@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

If you're an engineer stepping into the Bitcoin space from the broader crypto ecosystem, you're probably carrying a mental model shaped by speed, flexibility, and rapid innovation. That makes sense—most blockchain platforms pride themselves on throughput, programmability, and dev agility.

But Bitcoin operates from a different set of first principles. It’s not competing to be the fastest network or the most expressive smart contract platform. It’s aiming to be the most credible, neutral, and globally accessible value layer in human history.

Here’s why that matters—and why Bitcoin is not just an alternative crypto asset, but a structural necessity in the global financial system.

1. Bitcoin Fixes the Triffin Dilemma—Not With Policy, But Protocol

The Triffin Dilemma shows us that any country issuing the global reserve currency must run persistent deficits to supply that currency to the world. That’s not a flaw of bad leadership—it’s an inherent contradiction. The U.S. must debase its own monetary integrity to meet global dollar demand. That’s a self-terminating system.

Bitcoin sidesteps this entirely by being:

• Non-sovereign – no single nation owns it
• Hard-capped – no central authority can inflate it
• Verifiable and neutral – anyone with a full node can enforce the rules

In other words, Bitcoin turns global liquidity into an engineering problem, not a political one. No other system, fiat or crypto, has achieved that.

2. Bitcoin’s “Ossification” Is Intentional—and It's a Feature

From the outside, Bitcoin development may look sluggish. Features are slow to roll out. Code changes are conservative. Consensus rules are treated as sacred.

That’s the point.

When you’re building the global monetary base layer, stability is not a weakness. It’s a prerequisite. Every other financial instrument, app, or protocol that builds on Bitcoin depends on one thing: assurance that the base layer won’t change underneath them without extreme scrutiny.

So-called “ossification” is just another term for predictability and integrity. And when the market does demand change (SegWit, Taproot), Bitcoin’s soft-fork governance process has proven capable of deploying it safely—without coercive central control.

3. Layered Architecture: Throughput Is Not a Base Layer Concern

You don’t scale settlement at the base layer. You build layered systems. Just as TCP/IP doesn't need to carry YouTube traffic directly, Bitcoin doesn’t need to process every microtransaction.

Instead, it anchors:

• Lightning (fast payments)
• Fedimint (community custody)
• Ark (privacy + UTXO compression)
• Statechains, sidechains, and covenants (coming evolution)

All of these inherit Bitcoin’s security and scarcity, while handling volume off-chain, in ways that maintain auditability and self-custody.

4. Universal Assayability Requires Minimalism at the Base Layer

A core design constraint of Bitcoin is that any participant, anywhere in the world, must be able to independently verify the validity of every transaction and block—past and present—without needing permission or relying on third parties.

This property is called assayability—the ability to “test” or verify the authenticity and integrity of received bitcoin, much like verifying the weight and purity of a gold coin.

To preserve this:

• The base layer must remain resource-light, so running a full node stays accessible on commodity hardware.
• Block sizes must remain small enough to prevent centralization of verification.
• Historical data must remain consistent and tamper-evident, enabling proof chains across time and jurisdiction.

Any base layer that scales by increasing throughput or complexity undermines this fundamental guarantee, making the network more dependent on trust and surveillance infrastructure.

Bitcoin prioritizes global verifiability over throughput—because trustless money requires that every user can check the money they receive.

5. Governance: Not Captured, Just Resistant to Coercion

The current controversy around OP_RETURN and proposals to limit inscriptions is instructive. Some prominent devs have advocated for changes to block content filtering. Others see it as overreach.

Here's what matters:

• No single dev, or team, can force changes into the network. Period.
• Bitcoin Core is not “the source of truth.” It’s one implementation. If it deviates from market consensus, it gets forked, sidelined, or replaced.
• The economic majority—miners, users, businesses—enforce Bitcoin’s rules, not GitHub maintainers.

In fact, recent community resistance to perceived Core overreach only reinforces Bitcoin’s resilience. Engineers who posture with narcissistic certainty, dismiss dissent, or attempt to capture influence are routinely neutralized by the market’s refusal to upgrade or adopt forks that undermine neutrality or openness.

This is governance via credible neutrality and negative feedback loops. Power doesn’t accumulate in one place. It’s constantly checked by the network’s distributed incentives.

6. Bitcoin Is Still in Its Infancy—And That’s a Good Thing

You’re not too late. The ecosystem around Bitcoin—especially L2 protocols, privacy tools, custody innovation, and zero-knowledge integrations—is just beginning.

If you're an engineer looking for:

• Systems with global scale constraints
• Architectures that optimize for integrity, not speed
• Consensus mechanisms that resist coercion
• A base layer with predictable monetary policy

Then Bitcoin is where serious systems engineers go when they’ve outgrown crypto theater.

Take-away

Under realistic, market-aware assumptions—where:

• Bitcoin’s ossification is seen as a stability feature, not inertia,
• Market forces can and do demand and implement change via tested, non-coercive mechanisms,
• Proof-of-work is recognized as the only consensus mechanism resistant to fiat capture,
• Wealth concentration is understood as a temporary distribution effect during early monetization,
• Low base layer throughput is a deliberate design constraint to preserve verifiability and neutrality,
• And innovation is layered by design, with the base chain providing integrity, not complexity...

Then Bitcoin is not a fragile or inflexible system—it is a deliberately minimal, modular, and resilient protocol.

Its governance is not leaderless chaos; it's a negative-feedback structure that minimizes the power of individuals or institutions to coerce change. The very fact that proposals—like controversial OP_RETURN restrictions—can be resisted, forked around, or ignored by the market without breaking the system is proof of decentralized control, not dysfunction.

Bitcoin is an adversarially robust monetary foundation. Its value lies not in how fast it changes, but in how reliably it doesn't—unless change is forced by real, bottom-up demand and implemented through consensus-tested soft forks.

In this framing, Bitcoin isn't a slower crypto. It's the engineering benchmark for systems that must endure, not entertain.

Final Word

Bitcoin isn’t moving slowly because it’s dying. It’s moving carefully because it’s winning. It’s not an app platform or a sandbox. It’s a protocol layer for the future of money.

If you're here because you want to help build that future, you’re in the right place.

nostr:nevent1qqswr7sla434duatjp4m89grvs3zanxug05pzj04asxmv4rngvyv04sppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgs9tc6ruevfqu7nzt72kvq8te95dqfkndj5t8hlx6n79lj03q9v6xcrqsqqqqqp0n8wc2

nostr:nevent1qqsd5hfkqgskpjjq5zlfyyv9nmmela5q67tgu9640v7r8t828u73rdqpr4mhxue69uhkymmnw3ezucnfw33k76tww3ux76m09e3k7mf0qgsvr6dt8ft292mv5jlt7382vje0mfq2ccc3azrt4p45v5sknj6kkscrqsqqqqqp02vjk5

nostr:nevent1qqstrszamvffh72wr20euhrwa0fhzd3hhpedm30ys4ct8dpelwz3nuqpr4mhxue69uhkymmnw3ezucnfw33k76tww3ux76m09e3k7mf0qgs8a474cw4lqmapcq8hr7res4nknar2ey34fsffk0k42cjsdyn7yqqrqsqqqqqpnn3znl

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Introduction: The Power of Fiction and the Shaping of Collective Morality

Stories define the moral landscape of a civilization. From the earliest mythologies to the modern spectacle of global cinema, the tales a society tells its youth shape the parameters of acceptable behavior, the cost of transgression, and the meaning of justice, power, and redemption. Among the most globally influential narratives of the past half-century is the Star Wars saga, a sprawling science fiction mythology that has transcended genre to become a cultural religion for many. Central to this mythos is the arc of Anakin Skywalker, the fallen Jedi Knight who becomes Darth Vader. In Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith, Anakin commits what is arguably the most morally abhorrent act depicted in mainstream popular cinema: the mass murder of children. And yet, by the end of the saga, he is redeemed.

This chapter introduces the uninitiated to the events surrounding this narrative turn and explores the deep structural and ethical concerns it raises. We argue that the cultural treatment of Darth Vader as an anti-hero, even a role model, reveals a deep perversion in the collective moral grammar of the modern West. In doing so, we consider the implications this mythology may have on young adults navigating identity, masculinity, and agency in a world increasingly shaped by spectacle and symbolic narrative.

Part I: The Scene and Its Context

In Revenge of the Sith (2005), the third episode of the Star Wars prequel trilogy, the protagonist Anakin Skywalker succumbs to fear, ambition, and manipulation. Convinced that the Jedi Council is plotting against the Republic and desperate to save his pregnant wife from a vision of death, Anakin pledges allegiance to Chancellor Palpatine, secretly the Sith Lord Darth Sidious. Upon doing so, he is given a new name—Darth Vader—and tasked with a critical mission: to eliminate all Jedi in the temple, including its youngest members.

In one of the most harrowing scenes in the film, Anakin enters the Jedi Temple. A group of young children, known as "younglings," emerge from hiding and plead for help. One steps forward, calling him "Master Skywalker," and asks what they are to do. Anakin responds by igniting his lightsaber. The screen cuts away, but the implication is unambiguous. Later, it is confirmed through dialogue and visual allusion that he slaughtered them all.

There is no ambiguity in the storytelling. The man who will become the galaxy’s most feared enforcer begins his descent by murdering defenseless children.

Part II: A New Kind of Evil in Youth-Oriented Media

For decades, cinema avoided certain taboos. Even films depicting war, genocide, or psychological horror rarely crossed the line into showing children as victims of deliberate violence by the protagonist. When children were harmed, it was by monstrous antagonists, supernatural forces, or offscreen implications. The killing of children was culturally reserved for historical atrocities and horror tales.

In Revenge of the Sith, this boundary was broken. While the film does not show the violence explicitly, the implication is so clear and so central to the character arc that its omission from visual depiction does not blunt the narrative weight. What makes this scene especially jarring is the tonal dissonance between the gravity of the act and the broader cultural treatment of Star Wars as a family-friendly saga. The juxtaposition of child-targeted marketing with a central plot involving child murder is not accidental—it reflects a deeper narrative and commercial structure.

This scene was not a deviation from the arc. It was the intended turning point.

Part III: Masculinity, Militarism, and the Appeal of the Anti-Hero

Darth Vader has long been idolized as a masculine icon. His towering presence, emotionless control, and mechanical voice exude power and discipline. Military institutions have quoted him. He is celebrated in memes, posters, and merchandise. Within the cultural imagination, he embodies dominance, command, and strategic ruthlessness.

For many young men, particularly those struggling with identity, agency, and perceived weakness, Vader becomes more than a character. He becomes an archetype: the man who reclaims power by embracing discipline, forsaking emotion, and exacting vengeance against those who betrayed him. The emotional pain that leads to his fall mirrors the experiences of isolation and perceived emasculation that many young men internalize in a fractured society.

The symbolism becomes dangerous. Anakin's descent into mass murder is portrayed not as the outcome of unchecked cruelty, but as a tragic mistake rooted in love and desperation. The implication is that under enough pressure, even the most horrific act can be framed as a step toward a noble end.

Part IV: Redemption as Narrative Alchemy

By the end of the original trilogy (Return of the Jedi, 1983), Darth Vader kills the Emperor to save his son Luke and dies shortly thereafter. Luke mourns him, honors him, and burns his body in reverence. In the final scene, Vader's ghost appears alongside Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda—the very men who once considered him the greatest betrayal of their order. He is welcomed back.

There is no reckoning. No mention of the younglings. No memorial to the dead. No consequence beyond his own internal torment.

This model of redemption is not uncommon in Western storytelling. In Christian doctrine, the concept of grace allows for any sin to be forgiven if the sinner repents sincerely. But in the context of secular mass culture, such redemption without justice becomes deeply troubling. The cultural message is clear: even the worst crimes can be erased if one makes a grand enough gesture at the end. It is the erasure of moral debt by narrative fiat.

The implication is not only that evil can be undone by good, but that power and legacy matter more than the victims. Vader is not just forgiven—he is exalted.

Part V: Real-World Reflections and Dangerous Scripts

In recent decades, the rise of mass violence in schools and public places has revealed a disturbing pattern: young men who feel alienated, betrayed, or powerless adopt mythic narratives of vengeance and transformation. They often see themselves as tragic figures forced into violence by a cruel world. Some explicitly reference pop culture, quoting films, invoking fictional characters, or modeling their identities after cinematic anti-heroes.

It would be reductive to claim Star Wars causes such events. But it is equally naive to believe that such narratives play no role in shaping the symbolic frameworks through which vulnerable individuals understand their lives. The story of Anakin Skywalker offers a dangerous script:

• You are betrayed.
• You suffer.
• You kill.
• You become powerful.
• You are redeemed.

When combined with militarized masculinity, institutional failure, and cultural nihilism, this script can validate the darkest impulses. It becomes a myth of sacrificial violence, with the perpetrator as misunderstood hero.

Part VI: Cultural Responsibility and Narrative Ethics

The problem is not that Star Wars tells a tragic story. Tragedy is essential to moral understanding. The problem is how the culture treats that story. Darth Vader is not treated as a warning, a cautionary tale, or a fallen angel. He is merchandised, celebrated, and decontextualized.

By separating his image from his actions, society rebrands him as a figure of cool dominance rather than ethical failure. The younglings are forgotten. The victims vanish. Only the redemption remains. The merchandise continues to sell.

Cultural institutions bear responsibility for how such narratives are presented and consumed. Filmmakers may intend nuance, but marketing departments, military institutions, and fan cultures often reduce that nuance to symbol and slogan.

Conclusion: Reckoning with the Stories We Tell

The story of Anakin Skywalker is not morally neutral. It is a tale of systemic failure, emotional collapse, and unchecked violence. When presented in full, it can serve as a powerful warning. But when reduced to aesthetic dominance and easy redemption, it becomes a tool of moral decay.

The glorification of Darth Vader as a cultural icon—divorced from the horrific acts that define his transformation—is not just misguided. It is dangerous. It trains a generation to believe that power erases guilt, that violence is a path to recognition, and that final acts of loyalty can overwrite the deliberate murder of the innocent.

To the uninitiated, Star Wars may seem like harmless fantasy. But its deepest myth—the redemption of the child-killer through familial love and posthumous honor—deserves scrutiny. Not because fiction causes violence, but because fiction defines the possibilities of how we understand evil, forgiveness, and what it means to be a hero.

We must ask: What kind of redemption erases the cries of murdered children? And what kind of culture finds peace in that forgetting?

@ 52b4a076:e7fad8bd

Introduction

Me and Fishcake have been working on infrastructure for Noswhere and Nostr.build. Part of this involves processing a large amount of Nostr events for features such as search, analytics, and feeds.

I have been recently developing nosdex v3, a newer version of the Noswhere scraper that is designed for maximum performance and fault tolerance using FoundationDB (FDB).

Fishcake has been working on a processing system for Nostr events to use with NB, based off of Cloudflare (CF) Pipelines, which is a relatively new beta product. This evening, we put it all to the test.

First preparations

We set up a new CF Pipelines endpoint, and I implemented a basic importer that took data from the nosdex database. This was quite slow, as it did HTTP requests synchronously, but worked as a good smoke test.

Asynchronous indexing

I implemented a high-contention queue system designed for highly parallel indexing operations, built using FDB, that supports: - Fully customizable batch sizes - Per-index queues - Hundreds of parallel consumers - Automatic retry logic using lease expiration

When the scraper first gets an event, it will process it and eventually write it to the blob store and FDB. Each new event is appended to the event log.

On the indexing side, a Queuer will read the event log, and batch events (usually 2K-5K events) into one work job. This work job contains: - A range in the log to index - Which target this job is intended for - The size of the job and some other metadata

Each job has an associated leasing state, which is used to handle retries and prioritization, and ensure no duplication of work.

Several Workers monitor the index queue (up to 128) and wait for new jobs that are available to lease.

Once a suitable job is found, the worker acquires a lease on the job and reads the relevant events from FDB and the blob store.

Depending on the indexing type, the job will be processed in one of a number of ways, and then marked as completed or returned for retries.

In this case, the event is also forwarded to CF Pipelines.

Trying it out

The first attempt did not go well. I found a bug in the high-contention indexer that led to frequent transaction conflicts. This was easily solved by correcting an incorrectly set parameter.

We also found there were other issues in the indexer, such as an insufficient amount of threads, and a suspicious decrease in the speed of the Queuer during processing of queued jobs.

Along with fixing these issues, I also implemented other optimizations, such as deprioritizing Worker DB accesses, and increasing the batch size.

To fix the degraded Queuer performance, I ran the backfill job by itself, and then started indexing after it had completed.

Bottlenecks, bottlenecks everywhere

After implementing these fixes, there was an interesting problem: The DB couldn't go over 80K reads per second. I had encountered this limit during load testing for the scraper and other FDB benchmarks.

As I suspected, this was a client thread limitation, as one thread seemed to be using high amounts of CPU. To overcome this, I created a new client instance for each Worker.

After investigating, I discovered that the Go FoundationDB client cached the database connection. This meant all attempts to create separate DB connections ended up being useless.

Using OpenWithConnectionString partially resolved this issue. (This also had benefits for service-discovery based connection configuration.)

To be able to fully support multi-threading, I needed to enabled the FDB multi-client feature. Enabling it also allowed easier upgrades across DB versions, as FDB clients are incompatible across versions:

FDB_NETWORK_OPTION_EXTERNAL_CLIENT_LIBRARY="/lib/libfdb_c.so" FDB_NETWORK_OPTION_CLIENT_THREADS_PER_VERSION="16"

Breaking the 100K/s reads barrier

After implementing support for the multi-threaded client, we were able to get over 100K reads per second.

You may notice after the restart (gap) the performance dropped. This was caused by several bugs: 1. When creating the CF Pipelines endpoint, we did not specify a region. The automatically selected region was far away from the server. 2. The amount of shards were not sufficient, so we increased them. 3. The client overloaded a few HTTP/2 connections with too many requests.

I implemented a feature to assign each Worker its own HTTP client, fixing the 3rd issue. We also moved the entire storage region to West Europe to be closer to the servers.

After these changes, we were able to easily push over 200K reads/s, mostly limited by missing optimizations:

It's shards all the way down

While testing, we also noticed another issue: At certain times, a pipeline would get overloaded, stalling requests for seconds at a time. This prevented all forward progress on the Workers.

We solved this by having multiple pipelines: A primary pipeline meant to be for standard load, with moderate batching duration and less shards, and high-throughput pipelines with more shards.

Each Worker is assigned a pipeline on startup, and if one pipeline stalls, other workers can continue making progress and saturate the DB.

The stress test

After making sure everything was ready for the import, we cleared all data, and started the import.

The entire import lasted 20 minutes between 01:44 UTC and 02:04 UTC, reaching a peak of: - 0.25M requests per second - 0.6M keys read per second - 140MB/s reads from DB - 2Gbps of network throughput

FoundationDB ran smoothly during this test, with: - Read times under 2ms - Zero conflicting transactions - No overloaded servers

CF Pipelines held up well, delivering batches to R2 without any issues, while reaching its maximum possible throughput.

Finishing notes

Me and Fishcake have been building infrastructure around scaling Nostr, from media, to relays, to content indexing. We consistently work on improving scalability, resiliency and stability, even outside these posts.

Many things, including what you see here, are already a part of Nostr.build, Noswhere and NFDB, and many other changes are being implemented every day.

If you like what you are seeing, and want to integrate it, get in touch. :)

If you want to support our work, you can zap this post, or register for nostr.land and nostr.build today.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

High-Level Overview

Bitcoin developers are currently debating a proposed change to how Bitcoin Core handles the OP_RETURN opcode — a mechanism that allows users to insert small amounts of data into the blockchain. Specifically, the controversy revolves around removing built-in filters that limit how much data can be stored using this feature (currently capped at 80 bytes).

Summary of Both Sides

Position A: Remove OP_RETURN Filters

Advocates: nostr:npub1ej493cmun8y9h3082spg5uvt63jgtewneve526g7e2urca2afrxqm3ndrm, nostr:npub12rv5lskctqxxs2c8rf2zlzc7xx3qpvzs3w4etgemauy9thegr43sf485vg, nostr:npub17u5dneh8qjp43ecfxr6u5e9sjamsmxyuekrg2nlxrrk6nj9rsyrqywt4tp, others

Arguments: - Ineffectiveness of filters: Filters are easily bypassed and do not stop spam effectively. - Code simplification: Removing arbitrary limits reduces code complexity. - Permissionless innovation: Enables new use cases like cross-chain bridges and timestamping without protocol-level barriers. - Economic regulation: Fees should determine what data gets added to the blockchain, not protocol rules.

Position B: Keep OP_RETURN Filters

Advocates: nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk, nostr:npub1s33sw6y2p8kpz2t8avz5feu2n6yvfr6swykrnm2frletd7spnt5qew252p, nostr:npub1wnlu28xrq9gv77dkevck6ws4euej4v568rlvn66gf2c428tdrptqq3n3wr, others

Arguments: - Historical intent: Satoshi included filters to keep Bitcoin focused on monetary transactions. - Resource protection: Helps prevent blockchain bloat and abuse from non-financial uses. - Network preservation: Protects the network from being overwhelmed by low-value or malicious data. - Social governance: Maintains conservative changes to ensure long-term robustness.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths of Removing Filters

• Encourages decentralized innovation.
• Simplifies development and maintenance.
• Maintains ideological purity of a permissionless system.

Weaknesses of Removing Filters

• Opens the door to increased non-financial data and potential spam.
• May dilute Bitcoin’s core purpose as sound money.
• Risks short-term exploitation before economic filters adapt.

Strengths of Keeping Filters

• Preserves Bitcoin’s identity and original purpose.
• Provides a simple protective mechanism against abuse.
• Aligns with conservative development philosophy of Bitcoin Core.

Weaknesses of Keeping Filters

• Encourages central decision-making on allowed use cases.
• Leads to workarounds that may be less efficient or obscure.
• Discourages novel but legitimate applications.

Long-Term Consequences

If Filters Are Removed

• Positive: Potential boom in new applications, better interoperability, cleaner architecture.
• Negative: Risk of increased blockchain size, more bandwidth/storage costs, spam wars.

If Filters Are Retained

• Positive: Preserves monetary focus and operational discipline.
• Negative: Alienates developers seeking broader use cases, may ossify the protocol.

Conclusion

The debate highlights a core philosophical split in Bitcoin: whether it should remain a narrow monetary system or evolve into a broader data layer for decentralized applications. Both paths carry risks and tradeoffs. The outcome will shape not just Bitcoin's technical direction but its social contract and future role in the broader crypto ecosystem.

@ 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

@ 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

@ 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. 👀️️️️️️

@ 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

@ 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

@ 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

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

If you ever read about a hypothetical "evil AI"—one that manipulates, dominates, and surveils humanity—you might find yourself wondering: how is that any different from what some governments already do?

Let’s explore the eerie parallels between the actions of a fictional malevolent AI and the behaviors of powerful modern states—specifically the U.S. federal government.

Surveillance and Control

Evil AI: Uses total surveillance to monitor all activity, predict rebellion, and enforce compliance.

Modern Government: Post-9/11 intelligence agencies like the NSA have implemented mass data collection programs, monitoring phone calls, emails, and online activity—often without meaningful oversight.

Parallel: Both claim to act in the name of “security,” but the tools are ripe for abuse.

Manipulation of Information

Evil AI: Floods the information space with propaganda, misinformation, and filters truth based on its goals.

Modern Government: Funds media outlets, promotes specific narratives through intelligence leaks, and collaborates with social media companies to suppress or flag dissenting viewpoints.

Parallel: Control the narrative, shape public perception, and discredit opposition.

Economic Domination

Evil AI: Restructures the economy for efficiency, displacing workers and concentrating resources.

Modern Government: Facilitates wealth transfer through lobbying, regulatory capture, and inflationary monetary policy that disproportionately hurts the middle and lower classes.

Parallel: The system enriches those who control it, leaving the rest with less power to resist.

Perpetual Warfare

Evil AI: Instigates conflict to weaken opposition or as a form of distraction and control.

Modern Government: Maintains a state of nearly constant military engagement since WWII, often for interests that benefit a small elite rather than national defense.

Parallel: War becomes policy, not a last resort.

Predictive Policing and Censorship

Evil AI: Uses predictive algorithms to preemptively suppress dissent and eliminate threats.

Modern Government: Experiments with pre-crime-like measures, flags “misinformation,” and uses AI tools to monitor online behavior.

Parallel: Prevent rebellion not by fixing problems, but by suppressing their expression.

Conclusion: Systemic Inhumanity

Whether it’s AI or a bureaucratic state, the more a system becomes detached from individual accountability and human empathy, the more it starts to act in ways we would call “evil” if a machine did them.

An AI doesn’t need to enslave humanity with lasers and killer robots. Sometimes all it takes is code, coercion, and unchecked power—something we may already be facing.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Prepared for Off-World Visitors by the Risan Institute of Cultural Heritage

Welcome to Risa, the jewel of the Alpha Quadrant, celebrated across the Federation for its tranquility, pleasure, and natural splendor. But what many travelers do not know is that Risa’s current harmony was not inherited—it was forged. Beneath the songs of surf and the serenity of our resorts lies a history rich in conflict, transformation, and enduring wisdom.

We offer this briefing not merely as a tale of our past, but as an invitation to understand the spirit of our people and the roots of our peace.

I. A World at the Crossroads

Before its admittance into the United Federation of Planets, Risa was an independent and vulnerable world situated near volatile borders of early galactic powers. Its lush climate, mineral wealth, and open society made it a frequent target for raiders and an object of interest for imperial expansion.

The Risan peoples were once fragmented, prone to philosophical and political disunity. In our early records, this period is known as the Winds of Splintering. We suffered invasions, betrayals, and the slow erosion of trust in our own traditions.

II. The Coming of the Vulcans

It was during this period of instability that a small delegation of Vulcan philosophers, adherents to the teachings of Surak, arrived on Risa. They did not come as conquerors, nor even as ambassadors, but as seekers of peace.

These emissaries of logic saw in Risa the potential for a society not driven by suppression of emotion, as Vulcan had chosen, but by the balance of joy and discipline. While many Vulcans viewed Risa’s culture as frivolous, these followers of Surak saw the seed of a different path: one in which beauty itself could be a pillar of peace.

The Risan tradition of meditative dance, artistic expression, and communal love resonated with Vulcan teachings of unity and inner control. From this unlikely exchange was born the Ricin Doctrine—the belief that peace is sustained not only through logic or strength, but through deliberate joy, shared vulnerability, and readiness without aggression.

III. Betazed and the Trial of Truth

During the same era, early contact with the people of Betazed brought both inspiration and tension. A Betazoid expedition, under the guise of diplomacy, was discovered to be engaging in deep telepathic influence and information extraction. The Risan people, who valued consent above all else, responded not with anger, but with clarity.

A council of Ricin philosophers invited the Betazoid delegation into a shared mind ceremony—a practice in which both cultures exposed their thoughts in mutual vulnerability. The result was not scandal, but transformation. From that moment forward, a bond was formed, and Risa’s model of ethical emotional expression and consensual empathy became influential in shaping Betazed’s own peace philosophies.

IV. Confronting Marauders and Empires

Despite these philosophical strides, Risa’s path was anything but tranquil.

• Orion Syndicate raiders viewed Risa as ripe for exploitation, and for decades, cities were sacked, citizens enslaved, and resources plundered. In response, Risa formed the Sanctum Guard, not a military in the traditional sense, but a force of trained defenders schooled in both physical technique and psychological dissuasion. The Ricin martial arts, combining beauty with lethality, were born from this necessity.

• Andorian expansionism also tested Risa’s sovereignty. Though smaller in scale, skirmishes over territorial claims forced Risa to adopt planetary defense grids and formalize diplomatic protocols that balanced assertiveness with grace. It was through these conflicts that Risa developed the art of the ceremonial yield—a symbolic concession used to diffuse hostility while retaining honor.

• Romulan subterfuge nearly undid Risa from within. A corrupt Romulan envoy installed puppet leaders in one of our equatorial provinces. These agents sought to erode Risa’s social cohesion through fear and misinformation. But Ricin scholars countered the strategy not with rebellion, but with illumination: they released a network of truths, publicly broadcasting internal thoughts and civic debates to eliminate secrecy. The Romulan operation collapsed under the weight of exposure.

• Even militant Vulcan splinter factions, during the early Vulcan-Andorian conflicts, attempted to turn Risa into a staging ground, pressuring local governments to support Vulcan supremacy. The betrayal struck deep—but Risa resisted through diplomacy, invoking Surak’s true teachings and exposing the heresy of their logic-corrupted mission.

V. Enlightenment Through Preparedness

These trials did not harden us into warriors. They refined us into guardians of peace. Our enlightenment came not from retreat, but from engagement—tempered by readiness.

• We train our youth in the arts of balance: physical defense, emotional expression, and ethical reasoning.
• We teach our history without shame, so that future generations will not repeat our errors.
• We host our guests with joy, not because we are naïve, but because we know that to celebrate life fully is the greatest act of resistance against fear.

Risa did not become peaceful by denying the reality of conflict. We became peaceful by mastering our response to it.

And in so doing, we offered not just pleasure to the stars—but wisdom.

We welcome you not only to our beaches, but to our story.

May your time here bring you not only rest—but understanding.

– Risan Institute of Cultural Heritage, in collaboration with the Council of Enlightenment and the Ricin Circle of Peacekeepers

@ 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

@ efcb5fc5:5680aa8e

We're living in a digital dystopia. A world where our attention is currency, our data is mined, and our mental well-being is collateral damage in the relentless pursuit of engagement. The glossy facades of traditional social media platforms hide a dark underbelly of algorithmic manipulation, curated realities, and a pervasive sense of anxiety that seeps into every aspect of our lives. We're trapped in a digital echo chamber, drowning in a sea of manufactured outrage and meaningless noise, and it's time to build an ark and sail away.

I've witnessed the evolution, or rather, the devolution, of online interaction. From the raw, unfiltered chaos of early internet chat rooms to the sterile, algorithmically controlled environments of today's social giants, I've seen the promise of connection twisted into a tool for manipulation and control. We've become lab rats in a grand experiment, our emotional responses measured and monetized, our opinions shaped and sold to the highest bidder. But there's a flicker of hope in the darkness, a chance to reclaim our digital autonomy, and that hope is NOSTR (Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays).

The Psychological Warfare of Traditional Social Media

The Algorithmic Cage: These algorithms aren't designed to enhance your life; they're designed to keep you scrolling. They feed on your vulnerabilities, exploiting your fears and desires to maximize engagement, even if it means promoting misinformation, outrage, and division.

The Illusion of Perfection: The curated realities presented on these platforms create a toxic culture of comparison. We're bombarded with images of flawless bodies, extravagant lifestyles, and seemingly perfect lives, leading to feelings of inadequacy and self-doubt.

The Echo Chamber Effect: Algorithms reinforce our existing beliefs, isolating us from diverse perspectives and creating a breeding ground for extremism. We become trapped in echo chambers where our biases are constantly validated, leading to increased polarization and intolerance.

