@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

I. Historical Foundations of U.S. Monetary Architecture

The early monetary system of the United States was built atop inherited commodity money conventions from Europe’s maritime economies. Silver and gold coins—primarily Spanish pieces of eight, Dutch guilders, and other foreign specie—formed the basis of colonial commerce. These units were already integrated into international trade and piracy networks and functioned with natural compatibility across England, France, Spain, and Denmark. Lacking a centralized mint or formal currency, the U.S. adopted these forms de facto.

As security risks and the practical constraints of physical coinage mounted, banks emerged to warehouse specie and issue redeemable certificates. These certificates evolved into fiduciary media—claims on specie not actually in hand. Banks observed over time that substantial portions of reserves remained unclaimed for years. This enabled fractional reserve banking: issuing more claims than reserves held, so long as redemption demand stayed low. The practice was inherently unstable, prone to panics and bank runs, prompting eventual centralization through the formation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.

Following the Civil War and unstable reinstatements of gold convertibility, the U.S. sought global monetary stability. After World War II, the Bretton Woods system formalized the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency. The dollar was nominally backed by gold, but most international dollars were held offshore and recycled into U.S. Treasuries. The Nixon Shock of 1971 eliminated the gold peg, converting the dollar into pure fiat. Yet offshore dollar demand remained, sustained by oil trade mandates and the unique role of Treasuries as global reserve assets.

II. The Structure of Fiduciary Media and Treasury Demand

Under this system, foreign trade surpluses with the U.S. generate excess dollars. These surplus dollars are parked in U.S. Treasuries, thereby recycling trade imbalances into U.S. fiscal liquidity. While technically loans to the U.S. government, these purchases act like interest-only transfers—governments receive yield, and the U.S. receives spendable liquidity without principal repayment due in the short term. Debt is perpetually rolled over, rarely extinguished.

This creates an illusion of global subsidy: U.S. deficits are financed via foreign capital inflows that, in practice, function more like financial tribute systems than conventional debt markets. The underlying asset—U.S. Treasury debt—functions as the base reserve asset of the dollar system, replacing gold in post-Bretton Woods monetary logic.

III. Emergence of Tether and the Parastatal Dollar

Tether (USDT), as a private issuer of dollar-denominated tokens, mimics key central bank behaviors while operating outside the regulatory perimeter. It mints tokens allegedly backed 1:1 by U.S. dollars or dollar-denominated securities (mostly Treasuries). These tokens circulate globally, often in jurisdictions with limited banking access, and increasingly serve as synthetic dollar substitutes.

If USDT gains dominance as the preferred medium of exchange—due to technological advantages, speed, programmability, or access—it displaces Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) not through devaluation, but through functional obsolescence. Gresham’s Law inverts: good money (more liquid, programmable, globally transferable USDT) displaces bad (FRNs) even if both maintain a nominal 1:1 parity.

Over time, this preference translates to a systemic demand shift. Actors increasingly use Tether instead of FRNs, especially in global commerce, digital marketplaces, or decentralized finance. Tether tokens effectively become shadow base money.

IV. Interaction with Commercial Banking and Redemption Mechanics

Under traditional fractional reserve systems, commercial banks issue loans denominated in U.S. dollars, expanding the money supply. When borrowers repay loans, this destroys the created dollars and contracts monetary elasticity. If borrowers repay in USDT instead of FRNs:

• Banks receive a non-Fed liability (USDT).
• USDT is not recognized as reserve-eligible within the Federal Reserve System.
• Banks must either redeem USDT for FRNs, or demand par-value conversion from Tether to settle reserve requirements and balance their books.

This places redemption pressure on Tether and threatens its 1:1 peg under stress. If redemption latency, friction, or cost arises, USDT’s equivalence to FRNs is compromised. Conversely, if banks are permitted or compelled to hold USDT as reserve or regulatory capital, Tether becomes a de facto reserve issuer.

In this scenario, banks may begin demanding loans in USDT, mirroring borrower behavior. For this to occur sustainably, banks must secure Tether liquidity. This creates two options: - Purchase USDT from Tether or on the secondary market, collateralized by existing fiat. - Borrow USDT directly from Tether, using bank-issued debt as collateral.

The latter mirrors Federal Reserve discount window operations. Tether becomes a lender of first resort, providing monetary elasticity to the banking system by creating new tokens against promissory assets—exactly how central banks function.

V. Structural Consequences: Parallel Central Banking

If Tether begins lending to commercial banks, issuing tokens backed by bank notes or collateralized debt obligations: - Tether controls the expansion of broad money through credit issuance. - Its balance sheet mimics a central bank, with Treasuries and bank debt as assets and tokens as liabilities. - It intermediates between sovereign debt and global liquidity demand, replacing the Federal Reserve’s open market operations with its own issuance-redemption cycles.

Simultaneously, if Tether purchases U.S. Treasuries with FRNs received through token issuance, it: - Supplies the Treasury with new liquidity (via bond purchases). - Collects yield on government debt. - Issues a parallel form of U.S. dollars that never require redemption—an interest-only loan to the U.S. government from a non-sovereign entity.

In this context, Tether performs monetary functions of both a central bank and a sovereign wealth fund, without political accountability or regulatory transparency.

VI. Endgame: Institutional Inversion and Fed Redundancy

This paradigm represents an institutional inversion:

• The Federal Reserve becomes a legacy issuer.
• Tether becomes the operational base money provider in both retail and interbank contexts.
• Treasuries remain the foundational reserve asset, but access to them is mediated by a private intermediary.
• The dollar persists, but its issuer changes. The State becomes a fiscal agent of a decentralized financial ecosystem, not its monetary sovereign.

Unless the Federal Reserve reasserts control—either by absorbing Tether, outlawing its instruments, or integrating its tokens into the reserve framework—it risks becoming irrelevant in the daily function of money.

Tether, in this configuration, is no longer a derivative of the dollar—it is the dollar, just one level removed from sovereign control. The future of monetary sovereignty under such a regime is post-national and platform-mediated.

@ a9434ee1:d5c885be

Colors as a fun and useful identifier

Nostr apps often use totally random colors for their default avatars, profiles names in chat bubbles, etc... That's a missed opportunity. Why don't we just we just derive a color from the npub and use that instead, interoperably across apps?

It gives us a fun and visual extra point of recognition, often without having to add anything extra to the UIs.

The only problem is that we cannot just allow for any color. The colors should be readable as text in Light and Dark modes and gray-scales should be avoided too.

This is the goal: Luckily, there's a super simple solution.
(which was used to derive the color above)

Deriving the Colors

You can find the simple spec here: nostr: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

TLDR: 1. Convert HEX pubkey to Int 2. Calculate the Hue value: Int % 356 3. Set Saturation to 0.92 for Hues between 216 and 273, use 0.72 for the rest 4. Set Brightness to 0.56 for Hues between 32 and 212, use 0.72 for the rest

Convert HSB color to whatever format you need. Done.

Easy & Fun to integrate!

@ d360efec:14907b5f

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Past week summary

From a Self Custody for Organizations perspective, after analyzing the existing protocols (Cerberus, 10xSecurityBTCguide and Glacier) and reading a bunch of relates articles and guides, have wrapped to the conclusion that this format it is good to have as reference. However, something else is needed. For example, a summary or a map of the whole process to provide an overview, plus a way to deliver all the information and the multy-process in a more enjoyable way. Not a job for this hackathon, but with the right collaborations I assume it's possible to: - build something that might introduce a bit more quests and gamification - provide a learning environment (with testnet funds) could also be crucial on educating those unfamiliar with bitcoin onchain dynamics.

Have been learning more and playing around practicing best accessibility practices and how it could be applied to a desktop software like Bitcoin Safe. Thanks to @johnjherzog for providing a screen recording of his first experience and @jasonb for suggesting the tools to be used. (in this case tested/testing on Windows with the Accessibility Insights app). Some insight shared have been also applied to the website, running a full accessibility check (under WCAG 2.2 ADA, and Section 508 standards) with 4 different plugins and two online tools. I recognize that not all of them works and analyze the same parameters, indeed they complement each other providing a more accurate review.

For Bitcoin Safe interface improvements, many suggestions have been shared with @andreasgriffin , including: - a new iconset, including a micro-set to display the number of confirmed blocs for each transaction - a redesigned History/Dashboard - small refinements like adding missing columns on the tables - allow the user to select which columns to be displayed - sorting of unconfirmed transactions - Defining a new style for design elements like mempool blocks and quick receive boxes You can find below some screenshots with my proposals that hopefully will be included in the next release.

Last achievement this week was to prepare the website https://Safe.BTC.pub, the container where all the outcomes f this experiment will be published. You can have a look, just consider it still WIP. Branding for the project has also been finalized and available in this penpot file https://design.penpot.app/#/workspace?team-id=cec80257-5021-8137-8005-eab60c043dd6&project-id=cec80257-5021-8137-8005-eab60c043dd8&file-id=95aea877-d515-80ac-8006-23a251886db3&page-id=132f519a-39f4-80db-8006-2a41c364a545

What's for next week

After spending most of the time learning and reading material, this coming week will be focused on deliverables. The goal as planned will be to provide: - Finalized Safe₿its brand and improve overall desktop app experience, including categorization of transactions and addresses - An accessibility report or guide for Bitcoin Safe and support to implement best practices - A first draft of the Self-Custody for Organizations guide/framework/protocol, ideally delivered through the website http://Safe.BTC.pub in written format, but also as FlowChart to help have an overview of the whole resources needed and the process itself. This will clearly define preparations and tools/hardwares needed to successfully complete the process.

To learn more about the project, you can visit: Designathon website: https://event.bitcoin.design/#project-recj4SVNLLkuWHpKq Discord channel: https://discord.com/channels/903125802726596648/1369200271632236574 Previous SN posts: https://stacker.news/items/974489/r/DeSign_r and https://stacker.news/items/974488/r/DeSign_r

Stay tuned, more will be happening this coming week

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/977190

@ d360efec:14907b5f

สวัสดีค่ะเพื่อนๆ นักเทรดที่น่ารักทุกคน! 💕 Lina Engword กลับมาพร้อมกับการวิเคราะห์ BTCUSDT.P แบบเจาะลึกเพื่อเตรียมพร้อมสำหรับเทรดวันนี้ค่ะ! 🚀

วันนี้ 12 พฤษภาคม 2568 เวลา 08.15น. ราคา BTCUSDT.P อยู่ที่ 104,642.8 USDT ค่ะ โดยมี Previous Weekly High (PWH) อยู่ที่ 104,967.8 Previous Weekly Low (PWL) ที่ 93,338 ค่ะ

✨ ภาพรวมตลาดวันนี้ ✨

จากการวิเคราะห์ด้วยเครื่องมือคู่ใจของเรา ทั้ง SMC/ICT (Demand/Supply Zone, Order Block, Liquidity), EMA 50/200, Trend Strength, Money Flow, Chart/Price Pattern, Premium/Discount Zone, Trend line, Fibonacci, Elliott Wave และ Dow Theory ใน Timeframe ตั้งแต่ 15m ไปจนถึง Week! 📊 เราพบว่าภาพใหญ่ของ BTCUSDT.P ยังคงอยู่ในแนวโน้มขาขึ้นที่แข็งแกร่งมากๆ ค่ะ 👍 โดยเฉพาะใน Timeframe Day และ Week ที่สัญญาณทุกอย่างสนับสนุนทิศทางขาขึ้นอย่างชัดเจน Money Flow ยังไหลเข้าอย่างต่อเนื่อง และเราเห็นโครงสร้างตลาดแบบ Dow Theory ที่ยก High ยก Low ขึ้นไปเรื่อยๆ ค่ะ

อย่างไรก็ตาม... ใน Timeframe สั้นๆ อย่าง 15m และ 1H เริ่มเห็นสัญญาณของการชะลอตัวและการพักฐานบ้างแล้วค่ะ 📉 อาจมีการสร้าง Buyside และ Sellside Liquidity รอให้ราคาไปกวาดก่อนที่จะเลือกทางใดทางหนึ่ง ซึ่งเป็นเรื่องปกติของการเดินทางของ Smart Money ค่ะ

⚡ เปรียบเทียบแนวโน้มแต่ละ Timeframe ⚡

🪙 แนวโน้มตรงกัน Timeframe 4H, Day, Week ส่วนใหญ่ชี้ไปทาง "ขาขึ้น" ค่ะ ทุกเครื่องมือสนับสนุนแนวโน้มนี้อย่างแข็งแกร่ง 💪 เป้าหมายต่อไปคือการไปทดสอบ PWH และ High เดิม เพื่อสร้าง All-Time High ใหม่ค่ะ! 🪙 แนวโน้มต่างกัน Timeframe 15m, 1H ยังค่อนข้าง "Sideways" หรือ "Sideways Down เล็กน้อย" ค่ะ มีการบีบตัวของราคาและอาจมีการพักฐานสั้นๆ ซึ่งเป็นโอกาสในการหาจังหวะเข้า Long ที่ราคาดีขึ้นค่ะ

💡 วิธีคิดแบบ Market Slayer 💡

เมื่อแนวโน้มใหญ่เป็นขาขึ้นที่แข็งแกร่ง เราจะเน้นหาจังหวะเข้า Long เป็นหลักค่ะ การย่อตัวลงมาในระยะสั้นคือโอกาสของเราในการเก็บของ! 🛍️ เราจะใช้หลักการ SMC/ICT หาโซน Demand หรือ Order Block ที่ Smart Money อาจจะเข้ามาดันราคาขึ้น และรอสัญญาณ Price Action ยืนยันการกลับตัวค่ะ

สรุปแนวโน้มวันนี้:

🪙 ระยะสั้น: Sideways to Sideways Down (โอกาส 55%) ↔️↘️ 🪙 ระยะกลาง: ขาขึ้น (โอกาส 70%) ↗️ 🪙 ระยะยาว: ขาขึ้น (โอกาส 85%) 🚀 🪙 วันนี้: มีโอกาสย่อตัวเล็กน้อยก่อนจะมีแรงซื้อกลับเข้ามาเพื่อไปทดสอบ PWH (โอกาส Sideways Down เล็กน้อย สลับกับ Sideways Up: 60%) 🎢

🗓️ Daily Trade Setup ประจำวันนี้ 🗓️

นี่คือตัวอย่าง Setup ที่ Lina เตรียมไว้ให้พิจารณาค่ะ (เน้นย้ำว่าเป็นเพียงแนวทาง ไม่ใช่คำแนะนำลงทุนนะคะ)

1️⃣ ตัวอย่างที่ 1: รอรับที่โซน Demand (ปลอดภัย, รอยืนยัน)

🪙 Enter: รอราคาย่อตัวลงมาในโซน Demand Zone หรือ Bullish Order Block ที่น่าสนใจใน TF 1H/4H (ดูจากกราฟประกอบนะคะ) และเกิดสัญญาณ Bullish Price Action ที่ชัดเจน เช่น แท่งเทียนกลืนกิน (Engulfing) หรือ Hammer 🪙 TP: บริเวณ PWH 104,967.8 หรือ Buyside Liquidity ถัดไป 🎯 🪙 SL: ใต้ Low ที่เกิดก่อนสัญญาณกลับตัวเล็กน้อย หรือใต้ Demand Zone ที่เข้า 🛡️ 🪙 RRR: ประมาณ 1:2.5 ขึ้นไป ✨ 🪙 อธิบาย: Setup นี้เราจะใจเย็นๆ รอให้ราคาลงมาในโซนที่มีโอกาสเจอแรงซื้อเยอะๆ ตามหลัก SMC/ICT แล้วค่อยเข้า เพื่อให้ได้ราคาที่ดีและความเสี่ยงต่ำค่ะ ต้องรอสัญญาณ Price Action ยืนยันก่อนนะคะ ✍️

2️⃣ ตัวอย่างที่ 2: Follow Breakout (สายบู๊, รับความเสี่ยงได้)

🪙 Enter: เข้า Long ทันทีเมื่อราคาสามารถ Breakout เหนือ High ล่าสุดใน TF 15m หรือ 1H พร้อม Volume ที่เพิ่มขึ้นอย่างมีนัยสำคัญ 🔥 🪙 TP: บริเวณ PWH 104,967.8 หรือ Buyside Liquidity ถัดไป 🚀 🪙 SL: ใต้ High ก่อนหน้าที่ถูก Breakout เล็กน้อย 🚧 🪙 RRR: ประมาณ 1:3 ขึ้นไป ✨ 🪙 อธิบาย: Setup นี้เหมาะกับคนที่อยากเข้าไวเมื่อเห็นโมเมนตัมแรงๆ ค่ะ เราจะเข้าเมื่อราคา Breakout แนวต้านระยะสั้นพร้อม Volume เป็นสัญญาณว่าแรงซื้อกำลังมาค่ะ เข้าได้เลยด้วยการตั้ง Limit Order หรือ Market Order เมื่อเห็นการ Breakout ที่ชัดเจนค่ะ 💨

3️⃣ ตัวอย่างที่ 3: พิจารณา Short สั้นๆ ในโซน Premium (สวนเทรนด์หลัก, ความเสี่ยงสูง)

🪙 Enter: หากราคาขึ้นไปในโซน Premium ใน TF 15m หรือ 1H และเกิดสัญญาณ Bearish Price Action ที่ชัดเจน เช่น แท่งเทียน Shooting Star หรือ Bearish Engulfing บริเวณ Supply Zone หรือ Bearish Order Block 🐻 🪙 TP: พิจารณาแนวรับถัดไป หรือ Sellside Liquidity ใน TF เดียวกัน 🎯 🪙 SL: เหนือ High ของสัญญาณ Bearish Price Action เล็กน้อย 💀 🪙 RRR: ประมาณ 1:1.5 ขึ้นไป (เน้นย้ำว่าเป็นการเทรดสวนเทรนด์หลัก ควรใช้ RRR ต่ำและบริหารขนาด Lot อย่างเข้มงวด!) 🪙 อธิบาย: Setup นี้สำหรับคนที่เห็นโอกาสในการทำกำไรจากการย่อตัวระยะสั้นค่ะ เราจะเข้า Short เมื่อเห็นสัญญาณว่าราคาอาจจะมีการพักฐานในโซนที่ถือว่า "แพง" ในกรอบสั้นๆ ค่ะ ต้องตั้ง Stop Loss ใกล้มากๆ และจับตาดูใกล้ชิดนะคะ 🚨

⚠️ Disclaimer: การวิเคราะห์นี้เป็นเพียงความคิดเห็นส่วนตัวของ Lina เท่านั้น ไม่ถือเป็นคำแนะนำในการลงทุนนะคะ การลงทุนมีความเสี่ยง ผู้ลงทุนควรศึกษาข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมและตัดสินใจด้วยความรอบคอบค่ะ 🙏

ขอให้ทุกท่านโชคดีกับการเทรดในวันนี้ค่ะ! มีคำถามอะไรเพิ่มเติม ถามมาได้เลยนะคะ ยินดีเสมอค่ะ! 😊

Bitcoin #BTCUSDT #Crypto #Trading #TechnicalAnalysis #SMC #ICT #MarketSlayer #TradeSetup #คริปโต #เทรดคริปโต #วิเคราะห์กราฟ #LinaEngword 😉

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Past week summary

From a Self Custody for Organizations perspective, after analyzing the existing protocols (Cerberus, 10xSecurityBTCguide and Glacier) and reading a bunch of relates articles and guides, have wrapped to the conclusion that this format it is good to have as reference. However, something else is needed. For example, a summary or a map of the whole process to provide an overview, plus a way to deliver all the information and the multy-process in a more enjoyable way. Not a job for this hackathon, but with the right collaborations I assume it's possible to: - build something that might introduce a bit more quests and gamification - provide a learning environment (with testnet funds) could also be crucial on educating those unfamiliar with bitcoin onchain dynamics.

Have been learning more and playing around practicing best accessibility practices and how it could be applied to a desktop software like Bitcoin Safe. Thanks to @johnjherzog for providing a screen recording of his first experience and @jasonbohio for suggesting the tools to be used. (in this case tested/testing on Windows with the Accessibility Insights app). Some insight shared have been also applied to the website, running a full accessibility check (under WCAG 2.2 ADA, and Section 508 standards) with 4 different plugins and two online tools. I recognize that not all of them works and analyze the same parameters, indeed they complement each other providing a more accurate review.

For Bitcoin Safe interface improvements, many suggestions have been shared with @andreasgriffin , including: - a new iconset, including a micro-set to display the number of confirmed blocs for each transaction - a redesigned History/Dashboard - small refinements like adding missing columns on the tables - allow the user to select which columns to be displayed - sorting of unconfirmed transactions - Defining a new style for design elements like mempool blocks and quick receive boxes You can find below some screenshots with my proposals that hopefully will be included in the next release.

Last achievement this week was to prepare the website https://Safe.BTC.pub, the container where all the outcomes f this experiment will be published. You can have a look, just consider it still WIP. Branding for the project has also been finalized and available in this penpot file https://design.penpot.app/#/workspace?team-id=cec80257-5021-8137-8005-eab60c043dd6&project-id=cec80257-5021-8137-8005-eab60c043dd8&file-id=95aea877-d515-80ac-8006-23a251886db3&page-id=132f519a-39f4-80db-8006-2a41c364a545

What's for next week

After spending most of the time learning and reading material, this coming week will be focused on deliverables. The goal as planned will be to provide: - Finalized Safe₿its brand and improve overall desktop app experience, including categorization of transactions and addresses - An accessibility report or guide for Bitcoin Safe and support to implement best practices - A first draft of the Self-Custody for Organizations guide/framework/protocol, ideally delivered through the website http://Safe.BTC.pub in written format, but also as FlowChart to help have an overview of the whole resources needed and the process itself. This will clearly define preparations and tools/hardwares needed to successfully complete the process.

To learn more about the project, you can visit: Designathon website: https://event.bitcoin.design/#project-recj4SVNLLkuWHpKq Discord channel: https://discord.com/channels/903125802726596648/1369200271632236574 Previous SN posts: https://stacker.news/items/974489/r/DeSign_r and https://stacker.news/items/974488/r/DeSign_r

Stay tuned, more will be happening this coming week

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/977180

@ c9badfea:610f861a

1. Install FUTO Keyboard (it's free and open source)
2. Launch the app, tap Switch Input Methods and select FUTO Keyboard
3. For voice input, choose FUTO Keyboard (needs mic permission) and grant permission While Using The App
4. Configure keyboard layouts under Languages & Models as needed

Adding Support for Non-English Languages

Voice Input

1. Download voice input models from the FUTO Keyboard Add-Ons page
   • For languages like Chinese, German, Spanish, Russian, French, Portuguese, Korean, and Japanese, download the Multilingual-74 model
   • For other languages, download Multilingual-244
2. Open FUTO Keyboard, go to Languages & Models, and import the downloaded model under Voice Input

Dictionaries

1. Get dictionary files from AOSP Dictionaries
2. Open FUTO Keyboard, navigate to Languages & Models, and import the dictionary under Dictionary

ℹ️ When typing, tap the microphone icon to use voice input

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Reasons why Lightning is not that great

Some Bitcoiners, me included, were fooled by hyperbolic discourse that presented Lightning as some magical scaling solution with no flaws. This is an attempt to list some of the actual flaws uncovered after 5 years of experience. The point of this article is not to say Lightning is a complete worthless piece of crap, but only to highlight the fact that Bitcoin needs to put more focus on developing and thinking about other scaling solutions (such as Drivechain, less crappy and more decentralized trusted channels networks and statechains).

Unbearable experience

Maintaining a node is cumbersome, you have to deal with closed channels, allocating funds, paying fees unpredictably, choosing new channels to open, storing channel state backups -- or you'll have to delegate all these decisions to some weird AI or third-party services, it's not feasible for normal people.

Channels fail for no good reason all the time

Every time nodes disagree on anything they close channels, there have been dozens, maybe hundreds, of bugs that lead to channels being closed in the past, and implementors have been fixing these bugs, but since these node implementations continue to be worked on and new features continue to be added we can be quite sure that new bugs continue to be introduced.

Trimmed (fake) HTLCs are not sound protocol design

What would you tell me if I presented a protocol that allowed for transfers of users' funds across a network of channels and that these channels would pledge to send the money to miners while the payment was in flight, and that these payments could never be recovered if a node in the middle of the hop had a bug or decided to stop responding? Or that the receiver could receive your payment, but still claim he didn't, and you couldn't prove that at all?

These are the properties of "trimmed HTLCs", HTLCs that are uneconomical to have their own UTXO in the channel presigned transaction bundles, therefore are just assumed to be there while they are not (and their amounts are instead added to the fees of the presigned transaction).

Trimmed HTLCs, like any other HTLC, have timelocks, preimages and hashes associated with them -- which are properties relevant to the redemption of actual HTLCs onchain --, but unlike actual HTLCs these things have no actual onchain meaning since there is no onchain UTXO associated with them. This is a game of make-believe that only "works" because (1) payment proofs aren't worth anything anyway, so it makes no sense to steal these; (2) channels are too expensive to setup; (3) all Lightning Network users are honest; (4) there are so many bugs and confusion in a Lightning Network node's life that events related to trimmed HTLCs do not get noticed by users.

Also, so far these trimmed HTLCs have only been used for very small payments (although very small payments probably account for 99% of the total payments), so it is supposedly "fine" to have them. But, as fees rise, more and more HTLCs tend to become fake, which may make people question the sanity of the design.

Tadge Dryja, one of the creators of the Lightning Network proposal, has been critical of the fact that these things were allowed to creep into the BOLT protocol.

Routing

Routing is already very bad today even though most nodes have a basically 100% view of the public network, the reasons being that some nodes are offline, others are on Tor and unreachable or too slow, channels have the balance shifted in the wrong direction, so payments fail a lot -- which leads to the (bad) solution invented by professional node runners and large businesses of probing the network constantly in order to discard bad paths, this creates unnecessary load and increases the risk of channels being dropped for no good reason.

As the network grows -- if it indeed grow and not centralize in a few hubs -- routing tends to become harder and harder.

While each implementation team makes their own decisions with regard to how to best way to route payments and these decisions may change at anytime, it's worth noting, for example, that CLN will use MPP to split up any payment in any number of chunks of 10k satoshis, supposedly to improve routing success rates. While this often backfires and causes payments to fail when they should have succeeded, it also contributes to making it so there are proportionally more fake HTLCs than there should be, as long as the threshold for fake HTLCs is above 10k.

Payment proofs are somewhat useless

Even though payment proofs were seen by many (including me) as one of the great things about Lightning, the sad fact is that they do not work as proofs if people are not aware of the fact that they are proofs. Wallets do all they can to hide these details from users because it is considered "bad UX" and low-level implementors do not care very much to talk about them at all. There have been attempts from Lightning Labs to get rid of the payment proofs entirely (which at the time to me sounded like a terrible idea, but now I realize they were not wrong).

Here's a piece of anecdote: I've personally witnessed multiple episodes in which Phoenix wallet released the preimage without having actually received the payment (they did receive a minor part of the payment, but the payment was split in many parts). That caused my service, @lntxbot, to mark the outgoing payment as complete, only then to have to endure complaints from the users because the receiver side, Phoenix, had not received the full amount. In these cases, if the protocol and the idea of preimages as payment proofs be respected, should I have been the one in charge of manually fixing user balances?

Another important detail: when an HTLC is sent and then something goes wrong with the payment the channel has to be closed in order to redeem that payment. When the redeemer is on the receiver side, the very act of redeeming should cause the preimage to be revealed and a proof of payment to be made available for the sender, who can then send that back to the previous hop and the payment is proven without any doubt. But when this happens for fake HTLCs (which is the vast majority of payments, as noted above) there is no place in the world for a preimage and therefore there are no proofs available. A channel is just closed, the payer loses money but can't prove a payment. It also can't send that proof back to the previous hop so he is forced to say the payment failed -- even if it wasn't him the one who declared that hop a failure and closed the channel, which should be a prerequisite. I wonder if this isn't the source of multiple bugs in implementations that cause channels to be closed unnecessarily. The point is: preimages and payment proofs are mostly a fiction.

Another important fact is that the proofs do not really prove anything if the keypair that signs the invoice can't be provably attached to a real world entity.

LSP-centric design

The first Lightning wallets to show up in the market, LND as a desktop daemon (then later with some GUIs on top of it like Zap and Joule) and Anton's BLW and Eclair wallets for mobile devices, then later LND-based mobile wallets like Blixt and RawTX, were all standalone wallets that were self-sufficient and meant to be run directly by consumers. Eventually, though, came Breez and Phoenix and introduced the "LSP" model, in which a server would be trusted in various forms -- not directly with users' funds, but with their privacy, fees and other details -- but most importantly that LSP would be the primary source of channels for all users of that given wallet software. This was all fine, but as time passed new features were designed and implemented that assumed users would be running software connected to LSPs. The very idea of a user having a standalone mobile wallet was put out of question. The entire argument for implementation of the bolt12 standard, for example, hinged on the assumption that mobile wallets would have LSPs capable of connecting to Google messaging services and being able to "wake up" mobile wallets in order for them to receive payments. Other ideas, like a complicated standard for allowing mobile wallets to receive payments without having to be online all the time, just assume LSPs always exist; and changes to the expected BOLT spec behavior with regards to, for example, probing of mobile wallets.

Ark is another example of a kind of LSP that got so enshrined that it become a new protocol that depends on it entirely.

Protocol complexity

Even though the general idea of how Lightning is supposed to work can be understood by many people (as long as these people know how Bitcoin works) the Lightning protocol is not really easy: it will take a long time of big dedication for anyone to understand the details about the BOLTs -- this is a bad thing if we want a world of users that have at least an idea of what they are doing. Moreover, with each new cool idea someone has that gets adopted by the protocol leaders, it increases in complexity and some of the implementors are kicked out of the circle, therefore making it easier for the remaining ones to proceed with more and more complexity. It's the same process by which Chrome won the browser wars, kicked out all competitors and proceeded to make a supposedly open protocol, but one that no one can implement as it gets new and more complex features every day, all envisioned by the Chrome team.

Liquidity issues?

I don't believe these are a real problem if all the other things worked, but still the old criticism that Lightning requires parking liquidity and that has a cost is not a complete non-issue, specially given the LSP-centric model.

@ 95543309:196c540e

Lets see if this works with the blossom upload and without markdown hassle.

:cat:

https://blossom.primal.net/73a099f931366732c18dd60da82db6ef65bb368eb96756f07d9fa7a8a3644009.mp4

@ 318ebaba:9a262eae

Relays play a crucial role in the Nostr communication protocol, serving as the backbone of its decentralized architecture. Here’s an overview of their functions and significance:

Functions of Nostr Relays

• Data Storage and Broadcasting: Relays act as intermediaries that store and distribute messages between users. When a user sends a message, it is transmitted to one or more relays, which then broadcast that message to other connected clients. This decentralized approach ensures that no single entity controls the flow of information, enhancing censorship resistance[1][2][6].

• Interoperability: Users can connect to multiple relays simultaneously, allowing them to access the same content across different applications. This interoperability means that messages can be shared and retrieved from various clients without being tied to a specific platform, promoting a more flexible user experience[4][11].

• User Control: Anyone can run their own relay, which empowers users to maintain control over their data and interactions. By operating a personal relay, users can ensure that their messages are stored and accessible without relying on third-party services, thus enhancing privacy and security[3][7][11].

• Performance and Reliability: The performance of a Nostr client can be influenced by the relays it connects to. If a relay is slow or unreliable, it can affect the overall user experience. Users are encouraged to choose or add multiple relays to improve message delivery speed and reliability[7][8][11].

Types of Relays

• Public and Private Relays: There are both public and private relays available. Public relays are free to use, while private relays may charge fees. Paid relays often provide better performance and reduced spam, as the cost can deter malicious users from flooding the network with unwanted content[6][7][14].

• Self-Hosted Relays: For those who want maximum control and privacy, setting up a self-hosted relay is an option. This allows users to manage their own data and ensure that their communications are not subject to external censorship or data loss[4][7].

In summary, relays are essential to the Nostr protocol, facilitating decentralized communication by storing, broadcasting, and managing messages across a network of users. They enhance user autonomy, improve performance, and contribute to the overall resilience of the Nostr ecosystem. [1] https://www.voltage.cloud/blog/the-essential-guide-to-nostr-relays [2] https://substack.com/home/post/p-158872714?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web [3] https://www.purplerelay.com/how-to-run-a-nostr-relay-a-step-by-step-guide/ [4] https://medium.com/@michael.leigh.stewart/nostr-series-part-3-setting-up-a-relay-6f9ca426e43e [5] https://www.voltage.cloud/blog/understanding-nostr-data-storage-relays-and-decentralization [6] https://www.ccn.com/education/what-is-nostr-and-how-to-start-using-nostr/ [7] https://nostr.how/en/relays [8] https://blog.theya.us/what-is-nostr/ [9] https://www.cointribune.com/en/nostr-pour-les-debutants-tout-ce-que-vous-devez-savoir-sur-le-protocole-2/ [10] https://community.umbrel.com/t/introducing-the-official-nostr-relay-app/11339 [11] https://nostr.com/ [12] https://www.habyb.com/blog/nostr-what-is-this-protocol-and-how-does-it-work/ [13] https://www.reddit.com/r/nostr/comments/15jmhpi/purpose_of_free_vs_paid_relay/ [14] https://nostr.com/relays [15] https://www.reddit.com/r/nostr/comments/115cgcu/whats_the_point_of_adding_more_and_more_relays_do/ [16] https://messari.io/copilot/share/understanding-nostr-f00aa3df-d02c-4381-91f5-9a103b8e25ce

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

How being "flexible" can bloat a protocol

(A somewhat absurd example, but you'll get the idea)

Iimagine some client decides to add support for a variant of nip05 that checks for values at /.well-known/nostr.yaml besides /.well-known/nostr.json. "Why not?", they think, "I like YAML more than JSON, this can't hurt anyone".

Then some user makes a nip05 file in YAML and it will work on that client, they will think their file is good since it works on that client. When the user sees that other clients are not recognizing their YAML file, they will complain to the other client developers: "Hey, your client is broken, it is not supporting my YAML file!".

The developer of the other client, astonished, replies: "Oh, I am sorry, I didn't know that was part of the nip05 spec!"

The user, thinking it is doing a good thing, replies: "I don't know, but it works on this other client here, see?"

Now the other client adds support. The cycle repeats now with more users making YAML files, more and more clients adding YAML support, for fear of providing a client that is incomplete or provides bad user experience.

The end result of this is that now nip05 extra-officially requires support for both JSON and YAML files. Every client must now check for /.well-known/nostr.yaml too besides just /.well-known/nostr.json, because a user's key could be in either of these. A lot of work was wasted for nothing. And now, going forward, any new clients will require the double of work than before to implement.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Information ohne Reflexion ist geistiger Flugsand. \ Ernst Reinhardt

Der lateinische Ausdruck «Quo vadis» als Frage nach einer Entwicklung oder Ausrichtung hat biblische Wurzeln. Er wird aber auch in unserer Alltagssprache verwendet, laut Duden meist als Ausdruck von Besorgnis oder Skepsis im Sinne von: «Wohin wird das führen?»

Der Sinn und Zweck von so mancher politischen Entscheidung erschließt sich heutzutage nicht mehr so leicht, und viele Trends können uns Sorge bereiten. Das sind einerseits sehr konkrete Themen wie die zunehmende Militarisierung und die geschichtsvergessene Kriegstreiberei in Europa, deren Feindbildpflege aktuell beim Gedenken an das Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs beschämende Formen annimmt.

Auch das hohe Gut der Schweizer Neutralität scheint immer mehr in Gefahr. Die schleichende Bewegung der Eidgenossenschaft in Richtung NATO und damit weg von einer Vermittlerposition erhält auch durch den neuen Verteidigungsminister Anschub. Martin Pfister möchte eine stärkere Einbindung in die europäische Verteidigungsarchitektur, verwechselt bei der Argumentation jedoch Ursache und Wirkung.

Das Thema Gesundheit ist als Zugpferd für Geschäfte und Kontrolle offenbar schon zuverlässig etabliert. Die hauptsächlich privat finanzierte Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) ist dabei durch ein Netzwerk von sogenannten «Collaborating Centres» sogar so weit in nationale Einrichtungen eingedrungen, dass man sich fragen kann, ob diese nicht von Genf aus gesteuert werden.

Das Schweizer Bundesamt für Gesundheit (BAG) übernimmt in dieser Funktion ebenso von der WHO definierte Aufgaben und Pflichten wie das deutsche Robert Koch-Institut (RKI). Gegen die Covid-«Impfung» für Schwangere, die das BAG empfiehlt, obwohl es fehlende wissenschaftliche Belege für deren Schutzwirkung einräumt, formiert sich im Tessin gerade Widerstand.

Unter dem Stichwort «Gesundheitssicherheit» werden uns die Bestrebungen verkauft, essenzielle Dienste mit einer biometrischen digitalen ID zu verknüpfen. Das dient dem Profit mit unseren Daten und führt im Ergebnis zum Verlust unserer demokratischen Freiheiten. Die deutsche elektronische Patientenakte (ePA) ist ein Element mit solchem Potenzial. Die Schweizer Bürger haben gerade ein Referendum gegen das revidierte E-ID-Gesetz erzwungen. In Thailand ist seit Anfang Mai für die Einreise eine «Digital Arrival Card» notwendig, die mit ihrer Gesundheitserklärung einen Impfpass «durch die Hintertür» befürchten lässt.

Der massive Blackout auf der iberischen Halbinsel hat vermehrt Fragen dazu aufgeworfen, wohin uns Klimawandel-Hysterie und «grüne» Energiepolitik führen werden. Meine Kollegin Wiltrud Schwetje ist dem nachgegangen und hat in mehreren Beiträgen darüber berichtet. Wenig überraschend führen interessante Spuren mal wieder zu internationalen Großbanken, Globalisten und zur EU-Kommission.

Zunehmend bedenklich ist aber ganz allgemein auch die manifestierte Spaltung unserer Gesellschaften. Angesichts der tiefen und sorgsam gepflegten Gräben fällt es inzwischen schwer, eine zukunftsfähige Perspektive zu erkennen. Umso begrüßenswerter sind Initiativen wie die Kölner Veranstaltungsreihe «Neue Visionen für die Zukunft». Diese möchte die Diskussionskultur reanimieren und dazu beitragen, dass Menschen wieder ohne Angst und ergebnisoffen über kontroverse Themen der Zeit sprechen.

Quo vadis – Wohin gehen wir also? Die Suche nach Orientierung in diesem vermeintlichen Chaos führt auch zur Reflexion über den eigenen Lebensweg. Das ist positiv insofern, als wir daraus Kraft schöpfen können. Ob derweil der neue Papst, dessen «Vorgänger» Petrus unsere Ausgangsfrage durch die christliche Legende zugeschrieben wird, dabei eine Rolle spielt, muss jede/r selbst wissen. Mir persönlich ist allein schon ein Führungsanspruch wie der des Petrusprimats der römisch-katholischen Kirche eher suspekt.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Finale: once the industry-standard of music notation software, now a cautionary tale. In this video, I explore how it slowly lost its crown through decades of missed opportunities - eventually leading to creative collapse due to various bureaucratic intrigues, unforeseen technological changes and some of the jankiest UI/UX you've ever seen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yqaon6YHzaU

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/976219

@ 7460b7fd:4fc4e74b

警惕：那些“帮你”保管密钥的人

—— 多签钱包中的隐形风险与逻辑陷阱

“我们可以帮您设置一个更安全的钱包。” 这句话，听上去就像是关心，其实却可能是一次有预谋的接管。

---

摘要

多签钱包被广泛视为提升数字资产安全性的“进阶方案”，尤其适用于不希望将所有信任寄托于单一点故障（如一把私钥）的人群。然而，在这些看似“民主化”、“抗单点失败”的技术结构背后，仍潜藏着极为隐秘且被低估的风险。

本文聚焦两类常见却高度隐蔽的逻辑攻击模型：

• 替换 xpub 并接管下一层级地址生成；
• 伪造 k-of-n 多签结构，在形式上给予用户参与感，实则实现单人提款。

在未引入 Taproot 的传统多签结构下，这类攻击已能轻易完成。而即便在 Taproot 和 MuSig2 合约模型下，攻击者也可以借助合成结构进一步隐藏其篡改行为。

本报告不仅梳理攻击逻辑，更强调“人性中的信任误区”——攻击者不需要主动索取密钥，只需要维持友善形象，自会有用户主动递交钥匙。更令人警惕的是，在某些极端场景下，这类“被信任的服务商”甚至可能向受害者收取“保管密钥”的费用后再实施盗窃，形成双重获利。

Taproot 虽然在结构上增强了隐私与复杂性，但也使验证逻辑失去了可直观还原的优势。随着时间推移、服务厂商退出市场乃至私有恢复流程被锁死，用户极可能落入无法恢复的“密钥黑箱”中。

阅读本文，希望你能意识到：

真正的安全，从不是托付给别人帮你“多签”，而是你真正理解你签了什么、和谁签的、签名之后将通往哪一个脚本。

---

多签钱包的逻辑攻击向量分析

以 xpub 替换与伪造 k-of-n 结构为例

---

攻击模型一：替换 xpub 实现地址劫持

场景设定

攻击者假扮为友好的钱包初始化服务者，主动提出“免费帮你生成一个更安全的多签钱包”。表面上，他为你设置了标准的 HD 多签结构，实际上却在关键的派生路径中，悄悄将本应由你或另一个可信方持有的 xpub 替换为他自己的。

在 HD 钱包结构（例如 BIP45、BIP67）中，用户通常无法直观验证每一个新地址是否仍属于原来的签名组。这种设计让“看上去很安全”的地址，可能早已成为攻击者可完全支配的提款口袋。

攻击结构（逻辑表示）

• 假设多签参与者为 P1, P2, P3
• 攻击者控制伪造者身份 P1'，实际替代掉用户的 P1
• 地址生成函数为：

Addr = f(xpub(P1'), xpub(P2), xpub(P3))

• 用户未验证 xpub 时，成立：

∃ Addr_i ∈ wallet, spendable_by(attacker)

换言之，钱包中的某些地址虽然看起来正常，但已可被攻击者花费。

人性陷阱提示

用户往往不认为“地址生成这件事”是需要人工检查的，特别是在使用 Ledger、Trezor 等硬件钱包时形成了“签名即安全”的错觉。而攻击者只需一次替换，就能悄悄监视整个钱包生命周期。

更重要的是，攻击者不需要向你“索取密钥”，他只需维持友善、专业甚至略带“为你好”的姿态。在 100 个用户中，总会有一部分人，在受到“信任感”与“他人看起来更专业”的影响下，主动提出将某个密钥托管给对方，甚至支付一定“密钥保管费”作为安全保障。这类行为并非愚蠢，而是人性的一部分。

这种松懈与依赖，背后深植着心理学上著名的「责任分散效应（diffusion of responsibility）」。当责任从“自己一人持有私钥”转变为“我们多人共同掌控”时，大脑会自动削弱“必须百分百保护密钥”的紧迫感；一旦密钥有三份或五份，人就会默认“即使我丢了一份也无所谓”，由此降低警惕，弱化加密习惯的执行力度。

尤其是在多签结构下，密钥不再是“唯一真理”。你开始认为：“我只是 n-of-m 的一员”，进而产生 安全责任稀释（safety dilution）。举个例子：如果你的 seed words 是唯一的，你很可能将其写在一张专用纸上，藏入防火袋，存放于密封保险箱中；但一旦你拥有的是 3-of-5 多签中的一份，你可能就只是把它存在 Evernote、存图于手机相册，或者发给自己 Telegram 备份——并自我安慰说：“这只是其中一把钥匙，又不怕。”

这正是攻击者渗透的最佳入口。他无需破解密码学算法，仅凭理解人性中的懒惰、依赖与责任下沉机制，就足以发起极具杀伤力的社会工程攻击。

提醒：没有人例外。你的安全不是由数学公式决定，而是由你是否对它持续保持敬畏与冷静判断所决定的。

---

Taproot 下的隐蔽性升级

在 Taproot + MuSig2 合约结构中：

• 合成公钥如：P = H(P1 + P2 + P3)
• 用户无法从地址推导出其组成
• 所有 pubkey 被掩盖，无任何可读性结构泄露

结果：攻击者替换某个 xpub 之后，哪怕是资深用户，也无法通过比对地址结构来发现任何异常。

---

攻击模型二：伪造 k-of-n 多签脚本结构

场景设定

攻击者承诺为你部署一个“非常安全”的 2-of-3 多签钱包。然而他实际创建的却是一个 1-of-3 结构，并诱导你保留或交出其中一个密钥。

用户一旦信任其脚本不可见性（或 UI 模糊性），资金注入该地址之后，攻击者即可单独提款。

攻击结构（逻辑描述）

• 正确脚本应为：

OP_2 <pk1> <pk2> <pk3> OP_3 OP_CHECKMULTISIG

• 实际被构造为：

OP_1 <pk1> <pk2> <pk3> OP_3 OP_CHECKMULTISIG

• 用户错误地相信：

user_believes(k=2) ∧ attacker_has(sk1) → safe

• 但实际上：

real_k = 1 ∧ attacker_has(sk1) → attacker_can_spend

成立条件

• 用户未能验证 redeem script
• 钱包界面（UI 或 PSBT）未明确标识 k 值与脚本结构
• 攻击者拥有脚本定义权，或 UI 权限

人性陷阱提示

这类攻击往往并非“高技术”，而是利用用户对脚本结构的无感。尤其是当攻击者扮演“技术专家”时，用户往往不具备审查 redeem script 的能力或意识。攻击者甚至可以用“给你设置一个冷备密钥”作为幌子，骗取部分 key，并收取额外费用。

---

多签攻击模型对比分析（无表格）

• 攻击类型一：xpub 替换
• 本质：公钥注入
• 隐蔽性：极高（生成地址完全正常）
• 关键条件：用户未验证每个 xpub

• Taproot 是否能规避：否，反而更难发现

• 攻击类型二：伪造 k-of-n

• 本质：脚本结构欺骗
• 隐蔽性：中等（需查看 redeem script 才能识别）
• 关键条件：用户不懂脚本，UI 不展示结构
• Taproot 是否能规避：否，合约结构反而隐藏了更多细节

---

安全建议（基于当前攻击模型）

1. 强制在 UI 中完整展示所有 xpub、合成地址派生路径与对应签名人列表
2. 如 Coldcard 的二维码验证机制
3. 用户必须自行保存每个 xpub，并可验证任一地址确实源自该集合派生
4. 多签钱包必须提供可见 redeem script 的界面与 k 值校验提示
5. 不接受“帮你配置好了”的 UI 黑箱
6. Taproot 虽增强隐私，但也加剧验证障碍
7. 若使用合签结构，应避免依赖第三方界面进行签名决策
8. 始终优先使用硬件钱包本地签名流程，避免通过 Web 或中间服务生成交易

---

真实案例分析

1. Coldcard 硬件钱包的 xpub 替换漏洞

2021 年，安全研究员 benma 发现 Coldcard 硬件钱包在注册多签钱包时，未验证自身是否为多签钱包的一部分。这使得恶意计算机钱包可以用攻击者控制的 xpub 替换多签 xpub，同时仍通过所有用户验证。所有接收到此多签钱包的币随后可以随时转移到攻击者的钱包。
来源：benma.github.io

2. Bybit 交易所的多签钱包被黑事件

2025 年 2 月，Bybit 交易所的多签冷钱包在一次例行转账中被黑，损失约 14.6 亿美元。该钱包使用 2-of-3 多签设置，意味着需要三位授权签名人中的两位批准交易。用户界面显示了合法的目标地址，并且 URL 与受信任的多签提供商 Safe 相关联。但这是一种欺骗。黑客利用硬件钱包中的“盲签名”漏洞，使设备只能显示交易的哈希，从而掩盖了一个更改，使攻击者控制了钱包的智能合约。
来源：certora.com

3. Parity 多签钱包漏洞

2017 年，Parity 多签钱包版本 1.5+ 中发现了一个漏洞，允许攻击者窃取超过 150,000 ETH（约 3000 万美元）。攻击者向受影响的合约发送两个交易：第一个获取多签的独占所有权，第二个移动其所有资金。
来源：blog.openzeppelin.com

---

攻击流程图解

1. 建立信任：攻击者以技术专家或受信任的服务提供商身份接近受害者，提出帮助设置多签钱包。
2. 替换 xpub：在设置过程中，攻击者用自己控制的 xpub 替换原本应由用户或第三方控制的 xpub。
3. 生成地址：攻击者生成看似正常的多签地址，并展示给用户，用户未进行验证。
4. 资金注入：用户将资金转入这些地址，认为资金安全。
5. 资金转移：攻击者利用控制的私钥，单方面将资金转出，用户无法察觉。

---

参考文献

• benma.github.io — Coldcard 多签攻击漏洞
• certora.com — Bybit 多签合约欺诈分析
• OpenZeppelin Blog — Parity 多签历史漏洞复盘

---

结语：
记住，多签并不是让别人“帮你保管密钥”，而是你对每一层结构都心中有数。真正的“抗失误”结构，是你能自己验证它、重建它、拆解它——而不是让某个“专家”说它安全，你就信了。

@ d41bf82f:ed90d888

“ฉันยังคงเชื่อและหวังว่า สักวันหนึ่งการเมืองและเศรษฐกิจจะลดบทบาทลงจากความสำคัญที่เคยมีในอดีต วันหนึ่งจะมาถึง วันที่ข้อถกเถียงทั้งหลายที่เรามีอยู่ในปัจจุบันเกี่ยวกับเรื่องเหล่านี้ จะดูเล็กน้อยหรือไร้ความหมาย ไม่ต่างจากการโต้แย้งทางเทววิทยาในยุคกลาง ซึ่งแม้แต่ปัญญาชนที่เฉียบแหลมที่สุดก็ยังทุ่มเทแรงกายแรงใจให้กับมันอย่างไร้ประโยชน์”

— อาร์เธอร์ ซี. คลาร์ก

บทนี้เปรียบเทียบการล่มสลายของโครงสร้างอำนาจทางการเมืองในยุคปัจจุบันกับความเสื่อมถอยของศาสนจักรในยุคกลาง ผู้เขียนตั้งข้อสังเกตว่าการเมืองสมัยใหม่—ในฐานะกิจกรรมที่เน้นการแย่งชิงอำนาจรัฐและให้เหตุผลแก่การใช้อำนาจ—เป็นเพียงสิ่งประดิษฐ์ชั่วคราวที่เกิดขึ้นในช่วงเวลาที่ผลตอบแทนจากการควบคุมรัฐมีสูง โดยเฉพาะในช่วงหลังการปฏิวัติดินปืน ซึ่งเป็นเหตุการณ์สำคัญที่เปลี่ยนตรรกะของการใช้ความรุนแรงอย่างรุนแรง

ก่อนหน้าการปฏิวัติดินปืน อำนาจทางทหารกระจัดกระจายอยู่ในมือของชนชั้นสูงตามระบบศักดินา อัศวินม้าหุ้มเกราะคือศูนย์กลางของกองกำลัง ซึ่งควบคุมได้ยากและมีต้นทุนสูง เมื่อมีดินปืนเข้ามาแทนที่ มันทำให้รัฐสามารถจัดตั้งกองทัพถาวรที่ควบคุมจากส่วนกลางได้อย่างมีประสิทธิภาพ ต้นทุนต่อหน่วยของความรุนแรงลดลง แต่กำลังทำลายล้างกลับเพิ่มขึ้น ทำให้การผูกขาดการใช้กำลังโดยรัฐกลายเป็นสิ่ง “คุ้มทุน” และส่งเสริมให้เกิดรัฐชาติสมัยใหม่ที่มีการเก็บภาษีอย่างเป็นระบบ มีระบบราชการ และกองทัพประจำการ

การเมืองในความหมายใหม่จึงถือกำเนิดขึ้นจากการแย่งชิงทรัพยากรและอำนาจรัฐที่เติบโตจากอิทธิพลของดินปืน ความสำคัญของคำถาม “ใครควบคุมรัฐ?” จึงกลายเป็นแกนกลางของความขัดแย้งทางการเมืองตลอด 500 ปีที่ผ่านมา ในมุมมองของผู้เขียน การเมืองไม่ได้เป็นแก่นแท้ของการดำรงอยู่ของมนุษย์ แต่เป็นผลพลอยได้จากเงื่อนไขทางเทคโนโลยีและภูมิสังคมในช่วงเวลาหนึ่ง ซึ่งกำลังหมดสภาพไปอย่างช้าๆ จากอิทธิพลของการปฏิวัติสารสนเทศ เช่นเดียวกับที่ระบบศักดินาเคยสิ้นสุดลงเมื่อสิ้นยุคกลาง

กระบวนการนี้เริ่มสังเกตได้จากความเบื่อหน่ายและการเสื่อมศรัทธาที่ผู้คนมีต่อการเมืองทั่วโลก ความไม่พอใจต่อการทุจริตของผู้นำ ความล้มเหลวในการบริหาร และความไร้ประสิทธิภาพของรัฐชาติ สะท้อนถึงการหมดอำนาจของโครงสร้างทางการเมืองแบบเดิมในระดับลึก แม้ในปัจจุบันผู้คนยังไม่สามารถจินตนาการถึงชีวิตที่ปราศจากการเมืองได้อย่างสิ้นเชิง แต่กระแสความเสื่อมถอยได้เริ่มขึ้นแล้ว เหมือนกับที่ผู้คนในยุคกลางยังเชื่อในอำนาจของศาสนจักร ทั้งที่ศรัทธาที่แท้จริงได้เสื่อมสลายไปก่อนหน้านั้นนาน

ผู้เขียนเปรียบการล่มสลายของการเมืองสมัยใหม่กับการล่มสลายของพระศาสนจักรในปลายคริสต์ศตวรรษที่ 15 โดยให้เหตุผลว่า ในช่วงนั้นผู้คนเริ่มหมดศรัทธาในนักบวช ทั้งระดับสูงและระดับล่าง มีการกล่าวหาว่าหิวเงิน คาวโลกีย์ และขายบาป ผู้คนยังเชื่อในศรัทธาภายนอก แต่ในความเป็นจริง สถาบันศาสนากลับไร้อำนาจในการควบคุมสังคม ความเปรียบเทียบนี้นำไปสู่ข้อเสนอว่ารัฐชาติกำลังเดินตามเส้นทางเดียวกัน คือหมดอำนาจลงทั้งในทางปฏิบัติและความชอบธรรม ในโลกยุคสารสนเทศ การควบคุมของรัฐมีต้นทุนสูงขึ้น เทคโนโลยีทำให้ผู้คนหลีกเลี่ยงอำนาจรัฐได้มากขึ้น รัฐไม่สามารถผูกขาดการใช้ความรุนแรงหรือการเก็บภาษีได้ง่ายเหมือนเดิม รัฐชาติจึงจะค่อย ๆ ถูกแทนที่ด้วยรูปแบบใหม่ของอธิปไตย เช่น เมืองอิสระหรือสาธารณรัฐพ่อค้า ซึ่งต้องแข่งขันกันเสมือนบริษัทเอกชน คิดค่าบริการตามคุณค่าที่ให้กับพลเมือง ผู้เขียนยังวิจารณ์มายาคติของยุคต่าง ๆ ที่บดบังความเข้าใจความจริงของโครงสร้างอำนาจ เช่น มายาคติเรื่องอัศวินในยุคกลาง หรือมายาคติเรื่องประชาธิปไตยในยุคปัจจุบัน ทั้งสองต่างเป็นภาพลวงที่ผูกปัจเจกบุคคลเข้ากับอำนาจรัฐเพื่อระดมทรัพยากรและแรงงาน ในยุคที่ต้นทุนของการใช้อำนาจเปลี่ยนไป บทบาทของทั้งอัศวินในยุคศักดินา และพลเมืองในยุคประชาธิปไตย ก็จะเสื่อมลงตามไปด้วย

กล่าวโดยสรุป บทนี้เสนอว่าเรากำลังอยู่ในช่วงหัวเลี้ยวหัวต่อของประวัติศาสตร์ เมื่อระบบรัฐชาติและการเมืองในรูปแบบที่เราคุ้นเคยกำลังถึงจุดจบ เทคโนโลยีสารสนเทศจะปลดล็อกพลังของปัจเจกบุคคลให้มีทางเลือกที่หลากหลายกว่าการอยู่ภายใต้รัฐเพียงแบบเดียว และโลกใหม่ที่กำลังจะมาอาจไม่ต้องการ “การเมือง” อย่างที่เราเคยรู้จักอีกต่อไป...

สามารถไปติดตามเนื้อหาแบบ short vdo ที่สรุปประเด็นสำคัญจากแต่ละบท พร้อมกราฟิกและคำอธิบายกระชับ เข้าใจง่าย ได้ที่ TikTok ช่อง https://www.tiktok.com/@moneyment1971

@ 318ebaba:9a262eae

Nostr, which stands for "Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays," is a decentralized communication protocol designed to facilitate the exchange of messages without relying on centralized servers. This innovative framework allows users to create, broadcast, and receive messages freely, emphasizing user empowerment and censorship resistance.

Key Features of Nostr

• Decentralization: Unlike traditional social media platforms, Nostr operates on a network of relays, which are servers that anyone can run. This structure eliminates the control that a single entity can exert over the platform, thereby reducing the risk of censorship and enhancing user privacy[1][4][5].

• Open Protocol: Nostr is not an application itself but a protocol that developers can use to build various applications. This openness allows for a wide range of services, from social media to messaging, all built on the same underlying technology. Users can access multiple applications using a single public/private key pair, making it easier to manage their online identities[2][3][4].

• Censorship Resistance: One of the primary motivations behind Nostr's creation is to provide a platform where users can communicate without fear of censorship. This is particularly appealing to those disillusioned with traditional social media platforms that often impose restrictions on content[5][10].

• User Control: Nostr empowers users by allowing them to control their data and interactions. Users can choose which relays to connect to and can run their own relays, ensuring that they are not dependent on any single service provider[4][5][7].

• Cryptographic Security: The protocol employs public-key cryptography to secure messages and verify identities, similar to how Bitcoin operates. This ensures that messages are authentic and have not been tampered with during transmission[5][10].

Applications and Community

Nostr has gained traction among various communities, particularly within the cryptocurrency space, where figures like Jack Dorsey and Edward Snowden have expressed support for its potential to reshape online communication. The protocol's design allows for a variety of applications, including social media platforms, chat services, and content sharing tools, all of which can interoperate seamlessly[2][3][5].

In summary, Nostr represents a significant shift in how digital communication can be structured, prioritizing decentralization, user autonomy, and resistance to censorship, making it a compelling alternative to conventional social media platforms. [1] https://threenine.blog/posts/what-is-nostr [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/04/11/how-to-get-started-with-nostr/ [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2024/07/17/your-guide-to-nostr-the-decentralized-network-for-everything/ [4] https://www.ledger.com/academy/glossary/nostr [5] https://river.com/learn/what-is-nostr/ [6] https://www.cointribune.com/en/comment-utiliser-nostr-guide-pour-debutants-2/ [7] https://www.ccn.com/education/what-is-nostr-and-how-to-start-using-nostr/ [8] https://nostr.com/ [9] https://mylessnider.com/articles/why-im-excited-about-nostr [10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostr [11] https://nostr.how/en/what-is-nostr [12] https://nostr.org/ [13] https://medium.com/@colaru/an-introduction-to-nostr-protocol-dbc774ac797c [14] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-nostr-manfred-van-doorn-nf9ce [15] https://www.cointribune.com/en/nostr-pour-les-debutants-tout-ce-que-vous-devez-savoir-sur-le-protocole-2/ [16] https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/17j5glg/do_people_in_this_sub_know_about_nostr/ [17] https://www.voltage.cloud/blog/the-essential-guide-to-nostr-relays [18] https://www.reddit.com/r/nostr/comments/1i6t4g7/explain_how_nostr_works_like_im_a_5_year_old/ [19] https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nostr

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

---

For generations before generative text, writers have used the em dash to hop between thoughts, emotions, and ideas. Dickens shaped his morality tales with it, Woolf’s stream-of-consciousness flowed through it, Kerouac let it drive his jazz-like prose. Today, Sally Rooney threads it through her quiet truths of the heart.

---

---

But this beloved punctuation mark has become a casualty of the algorithmic age. The em dash has been so widely adopted by AI-generated text that even when used by human hands, it begs the question: was this actually written or apathetically prompted?

---

---

The battle for the soul of writing is in full swing. And the human fightback starts here. With a new punctuation mark that serves as a symbol of real pondering, genuine daydreaming, and true editorial wordsmithery. Inspired by Descartes’ belief that thinking makes us human, the am dash is a small but powerful testament that the words you’ve painstakingly and poetically pulled together are unequivocally, certifiably, and delightfully your own.

---

---

Let's reclain writig from AI—oneam dash at time.

Download the fonts:

— Aereal https://bit.ly/3EO6fo8 — Times New Human https://bit.ly/4jQTcRS

---

---

Learn more about the am dash

https://www.theamdash.com

---

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/976218

@ df478568:2a951e67

XMMP is a protocol that allows journalists and plebs alike to create a phone number that is not tied to your identity. Why would you want to do this? Are you some kind of hacker? Well… yeah… we are hackers, technically. That doesn't mean we want to break the non-aggression principle and steal sats from OGs or anything. Perhaps it's better to call ourselves cybersecurity experts to placate neurotypical people.

Every Bitcoiner worth their sats knows phone numbers are a security hole. Sure, if you're a super cypherpunk with a 100% KYC-free stack or never intend to spend your “precious,” then this might not concern you. You can sell your sats on Bisq for paper cash trash and pay your water bill or whatever. It's a significant inconvenience, but I know some people who do this. