. Der Bürger als kontrollierbare Variable im Code des Staates.\ Die Frage ist berechtigt. Doch die Antwort darauf liegt nicht in alten Widerstandsbildern – sondern in einer neuen Realität.

-- Denn es braucht keinen Untergrund mehr. --

Der Widerstand der Zukunft trägt keinen Tarnanzug. Er ist nicht konspirativ, sondern transparent. Nicht bewaffnet, sondern mathematisch beweisbar. Bitcoin steht nicht am Rand dieser Entwicklung – es ist ihr Fundament. Eine Bastion aus physikalischer Realität, spieltheoretischem Schutz und ökonomischer Wahrheit. Es ist nicht unfehlbar, aber unbestechlich. Nicht perfekt, aber immun gegen zentrale Willkür.

Hier entsteht kein „digitales Gegenreich“, sondern eine dezentrale Renaissance. Keine Revolte aus Wut, sondern eine stille Abkehr: von Zwang zu Freiwilligkeit, von Abhängigkeit zu Selbstverantwortung. Diese Revolution führt keine Kriege. Sie braucht keine Führer. Sie ist ein Netzwerk. Jeder Knoten ein Individuum. Jede Entscheidung ein Akt der Selbstermächtigung.

Weltweit wachsen Freiheits-Zitadellen aus dieser Idee: wirtschaftlich autark, digital souverän, lokal verankert und global vernetzt. Sie sind keine Utopien im luftleeren Raum, sondern konkrete Realitäten – angetrieben von Energie, Code und dem menschlichen Wunsch nach Würde.

Der Globalismus alter Prägung – zentralistisch, monopolistisch, bevormundend – wird an seiner eigenen Hybris zerbrechen. Seine Werkzeuge der Kontrolle werden ihn nicht retten. Im Gegenteil: Seine Geister werden ihn verfolgen und erlegen.

Und während die alten Mächte um Erhalt kämpfen, wächst eine neue Welt – nicht im Schatten, sondern im Offenen. Nicht auf Gewalt gebaut, sondern auf Mathematik, Physik und Freiheit.

Die Tyrannei sieht keinen Widerstand.\ Weil sie nicht erkennt, dass er längst begonnen hat.\ Unwiderruflich. Leise. Überall.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Der Irrsinn ist bei Einzelnen etwas Seltenes – \ aber bei Gruppen, Parteien, Völkern, Zeiten die Regel. \ Friedrich Nietzsche

Erinnern Sie sich an die Horrorkomödie «Scary Movie»? Nicht, dass ich diese Art Filme besonders erinnerungswürdig fände, aber einige Szenen daraus sind doch gewissermaßen Klassiker. Dazu zählt eine, die das Verhalten vieler Protagonisten in Horrorfilmen parodiert, wenn sie in Panik flüchten. Welchen Weg nimmt wohl die Frau in der Situation auf diesem Bild?

Diese Szene kommt mir automatisch in den Sinn, wenn ich aktuelle Entwicklungen in Europa betrachte. Weitreichende Entscheidungen gehen wider jede Logik in die völlig falsche Richtung. Nur ist das hier alles andere als eine Komödie, sondern bitterernst. Dieser Horror ist leider sehr real.

Die Europäische Union hat sich selbst über Jahre konsequent in eine Sackgasse manövriert. Sie hat es versäumt, sich und ihre Politik selbstbewusst und im Einklang mit ihren Wurzeln auf dem eigenen Kontinent zu positionieren. Stattdessen ist sie in blinder Treue den vermeintlichen «transatlantischen Freunden» auf ihrem Konfrontationskurs gen Osten gefolgt.

In den USA haben sich die Vorzeichen allerdings mittlerweile geändert, und die einst hoch gelobten «Freunde und Partner» erscheinen den europäischen «Führern» nicht mehr vertrauenswürdig. Das ist spätestens seit der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz, der Rede von Vizepräsident J. D. Vance und den empörten Reaktionen offensichtlich. Große Teile Europas wirken seitdem wie ein aufgescheuchter Haufen kopfloser Hühner. Orientierung und Kontrolle sind völlig abhanden gekommen.

Statt jedoch umzukehren oder wenigstens zu bremsen und vielleicht einen Abzweig zu suchen, geben die Crash-Piloten jetzt auf dem Weg durch die Sackgasse erst richtig Gas. Ja sie lösen sogar noch die Sicherheitsgurte und deaktivieren die Airbags. Den vor Angst dauergelähmten Passagieren fällt auch nichts Besseres ein und so schließen sie einfach die Augen. Derweil übertrumpfen sich die Kommentatoren des Events gegenseitig in sensationslüsterner «Berichterstattung».

Wie schon die deutsche Außenministerin mit höchsten UN-Ambitionen, Annalena Baerbock, proklamiert auch die Europäische Kommission einen «Frieden durch Stärke». Zu dem jetzt vorgelegten, selbstzerstörerischen Fahrplan zur Ankurbelung der Rüstungsindustrie, genannt «Weißbuch zur europäischen Verteidigung – Bereitschaft 2030», erklärte die Kommissionspräsidentin, die «Ära der Friedensdividende» sei längst vorbei. Soll das heißen, Frieden bringt nichts ein? Eine umfassende Zusammenarbeit an dauerhaften europäischen Friedenslösungen steht demnach jedenfalls nicht zur Debatte.

Zusätzlich brisant ist, dass aktuell «die ganze EU von Deutschen regiert wird», wie der EU-Parlamentarier und ehemalige UN-Diplomat Michael von der Schulenburg beobachtet hat. Tatsächlich sitzen neben von der Leyen und Strack-Zimmermann noch einige weitere Deutsche in – vor allem auch in Krisenzeiten – wichtigen Spitzenposten der Union. Vor dem Hintergrund der Kriegstreiberei in Deutschland muss eine solche Dominanz mindestens nachdenklich stimmen.

Ihre ursprünglichen Grundwerte wie Demokratie, Freiheit, Frieden und Völkerverständigung hat die EU kontinuierlich in leere Worthülsen verwandelt. Diese werden dafür immer lächerlicher hochgehalten und beschworen.

Es wird dringend Zeit, dass wir, der Souverän, diesem erbärmlichen und gefährlichen Trauerspiel ein Ende setzen und die Fäden selbst in die Hand nehmen. In diesem Sinne fordert uns auch das «European Peace Project» auf, am 9. Mai im Rahmen eines Kunstprojekts den Frieden auszurufen. Seien wir dabei!

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben und ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ ed5774ac:45611c5c

April 20, 2020: The day I saw my so-called friends expose themselves as gutless, brain-dead sheep.

On that day, I shared a video exposing the damning history of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's vaccine campaigns in Africa and the developing world. As Gates was on every TV screen, shilling COVID jabs that didn’t even exist, I called out his blatant financial conflict of interest and pointed out the obvious in my facebook post: "Finally someone is able to explain why Bill Gates runs from TV to TV to promote vaccination. Not surprisingly, it's all about money again…" - referencing his substantial investments in vaccine technology, including BioNTech's mRNA platform that would later produce the COVID vaccines and generate massive profits for his so-called philanthropic foundation.

The conflict of interest was undeniable. I genuinely believed anyone capable of basic critical thinking would at least pause to consider these glaring financial motives. But what followed was a masterclass in human stupidity.

My facebook post from 20 April 2020:

Not only was I branded a 'conspiracy theorist' for daring to question the billionaire who stood to make a fortune off the very vaccines he was shilling, but the brain-dead, logic-free bullshit vomited by the people around me was beyond pathetic. These barely literate morons couldn’t spell "Pfizer" without auto-correct, yet they mindlessly swallowed and repeated every lie the media and government force-fed them, branding anything that cracked their fragile reality as "conspiracy theory." Big Pharma’s rap sheet—fraud, deadly cover-ups, billions in fines—could fill libraries, yet these obedient sheep didn’t bother to open a single book or read a single study before screaming their ignorance, desperate to virtue-signal their obedience. Then, like spineless lab rats, they lined up for an experimental jab rushed to the market in months, too dumb to care that proper vaccine development takes a decade.

The pathetic part is that these idiots spend hours obsessing over reviews for their useless purchases like shoes or socks, but won’t spare 60 seconds to research the experimental cocktail being injected into their veins—or even glance at the FDA’s own damning safety reports. Those same obedient sheep would read every Yelp review for a fucking coffee shop but won't spend five minutes looking up Pfizer's criminal fraud settlements. They would demand absolute obedience to ‘The Science™’—while being unable to define mRNA, explain lipid nanoparticles, or justify why trials were still running as they queued up like cattle for their jab. If they had two brain cells to rub together or spent 30 minutes actually researching, they'd know, but no—they'd rather suck down the narrative like good little slaves, too dumb to question, too weak to think.

Worst of all, they became the system’s attack dogs—not just swallowing the poison, but forcing it down others’ throats. This wasn’t ignorance. It was betrayal. They mutated into medical brownshirts, destroying lives to virtue-signal their obedience—even as their own children’s hearts swelled with inflammation.

One conversation still haunts me to this day—a masterclass in wealth-worship delusion. A close friend, as a response to my facebook post, insisted that Gates’ assumed reading list magically awards him vaccine expertise, while dismissing his billion-dollar investments in the same products as ‘no conflict of interest.’ Worse, he argued that Gates’s $5–10 billion pandemic windfall was ‘deserved.’

This exchange crystallizes civilization’s intellectual surrender: reason discarded with religious fervor, replaced by blind faith in corporate propaganda.

The comment of a friend on my facebook post that still haunts me to this day:

Walking Away from the Herd

After a period of anger and disillusionment, I made a decision: I would no longer waste energy arguing with people who refused to think for themselves. If my circle couldn’t even ask basic questions—like why an untested medical intervention was being pushed with unprecedented urgency—then I needed a new community.

Fortunately, I already knew where to look. For three years, I had been involved in Bitcoin, a space where skepticism wasn’t just tolerated—it was demanded. Here, I’d met some of the most principled and independent thinkers I’d ever encountered. These were people who understood the corrupting influence of centralized power—whether in money, media, or politics—and who valued sovereignty, skepticism, and integrity. Instead of blind trust, bitcoiners practiced relentless verification. And instead of empty rhetoric, they lived by a simple creed: Don’t trust. Verify.

It wasn’t just a philosophy. It was a lifeline. So I chose my side and I walked away from the herd.

Finding My Tribe

Over the next four years, I immersed myself in Bitcoin conferences, meetups, and spaces where ideas were tested, not parroted. Here, I encountered extraordinary people: not only did they share my skepticism toward broken systems, but they challenged me to sharpen it.

No longer adrift in a sea of mindless conformity, I’d found a crew of thinkers who cut through the noise. They saw clearly what most ignored—that at the core of society’s collapse lay broken money, the silent tax on time, freedom, and truth itself. But unlike the complainers I’d left behind, these people built. They coded. They wrote. They risked careers and reputations to expose the rot. Some faced censorship; others, mockery. All understood the stakes.

These weren’t keyboard philosophers. They were modern-day Cassandras, warning of inflation’s theft, the Fed’s lies, and the coming dollar collapse—not for clout, but because they refused to kneel to a dying regime. And in their defiance, I found something rare: a tribe that didn’t just believe in a freer future. They were engineering it.

April 20, 2024: No more herd. No more lies. Only proof-of-work.

On April 20, 2024, exactly four years after my last Facebook post, the one that severed my ties to the herd for good—I stood in front of Warsaw’s iconic Palace of Culture and Science, surrounded by 400 bitcoiners who felt like family. We were there to celebrate Bitcoin’s fourth halving, but it was more than a protocol milestone. It was a reunion of sovereign individuals. Some faces I’d known since the early days; others, I’d met only hours before. We bonded instantly—heated debates, roaring laughter, zero filters on truths or on so called conspiracy theories.

As the countdown to the halving began, it hit me: This was the antithesis of the hollow world I’d left behind. No performative outrage, no coerced consensus—just a room of unyielding minds who’d traded the illusion of safety for the grit of truth. Four years prior, I’d been alone in my resistance. Now, I raised my glass among my people - those who had seen the system's lies and chosen freedom instead. Each had their own story of awakening, their own battles fought, but here we shared the same hard-won truth.

The energy wasn’t just electric. It was alive—the kind that emerges when free people build rather than beg. For the first time, I didn’t just belong. I was home. And in that moment, the halving’s ticking clock mirrored my own journey: cyclical, predictable in its scarcity, revolutionary in its consequences. Four years had burned away the old world. What remained was stronger.

No Regrets

Leaving the herd wasn’t a choice—it was evolution. My soul shouted: "I’d rather stand alone than kneel with the masses!". The Bitcoin community became more than family; they’re living proof that the world still produces warriors, not sheep. Here, among those who forge truth, I found something extinct elsewhere: hope that burns brighter with every halving, every block, every defiant mind that joins the fight.

Change doesn’t come from the crowd. It starts when one person stops applauding.

Today, I stand exactly where I always wanted to be—shoulder-to-shoulder with my true family: the rebels, the builders, the ungovernable. Together, we’re building the decentralized future.

@ 30b99916:3cc6e3fe

btcpayserver #lightning #lnd #powershell #coinos

BTCpayAPI now supports CoinOS.io REST Api

Adding Coinos.io REST Api end points support to BTCpayAPI. Here is what is implemented, tested and doumented so far.

Current REST APIs supported are now:

LND API https://lightning.engineering/api-docs/api/lnd/ BTCPay Greenfield API (v1) https://docs.btcpayserver.org/API/Greenfield/v1/ Hashicorp Vault API https://developer.hashicorp.com/vault/api-docs/secret/kv/kv-v1 Coinos.io API https://coinos.io/docs

Although this is PowerShell code, it is exclusively being developed and tested on Linux only.

Code is available at https://btcpayserver.sytes.net

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Wir werden nicht zulassen, dass technisch manches möglich ist, \ aber der Staat es nicht nutzt. \ Angela Merkel

Die Modalverben zu erklären, ist im Deutschunterricht manchmal nicht ganz einfach. Nicht alle Fremdsprachen unterscheiden zum Beispiel bei der Frage nach einer Möglichkeit gleichermaßen zwischen «können» im Sinne von «die Gelegenheit, Kenntnis oder Fähigkeit haben» und «dürfen» als «die Erlaubnis oder Berechtigung haben». Das spanische Wort «poder» etwa steht für beides.

Ebenso ist vielen Schülern auf den ersten Blick nicht recht klar, dass das logische Gegenteil von «müssen» nicht unbedingt «nicht müssen» ist, sondern vielmehr «nicht dürfen». An den Verkehrsschildern lässt sich so etwas meistens recht gut erklären: Manchmal muss man abbiegen, aber manchmal darf man eben nicht.

Dieses Beispiel soll ein wenig die Verwirrungstaktik veranschaulichen, die in der Politik gerne verwendet wird, um unpopuläre oder restriktive Maßnahmen Stück für Stück einzuführen. Zuerst ist etwas einfach innovativ und bringt viele Vorteile. Vor allem ist es freiwillig, jeder kann selber entscheiden, niemand muss mitmachen. Später kann man zunehmend weniger Alternativen wählen, weil sie verschwinden, und irgendwann verwandelt sich alles andere in «nicht dürfen» – die Maßnahme ist obligatorisch.

Um die Durchsetzung derartiger Initiativen strategisch zu unterstützen und nett zu verpacken, gibt es Lobbyisten, gerne auch NGOs genannt. Dass das «NG» am Anfang dieser Abkürzung übersetzt «Nicht-Regierungs-» bedeutet, ist ein Anachronismus. Das war vielleicht früher einmal so, heute ist eher das Gegenteil gemeint.

In unserer modernen Zeit wird enorm viel Lobbyarbeit für die Digitalisierung praktisch sämtlicher Lebensbereiche aufgewendet. Was das auf dem Sektor der Mobilität bedeuten kann, haben wir diese Woche anhand aktueller Entwicklungen in Spanien beleuchtet. Begründet teilweise mit Vorgaben der Europäischen Union arbeitet man dort fleißig an einer «neuen Mobilität», basierend auf «intelligenter» technologischer Infrastruktur. Derartige Anwandlungen wurden auch schon als «Technofeudalismus» angeprangert.

Nationale Zugangspunkte für Mobilitätsdaten im Sinne der EU gibt es nicht nur in allen Mitgliedsländern, sondern auch in der Schweiz und in Großbritannien. Das Vereinigte Königreich beteiligt sich darüber hinaus an anderen EU-Projekten für digitale Überwachungs- und Kontrollmaßnahmen, wie dem biometrischen Identifizierungssystem für «nachhaltigen Verkehr und Tourismus».

Natürlich marschiert auch Deutschland stracks und euphorisch in Richtung digitaler Zukunft. Ohne vernetzte Mobilität und einen «verlässlichen Zugang zu Daten, einschließlich Echtzeitdaten» komme man in der Verkehrsplanung und -steuerung nicht aus, erklärt die Regierung. Der Interessenverband der IT-Dienstleister Bitkom will «die digitale Transformation der deutschen Wirtschaft und Verwaltung vorantreiben». Dazu bewirbt er unter anderem die Konzepte Smart City, Smart Region und Smart Country und behauptet, deutsche Großstädte «setzen bei Mobilität voll auf Digitalisierung».

Es steht zu befürchten, dass das umfassende Sammeln, Verarbeiten und Vernetzen von Daten, das angeblich die Menschen unterstützen soll (und theoretisch ja auch könnte), eher dazu benutzt wird, sie zu kontrollieren und zu manipulieren. Je elektrischer und digitaler unsere Umgebung wird, desto größer sind diese Möglichkeiten. Im Ergebnis könnten solche Prozesse den Bürger nicht nur einschränken oder überflüssig machen, sondern in mancherlei Hinsicht regelrecht abschalten. Eine gesunde Skepsis ist also geboten.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben. Er ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na dvadesetjedan.com.

Autor: Gigi / Prevod na srpski: Plumsky

---

Postoji sveto carstvo privatnosti za svakog čoveka gde on bira i pravi odluke – carstvo stvoreno na bazičnim pravima i slobode koje zakon, generalno, ne sme narušavati. Džefri Fišer, Arhiepiskop Canterberija (1959)

Pre ne toliko dugo, uobičajen režim interneta je bio neenkriptovan običan tekst (plain text). Svi su mogli špiunirati svakoga i mnogi nisu o tome ni razmišljali. Globalno obelodanjivanje nadzora 2013. je to promenilo i danas se koriste mnogo bezbedniji protokoli i end-to-end enkripcija postaje standard sve više. Iako bitcoin postaje tinejdžer, mi smo – metaforično govoreći – i dalje u dobu običnog teksta narandžastog novčića. Bitcoin je radikalno providljiv protokol sam po sebi, ali postoje značajni načini da korisnik zaštiti svoju privatnost. U ovom članku želimo da istaknemo neke od ovih strategija, prodiskutujemo najbolje prakse, i damo preporuke koje mogu primeniti i bitcoin novajlije i veterani.

Zašto je privatnost bitna

Privatnost je potrebna da bi otvoreno društvo moglo da funkcioniše u digitalnoj eri. Privatnost nije isto što i tajanstvenost. Privatna stvar je nešto što neko ne želi da ceo svet zna, a tajna stvar je nešto što neko ne želi bilo ko da zna. Privatnost je moć da se čovek selektivno otkriva svom okruženju.

Ovim snažnim rečima Erik Hjus je započeo svoj tekst Sajferpankov Manifesto (Cypherpunk's Manifesto) 1993. Razlika između privatnosti i tajanstvenosti je suptilna ali jako važna. Odlučiti se za privatnost ne znači da neko ima tajne koje želi sakriti. Da ovo ilustrujemo shvatite samo da ono što obavljate u svom toaletu ili u spavaćoj sobi nije niti ilegalno niti tajna (u mnogim slučajevima), ali vi svejedno odlučujete da zatvorite vrata i navučete zavese.

Slično tome, koliko para imate i gde ih trošite nije naručito tajna stvar. Ipak, to bi trebalo biti privatan slučaj. Mnogi bi se složili da vaš šef ne treba da zna gde vi trošite vašu platu. Privatnosti je čak zaštićena od strane mnogobrojnih internacionalnih nadležnih organa. Iz Američke Deklaracije Prava i Dužnosti Čoveka (American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man) Ujedinjenim Nacijama, napisano je da je privatnost fundamentalno prava gradjana širom sveta.

Niko ne sme biti podvrgnut smetnjama njegovoj privatnosti, porodici, rezidenciji ili komunikacijama, niti napadnuta njegova čast i reputacija. Svi imaju pravo da se štite zakonom protiv takvih smetnja ili napada. Artikal 12, Deklaracija Ljudskih Prava Ujedinjenih Nacija

Bitcoin i privatnost

Iako je bitcoin često opisivan kao anoniman način plaćanja medijima, on u stvari poseduje potpuno suprotne osobine. On je poluanoniman u najboljem slučaju i danas mnogima nije ni malo lako primeniti taktike da bi bili sigurni da njihov poluanonimni identitet na bitcoin mreži ne bude povezan sa legalnim identitetom u stvarnom svetu.

Bitcoin je otvoren sistem. On je javna baza podataka koju svako može da proučava i analizira. Znači, svaka transakcija koja je upisana u tu bazu kroz dokaz rada (proof-of-work) postojaće i biće otkrivena dokle god bitcoin postoji, što znači - zauvek. Ne primenjivati najbolje prakse privatnosti može imati štetne posledice u dalekoj budućnosti.

Privatnost, kao sigurnost, je proces koji je težak, ali nije nemoguć. Alatke nastavljaju da se razvijaju koje čuvaju privatnost kad se koristi bitcoin and srećom mnoge od tih alatki su sve lakše za korišćenje. Nažalost ne postoji panacea u ovom pristupu. Mora se biti svesan svih kompromisa i usavršavati te prakse dok se one menjaju.

Najbolje prakse privatnosti

Kao i sve u bitcoinu, kontrola privatnosti je postepena, korak po korak, procedura. Naučiti i primeniti ove najbolje prakse zahteva strpljivost i odgovornost, tako da ne budite obeshrabreni ako vam se čini da je to sve previše. Svaki korak, koliko god bio mali, je korak u dobrom pravcu.

Koje korake preduzeti da bi uvećali svoju privatnost:

• Budite u vlasništvu sami svojih novčića
• Nikad ne ponavljajte korišćenje istih adresa
• Minimizirajte korišćenje servisa koji zahtevaju identitet (Know your customer - KYC)
• Minimizirajte sve izloženosti trećim licima
• Upravljajte svojim nodom
• Koristite Lightning mrežu za male transakcije
• Nemojte koristiti javne blok pretraživače za svoje transakcije
• Koristite metodu CoinJoin često i rano pri nabavljanju svojih novčića

Budite u vlasništvu sami svojih novčića: Ako ključevi nisu tvoji, onda nije ni bitcoin. Ako neko drugo drži vaš bitcoin za vas, oni znaju sve što se može znati: količinu, istoriju transakcija pa i sve buduće transakcije, itd. Preuzimanje vlasništva bitcoina u svoje ruke je prvi i najvažniji korak.

Nikad ne kroistite istu adresu dvaput: Ponavljanje adresa poništava privatnost pošiljalca i primaoca bitcoina. Ovo se treba izbegavati pod svaku cenu.

Minimizirajte korišćenje servisa koji zahtevaju identitet (KYC): Vezivati svoj legalni identitet za svoje bitcoin adrese je zlo koje se zahteva od strane mnogih državnih nadležnosti. Dok je efektivnost ovih zakona i regulacija disputabilno, posledice njihovog primenjivanja su uglavnom štetne po korisnicima. Ovo je očigledno pošto je česta pojava da se te informacije često izlivaju iz slabo obezbeđenih digitalnih servera. Ako izaberete da koristite KYC servise da bi nabavljali bitcoin, proučite i razumite odnos između vas i tog biznisa. Vi ste poverljivi tom biznisu za sve vaše lične podatke, pa i buduće obezbeđenje tih podataka. Ako i dalje zarađujete kroz fiat novčani sistem, mi preporučujemo da koristite samo bitcoin ekskluzivne servise koji vam dozvoljavaju da autamatski kupujete bitcoin s vremena na vreme. Ako zelite da potpuno da izbegnete KYC, pregledajte https://bitcoinqna.github.io/noKYConly/.

Minimizirajte sve izloženosti trećim licima: Poverljivost trećim licima je bezbednosna rupa (https://nakamotoinstitute.org/trusted-third-parties/). Ako možete biti poverljivi samo sebi, onda bi to tako trebalo da bude.

Upravljajte svojim nodom: Ako nod nije tvoj, onda nisu ni pravila. Upravljanje svojim nodom je suštinska potreba da bi se bitcoin koristio na privatan način. Svaka interakcija sa bitcoin mrežom je posrednjena nodom. Ako vi taj nod ne upravljate, čiji god nod koristite može da vidi sve što vi radite. Ova upustva (https://bitcoiner.guide/node/) su jako korisna da bi započeli proces korišćenja svog noda.

Koristite Lightning mrežu za male transakcije: Pošto Lightning protokol ne koristi glavnu bitcoin mrežu za trasakcije onda je i samim tim povećana privatnost korišćenja bez dodatnog truda. Iako je i dalje rano, oni apsolutno bezobzirni periodi Lightning mreže su verovatno daleko iza nas. Korišćenje Lightning-a za transakcije malih i srednjih veličina će vam pomoći da uvećate privatnost a da smanjite naplate svojih pojedinačnih bitcoin transakcija.

Nemojte koristiti javne blok pretraživače za svoje transakcije: Proveravanje adresa na javnim blok pretraživačima povezuje te adrese sa vašim IP podacima, koji se onda mogu koristiti da se otkrije vaš identitet. Softveri kao Umbrel i myNode vam omogućavaju da lako koristite sami svoj blok pretraživač. Ako morate koristiti javne pretraživače, uradite to uz VPN ili Tor.

Koristite CoinJoin često i rano pri nabavljanju svojih novčića: Pošto je bitcoin večan, primenjivanje saradničkih CoinJoin praksa će vam obezbediti privatnost u budućnosti. Dok su CoinJoin transakcije svakovrsne, softveri koji su laki za korišćenje već sad postoje koji mogu automatizovati ovu vrstu transakcija. Samourai Whirlpool (https://samouraiwallet.com/whirlpool) je odličan izbor za Android korisnike. Joinmarket (https://github.com/joinmarket-webui/jam) se može koristiti na vašem nodu. A servisi postoje koji pri snabdevanju vašeg bitcoina istog trenutka obave CoinJoin tranzakciju automatski.

Zaključak

Svi bi trebalo da se potrude da koriste bitcoin na što privatniji način. Privatnost nije isto što i tajanstvenost. Privatnost je ljudsko pravo i mi svi trebamo da branimo i primenljujemo to pravo. Teško je izbrisati postojeće informacije sa interneta; a izbrisati ih sa bitcoin baze podataka je nemoguće. Iako su daleko od savršenih, alatke postoje danas koje vam omogućavaju da najbolje prakse privatnosti i vi sami primenite. Mi smo vam naglasili neke od njih i - kroz poboljšanje u bitcoin protokolu kroz Taproot i Schnorr - one će postajati sve usavršenije.

Bitcoin postupci se ne mogu lako opisati korišćenjem tradicionalnim konceptima. Pitanja kao što su "Ko je vlasnik ovog novca?" ili "Odakle taj novac potiče?" postaju sve teža da se odgovore a u nekim okolnostima postaju potpuno beznačajna.

Satoši je dizajnirao bitcoin misleći na privatnost. Na nivou protokola svaka bitcoin transakcija je proces "topljenja" koji za sobom samo ostavlja heuristične mrvice hleba. Protokolu nije bitno odakle se pojavio bilo koji bitcoin ili satoši. Niti je njega briga ko je legalan identitet vlasnika. Protokolu je samo važno da li su digitalni potpisi validni. Dokle god je govor slobodan, potpisivanje poruka - privatno ili ne - ne sme biti kriminalan postupak.

Dodatni Resursi

This Month in Bitcoin Privacy | Janine

Hodl Privacy FAQ | 6102

Digital Privacy | 6102

UseWhirlpool.com | Bitcoin Q+A

Bitcoin Privacy Guide | Bitcoin Q+A

Ovaj članak napisan je u saradnji sa Matt Odellom, nezavisnim bitcoin istraživačem. Nađite njegove preporuke za privatnost na werunbtc.com

Originalni tekst

@ e6817453:b0ac3c39

Hey folks! Today, let’s dive into the intriguing world of neurosymbolic approaches, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and personal knowledge graphs (PKGs). Together, these concepts hold much potential for bringing true reasoning capabilities to large language models (LLMs). So, let’s break down how symbolic logic, knowledge graphs, and modern AI can come together to empower future AI systems to reason like humans.

The Neurosymbolic Approach: What It Means ?

Neurosymbolic AI combines two historically separate streams of artificial intelligence: symbolic reasoning and neural networks. Symbolic AI uses formal logic to process knowledge, similar to how we might solve problems or deduce information. On the other hand, neural networks, like those underlying GPT-4, focus on learning patterns from vast amounts of data — they are probabilistic statistical models that excel in generating human-like language and recognizing patterns but often lack deep, explicit reasoning.

While GPT-4 can produce impressive text, it’s still not very effective at reasoning in a truly logical way. Its foundation, transformers, allows it to excel in pattern recognition, but the models struggle with reasoning because, at their core, they rely on statistical probabilities rather than true symbolic logic. This is where neurosymbolic methods and knowledge graphs come in.

Symbolic Calculations and the Early Vision of AI

If we take a step back to the 1950s, the vision for artificial intelligence was very different. Early AI research was all about symbolic reasoning — where computers could perform logical calculations to derive new knowledge from a given set of rules and facts. Languages like Lisp emerged to support this vision, enabling programs to represent data and code as interchangeable symbols. Lisp was designed to be homoiconic, meaning it treated code as manipulatable data, making it capable of self-modification — a huge leap towards AI systems that could, in theory, understand and modify their own operations.

Lisp: The Earlier AI-Language

Lisp, short for “LISt Processor,” was developed by John McCarthy in 1958, and it became the cornerstone of early AI research. Lisp’s power lay in its flexibility and its use of symbolic expressions, which allowed developers to create programs that could manipulate symbols in ways that were very close to human reasoning. One of the most groundbreaking features of Lisp was its ability to treat code as data, known as homoiconicity, which meant that Lisp programs could introspect and transform themselves dynamically. This ability to adapt and modify its own structure gave Lisp an edge in tasks that required a form of self-awareness, which was key in the early days of AI when researchers were exploring what it meant for machines to “think.”

Lisp was not just a programming language—it represented the vision for artificial intelligence, where machines could evolve their understanding and rewrite their own programming. This idea formed the conceptual basis for many of the self-modifying and adaptive algorithms that are still explored today in AI research. Despite its decline in mainstream programming, Lisp’s influence can still be seen in the concepts used in modern machine learning and symbolic AI approaches.

Prolog: Formal Logic and Deductive Reasoning

In the 1970s, Prolog was developed—a language focused on formal logic and deductive reasoning. Unlike Lisp, based on lambda calculus, Prolog operates on formal logic rules, allowing it to perform deductive reasoning and solve logical puzzles. This made Prolog an ideal candidate for expert systems that needed to follow a sequence of logical steps, such as medical diagnostics or strategic planning.

Prolog, like Lisp, allowed symbols to be represented, understood, and used in calculations, creating another homoiconic language that allows reasoning. Prolog’s strength lies in its rule-based structure, which is well-suited for tasks that require logical inference and backtracking. These features made it a powerful tool for expert systems and AI research in the 1970s and 1980s.

The language is declarative in nature, meaning that you define the problem, and Prolog figures out how to solve it. By using formal logic and setting constraints, Prolog systems can derive conclusions from known facts, making it highly effective in fields requiring explicit logical frameworks, such as legal reasoning, diagnostics, and natural language understanding. These symbolic approaches were later overshadowed during the AI winter — but the ideas never really disappeared. They just evolved.

Solvers and Their Role in Complementing LLMs

One of the most powerful features of Prolog and similar logic-based systems is their use of solvers. Solvers are mechanisms that can take a set of rules and constraints and automatically find solutions that satisfy these conditions. This capability is incredibly useful when combined with LLMs, which excel at generating human-like language but need help with logical consistency and structured reasoning.

For instance, imagine a scenario where an LLM needs to answer a question involving multiple logical steps or a complex query that requires deducing facts from various pieces of information. In this case, a solver can derive valid conclusions based on a given set of logical rules, providing structured answers that the LLM can then articulate in natural language. This allows the LLM to retrieve information and ensure the logical integrity of its responses, leading to much more robust answers.

Solvers are also ideal for handling constraint satisfaction problems — situations where multiple conditions must be met simultaneously. In practical applications, this could include scheduling tasks, generating optimal recommendations, or even diagnosing issues where a set of symptoms must match possible diagnoses. Prolog’s solver capabilities and LLM’s natural language processing power can make these systems highly effective at providing intelligent, rule-compliant responses that traditional LLMs would struggle to produce alone.

By integrating neurosymbolic methods that utilize solvers, we can provide LLMs with a form of deductive reasoning that is missing from pure deep-learning approaches. This combination has the potential to significantly improve the quality of outputs for use-cases that require explicit, structured problem-solving, from legal queries to scientific research and beyond. Solvers give LLMs the backbone they need to not just generate answers but to do so in a way that respects logical rigor and complex constraints.

Graph of Rules for Enhanced Reasoning

Another powerful concept that complements LLMs is using a graph of rules. A graph of rules is essentially a structured collection of logical rules that interconnect in a network-like structure, defining how various entities and their relationships interact. This structured network allows for complex reasoning and information retrieval, as well as the ability to model intricate relationships between different pieces of knowledge.

In a graph of rules, each node represents a rule, and the edges define relationships between those rules — such as dependencies or causal links. This structure can be used to enhance LLM capabilities by providing them with a formal set of rules and relationships to follow, which improves logical consistency and reasoning depth. When an LLM encounters a problem or a question that requires multiple logical steps, it can traverse this graph of rules to generate an answer that is not only linguistically fluent but also logically robust.

For example, in a healthcare application, a graph of rules might include nodes for medical symptoms, possible diagnoses, and recommended treatments. When an LLM receives a query regarding a patient’s symptoms, it can use the graph to traverse from symptoms to potential diagnoses and then to treatment options, ensuring that the response is coherent and medically sound. The graph of rules guides reasoning, enabling LLMs to handle complex, multi-step questions that involve chains of reasoning, rather than merely generating surface-level responses.

Graphs of rules also enable modular reasoning, where different sets of rules can be activated based on the context or the type of question being asked. This modularity is crucial for creating adaptive AI systems that can apply specific sets of logical frameworks to distinct problem domains, thereby greatly enhancing their versatility. The combination of neural fluency with rule-based structure gives LLMs the ability to conduct more advanced reasoning, ultimately making them more reliable and effective in domains where accuracy and logical consistency are critical.

By implementing a graph of rules, LLMs are empowered to perform deductive reasoning alongside their generative capabilities, creating responses that are not only compelling but also logically aligned with the structured knowledge available in the system. This further enhances their potential applications in fields such as law, engineering, finance, and scientific research — domains where logical consistency is as important as linguistic coherence.

Enhancing LLMs with Symbolic Reasoning

Now, with LLMs like GPT-4 being mainstream, there is an emerging need to add real reasoning capabilities to them. This is where neurosymbolic approaches shine. Instead of pitting neural networks against symbolic reasoning, these methods combine the best of both worlds. The neural aspect provides language fluency and recognition of complex patterns, while the symbolic side offers real reasoning power through formal logic and rule-based frameworks.

Personal Knowledge Graphs (PKGs) come into play here as well. Knowledge graphs are data structures that encode entities and their relationships — they’re essentially semantic networks that allow for structured information retrieval. When integrated with neurosymbolic approaches, LLMs can use these graphs to answer questions in a far more contextual and precise way. By retrieving relevant information from a knowledge graph, they can ground their responses in well-defined relationships, thus improving both the relevance and the logical consistency of their answers.

Imagine combining an LLM with a graph of rules that allow it to reason through the relationships encoded in a personal knowledge graph. This could involve using deductive databases to form a sophisticated way to represent and reason with symbolic data — essentially constructing a powerful hybrid system that uses LLM capabilities for language fluency and rule-based logic for structured problem-solving.

My Research on Deductive Databases and Knowledge Graphs

I recently did some research on modeling knowledge graphs using deductive databases, such as DataLog — which can be thought of as a limited, data-oriented version of Prolog. What I’ve found is that it’s possible to use formal logic to model knowledge graphs, ontologies, and complex relationships elegantly as rules in a deductive system. Unlike classical RDF or traditional ontology-based models, which sometimes struggle with complex or evolving relationships, a deductive approach is more flexible and can easily support dynamic rules and reasoning.

Prolog and similar logic-driven frameworks can complement LLMs by handling the parts of reasoning where explicit rule-following is required. LLMs can benefit from these rule-based systems for tasks like entity recognition, logical inferences, and constructing or traversing knowledge graphs. We can even create a graph of rules that governs how relationships are formed or how logical deductions can be performed.

The future is really about creating an AI that is capable of both deep contextual understanding (using the powerful generative capacity of LLMs) and true reasoning (through symbolic systems and knowledge graphs). With the neurosymbolic approach, these AIs could be equipped not just to generate information but to explain their reasoning, form logical conclusions, and even improve their own understanding over time — getting us a step closer to true artificial general intelligence.

Why It Matters for LLM Employment

Using neurosymbolic RAG (retrieval-augmented generation) in conjunction with personal knowledge graphs could revolutionize how LLMs work in real-world applications. Imagine an LLM that understands not just language but also the relationships between different concepts — one that can navigate, reason, and explain complex knowledge domains by actively engaging with a personalized set of facts and rules.

This could lead to practical applications in areas like healthcare, finance, legal reasoning, or even personal productivity — where LLMs can help users solve complex problems logically, providing relevant information and well-justified reasoning paths. The combination of neural fluency with symbolic accuracy and deductive power is precisely the bridge we need to move beyond purely predictive AI to truly intelligent systems.

Let's explore these ideas further if you’re as fascinated by this as I am. Feel free to reach out, follow my YouTube channel, or check out some articles I’ll link below. And if you’re working on anything in this field, I’d love to collaborate!

Until next time, folks. Stay curious, and keep pushing the boundaries of AI!

@ aa8de34f:a6ffe696

19. März 2025

🔐 1. SHA-256 is Quantum-Resistant

Bitcoin’s proof-of-work mechanism relies on SHA-256, a hashing algorithm. Even with a powerful quantum computer, SHA-256 remains secure because:

• Quantum computers excel at factoring large numbers (Shor’s Algorithm).
• However, SHA-256 is a one-way function, meaning there's no known quantum algorithm that can efficiently reverse it.
• Grover’s Algorithm (which theoretically speeds up brute force attacks) would still require 2¹²⁸ operations to break SHA-256 – far beyond practical reach.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

🔑 2. Public Key Vulnerability – But Only If You Reuse Addresses

Bitcoin uses Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) to generate keys.

• A quantum computer could use Shor’s Algorithm to break SECP256K1, the curve Bitcoin uses.
• If you never reuse addresses, it is an additional security element
• 🔑 1. Bitcoin Addresses Are NOT Public Keys

Many people assume a Bitcoin address is the public key—this is wrong.

• When you receive Bitcoin, it is sent to a hashed public key (the Bitcoin address).
• The actual public key is never exposed because it is the Bitcoin Adress who addresses the Public Key which never reveals the creation of a public key by a spend
• Bitcoin uses Pay-to-Public-Key-Hash (P2PKH) or newer methods like Pay-to-Witness-Public-Key-Hash (P2WPKH), which add extra layers of security.

🕵️♂️ 2.1 The Public Key Never Appears

• When you send Bitcoin, your wallet creates a digital signature.
• This signature uses the private key to prove ownership.
• The Bitcoin address is revealed and creates the Public Key
• The public key remains hidden inside the Bitcoin script and Merkle tree.

This means: ✔ The public key is never exposed. ✔ Quantum attackers have nothing to target, attacking a Bitcoin Address is a zero value game.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

🔄 3. Bitcoin Can Upgrade

Even if quantum computers eventually become a real threat:

• Bitcoin developers can upgrade to quantum-safe cryptography (e.g., lattice-based cryptography or post-quantum signatures like Dilithium).
• Bitcoin’s decentralized nature ensures a network-wide soft fork or hard fork could transition to quantum-resistant keys.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

⏳ 4. The 10-Minute Block Rule as a Security Feature

• Bitcoin’s network operates on a 10-minute block interval, meaning:Even if an attacker had immense computational power (like a quantum computer), they could only attempt an attack every 10 minutes.Unlike traditional encryption, where a hacker could continuously brute-force keys, Bitcoin’s system resets the challenge with every new block.This limits the window of opportunity for quantum attacks.

---

🎯 5. Quantum Attack Needs to Solve a Block in Real-Time

• A quantum attacker must solve the cryptographic puzzle (Proof of Work) in under 10 minutes.
• The problem? Any slight error changes the hash completely, meaning:If the quantum computer makes a mistake (even 0.0001% probability), the entire attack fails.Quantum decoherence (loss of qubit stability) makes error correction a massive challenge.The computational cost of recovering from an incorrect hash is still incredibly high.

---

⚡ 6. Network Resilience – Even if a Block Is Hacked

• Even if a quantum computer somehow solved a block instantly:The network would quickly recognize and reject invalid transactions.Other miners would continue mining under normal cryptographic rules.51% Attack? The attacker would need to consistently beat the entire Bitcoin network, which is not sustainable.

---

🔄 7. The Logarithmic Difficulty Adjustment Neutralizes Threats

• Bitcoin adjusts mining difficulty every 2016 blocks (\~2 weeks).
• If quantum miners appeared and suddenly started solving blocks too quickly, the difficulty would adjust upward, making attacks significantly harder.
• This self-correcting mechanism ensures that even quantum computers wouldn't easily overpower the network.

---

🔥 Final Verdict: Quantum Computers Are Too Slow for Bitcoin

✔ The 10-minute rule limits attack frequency – quantum computers can’t keep up.

✔ Any slight miscalculation ruins the attack, resetting all progress.

✔ Bitcoin’s difficulty adjustment would react, neutralizing quantum advantages.

Even if quantum computers reach their theoretical potential, Bitcoin’s game theory and design make it incredibly resistant. 🚀

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Bald werde es verboten, alleine im Auto zu fahren, konnte man dieser Tage in verschiedenen spanischen Medien lesen. Die nationale Verkehrsbehörde (Dirección General de Tráfico, kurz DGT) werde Alleinfahrern das Leben schwer machen, wurde gemeldet. Konkret erörtere die Generaldirektion geeignete Sanktionen für Personen, die ohne Beifahrer im Privatauto unterwegs seien.

Das Alleinfahren sei zunehmend verpönt und ein Mentalitätswandel notwendig, hieß es. Dieser «Luxus» stehe im Widerspruch zu den Maßnahmen gegen Umweltverschmutzung, die in allen europäischen Ländern gefördert würden. In Frankreich sei es «bereits verboten, in der Hauptstadt allein zu fahren», behauptete Noticiastrabajo Huffpost in einer Zwischenüberschrift. Nur um dann im Text zu konkretisieren, dass die sogenannte «Umweltspur» auf der Pariser Ringautobahn gemeint war, die für Busse, Taxis und Fahrgemeinschaften reserviert ist. Ab Mai werden Verstöße dagegen mit einem Bußgeld geahndet.

Die DGT jedenfalls wolle bei der Umsetzung derartiger Maßnahmen nicht hinterherhinken. Diese Medienberichte, inklusive des angeblich bevorstehenden Verbots, beriefen sich auf Aussagen des Generaldirektors der Behörde, Pere Navarro, beim Mobilitätskongress Global Mobility Call im November letzten Jahres, wo es um «nachhaltige Mobilität» ging. Aus diesem Kontext stammt auch Navarros Warnung: «Die Zukunft des Verkehrs ist geteilt oder es gibt keine».

Die «Faktenchecker» kamen der Generaldirektion prompt zu Hilfe. Die DGT habe derlei Behauptungen zurückgewiesen und klargestellt, dass es keine Pläne gebe, Fahrten mit nur einer Person im Auto zu verbieten oder zu bestrafen. Bei solchen Meldungen handele es sich um Fake News. Teilweise wurde der Vorsitzende der spanischen «Rechtsaußen»-Partei Vox, Santiago Abascal, der Urheberschaft bezichtigt, weil er einen entsprechenden Artikel von La Gaceta kommentiert hatte.

Der Beschwichtigungsversuch der Art «niemand hat die Absicht» ist dabei erfahrungsgemäß eher ein Alarmzeichen als eine Beruhigung. Walter Ulbrichts Leugnung einer geplanten Berliner Mauer vom Juni 1961 ist vielen genauso in Erinnerung wie die Fake News-Warnungen des deutschen Bundesgesundheitsministeriums bezüglich Lockdowns im März 2020 oder diverse Äußerungen zu einer Impfpflicht ab 2020.

Aber Aufregung hin, Dementis her: Die Pressemitteilung der DGT zu dem Mobilitätskongress enthält in Wahrheit viel interessantere Informationen als «nur» einen Appell an den «guten» Bürger wegen der Bemühungen um die Lebensqualität in Großstädten oder einen möglichen obligatorischen Abschied vom Alleinfahren. Allerdings werden diese Details von Medien und sogenannten Faktencheckern geflissentlich übersehen, obwohl sie keineswegs versteckt sind. Die Auskünfte sind sehr aufschlussreich, wenn man genauer hinschaut.

Digitalisierung ist der Schlüssel für Kontrolle

Auf dem Kongress stellte die Verkehrsbehörde ihre Initiativen zur Förderung der «neuen Mobilität» vor, deren Priorität Sicherheit und Effizienz sei. Die vier konkreten Ansätze haben alle mit Digitalisierung, Daten, Überwachung und Kontrolle im großen Stil zu tun und werden unter dem Euphemismus der «öffentlich-privaten Partnerschaft» angepriesen. Auch lassen sie die transhumanistische Idee vom unzulänglichen Menschen erkennen, dessen Fehler durch «intelligente» technologische Infrastruktur kompensiert werden müssten.

Die Chefin des Bereichs «Verkehrsüberwachung» erklärte die Funktion des spanischen National Access Point (NAP), wobei sie betonte, wie wichtig Verkehrs- und Infrastrukturinformationen in Echtzeit seien. Der NAP ist «eine essenzielle Web-Applikation, die unter EU-Mandat erstellt wurde», kann man auf der Website der DGT nachlesen.

Das Mandat meint Regelungen zu einem einheitlichen europäischen Verkehrsraum, mit denen die Union mindestens seit 2010 den Aufbau einer digitalen Architektur mit offenen Schnittstellen betreibt. Damit begründet man auch «umfassende Datenbereitstellungspflichten im Bereich multimodaler Reiseinformationen». Jeder Mitgliedstaat musste einen NAP, also einen nationalen Zugangspunkt einrichten, der Zugang zu statischen und dynamischen Reise- und Verkehrsdaten verschiedener Verkehrsträger ermöglicht.

Diese Entwicklung ist heute schon weit fortgeschritten, auch und besonders in Spanien. Auf besagtem Kongress erläuterte die Leiterin des Bereichs «Telematik» die Plattform «DGT 3.0». Diese werde als Integrator aller Informationen genutzt, die von den verschiedenen öffentlichen und privaten Systemen, die Teil der Mobilität sind, bereitgestellt werden.

Es handele sich um eine Vermittlungsplattform zwischen Akteuren wie Fahrzeugherstellern, Anbietern von Navigationsdiensten oder Kommunen und dem Endnutzer, der die Verkehrswege benutzt. Alle seien auf Basis des Internets der Dinge (IOT) anonym verbunden, «um der vernetzten Gemeinschaft wertvolle Informationen zu liefern oder diese zu nutzen».

So sei DGT 3.0 «ein Zugangspunkt für einzigartige, kostenlose und genaue Echtzeitinformationen über das Geschehen auf den Straßen und in den Städten». Damit lasse sich der Verkehr nachhaltiger und vernetzter gestalten. Beispielsweise würden die Karten des Produktpartners Google dank der DGT-Daten 50 Millionen Mal pro Tag aktualisiert.

Des Weiteren informiert die Verkehrsbehörde über ihr SCADA-Projekt. Die Abkürzung steht für Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition, zu deutsch etwa: Kontrollierte Steuerung und Datenerfassung. Mit SCADA kombiniert man Software und Hardware, um automatisierte Systeme zur Überwachung und Steuerung technischer Prozesse zu schaffen. Das SCADA-Projekt der DGT wird von Indra entwickelt, einem spanischen Beratungskonzern aus den Bereichen Sicherheit & Militär, Energie, Transport, Telekommunikation und Gesundheitsinformation.

Das SCADA-System der Behörde umfasse auch eine Videostreaming- und Videoaufzeichnungsplattform, die das Hochladen in die Cloud in Echtzeit ermöglicht, wie Indra erklärt. Dabei gehe es um Bilder, die von Überwachungskameras an Straßen aufgenommen wurden, sowie um Videos aus DGT-Hubschraubern und Drohnen. Ziel sei es, «die sichere Weitergabe von Videos an Dritte sowie die kontinuierliche Aufzeichnung und Speicherung von Bildern zur möglichen Analyse und späteren Nutzung zu ermöglichen».

Letzteres klingt sehr nach biometrischer Erkennung und Auswertung durch künstliche Intelligenz. Für eine bessere Datenübertragung wird derzeit die Glasfaserverkabelung entlang der Landstraßen und Autobahnen ausgebaut. Mit der Cloud sind die Amazon Web Services (AWS) gemeint, die spanischen Daten gehen somit direkt zu einem US-amerikanischen «Big Data»-Unternehmen.

Das Thema «autonomes Fahren», also Fahren ohne Zutun des Menschen, bildet den Abschluss der Betrachtungen der DGT. Zusammen mit dem Interessenverband der Automobilindustrie ANFAC (Asociación Española de Fabricantes de Automóviles y Camiones) sprach man auf dem Kongress über Strategien und Perspektiven in diesem Bereich. Die Lobbyisten hoffen noch in diesem Jahr 2025 auf einen normativen Rahmen zur erweiterten Unterstützung autonomer Technologien.

Wenn man derartige Informationen im Zusammenhang betrachtet, bekommt man eine Idee davon, warum zunehmend alles elektrisch und digital werden soll. Umwelt- und Mobilitätsprobleme in Städten, wie Luftverschmutzung, Lärmbelästigung, Platzmangel oder Staus, sind eine Sache. Mit dem Argument «emissionslos» wird jedoch eine Referenz zum CO2 und dem «menschengemachten Klimawandel» hergestellt, die Emotionen triggert. Und damit wird so ziemlich alles verkauft.

Letztlich aber gilt: Je elektrischer und digitaler unsere Umgebung wird und je freigiebiger wir mit unseren Daten jeder Art sind, desto besser werden wir kontrollier-, steuer- und sogar abschaltbar. Irgendwann entscheiden KI-basierte Algorithmen, ob, wann, wie, wohin und mit wem wir uns bewegen dürfen. Über einen 15-Minuten-Radius geht dann möglicherweise nichts hinaus. Die Projekte auf diesem Weg sind ernst zu nehmen, real und schon weit fortgeschritten.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ dab6c606:51f507b6

Core idea: Use geotagged anonymized Nostr events with Cashu-based points to snitch on cop locations for a more relaxed driving and walking

We all know navigation apps. There's one of them that allows you to report on locations of cops. It's Waze and it's owned by Google. There are perfectly fine navigation apps like Organic Maps, that unfortunately lack the cop-snitching features. In some countries, it is illegal to report cop locations, so it would probably not be a good idea to use your npub to report them. But getting a points Cashu token as a reward and exchanging them from time to time would solve this. You can of course report construction, traffic jams, ...

Proposed solution: Add Nostr client (Copstr) to Organic Maps. Have a button in bottom right allowing you to report traffic situations. Geotagged events are published on Nostr relays, users sending cashu tokens as thank you if the report is valid. Notes have smart expiration times.

Phase 2: Automation: Integration with dashcams and comma.ai allow for automated AI recognition of traffic events such as traffic jams and cops, with automatic touchless reporting.

Result: Drive with most essential information and with full privacy. Collect points to be cool and stay cool.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Was nützt die schönste Schuldenbremse, wenn der Russe vor der Tür steht? \ Wir können uns verteidigen lernen oder alle Russisch lernen. \ Jens Spahn

In der Politik ist buchstäblich keine Idee zu riskant, kein Mittel zu schäbig und keine Lüge zu dreist, als dass sie nicht benutzt würden. Aber der Clou ist, dass diese Masche immer noch funktioniert, wenn nicht sogar immer besser. Ist das alles wirklich so schwer zu durchschauen? Mir fehlen langsam die Worte.

Aktuell werden sowohl in der Europäischen Union als auch in Deutschland riesige Milliardenpakete für die Aufrüstung – also für die Rüstungsindustrie – geschnürt. Die EU will 800 Milliarden Euro locker machen, in Deutschland sollen es 500 Milliarden «Sondervermögen» sein. Verteidigung nennen das unsere «Führer», innerhalb der Union und auch an «unserer Ostflanke», der Ukraine.

Das nötige Feindbild konnte inzwischen signifikant erweitert werden. Schuld an allem und zudem gefährlich ist nicht mehr nur Putin, sondern jetzt auch Trump. Europa müsse sich sowohl gegen Russland als auch gegen die USA schützen und rüsten, wird uns eingetrichtert.

Und während durch Diplomatie genau dieser beiden Staaten gerade endlich mal Bewegung in die Bemühungen um einen Frieden oder wenigstens einen Waffenstillstand in der Ukraine kommt, rasselt man im moralisch überlegenen Zeigefinger-Europa so richtig mit dem Säbel.

Begleitet und gestützt wird der ganze Prozess – wie sollte es anders sein – von den «Qualitätsmedien». Dass Russland einen Angriff auf «Europa» plant, weiß nicht nur der deutsche Verteidigungsminister (und mit Abstand beliebteste Politiker) Pistorius, sondern dank ihnen auch jedes Kind. Uns bleiben nur noch wenige Jahre. Zum Glück bereitet sich die Bundeswehr schon sehr konkret auf einen Krieg vor.

Die FAZ und Corona-Gesundheitsminister Spahn markieren einen traurigen Höhepunkt. Hier haben sich «politische und publizistische Verantwortungslosigkeit propagandistisch gegenseitig befruchtet», wie es bei den NachDenkSeiten heißt. Die Aussage Spahns in dem Interview, «der Russe steht vor der Tür», ist das eine. Die Zeitung verschärfte die Sache jedoch, indem sie das Zitat explizit in den Titel übernahm, der in einer ersten Version scheinbar zu harmlos war.

Eine große Mehrheit der deutschen Bevölkerung findet Aufrüstung und mehr Schulden toll, wie ARD und ZDF sehr passend ermittelt haben wollen. Ähnliches gelte für eine noch stärkere militärische Unterstützung der Ukraine. Etwas skeptischer seien die Befragten bezüglich der Entsendung von Bundeswehrsoldaten dorthin, aber immerhin etwa fifty-fifty.

Eigentlich ist jedoch die Meinung der Menschen in «unseren Demokratien» irrelevant. Sowohl in der Europäischen Union als auch in Deutschland sind die «Eliten» offenbar der Ansicht, der Souverän habe in Fragen von Krieg und Frieden sowie von aberwitzigen astronomischen Schulden kein Wörtchen mitzureden. Frau von der Leyen möchte über 150 Milliarden aus dem Gesamtpaket unter Verwendung von Artikel 122 des EU-Vertrags ohne das Europäische Parlament entscheiden – wenn auch nicht völlig kritiklos.

