@ 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

@ c9badfea:610f861a

• Bitcoin Exchanges
• Bitcoin Wallets
• Bitcoin Circular Economies
• Nostr Apps

ℹ️ To add profiles to the follow packs, please leave a comment

@ 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

@ 9223d2fa:b57e3de7

11,668 steps

@ 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! 🌸

@ f1989a96:bcaaf2c1

Good morning, readers!

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

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

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

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

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

SUBSCRIBE HERE

GLOBAL NEWS

Belarus | Launching CBDC in Late 2026

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

Russia | Proposes Digital Asset Exchange Exclusively for Wealthy Investors

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

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

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

Zambia | Introduces Cyber Law to Track and Intercept Digital Communications

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

India | Central Bank Deputy Governor Praises CBDC Capabilities

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

Tanzania | Opposition Party Excluded From Election Amid Financial Repression

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

BITCOIN AND FREEDOM TECH NEWS

Samiz | Create a Bluetooth Mesh Network with Nostr

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

Spark | New Bitcoin Payments Protocol Now Live

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

Boltz | Now Supports Nostr Zaps

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

Coinswap | Adds Support for Coin Selection

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

bitcoin++ | Upcoming Bitcoin Developer Conference

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

OpenSats | Announces 11th Wave of Nostr Grants

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

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

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

RECOMMENDED CONTENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe to newsletter

Apply for a grant

Support our work

Visit our website

@ 2e941ad1:fac7c2d0

Unlocks: 29

@ 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

@ 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

@ 000002de:c05780a7

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIMZH7DEPPQ

I really enjoy listening to non-technical people talk about technology when they get the bigger picture impacts and how it relates to our humanity.

I was reminded of this video by @k00b's post about an AI generated video of a victim forgiving his killer.

Piper says, "Computers are better at words than you. Than I". But they are machines. They cannot feel. They cannot have emotion.

This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me

~ Matthew 15:8

Most of us hate it when people are fake with us. When they say things they don't mean. When they say things just to get something they want from us. Yet, we are quickly falling into this same trap with technology. Accepting it as real and human. I'm not suggesting we can't use technology but we have to be careful that we do not fall into this mechanical trap and forget what makes humans special.

We are emotional and spiritual beings. Though AI didn't exist during the times Jesus walked the earth read the verse above in a broader context.

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

“‘This people honors me with their lips,

but their heart is far from me;

in vain do they worship me,

teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

Empty words. Words without meaning because they are not from a pure desire and love. You may not be a Christian but don't miss the significance of this. There is a value in being real. Sharing true emotion and heart. Don't fall into the trap of the culture of lies that surrounds us. I would rather hear true words with mistakes and less eloquence any day over something fake. I would rather share a real moment with the ones I love than a million fake moments. Embrace the messy imperfect but real world.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973324

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

One of the best first rounds in recent memory just concluded. Let's recap our playoff contests.

Bracket Challenge

In our joint contest with Global Sports Central, @WeAreAllSatoshi is leading the way with 85 points, while me and some nostr jabroni are tied for second with 80 points.

The bad news is that they are slightly ahead of us, with an average score of 62 to our 60.8. We need to go back in time and make less stupid picks.

Points Challenge

With the Warriors victory, I jumped into a commanding lead over @grayruby. LA sure let most of you down. I say you hold @realBitcoinDog responsible for his beloved hometown's failures.

I still need @Car and @Coinsreporter to make their picks for this round. The only matchup they can choose from is Warriors (7) @ Timberwolves (6). Lucky for them, that's probably the best one to choose from.

| Stacker | Points | |---------|--------| | @Undisciplined | 25| | @grayruby | 24| | @Coinsreporter | 19 | | @BlokchainB | 19| | @Carresan | 18 | | @gnilma | 18 | | @WeAreAllSatoshi | 12 | | @fishious | 11 | | @Car | 1 |

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973284

@ 8671a6e5:f88194d1

"I tried pasting my login key into the text field, but no luck—it just wouldn't work. Turns out, the login field becomes completely unusable whenever the on-screen keyboard shows up on my phone. So either no one ever bothered to test this on a phone, or they did and thought, ‘Eh, who needs to actually log in anyway?’."

### \ \ Develop and evolve

Any technology or industry at the forefront of innovation faces the same struggle. Idealists, inventors, and early adopters jump in first, working to make things usable for the technical crowd. Only later do the products begin to take shape for the average user.

Bitcoin’s dropping the Ball on usability (and user-experience)

First, we have to acknowledge the progress we've made. Bitcoin has come a long way in terms of usability—no doubt about it. Even if I still think it’s bad, it’s nowhere near as terrible as it was ten or more years ago. The days of printing a paper wallet from some shady website and hoping it would still work months or years later are behind us. The days of buggy software never getting fixed are mostly over.

The Bitcoin technology itself made progress through many BIPs (Bitcoin Improvement Proposals) and combined with an increasing number of apps, devs, websites and related networks (Liquid, Lightning, Nostr, ....) we can say that we're seeing a strong ecosystem going its way. The ecosystem is alive and expanding, and technically, things are clearly working. The problem is that we’re still building with a mindset where developers and project managers consider usability—but don’t truly care about it in practice. They don’t lead with it. (Yes, there are always exceptions.)

All that progress looks cool, when you see the latest releases of hardware wallets, software wallets, exchanges, nostr clients and services built purely for bitcoin, you're usually thinking that we've progressed nicely. But I want to focus on the downside of all these shiny tools. Because if Bitcoin has made it this far, it’s mostly thanks to people who deeply understand its value and are stubborn enough to push through the friction. They don’t give up when the user experience sucks.

Many bitcoiners completely lost their perspective on the software front in my opinion. Because we could have been so much further ahead, and we didn't because some of the most important components on the user-facing side of Bitcoin (arguably the most important part) hasn’t kept pace with the popularity and possible growth. And that should be a great concern, because Bitcoin is meant to be open and accessible. The blockchain is public. This is supposed to be for everyone. This is an open ledger technology so in theory everything is user-facing to one extent or another. Yet we fail on that front to make the glue stick. Somewhere, we’re easily amused by the tools we create, and often contains hurdles we can’t see or feel. While users reject it after 5 seconds tops.

We didn’t came a lot further yet, because we’ve ignored usability at its core (pun intended).

I’m not talking about usability in the “it works on my machine” sense. I’m talking about usability that meets the standard of modern apps. Think Spotify, Instagram, Uber, Gmail. Products that ordinary people use without reading a manual or digging through forums.

That’s the bar. We’re still far from it.

Bad UX scares your grandma away

… and that’s how many bitcoiners apparently like it.

Subsequently, when I say usability, I’m using it as an umbrella term. For me, it covers user experience, user interface, and real-life, full-cycle testing—from onboarding a brand new user to rolling out a new version of the app. And oh boy, our onboarding is so horrible. (“Hey wanna try bitcoin? Here’s an app that takes up to 4 minutes or more to get though, but wait, you’ll have to install a plugin, or wait I’ll send you an on-chain transaction…)

Take a look at the listings on Bitvocation, an excellent job board for Bitcoiners and related projects. You’ll quickly notice a pattern: almost no companies are hiring software testers. It’s marketing, more marketing, some sales, and of course, full-stack developers. But … No testers.

Because testing has become something that’s often skipped or automated in a hurry. Maybe the devs run a test locally to confirm that the feature they just built doesn’t crash outright. That’s it. And if testing does happen at a company, it’s usually shallow—focused only on the top five percent of critical bugs. The finer points that shape real user experience, like button placement, navigation flow, and responsiveness, are dumped on “the community.”

Which leads to some software being rushed out to production, and only then do teams discover how many problems exist in the real world. If there’s anyone left to care that is, since most teams are scattered all over the world and get paid by the hour by some VC firm on a small runway to a launch date.

This has real life consequences I’ve seen for myself with new users. Like a lightning wallet having a +5 minute onboarding time, and a fat on-screen error for the new users, or a hardware wallet stuck in an endless upgrade loop, just because nobody tested it on a device that was “old” (as in, one year old).

The result is clear: usability and experience testing are so low on the priority list, they may as well not exist. And that’s tragic, because the enthusiasm of new users gets crushed the moment they run into what I call Linux’plaining.

That’s when something obvious fails — like a lookup command that’s copied straight from their own help documentation but doesn’t work — and the answer you get as a user is something like: “Yeah, but first you have to…” followed by an explanation that isn’t mentioned anywhere in the interface or documentation. You were just supposed to know. No one updates the documentation, and no one cares. As most of the projects are very temporary or don’t really care if it succeeds or not, because they’re bitcoiners and bitcoin always wins. Just like PGP always was super cool and good, and users should just be smarter.

Lessons from the past usability disasters

We can always learn from the past especially when its precedents are still echoing through the systems we use today

So here goes, some examples from the legacy / fiat industry:

Lotus Notes, for example. Once a titan in enterprise communication software, which managed to capture about 145 million mailboxes. But its downfall is an example of what happens when you ignore and keep ignoring real-life user needs and fail to evolve with the market. Software like that doesn’t just fade, it collapses under the weight of its own inertia and bloat. If you think bitcoin can’t have that, yes… we’re of course not having a competitor in the market (hard money is hard money, not a mailbox or office software provider of course). But we can erode trust to the extent that it becomes LotusNotes’d.

Its archaic 1990s interface came with clunky navigation and a chaotic document management system. Users got frustrated fast—basic tasks took too long. Picture this: you're stuck in a cubicle, trying to find the calendar function in Lotus Notes while a giant office printer hisses and spits out stacks of paper behind you. The platform never made the leap to modern expectations. It failed to deliver proper mobile clients and clung to outdated tech like LotusScript and the Domino architecture, which made it vulnerable to security issues and incompatible with the web standards of the time. By 2012, IBM pulled the plug on the Lotus brand, as businesses moved en masse to cloud-based alternatives.

Another kind of usability failure has plagued PGP1 (and still does so after 34 years). PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) is a time-tested and rock-solid method for encryption and key exchange, but it’s riddled with usability problems, especially for anyone who isn’t technically inclined.

Its very nature and complexity are already steep hurdles (and yes, you can’t make it fully easy without compromising how it’s supposed to work—granted). But the real problem? Almost zero effort has gone into giving even the most eager new users a manageable learning curve. That neglect slowly killed off any real user base—except for the hardcore encryption folks who already know what they’re doing.

Ask anyone in a shopping street or the historic center of your city if they’ve heard of PGP. And on the off chance someone knows it’s not a trendy new fast-food joint called “Perfectly Grilled Poultry,” the odds of them having actually used it in the past six months are basically zero, unless you happen to bump into that one neckbeard guy in his 60s wearing a stained Star Wars T-shirt named Leonard.

The builders of PGP made one major mistake: they never treated usability as a serious design goal (that’s normal for people knee deep in encryption, I get that, it’s the way it is). PGP is fantastic on itself. Other companies and projects tried to build around it, but while they stumbled, tools like Signal and ProtonMail stepped in; offering the same core features of encryption and secure messaging, minus the headache. They delivered what PGP never could: powerful functionality wrapped in something regular people can actually use. Now, we’ve got encrypted communication flowing through apps like Signal, where all the complex tech is buried so deep in the background, the average user doesn’t even realize it’s there. ProtonMail went one step further even, integrating PGP so cleanly that users never need to exchange keys or understand the cryptography behind it all, yet still benefit from bulletproof encryption.

There’s no debate—this shift is a good thing. History shows that unusable software fades into irrelevance. Whether due to lack of interest, failure to reach critical mass, or a competitor swooping in to eat market share, clunky tools don’t survive. Now, to be clear, Bitcoin doesn’t have to worry about that kind of threat. There’s no real competition when it comes to hard money. Unless, of course, you genuinely believe that flashy shitcoins are a viable alternative—in which case, you might as well stop reading here and go get yourself scammed on the latest Solana airdrop or whatever hype train’s leaving the station today for the degens.

The main takeaway here is that Bitcoin must avoid becoming the next Lotus Notes, bloated with features but neglected by users—or the next PGP, sidelined by its own lack of usability. That kind of trajectory would erode trust, especially if usability and onboarding keep falling behind. And honestly, we’re already seeing signs of this in bitcoin. User adoption in Europe, especially in countries like Germany is noticeably lagging. The introduction of the EU’s MiCA regulations isn’t helping either. Most of the companies that were actually pushing adoption are now either shutting down, leaving the EU, or jumping through creative loopholes just to stay alive. And the last thing on anyone’s mind is improving UX. It takes time, effort, and specialized people to seriously think through how to build this properly, from the beginning, with this ease of use and onboarding in mind. That’s a luxury most teams can’t or won’t prioritize right now. Understandably when the lack of funds is still a major issue within the bitcoin space. (for people sitting on hard money, there’s surprisingly little money flowing into useful projects that aren’t hyped up empty boxes)

The number of nodes being set up by end users worldwide isn’t exactly skyrocketing either. Sure, there’s some growth but let’s not overstate it. Based on Bitnodes’ snapshots taken in March of each year, we’re looking at: 2022 : around 10500 2023 : around 17000 2024 : around 18500 2025 : around 21000 (I know there are different methods of measuring these, like read-only nodes, the % change is roughly the same nonetheless)

In my opinion, if we had non-clunky software that was actually released with proper testing and usability in mind, we could’ve easily doubled those node numbers. A bad user experience with a wallet spreads fast—and brings in exactly zero new users. The same goes for people trying to set up a miner or spin up a node, only to give up after a few frustrating steps. Sure, there are good people out there making guides and videos2 to help mitigate those hurdles, and that helps. But let’s be honest: there’s still very little “wow” factor when average users interact with most Bitcoin software. Almost every time they walk away, it’s because of one of two things—usability issues or bugs.

For the record: if a user can’t set up a wallet because the interface is so rotten or poorly tested, so they don’t know where to click or how to even select a seed word from a list, then that’s a problem — that’s a bug. Argue all you want: sure, it’s not a code-level bug and no, it’s not a system crash. But it is a usability failure. Call it onboarding friction, UX flaw, whatever fits your spreadsheet or circus Maximus of failures in your ticketing system. Bottom line: if your software doesn’t help users accomplish its core purpose, it’s broken. It’s a bug. Pretending it’s something a copywriter or marketing team can fix is pure deflection. The solution isn’t to relabel the problem, 1990’s telecom-style, just to avoid dealing with it. It’s to actually sit down, think, collaborate, and go through the issue, and getting real solutions out. ”No it’s not an issue, that’s how it works” like someone from a failing (and by now defunct) wallet told me once, is not a solution.

You got 21 seconds

The user can’t be onboarded because your software has an “issue”? In my book, that’s a bug. The usual response when you report it? “Yeah, that’s not a priority.” Well, guess what? It actually is a priority. All these small annoyances, hurdles, and bits of BS still plague this industry, and they make the whole experience miserable for regular people trying it out for the first time. The first 21 seconds (yeah, you see what I did there) are the most important when someone opens new software. If it doesn’t click right away—if they’re fiddling with sats or dollar signs, or hunting for some hidden setting buried behind a tiny arrow—it’s game over. They’re annoyed. They’re gone.

And this is exactly why we’re seeing a flood of shitcoin apps sweeping new users off their feet with "faster apps" or "nicer designs" apps that somehow can afford the UI specialists and slick, centralized setups to spread their lies and scams.

I hate to say it, but the Phantom wallet for example, for the Solana network, loaded with fake airdrop schemes and the most blatant scams — has a far better UX than most Bitcoin wallets and Lightning Wallets. Learn from it. Download that **** and get to know what we do wrong and how we can learn from the enemy.

That’s a hard truth. So, instead of just screaming “Uh, shitcooooin!” (yes, we know it is), maybe we should start learning from it. Their apps are better than ours in terms of UI and UX. They attract more people 5x faster (we know that’s also because of the fast gains and retardation playing with the marketing) but we can’t keep ignoring that. Somehow these apps attract more than our trustworthiness, our steady, secure, decentralized hard money truth.

It’s like stepping into one of the best Italian restaurants in town—supposedly. But then the menu’s a mess, the staff is scrolling on their phones, and something smells burnt coming from the kitchen. So, what do you do? You walk out. You cross the street to the fast food joint and order a burger and fries. And as you’re walking out with your food, someone from the Italian place yells at you: “Fast food is bad!” ”Yeah man I know, I wanted a nice Spaghetti aglio e olio, but here I am, digesting a cheeseburger that felt rather spongy.” (the problem is so gone so deep now, that users just walk past that Italian restaurant, don’t even recognize it as a restaurant because it doesn’t have cheeseburgers).

Fear of the dark

Technical people, not marketeers built bitcoin, it’s build on hundreds of small building blocks that interacted over time to have the bitcoin network and it’s immer evolving value. At one point David Chaum cooked up eCash, using blind signatures to let people send digital money anonymously — except it was still stuck on clunky centralized servers. Go back even further, to the 1970s, when Diffie, Hellman, and Rivest introduced public-key cryptography—the magic sauce that gave us secure digital signatures and authentication, making sure your messages stayed private and tamper-proof.

Fast forward to the 1990s, where peer-to-peer started to take off, decentralized networks getting started. Adam Back’s Hashcash in ‘97 used proof-of-work to fight email spam, and the cypherpunks were all about sticking it to the man with privacy-first, the invention 199 Human-Readable 128-bit keys3, decentralized systems. We started to swap files over p2p networks and later, torrents.

All these parts—anonymous cash, encryption, and leaderless networks finally clicked into place when Satoshi Nakamoto poured them into a chain of blocks, built on an ingenious “time-stamping” system: the timechain, or blockchain if you prefer. And just like that, Bitcoin was born—a peer-to-peer money system that didn’t need middlemen and actually worked without any central servers.

So yes, it’s only natural that Bitcoin and the many tools, born from math, obscurity, and cryptography, isn’t exactly always a user-interface darling. That’s also it’s charm for me in any case, as the core is robust and valuable beyond belief. That’s why we love to so see more use, more adoption.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t squash critical “show-stopper” bugs before releasing bitcoin-related software. And it sure as hell doesn’t mean we should act like jerks when a user points out something’s broken, confusing, or just doesn’t meet expectations. We can’t be complacent either about our role as builders of the next generations, as the core is hard money, and it would be a fatal mistake for the world to see it being used only for some rockstars from Wall Street and their counterparts to store their debt laden fiat. We can free people, make them better, make them elevate themselves. And yet, the people we try to elevate, we often alienate. All because we don’t test our stuff well enough. We should be so good, we blow the banking apps away. (they’re blowing themselves out of the market luckily with fiat “features” and overly over the top use of “analytics” to measure your carbon footprint for example).

We should be so damn professional that someone using Bitcoin apps for a full year wouldn’t even notice any bugs, because there wouldn’t be much to get annoyed by.

So… we have to do better. I’ve seen it time and time again — on Lightning tipping apps, Nostr plugins, wallets, hardware wallets, even metal plates we can screw up somehow … you name it. “It works on my machine”, isn’t enough anymore! Those days are over.

Even apps built with solid funding and strong dev and test teams like fedi.xyz4 can miss the mark. While the idea was good and the app itself ran fine without too much hurdles and usual bugs. But usability failed on a different front: there was just nothing meaningful to do in the app beyond poking around, chatting a bit, and sending a few sats back and forth. The communities it’s supposed to connect, just aren’t there, or weren’t there “yet”.

It’s a beautifully designed application and a strong proof-of-concept for federated community funds. But then… nothing. No one I know uses it. Their last blogpost was from beginning of October 2024, which doesn’t bode well, writing this than 6 months after. That said, they got some great onboarding going, usually under 20 seconds, which proves it can be done right (even if it was all a front-end for a more complex backend).

As you can see “usability” is a broad terminology, covering technical aspects, user-interface, but also use-cases. Even if you have a cool app that works really well and is well thought-out users won’t use it if there’s no real substance. You can’t get that critical mass by waiting for customers to come in or communities to embrace it. They won’t, because most of the individuals already had past experiences with bitcoin apps or services, and there’s a reason for them not being on-board already.

A lot of bitcoin companies build tools for new people. Never for the lapsed people, the persons that came in, thought of it as an investment or “a coin”… then left because of a bad experience or the price going down in fiat. All the while we have some software that usually isn’t so kind to new people, or causes loss of funds and time. Even if they make one little “mistake” of not knowing the system beforehand.

Bitcoin’s Moby Dick

\ Bitcoin itself has a big issue here. The user base could grow faster, and more robust, if there wasn’t software that worked as a sort of repellent against users.

I especially see a younger and less tech-savvy audience absolutely disliking the software we have now. No matter if it’s Electrum’s desktop wallet (hardly the sexiest tool out there, although I like it myself, but it lacks some features), Sparrow, or any lightning wallet out there (safe for WoS). I even saw people disliking Proton wallet, which I personally thought of as something really slick, well-made and polished. But even that doesn’t cut it for many people, as the “account” and “wallet” system wasn’t clear enough for them. (You see, we all have the same bias, because we know bitcoin, we look at it from a perspective of “facepalm, of course it’s a wallet named “account”, but when you sit next to a new user, it becomes clear that this is a hurdle. (please proton wallet: name a wallet a wallet, not “account”. But most users already in bitcoin, love what you’re doing)

Naturally disliking usability

The same technically brilliant people who maintain Bitcoin and build its apps haven’t quite tapped into their inner Steve Jobs—if that person even exists in the Bitcoin space. Let’s be honest: the next iOS-style wow moment, or the kind of frictionless usability seen in Spotify or Instagram, probably won’t come from hardcore Bitcoin devs alone. In fact, some builders in the space seem to actively disregard—or even look down on—discussions about usability. Just mention names like Wallet of Satoshi (yes, we all know it’s a custodial frontend) or the need for smoother interactions with Bitcoin, and you’ll get eye-rolls or defensive rants instead of curiosity or openness.

Moving more towards a better user interface for things like Sparrow or Bitcoin Core for example, would bring all kinds of “bad things” according to some, and on top of that, bring in new users (noobs) that ask questions like: “Do you burn all these sats when I make a transaction?” (Yes, that’s a real one.)

I get the “usability sucks” gripe — fear of losing key features, dumbing things down, or opening the door to unwanted changes (like BIP proposals real bitcoiners hate) that tweak bitcoin to suit any user’s whim. Close to no one in bitcoin (really in bitcoin!) wants that, including me.

That fear is however largely unfounded; because Bitcoin doesn’t change without consensus. Any change that would undermine its core use or value proposition simply won’t make it through. And let’s be honest: most of the users who crave these “faster,” centralized alternatives—those drawn to slick apps, one-click solutions, and dopamine-driven UI—will either stick with fiat, ape into the shitcoin-of-the-month, or praise the shiny new CBDC once it drops (“much fast, much cool”). These degen types, chasing fiat gains and jackpot dreams, aren’t relevant to this story, No matter what we build for bitcoin, they’ll always love the fiat-story and will always dislike bitcoin because it’s not a jackpot for them. (Honestly, why don’t they just gamble at a casino?)

People who fear that improving usability will somehow bring down the Bitcoin network are being a bit too paranoid—and honestly, they often don’t understand what usability or proper testing actually means.

They treat it like fluff, when in reality it's fundamental. Usability doesn't mean dumbing things down or compromising Bitcoin's core values; it means understanding why your fancy new app isn’t being used by anyone outside of your bubble. Testing is the beating heart of getting things out with confidence. Nothing more satisfying in software building than to proudly show even your beta versions to users, knowing it’s well tested. It’s much more than clicking a few buttons and tossing your code on GitHub. It's about asking real questions: can someone outside your Telegram group actually use this and will it they be using the software at all?

If you create a Nostr app that opens an in-app browser window and then tries to log you in with your NIPS05 or NIPS07 or whatever number it is that authenticates you, then you need to think about how it’s going to work in real life. Have people already visited this underlying website? Is that website using the exact same mechanism? Is it really working like we think it is in the real world? (Some notable good things are happening with the development of Keychat for example, I have the feeling they get it, it’s not all bad). And yes, there are still bugs and things to improve there, they’re just starting. (The browser section and nostr login need some work imho).

Guess what? You can test your stuff. But it takes time and effort. The kind of effort that, if skipped, gets multiplied across thousands of people. Thousands of people wasting their time trying to use your app, hitting errors, assuming they did something wrong, retrying, googling workarounds—only to eventually realize: it’s not them. It’s a bug. A bug you didn’t catch. Because you didn’t test. And now everyone loses. And guess what? Those users? They’re not coming back.

A good example (to stay positive here) is Fountain App, where the first versions were , eh… let’s say not so good, and then quickly evolved into a company and product that works really well, and also listens to their users and fixes their bugs. The interface can still be better in my opinion, but it’s getting there. And it’s super good now.

A bad example? Alby. (Sorry to say.) It still suffers from a bloated, clunky interface and an onboarding flow that utterly confuses new or returning users. It just doesn’t get the job done. Opinions may vary, sure, but hand this app to any non-technical user and ask them to get online and do a Nostr zap. Watch what happens. If they even manage to get through the initial setup, that is.

Another example? Bitkit. When I tried transferring funds from the "savings" to the "spending" account, the wallet silently opened a Lightning channel—no warning, no explanation—and suddenly my coins were locked up. To make things worse, the wallet still showed the full balance as spendable, even though part of it was now stuck in that channel. That was in November 2024, the last time I touched Bitkit. I wasted too much time trying to figure it out, I haven’t looked back (assuming the project is even still alive, I didn’t see them pop up anywhere).

Some metal BIP39 backup tools are great in theory but poorly executed. I bought one that didn’t even include a simple instruction on how to open it. The person I gave it to spent two hours trying to open it with a screwdriver and even attempted drilling. Turns out, it just slides open with some pressure. A simple instruction would’ve saved all that frustration.

Builders often assume users “just get it,” but a small guide could’ve prevented all the hassle. It’s a small step, but it’s crucial for better user experience. So why not avoid such situations and put a friggin cheap piece of paper in the box so people know how to open it? (The creators would probably facepalm if they read this, “how can users nòt see this?”). Yeah,… put a paper in there with instructions.

That’s natural, because as a creator you’re “in” it, you know. You don’t see how others would overlook something so obvious.

Bitcoiners are extremely bad on that front.

I’ll dive deeper into some examples in part 2 of this post.

By AVB

end of part 1

If you like to support independent thought and writings on bitcoin, follow this substack please https://coinos.io/allesvoorbitcoin/receive\ \ footnotes:

1 https://philzimmermann.com/EN/findpgp/

2 BTC sessions: set up a bitcoin node

3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1751

4 https://www.fedi.xyz/

@ 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. 👀️️️️️️

@ 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.

@ bbef5093:71228592

India csökkentené az atomerőművek építési idejét ambiciózus nukleáris céljai eléréséhez

India célja, hogy a jelenlegi 10 évről a „világszínvonalú” 6 évre csökkentse atomerőművi projektjeinek kivitelezési idejét, hogy elérje a 2047-re kitűzött, 100 GW beépített nukleáris kapacitást.

Az SBI Capital Markets (az Indiai Állami Bank befektetési banki leányvállalata) jelentése szerint ez segítene mérsékelni a korábbi költségtúllépéseket, és vonzóbbá tenné az országot a globális befektetők számára.

A jelentés szerint a jelenlegi, mintegy 8 GW kapacitás és a csak 7 GW-nyi építés alatt álló kapacitás mellett „jelentős gyorsítás” szükséges a célok eléréséhez.

A kormány elindította a „nukleáris energia missziót”, amelyhez körülbelül 2,3 milliárd dollárt (2 milliárd eurót) különített el K+F-re és legalább öt Bharat kis moduláris reaktor (BSMR) telepítésére, de további kihívásokat kell megoldania a célok eléréséhez.

Az építési idők csökkentése kulcsfontosságú, de a jelentés átfogó rendszerszintű reformokat is javasol, beleértve a gyorsabb engedélyezést, a földszerzési szabályok egyszerűsítését, az erőművek körüli védőtávolság csökkentését, és a szabályozó hatóság (Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) nagyobb önállóságát.

A jelentés szerint a nemzet korlátozott uránkészletei miatt elengedhetetlen az üzemanyagforrások diverzifikálása nemzetközi megállapodások révén, valamint az indiai nukleáris program 2. és 3. szakaszának felgyorsítása.

India háromlépcsős nukleáris programja célja egy zárt üzemanyagciklus kialakítása, amely a természetes uránra, a plutóniumra és végül a tóriumra épül. A 2. szakaszban gyorsneutronos reaktorokat használnak, amelyek több energiát nyernek ki az uránból, kevesebb bányászott uránt igényelnek, és a fel nem használt uránt új üzemanyaggá alakítják. A 3. szakaszban fejlett reaktorok működnek majd India hatalmas tóriumkészleteire alapozva.

2025 januárjában az indiai Nuclear Power Corporation (NPCIL) pályázatot írt ki Bharat SMR-ek telepítésére, először nyitva meg a nukleáris szektort indiai magáncégek előtt.

Eddig csak az állami tulajdonú NPCIL építhetett és üzemeltethetett kereskedelmi atomerőműveket Indiában.

A Bharat SMR-ek (a „Bharat” hindiül Indiát jelent) telepítése a „Viksit Bharat” („Fejlődő India”) program része.

Engedélyezési folyamat: „elhúzódó és egymásra épülő”

A Bharat atomerőmű fejlesztésének részletei továbbra sem világosak, de Nirmala Sitharaman pénzügyminiszter júliusban elmondta, hogy az állami National Thermal Power Corporation és a Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited közös vállalkozásában valósulna meg a fejlesztés.

Sitharaman hozzátette, hogy a kormány a magánszektorral közösen létrehozna egy Bharat Small Reactors nevű céget, amely SMR-ek és új nukleáris technológiák kutatás-fejlesztésével foglalkozna.

Az SBI jelentése szerint javítani kell az SMR programot, mert az engedélyezési folyamat jelenleg „elhúzódó és egymásra épülő”, és aránytalan kockázatot jelent a magánszereplők számára a reaktorfejlesztés során.

A program „stratégiailag jó helyzetben van a sikerhez”, mert szigorú belépési feltételeket támaszt, így csak komoly és alkalmas szereplők vehetnek részt benne.

A kormánynak azonban be kellene vezetnie egy kártérítési záradékot, amely védi a magáncégeket az üzemanyag- és nehézvíz-ellátás hiányától, amely az Atomenergia Minisztérium (DAE) hatáskörébe tartozik.

A jelentés szerint mind az üzemanyag, mind a nehézvíz ellátása a DAE-től függ, és „a hozzáférés hiánya” problémát jelenthet. India legtöbb kereskedelmi atomerőműve hazai fejlesztésű, nyomottvizes nehézvizes reaktor.

A jelentés szerint: „A meglévő szabályozási hiányosságok kezelése kulcsfontosságú, hogy a magánszektor vezethesse a kitűzött 100 GW nukleáris kapacitás 50%-ának fejlesztését 2047-ig.”

Az NPCIL nemrégiben közölte, hogy India 2031–32-ig további 18 reaktort kíván hozzáadni az energiamixhez, ezzel az ország nukleáris kapacitása 22,4 GW-ra nő.

A Nemzetközi Atomenergia-ügynökség adatai szerint Indiában 21 reaktor üzemel kereskedelmi forgalomban, amelyek 2023-ban az ország áramtermelésének körülbelül 3%-át adták. Hat egység van építés alatt.

---

Roszatom pert indított a leállított Hanhikivi-1 projekt miatt Finnországban

Az orosz állami Roszatom atomenergetikai vállalat pert indított Moszkvában a finn Fortum és Outokumpu cégek ellen, és 227,8 milliárd rubel (2,8 milliárd dollár, 2,4 milliárd euró) kártérítést követel a finnországi Hanhikivi-1 atomerőmű szerződésének felmondása miatt – derül ki bírósági dokumentumokból és a Roszatom közleményéből.

A Roszatom a „mérnöki, beszerzési és kivitelezési (EPC) szerződés jogellenes felmondása”, a részvényesi megállapodás, az üzemanyag-ellátási szerződés megsértése, valamint a kölcsön visszafizetésének megtagadása miatt követel kártérítést.

A Fortum a NucNetnek e-mailben azt írta, hogy „nem kapott hivatalos értesítést orosz perről”.

A Fortum 2025. április 29-i negyedéves jelentésében közölte, hogy a Roszatom finn leányvállalata, a Raos Project, valamint a Roszatom nemzetközi divíziója, a JSC Rusatom Energy International, illetve a Fennovoima (a Hanhikivi projektért felelős finn konzorcium) között a Hanhikivi EPC szerződésével kapcsolatban nemzetközi választottbírósági eljárás zajlik.

2025 februárjában a választottbíróság úgy döntött, hogy nincs joghatósága a Fortummal szembeni követelések ügyében. „Ez a döntés végleges volt, így a Fortum nem része a választottbírósági eljárásnak” – közölte a cég.

A Fortum 2015-ben kisebbségi tulajdonos lett a Fennovoima projektben, de a teljes tulajdonrészt 2020-ban leírta.

A Fennovoima konzorcium, amelyben a Roszatom a Raos-on keresztül 34%-os kisebbségi részesedéssel rendelkezett, 2022 májusában felmondta a Hanhikivi-1 létesítésére vonatkozó szerződést az ukrajnai háború miatti késedelmek és megnövekedett kockázatok miatt.

A projekt technológiája az orosz AES-2006 típusú nyomottvizes reaktor lett volna.

2021 áprilisában a Fennovoima közölte, hogy a projekt teljes beruházási költsége 6,5–7 milliárd euróról 7–7,5 milliárd euróra nőtt.

2022 augusztusában a Roszatom és a Fennovoima kölcsönösen milliárdos kártérítési igényt nyújtott be egymás ellen a projekt leállítása miatt.

A Fennovoima nemzetközi választottbírósági eljárást indított 1,7 milliárd euró előleg visszafizetéséért. A Roszatom 3 milliárd eurós ellenkeresetet nyújtott be. Ezek az ügyek jelenleg is nemzetközi bíróságok előtt vannak.

---

Dél-koreai delegáció Csehországba utazik nukleáris szerződés aláírására

Egy dél-koreai delegáció 2025. május 6-án Csehországba utazik, hogy részt vegyen egy több milliárd dolláros szerződés aláírásán, amely két új atomerőmű építéséről szól a Dukovany telephelyen – közölte a dél-koreai kereskedelmi, ipari és energetikai minisztérium.

A delegáció, amelyben kormányzati és parlamenti tisztviselők is vannak, kétnapos prágai látogatásra indul, hogy részt vegyen a szerdára tervezett aláírási ceremónián.

A küldöttség találkozik Petr Fiala cseh miniszterelnökkel és Milos Vystrcil szenátusi elnökkel is, hogy megvitassák a Dukovany projektet.

Fiala múlt héten bejelentette, hogy Prága május 7-én írja alá a Dukovany szerződést a Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) céggel.

A cseh versenyhivatal nemrég engedélyezte a szerződés aláírását a KHNP-vel, miután elutasította a francia EDF fellebbezését.

A versenyhivatal április 24-i döntése megerősítette a korábbi ítéletet, amelyet az EDF megtámadott, miután 2024 júliusában elvesztette a tenderpályázatot a KHNP-vel szemben.

Ez lehetővé teszi, hogy a két dél-koreai APR1400 reaktor egység szerződését aláírják Dukovanyban, Dél-Csehországban. A szerződés az ország történetének legnagyobb energetikai beruházása, értéke legalább 400 milliárd korona (16 milliárd euró, 18 milliárd dollár).

A szerződést eredetileg márciusban írták volna alá, de a vesztes pályázók (EDF, Westinghouse) fellebbezései, dél-koreai politikai bizonytalanságok és a cseh cégek lokalizációs igényei miatt csúszott.

A KHNP januárban rendezte a szellemi tulajdonjogi vitát a Westinghouse-zal, amely korábban azt állította, hogy a KHNP az ő technológiáját használja az APR1400 reaktorokban.

A szerződés aláírása Dél-Korea első külföldi atomerőmű-építési projektje lesz 2009 óta, amikor a KHNP négy APR1400 reaktort épített az Egyesült Arab Emírségekben, Barakahban.

Csehországban hat kereskedelmi reaktor működik: négy orosz VVER-440-es Dukovanyban, két nagyobb VVER-1000-es Temelínben. Az IAEA szerint ezek az egységek a cseh áramtermelés mintegy 36,7%-át adják.

---

Az USA-nak „minél előbb” új reaktort kell építenie – mondta a DOE jelöltje a szenátusi bizottság előtt

Az USA-nak minél előbb új atomerőművet kell építenie, és elő kell mozdítania a fejlett reaktorok fejlesztését, engedélyezését és telepítését – hangzott el a szenátusi energiaügyi bizottság előtt.

Ted Garrish, aki a DOE nukleáris energiaügyi helyettes államtitkári posztjára jelöltként jelent meg, elmondta: az országnak új reaktort kell telepítenie, legyen az nagy, kis moduláris vagy mikroreaktor.

Az USA-ban jelenleg nincs épülő kereskedelmi atomerőmű, az utolsó kettő, a Vogtle-3 és Vogtle-4 2023-ban, illetve 2024-ben indult el Georgiában.

„A nukleáris energia kivételes lehetőség a növekvő villamosenergia-igény megbízható, megfizethető és biztonságos kielégítésére” – mondta Garrish, aki tapasztalt atomenergetikai vezető. Szerinte az USA-nak nemzetbiztonsági okokból is fejlesztenie kell a hazai urándúsító ipart.

Vizsgálni kell a nemzetközi piacot és a kormányközi megállapodások lehetőségét az amerikai nukleáris fejlesztők és ellátási láncok számára, valamint meg kell oldani a kiégett fűtőelemek elhelyezésének problémáját.

1987-ben a Kongresszus a nevadai Yucca Mountain-t jelölte ki a kiégett fűtőelemek végleges tárolóhelyének, de 2009-ben az Obama-adminisztráció leállította a projektet.

Az USA-ban az 1950-es évek óta mintegy 83 000 tonna radioaktív hulladék, köztük kiégett fűtőelem halmozódott fel, amelyet jelenleg acél- és betonkonténerekben tárolnak az erőművek telephelyein.

Garrish korábban a DOE nemzetközi ügyekért felelős helyettes államtitkára volt (2018–2021), jelenleg az Egyesült Haladó Atomenergia Szövetség igazgatótanácsának elnöke.

---

Egyéb hírek

Szlovénia közös munkát sürget az USA-val a nukleáris energiában:
Az USA és Horvátország tisztviselői együttműködésről tárgyaltak Közép- és Délkelet-Európa energiaellátásának diverzifikálása érdekében, különös tekintettel a kis moduláris reaktorokra (SMR). Horvátország és Szlovénia közösen tulajdonolja a szlovéniai Krško atomerőművet, amely egyetlen 696 MW-os nyomottvizes reaktorával Horvátország áramfogyasztásának 16%-át, Szlovéniáénak 20%-át adja. Szlovénia fontolgatja egy második blokk építését, de tavaly elhalasztotta az erről szóló népszavazást.

Malawi engedélyezi a Kayelekera uránbánya újraindítását:
A Malawi Atomenergia Hatóság kiadta a sugárbiztonsági engedélyt a Lotus (Africa) Limited számára, így újraindulhat a Kayelekera uránbánya, amely több mint egy évtizede, 2014 óta állt a zuhanó uránárak és biztonsági problémák miatt. A bánya 85%-át az ausztrál Lotus Resources helyi leányvállalata birtokolja. A Lotus szerint a bánya újraindítása teljesen finanszírozott, kb. 43 millió dollár (37 millió euró) tőkével.

Venezuela és Irán nukleáris együttműködést tervez:
Venezuela és Irán a nukleáris tudomány és technológia terén való együttműködésről tárgyalt. Az iráni állami média szerint Mohammad Eslami, az Iráni Atomenergia Szervezet vezetője és Alberto Quintero, Venezuela tudományos miniszterhelyettese egyetemi és kutatási programok elindításáról egyeztetett. Venezuelában nincs kereskedelmi atomerőmű, de 2010-ben Oroszországgal írt alá megállapodást új atomerőművek lehetőségéről. Iránnak egy működő atomerőműve van Bushehr-1-nél, egy másik ugyanott épül, mindkettőt Oroszország szállította.

@ 1f79058c:eb86e1cb

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

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

Usage

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

bash markdown_to_nostr.sh article-filename.md

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

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

Markdown format

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

```markdown

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

---

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

— Francis Duggan ```

The metadata keys are mostly self-explanatory. Note:

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Redistributing Git with Nostr

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

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

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

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

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

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

External contributions

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

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

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

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

Replacing GitHub features

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

Issues: bug reports, feature requests and general discussions

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

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

Search

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

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

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

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

Continuous integration

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

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

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

@ 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.

@ 8125b911:a8400883

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

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

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

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

Download

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

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

Installation

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

macOS Users:

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

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

Windows Users:

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

Connecting

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

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

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

Restrictions

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

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

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

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

Currently, the maximum value for this parameter is 2.

Conclusion

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

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

Not your relay, not your events.

@ 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.

@ b6dcdddf:dfee5ee7

You can now fund projects on Geyser using Credit Cards, Apple Pay, Bank Transfers, and more.

The best part: 🧾 You pay in fiat and ⚡️ the creator receives Bitcoin.

You heard it right! Let's dive in 👇

First, how does it work? For contributors, it's easy! Once the project creator has verified their identity, anyone can contribute with fiat methods. Simply go through the usual contribution flow and select 'Pay with Fiat'. The first contribution is KYC-free.

Why does this matter? 1. Many Bitcoiners don't want to spend their Bitcoin: 👉 Number go up (NgU) 👉 Capital gains taxes With fiat contributions, there's no more excuse to contribute towards Bitcoin builders and creators! 2. Non-bitcoin holders want to support projects too. If someone loves your mission but only has a debit card, they used to be stuck. Now? They can back your Bitcoin project with familiar fiat tools. Now, they can do it all through Geyser!

So, why swap fiat into Bitcoin? Because Bitcoin is borderless. Fiat payouts are limited to certain countries, banks, and red tape. By auto-swapping fiat to Bitcoin, we ensure: 🌍 Instant payouts to creators all around the world ⚡️ No delays or restrictions 💥 Every contribution is also a silent Bitcoin buy

How to enable Fiat contributions If you’re a creator, it’s easy: - Go to your Dashboard → Wallet - Click “Enable Fiat Contributions” - Complete a quick ID verification (required by our payment provider) ✅ That’s it — your project is now open to global fiat supporters.

Supporting Bitcoin adoption At Geyser, our mission is to empower Bitcoin creators and builders. Adding fiat options amplifies our mission. It brings more people into the ecosystem while staying true to what we believe: ⚒️ Build on Bitcoin 🌱 Fund impactful initiatives 🌎 Enable global participation

**Support projects with fiat now! ** We've compiled a list of projects that currently have fiat contributions enabled. If you've been on the fence to support them because you didn't want to spend your Bitcoin, now's the time to do your first contribution!

Education - Citadel Dispatch: https://geyser.fund/project/citadel - @FREEMadeiraOrg: https://geyser.fund/project/freemadeira - @MyfirstBitcoin_: https://geyser.fund/project/miprimerbitcoin

Circular Economies - @BitcoinEkasi: https://geyser.fund/project/bitcoinekasi - Madagascar Bitcoin: https://geyser.fund/project/madagasbit - @BitcoinChatt : https://geyser.fund/project/bitcoinchatt - Uganda Gayaza BTC Market: https://geyser.fund/project/gayazabtcmarket

Activism - Education Bitcoin Channel: https://geyser.fund/project/streamingsats

Sports - The Sats Fighter Journey: https://geyser.fund/project/thesatsfighterjourney

Culture - Bitcoin Tarot Cards: https://geyser.fund/project/bitcointarotcard

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973003

@ 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.

@ 2e8970de:63345c7a

https://www.epi.org/blog/wage-growth-since-1979-has-not-been-stagnant-but-it-has-definitely-been-suppressed/

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/972959

@ aa8de34f:a6ffe696

In seinem Beitrag vom 30. März 2025 fragt Henning Rosenbusch auf Telegram angesichts zunehmender digitaler Kontrolle und staatlicher Allmacht:

„Wie soll sich gegen eine solche Tyrannei noch ein Widerstand formieren können, selbst im Untergrund? Sehe ich nicht.“\ (Quelle: t.me/rosenbusch/25228)

Er beschreibt damit ein Gefühl der Ohnmacht, das viele teilen: Eine Welt, in der Totalitarismus nicht mehr mit Panzern, sondern mit Algorithmen kommt. Wo Zugriff auf Geld, Meinungsfreiheit und Teilhabe vom Wohlverhalten abhängt. Der Bürger als kontrollierbare Variable im Code des Staates.\ Die Frage ist berechtigt. Doch die Antwort darauf liegt nicht in alten Widerstandsbildern – sondern in einer neuen Realität.

-- Denn es braucht keinen Untergrund mehr. --

Der Widerstand der Zukunft trägt keinen Tarnanzug. Er ist nicht konspirativ, sondern transparent. Nicht bewaffnet, sondern mathematisch beweisbar. Bitcoin steht nicht am Rand dieser Entwicklung – es ist ihr Fundament. Eine Bastion aus physikalischer Realität, spieltheoretischem Schutz und ökonomischer Wahrheit. Es ist nicht unfehlbar, aber unbestechlich. Nicht perfekt, aber immun gegen zentrale Willkür.

Hier entsteht kein „digitales Gegenreich“, sondern eine dezentrale Renaissance. Keine Revolte aus Wut, sondern eine stille Abkehr: von Zwang zu Freiwilligkeit, von Abhängigkeit zu Selbstverantwortung. Diese Revolution führt keine Kriege. Sie braucht keine Führer. Sie ist ein Netzwerk. Jeder Knoten ein Individuum. Jede Entscheidung ein Akt der Selbstermächtigung.

Weltweit wachsen Freiheits-Zitadellen aus dieser Idee: wirtschaftlich autark, digital souverän, lokal verankert und global vernetzt. Sie sind keine Utopien im luftleeren Raum, sondern konkrete Realitäten – angetrieben von Energie, Code und dem menschlichen Wunsch nach Würde.

Der Globalismus alter Prägung – zentralistisch, monopolistisch, bevormundend – wird an seiner eigenen Hybris zerbrechen. Seine Werkzeuge der Kontrolle werden ihn nicht retten. Im Gegenteil: Seine Geister werden ihn verfolgen und erlegen.

Und während die alten Mächte um Erhalt kämpfen, wächst eine neue Welt – nicht im Schatten, sondern im Offenen. Nicht auf Gewalt gebaut, sondern auf Mathematik, Physik und Freiheit.

Die Tyrannei sieht keinen Widerstand.\ Weil sie nicht erkennt, dass er längst begonnen hat.\ Unwiderruflich. Leise. Überall.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Der Irrsinn ist bei Einzelnen etwas Seltenes – \ aber bei Gruppen, Parteien, Völkern, Zeiten die Regel. \ Friedrich Nietzsche

Erinnern Sie sich an die Horrorkomödie «Scary Movie»? Nicht, dass ich diese Art Filme besonders erinnerungswürdig fände, aber einige Szenen daraus sind doch gewissermaßen Klassiker. Dazu zählt eine, die das Verhalten vieler Protagonisten in Horrorfilmen parodiert, wenn sie in Panik flüchten. Welchen Weg nimmt wohl die Frau in der Situation auf diesem Bild?

Diese Szene kommt mir automatisch in den Sinn, wenn ich aktuelle Entwicklungen in Europa betrachte. Weitreichende Entscheidungen gehen wider jede Logik in die völlig falsche Richtung. Nur ist das hier alles andere als eine Komödie, sondern bitterernst. Dieser Horror ist leider sehr real.

Die Europäische Union hat sich selbst über Jahre konsequent in eine Sackgasse manövriert. Sie hat es versäumt, sich und ihre Politik selbstbewusst und im Einklang mit ihren Wurzeln auf dem eigenen Kontinent zu positionieren. Stattdessen ist sie in blinder Treue den vermeintlichen «transatlantischen Freunden» auf ihrem Konfrontationskurs gen Osten gefolgt.

In den USA haben sich die Vorzeichen allerdings mittlerweile geändert, und die einst hoch gelobten «Freunde und Partner» erscheinen den europäischen «Führern» nicht mehr vertrauenswürdig. Das ist spätestens seit der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz, der Rede von Vizepräsident J. D. Vance und den empörten Reaktionen offensichtlich. Große Teile Europas wirken seitdem wie ein aufgescheuchter Haufen kopfloser Hühner. Orientierung und Kontrolle sind völlig abhanden gekommen.

Statt jedoch umzukehren oder wenigstens zu bremsen und vielleicht einen Abzweig zu suchen, geben die Crash-Piloten jetzt auf dem Weg durch die Sackgasse erst richtig Gas. Ja sie lösen sogar noch die Sicherheitsgurte und deaktivieren die Airbags. Den vor Angst dauergelähmten Passagieren fällt auch nichts Besseres ein und so schließen sie einfach die Augen. Derweil übertrumpfen sich die Kommentatoren des Events gegenseitig in sensationslüsterner «Berichterstattung».

Wie schon die deutsche Außenministerin mit höchsten UN-Ambitionen, Annalena Baerbock, proklamiert auch die Europäische Kommission einen «Frieden durch Stärke». Zu dem jetzt vorgelegten, selbstzerstörerischen Fahrplan zur Ankurbelung der Rüstungsindustrie, genannt «Weißbuch zur europäischen Verteidigung – Bereitschaft 2030», erklärte die Kommissionspräsidentin, die «Ära der Friedensdividende» sei längst vorbei. Soll das heißen, Frieden bringt nichts ein? Eine umfassende Zusammenarbeit an dauerhaften europäischen Friedenslösungen steht demnach jedenfalls nicht zur Debatte.

Zusätzlich brisant ist, dass aktuell «die ganze EU von Deutschen regiert wird», wie der EU-Parlamentarier und ehemalige UN-Diplomat Michael von der Schulenburg beobachtet hat. Tatsächlich sitzen neben von der Leyen und Strack-Zimmermann noch einige weitere Deutsche in – vor allem auch in Krisenzeiten – wichtigen Spitzenposten der Union. Vor dem Hintergrund der Kriegstreiberei in Deutschland muss eine solche Dominanz mindestens nachdenklich stimmen.

Ihre ursprünglichen Grundwerte wie Demokratie, Freiheit, Frieden und Völkerverständigung hat die EU kontinuierlich in leere Worthülsen verwandelt. Diese werden dafür immer lächerlicher hochgehalten und beschworen.

Es wird dringend Zeit, dass wir, der Souverän, diesem erbärmlichen und gefährlichen Trauerspiel ein Ende setzen und die Fäden selbst in die Hand nehmen. In diesem Sinne fordert uns auch das «European Peace Project» auf, am 9. Mai im Rahmen eines Kunstprojekts den Frieden auszurufen. Seien wir dabei!

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ 40b9c85f:5e61b451

Introduction

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

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

The Current State of DVMs: Challenges and Limitations

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

1. Inconsistent Implementation

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

2. Fragmented Specifications

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

3. Ambiguous API Interfaces

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

The Reflection Pattern: A Solution from RPC Systems

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

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

How Reflection Could Transform the DVM Specification

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

1. Defined Lifecycle Phases

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

2. Schema-Based Interactions

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

3. Capability Negotiation

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

Implementation Approach

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

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

Parallels with Other Protocols

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

@ 40bdcc08:ad00fd2c

Introduction

Bitcoin’s OP_RETURN opcode, a mechanism for embedding small data in transactions, has ignited a significant debate within the Bitcoin community. Originally designed to support limited metadata while preserving Bitcoin’s role as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, OP_RETURN is now at the center of proposals that could redefine Bitcoin’s identity. The immutable nature of Bitcoin’s timechain makes it an attractive platform for data storage, creating tension with those who prioritize its monetary function. This discussion, particularly around Bitcoin Core pull request #32406 (GitHub PR #32406), highlights a critical juncture for Bitcoin’s future.

What is OP_RETURN?

Introduced in 2014, OP_RETURN allows users to attach up to 80 bytes of data to a Bitcoin transaction. Unlike other transaction outputs, OP_RETURN outputs are provably unspendable, meaning they don’t burden the Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO) set—a critical database for Bitcoin nodes. This feature was a compromise to provide a standardized, less harmful way to include metadata, addressing earlier practices that embedded data in ways that bloated the UTXO set. The 80-byte limit and restriction to one OP_RETURN output per transaction are part of Bitcoin Core’s standardness rules, which guide transaction relay and mining but are not enforced by the network’s consensus rules (Bitcoin Stack Exchange).

Standardness vs. Consensus Rules

Standardness rules are Bitcoin Core’s default policies for relaying and mining transactions. They differ from consensus rules, which define what transactions are valid across the entire network. For OP_RETURN: - Consensus Rules: Allow OP_RETURN outputs with data up to the maximum script size (approximately 10,000 bytes) and multiple outputs per transaction (Bitcoin Stack Exchange). - Standardness Rules: Limit OP_RETURN data to 80 bytes and one output per transaction to discourage excessive data storage and maintain network efficiency.

Node operators can adjust these policies using settings like -datacarrier (enables/disables OP_RETURN relay) and -datacarriersize (sets the maximum data size, defaulting to 83 bytes to account for the OP_RETURN opcode and pushdata byte). These settings allow flexibility but reflect Bitcoin Core’s default stance on limiting data usage.

The Proposal: Pull Request #32406

Bitcoin Core pull request #32406, proposed by developer instagibbs, seeks to relax these standardness restrictions (GitHub PR #32406). Key changes include: - Removing Default Size Limits: The default -datacarriersize would be uncapped, allowing larger OP_RETURN data without a predefined limit. - Allowing Multiple Outputs: The restriction to one OP_RETURN output per transaction would be lifted, with the total data size across all outputs subject to a configurable limit. - Deprecating Configuration Options: The -datacarrier and -datacarriersize settings are marked as deprecated, signaling potential removal in future releases, which could limit node operators’ ability to enforce custom restrictions.

This proposal does not alter consensus rules, meaning miners and nodes can already accept transactions with larger or multiple OP_RETURN outputs. Instead, it changes Bitcoin Core’s default relay policy to align with existing practices, such as miners accepting non-standard transactions via services like Marathon Digital’s Slipstream (CoinDesk).

Node Operator Flexibility

Currently, node operators can customize OP_RETURN handling: - Default Settings: Relay transactions with one OP_RETURN output up to 80 bytes. - Custom Settings: Operators can disable OP_RETURN relay (-datacarrier=0) or adjust the size limit (e.g., -datacarriersize=100). These options remain in #32406 but are deprecated, suggesting that future Bitcoin Core versions might not support such customization, potentially standardizing the uncapped policy.

Arguments in Favor of Relaxing Limits

Supporters of pull request #32406 and similar proposals argue that the current restrictions are outdated and ineffective. Their key points include: - Ineffective Limits: Developers bypass the 80-byte limit using methods like Inscriptions, which store data in other transaction parts, often at higher cost and inefficiency (BitcoinDev Mailing List). Relaxing OP_RETURN could channel data into a more efficient format. - Preventing UTXO Bloat: By encouraging OP_RETURN use, which doesn’t affect the UTXO set, the proposal could reduce reliance on harmful alternatives like unspendable Taproot outputs used by projects like Citrea’s Clementine bridge. - Supporting Innovation: Projects like Citrea require more data (e.g., 144 bytes) for security proofs, and relaxed limits could enable new Layer 2 solutions (CryptoSlate). - Code Simplification: Developers like Peter Todd argue that these limits complicate Bitcoin Core’s codebase unnecessarily (CoinGeek). - Aligning with Practice: Miners already process non-standard transactions, and uncapping defaults could improve fee estimation and reduce reliance on out-of-band services, as noted by ismaelsadeeq in the pull request discussion.

In the GitHub discussion, developers like Sjors and TheCharlatan expressed support (Concept ACK), citing these efficiency and innovation benefits.

Arguments Against Relaxing Limits

Opponents, including prominent developers and community members, raise significant concerns about the implications of these changes: - Deviation from Bitcoin’s Purpose: Critics like Luke Dashjr, who called the proposal “utter insanity,” argue that Bitcoin’s base layer should prioritize peer-to-peer cash, not data storage (CoinDesk). Jason Hughes warned it could turn Bitcoin into a “worthless altcoin” (BeInCrypto). - Blockchain Bloat: Additional data increases the storage and processing burden on full nodes, potentially making node operation cost-prohibitive and threatening decentralization (CryptoSlate). - Network Congestion: Unrestricted data could lead to “spam” transactions, raising fees and hindering Bitcoin’s use for financial transactions. - Risk of Illicit Content: The timechain’s immutability means data, including potentially illegal or objectionable content, is permanently stored on every node. The 80-byte limit acts as a practical barrier, and relaxing it could exacerbate this issue. - Preserving Consensus: Developers like John Carvalho view the limits as a hard-won community agreement, not to be changed lightly.

In the pull request discussion, nsvrn and moth-oss expressed concerns about spam and centralization, advocating for gradual changes. Concept NACKs from developers like wizkid057 and Luke Dashjr reflect strong opposition.

Community Feedback

The GitHub discussion for pull request #32406 shows a divided community: - Support (Concept ACK): Sjors, polespinasa, ismaelsadeeq, miketwenty1, TheCharlatan, Psifour. - Opposition (Concept NACK): wizkid057, BitcoinMechanic, Retropex, nsvrn, moth-oss, Luke Dashjr. - Other: Peter Todd provided a stale ACK, indicating partial or outdated support.

Additional discussions on the BitcoinDev mailing list and related pull requests (e.g., #32359 by Peter Todd) highlight similar arguments, with #32359 proposing a more aggressive removal of all OP_RETURN limits and configuration options (GitHub PR #32359).

| Feedback Type | Developers | Key Points | |---------------|------------|------------| | Concept ACK | Sjors, ismaelsadeeq, others | Improves efficiency, supports innovation, aligns with mining practices. | | Concept NACK | Luke Dashjr, wizkid057, others | Risks bloat, spam, centralization, and deviation from Bitcoin’s purpose. | | Stale ACK | Peter Todd | Acknowledges proposal but with reservations or outdated support. |

Workarounds and Their Implications

The existence of workarounds, such as Inscriptions, which exploit SegWit discounts to embed data, is a key argument for relaxing OP_RETURN limits. These methods are costlier and less efficient, often costing more than OP_RETURN for data under 143 bytes (BitcoinDev Mailing List). Supporters argue that formalizing larger OP_RETURN data could streamline these use cases. Critics, however, see workarounds as a reason to strengthen, not weaken, restrictions, emphasizing the need to address underlying incentives rather than accommodating bypasses.

Ecosystem Pressures

External factors influence the debate: - Miners: Services like Marathon Digital’s Slipstream process non-standard transactions for a fee, showing that market incentives already bypass standardness rules. - Layer 2 Projects: Citrea’s Clementine bridge, requiring more data for security proofs, exemplifies the demand for relaxed limits to support innovative applications. - Community Dynamics: The debate echoes past controversies, like the Ordinals debate, where data storage via inscriptions raised similar concerns about Bitcoin’s purpose (CoinDesk).

Bitcoin’s Identity at Stake

The OP_RETURN debate is not merely technical but philosophical, questioning whether Bitcoin should remain a focused monetary system or evolve into a broader data platform. Supporters see relaxed limits as a pragmatic step toward efficiency and innovation, while opponents view them as a risk to Bitcoin’s decentralization, accessibility, and core mission. The community’s decision will have lasting implications, affecting node operators, miners, developers, and users.

Conclusion

As Bitcoin navigates this crossroads, the community must balance the potential benefits of relaxed OP_RETURN limits—such as improved efficiency and support for new applications—against the risks of blockchain bloat, network congestion, and deviation from its monetary roots. The ongoing discussion, accessible via pull request #32406 on GitHub (GitHub PR #32406). Readers are encouraged to explore the debate and contribute to ensuring that any changes align with Bitcoin’s long-term goals as a decentralized, secure, and reliable system.

@ 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.

@ 8cda1daa:e9e5bdd8

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

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

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

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

The Problem: We Live in Digital Captivity

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

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

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

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

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

A Vision for Sovereign Society

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

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

So, What Is the Atomic Economy?

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

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

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

The Tech Stack Behind the Vision

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

1. Payments & Settlement

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

2. Discovery & Matching

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

3. Application Layer

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

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

The Human Impact

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

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

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

Why Bitcoiners Should Care

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

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

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

Join the Atomic Revolution

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

Bitcoin promised a revolution. The Atomic Economy delivers it.

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

Learn more and build with us at Synonym.to.

@ 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. 🚀

@ 8f69ac99:4f92f5fd

A concepção popular de "anarquia" evoca frequentemente caos, colapso e violência. Mas e se anarquia significasse outra coisa? E se representasse um mundo onde as pessoas cooperam e se coordenam sem autoridades impostas? E se implicasse liberdade, ordem voluntária e resiliência—sem coerção?

Bitcoin é um dos raros exemplos funcionais de princípios anarquistas em acção. Não tem CEO, nem Estado, nem planeador central—e, no entanto, o sistema funciona. Faz cumprir regras. Propõe um novo modelo de governação e oferece uma exploração concreta do anarcocapitalismo.

Para o compreendermos, temos de mudar de perspectiva. Bitcoin não é apenas software ou um instrumento de investimento—é um sistema vivo: uma ordem espontânea.

Ordem Espontânea, Teoria dos Jogos e o Papel dos Incentivos Económicos

Na política e economia contemporâneas, presume-se geralmente que a ordem tem de vir de cima. Governos, corporações e burocracias são vistos como essenciais para organizar a sociedade em grande escala.

Mas esta crença nem sempre se verifica.

Os mercados surgem espontaneamente da troca. A linguagem evolui sem supervisão central. Projectos de código aberto prosperam graças a contribuições voluntárias. Nenhum destes sistemas precisa de um rei—e, no entanto, têm estrutura e funcionam.

Bitcoin insere-se nesta tradição de ordens emergentes. Não é ditado por uma entidade única, mas é governado através de código, consenso dos utilizadores e incentivos económicos que recompensam a cooperação e penalizam a desonestidade.

Código Como Constituição

Bitcoin funciona com base num conjunto de regras de software transparentes e verificáveis. Estas regras determinam quem pode adicionar blocos, com que frequência, o que constitui uma transacção válida e como são criadas novas moedas.

Estas regras não são impostas por exércitos nem pela polícia. São mantidas por uma rede descentralizada de milhares de nós, cada um a correr voluntariamente software que valida o cumprimento das regras. Se alguém tentar quebrá-las, o resto da rede simplesmente rejeita a sua versão.

Isto não é governo por maioria—é aceitação baseada em regras.

Cada operador de nó escolhe qual versão do software quer executar. Se uma alteração proposta não tiver consenso suficiente, não se propaga. Foi assim que as "guerras do tamanho do bloco" foram resolvidas—não por votação, mas através de sinalização do que os utilizadores estavam dispostos a aceitar.

Este modelo de governação ascendente é voluntário, sem permissões, e extraordinariamente resiliente. Representa um novo paradigma de sistemas autorregulados.

Mineiros, Incentivos e a Segurança Baseada na Teoria dos Jogos

Bitcoin assegura a sua rede utilizando a Teoria de Jogos. Os mineiros que seguem o protocolo são recompensados financeiramente. Quem tenta enganar—como reescrever blocos ou gastar duas vezes—sofre perdas financeiras e desperdiça recursos.

Agir honestamente é mais lucrativo.

A genialidade de Bitcoin está em alinhar incentivos egoístas com o bem comum. Elimina a necessidade de confiar em administradores ou esperar benevolência. Em vez disso, torna a fraude economicamente irracional.

Isto substitui o modelo tradicional de "confiar nos líderes" por um mais robusto: construir sistemas onde o mau comportamento é desencorajado por design.

Isto é segurança anarquista—não a ausência de regras, mas a ausência de governantes.

Associação Voluntária e Confiança Construída em Consenso

Qualquer pessoa pode usar Bitcoin. Não há controlo de identidade, nem licenças, nem processo de aprovação. Basta descarregar o software e começar a transaccionar.

Ainda assim, Bitcoin não é um caos desorganizado. Os utilizadores seguem regras rigorosas do protocolo. Porquê? Porque é o consenso que dá valor às "moedas". Sem ele, a rede fragmenta-se e falha.

É aqui que Bitcoin desafia as ideias convencionais sobre anarquia. Mostra que sistemas voluntários podem gerar estabilidade—não porque as pessoas são altruístas, mas porque os incentivos bem desenhados tornam a cooperação a escolha racional.

Bitcoin é sem confiança (trustless), mas promove confiança.

Uma Prova de Conceito Viva

Muitos acreditam que, sem controlo central, a sociedade entraria em colapso. Bitcoin prova que isso não é necessariamente verdade.

É uma rede monetária global, sem permissões, capaz de fazer cumprir direitos de propriedade, coordenar recursos e resistir à censura—sem uma autoridade central. Baseia-se apenas em regras, incentivos e participação voluntária.

Bitcoin não é um sistema perfeito. É um projecto dinâmico, em constante evolução. Mas isso faz parte do que o torna tão relevante: é real, está a funcionar e continua a melhorar.

Conclusão

A anarquia não tem de significar caos. Pode significar cooperação sem coerção. Bitcoin prova isso.

Procuramos, desesperados, por alternativas às instituições falhadas, inchadas e corruptas. Bitcoin oferece mais do que dinheiro digital. É uma prova viva de que podemos construir sociedades descentralizadas, eficientes e justas.

E isso, por si só, já é revolucionário.

---

Photo by Floris Van Cauwelaert on Unsplash

@ 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.

@ 6e64b83c:94102ee8

How to Run Your Own Nostr Relay on Android with Cloudflare Domain

Prerequisites

1. Install Citrine on your Android device:
2. Visit https://github.com/greenart7c3/Citrine/releases
3. Download the latest release using:
   • zap.store
   • Obtainium
   • F-Droid
   • Or download the APK directly

4. Note: You may need to enable "Install from Unknown Sources" in your Android settings

5. Domain Requirements:

6. Purchase a domain if you don't have one

7. Transfer your domain to Cloudflare if it's not already there (for free SSL certificates and cloudflared support)

8. Tools to use:

9. nak (the nostr army knife):
   • Download from https://github.com/fiatjaf/nak/releases
   • Installation steps:

   • For Linux/macOS: ```bash # Download the appropriate version for your system wget https://github.com/fiatjaf/nak/releases/latest/download/nak-linux-amd64 # for Linux # or wget https://github.com/fiatjaf/nak/releases/latest/download/nak-darwin-amd64 # for macOS

     # Make it executable chmod +x nak-*

     # Move to a directory in your PATH sudo mv nak-* /usr/local/bin/nak - For Windows:batch # Download the Windows version curl -L -o nak.exe https://github.com/fiatjaf/nak/releases/latest/download/nak-windows-amd64.exe

     # Move to a directory in your PATH (e.g., C:\Windows) move nak.exe C:\Windows\nak.exe - Verify installation:bash nak --version ```

Setting Up Citrine

1. Open the Citrine app
2. Start the server
3. You'll see it running on ws://127.0.0.1:4869 (local network only)
4. Go to settings and paste your npub into "Accept events signed by" inbox and press the + button. This prevents others from publishing events to your personal relay.

Installing Required Tools

1. Install Termux from Google Play Store
2. Open Termux and run:

bash pkg update && pkg install wget wget https://github.com/cloudflare/cloudflared/releases/latest/download/cloudflared-linux-arm64.deb dpkg -i cloudflared-linux-arm64.deb

Cloudflare Authentication

1. Run the authentication command: bash cloudflared tunnel login
2. Follow the instructions:
3. Copy the provided URL to your browser
4. Log in to your Cloudflare account
5. If the URL expires, copy it again after logging in

Creating the Tunnel

1. Create a new tunnel: bash cloudflared tunnel create <TUNNEL_NAME>
2. Choose any name you prefer for your tunnel

3. Copy the tunnel ID after creating the tunnel

4. Create and configure the tunnel config: bash touch ~/.cloudflared/config.yml nano ~/.cloudflared/config.yml

5. Add this configuration (replace the placeholders with your values): ```yaml tunnel: credentials-file: /data/data/com.termux/files/home/.cloudflared/.json ingress:

6. hostname: nostr.yourdomain.com service: ws://localhost:4869
7. service: http_status:404 ```
8. Note: In nano editor:
   • CTRL+O and Enter to save
   • CTRL+X to exit

9. Note: Check the credentials file path in the logs

10. Validate your configuration: bash cloudflared tunnel validate

11. Start the tunnel: bash cloudflared tunnel run my-relay

Preventing Android from Killing the Tunnel

Run these commands to maintain tunnel stability: bash date && apt install termux-tools && termux-setup-storage && termux-wake-lock echo "nameserver 1.1.1.1" > $PREFIX/etc/resolv.conf

Tip: You can open multiple Termux sessions by swiping from the left edge of the screen while keeping your tunnel process running.

Updating Your Outbox Model Relays

Once your relay is running and accessible via your domain, you'll want to update your relay list in the Nostr network. This ensures other clients know about your relay and can connect to it.

Decoding npub (Public Key)

Private keys (nsec) and public keys (npub) are encoded in bech32 format, which includes: - A prefix (like nsec1, npub1 etc.) - The encoded data - A checksum

This format makes keys: - Easy to distinguish - Hard to copy incorrectly

However, most tools require these keys in hexadecimal (hex) format.

To decode an npub string to its hex format:

bash nak decode nostr:npub1dejts0qlva8mqzjlrxqkc2tmvs2t7elszky5upxaf3jha9qs9m5q605uc4

Change it with your own npub.

bash { "pubkey": "6e64b83c1f674fb00a5f19816c297b6414bf67f015894e04dd4c657e94102ee8" }

Copy the pubkey value in quotes.

Create a kind 10002 event with your relay list:

• Include your new relay with write permissions
• Include other relays you want to read from and write to, omit 3rd parameter to make it both read and write

Example format:

json { "kind": 10002, "tags": [ ["r", "wss://your-relay-domain.com", "write"], ["r", "wss://eden.nostr.land/"], ["r", "wss://nos.lol/"], ["r", "wss://nostr.bitcoiner.social/"], ["r", "wss://nostr.mom/"], ["r", "wss://relay.primal.net/"], ["r", "wss://nostr.wine/", "read"], ["r", "wss://relay.damus.io/"], ["r", "wss://relay.nostr.band/"], ["r", "wss://relay.snort.social/"] ], "content": "" }

Save it to a file called event.json

Note: Add or remove any relays you want. To check your existing 10002 relays: - Visit https://nostr.band/?q=by%3Anpub1dejts0qlva8mqzjlrxqkc2tmvs2t7elszky5upxaf3jha9qs9m5q605uc4+++kind%3A10002 - nostr.band is an indexing service, it probably has your relay list. - Replace npub1xxx in the URL with your own npub - Click "VIEW JSON" from the menu to see the raw event - Or use the nak tool if you know the relays bash nak req -k 10002 -a <your-pubkey> wss://relay1.com wss://relay2.com

Replace `<your-pubkey>` with your public key in hex format (you can get it using `nak decode <your-npub>`)

1. Sign and publish the event:
2. Use a Nostr client that supports kind 10002 events
3. Or use the nak command-line tool: bash nak event --sec ncryptsec1... wss://relay1.com wss://relay2.com $(cat event.json)

Important Security Notes: 1. Never share your nsec (private key) with anyone 2. Consider using NIP-49 encrypted keys for better security 3. Never paste your nsec or private key into the terminal. The command will be saved in your shell history, exposing your private key. To clear the command history: - For bash: use history -c - For zsh: use fc -W to write history to file, then fc -p to read it back - Or manually edit your shell history file (e.g., ~/.zsh_history or ~/.bash_history) 4. if you're using zsh, use fc -p to prevent the next command from being saved to history 5. Or temporarily disable history before running sensitive commands:

bash unset HISTFILE nak key encrypt ... set HISTFILE

How to securely create NIP-49 encypted private key

```bash

Read your private key (input will be hidden)

read -s SECRET

Read your password (input will be hidden)

read -s PASSWORD

encrypt command

echo "$SECRET" | nak key encrypt "$PASSWORD"

copy and paste the ncryptsec1 text from the output

read -s ENCRYPTED nak key decrypt "$ENCRYPTED"

clear variables from memory

unset SECRET PASSWORD ENCRYPTED ```

On a Windows command line, to read from stdin and use the variables in nak commands, you can use a combination of set /p to read input and then use those variables in your command. Here's an example:

```bash @echo off set /p "SECRET=Enter your secret key: " set /p "PASSWORD=Enter your password: "

echo %SECRET%| nak key encrypt %PASSWORD%

:: Clear the sensitive variables set "SECRET=" set "PASSWORD=" ```

If your key starts with ncryptsec1, the nak tool will securely prompt you for a password when using the --sec parameter, unless the command is used with a pipe < > or |.

bash nak event --sec ncryptsec1... wss://relay1.com wss://relay2.com $(cat event.json)

1. Verify the event was published:
2. Check if your relay list is visible on other relays

3. Use the nak tool to fetch your kind 10002 events: bash nak req -k 10002 -a <your-pubkey> wss://relay1.com wss://relay2.com

4. Testing your relay:

5. Try connecting to your relay using different Nostr clients
6. Verify you can both read from and write to your relay
7. Check if events are being properly stored and retrieved
8. Tip: Use multiple Nostr clients to test different aspects of your relay

Note: If anyone in the community has a more efficient method of doing things like updating outbox relays, please share your insights in the comments. Your expertise would be greatly appreciated!

@ 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

@ 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.

@ b099870e:f3ba8f5d

A donkey that is tied to a post by a rope will keep walking around the post is an attempt to free it self,only to become more immobilize and attached to the post.

ikigai

@ 9bde4214:06ca052b

"It's gonna be permissionless or hell."

Gigi and gzuuus are vibing towards dystopia.

Books & articles mentioned:

• AI 2027
• DVMs were a mistake
• Careless People by Sarah Wynn-Williams
• Takedown by Laila michelwait
• The Ultimate Resource by Julian L. Simon
• Harry Potter by J.K. Rowling
• Momo by Michael Ende

In this dialogue:

• Pablo's Roo Setup
• Tech Hype Cycles
• AI 2027
• Prompt injection and other attacks
• Goose and DVMCP
• Cursor vs Roo Code
• Staying in control thanks to Amber and signing delegation
• Is YOLO mode here to stay?
• What agents to trust?
• What MCP tools to trust?
• What code snippets to trust?
• Everyone will run into the issues of trust and micropayments
• Nostr solves Web of Trust & micropayments natively
• Minimalistic & open usually wins
• DVMCP exists thanks to Totem
• Relays as Tamagochis
• Agents aren't nostr experts, at least not right now
• Fix a mistake once & it's fixed forever
• Giving long-term memory to LLMs
• RAG Databases signed by domain experts
• Human-agent hybrids & Chess
• Nostr beating heart
• Pluggable context & experts
• "You never need an API key for anything"
• Sats and social signaling
• Difficulty-adjusted PoW as a rare-limiting mechanism
• Certificate authorities and centralization
• No solutions to policing speech!
• OAuth and how it centralized
• Login with nostr
• Closed vs open-source models
• Tiny models vs large models
• The minions protocol (Stanford paper)
• Generalist models vs specialized models
• Local compute & encrypted queries
• Blinded compute
• "In the eyes of the state, agents aren't people"
• Agents need identity and money; nostr provides both
• "It's gonna be permissionless or hell"
• We already have marketplaces for MCP stuff, code snippets, and other things
• Most great stuff came from marketplaces (browsers, games, etc)
• Zapstore shows that this is already working
• At scale, central control never works. There's plenty scams and viruses in the app stores.
• Using nostr to archive your user-generated content
• HAVEN, blossom, novia
• The switcharoo from advertisements to training data
• What is Truth?
• What is Real?
• "We're vibing into dystopia"
• Who should be the arbiter of Truth?
• First Amendment & why the Logos is sacred
• Silicon Valley AI bros arrogantly dismiss wisdom and philosophy
• Suicide rates & the meaning crisis
• Are LLMs symbiotic or parasitic?
• The Amish got it right
• Are we gonna make it?
• Careless People by Sarah Wynn-Williams
• Takedown by Laila michelwait
• Harry Potter dementors & Momo's time thieves
• Facebook & Google as non-human (superhuman) agents
• Zapping as a conscious action
• Privacy and the internet
• Plausible deniability thanks to generative models
• Google glasses, glassholes, and Meta's Ray Ben's
• People crave realness
• Bitcoin is the realest money we ever had
• Nostr allows for real and honest expression
• How do we find out what's real?
• Constraints, policing, and chilling effects
• Jesus' plans for DVMCP
• Hzrd's article on how DVMs are broken (DVMs were a mistake)
• Don't believe the hype
• DVMs pre-date MCP tools
• Data Vending Machines were supposed to be stupid: put coin in, get stuff out.
• Self-healing vibe-coding
• IP addresses as scarce assets
• Atomic swaps and the ASS protocol
• More marketplaces, less silos
• The intensity of #SovEng and the last 6 weeks
• If you can vibe-code everything, why build anything?
• Time, the ultimate resource
• What are the LLMs allowed to think?
• Natural language interfaces are inherently dialogical
• Sovereign Engineering is dialogical too

@ 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.

@ fd78c37f:a0ec0833

Bitcoin is redefining finance, and in Asia—Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, and beyond—developers, entrepreneurs, and communities are fueling this revolution. YakiHonne, a decentralized social payments app built on Nostr, sat down with Gio (nostr:npub1yrnuj56rnen08zp2h9h7p74ghgjx6ma39spmpj6w9hzxywutevsst7k5cx), a core member of Thailand’s Sats ‘N’ Facts community, to explore their mission of fostering open-source Bitcoin development. In this interview, Gio shares the origins of Sats ‘N’ Facts, the challenges of hosting Bitcoin-focused events in Asia, and how these efforts are shaping adoption across the region.

---

YakiHonne: Can you tell us about yourself and how Sats ‘N’ Facts came to life? What sparked your Bitcoin journey?

Gio: I’m originally from Europe but have called Thailand home for six years. My Bitcoin story began while working at a commercial bank, where I saw the fiat system’s flaws firsthand—things like the Cantillon Effect, where money printing favors the connected few, felt deeply unfair. That discomfort led me to Andreas Antonopoulos’ videos, which opened my eyes to Bitcoin’s potential. After moving to Bangkok, I joined the open-source scene at BOB Space, collaborating with folks on tech projects.

Sats ‘N’ Facts grew out of that spirit. We wanted to create a Bitcoin-focused community to support developers and builders in Asia. Our recent conference in Chiang Mai brought together over 70 enthusiasts from Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, and beyond, sparking collaborations like a new Lightning Network tool. It was a milestone in connecting the region’s Bitcoin ecosystem.

---

YakiHonne: What inspired the Sats ‘N’ Facts conference, and how did you attract attendees?

Gio: The event was born from a desire to create a high-signal, low-noise space for Freedom Tech in Asia. While the U.S. and Europe host major Bitcoin events, Asia’s scene is still emerging under commercial stunts. We aimed to bridge that gap, uniting developers, educators, and enthusiasts to discuss real innovations—no altcoins, no corporate agendas. Our focus was on open-source projects like Bitcoin Core, Ark, Cashu, fostering conversations that could lead to tangible contributions.

Attracting attendees wasn’t easy. We leveraged local networks, reaching out to Bitcoin communities in neighboring countries via Nostr and Telegram. Posts on X helped spread the word, and we saw developers from Laos join for the first time, which was thrilling. Sponsors like Fulgur Ventures, Utreexo, and the Bitcoin Development Kit Foundation played a huge role, covering costs so we could keep the event free and accessible.

---

YakiHonne: What challenges did you face organizing the conference in Asia?

Gio: It was a steep learning curve. Funding was the biggest hurdle—early on, we struggled to cover venue and travel costs. Thankfully, our sponsors stepped in, letting me focus on logistics, which were no small feat either. As a first-time organizer, I underestimated the chaos of a tight timeline. Day one felt like herding cats without a fixed agenda, but the energy was electric—developers debugging code together, newcomers asking big questions.

Another challenge was cultural. Bitcoin’s still niche in Asia, so convincing locals to attend took persistence; there was no local presence for some reason. Despite the hiccups, we pulled it off, hosting 60+ attendees and sparking ideas for new projects, like a Cashu wallet integration. I’d tweak the planning next time, but the raw passion made it unforgettable.

---

YakiHonne: How does YakiHonne’s vision of decentralized social payments align with Sats ‘N’ Facts’ goals? Could tools like ours support your community?

Gio: That’s a great question. YakiHonne’s approach—merging Nostr’s censorship-resistant communication with Lightning payments—fits perfectly with our mission to empower users through open tech. At Sats ‘N’ Facts, we’re all about tools that give people control, whether it’s code or money. An app like YakiHonne could streamline community funding, letting developers tip each other for contributions or crowdfund projects directly. Imagine a hackathon where winners get sats instantly via YakiHonne—it’d be a game-changer. I’d love to see you guys at our next event to demo it!

---

YakiHonne: What advice would you give to someone starting a Bitcoin-focused community or event?

Gio: First, keep it Bitcoin-only. Stay true to the principles—cut out distractions like altcoins or hype-driven schemes. Start small: host regular meetups, maybe five people at a café, and build trust over time. Consistency and authenticity beat flashiness in the medium and long term.

Second, involve technical folks. Developers bring credibility and clarity, explaining Bitcoin’s nuts and bolts in ways newcomers get. I admire how Andreas Antonopoulos bridges that gap—technical yet accessible. You need that foundation to grow a real community.

Finally, lean on existing networks. If you know someone running a Bitcoin meetup in another city, collaborate. Share ideas, speakers, or even livestreams. Nostr’s great for this—our Laos attendees found us through a single post. Relationships are everything.

---

YakiHonne: Does Sats ‘N’ Facts focus more on Bitcoin’s technical side, non-technical side, or both?

Gio: We blend both. Our event had workshops for coders alongside talks for beginners on why Bitcoin matters. Open-source is our heartbeat, though. If you’re starting out, dive into projects like Bitcoin Core or Lightning. Review a pull request, test a Cashu wallet, or join a hackathon. One developer at our event built a Lightning micropayment tool that’s now live on GitHub.

There’s no shortage of ways to contribute. Community calls, forums, residency programs, and platforms like Geyser Fund are goldmines. YakiHonne could amplify this—imagine tipping developers for bug fixes via your app. It’s about iterating until you create something real.

---

YakiHonne: Your work is inspiring, Gio. Sats ‘N’ Facts is uniting Asia’s Bitcoin communities in a powerful way. What’s next for you?

Gio: Thanks for the kind words! We’re just getting started. The Chiang Mai event showed what’s possible—connecting developers across borders, reviewing and launching code and testing upcoming technologies. Next, we’re planning smaller hackathons and other events to keep the momentum going, maybe in Vietnam, Indonesia or Korea. I’d love to integrate tools like YakiHonne to fund these efforts directly through Nostr payments. Long-term, we want Sats ‘N’ Facts to be a hub for Asia’s Bitcoin builders, proving open-source can thrive here.

---

YakiHonne: Thank you, Gio, for sharing Sats ‘N’ Facts incredible journey. Your work is lighting a path for Bitcoin in Asia, and we’re honored to tell this story.

To our readers: Bitcoin’s future depends on communities like Sats ‘N’ Facts—and you can join the revolution. Download YakiHonne on Nostr to connect with builders, send Lightning payments, and explore the decentralized world. Follow Sats ‘N’ Facts for their next hackathon, and let’s build freedom tech together!

@ 005bc4de:ef11e1a2

May 6 marks my "Nostr birthday." This means I've been on Nostr for two years now. See my initial "Running nostr" note timestamped and archived on the Hive blockchain at https://peakd.com/bitcoin/@crrdlx/running-nostr

Two years ago, I really had no idea what Nostr was. I was asking, "What is this Nostr thing?"

And, I had no idea what I was doing then while using the front end clients. The clients were clunky and since the protocol was rather plastic (still kinda is). As evidence to my ignorance, the spinning wheels on Coracle.social just kept spinning. I didn't realize that since I was only following two people, one being myself, there was nothing to load from relays except my one "Running nostr" note. Hence, the Coracle wheels just spun in their mesmerizing manner. At least they're soothing to watch.

Yet, despite my ignorance, I had an inkling of a notion that Nostr was indeed something different, maybe special. Otherwise, I wouldn't have taken the time to capture an animated gif and make that Hive post to chronicle my first Nostr note.

For fun, I made another "Running nostr" note yesterday using Coracle.social. It still has those muted, earthy tones, but the wheels are not there anymore for long. Coracle, like Nostr, has come a long way in two years. It loads much faster now, which means less wheel spinning. I kind of miss the wheels for some reason, they build the drama and expectation of what might appear.

---

!HBIT

@ ed5774ac:45611c5c

April 20, 2020: The day I saw my so-called friends expose themselves as gutless, brain-dead sheep.

On that day, I shared a video exposing the damning history of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's vaccine campaigns in Africa and the developing world. As Gates was on every TV screen, shilling COVID jabs that didn’t even exist, I called out his blatant financial conflict of interest and pointed out the obvious in my facebook post: "Finally someone is able to explain why Bill Gates runs from TV to TV to promote vaccination. Not surprisingly, it's all about money again…" - referencing his substantial investments in vaccine technology, including BioNTech's mRNA platform that would later produce the COVID vaccines and generate massive profits for his so-called philanthropic foundation.

The conflict of interest was undeniable. I genuinely believed anyone capable of basic critical thinking would at least pause to consider these glaring financial motives. But what followed was a masterclass in human stupidity.

My facebook post from 20 April 2020:

Not only was I branded a 'conspiracy theorist' for daring to question the billionaire who stood to make a fortune off the very vaccines he was shilling, but the brain-dead, logic-free bullshit vomited by the people around me was beyond pathetic. These barely literate morons couldn’t spell "Pfizer" without auto-correct, yet they mindlessly swallowed and repeated every lie the media and government force-fed them, branding anything that cracked their fragile reality as "conspiracy theory." Big Pharma’s rap sheet—fraud, deadly cover-ups, billions in fines—could fill libraries, yet these obedient sheep didn’t bother to open a single book or read a single study before screaming their ignorance, desperate to virtue-signal their obedience. Then, like spineless lab rats, they lined up for an experimental jab rushed to the market in months, too dumb to care that proper vaccine development takes a decade.

The pathetic part is that these idiots spend hours obsessing over reviews for their useless purchases like shoes or socks, but won’t spare 60 seconds to research the experimental cocktail being injected into their veins—or even glance at the FDA’s own damning safety reports. Those same obedient sheep would read every Yelp review for a fucking coffee shop but won't spend five minutes looking up Pfizer's criminal fraud settlements. They would demand absolute obedience to ‘The Science™’—while being unable to define mRNA, explain lipid nanoparticles, or justify why trials were still running as they queued up like cattle for their jab. If they had two brain cells to rub together or spent 30 minutes actually researching, they'd know, but no—they'd rather suck down the narrative like good little slaves, too dumb to question, too weak to think.

Worst of all, they became the system’s attack dogs—not just swallowing the poison, but forcing it down others’ throats. This wasn’t ignorance. It was betrayal. They mutated into medical brownshirts, destroying lives to virtue-signal their obedience—even as their own children’s hearts swelled with inflammation.

One conversation still haunts me to this day—a masterclass in wealth-worship delusion. A close friend, as a response to my facebook post, insisted that Gates’ assumed reading list magically awards him vaccine expertise, while dismissing his billion-dollar investments in the same products as ‘no conflict of interest.’ Worse, he argued that Gates’s $5–10 billion pandemic windfall was ‘deserved.’

This exchange crystallizes civilization’s intellectual surrender: reason discarded with religious fervor, replaced by blind faith in corporate propaganda.

The comment of a friend on my facebook post that still haunts me to this day:

Walking Away from the Herd

After a period of anger and disillusionment, I made a decision: I would no longer waste energy arguing with people who refused to think for themselves. If my circle couldn’t even ask basic questions—like why an untested medical intervention was being pushed with unprecedented urgency—then I needed a new community.

Fortunately, I already knew where to look. For three years, I had been involved in Bitcoin, a space where skepticism wasn’t just tolerated—it was demanded. Here, I’d met some of the most principled and independent thinkers I’d ever encountered. These were people who understood the corrupting influence of centralized power—whether in money, media, or politics—and who valued sovereignty, skepticism, and integrity. Instead of blind trust, bitcoiners practiced relentless verification. And instead of empty rhetoric, they lived by a simple creed: Don’t trust. Verify.

It wasn’t just a philosophy. It was a lifeline. So I chose my side and I walked away from the herd.

Finding My Tribe

Over the next four years, I immersed myself in Bitcoin conferences, meetups, and spaces where ideas were tested, not parroted. Here, I encountered extraordinary people: not only did they share my skepticism toward broken systems, but they challenged me to sharpen it.

No longer adrift in a sea of mindless conformity, I’d found a crew of thinkers who cut through the noise. They saw clearly what most ignored—that at the core of society’s collapse lay broken money, the silent tax on time, freedom, and truth itself. But unlike the complainers I’d left behind, these people built. They coded. They wrote. They risked careers and reputations to expose the rot. Some faced censorship; others, mockery. All understood the stakes.

These weren’t keyboard philosophers. They were modern-day Cassandras, warning of inflation’s theft, the Fed’s lies, and the coming dollar collapse—not for clout, but because they refused to kneel to a dying regime. And in their defiance, I found something rare: a tribe that didn’t just believe in a freer future. They were engineering it.

April 20, 2024: No more herd. No more lies. Only proof-of-work.

On April 20, 2024, exactly four years after my last Facebook post, the one that severed my ties to the herd for good—I stood in front of Warsaw’s iconic Palace of Culture and Science, surrounded by 400 bitcoiners who felt like family. We were there to celebrate Bitcoin’s fourth halving, but it was more than a protocol milestone. It was a reunion of sovereign individuals. Some faces I’d known since the early days; others, I’d met only hours before. We bonded instantly—heated debates, roaring laughter, zero filters on truths or on so called conspiracy theories.

As the countdown to the halving began, it hit me: This was the antithesis of the hollow world I’d left behind. No performative outrage, no coerced consensus—just a room of unyielding minds who’d traded the illusion of safety for the grit of truth. Four years prior, I’d been alone in my resistance. Now, I raised my glass among my people - those who had seen the system's lies and chosen freedom instead. Each had their own story of awakening, their own battles fought, but here we shared the same hard-won truth.

The energy wasn’t just electric. It was alive—the kind that emerges when free people build rather than beg. For the first time, I didn’t just belong. I was home. And in that moment, the halving’s ticking clock mirrored my own journey: cyclical, predictable in its scarcity, revolutionary in its consequences. Four years had burned away the old world. What remained was stronger.

No Regrets

Leaving the herd wasn’t a choice—it was evolution. My soul shouted: "I’d rather stand alone than kneel with the masses!". The Bitcoin community became more than family; they’re living proof that the world still produces warriors, not sheep. Here, among those who forge truth, I found something extinct elsewhere: hope that burns brighter with every halving, every block, every defiant mind that joins the fight.

Change doesn’t come from the crowd. It starts when one person stops applauding.

Today, I stand exactly where I always wanted to be—shoulder-to-shoulder with my true family: the rebels, the builders, the ungovernable. Together, we’re building the decentralized future.

@ 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.

@ 30b99916:3cc6e3fe

btcpayserver #lightning #lnd #powershell #coinos

BTCpayAPI now supports CoinOS.io REST Api

Adding Coinos.io REST Api end points support to BTCpayAPI. Here is what is implemented, tested and doumented so far.

Current REST APIs supported are now:

LND API https://lightning.engineering/api-docs/api/lnd/ BTCPay Greenfield API (v1) https://docs.btcpayserver.org/API/Greenfield/v1/ Hashicorp Vault API https://developer.hashicorp.com/vault/api-docs/secret/kv/kv-v1 Coinos.io API https://coinos.io/docs

Although this is PowerShell code, it is exclusively being developed and tested on Linux only.

Code is available at https://btcpayserver.sytes.net

@ 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.

@ dab6c606:51f507b6

Core idea: Use geotagged anonymized Nostr events with Cashu-based points to snitch on cop locations for a more relaxed driving and walking

We all know navigation apps. There's one of them that allows you to report on locations of cops. It's Waze and it's owned by Google. There are perfectly fine navigation apps like Organic Maps, that unfortunately lack the cop-snitching features. In some countries, it is illegal to report cop locations, so it would probably not be a good idea to use your npub to report them. But getting a points Cashu token as a reward and exchanging them from time to time would solve this. You can of course report construction, traffic jams, ...

Proposed solution: Add Nostr client (Copstr) to Organic Maps. Have a button in bottom right allowing you to report traffic situations. Geotagged events are published on Nostr relays, users sending cashu tokens as thank you if the report is valid. Notes have smart expiration times.

Phase 2: Automation: Integration with dashcams and comma.ai allow for automated AI recognition of traffic events such as traffic jams and cops, with automatic touchless reporting.

Result: Drive with most essential information and with full privacy. Collect points to be cool and stay cool.

@ 1b9fc4cd:1d6d4902

Music has always been dynamic, molding and reflecting cultural shifts across generations. From the smoky underground clubs of Northern England to the gritty, graffiti-laden walls of New York City's punk venues, and the rain-soaked streets of Seattle, the evolution of music is a testament to the ever-changing landscape of human expression. Daniel Siegel Alonso takes you on a witty and insightful journey through pivotal moments in music history: The Beatles at The Cavern Club, punk rock's birth at CBGBs, and the Seattle grunge explosion.

The Beatles do The Cavern

Close your eyes and imagine: It's 1961, and you're down in the basement of The Cavern Club in Liverpool; it's packed with sweat-drenched, eager faces, and the air thick, dripping with anticipation. On stage, four young lads who would soon become the most famous band in the world are tuning their guitars. The Beatles, with their mop-top haircuts and cheeky grins, are on the precipice of changing music for generations.

Before they were household names, John, Paul, George, and Ringo honed their craft in this humble, dimly lit venue. The Cavern Club was their proving ground, where they transitioned from covering American icons Chuck Berry and Little Richard to showcasing their original material. Here, they first captivated audiences with their infectious energy and groundbreaking sound.

The group's time at The Cavern Club was pivotal. It was where they caught the eye of Brian Epstein, who would become its manager, and later, record producer George Martin, aka the fifth Beatle. This tiny, subterranean venue was the launchpad for a nuclear cultural revolution. The Beatles didn't just play pop and rock music; they constructed an identity, a lifestyle, and, in hindsight, an era. They embodied the spirit of the Swinging 60s, melding rock 'n' roll with a bouncy pop sensibility that was both rowdy and charming.

Anarchy in the Big Apple

Daniel Siegel Alonso fast-forwards to the mid-70s, and we're in an entirely different world. Bankrupt Manhattan, in the bowels of a biker bar on the Bowery called CBGBs--a mouthful of an acronym standing for Country, Bluegrass, and Blues. The stage is dilapidated, and the sound system is a haphazard collection of amps and speakers at best. Here, the raw energy of punk rock was born, thrashing and pogoing its way into the mainstream.

CBGBs became the center of a musical revolt. Groups like The Ramones, Blondie, and Television took to the ramshackle stage, bringing with them a loud, fast, and unapologetically raw sound. Punk was a direct response to the bloated excesses of middle-of-the-road rock and bands like Yes, Chicago, and Fleetwood Mac; punk was do-it-yourself, back to basics, and in-your-face.

The Ramones epitomized this new angsty attitude with their black leather jackets and torn jeans. The songs they wrote were short, sharp, and shocking to audiences accustomed to indulgent guitar solos and elaborate stage productions. CBGBs was more than just a venue; it was a breeding ground for a cultural movement. It embraced the DIY ethic, encouraging emerging bands to play regardless of polish or professionalism. This sense of independence and defiance reverberated with a new generation of listeners disenchanted by the status quo.

The Last Great Rock Revolution

Siegel Alonso jumps ahead another decade to Seattle, a city known more for its rain than its rock-and-roll. Yet, over three decades ago, Seattle was the epicenter of grunge, a new genre that would once again redefine music. The core of this movement was a collection of venues like The Crocodile and The Off Ramp, where bands like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and Soundgarden first made their mark.

Grunge was a gritty, angst-filled reaction to the over-produced pop and ostentatious hair metal of the 80s. It combined the raw energy of punk from the previous decade with heavy metal's strength, birthing a sound that was both abrasive and softly melodic. Grunge poster boy Kurt Cobain, with his ragged sweaters and unkempt wiry hair, became the reluctant voice of the last analog generation. Nirvana's breakout album, "Nevermind," was a seismic pop culture event, forcing grunge into the global mainstream.

Seattle's grunge scene was characterized by authenticity and a sense of community. Bands often collaborated and supported each other, creating a tight-knit musical ecosystem. The city's isolation from traditional music industry hubs allowed for a unique sound to develop, one that was untainted by commercial pressures.

Connecting the Dots

What ties these three musical moments together is their grassroots beginnings. The Beatles, the first wave of punk rock, and grunge all began in small, dingy venues, driven by pure passion and a craving to disrupt the status quo. Each musical chapter mirrored and influenced the cultural zeitgeist of its time, providing a soundtrack to their respective eras' social changes and attitudes.

The Cavern Club, CBGBs, and Seattle's grunge venues were more than places where bands performed; they were incubators of innovation and rebellion. They nurtured the raw, unpolished energy that would shape the future of popular music.

As Siegel Alonso reflects on these musical milestones, a pattern of evolution emerges driven by a handful of fundamental ingredients: authenticity, community, and a bold embrace of the unknown. Music's narrative is one of constant change, and as these examples depict, it's often in the most unexpected places that the next big thing begins to take shape.

@ 90c656ff:9383fd4e

Bitcoin has been gaining increasing acceptance as a means of payment, evolving from being just a digital investment asset to becoming a viable alternative to traditional currencies. Today, many companies around the world already accept Bitcoin, providing consumers with greater financial freedom and reducing reliance on traditional banking intermediaries.

• Global companies that accept Bitcoin

Over the years, several well-known companies have begun accepting Bitcoin, recognizing its benefits such as security, transparency, and low transaction fees. Among the most prominent are:

01 - Microsoft: The tech giant allows users to add funds to their Microsoft accounts using Bitcoin. This enables the purchase of digital content such as games, apps, and software available in the Microsoft Store. 02 - Overstock: One of the largest online retailers that accepts Bitcoin for the purchase of furniture, electronics, and home goods. Overstock was an early adopter, signaling a strong commitment to financial innovation. 03 - AT&T: The U.S. telecommunications company was the first in its industry to accept Bitcoin payments, giving customers the option to pay their bills with cryptocurrency through BitPay. 04 - Twitch: While Twitch does not natively support Bitcoin donations or payments, many streamers use third-party services like NOWPayments, Streamlabs (with Coinbase integration), or Plisio to accept crypto tips and donations. This opens a path for Bitcoin support through external platforms, especially within the content creator community. 05 - Namecheap: A leading domain registrar and web hosting provider that accepts Bitcoin for domain registration and hosting services, showcasing Bitcoin’s usefulness in the digital economy.

• Small businesses and local commerce

Beyond large corporations, a growing number of small businesses and local merchants are embracing Bitcoin, particularly in cities that are becoming hubs for digital innovation.

01 - Restaurants and cafés: In cities like Lisbon, London, and New York, several cafés and eateries accept Bitcoin as payment, attracting tech-savvy customers. 02 - Hotels and tourism: Certain hotel chains and travel platforms now accept Bitcoin, simplifying bookings and removing the need for currency exchange for international travelers. 03 - Online stores: Many small e-commerce businesses offer Bitcoin as a payment option or even operate exclusively using cryptocurrency, benefiting from borderless, fast transactions.

• Advantages for businesses and consumers

The growing acceptance of Bitcoin is largely driven by its advantages:

01 - Lower transaction fees: Businesses can reduce costs associated with credit card fees and payment processors. 02 - No intermediaries: Direct peer-to-peer payments cut down on bureaucracy and reduce fraud risks. 03 - Global access: Bitcoin allows for cross-border payments without the need for currency exchange, ideal for international transactions.

In summary, the adoption of Bitcoin as a means of payment continues to expand, with companies of all sizes recognizing its strategic value. From large enterprises to independent creators and local shops, Bitcoin is gradually becoming a more practical and accepted financial tool. While challenges such as volatility and regulatory uncertainty remain, the broader trend points toward a future where paying with Bitcoin could be a common part of everyday life.

Thank you very much for reading this far. I hope everything is well with you, and sending a big hug from your favorite Bitcoiner maximalist from Madeira. Long live freedom!

@ c4b5369a:b812dbd6

Offline transactions with Cashu

Over the past few weeks, I've been busy implementing offline capabilities into nutstash. I think this is one of the key value propositions of ecash, beinga a bearer instrument that can be used without internet access. It does however come with limitations, which can lead to a bit of confusion. I hope this article will clear some of these questions up for you!

What is ecash/Cashu?

Ecash is the first cryptocurrency ever invented. It was created by David Chaum in 1983. It uses a blind signature scheme, which allows users to prove ownership of a token without revealing a link to its origin. These tokens are what we call ecash. They are bearer instruments, meaning that anyone who possesses a copy of them, is considered the owner.

Cashu is an implementation of ecash, built to tightly interact with Bitcoin, more specifically the Bitcoin lightning network. In the Cashu ecosystem, Mints are the gateway to the lightning network. They provide the infrastructure to access the lightning network, pay invoices and receive payments. Instead of relying on a traditional ledger scheme like other custodians do, the mint issues ecash tokens, to represent the value held by the users.

How do normal Cashu transactions work?

A Cashu transaction happens when the sender gives a copy of his ecash token to the receiver. This can happen by any means imaginable. You could send the token through email, messenger, or even by pidgeon. One of the common ways to transfer ecash is via QR code.

The transaction is however not finalized just yet! In order to make sure the sender cannot double-spend their copy of the token, the receiver must do what we call a swap. A swap is essentially exchanging an ecash token for a new one at the mint, invalidating the old token in the process. This ensures that the sender can no longer use the same token to spend elsewhere, and the value has been transferred to the receiver.

What about offline transactions?

Sending offline

Sending offline is very simple. The ecash tokens are stored on your device. Thus, no internet connection is required to access them. You can litteraly just take them, and give them to someone. The most convenient way is usually through a local transmission protocol, like NFC, QR code, Bluetooth, etc.

The one thing to consider when sending offline is that ecash tokens come in form of "coins" or "notes". The technical term we use in Cashu is Proof. It "proofs" to the mint that you own a certain amount of value. Since these proofs have a fixed value attached to them, much like UTXOs in Bitcoin do, you would need proofs with a value that matches what you want to send. You can mix and match multiple proofs together to create a token that matches the amount you want to send. But, if you don't have proofs that match the amount, you would need to go online and swap for the needed proofs at the mint.

Another limitation is, that you cannot create custom proofs offline. For example, if you would want to lock the ecash to a certain pubkey, or add a timelock to the proof, you would need to go online and create a new custom proof at the mint.

Receiving offline

You might think: well, if I trust the sender, I don't need to be swapping the token right away!

You're absolutely correct. If you trust the sender, you can simply accept their ecash token without needing to swap it immediately.

This is already really useful, since it gives you a way to receive a payment from a friend or close aquaintance without having to worry about connectivity. It's almost just like physical cash!

It does however not work if the sender is untrusted. We have to use a different scheme to be able to receive payments from someone we don't trust.

Receiving offline from an untrusted sender

To be able to receive payments from an untrusted sender, we need the sender to create a custom proof for us. As we've seen before, this requires the sender to go online.

The sender needs to create a token that has the following properties, so that the receciver can verify it offline:

• It must be locked to ONLY the receiver's public key
• It must include an offline signature proof (DLEQ proof)
• If it contains a timelock & refund clause, it must be set to a time in the future that is acceptable for the receiver
• It cannot contain duplicate proofs (double-spend)
• It cannot contain proofs that the receiver has already received before (double-spend)

If all of these conditions are met, then the receiver can verify the proof offline and accept the payment. This allows us to receive payments from anyone, even if we don't trust them.

At first glance, this scheme seems kinda useless. It requires the sender to go online, which defeats the purpose of having an offline payment system.

I beleive there are a couple of ways this scheme might be useful nonetheless:

1. Offline vending machines: Imagine you have an offline vending machine that accepts payments from anyone. The vending machine could use this scheme to verify payments without needing to go online itself. We can assume that the sender is able to go online and create a valid token, but the receiver doesn't need to be online to verify it.

2. Offline marketplaces: Imagine you have an offline marketplace where buyers and sellers can trade goods and services. Before going to the marketplace the sender already knows where he will be spending the money. The sender could create a valid token before going to the marketplace, using the merchants public key as a lock, and adding a refund clause to redeem any unspent ecash after it expires. In this case, neither the sender nor the receiver needs to go online to complete the transaction.

How to use this

Pretty much all cashu wallets allow you to send tokens offline. This is because all that the wallet needs to do is to look if it can create the desired amount from the proofs stored locally. If yes, it will automatically create the token offline.

Receiving offline tokens is currently only supported by nutstash (experimental).

To create an offline receivable token, the sender needs to lock it to the receiver's public key. Currently there is no refund clause! So be careful that you don't get accidentally locked out of your funds!

The receiver can then inspect the token and decide if it is safe to accept without a swap. If all checks are green, they can accept the token offline without trusting the sender.

The receiver will see the unswapped tokens on the wallet homescreen. They will need to manually swap them later when they are online again.

Later when the receiver is online again, they can swap the token for a fresh one.

Summary

We learned that offline transactions are possible with ecash, but there are some limitations. It either requires trusting the sender, or relying on either the sender or receiver to be online to verify the tokens, or create tokens that can be verified offline by the receiver.

I hope this short article was helpful in understanding how ecash works and its potential for offline transactions.

Cheers,

Gandlaf

@ ffbcb706:b0574044

Markdown test italic bold in openletter Nostr https://openletter.earth/ Have a great day

@ e83b66a8:b0526c2b

I’m going to talk about Ethereum, hear me out.

Ethereum is a Turing complete consensus blockchain tokenised by its own currency Ether.

This idea by Vitalik Buterin was incredibly compelling and still is today, even though few real world use cases have emerged.

For example, as a company, I could pay a carbon tax in Ether, locked into a smart contract. If the temperate rises by more than “n” degrees year on year based on a known agreed external (blind) oracle, say a weather station located near my factory.

Fantastic, we now have an automatic climate tax.

In reality, few realistic applications exist, however the idea is very compelling and many flocked to Ethereum as a promise of the future. This inflated its utility token “Ether” into stratospherically high prices.

This, in turn, attracted speculative investors and traders only looking at the price signal of the token and no longer considering the utility. This created a bubble which has gradually deflated over time.

This is why we are seeing Bitcoin, which only attempts to be money, succeed relative to Ethereum.

As Ethereum fails, and Bitcoin development strides on, an opportunity arises to try to do what Ethereum and all the other related altcoins have so far failed to do. Computational utility. And to do this on Bitcoin, the most successful “Crypto”.

The first unintended hijack of Ethereums utility are the JPEGs we are seeing on our blockchain.

This latest drive to make Bitcoin Turing complete is potentially the final destination for developers keen to explore the potential of Bitcoins eco-system.

Perhaps Bitcoin is going to absorb all the altcoins. Perhaps that is the goal of Bitcoins developers.

I don’t comment whether this is good or bad, I’m just exploring whether this may be the agenda.

@ 826e9f89:ffc5c759

What follows began as snippets of conversations I have been having for years, on and off, here and there. It will likely eventually be collated into a piece I have been meaning to write on “payments” as a whole. I foolishly started writing this piece years ago, not realizing that the topic is gargantuan and for every week I spend writing it I have to add two weeks to my plan. That may or may not ever come to fruition, but in the meantime, Tether announced it was issuing on Taproot Assets and suddenly everybody is interested again. This is as good a catalyst as any to carve out my “stablecoin thesis”, such as it exists, from “payments”, and put it out there for comment and feedback.

In contrast to the “Bitcoiner take” I will shortly revert to, I invite the reader to keep the following potential counterargument in mind, which might variously be termed the “shitcoiner”, “realist”, or “cynical” take, depending on your perspective: that stablecoins have clear product-market-fit. Now, as a venture capitalist and professional thinkboi focusing on companies building on Bitcoin, I obviously think that not only is Bitcoin the best money ever invented and its monetization is pretty much inevitable, but that, furthermore, there is enormous, era-defining long-term potential for a range of industries in which Bitcoin is emerging as superior technology, even aside from its role as money. But in the interest not just of steelmanning but frankly just of honesty, I would grudgingly agree with the following assessment as of the time of writing: the applications of crypto (inclusive of Bitcoin but deliberately wider) that have found product-market-fit today, and that are not speculative bets on future development and adoption, are: Bitcoin as savings technology, mining as a means of monetizing energy production, and stablecoins.

I think there are two typical Bitcoiner objections to stablecoins of significantly greater importance than all others: that you shouldn’t be supporting dollar hegemony, and that you don’t need a blockchain. I will elaborate on each of these, and for the remainder of the post will aim to produce a synthesis of three superficially contrasting (or at least not obviously related) sources of inspiration: these objections, the realisation above that stablecoins just are useful, and some commentary on technical developments in Bitcoin and the broader space that I think inform where things are likely to go. As will become clear as the argument progresses, I actually think the outcome to which I am building up is where things have to go. I think the technical and economic incentives at play make this an inevitability rather than a “choice”, per se. Given my conclusion, which I will hold back for the time being, this is a fantastically good thing, hence I am motivated to write this post at all!

Objection 1: Dollar Hegemony

I list this objection first because there isn’t a huge amount to say about it. It is clearly a normative position, and while I more or less support it personally, I don’t think that it is material to the argument I am going on to make, so I don’t want to force it on the reader. While the case for this objection is probably obvious to this audience (isn’t the point of Bitcoin to destroy central banks, not further empower them?) I should at least offer the steelman that there is a link between this and the realist observation that stablecoins are useful. The reason they are useful is because people prefer the dollar to even shitter local fiat currencies. I don’t think it is particularly fruitful to say that they shouldn’t. They do. Facts don’t care about your feelings. There is a softer bridging argument to be made here too, to the effect that stablecoins warm up their users to the concept of digital bearer (ish) assets, even though these particular assets are significantly scammier than Bitcoin. Again, I am just floating this, not telling the reader they should or shouldn’t buy into it.

All that said, there is one argument I do want to put my own weight behind, rather than just float: stablecoin issuance is a speculative attack on the institution of fractional reserve banking. A “dollar” Alice moves from JPMorgan to Tether embodies two trade-offs from Alice’s perspective: i) a somewhat opaque profile on the credit risk of the asset: the likelihood of JPMorgan ever really defaulting on deposits vs the operator risk of Tether losing full backing and/or being wrench attacked by the Federal Government and rugging its users. These risks are real but are almost entirely political. I’m skeptical it is meaningful to quantify them, but even if it is, I am not the person to try to do it. Also, more transparently to Alice, ii) far superior payment rails (for now, more on this to follow).

However, from the perspective of the fiat banking cartel, fractional reserve leverage has been squeezed. There are just as many notional dollars in circulation, but there the backing has been shifted from levered to unlevered issuers. There are gradations of relevant objections to this: while one might say, Tether’s backing comes from Treasuries, so you are directly funding US debt issuance!, this is a bit silly in the context of what other dollars one might hold. It’s not like JPMorgan is really competing with the Treasury to sell credit into the open market. Optically they are, but this is the core of the fiat scam. Via the guarantees of the Federal Reserve System, JPMorgan can sell as much unbacked credit as it wants knowing full well the difference will be printed whenever this blows up. Short-term Treasuries are also JPMorgan’s most pristine asset safeguarding its equity, so the only real difference is that Tether only holds Treasuries without wishing more leverage into existence. The realization this all builds up to is that, by necessity,

Tether is a fully reserved bank issuing fiduciary media against the only dollar-denominated asset in existence whose value (in dollar terms) can be guaranteed. Furthermore, this media arguably has superior “moneyness” to the obvious competition in the form of US commercial bank deposits by virtue of its payment rails.

That sounds pretty great when you put it that way! Of course, the second sentence immediately leads to the second objection, and lets the argument start to pick up steam …

Objection 2: You Don’t Need a Blockchain

I don’t need to explain this to this audience but to recap as briefly as I can manage: Bitcoin’s value is entirely endogenous. Every aspect of “a blockchain” that, out of context, would be an insanely inefficient or redundant modification of a “database”, in context is geared towards the sole end of enabling the stability of this endogenous value. Historically, there have been two variations of stupidity that follow a failure to grok this: i) “utility tokens”, or blockchains with native tokens for something other than money. I would recommend anybody wanting a deeper dive on the inherent nonsense of a utility token to read Only The Strong Survive, in particular Chapter 2, Crypto Is Not Decentralized, and the subsection, Everything Fights For Liquidity, and/or Green Eggs And Ham, in particular Part II, Decentralized Finance, Technically. ii) “real world assets” or, creating tokens within a blockchain’s data structure that are not intended to have endogenous value but to act as digital quasi-bearer certificates to some or other asset of value exogenous to this system. Stablecoins are in this second category.

RWA tokens definitionally have to have issuers, meaning some entity that, in the real world, custodies or physically manages both the asset and the record-keeping scheme for the asset. “The blockchain” is at best a secondary ledger to outsource ledger updates to public infrastructure such that the issuer itself doesn’t need to bother and can just “check the ledger” whenever operationally relevant. But clearly ownership cannot be enforced in an analogous way to Bitcoin, under both technical and social considerations. Technically, Bitcoin’s endogenous value means that whoever holds the keys to some or other UTXOs functionally is the owner. Somebody else claiming to be the owner is yelling at clouds. Whereas, socially, RWA issuers enter a contract with holders (whether legally or just in terms of a common-sense interpretation of the transaction) such that ownership of the asset issued against is entirely open to dispute. That somebody can point to “ownership” of the token may or may not mean anything substantive with respect to the physical reality of control of the asset, and how the issuer feels about it all.

And so, one wonders, why use a blockchain at all? Why doesn’t the issuer just run its own database (for the sake of argument with some or other signature scheme for verifying and auditing transactions) given it has the final say over issuance and redemption anyway? I hinted at an answer above: issuing on a blockchain outsources this task to public infrastructure. This is where things get interesting. While it is technically true, given the above few paragraphs, that, you don’t need a blockchain for that, you also don’t need to not use a blockchain for that. If you want to, you can.

This is clearly the case given stablecoins exist at all and have gone this route. If one gets too angry about not needing a blockchain for that, one equally risks yelling at clouds! And, in fact, one can make an even stronger argument, more so from the end users’ perspective. These products do not exist in a vacuum but rather compete with alternatives. In the case of stablecoins, the alternative is traditional fiat money, which, as stupid as RWAs on a blockchain are, is even dumber. It actually is just a database, except it’s a database that is extremely annoying to use, basically for political reasons because the industry managing these private databases form a cartel that never needs to innovate or really give a shit about its customers at all. In many, many cases, stablecoins on blockchains are dumb in the abstract, but superior to the alternative methods of holding and transacting in dollars existing in other forms. And note, this is only from Alice’s perspective of wanting to send and receive, not a rehashing of the fractional reserve argument given above. This is the essence of their product-market-fit. Yell at clouds all you like: they just are useful given the alternative usually is not Bitcoin, it’s JPMorgan’s KYC’d-up-the-wazoo 90s-era website, more than likely from an even less solvent bank.

So where does this get us? It might seem like we are back to “product-market-fit, sorry about that” with Bitcoiners yelling about feelings while everybody else makes do with their facts. However, I think we have introduced enough material to move the argument forward by incrementally incorporating the following observations, all of which I will shortly go into in more detail: i) as a consequence of making no technical sense with respect to what blockchains are for, today’s approach won’t scale; ii) as a consequence of short-termist tradeoffs around socializing costs, today’s approach creates an extremely unhealthy and arguably unnatural market dynamic in the issuer space; iii) Taproot Assets now exist and handily address both points i) and ii), and; iv) eCash is making strides that I believe will eventually replace even Taproot Assets.

To tease where all this is going, and to get the reader excited before we dive into much more detail: just as Bitcoin will eat all monetary premia, Lightning will likely eat all settlement, meaning all payments will gravitate towards routing over Lightning regardless of the denomination of the currency at the edges. Fiat payments will gravitate to stablecoins to take advantage of this; stablecoins will gravitate to TA and then to eCash, and all of this will accelerate hyperbitcoinization by “bitcoinizing” payment rails such that an eventual full transition becomes as simple as flicking a switch as to what denomination you want to receive.

I will make two important caveats before diving in that are more easily understood in light of having laid this groundwork: I am open to the idea that it won’t be just Lightning or just Taproot Assets playing the above roles. Without veering into forecasting the entire future development of Bitcoin tech, I will highlight that all that really matters here are, respectively: a true layer 2 with native hashlocks, and a token issuance scheme that enables atomic routing over such a layer 2 (or combination of such). For the sake of argument, the reader is welcome to swap in “Ark” and “RGB” for “Lightning” and “TA” both above and in all that follows. As far as I can tell, this makes no difference to the argument and is even exciting in its own right. However, for the sake of simplicity in presentation, I will stick to “Lightning” and “TA” hereafter.

1) Today’s Approach to Stablecoins Won’t Scale

This is the easiest to tick off and again doesn’t require much explanation to this audience. Blockchains fundamentally don’t scale, which is why Bitcoin’s UTXO scheme is a far better design than ex-Bitcoin Crypto’s’ account-based models, even entirely out of context of all the above criticisms. This is because Bitcoin transactions can be batched across time and across users with combinations of modes of spending restrictions that provide strong economic guarantees of correct eventual net settlement, if not perpetual deferral. One could argue this is a decent (if abstrusely technical) definition of “scaling” that is almost entirely lacking in Crypto.

What we see in ex-Bitcoin crypto is so-called “layer 2s” that are nothing of the sort, forcing stablecoin schemes in these environments into one of two equally poor design choices if usage is ever to increase: fees go higher and higher, to the point of economic unviability (and well past it) as blocks fill up, or move to much more centralized environments that increasingly are just databases, and hence which lose the benefits of openness thought to be gleaned by outsourcing settlement to public infrastructure. This could be in the form of punting issuance to a bullshit “layer 2” that is a really a multisig “backing” a private execution environment (to be decentralized any daw now) or an entirely different blockchain that is just pretending even less not to be a database to begin with. In a nutshell, this is a decent bottom-up explanation as to why Tron has the highest settlement of Tether.

This also gives rise to the weirdness of “gas tokens” - assets whose utility as money is and only is in the form of a transaction fee to transact a different kind of money. These are not quite as stupid as a “utility token,” given at least they are clearly fulfilling a monetary role and hence their artificial scarcity can be justified. But they are frustrating from Bitcoiners’ and users’ perspectives alike: users would prefer to pay transaction fees on dollars in dollars, but they can’t because the value of Ether, Sol, Tron, or whatever, is the string and bubblegum that hold their boondoggles together. And Bitcoiners wish this stuff would just go away and stop distracting people, whereas this string and bubblegum is proving transiently useful.

All in all, today’s approach is fine so long as it isn’t being used much. It has product-market fit, sure, but in the unenviable circumstance that, if it really starts to take off, it will break, and even the original users will find it unusable.

2) Today’s Approach to Stablecoins Creates an Untenable Market Dynamic

Reviving the ethos of you don’t need a blockchain for that, notice the following subtlety: while the tokens representing stablecoins have value to users, that value is not native to the blockchain on which they are issued. Tether can (and routinely does) burn tokens on Ethereum and mint them on Tron, then burn on Tron and mint on Solana, and so on. So-called blockchains “go down” and nobody really cares. This makes no difference whatsoever to Tether’s own accounting, and arguably a positive difference to users given these actions track market demand. But it is detrimental to the blockchain being switched away from by stripping it of “TVL” that, it turns out, was only using it as rails: entirely exogenous value that leaves as quickly as it arrived.

One underdiscussed and underappreciated implication of the fact that no value is natively running through the blockchain itself is that, in the current scheme, both the sender and receiver of a stablecoin have to trust the same issuer. This creates an extremely powerful network effect that, in theory, makes the first-to-market likely to dominate and in practice has played out exactly as this theory would suggest: Tether has roughly 80% of the issuance, while roughly 19% goes to the political carve-out of USDC that wouldn’t exist at all were it not for government interference. Everybody else combined makes up the final 1%.

So, Tether is a full reserve bank but also has to be everybody’s bank. This is the source of a lot of the discomfort with Tether, and which feeds into the original objection around dollar hegemony, that there is an ill-defined but nonetheless uneasy feeling that Tether is slowly morphing into a CBDC. I would argue this really has nothing to do with Tether’s own behavior but rather is a consequence of the market dynamic inevitably created by the current stablecoin scheme. There is no reason to trust any other bank because nobody really wants a bank, they just want the rails. They want something that will retain a nominal dollar value long enough to spend it again. They don’t care what tech it runs on and they don’t even really care about the issuer except insofar as having some sense they won’t get rugged.

Notice this is not how fiat works. Banks can, of course, settle between each other, thus enabling their users to send money to customers of other banks. This settlement function is actually the entire point of central banks, less the money printing and general corruption enabled (we might say, this was the historical point of central banks, which have since become irredeemably corrupted by this power). This process is clunkier than stablecoins, as covered above, but the very possibility of settlement means there is no gigantic network effect to being the first commercial issuer of dollar balances. If it isn’t too triggering to this audience, one might suggest that the money printer also removes the residual concern that your balances might get rugged! (or, we might again say, you guarantee you don’t get rugged in the short term by guaranteeing you do get rugged in the long term).

This is a good point at which to introduce the unsettling observation that broader fintech is catching on to the benefits of stablecoins without any awareness whatsoever of all the limitations I am outlining here. With the likes of Stripe, Wise, Robinhood, and, post-Trump, even many US megabanks supposedly contemplating issuing stablecoins (obviously within the current scheme, not the scheme I am building up to proposing), we are forced to boggle our minds considering how on earth settlement is going to work. Are they going to settle through Ether? Well, no, because i) Ether isn’t money, it’s … to be honest, I don’t think anybody really knows what it is supposed to be, or if they once did they aren’t pretending anymore, but anyway, Stripe certainly hasn’t figured that out yet so, ii) it won’t be possible to issue them on layer 1s as soon as there is any meaningful volume, meaning they will have to route through “bullshit layer 2 wrapped Ether token that is really already a kind of stablecoin for Ether.”

The way they are going to try to fix this (anybody wanna bet?) is routing through DEXes, which is so painfully dumb you should be laughing and, if you aren’t, I would humbly suggest you don’t get just how dumb it is. What this amounts to is plugging the gap of Ether’s lack of moneyness (and wrapped Ether’s hilarious lack of moneyness) with … drum roll … unknowable technical and counterparty risk and unpredictable cost on top of reverting to just being a database. So, in other words, all of the costs of using a blockchain when you don’t strictly need to, and none of the benefits. Stripe is going to waste billions of dollars getting sandwich attacked out of some utterly vanilla FX settlement it is facilitating for clients who have even less of an idea what is going on and why North Korea now has all their money, and will eventually realize they should have skipped their shitcoin phase and gone straight to understanding Bitcoin instead …

3) Bitcoin (and Taproot Assets) Fixes This

To tie together a few loose ends, I only threw in the hilariously stupid suggestion of settling through wrapped Ether on Ether on Ether in order to tee up the entirely sensible suggestion of settling through Lightning. Again, not that this will be new to this audience, but while issuance schemes have been around on Bitcoin for a long time, the breakthrough of Taproot Assets is essentially the ability to atomically route through Lightning.

I will admit upfront that this presents a massive bootstrapping challenge relative to the ex-Bitcoin Crypto approach, and it’s not obvious to me if or how this will be overcome. I include this caveat to make it clear I am not suggesting this is a given. It may not be, it’s just beyond the scope of this post (or frankly my ability) to predict. This is a problem for Lightning Labs, Tether, and whoever else decides to step up to issue. But even highlighting this as an obvious and major concern invites us to consider an intriguing contrast: scaling TA stablecoins is hardest at the start and gets easier and easier thereafter. The more edge liquidity there is in TA stables, the less of a risk it is for incremental issuance; the more TA activity, the more attractive deploying liquidity is into Lightning proper, and vice versa. With apologies if this metaphor is even more confusing than it is helpful, one might conceive of the situation as being that there is massive inertia to bootstrap, but equally there could be positive feedback in driving the inertia to scale. Again, I have no idea, and it hasn’t happened yet in practice, but in theory it’s fun.

More importantly to this conversation, however, this is almost exactly the opposite dynamic to the current scheme on other blockchains, which is basically free to start, but gets more and more expensive the more people try to use it. One might say it antiscales (I don’t think that’s a real word, but if Taleb can do it, then I can do it too!).

Furthermore, the entire concept of “settling in Bitcoin” makes perfect sense both economically and technically: economically because Bitcoin is money, and technically because it can be locked in an HTLC and hence can enable atomic routing (i.e. because Lightning is a thing). This is clearly better than wrapped Eth on Eth on Eth or whatever, but, tantalisingly, is better than fiat too! The core message of the payments tome I may or may not one day write is (or will be) that fiat payments, while superficially efficient on the basis of centralized and hence costless ledger amendments, actually have a hidden cost in the form of interbank credit. Many readers will likely have heard me say this multiple times and in multiple settings but, contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a fiat debit. Even if styled as a debit, all fiat payments are credits and all have credit risk baked into their cost, even if that is obscured and pushed to the absolute foundational level of money printing to keep banks solvent and hence keep payment channels open.

Furthermore! this enables us to strip away the untenable market dynamic from the point above. The underappreciated and underdiscussed flip side of the drawback of the current dynamic that is effectively fixed by Taproot Assets is that there is no longer a mammoth network effect to a single issuer. Senders and receivers can trust different issuers (i.e. their own banks) because those banks can atomically settle a single payment over Lightning. This does not involve credit. It is arguably the only true debit in the world across both the relevant economic and technical criteria: it routes through money with no innate credit risk, and it does so atomically due to that money’s native properties.

Savvy readers may have picked up on a seed I planted a while back and which can now delightfully blossom:

This is what Visa was supposed to be!

Crucially, this is not what Visa is now. Visa today is pretty much the bank that is everybody’s counterparty, takes a small credit risk for the privilege, and oozes free cash flow bottlenecking global consumer payments.

But if you read both One From Many by Dee Hock (for a first person but pretty wild and extravagant take) and Electronic Value Exchange by David Stearns (for a third person, drier, but more analytical and historically contextualized take) or if you are just intimately familiar with the modern history of payments for whatever other reason, you will see that the role I just described for Lightning in an environment of unboundedly many banks issuing fiduciary media in the form of stablecoins is exactly what Dee Hock wanted to create when he envisioned Visa:

A neutral and open layer of value settlement enabling banks to create digital, interbank payment schemes for their customers at very low cost.

As it turns out, his vision was technically impossible with fiat, hence Visa, which started as a cooperative amongst member banks, was corrupted into a duopolistic for-profit rent seeker in curious parallel to the historical path of central banks …

4) eCash

To now push the argument to what I think is its inevitable conclusion, it’s worth being even more vigilant on the front of you don’t need a blockchain for that. I have argued that there is a role for a blockchain in providing a neutral settlement layer to enable true debits of stablecoins. But note this is just a fancy and/or stupid way of saying that Bitcoin is both the best money and is programmable, which we all knew anyway. The final step is realizing that, while TA is nice in terms of providing a kind of “on ramp” for global payments infrastructure as a whole to reorient around Lightning, there is some path dependence here in assuming (almost certainly correctly) that the familiarity of stablecoins as “RWA tokens on a blockchain” will be an important part of the lure.

But once that transition is complete, or is well on its way to being irreversible, we may as well come full circle and cut out tokens altogether. Again, you really don’t need a blockchain for that, and the residual appeal of better rails has been taken care of with the above massive detour through what I deem to be the inevitability of Lightning as a settlement layer. Just as USDT on Tron arguably has better moneyness than a JPMorgan balance, so a “stablecoin” as eCash has better moneyness than as a TA given it is cheaper, more private, and has more relevantly bearer properties (in other words, because it is cash). The technical detail that it can be hashlocked is really all you need to tie this all together. That means it can be atomically locked into a Lightning routed debit to the recipient of a different issuer (or “mint” in eCash lingo, but note this means the same thing as what we have been calling fully reserved banks). And the economic incentive is pretty compelling too because, for all their benefits, there is still a cost to TAs given they are issued onchain and they require asset-specific liquidity to route on Lightning. Once the rest of the tech is in place, why bother? Keep your Lightning connectivity and just become a mint.

What you get at that point is dramatically superior private database to JPMorgan with the dramatically superior public rails of Lightning. There is nothing left to desire from “a blockchain” besides what Bitcoin is fundamentally for in the first place: counterparty-risk-free value settlement.

And as a final point with a curious and pleasing echo to Dee Hock at Visa, Calle has made the point repeatedly that David Chaum’s vision for eCash, while deeply philosophical besides the technical details, was actually pretty much impossible to operate on fiat. From an eCash perspective, fiat stablecoins within the above infrastructure setup are a dramatic improvement on anything previously possible. But, of course, they are a slippery slope to Bitcoin regardless …

Objections Revisited

As a cherry on top, I think the objections I highlighted at the outset are now readily addressed – to the extent the reader believes what I am suggesting is more or less a technical and economic inevitability, that is. While, sure, I’m not particularly keen on giving the Treasury more avenues to sell its welfare-warfare shitcoin, on balance the likely development I’ve outlined is an enormous net positive: it’s going to sell these anyway so I prefer a strong economic incentive to steadily transition not only to Lightning as payment rails but eCash as fiduciary media, and to use “fintech” as a carrot to induce a slow motion bank run.

As alluded to above, once all this is in place, the final step to a Bitcoin standard becomes as simple as an individual’s decision to want Bitcoin instead of fiat. On reflection, this is arguably the easiest part! It's setting up all the tech that puts people off, so trojan-horsing them with “faster, cheaper payment rails” seems like a genius long-term strategy.

And as to “needing a blockchain” (or not), I hope that is entirely wrapped up at this point. The only blockchain you need is Bitcoin, but to the extent people are still confused by this (which I think will take decades more to fully unwind), we may as well lean into dazzling them with whatever innovation buzzwords and decentralization theatre they were going to fall for anyway before realizing they wanted Bitcoin all along.

Conclusion

Stablecoins are useful whether you like it or not. They are stupid in the abstract but it turns out fiat is even stupider, on inspection. But you don’t need a blockchain, and using one as decentralization theatre creates technical debt that is insurmountable in the long run. Blockchain-based stablecoins are doomed to a utility inversely proportional to their usage, and just to rub it in, their ill-conceived design practically creates a commercial dynamic that mandates there only ever be a single issuer.

Given they are useful, it seems natural that this tension is going to blow up at some point. It also seems worthwhile observing that Taproot Asset stablecoins have almost the inverse problem and opposite commercial dynamic: they will be most expensive to use at the outset but get cheaper and cheaper as their usage grows. Also, there is no incentive towards a monopoly issuer but rather towards as many as are willing to try to operate well and provide value to their users.

As such, we can expect any sizable growth in stablecoins to migrate to TA out of technical and economic necessity. Once this has happened - or possibly while it is happening but is clearly not going to stop - we may as well strip out the TA component and just use eCash because you really don’t need a blockchain for that at all. And once all the money is on eCash, deciding you want to denominate it in Bitcoin is the simplest on-ramp to hyperbitcoinization you can possibly imagine, given we’ve spent the previous decade or two rebuilding all payments tech around Lightning.

Or: Bitcoin fixes this. The End.

• Allen, #892,125

thanks to Marco Argentieri, Lyn Alden, and Calle for comments and feedback

@ 9c35fe6b:5977e45b

The Hapi V Nile Cruise offers an exceptional opportunity to connect with Egypt's timeless charm. With ETB Tours Egypt, you can experience this journey in comfort and style, traveling between Luxor and Aswan where history comes alive on the banks of the Nile.

A Journey Through Ancient Time Step aboard the Hapi V and sail past iconic temples, ancient monuments, and vibrant Nubian villages. This Nile Cruise Luxor Aswan itinerary is carefully planned to showcase Egypt’s most legendary sights while giving travelers the comfort of modern amenities. Combine this voyage with Egypt vacation packages to enhance your stay.

Comfort Onboard Every Step of the Way Hapi V provides elegant accommodations, fine dining, and attentive service, making your cruise both relaxing and enriching. Whether you're enjoying your cabin’s Nile view or lounging on the sundeck, every moment is designed for your comfort. With All inclusive Egypt vacations, guests enjoy meals, excursions, and guided tours included.

Ideal for Every Type of Traveler From couples and families to solo adventurers, the Hapi V cruise caters to a variety of travelers. ETB Tours Egypt offers customizable options including Egypt private tours for those seeking a more intimate experience. For budget-conscious explorers, there are also Egypt budget tours that deliver excellent value without compromising the experience.

Seamless Planning with Expert Guidance Whether you're a first-time visitor or returning to Egypt’s wonders, ETB Tours Egypt simplifies your planning with tailored Egypt travel packages. Add a few days in Cairo or the Red Sea to your itinerary to complete the 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

@ c3c7122c:607731d7

Help!

Calling all El Salvador Nostriches! If you currently live in SV, I need your help and am offering several bounties (0.001, 0.01, and 0.1 BTC).

In Brief

In short, I am pursuing El Salvador citizenship by birthright (through my grandmother). I’ve struggled to progress because her name varies on different documents. I need someone to help me push harder to get past this barrier, or connect me with information or people who can work on my behalf. I am offering:

• 0.001 BTC (100k sats) for information that will help me progress from my current situation
• 0.01 BTC (1 MM sats) to get me in touch with someone that is more impactful than the immigration lawyer I already spoke with
• 0.1 BTC (10 MM sats) if your efforts help me obtain citizenship for me or my father

Background

My grandma married my grandfather (an American Marine) and moved to the states where my father was born. I have some official and unofficial documents where her name varies in spelling, order of first/middle name, and addition of her father’s last name. So every doc basically has a different name for her. I was connected with an english-speaking immigration lawyer in SV who hit a dead end when searching for her official ID because the city hall in her city had burned down so there was no record of her info. He gave up at that point. I find it odd that it was so easy to change your name back then, but they are more strict now with the records from that time.

I believe SV citizenship is my birthright and have several personal reasons for pursuing this. I want someone to act on my behalf who will try harder to work the system (by appeal, loophole, or even bribe if I have to). If you are local and can help me with this, I’d greatly appreciate any efforts you make.

Cheers!

Corey San Diego

@ 2b24a1fa:17750f64

Eine Kolumne von Michael Sailer, jeden ersten Freitag bei Radio München, nachzulesen auf sailersblog.de.

https://soundcloud.com/radiomuenchen/belastigungen-35-das-ist-nicht-meine-regierung?

@ 3b3a42d3:d192e325

Atomic Signature Swaps (ASS) over Nostr is a protocol for atomically exchanging Schnorr signatures using Nostr events for orchestration. This new primitive enables multiple interesting applications like:

• Getting paid to publish specific Nostr events
• Issuing automatic payment receipts
• Contract signing in exchange for payment
• P2P asset exchanges
• Trading and enforcement of asset option contracts
• Payment in exchange for Nostr-based credentials or access tokens
• Exchanging GMs 🌞

It only requires that (i) the involved signatures be Schnorr signatures using the secp256k1 curve and that (ii) at least one of those signatures be accessible to both parties. These requirements are naturally met by Nostr events (published to relays), Taproot transactions (published to the mempool and later to the blockchain), and Cashu payments (using mints that support NUT-07, allowing any pair of these signatures to be swapped atomically.

How the Cryptographic Magic Works 🪄

This is a Schnorr signature (Zₓ, s):

s = z + H(Zₓ || P || m)⋅k

If you haven't seen it before, don't worry, neither did I until three weeks ago.

The signature scalar s is the the value a signer with private key k (and public key P = k⋅G) must calculate to prove his commitment over the message m given a randomly generated nonce z (Zₓ is just the x-coordinate of the public point Z = z⋅G). H is a hash function (sha256 with the tag "BIP0340/challenge" when dealing with BIP340), || just means to concatenate and G is the generator point of the elliptic curve, used to derive public values from private ones.

Now that you understand what this equation means, let's just rename z = r + t. We can do that, z is just a randomly generated number that can be represented as the sum of two other numbers. It also follows that z⋅G = r⋅G + t⋅G ⇔ Z = R + T. Putting it all back into the definition of a Schnorr signature we get:

s = (r + t) + H((R + T)ₓ || P || m)⋅k

Which is the same as:

s = sₐ + t where sₐ = r + H((R + T)ₓ || P || m)⋅k

sₐ is what we call the adaptor signature scalar) and t is the secret. ((R + T)ₓ, sₐ) is an incomplete signature that just becomes valid by add the secret t to the sₐ:

s = sₐ + t

What is also important for our purposes is that by getting access to the valid signature s, one can also extract t from it by just subtracting sₐ:

t = s - sₐ

The specific value of t depends on our choice of the public point T, since R is just a public point derived from a randomly generated nonce r.

So how do we choose T so that it requires the secret t to be the signature over a specific message m' by an specific public key P'? (without knowing the value of t)

Let's start with the definition of t as a valid Schnorr signature by P' over m':

t = r' + H(R'ₓ || P' || m')⋅k' ⇔ t⋅G = r'⋅G + H(R'ₓ || P' || m')⋅k'⋅G

That is the same as:

T = R' + H(R'ₓ || P' || m')⋅P'

Notice that in order to calculate the appropriate T that requires t to be an specific signature scalar, we only need to know the public nonce R' used to generate that signature.

In summary: in order to atomically swap Schnorr signatures, one party P' must provide a public nonce R', while the other party P must provide an adaptor signature using that nonce:

sₐ = r + H((R + T)ₓ || P || m)⋅k where T = R' + H(R'ₓ || P' || m')⋅P'

P' (the nonce provider) can then add his own signature t to the adaptor signature sₐ in order to get a valid signature by P, i.e. s = sₐ + t. When he publishes this signature (as a Nostr event, Cashu transaction or Taproot transaction), it becomes accessible to P that can now extract the signature t by P' and also make use of it.

Important considerations

A signature may not be useful at the end of the swap if it unlocks funds that have already been spent, or that are vulnerable to fee bidding wars.

When a swap involves a Taproot UTXO, it must always use a 2-of-2 multisig timelock to avoid those issues.

Cashu tokens do not require this measure when its signature is revealed first, because the mint won't reveal the other signature if they can't be successfully claimed, but they also require a 2-of-2 multisig timelock when its signature is only revealed last (what is unavoidable in cashu for cashu swaps).

For Nostr events, whoever receives the signature first needs to publish it to at least one relay that is accessible by the other party. This is a reasonable expectation in most cases, but may be an issue if the event kind involved is meant to be used privately.

How to Orchestrate the Swap over Nostr?

Before going into the specific event kinds, it is important to recognize what are the requirements they must meet and what are the concerns they must address. There are mainly three requirements:

• Both parties must agree on the messages they are going to sign
• One party must provide a public nonce
• The other party must provide an adaptor signature using that nonce

There is also a fundamental asymmetry in the roles of both parties, resulting in the following significant downsides for the party that generates the adaptor signature:

• NIP-07 and remote signers do not currently support the generation of adaptor signatures, so he must either insert his nsec in the client or use a fork of another signer
• There is an overhead of retrieving the completed signature containing the secret, either from the blockchain, mint endpoint or finding the appropriate relay
• There is risk he may not get his side of the deal if the other party only uses his signature privately, as I have already mentioned
• There is risk of losing funds by not extracting or using the signature before its timelock expires. The other party has no risk since his own signature won't be exposed by just not using the signature he received.

The protocol must meet all those requirements, allowing for some kind of role negotiation and while trying to reduce the necessary hops needed to complete the swap.

Swap Proposal Event (kind:455)

This event enables a proposer and his counterparty to agree on the specific messages whose signatures they intend to exchange. The content field is the following stringified JSON:

{     "give": <signature spec (required)>,     "take": <signature spec (required)>,     "exp": <expiration timestamp (optional)>,     "role": "<adaptor | nonce (optional)>",     "description": "<Info about the proposal (optional)>",     "nonce": "<Signature public nonce (optional)>",     "enc_s": "<Encrypted signature scalar (optional)>" }

The field role indicates what the proposer will provide during the swap, either the nonce or the adaptor. When this optional field is not provided, the counterparty may decide whether he will send a nonce back in a Swap Nonce event or a Swap Adaptor event using the nonce (optionally) provided by in the Swap Proposal in order to avoid one hop of interaction.

The enc_s field may be used to store the encrypted scalar of the signature associated with the nonce, since this information is necessary later when completing the adaptor signature received from the other party.

A signature spec specifies the type and all necessary information for producing and verifying a given signature. In the case of signatures for Nostr events, it contain a template with all the fields, except pubkey, id and sig:

{ "type": "nostr", "template": { "kind": "<kind>"        "content": "<content>"        "tags": [ … ],        "created_at": "<created_at>" } }

In the case of Cashu payments, a simplified signature spec just needs to specify the payment amount and an array of mints trusted by the proposer:

{   "type": "cashu",   "amount": "<amount>",   "mint": ["<acceptable mint_url>", …] }

This works when the payer provides the adaptor signature, but it still needs to be extended to also work when the payer is the one receiving the adaptor signature. In the later case, the signature spec must also include a timelock and the derived public keys Y of each Cashu Proof, but for now let's just ignore this situation. It should be mentioned that the mint must be trusted by both parties and also support Token state check (NUT-07) for revealing the completed adaptor signature and P2PK spending conditions (NUT-11) for the cryptographic scheme to work.

The tags are:

• "p", the proposal counterparty's public key (required)
• "a", a kind:30455 Swap Listing event or an application specific version of it (optional)

Forget about this Swap Listing event for now, I will get to it later...

Swap Nonce Event (kind:456) - Optional

This is an optional event for the Swap Proposal receiver to provide the public nonce of his signature when the proposal does not include a nonce or when he does not want to provide the adaptor signature due to the downsides previously mentioned. The content field is the following stringified JSON:

{     "nonce": "<Signature public nonce>",     "enc_s": "<Encrypted signature scalar (optional)>" }

And the tags must contain:

• "e", a kind:455 Swap Proposal Event (required)
• "p", the counterparty's public key (required)

Swap Adaptor Event (kind:457)

The content field is the following stringified JSON:

{ "adaptors": [ {         "sa": "<Adaptor signature scalar>",         "R": "<Signer's public nonce (including parity byte)>",         "T": "<Adaptor point (including parity byte)>",         "Y": "<Cashu proof derived public key (if applicable)>",     }, …],     "cashu": "<Cashu V4 token (if applicable)>" }

And the tags must contain:

• "e", a kind:455 Swap Proposal Event (required)
• "p", the counterparty's public key (required)

Discoverability

The Swap Listing event previously mentioned as an optional tag in the Swap Proposal may be used to find an appropriate counterparty for a swap. It allows a user to announce what he wants to accomplish, what his requirements are and what is still open for negotiation.

Swap Listing Event (kind:30455)

The content field is the following stringified JSON:

{ "description": "<Information about the listing (required)>", "give": <partial signature spec (optional)>, "take": <partial signature spec (optional)>, "examples: [<take signature spec>], // optional "exp": <expiration timestamp (optional)>, "role": "<adaptor | nonce (optional)>" }

The description field describes the restrictions on counterparties and signatures the user is willing to accept.

A partial signature spec is an incomplete signature spec used in Swap Proposal events kind:455 where omitting fields signals that they are still open for negotiation.

The examples field is an array of signature specs the user would be willing to take.

The tags are:

• "d", a unique listing id (required)
• "s", the status of the listing draft | open | closed (required)
• "t", topics related to this listing (optional)
• "p", public keys to notify about the proposal (optional)

Application Specific Swap Listings

Since Swap Listings are still fairly generic, it is expected that specific use cases define new event kinds based on the generic listing. Those application specific swap listing would be easier to filter by clients and may impose restrictions and add new fields and/or tags. The following are some examples under development:

Sponsored Events

This listing is designed for users looking to promote content on the Nostr network, as well as for those who want to monetize their accounts by sharing curated sponsored content with their existing audiences.

It follows the same format as the generic Swap Listing event, but uses the kind:30456 instead.

The following new tags are included:

• "k", event kind being sponsored (required)
• "title", campaign title (optional)

It is required that at least one signature spec (give and/or take) must have "type": "nostr" and also contain the following tag ["sponsor", "<pubkey>", "<attestation>"] with the sponsor's public key and his signature over the signature spec without the sponsor tag as his attestation. This last requirement enables clients to disclose and/or filter sponsored events.

Asset Swaps

This listing is designed for users looking for counterparties to swap different assets that can be transferred using Schnorr signatures, like any unit of Cashu tokens, Bitcoin or other asset IOUs issued using Taproot.

It follows the same format as the generic Swap Listing event, but uses the kind:30457 instead.

It requires the following additional tags:

• "t", asset pair to be swapped (e.g. "btcusd")
• "t", asset being offered (e.g. "btc")
• "t", accepted payment method (e.g. "cashu", "taproot")

Swap Negotiation

From finding an appropriate Swap Listing to publishing a Swap Proposal, there may be some kind of negotiation between the involved parties, e.g. agreeing on the amount to be paid by one of the parties or the exact content of a Nostr event signed by the other party. There are many ways to accomplish that and clients may implement it as they see fit for their specific goals. Some suggestions are:

• Adding kind:1111 Comments to the Swap Listing or an existing Swap Proposal
• Exchanging tentative Swap Proposals back and forth until an agreement is reached
• Simple exchanges of DMs
• Out of band communication (e.g. Signal)

Work to be done

I've been refining this specification as I develop some proof-of-concept clients to experience its flaws and trade-offs in practice. I left the signature spec for Taproot signatures out of the current document as I still have to experiment with it. I will probably find some important orchestration issues related to dealing with 2-of-2 multisig timelocks, which also affects Cashu transactions when spent last, that may require further adjustments to what was presented here.

The main goal of this article is to find other people interested in this concept and willing to provide valuable feedback before a PR is opened in the NIPs repository for broader discussions.

References

• GM Swap- Nostr client for atomically exchanging GM notes. Live demo available here.
• Sig4Sats Script - A Typescript script demonstrating the swap of a Cashu payment for a signed Nostr event.
• Loudr- Nostr client under development for sponsoring the publication of Nostr events. Live demo available at loudr.me.
• Poelstra, A. (2017). Scriptless Scripts. Blockstream Research. https://github.com/BlockstreamResearch/scriptless-scripts

@ dbc27e2e:b1dd0b0b

This method focuses on the amount of water in the first pour, which ultimately defines the coffee’s acidity and sweetness (more water = more acidity, less water = more sweetness). For the remainder of the brew, the water is divided into equal parts according to the strength you wish to attain.

Dose:

20g coffee (Coarse ground coffee)
300mL water (92°C / 197.6°F)
Time: 3:30

Instructions:

1. Pour 1: 0:00 > 50mL (42% of 120mL = 40% of total – less water in the ratio, targeting sweetness.)
2. Pour 2: 0:45 > 70mL (58% of 120mL = 40% of total – the top up for 40% of total.)
3. Pour 3: 1:30 > 60mL (The remaining water is 180mL / 3 pours = 60mL per pour)
4. Pour 4: 2:10 > 60mL
5. Pour 5: 2:40 > 60mL
6. Remove the V60 at 3:30

@ 866e0139:6a9334e5

---

Autor: CJ Hopkins. Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben. Sie finden alle Texte der Friedenstaube und weitere Texte zum Thema Frieden hier.**

Dieser Beitrag erschien zuerst auf dem Substack-Blog des Autors.

---

Er soll andauern, was er auch tut. Genau wie der nie endende Krieg in Orwells 1984 wird er vom Imperium gegen seine eigenen Untertanen geführt, aber nicht nur, um die Struktur der Gesellschaft intakt zu halten, sondern in unserem Fall auch, um die Gesellschaft in eine neo-totalitäre global-kapitalistische Dystopie zu verwandeln.

Bist du nicht vertraut mit dem Krieg gegen was auch immer?

Nun ja, okay, du erinnerst dich an den Krieg gegen den Terror.

Du erinnerst dich daran, als die „Freiheit und Demokratie“ von „den Terroristen“ angegriffen wurden und wir keine andere Wahl hatten, als uns unserer demokratischen Rechte und Prinzipien zu entledigen, einen nationalen „Notstand“ auszurufen, die verfassungsmäßigen Rechte der Menschen auszusetzen, einen Angriffskrieg gegen ein Land im Nahen Osten anzuzetteln, das für uns keinerlei Bedrohung darstellte, und unsere Straßen, Bahnhöfe, Flughäfen und alle anderen Orte mit schwer bewaffneten Soldaten zu füllen, denn sonst hätten „die Terroristen gewonnen“. Du erinnerst dich, als wir ein Offshore-Gulag bauten, um verdächtige Terroristen auf unbestimmte Zeit wegzusperren, die wir zuvor zu CIA-Geheimgefängnissen verschleppt hatten, wo wir sie gefoltert und gedemütigt haben, richtig?

Natürlich erinnerst du dich. Wer könnte das vergessen?

---

DIE FRIEDENSTAUBE FLIEGT AUCH IN IHR POSTFACH!

Hier können Sie die Friedenstaube abonnieren und bekommen die Artikel zugesandt, vorerst für alle kostenfrei, wir starten gänzlich ohne Paywall. (Die Bezahlabos fangen erst zu laufen an, wenn ein Monetarisierungskonzept für die Inhalte steht). Sie wollen der Genossenschaft beitreten oder uns unterstützen? Mehr Infos hier oder am Ende des Textes.

---

Erinnerst du dich, als die National Security Agency keine andere Wahl hatte, als ein geheimes „Terroristen-Überwachungsprogramm“ einzurichten, um Amerikaner auszuspionieren, oder sonst „hätten die Terroristen gewonnen“? Oder wie wäre es mit den „Anti-Terror“-Unterleibsuntersuchungen der TSA, der Behörde für Transportsicherheit, die nach über zwanzig Jahren immer noch in Kraft sind?

Und was ist mit dem Krieg gegen den Populismus? An den erinnerst du dich vielleicht nicht so gut.

Ich erinnere mich, denn ich habe zwei Bücher dazu veröffentlicht. Er begann im Sommer 2016, als das Imperium erkannte, dass „rechte Populisten“ die „Freiheit und Demokratie“ in Europa bedrohten und Trump in den USA auf dem Vormarsch war. Also wurde ein weiterer „Notstand“ ausgerufen – diesmal von der Gemeinschaft der Geheimdienste, den Medien, der akademischen Welt und der Kulturindustrie. Ja, genau, es war wieder einmal an der Zeit, unsere demokratischen Prinzipien hintanzustellen, „Hassrede“ in sozialen Medien zu zensieren, die Massen mit lächerlicher offizieller Propaganda über „Russiagate,“ „Hitlergate“ und so weiter zu bombardieren – sonst hätten „die Rechtspopulisten gewonnen.“

Der Krieg gegen den Populismus gipfelte in der Einführung des Neuen Normalen Reichs.

Im Frühjahr 2020 rief das Imperium einen globalen „gesundheitlichen Ausnahmezustand“ aus, als Reaktion auf ein Virus mit einer Überlebensrate von etwa 99,8 Prozent. Das Imperium hatte keine andere Wahl, als ganze Gesellschaften abzuriegeln, jeden dazu zu zwingen, in der Öffentlichkeit medizinisch aussehende Masken zu tragen, die Öffentlichkeit mit Propaganda und Lügen zu bombardieren, die Menschen dazu zu nötigen, sich einer Reihe experimenteller mRNA-„Impfungen“ zu unterziehen, Proteste gegen ihre Dekrete zu verbieten und systematisch diejenigen zu zensieren und zu verfolgen, die es wagten, ihre erfundenen „Fakten“ in Frage zu stellen oder ihr totalitäres Programm zu kritisieren.

Das Imperium hatte keine andere Wahl, als das alles zu tun, denn sonst hätten „die Covid-Leugner, die Impfgegner, die Verschwörungstheoretiker und all die anderen Extremisten gewonnen.“

Ich bin mir ziemlich sicher, dass du dich an all das erinnerst.

Und jetzt … nun, hier sind wir. Ja, du hast es erraten – es ist wieder einmal an der Zeit, kräftig auf die US-Verfassung und die Meinungsfreiheit zu scheißen, Menschen in irgendein salvadorianisches Höllenloch abzuschieben, das wir angemietet haben, weil ein Polizist ihre Tattoos nicht mochte, Universitätsstudenten wegen ihrer Anti-Israel-Proteste festzunehmen und zu verschleppen und natürlich die Massen mit Lügen und offizieller Propaganda zu bombardieren, denn … okay, alle zusammen jetzt: „sonst hätten die antisemitischen Terroristen und venezolanischen Banden gewonnen!“

Fängst du an, ein Muster zu erkennen? Ja? Willkommen beim Krieg gegen-was-auch-immer!

Wenn du die Zusammenhänge noch nicht ganz siehst, okay, lass es mich noch einmal ganz simpel erklären.

Das globale ideologische System, in dem wir alle leben, wird totalitär. (Dieses System ist der globale Kapitalismus, aber nenne es, wie du willst. Es ist mir scheißegal.) Es reißt die Simulation der Demokratie nieder, die es nicht mehr aufrechterhalten muss. Der Kalte Krieg ist vorbei. Der Kommunismus ist tot. Der globale Kapitalismus hat keine externen Feinde mehr. Also muss er die Massen nicht mehr mit demokratischen Rechten und Freiheiten besänftigen. Deshalb entzieht er uns diese Rechte nach und nach und konditioniert uns darauf, ihren Verlust hinzunehmen.

Er tut dies, indem er eine Reihe von „Notständen“ inszeniert, jeder mit einer anderen „Bedrohung“ für die „Demokratie,“ die „Freiheit,“ „Amerika“ oder „den Planeten“ – oder was auch immer. Jeder mit seinen eigenen „Monstern,“ die eine so große Gefahr für die „Freiheit“ oder was auch immer darstellen, dass wir unsere verfassungsmäßigen Rechte aufgeben und die demokratischen Werte ad absurdum führen müssen, denn: sonst „würden die Monster gewinnen.“

Es tut dies, indem es sein Antlitz von „links“ nach „rechts,“ dann zurück nach „links“, und dann zurück nach „rechts,“ dann nach „links“ und so weiter neigt, weil es unsere Kooperation dafür benötigt. Nicht die Kooperation von uns allen auf einmal. Nur eine kooperative demografische Gruppe auf einmal.

Es ist dabei erfolgreich – also das System – indem es unsere Angst und unseren Hass instrumentalisiert. Dem System ist es völlig egal, ob wir uns als „links“ oder „rechts“ identifizieren, aber es braucht uns gespalten in „links“ und „rechts,“ damit es unsere Angst und unseren Hass aufeinander nähren kann … eine Regierung, ein „Notfall,“ ein „Krieg“ nach dem anderen.

Da hast du es. Das ist der Krieg gegen was auch immer. Noch simpler kann ich es nicht erklären.

Oh, und noch eine letzte Sache … wenn du einer meiner ehemaligen Fans bist, wie Rob, die über meine „Einsichten“ oder Loyalitäten oder was auch immer verwirrt sind … nun, der Text, den du gerade gelesen hast, sollte das für dich klären. Ich stehe auf keiner Seite. Überhaupt keiner. Aber ich habe ein paar grundlegende demokratische Prinzipien. Und die richten sich nicht danach, was gerade populär ist oder wer im Weißen Haus sitzt.

Die Sache ist die: Ich muss mich morgens im Spiegel anschauen können ohne dort einen Heuchler oder … du weißt schon, einen Feigling zu sehen.

(Aus dem Amerikanischen übersetzt von René Boyke).

---

CJ Hopkins ist ein US-amerikanischer Dramatiker, Romanautor und politischer Satiriker. Zu seinen Werken zählen die Stücke Horse Country, Screwmachine/Eyecandy und The Extremists. Er hat sich als profilierter Kritiker des Corona-Regimes profiliert und veröffentlicht regelmäßig auf seinem Substack-Blog.

Sein aktuelles Buch:

https://x.com/CJHopkins_Z23/status/1907795633689264530

Hier in einem aktuellen Gespräch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF-G32P0leI

---

LASSEN SIE DER FRIEDENSTAUBE FLÜGEL WACHSEN!

Hier können Sie die Friedenstaube abonnieren und bekommen die Artikel zugesandt. (Vorerst alle, da wir den Mailversand testen, später ca. drei Mails pro Woche.)

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: milosz@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.

@ 90c656ff:9383fd4e

Bitcoin was created to offer a secure and decentralized alternative to traditional money, enabling financial transactions without the need for intermediaries. DeFi, on the other hand, emerged as an expansion of this concept, proposing decentralized financial services such as lending, exchanges, and yield generation. However, despite its promises of innovation, DeFi carries numerous risks, making it a dangerous bet for those who value the security of their Bitcoin.

What is DeFi?

DeFi refers to a set of financial applications that operate without the intermediation of banks or traditional institutions. These platforms use smart contracts to automate transactions, allowing anyone to access financial services without relying on third parties. In theory, DeFi promises greater financial freedom, but in practice it is full of risks, scams, and technical vulnerabilities that can compromise users' funds.

• The risks of DeFi for Bitcoin holders

Bitcoin is the most secure digital currency in the world, protected by a decentralized and censorship-resistant network. Unlike DeFi, which is still in an experimental phase and has already suffered numerous attacks, Bitcoin remains solid and reliable. When someone places Bitcoin in DeFi platforms, they give up the security of direct custody and trust weaker systems.

The main risks include:

01 - Hackers and code flaws: Smart contracts are written by programmers and may contain bugs that allow massive thefts. Over the years, billions of dollars have been lost due to vulnerabilities in DeFi platforms. 02 - Liquidation risks: Many DeFi applications operate on collateralization systems, where users lock Bitcoin to obtain loans. If the market becomes volatile, those Bitcoins can be liquidated at lower-than-expected prices, causing irreversible losses. 03 - Scams and rug pulls: DeFi is full of shady projects where creators vanish with users’ funds. Without regulation and without guarantees, those who deposit Bitcoin in these platforms may never recover their funds.

• Keeping Bitcoin safe is the best choice

Bitcoin was created to be self-custodied, meaning each user should have direct control over their funds without relying on third parties. By sending Bitcoin to DeFi platforms, that security is lost and the asset is exposed to unnecessary risks. The best way to protect Bitcoin is to store it in a secure wallet, preferably offline (cold storage), avoiding any exposure to smart contracts or vulnerable systems.

In summary, DeFi may seem innovative, but the risks far outweigh the potential benefits—especially for those who value Bitcoin's security. Instead of risking losing funds on insecure platforms, the wisest choice is to keep Bitcoin safely stored, ensuring its long-term preservation. While Bitcoin continues to be the best digital store of value in the world, DeFi remains an unstable and dangerous environment where few win and many end up losing.

Thank you very much for reading this far. I hope everything is well with you, and sending a big hug from your favorite Bitcoiner maximalist from Madeira. Long live freedom!

@ da18e986:3a0d9851

I'm making this tutorial for myself, as I plan to write many wiki pages describing DVM kinds, as a resource for DVMDash.

Wiki pages on Nostr are written using AsciiDoc. If you don't know ascii doc, get an LLM (like https://duck.ai) to help you format into the right syntax.

Here's the test wiki page I'm going to write:

``` = Simple AsciiDoc Demo

This is a simple demonstration of AsciiDoc syntax for testing purposes.

== Features

AsciiDoc offers many formatting options that are easy to use.

• Easy to learn
• Supports rich text formatting
• Can include code snippets
• Works great for documentation

[source,json]

{ "name": "Test", "version": "1.0", "active": true }

```

We're going to use nak to publish it

First, install nak if you haven't already

go install github.com/fiatjaf/nak@latest

Note: if you don't use Go a lot, you may need to first install it and then add it to your path so the nak command is recognized by the terminal

```

this is how to add it to your path on mac if using zsh

echo 'export PATH=$PATH:$(go env GOPATH)/bin' >> ~/.zshrc ```

And here's how to sign and publish this event with nak.

First, if you want to use your own nostr sec key, you can set the env variable to it and nak will use that if no secret key is specified

```

replace with your full secret key

export NOSTR_SECRET_KEY="nsec1zcdn..." ```

Now to sign and publish the event:

Note: inner double quotes need to be escaped with a \ before them in order to keep the formatting correct, because we're doing this in the terminal

nak event -k 30818 -d "dvm-wiki-page-test" -t 'title=dvm wiki page test' -c "= Simple AsciiDoc Demo\n\nThis is a simple demonstration of AsciiDoc syntax for testing purposes. \n\n== Features\n\nAsciiDoc offers many formatting options that are easy to use. \n\n* Easy to learn \n* Supports rich text formatting \n* Can include code snippets \n* Works great for documentation \n\n[source,json] \n---- \n{ \"name\": \"Test\", \"version\": \"1.0\", \"active\": true } \n----" wss://relay.primal.net wss://relay.damus.io wss://relay.wikifreedia.xyz

You've now published your first wiki page! If done correctly, it will show up on wikistr.com, like mine did here: https://wikistr.com/dvm-wiki-page-test*da18e9860040f3bf493876fc16b1a912ae5a6f6fa8d5159c3de2b8233a0d9851

and on wikifreedia.xyz https://wikifreedia.xyz/dvm-wiki-page-test/dustind@dtdannen.github.io

@ b099870e:f3ba8f5d

When you work for others, you are at their mercy. The own your work; they own you.Your creative spirit is squaded. What keeps you in such position is a fear of having to sink or swim on your own. Instead you should have a greater fear of what will happen to you if you remain dependant on others for power. Your goal in every maneuver in life must be ownership, working the corner for yourself. When it is yours to lose -you are more motivated,more creative,more alive. The ultimate power in life is to be completely self-reliant, completely yourself.

A quote from The 50th Law

@ 90c656ff:9383fd4e

Bitcoin has revolutionized the way people conduct financial transactions worldwide. As a decentralized digital currency, it offers new opportunities for e-commerce payments and international money transfers. Its speed, security, and low costs make it an efficient alternative to traditional methods by eliminating intermediaries and facilitating global transactions.

Bitcoin in e-commerce

E-commerce has grown exponentially, and Bitcoin has emerged as an innovative solution for online payments. Large retailers and small businesses are starting to accept Bitcoin as a form of payment, offering benefits to both merchants and consumers.

• Advantages of Bitcoin for e-commerce:

01 - Low transaction fees: Unlike credit cards and payment platforms that charge high fees, Bitcoin transactions generally have lower costs. This benefits merchants, who can reduce expenses and offer more competitive prices to customers. 02 - Elimination of chargebacks: In traditional systems, chargebacks (forced refunds by banks or card operators) are a concern for merchants. Since Bitcoin transactions are irreversible, merchants avoid fraud and disputes. 03 - Global access: Anyone with internet access can pay with Bitcoin, regardless of their location. This allows businesses to expand their market internationally without relying on banks or local payment systems. 04 - Privacy and security: Bitcoin transactions protect user identity, offering greater privacy compared to credit card payments or bank transfers. Additionally, since there’s no need to share personal data, the risk of information theft is reduced.

• Challenges of using Bitcoin in e-commerce:

01 - Volatility: Bitcoin’s price can fluctuate rapidly, making it difficult to set fixed prices for products and services. However, some merchants use payment processors that instantly convert Bitcoin into fiat currency, minimizing this risk. 02 - Limited adoption: Despite its growth, Bitcoin acceptance is not yet universal. Many stores and popular platforms have not adopted it, which can make daily purchases difficult. 03 - Confirmation time: Although Bitcoin is faster than traditional bank transfers, confirmation times may vary depending on the network fee paid. Some solutions, such as the Lightning Network, are being developed to enable instant payments.

Bitcoin in money remittances

Sending money abroad has long been a bureaucratic, costly, and time-consuming process. Traditional services like banks and money transfer companies charge high fees and can take days to complete a transaction. Bitcoin, on the other hand, offers an efficient alternative for global remittances, allowing anyone to send and receive money quickly and affordably.

• Benefits of Bitcoin for remittances:

01 - Reduced costs: While banks and companies like Western Union charge high fees for international transfers, Bitcoin allows money to be sent with minimal costs, regardless of the amount or destination. 02 - Transaction speed: International bank transfers can take several days to complete, especially in countries with limited financial infrastructure. With Bitcoin, money can be sent anywhere in the world within minutes or hours. 03 - Global accessibility: In regions where the banking system is restricted or inefficient, Bitcoin enables people to receive money without depending on banks. This is particularly useful in developing countries where international remittances are an essential source of income. 04 - Independence from intermediaries: Bitcoin operates in a decentralized manner, with no need for banks or transfer companies. This means people can send money directly to friends and family without intermediaries.

• Challenges of Bitcoin remittances:

01 - Conversion to local currency: Although Bitcoin can be received instantly, many people still need to convert it into local currency for everyday use. This may involve additional costs and depend on the availability of exchange services. 02 - Adoption and knowledge: Not everyone understands how Bitcoin works, which can hinder its widespread adoption for remittances. However, growing financial education on the subject can help overcome this barrier. 03 - Regulations and restrictions: Some governments impose restrictions on Bitcoin usage, making remittances more complicated. The evolution of regulations may affect ease of use in certain countries.

In summary, Bitcoin is transforming e-commerce and money remittances around the world. Its ability to eliminate intermediaries, reduce costs, and provide fast and secure payments makes it a viable alternative to traditional financial systems.

In e-commerce, it benefits both merchants and consumers by lowering fees and enhancing privacy. In the remittance sector, it facilitates money transfers to any part of the world, especially for those living in countries with inefficient banking systems.

Despite the challenges, Bitcoin adoption continues to grow, driven by innovative solutions and recognition of its potential as a global payment method. As more businesses and individuals embrace this technology, its presence in e-commerce and international remittances will become increasingly relevant.

Thank you very much for reading this far. I hope everything is well with you, and sending a big hug from your favorite Bitcoiner maximalist from Madeira. Long live freedom!

@ 7bdef7be:784a5805

We value sovereignty, privacy and security when accessing online content, using several tools to achieve this, like open protocols, open OSes, open software products, Tor and VPNs.

The problem

Talking about our social presence, we can manually build up our follower list (social graph), pick a Nostr client that is respectful of our preferences on what to show and how, but with the standard following mechanism, our main feed is public, so everyone can actually snoop what we are interested in, and what is supposable that we read daily.

The solution

Nostr has a simple solution for this necessity: encrypted lists. Lists are what they appear, a collection of people or interests (but they can also group much other stuff, see NIP-51). So we can create lists with contacts that we don't have in our main social graph; these lists can be used primarily to create dedicated feeds, but they could have other uses, for example, related to monitoring. The interesting thing about lists is that they can also be encrypted, so unlike the basic following list, which is always public, we can hide the lists' content from others. The implications are obvious: we can not only have a more organized way to browse content, but it is also really private one.

One might wonder what use can really be made of private lists; here are some examples:

• Browse “can't miss” content from users I consider a priority;
• Supervise competitors or adversarial parts;
• Monitor sensible topics (tags);
• Following someone without being publicly associated with them, as this may be undesirable;

The benefits in terms of privacy as usual are not only related to the casual, or programmatic, observer, but are also evident when we think of how many bots scan our actions to profile us.

The current state

Unfortunately, lists are not widely supported by Nostr clients, and encrypted support is a rarity. Often the excuse to not implement them is that they are harder to develop, since they require managing the encryption stuff (NIP-44). Nevertheless, developers have an easier option to start offering private lists: give the user the possibility to simply mark them as local-only, and never push them to the relays. Even if the user misses the sync feature, this is sufficient to create a private environment.

To date, as far as I know, the best client with list management is Gossip, which permits to manage both encrypted and local-only lists.

Beg your Nostr client to implement private lists!

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Design can’t be effective when squeezed into a decades-old process.

When the Agile Manifesto was inked in 2001, it was supposed to spark a revolution, and it did: by 2023, 71% of US companies were using Agile. The simple list of commitments to collaboration and adaptiveness branched into frameworks such as Scrum and Kanban.

“Agile” was about having a responsive mindset, not about which process you followed, but it became about which process you followed.

Agile was designed for engineering teams but spread to whole companies. Scaled frameworks emerged to coordinate Scrum teams, with a sprawling training and certification industry. In 2022, the enterprise Agile transformation industry was predicted to reach $142 billion by 2032.

Continue reading

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/972640

@ b099870e:f3ba8f5d

IN NOOKS ALL OVER THE EARTH SIT MEN WHO ARE WAITING, SCARCELY KNOWING IN WHAT WAY THEY ARE WAITING, MUCH LESS THAT THEY ARE WAITING IN VAIN. OCCASIONALLY THE CALL THAT AWAKENS-THAT ACCIDENT WHICH GIVES THE "PERMISSION" TO ACT—COMES TOO LATE, WHEN THE BEST YOUTH AND STRENGTH FOR ACTION HAS ALREADY BEEN USED UP BY SITTING STILL; AND MANY HAVE FOUND TO THEIR HORROR WHEN THEY "LEAPED UP" THAT THEIR LIMBS HAD GONE TO SLEEP AND THEIR SPIRIT HAD BECOME TOO HEAVY. "IT IS TOO LATE," THEY SAID TO THEMSELVES, HAVING LOST THEIR FAITH IN THEMSELVES AND HENCEFORTH FOREVER USELESS

Quote by Friedrich Nietzsche, currently reading The 50th Law and came across it

@ 90c656ff:9383fd4e

Digital wallets are important tools for storing and managing Bitcoin. They allow people to keep their private keys, access their funds, and make transactions in a practical and secure way. However, with several types of wallets available and the risks of incorrect use, it is essential to understand their features and follow good security practices.

What is a digital wallet?

A digital wallet is a software or device that stores the private and public keys linked to Bitcoin. Simply put, it doesn’t “store” Bitcoin itself but provides secure access to the network to verify and sign transactions.

Private keys work like a secret password that allows spending Bitcoins, while public keys are like account numbers that can be shared to receive payments. Keeping the private key secure is very important, as whoever has access to it controls the funds.

• Types of Digital Wallets

There are different types of digital wallets, each with specific features that meet various needs, whether for daily use or long-term storage.

• Hot Wallets

Wallets connected to the internet, designed for frequent use. Examples: Mobile apps, desktop wallets, online wallets.

Advantages:

01 - Accessible and easy to use 02 - Ideal for daily and quick transactions

Disadvantages:

01 - More exposed to cyberattacks such as phishing or hacking

• Cold Wallets

Wallets that keep private keys offline, increasing security. Examples: Hardware wallets, paper wallets, dedicated USB devices.

Advantages:

01 - High protection against hackers since they are not online 02 - Ideal for large amounts of Bitcoin or long-term storage

Disadvantages:

01 - Less practical for daily use 02 - Can be physically damaged or lost if not handled carefully

• Hardware Wallets

Physical devices, like Ledger or Trezor, that store private keys offline.

Advantages:

01 - Easy-to-use and secure interface 02 - Resistant to viruses and online attacks

Disadvantages:

01 - Higher initial cost 02 - Require care to avoid physical damage

• Paper Wallets

Involve printing or writing down private and public keys on a piece of paper.

Advantages:

01 - Completely offline and immune to digital attacks 02 - Simple and low-cost

Disadvantages:

01 - Vulnerable to physical damage such as water, fire, or loss 02 - Difficult to recover if lost

• Security in Digital Wallets

Protecting a digital wallet is essential to safeguard your Bitcoins from loss or theft.

Below are important practices to improve security:

• Private Key Protection

01 - Never share your private key with anyone 02 - Keep backup copies of the private key or recovery phrase in safe places

• Use of Recovery Phrases

The seed phrase is a sequence of 12 to 24 words that helps recover funds if the wallet is lost.

01 - Store the seed phrase offline and avoid taking pictures or saving it on internet-connected devices

• Two-Factor Authentication (2FA)

01 - Whenever possible, enable 2FA to protect accounts linked to online wallets or exchanges 02 - This adds an extra layer of security by requiring a second code to log in

• Updates and Maintenance

Keep the wallet software up to date to ensure protection against vulnerabilities

01 - Use only wallets from trustworthy and reputable developers

• Choosing the Right Wallet According to Need

01 - For frequent transactions, choose hot wallets but keep only small amounts 02 - For large amounts, use cold wallets like hardware or paper wallets, which are more secure

Risks and How to Avoid Them

• Hacker Attacks

Risk: Unauthorized access to hot wallets connected to the internet Prevention: Use cold wallets for storing large amounts and avoid clicking on suspicious links

• Loss of Access

Risk: Loss of private keys or the recovery phrase, making funds unrecoverable Prevention: Regularly make backups and store information in secure places

• Social Engineering and Phishing

Risk: Hackers trick people into giving up their private keys or personal information Prevention: Be suspicious of messages or websites that request your private keys. Never share sensitive data

• Physical Failures

Risk: Damage to devices or loss of paper wallets Prevention: Store backups in locations resistant to water, fire, and other threats

In summary, digital wallets are essential for the security and use of Bitcoin. Choosing the right wallet and following good security practices are key steps to protecting your assets.

Hot wallets offer convenience for daily use, while cold wallets provide strong security for long-term storage. Regardless of the type you choose, taking care of your private keys and recovery phrase is fundamental to ensure your Bitcoin remains under your control.

By understanding the types of wallets and implementing appropriate security measures, users can safely and efficiently take advantage of Bitcoin, maximizing the benefits of this digital revolution.

Thank you very much for reading this far. I hope everything is well with you, and sending a big hug from your favorite Bitcoiner maximalist from Madeira. Long live freedom!

@ 71550e6c:b64c37a9

Just do the same as this video shows.

Here's the video: https://cdn.azzamo.net/7cdcc2718f1e15eb03e323f62e07582b4001da273aa5c21475d680f02b32f0e9.mp4

One caveat: do not trust the draft will be kept here after you close nak fs. Wait, no, it definitely won't stay here, but I'm not even sure it will stay here if you only navigate away and come back later, FUSE is weird and I didn't test.

But at least it should work for copy-pasting. Or writing everything in one go.

@ dd3548d4:cedd4a2c

Twelve Grounds | Dvādaśa Bhūmayaḥ | द्वादश भूमय

1 प्रस्थानी​ | Prasthānī | The Stage of Setting Out | A 2 विचारणी​ | Vicāraṇī | The Stage of Exploration | B 3 परिणीता​ | Pariṇītā​ | The Stage of Culmination | C 4 सुदुर्मेधा​ | Sudurmedhā | The Stage of Profound Wisdom | D 5 अभिनिष्क्रमणी​ | Abhiniṣkramaṇī​ | The Stage of Ascension | E 6 अभिमुखी​ | Abhimukhī​ | The Stage of Direct Approach | F 7 दुर्निवारणी​ | Durnivāraṇī | The Stage of Irresistibility | AA 8 अचला​ | Acalā​ | The Stage of Immovability | BB 9 साधुमती​ | Sādhumatī​ | The Stage of Pure Wisdom | CC 10 धर्ममेघा​ | Dharmameghā​ | The Stage of the Dharma Cloud | DD 11 निश्चयावस्था​ | Niścayāvasthā | The Stage of Certainty | EE 12 सर्वार्थसिद्धि​ | Sarvārthasiddhi​ | The Stage of Perfect Fulfillment | FF

each 12 1/2 x 16 1/8 [ inches ] | Saunders Waterford 300g/sq m

Homage to unconfined vastness, the primordial complet​eness of the three kayas.

www.billtoole.net

@ 56cd780f:cbde8b29

I will add a picture, a hyperlink and a video. Let’s see if it works.

Click here for youtube!

@ 05cdefcd:550cc264

The crypto world is full of buzzwords. One that I keep on hearing: “Bitcoin is its own asset class”.

While I have always been sympathetic to that view, I’ve always failed to understand the true meaning behind that statement.

Although I consider Bitcoin to be the prime innovation within the digital asset sector, my primary response has always been: How can bitcoin (BTC), a single asset, represent an entire asset class? Isn’t it Bitcoin and other digital assets that make up an asset class called crypto?

Well, I increasingly believe that most of crypto is just noise. Sure, it’s volatile noise that is predominately interesting for very sophisticated hedge funds, market makers or prop traders that are sophisticated enough to extract alpha – but it’s noise nonetheless and has no part to play in a long-term only portfolio of private retail investors (of which most of us are).

Over multiple market cycles, nearly all altcoins underperform Bitcoin when measured in BTC terms. Source: Tradingview

Aha-Moment: Bitcoin keeps on giving

Still, how can Bitcoin, as a standalone asset, make up an entire asset class? The “aha-moment” to answer this question recently came to me in a Less Noise More Signal interview I did with James Van Straten, senior analyst at Coindesk.

Let me paraphrase him here: “You can’t simply recreate the same ETF as BlackRock. To succeed in the Bitcoin space, new and innovative approaches are needed. This is where understanding Bitcoin not just as a single asset, but as an entire asset class, becomes essential. There are countless ways to build upon Bitcoin’s foundation—varied iterations that go beyond just holding the asset. This is precisely where the emergence of the Bitcoin-linked stock market is taking shape—and it's already underway.”

And this is actually coming to fruition as we speak. Just in the last few days, we saw several products launch in that regard.

Obviously, MicroStrategy (now Strategy) is the pioneer of this. The company now owns 506,137 BTC, and while they’ll keep on buying more, they have also inspired many other companies to follow suit.

In fact, there are now already over 70 companies that have adopted Strategy’s Bitcoin playbook. One of the latest companies to buy Bitcoin for their corporate treasury is Rumble. The YouTube competitor just announced their first Bitcoin purchase for $17 million.

Also, the gaming zombie company GameStop just announced to raise money to buy BTC for their corporate treasury.

Gamestop to make BTC their hurdle rate. Source: X

ETF on Bitcoin companies

Given this proliferation of Bitcoin Treasury companies, it was only a matter of time before a financial product tracking these would emerge.

The popular crypto index fund provider Bitwise Investments has just launched this very product called the Bitwise Bitcoin Standard Corporations ETF (OWNB).

The ETF tracks Bitcoin Treasury companies with over 1,000 BTC on their balance sheet. These companies invest in Bitcoin as a strategic reserve asset to protect the $5 trillion in low-yield cash that companies in the US commonly sit on.

These are the top 10 holdings of OWNB. Source: Ownbetf

ETF on Bitcoin companies’ convertible bonds

Another instrument that fits seamlessly into the range of Bitcoin-linked stock market products is the REX Bitcoin Corporate Treasury Convertible Bond ETF (BMAX). The ETF provides exposure to the many different convertible bonds issued by companies that are actively moving onto a Bitcoin standard.

Convertible bonds are a valuable financing tool for companies looking to raise capital for Bitcoin purchases. Their strong demand is driven by the unique combination of equity-like upside and debt-like downside protection they offer.

For example, MicroStrategy's convertible bonds, in particular, have shown exceptional performance. For instance, MicroStrategy's 2031 bonds has shown a price rise of 101% over a one-year period, vastly outperforming MicroStrategy share (at 53%), Bitcoin (at 25%) and the ICE BofA U.S. Convertible Index (at 10%). The latter is the benchmark index for convertible bond funds, tracking the performance of U.S. dollar-denominated convertible securities in the U.S. market.

The chart shows a comparison of ICE BofA U.S. Convertible Index, the Bloomberg Bitcoin index (BTC price), MicroStrategy share (MSTR), and MicroStrategy bond (0.875%, March 15 203). The convertible bond has been outperforming massively. Source: Bloomberg

While the BMAX ETF faces challenges such as double taxation, which significantly reduces investor returns (explained in more detail here), it is likely that future products will emerge that address and improve upon these issues.

Bitcoin yield products

The demand for a yield on Bitcoin has increased tremendously. Consequently, respective products have emerged.

Bitcoin yield products aim to generate alpha by capitalizing on volatility, market inefficiencies, and fragmentation within cryptocurrency markets. The objective is to achieve uncorrelated returns denominated in Bitcoin (BTC), with attractive risk-adjusted performance. Returns are derived exclusively from asset selection and trading strategies, eliminating reliance on directional market moves.

Key strategies employed by these funds include:

• Statistical Arbitrage: Exploits short-term pricing discrepancies between closely related financial instruments—for instance, between Bitcoin and traditional assets, or Bitcoin and other digital assets. Traders utilize statistical models and historical price relationships to identify temporary inefficiencies.
• Futures Basis Arbitrage: Captures profits from differences between the spot price of Bitcoin and its futures contracts. Traders simultaneously buy or sell Bitcoin on spot markets and enter opposite positions in futures markets, benefiting as the prices converge.
• Funding Arbitrage: Generates returns by taking advantage of variations in Bitcoin funding rates across different markets or exchanges. Funding rates are periodic payments exchanged between long and short positions in perpetual futures contracts, allowing traders to profit from discrepancies without significant directional exposure.
• Volatility/Option Arbitrage: Seeks profits from differences between implied volatility (reflected in Bitcoin options prices) and expected realized volatility. Traders identify mispriced volatility in options related to Bitcoin or Bitcoin-linked equities, such as MSTR, and position accordingly to benefit from volatility normalization.
• Market Making: Involves continuously providing liquidity by simultaneously quoting bid (buy) and ask (sell) prices for Bitcoin. Market makers profit primarily through capturing the spread between these prices, thereby enhancing market efficiency and earning consistent returns.
• Liquidity Provision in DeFi Markets: Consists of depositing Bitcoin (usually as Wrapped BTC) into decentralized finance (DeFi) liquidity pools such as those on Uniswap, Curve, or Balancer. Liquidity providers earn fees paid by traders who execute swaps within these decentralized exchanges, creating steady yield opportunities.

Notable products currently available in this segment include the Syz Capital BTC Alpha Fund offered by Syz Capital and the Forteus Crypto Alpha Fund by Forteus.

BTC-denominated share class

A Bitcoin-denominated share class refers to a specialized investment fund category in which share values, subscriptions (fund deposits), redemptions (fund withdrawals), and performance metrics are expressed entirely in Bitcoin (BTC), rather than in traditional fiat currencies such as USD or EUR.

Increasingly, both individual investors and institutions are adopting Bitcoin as their preferred benchmark—or "Bitcoin hurdle rate"—meaning that investment performance is evaluated directly against Bitcoin’s own price movements.

These Bitcoin-denominated share classes are designed specifically for investors seeking to preserve and grow their wealth in Bitcoin terms, rather than conventional fiat currencies. As a result, investors reduce their exposure to fiat-related risks. Furthermore, if Bitcoin outperforms fiat currencies, investors holding BTC-denominated shares will experience enhanced returns relative to traditional fiat-denominated investment classes.

X: https://x.com/pahueg

Podcast: https://www.youtube.com/@lessnoisemoresignalpodcast

Book: https://academy.saifedean.com/product/the-bitcoin-enlightenment-hardcover/

@ bbef5093:71228592

*Holtec új atomenergetikai együttműködése Utah államban*

Az amerikai Holtec International stratégiai megállapodást kötött Utah állammal és a Hi Tech Solutions nukleáris szolgáltatóval, hogy elősegítse saját fejlesztésű, SMR-300 típusú kis moduláris reaktorainak (SMR) telepítését Utahban és az Egyesült Államok Mountain West régiójában. A megállapodás értelmében 2028-ig állandó képzési központot hoznak létre Utahban, amely az üzemeltetéshez, karbantartáshoz és az új generációs nukleáris technológiákhoz szükséges munkaerő képzését célozza, szoros együttműködésben helyi egyetemekkel, főiskolákkal és szakiskolákkal.

A projekt Utah állam energetikai stratégiájának („Operation Gigawatt” és „Built Here”) része, amely a következő tíz évben megduplázná az állam energiatermelését, kiemelt szerepet szánva a tiszta nukleáris energiának. A Holtec Utah-t választotta nyugati gyártóbázisának is, ezzel erősítve az amerikai nukleáris ellátási láncot és hosszú távú munkahelyeket teremtve. A cég a 2030-as években akár 4 GW összkapacitású SMR-300 telepítését tervezi főként Utahban és Wyomingban.

Az SMR-300 egy nyomottvizes reaktor, amely 300 MW villamos vagy 1050 MW hőteljesítményt biztosít, és a Holtec tervei szerint kulcsszerepet játszhat a tiszta, szén-dioxid-mentes energiatermelésben.

*Amerikai SMR-piac helyzete*

Az SMR-technológia az utóbbi években került a figyelem középpontjába, mivel gyorsabban és olcsóbban telepíthető, mint a hagyományos atomerőművek, és lehetőséget kínál magánbefektetők számára is. Ugyanakkor az első amerikai SMR-projekt, a NuScale és a Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems közös beruházása költségnövekedés miatt meghiúsult, ami rávilágított a technológia gazdasági kihívásaira.

Nemzetközi fejlemények és további hírek

• Az ausztrál Okapi Resources és az Urenco együttműködési megállapodást kötött új urán dúsítási technológia fejlesztésére, amely tisztább és olcsóbb dúsítási eljárást ígér.
• Az Argonne National Laboratory sikeresen kicserélt egy 30 éves kulcsfontosságú alkatrészt a nátriumhűtésű gyorsreaktor-tesztberendezésében, ami hozzájárulhat a gyorsreaktor-technológia fejlesztéséhez az Egyesült Államokban.
• A Tennessee Egyetem ösztöndíjprogramot indít a Fülöp-szigeteki nukleáris szakemberek képzésére, támogatva ezzel a délkelet-ázsiai ország nukleáris energiafejlesztési törekvéseit.
• Bulgáriában a Westinghouse Electric Company helyi beszállítókkal kötött megállapodásokat két új AP1000 típusú reaktor építéséhez a kozloduji atomerőműben.

@ ecda4328:1278f072

When designing a highly available Kubernetes (or k3s) cluster, one of the key architectural questions is: "How many ETCD nodes should I run?"

A recent discussion in our team sparked this very debate. Someone suggested increasing our ETCD cluster size from 3 to more nodes, citing concerns about node failures and the need for higher fault tolerance. It’s a fair concern—nobody wants a critical service to go down—but here's why 3-node ETCD clusters are usually the sweet spot for most setups.

---

The Role of ETCD and Quorum

ETCD is a distributed key-value store used by Kubernetes to store all its state. Like most consensus-based systems (e.g., Raft), ETCD relies on quorum to operate. This means that more than half of the ETCD nodes must be online and in agreement for the cluster to function correctly.

What Quorum Means in Practice

• In a 3-node ETCD cluster, quorum is 2.
• In a 5-node cluster, quorum is 3.

⚠️ So yes, 5 nodes can tolerate 2 failures vs. just 1 in a 3-node setup—but you also need more nodes online to keep the system functional. More nodes doesn't linearly increase safety.

---

Why 3 Nodes is the Ideal Baseline

Running 3 ETCD nodes hits a great balance:

• Fault tolerance: 1 node can fail without issue.
• Performance: Fewer nodes = faster consensus and lower latency.
• Simplicity: Easier to manage, upgrade, and monitor.

Even the ETCD documentation recommends 3–5 nodes total, with 5 being the upper limit before write performance and operational complexity start to degrade.

Systems like Google's Chubby—which inspired systems like ETCD and ZooKeeper—also recommend no more than 5 nodes.

---

The Myth of Catastrophic Failure

"If two of our three ETCD nodes go down, the cluster will become unusable and need deep repair!"

This is a common fear, but the reality is less dramatic:

• ETCD becomes read-only: You can't schedule or update workloads, but existing workloads continue to run.
• No deep repair needed: As long as there's no data corruption, restoring quorum just requires bringing at least one other ETCD node back online.
• Still recoverable if two nodes are permanently lost: You can re-initialize the remaining node as a new single-node ETCD cluster using --cluster-init, and rebuild from there.

---

What About Backups?

In k3s, ETCD snapshots are automatically saved by default. For example:

• Default path: /var/lib/rancher/k3s/server/db/snapshots/

You can restore these snapshots in case of failure, making ETCD even more resilient.

---

When to Consider 5 Nodes

Adding more ETCD nodes only makes sense at scale, such as:

• Running 12+ total cluster nodes
• Needing stronger fault domains for regulatory/compliance reasons

Note: ETCD typically requires low-latency communication between nodes. Distributing ETCD members across availability zones or regions is generally discouraged unless you're using specialized networking and understand the performance implications.

Even then, be cautious—you're trading some simplicity and performance for that extra failure margin.

---

TL;DR

• 3-node ETCD clusters are the best choice for most Kubernetes/k3s environments.
• 5-node clusters offer more redundancy but come with extra complexity and performance costs.
• Loss of quorum is not a disaster—it’s recoverable.
• Backups and restore paths make even worst-case recovery feasible.

And finally: if you're seeing multiple ETCD nodes go down frequently, the real problem might not be the number of nodes—but your hosting provider.

---

@ 56cd780f:cbde8b29

Is it still working?

@ 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 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

@ e0a8cbd7:f642d154

分散型プロトコルNostr上でWeb bookmarkを見たり書いたりする「Nostr Web Bookmark Trend」を試してみました。

NostrのWeb Bookmarkingは「nip-B0 Web Bookmarking· nostr-protocol/nips · GitHub」で定義されています。

WEBブラウザの拡張による認証(NIP-07)でログインしました。
create new web bookmark(新規ブックマーク作成）を開くとこんな感じ。
URL入力部分において、https:// が外に出ているので、URLのhttps:// 部分を消して入力しないといけないのがちょっと面倒。 　↓
１個、投稿してみました。
アカウント名をクリックするとそのユーザが登録したbookmark一覧が表示されます。
以上、Nostr Web Bookmark Trendについてでした。

なお、本記事は「Nostr NIP-23 マークダウンエディタ」のテストのため、「NostrでWeb bookmark - あたしンちのおとうさんの独り言」と同じ内容を投稿したものです。

@ 56cd780f:cbde8b29

Is it actually called “summary”?

@ 866e0139:6a9334e5

Autor: Dr. Ulrike Guérot. (Foto: Manuela Haltiner). Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben. Sie finden alle Texte der Friedenstaube und weitere Texte zum Thema Frieden hier.**

---

Ich bin 60 Jahre. Einer meiner Großväter, Wilhelm Hammelstein, liegt auf dem Soldatenfriedhof in Riga begraben. Der andere, mütterlicherseits, Paul Janus, kam ohne Beine aus dem Krieg zurück, auch aus Russland. Ich kenne ihn nur mit Prothesen und Krücken. Er hat immer bei Wetterwechsel über Phantomschmerz geklagt und ist seines Lebens nicht mehr froh geworden. Den Krieg hat man ihm im Gesicht angesehen, auch wenn ich das als kleines Mädchen nicht verstanden habe.

"Ihr könnt euch nicht vorstellen, was ich gesehen habe"

Von den Russen hat er trotzdem nie schlecht geredet. Was er immer nur zu uns Enkelkindern gesagt war: *„Ihr könnt euch nicht vorstellen, was ich gesehen habe“. * Wir haben es nicht verstanden, als 6- oder 8-Jährige, und haben gelacht. Manchmal haben wir ihm seine Krücken weggenommen, die immer an den Ohrensessel gelehnt waren, dann konnte Opa Paul nicht aufstehen und ist wütend geworden.

Meine Mutter, Helga Hammelstein, ist im Mai 1939 gleichsam in den Krieg hineingeboren worden, in Schlesien. 1945 gab es für sie, wie für viele, Flucht und Vertreibung. Ob sie und ihre zwei Schwestern von den Russen vergewaltigt wurden – wie damals so viele – kann ich nicht sagen. Diese Themen waren bei uns tabuisiert. Was ich sagen kann, ist, dass meine Mutter als Flüchtlings- und Kriegskind vom Krieg hochgradig traumatisiert war – und als Kriegsenkelin war oder bin ich es wohl auch noch. Eigentlich merke ich das erst heute so richtig, wo wieder Krieg auf dem europäischen Kontinent ist und Europa auch in den Krieg ziehen, wo es kriegstüchtig gemacht werden soll.

Vielleicht habe ich mich aufgrund dieser Familiengeschichte immer so für Europa, für die europäische Integration interessiert, für die EU, die einmal als Friedensprojekt geplant war. Ich habe Zeit meines Lebens, seit nunmehr 30 Jahren, in verschiedenen Positionen, als Referentin im Deutschen Bundestag, in Think Tanks oder an Universitäten akademisch, intellektuell, publizistisch und künstlerisch zum Thema Europa gearbeitet.

1989 habe ich einen Franzosen geheiratet, ich hatte mich beim Studium in Paris verliebt und in den 1990-Jahren in Paris zwei Söhne bekommen. Auch in der französischen Familie gab es bittere Kriegserfahrungen: der Mann der Oma meines damaligen Mannes war 6 Jahre in deutscher Kriegsgefangenschaft. „Pourquoi tu dois marier une Allemande?“ „Warum musst du eine Deutsche heiraten?“, wurde mein damaliger Mann noch gefragt. Das Misstrauen mir gegenüber wurde erst ausgeräumt, als wir ihr 1991 den kleinen Felix, unseren erstgeborenen Sohn, in den Schoß gelegt haben.

Das europäische Friedensprojekt ist gescheitert

Das europäische Einheits- und Friedensprojekt war damals, nach dem Mauerfall, in einer unbeschreiblichen Aufbruchstimmung, die sich heute niemand mehr vorstellen kann: Der ganze Kontinent in fröhlicher Stimmung - insieme, gemeinsam, together, ensemble – und wollte politisch zusammenwachsen. Heute ist es gescheitert und ich fasse es nicht! Das Kriegsgeheul in ganz Europa macht mich nachgerade verrückt.

Darum habe ich ein europäisches Friedensprojekt ins Leben gerufen: TheEuropean Peace Project. Am Europatag, den 9. Mai, um 17 Uhr, wollen wir in ganz Europa in allen europäischen und auf dem ganzen europäischen Kontinent als europäische Bürger den Frieden ausrufen! Ich würde mich freuen, wenn viele mitmachen!

---

DIE FRIEDENSTAUBE JETZT ABONNIEREN:

Hier können Sie die Friedenstaube abonnieren und bekommen die Artikel in Ihr Postfach, vorerst für alle kostenfrei, wir starten gänzlich ohne Paywall. (Die Bezahlabos fangen erst zu laufen an, wenn ein Monetarisierungskonzept für die Inhalte steht).

---

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: milosz@pareto.space oder kontakt@idw-europe.org.

---

Wo bleibt ein deutsch-russisches Jugendwerk?

Mein Lieblingsbuch zu Europa ist Laurent Gaudet, Nous, L’Europe, banquet des peuples. „Wir, Europa! Ein Banquet der Völker“ Es ist ein großartiges Gedicht, etwa wie die Ilias von Homer. Es beschreibt die letzten einhundert Jahre europäische Geschichte, die ganzen Krieg und Revolutionen. Und es beschreibt doch, was uns als Europäer eint. Darin findet sich der – für mich wunderschöne! - Satz: „Ce que nous partageons, c’est ce que nous étions tous bourraux et victime.“ „Was wir als Europäer teilen ist, dass wir alle zugleich Opfer und Täter waren“. 

Und doch haben wir es geschafft, die „Erbfeindschaft“ zu beenden und uns auszusöhnen, zum Beispiel die Deutschen und Franzosen, über ein deutsch-französisches Jugendwerk, das 1963 gegründet wurde. So ein Jugendwerk wünsche ich mir auch heute zwischen Europa und Russland!

Das Epos von Laurent Gaudet ist in einem Theaterstück von dem französischen Regisseur Roland Auzet auf die Bühne gebracht worden. In dem 40-köpfigen Ensemble sind verschiedene Nationalitäten aus ganz Europa: das Stück ist fantastisch! Ich selber habe es auf dem Theaterfestival in Avignon 2019 sehen dürfen!

Ich wünsche mir, dass wir statt jetzt für Milliarden überall in Europa Waffen zu kaufen, das Geld dafür auftreiben, dieses Theaterstück in jede europäische Stadt zu bringen: wenn das gelänge, hätten wohl alle verstanden, was es heißt, Europäer zu sein: nämlich Frieden zu machen!

---

Ulrike Guérot, Jg. 1964, ist europäische Professorin, Publizistin und Bestsellerautorin. Seit rund 30 Jahren beschäftigt sie sich in europäischen Think Tanks und Universitäten in Paris, Brüssel, London, Washington, New York, Wien und Berlin mit Fragen der europäischen Demokratie, sowie mit der Rolle Europas in der Welt. Ulrike Guérot ist seit März 2014 Gründerin und Direktorin des European Democracy Labs, e.V.,Berlin und initiierte im März 2023 das European Citizens Radio, das auf Spotify zu finden ist. Zuletzt erschien von ihr "Über Halford J. Mackinders Heartland-Theorie, Der geografische Drehpunkt der Geschichte", Westend, 2024). Mehr Infos zur Autorin hier.

---

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.

@ b154080c:00027cc7

Introduction

In the ancient times of Israel, masculinity found its true embodiment in the courageous story of Daniel. Amidst the foreign land of Babylon, Daniel stood firm in his convictions, showcasing strength, and dedication to his beliefs.

Despite living in a culture that sought to diminish his faith, Daniel refused to bow before idols or false deities. His defiance challenged societal expectations, revealing a masculinity that transcended worldly norms. Rooted in his unshakable belief in the one true God, Daniel's resolve remained unyielding. Facing the wrath of the king, Daniel fearlessly stood before Nebuchadnezzar, humbly declaring his allegiance to God alone. Cast into a blazing furnace as punishment, Daniel emerged unharmed. God's angel shielded him from the scorching flames, proving that his faith made him invincible. Witnessing this display of masculinity, Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged the greatness of Daniel's God, bringing about a profound transformation.

Daniel's story serves as a testament to the essence of masculinity—a resolute dedication to one's convictions, the courage to defy societal expectations, and a commitment to truth. His faith and devotion inspire generations, exemplifying the power of masculine conviction.

There have been countless instances throughout history where acts of courage have taken place on a spectrum. Although both men and women can display such acts, history has shown that resolve, courage, and bravery have predominantly resided within the realm of masculinity. The Apostle Paul himself concluded the book of 1 Corinthians by saying, "Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love" (16:13-14). By combining this passage with the numerous accounts of provision, battle, sacrifice, and honor, it becomes evident that God has designed inherent and very important differences within the male gender.

The Bible presents us with inspiring examples of both courageous women, such as Deborah, Rahab, and Esther, and valiant men, including Joshua, Gideon, Samson, David, Jonathan, Nehemiah, the Prophets, the twelve Apostles, and above all, Jesus Himself. While these accounts acknowledge the remarkable contributions of women, they predominantly highlight the male figures who exemplify strength, boldness, courage, and a resolute sense of responsibility. Throughout its pages, the Bible paints a vivid picture of masculinity's profound impact and enduring significance which we must embrace.

Jesus’ Masculinity

Jesus exhibited remarkable courage throughout many of his acts, and it is through his expression of masculinity that this courage shines even brighter. Jesus' masculinity played a crucial role in enabling him to display great bravery and determination in fulfilling his mission. However, it's important to note that Jesus redefines masculinity beyond physical strength or dominance, embracing resilience, self-sacrifice, and unyielding conviction as its defining qualities.

Jesus' courage stemmed from his deep understanding of his purpose and his unshakable faith in his Father's plan. He fearlessly challenged the religious authorities of his time, calling out hypocrisy and speaking truth to power. Despite facing opposition and hostility, Jesus stood firm in his convictions, undeterred by the threats and ridicule he encountered. Jesus' embodiment of masculinity highlights the transformative power it can have when rooted in love and compassion.

Modern Culture Poisoning the Church

It is important to realize the true masculinity of Jesus and the example that he has set for us in this regard. Unfortunately, I often see a tendency nowadays to downplay Jesus' masculinity and instead depict Him in a more feminized manner.

In both our culture and the modern church, there is a tendency to present a version of Jesus that deviates from the biblical portrayal. Perhaps you've come across people who refer to Jesus as their "best friend" or even draw comparisons between their relationship with Him and that of a "boyfriend.” This is in fact very unbiblical. The Bible never presents our love for God using such romantic or erotic language. While the men depicted in Scripture certainly loved God, they were never portrayed as being desperate for Him or romantically in love with Him. People are often taught a very shallow and weak portrayal of Him.

In the United States, particularly in the context of flourishing Protestantism, the shift from considering the community as a whole to focusing on the individual has led to a rise in strong individualistic beliefs which has resulted in a diminished sense of community within the Catholic Church. When the focal point of Catholicism becomes "Jesus and me," it opens the door to a mindset of being "spiritual" rather than "religious.” Attending church becomes a matter of personal choice, and faith no longer necessarily influences or intersects with areas such as business or politics. The sole emphasis becomes on one's personal relationship with Christ, prioritizing individual salvation over communal or global redemption. The vision of the kingdom of God taking shape on earth also becomes less urgent, as the emphasis shifts towards a faith centered on transcendence, emotions, and sentiment, rather than tangible actions.

The perception of Jesus' masculinity has been negatively impacted by the trend of feminizing Him, which has contributed to a decline in the courage displayed by men today. This shift can be attributed to various factors that have influenced societal perspectives.

In contrast to the promises of Jesus, which include suffering, trials, and pain, it is often only presented to them that Christianity is the solution to these hardships. Instead of acknowledging the reality of challenges, the contemporary portrayal of Christianity tends to market it as the antidote to suffering and pain. It is important to recognize and reflect upon the significant difference between how Jesus called His disciples and the prevailing emphasis on personal relationships with Him today. Instead of inviting them to have a personal connection, He simply said, "Follow me." Understanding this distinction is crucial in our understanding of Jesus' call to discipleship. "Follow me" implies a sense of purpose, a shared mission or goal to pursue. This contrast highlights the divergence between the original intent of discipleship and the way it is often portrayed around me nowadays.

I want to emphasize that I am by no means denying the significance of having a personal relationship with Christ. On the contrary, I am simply highlighting the importance of recognizing that personal relationships, including our relationship with Christ, require more than just superficial connections. They demand a deep sense of faith, trust, and communion with Him. Drawing inspiration from the courageous example of Jesus, who fearlessly confronted societal norms and spoke truth to power, our relationship with Him can empower us to embrace courage in our own lives. Just as Jesus fearlessly faced opposition, persecution, and ultimately sacrificed Himself for the sake of others, our connection with Him can embolden us to stand up for what is right, to live out our faith boldly, and to face life's challenges with strength. It is not a casual or complacent association but a courageous and transformative bond that empowers us to live out our faith with conviction and to impact the world around us positively.

As modern sermons take center stage, it's become apparent that there is a tendency to downplay the contrasts found in the teachings of the Bible. As mentions of heaven and hell, sin and life, grace and justice, as well as the analogies involving battles and soldiers for Christ have always been very prevalent, they have become way less common nowadays. We hear fewer calls for Catholics to embrace their crosses and passionately commit themselves to the cause of the gospel and the well-being of others. Instead, the spotlight has shifted towards how the gospel can serve as a tool for personal growth and fulfillment, focusing on self-realization. The gospel is often presented as a therapeutic treatment rather than a heroic challenge. The emphasis lies on the rewards rather than the obstacles, creating the idea of all gain, no pain (lol).

The rise of praise and worship music has also brought about significant changes in people's perception of Christ. While traditional hymns focused on singing about God, emphasizing His greatness, power, and distinctiveness, praise and worship music takes a different approach. It presents God as a close companion, an intimate presence by our side, emphasizing His love and care for us. This shift in emphasis, while not inherently negative, certainly plays a substantial role in shaping our understanding of Christ's nature and relationship with us.

Jesus is the Epitome of Masculinity

I believe Jesus stands as the epitome of masculinity, offering an unrivaled example for men to emulate. Through His life and teachings, He reveals the true essence of what it means to be a man. He leads with courage, facing challenges head-on without hesitation. His fearlessness shines through as He confronts opposition and stands firm in His convictions. Moreover, His love is not self-serving but sacrificial, displayed vividly through His ultimate act of giving His own life for the sake of others. And in the face of adversity, His resolve remains unshakeable, inspiring men to stand strong in their beliefs and principles. Jesus, in His entirety, embodies the essence of true masculinity, setting an unparalleled standard that us men must aspire to.

Around me, I’m often seeing a tendency to shy away from addressing challenging subjects with resolute conviction. Rather than speaking with clarity and certainty, there is a preference for using vague language and ambiguous statements to navigate sensitive issues. In stark contrast, Jesus stood firmly and fearlessly, fearlessly proclaiming His truth. His words shook the foundations of societal norms, demanding radical commitment from His followers. True boldness lies in the courage to speak truth, even when faced with opposition and adversity.

Boldness is a very masculine characteristic. While some may argue that boldness is not exclusive to gender, the Bible primarily associates this characteristic with men. On the other hand, the beauty of women is highlighted through the importance of a gentle and quiet spirit, which also very much holds great value in the eyes of God. 1 Peter 3:4 addressing woman and wives, "Let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious." This reminds us that inner qualities such as a gentle and tranquil demeanor also hold significant worth and are highly esteemed.

As Jesus exemplified true boldness, courageously speaking God's truth regardless of the consequences. His courage serves as the ultimate model of masculinity, inspiring men to fearlessly pursue God's will. Jesus exemplified bravery, rooted in His deep reverence for God. Unlike the fear of man, which arises from sin, Jesus' bravery stemmed from His love for God. His resolute posture and authoritative responses to godless men demonstrated a masculinity untainted by timidity. Jesus taught us to lead with courage, grounded in reverence for God and faith in His sovereignty.

In a culture where love is often misrepresented, Jesus' sacrificial love stands as the true definition. Love, as demonstrated by Jesus, goes beyond superficial feelings; it entails sacrificial commitment. Jesus willingly laid down His life for His bride, the Church, showcasing the essence of true masculinity. Men are called to sacrificially love their wives, mirroring Christ's example. This selfless love forms the foundation for men to protect, nurture, and fight for those entrusted to their care.

Christ's resolve was the driving force behind the cross, demonstrating His commitment to fulfill His mission. His choice to embrace the cross, knowing the suffering and wrath He would endure, showcases resolute masculinity. In history, heroic moments of perseverance are predominantly marked by male resolve. The biological advantage provided by testosterone further supports men's capacity for enduring resolve. Jesus' resolve to save His people from sin teaches men to stand firm in the face of challenges, abiding in their commitment to their calling.

Restoring the Church's Boldness and Reclaiming Biblical Masculinity and Femininity

The landscape of the Church has undergone a significant transformation, moving away from its historic expression of Christianity. We've witnessed a shift from powerful, convicting sermons to soft, TED-talk style infotainment. Classic hymns highlighting doctrine, sacrifice, and piety have been replaced by emotionally driven love songs that resemble romantic ballads. It's clear that the local church has undergone a real emasculation.

This departure from biblical foundations has contributed to a great deal of confusion within the Church, particularly concerning the understanding of biblical manhood and womanhood. The increasing push for egalitarianism has led to women fighting for leadership roles, while men find themselves adrift without clear guidance regarding their responsibilities in marriage, the church, and the family. I believe this confusion and distortion of gender roles to be the enemy's central strategy for our generation. By infiltrating the Church with a heightened emphasis on feminine emotion, the enemy has left us unprepared for moments requiring masculine boldness, fearlessness, sacrifice, and resolve.

We must acknowledge that there is a difference between a surface-level expression of faith and the profound conviction displayed by those facing intense trials. The challenges and hardships that people face in the midst of adversity provide a profound glimpse into the strength and genuineness of their faith. These trials are a powerful testimony to their commitment and courage. Throughout history, numerous Christians have faced unimaginable suffering, even enduring torture, dismemberment, and martyrdom, all because of their devotion to Christ. Their remarkable sacrifices inspire us and remind us of the immense cost of following Jesus. Yet, the trend of timidity displayed by the present-day Church, yielding to government overreach or even complying with laws that endorse sexual sin contrary to biblical teachings, will come at a significant cost.

It is high time for the Church to reclaim its boldness and restore the biblical understanding of masculinity and femininity. We must reject the watered-down version of Christianity that has spread throughout our culture and embrace a faith rooted in conviction and sacrifice. By understanding and embracing the unique roles and responsibilities of men and women as outlined in Scripture, we can restore clarity and purpose to our families, churches, and communities. Let us rise above the societal pressures, rekindle the fire of biblical truth, and stand firm in our commitment to Christ, no matter the cost.

As we progress, it becomes clear that the importance of strong, virtuous Catholic men is growing. This should not catch us off guard. The feminist movement of the 21st century is truly toxic. It goes way beyond advocating for the rightful appreciation of women; it seeks to establish female dominance. Moreover, its influence knows no boundaries. Like the LGBTQ community, its aim is to permeate every aspect of public, personal, and spiritual life. We must not only be alarmed by this trend but also prepare ourselves to stand firmly against it. We need biblically grounded shepherds and faithful women who can discern the subtle infiltration of an effeminate culture and guard against it.

Let us not forget that Catholicism is not egalitarian. While men and women are equally valued before the cross, our roles and responsibilities differ. In marriage, Christianity follows a complementarian model, where the husband leads with sacrificial love, and the wife respects and supports him. People are too sensitive about the word “patriarchy” nowadays. In terms of leadership, the Church holds a patriarchal stance. At the same time, patriarchy, like any other system, is not immune to the potential for sinful expressions. However, when approached with sacrificial love, adherence to biblical order, and a commitment to honoring God, the structure of patriarchy - as well as areas such as marriage, fatherhood, and heterosexuality - can yield to way more goodness. We should strive for a church culture that aligns with the gender-culture outlined in God’s Word: gentle, safe, and encouraging, while also strong, bold, and committed to upholding biblical order and fulfilling the mission entrusted to us. This balance allows the church to fully embody the presence of Christ, enabling His people to confidently advance alongside our great Lord.

We must prepare ourselves for an increasing need for men who embrace biblical masculinity and women who faithfully embody femininity. It is crucial not to overlook the pervasive influence of an effeminate culture and the agenda of distorted ideologies. By embracing the distinct roles and responsibilities that God has given to both men and women, we cultivate a church culture that mirrors the beauty of Christ and empowers His people to wholeheartedly pursue His mission with courage. We must recognize the urgency to embrace and embody biblical masculinity in the face of cultural challenges and shifting ideologies. Equipped with the truth of God's Word, we can navigate the complexities of the world and fulfill our God-given roles with great faith. Let us rise as men who boldly embrace our calling, standing firm in the face of challenges, and wholeheartedly pursuing lives of holiness and service to God and His Church. May we stand united, guided by His Word, and ready to face the battles ahead with strength, grace, and resolved faith.

From Nashville with love,

Suhail Saqan

This was inspired by The Imitation of Christ. Read here.

@ 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.

@ 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).

@ 56cd780f:cbde8b29

A few weeks ago, I ran into an old friend at a coffee shop. We hadn’t spoken in years, and within five minutes, she said something I’ve heard countless times:

“I just feel like I’m so behind.”

Behind who? Behind what?

There’s this idea—quiet, nagging, oddly universal—that we’re all somehow in a race we didn’t sign up for. That we’re supposed to have hit certain milestones by certain ages. That if we’re not married, promoted, rich, settled, happy (and photogenic) by 30 or 40 or pick your poison, then we’ve failed some invisible test.

Where did this come from?

Some of it’s cultural, obviously. Social media compresses timelines. You’re 27, doom-scrolling, and suddenly someone from high school just IPO’d their startup and got engaged in Rome. Another just bought a house with a kitchen island the size of a small country. You wonder if you missed a memo.

But beneath that, there’s something deeper. A belief that life is linear. That it should look like a staircase: school, job, marriage, house, kids, success. But real life? It’s a squiggle. A mess. A beautiful disaster.

Here’s the truth: You’re not behind. There’s no schedule. There’s only your path, and the courage it takes to stay on it—even when it looks wildly different from everyone else’s.

I say this as someone who has taken the “scenic route.” I changed careers in my 30s. I moved cities on a hunch. I dropped things that looked great on paper because they felt wrong in my gut. I’ve had seasons of momentum and seasons of stuckness. Both were necessary.

“Catching up” assumes there’s a fixed destination. But what if there isn’t? What if the point isn’t arrival, but presence? Progress that feels real, not performative?

If you need a permission slip to stop comparing, let this be it.

You’re not late. You’re not early.
You’re right on time.

@ c230edd3:8ad4a712

Chef's notes

This cake is not too sweet and very simple to make. The 3 flavors and mild and meld well with the light sweetness.

Details

• ⏲️ Prep time: 15 min
• 🍳 Cook time: 45 min
• 🍽️ Servings: 12

Ingredients

• 1 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
• 1/2 tsp salt
• 2 tsp baking soda
• 1 cup sugar
• 3 large eggs
• 1/2 cup full fat milk
• 3/4 cup unfiltered olive oil
• 2/3 cup finely chopped raw, unsalted almonds
• 2 tsp lavender
• 1 Tbsp powdered sugar

Directions

1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees F. Lightly butter 8 inch baking pan.
2. In smal bowl, whisk together flour, salt, and baking soda.
3. In large bowl, beat eggs and sugar until light colored and fluffy. Add milk.
4. Slowly pour and stir in olive oil.
5. Fold dry ingredients into the wet ingredients,
6. Stir in the almonds and the lavender, reserving some flowers for garnish.
7. Pour into prepared pan and bake for 45 min, or until toothpick comes out clean.
8. Cool on wire rack, dust with powdered sugar and top with reserved lavender.

@ 56cd780f:cbde8b29

There’s something sacred about morning air — the way it carries just enough chill to remind you you’re alive, without pushing you back inside. I’ve been starting my days on the balcony lately. Not because it’s glamorous (it isn’t), or because I have a routine (I don’t), but because it’s the only space in my apartment that feels both open and still.

This morning I made coffee with too much cinnamon and curled up with a blanket that’s seen better days. I watched the city slowly wake up — one barking dog, two joggers, and the clatter of a recycling truck below. It’s odd how these tiny patterns become a kind of comfort.

I used to think that slowing down meant falling behind. But here, perched on the third floor with my feet on cold concrete and the sky just starting to blush, I feel like I’m exactly where I’m supposed to be.

If you’re reading this, maybe you needed that reminder too.

— Natalie

@ 878dff7c:037d18bc

Smooth, rich, and deeply comforting, this savory porridge is enhanced by fermentation, warming spices, and a creamy finish — easy on digestion, full of flavor, and great for meal prep.

---

Ingredients (Serves 2–3):

• 200g (1 cup) lactofermented brown rice (see rice fermentation recipe in comments)
• 375–500ml (1.5-2 cups) broth or water (I use evaporation method, but cook rice however you normally do, it's not important) (chicken, vegetable, or bone broth for extra richness)
• 250ml (1 cup) milk (whole milk for creaminess)
• 5g (1 tsp) salt (adjust to taste)
• 15g (1 tbsp) butter or coconut oil (for extra silkiness)
• 15g (1 tbsp) fresh ginger, sliced or minced from a jar is fine (optional, for warmth)
• 5g (1 clove or 1 tsp) garlic, minced (optional. I normally skip this...)
• 2g (½ tsp) ground turmeric (for color and anti-inflammatory benefit)
• 1g (¼ tsp) white or black pepper (black pepper enhances turmeric absorption)

---

Optional Savory Toppings:

• 1 soft-boiled or poached egg
• 100g (¾ cup) shredded chicken, pork, or tofu
• 30g (¼ cup) grated cheese (Parmesan, aged cheddar, or nutritional yeast for vegan)
• 20g (2 tbsp) chopped scallions or chives
• 30g (2 tbsp) fermented vegetables, such as:
• Kimchi
• Pickled mustard greens
• Sauerkraut
• Lactofermented carrots
• 10g (1 tbsp) toasted sesame seeds or crushed peanuts
• 5ml (1 tsp) soy sauce, tamari, or fish sauce
• 15–30g (1–2 tbsp) full-fat Greek yogurt or kefir (optional probiotic boost – stir in when warm, not hot)

---

Instructions:

1. Cook the Fermented Rice Base

• In a pot, combine fermented brown rice with broth or water.
• Bring to a boil, then reduce to a gentle simmer.
• Add ginger, garlic, and turmeric.
• Cook uncovered for 90–120 minutes, stirring occasionally, until the rice breaks down into a creamy porridge.

2. Make It Creamy

• Stir in milk and butter or coconut oil.
• Simmer for another 10–15 minutes, stirring to prevent sticking.
• Season with salt and pepper.

3. Adjust Consistency

• Too thick? Add more broth or milk.
• Too thin? Simmer longer.

4. Cool Slightly & Add Yogurt or Kefir (Optional)

• Let porridge cool to a warm (not hot) temperature — about 50°C (122°F) or warm to the touch.
• Stir in Greek yogurt or kefir gently to preserve live cultures.

5. Serve with Toppings

Top each bowl with your choice of:

• Egg
• Shredded protein
• Cheese
• Soy sauce or tamari
• Scallions, sesame seeds, chili flakes
• Your favorite fermented veggies, like sauerkraut or lactofermented carrots

---

Make-Ahead & Freezing Tip:

You can ferment and cook a large batch of brown rice, then portion it into freezer-safe containers (about 200g per portion) for quick use. Thaw overnight in the fridge or gently warm from frozen before making your congee — a huge time-saver for busy days!

@ 8173f6e1:e488ac0f

{"desc":"tst","code":"teeest","tags":["123"]}

@ a5142938:0ef19da3

What is a natural material? It's a topic of debate, and everyone will prioritize their own criteria. Here’s how materials are classified on this site. The list is regularly updated based on the products added. Feel free to share your thoughts!

---

✅ Natural Materials

Materials of plant, animal, or mineral origin, without chemical transformation that alters their molecular structure.

🌱 Main Criteria: - Biodegradability - Non-toxicity - Naturally occurring and recquiring minimal transformation

🔍 List of Natural Materials: - Regenerated Cellulose (cupra, lyocell, modal, rayon) - Cork - Cotton - Earth - Glass - Hemp - Natural Latex, rubber - Leather - Linen - Metal - Silk - Wood - Wool - … (Other materials)

⚠️ Although "natural", these materials can have negative impacts depending on their production conditions (pesticide pollution, excessive water consumption, chemical treatments, animal exploitation, etc.). These impacts are mentionned in the description of each material.

Organic versions of these materials — free from chemical treatments, animal mistreatment, etc. — are preferred for listing products on this site, as indicated on each material's page (coming soon).

Conventional versions are only referenced when no more sustainable alternative has yet been found for that product category.

---

🚫 Non-Natural Materials

Synthetic or heavily modified materials, often derived from petrochemicals.

📌 Main Issues: - Toxicity and microplastic emissions - Dependence on fossil fuels - Poor biodegradability

🔍 List of Non-Natural Materials: - Acrylic - Elastane, spandex, lycra - Polyamides, nylon - Polyester - Silicone - … (Other materials)

⚠️ These materials are not accepted on this site. However, they may be present in certain listed products if:

• they are used in removable accessories (e.g., elastics, buttons—often not listed in the product’s composition by the brand) that can be detached for recycling or composting, and
• no 100% natural alternative has yet been identified for that product category.

In such cases, a warning will be displayed on the product page.

---

This article is published on origin-nature.com 🌐 Voir cet article en français

@ 502ab02a:a2860397

เมื่อวานนี้เรารู้เรื่อง Meat Free Monday ของท่านเซอร์พอลกันแล้ว วันนี้เรามาต่อเนื่องกับแสงสีกันอีกนิดครับ

Anne Hathaway กับ The EVERY Company จากเจ้าหญิง The Princess Diaries สู่ราชินีโปรตีนไร้ไก่ ในยุคที่ความเปลี่ยนแปลงไม่เคาะประตู แต่มาถีบประตูบ้านเข้าใส่เลย บรรดาเซเล็บฮอลลีวูดก็ไม่ได้อยู่เฉยๆ แค่ใส่กระโปรงขึ้นพรมแดงหรือไปเล่นหนังรางวัลเท่านั้น แต่บางคน เช่น Anne Hathaway ก้าวเข้ามาอยู่เบื้องหลังระบบอาหารโลกในรูปแบบที่เงียบ…แต่เขย่าพื้นโลกได้เหมือนกัน

ใช่จ้ะ... Anne Hathaway คนเดียวกับที่เฮียเคยเห็นใน The Devil Wears Prada หรือเจ้าหญิง Mia ใน Princess Diaries ได้ลงทุนแบบเอาจริงกับบริษัทเทคโนโลยีอาหารสุดล้ำที่ชื่อว่า The EVERY Company ซึ่งพัฒนาโปรตีนจากไข่ที่ไม่ใช้ไก่ ไม่ต้องมีฟาร์ม ไม่ต้องฟัก และไม่ต้องฟูมฟักศีลธรรมให้สั่นไหวด้วยการฆ่าสัตว์เลยแม้แต่นิดเดียว

ทบทวนกันจากสัปดาห์ที่แล้วครับ The EVERY Company เดิมชื่อ Clara Foods ก่อตั้งในกลางยุค 2010s ณ ใจกลางซิลิคอนวัลเลย์ แหล่งรวมจินตนาการและเงิน VC ที่ไม่รู้จะเอาไปลงกับอะไรดี บริษัทนี้ไม่ได้เลี้ยงไก่ ไม่ได้ใช้ถาดไข่ แต่ใช้ “Precision Fermentation” ซึ่งก็คือการเอา DNA ที่เป็นรหัสของไข่ขาว (Ovalbumin) ไปใส่ในจุลินทรีย์สายพันธุ์เฉพาะ แล้วเลี้ยงด้วยน้ำตาลในถังหมัก สุดท้ายมันก็ผลิตโปรตีนออกมาที่มีโครงสร้าง “เหมือนของจริงเป๊ะ”

มันคือการทำไข่จาก “ยีสต์” ไม่ใช่จาก “แม่ไก่”

การลงทุนของ Anne ครั้งนี้ ถือเป็น B2B investment ครั้งแรกในชีวิต และดูจะไม่ใช่แค่ลงทุนแบบเซ็นเช็คเฉยๆ แล้วไปจิบไวน์ที่คานส์นะ เพราะเธอให้สัมภาษณ์ว่า

“It’s clear that our food system needs a change. EVERY is one part of a beautiful future.” (มันชัดเจนว่าระบบอาหารเราต้องเปลี่ยนแปลง EVERY คือส่วนหนึ่งของอนาคตที่งดงามนั้น)

แม้ไม่มีการเปิดเผยจำนวนเงินหรือสัดส่วนหุ้นอย่างเป็นทางการ แต่สื่ออุตสาหกรรมอาหารอย่าง Food Navigator USA ก็ชี้ว่า เธอเป็นอีกแรงที่ช่วยดันชื่อเสียงของบริษัทให้ “กลายเป็นไวรัล” ในหมู่นักลงทุน และอาจเปิดประตูสู่การยอมรับของตลาดผู้บริโภคได้ในวงกว้าง

The EVERY Company ไม่ได้หวังจะแค่ขาย “ไข่” ในซูเปอร์มาร์เก็ตแบบธรรมดาๆ แต่เริ่ม “แทรกซึม” จากเบื้องหลังในอุตสาหกรรมอาหารอย่างแยบยล จะเปลี่ยนระบบอาหารโดยใช้แนวทาง “B2B only” คือผลิตขายให้เชฟ ร้านอาหาร และโรงงานเท่านั้น (ยังไม่วางจำหน่ายปลีกทั่วไป เพราะบางตัวอย่าง EVERY Egg ยังรอรับรอง GRAS จาก FDA)

เคยมีการร่วมงานกับเชฟมิชลิน Dominique Crenn จากร้าน Atelier Crenn ในนครซานฟรานซิสโก ซึ่งเธอยืนยันว่า EVERY Egg เป็นตัวเปลี่ยนเกม ที่ทำให้เธอสามารถสร้างเมนูใหม่ที่ “ไร้สัตว์” ได้โดยไม่เสียความสร้างสรรค์หรือรสชาติ

แม้ Anne จะไม่มีตำแหน่งในบอร์ดบริหาร แต่การที่เธอลงทุนใน The EVERY Company ทำให้หลายองค์กรจับตามอง และส่งผลต่อภาพลักษณ์ของ “โปรตีนสังเคราะห์จากจุลินทรีย์” ให้ดูหรู ดูสะอาด และเหมาะกับสายสุขภาพ-มังสวิรัติ ทั้งที่จริงๆ แล้ว มันคือ “ผลิตภัณฑ์โรงงานที่ผ่านกระบวนการขั้นสูงมาก”

The EVERY Company ยังได้รับเงินลงทุนจากกลุ่มใหญ่อย่าง Temasek (กองทุนจากสิงคโปร์) และ Prosperity7 Ventures ที่เป็นแขนของ Saudi Aramco ซึ่งก็เป็นอีกประเด็นน่าคิด…ว่าพลังทุนที่อยู่เบื้องหลัง “ไข่ไม่ใช้ไก่” นี้ มาจากหลายทิศหลายทาง ทั้ง Silicon Valley, ตะวันออกกลาง และ Hollywood

การที่ Anne Hathaway ลงทุนใน EVERY ไม่ใช่เรื่องผิด แต่เป็นหมุดหมายที่น่าสนใจในยุคที่ “อาหาร” ไม่ใช่แค่เรื่องอิ่มท้อง แต่กลายเป็นการเมือง วิทยาศาสตร์ เศรษฐกิจ และการสร้างภาพลักษณ์ของคนดังในคราวเดียวกัน

ไข่ที่ไม่มีไก่ โปรตีนที่ไม่มีฟาร์ม…ดูเหมือนจะสวยงาม แต่ถ้าเรามองให้ลึก บางครั้งอาหารก็อาจไม่ใช่เรื่อง “ของกิน” อย่างเดียวอีกต่อไป

เรื่องบางเรื่อง คนในบางสังคม คนในบางกลุ่มเท่านั้น ที่จะมีโอกาสเลือกก่อน กี่ครั้งต่อกี่ครั้ง ก็แบบนี้ครับ #pirateketo #กูต้องรู้มั๊ย #ม้วนหางสิลูก #siamstr

@ e4950c93:1b99eccd

Qu'est-ce qu'une matière naturelle ? La question fait débat, et chacun-e privilégiera ses propres critères. Voici comment les matières sont classées sur ce site. La liste est régulièrement mise à jour en fonction des produits ajoutés. N'hésitez pas à partager votre avis !

---

✅ Matières naturelles

Matières d'origine végétale, animale ou minérale, sans transformation chimique altérant leur structure moléculaire.

🌱 Principaux critères : - Biodégradabilité - Non-toxicité - Présence naturelle nécessitant le minimum de transformation

🔍 Liste des matières naturelles : - Bois - Cellulose régénérée (cupra, lyocell, modal, viscose) - Chanvre - Coton - Cuir - Liège - Lin - Laine - Latex naturel, caoutchouc - Métal - Soie - Terre - Verre - … (Autres matières)

⚠️ Bien que "naturelles", ces matières peuvent générer des impacts négatifs selon leurs conditions de production (pollution par pesticides, consommation d’eau excessive, traitement chimique, exploitation animale…). Ces impacts sont mentionnés sur la fiche de chaque matière.

Les versions biologiques de ces matières (sans traitement chimique, maltraitance animale, etc.) sont privilégiées pour référencer les produits sur ce site, tel qu'indiqué sur la fiche de chaque matière (à venir).

Les versions conventionnelles ne sont référencées que tant que lorsqu'il n'a pas encore été trouvé d'alternative plus durable pour cette catégorie de produits.

---

🚫 Matières non naturelles

Matières synthétiques ou fortement modifiées, souvent issues de la pétrochimie.

📌 Principaux problèmes : - Toxicité et émissions de microplastiques - Dépendance aux énergies fossiles - Mauvaise biodégradabilité

🔍 Liste des matières non naturelles : - Acrylique - Élasthanne, lycra, spandex - Polyamides, nylon - Polyester - Silicone - … (Autres matières)

⚠️ Ces matières ne sont pas admises sur le site. Néanmoins, elles peuvent être présentes dans certains produits référencés lorsque :

• elles sont utilisées en accessoire amovible (ex. : élastiques, boutons… généralement non indiqué dans la composition par la marque) pouvant être retiré pour le recyclage ou compostage, et
• aucune alternative 100 % naturelle n’a encore été identifiée pour cette catégorie de produits.

Dans ce cas, un avertissement est alors affiché sur la fiche du produit.

---

Cet article est publié sur origine-nature.com 🌐 See this article in English

@ 16f1a010:31b1074b

grain is a nostr relay built using Go, currently utilizing MongoDB as its database. Binaries are provided for AMD64 Windows and Linux. grain is Go Relay Architecture for Implementing Nostr

Introduction

grain is a nostr relay built using Go, currently utilizing MongoDB as its database. Binaries are provided for AMD64 Windows and Linux. grain is Go Relay Architecture for Implementing Nostr

Prerequisites

• Grain requires a running MongoDB instance. Please refer to this separate guide for instructions on setting up MongoDB: nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzq9h35qgq6n8ll0xyyv8gurjzjrx9sjwp4hry6ejnlks8cqcmzp6tqqxnzde5xg6rwwp5xsuryd3knfdr7g

Download Grain

Download the latest release for your system from the GitHub releases page

amd64 binaries provided for Windows and Linux, if you have a different CPU architecture, you can download and install go to build grain from source

Installation and Execution

• Create a new folder on your system where you want to run Grain.
• The downloaded binary comes bundled with a ZIP file containing a folder named "app," which holds the frontend HTML files. Unzip the "app" folder into the same directory as the Grain executable.

Run Grain

• Open your terminal or command prompt and navigate to the Grain directory.
• Execute the Grain binary.

on linux you will first have to make the program executable

chmod +x grain_linux_amd64

Then you can run the program

./grain_linux_amd64

(alternatively on windows, you can just double click the grain_windows_amd64.exe to start the relay)

You should see a terminal window displaying the port on which your relay and frontend are running.

If you get

Failed to copy app/static/examples/config.example.yml to config.yml: open app/static/examples/config.example.yml: no such file or directory

Then you probably forgot to put the app folder in the same directory as your executable or you did not unzip the folder.

Congrats! You're running grain 🌾!

You may want to change your NIP11 relay information document (relay_metadata.json) This informs clients of the capabilities, administrative contacts, and various server attributes. It's located in the same directory as your executable.

Configuration Files

Once Grain has been executed for the first time, it will generate the default configuration files inside the directory where the executable is located. These files are:

bash config.yml whitelist.yml blacklist.yml

Prerequisites: - Grain requires a running MongoDB instance. Please refer to this separate guide for instructions on setting up MongoDB: [Link to MongoDB setup guide].

Download Grain:

Download the latest release for your system from the GitHub releases page

amd64 binaries provided for Windows and Linux, if you have a different CPU architecture, you can download and install go to build grain from source

Installation and Execution:

• Create a new folder on your system where you want to run Grain.
• The downloaded binary comes bundled with a ZIP file containing a folder named "app," which holds the frontend HTML files. Unzip the "app" folder into the same directory as the Grain executable.

Run Grain:

• Open your terminal or command prompt and navigate to the Grain directory.
• Execute the Grain binary.

on linux you will first have to make the program executable

chmod +x grain_linux_amd64

Then you can run the program

./grain_linux_amd64

(alternatively on windows, you can just double click the grain_windows_amd64.exe to start the relay)

You should see a terminal window displaying the port on which your relay and frontend are running.

If you get

Failed to copy app/static/examples/config.example.yml to config.yml: open app/static/examples/config.example.yml: no such file or directory

Then you probably forgot to put the app folder in the same directory as your executable or you did not unzip the folder.

Congrats! You're running grain 🌾!

You may want to change your NIP11 relay information document (relay_metadata.json) This informs clients of the capabilities, administrative contacts, and various server attributes. It's located in the same directory as your executable.

Configuration Files:

Once Grain has been executed for the first time, it will generate the default configuration files inside the directory where the executable is located. These files are:

bash config.yml whitelist.yml blacklist.yml

Configuration Documentation

You can always find the latest example configs on my site or in the github repo here: config.yml

whitelist.yml

blacklist.yml

Config.yml

This config.yml file is where you customize how your Grain relay operates. Each section controls different aspects of the relay's behavior.

1. mongodb (Database Settings)

• uri: mongodb://localhost:27017/:
  • This is the connection string for your MongoDB database.
  • mongodb://localhost:27017/ indicates that your MongoDB server is running on the same computer as your Grain relay (localhost) and listening on port 27017 (the default MongoDB port).
  • If your MongoDB server is on a different machine, you'll need to change localhost to the server's IP address or hostname.
  • The trailing / indicates the root of the mongodb server. You will define the database in the next line.
• database: grain:
  • This specifies the name of the MongoDB database that Grain will use to store Nostr events. Grain will create this database if it doesn't already exist.
  • You can name the database whatever you want. If you want to run multiple grain relays, you can and they can have different databases running on the same mongo server.

2. server (Relay Server Settings)

• port: :8181:
  • This sets the port on which your Grain relay will listen for incoming nostr websocket connections and what port the frontend will be available at.
• read_timeout: 10 # in seconds:
  • This is the maximum time (in seconds) that the relay will wait for a client to send data before closing the connection.
• write_timeout: 10 # in seconds:
  • This is the maximum time (in seconds) that the relay will wait for a client to receive data before closing the connection.
• idle_timeout: 120 # in seconds:
  • This is the maximum time (in seconds) that the relay will keep a connection open if there's no activity.
• max_connections: 100:
  • This sets the maximum number of simultaneous client connections that the relay will allow.
• max_subscriptions_per_client: 10:
  • This sets the maximum amount of subscriptions a single client can request from the relay.

3. resource_limits (System Resource Limits)

• cpu_cores: 2 # Limit the number of CPU cores the application can use:
  • This restricts the number of CPU cores that Grain can use. Useful for controlling resource usage on your server.
• memory_mb: 1024 # Cap the maximum amount of RAM in MB the application can use:
  • This limits the maximum amount of RAM (in megabytes) that Grain can use.
• heap_size_mb: 512 # Set a limit on the Go garbage collector's heap size in MB:
  • This sets a limit on the amount of memory that the Go programming language's garbage collector can use.

4. auth (Authentication Settings)

• enabled: false # Enable or disable AUTH handling:
  • If set to true, this enables authentication handling, requiring clients to authenticate before using the relay.
• relay_url: "wss://relay.example.com/" # Specify the relay URL:
  • If authentication is enabled, this is the url that clients will use to authenticate.

5. UserSync (User Synchronization)

• user_sync: false:
  • If set to true, the relay will attempt to sync user data from other relays.
• disable_at_startup: true:
  • If user sync is enabled, this will prevent the sync from starting when the relay starts.
• initial_sync_relays: [...]:
  • A list of other relays to pull user data from.
• kinds: []:
  • A list of event kinds to pull from the other relays. Leaving this empty will pull all event kinds.
• limit: 100:
  • The limit of events to pull from the other relays.
• exclude_non_whitelisted: true:
  • If set to true, only users on the whitelist will have their data synced.
• interval: 360:
  • The interval in minutes that the relay will resync user data.

6. backup_relay (Backup Relay)

• enabled: false:
  • If set to true, the relay will send copies of received events to the backup relay.
• url: "wss://some-relay.com":
  • The url of the backup relay.

7. event_purge (Event Purging)

• enabled: false:
  • If set to true, the relay will automatically delete old events.
• keep_interval_hours: 24:
  • The number of hours to keep events before purging them.
• purge_interval_minutes: 240:
  • How often (in minutes) the purging process runs.
• purge_by_category: ...:
  • Allows you to specify which categories of events (regular, replaceable, addressable, deprecated) to purge.
• purge_by_kind_enabled: false:
  • If set to true, events will be purged based on the kinds listed below.
• kinds_to_purge: ...:
  • A list of event kinds to purge.
• exclude_whitelisted: true:
  • If set to true, events from whitelisted users will not be purged.

8. event_time_constraints (Event Time Constraints)

• min_created_at: 1577836800:
  • The minimum created_at timestamp (Unix timestamp) that events must have to be accepted by the relay.
• max_created_at_string: now+5m:
  • The maximum created at time that an event can have. This example shows that the max created at time is 5 minutes in the future from the time the event is received.
  • min_created_at_string and max_created_at work the same way.

9. rate_limit (Rate Limiting)

• ws_limit: 100:
  • The maximum number of WebSocket messages per second that the relay will accept.
• ws_burst: 200:
  • Allows a temporary burst of WebSocket messages.
• event_limit: 50:
  • The maximum number of Nostr events per second that the relay will accept.
• event_burst: 100:
  • Allows a temporary burst of Nostr events.
• req_limit: 50:
  • The limit of http requests per second.
• req_burst: 100:
  • The allowed burst of http requests.
• max_event_size: 51200:
  • The maximum size (in bytes) of a Nostr event that the relay will accept.
• kind_size_limits: ...:
  • Allows you to set size limits for specific event kinds.
• category_limits: ...:
  • Allows you to set rate limits for different event categories (ephemeral, addressable, regular, replaceable).
• kind_limits: ...:
  • Allows you to set rate limits for specific event kinds.

By understanding these settings, you can tailor your Grain Nostr relay to meet your specific needs and resource constraints.

whitelist.yml

The whitelist.yml file is used to control which users, event kinds, and domains are allowed to interact with your Grain relay. Here's a breakdown of the settings:

1. pubkey_whitelist (Public Key Whitelist)

• enabled: false:
  • If set to true, this enables the public key whitelist. Only users whose public keys are listed will be allowed to publish events to your relay.
• pubkeys::
  • A list of hexadecimal public keys that are allowed to publish events.
  • pubkey1 and pubkey2 are placeholders, you will replace these with actual hexadecimal public keys.
• npubs::
  • A list of npubs that are allowed to publish events.
  • npub18ls2km9aklhzw9yzqgjfu0anhz2z83hkeknw7sl22ptu8kfs3rjq54am44 and npub2 are placeholders, replace them with actual npubs.
  • npubs are bech32 encoded public keys.

2. kind_whitelist (Event Kind Whitelist)

• enabled: false:
  • If set to true, this enables the event kind whitelist. Only events with the specified kinds will be allowed.
• kinds::
  • A list of event kinds (as strings) that are allowed.
  • "1" and "2" are example kinds. Replace these with the kinds you want to allow.
  • Example kinds are 0 for metadata, 1 for short text notes, and 2 for recommend server.

3. domain_whitelist (Domain Whitelist)

• enabled: false:
  • If set to true, this enables the domain whitelist. This checks the domains .well-known folder for their nostr.json. This file contains a list of pubkeys. They will be considered whitelisted if on this list.
• domains::
  • A list of domains that are allowed.
  • "example.com" and "anotherdomain.com" are example domains. Replace these with the domains you want to allow.

blacklist.yml

The blacklist.yml file allows you to block specific content, users, and words from your Grain relay. Here's a breakdown of the settings:

1. enabled: true

• This setting enables the blacklist functionality. If set to true, the relay will actively block content and users based on the rules defined in this file.

2. permanent_ban_words:

• This section lists words that, if found in an event, will result in a permanent ban for the event's author.
• - really bad word is a placeholder. Replace it with any words you want to permanently block.

3. temp_ban_words:

• This section lists words that, if found in an event, will result in a temporary ban for the event's author.
• - crypto, - web3, and - airdrop are examples. Replace them with the words you want to temporarily block.

4. max_temp_bans: 3

• This sets the maximum number of temporary bans a user can receive before they are permanently banned.

5. temp_ban_duration: 3600

• This sets the duration of a temporary ban in seconds. 3600 seconds equals one hour.

6. permanent_blacklist_pubkeys:

• This section lists hexadecimal public keys that are permanently blocked from using the relay.
• - db0c9b8acd6101adb9b281c5321f98f6eebb33c5719d230ed1870997538a9765 is an example. Replace it with the public keys you want to block.

7. permanent_blacklist_npubs:

• This section lists npubs that are permanently blocked from using the relay.
• - npub1x0r5gflnk2mn6h3c70nvnywpy2j46gzqwg6k7uw6fxswyz0md9qqnhshtn is an example. Replace it with the npubs you want to block.
• npubs are the human readable version of public keys.

8. mutelist_authors:

• This section lists hexadecimal public keys of author of a kind1000 mutelist. Pubkey authors on this mutelist will be considered on the permanent blacklist. This provides a nostr native way to handle the backlist of your relay
• - 3fe0ab6cbdb7ee27148202249e3fb3b89423c6f6cda6ef43ea5057c3d93088e4 is an example. Replace it with the public keys of authors that have a mutelist you would like to use as a blacklist. Consider using your own.
• Important Note: The mutelist Event MUST be stored in this relay for it to be retrieved. This means your relay must have a copy of the authors kind10000 mutelist to consider them for the blacklist.

Running Grain as a Service:

Windows Service:

To run Grain as a Windows service, you can use tools like NSSM (Non-Sucking Service Manager). NSSM allows you to easily install and manage any application as a Windows service.

* For instructions on how to install NSSM, please refer to this article: [Link to NSSM install guide coming soon].

1. Open Command Prompt as Administrator:

   • Open the Windows Start menu, type "cmd," right-click on "Command Prompt," and select "Run as administrator."

2. Navigate to NSSM Directory:

   • Use the cd command to navigate to the directory where you extracted NSSM. For example, if you extracted it to C:\nssm, you would type cd C:\nssm and press Enter.

3. Install the Grain Service:

   • Run the command nssm install grain.
   • A GUI will appear, allowing you to configure the service.

4. Configure Service Details:

   • In the "Path" field, enter the full path to your Grain executable (e.g., C:\grain\grain_windows_amd64.exe).
   • In the "Startup directory" field, enter the directory where your Grain executable is located (e.g., C:\grain).

5. Install the Service:

   • Click the "Install service" button.

6. Manage the Service:

   • You can now manage the Grain service using the Windows Services manager. Open the Start menu, type "services.msc," and press Enter. You can start, stop, pause, or restart the Grain service from there.

Linux Service (systemd):

To run Grain as a Linux service, you can use systemd, the standard service manager for most modern Linux distributions.

1. Create a Systemd Service File:

   • Open a text editor with root privileges (e.g., sudo nano /etc/systemd/system/grain.service).

2. Add Service Configuration:

   • Add the following content to the grain.service file, replacing the placeholders with your actual paths and user information:

   ```toml [Unit] Description=Grain Nostr Relay After=network.target

   [Service] ExecStart=/path/to/grain_linux_amd64 WorkingDirectory=/path/to/grain/directory Restart=always User=your_user #replace your_user Group=your_group #replace your_group

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

   • Replace /path/to/grain/executable with the full path to your Grain executable.
   • Replace /path/to/grain/directory with the directory containing your Grain executable.
   • Replace your_user and your_group with the username and group that will run the Grain service.

3. Reload Systemd:

   • Run the command sudo systemctl daemon-reload to reload the systemd configuration.

4. Enable the Service:

   • Run the command sudo systemctl enable grain.service to enable the service to start automatically on boot.

5. Start the Service:

   • Run the command sudo systemctl start grain.service to start the service immediately.

6. Check Service Status:

   • Run the command sudo systemctl status grain.service to check the status of the Grain service. This will show you if the service is running and any recent logs.
   • You can run sudo journalctl -f -u grain.service to watch the logs

More guides are in the works for setting up tailscale to access your relay from anywhere over a private network and for setting up a cloudflare tunnel to your domain to deploy a grain relay accessible on a subdomain of your site eg wss://relay.yourdomain.com

@ c9badfea:610f861a

1. Install Image Toolbox (it's free and open source)
2. Open the app, then go to the Tools tab
3. Select Checksum Tools
4. Navigate to the Compare tab
5. Choose the SHA-256 algorithm
6. Pick the file to verify
7. Enter the expected hash into the Checksum To Compare field
8. A "Match!" message confirms successful verification

@ f72e682e:c51af867

All across the Lightning Network we can detect quite a lot of nodes, specially new nodes but also old nodes, that show a concerning lack of good node operation which impedes proper routing. I’ve seen nodes with a variable capacity whose channels are stagnant and non performant, which raises a question: what is the point on maintaining a public node if you are not able to route and dynamically assign resources as needed? Certainly it is a useless node, and channels of those nodes with other nodes better maintained are also useless, not because the fault of the good ones, but because the fault of the bad ones, which makes the whole network not as performant and great as it should be.

For the shake of improving the Lightning Network, I have created this guide, so every node out there can become useful, and, also, will greatly improve gains in routing for itself. Do not expect to become rich or even live out of routing fees, that is impossible unless you have a node with 100 or more BTC in 2025, but at least, a node should be able to cover its own maintenance costs; its the idea. Problem is that, currently, most nodes run on a loss, and that is highly related with the fee policy and the choice of nodes that they connect to. Let’s put an end to this. Here you will learn how to, at least, earn enough to cover electricity of your node, and with luck, a bit more.

Current earnings cover electricity and the payment of my node:

3K sats per day might not seem much for a 5 BTC capacity (2.5 BTC real outbound) node, but the screenshot was taken in a bad day, when the mempool was empty. I took the screenshot of a bad day on purpose, to prove my point. Some other days, specially when Bitcoin is going bullish and it is used a lot, I have seen 20K per day. A quick calculation brings around 1M sats per year at a minimum, more than enough to pay electricity, the machine, and even a bit more for beers and fun! Real gains across the year could be closer to around 5M in my case, which is not bad. And what is incredible, I maintain general low fees for most of the cases, except when I have no liquidity in the channel which must be high, as you will understand later in this article. So if you double or triple my recommended fees I would expect quite a lot more earnings. So expect gains of around 2% of the total capacity (4% for the amount you put in) per year minimum, and any extra beyond that by fine-tuning my recommendations I'm sure it will be very welcomed by you!

Step 1: put the node in a good machine

Please, don’t use an old computer or laptop, unless you change the SSD for a new one. Bitcoin and lightning uses the SSD heavily, which means it will fry it sooner or later. That is so that I recommend changing the SSD every 2 years even it it still feels good. If your SSD dies during operation, expect big loses. I’ve seen this so many times, and it also happened to me, that I am very serious about recommending it. Also, please use only Linux with ext4 file format, other formats, including ZFS, I’ve seen failing badly. If your filesystem fails, the sqlite db that LND or CLN uses will fail and you will force close many if not most channels, with big fees for onchain closings, which will totally ruin all your gains. You have been warned!

Also, please take your time to configure a clearnet (ipv4) address. Do not rely only on Tor, because Tor is slow and unreliable, specially when updating channel states on the gossip, which you will be doing a lot. Of course, configure Tor also, but as secondary, because too many nodes are Tor only, which is unfortunate.

Step 2: connect to good nodes

As a public node operator, your duty is to connect to as many nodes as possible, but first, to good reputable nodes. Your first 10 channels should be with big nodes and service providers, like exchanges, wallets, but also to very well positioned big nodes. Take your time to select these 10 first nodes and connect to the ones you think will improve your position in the network. Don’t choose the first 10 biggest, take your time to study the fees. Select nodes that use a wide range of fees, from 0 to 1000ppm. Don’t discard a node because you see some channels with high fees, it could only mean that they have no liquidity right now in that channel. But if all its channels have high fees, or at least all small channels have high fees, then discard it.

Then, when you have your first 10 big nodes connected, go ahead and go to https://lightningnetwork.plus/ to choose less popular ones. You need them, because you seek to fill the voids between smaller nodes, it is what most of your revenue will come from. Always try to do swaps, use the liquidity pool later when you have enough total inbound liquidity. Remember that total capacity is not total outbound. Total capacity is total outbound + total inbound. So you can start with 0.25BTC of your own, but total capacity could be much higher if other peers have open channels to you.

A proper public node should have a minimum of 50 channels at its peak. It doesn’t matter much the size of the channels, but the quantity and the quality. A node with 50x500k sized channels will usually perform 10x better than a node with 5x5M sized channels, even if they have the same total capacity. This is because more opportunities to route will be found if you have more channels, which means you are much better positioned.

Anyway, the minimum recommended is 1M per channel because most HTCLs are 100k to 500k and less than 1M will wipe out all your liquidity in the channels in one or two routings. This could change in the future because of the Bitcoin price, but in 2025 this is the state of things. But if you don’t have 0.25 BTC to open 50 channels (25 open by you, 25 by others using swaps), just use smaller channels, don't let your available liquidity to crush your excitement, who knows what is the future ahead us! Remember that we are just at the beginning of this technology and there is nothing that impides your channels to be open for the next 20 years when 1BTC=$1M! I would put the ultra minimum at 250k per channel, which means a 12.5M node (6.25M required sats to start with), but even that is too precarious in 2025. But hopefully not in the future! If you have less than that my honest recommendation is to run a private node and open private channels only, and only if you absolutely need a node because you have to provide a service for multiple people and you can't conform to use simpler wallets. Right now, I can think of only one example of requiring an ultra-small node instead of wallets, which is using LNBits to service your small business or family. Be aware, anyway, that a 12.5M node will definitely not cover your node running costs in 2025, it is just an investment and positioning for a future!

In any case, never, ever, put all your BTC in a LN node, at most one third of your bitcoins and only when you are confident.

Also remember you have to be online 24/7. Please, don’t setup a node if you can’t. Remember you are providing a constant service, not an intermittent one. This guide won’t work if you are not committed to this rule.

Step 3: understand the flow

I’ve seen too many node operators that do not understand how payments are routed, and this is a big problem, because this is the base of everything we do with a LN node.

Payments go from one node to another to another to another until it reaches destination. Each node has what is called an outbound fee. This fee controls how much does it cost to route a payment through that node. If the fee is low it is considered attractive and other nodes will prefer to use that route. If the fee is high, it is obvious that nodes will not choose that route unless there is no other way.

But there is a problem here: all channels have a liquidity limit. If a channel has 1M liquidity and a payment of 500k comes through it, then now the channel has 500k liquidity, that is, a ratio of 0.5. If another 400k comes through, now it has 100k liquidity and a ratio of 0.1. If now somebody tries to route a 200k payment through that channel, and error will happen, because it doesn’t have enough liquidity. It is called an HTCL failure, and this are quite normal. Liquidity can come backwards, which means that now that channel becomes the income instead of the outcome, so if 300k comes in, in the example above, now the liquidity ratio is 0.4 (100k already there plus 300k that just came in). So it is easy to understand that liquidity is very volatile: it will come in and out with any successful in or out HTLC.

The problem is: how do you know if a channel has liquidity? For privacy reasons, the liquidity of a channel is never announced, and only the two connected nodes know it. This is logical, to avoid bad actors to figure out which payments have been done by other people. So the only possible solution is to try all connected channels you have until one lets you go through because it has enough liquidity. And it is going to be done, always, in the order of outbound fees, from low to high. So the channel that has the lowest fee with enough liquidity, will catch the prize.

There is a way to signal that you have liquidity or you don’t, and it is based on scarcity: if you don’t have much liquidity, you increase the outbound fee, so other nodes will not find attractive to route through you in that direction. You don't have much liquidity, so why bother to allow routing? But, when you have again outbound liquidity, because other nodes have taken the opposite direction (inbound) using another channel of yours which has liquidity (as outbound), you intelligently lower the fees to signal your new updated increased liquidity in the channel. So, the idea is simple: if you have liquidity in the channel, you put low fees, if you don’t have liquidity, you put high fees. Please read that again until you fully understand it, it is extremely important.

There is another concept introduced by LND which is negative inbound fees: if you put negative inbound fees, for example -100ppm, it means that any payment going from that inbound channel to another of your outbound channels, will have a maximum discount of 100ppm. (Don’t worry, you will never lose because LND forbids to route losing money, so 100ppm is the maximum, but it could be less if the outgoing channel has less than 100ppm fees.) What this does is to encourage the filling of empty channels at the cost of earning less in channels with plenty of liquidity. This is very good, because it will automatically rebalance your extremes: channels with no liquidity will be filled up, channels with plenty of liquidity will be emptied down, creating a balance.

It is obvious that the total ratio, including all your channels, should be around 100%. That means that the total amount summing all channels of inbound and outbound should be approximately the same. Don’t get obsessed with this, 80% or 120% is ok too, but if it is lower or higher than that you should take measures to open or close channels, or even swap out or in using boltz.exchange or LOOP.

Step 4: managing fees

So, in order to make proper routing, you will have to constantly monitor all your channels on a regular basis. Minimum recommended frequency is once a day. You can do this automatically or manually. Some people prefer to do it manually because each channel has its own characteristics and some fees work better than others, which is something you learn with time observing the flow. But some other people, like me, don’t want to spend so much time doing so, and do automatic fee management using charge-lnd or lndg automators. A mixture of both styles is possible by disabling automatic fee management for selected channels.

Every node operator has his/her own preferences, but here are some basic recommendations that you can tweak over time as you acquire experience: ratio > 0.98: fees 0 (or less than 10) 0.2 < ratio < 0.98: fees proportional max 128, min 16 0.2 > ratio > 0.05: fees 500, inbound -16 ratio < 0.05: fees 1000, inbound -64 ratio = 0: fees more than 1000, inbound -128 So, as you can see, when the channel is full we encourage routing, when the channel is more balanced is when the earnings will occur (from 16 to 128ppm), when the channel is mostly empty we discourage forward routing (500ppm) but encourage backwards routing (inbound -16) and when it is almost empty we clearly totally discourage forward routing (1000ppm) but encourage backwards routing (inbound -64). And when someone just opened a channel with us, all liquidity is theirs so we aggressively encourage inbound routing by putting ultra high outbound fees and ultra inbound discounts. Simple, eh?

Step 5: automatic fee management

As stated before, you can automate this using charge-lnd or lndg or Lightning Terminal if you use LND. If you use CLN you are probably limited to create a personalized script, because I don’t know of any similar tool for it, apart from CL-BOSS which is unmaintained and non-customizable.

You will run this configuration a maximum of once per hour, and a minimum of once per day. You should not try to run it more frequent than once per hour because of two reasons: 1. The channel states stored in the gossip take from some minutes to some hours to properly propagate. 2. Some nodes will ban you if you try to update more than once per hour. What I recommend is once every 2 hours for big nodes with more than 50 channels. If you have less than 50 channels, your gossip will be slow to propagate so run it once a day. If you get many “Insufficient Fee” errors is because you are trying to update channel states too frequently. Also, some people report that increasing the variable numgraphsyncpeers in the LND configuration file helps with better propagation, but be aware that this will increase bandwidth usage.

I’ve been using lndg for some time, but I switched to charge-lnd because it is clearly superior and faster and more customizable. Lndg is still great for rebalancing (which I use a lot) and as a general interface, but I have disabled the fee management, which I now do with charge-lnd. If you can’t access charge-lnd then just use lndg with the frequency chosen above, but be aware that the configuration parameters are very limited, as you will soon realize (you are limited to just one strategy which is proportional, and it is very slow as it changes the fee in incremental steps). Yet it is better using lndg than nothing.

Lightning Terminal from Lightning Labs I have not tested. So I can’t say anything about it.

But here is a good starting configuration for charge-lnd that you can customize to your preferences:

``` [default]

'default' is special, it is used if no other policy matches a channel

strategy = static base_fee_msat = 128 fee_ppm = 96 inbound_base_fee_msat = 0 inbound_fee_ppm = 0 min_fee_ppm_delta=20

[mydefaults]

no strategy, so this only sets some defaults

base_fee_msat = 128 min_fee_ppm_delta = 0

[lost-onchain-sync]

The fact that lnd was not synchronized with the chain for more than 5 minutes

was an indicator of a severe problem in the past.

onchain.synced_to_chain = false base_fee_msat = 210_000 fee_ppm = 210_000

[expensive]

match channels where the peer node has set a high (>=8_000 ppm) fee rate

and set the same fee rate on our side (strategy=match_peer)

chan.min_fee_ppm = 8000 strategy = match_peer

[leafnode]

charge non-routing (private=true) peers a bit more for our service

chan.private = true strategy = static fee_ppm = 1000

[encourage-routing]

'autobalance' (lower fees so using outbound is more attractive)

chan.min_ratio = 0.98 inbound_base_fee_msat = 0 inbound_fee_ppm = 0 strategy = static base_fee_msat = 64 fee_ppm = 16

[discourage-routing]

'autobalance' (higher fees so using outbound is less attractive)

chan.max_ratio = 0.2 chan.min_ratio = 0.05 strategy = proportional inbound_base_fee_msat = -64 inbound_fee_ppm = -16 min_fee_ppm = 32 max_fee_ppm = 700 base_fee_msat = 1_000

[all-liquidity-is-theirs] chan.max_ratio = 0.00 inbound_base_fee_msat = -128 inbound_fee_ppm = -128 strategy = static base_fee_msat = 1_000 fee_ppm = 1000

[discourage-routing-extreme] chan.max_ratio = 0.05 inbound_base_fee_msat = -128 inbound_fee_ppm = -32 strategy = proportional min_fee_ppm = 32 max_fee_ppm = 1000 base_fee_msat = 1_000

[proportional]

'proportional' can also be used to auto balance (lower fee rate when low remote balance & higher rate when higher remote balance)

fee_ppm decreases linearly with the channel balance ratio (min_fee_ppm when ratio is 1, max_fee_ppm when ratio is 0)

20% excess:

chan.min_ratio = 0.2 chan.max_ratio = 0.98 strategy = proportional min_fee_ppm = 32

20% excess, so for a max of 128, it’s calculated 128/(1-0.20)=160

max_fee_ppm = 160 inbound_base_fee_msat = 0 inbound_fee_ppm = 0 base_fee_msat = 128 min_fee_ppm_delta=16 ```

So you might run this config in a crontab or with your node distribution script if it is provided. I think Umbrel has this app in their portfolio, so just use it if you have Umbrel and ignore the following. If you run it manually or with a distro that doesn’t have charge-lnd, you can configure a crontab. This is just an example, please ask support for proper configuration on your distro. And if you distro do not include charge-lnd, ask support to include it, at this point it’s quite a necessity. Anyway here is the manual configuration: ``` $ crontab -e

0 */2 * * * echo "=======>" date >> /home/nodo/charge-lnd/log && /home/nodo/charge-lnd/env/bin/charge-lnd -c /home/nodo/charge-lnd/my.config >> /home/nodo/charge-lnd/log ```

That is supposing charge-lnd executable is installed under /home/nodo/charge-lnd/env/bin/charge-lnd and config is in /home/nodo/charge-lnd/my.config and LND is running without docker. If it is running under docker, you will have to ask support of your distro.

Step 6: help your peers

Remember that your peers are not only your competition, they are also your customers. So it is a strange symbiosis: you compete with them, but they also help you (and you help them).

If your peers are not well informed and have a bad maintained node, you are in a loss, because your channels with them will get stagnant and will not route. If they are well informed and know how to manage a node, then the channels will not be stagnant and they will route through you.

So it is stupid to keep this information as a secret. Every node operator should know it. And the more people know it, the better for everybody.

So, please, if you detect stagnant channels and bad maintained peers connected to you, just lead them to this guide, or guide them yourself. It’s a good idea to bookmark this guide so you have it prepared for the future.

And that’s it!! Happy routing!!

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/972730

@ a367f9eb:0633efea

On February 27th, the Securities and Exchange Commission stated in its latest staff statement that memecoins are not necessarily securities.

“Although the offer and sale of meme coins may not be subject to the federal securities laws, fraudulent conduct related to the offer and sale of meme coins may be subject to enforcement action or prosecution,” writes the SEC.

‍This clarity is important, but it reveals nothing about what the policies around memecoins, rugpulls, and crypto scams should actually be.

‍This month has already delivered us Argentine President Javier Milei’s promotion of a pump-and-dump memecoin called LIBRA. At this moment, Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy is probably pumping his third or fourth favorite memecoin into oblivion while he dumps on retail.

‍In each of these cases, these tokens are created with copy-paste smart contracts, influencers singing their praises, and people exchanging their stablecoins, bitcoin, or some other altcoin for the hope of making it rich.

Memecoin world

‍Of course, in a free country people should be free to bet on things they want. But they should be prepared to lose just as much as they’re prepared to win.

To the uninitiated, these scams represent “crypto” writ-large, lumping the original decentralized protocol of Bitcoin with pump and dump scams from platforms like pump.fun that run on Solana and other chains.

‍Knowing what we know, and how desperate parts of the crypto market are for outrageous tokens and leveraged degen trading, we must naturally ask how Bitcoin can fix this. Or, rather, how smart Bitcoin policies can fix this.

As I have written for several years, we as Bitcoin advocates should promote sound policies that will encourage innovation and increase economic inclusion across all income groups, all the while protecting consumers from harm. We want to avoid blowouts like FTX, Celsius, and even stablecoins projects like TerraUSD – not only because they defraud bitcoiners, but because they sully the reputation of our entire sector of technological innovation.

Because Bitcoin represents scarcity, decentralization, and complete transparency, there is much we can learn from Satoshi’s innovation when we’re dealing with next-level crypto-offspring.

The Smart Bitcoin Policies to Stop Crypto Scams

‍To begin, US federal, state, and local agencies should update their technological stack to rigorously identify and prosecute fraud and abuse in crypto projects. Fraudulent claims, fake token whitepapers, and deceptive tactics are already illegal under existing law. Our agencies should be empowered to enforce existing law and weed out the bad actors.

Whether that means better training or tools, law enforcement should receive the necessary upgrades to prosecute and identify the real fraudulent crime that happens to take place in crypto protocols. Much of this behavior is just being used in a new medium. It’s not crazy to think that cops should upgrade their tech stack to understand how it’s happening now.

Second, our policies on money transmission licenses and regulation for crypto exchanges should be streamlined and made easier, rather than more difficult. Let competition provide the best places for people to buy their bitcoin. As much as privacy advocates abhor centralized platforms and exchanges, they still implement better security and educational practices to inform users than a shady service hosted in China will provide.

By simplifying the rules and restrictions on bitcoin exchanges, especially by allowing them to consider their custodied bitcoin as assets rather than liabilities as was done by rescinding SAB 121, it means that more Americans will have the opportunity to have excellent experiences when purchasing their coins online.

Third, regulators must not pigeonhole bitcoin and its crypto-offspring only as investments fit for taxing, but rather as technological tools that empower consumers and foster innovation. Too much discussion about bitcoin policies hinges on the tax rate or how much it will bring to state coffers, rather than by how much it can make one’s life better by removing the red tape to safeguard wealth.

By recognizing the ultimate power of bitcoin self-custody without needing to trust third parties or intermediaries, it means we finally view this technology as an extension of our own free speech and freedom of association.

And lastly, we must focus on removing the barriers to using bitcoin as an ordinary means of payment. The Keep Your Coins Act restricts federal agencies from stopping individuals from using bitcoin how they see fit, as well as protecting self-custody. That, plus de minimis exemption rules that allow us to spend bitcoin as any other asset, mean we can use digital money as intended.

We know that memecoins and rugpulls will continue to happen no matter what, this is almost human nature. But at the same time, embracing smart bitcoin policies will ensure that consumers and users have the best tools and protections available to use the technology if they want.

Originally published at the Bitcoin Policy Institute.

@ a19caaa8:88985eaf

これって更新したらタイムラインに流れちゃう？それはいやかも テスト

@ 90c656ff:9383fd4e

Bitcoin is a new form of digital money that offers financial freedom and access to a global economy without traditional intermediaries. To take full advantage of this technology, it's important to understand how to buy, store, and use it safely and efficiently. This guide covers the main steps and best practices to incorporate Bitcoin into your daily life, emphasizing how to protect your assets and get the most out of them.

Buying Bitcoin is the first step to participating in its decentralized network. There are several ways to acquire Bitcoin, depending on individual preferences and needs.

• Exchange Platforms:

01 - How it works: Exchanges are online platforms that allow users to buy Bitcoin using traditional currencies like dollars, euros, or reais. 02 - Process: Create an account, complete identity verification (KYC process), and deposit funds to start trading.

Tips: Choose reliable exchanges with strong security and good reputations.

• Bitcoin ATMs:

01 - How it works: Some ATMs allow users to buy Bitcoin with cash or credit cards. 02 - Use: Insert the desired amount, scan your digital wallet, and receive the Bitcoin immediately.

• Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Buying:

01 - How it works: P2P platforms connect buyers and sellers directly, allowing them to negotiate specific terms. 02 - Tips: Check the seller's reputation and use platforms that offer escrow services or transaction guarantees.

Security is crucial when handling Bitcoin. Proper storage protects your funds against loss, hacking, and unauthorized access.

• Digital Wallets:

01 - Definition: A digital wallet is software or a physical device that stores the private keys needed to access your Bitcoin.

Types of Wallets:

01 - Hot wallets: Connected to the internet; suitable for frequent use but more vulnerable to attacks (e.g., mobile apps and web wallets). 02 - Cold wallets: Keep Bitcoin offline; more secure for storing large amounts (e.g., hardware wallets and paper wallets).

• Hardware Wallets:

01 - How they work: Physical devices like Ledger or Trezor store your private keys offline. 02 - Advantages: High security against digital attacks and easy to transport.

• Paper Wallets:

01 - How they work: Involve printing or writing down your private keys on a piece of paper. 02 - Precautions: Store in a safe place, protected from moisture, fire, and unauthorized access.

• Backup and Recovery:

01 - Best practice: Regularly back up your wallet and store your recovery phrase (seed phrase) in a secure location. 02 - Warning: Never share your recovery phrase or private key with anyone.

Using Bitcoin goes beyond investment. It can be used for daily transactions, purchases, and transferring value efficiently.

• Transactions:

01 - How to send Bitcoin: Enter the recipient’s address, the amount to send, and confirm the transaction from your wallet. 02 - Fees: Transaction fees go to miners and may vary based on network demand.

• Purchasing Goods and Services:

01 - Merchants that accept Bitcoin: Many businesses, both physical and online, now accept Bitcoin. Look for the Bitcoin logo or consult updated lists of accepting merchants. 02 - How to pay: Scan the seller’s QR code and send the payment directly from your wallet.

International Transfers: Bitcoin enables fast global transfers, often with lower fees than banks or conventional remittance services.

Bill Payments: In some countries, it's already possible to pay for services and even taxes with Bitcoin, depending on local infrastructure.

• Tips for Using Bitcoin Safely:

01 - Choose trusted wallets and services: Only use well-known, reputable wallets and exchanges. 02 - Enable two-factor authentication (2FA): Activate 2FA to protect your accounts on exchanges and online services. 03 - Don’t leave funds on exchanges: After buying Bitcoin on an exchange, transfer your funds to a wallet you control to reduce the risk of loss from hacks. 04 - Educate yourself: Understanding the basics of Bitcoin and digital security is key to avoiding mistakes and fraud.

In summary, buying, storing, and using Bitcoin might seem complex at first, but it becomes simple and accessible with time. By following best security practices and learning the basics, anyone can benefit from this innovative technology.

Bitcoin is not just a financial option; it’s a powerful tool that supports economic freedom and access to a global economy. With the right knowledge, you can integrate Bitcoin into your life securely and effectively.

Thank you very much for reading this far. I hope everything is well with you, and sending a big hug from your favorite Bitcoiner maximalist from Madeira. Long live freedom!

@ c9badfea:610f861a

1. Install RTranslator (it's free and open source)
2. Launch the app, allow notifications, and enter a random name (used only for Walkie-Talkie/Conversations)
3. Wait for the translation AI models to download
4. Enjoy offline translations

ℹ️ Internet is only needed for the initial download

ℹ️ The app uses the system's TTS engine (consider open source TTS engines like SherpaTTS for de-googled phones)

@ e4950c93:1b99eccd

Contenu à venir.

En savoir plus sur Wikipedia

@ 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.

@ 34f1ddab:2ca0cf7c

Losing access to your cryptocurrency can feel like losing a part of your future. Whether it’s a forgotten password, a damaged seed backup, or simply one wrong transfer, the stress can be overwhelming. But there’s a silver lining — crypptrcver.com is here to help! With our expert-led recovery services, you can reclaim your lost Bitcoin and other cryptos safely and swiftly.

Why Trust Crypt Recver? 🤝 🛠️ Expert Recovery Solutions At Crypt Recver, we specialize in resolving some of the most complex wallet-related issues. Our team of skilled engineers has the tools and expertise to tackle:

Partially lost or forgotten seed phrases Extracting funds from outdated or invalid wallet addresses Recovering data from damaged hardware wallets Restoring coins from old or unsupported wallet formats You’re not just getting a service; you’re gaining a partner in your cryptocurrency journey.

🚀 Fast and Efficient Recovery We understand that time is critical in crypto recovery. Our optimized systems ensure that you can regain access to your funds quickly, aiming for speed without sacrificing security. With a 90%+ success rate, you can trust us to fight against the clock on your behalf.

🔒 Privacy is Our Priority Your confidentiality matters. Every recovery session is handled with the utmost care, ensuring all processes are encrypted and confidential. You can rest easy, knowing your sensitive information stays private.

💻 Advanced Technology Our proprietary tools and brute-force optimization techniques allow for maximum efficiency in recovery. No matter how challenging your case may be, our technology is designed to give you the best chance at getting your crypto back.

Our Recovery Services Include: 📈 Bitcoin Recovery: Lost access to your Bitcoin wallet? We help recover lost wallets, private keys, and passphrases. Transaction Recovery: Mistakes happen — whether it’s an incorrect wallet address or a lost password, let us handle the recovery. Cold Wallet Restoration: If your cold wallet is failing, we can safely extract your assets and migrate them into a secure, new wallet. Private Key Generation: Lost your private key? Don’t worry. Our experts can help you regain control using advanced methods — all while ensuring your privacy remains intact. ⚠️ What We Don’t Do While we can handle many scenarios, there are some limitations. For example, we cannot recover funds stored in custodial wallets, or cases where there is a complete loss of four or more seed words without any partial info available. We’re transparent about what’s possible, so you know what to expect.

Don’t Let Lost Crypto Hold You Back! ⏳ Did you know that 3 to 3.4 million BTC — nearly 20% of the total supply — are estimated to be permanently lost? Don’t become part of that statistic! Whether it’s due to a forgotten password, sending funds to the wrong address, or damaged drives, we can help you navigate through it all.

🛡️ Real-Time Dust Attack Protection Protecting your privacy goes beyond just recovery. Our services include dust attack protection, which keeps your activity anonymous and your funds secure. Our suite will shield your identity from unwanted tracking, ransomware, and phishing attempts.

🎉 Start Your Recovery Journey Today! Are you ready to reclaim your lost crypto? Don’t wait until it’s too late!

👉 Request Wallet Recovery Help Now! crypptrcver.com

📞 Need Immediate Assistance? Connect with Us! For real-time support or questions, reach out to our dedicated team on:

✉️ Telegram: Chat with Us on Telegram @crypptrcver 💬 WhatsApp: Message Us on WhatsApp Crypt Recver is your trusted partner in the world of cryptocurrency recovery. Let us turn your challenges into victories. Don’t hesitate — your crypto future starts now! 🚀✨

Act fast and secure your digital assets with Crypt Recver!Losing access to your cryptocurrency can feel like losing a part of your future. Whether it’s a forgotten password, a damaged seed backup, or simply one wrong transfer, the stress can be overwhelming. But there’s a silver lining — crypptrcver.com is here to help! With our expert-led recovery services, you can reclaim your lost Bitcoin and other cryptos safely and swiftly.

Why Trust Crypt Recver? 🤝\ 🛠️ Expert Recovery Solutions\ At Crypt Recver, we specialize in resolving some of the most complex wallet-related issues. Our team of skilled engineers has the tools and expertise to tackle:

Partially lost or forgotten seed phrases\ Extracting funds from outdated or invalid wallet addresses\ Recovering data from damaged hardware wallets\ Restoring coins from old or unsupported wallet formats\ You’re not just getting a service; you’re gaining a partner in your cryptocurrency journey.

🚀 Fast and Efficient Recovery\ We understand that time is critical in crypto recovery. Our optimized systems ensure that you can regain access to your funds quickly, aiming for speed without sacrificing security. With a 90%+ success rate, you can trust us to fight against the clock on your behalf.

🔒 Privacy is Our Priority\ Your confidentiality matters. Every recovery session is handled with the utmost care, ensuring all processes are encrypted and confidential. You can rest easy, knowing your sensitive information stays private.

💻 Advanced Technology\ Our proprietary tools and brute-force optimization techniques allow for maximum efficiency in recovery. No matter how challenging your case may be, our technology is designed to give you the best chance at getting your crypto back.

Our Recovery Services Include: 📈\ Bitcoin Recovery: Lost access to your Bitcoin wallet? We help recover lost wallets, private keys, and passphrases.\ Transaction Recovery: Mistakes happen — whether it’s an incorrect wallet address or a lost password, let us handle the recovery.\ Cold Wallet Restoration: If your cold wallet is failing, we can safely extract your assets and migrate them into a secure, new wallet.\ Private Key Generation: Lost your private key? Don’t worry. Our experts can help you regain control using advanced methods — all while ensuring your privacy remains intact.\ ⚠️ What We Don’t Do\ While we can handle many scenarios, there are some limitations. For example, we cannot recover funds stored in custodial wallets, or cases where there is a complete loss of four or more seed words without any partial info available. We’re transparent about what’s possible, so you know what to expect.

Don’t Let Lost Crypto Hold You Back! ⏳\ Did you know that 3 to 3.4 million BTC — nearly 20% of the total supply — are estimated to be permanently lost? Don’t become part of that statistic! Whether it’s due to a forgotten password, sending funds to the wrong address, or damaged drives, we can help you navigate through it all.

🛡️ Real-Time Dust Attack Protection\ Protecting your privacy goes beyond just recovery. Our services include dust attack protection, which keeps your activity anonymous and your funds secure. Our suite will shield your identity from unwanted tracking, ransomware, and phishing attempts.

🎉 Start Your Recovery Journey Today!\ Are you ready to reclaim your lost crypto? Don’t wait until it’s too late!

👉 Request Wallet Recovery Help Now! crypptrcver.com

📞 Need Immediate Assistance? Connect with Us!\ For real-time support or questions, reach out to our dedicated team on:

✉️ Telegram: Chat with Us on Telegram @crypptrcver\ 💬 WhatsApp: Message Us on WhatsApp\ Crypt Recver is your trusted partner in the world of cryptocurrency recovery. Let us turn your challenges into victories. Don’t hesitate — your crypto future starts now! 🚀✨

Act fast and secure your digital assets with Crypt Recver!

@ a296b972:e5a7a2e8

Zur Gründung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland wurde infolge der Auswirkungen des 2. Weltkriegs auf einem Teil des ehemaligen Deutschen Reiches (nicht des 3. Reiches!) auf Initiative der westlichen Alliierten, federführend die USA als stärkste Kraft, eine  demokratische Grundordnung erarbeitet, die wir als das Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland kennen und schätzen gelernt haben. Da man zum damaligen Zeitpunkt, im Gegensatz zu heute, noch sehr genau mit der Sprache war, hat das Wort „für“ größere Bedeutung, als ihm heute zugesprochen wird. Hätte der unter westlich-alliierter Besatzung stehende Rumpf des Deutschen Reiches eigenständig eine Verfassung erstellen können, wäre es nicht Grundgesetz (das laut Definition einen provisorischen Charakter hat) genannt worden, sondern eben Verfassung. Und hätte diese Verfassung eigenständig erarbeitet werden können, hätte sie geheißen: Verfassung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.

Es heißt zum Beispiel auch: Costituzione della Repubblica Italiana. also Konstitution der Republik Italien, und nicht Costituzione per La Repubblica Italiana.

Es ist nachvollziehbar, dass die Bedenken der westlichen Alliierten aufgrund der Nazi-Zeit so groß waren, dass man den „Deutschen“ nicht zutraute, selbständig eine Verfassung zu erstellen.

Zum vorbeugenden Schutz, es sollte verunmöglicht werden, dass ein Regime noch einmal in der Lage sei, die Macht zu ergreifen, wurde als Kontrollinstanz der Verfassungsschutz gegründet. Dieser ist dem Innenministerium gegenüber weisungsgebunden. Die jüngste Aussage, auf den letzten Metern der Innenministerin Faeser, der Verfassungsschutz sei selbständig, ist eine manipulative Beschreibung, die davon ablenken soll, dass das Innenministerium dem Verfassungsschutz sehr wohl übergeordnet ist. Das Wort „selbständig“ soll Eigenständigkeit vorgaukeln, hat aber in der Hierarchie keinerlei Bedeutung.

Im Jahre 1949 herrschte ein anderer Zeitgeist. Werte wie Ehrlichkeit, Redlichkeit und Anständigkeit hatten noch eine andere Bedeutung als heute. Politiker waren noch von einem anderen Schlag und hatten weitgehend den Anspruch zum Wohle des Volkes zu entscheiden und zu handeln. Diese Werte reichten noch mindestens bis in das Agieren des Bundeskanzlers Helmut Schmidt hinein.

Niemand konnte sich deshalb zum damaligen Zeitpunkt vorstellen, dass dieser eigentlich als Kontrollinstanz gedachte Verfassungsschutz einmal von der Politik missbraucht werden könnte, um oppositionelle Kräfte auszuschalten zu versuchen, wie es mit der Einstufung der AfD als gesichert rechtsextrem geschehen ist. Rechtlich hat das noch keine Konsequenzen, aber es geht in erster Linie darum, dem Image der AfD zu schaden, um weiteren Zulauf zu verhindern. Diese Art von Durchtriebenheit kam in den Gedanken und dem Ehrgefühl der damals verantwortlichen Politiker noch nicht vor.

Die ehemaligen Volksparteien, man kann auch sagen, die Alt-Parteien, sehen ihre Felle schon seit einiger Zeit davonschwimmen. Die Opposition hat derzeit die Zustimmung einer ehemaligen Volkspartei überholt und ist sogar stärkste Kraft geworden. Sie repräsentiert aktuell rund 10 Millionen der Wähler. Tendenz steigend. Und das die folglich auch gesichert rechtsextrem gewählt haben, oder gar gesichert rechtsextrem sind, wird ihnen vielleicht nicht besonders schmeicheln.

Parallel dazu haben die Alt-Parteien die Medienlandschaft gekapert und versuchen mit Einschränkungen der Meinungsfreiheit, sofern sich Kritik gegen sie richtet und durch selbstermächtigte Entscheidung über das, was Wahrheit und Lüge ist, unliebsame Stimmen mundtot zu machen, um unter allen Umständen an der Macht zu bleiben.

Diese Vorgehensweise widerspricht dem demokratischen Verständnis, das aus dem, wenn auch „nur“ Grundgesetz, statt Verfassung, hervorgeht und die Nachkriegsgenerationen im besten Sinne beeinflusst und demokratisch geprägt hat.

Aus dieser Sicht können die Aktivitäten der Alt-Parteien nur als Angriff auf die Demokratie, wie sie diese Generationen verstehen, gesehen werden.

Daher führt jeder Angriff der Alt-Parteien auf die Demokratie dazu, dass die Opposition immer mehr an Stimmen gewinnt und wohl weiterhin gewinnen wird.

Es erschließt sich nicht, warum die Alt-Parteien nicht auf die denkbar einfachste Lösung kommen, Vertrauen in ihre Politik zurückzugewinnen, in dem sie eine Politik machen würden, die dem Willen der Bürger entspricht. Mit dem Gegenteil machen sich die Volksvertreter zu Vertretern ohne den Rückhalt vom Volk, und man muss sich fragen, wessen Interessen sie derzeit wirklich vertreten. Bestenfalls die eigenen, schlimmstenfalls die des global agierenden Tiefen Staates, der ihnen ins Ohr flüstert, was sie zu tun haben.

Mit jeder vernunftbegabten Entscheidung, die dem Willen des Souveräns entspräche, würden sie die Opposition zunehmend schwächen. Da dies nicht geschieht, kann man nur zu der Schlussfolgerung kommen, dass sich hier auch selbstzerstörerische, suizidale Kräfte festgesetzt haben. Es ist wie eine Sucht, von der man nicht mehr loslassen kann.

Solange die Alt-Parteien nicht in der Lage sind, die Unzufriedenheit in der Bevölkerung wahr- und ernst zu nehmen, werden sie die Opposition stärken und zu immer rigideren Maßnahmen greifen müssen, um ihre Macht zu erhalten und sich damit immer mehr von demokratischen Verhältnissen entfernen, und zwar genau in die Richtung vor der die Alt-Parteien in ihrer ideologischen Verirrung warnen.

Seitens der Opposition gibt es in der Gesamtschau keine Anzeichen dafür, dass die Demokratie abgeschafft werden soll, im Gegenteil, es wird für mehr Bürgerbeteiligung plädiert, was ein sicheres Merkmal für demokratische Absichten ist.

Aus Sicht der Alt-Parteien macht die Brandmauer Sinn, weil sie sie vor ihrem eigenen Machtverlust schützt. Der Fall der Berliner Mauer sollte ihnen eigentlich eine Warnung sein.

Fairerweise darf nicht unterschlagen werden, dass es in der Opposition einige Verirrte gibt, wobei noch interessant wäre zu erfahren, welche davon als V-Männer des Verfassungsschutzes eingeschleust wurden. Diese jedoch zum Anlass zu nehmen, die Opposition unter Generalverdacht zu stellen, steht einem demokratischen Handeln diametral entgegen.

Das Grundgesetz wird so nicht geschützt, sondern bis kurz vor der Sollbruchstelle verbogen.

Die Einstufung der Opposition als gesichert rechts-extrem beruht auf einem mutmaßlich 1000 Seiten starken Papier, das offensichtlich nur ein erlesener Kreis zu sehen bekommen soll. Dazu gehört nicht die Bevölkerung, die sicher nur einmal mehr nicht zu Teilen verunsichert werden soll. Und selbstverständlich schon gar nicht diejenigen, die es betrifft, nämlich die Opposition.

Eine eindeutige Fragwürdigkeit der Aktivitäten des Verfassungsschutzes wäre schwerer festzustellen, wenn es gleichwohl Parteien gäbe, die als gesichert links-extrem oder zumindest als links-extremer Verdachtsfall eingestuft würden. Nicht ganz unberechtigte Gründe hierfür könnten schon gefunden werden, wenn der politische Wille es wollte.

Auch die seltsam-umstrittene Installierung des Präsidenten des Bundesamtes für Verfassungsschutz (genau genommen für Grundgesetzschutz) lässt Fragen offen.

Generell müsste es eine unabhängige Überprüfung geben, ob die Gewaltenteilung in Deutschland noch gewährleistet ist, da es durch das augenscheinliche Zusammenspiel in der Richterschaft, der Gesetzgebung und der vierten Gewalt, den Medien, Anlass zu Zweifel gibt.

Diese Zweifel sind nicht demokratiegefährdend, sondern im Gegenteil, es ist demokratische Pflicht, den Verantwortlichen kritisch auf die Finger zu schauen, ob im Sinne des Souveräns entschieden und gehandelt wird. Zweifel könnte man dadurch ausräumen, in dem eindeutig bewiesen würde, das alles seine Richtigkeit hat.

Das wäre vornehmlich die Aufgabe der Alt-Medien, die derzeit durch Totalversagen glänzen, weil alles mit allem zusammenhängt, jeder jeden kennt und man es sich über Jahre so eingerichtet hat, dass man gerne unter sich bleibt und Pöstchen-Hüpfen von einem Lager ins andere spielt.

Vielleicht ist es sogar nötig, dass zur unabhängigen Überprüfung, die Alliierten, inklusive Russland, noch einmal, nach rund 80 Jahren, auf den Plan gerufen werden müssen, um sozusagen eine Zwischenbilanz zu ziehen, inwieweit sich das einst etablierte, demokratische System bewährt hat, und ob es derzeit noch im ursprünglichen Sinne umgesetzt und gelebt wird. Es ist anzunehmen, dass hier ein gewaltiges Optimierungspotenzial zum Vorschein kommen könnte.

Viele Bürger in Deutschland haben den Wunsch, wieder in einer Demokratie zu leben, die ihre Namen auch verdient hat. Sie wollen wieder frei ihre Meinung jeglicher Art aussprechen können, miteinander diskutieren, auch einmal Unsinn reden, ohne, dass sie der Blockwart gleich bei einem Denunzierungsportal anschwärzt, oder sie Gefahr laufen, dass ihr Konto gekündigt wird, oder sie morgens um 6 Uhr Besuch bekommen, der noch nicht einmal frische Semmeln mitbringt.

Dieser Artikel wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben

* *

(Bild von pixabay)