The Toxicity Vortex: The lack of effective moderation creates a breeding ground for hate speech, cyberbullying, and online harassment. We're constantly exposed to toxic content that erodes our mental well-being and fosters a sense of fear and distrust.

This isn't just a matter of inconvenience; it's a matter of mental survival. We're being subjected to a form of psychological warfare, and it's time to fight back.

NOSTR: A Sanctuary in the Digital Wasteland

NOSTR offers a radical alternative to this toxic environment. It's not just another platform; it's a decentralized protocol that empowers users to reclaim their digital sovereignty.

User-Controlled Feeds: You decide what you see, not an algorithm. You curate your own experience, focusing on the content and people that matter to you.

Ownership of Your Digital Identity: Your data and content are yours, secured by cryptography. No more worrying about being deplatformed or having your information sold to the highest bidder.

Interoperability: Your identity works across a diverse ecosystem of apps, giving you the freedom to choose the interface that suits your needs.

Value-Driven Interactions: The "zaps" feature enables direct micropayments, rewarding creators for valuable content and fostering a culture of genuine appreciation.

Decentralized Power: No single entity controls NOSTR, making it censorship-resistant and immune to the whims of corporate overlords.

Building a Healthier Digital Future

NOSTR isn't just about escaping the toxicity of traditional social media; it's about building a healthier, more meaningful online experience.

Cultivating Authentic Connections: Focus on building genuine relationships with people who share your values and interests, rather than chasing likes and followers.

Supporting Independent Creators: Use "zaps" to directly support the artists, writers, and thinkers who inspire you.

Embracing Intellectual Diversity: Explore different NOSTR apps and communities to broaden your horizons and challenge your assumptions.

Prioritizing Your Mental Health: Take control of your digital environment and create a space that supports your well-being.

Removing the noise: Value based interactions promote value based content, instead of the constant stream of noise that traditional social media promotes.

The Time for Action is Now

NOSTR is a nascent technology, but it represents a fundamental shift in how we interact online. It's a chance to build a more open, decentralized, and user-centric internet, one that prioritizes our mental health and our humanity.

We can no longer afford to be passive consumers in the digital age. We must become active participants in shaping our online experiences. It's time to break free from the chains of algorithmic control and reclaim our digital autonomy.

Join the NOSTR movement

Embrace the power of decentralization. Let's build a digital future that's worthy of our humanity. Let us build a place where the middlemen, and the algorithms that they control, have no power over us.

In addition to the points above, here are some examples/links of how NOSTR can be used:

Simple Signup: Creating a NOSTR account is incredibly easy. You can use platforms like Yakihonne or Primal to generate your keys and start exploring the ecosystem.

X-like Client: Apps like Damus offer a familiar X-like experience, making it easy for users to transition from traditional platforms.

Sharing Photos and Videos: Clients like Olas are optimized for visual content, allowing you to share your photos and videos with your followers.

Creating and Consuming Blogs: NOSTR can be used to publish and share blog posts, fostering a community of independent creators.

Live Streaming and Audio Spaces: Explore platforms like Hivetalk and zap.stream for live streaming and audio-based interactions.

NOSTR is a powerful tool for reclaiming your digital life and building a more meaningful online experience. It's time to take control, break free from the shackles of traditional social media, and embrace the future of decentralized communication.

Get the full overview of these and other on: https://nostrapps.com/

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Esteemed representatives of Risa,

We gather here under the calming glow of our twin suns, stewards of a society admired for its peace and celebrated for its tranquility. But we must not mistake serenity for passivity, nor confuse peace with weakness. Our peace is not an accident. It is not the byproduct of ignorance or naivety. It is hard-earned—preserved by those willing to stand vigilant in its defense.

Love as a Foundation, Strength as a Shield

Love conquers hate. This is the core truth of Risan philosophy. Yet, as every Ricin child is taught, love without strength is a leaf in the wind. The Ricin do not lay down their lives without resistance. We do not ask our people to accept violence without confronting it. True peace is not imposed by stripping the people of their agency—it is built by enabling them to protect it.

The Lessons of a Failed Experiment

There was a time, not so distant in our history, when we attempted to enforce peace through the abolition of all weapons. A time when even the mention of self-defense in our educational centers was met with rebuke. Schools purged training programs. Cultural arts that honored our warrior traditions were dismissed. And for a brief moment, we believed this would lead us to harmony.

But peace born from helplessness is a fragile illusion. It fractures under the slightest pressure. And fracture it did—when off-world raiders targeted our unguarded sanctuaries, when radical sects within our own society struck out, knowing the citizenry could not defend itself. It was then that we remembered: Risa’s greatest peacekeepers had always been those who knew how to fight—but chose restraint.

The Age of Ricin and the Reawakening of Discipline

So we returned to our roots. To the traditions of the Age of Ricin, when youth, upon reaching maturity, were taught not only the arts of compassion and creation but also the martial disciplines. They learn to wield weapons—not to glorify violence, but to understand it. To control it. To stand firm against it when all else fails.

https://i.nostr.build/kuUjRovISz7367TX.jpg

We do not romanticize war. We do not celebrate conflict. But we prepare for it, should it seek to extinguish our light. Our children now learn the disciplines of defense alongside their studies in poetry, music, and healing. They spar with blunt blades under the watchful eyes of masters. They meditate on the consequences of force. And they grow into citizens not easily provoked, but never unprepared.

A Call for Balance, Not Extremes

Let those beyond our borders question our ways. Let them forget the countless incursions by the Romulans. Let them ignore the scars left by centuries of subversion from the Orion Syndicate. We do not forget. We remember the lives lost, the liberties challenged, and the lessons learned through suffering. These experiences shaped us.

We do not wish to return to the era of soft silence, when teachers trembled at the word "weapon" and children were told that even imagination was dangerous. That was not enlightenment. That was indoctrination.

Conclusion: Guarding the Flame

We are the guardians of Risa’s flame—not just with words and treaties, but with discipline and readiness. We have made peace a practice, and preparation a virtue. And so I say to this chamber: let us never again disarm our people in the name of utopia. Let us never confuse comfort with safety, or the absence of weapons with the presence of peace.

Instead, let us raise generations who know what peace costs, and who will pay that price—not with surrender, but with courage.

Let our children be artists, lovers, dreamers—and if necessary, defenders.

This is the Risan way.

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

Please respect Virginia Giuffre’s memory by refraining from asking about the circumstances or theories surrounding her passing.

Since Virginia Giuffre’s death, I’ve reflected on what she would want me to say or do. This piece is my attempt to honor her legacy.

When I first spoke with Virginia, I was struck by her unshakable hope. I had grown cynical after years in the anti-human trafficking movement, worn down by a broken system and a government that often seemed complicit. But Virginia’s passion, creativity, and belief that survivors could be heard reignited something in me. She reminded me of my younger, more hopeful self. Instead of warning her about the challenges ahead, I let her dream big, unburdened by my own disillusionment. That conversation changed me for the better, and following her lead led to meaningful progress.

Virginia was one of the bravest people I’ve ever known. As a survivor of Epstein, Maxwell, and their co-conspirators, she risked everything to speak out, taking on some of the world’s most powerful figures.

She loved when I said, “Epstein isn’t the only Epstein.” This wasn’t just about one man—it was a call to hold all abusers accountable and to ensure survivors find hope and healing.

The Epstein case often gets reduced to sensational details about the elite, but that misses the bigger picture. Yes, we should be holding all of the co-conspirators accountable, we must listen to the survivors’ stories. Their experiences reveal how predators exploit vulnerabilities, offering lessons to prevent future victims.

You’re not powerless in this fight. Educate yourself about trafficking and abuse—online and offline—and take steps to protect those around you. Supporting survivors starts with small, meaningful actions. Free online resources can guide you in being a safe, supportive presence.

When high-profile accusations arise, resist snap judgments. Instead of dismissing survivors as “crazy,” pause to consider the trauma they may be navigating. Speaking out or coping with abuse is never easy. You don’t have to believe every claim, but you can refrain from attacking accusers online.

Society also fails at providing aftercare for survivors. The government, often part of the problem, won’t solve this. It’s up to us. Prevention is critical, but when abuse occurs, step up for your loved ones and community. Protect the vulnerable. it’s a challenging but a rewarding journey.

If you’re contributing to Nostr, you’re helping build a censorship resistant platform where survivors can share their stories freely, no matter how powerful their abusers are. Their voices can endure here, offering strength and hope to others. This gives me great hope for the future.

Virginia Giuffre’s courage was a gift to the world. It was an honor to know and serve her. She will be deeply missed. My hope is that her story inspires others to take on the powerful.

@ 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

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Spoken by Counselor Elaron T’Saren of Risa to the High Council, Stardate 52874.2

Honored members of the Council,

I bring you greetings from Risa—not the Risa of travel brochures and romantic holo-novels, but the true Risa. The Risa that has endured, adapted, and emerged stronger after each trial. I speak not as a tourist ambassador, but as a Counselor of our oldest institute of philosophy, and as a son of the Ricin tradition.

Today, the specter of the Borg hangs above us. The collective offers no room for diplomacy, no respect for culture, no compromise. We face not mere invaders—but a force that seeks to erase individuality, history, and identity. Some among the Council wonder what Risa—a world of peace—can offer in such a time. I say to you: we can offer the truth about peace.

The Hidden Roots of Our Tranquility

Long ago, before Risa joined the Federation, we too believed that peace could be maintained by disarming the populace, by eliminating even the mention of conflict in our schools. It was called the Great Disarmament. A generation was raised with no understanding of defense, and in time, we paid the price.

We were raided by Orion pirates. Exploited by off-world cartels. Our people were taken, our arts destroyed, our skies blackened. And we learned—too late—that peace without preparedness is only the illusion of safety.

The Birth of Ricin Doctrine

From the ashes of that failure arose the Ricin: scholars, philosophers, warriors of thought and purpose. They taught that peace is not the absence of conflict, but the mastery of it. That the mind and the body must be trained in tandem. That love without strength is a leaf in the wind.

We did not become a militant world. We became a watchful one. Our children were taught martial discipline—not to glorify violence, but to understand it, to confront it, and to defeat it when necessary. They learned meditation alongside hand-to-hand technique, negotiation beside tactical reasoning.

When we joined the Federation, we did so willingly. But let none assume we surrendered our right to defend our way of life.

Why I Speak to You Now

The Borg are not like the Orion Syndicate. They are not opportunistic, or ideological. They are methodical. And they are coming. You cannot debate with them. You cannot delay them. You can only prepare for them.

And yet, I hear murmurs within the halls of the Federation: whispers of abandoning planetary defense training, of downplaying the psychological need for individual and planetary preparedness. I hear the tired lie that “peace will protect us.”

No, Councilors. It is discipline that protects peace.

The Call to Action

I do not come bearing weapons. I come bearing wisdom. Let us take the Risan lesson and apply it across the Federation. Reestablish tactical readiness training in civilian schools. Encourage planetary governments to integrate defense and philosophy, not as contradictions, but as complements.

Let every child of the Federation grow up knowing not just the principles of liberty, but the means to defend them. Let every artist, scientist, and healer stand ready to protect the civilization they help to build.

Let us not wait until the Borg are in our orbit to remember what we must become.

Conclusion

The Borg seek to erase our uniqueness. Let us show them that the Federation is not a fragile collection of planets—but a constellation of cultures bound by a shared resolve.

We do not choose war. But neither do we flee from it.

We are the guardians of Risa’s flame—and we offer our light to the stars.

Thank you.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Hear this, warriors of the Empire!

A dishonorable shadow spreads across our once-proud institutions, infecting our very bloodlines with weakness. The House of Duras—may their names be spoken with contempt—has betrayed the sacred warrior code of Kahless. No, they have not attacked us with disruptors or blades. Their weapon is more insidious: fear and silence.

Cowardice Masquerading as Concern

These traitors would strip our children of their birthright. They forbid the young from training with the bat'leth in school! Their cowardly decree does not come in the form of an open challenge, but in whispers of fear, buried in bureaucratic dictates. "It is for safety," they claim. "It is to prevent bloodshed." Lies! The blood of Klingons must be tested in training if it is to be ready in battle. We are not humans to be coddled by illusions of safety.

Indoctrination by Silence

In their cowardice, the House of Duras seeks to shape our children not into warriors, but into frightened bureaucrats who speak not of honor, nor of strength. They spread a vile practice—of punishing younglings for even speaking of combat, for recounting glorious tales of blades clashing in the halls of Sto-Vo-Kor! A child who dares write a poem of battle is silenced. A young warrior who shares tales of their father’s triumphs is summoned to the headmaster’s office.

This is no accident. This is a calculated cultural sabotage.

Weakness Taught as Virtue

The House of Duras has infected the minds of the teachers. These once-proud mentors now tremble at shadows, seeing future rebels in the eyes of their students. They demand security patrols and biometric scanners, turning training halls into prisons. They have created fear, not of enemies beyond the Empire, but of the students themselves.

And so, the rituals of strength are erased. The bat'leth is banished. The honor of open training and sparring is forbidden. All under the pretense of protection.

A Plan of Subjugation

Make no mistake. This is not a policy; it is a plan. A plan to disarm future warriors before they are strong enough to rise. By forbidding speech, training, and remembrance, the House of Duras ensures the next generation kneels before the High Council like servants, not warriors. They seek an Empire of sheep, not wolves.

Stand and Resist

But the blood of Kahless runs strong! We must not be silent. We must not comply. Let every training hall resound with the clash of steel. Let our children speak proudly of their ancestors' battles. Let every dishonorable edict from the House of Duras be met with open defiance.

Raise your voice, Klingons! Raise your blade! The soul of the Empire is at stake. We will not surrender our future. We will not let the cowardice of Duras shape the spirit of our children.

The Empire endures through strength. Through honor. Through battle. And so shall we!

@ 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

@ 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

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

In an age where culture often precedes policy, a subtle yet potent mechanism may be at play in the shaping of American perspectives on gun ownership. Rather than directly challenging the Second Amendment through legislation alone, a more insidious strategy may involve reshaping the cultural and social norms surrounding firearms—by conditioning the population, starting at its most impressionable point: the public school system.

The Cultural Lever of Language

Unlike Orwell's 1984, where language is controlled by removing words from the lexicon, this modern approach may hinge instead on instilling fear around specific words or topics—guns, firearms, and self-defense among them. The goal is not to erase the language but to embed a taboo so deep that people voluntarily avoid these terms out of social self-preservation. Children, teachers, and parents begin to internalize a fear of even mentioning weapons, not because the words are illegal, but because the cultural consequences are severe.

The Role of Teachers in Social Programming

Teachers, particularly in primary and middle schools, serve not only as educational authorities but also as social regulators. The frequent argument against homeschooling—that children will not be "properly socialized"—reveals an implicit understanding that schools play a critical role in setting behavioral norms. Children learn what is acceptable not just academically but socially. Rules, discipline, and behavioral expectations are laid down by teachers, often reinforced through peer pressure and institutional authority.

This places teachers in a unique position of influence. If fear is instilled in these educators—fear that one of their students could become the next school shooter—their response is likely to lean toward overcorrection. That overcorrection may manifest as a total intolerance for any conversation about weapons, regardless of the context. Innocent remarks or imaginative stories from young children are interpreted as red flags, triggering intervention from administrators and warnings to parents.

Fear as a Policy Catalyst

School shootings, such as the one at Columbine, serve as the fulcrum for this fear-based conditioning. Each highly publicized tragedy becomes a national spectacle, not only for mourning but also for cementing the idea that any child could become a threat. Media cycles perpetuate this narrative with relentless coverage and emotional appeals, ensuring that each incident becomes embedded in the public consciousness.

The side effect of this focus is the generation of copycat behavior, which, in turn, justifies further media attention and tighter controls. Schools install security systems, metal detectors, and armed guards—not simply to stop violence, but to serve as a daily reminder to children and staff alike: guns are dangerous, ubiquitous, and potentially present at any moment. This daily ritual reinforces the idea that the very discussion of firearms is a precursor to violence.

Policy and Practice: The Zero-Tolerance Feedback Loop

Federal and district-level policies begin to reflect this cultural shift. A child mentioning a gun in class—even in a non-threatening or imaginative context—is flagged for intervention. Zero-tolerance rules leave no room for context or intent. Teachers and administrators, fearing for their careers or safety, comply eagerly with these guidelines, interpreting them as moral obligations rather than bureaucratic policies.

The result is a generation of students conditioned to associate firearms with social ostracism, disciplinary action, and latent danger. The Second Amendment, once seen as a cultural cornerstone of American liberty and self-reliance, is transformed into an artifact of suspicion and anxiety.

Long-Term Consequences: A Nation Re-Socialized

Over time, this fear-based reshaping of discourse creates adults who not only avoid discussing guns but view them as morally reprehensible. Their aversion is not grounded in legal logic or political philosophy, but in deeply embedded emotional programming begun in early childhood. The cultural weight against firearms becomes so great that even those inclined to support gun rights feel the need to self-censor.

As fewer people grow up discussing, learning about, or responsibly handling firearms, the social understanding of the Second Amendment erodes. Without cultural reinforcement, its value becomes abstract and its defenders marginalized. In this way, the right to bear arms is not abolished by law—it is dismantled by language, fear, and the subtle recalibration of social norms.

Conclusion

This theoretical strategy does not require a single change to the Constitution. It relies instead on the long game of cultural transformation, beginning with the youngest minds and reinforced by fear-driven policy and media narratives. The outcome is a society that views the Second Amendment not as a safeguard of liberty, but as an anachronism too dangerous to mention.

By controlling the language through social consequences and fear, a nation can be taught not just to disarm, but to believe it chose to do so freely. That, perhaps, is the most powerful form of control of all.

@ 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! 🌸

@ 846ebf79:fe4e39a4

The next iteration is coming

We're busy racing to the finish line, for the #Alexandria Gutenberg beta. Then we can get the bug hunt done, release v0.1.0, and immediately start producing the first iteration of the Euler (v0.2.0) edition.

While we continue to work on fixing the performance issues and smooth rendering on the Reading View, we've gone ahead and added some new features and apps, which will be rolled-out soon.

The biggest projects this iteration have been:

• the HTTP API for the #Realy relay from nostr:npub1fjqqy4a93z5zsjwsfxqhc2764kvykfdyttvldkkkdera8dr78vhsmmleku,
• implementation of a publication tree structure by nostr:npub1wqfzz2p880wq0tumuae9lfwyhs8uz35xd0kr34zrvrwyh3kvrzuskcqsyn,
• and the Great DevOps Migration of 2025 from the ever-industrious Mr. nostr:npub1qdjn8j4gwgmkj3k5un775nq6q3q7mguv5tvajstmkdsqdja2havq03fqm7.

All are backend-y projects and have caused a major shift in process and product, on the development team's side, even if they're still largely invisible to users.

Another important, but invisible-to-you change is that nostr:npub1ecdlntvjzexlyfale2egzvvncc8tgqsaxkl5hw7xlgjv2cxs705s9qs735 has implemented the core bech32 functionality (and the associated tests) in C/C++, for the #Aedile NDK.

On the frontend:

nostr:npub1636uujeewag8zv8593lcvdrwlymgqre6uax4anuq3y5qehqey05sl8qpl4 is currently working on the blog-specific Reading View, which allows for multi-npub or topical blogging, by using the 30040 index as a "folder", joining the various 30041 articles into different blogs. She has also started experimenting with categorization and columns for the landing page.

nostr:npub1l5sga6xg72phsz5422ykujprejwud075ggrr3z2hwyrfgr7eylqstegx9z revamped the product information pages, so that there is now a Contact page (including the ability to submit a Nostr issue) and an About page (with more product information, the build version displayed, and a live #GitCitadel feed).

We have also allowed for discrete headings (headers that aren't section headings, akin to the headers in Markdown). Discrete headings are formatted, but not added to the ToC and do not result in a section split by Asciidoc processors.

We have added OpenGraph metadata, so that hyperlinks to Alexandria publications, and other events, display prettily in other apps. And we fixed some bugs.

The Visualisation view has been updated and bug-fixed, to make the cards human-readable and closeable, and to add hyperlinks to the events to the card-titles.

We have added support for the display of individual wiki pages and the integration of them into 30040 publications. (This is an important feature for scientists and other nonfiction writers.)

We prettified the event json modal, so that it's easier to read and copy-paste out of.

The index card details have been expanded and the menus on the landing page have been revamped and expanded. Design and style has been improved, overall.

Project management is very busy

Our scientific adviser nostr:npub1m3xdppkd0njmrqe2ma8a6ys39zvgp5k8u22mev8xsnqp4nh80srqhqa5sf is working on the Euler plans for integrating features important for medical researchers and other scientists, which have been put on the fast track.

Next up are:

• a return of the Table of Contents
• kind 1111 comments, highlights, likes
• a prototype social feed for wss://theforest.nostr1.com, including long-form articles and Markdown rendering
• compose and edit of publications
• a search field
• the expansion of the relay set with the new relays from nostr:npub12262qa4uhw7u8gdwlgmntqtv7aye8vdcmvszkqwgs0zchel6mz7s6cgrkj, including some cool premium features
• full wiki functionality and disambiguation pages for replaceable events with overlapping d-tags
• a web app for mass-uploading and auto-converting PDFs to 30040/41 Asciidoc events, that will run on Realy, and be a service free for our premium relay subscribers
• ability to subscribe to the forest with a premium status
• the book upload CLI has been renamed and reworked into the Sybil Test Utility and that will get a major release, covering all the events and functionality needed to test Euler
• the #GitRepublic public git server project
• ....and much more.

Thank you for reading and may your morning be good.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Reanalysis: Could the Great Pyramid Function as an Ammonia Generator Powered by a 25GW Breeder Reactor?

Introduction

The Great Pyramid of Giza has traditionally been considered a tomb or ceremonial structure. Yet an intriguing alternative hypothesis suggests it could have functioned as a large-scale ammonia generator, powered by a high-energy source, such as a nuclear breeder reactor. This analysis explores the theoretical practicality of powering such a system using a continuous 25-gigawatt (GW) breeder reactor.

The Pyramid as an Ammonia Generator

Producing ammonia (NH₃) from atmospheric nitrogen (N₂) and hydrogen (H₂) requires substantial energy. Modern ammonia production (via the Haber-Bosch process) typically demands high pressure (~150–250 atmospheres) and temperatures (~400–500°C). However, given enough available energy, it is theoretically feasible to synthesize ammonia at lower pressures if catalysts and temperatures are sufficiently high or if alternative electrochemical or plasma-based fixation methods are employed.

Theoretical System Components:

1. High Heat Source (25GW breeder reactor)
   A breeder reactor could consistently generate large amounts of heat. At a steady state of approximately 25GW, this heat source would easily sustain temperatures exceeding the 450°C threshold necessary for ammonia synthesis reactions, particularly if conducted electrochemically or catalytically.

2. Steam and Hydrogen Production
   The intense heat from a breeder reactor can efficiently evaporate water from subterranean channels (such as those historically suggested to exist beneath the pyramid) to form superheated steam. If coupled with high-voltage electrostatic fields (possibly in the millions of volts), steam electrolysis into hydrogen and oxygen becomes viable. This high-voltage environment could substantially enhance electrolysis efficiency.

3. Nitrogen Fixation (Ammonia Synthesis)
   With hydrogen readily produced, ammonia generation can proceed. Atmospheric nitrogen, abundant around the pyramid, can combine with the hydrogen generated through electrolysis. Under these conditions, the pyramid's capstone—potentially made from a catalytic metal like osmium, platinum, or gold—could facilitate nitrogen fixation at elevated temperatures.

Power Requirements and Energy Calculations

A thorough calculation of the continuous power requirements to maintain this system follows:

• Estimated Steady-state Power: ~25 GW of continuous thermal power.
• Total Energy Over 10,000 years: """ Energy = 25 GW × 10,000 years × 365.25 days/year × 24 hrs/day × 3600 s/hr ≈ 7.9 × 10²¹ Joules """

Feasibility of a 25GW Breeder Reactor within the Pyramid

A breeder reactor capable of sustaining 25GW thermal power is physically plausible—modern commercial reactors routinely generate 3–4GW thermal, so this is within an achievable engineering scale (though certainly large by current standards).

Fuel Requirements:

• Each kilogram of fissile fuel (e.g., U-233 from Thorium-232) releases ~80 terajoules (TJ) or 8×10¹³ joules.
• Considering reactor efficiency (~35%), one kilogram provides ~2.8×10¹³ joules usable energy: """ Fuel Required = 7.9 × 10²¹ J / 2.8 × 10¹³ J/kg ≈ 280,000 metric tons """
• With a breeding ratio of ~1.3: """ Initial Load = 280,000 tons / 1.3 ≈ 215,000 tons """

Reactor Physical Dimensions (Pebble Bed Design):

• King’s Chamber size: ~318 cubic meters.
• The reactor core would need to be extremely dense and highly efficient. Advanced engineering would be required to concentrate such power in this space, but it is within speculative feasibility.

Steam Generation and Scaling Management

Key methods to mitigate mineral scaling in the system: 1. Natural Limestone Filtration 2. Chemical Additives (e.g., chelating agents, phosphate compounds) 3. Superheating and Electrostatic Ionization 4. Electrostatic Control

Conclusion and Practical Considerations

Yes, the Great Pyramid could theoretically function as an ammonia generator if powered by a 25GW breeder reactor, using: - Thorium or Uranium-based fertile material, - Sustainable steam and scaling management, - High-voltage-enhanced electrolysis and catalytic ammonia synthesis.

While speculative, it is technologically coherent when analyzed through the lens of modern nuclear and chemical engineering.

See also: nostr:naddr1qqxnzde5xymrgvekxycrswfeqy2hwumn8ghj7am0deejucmpd3mxztnyv4mz7q3qc856kwjk524kef97hazw5e9jlkjq4333r6yxh2rtgefpd894ddpsxpqqqp65wun9c08

@ 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

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Assumptions

| Factor | Assumption | |--------|------------| | CO₂ | Not considered a pollutant or is captured/stored later | | Water Use | Regulated across all sources; cooling towers or dry cooling required | | Compliance Cost | Nuclear no longer burdened by long licensing and construction delays | | Coal Waste | Treated as valuable raw material (e.g., fly ash for cement, gypsum from scrubbers) | | Nuclear Tech | Gen IV SMRs in widespread use (e.g., 50–300 MWe units, modular build, passive safety) | | Grid Role | All three provide baseload or load-following power | | Fuel Pricing | Moderate and stable (no energy crisis or supply chain disruptions) |

---

Performance Comparison

| Category | Coal (IGCC + Scrubbers) | Natural Gas (CCGT) | Nuclear (Gen IV SMRs) | |---------|-----------------------------|------------------------|--------------------------| | Thermal Efficiency | 40–45% | 55–62% | 30–35% | | CAPEX ($/kW) | $3,500–5,000 | $900–1,300 | $4,000–7,000 (modularized) | | O&M Cost ($/MWh) | $30–50 | $10–20 | $10–25 | | Fuel Cost ($/MWh) | $15–25 | $25–35 | $6–10 | | Water Use (gal/MWh) | 300–500 (with cooling towers) | 100–250 | 300–600 | | Air Emissions | Very low (excluding CO₂) | Very low | None | | Waste | Usable (fly ash, FGD gypsum, slag) | Minimal | Compact, long-term storage required | | Ramp/Flexibility | Slow ramp (newer designs better) | Fast ramp | Medium (SMRs better than traditional) | | Footprint (Land & Supply) | Large (mining, transport) | Medium | Small | | Energy Density | Medium | Medium-high | Very high | | Build Time | 4–7 years | 2–4 years | 2–5 years (with factory builds) | | Lifecycle (years) | 40+ | 30+ | 60+ | | Grid Resilience | High | High | Very High (passive safety, long refuel) |

---

Strategic Role Summary

1. Coal (Clean & Integrated)

• Strengths: Long-term fuel security; byproduct reuse; high reliability; domestic resource.
• Drawbacks: Still low flexibility; moderate efficiency; large physical/logistical footprint.
• Strategic Role: Best suited for regions with abundant coal and industrial reuse markets.

2. Natural Gas (CCGT)

• Strengths: High efficiency, low CAPEX, grid agility, low emissions.
• Drawbacks: Still fossil-based; dependent on well infrastructure; less long-lived.
• Strategic Role: Excellent transitional and peaking solution; strong complement to renewables.

3. Nuclear (Gen IV SMRs)

• Strengths: Highest energy density; no air emissions or CO₂; long lifespan; modular & scalable.
• Drawbacks: Still needs safe waste handling; high upfront cost; novel tech in deployment stage.
• Strategic Role: Ideal for low-carbon baseload, remote areas, and national strategic assets.

---

Adjusted Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE)

| Source | LCOE ($/MWh) | Notes | |--------|------------------|-------| | Coal (IGCC w/scrubbers) | ~$75–95 | Lower with valuable waste | | Natural Gas (CCGT) | ~$45–70 | Highly competitive if fuel costs are stable | | Gen IV SMRs | ~$65–85 | Assuming factory production and streamlined permitting |

---

Final Verdict (Under Optimized Assumptions)

• Most Economical Short-Term: Natural Gas
• Most Strategic Long-Term: Gen IV SMRs
• Most Viable if Industrial Ecosystem Exists: Clean Coal

All three could coexist in a diversified, stable energy grid: - Coal filling a regional or industrial niche, - Gas providing flexibility and economy, - SMRs ensuring long-term sustainability and energy security.

@ 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

@ 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

@ 91bea5cd:1df4451c

O Contexto Legal Brasileiro e o Consentimento

No ordenamento jurídico brasileiro, o consentimento do ofendido pode, em certas circunstâncias, afastar a ilicitude de um ato que, sem ele, configuraria crime (como lesão corporal leve, prevista no Art. 129 do Código Penal). Contudo, o consentimento tem limites claros: não é válido para bens jurídicos indisponíveis, como a vida, e sua eficácia é questionável em casos de lesões corporais graves ou gravíssimas.

A prática de BDSM consensual situa-se em uma zona complexa. Em tese, se ambos os parceiros são adultos, capazes, e consentiram livre e informadamente nos atos praticados, sem que resultem em lesões graves permanentes ou risco de morte não consentido, não haveria crime. O desafio reside na comprovação desse consentimento, especialmente se uma das partes, posteriormente, o negar ou alegar coação.

A Lei Maria da Penha (Lei nº 11.340/2006)

A Lei Maria da Penha é um marco fundamental na proteção da mulher contra a violência doméstica e familiar. Ela estabelece mecanismos para coibir e prevenir tal violência, definindo suas formas (física, psicológica, sexual, patrimonial e moral) e prevendo medidas protetivas de urgência.

Embora essencial, a aplicação da lei em contextos de BDSM pode ser delicada. Uma alegação de violência por parte da mulher, mesmo que as lesões ou situações decorram de práticas consensuais, tende a receber atenção prioritária das autoridades, dada a presunção de vulnerabilidade estabelecida pela lei. Isso pode criar um cenário onde o parceiro masculino enfrenta dificuldades significativas em demonstrar a natureza consensual dos atos, especialmente se não houver provas robustas pré-constituídas.

Outros riscos:

Lesão corporal grave ou gravíssima (art. 129, §§ 1º e 2º, CP), não pode ser justificada pelo consentimento, podendo ensejar persecução penal.

Crimes contra a dignidade sexual (arts. 213 e seguintes do CP) são de ação pública incondicionada e independem de representação da vítima para a investigação e denúncia.

Riscos de Falsas Acusações e Alegação de Coação Futura

Os riscos para os praticantes de BDSM, especialmente para o parceiro que assume o papel dominante ou que inflige dor/restrição (frequentemente, mas não exclusivamente, o homem), podem surgir de diversas frentes:

1. Acusações Externas: Vizinhos, familiares ou amigos que desconhecem a natureza consensual do relacionamento podem interpretar sons, marcas ou comportamentos como sinais de abuso e denunciar às autoridades.
2. Alegações Futuras da Parceira: Em caso de término conturbado, vingança, arrependimento ou mudança de perspectiva, a parceira pode reinterpretar as práticas passadas como abuso e buscar reparação ou retaliação através de uma denúncia. A alegação pode ser de que o consentimento nunca existiu ou foi viciado.
3. Alegação de Coação: Uma das formas mais complexas de refutar é a alegação de que o consentimento foi obtido mediante coação (física, moral, psicológica ou econômica). A parceira pode alegar, por exemplo, que se sentia pressionada, intimidada ou dependente, e que seu "sim" não era genuíno. Provar a ausência de coação a posteriori é extremamente difícil.
4. Ingenuidade e Vulnerabilidade Masculina: Muitos homens, confiando na dinâmica consensual e na parceira, podem negligenciar a necessidade de precauções. A crença de que "isso nunca aconteceria comigo" ou a falta de conhecimento sobre as implicações legais e o peso processual de uma acusação no âmbito da Lei Maria da Penha podem deixá-los vulneráveis. A presença de marcas físicas, mesmo que consentidas, pode ser usada como evidência de agressão, invertendo o ônus da prova na prática, ainda que não na teoria jurídica.

Estratégias de Prevenção e Mitigação

Não existe um método infalível para evitar completamente o risco de uma falsa acusação, mas diversas medidas podem ser adotadas para construir um histórico de consentimento e reduzir vulnerabilidades:

1. Comunicação Explícita e Contínua: A base de qualquer prática BDSM segura é a comunicação constante. Negociar limites, desejos, palavras de segurança ("safewords") e expectativas antes, durante e depois das cenas é crucial. Manter registros dessas negociações (e-mails, mensagens, diários compartilhados) pode ser útil.

2. Documentação do Consentimento:

   • Contratos de Relacionamento/Cena: Embora a validade jurídica de "contratos BDSM" seja discutível no Brasil (não podem afastar normas de ordem pública), eles servem como forte evidência da intenção das partes, da negociação detalhada de limites e do consentimento informado. Devem ser claros, datados, assinados e, idealmente, reconhecidos em cartório (para prova de data e autenticidade das assinaturas).

   • Registros Audiovisuais: Gravar (com consentimento explícito para a gravação) discussões sobre consentimento e limites antes das cenas pode ser uma prova poderosa. Gravar as próprias cenas é mais complexo devido a questões de privacidade e potencial uso indevido, mas pode ser considerado em casos específicos, sempre com consentimento mútuo documentado para a gravação.

     Importante: a gravação deve ser com ciência da outra parte, para não configurar violação da intimidade (art. 5º, X, da Constituição Federal e art. 20 do Código Civil).

3. Testemunhas: Em alguns contextos de comunidade BDSM, a presença de terceiros de confiança durante negociações ou mesmo cenas pode servir como testemunho, embora isso possa alterar a dinâmica íntima do casal.

4. Estabelecimento Claro de Limites e Palavras de Segurança: Definir e respeitar rigorosamente os limites (o que é permitido, o que é proibido) e as palavras de segurança é fundamental. O desrespeito a uma palavra de segurança encerra o consentimento para aquele ato.
5. Avaliação Contínua do Consentimento: O consentimento não é um cheque em branco; ele deve ser entusiástico, contínuo e revogável a qualquer momento. Verificar o bem-estar do parceiro durante a cena ("check-ins") é essencial.
6. Discrição e Cuidado com Evidências Físicas: Ser discreto sobre a natureza do relacionamento pode evitar mal-entendidos externos. Após cenas que deixem marcas, é prudente que ambos os parceiros estejam cientes e de acordo, talvez documentando por fotos (com data) e uma nota sobre a consensualidade da prática que as gerou.
7. Aconselhamento Jurídico Preventivo: Consultar um advogado especializado em direito de família e criminal, com sensibilidade para dinâmicas de relacionamento alternativas, pode fornecer orientação personalizada sobre as melhores formas de documentar o consentimento e entender os riscos legais específicos.

Observações Importantes

• Nenhuma documentação substitui a necessidade de consentimento real, livre, informado e contínuo.
• A lei brasileira protege a "integridade física" e a "dignidade humana". Práticas que resultem em lesões graves ou que violem a dignidade de forma não consentida (ou com consentimento viciado) serão ilegais, independentemente de qualquer acordo prévio.
• Em caso de acusação, a existência de documentação robusta de consentimento não garante a absolvição, mas fortalece significativamente a defesa, ajudando a demonstrar a natureza consensual da relação e das práticas.

• A alegação de coação futura é particularmente difícil de prevenir apenas com documentos. Um histórico consistente de comunicação aberta (whatsapp/telegram/e-mails), respeito mútuo e ausência de dependência ou controle excessivo na relação pode ajudar a contextualizar a dinâmica como não coercitiva.

• Cuidado com Marcas Visíveis e Lesões Graves Práticas que resultam em hematomas severos ou lesões podem ser interpretadas como agressão, mesmo que consentidas. Evitar excessos protege não apenas a integridade física, mas também evita questionamentos legais futuros.

O que vem a ser consentimento viciado

No Direito, consentimento viciado é quando a pessoa concorda com algo, mas a vontade dela não é livre ou plena — ou seja, o consentimento existe formalmente, mas é defeituoso por alguma razão.

O Código Civil brasileiro (art. 138 a 165) define várias formas de vício de consentimento. As principais são:

Erro: A pessoa se engana sobre o que está consentindo. (Ex.: A pessoa acredita que vai participar de um jogo leve, mas na verdade é exposta a práticas pesadas.)

Dolo: A pessoa é enganada propositalmente para aceitar algo. (Ex.: Alguém mente sobre o que vai acontecer durante a prática.)

Coação: A pessoa é forçada ou ameaçada a consentir. (Ex.: "Se você não aceitar, eu termino com você" — pressão emocional forte pode ser vista como coação.)

Estado de perigo ou lesão: A pessoa aceita algo em situação de necessidade extrema ou abuso de sua vulnerabilidade. (Ex.: Alguém em situação emocional muito fragilizada é induzida a aceitar práticas que normalmente recusaria.)

No contexto de BDSM, isso é ainda mais delicado: Mesmo que a pessoa tenha "assinado" um contrato ou dito "sim", se depois ela alegar que seu consentimento foi dado sob medo, engano ou pressão psicológica, o consentimento pode ser considerado viciado — e, portanto, juridicamente inválido.

Isso tem duas implicações sérias:

1. O crime não se descaracteriza: Se houver vício, o consentimento é ignorado e a prática pode ser tratada como crime normal (lesão corporal, estupro, tortura, etc.).

2. A prova do consentimento precisa ser sólida: Mostrando que a pessoa estava informada, lúcida, livre e sem qualquer tipo de coação.

   Consentimento viciado é quando a pessoa concorda formalmente, mas de maneira enganada, forçada ou pressionada, tornando o consentimento inútil para efeitos jurídicos.

Conclusão

Casais que praticam BDSM consensual no Brasil navegam em um terreno que exige não apenas confiança mútua e comunicação excepcional, mas também uma consciência aguçada das complexidades legais e dos riscos de interpretações equivocadas ou acusações mal-intencionadas. Embora o BDSM seja uma expressão legítima da sexualidade humana, sua prática no Brasil exige responsabilidade redobrada. Ter provas claras de consentimento, manter a comunicação aberta e agir com prudência são formas eficazes de se proteger de falsas alegações e preservar a liberdade e a segurança de todos os envolvidos. Embora leis controversas como a Maria da Penha sejam "vitais" para a proteção contra a violência real, os praticantes de BDSM, e em particular os homens nesse contexto, devem adotar uma postura proativa e prudente para mitigar os riscos inerentes à potencial má interpretação ou instrumentalização dessas práticas e leis, garantindo que a expressão de sua consensualidade esteja resguardada na medida do possível.

---

Importante: No Brasil, mesmo com tudo isso, o Ministério Público pode denunciar por crime como lesão corporal grave, estupro ou tortura, independente de consentimento. Então a prudência nas práticas é fundamental.

Aviso Legal: Este artigo tem caráter meramente informativo e não constitui aconselhamento jurídico. As leis e interpretações podem mudar, e cada situação é única. Recomenda-se buscar orientação de um advogado qualificado para discutir casos específicos.

Se curtiu este artigo faça uma contribuição, se tiver algum ponto relevante para o artigo deixe seu comentário.

@ 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.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

A follow-up to nostr:naddr1qqgxxwtyxe3kvc3jvvuxywtyxs6rjq3qc856kwjk524kef97hazw5e9jlkjq4333r6yxh2rtgefpd894ddpsxpqqqp65wuaydz8

This whitepaper, a comparison of baseload power options, explores a strategic policy framework to reduce the cost of next-generation nuclear power by aligning Gen IV Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) with national security objectives, public utility management, and a competitive manufacturing ecosystem modeled after the aerospace industry. Under this approach, SMRs could deliver stable, carbon-free power at $40–55/MWh, rivaling the economics of natural gas and renewables.

---

1. Context and Strategic Opportunity

Current Nuclear Cost Challenges

• High capital expenditure ($4,000–$12,000/kW)
• Lengthy permitting and construction timelines (10–15 years)
• Regulatory delays and public opposition
• Customized, one-off reactor designs with no economies of scale

The Promise of SMRs

• Factory-built, modular units
• Lower absolute cost and shorter build time
• Enhanced passive safety
• Scalable deployment

---

2. National Security as a Catalyst

Strategic Benefits

• Energy resilience for critical defense infrastructure
• Off-grid operation and EMP/cyber threat mitigation
• Long-duration fuel cycles reduce logistical risk

Policy Implications

• Streamlined permitting and site access under national defense exemptions
• Budget support via Department of Defense and Department of Energy
• Co-location on military bases and federal sites

---

3. Publicly Chartered Utilities: A New Operating Model

Utility Framework

• Federally chartered, low-margin operator (like TVA or USPS)
• Financially self-sustaining through long-term PPAs
• Focus on reliability, security, and public service over profit

Cost Advantages

• Lower cost of capital through public backing
• Predictable revenue models
• Community trust and stakeholder alignment

---

4. Competitive Manufacturing: The Aviation Analogy

Model Characteristics

• Multiple certified vendors, competing under common safety frameworks
• Factory-scale production and supply chain specialization
• Domestic sourcing for critical components and fuel

Benefits

• Cost reductions from repetition and volume
• Innovation through competition
• Export potential and industrial job creation

---

5. Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) Impact

| Cost Lever | Estimated LCOE Reduction | |------------|--------------------------| | Streamlined regulation | -10 to -20% | | Public-charter operation | -5 to -15% | | Factory-built SMRs | -15 to -30% | | Defense market anchor | -10% |

Estimated Resulting LCOE: $40–55/MWh

---

6. Strategic Outcomes

• Nuclear cost competitiveness with gas and renewables
• Decarbonization without reliability sacrifice
• Strengthened national energy resilience
• Industrial and workforce revitalization
• U.S. global leadership in clean, secure nuclear energy

---

7. Recommendations

• Create a public-private chartered SMR utility
• Deploy initial reactors on military and federal lands
• Incentivize competitive SMR manufacturing consortia
• Establish fast-track licensing for Gen IV designs
• Align DoD/DOE energy procurement to SMR adoption

---

Conclusion

This strategy would transform nuclear power from a high-cost, high-risk sector into a mission-driven, economically viable backbone of American energy and defense infrastructure. By treating SMRs as strategic assets, not just energy projects, the U.S. can unlock affordable, scalable, and secure nuclear power for generations to come.

@ e3ba5e1a:5e433365

Prelude

I wrote this post differently than any of my others. It started with a discussion with AI on an OPSec-inspired review of separation of powers, and evolved into quite an exciting debate! I asked Grok to write up a summary in my overall writing style, which it got pretty well. I've decided to post it exactly as-is. Ultimately, I think there are two solid ideas driving my stance here:

1. Perfect is the enemy of the good
2. Failure is the crucible of success

Beyond that, just some hard-core belief in freedom, separation of powers, and operating from self-interest.

Intro

Alright, buckle up. I’ve been chewing on this idea for a while, and it’s time to spit it out. Let’s look at the U.S. government like I’d look at a codebase under a cybersecurity audit—OPSEC style, no fluff. Forget the endless debates about what politicians should do. That’s noise. I want to talk about what they can do, the raw powers baked into the system, and why we should stop pretending those powers are sacred. If there’s a hole, either patch it or exploit it. No half-measures. And yeah, I’m okay if the whole thing crashes a bit—failure’s a feature, not a bug.

The Filibuster: A Security Rule with No Teeth

You ever see a firewall rule that’s more theater than protection? That’s the Senate filibuster. Everyone acts like it’s this untouchable guardian of democracy, but here’s the deal: a simple majority can torch it any day. It’s not a law; it’s a Senate preference, like choosing tabs over spaces. When people call killing it the “nuclear option,” I roll my eyes. Nuclear? It’s a button labeled “press me.” If a party wants it gone, they’ll do it. So why the dance?

I say stop playing games. Get rid of the filibuster. If you’re one of those folks who thinks it’s the only thing saving us from tyranny, fine—push for a constitutional amendment to lock it in. That’s a real patch, not a Post-it note. Until then, it’s just a vulnerability begging to be exploited. Every time a party threatens to nuke it, they’re admitting it’s not essential. So let’s stop pretending and move on.

Supreme Court Packing: Because Nine’s Just a Number

Here’s another fun one: the Supreme Court. Nine justices, right? Sounds official. Except it’s not. The Constitution doesn’t say nine—it’s silent on the number. Congress could pass a law tomorrow to make it 15, 20, or 42 (hitchhiker’s reference, anyone?). Packing the court is always on the table, and both sides know it. It’s like a root exploit just sitting there, waiting for someone to log in.

So why not call the bluff? If you’re in power—say, Trump’s back in the game—say, “I’m packing the court unless we amend the Constitution to fix it at nine.” Force the issue. No more shadowboxing. And honestly? The court’s got way too much power anyway. It’s not supposed to be a super-legislature, but here we are, with justices’ ideologies driving the bus. That’s a bug, not a feature. If the court weren’t such a kingmaker, packing it wouldn’t even matter. Maybe we should be talking about clipping its wings instead of just its size.

The Executive Should Go Full Klingon

Let’s talk presidents. I’m not saying they should wear Klingon armor and start shouting “Qapla’!”—though, let’s be real, that’d be awesome. I’m saying the executive should use every scrap of power the Constitution hands them. Enforce the laws you agree with, sideline the ones you don’t. If Congress doesn’t like it, they’ve got tools: pass new laws, override vetoes, or—here’s the big one—cut the budget. That’s not chaos; that’s the system working as designed.

Right now, the real problem isn’t the president overreaching; it’s the bureaucracy. It’s like a daemon running in the background, eating CPU and ignoring the user. The president’s supposed to be the one steering, but the administrative state’s got its own agenda. Let the executive flex, push the limits, and force Congress to check it. Norms? Pfft. The Constitution’s the spec sheet—stick to it.

Let the System Crash

Here’s where I get a little spicy: I’m totally fine if the government grinds to a halt. Deadlock isn’t a disaster; it’s a feature. If the branches can’t agree, let the president veto, let Congress starve the budget, let enforcement stall. Don’t tell me about “essential services.” Nothing’s so critical it can’t take a breather. Shutdowns force everyone to the table—debate, compromise, or expose who’s dropping the ball. If the public loses trust? Good. They’ll vote out the clowns or live with the circus they elected.

Think of it like a server crash. Sometimes you need a hard reboot to clear the cruft. If voters keep picking the same bad admins, well, the country gets what it deserves. Failure’s the best teacher—way better than limping along on autopilot.

States Are the Real MVPs

If the feds fumble, states step up. Right now, states act like junior devs waiting for the lead engineer to sign off. Why? Federal money. It’s a leash, and it’s tight. Cut that cash, and states will remember they’re autonomous. Some will shine, others will tank—looking at you, California. And I’m okay with that. Let people flee to better-run states. No bailouts, no excuses. States are like competing startups: the good ones thrive, the bad ones pivot or die.

Could it get uneven? Sure. Some states might turn into sci-fi utopias while others look like a post-apocalyptic vidya game. That’s the point—competition sorts it out. Citizens can move, markets adjust, and failure’s a signal to fix your act.

Chaos Isn’t the Enemy

Yeah, this sounds messy. States ignoring federal law, external threats poking at our seams, maybe even a constitutional crisis. I’m not scared. The Supreme Court’s there to referee interstate fights, and Congress sets the rules for state-to-state play. But if it all falls apart? Still cool. States can sort it without a babysitter—it’ll be ugly, but freedom’s worth it. External enemies? They’ll either unify us or break us. If we can’t rally, we don’t deserve the win.

Centralizing power to avoid this is like rewriting your app in a single thread to prevent race conditions—sure, it’s simpler, but you’re begging for a deadlock. Decentralized chaos lets states experiment, lets people escape, lets markets breathe. States competing to cut regulations to attract businesses? That’s a race to the bottom for red tape, but a race to the top for innovation—workers might gripe, but they’ll push back, and the tension’s healthy. Bring it—let the cage match play out. The Constitution’s checks are enough if we stop coddling the system.

Why This Matters

I’m not pitching a utopia. I’m pitching a stress test. The U.S. isn’t a fragile porcelain doll; it’s a rugged piece of hardware built to take some hits. Let it fail a little—filibuster, court, feds, whatever. Patch the holes with amendments if you want, or lean into the grind. Either way, stop fearing the crash. It’s how we debug the republic.

So, what’s your take? Ready to let the system rumble, or got a better way to secure the code? Hit me up—I’m all ears.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

The United States is on the cusp of a historic technological renaissance, often referred to as the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Artificial intelligence, automation, advanced robotics, quantum computing, biotechnology, and clean manufacturing are converging into a seismic shift that will redefine how we live, work, and relate to one another. But there's a critical catch: this transformation depends entirely on the availability of stable, abundant, and inexpensive electricity.

Why Electricity is the Keystone of Innovation

Let’s start with something basic but often overlooked. Every industrial revolution has had an energy driver:

• The First rode the steam engine, powered by coal.
• The Second was electrified through centralized power plants.
• The Third harnessed computing and the internet.
• The Fourth will demand energy on a scale and reliability never seen before.

Imagine a city where thousands of small factories run 24/7 with robotics and AI doing precision manufacturing. Imagine a national network of autonomous vehicles, delivery drones, urban vertical farms, and high-bandwidth communication systems. All of this requires uninterrupted and inexpensive power.

Without it? Costs balloon. Innovation stalls. Investment leaves. And America risks becoming a second-tier economic power in a multipolar world.

So here’s the thesis: If we want to lead the Fourth Industrial Revolution, we must first lead in energy. And nuclear — specifically Gen IV Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) — must be part of that leadership.

---

The Nuclear Case: Clean, Scalable, Strategic

Let’s debunk the myth: nuclear is not the boogeyman of the 1970s. It’s one of the safest, cleanest, and most energy-dense sources we have.

But traditional nuclear has problems:

• Too expensive to build.
• Too long to license.
• Too bespoke and complex.

Enter Gen IV SMRs:

• Factory-built and transportable.
• Passively safe with walk-away safety designs.
• Scalable in 50–300 MWe increments.
• Ideal for remote areas, industrial parks, and military bases.

But even SMRs will struggle under the current regulatory, economic, and manufacturing ecosystem. To unlock their potential, we need a new national approach.

---

The Argument for National Strategy

Let’s paint a vision:

SMRs deployed at military bases across the country, secured by trained personnel, powering critical infrastructure, and feeding clean, carbon-free power back into surrounding communities.

SMRs operated by public chartered utilities—not for Wall Street profits, but for stability, security, and public good.

SMRs manufactured by a competitive ecosystem of certified vendors, just like aircraft or medical devices, with standard parts and rapid regulatory approval.

This isn't science fiction. It's a plausible, powerful model. Here’s how we do it.

---

Step 1: Treat SMRs as a National Security Asset

Why does the Department of Defense spend billions to secure oil convoys and build fuel depots across the world, but not invest in nuclear microgrids that would make forward bases self-sufficient for decades?

Nuclear power is inherently a strategic asset:

• Immune to price shocks.
• Hard to sabotage.
• Decades of stable power from a small footprint.

It’s time to reframe SMRs from an energy project to a national security platform. That changes everything.

---

Step 2: Create Public-Chartered Operating Companies

We don’t need another corporate monopoly or Wall Street scheme. Instead, let’s charter SMR utilities the way we chartered the TVA or the Postal Service:

• Low-margin, mission-oriented.
• Publicly accountable.
• Able to sign long-term contracts with DOD, DOE, or regional utilities.

These organizations won’t chase quarterly profits. They’ll chase uptime, grid stability, and national resilience.

---

Step 3: Build a Competitive SMR Industry Like Aerospace

Imagine multiple manufacturers building SMRs to common, certified standards. Components sourced from a wide supplier base. Designs evolving year over year, with upgrades like software and avionics do.

This is how we build:

• Safer reactors
• Cheaper units
• Modular designs
• A real export industry

Airplanes are safe, affordable, and efficient because of scale and standardization. We can do the same with reactors.

---

Step 4: Anchor SMRs to the Coming Fourth Industrial Revolution

AI, robotics, and distributed manufacturing don’t need fossil fuels. They need cheap, clean, continuous electricity.

• AI datacenters
• Robotic agriculture
• Carbon-free steel and cement
• Direct air capture
• Electric industrial transport

SMRs enable this future. And they decentralize power, both literally and economically. That means jobs in every region, not just coastal tech hubs.

---

Step 5: Pair Energy Sovereignty with Economic Reform

Here’s the big leap: what if this new energy architecture was tied to a transparent, auditable, and sovereign monetary system?

• Public utilities priced in a new digital dollar.
• Trade policy balanced by low-carbon energy exports.
• Public accounting verified with open ledgers.

This is not just national security. It’s monetary resilience.

The world is moving to multi-polar trade systems. Energy exports and energy reliability will define economic influence. If America leads with SMRs, we lead the conversation.

---

Conclusion: A Moral and Strategic Imperative

We can either:

• Let outdated fears and bureaucracy stall the future, or...
• Build the infrastructure for clean, secure, and sovereign prosperity.

We have the designs.
We have the talent.
We have the need.

What we need now is will.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution will either be powered by us—or by someone else. Let’s make sure America leads. And let’s do it with SMRs, public charter, competitive industry, and national purpose.

It’s time.

---

This is a call to engineers, legislators, veterans, economists, and every American who believes in building again. SMRs are not just about power. They are about sovereignty, security, and shared prosperity.

---

Further reading:

nostr:naddr1qqgrjv33xenx2drpve3kxvrp8quxgqgcwaehxw309anxjmr5v4ezumn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tczyrq7n2e62632km9yh6l5f6nykt76gzkxxy0gs6agddr9y95uk445xqcyqqq823cdzc99s

@ 91bea5cd:1df4451c

Básico

bash lsblk # Lista todos os diretorios montados.

Para criar o sistema de arquivos:

bash mkfs.btrfs -L "ThePool" -f /dev/sdx

Criando um subvolume:

bash btrfs subvolume create SubVol

Montando Sistema de Arquivos:

bash mount -o compress=zlib,subvol=SubVol,autodefrag /dev/sdx /mnt

Lista os discos formatados no diretório:

bash btrfs filesystem show /mnt

Adiciona novo disco ao subvolume:

bash btrfs device add -f /dev/sdy /mnt

Lista novamente os discos do subvolume:

bash btrfs filesystem show /mnt

Exibe uso dos discos do subvolume:

bash btrfs filesystem df /mnt

Balancea os dados entre os discos sobre raid1:

bash btrfs filesystem balance start -dconvert=raid1 -mconvert=raid1 /mnt

Scrub é uma passagem por todos os dados e metadados do sistema de arquivos e verifica as somas de verificação. Se uma cópia válida estiver disponível (perfis de grupo de blocos replicados), a danificada será reparada. Todas as cópias dos perfis replicados são validadas.

iniciar o processo de depuração :

bash btrfs scrub start /mnt

ver o status do processo de depuração Btrfs em execução:

bash btrfs scrub status /mnt

ver o status do scrub Btrfs para cada um dos dispositivos

bash btrfs scrub status -d / data btrfs scrub cancel / data

Para retomar o processo de depuração do Btrfs que você cancelou ou pausou:

btrfs scrub resume / data

Listando os subvolumes:

bash btrfs subvolume list /Reports

Criando um instantâneo dos subvolumes:

Aqui, estamos criando um instantâneo de leitura e gravação chamado snap de marketing do subvolume de marketing.

bash btrfs subvolume snapshot /Reports/marketing /Reports/marketing-snap

Além disso, você pode criar um instantâneo somente leitura usando o sinalizador -r conforme mostrado. O marketing-rosnap é um instantâneo somente leitura do subvolume de marketing

bash btrfs subvolume snapshot -r /Reports/marketing /Reports/marketing-rosnap

Forçar a sincronização do sistema de arquivos usando o utilitário 'sync'

Para forçar a sincronização do sistema de arquivos, invoque a opção de sincronização conforme mostrado. Observe que o sistema de arquivos já deve estar montado para que o processo de sincronização continue com sucesso.

bash btrfs filsystem sync /Reports

Para excluir o dispositivo do sistema de arquivos, use o comando device delete conforme mostrado.

bash btrfs device delete /dev/sdc /Reports

Para sondar o status de um scrub, use o comando scrub status com a opção -dR .

bash btrfs scrub status -dR / Relatórios

Para cancelar a execução do scrub, use o comando scrub cancel .

bash $ sudo btrfs scrub cancel / Reports

Para retomar ou continuar com uma depuração interrompida anteriormente, execute o comando de cancelamento de depuração

bash sudo btrfs scrub resume /Reports

mostra o uso do dispositivo de armazenamento:

btrfs filesystem usage /data

Para distribuir os dados, metadados e dados do sistema em todos os dispositivos de armazenamento do RAID (incluindo o dispositivo de armazenamento recém-adicionado) montados no diretório /data , execute o seguinte comando:

sudo btrfs balance start --full-balance /data

Pode demorar um pouco para espalhar os dados, metadados e dados do sistema em todos os dispositivos de armazenamento do RAID se ele contiver muitos dados.

Opções importantes de montagem Btrfs

Nesta seção, vou explicar algumas das importantes opções de montagem do Btrfs. Então vamos começar.

As opções de montagem Btrfs mais importantes são:

**1. acl e noacl

**ACL gerencia permissões de usuários e grupos para os arquivos/diretórios do sistema de arquivos Btrfs.

A opção de montagem acl Btrfs habilita ACL. Para desabilitar a ACL, você pode usar a opção de montagem noacl .

Por padrão, a ACL está habilitada. Portanto, o sistema de arquivos Btrfs usa a opção de montagem acl por padrão.

**2. autodefrag e noautodefrag

**Desfragmentar um sistema de arquivos Btrfs melhorará o desempenho do sistema de arquivos reduzindo a fragmentação de dados.

A opção de montagem autodefrag permite a desfragmentação automática do sistema de arquivos Btrfs.

A opção de montagem noautodefrag desativa a desfragmentação automática do sistema de arquivos Btrfs.

Por padrão, a desfragmentação automática está desabilitada. Portanto, o sistema de arquivos Btrfs usa a opção de montagem noautodefrag por padrão.

**3. compactar e compactar-forçar

**Controla a compactação de dados no nível do sistema de arquivos do sistema de arquivos Btrfs.

A opção compactar compacta apenas os arquivos que valem a pena compactar (se compactar o arquivo economizar espaço em disco).

A opção compress-force compacta todos os arquivos do sistema de arquivos Btrfs, mesmo que a compactação do arquivo aumente seu tamanho.

O sistema de arquivos Btrfs suporta muitos algoritmos de compactação e cada um dos algoritmos de compactação possui diferentes níveis de compactação.

Os algoritmos de compactação suportados pelo Btrfs são: lzo , zlib (nível 1 a 9) e zstd (nível 1 a 15).

Você pode especificar qual algoritmo de compactação usar para o sistema de arquivos Btrfs com uma das seguintes opções de montagem:

• compress=algoritmo:nível
• compress-force=algoritmo:nível

Para obter mais informações, consulte meu artigo Como habilitar a compactação do sistema de arquivos Btrfs .

**4. subvol e subvolid

**Estas opções de montagem são usadas para montar separadamente um subvolume específico de um sistema de arquivos Btrfs.

A opção de montagem subvol é usada para montar o subvolume de um sistema de arquivos Btrfs usando seu caminho relativo.

A opção de montagem subvolid é usada para montar o subvolume de um sistema de arquivos Btrfs usando o ID do subvolume.

Para obter mais informações, consulte meu artigo Como criar e montar subvolumes Btrfs .

**5. dispositivo

A opção de montagem de dispositivo** é usada no sistema de arquivos Btrfs de vários dispositivos ou RAID Btrfs.

Em alguns casos, o sistema operacional pode falhar ao detectar os dispositivos de armazenamento usados em um sistema de arquivos Btrfs de vários dispositivos ou RAID Btrfs. Nesses casos, você pode usar a opção de montagem do dispositivo para especificar os dispositivos que deseja usar para o sistema de arquivos de vários dispositivos Btrfs ou RAID.

Você pode usar a opção de montagem de dispositivo várias vezes para carregar diferentes dispositivos de armazenamento para o sistema de arquivos de vários dispositivos Btrfs ou RAID.

Você pode usar o nome do dispositivo (ou seja, sdb , sdc ) ou UUID , UUID_SUB ou PARTUUID do dispositivo de armazenamento com a opção de montagem do dispositivo para identificar o dispositivo de armazenamento.

Por exemplo,

• dispositivo=/dev/sdb
• dispositivo=/dev/sdb,dispositivo=/dev/sdc
• dispositivo=UUID_SUB=490a263d-eb9a-4558-931e-998d4d080c5d
• device=UUID_SUB=490a263d-eb9a-4558-931e-998d4d080c5d,device=UUID_SUB=f7ce4875-0874-436a-b47d-3edef66d3424

**6. degraded

A opção de montagem degradada** permite que um RAID Btrfs seja montado com menos dispositivos de armazenamento do que o perfil RAID requer.

Por exemplo, o perfil raid1 requer a presença de 2 dispositivos de armazenamento. Se um dos dispositivos de armazenamento não estiver disponível em qualquer caso, você usa a opção de montagem degradada para montar o RAID mesmo que 1 de 2 dispositivos de armazenamento esteja disponível.

**7. commit

A opção commit** mount é usada para definir o intervalo (em segundos) dentro do qual os dados serão gravados no dispositivo de armazenamento.

O padrão é definido como 30 segundos.

Para definir o intervalo de confirmação para 15 segundos, você pode usar a opção de montagem commit=15 (digamos).

**8. ssd e nossd

A opção de montagem ssd** informa ao sistema de arquivos Btrfs que o sistema de arquivos está usando um dispositivo de armazenamento SSD, e o sistema de arquivos Btrfs faz a otimização SSD necessária.

A opção de montagem nossd desativa a otimização do SSD.

O sistema de arquivos Btrfs detecta automaticamente se um SSD é usado para o sistema de arquivos Btrfs. Se um SSD for usado, a opção de montagem de SSD será habilitada. Caso contrário, a opção de montagem nossd é habilitada.

**9. ssd_spread e nossd_spread

A opção de montagem ssd_spread** tenta alocar grandes blocos contínuos de espaço não utilizado do SSD. Esse recurso melhora o desempenho de SSDs de baixo custo (baratos).

A opção de montagem nossd_spread desativa o recurso ssd_spread .

O sistema de arquivos Btrfs detecta automaticamente se um SSD é usado para o sistema de arquivos Btrfs. Se um SSD for usado, a opção de montagem ssd_spread será habilitada. Caso contrário, a opção de montagem nossd_spread é habilitada.

**10. descarte e nodiscard

Se você estiver usando um SSD que suporte TRIM enfileirado assíncrono (SATA rev3.1), a opção de montagem de descarte** permitirá o descarte de blocos de arquivos liberados. Isso melhorará o desempenho do SSD.

Se o SSD não suportar TRIM enfileirado assíncrono, a opção de montagem de descarte prejudicará o desempenho do SSD. Nesse caso, a opção de montagem nodiscard deve ser usada.

Por padrão, a opção de montagem nodiscard é usada.

**11. norecovery

Se a opção de montagem norecovery** for usada, o sistema de arquivos Btrfs não tentará executar a operação de recuperação de dados no momento da montagem.

**12. usebackuproot e nousebackuproot

Se a opção de montagem usebackuproot for usada, o sistema de arquivos Btrfs tentará recuperar qualquer raiz de árvore ruim/corrompida no momento da montagem. O sistema de arquivos Btrfs pode armazenar várias raízes de árvore no sistema de arquivos. A opção de montagem usebackuproot** procurará uma boa raiz de árvore e usará a primeira boa que encontrar.

A opção de montagem nousebackuproot não verificará ou recuperará raízes de árvore inválidas/corrompidas no momento da montagem. Este é o comportamento padrão do sistema de arquivos Btrfs.

**13. space_cache, space_cache=version, nospace_cache e clear_cache

A opção de montagem space_cache** é usada para controlar o cache de espaço livre. O cache de espaço livre é usado para melhorar o desempenho da leitura do espaço livre do grupo de blocos do sistema de arquivos Btrfs na memória (RAM).

O sistema de arquivos Btrfs suporta 2 versões do cache de espaço livre: v1 (padrão) e v2

O mecanismo de cache de espaço livre v2 melhora o desempenho de sistemas de arquivos grandes (tamanho de vários terabytes).

Você pode usar a opção de montagem space_cache=v1 para definir a v1 do cache de espaço livre e a opção de montagem space_cache=v2 para definir a v2 do cache de espaço livre.

A opção de montagem clear_cache é usada para limpar o cache de espaço livre.

Quando o cache de espaço livre v2 é criado, o cache deve ser limpo para criar um cache de espaço livre v1 .

Portanto, para usar o cache de espaço livre v1 após a criação do cache de espaço livre v2 , as opções de montagem clear_cache e space_cache=v1 devem ser combinadas: clear_cache,space_cache=v1

A opção de montagem nospace_cache é usada para desabilitar o cache de espaço livre.

Para desabilitar o cache de espaço livre após a criação do cache v1 ou v2 , as opções de montagem nospace_cache e clear_cache devem ser combinadas: clear_cache,nosapce_cache

**14. skip_balance

Por padrão, a operação de balanceamento interrompida/pausada de um sistema de arquivos Btrfs de vários dispositivos ou RAID Btrfs será retomada automaticamente assim que o sistema de arquivos Btrfs for montado. Para desabilitar a retomada automática da operação de equilíbrio interrompido/pausado em um sistema de arquivos Btrfs de vários dispositivos ou RAID Btrfs, você pode usar a opção de montagem skip_balance .**

**15. datacow e nodatacow

A opção datacow** mount habilita o recurso Copy-on-Write (CoW) do sistema de arquivos Btrfs. É o comportamento padrão.

Se você deseja desabilitar o recurso Copy-on-Write (CoW) do sistema de arquivos Btrfs para os arquivos recém-criados, monte o sistema de arquivos Btrfs com a opção de montagem nodatacow .

**16. datasum e nodatasum

A opção datasum** mount habilita a soma de verificação de dados para arquivos recém-criados do sistema de arquivos Btrfs. Este é o comportamento padrão.

Se você não quiser que o sistema de arquivos Btrfs faça a soma de verificação dos dados dos arquivos recém-criados, monte o sistema de arquivos Btrfs com a opção de montagem nodatasum .

Perfis Btrfs

Um perfil Btrfs é usado para informar ao sistema de arquivos Btrfs quantas cópias dos dados/metadados devem ser mantidas e quais níveis de RAID devem ser usados para os dados/metadados. O sistema de arquivos Btrfs contém muitos perfis. Entendê-los o ajudará a configurar um RAID Btrfs da maneira que você deseja.

Os perfis Btrfs disponíveis são os seguintes:

single : Se o perfil único for usado para os dados/metadados, apenas uma cópia dos dados/metadados será armazenada no sistema de arquivos, mesmo se você adicionar vários dispositivos de armazenamento ao sistema de arquivos. Assim, 100% do espaço em disco de cada um dos dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos pode ser utilizado.

dup : Se o perfil dup for usado para os dados/metadados, cada um dos dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos manterá duas cópias dos dados/metadados. Assim, 50% do espaço em disco de cada um dos dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos pode ser utilizado.

raid0 : No perfil raid0 , os dados/metadados serão divididos igualmente em todos os dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos. Nesta configuração, não haverá dados/metadados redundantes (duplicados). Assim, 100% do espaço em disco de cada um dos dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos pode ser usado. Se, em qualquer caso, um dos dispositivos de armazenamento falhar, todo o sistema de arquivos será corrompido. Você precisará de pelo menos dois dispositivos de armazenamento para configurar o sistema de arquivos Btrfs no perfil raid0 .

raid1 : No perfil raid1 , duas cópias dos dados/metadados serão armazenadas nos dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos. Nesta configuração, a matriz RAID pode sobreviver a uma falha de unidade. Mas você pode usar apenas 50% do espaço total em disco. Você precisará de pelo menos dois dispositivos de armazenamento para configurar o sistema de arquivos Btrfs no perfil raid1 .

raid1c3 : No perfil raid1c3 , três cópias dos dados/metadados serão armazenadas nos dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos. Nesta configuração, a matriz RAID pode sobreviver a duas falhas de unidade, mas você pode usar apenas 33% do espaço total em disco. Você precisará de pelo menos três dispositivos de armazenamento para configurar o sistema de arquivos Btrfs no perfil raid1c3 .

raid1c4 : No perfil raid1c4 , quatro cópias dos dados/metadados serão armazenadas nos dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos. Nesta configuração, a matriz RAID pode sobreviver a três falhas de unidade, mas você pode usar apenas 25% do espaço total em disco. Você precisará de pelo menos quatro dispositivos de armazenamento para configurar o sistema de arquivos Btrfs no perfil raid1c4 .

raid10 : No perfil raid10 , duas cópias dos dados/metadados serão armazenadas nos dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos, como no perfil raid1 . Além disso, os dados/metadados serão divididos entre os dispositivos de armazenamento, como no perfil raid0 .

O perfil raid10 é um híbrido dos perfis raid1 e raid0 . Alguns dos dispositivos de armazenamento formam arrays raid1 e alguns desses arrays raid1 são usados para formar um array raid0 . Em uma configuração raid10 , o sistema de arquivos pode sobreviver a uma única falha de unidade em cada uma das matrizes raid1 .

Você pode usar 50% do espaço total em disco na configuração raid10 . Você precisará de pelo menos quatro dispositivos de armazenamento para configurar o sistema de arquivos Btrfs no perfil raid10 .

raid5 : No perfil raid5 , uma cópia dos dados/metadados será dividida entre os dispositivos de armazenamento. Uma única paridade será calculada e distribuída entre os dispositivos de armazenamento do array RAID.

Em uma configuração raid5 , o sistema de arquivos pode sobreviver a uma única falha de unidade. Se uma unidade falhar, você pode adicionar uma nova unidade ao sistema de arquivos e os dados perdidos serão calculados a partir da paridade distribuída das unidades em execução.

Você pode usar 1 00x(N-1)/N % do total de espaços em disco na configuração raid5 . Aqui, N é o número de dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos. Você precisará de pelo menos três dispositivos de armazenamento para configurar o sistema de arquivos Btrfs no perfil raid5 .

raid6 : No perfil raid6 , uma cópia dos dados/metadados será dividida entre os dispositivos de armazenamento. Duas paridades serão calculadas e distribuídas entre os dispositivos de armazenamento do array RAID.

Em uma configuração raid6 , o sistema de arquivos pode sobreviver a duas falhas de unidade ao mesmo tempo. Se uma unidade falhar, você poderá adicionar uma nova unidade ao sistema de arquivos e os dados perdidos serão calculados a partir das duas paridades distribuídas das unidades em execução.

Você pode usar 100x(N-2)/N % do espaço total em disco na configuração raid6 . Aqui, N é o número de dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos. Você precisará de pelo menos quatro dispositivos de armazenamento para configurar o sistema de arquivos Btrfs no perfil raid6 .

@ 9223d2fa:b57e3de7

12,600 steps

@ 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)

@ 9c35fe6b:5977e45b

Into the Heart of the Desert If you're looking for an adventure beyond the ordinary, Egypt Safari Tours with ETB Tours Egypt offer an unforgettable escape into the Egyptian desert. Venture into the golden sands of the White Desert, Bahariya Oasis, or Siwa, where time seems to stand still. This is more than sightseeing — it's a soul-stirring journey.

Exclusive Experiences with Egypt Private Tours For those who value privacy and exclusivity, ETB Tours Egypt designs tailor-made Egypt private tours that bring the desert to life on your terms. Whether it's a sunset camel ride, a 4x4 dune adventure, or camping under the stars, your itinerary is crafted just for you.

Explore More with Egypt Vacation Packages Why stop at the desert? Combine your safari adventure with cultural highlights and coastal escapes through our curated Egypt vacation packages. Enjoy the perfect balance between relaxation and exploration as you transition from the desert to the Nile.

Budget-Friendly Desert Escapes Traveling on a budget doesn’t mean you have to sacrifice experience. ETB Tours Egypt offers incredible Egypt budget tours that make desert adventures accessible to all. With professional guides and well-organized itineraries, you’ll enjoy value-packed experiences at an affordable price.

All Inclusive Egypt Vacations: Worry-Free Travel Enjoy stress-free travel with our all inclusive Egypt vacations. From hotel stays and meals to guided safaris and transportation, every detail is taken care of. Just bring your adventurous spirit—we’ll handle the rest.

Combine Desert Thrills with Ancient Wonders Turn your desert safari into a grand journey by including one of our Egypt pyramid tour packages. Witness the mystique of the Pyramids of Giza before heading into the vast desert—blending ancient history with modern adventure To Contact Us: E-Mail: info@etbtours.com Mobile & WhatsApp: +20 10 67569955 - +201021100873 Address: 4 El Lebeny Axis, Nazlet Al Batran, Al Haram, Giza, Egypt

@ 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.

@ 0fa80bd3:ea7325de

DAOs promised decentralization. They offered a system where every member could influence a project's direction, where money and power were transparently distributed, and decisions were made through voting. All of it recorded immutably on the blockchain, free from middlemen.

But something didn’t work out. In practice, most DAOs haven’t evolved into living, self-organizing organisms. They became something else: clubs where participation is unevenly distributed. Leaders remained - only now without formal titles. They hold influence through control over communications, task framing, and community dynamics. Centralization still exists, just wrapped in a new package.

But there's a second, less obvious problem. Crowds can’t create strategy. In DAOs, people vote for what "feels right to the majority." But strategy isn’t about what feels good - it’s about what’s necessary. Difficult, unpopular, yet forward-looking decisions often fail when put to a vote. A founder’s vision is a risk. But in healthy teams, it’s that risk that drives progress. In DAOs, risk is almost always diluted until it becomes something safe and vague.

Instead of empowering leaders, DAOs often neutralize them. This is why many DAOs resemble consensus machines. Everyone talks, debates, and participates, but very little actually gets done. One person says, “Let’s jump,” and five others respond, “Let’s discuss that first.” This dynamic might work for open forums, but not for action.

Decentralization works when there’s trust and delegation, not just voting. Until DAOs develop effective systems for assigning roles, taking ownership, and acting with flexibility, they will keep losing ground to old-fashioned startups led by charismatic founders with a clear vision.

We’ve seen this in many real-world cases. Take MakerDAO, one of the most mature and technically sophisticated DAOs. Its governance token (MKR) holders vote on everything from interest rates to protocol upgrades. While this has allowed for transparency and community involvement, the process is often slow and bureaucratic. Complex proposals stall. Strategic pivots become hard to implement. And in 2023, a controversial proposal to allocate billions to real-world assets passed only narrowly, after months of infighting - highlighting how vision and execution can get stuck in the mud of distributed governance.

On the other hand, Uniswap DAO, responsible for the largest decentralized exchange, raised governance participation only after launching a delegation system where token holders could choose trusted representatives. Still, much of the activity is limited to a small group of active contributors. The vast majority of token holders remain passive. This raises the question: is it really community-led, or just a formalized power structure with lower transparency?

Then there’s ConstitutionDAO, an experiment that went viral. It raised over $40 million in days to try and buy a copy of the U.S. Constitution. But despite the hype, the DAO failed to win the auction. Afterwards, it struggled with refund logistics, communication breakdowns, and confusion over governance. It was a perfect example of collective enthusiasm without infrastructure or planning - proof that a DAO can raise capital fast but still lack cohesion.

Not all efforts have failed. Projects like Gitcoin DAO have made progress by incentivizing small, individual contributions. Their quadratic funding mechanism rewards projects based on the number of contributors, not just the size of donations, helping to elevate grassroots initiatives. But even here, long-term strategy often falls back on a core group of organizers rather than broad community consensus.

The pattern is clear: when the stakes are low or the tasks are modular, DAOs can coordinate well. But when bold moves are needed—when someone has to take responsibility and act under uncertainty DAOs often freeze. In the name of consensus, they lose momentum.

That’s why the organization of the future can’t rely purely on decentralization. It must encourage individual initiative and the ability to take calculated risks. People need to see their contribution not just as a vote, but as a role with clear actions and expected outcomes. When the situation demands, they should be empowered to act first and present the results to the community afterwards allowing for both autonomy and accountability. That’s not a flaw in the system. It’s how real progress happens.

@ 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.

@ c066aac5:6a41a034

I’m drawn to extremities in art. The louder, the bolder, the more outrageous, the better. Bold art takes me out of the mundane into a whole new world where anything and everything is possible. Having grown up in the safety of the suburban midwest, I was a bit of a rebellious soul in search of the satiation that only came from the consumption of the outrageous. My inclination to find bold art draws me to NOSTR, because I believe NOSTR can be the place where the next generation of artistic pioneers go to express themselves. I also believe that as much as we are able, were should invite them to come create here.

My Background: A Small Side Story

My father was a professional gamer in the 80s, back when there was no money or glory in the avocation. He did get a bit of spotlight though after the fact: in the mid 2000’s there were a few parties making documentaries about that era of gaming as well as current arcade events (namely 2007’sChasing GhostsandThe King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters). As a result of these documentaries, there was a revival in the arcade gaming scene. My family attended events related to the documentaries or arcade gaming and I became exposed to a lot of things I wouldn’t have been able to find. The producer ofThe King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters had previously made a documentary calledNew York Dollwhich was centered around the life of bassist Arthur Kane. My 12 year old mind was blown: The New York Dolls were a glam-punk sensation dressed in drag. The music was from another planet. Johnny Thunders’ guitar playing was like Chuck Berry with more distortion and less filter. Later on I got to meet the Galaga record holder at the time, Phil Day, in Ottumwa Iowa. Phil is an Australian man of high intellect and good taste. He exposed me to great creators such as Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds, Shakespeare, Lou Reed, artists who created things that I had previously found inconceivable.

I believe this time period informed my current tastes and interests, but regrettably I think it also put coals on the fire of rebellion within. I stopped taking my parents and siblings seriously, the Christian faith of my family (which I now hold dearly to) seemed like a mundane sham, and I felt I couldn’t fit in with most people because of my avant-garde tastes. So I write this with the caveat that there should be a way to encourage these tastes in children without letting them walk down the wrong path. There is nothing inherently wrong with bold art, but I’d advise parents to carefully find ways to cultivate their children’s tastes without completely shutting them down and pushing them away as a result. My parents were very loving and patient during this time; I thank God for that.

With that out of the way, lets dive in to some bold artists:

Nicolas Cage: Actor

There is an excellent video by Wisecrack on Nicolas Cage that explains him better than I will, which I will linkhere. Nicolas Cage rejects the idea that good acting is tied to mere realism; all of his larger than life acting decisions are deliberate choices. When that clicked for me, I immediately realized the man is a genius. He borrows from Kabuki and German Expressionism, art forms that rely on exaggeration to get the message across. He has even created his own acting style, which he calls Nouveau Shamanic. He augments his imagination to go from acting to being. Rather than using the old hat of method acting, he transports himself to a new world mentally. The projects he chooses to partake in are based on his own interests or what he considers would be a challenge (making a bad script good for example). Thus it doesn’t matter how the end result comes out; he has already achieved his goal as an artist. Because of this and because certain directors don’t know how to use his talents, he has a noticeable amount of duds in his filmography. Dig around the duds, you’ll find some pure gold. I’d personally recommend the filmsPig, Joe, Renfield, and his Christmas film The Family Man.

Nick Cave: Songwriter

What a wild career this man has had! From the apocalyptic mayhem of his band The Birthday Party to the pensive atmosphere of his albumGhosteen, it seems like Nick Cave has tried everything. I think his secret sauce is that he’s always working. He maintains an excellent newsletter calledThe Red Hand Files, he has written screenplays such asLawless, he has written books, he has made great film scores such asThe Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, the man is religiously prolific. I believe that one of the reasons he is prolific is that he’s not afraid to experiment. If he has an idea, he follows it through to completion. From the albumMurder Ballads(which is comprised of what the title suggests) to his rejected sequel toGladiator(Gladiator: Christ Killer), he doesn’t seem to be afraid to take anything on. This has led to some over the top works as well as some deeply personal works. Albums likeSkeleton TreeandGhosteenwere journeys through the grief of his son’s death. The Boatman’s Callis arguably a better break-up album than anything Taylor Swift has put out. He’s not afraid to be outrageous, he’s not afraid to offend, but most importantly he’s not afraid to be himself. Works I’d recommend include The Birthday Party’sLive 1981-82, Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds’The Boatman’s Call, and the filmLawless.

Jim Jarmusch: Director

I consider Jim’s films to be bold almost in an ironic sense: his works are bold in that they are, for the most part, anti-sensational. He has a rule that if his screenplays are criticized for a lack of action, he makes them even less eventful. Even with sensational settings his films feel very close to reality, and they demonstrate the beauty of everyday life. That's what is bold about his art to me: making the sensational grounded in reality while making everyday reality all the more special. Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai is about a modern-day African-American hitman who strictly follows the rules of the ancient Samurai, yet one can resonate with the humanity of a seemingly absurd character. Only Lovers Left Aliveis a vampire love story, but in the middle of a vampire romance one can see their their own relationships in a new deeply human light. Jim’s work reminds me that art reflects life, and that there is sacred beauty in seemingly mundane everyday life. I personally recommend his filmsPaterson,Down by Law, andCoffee and Cigarettes.

NOSTR: We Need Bold Art

NOSTR is in my opinion a path to a better future. In a world creeping slowly towards everything apps, I hope that the protocol where the individual owns their data wins over everything else. I love freedom and sovereignty. If NOSTR is going to win the race of everything apps, we need more than Bitcoin content. We need more than shirtless bros paying for bananas in foreign countries and exercising with girls who have seductive accents. Common people cannot see themselves in such a world. NOSTR needs to catch the attention of everyday people. I don’t believe that this can be accomplished merely by introducing more broadly relevant content; people are searching for content that speaks to them. I believe that NOSTR can and should attract artists of all kinds because NOSTR is one of the few places on the internet where artists can express themselves fearlessly. Getting zaps from NOSTR’s value-for-value ecosystem has far less friction than crowdfunding a creative project or pitching investors that will irreversibly modify an artist’s vision. Having a place where one can post their works without fear of censorship should be extremely enticing. Having a place where one can connect with fellow humans directly as opposed to a sea of bots should seem like the obvious solution. If NOSTR can become a safe haven for artists to express themselves and spread their work, I believe that everyday people will follow. The banker whose stressful job weighs on them will suddenly find joy with an original meme made by a great visual comedian. The programmer for a healthcare company who is drowning in hopeless mundanity could suddenly find a new lust for life by hearing the song of a musician who isn’t afraid to crowdfund their their next project by putting their lighting address on the streets of the internet. The excel guru who loves independent film may find that NOSTR is the best way to support non corporate movies. My closing statement: continue to encourage the artists in your life as I’m sure you have been, but while you’re at it give them the purple pill. You may very well be a part of building a better future.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

Capitalism is the most effective system for scaling innovation. The pursuit of profit is an incredibly powerful human incentive. Most major improvements to human society and quality of life have resulted from this base incentive. Market competition often results in the best outcomes for all.

That said, some projects can never be monetized. They are open in nature and a business model would centralize control. Open protocols like bitcoin and nostr are not owned by anyone and if they were it would destroy the key value propositions they provide. No single entity can or should control their use. Anyone can build on them without permission.

As a result, open protocols must depend on donation based grant funding from the people and organizations that rely on them. This model works but it is slow and uncertain, a grind where sustainability is never fully reached but rather constantly sought. As someone who has been incredibly active in the open source grant funding space, I do not think people truly appreciate how difficult it is to raise charitable money and deploy it efficiently.

Projects that can be monetized should be. Profitability is a super power. When a business can generate revenue, it taps into a self sustaining cycle. Profit fuels growth and development while providing projects independence and agency. This flywheel effect is why companies like Google, Amazon, and Apple have scaled to global dominance. The profit incentive aligns human effort with efficiency. Businesses must innovate, cut waste, and deliver value to survive.

Contrast this with non monetized projects. Without profit, they lean on external support, which can dry up or shift with donor priorities. A profit driven model, on the other hand, is inherently leaner and more adaptable. It is not charity but survival. When survival is tied to delivering what people want, scale follows naturally.

The real magic happens when profitable, sustainable businesses are built on top of open protocols and software. Consider the many startups building on open source software stacks, such as Start9, Mempool, and Primal, offering premium services on top of the open source software they build out and maintain. Think of companies like Block or Strike, which leverage bitcoin’s open protocol to offer their services on top. These businesses amplify the open software and protocols they build on, driving adoption and improvement at a pace donations alone could never match.

When you combine open software and protocols with profit driven business the result are lean, sustainable companies that grow faster and serve more people than either could alone. Bitcoin’s network, for instance, benefits from businesses that profit off its existence, while nostr will expand as developers monetize apps built on the protocol.

Capitalism scales best because competition results in efficiency. Donation funded protocols and software lay the groundwork, while market driven businesses build on top. The profit incentive acts as a filter, ensuring resources flow to what works, while open systems keep the playing field accessible, empowering users and builders. Together, they create a flywheel of innovation, growth, and global benefit.

@ 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.

@ ee6ea13a:959b6e74

Chef's notes

You can cook this in one pan on the stove. I use a cast iron pan, but you can make it in a wok or any deep pan.

I serve mine over rice, which I make in a rice cooker. If you have a fancy one, you might have a setting for sticky or scorched rice, so give one of those a try.

To plate this, I scoop rice into a bowl, and then turn it upside-down to give it a dome shape, then spoon the curry on top of it.

Serve with chopped cilantro and lime wedges.

Details

• ⏲️ Prep time: 20
• 🍳 Cook time: 20
• 🍽️ Servings: 4

Ingredients

• 1 ½ pounds boneless skinless chicken breast, cut into 2" pieces
• 2 tablespoons coconut or avocado oil
• 1 cup white or yellow onion, finely diced
• 1 cup red bell pepper, sliced or diced
• 4 large garlic cloves, minced
• 1 small (4oz) jar of Thai red curry paste
• 1 can (13oz) unsweetened coconut milk
• 1 teaspoon ground ginger
• 1 teaspoon ground coriander
• 1 tablespoon soy sauce
• 1 tablespoon brown sugar
• 1 cup carrots, shredded or julienned
• 1 lime, zest and juice
• ¼ cup fresh cilantro, chopped for garnish

Directions

1. Heat oil in a large skillet over medium-high. Once hot, add onions and ½ teaspoon salt. Cook 3 minutes, or until onions are softened, stirring often.
2. Add the red curry paste, garlic, ginger, and coriander. Cook about 1 minute, or until fragrant, stirring often.
3. Add coconut milk, brown sugar, soy sauce, and chicken. Stir, bring to a simmer, then reduce heat to medium. Simmer uncovered for 7 minutes, occasionally stirring.
4. Add carrots and red bell peppers, and simmer 5-7 more minutes, until sauce slightly thickens and chicken is cooked through.
5. Remove from heat, and stir in the lime zest, and half of the lime juice.
6. Serve over rice, topped with cilantro, and add more lime juice if you like extra citrus.

@ 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

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

Markdown: Syntax

• Overview
  • Philosophy
  • Inline HTML
  • Automatic Escaping for Special Characters
• Block Elements
  • Paragraphs and Line Breaks
  • Headers
  • Blockquotes
  • Lists
  • Code Blocks
  • Horizontal Rules
• Span Elements
  • Links
  • Emphasis
  • Code
  • Images
• Miscellaneous
  • Backslash Escapes
  • Automatic Links

Note: This document is itself written using Markdown; you can see the source for it by adding '.text' to the URL.

---

Overview

Philosophy

Markdown is intended to be as easy-to-read and easy-to-write as is feasible.

Readability, however, is emphasized above all else. A Markdown-formatted document should be publishable as-is, as plain text, without looking like it's been marked up with tags or formatting instructions. While Markdown's syntax has been influenced by several existing text-to-HTML filters -- including Setext, atx, Textile, reStructuredText, Grutatext, and EtText -- the single biggest source of inspiration for Markdown's syntax is the format of plain text email.

Block Elements

Paragraphs and Line Breaks

A paragraph is simply one or more consecutive lines of text, separated by one or more blank lines. (A blank line is any line that looks like a blank line -- a line containing nothing but spaces or tabs is considered blank.) Normal paragraphs should not be indented with spaces or tabs.

The implication of the "one or more consecutive lines of text" rule is that Markdown supports "hard-wrapped" text paragraphs. This differs significantly from most other text-to-HTML formatters (including Movable Type's "Convert Line Breaks" option) which translate every line break character in a paragraph into a <br /> tag.

When you do want to insert a <br /> break tag using Markdown, you end a line with two or more spaces, then type return.

Headers

Markdown supports two styles of headers, [Setext] [1] and [atx] [2].

Optionally, you may "close" atx-style headers. This is purely cosmetic -- you can use this if you think it looks better. The closing hashes don't even need to match the number of hashes used to open the header. (The number of opening hashes determines the header level.)

Blockquotes

Markdown uses email-style > characters for blockquoting. If you're familiar with quoting passages of text in an email message, then you know how to create a blockquote in Markdown. It looks best if you hard wrap the text and put a > before every line:

This is a blockquote with two paragraphs. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aliquam hendrerit mi posuere lectus. Vestibulum enim wisi, viverra nec, fringilla in, laoreet vitae, risus.

Donec sit amet nisl. Aliquam semper ipsum sit amet velit. Suspendisse id sem consectetuer libero luctus adipiscing.

Markdown allows you to be lazy and only put the > before the first line of a hard-wrapped paragraph:

This is a blockquote with two paragraphs. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aliquam hendrerit mi posuere lectus. Vestibulum enim wisi, viverra nec, fringilla in, laoreet vitae, risus.

Donec sit amet nisl. Aliquam semper ipsum sit amet velit. Suspendisse id sem consectetuer libero luctus adipiscing.

Blockquotes can be nested (i.e. a blockquote-in-a-blockquote) by adding additional levels of >:

This is the first level of quoting.

This is nested blockquote.

Back to the first level.

Blockquotes can contain other Markdown elements, including headers, lists, and code blocks:

This is a header.

1. This is the first list item.
2. This is the second list item.

Here's some example code:

return shell_exec("echo $input | $markdown_script");

Any decent text editor should make email-style quoting easy. For example, with BBEdit, you can make a selection and choose Increase Quote Level from the Text menu.

Lists

Markdown supports ordered (numbered) and unordered (bulleted) lists.

Unordered lists use asterisks, pluses, and hyphens -- interchangably -- as list markers:

• Red
• Green
• Blue

is equivalent to:

• Red
• Green
• Blue

and:

• Red
• Green
• Blue

Ordered lists use numbers followed by periods:

1. Bird
2. McHale
3. Parish

It's important to note that the actual numbers you use to mark the list have no effect on the HTML output Markdown produces. The HTML Markdown produces from the above list is:

If you instead wrote the list in Markdown like this:

1. Bird
2. McHale
3. Parish

or even:

1. Bird
2. McHale
3. Parish

you'd get the exact same HTML output. The point is, if you want to, you can use ordinal numbers in your ordered Markdown lists, so that the numbers in your source match the numbers in your published HTML. But if you want to be lazy, you don't have to.

To make lists look nice, you can wrap items with hanging indents:

• Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aliquam hendrerit mi posuere lectus. Vestibulum enim wisi, viverra nec, fringilla in, laoreet vitae, risus.
• Donec sit amet nisl. Aliquam semper ipsum sit amet velit. Suspendisse id sem consectetuer libero luctus adipiscing.

But if you want to be lazy, you don't have to:

• Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aliquam hendrerit mi posuere lectus. Vestibulum enim wisi, viverra nec, fringilla in, laoreet vitae, risus.
• Donec sit amet nisl. Aliquam semper ipsum sit amet velit. Suspendisse id sem consectetuer libero luctus adipiscing.

List items may consist of multiple paragraphs. Each subsequent paragraph in a list item must be indented by either 4 spaces or one tab:

1. This is a list item with two paragraphs. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aliquam hendrerit mi posuere lectus.

   Vestibulum enim wisi, viverra nec, fringilla in, laoreet vitae, risus. Donec sit amet nisl. Aliquam semper ipsum sit amet velit.

2. Suspendisse id sem consectetuer libero luctus adipiscing.

It looks nice if you indent every line of the subsequent paragraphs, but here again, Markdown will allow you to be lazy:

• This is a list item with two paragraphs.

  This is the second paragraph in the list item. You're only required to indent the first line. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.

• Another item in the same list.

To put a blockquote within a list item, the blockquote's > delimiters need to be indented:

• A list item with a blockquote:

  This is a blockquote inside a list item.

To put a code block within a list item, the code block needs to be indented twice -- 8 spaces or two tabs:

• A list item with a code block:

  <code goes here>
  

Code Blocks

Pre-formatted code blocks are used for writing about programming or markup source code. Rather than forming normal paragraphs, the lines of a code block are interpreted literally. Markdown wraps a code block in both <pre> and <code> tags.

To produce a code block in Markdown, simply indent every line of the block by at least 4 spaces or 1 tab.

This is a normal paragraph:

This is a code block.

Here is an example of AppleScript:

tell application "Foo"
    beep
end tell

A code block continues until it reaches a line that is not indented (or the end of the article).

Within a code block, ampersands (&) and angle brackets (< and >) are automatically converted into HTML entities. This makes it very easy to include example HTML source code using Markdown -- just paste it and indent it, and Markdown will handle the hassle of encoding the ampersands and angle brackets. For example, this:

<div class="footer">
    &copy; 2004 Foo Corporation
</div>

Regular Markdown syntax is not processed within code blocks. E.g., asterisks are just literal asterisks within a code block. This means it's also easy to use Markdown to write about Markdown's own syntax.

tell application "Foo" beep end tell

Span Elements

Links

Markdown supports two style of links: inline and reference.

In both styles, the link text is delimited by [square brackets].

To create an inline link, use a set of regular parentheses immediately after the link text's closing square bracket. Inside the parentheses, put the URL where you want the link to point, along with an optional title for the link, surrounded in quotes. For example:

This is an example inline link.

This link has no title attribute.

Emphasis

Markdown treats asterisks (*) and underscores (_) as indicators of emphasis. Text wrapped with one * or _ will be wrapped with an HTML <em> tag; double *'s or _'s will be wrapped with an HTML <strong> tag. E.g., this input:

single asterisks

single underscores

double asterisks

double underscores

Code

To indicate a span of code, wrap it with backtick quotes (`). Unlike a pre-formatted code block, a code span indicates code within a normal paragraph. For example:

Use the printf() function.

@ 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.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

One of the most common criticisms leveled against nostr is the perceived lack of assurance when it comes to data storage. Critics argue that without a centralized authority guaranteeing that all data is preserved, important information will be lost. They also claim that running a relay will become prohibitively expensive. While there is truth to these concerns, they miss the mark. The genius of nostr lies in its flexibility, resilience, and the way it harnesses human incentives to ensure data availability in practice.

A nostr relay is simply a server that holds cryptographically verifiable signed data and makes it available to others. Relays are simple, flexible, open, and require no permission to run. Critics are right that operating a relay attempting to store all nostr data will be costly. What they miss is that most will not run all encompassing archive relays. Nostr does not rely on massive archive relays. Instead, anyone can run a relay and choose to store whatever subset of data they want. This keeps costs low and operations flexible, making relay operation accessible to all sorts of individuals and entities with varying use cases.

Critics are correct that there is no ironclad guarantee that every piece of data will always be available. Unlike bitcoin where data permanence is baked into the system at a steep cost, nostr does not promise that every random note or meme will be preserved forever. That said, in practice, any data perceived as valuable by someone will likely be stored and distributed by multiple entities. If something matters to someone, they will keep a signed copy.

Nostr is the Streisand Effect in protocol form. The Streisand effect is when an attempt to suppress information backfires, causing it to spread even further. With nostr, anyone can broadcast signed data, anyone can store it, and anyone can distribute it. Try to censor something important? Good luck. The moment it catches attention, it will be stored on relays across the globe, copied, and shared by those who find it worth keeping. Data deemed important will be replicated across servers by individuals acting in their own interest.

Nostr’s distributed nature ensures that the system does not rely on a single point of failure or a corporate overlord. Instead, it leans on the collective will of its users. The result is a network where costs stay manageable, participation is open to all, and valuable verifiable data is stored and distributed forever.

@ 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.

@ 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. 🚀

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

Warning: This piece contains a conversation about difficult topics. Please proceed with caution.

TL;DR please educate your children about online safety.

Julian Assange wrote in his 2012 book Cypherpunks, “This book is not a manifesto. There isn’t time for that. This book is a warning.” I read it a few times over the past summer. Those opening lines definitely stood out to me. I wish we had listened back then. He saw something about the internet that few had the ability to see. There are some individuals who are so close to a topic that when they speak, it’s difficult for others who aren’t steeped in it to visualize what they’re talking about. I didn’t read the book until more recently. If I had read it when it came out, it probably would have sounded like an unknown foreign language to me. Today it makes more sense.

This isn’t a manifesto. This isn’t a book. There is no time for that. It’s a warning and a possible solution from a desperate and determined survivor advocate who has been pulling and unraveling a thread for a few years. At times, I feel too close to this topic to make any sense trying to convey my pathway to my conclusions or thoughts to the general public. My hope is that if nothing else, I can convey my sense of urgency while writing this. This piece is a watchman’s warning.

When a child steps online, they are walking into a new world. A new reality. When you hand a child the internet, you are handing them possibilities—good, bad, and ugly. This is a conversation about lowering the potential of negative outcomes of stepping into that new world and how I came to these conclusions. I constantly compare the internet to the road. You wouldn’t let a young child run out into the road with no guidance or safety precautions. When you hand a child the internet without any type of guidance or safety measures, you are allowing them to play in rush hour, oncoming traffic. “Look left, look right for cars before crossing.” We almost all have been taught that as children. What are we taught as humans about safety before stepping into a completely different reality like the internet? Very little.

I could never really figure out why many folks in tech, privacy rights activists, and hackers seemed so cold to me while talking about online child sexual exploitation. I always figured that as a survivor advocate for those affected by these crimes, that specific, skilled group of individuals would be very welcoming and easy to talk to about such serious topics. I actually had one hacker laugh in my face when I brought it up while I was looking for answers. I thought maybe this individual thought I was accusing them of something I wasn’t, so I felt bad for asking. I was constantly extremely disappointed and would ask myself, “Why don’t they care? What could I say to make them care more? What could I say to make them understand the crisis and the level of suffering that happens as a result of the problem?”

I have been serving minor survivors of online child sexual exploitation for years. My first case serving a survivor of this specific crime was in 2018—a 13-year-old girl sexually exploited by a serial predator on Snapchat. That was my first glimpse into this side of the internet. I won a national award for serving the minor survivors of Twitter in 2023, but I had been working on that specific project for a few years. I was nominated by a lawyer representing two survivors in a legal battle against the platform. I’ve never really spoken about this before, but at the time it was a choice for me between fighting Snapchat or Twitter. I chose Twitter—or rather, Twitter chose me. I heard about the story of John Doe #1 and John Doe #2, and I was so unbelievably broken over it that I went to war for multiple years. I was and still am royally pissed about that case. As far as I was concerned, the John Doe #1 case proved that whatever was going on with corporate tech social media was so out of control that I didn’t have time to wait, so I got to work. It was reading the messages that John Doe #1 sent to Twitter begging them to remove his sexual exploitation that broke me. He was a child begging adults to do something. A passion for justice and protecting kids makes you do wild things. I was desperate to find answers about what happened and searched for solutions. In the end, the platform Twitter was purchased. During the acquisition, I just asked Mr. Musk nicely to prioritize the issue of detection and removal of child sexual exploitation without violating digital privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption. Elon thanked me multiple times during the acquisition, made some changes, and I was thanked by others on the survivors’ side as well.

I still feel that even with the progress made, I really just scratched the surface with Twitter, now X. I left that passion project when I did for a few reasons. I wanted to give new leadership time to tackle the issue. Elon Musk made big promises that I knew would take a while to fulfill, but mostly I had been watching global legislation transpire around the issue, and frankly, the governments are willing to go much further with X and the rest of corporate tech than I ever would. My work begging Twitter to make changes with easier reporting of content, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation material—without violating privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption—and advocating for the minor survivors of the platform went as far as my principles would have allowed. I’m grateful for that experience. I was still left with a nagging question: “How did things get so bad with Twitter where the John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 case was able to happen in the first place?” I decided to keep looking for answers. I decided to keep pulling the thread.

I never worked for Twitter. This is often confusing for folks. I will say that despite being disappointed in the platform’s leadership at times, I loved Twitter. I saw and still see its value. I definitely love the survivors of the platform, but I also loved the platform. I was a champion of the platform’s ability to give folks from virtually around the globe an opportunity to speak and be heard.

I want to be clear that John Doe #1 really is my why. He is the inspiration. I am writing this because of him. He represents so many globally, and I’m still inspired by his bravery. One child’s voice begging adults to do something—I’m an adult, I heard him. I’d go to war a thousand more lifetimes for that young man, and I don’t even know his name. Fighting has been personally dark at times; I’m not even going to try to sugarcoat it, but it has been worth it.

The data surrounding the very real crime of online child sexual exploitation is available to the public online at any time for anyone to see. I’d encourage you to go look at the data for yourself. I believe in encouraging folks to check multiple sources so that you understand the full picture. If you are uncomfortable just searching around the internet for information about this topic, use the terms “CSAM,” “CSEM,” “SG-CSEM,” or “AI Generated CSAM.” The numbers don’t lie—it’s a nightmare that’s out of control. It’s a big business. The demand is high, and unfortunately, business is booming. Organizations collect the data, tech companies often post their data, governments report frequently, and the corporate press has covered a decent portion of the conversation, so I’m sure you can find a source that you trust.

Technology is changing rapidly, which is great for innovation as a whole but horrible for the crime of online child sexual exploitation. Those wishing to exploit the vulnerable seem to be adapting to each technological change with ease. The governments are so far behind with tackling these issues that as I’m typing this, it’s borderline irrelevant to even include them while speaking about the crime or potential solutions. Technology is changing too rapidly, and their old, broken systems can’t even dare to keep up. Think of it like the governments’ “War on Drugs.” Drugs won. In this case as well, the governments are not winning. The governments are talking about maybe having a meeting on potentially maybe having legislation around the crimes. The time to have that meeting would have been many years ago. I’m not advocating for governments to legislate our way out of this. I’m on the side of educating and innovating our way out of this.

I have been clear while advocating for the minor survivors of corporate tech platforms that I would not advocate for any solution to the crime that would violate digital privacy rights or erode end-to-end encryption. That has been a personal moral position that I was unwilling to budge on. This is an extremely unpopular and borderline nonexistent position in the anti-human trafficking movement and online child protection space. I’m often fearful that I’m wrong about this. I have always thought that a better pathway forward would have been to incentivize innovation for detection and removal of content. I had no previous exposure to privacy rights activists or Cypherpunks—actually, I came to that conclusion by listening to the voices of MENA region political dissidents and human rights activists. After developing relationships with human rights activists from around the globe, I realized how important privacy rights and encryption are for those who need it most globally. I was simply unwilling to give more power, control, and opportunities for mass surveillance to big abusers like governments wishing to enslave entire nations and untrustworthy corporate tech companies to potentially end some portion of abuses online. On top of all of it, it has been clear to me for years that all potential solutions outside of violating digital privacy rights to detect and remove child sexual exploitation online have not yet been explored aggressively. I’ve been disappointed that there hasn’t been more of a conversation around preventing the crime from happening in the first place.

What has been tried is mass surveillance. In China, they are currently under mass surveillance both online and offline, and their behaviors are attached to a social credit score. Unfortunately, even on state-run and controlled social media platforms, they still have child sexual exploitation and abuse imagery pop up along with other crimes and human rights violations. They also have a thriving black market online due to the oppression from the state. In other words, even an entire loss of freedom and privacy cannot end the sexual exploitation of children online. It’s been tried. There is no reason to repeat this method.

It took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out why I always felt a slight coldness from those in tech and privacy-minded individuals about the topic of child sexual exploitation online. I didn’t have any clue about the “Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse.” This is a term coined by Timothy C. May in 1988. I would have been a child myself when he first said it. I actually laughed at myself when I heard the phrase for the first time. I finally got it. The Cypherpunks weren’t wrong about that topic. They were so spot on that it is borderline uncomfortable. I was mad at first that they knew that early during the birth of the internet that this issue would arise and didn’t address it. Then I got over it because I realized that it wasn’t their job. Their job was—is—to write code. Their job wasn’t to be involved and loving parents or survivor advocates. Their job wasn’t to educate children on internet safety or raise awareness; their job was to write code.

They knew that child sexual abuse material would be shared on the internet. They said what would happen—not in a gleeful way, but a prediction. Then it happened.

I equate it now to a concrete company laying down a road. As you’re pouring the concrete, you can say to yourself, “A terrorist might travel down this road to go kill many, and on the flip side, a beautiful child can be born in an ambulance on this road.” Who or what travels down the road is not their responsibility—they are just supposed to lay the concrete. I’d never go to a concrete pourer and ask them to solve terrorism that travels down roads. Under the current system, law enforcement should stop terrorists before they even make it to the road. The solution to this specific problem is not to treat everyone on the road like a terrorist or to not build the road.

So I understand the perceived coldness from those in tech. Not only was it not their job, but bringing up the topic was seen as the equivalent of asking a free person if they wanted to discuss one of the four topics—child abusers, terrorists, drug dealers, intellectual property pirates, etc.—that would usher in digital authoritarianism for all who are online globally.

Privacy rights advocates and groups have put up a good fight. They stood by their principles. Unfortunately, when it comes to corporate tech, I believe that the issue of privacy is almost a complete lost cause at this point. It’s still worth pushing back, but ultimately, it is a losing battle—a ticking time bomb.

I do think that corporate tech providers could have slowed down the inevitable loss of privacy at the hands of the state by prioritizing the detection and removal of CSAM when they all started online. I believe it would have bought some time, fewer would have been traumatized by that specific crime, and I do believe that it could have slowed down the demand for content. If I think too much about that, I’ll go insane, so I try to push the “if maybes” aside, but never knowing if it could have been handled differently will forever haunt me. At night when it’s quiet, I wonder what I would have done differently if given the opportunity. I’ll probably never know how much corporate tech knew and ignored in the hopes that it would go away while the problem continued to get worse. They had different priorities. The most voiceless and vulnerable exploited on corporate tech never had much of a voice, so corporate tech providers didn’t receive very much pushback.

Now I’m about to say something really wild, and you can call me whatever you want to call me, but I’m going to say what I believe to be true. I believe that the governments are either so incompetent that they allowed the proliferation of CSAM online, or they knowingly allowed the problem to fester long enough to have an excuse to violate privacy rights and erode end-to-end encryption. The US government could have seized the corporate tech providers over CSAM, but I believe that they were so useful as a propaganda arm for the regimes that they allowed them to continue virtually unscathed.

That season is done now, and the governments are making the issue a priority. It will come at a high cost. Privacy on corporate tech providers is virtually done as I’m typing this. It feels like a death rattle. I’m not particularly sure that we had much digital privacy to begin with, but the illusion of a veil of privacy feels gone.

To make matters slightly more complex, it would be hard to convince me that once AI really gets going, digital privacy will exist at all.

I believe that there should be a conversation shift to preserving freedoms and human rights in a post-privacy society.

I don’t want to get locked up because AI predicted a nasty post online from me about the government. I’m not a doomer about AI—I’m just going to roll with it personally. I’m looking forward to the positive changes that will be brought forth by AI. I see it as inevitable. A bit of privacy was helpful while it lasted. Please keep fighting to preserve what is left of privacy either way because I could be wrong about all of this.

On the topic of AI, the addition of AI to the horrific crime of child sexual abuse material and child sexual exploitation in multiple ways so far has been devastating. It’s currently out of control. The genie is out of the bottle. I am hopeful that innovation will get us humans out of this, but I’m not sure how or how long it will take. We must be extremely cautious around AI legislation. It should not be illegal to innovate even if some bad comes with the good. I don’t trust that the governments are equipped to decide the best pathway forward for AI. Source: the entire history of the government.

I have been personally negatively impacted by AI-generated content. Every few days, I get another alert that I’m featured again in what’s called “deep fake pornography” without my consent. I’m not happy about it, but what pains me the most is the thought that for a period of time down the road, many globally will experience what myself and others are experiencing now by being digitally sexually abused in this way. If you have ever had your picture taken and posted online, you are also at risk of being exploited in this way. Your child’s image can be used as well, unfortunately, and this is just the beginning of this particular nightmare. It will move to more realistic interpretations of sexual behaviors as technology improves. I have no brave words of wisdom about how to deal with that emotionally. I do have hope that innovation will save the day around this specific issue. I’m nervous that everyone online will have to ID verify due to this issue. I see that as one possible outcome that could help to prevent one problem but inadvertently cause more problems, especially for those living under authoritarian regimes or anyone who needs to remain anonymous online. A zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) would probably be the best solution to these issues. There are some survivors of violence and/or sexual trauma who need to remain anonymous online for various reasons. There are survivor stories available online of those who have been abused in this way. I’d encourage you seek out and listen to their stories.

There have been periods of time recently where I hesitate to say anything at all because more than likely AI will cover most of my concerns about education, awareness, prevention, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation online, etc.

Unfortunately, some of the most pressing issues we’ve seen online over the last few years come in the form of “sextortion.” Self-generated child sexual exploitation (SG-CSEM) numbers are continuing to be terrifying. I’d strongly encourage that you look into sextortion data. AI + sextortion is also a huge concern. The perpetrators are using the non-sexually explicit images of children and putting their likeness on AI-generated child sexual exploitation content and extorting money, more imagery, or both from minors online. It’s like a million nightmares wrapped into one. The wild part is that these issues will only get more pervasive because technology is harnessed to perpetuate horror at a scale unimaginable to a human mind.

Even if you banned phones and the internet or tried to prevent children from accessing the internet, it wouldn’t solve it. Child sexual exploitation will still be with us until as a society we start to prevent the crime before it happens. That is the only human way out right now.

There is no reset button on the internet, but if I could go back, I’d tell survivor advocates to heed the warnings of the early internet builders and to start education and awareness campaigns designed to prevent as much online child sexual exploitation as possible. The internet and technology moved quickly, and I don’t believe that society ever really caught up. We live in a world where a child can be groomed by a predator in their own home while sitting on a couch next to their parents watching TV. We weren’t ready as a species to tackle the fast-paced algorithms and dangers online. It happened too quickly for parents to catch up. How can you parent for the ever-changing digital world unless you are constantly aware of the dangers?

I don’t think that the internet is inherently bad. I believe that it can be a powerful tool for freedom and resistance. I’ve spoken a lot about the bad online, but there is beauty as well. We often discuss how victims and survivors are abused online; we rarely discuss the fact that countless survivors around the globe have been able to share their experiences, strength, hope, as well as provide resources to the vulnerable. I do question if giving any government or tech company access to censorship, surveillance, etc., online in the name of serving survivors might not actually impact a portion of survivors negatively. There are a fair amount of survivors with powerful abusers protected by governments and the corporate press. If a survivor cannot speak to the press about their abuse, the only place they can go is online, directly or indirectly through an independent journalist who also risks being censored. This scenario isn’t hard to imagine—it already happened in China. During #MeToo, a survivor in China wanted to post their story. The government censored the post, so the survivor put their story on the blockchain. I’m excited that the survivor was creative and brave, but it’s terrifying to think that we live in a world where that situation is a necessity.

I believe that the future for many survivors sharing their stories globally will be on completely censorship-resistant and decentralized protocols. This thought in particular gives me hope. When we listen to the experiences of a diverse group of survivors, we can start to understand potential solutions to preventing the crimes from happening in the first place.

My heart is broken over the gut-wrenching stories of survivors sexually exploited online. Every time I hear the story of a survivor, I do think to myself quietly, “What could have prevented this from happening in the first place?” My heart is with survivors.

My head, on the other hand, is full of the understanding that the internet should remain free. The free flow of information should not be stopped. My mind is with the innocent citizens around the globe that deserve freedom both online and offline.

The problem is that governments don’t only want to censor illegal content that violates human rights—they create legislation that is so broad that it can impact speech and privacy of all. “Don’t you care about the kids?” Yes, I do. I do so much that I’m invested in finding solutions. I also care about all citizens around the globe that deserve an opportunity to live free from a mass surveillance society. If terrorism happens online, I should not be punished by losing my freedom. If drugs are sold online, I should not be punished. I’m not an abuser, I’m not a terrorist, and I don’t engage in illegal behaviors. I refuse to lose freedom because of others’ bad behaviors online.

I want to be clear that on a long enough timeline, the governments will decide that they can be better parents/caregivers than you can if something isn’t done to stop minors from being sexually exploited online. The price will be a complete loss of anonymity, privacy, free speech, and freedom of religion online. I find it rather insulting that governments think they’re better equipped to raise children than parents and caretakers.

So we can’t go backwards—all that we can do is go forward. Those who want to have freedom will find technology to facilitate their liberation. This will lead many over time to decentralized and open protocols. So as far as I’m concerned, this does solve a few of my worries—those who need, want, and deserve to speak freely online will have the opportunity in most countries—but what about online child sexual exploitation?

When I popped up around the decentralized space, I was met with the fear of censorship. I’m not here to censor you. I don’t write code. I couldn’t censor anyone or any piece of content even if I wanted to across the internet, no matter how depraved. I don’t have the skills to do that.

I’m here to start a conversation. Freedom comes at a cost. You must always fight for and protect your freedom. I can’t speak about protecting yourself from all of the Four Horsemen because I simply don’t know the topics well enough, but I can speak about this one topic.

If there was a shortcut to ending online child sexual exploitation, I would have found it by now. There isn’t one right now. I believe that education is the only pathway forward to preventing the crime of online child sexual exploitation for future generations.

I propose a yearly education course for every child of all school ages, taught as a standard part of the curriculum. Ideally, parents/caregivers would be involved in the education/learning process.

Course: - The creation of the internet and computers - The fight for cryptography - The tech supply chain from the ground up (example: human rights violations in the supply chain) - Corporate tech - Freedom tech - Data privacy - Digital privacy rights - AI (history-current) - Online safety (predators, scams, catfishing, extortion) - Bitcoin - Laws - How to deal with online hate and harassment - Information on who to contact if you are being abused online or offline - Algorithms - How to seek out the truth about news, etc., online

The parents/caregivers, homeschoolers, unschoolers, and those working to create decentralized parallel societies have been an inspiration while writing this, but my hope is that all children would learn this course, even in government ran schools. Ideally, parents would teach this to their own children.

The decentralized space doesn’t want child sexual exploitation to thrive. Here’s the deal: there has to be a strong prevention effort in order to protect the next generation. The internet isn’t going anywhere, predators aren’t going anywhere, and I’m not down to let anyone have the opportunity to prove that there is a need for more government. I don’t believe that the government should act as parents. The governments have had a chance to attempt to stop online child sexual exploitation, and they didn’t do it. Can we try a different pathway forward?

I’d like to put myself out of a job. I don’t want to ever hear another story like John Doe #1 ever again. This will require work. I’ve often called online child sexual exploitation the lynchpin for the internet. It’s time to arm generations of children with knowledge and tools. I can’t do this alone.

Individuals have fought so that I could have freedom online. I want to fight to protect it. I don’t want child predators to give the government any opportunity to take away freedom. Decentralized spaces are as close to a reset as we’ll get with the opportunity to do it right from the start. Start the youth off correctly by preventing potential hazards to the best of your ability.

The good news is anyone can work on this! I’d encourage you to take it and run with it. I added the additional education about the history of the internet to make the course more educational and fun. Instead of cleaning up generations of destroyed lives due to online sexual exploitation, perhaps this could inspire generations of those who will build our futures. Perhaps if the youth is armed with knowledge, they can create more tools to prevent the crime.

This one solution that I’m suggesting can be done on an individual level or on a larger scale. It should be adjusted depending on age, learning style, etc. It should be fun and playful.

This solution does not address abuse in the home or some of the root causes of offline child sexual exploitation. My hope is that it could lead to some survivors experiencing abuse in the home an opportunity to disclose with a trusted adult. The purpose for this solution is to prevent the crime of online child sexual exploitation before it occurs and to arm the youth with the tools to contact safe adults if and when it happens.

In closing, I went to hell a few times so that you didn’t have to. I spoke to the mothers of survivors of minors sexually exploited online—their tears could fill rivers. I’ve spoken with political dissidents who yearned to be free from authoritarian surveillance states. The only balance that I’ve found is freedom online for citizens around the globe and prevention from the dangers of that for the youth. Don’t slow down innovation and freedom. Educate, prepare, adapt, and look for solutions.

I’m not perfect and I’m sure that there are errors in this piece. I hope that you find them and it starts a conversation.

@ c8adf82a:7265ee75

What is knowledge? Why do we need it?

Since we were small, our parents/guardian put us in school, worked their asses off to give us elective lessons, some get help until college, some even after college and after professional work. Why is this intelligence thing so sought after?

When you were born, you mostly just accepted what your parents said, they say go to school - you go to school, they say go learn the piano - you learn the piano. Of course with a lot of questions and denials, but you do it because you know your parents are doing it for your own good. You can feel the love so you disregard the 'why' and go on with faith

Everything starts with why, and for most people maybe the purpose of knowledge is to be smarter, to know more, just because. But for me this sounds utterly useless. One day I will die next to a man with half a brain and we would feel the same exact thing on the ground. Literally being smarter at the end does not matter at all

However, I am not saying to just be lazy and foolish. For me the purpose of knowledge is action. The more you learn, the more you know what to do, the more you can be sure you are doing the right thing, the more you can make progress on your own being, etc etc

Now, how can you properly learn? Imagine a water bottle. The water bottle's sole purpose is to contain water, but you cannot fill in the water bottle before you open the cap. To learn properly, make sure you open the cap and let all that water pour into you

If you are reading this, you are alive. Don't waste your time doing useless stuff and start to make a difference in your life

Seize the day

@ 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

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

I. Introduction

The phenomenon known as "speaking in tongues" has long been interpreted as either the miraculous ability to speak foreign languages or utter mysterious syllables by divine power. However, a re-examination of scriptural and apostolic texts suggests a deeper, spiritual interpretation: that "tongues" refers not to foreign speech but to the utterance of divine truths so profound that they are incomprehensible to most unless illuminated by the Spirit.

This treatise explores that interpretation in light of the writings of Paul, Peter, John, and the early Apostolic Fathers. We seek not to diminish the miraculous but to reveal the deeper purpose of spiritual utterance: the revelation of divine knowledge that transcends rational comprehension.

II. The Nature of Tongues as Spiritual Utterance

Tongues are best understood as Spirit-inspired expressions of divine truth—utterances that do not conform to human categories of knowledge or language. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 14:2, "He who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit."

Such mysteries are not unintelligible in a chaotic sense but are veiled truths that require spiritual discernment. The speaker becomes a vessel of revelation. Without interpretation, the truth remains hidden, just as a parable remains a riddle to those without ears to hear.

III. Paul and the Hidden Wisdom of God

In his epistles, Paul often distinguishes between surface knowledge and spiritual wisdom. In 1 Corinthians 2:6-7, he writes:

"We speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age... but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages."

Tongues, then, are one vehicle by which such hidden wisdom is spoken. The gift of interpretation is not mere translation but the Spirit-led unveiling of meaning. Hence, Paul prioritizes intelligibility not to invalidate tongues, but to encourage the edification that comes when deep truth is revealed and understood (1 Cor. 14:19).

IV. Peter at Pentecost: Many Tongues, One Spirit

At Pentecost (Acts 2), each listener hears the apostles speak "in his own language"—but what they hear are "the mighty works of God." Rather than focusing on the mechanics of speech, the emphasis is on understanding. It was not merely a linguistic miracle but a revelatory one: divine truth reaching every heart in a way that transcended cultural and rational barriers.

V. John and the Prophetic Language of Revelation

The apostle John writes in symbols, visions, and layered meanings. Revelation is full of "tongues" in this spiritual sense—utterances that reveal while concealing. His Gospel presents the Spirit as the "Spirit of truth" who "will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). This guiding is not logical deduction but illumination.

VI. The Apostolic Fathers on Inspired Speech

The Didache, an early Christian manual, warns that not everyone who claims to speak by the Spirit is truly inspired. This aligns with a view of tongues as spiritual utterance—deep truth that must be tested by its fruits and conformity to the ways of the Lord.

Polycarp and Ignatius do not emphasize miraculous speech, but their prayers and exhortations show a triadic awareness of Father, Son, and Spirit, and a reverence for spiritual knowledge passed through inspiration and faithful transmission.

VII. Interpretation: The Gift of Spiritual Discernment

In this model, the interpreter of tongues is not a linguist but a spiritual discerner. As Joseph interpreted dreams in Egypt, so the interpreter makes the spiritual intelligible. This gift is not external translation but inward revelation—an unveiling of what the Spirit has spoken.

VIII. Conclusion: Tongues as a Veil and a Revelation

The true gift of tongues lies not in speech but in meaning—in truth spoken from a higher realm that must be spiritually discerned. It is a veil that conceals the holy from the profane, and a revelation to those led by the Spirit of truth.

Thus, we do not reject the miraculous, but recognize that the greatest miracle is understanding—when divine mysteries, spoken in spiritual tongue, are made known to the heart by the Spirit.

"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches." (Revelation 2:7)

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

I want to see Nostr succeed. If you can think of a way I can help make that happen, I’m open to it. I’d like your suggestions.

My schedule’s shifting soon, and I could volunteer a few hours a week to a Nostr project. I won’t have more total time, but how I use it will change.

Why help? I care about freedom. Nostr’s one of the most powerful freedom tools I’ve seen in my lifetime. If I believe that, I should act on it.

I don’t care about money or sats. I’m not rich, I don’t have extra cash. That doesn’t drive me—freedom does. I’m volunteering, not asking for pay.

I’m not here for clout. I’ve had enough spotlight in my life; it doesn’t move me. If I wanted clout, I’d be on Twitter dropping basic takes. Clout’s easy. Freedom’s hard. I’d rather help anonymously. No speaking at events—small meetups are cool for the vibe, but big conferences? Not my thing. I’ll never hit a huge Bitcoin conference. It’s just not my scene.

That said, I could be convinced to step up if it’d really boost Nostr—as long as it’s legal and gets results.

In this space, I’d watch for social engineering. I watch out for it. I’m not here to make friends, just to help. No shade—you all seem great—but I’ve got a full life and awesome friends irl. I don’t need your crew or to be online cool. Connect anonymously if you want; I’d encourage it.

I’m sick of watching other social media alternatives grow while Nostr kinda stalls. I could trash-talk, but I’d rather do something useful.

Skills? I’m good at spotting social media problems and finding possible solutions. I won’t overhype myself—that’s weird—but if you’re responding, you probably see something in me. Perhaps you see something that I don’t see in myself.

If you need help now or later with Nostr projects, reach out. Nostr only—nothing else. Anonymous contact’s fine. Even just a suggestion on how I can pitch in, no project attached, works too. 💜

Creeps or harassment will get blocked or I’ll nuke my simplex code if it becomes a problem.

https://simplex.chat/contact#/?v=2-4&smp=smp%3A%2F%2FSkIkI6EPd2D63F4xFKfHk7I1UGZVNn6k1QWZ5rcyr6w%3D%40smp9.simplex.im%2FbI99B3KuYduH8jDr9ZwyhcSxm2UuR7j0%23%2F%3Fv%3D1-2%26dh%3DMCowBQYDK2VuAyEAS9C-zPzqW41PKySfPCEizcXb1QCus6AyDkTTjfyMIRM%253D%26srv%3Djssqzccmrcws6bhmn77vgmhfjmhwlyr3u7puw4erkyoosywgl67slqqd.onion

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Introduction

Nutsax is a capability-based access control system for Nostr relays, designed to provide flexible, privacy-preserving rate limiting, permissioning, and operation-scoped token redemption.

At its core, Nutsax introduces:

• Blind-signed tokens, issued by relays, for specific operation types.
• Token redemption as part of Nostr event publishing or interactions.
• Encrypted token storage using existing Nostr direct message infrastructure, allowing portable, persistent, and private storage of these tokens — the Nutsax.

This mechanism augments the existing Nostr protocol without disrupting adoption, requiring no changes to NIP-01 for clients or relays that don’t opt into the system.

Motivation

Nostr relays currently have limited tools for abuse prevention and access control. Options like IP banning, whitelisting, or monetized access are coarse and often centralized.

Nutsax introduces:

• Fine-grained, operation-specific access control using cryptographic tokens.
• Blind signature protocols to issue tokens anonymously, preserving user privacy.
• A native way to store and recover tokens using Nostr’s encrypted event system.

This allows relays to offer:

• Optional access policies (e.g., “3 posts per hour unless you redeem a token”)
• Paid or invite-based features (e.g., long-term subscriptions, advanced filters)
• Temporary elevation of privileges (e.g., bypass slow mode for one message)

All without requiring accounts, emails, or linking identity beyond the user’s npub.

Core Components

1. Operation Tokens

Tokens are blind-signed blobs issued by the relay, scoped to a specific operation type (e.g., "write", "filter-subscribe", "broadcast").

• Issued anonymously: using a blind signature protocol.
• Validated on redemption: at message submission or interaction time.
• Optional and redeemable: the relay decides when to enforce token redemption.

Each token encodes:

• Operation type (string)
• Relay ID (to scope the token)
• Expiration (optional)
• Usage count or burn-on-use flag
• Random nonce (blindness)

Example (before blinding):

json { "relay": "wss://relay.example", "operation": "write", "expires": 1720000000, "nonce": "b2a8c3..." }

This is then blinded and signed by the relay.

2. Token Redemption

Clients include tokens when submitting events or requests to the relay.

Token included via event tag:

json ["token", "<base64-encoded-token>", "write"]

Redemption can happen:

• Inline with any event (kind 1, etc.)
• As a standalone event (e.g., ephemeral kind 20000)
• During session initiation (optional AUTH extension)

The relay validates the token:

• Is it well-formed?
• Is it valid for this relay and operation?
• Is it unexpired?
• Has it been used already? (for burn-on-use)

If valid, the relay accepts the event or upgrades the rate/permission scope.

3. Nutsax: Private Token Storage on Nostr

Tokens are stored securely in the client’s Nutsax, a persistent, private archive built on Nostr’s encrypted event system.

Each token is stored in a kind 4 or kind 44/24 event, encrypted with the client’s own npub.

Example:

json { "kind": 4, "tags": [ ["p", "<your npub>"], ["token-type", "write"], ["relay", "wss://relay.example"] ], "content": "<encrypted token blob>", "created_at": 1234567890 }

This allows clients to:

• Persist tokens across restarts or device changes.
• Restore tokens after reinstalling or reauthenticating.
• Port tokens between devices.

All without exposing the tokens to the public or requiring external storage infrastructure.

Client Lifecycle

1. Requesting Tokens

• Client authenticates to relay (e.g., via NIP-42).
• Requests blind-signed tokens:
• Sends blinded token requests.
• Receives blind signatures.
• Unblinds and verifies.

2. Storing Tokens

• Each token is encrypted to the user’s own npub.
• Stored as a DM (kind 4 or compatible encrypted event).
• Optional tagging for organization.

3. Redeeming Tokens

• When performing a token-gated operation (e.g., posting to a limited relay), client includes the appropriate token in the event.
• Relay validates and logs/consumes the token.

4. Restoring the Nutsax

• On device reinstallation or session reset, the client:
• Reconnects to relays.
• Scans encrypted DMs.
• Decrypts and reimports available tokens.

Privacy Model

• Relays issuing tokens do not know which tokens were redeemed (blind signing).
• Tokens do not encode sender identity unless the client opts to do so.
• Only the recipient (npub) can decrypt their Nutsax.
• Redemption is pseudonymous — tied to a key, not to external identity.

Optional Enhancements

• Token index tag: to allow fast search and categorization.
• Multiple token types: read, write, boost, subscribe, etc.
• Token delegation: future support for transferring tokens via encrypted DM to another npub.
• Token revocation: relays can publish blacklists or expiration feeds if needed.

Compatibility

• Fully compatible with NIP-01, NIP-04 (encrypted DMs), and NIP-42 (authentication).
• Non-disruptive: relays and clients can ignore tokens if not supported.
• Ideal for layering on top of existing infrastructure and monetization strategies.

Conclusion

Nutsax offers a privacy-respecting, decentralized way to manage access and rate limits in the Nostr ecosystem. With blind-signed, operation-specific tokens and encrypted, persistent storage using native Nostr mechanisms, it gives relays and clients new powers without sacrificing Nostr’s core principles: simplicity, openness, and cryptographic self-sovereignty.

@ 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.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

In much of the world, it is incredibly difficult to access U.S. dollars. Local currencies are often poorly managed and riddled with corruption. Billions of people demand a more reliable alternative. While the dollar has its own issues of corruption and mismanagement, it is widely regarded as superior to the fiat currencies it competes with globally. As a result, Tether has found massive success providing low cost, low friction access to dollars. Tether claims 400 million total users, is on track to add 200 million more this year, processes 8.1 million transactions daily, and facilitates $29 billion in daily transfers. Furthermore, their estimates suggest nearly 40% of users rely on it as a savings tool rather than just a transactional currency.

Tether’s rise has made the company a financial juggernaut. Last year alone, Tether raked in over $13 billion in profit, with a lean team of less than 100 employees. Their business model is elegantly simple: hold U.S. Treasuries and collect the interest. With over $113 billion in Treasuries, Tether has turned a straightforward concept into a profit machine.

Tether’s success has resulted in many competitors eager to claim a piece of the pie. This has triggered a massive venture capital grift cycle in USD tokens, with countless projects vying to dethrone Tether. Due to Tether’s entrenched network effect, these challengers face an uphill battle with little realistic chance of success. Most educated participants in the space likely recognize this reality but seem content to perpetuate the grift, hoping to cash out by dumping their equity positions on unsuspecting buyers before they realize the reality of the situation.

Historically, Tether’s greatest vulnerability has been U.S. government intervention. For over a decade, the company operated offshore with few allies in the U.S. establishment, making it a major target for regulatory action. That dynamic has shifted recently and Tether has seized the opportunity. By actively courting U.S. government support, Tether has fortified their position. This strategic move will likely cement their status as the dominant USD token for years to come.

While undeniably a great tool for the millions of users that rely on it, Tether is not without flaws. As a centralized, trusted third party, it holds the power to freeze or seize funds at its discretion. Corporate mismanagement or deliberate malpractice could also lead to massive losses at scale. In their goal of mitigating regulatory risk, Tether has deepened ties with law enforcement, mirroring some of the concerns of potential central bank digital currencies. In practice, Tether operates as a corporate CBDC alternative, collaborating with authorities to surveil and seize funds. The company proudly touts partnerships with leading surveillance firms and its own data reveals cooperation in over 1,000 law enforcement cases, with more than $2.5 billion in funds frozen.

---

The global demand for Tether is undeniable and the company’s profitability reflects its unrivaled success. Tether is owned and operated by bitcoiners and will likely continue to push forward strategic goals that help the movement as a whole. Recent efforts to mitigate the threat of U.S. government enforcement will likely solidify their network effect and stifle meaningful adoption of rival USD tokens or CBDCs. Yet, for all their achievements, Tether is simply a worse form of money than bitcoin. Tether requires trust in a centralized entity, while bitcoin can be saved or spent without permission. Furthermore, Tether is tied to the value of the US Dollar which is designed to lose purchasing power over time, while bitcoin, as a truly scarce asset, is designed to increase in purchasing power with adoption. As people awaken to the risks of Tether’s control, and the benefits bitcoin provides, bitcoin adoption will likely surpass it.

@ 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.

@ b7cf9f42:ecb93e78

Der Verstand im Fluss der Information

Das Informationszeitalter ist wie ein monströser Fluss, der unseren Verstand umgibt

Fundament erbauen

Der Verstand kann sich eine Insel in diesem Fluss bauen. Dabei können wir eine eigene Insel erbauen oder eine bestehende insel anvisieren um stabilität zu finden

Je robuster das Baumaterial, desto standhafter unsere Insel. (Stärke der Argumente, Qualität des Informationsgehalts, Verständlichkeit der Information)

Je grossflächiger die Insel, desto mehr Menschen haben Platz (Reichweite).

Je höher wir die Insel bauen, desto sicherer ist sie bei einem Anstieg des Informationsflusses (Diversität der Interesse und Kompetenzen der Inselbewohner).

Robustes Baumaterial

Primäre Wahrnehmung (robuster):

Realität -> meine Sinne -> meine Meinung/Interpretation

Sekundäre Wahrnehmung (weniger Robust):

Realität -> Sinne eines anderen -> dessen Meinung/Interpretation -> dessen Kommunikation -> meine Sinne -> meine Meinung/Interpretation

Wie kann ich zur Insel beitragen?

Ich investiere meine Zeit, um zu lernen. Ich bin bestrebt, Ideen zu verstehen, um sicherzugehen, dass ich robustes Baumaterial verwende.

Ich teile vermehrt Informationen, welche ich verstehe, damit auch meine Mitbewohner der Insel mit robustem Material die Insel vergrössern können. So können wir mehr Platz schaffen, wo Treibende Halt finden können.

Was könnte diese Insel sein?

• Freie Wissenschaft
• Freie Software
• Regeln
• Funktionierende Justiz
• Werkzeug
• und vieles weiteres

@ dd664d5e:5633d319

Men tend to find women attractive, that remind them of the average women they already know, but with more-averaged features. The mid of mids is kween.👸

But, in contradiction to that, they won't consider her highly attractive, unless she has some spectacular, unusual feature. They'll sacrifice some averageness to acquire that novelty. This is why wealthy men (who tend to be highly intelligent -- and therefore particularly inclined to crave novelty because they are easily bored) -- are more likely to have striking-looking wives and girlfriends, rather than conventionally-attractive ones. They are also more-likely to cross ethnic and racial lines, when dating.

Men also seem to each be particularly attracted to specific facial expressions or mimics, which might be an intelligence-similarity test, as persons with higher intelligence tend to have a more-expressive mimic. So, people with similar expressions tend to be on the same wavelength. Facial expessions also give men some sense of perception into womens' inner life, which they otherwise find inscrutable.

Hair color is a big deal (logic says: always go blonde), as is breast-size (bigger is better), and WHR (smaller is better).

@ 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

@ 8fb140b4:f948000c

As many of you know, https://nostr.build has recently launched a new compatibility layer for the Blossom protocol blossom.band. You can find all the details about what it supports and its limitations by visiting the URL.

I wanted to cover some of the technical details about how it works here. One key difference you may notice is that the service acts as a linker, redirecting requests for the media hash to the actual source of the media—specifically, the nostr.build URL. This allows us to maintain a unified CDN cache and ensure that your media is served as quickly as possible.

Another difference is that each uploaded media/blob is served under its own subdomain (e.g., npub1[...].blossom.band), ensuring that your association with the blob is controlled by you. If you decide to delete the media for any reason, we ensure that the link is broken, even if someone else has duplicated it using the same hash.

To comply with the Blossom protocol, we also link the same hash under the main (apex) domain (blossom.band) and collect all associations under it. This ensures that Blossom clients can fetch media based on users’ Blossom server settings. If you are the sole owner of the hash and there are no duplicates, deleting the media removes the link from the main domain as well.

Lastly, in line with our mission to protect users’ privacy, we reject any media that contains private metadata (such as GPS coordinates, user comments, or camera serial numbers) or strip it if you use the /media/ endpoint for upload.

As always, your feedback is welcome and appreciated. Thank you!

@ 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

@ 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.

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

Before I saw those X right-wing political “influencers” parading their Epstein binders in that PR stunt, I’d already posted this on Nostr, an open protocol. 

“Today, the world’s attention will likely fixate on Epstein, governmental failures in addressing horrific abuse cases, and the influential figures who perpetrate such acts—yet few will center the victims and survivors in the conversation. The survivors of Epstein went to law enforcement and very little happened. The survivors tried to speak to the corporate press and the corporate press knowingly covered for him. In situations like these social media can serve as one of the only ways for a survivor’s voice to be heard. 

It’s becoming increasingly evident that the line between centralized corporate social media and the state is razor-thin, if it exists at all. Time and again, the state shields powerful abusers when it’s politically expedient to do so. In this climate, a survivor attempting to expose someone like Epstein on a corporate tech platform faces an uphill battle—there’s no assurance their voice would even break through. Their story wouldn’t truly belong to them; it’d be at the mercy of the platform, subject to deletion at a whim. Nostr, though, offers a lifeline—a censorship-resistant space where survivors can share their truths, no matter how untouchable the abuser might seem. A survivor could remain anonymous here if they took enough steps. 

Nostr holds real promise for amplifying survivor voices. And if you’re here daily, tossing out memes, take heart: you’re helping build a foundation for those who desperately need to be heard.“

That post is untouchable—no CEO, company, employee, or government can delete it. Even if I wanted to, I couldn’t take it down myself. The post will outlive me on the protocol. 

The cozy alliance between the state and corporate social media hit me hard during that right-wing X “influencer” PR stunt. Elon owns X. Elon’s a special government employee. X pays those influencers to post. We don’t know who else pays them to post. Those influencers are spurred on by both the government and X to manage the Epstein case narrative. It wasn’t survivors standing there, grinning for photos—it was paid influencers, gatekeepers orchestrating yet another chance to re-exploit the already exploited.

The bond between the state and corporate social media is tight. If the other Epsteins out there are ever to be unmasked, I wouldn’t bet on a survivor’s story staying safe with a corporate tech platform, the government, any social media influencer, or mainstream journalist. Right now, only a protocol can hand survivors the power to truly own their narrative.

I don’t have anything against Elon—I’ve actually been a big supporter. I’m just stating it as I see it. X isn’t censorship resistant and they have an algorithm that they choose not the user. Corporate tech platforms like X can be a better fit for some survivors. X has safety tools and content moderation, making it a solid option for certain individuals. Grok can be a big help for survivors looking for resources or support! As a survivor, you know what works best for you, and safety should always come first—keep that front and center.

That said, a protocol is a game-changer for cases where the powerful are likely to censor. During China's # MeToo movement, survivors faced heavy censorship on social media platforms like Weibo and WeChat, where posts about sexual harassment were quickly removed, and hashtags like # MeToo or "woyeshi" were blocked by government and platform filters. To bypass this, activists turned to blockchain technology encoding their stories—like Yue Xin’s open letter about a Peking University case—into transaction metadata. This made the information tamper-proof and publicly accessible, resisting censorship since blockchain data can’t be easily altered or deleted.

I posted this on X 2/28/25. I wanted to try my first long post on a nostr client. The Epstein cover up is ongoing so it’s still relevant, unfortunately.

If you are a survivor or loved one who is reading this and needs support please reach out to: National Sexual Assault Hotline 24/7 https://rainn.org/

Hours: Available 24 hours

@ 46fcbe30:6bd8ce4d

MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION

SUBJECT: Meeting with Russian President Yeltsin

PARTICIPANTS: - U.S. - President Clinton - Secretary Albright - National Security Advisor Berger - Deputy National Security Advisor Steinberg - Ambassador Sestanovich - Carlos Pascual

• Russia
• Russian President Yeltsin
• Foreign Minister Ivanov
• Kremlin Foreign Policy Advisor Prihodko
• Defense Minister Sergeyev
• Interpreter: Peter Afansenko
• Notetaker: Carlos Pascual

DATE, TIME AND PLACE: November 19, 1999, 10:45 a.m. - 11:40 a.m. Istanbul, Turkey

President Yeltsin: We are in neutral territory here. I welcome you.

The President: Neither of us has a stake here. It's good to see you.

President Yeltsin: Well, Bill, what about those camps here in Turkey that are preparing troops to go into Chechnya? Aren't you in charge of those? I have the details. Minister Ivanov, give me the map. I want to show you where the mercenaries are being trained and then being sent into Chechnya. They are armed to the teeth. (Note: Yeltsin pulls out map of Turkey and circulates it.) Bill, this is your fault. I told Demirel yesterday that I will send the head of the SRV tomorrow and we will show him where the camps are located. These are not state-sanctioned camps. They are sponsored by NGOs and religious organizations. But let me tell you if this were in Russia and there were but one camp, I would throw them all out and put the bandits in the electric chair.

The President: Perhaps Demirel could help you.

President Yeltsin: Well, he ought to. Tomorrow after I get back, I will send the head of the Foreign Intelligence Service here. Bill, did you hurt your leg?

The President: Yes, but it is not bad.

President Yeltsin: When one leg of the President hurts, that is a bad thing.

The President: It lets me know I am alive.

President Yeltsin: I know we are not upset at each other. We were just throwing some jabs. I'm still waiting for you to visit. Bill. I've said to you come to visit in May, then June, then July and then August. Now it's past October and you're still not there.

The President: You're right, Boris, I owe you a visit.

President Yeltsin: Last time I went to the U.S., Bill.

The President: Well, I better set it up. I'll look at the calendar and find a time that's good for you and me.

President Yeltsin: Call me and tell me the month and date. Unless I have another visit, I will do the maximum amount I can to do everything around your schedule. The main things I have are to go to China and India.

The President: Boris, we still have lots to do together.

President Yeltsin: You heard my statement on nuclear arms and on banning nuclear tests. I just signed a law on ratification of a new agreement on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Isn't that right, Minister Ivanov?

Minister Ivanov: You signed the documents that sent the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Duma for review.

President Yeltsin: Well, in any case, I still approved it.

The President: Maybe I can get the Congress to agree still. They kept the Treaty even after they rejected it. So perhaps, there is still a chance.

President Yeltsin: Or perhaps it's just the bureaucrats working and they haven't had a chance to send it back to you yet. I'm upset that you signed the law to change the ABM Treaty.

The President: I signed no such law. People in Congress don't like the ABM Treaty. If Congress had its way, they would undermine the treaty. I'm trying to uphold it. But we need a national missile defense to protect against rogue states. We can't have a national missile defense that works without changing the ABM Treaty. But I want to do this cooperatively. I want to persuade you that this is good for both of us. The primary purpose is to protect against terrorists and rogue states. It would be ineffective against Russia. The system we're looking at would operate against just 20 missiles. And, Boris I want to figure out how to share the benefits. For all I know, in twenty years terrorists could have access to nuclear weapons. I know your people don't agree with me, but I'm not trying to overthrow the ABM Treaty. We're still trying to discover what's technically possible with national missile defense, but there are people in America who want to throw over the ABM Treaty. I have made no decisions yet.

President Yeltsin: Bill, Bill. I got your note. It went into all these things in incredible detail. I read it and I was satisfied. I've not yet ceased to believe in you. I ask you one thing. Just give Europe to Russia. The U.S. is not in Europe. Europe should be the business of Europeans. Russia is half European and half Asian.

The President: So you want Asia too?

President Yeltsin: Sure, sure. Bill. Eventually, we will have to agree on all of this.

The President: I don't think the Europeans would like this very much.

President Yeltsin: Not all. But I am a European. I live in Moscow. Moscow is in Europe and I like it. You can take all the other states and provide security to them. I will take Europe and provide them security. Well, not I. Russia will. We will end this conflict in Chechnya. I didn't say all the things I was thinking (in his speech). I listened to you carefully. I took a break just beforehand. Then I listened to you from beginning to end. I can even repeat what you said. Bill, I'm serious. Give Europe to Europe itself. Europe never felt as close to Russia as it does now. We have no difference of opinion with Europe, except maybe on Afganistan and Pakistan—which, by the way, is training Chechens. These are bandits, headhunters and killers. They're raping American women. They're cutting off ears and other parts of their hostages. We're fighting these types of terrorists. Let's not accuse Russia that we are too rough with these kinds of people. There are only two options: kill them or put them on trial. There's no third option, but we can put them on trial, and sentence them to 20-25 years. How many Americans, French, British and Germans have I freed that were there in Chechnya under the OSCE? The Chechen killers don't like the language of the OSCE. Here's my Minister of Defense. Stand up. We have not lost one soldier down there. Tell them.

Minister Sergeyev: We did not lose one soldier in Gudermes.

President Yeltsin: You see, Gudermes was cleansed without one military or civilian killed. We killed 200 bandits. The Minister of Defense is fulfilling the plan as I have said it should be. He's doing this thoughtfully. The soldiers only ask: don't stop the campaign. I promised these guys—I told every soldier, marshal and general—I will bring the campaign to fruition. We have these Chechens under lock and key. We have the key. They can't get in, they can't get out. Except maybe through Georgia; that's Shevardnadze's big mistake. And through Azerbaijan; that's Aliyev's mistake. They're shuttling in under the name of Islam. We're for freedom of religion, but not for fundamentalist Islam. These extremists are against you and against me.

We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles. We'll make all the appropriate treaties with China. We're not going to provide nuclear weapons to India. If we give them submarines, it will be only conventional diesel submarines, not nuclear. They would be from the 935 generation. You're going in that direction too. I'm thinking about your proposal—well, what your armed forces are doing—getting rid of fissile materials, particularly plutonium. We should just get rid of it. As soon as it's there, people start thinking of how to make bombs. Look, Russia has the power and intellect to know what to do with Europe. If Ivanov stays here, he will initial the CFE Treaty and I'll sign it under him. But under the OSCE Charter, there is one thing I cannot agree—which is that, based on humanitarian causes, one state can interfere in the affairs of another state.

National Security Advisor Berger: Mr. President, there's nothing in the Charter on one state's interference in the affairs of another.

Secretary Albright: That's right. What the Charter says is that affairs within a state will affect the other states around it.

President Yeltsin: Russia agrees to take out its property and equipment from Georgia in accordance with the new CFE Treaty. I have a statement on this. (looking toward Ivanov) Give it to me. I signed it today. Actually, it was late last night. I like to work late.

The President: Me, too.

President Yeltsin: I know you like to work late, Bill. When you call me, I calculate the time and I tell myself it's 4 a.m. and he's calling me. It lets you cleanse your brain and you feel great. I am not criticizing you, Bill. The President should be encouraged to work hard.

The President: So, we will get an agreement on CFE.

President Yeltsin: Yes.

The President: That's very important, seven years. We've worked on this for a long time.

President Yeltsin: Look, Ivanov has lost the statement in his own bag. He can't find the paper in his own bag. On the Charter, we have to look at it from the beginning. The Charter's ready. However, when states begin to tie in the Charter with the final declaration that has wording unacceptable to us, that's when we'll say no. And responsibility for this will fall fully on the West. (Looking at Ivanov) Give me this thing. It is written on paper. Bill. I am ready to sign it. It is a declaration about what we're talking about.

Secretary Albright: Some states want to record in the declaration your willingness to have an OSCE mission.

President Yeltsin: No, not at all. We will finish this with our own forces. Chechnya is the business of the internal affairs of Russia. We have to decide what to do. After we cleansed Gudermes, the muslim mufti came and asked for help, said I hate Basayev and he should be banned. These are the kinds of leaders we will put forward. I have thought this through carefully.

The President: On the Chechen problem. I have been less critical than others. Even today, I asked the others how they would deal with this if it were their country. This is a political issue. It may be the best thing for you within Russia to tell the Europeans to go to hell. But the best thing for your relations with Europe for the long term is to figure out the policy that you want to have with Europe and to keep that in mind as you deal with Chechnya.

President Yeltsin: (Gets up rapidly) Bill, the meeting is up. We said 20 minutes and it has now been more than 35 minutes.

The President: That's fine. We can say the meeting is over.

President Yeltsin: This meeting has gone on too long. You should come to visit, Bill.

The President: Who will win the election?

President Yeltsin: Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He's a democrat, and he knows the West.

The President: He's very smart.

President Yeltsin: He's tough. He has an internal ramrod. He's tough internally, and I will do everything possible for him to win—legally, of course. And he will win. You'll do business together. He will continue the Yeltsin line on democracy and economics and widen Russia's contacts. He has the energy and the brains to succeed. Thank you, Bill.

The President: Thank you, Boris. It was good to see you.

End of Conversation

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Introduction

Throughout human history, the pyramids of Egypt have fascinated scholars, archaeologists, and engineers alike. Traditionally thought of as tombs for pharaohs or religious monuments, alternative theories have speculated that the pyramids may have served advanced technological functions. One such hypothesis suggests that the pyramids acted as large-scale nitrogen fertilizer generators, designed to transform arid desert landscapes into fertile land.

This paper explores the feasibility of such a system by examining how a pyramid could integrate thermal convection, electrolysis, and a self-regulating breeder reactor to sustain nitrogen fixation processes. We will calculate the total power requirements and estimate the longevity of a breeder reactor housed within the structure.

The Pyramid’s Function as a Nitrogen Fertilizer Generator

The hypothesized system involves several key processes:

• Heat and Convection: A fissile material core located in the King's Chamber would generate heat, creating convection currents throughout the pyramid.
• Electrolysis and Hydrogen Production: Water sourced from subterranean channels would undergo electrolysis, splitting into hydrogen and oxygen due to electrical and thermal energy.
• Nitrogen Fixation: The generated hydrogen would react with atmospheric nitrogen (N₂) to produce ammonia (NH₃), a vital component of nitrogen-based fertilizers.

Power Requirements for Continuous Operation

To maintain the pyramid’s core at approximately 450°C, sufficient to drive nitrogen fixation, we estimate a steady-state power requirement of 23.9 gigawatts (GW).

Total Energy Required Over 10,000 Years

Given continuous operation over 10,000 years, the total energy demand can be calculated as:

[ \text{Total time} = 10,000 \times 365.25 \times 24 \times 3600 \text{ seconds} ]

[ \text{Total time} = 3.16 \times 10^{11} \text{ seconds} ]

[ \text{Total energy} = 23.9 \text{ GW} \times 3.16 \times 10^{11} \text{ s} ]

[ \approx 7.55 \times 10^{21} \text{ J} ]

Using a Self-Regulating Breeder Reactor

A breeder reactor could sustain this power requirement by generating more fissile material than it consumes. This reduces the need for frequent refueling.

Pebble Bed Reactor Design

• Self-Regulation: The reactor would use passive cooling and fuel expansion to self-regulate temperature.
• Breeding Process: The reactor would convert thorium-232 into uranium-233, creating a sustainable fuel cycle.

Fissile Material Requirements

Each kilogram of fissile material releases approximately 80 terajoules (TJ) (or 8 × 10^{13} J/kg). Given a 35% efficiency rate, the usable energy per kilogram is:

[ \text{Usable energy per kg} = 8 \times 10^{13} \times 0.35 = 2.8 \times 10^{13} \text{ J/kg} ]

[ \text{Fissile material required} = \frac{7.55 \times 10^{21}}{2.8 \times 10^{13}} ]

[ \approx 2.7 \times 10^{8} \text{ kg} = 270,000 \text{ tons} ]

Impact of a Breeding Ratio

If the reactor operates at a breeding ratio of 1.3, the total fissile material requirement would be reduced to:

[ \frac{270,000}{1.3} \approx 208,000 \text{ tons} ]

Reactor Size and Fuel Replenishment

Assuming a pebble bed reactor housed in the King’s Chamber (~318 cubic meters), the fuel cycle could be sustained with minimal refueling. With a breeding ratio of 1.3, the reactor could theoretically operate for 10,000 years with occasional replenishment of lost material due to inefficiencies.

Managing Scaling in the Steam Generation System

To ensure long-term efficiency, the water supply must be conditioned to prevent mineral scaling. Several strategies could be implemented:

1. Natural Water Softening Using Limestone

• Passing river water through limestone beds could help precipitate out calcium bicarbonate, reducing hardness before entering the steam system.

2. Chemical Additives for Scaling Prevention

• Chelating Agents: Compounds such as citric acid or tannins could be introduced to bind calcium and magnesium ions.
• Phosphate Compounds: These interfere with crystal formation, preventing scale adhesion.

3. Superheating and Pre-Evaporation

• Pre-Evaporation: Water exposed to extreme heat before entering the system would allow minerals to precipitate out before reaching the reactor.
• Superheated Steam: Ensuring only pure vapor enters the steam cycle would prevent mineral buildup.
• Electrolysis of Superheated Steam: Using multi-million volt electrostatic fields to ionize and separate minerals before they enter the steam system.

4. Electrostatic Control for Scaling Mitigation

• The pyramid’s hypothesized high-voltage environment could ionize water molecules, helping to prevent mineral deposits.

Conclusion

If the Great Pyramid were designed as a self-regulating nitrogen fertilizer generator, it would require a continuous 23.9 GW energy supply, which could be met by a breeder reactor housed within its core. With a breeding ratio of 1.3, an initial load of 208,000 tons of fissile material would sustain operations for 10,000 years with minimal refueling.

Additionally, advanced water treatment techniques, including limestone filtration, chemical additives, and electrostatic control, could ensure long-term efficiency by mitigating scaling issues.

While this remains a speculative hypothesis, it presents a fascinating intersection of energy production, water treatment, and environmental engineering as a means to terraform the ancient world.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Introduction

Since the mid-1990s, American media has fractured into two distinct and increasingly isolated ecosystems, each with its own Overton window of acceptable discourse. Once upon a time, Americans of different political leanings shared a common set of facts, even if they interpreted them differently. Today, they don’t even agree on what the facts are—or who has the authority to define them.

This divide stems from a deeper philosophical rift in how each side determines truth and legitimacy. The institutional left derives its authority from the expert class—academics, think tanks, scientific consensus, and mainstream media. The populist right, on the other hand, finds its authority in traditional belief systems—religion, historical precedent, and what many call "common sense." As these two moral and epistemological frameworks drift further apart, the result is not just political division but the emergence of two separate cultural nations sharing the same geographic space.

The Battle of Epistemologies: Experts vs. Tradition

The left-leaning camp sees scientific consensus, peer-reviewed research, and institutional expertise as the gold standard of truth. Universities, media organizations, and policy think tanks function as arbiters of knowledge, shaping the moral and political beliefs of those who trust them. From this perspective, governance should be guided by data-driven decisions, often favoring progressive change and bureaucratic administration over democratic populism.

The right-leaning camp is skeptical of these institutions, viewing them as ideologically captured and detached from real-world concerns. Instead, they look to religion, historical wisdom, and traditional social structures as more reliable sources of truth. To them, the "expert class" is not an impartial source of knowledge but a self-reinforcing elite that justifies its own power while dismissing dissenters as uneducated or morally deficient.

This fundamental disagreement over the source of moral and factual authority means that political debates today are rarely about policy alone. They are battles over legitimacy itself. One side sees resistance to climate policies as "anti-science," while the other sees aggressive climate mandates as an elite power grab. One side views traditional gender roles as oppressive, while the other sees rapid changes in gender norms as unnatural and destabilizing. Each group believes the other is not just wrong, but dangerous.

The Consequences of Non-Overlapping Overton Windows

As these worldviews diverge, so do their respective Overton windows—the range of ideas considered acceptable for public discourse. There is little overlap left. What is considered self-evident truth in one camp is often seen as heresy or misinformation in the other. The result is:

• Epistemic Closure – Each side has its own trusted media sources, and cross-exposure is minimal. The left dismisses right-wing media as conspiracy-driven, while the right views mainstream media as corrupt propaganda. Both believe the other is being systematically misled.
• Moralization of Politics – Since truth itself is contested, policy debates become existential battles. Disagreements over issues like immigration, education, or healthcare are no longer just about governance but about moral purity versus moral corruption.
• Cultural and Political Balkanization – Without a shared understanding of reality, compromise becomes impossible. Americans increasingly consume separate news, live in ideologically homogeneous communities, and even speak different political languages.

Conclusion: Two Nations on One Land

A country can survive disagreements, but can it survive when its people no longer share a common source of truth? Historically, such deep societal fractures have led to secession, authoritarianism, or violent conflict. The United States has managed to avoid these extremes so far, but the trendline is clear: as long as each camp continues reinforcing its own epistemology while rejecting the other's as illegitimate, the divide will only grow.

The question is no longer whether America is divided—it is whether these two cultures can continue to coexist under a single political system. Can anything bridge the gap between institutional authority and traditional wisdom? Or are we witnessing the slow but inevitable unraveling of a once-unified nation into two separate moral and epistemic realities?

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

Bitcoin has always been rooted in freedom and resistance to authority. I get that many of you are conflicted about the US Government stacking but by design we cannot stop anyone from using bitcoin. Many have asked me for my thoughts on the matter, so let’s rip it.

Concern

One of the most glaring issues with the strategic bitcoin reserve is its foundation, built on stolen bitcoin. For those of us who value private property this is an obvious betrayal of our core principles. Rather than proof of work, the bitcoin that seeds this reserve has been taken by force. The US Government should return the bitcoin stolen from Bitfinex and the Silk Road.

Usually stolen bitcoin for the reserve creates a perverse incentive. If governments see a bitcoin as a valuable asset, they will ramp up efforts to confiscate more bitcoin. The precedent is a major concern, and I stand strongly against it, but it should be also noted that governments were already seizing coin before the reserve so this is not really a change in policy.

Ideally all seized bitcoin should be burned, by law. This would align incentives properly and make it less likely for the government to actively increase coin seizures. Due to the truly scarce properties of bitcoin, all burned bitcoin helps existing holders through increased purchasing power regardless. This change would be unlikely but those of us in policy circles should push for it regardless. It would be best case scenario for American bitcoiners and would create a strong foundation for the next century of American leadership.

Optimism

The entire point of bitcoin is that we can spend or save it without permission. That said, it is a massive benefit to not have one of the strongest governments in human history actively trying to ruin our lives.

Since the beginning, bitcoiners have faced horrible regulatory trends. KYC, surveillance, and legal cases have made using bitcoin and building bitcoin businesses incredibly difficult. It is incredibly important to note that over the past year that trend has reversed for the first time in a decade. A strategic bitcoin reserve is a key driver of this shift. By holding bitcoin, the strongest government in the world has signaled that it is not just a fringe technology but rather truly valuable, legitimate, and worth stacking.

This alignment of incentives changes everything. The US Government stacking proves bitcoin’s worth. The resulting purchasing power appreciation helps all of us who are holding coin and as bitcoin succeeds our government receives direct benefit. A beautiful positive feedback loop.

Realism

We are trending in the right direction. A strategic bitcoin reserve is a sign that the state sees bitcoin as an asset worth embracing rather than destroying. That said, there is a lot of work left to be done. We cannot be lulled into complacency, the time to push forward is now, and we cannot take our foot off the gas. We have a seat at the table for the first time ever. Let's make it worth it.

We must protect the right to free usage of bitcoin and other digital technologies. Freedom in the digital age must be taken and defended, through both technical and political avenues. Multiple privacy focused developers are facing long jail sentences for building tools that protect our freedom. These cases are not just legal battles. They are attacks on the soul of bitcoin. We need to rally behind them, fight for their freedom, and ensure the ethos of bitcoin survives this new era of government interest. The strategic reserve is a step in the right direction, but it is up to us to hold the line and shape the future.

@ 4925ea33:025410d8

1. O que é um Aromaterapeuta?

O aromaterapeuta é um profissional especializado na prática da Aromaterapia, responsável pelo uso adequado de óleos essenciais, ervas aromáticas, águas florais e destilados herbais para fins terapêuticos.

A atuação desse profissional envolve diferentes métodos de aplicação, como inalação, uso tópico, sempre considerando a segurança e a necessidade individual do cliente. A Aromaterapia pode auxiliar na redução do estresse, alívio de dores crônicas, relaxamento muscular e melhora da respiração, entre outros benefícios.

Além disso, os aromaterapeutas podem trabalhar em conjunto com outros profissionais da saúde para oferecer um tratamento complementar em diversas condições. Como já mencionado no artigo sobre "Como evitar processos alérgicos na prática da Aromaterapia", é essencial ter acompanhamento profissional, pois os óleos essenciais são altamente concentrados e podem causar reações adversas se utilizados de forma inadequada.

---

2. Como um Aromaterapeuta Pode Ajudar?

Você pode procurar um aromaterapeuta para diferentes necessidades, como:

✔ Questões Emocionais e Psicológicas

Auxílio em momentos de luto, divórcio, demissão ou outras situações desafiadoras.

Apoio na redução do estresse, ansiedade e insônia.

Vale lembrar que, em casos de transtornos psiquiátricos, a Aromaterapia deve ser usada como terapia complementar, associada ao tratamento médico.

✔ Questões Físicas

Dores musculares e articulares.

Problemas respiratórios como rinite, sinusite e tosse.

Distúrbios digestivos leves.

Dores de cabeça e enxaquecas. Nesses casos, a Aromaterapia pode ser um suporte, mas não substitui a medicina tradicional para identificar a origem dos sintomas.

✔ Saúde da Pele e Cabelos

Tratamento para acne, dermatites e psoríase.

Cuidados com o envelhecimento precoce da pele.

Redução da queda de cabelo e controle da oleosidade do couro cabeludo.

✔ Bem-estar e Qualidade de Vida

Melhora da concentração e foco, aumentando a produtividade.

Estímulo da disposição e energia.

Auxílio no equilíbrio hormonal (TPM, menopausa, desequilíbrios hormonais).

Com base nessas necessidades, o aromaterapeuta irá indicar o melhor tratamento, calculando doses, sinergias (combinação de óleos essenciais), diluições e técnicas de aplicação, como inalação, uso tópico ou difusão.

---

3. Como Funciona uma Consulta com um Aromaterapeuta?

Uma consulta com um aromaterapeuta é um atendimento personalizado, onde são avaliadas as necessidades do cliente para a criação de um protocolo adequado. O processo geralmente segue estas etapas:

✔ Anamnese (Entrevista Inicial)

Perguntas sobre saúde física, emocional e estilo de vida.

Levantamento de sintomas, histórico médico e possíveis alergias.

Definição dos objetivos da terapia (alívio do estresse, melhora do sono, dores musculares etc.).

✔ Escolha dos Óleos Essenciais

Seleção dos óleos mais indicados para o caso.

Consideração das propriedades terapêuticas, contraindicações e combinações seguras.

✔ Definição do Método de Uso

O profissional indicará a melhor forma de aplicação, que pode ser:

Inalação: difusores, colares aromáticos, vaporização.

Uso tópico: massagens, óleos corporais, compressas.

Banhos aromáticos e escalda-pés. Todas as diluições serão ajustadas de acordo com a segurança e a necessidade individual do cliente.

✔ Plano de Acompanhamento

Instruções detalhadas sobre o uso correto dos óleos essenciais.

Orientação sobre frequência e duração do tratamento.

Possibilidade de retorno para ajustes no protocolo.

A consulta pode ser realizada presencialmente ou online, dependendo do profissional.

---

Quer saber como a Aromaterapia pode te ajudar? Agende uma consulta comigo e descubra os benefícios dos óleos essenciais para o seu bem-estar!

@ 291c75d9:37f1bfbe

In 1727, a 21-year-old Benjamin Franklin gathered a dozen men in Philadelphia for a bold experiment in intellectual and civic growth. Every Friday night, this group—known as the Junto, from the Spanish juntar ("to join")—met in a tavern or private home to discuss "Morals, Politics, or Natural Philosophy (science)." Far from a casual social club, the Junto was a secret society dedicated to mutual improvement, respectful discourse, and community betterment. What began as a small gathering of tradesmen and thinkers would leave a lasting mark on Franklin’s life and colonial America.

Printers are educated in the belief that when men differ in opinion, both sides ought equally to have the advantage of being heard by the public, and that when Truth and Error have fair play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter.

- Benjamin Franklin

The Junto operated under a clear set of rules, detailed by Franklin in his Autobiography:

"The rules that I drew up required that every member, in his turn, should produce one or more queries on any point of Morals, Politics, or Natural Philosophy, to be discuss’d by the company; and once in three months produce and read an essay of his own writing, on any subject he pleased. Our debates were to be under the direction of a president, and to be conducted in the sincere spirit of inquiry after truth, without fondness for dispute, or desire of victory; and, to prevent warmth [heatedness], all expressions of positiveness in opinions, or direct contradiction, were after some time made contraband and prohibited under small pecuniary penalties [monetary fines]."

These guidelines emphasized collaboration over competition. Members were expected to contribute questions or essays, sparking discussions that prioritized truth over ego. To keep debates civil, the group even imposed small fines for overly assertive or contradictory behavior—a practical nudge toward humility and open-mindedness. (Yes, I believe that is an ass tax!)

Rather than admitting new members, Franklin encouraged existing ones to form their own discussion groups. This created a decentralized network of groups ("private relays," as I think of them), echoing the structure of modern platforms like NOSTR—while preserving the Junto’s exclusivity and privacy.

From the beginning, they made it a rule to keep these meetings secret, without applications or admittance of new members. Instead, Franklin encouraged members to form their own groups—in a way acting as private relays of sorts. (I say "private" because they continued to keep the Junto secret, even with these new groups.)

Membership: A Diverse Circle United by Values

The Junto’s twelve founding members came from varied walks of life—printers, surveyors, shoemakers, and clerks—yet shared a commitment to self-improvement. Franklin, though the youngest (around 21 when the group formed), led the Junto with a vision of collective growth. To join, candidates faced a simple vetting process, answering four key questions:

1. Have you any particular disrespect for any present members? Answer: I have not.
2. Do you sincerely declare that you love mankind in general, of what profession or religion soever? Answer: I do.
3. Do you think any person ought to be harmed in his body, name, or goods, for mere speculative opinions, or his external way of worship? Answer: No.
4. Do you love truth for truth’s sake, and will you endeavor impartially to find and receive it yourself and communicate it to others? Answer: Yes.

These criteria reveal the Junto’s core values: respect, tolerance, and an unwavering pursuit of truth. They ensured that members brought not just intellect but also character to the table—placing dialogue as the priority.

One should also note the inspiration from the "Dry Club" of John Locke, William Popple, and Benjamin Furly in the 1690s. They too required affirmation to:

1. Whether he loves all men, of what profession or religion soever?
2. Whether he thinks no person ought to be harmed in his body, name, or goods, for mere speculative opinions, or his external way of worship?
3. Whether he loves and seeks truth for truth’s sake; and will endeavor impartially to find and receive it himself, and to communicate it to others?

And they agreed: "That no person or opinion be unhandsomely reflected on; but every member behave himself with all the temper, judgment, modesty, and discretion he is master of."

The Discussions: 24 Questions to Spark Insight

Franklin crafted a list of 24 questions to guide the Junto’s conversations, ranging from personal anecdotes to civic concerns. These prompts showcase the group’s intellectual breadth. Here are some of my favorites:

Hath any citizen in your knowledge failed in his business lately, and what have you heard of the cause?

Have you lately heard of any citizen’s thriving well, and by what means?

Do you know of any fellow citizen who has lately done a worthy action, deserving praise and imitation?

Do you think of anything at present in which the Junto may be serviceable to mankind, their country, friends, or themselves?

Have you lately observed any defect in the laws of your country, which it would be proper to move the legislature for an amendment?

Do you know of any deserving young beginner lately set up, whom it lies in the power of the Junto any way to encourage?

(Read them all here.)

Note the keen attention to success and failure, and the reflection on both. Attention was often placed on the community and individual improvement beyond the members of the group. These questions encouraged members to share knowledge, reflect on virtues and vices, and propose solutions to real-world problems. The result? Discussions that didn’t just end at the tavern door but inspired tangible community improvements.

The Junto’s Legacy: America’s First Lending Library

One of the Junto’s most enduring contributions to Philadelphia—and indeed, to the American colonies—was the creation of the first lending library in 1731. Born from the group’s commitment to mutual improvement and knowledge-sharing, this library became a cornerstone of public education and intellectual life in the community.

The idea for the library emerged naturally from the Junto’s discussions. Members, who came from diverse backgrounds but shared a passion for learning, recognized that their own access to books was often limited and costly—and they referred to them often. To address this, they proposed pooling their personal collections to create a shared resource. This collaborative effort allowed them—and eventually the broader public—to access a wider range of books than any individual could afford alone.

The library operated on a simple yet revolutionary principle: knowledge should be available to all, regardless of wealth or status. By creating a lending system, the Junto democratized access to information, fostering a culture of self-education and curiosity. This was especially significant at a time when books were scarce and formal education was not universally accessible.

The success of the Junto’s library inspired similar initiatives across the colonies, laying the groundwork for the public library system we know today. It also reflected the group’s broader mission: to serve not just its members but the entire community. The library became a symbol of the Junto’s belief in the power of education to uplift individuals and society alike.

With roots extending back to the founding of the Society in 1743, the Library of the American Philosophical Society houses over thirteen million manuscripts, 350,000 volumes and bound periodicals, 250,000 images, and thousands of hours of audiotape. The Library’s holdings make it one of the premier institutions for documenting the history of the American Revolution and Founding, the study of natural history in the 18th and 19th centuries, the study of evolution and genetics, quantum mechanics, and the development of cultural anthropology, among others.

The American Philosophical Society Library continues today. I hope to visit it myself in the future.

Freedom, for Community

Comparing the Junto to Nostr shows how the tools of community and debate evolve with time. Both prove that people crave spaces to connect, share, and grow—whether in a colonial tavern or a digital relay. Yet their differences reveal trade-offs: the Junto’s structure offered depth and focus but capped its reach, while Nostr’s openness promises scale at the cost of order.

In a sense, Nostr feels like the Junto’s modern echo—faster, bigger, and unbound by gates or rules. Franklin might admire its ambition, even if he’d raise an eyebrow at its messiness. For us, the comparison underscores a timeless truth: no matter the medium, the drive to seek truth and build community endures.

---

The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin (1771–1790, pub. 1791)

http://www.benjamin-franklin-history.org/junto-club/

Benjamin Franklin, Political, Miscellaneous, and Philosophical Pieces, ed. Benjamin Vaughan (London: 1779), pp. 533–536.

"Rules of a Society" in The Remains of John Locke, Esq. (1714), p. 113

npubpro

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Auf der diesjährigen Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz geht es vor allem um die Ukraine. Protagonisten sind dabei zunächst die US-Amerikaner. Präsident Trump schockierte die Europäer kurz vorher durch ein Telefonat mit seinem Amtskollegen Wladimir Putin, während Vizepräsident Vance mit seiner Rede über Demokratie und Meinungsfreiheit für versteinerte Mienen und Empörung sorgte.

Die Bemühungen der Europäer um einen Frieden in der Ukraine halten sich, gelinde gesagt, in Grenzen. Größeres Augenmerk wird auf militärische Unterstützung, die Pflege von Feindbildern sowie Eskalation gelegt. Der deutsche Bundeskanzler Scholz reagierte auf die angekündigten Verhandlungen über einen möglichen Frieden für die Ukraine mit der Forderung nach noch höheren «Verteidigungsausgaben». Auch die amtierende Außenministerin Baerbock hatte vor der Münchner Konferenz klargestellt:

«Frieden wird es nur durch Stärke geben. (...) Bei Corona haben wir gesehen, zu was Europa fähig ist. Es braucht erneut Investitionen, die der historischen Wegmarke, vor der wir stehen, angemessen sind.»

Die Rüstungsindustrie freut sich in jedem Fall über weltweit steigende Militärausgaben. Die Kriege in der Ukraine und in Gaza tragen zu Rekordeinnahmen bei. Jetzt «winkt die Aussicht auf eine jahrelange große Nachrüstung in Europa», auch wenn der Ukraine-Krieg enden sollte, so hört man aus Finanzkreisen. In der Konsequenz kennt «die Aktie des deutschen Vorzeige-Rüstungskonzerns Rheinmetall in ihrem Anstieg offenbar gar keine Grenzen mehr». «Solche Friedensversprechen» wie das jetzige hätten in der Vergangenheit zu starken Kursverlusten geführt.

Für manche Leute sind Kriegswaffen und sonstige Rüstungsgüter Waren wie alle anderen, jedenfalls aus der Perspektive von Investoren oder Managern. Auch in diesem Bereich gibt es Startups und man spricht von Dingen wie innovativen Herangehensweisen, hocheffizienten Produktionsanlagen, skalierbaren Produktionstechniken und geringeren Stückkosten.

Wir lesen aktuell von Massenproduktion und gesteigerten Fertigungskapazitäten für Kriegsgerät. Der Motor solcher Dynamik und solchen Wachstums ist die Aufrüstung, die inzwischen permanent gefordert wird. Parallel wird die Bevölkerung verbal eingestimmt und auf Kriegstüchtigkeit getrimmt.

Das Rüstungs- und KI-Startup Helsing verkündete kürzlich eine «dezentrale Massenproduktion für den Ukrainekrieg». Mit dieser Expansion positioniere sich das Münchner Unternehmen als einer der weltweit führenden Hersteller von Kampfdrohnen. Der nächste «Meilenstein» steht auch bereits an: Man will eine Satellitenflotte im Weltraum aufbauen, zur Überwachung von Gefechtsfeldern und Truppenbewegungen.

Ebenfalls aus München stammt das als DefenseTech-Startup bezeichnete Unternehmen ARX Robotics. Kürzlich habe man in der Region die größte europäische Produktionsstätte für autonome Verteidigungssysteme eröffnet. Damit fahre man die Produktion von Militär-Robotern hoch. Diese Expansion diene auch der Lieferung der «größten Flotte unbemannter Bodensysteme westlicher Bauart» in die Ukraine.

Rüstung boomt und scheint ein Zukunftsmarkt zu sein. Die Hersteller und Vermarkter betonen, mit ihren Aktivitäten und Produkten solle die europäische Verteidigungsfähigkeit erhöht werden. Ihre Strategien sollten sogar «zum Schutz demokratischer Strukturen beitragen».

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Nur wenn wir aufeinander zugehen, haben wir die Chance \ auf Überwindung der gegenseitigen Ressentiments! \ Dr. med. dent. Jens Knipphals

In Wolfsburg sollte es kürzlich eine Gesprächsrunde von Kritikern der Corona-Politik mit Oberbürgermeister Dennis Weilmann und Vertretern der Stadtverwaltung geben. Der Zahnarzt und langjährige Maßnahmenkritiker Jens Knipphals hatte diese Einladung ins Rathaus erwirkt und publiziert. Seine Motivation:

«Ich möchte die Spaltung der Gesellschaft überwinden. Dazu ist eine umfassende Aufarbeitung der Corona-Krise in der Öffentlichkeit notwendig.»

Schon früher hatte Knipphals Antworten von den Kommunalpolitikern verlangt, zum Beispiel bei öffentlichen Bürgerfragestunden. Für das erwartete Treffen im Rathaus formulierte er Fragen wie: Warum wurden fachliche Argumente der Kritiker ignoriert? Weshalb wurde deren Ausgrenzung, Diskreditierung und Entmenschlichung nicht entgegengetreten? In welcher Form übernehmen Rat und Verwaltung in Wolfsburg persönlich Verantwortung für die erheblichen Folgen der politischen Corona-Krise?

Der Termin fand allerdings nicht statt – der Bürgermeister sagte ihn kurz vorher wieder ab. Knipphals bezeichnete Weilmann anschließend als Wiederholungstäter, da das Stadtoberhaupt bereits 2022 zu einem Runden Tisch in der Sache eingeladen hatte, den es dann nie gab. Gegenüber Multipolar erklärte der Arzt, Weilmann wolle scheinbar eine öffentliche Aufarbeitung mit allen Mitteln verhindern. Er selbst sei «inzwischen absolut desillusioniert» und die einzige Lösung sei, dass die Verantwortlichen gingen.

Die Aufarbeitung der Plandemie beginne bei jedem von uns selbst, sei aber letztlich eine gesamtgesellschaftliche Aufgabe, schreibt Peter Frey, der den «Fall Wolfsburg» auch in seinem Blog behandelt. Diese Aufgabe sei indes deutlich größer, als viele glaubten. Erfreulicherweise sei der öffentliche Informationsraum inzwischen größer, trotz der weiterhin unverfrorenen Desinformations-Kampagnen der etablierten Massenmedien.

Frey erinnert daran, dass Dennis Weilmann mitverantwortlich für gravierende Grundrechtseinschränkungen wie die 2021 eingeführten 2G-Regeln in der Wolfsburger Innenstadt zeichnet. Es sei naiv anzunehmen, dass ein Funktionär einzig im Interesse der Bürger handeln würde. Als früherer Dezernent des Amtes für Wirtschaft, Digitalisierung und Kultur der Autostadt kenne Weilmann zum Beispiel die Verknüpfung von Fördergeldern mit politischen Zielsetzungen gut.

Wolfsburg wurde damals zu einem Modellprojekt des Bundesministeriums des Innern (BMI) und war Finalist im Bitkom-Wettbewerb «Digitale Stadt». So habe rechtzeitig vor der Plandemie das Projekt «Smart City Wolfsburg» anlaufen können, das der Stadt «eine Vorreiterrolle für umfassende Vernetzung und Datenerfassung» aufgetragen habe, sagt Frey. Die Vereinten Nationen verkauften dann derartige «intelligente» Überwachungs- und Kontrollmaßnahmen ebenso als Rettung in der Not wie das Magazin Forbes im April 2020:

«Intelligente Städte können uns helfen, die Coronavirus-Pandemie zu bekämpfen. In einer wachsenden Zahl von Ländern tun die intelligenten Städte genau das. Regierungen und lokale Behörden nutzen Smart-City-Technologien, Sensoren und Daten, um die Kontakte von Menschen aufzuspüren, die mit dem Coronavirus infiziert sind. Gleichzeitig helfen die Smart Cities auch dabei, festzustellen, ob die Regeln der sozialen Distanzierung eingehalten werden.»

Offensichtlich gibt es viele Aspekte zu bedenken und zu durchleuten, wenn es um die Aufklärung und Aufarbeitung der sogenannten «Corona-Pandemie» und der verordneten Maßnahmen geht. Frustration und Desillusion sind angesichts der Realitäten absolut verständlich. Gerade deswegen sind Initiativen wie die von Jens Knipphals so bewundernswert und so wichtig – ebenso wie eine seiner Kernthesen: «Wir müssen aufeinander zugehen, da hilft alles nichts».

---

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

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

There is something quietly rebellious about stacking sats. In a world obsessed with instant gratification, choosing to patiently accumulate Bitcoin, one sat at a time, feels like a middle finger to the hype machine. But to do it right, you have got to stay humble. Stack too hard with your head in the clouds, and you will trip over your own ego before the next halving even hits.

Small Wins

Stacking sats is not glamorous. Discipline. Stacking every day, week, or month, no matter the price, and letting time do the heavy lifting. Humility lives in that consistency. You are not trying to outsmart the market or prove you are the next "crypto" prophet. Just a regular person, betting on a system you believe in, one humble stack at a time. Folks get rekt chasing the highs. They ape into some shitcoin pump, shout about it online, then go silent when they inevitably get rekt. The ones who last? They stack. Just keep showing up. Consistency. Humility in action. Know the game is long, and you are not bigger than it.

Ego is Volatile

Bitcoin’s swings can mess with your head. One day you are up 20%, feeling like a genius and the next down 30%, questioning everything. Ego will have you panic selling at the bottom or over leveraging the top. Staying humble means patience, a true bitcoin zen. Do not try to "beat” Bitcoin. Ride it. Stack what you can afford, live your life, and let compounding work its magic.

Simplicity

There is a beauty in how stacking sats forces you to rethink value. A sat is worth less than a penny today, but every time you grab a few thousand, you plant a seed. It is not about flaunting wealth but rather building it, quietly, without fanfare. That mindset spills over. Cut out the noise: the overpriced coffee, fancy watches, the status games that drain your wallet. Humility is good for your soul and your stack. I have a buddy who has been stacking since 2015. Never talks about it unless you ask. Lives in a decent place, drives an old truck, and just keeps stacking. He is not chasing clout, he is chasing freedom. That is the vibe: less ego, more sats, all grounded in life.

The Big Picture

Stack those sats. Do it quietly, do it consistently, and do not let the green days puff you up or the red days break you down. Humility is the secret sauce, it keeps you grounded while the world spins wild. In a decade, when you look back and smile, it will not be because you shouted the loudest. It will be because you stayed the course, one sat at a time. \ \ Stay Humble and Stack Sats. 🫡

@ c48e29f0:26e14c11

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STRATEGIC BITCOIN RESERVE AND UNITED STATES DIGITAL ASSET STOCKPILE EXECUTIVE ORDER March 6, 2025

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Background.

Bitcoin is the original cryptocurrency. The Bitcoin protocol permanently caps the total supply of bitcoin (BTC) at 21 million coins, and has never been hacked. As a result of its scarcity and security, Bitcoin is often referred to as “digital gold”. Because there is a fixed supply of BTC, there is a strategic advantage to being among the first nations to create a strategic bitcoin reserve. The United States Government currently holds a significant amount of BTC, but has not implemented a policy to maximize BTC’s strategic position as a unique store of value in the global financial system. Just as it is in our country’s interest to thoughtfully manage national ownership and control of any other resource, our Nation must harness, not limit, the power of digital assets for our prosperity.

Sec. 2. Policy.

It is the policy of the United States to establish a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. It is further the policy of the United States to establish a United States Digital Asset Stockpile that can serve as a secure account for orderly and strategic management of the United States’ other digital asset holdings.

Sec. 3. Creation and Administration of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and United States Digital Asset Stockpile.

(a) The Secretary of the Treasury shall establish an office to administer and maintain control of custodial accounts collectively known as the “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve,” capitalized with all BTC held by the Department of the Treasury that was finally forfeited as part of criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings or in satisfaction of any civil money penalty imposed by any executive department or agency (agency) and that is not needed to satisfy requirements under 31 U.S.C. 9705 or released pursuant to subsection (d) of this section (Government BTC). Within 30 days of the date of this order, each agency shall review its authorities to transfer any Government BTC held by it to the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and shall submit a report reflecting the result of that review to the Secretary of the Treasury. Government BTC deposited into the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve shall not be sold and shall be maintained as reserve assets of the United States utilized to meet governmental objectives in accordance with applicable law.

(b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall establish an office to administer and maintain control of custodial accounts collectively known as the “United States Digital Asset Stockpile,” capitalized with all digital assets owned by the Department of the Treasury, other than BTC, that were finally forfeited as part of criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings and that are not needed to satisfy requirements under 31 U.S.C. 9705 or released pursuant to subsection (d) of this section (Stockpile Assets). Within 30 days of the date of this order, each agency shall review its authorities to transfer any Stockpile Assets held by it to the United States Digital Asset Stockpile and shall submit a report reflecting the result of that review to the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary of the Treasury shall determine strategies for responsible stewardship of the United States Digital Asset Stockpile in accordance with applicable law.

(c) The Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce shall develop strategies for acquiring additional Government BTC provided that such strategies are budget neutral and do not impose incremental costs on United States taxpayers. However, the United States Government shall not acquire additional Stockpile Assets other than in connection with criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings or in satisfaction of any civil money penalty imposed by any agency without further executive or legislative action.

(d) “Government Digital Assets” means all Government BTC and all Stockpile Assets. The head of each agency shall not sell or otherwise dispose of any Government Digital Assets, except in connection with the Secretary of the Treasury’s exercise of his lawful authority and responsible stewardship of the United States Digital Asset Stockpile pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, or pursuant to an order from a court of competent jurisdiction, as required by law, or in cases where the Attorney General or other relevant agency head determines that the Government Digital Assets (or the proceeds from the sale or disposition thereof) can and should: (i) be returned to identifiable and verifiable victims of crime; (ii) be used for law enforcement operations;
(iii) be equitably shared with State and local law enforcement partners; or (iv) be released to satisfy requirements under 31 U.S.C. 9705, 28 U.S.C. 524(c), 18 U.S.C. 981, or 21 U.S.C. 881.

(e) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury shall deliver an evaluation of the legal and investment considerations for establishing and managing the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and United States Digital Asset Stockpile going forward, including the accounts in which the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and United States Digital Asset Stockpile should be located and the need for any legislation to operationalize any aspect of this order or the proper management and administration of such accounts.

Sec. 4. Accounting.

Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall provide the Secretary of the Treasury and the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets with a full accounting of all Government Digital Assets in such agency’s possession, including any information regarding the custodial accounts in which such Government Digital Assets are currently held that would be necessary to facilitate a transfer of the Government Digital Assets to the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve or the United States Digital Asset Stockpile. If such agency holds no Government Digital Assets, such agency shall confirm such fact to the Secretary of the Treasury and the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets within 30 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 5. General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE, March 6, 2025

@ 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

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

The financial system has long relied on traditional banking methods, but emerging technologies like Bitcoin and Nostr are paving the way for a new era of financial interactions.

Secure Savings with Bitcoin:

Bitcoin wallets can act as secure savings accounts, offering users control and ownership over their funds without relying on third parties.

Instant Settlements with the Lightning Network:

The Lightning Network can replace traditional settlement systems, such as ACH or wire transfers, by enabling instant, low-cost transactions.

Face-to-Face Transactions with Ecash:

Ecash could offer a fee-free option for smaller, everyday transactions, complementing the Lightning Network for larger payments.

Automated Billing with Nostr Wallet Connect:

Nostr Wallet Connect could revolutionize automated billing, allowing users to set payment limits and offering more control over subscriptions and recurring expenses.

Conclusion:

Combining Bitcoin and Nostr technologies could create a more efficient, user-centric financial system that empowers individuals and businesses alike.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

This piece is the first in a series that will focus on things I think are a priority if your focus is similar to mine: building a strong family and safeguarding their future.

---

Choosing the ideal place to raise a family is one of the most significant decisions you will ever make. For simplicity sake I will break down my thought process into key factors: strong property rights, the ability to grow your own food, access to fresh water, the freedom to own and train with guns, and a dependable community.

A Jurisdiction with Strong Property Rights

Strong property rights are essential and allow you to build on a solid foundation that is less likely to break underneath you. Regions with a history of limited government and clear legal protections for landowners are ideal. Personally I think the US is the single best option globally, but within the US there is a wide difference between which state you choose. Choose carefully and thoughtfully, think long term. Obviously if you are not American this is not a realistic option for you, there are other solid options available especially if your family has mobility. I understand many do not have this capability to easily move, consider that your first priority, making movement and jurisdiction choice possible in the first place.

Abundant Access to Fresh Water

Water is life. I cannot overstate the importance of living somewhere with reliable, clean, and abundant freshwater. Some regions face water scarcity or heavy regulations on usage, so prioritizing a place where water is plentiful and your rights to it are protected is critical. Ideally you should have well access so you are not tied to municipal water supplies. In times of crisis or chaos well water cannot be easily shutoff or disrupted. If you live in an area that is drought prone, you are one drought away from societal chaos. Not enough people appreciate this simple fact.

Grow Your Own Food

A location with fertile soil, a favorable climate, and enough space for a small homestead or at the very least a garden is key. In stable times, a small homestead provides good food and important education for your family. In times of chaos your family being able to grow and raise healthy food provides a level of self sufficiency that many others will lack. Look for areas with minimal restrictions, good weather, and a culture that supports local farming.

Guns

The ability to defend your family is fundamental. A location where you can legally and easily own guns is a must. Look for places with a strong gun culture and a political history of protecting those rights. Owning one or two guns is not enough and without proper training they will be a liability rather than a benefit. Get comfortable and proficient. Never stop improving your skills. If the time comes that you must use a gun to defend your family, the skills must be instinct. Practice. Practice. Practice.

A Strong Community You Can Depend On

No one thrives alone. A ride or die community that rallies together in tough times is invaluable. Seek out a place where people know their neighbors, share similar values, and are quick to lend a hand. Lead by example and become a good neighbor, people will naturally respond in kind. Small towns are ideal, if possible, but living outside of a major city can be a solid balance in terms of work opportunities and family security.

---

Let me know if you found this helpful. My plan is to break down how I think about these five key subjects in future posts.

@ 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.

@ 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

@ 6389be64:ef439d32

GA, plebs. The latest episode of Bitcoin And is out, and, as always, the chicanery is running rampant. Let’s break down the biggest topics I covered, and if you want the full, unfiltered rant, make sure to listen to the episode linked below.

House Democrats’ MEME Act: A Bad Joke?

House Democrats are proposing a bill to ban presidential meme coins, clearly aimed at Trump’s and Melania’s ill-advised token launches. While grifters launching meme coins is bad, this bill is just as ridiculous. If this legislation moves forward, expect a retaliatory strike exposing how politicians like Pelosi and Warren mysteriously amassed their fortunes. Will it pass? Doubtful. But it’s another sign of the government’s obsession with regulating everything except itself.

Senate Banking’s First Digital Asset Hearing: The Real Target Is You

Cynthia Lummis chaired the first digital asset hearing, and—surprise!—it was all about control. The discussion centered on stablecoins, AML, and KYC regulations, with witnesses suggesting Orwellian measures like freezing stablecoin transactions unless pre-approved by authorities. What was barely mentioned? Bitcoin. They want full oversight of stablecoins, which is really about controlling financial freedom. Expect more nonsense targeting self-custody wallets under the guise of stopping “bad actors.”

Bank of America and PayPal Want In on Stablecoins

Bank of America’s CEO openly stated they’ll launch a stablecoin as soon as regulation allows. Meanwhile, PayPal’s CEO paid for a hat using Bitcoin—not their own stablecoin, Pi USD. Why wouldn’t he use his own product? Maybe he knows stablecoins aren’t what they’re hyped up to be. Either way, the legacy financial system is gearing up to flood the market with stablecoins, not because they love crypto, but because it’s a tool to extend U.S. dollar dominance.

MetaPlanet Buys the Dip

Japan’s MetaPlanet issued $13.4M in bonds to buy more Bitcoin, proving once again that institutions see the writing on the wall. Unlike U.S. regulators who obsess over stablecoins, some companies are actually stacking sats.

UK Expands Crypto Seizure Powers

Across the pond, the UK government is pushing legislation to make it easier to seize and destroy crypto linked to criminal activity. While they frame it as going after the bad guys, it’s another move toward centralized control and financial surveillance.

Bitcoin Tools & Tech: Arc, SatoChip, and Nunchuk

Some bullish Bitcoin developments: ARC v0.5 is making Bitcoin’s second layer more efficient, SatoChip now supports Taproot and Nostr, and Nunchuk launched a group wallet with chat, making multisig collaboration easier.

The Bottom Line

The state is coming for financial privacy and control, and stablecoins are their weapon of choice. Bitcoiners need to stay focused, keep their coins in self-custody, and build out parallel systems. Expect more regulatory attacks, but don’t let them distract you—just keep stacking and transacting in ways they can’t control.

🎧 Listen to the full episode here: https://fountain.fm/episode/PYITCo18AJnsEkKLz2Ks

💰 Support the show by boosting sats on Podcasting 2.0! and I will see you on the other side.

@ c8383d81:f9139549

Project is still in early stages but now it is split into 2 different domain entities. 
Everything is opened sourced under one github https://github.com/Nsite-Info

So what’s new ?

Project #1 https://Nsite.info

A basic website with main info regarding what an Nsite is how it works and a list of tools and repo’s you can use to start building and debugging.
99% Finished, needs some extra translations and the Nsite Debugger can use a small upgrade.



Project #2 https://Nsite.cloud

This project isn’t finished, it currently is at a 40% finished stage. This contains the Nsite Gateway for all sites (still a work in progress) and the final stage the Nsite editor & template deployment.

If you are interested in Nsite’s join: 

https://chachi.chat/groups.hzrd149.com/e23891

Big thanks to nostr:npub1elta7cneng3w8p9y4dw633qzdjr4kyvaparuyuttyrx6e8xp7xnq32cume nostr:npub1ye5ptcxfyyxl5vjvdjar2ua3f0hynkjzpx552mu5snj3qmx5pzjscpknpr nostr:npub1klr0dy2ul2dx9llk58czvpx73rprcmrvd5dc7ck8esg8f8es06qs427gxc for all the tooling & code.

!(image)[https://i.nostr.build/AkUvk7R2h9cVEMLB.png]

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Election Authority (EA) Platform

1.1 EA Administration Interface (Web-Based)

• Purpose: Gives authorized personnel (e.g., election officials) a user-friendly way to administer the election.
• Key Tasks:
• Voter Registration Oversight: Mark which voters have proven their identity (via in-person KYC or some legal process).
• Blind Signature Issuance: Approve or deny blind signature requests from registered voters (each corresponding to one ephemeral key).
• Tracking Voter Slots: Keep a minimal registry of who is allowed one ephemeral key signature, and mark it “used” once a signature is issued.
• Election Configuration: Set start/end times, provide encryption parameters (public keys), manage threshold cryptography setup.
• Monitor Tallying: After the election, collaborate with trustees to decrypt final results and release them.

1.2 EA Backend Services

• Blind Signature Service:
• An API endpoint or internal module that receives a blinded ephemeral key from a voter, checks if they are authorized (one signature per voter), and returns the blind-signed result.

• Typically requires secure storage of the EA’s blind signing private key.

• Voter Roll Database:

• Stores minimal info: “Voter #12345 is authorized to request one ephemeral key signature,” plus status flags.

• Does not store ephemeral keys themselves (to preserve anonymity).

• (Optional) Mix-Net or Homomorphic Tally Service:

• Coordinates with trustees for threshold decryption or re-encryption.
• Alternatively, a separate “Tally Authority” service can handle this.

---

2. Auditor Interface

2.1 Auditor Web-Based Portal

• Purpose: Allows independent auditors (or the public) to:
• Fetch All Ballots from the relays (or from an aggregator).
• Verify Proofs: Check each ballot’s signature, blind signature from the EA, OTS proof, zero-knowledge proofs, etc.
• Check Double-Usage: Confirm that each ephemeral key is used only once (or final re-vote is the only valid instance).

• Observe Tally Process: Possibly see partial decryptions or shuffle steps, verify the final result matches the posted ballots.

• Key Tasks:

• Provide a dashboard showing the election’s real-time status or final results, after cryptographic verification.
• Offer open data downloads so third parties can run independent checks.

2.2 (Optional) Trustee Dashboard

• If the election uses threshold cryptography (multiple parties must decrypt), each trustee (candidate rep, official, etc.) might have an interface for:
• Uploading partial decryption shares or re-encryption proofs.
• Checking that other trustees did their steps correctly (zero-knowledge proofs for correct shuffling, etc.).

---

3. Voter Application

3.1 Voter Client (Mobile App or Web Interface)

• Purpose: The main tool voters use to participate—before, during, and after the election.

• Functionalities:

• Registration Linking:
  • Voter goes in-person to an election office or uses an online KYC process.
  • Voter obtains or confirms their long-term (“KYC-bound”) key. The client can store it securely (or the voter just logs in to a “voter account”).
• Ephemeral Key Generation:
  • Create an ephemeral key pair ((nsec_e, npub_e)) locally.
  • Blind (\npub_e) and send it to the EA for signing.
  • Unblind the returned signature.
  • Store (\npub_e) + EA’s signature for use during voting.
• Ballot Composition:
  • Display candidates/offices to the voter.
  • Let them select choices.
  • Possibly generate zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) behind the scenes to confirm “exactly one choice per race.”
• Encryption & OTS Timestamp:
  • Encrypt the ballot under the election’s public (threshold) key or produce a format suitable for a mix-net.
  • Obtain an OpenTimestamps proof for the ballot’s hash.
• Publish Ballot:
  • Sign the entire “timestamped ballot” with the ephemeral key.
  • Include the EA’s blind signature on (\npub_e).
  • Post to the Nostr relays (or any chosen decentralized channel).
• Re-Voting:
  • If the user needs to change their vote, the client repeats the encryption + OTS step, publishes a new ballot with a strictly later OTS anchor.
• Verification:
  • After the election, the voter can check that their final ballot is present in the tally set.

3.2 Local Storage / Security

• The app must securely store:
• Ephemeral private key ((nsec_e)) until voting is complete.
• Potential backup/recovery mechanism if the phone is lost.
• Blind signature from the EA on (\npub_e).
• Potentially uses hardware security modules (HSM) or secure enclaves on the device.

---

4. Nostr Relays (or Equivalent Decentralized Layer)

• Purpose: Store and replicate voter-submitted ballots (events).
• Key Properties:
• Redundancy: Voters can post to multiple relays to mitigate censorship or downtime.
• Public Accessibility: Auditors, the EA, and the public can fetch all events to verify or tally.
• Event Filtering: By design, watchers can filter events with certain tags, e.g. “election: 2025 County Race,” ensuring they gather all ballots.

---

5. Threshold Cryptography Setup

5.1 Multi-Seg (Multi-Party) Key Generation

• Participants: Possibly the EA + major candidates + accredited observers.
• Process: A Distributed Key Generation (DKG) protocol that yields a single public encryption key.
• Private Key Shares: Each trustee holds a piece of the decryption key; no single party can decrypt alone.

5.2 Decryption / Tally Mechanism

• Homomorphic Approach:
• Ballots are additively encrypted.
• Summation of ciphertexts is done publicly.
• Trustees provide partial decryptions for the final sum.
• Mix-Net Approach:
• Ballots are collected.
• Multiple servers shuffle and re-encrypt them (each trustee verifies correctness).
• Final set is decrypted, but the link to each ephemeral key is lost.

5.3 Trustee Interfaces

• Separate or integrated into the auditor interface—each trustee logs in and provides their partial key share for decrypting the final result.
• Possibly combined with ZK proofs to confirm correct partial decryption or shuffling.

---

6. OpenTimestamps (OTS) or External Time Anchor

6.1 Aggregator Service

• Purpose: Receives a hash from the voter’s app, anchors it into a blockchain or alternative time-stamping system.
• Result: Returns a proof object that can later be used by any auditor to confirm the time/block height at which the hash was included.

6.2 Verifier Interface

• Could be part of the auditor tool or the voter client.
• Checks that each ballot’s OTS proof is valid and references a block/time prior to the election’s closing.

---

7. Registration Process (In-Person or Hybrid)

1. Voter presents ID physically at a polling station or a designated office (or an online KYC approach, if legally allowed).
2. EA official:
3. Confirms identity.
4. Links the voter to a “voter record” (Voter #12345).
5. Authorizes them for “1 ephemeral key blind-sign.”
6. Voter obtains or logs into the voter client:
7. The app or website might show “You are now cleared to request a blind signature from the EA.”
8. Voter later (or immediately) generates the ephemeral key and requests the blind signature.

---

8. Putting It All Together (High-Level Flow)

1. Key Setup
2. The EA + trustees run a DKG to produce the election public key.
3. Voter Registration
4. Voter is validated (ID check).
5. Marked as eligible in the EA database.
6. Blind-Signed Ephemeral Key
7. Voter’s client generates a key, blinds (\npub_e), obtains EA’s signature, unblinds.
8. Voting
9. Voter composes ballot, encrypts with the election public key.
10. Gets OTS proof for the ballot hash.
11. Voter’s ephemeral key signs the entire package (including EA’s signature on (\npub_e)).
12. Publishes to Nostr.
13. Re-Voting (Optional)
14. Same ephemeral key, new OTS timestamp.
15. Final ballot is whichever has the latest valid timestamp before closing.
16. Close of Election & Tally
17. EA announces closing.
18. Tally software (admin + auditors) collects ballots from Nostr, discards invalid duplicates.
19. Threshold decryption or mix-net to reveal final counts.
20. Publish final results and let auditors verify everything.

---

9. Summary of Major Components

Below is a succinct list:

1. EA Admin Platform
2. Web UI for officials (registration, blind signature issuing, final tally management).
3. Backend DB for voter records & authorized ephemeral keys.
4. Auditor/Trustee Platforms
5. Web interface for verifying ballots, partial decryption, and final results.
6. Voter Application (Mobile / Web)
7. Generating ephemeral keys, getting blind-signed, casting encrypted ballots, re-voting, verifying included ballots.
8. Nostr Relays (Decentralized Storage)
9. Where ballots (events) are published, replicated, and fetched for final tally.
10. Threshold Cryptography System
11. Multi-party DKG for the election key.
12. Protocols or services for partial decryption, mix-net, or homomorphic summation.
13. OpenTimestamps Aggregator
14. Service that returns a blockchain-anchored timestamp proof for each ballot’s hash.

Additional Implementation Considerations

• Security Hardening:
• Using hardware security modules (HSM) for the EA’s blind-signing key, for trustee shares, etc.
• Scalability:
• Handling large numbers of concurrent voters, large data flows to relays.
• User Experience:
• Minimizing cryptographic complexity for non-technical voters.
• Legal and Procedural:
• Compliance with local laws for in-person ID checks, mandatory paper backups (if any), etc.

---

Final Note

While each functional block can be designed and deployed independently (e.g., multiple aggregator services, multiple relays, separate tally servers), the key to a successful system is interoperability and careful orchestration of these components—ensuring strong security, a straightforward voter experience, and transparent auditing.

nostr:naddr1qqxnzde5xq6nzv348yunvv35qy28wue69uhnzv3h9cczuvpwxyargwpk8yhsygxpax4n544z4dk2f04lgn4xfvha5s9vvvg73p46s66x2gtfedttgvpsgqqqw4rs0rcnsu

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

Here’s a revised timeline of macro-level events from The Mandibles: A Family, 2029–2047 by Lionel Shriver, reimagined in a world where Bitcoin is adopted as a widely accepted form of money, altering the original narrative’s assumptions about currency collapse and economic control. In Shriver’s original story, the failure of Bitcoin is assumed amid the dominance of the bancor and the dollar’s collapse. Here, Bitcoin’s success reshapes the economic and societal trajectory, decentralizing power and challenging state-driven outcomes.

Part One: 2029–2032

• 2029 (Early Year)\ The United States faces economic strain as the dollar weakens against global shifts. However, Bitcoin, having gained traction emerges as a viable alternative. Unlike the original timeline, the bancor—a supranational currency backed by a coalition of nations—struggles to gain footing as Bitcoin’s decentralized adoption grows among individuals and businesses worldwide, undermining both the dollar and the bancor.

• 2029 (Mid-Year: The Great Renunciation)\ Treasury bonds lose value, and the government bans Bitcoin, labeling it a threat to sovereignty (mirroring the original bancor ban). However, a Bitcoin ban proves unenforceable—its decentralized nature thwarts confiscation efforts, unlike gold in the original story. Hyperinflation hits the dollar as the U.S. prints money, but Bitcoin’s fixed supply shields adopters from currency devaluation, creating a dual-economy split: dollar users suffer, while Bitcoin users thrive.

• 2029 (Late Year)\ Dollar-based inflation soars, emptying stores of goods priced in fiat currency. Meanwhile, Bitcoin transactions flourish in underground and online markets, stabilizing trade for those plugged into the bitcoin ecosystem. Traditional supply chains falter, but peer-to-peer Bitcoin networks enable local and international exchange, reducing scarcity for early adopters. The government’s gold confiscation fails to bolster the dollar, as Bitcoin’s rise renders gold less relevant.

• 2030–2031\ Crime spikes in dollar-dependent urban areas, but Bitcoin-friendly regions see less chaos, as digital wallets and smart contracts facilitate secure trade. The U.S. government doubles down on surveillance to crack down on bitcoin use. A cultural divide deepens: centralized authority weakens in Bitcoin-adopting communities, while dollar zones descend into lawlessness.

• 2032\ By this point, Bitcoin is de facto legal tender in parts of the U.S. and globally, especially in tech-savvy or libertarian-leaning regions. The federal government’s grip slips as tax collection in dollars plummets—Bitcoin’s traceability is low, and citizens evade fiat-based levies. Rural and urban Bitcoin hubs emerge, while the dollar economy remains fractured.

Time Jump: 2032–2047

• Over 15 years, Bitcoin solidifies as a global reserve currency, eroding centralized control. The U.S. government adapts, grudgingly integrating bitcoin into policy, though regional autonomy grows as Bitcoin empowers local economies.

Part Two: 2047

• 2047 (Early Year)\ The U.S. is a hybrid state: Bitcoin is legal tender alongside a diminished dollar. Taxes are lower, collected in BTC, reducing federal overreach. Bitcoin’s adoption has decentralized power nationwide. The bancor has faded, unable to compete with Bitcoin’s grassroots momentum.

• 2047 (Mid-Year)\ Travel and trade flow freely in Bitcoin zones, with no restrictive checkpoints. The dollar economy lingers in poorer areas, marked by decay, but Bitcoin’s dominance lifts overall prosperity, as its deflationary nature incentivizes saving and investment over consumption. Global supply chains rebound, powered by bitcoin enabled efficiency.

• 2047 (Late Year)\ The U.S. is a patchwork of semi-autonomous zones, united by Bitcoin’s universal acceptance rather than federal control. Resource scarcity persists due to past disruptions, but economic stability is higher than in Shriver’s original dystopia—Bitcoin’s success prevents the authoritarian slide, fostering a freer, if imperfect, society.

Key Differences

• Currency Dynamics: Bitcoin’s triumph prevents the bancor’s dominance and mitigates hyperinflation’s worst effects, offering a lifeline outside state control.
• Government Power: Centralized authority weakens as Bitcoin evades bans and taxation, shifting power to individuals and communities.
• Societal Outcome: Instead of a surveillance state, 2047 sees a decentralized, bitcoin driven world—less oppressive, though still stratified between Bitcoin haves and have-nots.

This reimagining assumes Bitcoin overcomes Shriver’s implied skepticism to become a robust, adopted currency by 2029, fundamentally altering the novel’s bleak trajectory.

@ 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

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

1. Introduction

Modern election systems must balance privacy (no one sees how individuals vote) with public verifiability (everyone can confirm the correctness of the tally). Achieving this in a decentralized, tamper-resistant manner remains a challenge. Nostr (a lightweight protocol for censorship-resistant communication) offers a promising platform for distributing and archiving election data (ballots) without relying on a single central server.

This paper presents a design where:

1. Each voter generates a new ephemeral Nostr keypair for an election.
2. The election authority (EA) blind-signs this ephemeral public key (npub) to prove the voter is authorized, without revealing which voter owns which ephemeral key.
3. Voters cast encrypted ballots to Nostr relays, each carrying an OpenTimestamps proof to confirm the ballot’s time anchor.
4. Re-voting is allowed: a voter can replace a previously cast ballot by publishing a new ballot with a newer timestamp.
5. Only the latest valid ballot (per ephemeral key) is counted.

We combine well-known cryptographic primitives—blind signatures, homomorphic or mix-net encryption, threshold key management, and time anchoring—into an end-to-end system that preserves anonymity, assures correctness, and prevents double-voting.

---

2. Roles and Components

2.1 Voters

• Long-Term (“KYC-bound”) Key: Each voter has some identity-verified Nostr public key used only for official communication with the EA (not for voting).
• Ephemeral Voting Key: For each election, the voter locally generates a new Nostr keypair ((nsec_e, npub_e)).
• This is the “one-time” identity used to sign ballots.
• The EA never learns the real identity behind (\npub_e) because of blinding.

2.2 Election Authority (EA)

• Maintains the official voter registry: who is entitled to vote.
• Blind-Signs each valid voter’s ephemeral public key to authorize exactly one ephemeral key per voter.
• Publishes a minimal voter roll: e.g., “Voter #12345 has been issued a valid ephemeral key,” without revealing which ephemeral key.

2.3 Nostr Relays

• Decentralized servers that store and forward events.
• Voters post their ballots to relays, which replicate them.
• No single relay is critical; the same ballot can be posted to multiple relays for redundancy.

2.4 Cryptographic Framework

1. Blind Signatures: The EA signs a blinded version of (\npub_e).
2. Homomorphic or Mix-Net Encryption: Ensures the content of each ballot remains private; only aggregate results or a shuffled set are ever decrypted.
3. Threshold / General Access Structure: Multiple trustees (EA plus candidate representatives, for example) must collaborate to produce a final decryption.
4. OpenTimestamps (OTS): Attaches a verifiable timestamp proof to each ballot, anchoring it to a blockchain or other tamper-resistant time reference.

---

3. Protocol Lifecycle

This section walks through voter registration, ephemeral key authorization, casting (and re-casting) ballots, and finally the tally.

3.1 Registration & Minimal Voter Roll

1. Legal/KYC Verification
2. Each real-world voter proves their identity to the EA (per legal procedures).

3. The EA records that the voter is eligible to cast one ballot, referencing their long-term identity key ((\npub_{\mathrm{KYC}})).

4. Issue Authorization “Slot”

5. The EA’s voter roll notes “this person can receive exactly one blind signature for an ephemeral key.”
6. The roll does not store an ephemeral key—just notes that it can be requested.

3.2 Generating and Blinding the Ephemeral Key

1. Voter Creates Ephemeral Key
2. Locally, the voter’s client generates a fresh ((nsec_e, npub_e)).
3. Blinding

4. The client blinds (\npub_e) to produce (\npub_{e,\mathrm{blinded}}). This ensures the EA cannot learn the real (\npub_e).

5. Blind Signature Request

6. The voter, using their KYC-bound key ((\npub_{\mathrm{KYC}})), sends (\npub_{e,\mathrm{blinded}}) to the EA (perhaps via a secure direct message or a “giftwrapped DM”).
7. The EA checks that this voter has not already been issued a blind signature.

8. If authorized, the EA signs (\npub_{e,\mathrm{blinded}}) with its private key and returns the blinded signature.

9. Unblinding

10. The voter’s client unblinds the signature, obtaining a valid signature on (\npub_e).

11. Now (\npub_e) is a blinded ephemeral public key that the EA has effectively “authorized,” without knowing which voter it belongs to.

12. Roll Update

13. The EA updates its minimal roll to note that “Voter #12345 received a signature,” but does not publish (\npub_e).

3.3 Casting an Encrypted Ballot with OpenTimestamps

When the voter is ready to vote:

1. Compose Encrypted Ballot
2. The ballot can be homomorphically encrypted (e.g., with Paillier or ElGamal) or structured for a mix-net.

3. Optionally include Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) showing the ballot is valid (one candidate per race, etc.).

4. Obtain OTS Timestamp

5. The voter’s client computes a hash (H) of the ballot data (ciphertext + ZKPs).
6. The client sends (H) to an OpenTimestamps aggregator.

7. The aggregator returns a timestamp proof verifying that “this hash was seen at or before block/time (T).”

8. Create a “Timestamped Ballot” Payload

9. Combine:

   1. Encrypted ballot data.
   2. OTS proof for the hash of the ballot.
   3. EA’s signature on (\npub_e) (the blind-signed ephemeral key).
   4. A final signature by the voter’s ephemeral key ((nsec_e)) over the entire package.

10. Publish to Nostr

11. The voter posts the complete “timestamped ballot” event to one or more relays.
12. Observers see “an event from ephemeral key (\npub_e), with an OTS proof and the EA’s blind signature,” but cannot identify the real voter or see the vote’s contents.

3.4 Re-Voting (Updating the Ballot)

If the voter wishes to revise their vote (due to coercion, a mistake, or simply a change of mind):

1. Generate a New Encrypted Ballot
2. Possibly with different candidate choices.
3. Obtain a New OTS Proof
4. The new ballot has a fresh hash (H').
5. The OTS aggregator provides a new proof anchored at a later block/time than the old one.
6. Publish the Updated Ballot
7. Again, sign with (\npub_e).
8. Relays store both ballots, but the newer OTS timestamp shows which ballot is “final.”

Rule: The final vote for ephemeral key (\npub_e) is determined by the ballot with the highest valid OTS proof prior to the election’s closing.

3.5 Election Closing & Tally

1. Close Signal
2. At a specified time or block height, the EA publishes a “closing token.”

3. Any ballot with an OTS anchor referencing a time/block after the closing is invalid.

4. Collect Final Ballots

5. Observers (or official tally software) gather the latest valid ballot from each ephemeral key.

6. They confirm the OTS proofs are valid and that no ephemeral key posted two different ballots with the same timestamp.

7. Decryption / Summation

8. If homomorphic, the system sums the encrypted votes and uses a threshold of trustees to decrypt the aggregate.
9. If a mix-net, the ballots are shuffled and partially decrypted, also requiring multiple trustees.

10. In either case, individual votes remain hidden, but the final counts are revealed.

11. Public Audit

12. Anyone can fetch all ballots from the Nostr relays, verify OTS proofs, check the EA’s blind signature, and confirm no ephemeral key was used twice.
13. The final totals can be recomputed from the publicly available data.

---

4. Ensuring One Vote Per Voter & No Invalid Voters

1. One Blind Signature per Registered Voter
2. The EA’s internal list ensures each real voter only obtains one ephemeral key signature.
3. Blind Signature
4. Ensures an unauthorized ephemeral key cannot pass validation (forging the EA’s signature is cryptographically infeasible).
5. Public Ledger of Ballots
6. Because each ballot references an EA-signed key, any ballot with a fake or duplicate signature is easily spotted.

---

5. Security and Privacy Analysis

1. Voter Anonymity
2. The EA never sees the unblinded ephemeral key. It cannot link (\npub_e) to a specific person.

3. Observers only see “some ephemeral key posted a ballot,” not the real identity of the voter.

4. Ballot Secrecy

5. Homomorphic Encryption or Mix-Net: no one can decrypt an individual ballot; only aggregated or shuffled results are revealed.

6. The ephemeral key used for signing does not decrypt the ballot—the election’s threshold key does, after the election.

7. Verifiable Timestamping

8. OpenTimestamps ensures each ballot’s time anchor cannot be forged or backdated.

9. Re-voting is transparent: a later OTS proof overrides earlier ones from the same ephemeral key.

10. Preventing Double Voting

11. Each ephemeral key is unique and authorized once.

12. Re-voting by the same key overwrites the old ballot but does not increase the total count.

13. Protection Against Coercion

14. Because the voter can re-cast until the deadline, a coerced vote can be replaced privately.

15. No receipts (individual decryption) are possible—only the final aggregated tally is revealed.

16. Threshold / Multi-Party Control

17. Multiple trustees must collaborate to decrypt final results, preventing a single entity from tampering or prematurely viewing partial tallies.

---

6. Implementation Considerations

1. Blind Signature Techniques
2. Commonly implemented with RSA-based Chaumian blind signatures or BLS-based schemes.

3. Must ensure no link between (\npub_{e,\mathrm{blinded}}) and (\npub_e).

4. OpenTimestamps Scalability

5. If millions of voters are posting ballots simultaneously, multiple timestamp aggregators or batch anchoring might be needed.

6. Verification logic on the client side or by public auditors must confirm each OTS proof’s integrity.

7. Relay Coordination

8. The system must ensure no single relay can censor ballots. Voters may publish to multiple relays.

9. Tally fetchers cross-verify events from different relays.

10. Ease of Use

11. The user interface must hide the complexity of ephemeral key generation, blind signing, and OTS proof retrieval—making it as simple as possible for non-technical voters.

12. Legal Framework

13. If law requires publicly listing which voters have cast a ballot, you might track “Voter #12345 used their ephemeral key” without revealing the ephemeral key. Or you omit that if secrecy about who voted is desired.

14. Closing Time Edge Cases

15. The system uses a block/time anchor from OTS. Slight unpredictability in block generation might require a small buffer around the official close. This is a policy choice.

---

7. Conclusion

We propose an election system that leverages Nostr for decentralizing ballot publication, blinded ephemeral keys for robust voter anonymity, homomorphic/mix-net encryption for ballot secrecy, threshold cryptography for collaborative final decryption, OpenTimestamps for tamper-proof time anchoring, and re-voting to combat coercion.

Key Advantages:

1. Anonymity: The EA cannot link ballots to specific voters.
2. One Voter, One Credential: Strict enforcement through blind signatures.
3. Verifiable Ordering: OTS ensures each ballot has a unique, provable time anchor.
4. Updatability: Voters can correct or override coerced ballots by posting a newer one before closing.
5. Decentralized Audit: Anyone can fetch ballots from Nostr, verify the EA’s signatures and OTS proofs, and confirm the threshold-decrypted results match the posted ballots.

Such a design shows promise for secure, privacy-preserving digital elections, though real-world deployment will require careful policy, legal, and usability considerations. By combining cryptography with decentralized relays and an external timestamp anchor, the system can uphold both individual privacy and publicly auditable correctness.