In Deutschland wollen CDU/CSU und SPD zur Aufweichung der «Schuldenbremse» mehrere Änderungen des Grundgesetzes durch das abgewählte Parlament peitschen. Dieser Versuch, mit dem alten Bundestag eine Zweidrittelmehrheit zu erzielen, die im neuen nicht mehr gegeben wäre, ist mindestens verfassungsrechtlich umstritten.

Das Manöver scheint aber zu funktionieren. Heute haben die Grünen zugestimmt, nachdem Kanzlerkandidat Merz läppische 100 Milliarden für «irgendwas mit Klima» zugesichert hatte. Die Abstimmung im Plenum soll am kommenden Dienstag erfolgen – nur eine Woche, bevor sich der neu gewählte Bundestag konstituieren wird.

Interessant sind die Argumente, die BlackRocker Merz für seine Attacke auf Grundgesetz und Demokratie ins Feld führt. Abgesehen von der angeblichen Eile, «unsere Verteidigungsfähigkeit deutlich zu erhöhen» (ausgelöst unter anderem durch «die Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz und die Ereignisse im Weißen Haus»), ließ uns der CDU-Chef wissen, dass Deutschland einfach auf die internationale Bühne zurück müsse. Merz schwadronierte gefährlich mehrdeutig:

«Die ganze Welt schaut in diesen Tagen und Wochen auf Deutschland. Wir haben in der Europäischen Union und auf der Welt eine Aufgabe, die weit über die Grenzen unseres eigenen Landes hinausgeht.»

[Titelbild: Tag des Sieges]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ c4b5369a:b812dbd6

Offline transactions with Cashu

Over the past few weeks, I've been busy implementing offline capabilities into nutstash. I think this is one of the key value propositions of ecash, beinga a bearer instrument that can be used without internet access. It does however come with limitations, which can lead to a bit of confusion. I hope this article will clear some of these questions up for you!

What is ecash/Cashu?

Ecash is the first cryptocurrency ever invented. It was created by David Chaum in 1983. It uses a blind signature scheme, which allows users to prove ownership of a token without revealing a link to its origin. These tokens are what we call ecash. They are bearer instruments, meaning that anyone who possesses a copy of them, is considered the owner.

Cashu is an implementation of ecash, built to tightly interact with Bitcoin, more specifically the Bitcoin lightning network. In the Cashu ecosystem, Mints are the gateway to the lightning network. They provide the infrastructure to access the lightning network, pay invoices and receive payments. Instead of relying on a traditional ledger scheme like other custodians do, the mint issues ecash tokens, to represent the value held by the users.

How do normal Cashu transactions work?

A Cashu transaction happens when the sender gives a copy of his ecash token to the receiver. This can happen by any means imaginable. You could send the token through email, messenger, or even by pidgeon. One of the common ways to transfer ecash is via QR code.

The transaction is however not finalized just yet! In order to make sure the sender cannot double-spend their copy of the token, the receiver must do what we call a swap. A swap is essentially exchanging an ecash token for a new one at the mint, invalidating the old token in the process. This ensures that the sender can no longer use the same token to spend elsewhere, and the value has been transferred to the receiver.

What about offline transactions?

Sending offline

Sending offline is very simple. The ecash tokens are stored on your device. Thus, no internet connection is required to access them. You can litteraly just take them, and give them to someone. The most convenient way is usually through a local transmission protocol, like NFC, QR code, Bluetooth, etc.

The one thing to consider when sending offline is that ecash tokens come in form of "coins" or "notes". The technical term we use in Cashu is Proof. It "proofs" to the mint that you own a certain amount of value. Since these proofs have a fixed value attached to them, much like UTXOs in Bitcoin do, you would need proofs with a value that matches what you want to send. You can mix and match multiple proofs together to create a token that matches the amount you want to send. But, if you don't have proofs that match the amount, you would need to go online and swap for the needed proofs at the mint.

Another limitation is, that you cannot create custom proofs offline. For example, if you would want to lock the ecash to a certain pubkey, or add a timelock to the proof, you would need to go online and create a new custom proof at the mint.

Receiving offline

You might think: well, if I trust the sender, I don't need to be swapping the token right away!

You're absolutely correct. If you trust the sender, you can simply accept their ecash token without needing to swap it immediately.

This is already really useful, since it gives you a way to receive a payment from a friend or close aquaintance without having to worry about connectivity. It's almost just like physical cash!

It does however not work if the sender is untrusted. We have to use a different scheme to be able to receive payments from someone we don't trust.

Receiving offline from an untrusted sender

To be able to receive payments from an untrusted sender, we need the sender to create a custom proof for us. As we've seen before, this requires the sender to go online.

The sender needs to create a token that has the following properties, so that the receciver can verify it offline:

• It must be locked to ONLY the receiver's public key
• It must include an offline signature proof (DLEQ proof)
• If it contains a timelock & refund clause, it must be set to a time in the future that is acceptable for the receiver
• It cannot contain duplicate proofs (double-spend)
• It cannot contain proofs that the receiver has already received before (double-spend)

If all of these conditions are met, then the receiver can verify the proof offline and accept the payment. This allows us to receive payments from anyone, even if we don't trust them.

At first glance, this scheme seems kinda useless. It requires the sender to go online, which defeats the purpose of having an offline payment system.

I beleive there are a couple of ways this scheme might be useful nonetheless:

1. Offline vending machines: Imagine you have an offline vending machine that accepts payments from anyone. The vending machine could use this scheme to verify payments without needing to go online itself. We can assume that the sender is able to go online and create a valid token, but the receiver doesn't need to be online to verify it.

2. Offline marketplaces: Imagine you have an offline marketplace where buyers and sellers can trade goods and services. Before going to the marketplace the sender already knows where he will be spending the money. The sender could create a valid token before going to the marketplace, using the merchants public key as a lock, and adding a refund clause to redeem any unspent ecash after it expires. In this case, neither the sender nor the receiver needs to go online to complete the transaction.

How to use this

Pretty much all cashu wallets allow you to send tokens offline. This is because all that the wallet needs to do is to look if it can create the desired amount from the proofs stored locally. If yes, it will automatically create the token offline.

Receiving offline tokens is currently only supported by nutstash (experimental).

To create an offline receivable token, the sender needs to lock it to the receiver's public key. Currently there is no refund clause! So be careful that you don't get accidentally locked out of your funds!

The receiver can then inspect the token and decide if it is safe to accept without a swap. If all checks are green, they can accept the token offline without trusting the sender.

The receiver will see the unswapped tokens on the wallet homescreen. They will need to manually swap them later when they are online again.

Later when the receiver is online again, they can swap the token for a fresh one.

Summary

We learned that offline transactions are possible with ecash, but there are some limitations. It either requires trusting the sender, or relying on either the sender or receiver to be online to verify the tokens, or create tokens that can be verified offline by the receiver.

I hope this short article was helpful in understanding how ecash works and its potential for offline transactions.

Cheers,

Gandlaf

@ 8d34bd24:414be32b

I’ve been really deeply studying end times prophecy today. Trying to see how all of the prophecies from the initial proto-Gospel in Genesis 3 through the last chapter in Revelation is hard to arrange in my head. That being said, after reading the Bible daily for about 40 years and reading through it each year for about 30 years, I am really starting to see so many links between passages through out the Bible. It has made my Bible study enthralling. I wish I had time to spend hours and hours every day studying and writing about what I have learned.

I thought it might be handy to share some hints on how I study the Bible. Hopefully this can help some people, although I do tend to think my subscribers tend to be those who love Bible study and are already in the word. People who don’t love the Bible are unlikely to read my long, scripture laden posts. Still, hopefully this will be useful.

Starting the Habit of Bible Reading

The first and foremost thing we all need is to start the habit of daily Bible reading. You can’t worship a God you don’t know about and you can’t obey a God whose commands you don’t know. Every Christian needs to read the whole Bible. This needs to be a priority.

I used to recommend people just start at the beginning, Genesis, and read straight through to Revelation, but I’ve lately changed my mind. So many people will start in Genesis, enjoy Genesis and Exodus, which are basically just stories about creation, judgment in the global flood, and God’s chosen people. They then get to Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (the details of the law including the intricate ceremonial law) and they lose momentum in the tedium. I do think every Christian eventually needs to read and know these books, but I think it is OK to skip some or all of them the first time through. They will mean more once you have read the whole Bible. If you are only going to read one, I’d probably read Deuteronomy.

I also know that it can be helpful for some people to mix up their reading. I used to have book marks with daily readings, so I read some Old Testament, some Psalms/Proverbs, some New Testament. There was one other category, but I can’t remember what it was. This way, you get a little of different types of passages. My bookmarks burnt up when my house burnt down and when I went searching online for something similar, I found a few similar reading plans, but not the one I used and really liked. Here are a couple that looked good, but I haven’t used myself. here. here. here. These plans look good, but don’t have the convenient bookmarks. here. here. For those who like reading online or on your phone (which isn’t me), I found this one. It looked nice I’ve just started using it despite the fact I prefer a Bible I can hold, turn the pages of, and write in. It has a chronological Old Testament Passage and a New Testament reading that relates in some way to the Old Testament Passage. It also links to some maps that let you see where the places mentioned in the passages are located and questions to get you to think about what you read. The one downside is it only lets you attach notes if you create a group. I do really like the idea that you can setup a group to read through the Bible and share your comments and thoughts, but I haven’t tried the feature.

Another thing I’ve found very helpful is a chronological Bible. It is handy having things in the order they happened and the different passages that cover an event (such as from each gospel or 1/2 Samuel vs 1/2 Chronicles or Leviticus vs Deuteronomy, etc.) right by each other. It is handy to see what actually comes before what and the way different writers describe the same event, since different authors include different details. I think reading a chronological Bible has helped me see more links between passages and get a better understanding of the Bible as a whole. I am getting close to finishing my second reading through. I don’t know if one chronological Bible is significantly better than another, but this is the one I am reading right now.

Another tactic I have used, when I started getting bogged down reading through the Bible again and again was to study one book of the Bible in depth. It worked best reading one of the shorter books. I’d read through the book repeatedly for a month, usually in 1-3 days. I’d follow the links in my study Bible to related passages or study where some of the words were used in other parts of the Bible. I’d get so I really knew the book well.

One thing that has helped me with my Bible study is writing in my Bible. The first time I wrote, it felt almost sacrilegious, but it helps me to organize my thoughts. I’ll write what I get out of it, how it relates to another passage, etc. I’ll underline or circle key words or sentences. These are then useful when I read through again and may see something different, but it reminds me of my growth and learning. I’ve actually thought I really need to get a new wide margin Bible to have more room for my notes. I can write really small and have an ultrafine point pen, so I can write even smaller than the print. The problem is my eyes aren’t so good and I now have trouble reading my tiny print. I can’t read my own writing without my reading glasses.

Bible reading starts getting really exciting when you get to know the Bible well enough that you start seeing the links between different passages and different books. Suddenly it opens up a whole new level of understanding. It is like an exciting scavenger hunt finding how all of the ideas in the Bible relate to each other and clarify each other in one whole.

Historically I’ve hated writing. The thought of writing a journal or something sounded like torture, but I have truly found organizing my thoughts in an essay, really helps my understanding of the Scriptures in ways that reading and thinking about it never did. Whether anyone reads my writings or not, I’ll continue writing because it is a blessing to me. I have grown immensely in my understanding of the Bible by writing out a reasoned argument for what I believe the Bible is saying. I’ve also done in depth study and realized that I was not completely right in my understanding and had to adjust my understanding of Scripture.

but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence (1 Peter 3:15)

As Christians, we are supposed to be ready to make a defense. Reading, studying, and knowing the Bible is the only true way to be ready. I made a necklace with the first letter in each word in this verse to help me memorize it.

Memorizing God’s word is also well worth the effort. I’ll admit, that I would be terrible for following my own advice in this, except I have a special needs son, who is in Awana, and needs help memorizing 1-5 verses a week. The only way either of us can pull it off is I make a song for each 1-3 verse passage that he has to memorize. We then sing them together until we know them. I debated on whether to share my songs. They are not well done. The version uploaded is my first rough attempt at the song and we usually fine tune them over the week, but I don’t get around to rerecording them. I also have at best an OK voice. Still, I decided to share in case these songs can help someone else with their Bible memorization. Hopefully I am not embarrassing myself too much.

Another thing that has helped me is finding Open Bible’s geocoding site. When reading Bible passages, there are frequent references to places that are unfamiliar, either because they are far away or because the ancient names, rather than modern names, are used. This site allows you to see on a map (satellite & modern country formats) where places are located and how they relate to each other. I’ve especially found this useful with end times prophecy because the Bible describes places with their ancient, not modern names.

In addition to my direct Bible study, I also daily listen to sermons, Christian podcasts, read Christian substack posts, and read Christian commentaries. All help my understanding of the Bible. FYI, the sermons, podcasts, blogs, and commentaries are a risk if you don’t know the Bible and aren’t being like the Bereans who searched “… the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” (Acts 17:11) There are so many false or erroneous teachers, that you have to be very careful listening to people and never put the opinions of men above the word of God. Of course, it is possible to learn a bunch from Godly teachers. Sadly, even the best Bible teachers seem to have at least one area of error. For example, I love listening to R.C. Sproul’s “Renewing Your Mind” podcast, but his teaching on the first 11 chapters of Genesis are a bit “squishy” (not outright wrong, but not holding firm enough to the Bible) and I’d say his end times teaching is flat out wrong. Everything I’ve heard him teach between Genesis 12 and Jude is amazing and very true to the Bible. This is where he spends almost all of his time teaching, so I can highly recommend his podcast. Without a firm foundation in the Bible, it is not possible to recognize false teaching, especially when taught by someone who is very good in most respects.

I hope this is useful to people to help them get into the habit of regular Bible reading and seeing how exciting Bible study can be.

May God give you a hunger for and understanding of His word. May you fill your heart and mind with the word of God so it overflows and is seen by all around you.

Trust Jesus.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

«Wir brauchen eine digitale Brandmauer gegen den Faschismus», schreibt der Chaos Computer Club (CCC) auf seiner Website. Unter diesem Motto präsentierte er letzte Woche einen Forderungskatalog, mit dem sich 24 Organisationen an die kommende Bundesregierung wenden. Der Koalitionsvertrag müsse sich daran messen lassen, verlangen sie.

In den drei Kategorien «Bekenntnis gegen Überwachung», «Schutz und Sicherheit für alle» sowie «Demokratie im digitalen Raum» stellen die Unterzeichner, zu denen auch Amnesty International und Das NETTZ gehören, unter anderem die folgenden «Mindestanforderungen»:

• Verbot biometrischer Massenüberwachung des öffentlichen Raums sowie der ungezielten biometrischen Auswertung des Internets.
• Anlasslose und massenhafte Vorratsdatenspeicherung wird abgelehnt.
• Automatisierte Datenanalysen der Informationsbestände der Strafverfolgungsbehörden sowie jede Form von Predictive Policing oder automatisiertes Profiling von Menschen werden abgelehnt.
• Einführung eines Rechts auf Verschlüsselung. Die Bundesregierung soll sich dafür einsetzen, die Chatkontrolle auf europäischer Ebene zu verhindern.
• Anonyme und pseudonyme Nutzung des Internets soll geschützt und ermöglicht werden.
• Bekämpfung «privaten Machtmissbrauchs von Big-Tech-Unternehmen» durch durchsetzungsstarke, unabhängige und grundsätzlich föderale Aufsichtsstrukturen.
• Einführung eines digitalen Gewaltschutzgesetzes, unter Berücksichtigung «gruppenbezogener digitaler Gewalt» und die Förderung von Beratungsangeboten.
• Ein umfassendes Förderprogramm für digitale öffentliche Räume, die dezentral organisiert und quelloffen programmiert sind, soll aufgelegt werden.

Es sei ein Irrglaube, dass zunehmende Überwachung einen Zugewinn an Sicherheit darstelle, ist eines der Argumente der Initiatoren. Sicherheit erfordere auch, dass Menschen anonym und vertraulich kommunizieren können und ihre Privatsphäre geschützt wird.

Gesunde digitale Räume lebten auch von einem demokratischen Diskurs, lesen wir in dem Papier. Es sei Aufgabe des Staates, Grundrechte zu schützen. Dazu gehöre auch, Menschenrechte und demokratische Werte, insbesondere Freiheit, Gleichheit und Solidarität zu fördern sowie den Missbrauch von Maßnahmen, Befugnissen und Infrastrukturen durch «die Feinde der Demokratie» zu verhindern.

Man ist geneigt zu fragen, wo denn die Autoren «den Faschismus» sehen, den es zu bekämpfen gelte. Die meisten der vorgetragenen Forderungen und Argumente finden sicher breite Unterstützung, denn sie beschreiben offenkundig gängige, kritikwürdige Praxis. Die Aushebelung der Privatsphäre, der Redefreiheit und anderer Grundrechte im Namen der Sicherheit wird bereits jetzt massiv durch die aktuellen «demokratischen Institutionen» und ihre «durchsetzungsstarken Aufsichtsstrukturen» betrieben.

Ist «der Faschismus» also die EU und ihre Mitgliedsstaaten? Nein, die «faschistische Gefahr», gegen die man eine digitale Brandmauer will, kommt nach Ansicht des CCC und seiner Partner aus den Vereinigten Staaten. Private Überwachung und Machtkonzentration sind dabei weltweit schon lange Realität, jetzt endlich müssen sie jedoch bekämpft werden. In dem Papier heißt es:

«Die willkürliche und antidemokratische Machtausübung der Tech-Oligarchen um Präsident Trump erfordert einen Paradigmenwechsel in der deutschen Digitalpolitik. (...) Die aktuellen Geschehnisse in den USA zeigen auf, wie Datensammlungen und -analyse genutzt werden können, um einen Staat handstreichartig zu übernehmen, seine Strukturen nachhaltig zu beschädigen, Widerstand zu unterbinden und marginalisierte Gruppen zu verfolgen.»

Wer auf der anderen Seite dieser Brandmauer stehen soll, ist also klar. Es sind die gleichen «Feinde unserer Demokratie», die seit Jahren in diese Ecke gedrängt werden. Es sind die gleichen Andersdenkenden, Regierungskritiker und Friedensforderer, die unter dem großzügigen Dach des Bundesprogramms «Demokratie leben» einem «kontinuierlichen Echt- und Langzeitmonitoring» wegen der Etikettierung «digitaler Hass» unterzogen werden.

Dass die 24 Organisationen praktisch auch die Bekämpfung von Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon und anderen fordern, entbehrt nicht der Komik. Diese fallen aber sicher unter das Stichwort «Machtmissbrauch von Big-Tech-Unternehmen». Gleichzeitig verlangen die Lobbyisten implizit zum Beispiel die Förderung des Nostr-Netzwerks, denn hier finden wir dezentral organisierte und quelloffen programmierte digitale Räume par excellence, obendrein zensurresistent. Das wiederum dürfte in der Politik weniger gut ankommen.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ e6817453:b0ac3c39

Introduction: Personal Knowledge Graphs and Linked Data

We will explore the world of personal knowledge graphs and discuss how they can be used to model complex information structures. Personal knowledge graphs aren’t just abstract collections of nodes and edges—they encode meaningful relationships, contextualizing data in ways that enrich our understanding of it. While the core structure might be a directed graph, we layer semantic meaning on top, enabling nuanced connections between data points.

The origin of knowledge graphs is deeply tied to concepts from linked data and the semantic web, ideas that emerged to better link scattered pieces of information across the web. This approach created an infrastructure where data islands could connect — facilitating everything from more insightful AI to improved personal data management.

In this article, we will explore how these ideas have evolved into tools for modeling AI’s semantic memory and look at how knowledge graphs can serve as a flexible foundation for encoding rich data contexts. We’ll specifically discuss three major paradigms: RDF (Resource Description Framework), property graphs, and a third way of modeling entities as graphs of graphs. Let’s get started.

Intro to RDF

The Resource Description Framework (RDF) has been one of the fundamental standards for linked data and knowledge graphs. RDF allows data to be modeled as triples: subject, predicate, and object. Essentially, you can think of it as a structured way to describe relationships: “X has a Y called Z.” For instance, “Berlin has a population of 3.5 million.” This modeling approach is quite flexible because RDF uses unique identifiers — usually URIs — to point to data entities, making linking straightforward and coherent.

RDFS, or RDF Schema, extends RDF to provide a basic vocabulary to structure the data even more. This lets us describe not only individual nodes but also relationships among types of data entities, like defining a class hierarchy or setting properties. For example, you could say that “Berlin” is an instance of a “City” and that cities are types of “Geographical Entities.” This kind of organization helps establish semantic meaning within the graph.

RDF and Advanced Topics

Lists and Sets in RDF

RDF also provides tools to model more complex data structures such as lists and sets, enabling the grouping of nodes. This extension makes it easier to model more natural, human-like knowledge, for example, describing attributes of an entity that may have multiple values. By adding RDF Schema and OWL (Web Ontology Language), you gain even more expressive power — being able to define logical rules or even derive new relationships from existing data.

Graph of Graphs

A significant feature of RDF is the ability to form complex nested structures, often referred to as graphs of graphs. This allows you to create “named graphs,” essentially subgraphs that can be independently referenced. For example, you could create a named graph for a particular dataset describing Berlin and another for a different geographical area. Then, you could connect them, allowing for more modular and reusable knowledge modeling.

Property Graphs

While RDF provides a robust framework, it’s not always the easiest to work with due to its heavy reliance on linking everything explicitly. This is where property graphs come into play. Property graphs are less focused on linking everything through triples and allow more expressive properties directly within nodes and edges.

For example, instead of using triples to represent each detail, a property graph might let you store all properties about an entity (e.g., “Berlin”) directly in a single node. This makes property graphs more intuitive for many developers and engineers because they more closely resemble object-oriented structures: you have entities (nodes) that possess attributes (properties) and are connected to other entities through relationships (edges).

The significant benefit here is a condensed representation, which speeds up traversal and queries in some scenarios. However, this also introduces a trade-off: while property graphs are more straightforward to query and maintain, they lack some complex relationship modeling features RDF offers, particularly when connecting properties to each other.

Graph of Graphs and Subgraphs for Entity Modeling

A third approach — which takes elements from RDF and property graphs — involves modeling entities using subgraphs or nested graphs. In this model, each entity can be represented as a graph. This allows for a detailed and flexible description of attributes without exploding every detail into individual triples or lump them all together into properties.

For instance, consider a person entity with a complex employment history. Instead of representing every employment detail in one node (as in a property graph), or as several linked nodes (as in RDF), you can treat the employment history as a subgraph. This subgraph could then contain nodes for different jobs, each linked with specific properties and connections. This approach keeps the complexity where it belongs and provides better flexibility when new attributes or entities need to be added.

Hypergraphs and Metagraphs

When discussing more advanced forms of graphs, we encounter hypergraphs and metagraphs. These take the idea of relationships to a new level. A hypergraph allows an edge to connect more than two nodes, which is extremely useful when modeling scenarios where relationships aren’t just pairwise. For example, a “Project” could connect multiple “People,” “Resources,” and “Outcomes,” all in a single edge. This way, hypergraphs help in reducing the complexity of modeling high-order relationships.

Metagraphs, on the other hand, enable nodes and edges to themselves be represented as graphs. This is an extremely powerful feature when we consider the needs of artificial intelligence, as it allows for the modeling of relationships between relationships, an essential aspect for any system that needs to capture not just facts, but their interdependencies and contexts.

Balancing Structure and Properties

One of the recurring challenges when modeling knowledge is finding the balance between structure and properties. With RDF, you get high flexibility and standardization, but complexity can quickly escalate as you decompose everything into triples. Property graphs simplify the representation by using attributes but lose out on the depth of connection modeling. Meanwhile, the graph-of-graphs approach and hypergraphs offer advanced modeling capabilities at the cost of increased computational complexity.

So, how do you decide which model to use? It comes down to your use case. RDF and nested graphs are strong contenders if you need deep linkage and are working with highly variable data. For more straightforward, engineer-friendly modeling, property graphs shine. And when dealing with very complex multi-way relationships or meta-level knowledge, hypergraphs and metagraphs provide the necessary tools.

The key takeaway is that only some approaches are perfect. Instead, it’s all about the modeling goals: how do you want to query the graph, what relationships are meaningful, and how much complexity are you willing to manage?

Conclusion

Modeling AI semantic memory using knowledge graphs is a challenging but rewarding process. The different approaches — RDF, property graphs, and advanced graph modeling techniques like nested graphs and hypergraphs — each offer unique strengths and weaknesses. Whether you are building a personal knowledge graph or scaling up to AI that integrates multiple streams of linked data, it’s essential to understand the trade-offs each approach brings.

In the end, the choice of representation comes down to the nature of your data and your specific needs for querying and maintaining semantic relationships. The world of knowledge graphs is vast, with many tools and frameworks to explore. Stay connected and keep experimenting to find the balance that works for your projects.

@ e6817453:b0ac3c39

The temporal semantics and temporal and time-aware knowledge graphs. We have different memory models for artificial intelligence agents. We all try to mimic somehow how the brain works, or at least how the declarative memory of the brain works. We have the split of episodic memory and semantic memory. And we also have a lot of theories, right?

Declarative Memory of the Human Brain

How is the semantic memory formed? We all know that our brain stores semantic memory quite close to the concept we have with the personal knowledge graphs, that it’s connected entities. They form a connection with each other and all those things. So far, so good. And actually, then we have a lot of concepts, how the episodic memory and our experiences gets transmitted to the semantic:

• hippocampus indexing and retrieval
• sanitization of episodic memories
• episodic-semantic shift theory

They all give a different perspective on how different parts of declarative memory cooperate.

We know that episodic memories get semanticized over time. You have semantic knowledge without the notion of time, and probably, your episodic memory is just decayed.

But, you know, it’s still an open question:

do we want to mimic an AI agent’s memory as a human brain memory, or do we want to create something different?

It’s an open question to which we have no good answer. And if you go to the theory of neuroscience and check how episodic and semantic memory interfere, you will still find a lot of theories, yeah?

Some of them say that you have the hippocampus that keeps the indexes of the memory. Some others will say that you semantic the episodic memory. Some others say that you have some separate process that digests the episodic and experience to the semantics. But all of them agree on the plan that it’s operationally two separate areas of memories and even two separate regions of brain, and the semantic, it’s more, let’s say, protected.

So it’s harder to forget the semantical facts than the episodes and everything. And what I’m thinking about for a long time, it’s this, you know, the semantic memory.

Temporal Semantics

It’s memory about the facts, but you somehow mix the time information with the semantics. I already described a lot of things, including how we could combine time with knowledge graphs and how people do it.

There are multiple ways we could persist such information, but we all hit the wall because the complexity of time and the semantics of time are highly complex concepts.

Time in a Semantic context is not a timestamp.

What I mean is that when you have a fact, and you just mentioned that I was there at this particular moment, like, I don’t know, 15:40 on Monday, it’s already awake because we don’t know which Monday, right? So you need to give the exact date, but usually, you do not have experiences like that.

You do not record your memories like that, except you do the journaling and all of the things. So, usually, you have no direct time references. What I mean is that you could say that I was there and it was some event, blah, blah, blah.

Somehow, we form a chain of events that connect with each other and maybe will be connected to some period of time if we are lucky enough. This means that we could not easily represent temporal-aware information as just a timestamp or validity and all of the things.

For sure, the validity of the knowledge graphs (simple quintuple with start and end dates)is a big topic, and it could solve a lot of things. It could solve a lot of the time cases. It’s super simple because you give the end and start dates, and you are done, but it does not answer facts that have a relative time or time information in facts . It could solve many use cases but struggle with facts in an indirect temporal context. I like the simplicity of this idea. But the problem of this approach that in most cases, we simply don’t have these timestamps. We don’t have the timestamp where this information starts and ends. And it’s not modeling many events in our life, especially if you have the processes or ongoing activities or recurrent events.

I’m more about thinking about the time of semantics, where you have a time model as a hybrid clock or some global clock that does the partial ordering of the events. It’s mean that you have the chain of the experiences and you have the chain of the facts that have the different time contexts.

We could deduct the time from this chain of the events. But it’s a big, big topic for the research. But what I want to achieve, actually, it’s not separation on episodic and semantic memory. It’s having something in between.

Blockchain of connected events and facts

I call it temporal-aware semantics or time-aware knowledge graphs, where we could encode the semantic fact together with the time component.I doubt that time should be the simple timestamp or the region of the two timestamps. For me, it is more a chain for facts that have a partial order and form a blockchain like a database or a partially ordered Acyclic graph of facts that are temporally connected. We could have some notion of time that is understandable to the agent and a model that allows us to order the events and focus on what the agent knows and how to order this time knowledge and create the chains of the events.

Time anchors

We may have a particular time in the chain that allows us to arrange a more concrete time for the rest of the events. But it’s still an open topic for research. The temporal semantics gets split into a couple of domains. One domain is how to add time to the knowledge graphs. We already have many different solutions. I described them in my previous articles.

Another domain is the agent's memory and how the memory of the artificial intelligence treats the time. This one, it’s much more complex. Because here, we could not operate with the simple timestamps. We need to have the representation of time that are understandable by model and understandable by the agent that will work with this model. And this one, it’s way bigger topic for the research.”

@ 826e9f89:ffc5c759

What follows began as snippets of conversations I have been having for years, on and off, here and there. It will likely eventually be collated into a piece I have been meaning to write on “payments” as a whole. I foolishly started writing this piece years ago, not realizing that the topic is gargantuan and for every week I spend writing it I have to add two weeks to my plan. That may or may not ever come to fruition, but in the meantime, Tether announced it was issuing on Taproot Assets and suddenly everybody is interested again. This is as good a catalyst as any to carve out my “stablecoin thesis”, such as it exists, from “payments”, and put it out there for comment and feedback.

In contrast to the “Bitcoiner take” I will shortly revert to, I invite the reader to keep the following potential counterargument in mind, which might variously be termed the “shitcoiner”, “realist”, or “cynical” take, depending on your perspective: that stablecoins have clear product-market-fit. Now, as a venture capitalist and professional thinkboi focusing on companies building on Bitcoin, I obviously think that not only is Bitcoin the best money ever invented and its monetization is pretty much inevitable, but that, furthermore, there is enormous, era-defining long-term potential for a range of industries in which Bitcoin is emerging as superior technology, even aside from its role as money. But in the interest not just of steelmanning but frankly just of honesty, I would grudgingly agree with the following assessment as of the time of writing: the applications of crypto (inclusive of Bitcoin but deliberately wider) that have found product-market-fit today, and that are not speculative bets on future development and adoption, are: Bitcoin as savings technology, mining as a means of monetizing energy production, and stablecoins.

I think there are two typical Bitcoiner objections to stablecoins of significantly greater importance than all others: that you shouldn’t be supporting dollar hegemony, and that you don’t need a blockchain. I will elaborate on each of these, and for the remainder of the post will aim to produce a synthesis of three superficially contrasting (or at least not obviously related) sources of inspiration: these objections, the realisation above that stablecoins just are useful, and some commentary on technical developments in Bitcoin and the broader space that I think inform where things are likely to go. As will become clear as the argument progresses, I actually think the outcome to which I am building up is where things have to go. I think the technical and economic incentives at play make this an inevitability rather than a “choice”, per se. Given my conclusion, which I will hold back for the time being, this is a fantastically good thing, hence I am motivated to write this post at all!

Objection 1: Dollar Hegemony

I list this objection first because there isn’t a huge amount to say about it. It is clearly a normative position, and while I more or less support it personally, I don’t think that it is material to the argument I am going on to make, so I don’t want to force it on the reader. While the case for this objection is probably obvious to this audience (isn’t the point of Bitcoin to destroy central banks, not further empower them?) I should at least offer the steelman that there is a link between this and the realist observation that stablecoins are useful. The reason they are useful is because people prefer the dollar to even shitter local fiat currencies. I don’t think it is particularly fruitful to say that they shouldn’t. They do. Facts don’t care about your feelings. There is a softer bridging argument to be made here too, to the effect that stablecoins warm up their users to the concept of digital bearer (ish) assets, even though these particular assets are significantly scammier than Bitcoin. Again, I am just floating this, not telling the reader they should or shouldn’t buy into it.

All that said, there is one argument I do want to put my own weight behind, rather than just float: stablecoin issuance is a speculative attack on the institution of fractional reserve banking. A “dollar” Alice moves from JPMorgan to Tether embodies two trade-offs from Alice’s perspective: i) a somewhat opaque profile on the credit risk of the asset: the likelihood of JPMorgan ever really defaulting on deposits vs the operator risk of Tether losing full backing and/or being wrench attacked by the Federal Government and rugging its users. These risks are real but are almost entirely political. I’m skeptical it is meaningful to quantify them, but even if it is, I am not the person to try to do it. Also, more transparently to Alice, ii) far superior payment rails (for now, more on this to follow).

However, from the perspective of the fiat banking cartel, fractional reserve leverage has been squeezed. There are just as many notional dollars in circulation, but there the backing has been shifted from levered to unlevered issuers. There are gradations of relevant objections to this: while one might say, Tether’s backing comes from Treasuries, so you are directly funding US debt issuance!, this is a bit silly in the context of what other dollars one might hold. It’s not like JPMorgan is really competing with the Treasury to sell credit into the open market. Optically they are, but this is the core of the fiat scam. Via the guarantees of the Federal Reserve System, JPMorgan can sell as much unbacked credit as it wants knowing full well the difference will be printed whenever this blows up. Short-term Treasuries are also JPMorgan’s most pristine asset safeguarding its equity, so the only real difference is that Tether only holds Treasuries without wishing more leverage into existence. The realization this all builds up to is that, by necessity,

Tether is a fully reserved bank issuing fiduciary media against the only dollar-denominated asset in existence whose value (in dollar terms) can be guaranteed. Furthermore, this media arguably has superior “moneyness” to the obvious competition in the form of US commercial bank deposits by virtue of its payment rails.

That sounds pretty great when you put it that way! Of course, the second sentence immediately leads to the second objection, and lets the argument start to pick up steam …

Objection 2: You Don’t Need a Blockchain

I don’t need to explain this to this audience but to recap as briefly as I can manage: Bitcoin’s value is entirely endogenous. Every aspect of “a blockchain” that, out of context, would be an insanely inefficient or redundant modification of a “database”, in context is geared towards the sole end of enabling the stability of this endogenous value. Historically, there have been two variations of stupidity that follow a failure to grok this: i) “utility tokens”, or blockchains with native tokens for something other than money. I would recommend anybody wanting a deeper dive on the inherent nonsense of a utility token to read Only The Strong Survive, in particular Chapter 2, Crypto Is Not Decentralized, and the subsection, Everything Fights For Liquidity, and/or Green Eggs And Ham, in particular Part II, Decentralized Finance, Technically. ii) “real world assets” or, creating tokens within a blockchain’s data structure that are not intended to have endogenous value but to act as digital quasi-bearer certificates to some or other asset of value exogenous to this system. Stablecoins are in this second category.

RWA tokens definitionally have to have issuers, meaning some entity that, in the real world, custodies or physically manages both the asset and the record-keeping scheme for the asset. “The blockchain” is at best a secondary ledger to outsource ledger updates to public infrastructure such that the issuer itself doesn’t need to bother and can just “check the ledger” whenever operationally relevant. But clearly ownership cannot be enforced in an analogous way to Bitcoin, under both technical and social considerations. Technically, Bitcoin’s endogenous value means that whoever holds the keys to some or other UTXOs functionally is the owner. Somebody else claiming to be the owner is yelling at clouds. Whereas, socially, RWA issuers enter a contract with holders (whether legally or just in terms of a common-sense interpretation of the transaction) such that ownership of the asset issued against is entirely open to dispute. That somebody can point to “ownership” of the token may or may not mean anything substantive with respect to the physical reality of control of the asset, and how the issuer feels about it all.

And so, one wonders, why use a blockchain at all? Why doesn’t the issuer just run its own database (for the sake of argument with some or other signature scheme for verifying and auditing transactions) given it has the final say over issuance and redemption anyway? I hinted at an answer above: issuing on a blockchain outsources this task to public infrastructure. This is where things get interesting. While it is technically true, given the above few paragraphs, that, you don’t need a blockchain for that, you also don’t need to not use a blockchain for that. If you want to, you can.

This is clearly the case given stablecoins exist at all and have gone this route. If one gets too angry about not needing a blockchain for that, one equally risks yelling at clouds! And, in fact, one can make an even stronger argument, more so from the end users’ perspective. These products do not exist in a vacuum but rather compete with alternatives. In the case of stablecoins, the alternative is traditional fiat money, which, as stupid as RWAs on a blockchain are, is even dumber. It actually is just a database, except it’s a database that is extremely annoying to use, basically for political reasons because the industry managing these private databases form a cartel that never needs to innovate or really give a shit about its customers at all. In many, many cases, stablecoins on blockchains are dumb in the abstract, but superior to the alternative methods of holding and transacting in dollars existing in other forms. And note, this is only from Alice’s perspective of wanting to send and receive, not a rehashing of the fractional reserve argument given above. This is the essence of their product-market-fit. Yell at clouds all you like: they just are useful given the alternative usually is not Bitcoin, it’s JPMorgan’s KYC’d-up-the-wazoo 90s-era website, more than likely from an even less solvent bank.

So where does this get us? It might seem like we are back to “product-market-fit, sorry about that” with Bitcoiners yelling about feelings while everybody else makes do with their facts. However, I think we have introduced enough material to move the argument forward by incrementally incorporating the following observations, all of which I will shortly go into in more detail: i) as a consequence of making no technical sense with respect to what blockchains are for, today’s approach won’t scale; ii) as a consequence of short-termist tradeoffs around socializing costs, today’s approach creates an extremely unhealthy and arguably unnatural market dynamic in the issuer space; iii) Taproot Assets now exist and handily address both points i) and ii), and; iv) eCash is making strides that I believe will eventually replace even Taproot Assets.

To tease where all this is going, and to get the reader excited before we dive into much more detail: just as Bitcoin will eat all monetary premia, Lightning will likely eat all settlement, meaning all payments will gravitate towards routing over Lightning regardless of the denomination of the currency at the edges. Fiat payments will gravitate to stablecoins to take advantage of this; stablecoins will gravitate to TA and then to eCash, and all of this will accelerate hyperbitcoinization by “bitcoinizing” payment rails such that an eventual full transition becomes as simple as flicking a switch as to what denomination you want to receive.

I will make two important caveats before diving in that are more easily understood in light of having laid this groundwork: I am open to the idea that it won’t be just Lightning or just Taproot Assets playing the above roles. Without veering into forecasting the entire future development of Bitcoin tech, I will highlight that all that really matters here are, respectively: a true layer 2 with native hashlocks, and a token issuance scheme that enables atomic routing over such a layer 2 (or combination of such). For the sake of argument, the reader is welcome to swap in “Ark” and “RGB” for “Lightning” and “TA” both above and in all that follows. As far as I can tell, this makes no difference to the argument and is even exciting in its own right. However, for the sake of simplicity in presentation, I will stick to “Lightning” and “TA” hereafter.

1) Today’s Approach to Stablecoins Won’t Scale

This is the easiest to tick off and again doesn’t require much explanation to this audience. Blockchains fundamentally don’t scale, which is why Bitcoin’s UTXO scheme is a far better design than ex-Bitcoin Crypto’s’ account-based models, even entirely out of context of all the above criticisms. This is because Bitcoin transactions can be batched across time and across users with combinations of modes of spending restrictions that provide strong economic guarantees of correct eventual net settlement, if not perpetual deferral. One could argue this is a decent (if abstrusely technical) definition of “scaling” that is almost entirely lacking in Crypto.

What we see in ex-Bitcoin crypto is so-called “layer 2s” that are nothing of the sort, forcing stablecoin schemes in these environments into one of two equally poor design choices if usage is ever to increase: fees go higher and higher, to the point of economic unviability (and well past it) as blocks fill up, or move to much more centralized environments that increasingly are just databases, and hence which lose the benefits of openness thought to be gleaned by outsourcing settlement to public infrastructure. This could be in the form of punting issuance to a bullshit “layer 2” that is a really a multisig “backing” a private execution environment (to be decentralized any daw now) or an entirely different blockchain that is just pretending even less not to be a database to begin with. In a nutshell, this is a decent bottom-up explanation as to why Tron has the highest settlement of Tether.

This also gives rise to the weirdness of “gas tokens” - assets whose utility as money is and only is in the form of a transaction fee to transact a different kind of money. These are not quite as stupid as a “utility token,” given at least they are clearly fulfilling a monetary role and hence their artificial scarcity can be justified. But they are frustrating from Bitcoiners’ and users’ perspectives alike: users would prefer to pay transaction fees on dollars in dollars, but they can’t because the value of Ether, Sol, Tron, or whatever, is the string and bubblegum that hold their boondoggles together. And Bitcoiners wish this stuff would just go away and stop distracting people, whereas this string and bubblegum is proving transiently useful.

All in all, today’s approach is fine so long as it isn’t being used much. It has product-market fit, sure, but in the unenviable circumstance that, if it really starts to take off, it will break, and even the original users will find it unusable.

2) Today’s Approach to Stablecoins Creates an Untenable Market Dynamic

Reviving the ethos of you don’t need a blockchain for that, notice the following subtlety: while the tokens representing stablecoins have value to users, that value is not native to the blockchain on which they are issued. Tether can (and routinely does) burn tokens on Ethereum and mint them on Tron, then burn on Tron and mint on Solana, and so on. So-called blockchains “go down” and nobody really cares. This makes no difference whatsoever to Tether’s own accounting, and arguably a positive difference to users given these actions track market demand. But it is detrimental to the blockchain being switched away from by stripping it of “TVL” that, it turns out, was only using it as rails: entirely exogenous value that leaves as quickly as it arrived.

One underdiscussed and underappreciated implication of the fact that no value is natively running through the blockchain itself is that, in the current scheme, both the sender and receiver of a stablecoin have to trust the same issuer. This creates an extremely powerful network effect that, in theory, makes the first-to-market likely to dominate and in practice has played out exactly as this theory would suggest: Tether has roughly 80% of the issuance, while roughly 19% goes to the political carve-out of USDC that wouldn’t exist at all were it not for government interference. Everybody else combined makes up the final 1%.

So, Tether is a full reserve bank but also has to be everybody’s bank. This is the source of a lot of the discomfort with Tether, and which feeds into the original objection around dollar hegemony, that there is an ill-defined but nonetheless uneasy feeling that Tether is slowly morphing into a CBDC. I would argue this really has nothing to do with Tether’s own behavior but rather is a consequence of the market dynamic inevitably created by the current stablecoin scheme. There is no reason to trust any other bank because nobody really wants a bank, they just want the rails. They want something that will retain a nominal dollar value long enough to spend it again. They don’t care what tech it runs on and they don’t even really care about the issuer except insofar as having some sense they won’t get rugged.

Notice this is not how fiat works. Banks can, of course, settle between each other, thus enabling their users to send money to customers of other banks. This settlement function is actually the entire point of central banks, less the money printing and general corruption enabled (we might say, this was the historical point of central banks, which have since become irredeemably corrupted by this power). This process is clunkier than stablecoins, as covered above, but the very possibility of settlement means there is no gigantic network effect to being the first commercial issuer of dollar balances. If it isn’t too triggering to this audience, one might suggest that the money printer also removes the residual concern that your balances might get rugged! (or, we might again say, you guarantee you don’t get rugged in the short term by guaranteeing you do get rugged in the long term).

This is a good point at which to introduce the unsettling observation that broader fintech is catching on to the benefits of stablecoins without any awareness whatsoever of all the limitations I am outlining here. With the likes of Stripe, Wise, Robinhood, and, post-Trump, even many US megabanks supposedly contemplating issuing stablecoins (obviously within the current scheme, not the scheme I am building up to proposing), we are forced to boggle our minds considering how on earth settlement is going to work. Are they going to settle through Ether? Well, no, because i) Ether isn’t money, it’s … to be honest, I don’t think anybody really knows what it is supposed to be, or if they once did they aren’t pretending anymore, but anyway, Stripe certainly hasn’t figured that out yet so, ii) it won’t be possible to issue them on layer 1s as soon as there is any meaningful volume, meaning they will have to route through “bullshit layer 2 wrapped Ether token that is really already a kind of stablecoin for Ether.”

The way they are going to try to fix this (anybody wanna bet?) is routing through DEXes, which is so painfully dumb you should be laughing and, if you aren’t, I would humbly suggest you don’t get just how dumb it is. What this amounts to is plugging the gap of Ether’s lack of moneyness (and wrapped Ether’s hilarious lack of moneyness) with … drum roll … unknowable technical and counterparty risk and unpredictable cost on top of reverting to just being a database. So, in other words, all of the costs of using a blockchain when you don’t strictly need to, and none of the benefits. Stripe is going to waste billions of dollars getting sandwich attacked out of some utterly vanilla FX settlement it is facilitating for clients who have even less of an idea what is going on and why North Korea now has all their money, and will eventually realize they should have skipped their shitcoin phase and gone straight to understanding Bitcoin instead …

3) Bitcoin (and Taproot Assets) Fixes This

To tie together a few loose ends, I only threw in the hilariously stupid suggestion of settling through wrapped Ether on Ether on Ether in order to tee up the entirely sensible suggestion of settling through Lightning. Again, not that this will be new to this audience, but while issuance schemes have been around on Bitcoin for a long time, the breakthrough of Taproot Assets is essentially the ability to atomically route through Lightning.

I will admit upfront that this presents a massive bootstrapping challenge relative to the ex-Bitcoin Crypto approach, and it’s not obvious to me if or how this will be overcome. I include this caveat to make it clear I am not suggesting this is a given. It may not be, it’s just beyond the scope of this post (or frankly my ability) to predict. This is a problem for Lightning Labs, Tether, and whoever else decides to step up to issue. But even highlighting this as an obvious and major concern invites us to consider an intriguing contrast: scaling TA stablecoins is hardest at the start and gets easier and easier thereafter. The more edge liquidity there is in TA stables, the less of a risk it is for incremental issuance; the more TA activity, the more attractive deploying liquidity is into Lightning proper, and vice versa. With apologies if this metaphor is even more confusing than it is helpful, one might conceive of the situation as being that there is massive inertia to bootstrap, but equally there could be positive feedback in driving the inertia to scale. Again, I have no idea, and it hasn’t happened yet in practice, but in theory it’s fun.

More importantly to this conversation, however, this is almost exactly the opposite dynamic to the current scheme on other blockchains, which is basically free to start, but gets more and more expensive the more people try to use it. One might say it antiscales (I don’t think that’s a real word, but if Taleb can do it, then I can do it too!).

Furthermore, the entire concept of “settling in Bitcoin” makes perfect sense both economically and technically: economically because Bitcoin is money, and technically because it can be locked in an HTLC and hence can enable atomic routing (i.e. because Lightning is a thing). This is clearly better than wrapped Eth on Eth on Eth or whatever, but, tantalisingly, is better than fiat too! The core message of the payments tome I may or may not one day write is (or will be) that fiat payments, while superficially efficient on the basis of centralized and hence costless ledger amendments, actually have a hidden cost in the form of interbank credit. Many readers will likely have heard me say this multiple times and in multiple settings but, contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a fiat debit. Even if styled as a debit, all fiat payments are credits and all have credit risk baked into their cost, even if that is obscured and pushed to the absolute foundational level of money printing to keep banks solvent and hence keep payment channels open.

Furthermore! this enables us to strip away the untenable market dynamic from the point above. The underappreciated and underdiscussed flip side of the drawback of the current dynamic that is effectively fixed by Taproot Assets is that there is no longer a mammoth network effect to a single issuer. Senders and receivers can trust different issuers (i.e. their own banks) because those banks can atomically settle a single payment over Lightning. This does not involve credit. It is arguably the only true debit in the world across both the relevant economic and technical criteria: it routes through money with no innate credit risk, and it does so atomically due to that money’s native properties.

Savvy readers may have picked up on a seed I planted a while back and which can now delightfully blossom:

This is what Visa was supposed to be!

Crucially, this is not what Visa is now. Visa today is pretty much the bank that is everybody’s counterparty, takes a small credit risk for the privilege, and oozes free cash flow bottlenecking global consumer payments.

But if you read both One From Many by Dee Hock (for a first person but pretty wild and extravagant take) and Electronic Value Exchange by David Stearns (for a third person, drier, but more analytical and historically contextualized take) or if you are just intimately familiar with the modern history of payments for whatever other reason, you will see that the role I just described for Lightning in an environment of unboundedly many banks issuing fiduciary media in the form of stablecoins is exactly what Dee Hock wanted to create when he envisioned Visa:

A neutral and open layer of value settlement enabling banks to create digital, interbank payment schemes for their customers at very low cost.

As it turns out, his vision was technically impossible with fiat, hence Visa, which started as a cooperative amongst member banks, was corrupted into a duopolistic for-profit rent seeker in curious parallel to the historical path of central banks …

4) eCash

To now push the argument to what I think is its inevitable conclusion, it’s worth being even more vigilant on the front of you don’t need a blockchain for that. I have argued that there is a role for a blockchain in providing a neutral settlement layer to enable true debits of stablecoins. But note this is just a fancy and/or stupid way of saying that Bitcoin is both the best money and is programmable, which we all knew anyway. The final step is realizing that, while TA is nice in terms of providing a kind of “on ramp” for global payments infrastructure as a whole to reorient around Lightning, there is some path dependence here in assuming (almost certainly correctly) that the familiarity of stablecoins as “RWA tokens on a blockchain” will be an important part of the lure.

But once that transition is complete, or is well on its way to being irreversible, we may as well come full circle and cut out tokens altogether. Again, you really don’t need a blockchain for that, and the residual appeal of better rails has been taken care of with the above massive detour through what I deem to be the inevitability of Lightning as a settlement layer. Just as USDT on Tron arguably has better moneyness than a JPMorgan balance, so a “stablecoin” as eCash has better moneyness than as a TA given it is cheaper, more private, and has more relevantly bearer properties (in other words, because it is cash). The technical detail that it can be hashlocked is really all you need to tie this all together. That means it can be atomically locked into a Lightning routed debit to the recipient of a different issuer (or “mint” in eCash lingo, but note this means the same thing as what we have been calling fully reserved banks). And the economic incentive is pretty compelling too because, for all their benefits, there is still a cost to TAs given they are issued onchain and they require asset-specific liquidity to route on Lightning. Once the rest of the tech is in place, why bother? Keep your Lightning connectivity and just become a mint.

What you get at that point is dramatically superior private database to JPMorgan with the dramatically superior public rails of Lightning. There is nothing left to desire from “a blockchain” besides what Bitcoin is fundamentally for in the first place: counterparty-risk-free value settlement.

And as a final point with a curious and pleasing echo to Dee Hock at Visa, Calle has made the point repeatedly that David Chaum’s vision for eCash, while deeply philosophical besides the technical details, was actually pretty much impossible to operate on fiat. From an eCash perspective, fiat stablecoins within the above infrastructure setup are a dramatic improvement on anything previously possible. But, of course, they are a slippery slope to Bitcoin regardless …

Objections Revisited

As a cherry on top, I think the objections I highlighted at the outset are now readily addressed – to the extent the reader believes what I am suggesting is more or less a technical and economic inevitability, that is. While, sure, I’m not particularly keen on giving the Treasury more avenues to sell its welfare-warfare shitcoin, on balance the likely development I’ve outlined is an enormous net positive: it’s going to sell these anyway so I prefer a strong economic incentive to steadily transition not only to Lightning as payment rails but eCash as fiduciary media, and to use “fintech” as a carrot to induce a slow motion bank run.

As alluded to above, once all this is in place, the final step to a Bitcoin standard becomes as simple as an individual’s decision to want Bitcoin instead of fiat. On reflection, this is arguably the easiest part! It's setting up all the tech that puts people off, so trojan-horsing them with “faster, cheaper payment rails” seems like a genius long-term strategy.

And as to “needing a blockchain” (or not), I hope that is entirely wrapped up at this point. The only blockchain you need is Bitcoin, but to the extent people are still confused by this (which I think will take decades more to fully unwind), we may as well lean into dazzling them with whatever innovation buzzwords and decentralization theatre they were going to fall for anyway before realizing they wanted Bitcoin all along.

Conclusion

Stablecoins are useful whether you like it or not. They are stupid in the abstract but it turns out fiat is even stupider, on inspection. But you don’t need a blockchain, and using one as decentralization theatre creates technical debt that is insurmountable in the long run. Blockchain-based stablecoins are doomed to a utility inversely proportional to their usage, and just to rub it in, their ill-conceived design practically creates a commercial dynamic that mandates there only ever be a single issuer.

Given they are useful, it seems natural that this tension is going to blow up at some point. It also seems worthwhile observing that Taproot Asset stablecoins have almost the inverse problem and opposite commercial dynamic: they will be most expensive to use at the outset but get cheaper and cheaper as their usage grows. Also, there is no incentive towards a monopoly issuer but rather towards as many as are willing to try to operate well and provide value to their users.

As such, we can expect any sizable growth in stablecoins to migrate to TA out of technical and economic necessity. Once this has happened - or possibly while it is happening but is clearly not going to stop - we may as well strip out the TA component and just use eCash because you really don’t need a blockchain for that at all. And once all the money is on eCash, deciding you want to denominate it in Bitcoin is the simplest on-ramp to hyperbitcoinization you can possibly imagine, given we’ve spent the previous decade or two rebuilding all payments tech around Lightning.

Or: Bitcoin fixes this. The End.

• Allen, #892,125

thanks to Marco Argentieri, Lyn Alden, and Calle for comments and feedback

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na dvadesetjedan.com.

Autor: Matt Corallo / Prevod na hrvatski: Davor

---

Bitcoineri, od programera Bitcoin Core-a preko dugogodišnjih entuzijasta Bitcoina do nedavnih pronalazača /r/Bitcoina, vole razgovarati o tome kako je decentralizacija Bitcoina njegova ultimativna značajka. Doduše, rijetko vidite da netko objašnjava zašto je decentralizacija važna. Zasigurno je to zanimljiva značajka iz perspektive računalne znanosti, no zašto bi potrošači, tvrtke ili investitori marili za to? Ova objava je pokušaj da se napiše zašto je decentralizacija temelj vrijednosti Bitcoina i što je još važnije, postavi buduće objave u kojima se govori o tome kada ona to nije.

Kada Bitcoineri govore o decentralizaciji Bitcoina, prva stvar koja se pojavljuje je često spominjani nedostatak inherentnog povjerenja u treću stranu. Dok je dobro postavljeno povjerenje preduvjet za učinkovit rad mnogih sustava, jednom kada se takvo povjerenje izgubi, sustavi mogu postati nevjerojatno krhki. Uzmimo, za primjer, povjerenje u američke banke prije uspostave FDIC-a (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation). Dok je pristup bankovnim uslugama omogućio više pogodnosti i mnogim tvrtkama učinkovitije poslovanje, poznato je da su banke propadale, pritom upropaštavajući sa sobom sva sredstva klijenata. Dok je predstavljanje FDIC-a i sličnih programa decentraliziralo povjerenje u financijske institucije s jedne strane na dvije, transakcije u velikom dijelu svijeta ne nude takvu zaštitu. Čak i uz takve programe, pojedinci nisu univerzalno zaštićeni od gubitka preko granica i preko određene vrijednosti.

U novije vrijeme, propisi koji dopuštaju pojedinim državnim dužnosnicima jednostrano oduzimanje imovine postali su uobičajeni. Naročito u SAD-u, sada zloglasna “Operacija Choke Point” i programi oduzimanja civilne imovine, omogućili su službenicima za provođenje zakona i privatnim institucijama da zapljenjuju financijsku imovinu i uskraćuju financijske usluge uz malo ili nimalo nadzora. Uklanjanje provjerenih skrbnika i stvaranje sustava s likvidnom imovinom, koja se ne može zaplijeniti, ima potencijal pružiti pouzdanije financijske usluge mnogima koji inače ne bi mogli djelovati učinkovito ili uopće ne bi mogli djelovati. Ova mogućnost da se Bitcoin ne može zaplijeniti, omogućena je samo zbog nedostatka za centraliziranim povjerenjem. Centralizirani sustavi elektroničke gotovine i financijski sustavi su pokušali pružiti takvu pouzdanost, propisi i poslovna stvarnost su to gotovo univerzalno spriječili.

Svojstvo koje je jednako važno za sposobnost Bitcoina da pruža financijske usluge zviždačima, stranim disidentima i porno zvijezdama je njegov otpor cenzuri transakcija. Sposobnost trećih strana da zaplijene imovinu rezultira izravnim i čistim novčanim gubitkom, zamrzavanje imovine može imati sličan učinak. Kada pojedinac ili organizacija više nisu u mogućnosti obavljati transakcije za plaćanje roba i usluga, njihova financijska imovina brzo gubi vrijednost. Iako Bitcoin ima vrlo dobru priču o nemogućnosti zapljene (svaka strana u sustavu nameće nemogućnost bilo koga da potroši Bitcoin bez dodanog privatnog ključa), njegova priča o otporu cenzuri je malo utančanija.

U svijetu u kojem nijedan rudar Bitcoina nema više od 1% ukupne hash snage (ili nešto drugo što je jednako decentralizirano), trebalo bi biti lako pronaći rudara koji je ili anoniman i prihvaća sve transakcije ili je u nadležnosti koja ne pokušava cenzurirati vaše transakcije. Naravno, ovo nije svijet kakav danas imamo, a cenzura transakcija jedan je od većih razloga da se ozbiljno zabrinemo centralizacijom rudarenja (za pune čvorove). Ipak, mogućnost pojedinca da kupi hash snagu (u obliku lako dostupnog starog hardvera ili u obliku njegovog iznajmljivanja) za rudarenje svoje inače cenzurirane transakcije, opcija je sve dok je pravilo najdužeg lanca na snazi ​​kod svih rudara. Iako je znatno skuplji nego što bi bio u istinski decentraliziranom Bitcoinu, to omogućuje Bitcoinu da zadrži neka od svojih anti-cenzuriranih svojstava.

Ako ste već dovoljno dugo u priči oko Bitcoina, možda ćete prepoznati gornja svojstva kao kritična za zamjenjivost. Zamjenjivost, kao ključno svojstvo svakog monetarnog instrumenta, odnosi se na ideju da vrijednost jedne jedinice treba biti ekvivalentna svakoj drugoj jedinici. Bez mogućnosti odmrzavanja/otpora cenzuri i nemogućnosti zapljene, Bitcoin (i svaki drugi monetarni sustav) počinje gubiti zamjenjivost. Trgovci i platni procesori više ne mogu razumno prihvaćati Bitcoin bez provjere niza crnih lista i mnogo truda kako bi bili sigurni da će moći potrošiti Bitcoin koji prihvaćaju. Ako povjerenje u zamjenjivost Bitcoina deformira, njegova bi korist mogla biti značajno deformirana.

Još jedno svojstvo koje proizlazi iz decentralizacije Bitcoina, je njegov otvoreni pristup. Ulagači iz Silicijske doline često ga nazivaju jednim od najzanimljivijih svojstava Bitcoina, a mnogi ga vole nazivati ​​"bez dopuštenja". Sposobnost bilo koga, bilo gdje u svijetu, sa internetskom vezom, da prihvaća Bitcoin za robu i usluge i koristi Bitcoin za kupnju roba i usluga je vrlo uzbudljiva. Opet, ovo svojstvo ovisi o decentralizaciji Bitcoina. Iako postoje mnogi centralizirani pružatelji financijskih usluga, gdje mnogi od njih promoviraju svoju dostupnost bilo kome, sama njihova prisutnost kao centraliziranog tijela koje može proizvoljno uskratiti uslugu, čini ih podložnim budućim promjenama politike iz bilo kojeg razloga. PayPal je, na primjer, utemeljen na idealima univerzalnog pristupa elektroničkoj gotovini. Međutim, zbog svoje pozicije središnje vlasti, brzo je promijenio svoje politike, kako bi udovoljio pritiscima regulatora i politikama postojećeg financijskog sustava na koji se oslanjao. Ovih dana, PayPal je nadaleko poznat po zamrzavanju računa i oduzimanju imovine uz malo ili nimalo upozorenja. U osnovi, oslanjanje na centralizirane strane za usluge nije kompatibilno s univerzalnim otvorenim pristupom u financijskom svijetu.

Primijetit ćete da se sve gore navedene kritične značajke, one koje Bitcoin čine tako uzbudljivim za sve nas, centralizirani sistemi već neko vrijeme mogu implementirati. Zapravo to se radilo i prije, u učinkovitijim sustavima od Bitcoina. Naravno, nikada nisu potrajali, gubeći kritična svojstva nakon podešavanja kako bi se popravila ova ili ona stvar, implementirajući regulatorne sustave cenzure izravno u osnovne slojeve, ograničavajući pristup rastu dobiti i potpuno gašenje. Stvarno, decentralizacija u Bitcoinu sama po sebi nije značajka, već je umjesto toga jedini način za koji znamo da održimo značajke koje želimo u sustavima kojima upravljaju ljudi.

Originalni tekst

@ c3c7122c:607731d7

Help!

Calling all El Salvador Nostriches! If you currently live in SV, I need your help and am offering several bounties (0.001, 0.01, and 0.1 BTC).

In Brief

In short, I am pursuing El Salvador citizenship by birthright (through my grandmother). I’ve struggled to progress because her name varies on different documents. I need someone to help me push harder to get past this barrier, or connect me with information or people who can work on my behalf. I am offering:

• 0.001 BTC (100k sats) for information that will help me progress from my current situation
• 0.01 BTC (1 MM sats) to get me in touch with someone that is more impactful than the immigration lawyer I already spoke with
• 0.1 BTC (10 MM sats) if your efforts help me obtain citizenship for me or my father

Background

My grandma married my grandfather (an American Marine) and moved to the states where my father was born. I have some official and unofficial documents where her name varies in spelling, order of first/middle name, and addition of her father’s last name. So every doc basically has a different name for her. I was connected with an english-speaking immigration lawyer in SV who hit a dead end when searching for her official ID because the city hall in her city had burned down so there was no record of her info. He gave up at that point. I find it odd that it was so easy to change your name back then, but they are more strict now with the records from that time.

I believe SV citizenship is my birthright and have several personal reasons for pursuing this. I want someone to act on my behalf who will try harder to work the system (by appeal, loophole, or even bribe if I have to). If you are local and can help me with this, I’d greatly appreciate any efforts you make.

Cheers!

Corey San Diego

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

início

"Vocês vêem? Vêem a história? Vêem alguma coisa? Me parece que estou tentando lhes contar um sonho -- fazendo uma tentativa inútil, porque nenhum relato de sonho pode transmitir a sensação de sonho, aquela mistura de absurdo, surpresa e espanto numa excitação de revolta tentando se impôr, aquela noção de ser tomado pelo incompreensível que é da própria essência dos sonhos..."

Ele ficou em silêncio por alguns instantes.

"... Não, é impossível; é impossível transmitir a sensação viva de qualquer época determinada de nossa existência -- aquela que constitui a sua verdade, o seu significado, a sua essência sutil e contundente. É impossível. Vivemos, como sonhamos -- sozinhos..."

• Livros mencionados por Olavo de Carvalho
• Antiga homepage Olavo de Carvalho
• Bitcoin explicado de um jeito correto e inteligível
• Reclamações

---

• Nostr
• Bitcoin
• How IPFS is broken
• Programming quibbles
• Economics
• Open-source software

---

Nostr GitHub Telegram code

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Die «Eliten» führen bereits groß angelegte Pilotprojekte für eine Zukunft durch, die sie wollen und wir nicht. Das schreibt der OffGuardian in einem Update zum Thema «EU-Brieftasche für die digitale Identität». Das Portal weist darauf hin, dass die Akteure dabei nicht gerade zimperlich vorgehen und auch keinen Hehl aus ihren Absichten machen. Transition News hat mehrfach darüber berichtet, zuletzt hier und hier.

Mit der EU Digital Identity Wallet (EUDI-Brieftasche) sei eine einzige von der Regierung herausgegebene App geplant, die Ihre medizinischen Daten, Beschäftigungsdaten, Reisedaten, Bildungsdaten, Impfdaten, Steuerdaten, Finanzdaten sowie (potenziell) Kopien Ihrer Unterschrift, Fingerabdrücke, Gesichtsscans, Stimmproben und DNA enthält. So fasst der OffGuardian die eindrucksvolle Liste möglicher Einsatzbereiche zusammen.

Auch Dokumente wie der Personalausweis oder der Führerschein können dort in elektronischer Form gespeichert werden. Bis 2026 sind alle EU-Mitgliedstaaten dazu verpflichtet, Ihren Bürgern funktionierende und frei verfügbare digitale «Brieftaschen» bereitzustellen.

Die Menschen würden diese App nutzen, so das Portal, um Zahlungen vorzunehmen, Kredite zu beantragen, ihre Steuern zu zahlen, ihre Rezepte abzuholen, internationale Grenzen zu überschreiten, Unternehmen zu gründen, Arzttermine zu buchen, sich um Stellen zu bewerben und sogar digitale Verträge online zu unterzeichnen.

All diese Daten würden auf ihrem Mobiltelefon gespeichert und mit den Regierungen von neunzehn Ländern (plus der Ukraine) sowie über 140 anderen öffentlichen und privaten Partnern ausgetauscht. Von der Deutschen Bank über das ukrainische Ministerium für digitalen Fortschritt bis hin zu Samsung Europe. Unternehmen und Behörden würden auf diese Daten im Backend zugreifen, um «automatisierte Hintergrundprüfungen» durchzuführen.

Der Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände (VZBV) habe Bedenken geäußert, dass eine solche App «Risiken für den Schutz der Privatsphäre und der Daten» berge, berichtet das Portal. Die einzige Antwort darauf laute: «Richtig, genau dafür ist sie ja da!»

Das alles sei keine Hypothese, betont der OffGuardian. Es sei vielmehr «Potential». Damit ist ein EU-Projekt gemeint, in dessen Rahmen Dutzende öffentliche und private Einrichtungen zusammenarbeiten, «um eine einheitliche Vision der digitalen Identität für die Bürger der europäischen Länder zu definieren». Dies ist nur eines der groß angelegten Pilotprojekte, mit denen Prototypen und Anwendungsfälle für die EUDI-Wallet getestet werden. Es gibt noch mindestens drei weitere.

Den Ball der digitalen ID-Systeme habe die Covid-«Pandemie» über die «Impfpässe» ins Rollen gebracht. Seitdem habe das Thema an Schwung verloren. Je näher wir aber der vollständigen Einführung der EUid kämen, desto mehr Propaganda der Art «Warum wir eine digitale Brieftasche brauchen» könnten wir in den Mainstream-Medien erwarten, prognostiziert der OffGuardian. Vielleicht müssten wir schon nach dem nächsten großen «Grund», dem nächsten «katastrophalen katalytischen Ereignis» Ausschau halten. Vermutlich gebe es bereits Pläne, warum die Menschen plötzlich eine digitale ID-Brieftasche brauchen würden.

Die Entwicklung geht jedenfalls stetig weiter in genau diese Richtung. Beispielsweise hat Jordanien angekündigt, die digitale biometrische ID bei den nächsten Wahlen zur Verifizierung der Wähler einzuführen. Man wolle «den Papierkrieg beenden und sicherstellen, dass die gesamte Kette bis zu den nächsten Parlamentswahlen digitalisiert wird», heißt es. Absehbar ist, dass dabei einige Wahlberechtigte «auf der Strecke bleiben» werden, wie im Fall von Albanien geschehen.

Derweil würden die Briten gerne ihre Privatsphäre gegen Effizienz eintauschen, behauptet Tony Blair. Der Ex-Premier drängte kürzlich erneut auf digitale Identitäten und Gesichtserkennung. Blair ist Gründer einer Denkfabrik für globalen Wandel, Anhänger globalistischer Technokratie und «moderner Infrastruktur».

Abschließend warnt der OffGuardian vor der Illusion, Trump und Musk würden den US-Bürgern «diesen Schlamassel ersparen». Das Department of Government Efficiency werde sich auf die digitale Identität stürzen. Was könne schließlich «effizienter» sein als eine einzige App, die für alles verwendet wird? Der Unterschied bestehe nur darin, dass die US-Version vielleicht eher privat als öffentlich sei – sofern es da überhaupt noch einen wirklichen Unterschied gebe.

[Titelbild: Screenshot OffGuardian]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Ständige Lügen und Unterstellungen, permanent falsche Fürsorge \ können Bausteine von emotionaler Manipulation sein. Mit dem Zweck, \ Macht und Kontrolle über eine andere Person auszuüben. \ Apotheken Umschau

Irgendetwas muss passiert sein: «Gaslighting» ist gerade Thema in vielen Medien. Heute bin ich nach längerer Zeit mal wieder über dieses Stichwort gestolpert. Das war in einem Artikel von Norbert Häring über Manipulationen des Deutschen Wetterdienstes (DWD). In diesem Fall ging es um eine Pressemitteilung vom Donnerstag zum «viel zu warmen» Winter 2024/25.

Häring wirft der Behörde vor, dreist zu lügen und Dinge auszulassen, um die Klimaangst wach zu halten. Was der Leser beim DWD nicht erfahre, sei, dass dieser Winter kälter als die drei vorangegangenen und kälter als der Durchschnitt der letzten zehn Jahre gewesen sei. Stattdessen werde der falsche Eindruck vermittelt, es würde ungebremst immer wärmer.

Wem also der zu Ende gehende Winter eher kalt vorgekommen sein sollte, mit dessen Empfinden stimme wohl etwas nicht. Das jedenfalls wolle der DWD uns einreden, so der Wirtschaftsjournalist. Und damit sind wir beim Thema Gaslighting.

Als Gaslighting wird eine Form psychischer Manipulation bezeichnet, mit der die Opfer desorientiert und zutiefst verunsichert werden, indem ihre eigene Wahrnehmung als falsch bezeichnet wird. Der Prozess führt zu Angst und Realitätsverzerrung sowie zur Zerstörung des Selbstbewusstseins. Die Bezeichnung kommt von dem britischen Theaterstück «Gas Light» aus dem Jahr 1938, in dem ein Mann mit grausamen Psychotricks seine Frau in den Wahnsinn treibt.

Damit Gaslighting funktioniert, muss das Opfer dem Täter vertrauen. Oft wird solcher Psychoterror daher im privaten oder familiären Umfeld beschrieben, ebenso wie am Arbeitsplatz. Jedoch eignen sich die Prinzipien auch perfekt zur Manipulation der Massen. Vermeintliche Autoritäten wie Ärzte und Wissenschaftler, oder «der fürsorgliche Staat» und Institutionen wie die UNO oder die WHO wollen uns doch nichts Böses. Auch Staatsmedien, Faktenchecker und diverse NGOs wurden zu «vertrauenswürdigen Quellen» erklärt. Das hat seine Wirkung.

Warum das Thema Gaslighting derzeit scheinbar so populär ist, vermag ich nicht zu sagen. Es sind aber gerade in den letzten Tagen und Wochen auffällig viele Artikel dazu erschienen, und zwar nicht nur von Psychologen. Die Frankfurter Rundschau hat gleich mehrere publiziert, und Anwälte interessieren sich dafür offenbar genauso wie Apotheker.

Die Apotheken Umschau machte sogar auf «Medical Gaslighting» aufmerksam. Davon spreche man, wenn Mediziner Symptome nicht ernst nähmen oder wenn ein gesundheitliches Problem vom behandelnden Arzt «schnöde heruntergespielt» oder abgetan würde. Kommt Ihnen das auch irgendwie bekannt vor? Der Begriff sei allerdings irreführend, da er eine manipulierende Absicht unterstellt, die «nicht gewährleistet» sei.

Apropos Gaslighting: Die noch amtierende deutsche Bundesregierung meldete heute, es gelte, «weiter [sic!] gemeinsam daran zu arbeiten, einen gerechten und dauerhaften Frieden für die Ukraine zu erreichen». Die Ukraine, wo sich am Montag «der völkerrechtswidrige Angriffskrieg zum dritten Mal jährte», verteidige ihr Land und «unsere gemeinsamen Werte».

Merken Sie etwas? Das Demokratieverständnis mag ja tatsächlich inzwischen in beiden Ländern ähnlich traurig sein. Bezüglich Friedensbemühungen ist meine Wahrnehmung jedoch eine andere. Das muss an meinem Gedächtnis liegen.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 90c656ff:9383fd4e

Bitcoin operates through a decentralized system that relies on a process called mining to validate transactions and secure the network. However, Bitcoin mining requires a large amount of energy, which raises concerns about its environmental impact. Although there are solutions to make this process more sustainable, energy consumption remains a topic of debate among both critics and advocates of the technology.

How does Bitcoin mining work?

Bitcoin mining is the process by which new blocks are added to the blockchain (or timechain) and new coins are created. This process uses a mechanism called proof-of-work, where specialized computers (miners) compete to solve complex mathematical problems. To do this, they consume a huge amount of electricity, as the equipment must operate continuously to keep the network secure and decentralized.

• Energy consumption and environmental impact

The main criticism of Bitcoin mining is its high electricity consumption. Currently, it is estimated that the Bitcoin network consumes as much energy as some entire countries. This raises environmental concerns, as much of the world's electricity is still generated from fossil fuels, which emit polluting gases.

The environmental impacts of Bitcoin mining include:

01 - Carbon Emissions: If the electricity used for mining comes from polluting sources, the process contributes to increased CO₂ emissions, intensifying global warming.

02 - Excessive Use of Natural Resources: Large-scale mining can strain local power grids and increase demand for electricity, leading to higher fossil fuel consumption in some regions.

03 - Electronic Waste Production: Mining equipment has a relatively short lifespan, which leads to the generation of large amounts of electronic waste.

• Alternatives and sustainable solutions

Despite these concerns, Bitcoin mining is becoming increasingly efficient and sustainable. Many mining operations already use renewable energy sources such as hydroelectric, solar, and wind, significantly reducing their ecological footprint. Some solutions include:

01 - Use of Renewable Energy: Miners are relocating to regions with excess renewable energy production, taking advantage of resources that would otherwise be wasted.

02 - Recycling Heat Generated by Mining: Some companies are using the heat produced by mining equipment to warm buildings and infrastructure, making more efficient use of the energy.

03 - Technological Innovations: The development of new chips and more efficient equipment reduces the energy consumption of mining without compromising network security.

In summary, the environmental impact of Bitcoin mining is a controversial issue, but solutions to make the process more sustainable are rapidly evolving. While energy consumption remains high, the shift toward renewable energy sources and new technologies could make Bitcoin a more efficient and environmentally friendly system. Thus, the issue is not merely the amount of electricity consumed, but the origin of that energy and the innovations making mining increasingly sustainable.

Thank you very much for reading this far. I hope everything is well with you, and sending a big hug from your favorite Bitcoiner maximalist from Madeira. Long live freedom!

@ 77110427:f621e11c

All credit to Guns Magazine. Read the full issue here ⬇️

February 1970 PDF

---

---

📰 Past Magazine Mondays 📰

001: May 1963

002: August 1969

---

⬇️ Follow 1776 HODL ⬇️

Website

Nostr

@ a367f9eb:0633efea

Last week, an investigation by Reuters revealed that Chinese researchers have been using open-source AI tools to build nefarious-sounding models that may have some military application.

The reporting purports that adversaries in the Chinese Communist Party and its military wing are taking advantage of the liberal software licensing of American innovations in the AI space, which could someday have capabilities to presumably harm the United States.

In a June paper reviewed by Reuters, six Chinese researchers from three institutions, including two under the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) leading research body, the Academy of Military Science (AMS), detailed how they had used an early version of Meta’s Llama as a base for what it calls “ChatBIT”.

The researchers used an earlier Llama 13B large language model (LLM) from Meta, incorporating their own parameters to construct a military-focused AI tool to gather and process intelligence, and offer accurate and reliable information for operational decision-making.

While I’m doubtful that today’s existing chatbot-like tools will be the ultimate battlefield for a new geopolitical war (queue up the computer-simulated war from the Star Trek episode “A Taste of Armageddon“), this recent exposé requires us to revisit why large language models are released as open-source code in the first place.

Added to that, should it matter that an adversary is having a poke around and may ultimately use them for some purpose we may not like, whether that be China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran?

The number of open-source AI LLMs continues to grow each day, with projects like Vicuna, LLaMA, BLOOMB, Falcon, and Mistral available for download. In fact, there are over one million open-source LLMs available as of writing this post. With some decent hardware, every global citizen can download these codebases and run them on their computer.

With regard to this specific story, we could assume it to be a selective leak by a competitor of Meta which created the LLaMA model, intended to harm its reputation among those with cybersecurity and national security credentials. There are potentially trillions of dollars on the line.

Or it could be the revelation of something more sinister happening in the military-sponsored labs of Chinese hackers who have already been caught attacking American infrastructure, data, and yes, your credit history?

As consumer advocates who believe in the necessity of liberal democracies to safeguard our liberties against authoritarianism, we should absolutely remain skeptical when it comes to the communist regime in Beijing. We’ve written as much many times.

At the same time, however, we should not subrogate our own critical thinking and principles because it suits a convenient narrative.

Consumers of all stripes deserve technological freedom, and innovators should be free to provide that to us. And open-source software has provided the very foundations for all of this.

Open-source matters When we discuss open-source software and code, what we’re really talking about is the ability for people other than the creators to use it.

The various licensing schemes – ranging from GNU General Public License (GPL) to the MIT License and various public domain classifications – determine whether other people can use the code, edit it to their liking, and run it on their machine. Some licenses even allow you to monetize the modifications you’ve made.

While many different types of software will be fully licensed and made proprietary, restricting or even penalizing those who attempt to use it on their own, many developers have created software intended to be released to the public. This allows multiple contributors to add to the codebase and to make changes to improve it for public benefit.

Open-source software matters because anyone, anywhere can download and run the code on their own. They can also modify it, edit it, and tailor it to their specific need. The code is intended to be shared and built upon not because of some altruistic belief, but rather to make it accessible for everyone and create a broad base. This is how we create standards for technologies that provide the ground floor for further tinkering to deliver value to consumers.

Open-source libraries create the building blocks that decrease the hassle and cost of building a new web platform, smartphone, or even a computer language. They distribute common code that can be built upon, assuring interoperability and setting standards for all of our devices and technologies to talk to each other.

I am myself a proponent of open-source software. The server I run in my home has dozens of dockerized applications sourced directly from open-source contributors on GitHub and DockerHub. When there are versions or adaptations that I don’t like, I can pick and choose which I prefer. I can even make comments or add edits if I’ve found a better way for them to run.

Whether you know it or not, many of you run the Linux operating system as the base for your Macbook or any other computer and use all kinds of web tools that have active repositories forked or modified by open-source contributors online. This code is auditable by everyone and can be scrutinized or reviewed by whoever wants to (even AI bots).

This is the same software that runs your airlines, powers the farms that deliver your food, and supports the entire global monetary system. The code of the first decentralized cryptocurrency Bitcoin is also open-source, which has allowed thousands of copycat protocols that have revolutionized how we view money.

You know what else is open-source and available for everyone to use, modify, and build upon?

PHP, Mozilla Firefox, LibreOffice, MySQL, Python, Git, Docker, and WordPress. All protocols and languages that power the web. Friend or foe alike, anyone can download these pieces of software and run them how they see fit.

Open-source code is speech, and it is knowledge.

We build upon it to make information and technology accessible. Attempts to curb open-source, therefore, amount to restricting speech and knowledge.

Open-source is for your friends, and enemies In the context of Artificial Intelligence, many different developers and companies have chosen to take their large language models and make them available via an open-source license.

At this very moment, you can click on over to Hugging Face, download an AI model, and build a chatbot or scripting machine suited to your needs. All for free (as long as you have the power and bandwidth).

Thousands of companies in the AI sector are doing this at this very moment, discovering ways of building on top of open-source models to develop new apps, tools, and services to offer to companies and individuals. It’s how many different applications are coming to life and thousands more jobs are being created.

We know this can be useful to friends, but what about enemies?

As the AI wars heat up between liberal democracies like the US, the UK, and (sluggishly) the European Union, we know that authoritarian adversaries like the CCP and Russia are building their own applications.

The fear that China will use open-source US models to create some kind of military application is a clear and present danger for many political and national security researchers, as well as politicians.

A bipartisan group of US House lawmakers want to put export controls on AI models, as well as block foreign access to US cloud servers that may be hosting AI software.

If this seems familiar, we should also remember that the US government once classified cryptography and encryption as “munitions” that could not be exported to other countries (see The Crypto Wars). Many of the arguments we hear today were invoked by some of the same people as back then.

Now, encryption protocols are the gold standard for many different banking and web services, messaging, and all kinds of electronic communication. We expect our friends to use it, and our foes as well. Because code is knowledge and speech, we know how to evaluate it and respond if we need to.

Regardless of who uses open-source AI, this is how we should view it today. These are merely tools that people will use for good or ill. It’s up to governments to determine how best to stop illiberal or nefarious uses that harm us, rather than try to outlaw or restrict building of free and open software in the first place.

Limiting open-source threatens our own advancement If we set out to restrict and limit our ability to create and share open-source code, no matter who uses it, that would be tantamount to imposing censorship. There must be another way.

If there is a “Hundred Year Marathon” between the United States and liberal democracies on one side and autocracies like the Chinese Communist Party on the other, this is not something that will be won or lost based on software licenses. We need as much competition as possible.

The Chinese military has been building up its capabilities with trillions of dollars’ worth of investments that span far beyond AI chatbots and skip logic protocols.

The theft of intellectual property at factories in Shenzhen, or in US courts by third-party litigation funding coming from China, is very real and will have serious economic consequences. It may even change the balance of power if our economies and countries turn to war footing.

But these are separate issues from the ability of free people to create and share open-source code which we can all benefit from. In fact, if we want to continue our way our life and continue to add to global productivity and growth, it’s demanded that we defend open-source.

If liberal democracies want to compete with our global adversaries, it will not be done by reducing the freedoms of citizens in our own countries.

Last week, an investigation by Reuters revealed that Chinese researchers have been using open-source AI tools to build nefarious-sounding models that may have some military application.

The reporting purports that adversaries in the Chinese Communist Party and its military wing are taking advantage of the liberal software licensing of American innovations in the AI space, which could someday have capabilities to presumably harm the United States.

In a June paper reviewed by Reuters, six Chinese researchers from three institutions, including two under the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) leading research body, the Academy of Military Science (AMS), detailed how they had used an early version of Meta’s Llama as a base for what it calls “ChatBIT”.

The researchers used an earlier Llama 13B large language model (LLM) from Meta, incorporating their own parameters to construct a military-focused AI tool to gather and process intelligence, and offer accurate and reliable information for operational decision-making.

While I’m doubtful that today’s existing chatbot-like tools will be the ultimate battlefield for a new geopolitical war (queue up the computer-simulated war from the Star Trek episode “A Taste of Armageddon“), this recent exposé requires us to revisit why large language models are released as open-source code in the first place.

Added to that, should it matter that an adversary is having a poke around and may ultimately use them for some purpose we may not like, whether that be China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran?

The number of open-source AI LLMs continues to grow each day, with projects like Vicuna, LLaMA, BLOOMB, Falcon, and Mistral available for download. In fact, there are over one million open-source LLMs available as of writing this post. With some decent hardware, every global citizen can download these codebases and run them on their computer.

With regard to this specific story, we could assume it to be a selective leak by a competitor of Meta which created the LLaMA model, intended to harm its reputation among those with cybersecurity and national security credentials. There are potentially trillions of dollars on the line.

Or it could be the revelation of something more sinister happening in the military-sponsored labs of Chinese hackers who have already been caught attacking American infrastructure, data, and yes, your credit history?

As consumer advocates who believe in the necessity of liberal democracies to safeguard our liberties against authoritarianism, we should absolutely remain skeptical when it comes to the communist regime in Beijing. We’ve written as much many times.

At the same time, however, we should not subrogate our own critical thinking and principles because it suits a convenient narrative.

Consumers of all stripes deserve technological freedom, and innovators should be free to provide that to us. And open-source software has provided the very foundations for all of this.

Open-source matters

When we discuss open-source software and code, what we’re really talking about is the ability for people other than the creators to use it.

The various licensing schemes – ranging from GNU General Public License (GPL) to the MIT License and various public domain classifications – determine whether other people can use the code, edit it to their liking, and run it on their machine. Some licenses even allow you to monetize the modifications you’ve made.

While many different types of software will be fully licensed and made proprietary, restricting or even penalizing those who attempt to use it on their own, many developers have created software intended to be released to the public. This allows multiple contributors to add to the codebase and to make changes to improve it for public benefit.

Open-source software matters because anyone, anywhere can download and run the code on their own. They can also modify it, edit it, and tailor it to their specific need. The code is intended to be shared and built upon not because of some altruistic belief, but rather to make it accessible for everyone and create a broad base. This is how we create standards for technologies that provide the ground floor for further tinkering to deliver value to consumers.

Open-source libraries create the building blocks that decrease the hassle and cost of building a new web platform, smartphone, or even a computer language. They distribute common code that can be built upon, assuring interoperability and setting standards for all of our devices and technologies to talk to each other.

I am myself a proponent of open-source software. The server I run in my home has dozens of dockerized applications sourced directly from open-source contributors on GitHub and DockerHub. When there are versions or adaptations that I don’t like, I can pick and choose which I prefer. I can even make comments or add edits if I’ve found a better way for them to run.

Whether you know it or not, many of you run the Linux operating system as the base for your Macbook or any other computer and use all kinds of web tools that have active repositories forked or modified by open-source contributors online. This code is auditable by everyone and can be scrutinized or reviewed by whoever wants to (even AI bots).

This is the same software that runs your airlines, powers the farms that deliver your food, and supports the entire global monetary system. The code of the first decentralized cryptocurrency Bitcoin is also open-source, which has allowed thousands of copycat protocols that have revolutionized how we view money.

You know what else is open-source and available for everyone to use, modify, and build upon?

PHP, Mozilla Firefox, LibreOffice, MySQL, Python, Git, Docker, and WordPress. All protocols and languages that power the web. Friend or foe alike, anyone can download these pieces of software and run them how they see fit.

Open-source code is speech, and it is knowledge.

We build upon it to make information and technology accessible. Attempts to curb open-source, therefore, amount to restricting speech and knowledge.

Open-source is for your friends, and enemies

In the context of Artificial Intelligence, many different developers and companies have chosen to take their large language models and make them available via an open-source license.

At this very moment, you can click on over to Hugging Face, download an AI model, and build a chatbot or scripting machine suited to your needs. All for free (as long as you have the power and bandwidth).

Thousands of companies in the AI sector are doing this at this very moment, discovering ways of building on top of open-source models to develop new apps, tools, and services to offer to companies and individuals. It’s how many different applications are coming to life and thousands more jobs are being created.

We know this can be useful to friends, but what about enemies?

As the AI wars heat up between liberal democracies like the US, the UK, and (sluggishly) the European Union, we know that authoritarian adversaries like the CCP and Russia are building their own applications.

The fear that China will use open-source US models to create some kind of military application is a clear and present danger for many political and national security researchers, as well as politicians.

A bipartisan group of US House lawmakers want to put export controls on AI models, as well as block foreign access to US cloud servers that may be hosting AI software.

If this seems familiar, we should also remember that the US government once classified cryptography and encryption as “munitions” that could not be exported to other countries (see The Crypto Wars). Many of the arguments we hear today were invoked by some of the same people as back then.

Now, encryption protocols are the gold standard for many different banking and web services, messaging, and all kinds of electronic communication. We expect our friends to use it, and our foes as well. Because code is knowledge and speech, we know how to evaluate it and respond if we need to.

Regardless of who uses open-source AI, this is how we should view it today. These are merely tools that people will use for good or ill. It’s up to governments to determine how best to stop illiberal or nefarious uses that harm us, rather than try to outlaw or restrict building of free and open software in the first place.

Limiting open-source threatens our own advancement

If we set out to restrict and limit our ability to create and share open-source code, no matter who uses it, that would be tantamount to imposing censorship. There must be another way.

If there is a “Hundred Year Marathon” between the United States and liberal democracies on one side and autocracies like the Chinese Communist Party on the other, this is not something that will be won or lost based on software licenses. We need as much competition as possible.

The Chinese military has been building up its capabilities with trillions of dollars’ worth of investments that span far beyond AI chatbots and skip logic protocols.

The theft of intellectual property at factories in Shenzhen, or in US courts by third-party litigation funding coming from China, is very real and will have serious economic consequences. It may even change the balance of power if our economies and countries turn to war footing.

But these are separate issues from the ability of free people to create and share open-source code which we can all benefit from. In fact, if we want to continue our way our life and continue to add to global productivity and growth, it’s demanded that we defend open-source.

If liberal democracies want to compete with our global adversaries, it will not be done by reducing the freedoms of citizens in our own countries.

Originally published on the website of the Consumer Choice Center.

@ 3eba5ef4:751f23ae

Crypto Insights

2025 MIT Bitcoin Expo: Spotlight on Freedom Tech

The 12th MIT Bitcoin Expo took place on April 5–6, centering this year’s theme on “Freedom Tech” and how technology can facilitate physical and social liberation.

• Day 1 Recap: Mawarire delivered the keynote speech “Why Freedom Tech Matters,” and Dryja discussed how Bitcoin demonstrates resilience against nation-states. The morning sessions focused on corporate adoption, featuring speakers such as Paul Giordano from Marathon Digital and Bitcoin Core contributors like Gloria Zhao. The afternoon shifted toward more technical topics, including consensus cleanup, poisoning attacks, censorship resistance, and the Bitcoin Pipes protocol.

• Day 2 Recap: The focus shifted to global impact. Mauricio Bartolomeo discussed the exfiltration of resources via Bitcoin, followed by a panel with activists from Venezuela, Russia, and Togo. Technical topics included: scaling self-custody, Steven Roose’s covenant soft fork proposals, the future of freedom tech, quantum resistance, and Tor.

• Links of agenda and replay.

Into Bitcoin Address Poisoning Attacks

In this article, Jameson Lopp highlights the rise of Bitcoin address poisoning attacks—an emerging form of social engineering. Attackers send transactions from newly generated wallets that mimic the beginning and end characters of a target's recently used address. If the target later copies an address from their transaction history, they may unknowingly send funds to the attacker instead of the intended recipient. Though the success rate per attack is low, the low cost of transactions enables attackers to attempt thousands in a short period.

Lopp also argues that such attacks are a byproduct of low transaction fees and that higher fees could deter them. He also suggests wallet-level defenses, such as warnings like, “Oh, this came from a similar looking address,” to help users avoid interaction.

Examining the Mitigation Strategy Against Timewarp Attacks

Timewarp attacks, first identified around 2011, allow a majority of malicious miners to manipulate block timestamps, artificially lower difficulty, and mine blocks every few seconds. The “Great Consensus Cleanup” soft fork proposal can mitigate this by requiring that the first block in a new difficulty period must have a time no earlier than a certain number of minutes before the last block of the previous period.

A report examines the details of this BIP.

Tokenization on Bitcoin: Building a Global Settlement Layer with Taproot Assets and Lightning

Bitcoin’s evolution into a multi-asset platform is accelerating with the advent of Taproot Assets and Lightning Network. The integration of these technologies combines Bitcoin’s decentralization and security with the speed and scalability of the Lightning Network. This report examines how Taproot Assets enable asset issuance, transfers, and swaps on Bitcoin’s base layer, and how the Lightning Network facilitates fast, low-cost transfers of those assets. We compare this approach to earlier attempts at Bitcoin asset issuance and analyze its market potential against other blockchains and traditional payment networks.

Solving Data Availability in Client-Side Validation With UTxO Binding

Issuing tokens on Bitcoin is attractive due to its security and dominance, but its limited functionality creates challenges. Client-side validation (CSV) is a common workaround, using off-chain data with on-chain verification, though it risks data loss and withholding. This paper introduces UTxO binding, a framework that links a Bitcoin UTxO to one on an auxiliary chain, providing data storage and programmability. The authors prove its security and implement it using Nervos CKB.

From State Differences to Scaling: Citrea’s Fee Mechanism for Bitcoin

The Citrea team has designed a new fee mechanism to enhance Bitcoin’s scalability without compromising security. It only records essential state differences (i.e., state slot changes) on the Bitcoin main chain, using zero-knowledge proofs to ensure verifiability and Bitcoin security while drastically reducing state inscription costs. Optimizations include: replacing code field with code_hash, compressing state data using a highly efficient compression algorithm Brotli, and analyzing historical Ethereum block data to estimate each transaction’s impact on cumulative state differences—enabling a discount to each transaction.

Second: A New Ark Implementation Launched on Bitcoin Signet

Second, a protocol based on Ark to improve Bitcoin transaction throughput, has launched Bark, a test implementation on Bitcoin Signet.

Ark makes Bitcoin transactions faster, cheaper, and more private, allowing more users and transactions per block. However, funds stored non-custodially via Ark can expire if unused, making it slightly less trustless than mainchain transactions.

BitLayer Optimizes BitVM Bridge Protocol and Demonstrates on Testnet

Bitlayer BitVM Bridge protocol is an optimized adaptation of the bridge protocol outlined in the BitVM2 paper, to improve efficiency, scalability, and security—especially for high-risk cross-chain transactions.

In this article, two key testnet demos on bitvmnet (a BitVM-dedicated testnet) demonstrate how the protocol can:

• Effectively thwart fraudulent reclaim attempts by brokers.

• Protect honest brokers from malicious or baseless challenges.

Cardano Enables Bitcoin DeFi via BitVMX and Lightning Hydra

Cardano is integrating with Bitcoin through Lightning Hydra and BitVMX to enable secure and scalable Bitcoin DeFi.

Zcash’s Tachyon Upgrade: Toward Scalable Oblivious Synchronization

Zcash has unveiled project Tachyon, a proposal to scale Zcash by changing how wallets sync and prove ownership of notes. Instead of scanning the entire blockchain, wallets track only their own nullifiers and receive succinct proofs from untrusted, oblivious sync servers. Transactions include proofs of wallet state (using recursive SNARKs), allowing nodes to verify them without keeping the full history. Notes are exchanged out-of-band, reducing on-chain data and improving privacy. In the nominal case, users get fast sync, lightweight wallets, and strong privacy, without the need to trust the network.

Podcast | Why the Future of Bitcoin Mining is Distributed

In this podcast, Professor Troy Cross discusses the centralization of Bitcoin mining and argues convincingly for hashrate decentralization. While economies of scale have led to mega mining operations, he sees economic imperative that will drive mining toward a globally distributed future—not dominated by the U.S.—ensuring neutrality and resilience against state-level threats.

Binance Report｜Crypto Industry Map March 2025

This report provides an overview of projects using a framework that divides crypto into four core ecosystems—Infrastructure, DeFi, NFT, and Gaming—and four trending sectors: Stablecoins, RWA, AI, and DeSci.

For infrastructure, five key pillars are identified: scalability & fairness, data availability & tooling, security & privacy, cloud networks, and connectivity. The report also maps out and categorizes the major projects and solutions currently on the market.

Top Reads on Blockchain and Beyond

A Game-Theoretic Approach to Bitcoin’s Valuation in Equilibrium

The author presents a game-theoretic argument for why Bitcoin will emerge as the optimal unit of account in equilibrium. The argument is based upon the observation that a generally agreed upon unit of account that represents a constant share of total wealth (equal to the totality of all other economic utility) will naturally create price signals that passively stabilize the macroeconomy, without requiring external interventi­on.

Bitcoin’s unique properties—finite supply, inertness, fungibility, accessibility, and ownership history—position it as the leading candidate to emerge as this unit.

Neo: Lattice-Based Folding Scheme for CCS Over Small Fields and Pay-Per-Bit Commitments

This paper introduces Neo, a new lattice-based folding scheme for CCS, an NP-complete relation that generalizes R1CS, Plonkish, and AIR. Neo's folding scheme can be viewed as adapting the folding scheme in HyperNova (CRYPTO'24), which assumes elliptic-curve based linearly homomorphic commitments, to the lattice setting. Unlike HyperNova, Neo can use “small” prime fields (e.g., over the Goldilocks prime). Additionally, Neo provides plausible post-quantum security.

Social Scalability: Key to Massive Value Accumulation in Crypto

Social scalability, a concept first proposed by Nick Szabo in his 2017 article Money, Blockchains, and Social Scalability, is further explored in this thread. Here, “social scalability” refers to an institution's ability to allow the maximum number of people to have skin in the game and win. It’s seen as the main reason crypto has become a $2.9T asset class today and a key driver of value accumulation in the coming decade.

The author argues that two critical ingredients for long-term social scalability are credible neutrality and utility. Currently, only BTC and ETH have this potential, yet neither strikes a perfect balance between the two. The author notes that there is not yet a strong narrative around social scalability, and concludes by emphasizing the importance of focusing on long-term value and resisting the temptation of short-term market narratives.

@ 09fbf8f3:fa3d60f0

> ### 第三方API合集：

免责申明:

在此推荐的 OpenAI API Key 由第三方代理商提供，所以我们不对 API Key 的 有效性 和 安全性 负责，请你自行承担购买和使用 API Key 的风险。

| 服务商 | 特性说明 | Proxy 代理地址 | 链接 | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | AiHubMix | 使用 OpenAI 企业接口，全站模型价格为官方 86 折（含 GPT-4 ）| https://aihubmix.com/v1 | 官网 | | OpenAI-HK | OpenAI的API官方计费模式为，按每次API请求内容和返回内容tokens长度来定价。每个模型具有不同的计价方式，以每1,000个tokens消耗为单位定价。其中1,000个tokens约为750个英文单词（约400汉字）| https://api.openai-hk.com/ | 官网 | | CloseAI | CloseAI是国内规模最大的商用级OpenAI代理平台，也是国内第一家专业OpenAI中转服务，定位于企业级商用需求，面向企业客户的线上服务提供高质量稳定的官方OpenAI API 中转代理，是百余家企业和多家科研机构的专用合作平台。 | https://api.openai-proxy.org | 官网 | | OpenAI-SB | 需要配合Telegram 获取api key | https://api.openai-sb.com | 官网 |

持续更新。。。

---

推广：

访问不了openai，去低调云购买VPN。

官网：https://didiaocloud.xyz

邀请码：w9AjVJit

价格低至1元。

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Anglicismos estúpidos no português contemporâneo

Palavras e expressões que ninguém deveria usar porque não têm o sentido que as pessoas acham que têm, são apenas aportuguesamentos de palavras inglesas que por nuances da história têm um sentido ligeiramente diferente em inglês.

Cada erro é acompanhado também de uma sugestão de como corrigi-lo.

Palavras que existem em português com sentido diferente

• submissão (de trabalhos): envio, apresentação
• disrupção: perturbação
• assumir: considerar, pressupor, presumir
• realizar: perceber
• endereçar: tratar de
• suporte (ao cliente): atendimento
• suportar (uma idéia, um projeto): apoiar, financiar
• suportar (uma função, recurso, característica): oferecer, ser compatível com
• literacia: instrução, alfabetização
• convoluto: complicado.
• acurácia: precisão.
• resiliência: resistência.

Aportuguesamentos desnecessários

• estartar: iniciar, começar
• treidar: negociar, especular

Expressões

• "não é sobre...": "não se trata de..."

---

Ver também

• Algumas expressões e ditados excelentes da língua portuguesa, e outras não tão excelentes assim

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na dvadesetjedan.com.

Autor: Alex Gladstein / Prevod na hrvatski: TheVeka

---

Francuska još uvijek koristi monetarni kolonijalizam za iskorištavanje 15 afričkih nacija. Može li Bitcoin biti izlaz?

U jesen 1993. obitelj Fodéa Diopa štedjela je za njegovu budućnost. Briljantan 18-godišnjak koji živi u Senegalu, Fodé je imao pred sobom svijetlu budućnost kao košarkaš i inženjer. Njegov otac, školski učitelj, pomogao mu je pronaći inspiraciju u računalima i povezivanju sa svijetom oko sebe. A njegov atletski talent donio mu je ponude za studiranje u Europi i Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama.

Ali kada se probudio ujutro 12. siječnja 1994., sve se promijenilo. Preko noći je njegova obitelj izgubila pola svoje ušteđevine. Ne zbog krađe, pljačke banke ili bankrota neke tvrtke - već zbog devalvacije valute koju je nametnula strana sila sa sjedištem udaljenim 5000 kilometara od njih.

Prethodne večeri francuski dužnosnici sastali su se sa svojim afričkim kolegama u Dakaru kako bi razgovarali o sudbini "franca de la Communauté financière africaine" (ili franka Financijske zajednice Afrike), široko poznatog kao CFA franak ili skraćeno "seefa". Tijekom čitavog Fodéova života njegov CFA franak bio je vezan za francuski franak u omjeru od 1 naprama 50, ali kad je kasnonoćni sastanak završio, ponoćna objava postavila je novu vrijednost od 1 naprama 100.

Okrutna je ironija bila da je ekonomska sudbina milijuna Senegalaca bila potpuno izvan njihovih vlastitih ruku. Nikakvi prosvjedi nisu mogli svrgnuti njihove ekonomske gospodare. Desetljećima su novi predsjednici dolazili i odlazili, ali temeljni financijski aranžman nikada se nije mijenjao. Za razliku od tipične fiat valute, sustav je bio daleko podmukliji. Bio je to monetarni kolonijalizam.

Mehanika CFA sustava

U svojoj knjizi koja otvara oči, Posljednja afrička kolonijalna valuta: priča o CFA franku (Africa's Last Colonial Currency: The CFA Franc Story), znanstvenici iz područja ekonomije Fanny Pigeaud i Ndongo Samba Sylla govore o tragičnoj i, ponekad šokantnoj, povijesti CFA franka.

Francuska je, kao i druge europske sile, kolonizirala mnoge nacije diljem svijeta u doba svog imperijalnog vrhunca. Veoma često ta kolonizacija bila je brutalna. Nakon okupacije od strane nacističke Njemačke u Drugom svjetskom ratu, Francusko kolonijalno carstvo "Empire colonial français" počeo se raspadati. Francuzi su se borili da zadrže svoje kolonije, nanoseći pritom ogromne ljudske žrtve. Unatoč vođenju skupog niza globalnih ratova, izgubljena je Indokina, zatim Sirija i Libanon, te, na kraju, francuski teritorij u sjevernoj Africi, uključujući cijenjenu naseljeničku koloniju Alžir, bogatu naftom i plinom. No Francuska je bila odlučna ne izgubiti svoje teritorije u zapadnoj i središnjoj Africi. Oni su osiguravali vojnu snagu tijekom dva svjetska rata i nudili obilje prirodnih resursa - uključujući uran, kakao, drvo i boksit - koji su obogatili i održali metropolu (Francusku u njenim postojećim europskim granicama).

Kako se približavala 1960., dekolonizacija se činila neizbježnom. Europa je bila ujedinjena u povlačenju iz Afrike nakon desetljeća pustošenja i pljačke koju su sponzorirale države. Ali francuske su vlasti shvatile da mogu dobiti svoj kolač i pojesti ga, prepuštanjem političke kontrole uz zadržavanje monetarne kontrole.

Ovo naslijeđe i danas postoji u 15 zemalja koje govore francuski i koriste valutu koju kontrolira Pariz: Senegal, Mali, Obala Bjelokosti, Gvineja Bisau, Togo, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger, Kamerun, Čad, Srednjoafrička Republika, Gabon, Ekvatorijalna Gvineja, Republika Kongo i Komori. U 2022. Francuzi još uvijek vrše monetarnu kontrolu nad više od 2,5 milijuna četvornih kilometara afričkog teritorija, površine 80% veličine Indije.

Francuska je službenu dekolonizaciju započela 1956. s Defferreovim okvirnim zakon "La Loi-cadre Defferre", dijelom zakona koji kolonijama daje više autonomije i stvara demokratske institucije i opće pravo glasa. Godine 1958. francuski ustav je izmijenjen kako bi se uspostavila La Communauté (Zajednica): skupina autonomnih, demokratski upravljanih prekomorskih teritorija. Predsjednik Charles de Gaulle obišao je kolonije diljem zapadne i središnje Afrike kako bi ponudio autonomiju bez neovisnosti kroz La Communauté ili neposrednu potpunu neovisnost. Jasno je dao do znanja da će s prvim biti povlastica i stabilnosti, a s drugim velikih rizika, pa čak i kaosa.

Godine 1960. Francuska je zapravo imala veću populaciju — oko 40 milijuna ljudi — od 30 milijuna stanovnika sadašnjih 15 CFA zemalja. Ali danas 67 milijuna ljudi živi u Francuskoj, a 183 milijuna u CFA zoni. Prema projekcijama UN-a, do 2100. godine Francuska će imati 74 milijuna, a CFA nacije više od 800 milijuna. S obzirom da Francuska još uvijek drži njihovu financijsku sudbinu u svojim rukama, situacija sve više nalikuje ekonomskom apartheidu.

Kada je CFA franak prvobitno uveden 1945., vrijedio je 1,7 francuskih franaka. Godine 1948. ojačan je na 2 francuska franka. Ali u vrijeme kad je CFA franak bio vezan za euro krajem 1990-ih, vrijedio je 0,01 francuski franak. To je ukupna devalvacija od 99,5%. Svaki put kad je Francuska devalvirala CFA franak, povećala je svoju kupovnu moć u odnosu na svoje bivše kolonije i poskupila im uvoz vitalne robe. Godine 1992. Francuzi su putem nacionalnog referenduma mogli glasovati o prihvaćanju eura ili ne. Državljanima CFA-e bilo je uskraćeno takvo pravo i bili su isključeni iz pregovora koji bi njihov novac vezali za novu valutu.

Točan mehanizam CFA sustava evoluirao je od njegovog nastanka, ali osnovna funkcionalnost i metode iskorištavanja su nepromijenjene. Oni su opisani onim što Pigeaud i Sylla nazivaju "teorijom ovisnosti", gdje se resursi perifernih nacija u razvoju "kontinuirano crpe u korist središnjih bogatih nacija... bogate nacije ne ulažu u siromašne nacije da bi ih učinile bogatijima... [ovo] izrabljivanje evoluiralo je tijekom vremena od brutalnih režima ropstva do sofisticiranijih i manje očitih načina održavanja političkog i ekonomskog ropstva.”

Tri središnje banke danas opslužuju 15 zemalja CFA: Središnja banka zapadnoafričkih država (Banque Centrale des États de l'Afrique de l'Ouest - BCEAO) za zapadnoafričke zemlje, Banka država Srednje Afrike (Banque des États de l'Afrique Centrale - BEAC) za srednjoafričke zemlje i Središnja banka Komora (Banque Centrale des Comores BCC) za Komore. Središnje banke drže devizne rezerve (tj. nacionalnu štednju) za pojedinačne nacije u svojoj regiji, koje u svakom trenutku moraju držati nevjerojatnih 50% u francuskoj riznici. Ova brojka, koliko god visoka, rezultat je povijesnih pregovora. Izvorno su bivše kolonije morale držati 100% svojih rezervi u Francuskoj, a tek su 1970-ih stekle pravo kontrolirati neke i ustupiti "samo" 65% Parizu. CFA države nemaju nikakvu diskreciju u pogledu svojih rezervi pohranjenih u inozemstvu. Zapravo, oni ne znaju kako se taj novac troši. U međuvremenu, Pariz točno zna kako se troši novac svake CFA države, budući da vodi "operativne račune" za svaku zemlju u tri središnje banke.

Kao primjer kako ovo funkcionira, kada tvrtka za proizvodnju kave iz Bjelokosti proda robu u vrijednosti od milijun dolara kineskom kupcu, juani od kupca se mijenjaju u eure na francuskom tržištu valuta. Zatim francuska riznica preuzima eure i kreditira iznos u CFA francima na račun Obale Bjelokosti u BCEAO, koji zatim kreditira račun proizvođača kave u zemlji. Sve prolazi kroz Pariz. Prema Pigeaudu i Sylli, Francuska još uvijek proizvodi sve novčanice i kovanice koje se koriste u CFA regiji — naplaćujući 45 milijuna eura godišnje za uslugu — i još uvijek drži 90% zlatnih rezervi CFA, oko 36,5 tona.

Sustav CFA daje pet glavnih prednosti francuskoj vladi:

• rezerve bonusa koje može koristiti prema vlastitom nahođenju;
• velika tržišta za skup izvoz i jeftin uvoz;
• mogućnost kupnje strateških minerala u domaćoj valuti bez smanjenja rezervi;
• povoljne zajmove kada su CFA zemlje u kreditima i povoljne kamatne stope kada su u dugovima (dugo je vremena francuska stopa - inflacije čak premašivala kamatnu stopu zajma, što znači da je Francuska zapravo prisiljavala CFA nacije da plaćaju naknadu za -skladištenje svojih rezervi u inozemstvu); i, konačno,
• "dvostruki zajam", u kojem će CFA nacija posuditi novac od Francuske, i, u potrazi za raspoređivanjem kapitala, imati malo izbora s obzirom na perverzne makroekonomske okolnosti u kojima treba sklopiti ugovor s francuskim tvrtkama. To znači da se glavnica kredita odmah vraća u Francusku, ali je afrička nacija još uvijek opterećena i glavnicom i kamatama.

To dovodi do svojevrsnog fenomena "recikliranja petrodolara" (slično onome kako bi Saudijska Arabija uzimala dolare zarađene prodajom nafte i ulagala ih u američke trezorske zapise), jer bi CFA izvoznici povijesno prodavali sirovine Francuskoj, a dio prihoda bivao prikupljen od strane regionalne središnje banke i “reinvestiran” natrag u dug metropole kroz francuski ili danas europski državni dug. Pored toga, tu je još i selektivna konvertibilnost CFA franka. Poduzeća danas mogu lako prodati svoje CFA franke za eure (prethodno francuske franke), ali građani koji nose CFA franke izvan zone svoje središnje banke ne mogu ih formalno nigdje zamijeniti. Beskorisne su otprilike kao i razglednice. Ako državljanka Bjelokosti napušta svoju zemlju, mora prvo zamijeniti novčanice za eure, gdje francusko ministarstvo financija i Europska središnja banka (ECB) izdvajaju seigniorage (danak feudalnom gospodaru) putem tečaja.

Monetarna represija u igri je da Francuska prisiljava CFA nacije da drže golemu količinu rezervi u pariškim blagajnama, sprječavajući Afrikance u stvaranju domaćih kredita. Regionalne središnje banke na kraju posuđuju vrlo malo po vrlo visokim stopama, umjesto da posuđuju više po niskim stopama. A CFA nacije na kraju, protiv svojih želja, kupuju francuski ili, danas europski, dug svojim strateškim rezervama.

Ono što možda najviše iznenađuje jest posebna povlastica prava prvenstva pri uvozu i izvozu. Ako ste malijski proizvođač pamuka, svoju robu prvo morate ponuditi Francuskoj prije nego što odete na međunarodna tržišta. Ili ako ste u Beninu i želite izgraditi novi infrastrukturni projekt, morate razmotriti francuske ponude, prije ostalih. To je povijesno značilo da je Francuska mogla doći do robe jeftinije od tržišne iz svojih bivših kolonija i prodavati vlastitu robu i usluge po cijenama višim od tržišnih.

Pigeaud i Sylla ovo nazivaju nastavkom "kolonijalnog pakta", koji je bio usredotočen na četiri temeljna načela:

• kolonijama je bila zabranjena industrijalizacija i morale su se zadovoljiti opskrbom metropole sirovinama koje su ih pretvarale u gotove proizvode koji su se zatim preprodani kolonijama,
• metropola je uživala monopol kolonijalnog izvoza i uvoza,
• monopol prilikom slanja kolonijalnih proizvoda u inozemstvo i konačno,
• metropola je dala trgovačke povlastice proizvodima kolonija.

Rezultat toga je situacija u kojoj “središnje banke imaju velike devizne rezerve plaćene po niskim ili čak negativnim stopama u realnom iznosu, u kojoj komercijalne banke drže višak likvidnosti, gdje je pristup kreditima za kućanstva i poduzeća racionaliziran i u kojoj su države sve više prisiljene, kako bi financirali svoje razvojne projekte, ugovarati devizne kredite po neodrživim kamatama, što dodatno potiče bijeg kapitala.

Danas je CFA sustav "afrikaniziran", što znači da novčanice sada prikazuju afričku kulturu te floru i faunu na njima, a središnje banke nalaze se u Dakaru, Yaoundéu i Moroniju - ali to su samo kozmetičke promjene. Novčanice se još uvijek izrađuju u Parizu, operativne račune još uvijek vode francuske vlasti, a francuski dužnosnici još uvijek sjede u odborima regionalnih središnjih banaka i de facto imaju pravo veta. Nevjerojatna je situacija u kojoj građanin Gabona ima francuskog birokrata koji donosi odluke u njezino ime. Kao da ECB ili Federalne rezerve imaju Japance ili Ruse koji odlučuju umjesto Europljana i Amerikanaca.

Svjetska banka i Međunarodni monetarni fond kroz povijest su radili zajedno s Francuskom na provođenju CFA sustava i rijetko, ako ikad, kritiziraju njegovu izrabljivačku prirodu. Zapravo, kao dio sustava Bretton Woods nakon Drugog svjetskog rata - gdje bi Amerikanci vodili Svjetsku banku, a Europljani MMF - položaj generalnog direktora MMF-a često je držao francuski dužnosnik, do nedavno Christine Lagarde. Tijekom godina MMF je pomagao Francuskoj da vrši pritisak na CFA nacije da slijede željenu politiku. Istaknuti primjer bio je ranih 1990-ih, kada Obala Bjelokosti nije htjela devalvirati svoju valutu, ali Francuzi su se zalagali za takvu promjenu. Prema Pigeaudu i Sylli, “krajem 1991., MMF je odbio nastaviti posuđivati novac Obali Bjelokosti, ponudivši zemlji dvije mogućnosti. Ili će država vratiti dugove ugovorene s Fondom ili će prihvatiti devalvaciju.” Obala Bjelokosti i druge CFA nacije su poklekle i prihvatile devalvaciju tri godine kasnije.

U suprotnosti s vrijednostima sloboda, jednakost, bratstvo (liberté, égalité, fraternité), francuski su dužnosnici podupirali tiraniju u CFA zoni posljednjih šest desetljeća. Na primjer, tri čovjeka - Omar Bongo u Gabonu, Paul Biya u Kamerunu i Gnassingbé Eyadéma u Togu - zajedno su skupili 120 godina na vlasti. Sve bi ih njihovi ljudi izbacili daleko prije da Francuzi nisu osigurali gotovinu, oružje i diplomatsko pokriće. Prema Pigeaudu i Sylli, između 1960. i 1991. “Pariz je izveo gotovo 40 vojnih intervencija u 16 zemalja kako bi obranio svoje interese.” Taj je broj danas sigurno veći.

S vremenom je CFA sustav omogućio francuskoj državi da iskorištava resurse i rad CFA nacija, ne dopuštajući im da povećaju svoju akumulaciju kapitala i razviju vlastita izvozno vođena gospodarstva. Rezultati su bili katastrofalni za razvoj društva općenito.

Danas je BDP Obale Slonovače (korigiran za inflaciju) po glavi stanovnika (u dolarima) oko 1.700 USD, u usporedbi s 2.500 USD u kasnim 1970-ima. U Senegalu je tek 2017. BDP po stanovniku premašio visine dosegnute 1960-ih. Kao što primjećuju Pigeaud i Sylla, “10 država zone franka zabilježilo je svoje najviše razine prosječnog dohotka prije 2000-ih. U posljednjih 40 godina prosječna se kupovna moć gotovo posvuda pogoršala. U Gabonu je najveći prosječni prihod zabilježen 1976. godine, nešto ispod 20.000 dolara. Četrdeset godina kasnije smanjio se za pola. Gvineja Bisau pridružila se CFA sustavu 1997. godine, godine u kojoj je zabilježila vrhunac svog prosječnog prihoda. 19 godina kasnije, ovo je palo za 20%.”

Zapanjujućih 10 od 15 CFA zemalja Ujedinjeni narodi smatraju među "najmanje razvijenim zemljama" u svijetu, uz Haiti, Jemen i Afganistan. Na raznim međunarodnim ljestvicama Niger, Srednjoafrička Republika, Čad i Gvineja Bisau često se ubrajaju u najsiromašnije zemlje svijeta. Francuzi održavaju, zapravo, ekstremnu verziju onoga što je Allen Farrington nazvao "kapitalnim površinskim rudnikom".

Senegalski političar Amadou Lamine-Guèye jednom je sažeo CFA sustav kao građani koji imaju "samo dužnosti, a nikakva prava", te da je "zadatak koloniziranih teritorija bio proizvoditi puno, proizvoditi iznad vlastitih potreba i proizvoditi na štetu njihovih neposrednijih interesa, kako bi se metropoli omogućio bolji životni standard i sigurnija opskrba.” Metropola, naravno, odolijeva ovom opisu. Kao što je francuski ministar gospodarstva Michel Sapin rekao u travnju 2017., "Francuska je tu kao prijatelj."

Sada se možete zapitati: Opiru li se afričke zemlje ovom iskorištavanju? Odgovor je da, ali oni plaćaju visoku cijenu. Rani nacionalistički vođe iz doba afričke neovisnosti prepoznali su kritičnu vrijednost ekonomske slobode.

“Neovisnost je samo uvod u novu i uključeniju borbu za pravo na vođenje vlastitih gospodarskih i društvenih poslova [..] neometano uništavajućom i ponižavajućom neokolonijalističkom kontrolom i uplitanjem,” izjavio je 1963. Kwame Nkrumah, koji je vodio pokret koji je Ganu učinio prvom neovisnom nacijom u podsaharskoj Africi. Ali kroz povijest CFA regije, nacionalni čelnici koji su se suprotstavili francuskim vlastima uglavnom su loše prolazili.

Godine 1958. Gvineja je pokušala zatražiti monetarnu neovisnost. U poznatom govoru, vatreni nacionalist Sekou Touré rekao je gostujućem Charlesu de Gaulleu: "Radije bismo imali siromaštvo u slobodi nego bogatstvo u ropstvu," i nedugo zatim napustio sustav CFA. Prema The Washington Postu, “kao reakcija, i kao upozorenje drugim područjima s francuskim govornim područjem, Francuzi su se povukli iz Gvineje tijekom dva mjeseca, odnoseći sa sobom sve što su mogli. Odvrnuli su žarulje, uklonili planove za kanalizacijske cjevovode u Conakryju, glavnom gradu, pa čak i spalili lijekove umjesto da ih ostave Gvinejcima.”

Zatim, kao čin destabilizirajuće odmazde, Francuzi su pokrenuli operaciju Persil, tijekom koje su, prema Pigeaudu i Sylli, francuske obavještajne službe krivotvorile goleme količine novih gvinejskih novčanica i zatim ih "masovno" ubacile u zemlju. "Rezultat", pišu oni, "bio je kolaps gvinejskog gospodarstva." Demokratske nade zemlje srušene su zajedno s njezinim financijama, jer je Touré uspio učvrstiti svoju moć u kaosu i započeti 26 godina brutalne vladavine.

U lipnju 1962. malijski vođa za neovisnost Modibo Keita objavio je da Mali napušta CFA zonu kako bi kovao vlastitu valutu. Keita je detaljno objasnio razloge za taj potez, kao što su ekonomska prevelika ovisnost (80% malijskog uvoza dolazi iz Francuske), koncentracija ovlasti za donošenje odluka u Parizu i usporavanje ekonomske diversifikacije i rasta.

“Istina je da je vjetar dekolonizacije prošao preko starog zdanja, ali nije ga previše poljuljao”, rekao je o statusu quo. Kao odgovor, francuska vlada učinila je malijski franak nekonvertibilnim. Uslijedila je duboka gospodarska kriza, a Keita je svrgnut vojnim udarom 1968. Mali je na kraju odlučio ponovno ući u CFA zonu, ali su Francuzi nametnuli dvije devalvacije malijskog franka kao uvjete za povratak i nisu dopustili ponovni ulazak do 1984. godine.

Godine 1969., kada je predsjednik Nigera Hamani Diori tražio "fleksibilniji" aranžman, gdje bi njegova zemlja imala veću monetarnu neovisnost, Francuzi su to odbili. Prijetili su mu uskraćivanjem plaćanja za uran koji su skupljali iz pustinjskih rudnika koji će Francuskoj dati energetsku neovisnost putem nuklearne energije. Šest godina kasnije, Diorijevu vladu svrgnuo je general Seyni Kountché, tri dana prije planiranog sastanka za ponovno pregovaranje o cijeni nigerskog urana. Diori je želio povisiti cijenu, ali se njegov bivši kolonijalni gospodar nije složio s tim. Francuska vojska bila je stacionirana u blizini tijekom puča, ali, kako Pigeaud i Sylla primjećuju, nisu ni prstom maknuli.

Godine 1985., revolucionarni vojni vođa Thomas Sankara iz Burkine Faso upitan je u intervjuu: “Nije li CFA franak oružje za dominaciju Afrikom? Planira li Burkina Faso nastaviti nositi ovaj teret? Zašto afričkom seljaku u njegovom selu treba konvertibilna valuta?” Sankara je odgovorio: “Je li valuta konvertibilna ili ne to nikada nije bila briga afričkog seljaka. On je protiv svoje volje bačen u ekonomski sustav protiv kojeg je bespomoćan.”

Sankaru je dvije godine kasnije ubio njegov najbolji prijatelj i drugi zapovjednik, Blaise Compaoré. Nikada nije održano suđenje. Umjesto toga, Compaoré je preuzeo vlast i vladao do 2014., lojalan i brutalan sluga CFA sustava.

Borba Faride Nabourema za financijsku slobodu Toga

U prosincu 1962. prvi postkolonijalni vođa Toga Sylvanus Olympio formalno je krenuo u osnivanje središnje banke Togoa i togoanskog franka. Ali ujutro 13. siječnja 1963., nekoliko dana prije nego što je trebao zacementirati ovu tranziciju, ubili su ga togoanski vojnici koji su prošli obuku u Francuskoj. Gnassingbé Eyadéma bio je jedan od vojnika koji su počinili zločin. Kasnije je preuzeo vlast i postao diktator Toga uz punu francusku podršku, vladajući više od pet desetljeća i promičući CFA franak do svoje smrti 2005. Njegov sin vlada do danas. Olympiovo ubojstvo nikada nije riješeno.

Obitelj Faride Nabourema uvijek je bila uključena u borbu za ljudska prava u Togu. Njezin otac bio je aktivni vođa opozicije, a služio je kao politički zatvorenik. Njegov se otac suprotstavljao Francuzima tijekom kolonijalnih vremena. Danas je ona vodeća figura demokratskog pokreta u zemlji.

Farida je imala 15 godina kada je saznala da je povijest diktature Toga bila isprepletena s CFA frankom. Do tog vremena, ranih 2000-ih, počela se zbližavati sa svojim ocem i postavljati mu pitanja o povijesti svoje zemlje. “Zašto je naš prvi predsjednik ubijen samo nekoliko godina nakon što smo stekli neovisnost?” upitala je.

Odgovor: opirao se CFA franku.

Godine 1962. Olympia je započela pokret prema financijskoj neovisnosti od Francuske. Parlament je glasovao za početak takve tranzicije i stvaranje togoanskog franka i držanje njihovih rezervi u vlastitoj središnjoj banci. Farida je bila šokirana kada je saznala da je Olympio ubijen samo dva dana prije nego što je Togo trebao napustiti CFA aranžman. Kako je rekla: “Njegova odluka da traži monetarnu slobodu viđena je kao uvreda hegemoniji u frankofonskoj Africi. Bojali su se da će ih drugi slijediti.”

Danas je, kaže ona, za mnoge togoanske aktiviste CFA glavni razlog za traženje veće slobode. “To je ono što animira mnoge u oporbenom pokretu.”

Razlozi zašto su jasni. Farida je rekla da Francuska drži više od polovice rezervi Toga u svojim bankama, gdje Togoanci nemaju nikakav nadzor nad time kako se te rezerve troše. Često se te rezerve, koje su zaradili Togoanci, koriste za kupnju francuskog duga za financiranje aktivnosti francuskog naroda. Zapravo, taj se novac često posuđuje bivšem kolonijalnom gospodaru uz negativan stvarni prinos. Togoanci plaćaju Parizu da im čuva novac, a pritom financiraju životni standard Francuza.

Godine 1994. devalvacija koja je ukrala ušteđevinu obitelji Fode Diopa u Senegalu teško je pogodila i Togo, uzrokujući ogroman porast državnog duga, smanjenje javnog financiranja lokalne infrastrukture i povećanje siromaštva.

“Zapamtite,” rekla je Farida, “naša vlada je prisiljena dati prednost držanju naših rezervi u francuskoj banci umjesto trošenju kod kuće, tako da kada nas udari šok, moramo se degradirati, kako bismo osigurali da odgovarajuća količina gotovine bude u rukama Parižana .”

To stvara nacionalnu klimu ovisnosti, u kojoj su Togoanci prisiljeni isporučivati sirovu robu i unositi gotovu robu. To je zatvoreni krug iz kojeg nema izlaza.

Farida je rekla da je prije otprilike 10 godina pokret protiv CFA-a počeo dobivati na snazi. Zbog mobilnih telefona i društvenih medija ljudi su se mogli ujediniti i organizirati na decentraliziran način. Nekada su se samo građani Bjelokosti i Togoa borili odvojeno, rekla je, ali sada postoji regionalni napor između aktivista.

Desetljećima postoji ideja o "eko" valuti za sve zemlje Ekonomske zajednice zapadnoafričkih država (ECOWAS), uključujući regionalne gospodarske sile Nigeriju i Ganu. Farida je rekla da su Francuzi pokušali preoteti ovaj plan, videći ga kao način za proširenje vlastitog financijskog carstva. Godine 2013. tadašnji predsjednik François Hollande formirao je komisiju koja je izradila dokument za francusku budućnost u Africi. U njemu su izjavili da je imperativ uključiti anglofone zemlje (afričke zemlje u kojima se priča engleskim jezikom) poput Gane.

Administracija Emmanuela Macrona sada pokušava preimenovati CFA franak u Eco, u kontinuiranom procesu "afrikanizacije" francuskog kolonijalnog financijskog sustava. Nigerija i Gana odustale su od Eko projekta, nakon što su shvatile da će Francuzi i dalje imati kontrolu. Ništa se još formalno nije dogodilo, ali zemlje kojima trenutačno upravlja središnja banka BCEAO na putu su da pređu na ovu eko valutu do 2027. Francuzi će i dalje imati sposobnost donošenja odluka i ne postoje službeni planovi za prilagodbu središnjeg bankarstva srednjoafričkih CFA nacija ili Komora.

"Vrhunac je licemjerja za francuske vođe poput Macrona da odu u Davos i kažu da su gotovi s kolonijalizmom", rekla je Farida, "dok ga zapravo pokušavaju proširiti."

Rekla je da je izvorno CFA franak stvoren na temelju valutnog plana koji su koristili nacistički okupatori Francuske. Tijekom Drugog svjetskog rata, Njemačka je stvorila nacionalnu valutu za francuske kolonije kako bi mogla lako kontrolirati uvoz i izvoz koristeći samo jednu financijsku polugu. Kada je rat završio i Francuzi ponovno stekli slobodu, odlučili su koristiti isti model za svoje kolonije. Dakle, rekla je Farida, temelj CFA franka je zapravo nacistički.

Sustav ima mračnu genijalnost u tome što su Francuzi s vremenom uspjeli tiskati novac za kupnju vitalnih dobara iz svojih bivših kolonija, ali te afričke zemlje moraju raditi kako bi zaradile rezerve.

"To nije fer, to nije neovisnost", rekla je Farida. “To je čista eksploatacija.”

Francuska tvrdi da je sustav dobar jer osigurava stabilnost, nisku inflaciju i konvertibilnost Togoancima. Ali konvertibilnost na kraju olakšava bijeg kapitala - kada je tvrtkama lako pobjeći od CFA-a i danas parkirati svoje profite u eurima - dok zarobljavaju Togoance u režimu seigniorage. Kad god se CFA pretvori - a mora biti pretvoren, jer se ne može koristiti izvan ekonomske zone u kojoj građani međusobno razmijenjuju dobra i usluge - Francuzi i ECB uzimaju svoj dio.

Da, rekla je Farida, inflacija je niska u Togu u usporedbi s neovisnim državama, ali velik dio njihove zarade ide za borbu protiv inflacije umjesto za podršku razvoju infrastrukture i industrije kod kuće. Istaknula je rast Gane, koja ima neovisnu monetarnu politiku i višu inflaciju tijekom vremena od CFA zemalja, u usporedbi s Togom. Po svim pokazateljima - zdravstvu, rastu srednje klase, nezaposlenosti - Gana je superiornija. Zapravo, kad pogledamo iz većega, rekla je da niti jedna CFA nacija nije među 10 najbogatijih zemalja u Africi. Ali od 10 najsiromašnijih, polovica je u CFA zoni.

Farida kaže da francuski kolonijalizam nadilazi novac. Također utječe na obrazovanje i kulturu. Na primjer, rekla je, Svjetska banka daje 130 milijuna dolara godišnje za potporu frankofonim zemljama (zemlje u kojima se priča francuskim jezikom) za plaćanje udžbenika u javnim školama. Farida kaže da je 90% tih knjiga tiskano u Francuskoj. Novac ide izravno iz Svjetske banke u Pariz, a ne u Togo ili bilo koju drugu afričku naciju. Knjige su alat za ispiranje mozga, rekla je Farida. Usredotočeni su na slavu francuske kulture i potkopavaju postignuća drugih naroda, bilo da su američki, azijski ili afrički.

U srednjoj školi Farida je pitala svog oca: "Koriste li ljudi u Europi neki drugi jezik osim francuskog?" On se smijao. Učili su samo o francuskoj povijesti, francuskim izumiteljima i francuskim filozofima. Odrasla je misleći da su jedini pametni ljudi Francuzi. Nikada nije pročitala nijednu američku ili britansku knjigu prije nego što je prvi put otputovala u inozemstvo.

Općenito, rekla je Farida, Francuska Afrika konzumira 80% knjiga koje Francuzi tiskaju. Predsjednik Macron želi proširiti ovu dominaciju i obećao je potrošiti stotine milijuna eura za jačanje francuskog jezika u Africi, izjavljujući da bi on mogao biti "prvi jezik" kontinenta i nazivajući ga "jezikom slobode". S obzirom na trenutne trendove, do 2050. 85% svih govornika francuskog moglo bi živjeti u Africi. Jezik je jedan od stupova podrške opstanku CFA franka.

Politika je nešto drugo. Važan dio CFA sustava je francuska podrška diktaturi. S iznimkom Senegala, niti jedna zemlja bloka CFA nije imala smislenu demokratizaciju. Svaki pojedini uspješni tiranin u frankofonskoj Africi, rekla je Farida, imao je punu podršku francuske države. Kad god dođe do državnog udara protiv demokracije, Francuzi podržavaju pučiste sve dok su oni prijatelji CFA režima. Ali u trenutku kad netko ima antifrancuske tendencije, vidite sankcije, prijetnje ili čak atentate.

Farida ističe primjer Chad i Malija danas. Obje zemlje su pod prijetnjom terorizma i pobune. U Cahdu je pokojnog vojnog diktatora Idrissa Debyja Francuska podržavala tri desetljeća do njegove smrti u travnju. Prema chadskom ustavu, čelnik parlamenta obično je sljedeći na redu za predsjednika, no umjesto toga vojska je postavila Debyjeva sina, generala u vojsci. Francuska vlada pozdravila je ovu ilegalnu tranziciju, a predsjednik Macron je čak posjetio Chad kako bi proslavio ovu prijevaru. U govoru odavanja počasti nazvao je Debyja "prijateljem" i "hrabrim vojnikom" i rekao "Francuska neće dopustiti da itko dovede u pitanje ili prijeti stabilnosti i integritetu Chada danas ili sutra". Sin će, naravno, promovirati CFA franak.

Mali je, s druge strane, rekla je Farida, imao državni udar mjesec dana nakon Chadovog. Hunta i stanovništvo nisu toliko prijateljski raspoloženi prema Parizu i čini se da u Rusiji traže novog partnera za suzbijanje terorizma. Tako je francuska vlada državni udar nazvala "neprihvatljivim", prijeti da će povući trupe iz Malija kako bi ih "ostavila nasamo s teroristima", kako je rekao Farida, i priprema sankcije. Mali je kažnjen od strane Francuske jer je učinio isto što i Chad. Ima despotizma i korupcije s obje strane. Jedina razlika je u tome što se Mali želio odmaknuti od francuske monetarne kontrole, dok Chad i dalje surađuje.

“Kada ste diktator, dokle god radite za Francusku, oni će i dalje nalaziti izgovore da vam pomognu da ostanete na vlasti”, rekla je Farida. Isto su učinili 2005. u njezinoj zemlji Togo, što je dovelo do toga da je sin preuzeo vlast od svog oca diktatora i do njezinog vlastitog političkog buđenja.

Misija Fode Diopa da donese bitcoin u Senegal

Tek kada je Fodé Diop imao priliku otputovati u SAD, mogao je početi gledati svoju zemlju Senegal izvana.

Isprva je devalvacija CFA franka 1994. dovela njegovu akademsku budućnost u opasnost. Imao je priliku otići studirati i igrati košarku na sveučilištu u Kansasu, ali je njegova obiteljska ušteđevina bila uništena. Sretniji od većine oko njega, njegova je obitelj imala još jednu mogućnost: njegov je otac imao prava na knjige za nastavne materijale koje je on izradio, a on ih je mogao upotrijebiti da posudi ono što je bilo potrebno da Fodé ode u školu.

Jednog dana, nekoliko godina nakon što je završio fakultet, dok je živio u SAD-u i radio na novoj web stranici za video on demand sa svojim bratom, Fodé je slučajno naišao na YouTube video dr. Cheikha Anta Diopa, senegalskog znanstvenika i povjesničara, govoreći o tome kako su novac i jezik bili alati za kontrolu ljudskih umova i sredstava za život.

Fodé je već čuo za dr. Diopa - najveće sveučilište u Senegalu nazvano je po njemu - ali nije slušao njegovu kritiku CFA sustava. To je teško pogodilo Fodéa. Kaže da je to bilo poput trenutka u "Matrixu", jednom od njegovih omiljenih filmova, kada Neo uzima crvenu pilulu od Morpheusa i bježi iz svoje kapsule u uznemirujuće brutalni stvarni svijet. Napokon je ugledao vodu u kojoj je plivao dok je odrastao.

"Ovo je bio prvi put u životu da sam počeo razmišljati svojom glavom", rekao je Fodé. “Prvi put sam shvatio da je valuta moje zemlje mehanizam kontrole.”

Rekao je da je to više od puke kontrole nad valutom. Budući da Francuzi tiskaju i kontroliraju novac preko operativnih računa svake zemlje, oni imaju podatke.

“Oni znaju što kamo ide, imaju informacije o svim zemljama. Oni imaju prednost nad tim zemljama. Oni znaju tko je korumpiran. Oni znaju tko kupuje nekretnine u Francuskoj. Oni znaju što je dostupno. Oni imaju prvo pravo odbijanja povlaštenih uvoznih i izvoznih cijena. Imaju potpunu dominaciju,” rekao je Fodé.

Kasnije će razmišljati o devalvaciji iz 1994. godine. Tada je imao samo 18 godina pa nije shvaćao što se dogodilo, osim činjenice da su obiteljske financije postale znatno teže.

“Stavljaju vam vreću na glavu kako ne biste primijetili svoju stvarnost”, rekao je.

U retrospektivi, o tome se vodila velika javna rasprava. Ljudi su shvatili da kada bi išli pretvarati u francuski franak, dobili bi upola manje za svoj novac, iako su radili istu količinu posla. Francuski razlog, rekao je Fodé, bio je učiniti izvoz jeftinijim kako bi afričke zemlje mogle proizvoditi konkurentnije. Ali Fodé to vidi drugačije: to je Francuskoj omogućilo da udari bičem i kupi jeftiniju robu.

Fodé je imao još dva trenutka "crvene pilule". Sljedeći je došao 2007., kada je radio u Las Vegasu na tehnološkoj sceni. Gledao je video Stevea Jobsa, koji je upravo predstavio prvi iPhone. Fodé je bio zapanjen: mobilni telefon koji je imao izvorni preglednik sa zaslonom osjetljivim na dodir. Ista stvar koja je bila na vašem računalu sada je bila i na vašem telefonu. Odmah je znao da će to promijeniti svijet. Njegova sljedeća misao: Kako da izvorna plaćanja unesemo u iPhone aplikacije, tako da ljudi bez bankovnih računa i kreditnih kartica mogu koristiti mobilni novac?

Posljednja crvena pilula za Fodéa bilo je učenje o Bitcoinu 2010. godine. Živio je u Los Angelesu kada je prvi put pročitao bitcoin white paper (bijeli knjiga) Satoshija Nakamota za "peer-to-peer elektronički novčani sustav". Od trenutka kada ga je pročitao, Fodé je pomislio: Po prvi put imamo oružje kojim se možemo boriti protiv ugnjetavanja i kolonijalizma. Novac naroda, koji ne kontroliraju vlade. "Ovo je", rekao je, "upravo ono što nam treba."

Godinama ranije, Fodé je pročitao "Izvan kontrole" Kevina Kellyja. Jedno od poglavlja bilo je o e-valutama. Znao je da će na kraju sav novac biti digitalan, dio velike globalne elektroničke revolucije. Ali nikada nije preduboko razmišljao o transformativnoj snazi koju digitalni novac može imati, sve do Bitcoina.

“Što je novac? Odakle dolazi? Postavljajući ova pitanja, to je ono što je Bitcoin učinio za mene,” rekao je. "Prije toga, ne postavljate sami sebi ova pitanja."

Možda, mislio je, jednog dana Francuska više neće imati pravo ili mogućnost tiskati i kontrolirati novac senegalskog naroda.

Fodé i njegov cimer u Las Vegasu ostajali bi do kasno mnogo puta tijekom narednih godina, razmišljajući o tome što bi Bitcoin mogao omogućiti za plaćanja, štednju i sve gospodarske aktivnosti. Saznao je što se dogodilo kad ste ukrali svoju kreditnu karticu, kakve je informacije to otkrilo. I što su treće strane radile s tim informacijama.

Mislio je da bi brak pametnog telefona i Bitcoina bio nevjerojatan alat za osnaživanje. Fodé bi se često vraćao u Senegal, a svaki put kad bi išao, sa sobom bi ponio hrpu telefona koje bi poklonio. Promatrao ih je kao veze s vanjskim svijetom za svoje prijatelje kod kuće.

Tijekom sljedećih godina radio je u različitim startupovima, a sve u industriji digitalizacije različitih dijelova naših života. Godine 2017. napustio je Vegas i otišao u San Francisco. Pridružio se kampu za kodiranje i odlučio postati računalni inženjer. U početku se jako uključio u scenu kriptovaluta u cjelini, no na kraju se, kaže, "odljubio" od Ethereuma, otprilike u vrijeme kad je počeo ići na sokratske seminare u San Franciscu s osnivačem Rivera Alexom Leishmanom. Upoznao je mnoge programere koji su radili na razvoju bitcoina i najranije korisnike Lightning mreže.

Godine 2019. pobijedio je na hackathonu u sektoru transporta, izradivši Lightning fakturu koja bi otključala Teslu. To mu je dalo veliki poticaj samopouzdanju da može pomoći promijeniti svijet. Odlučio je otići kući u Senegal kako bi širio znanje o Bitcoin. Na putu mu je izvršna direktorica Lightning Labsa Elizabeth Stark dala stipendiju za putovanje na Lightning konferenciju u Berlinu. Tamo je upoznao Richarda Myersa iz GoTenne i programera Willa Clarka, koji su razmišljali o tome kako se mesh mrežama boriti protiv internetske cenzure. Fodé je pomislio: U Senegalu francuski telekom Orange kontrolira sve telefonske mreže. Možda bi mogli pronaći način da zaobiđu francusku kontrolu nad komunikacijama i mogućnost "isključivanja interneta" putem Bitcoina i Lightninga.

Sve telekomunikacijske kanale u Senegalu kontrolira Francuska i mogu ih zatvoriti u slučaju prosvjeda protiv čelnika zemlje, kojeg podržavaju sve dok se drži CFA sustava. Ali, moguće je pronaći krajnje točke, rekao je Fodé, preko drugih pružatelja usluga. To mogu biti druge nacionalne telefonske mreže ili čak satelitske veze. Fodé je stvorio uređaj koji može hvatati ove druge signale. Mobilni telefoni mogli bi se spojiti s tim uređajem, omogućujući korisnicima da budu online čak i kada su Francuzi isključili internet. Kako bi potaknuo ljude koji upravljaju takvim uređajima, plaćao bi im u bitcoinu. Za usmjeravanje podataka i održavanje ovih uređaja u Senegalu plaća se putem Lightninga. To je ono na čemu Fodé danas radi.

"Vrlo je riskantno", rekao je Fodé. “Možete se suočiti sa zatvorom ili novčanom kaznom. Ali uz novčane poticaje, ljudi su voljni.”

Sljedeći put kada Orange isključi internet kako bi zaštitio svog saveznika u vladi, ljudi će možda imati novi način komuniciranja koji režim ne može zaustaviti.

Lightning je, rekao je Fodé, sve.

“Potrebna su nam trenutna i jeftina plaćanja. Ne možemo vršiti on-chain Bitcoin plaćanja. Naknade su jednostavno preskupe. Moramo koristiti Lightning. Nema druge opcije”, rekao je. "I radi."

To posebno zvuči istinito u području doznaka, koje su, prema Svjetskoj banci, glavni izvor BDP-a za mnoge CFA zemlje. Na primjer: 14,5% BDP-a temelji se na inozemnim doznakama. Za Senegal je 10,7%; Gvineja Bisau, 9,8%; Togo, 8,4%; i Mali, 6%. Prosječni trošak slanja doznake od 200 USD u sub-saharsku Afriku je 8%, a prosječni trošak slanja 500 USD 9%. Devizne doznake putem servisa poput Strike-a koje se temelje na bitcoinu mogu smanjiti naknade ispod 1%. Usvajanjem bitcoin modela i koriptenjem ovakvih usluga može se uštedjeti od 0,5% do 1% BDP-a CFA zemalja.Ako to pogledamo izdaleka, svake godine pošiljatelji doznaka širom svijeta šalju kući otprilike 700 milijardi dolara. Moglo bi se uštedjeti između 30 i 40 milijardi dolara, što je otprilike isti iznos koji SAD troši svake godine na inozemnu pomoć.

Fodé razumije zašto bi ljudi na Zapadu mogli biti skeptični prema Bitcoinu. “Ako imate aplikaciju Venmo i Cash, možda ne vidite zašto je to važno. Imate sve pogodnosti modernog monetarnog sustava. Ali kad odete u Senegal, više od 70% naših ljudi nikada nije kročilo u banku. Mama nikada nije imala kreditnu ili debitnu karticu”, rekao je.

Pita se: Kako će uopće sudjelovati u globalnom financijskom sustavu?

Rekao je da će brak pametnih telefona i Bitcoina osloboditi ljude i promijeniti društvo. Fodé je spomenuo "Mobilni val", knjigu koju je izvršni direktor MicroStrategyja Michael Saylor napisao o revoluciji pomoću uređaja koji stanu u jednu ruku. Kad je Fodé prvi put dotaknuo iPhone, znao je da je to ono što je čekao. Svemir se urotio, pomislio je. U samo nekoliko kratkih godina, vidio je iPhone, Veliku financijsku krizu, Satotshijevo izdanje Bitcoina i vlastitu tranziciju da postane američki građanin.

Rekao je da, budući da je pola života proveo u Africi, a pola u SAD-u, vidi put naprijed.

“Kada odem kući, vidim kako su ljudi sputani. Ali na isti način na koji smo preskočili fiksne telefone i prešli ravno na mobitele, preskočit ćemo banke i prijeći ravno na Bitcoin.”

Još jedan učinak koji vidi u Senegalu je da kada su ljudi izloženi Bitcoinu, počnu štedjeti.

“Danas, kod kuće, razmišljam o tome kako pomoći ljudima da uštede novac”, rekao je. “Ovdje nitko ništa ne štedi. Samo troše svaki CFA franak koji mogu dobiti.”

Fodé je "zauvijek zahvalan" za bitcoin koji mu je Leishman dao, jer ga je na kraju dao u malim dijelovima ljudima u Senegalu - onima koji su dolazili na događaje ili postavljali dobra pitanja. Ljudi su vidjeli kako njegova vrijednost raste s vremenom.

S velikim je uzbuđenjem promatrao što se događa u El Salvadoru. Kada je ranije ovog mjeseca stajao u konferencijskoj dvorani u Miamiju i slušao osnivača Strikea Jacka Mallersa kako najavljuje da je jedna država dodala bitcoin kao zakonsko sredstvo plaćanja, Fodé je rekao da je zaplakao. Mislio je da se ovo nikada neće dogoditi.

“Ono što je počelo kao pohrana vrijednosti, sada se razvija u sredstvo razmjene”, rekao je.

El Salvador ima neke sličnosti sa zemljama CFA zone. To je siromašnija nacija, vezana za stranu valutu, ovisna o uvozu, sa slabijom izvoznom bazom. Njegovu monetarnu politiku kontrolira vanjska sila. 70% zemlje nema bankarstvo, a 22% nacionalnog BDP-a oslanja se na inozemne doznake.

"Ako bi to mogla biti dobra opcija za njih," mislio je Fodé, "možda bi mogla biti i za nas."

Ali zna da postoje velike prepreke.

Jedan je francuski jezik. Nema puno francuskih informacija na GitHubu ili u dokumentacijskim materijalima za Lightning ili o Bitcoin coreu. Trenutno Fodé radi na prevođenju dijela ovoga na francuski kako bi se lokalna zajednica programera mogla više uključiti.

Može li se zajednica Bitcoin Beach (Bitcoin plaža) na kraju pojaviti u Senegalu? Da, rekao je Fodé. Zato se vratio i zato vodi sastanke, prikuplja donacije putem Lightninga i gradi verziju Radija Slobodna Europa koju pokreću građani i koja se temelji na Bitcoinu.

"Mogli bi me zatvoriti", rekao je. "Ali kroz sastanke se trudim da ne budem niti jedina točka neuspjeha (single point of failure)."

On misli da će biti teško usvojiti Bitcoin u Senegalu zbog francuskog utjecaja.

"Neće proći bez borbe", rekao je.

Kao što je rekao Ndongo Samba Sylla, “Danas se Francuska suočava s relativnim ekonomskim padom u regiji koju je dugo smatrala svojim privatnim rezervatom. Čak i suočena s usponom drugih sila poput Kine, Francuska nema namjeru odustati od vlasti - borit će se do posljednjeg."

Ali možda bi to, umjesto nasilne revolucije, mogla biti postupna mirna revolucija tijekom vremena koja izbacuje kolonijalizam.

"Ne iznenadno isključivanje, već paralelni sustav, gdje se ljudi mogu sami odlučiti tijekom vremena", rekao je Fodé. “Bez prisile.”

Što se tiče ljudi koji misle da samo trebamo tražiti od vlade da zaštiti naša prava?

"Oni ne znaju da demokracije poput Francuske imaju lošu stranu", rekao je Fodé. “Neće nam dati slobodu. Umjesto toga, trebali bismo slijediti korake cypherpunka i zgrabiti našu slobodu koristeći otvoreni kod.”

Na pitanje o šansama Bitcoina da zamijeni središnje bankarstvo, Fodé je rekao da ta ideja “Amerikancima može zvučati ludo, ali za Senegalce ili Togoance, središnje banke su parazit našeg društva. Moramo uzvratiti.”

Fodé smatra da Bitcoin "mijenja život".

“Nikada prije nismo imali sustav u kojem bi se novac mogao kovati na decentraliziran način. Ali ovo je ono što imamo danas. To je rješenje za one kojima je najpotrebnije. Po prvi put imamo moćno oruđe za suzbijanje ugnjetavanja”, rekao je. “Možda nije savršeno, ali moramo koristiti alate koje danas imamo da se borimo za ljude. Ne čekati da nam netko dođe pomoći.”

Odvajanje novca od države

Godine 1980. kamerunski ekonomist Joseph Tchundjang Pouemi napisao je Novac, ropstvo i sloboda: Afrička monetarna represija (Monnaie, servitude et liberté: La répression monétaire de l’Afrique) Teza: novčana ovisnost je temelj svih drugih oblika ovisnosti. Završne riječi knjige posebno snažno zvuče danas: “Sudbina Afrike bit će iskovana novcem ili se uopće neće iskovati.”

Novac i valuta zakopani su ispod površine u globalnom pokretu za ljudska prava. Oni se gotovo nikada ne spominju na konferencijama o ljudskim pravima i rijetko se o njima raspravlja među aktivistima. Ali pitajte zagovornika demokracije iz autoritarnog režima o novcu, i ispričat će vam nevjerojatne i tragične priče. Demonetizacija u Eritreji i Sjevernoj Koreji, hiperinflacija u Zimbabveu i Venezueli, državni nadzor u Kini i Hong Kongu, zamrznuta plaćanja u Bjelorusiji i Nigeriji i ekonomski zaštitni zidovi u Iranu i Palestini. A sada: monetarni kolonijalizam u Togu i Senegalu. Bez financijske slobode pokreti i nevladine organizacije ne mogu se održati. Ako su njihovi bankovni računi zatvoreni, novčanice demonetizirane ili sredstva obezvrijeđena, njihova moć je ograničena i tiranija maršira.

Monetarna represija i dalje se skriva i o njoj se ne govori u pristojnim krugovima. Današnja stvarnost za 182 milijuna ljudi koji žive u CFA zemljama je da iako su možda politički neovisni po imenu, njihova su gospodarstva i novac još uvijek pod kolonijalnom vlašću, a strane sile još uvijek zlorabe i produljuju taj odnos kako bi iscijedile i iskorištavale što više vrijednosti iz njihova društva i geografije što je više moguće.

Posljednjih godina građani CFA zone sve više ustaju. Slogan Francusko odobrenje "France Dégage!" postao je poklič okupljanja. No čini se da najglasniji kritičari sustava, među njima Pigeaud i Sylla, ne nude održivu alternativu. Oni odbacuju status quo i ropstvo MMF-a, samo kako bi predložili ili regionalnu valutu, koju kontroliraju lokalni čelnici, ili sustav u kojem svaka CFA nacija stvara i upravlja vlastitom valutom. Ali samo zato što su Senegal ili Togo dobili monetarnu neovisnost od Francuske, ne jamči da će imati dobre rezultate ili da čelnici zemlje neće zlorabiti valutu.

Još uvijek postoji prijetnja domaće diktatorske loše vladavine ili novog zarobljavanja od strane ruskih ili kineskih stranih sila. Jasno je da ljudima treba novac koji zapravo lomi kotač, novac koji mogu kontrolirati i kojim vlade bilo koje vrste ne mogu manipulirati. Baš kao što je došlo do povijesnog odvajanja crkve i države koje je utrlo put prosperitetnijem i slobodnijem ljudskom društvu, u tijeku je odvajanje novca od države.

Bi li građani CFA nacija, s vremenom, s povećanjem pristupa internetu, mogli popularizirati Bitcoin do te mjere da bi vlade bile prisiljene de facto ga usvojiti, kao što se dogodilo u zemljama Latinske Amerike poput Ekvadora s "dolarización popular" (popularna dolarizacija)? Povijest ostaje za pisati, ali jedno je sigurno: Svjetska banka i MMF oduprijet će se svim trendovima u tom smjeru. Već su zamahnuli protiv El Salvadora.

Nedavno je glumac Hill Harper citiran u The New York Timesu u vezi s njegovim aktivizmom oko Bitcoina u afroameričkoj zajednici. Rekao je, vrlo jednostavno, "Oni ne mogu kolonizirati Bitcoin."

Farida Nabourema se slaže. “Bitcoin”, rekla je, “prvi put ikada da postoji novac koji je zapravo decentraliziran i dostupan svakome u svijetu bez obzira na boju kože, ideologiju, nacionalnost, količinu bogatstva ili kolonijalnu prošlost.”

Rekla je da je to narodna valuta, pa čak ide i korak dalje.

"Možda", rekla je, "bitcoin bismo trebali nazvati valutom dekolonizacije."

Originalan tekst autora Alex Gladstein objavljen je na portalu Bitcoin Magazine. Prijevod teksta napravljen je uz dozvolu autora.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Europa – das Ganze ist eine wunderbare Idee, \ aber das war der Kommunismus auch. \ Loriot

«Europa hat fertig», könnte man unken, und das wäre nicht einmal sehr verwegen. Mit solch einer Einschätzung stünden wir nicht alleine, denn die Stimmen in diese Richtung mehren sich. Der französische Präsident Emmanuel Macron warnte schon letztes Jahr davor, dass «unser Europa sterben könnte». Vermutlich hatte er dabei andere Gefahren im Kopf als jetzt der ungarische Ministerpräsident Viktor Orbán, der ein «baldiges Ende der EU» prognostizierte. Das Ergebnis könnte allerdings das gleiche sein.

Neben vordergründigen Themenbereichen wie Wirtschaft, Energie und Sicherheit ist das eigentliche Problem jedoch die obskure Mischung aus aufgegebener Souveränität und geschwollener Arroganz, mit der europäische Politiker:innende unterschiedlicher Couleur aufzutreten pflegen. Und das Tüpfelchen auf dem i ist die bröckelnde Legitimation politischer Institutionen dadurch, dass die Stimmen großer Teile der Bevölkerung seit Jahren auf vielfältige Weise ausgegrenzt werden.

Um «UnsereDemokratie» steht es schlecht. Dass seine Mandate immer schwächer werden, merkt natürlich auch unser «Führungspersonal». Entsprechend werden die Maßnahmen zur Gängelung, Überwachung und Manipulation der Bürger ständig verzweifelter. Parallel dazu plustern sich in Paris Macron, Scholz und einige andere noch einmal mächtig in Sachen Verteidigung und «Kriegstüchtigkeit» auf.

Momentan gilt es auch, das Überschwappen covidiotischer und verschwörungsideologischer Auswüchse aus den USA nach Europa zu vermeiden. So ein «MEGA» (Make Europe Great Again) können wir hier nicht gebrauchen. Aus den Vereinigten Staaten kommen nämlich furchtbare Nachrichten. Beispielsweise wurde einer der schärfsten Kritiker der Corona-Maßnahmen kürzlich zum Gesundheitsminister ernannt. Dieser setzt sich jetzt für eine Neubewertung der mRNA-«Impfstoffe» ein, was durchaus zu einem Entzug der Zulassungen führen könnte.

Der europäischen Version von «Verteidigung der Demokratie» setzte der US-Vizepräsident J. D. Vance auf der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz sein Verständnis entgegen: «Demokratie stärken, indem wir unseren Bürgern erlauben, ihre Meinung zu sagen». Das Abschalten von Medien, das Annullieren von Wahlen oder das Ausschließen von Menschen vom politischen Prozess schütze gar nichts. Vielmehr sei dies der todsichere Weg, die Demokratie zu zerstören.

In der Schweiz kamen seine Worte deutlich besser an als in den meisten europäischen NATO-Ländern. Bundespräsidentin Karin Keller-Sutter lobte die Rede und interpretierte sie als «Plädoyer für die direkte Demokratie». Möglicherweise zeichne sich hier eine außenpolitische Kehrtwende in Richtung integraler Neutralität ab, meint mein Kollege Daniel Funk. Das wären doch endlich mal ein paar gute Nachrichten.

Von der einstigen Idee einer europäischen Union mit engeren Beziehungen zwischen den Staaten, um Konflikte zu vermeiden und das Wohlergehen der Bürger zu verbessern, sind wir meilenweit abgekommen. Der heutige korrupte Verbund unter technokratischer Leitung ähnelt mehr einem Selbstbedienungsladen mit sehr begrenztem Zugang. Die EU-Wahlen im letzten Sommer haben daran ebenso wenig geändert, wie die Bundestagswahl am kommenden Sonntag darauf einen Einfluss haben wird.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a5ee4475:2ca75401

lista #descentralismo #compilado #portugues

*Algumas destas listas ainda estão sendo trocadas, portanto as versões mais recentes delas só estão visíveis no Amethyst por causa da ferramenta de edição.

Clients do Nostr e Outras Coisas

nostr:naddr1qq245dz5tqe8w46swpphgmr4f3047s6629t45qg4waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t09upzpf0wg36k3g3hygndv3cp8f2j284v0hfh4dqgqjj3yxnreck2w4qpqvzqqqr4guxde6sl

---

Modelos de IA e Ferramentas

nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzpf0wg36k3g3hygndv3cp8f2j284v0hfh4dqgqjj3yxnreck2w4qpqq24xwtyt9v5wjzefe6523j32dy5ga65gagkjc66cnu

---

Iniciativas de Bitcoin

(países de língua portuguêsa) nostr:nevent1qqsqnmtverj2fetqwhsv9n2ny8h9ujhyqqrk0fsn4a02w8sf4cqddzqpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5hsyg99aez8269zxu3zd4j8qya92fg7437ax745pqz22ys6v08zef65qypsgqqqqqqsekd7y0

---

Profissionais Brasileiros no Nostr

nostr:nevent1qqsvqnlx7sqeczv5r7pmmd6zzca3l0ru4856n3j7lhjfv3atq40lfdcpr9mhxue69uhkxmmzwfskvatdvyhxxmmd9aex2mrp0ypzpf0wg36k3g3hygndv3cp8f2j284v0hfh4dqgqjj3yxnreck2w4qpqvzqqqqqqylf6kr4

---

Comunidades em Português no Nostr

nostr:naddr1qq2hwcejv4ykgdf3v9gxykrxfdqk753jxcc4gqg4waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t09upzpf0wg36k3g3hygndv3cp8f2j284v0hfh4dqgqjj3yxnreck2w4qpqvzqqqr4gu455fm3

---

Grupos em Português no Nostr

nostr:nevent1qqs98kldepjmlxngupsyth40n0h5lw7z5ut5w4scvh27alc0w86tevcpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5hsygy7fff8g6l23gp5uqtuyqwkqvucx6mhe7r9h7v6wyzzj0v6lrztcspsgqqqqqqs3ndneh

---

Jogos de Código Aberto

Open Source Games nostr:nevent1qqs0swpxdqfknups697205qg5mpw2e370g5vet07gkexe9n0k05h5qspz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzvuhsyg99aez8269zxu3zd4j8qya92fg7437ax745pqz22ys6v08zef65qypsgqqqqqqshr37wh

---

Formatação de Texto em Markdown

(Amethyst, Yakihone e outros) nostr:nevent1qqs0vquevt0pe9h5a2dh8csufdksazp6czz3vjk3wfspp68uqdez00cprpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuendwsh8w6t69e3xj730qgs2tmjyw452ydezymtywqf625j3atra6datgzqy55fp5c7w9jn4gqgrqsqqqqqpd658r3

---

Outros Links

nostr:nevent1qqsrm6ywny5r7ajakpppp0lt525n0s33x6tyn6pz0n8ws8k2tqpqracpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5hsygp6e5ns0nv3dun430jky25y4pku6ylz68rz6zs7khv29q6rj5peespsgqqqqqqsmfwa78

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Die «moralische Weltordnung» – eine Art Astrologie. Friedrich Nietzsche

Das Treffen der BRICS-Staaten beim Gipfel im russischen Kasan war sicher nicht irgendein politisches Event. Gastgeber Wladimir Putin habe «Hof gehalten», sagen die Einen, China und Russland hätten ihre Vorstellung einer multipolaren Weltordnung zelebriert, schreiben Andere.

In jedem Fall zeigt die Anwesenheit von über 30 Delegationen aus der ganzen Welt, dass von einer geostrategischen Isolation Russlands wohl keine Rede sein kann. Darüber hinaus haben sowohl die Anreise von UN-Generalsekretär António Guterres als auch die Meldungen und Dementis bezüglich der Beitrittsbemühungen des NATO-Staats Türkei für etwas Aufsehen gesorgt.

Im Spannungsfeld geopolitischer und wirtschaftlicher Umbrüche zeigt die neue Allianz zunehmendes Selbstbewusstsein. In Sachen gemeinsamer Finanzpolitik schmiedet man interessante Pläne. Größere Unabhängigkeit von der US-dominierten Finanzordnung ist dabei ein wichtiges Ziel.

Beim BRICS-Wirtschaftsforum in Moskau, wenige Tage vor dem Gipfel, zählte ein nachhaltiges System für Finanzabrechnungen und Zahlungsdienste zu den vorrangigen Themen. Während dieses Treffens ging der russische Staatsfonds eine Partnerschaft mit dem Rechenzentrumsbetreiber BitRiver ein, um Bitcoin-Mining-Anlagen für die BRICS-Länder zu errichten.

Die Initiative könnte ein Schritt sein, Bitcoin und andere Kryptowährungen als Alternativen zu traditionellen Finanzsystemen zu etablieren. Das Projekt könnte dazu führen, dass die BRICS-Staaten den globalen Handel in Bitcoin abwickeln. Vor dem Hintergrund der Diskussionen über eine «BRICS-Währung» wäre dies eine Alternative zu dem ursprünglich angedachten Korb lokaler Währungen und zu goldgedeckten Währungen sowie eine mögliche Ergänzung zum Zahlungssystem BRICS Pay.

Dient der Bitcoin also der Entdollarisierung? Oder droht er inzwischen, zum Gegenstand geopolitischer Machtspielchen zu werden? Angesichts der globalen Vernetzungen ist es oft schwer zu durchschauen, «was eine Show ist und was im Hintergrund von anderen Strippenziehern insgeheim gesteuert wird». Sicher können Strukturen wie Bitcoin auch so genutzt werden, dass sie den Herrschenden dienlich sind. Aber die Grundeigenschaft des dezentralisierten, unzensierbaren Peer-to-Peer Zahlungsnetzwerks ist ihm schließlich nicht zu nehmen.

Wenn es nach der EZB oder dem IWF geht, dann scheint statt Instrumentalisierung momentan eher der Kampf gegen Kryptowährungen angesagt. Jürgen Schaaf, Senior Manager bei der Europäischen Zentralbank, hat jedenfalls dazu aufgerufen, Bitcoin «zu eliminieren». Der Internationale Währungsfonds forderte El Salvador, das Bitcoin 2021 als gesetzliches Zahlungsmittel eingeführt hat, kürzlich zu begrenzenden Maßnahmen gegen das Kryptogeld auf.

Dass die BRICS-Staaten ein freiheitliches Ansinnen im Kopf haben, wenn sie Kryptowährungen ins Spiel bringen, darf indes auch bezweifelt werden. Im Abschlussdokument bekennen sich die Gipfel-Teilnehmer ausdrücklich zur UN, ihren Programmen und ihrer «Agenda 2030». Ernst Wolff nennt das «eine Bankrotterklärung korrupter Politiker, die sich dem digital-finanziellen Komplex zu 100 Prozent unterwerfen».

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 2b24a1fa:17750f64

"Was ist da drin?", fragte wohl jedes unverdorbene Kind, bevor eine Flüssigkeit in den Muskel seines Arms gespritzt würde. Aber wir sind alle keine unverdorbenen Kinder mehr. Wissen, das haben die anderen, die Gebildeteren, die Wissenschaftler, die Ärzte. Nachfragen würde Autoritäten untergraben und Unglauben demonstrieren. Und drum fällt kaum jemandem auf, dass wir bis heute keine sauberen Inhaltsangaben über die sogenannten Corona-Spritzen erhalten haben, geschweige denn wissen, was der Inhalt in unseren Körpern genau anrichten kann.

https://soundcloud.com/radiomuenchen/inmodia-weist-schwer-schadigende-substanzen-nach-von-dna-resten-sv40-und-nanolipiden-ein-interview-mit-prof-klaus-steger

Auf die Suche nach Aufklärung hat sich von Beginn dieser sogenannten Pandemie der Verein Mediziner und Wissenschaftler für Gesundheit, Frieden und Demokratie gemacht. Jetzt gibt es ein erstes Labor, das die bekannten, relevanten Impfstoffbestandteile nachweisen will. Darüber unterhält sich unsere Redakteurin Eva Schmidt mit dem Molekularbiologen Prof. Klaus Steger von der Universität Gießen und engagiert bei inmodia, dem Institut für molekularbiologische Diagnostik. Zunächst wollte sie wissen, welche Bestandteile eigentlich bekannt sind, die in Millionen von Menschen gespritzt wurden.

Link zur Webseite: inmodia.de

@ a5ee4475:2ca75401

ai #artificial #intelligence #english #tech

---

Open Source

---

Models

• LLAMA - Large Language Model Meta AI - Text AI [source]

• MistralAI - Text AI [info] [source]

• Stable Diffusion - Text to image [source]

• Pixart-Alpha - Text to image [source]
• OmniGen - Pompt, image or subject to image [source]

• Pigallery - Self-Hosted AI Image Generator [source]

• CogVideo - Text and image to video generation [info] [source] [test]

---

Tools

LIGHTNING PAYMENTS - Animal Sunset - AI video generation with Nostr npub by lightning payments [source] - Ai Rand - AI text generation with Pubky DNS by lightning payments [source] - PlebAI - Text and Image generation without signup [source] 🌐🤖🍎 [sites down - only github available]

OTHERS - HuggingFace - Test and collaborate on models, datasets and apps. [source] - DuckDuckGo AI Chat - Famous AIs without Login [source] - Ollama - Run LLMs Locally [source] - DreamStudio - Stable Diffusion’s Web App Tool [info] [source] - Prompt Gallery - AI images with their prompts [source]

---

Closed Source

---

Models

• ChatGPT
• Claude
• Gemini
• Copilot
• Midjourney
• Minimax - Realistic videos (prompts only in chinese)

---

Tools

• Meshy - 3D Generative AI Toolbox [info]

---

Other index: Amazing AI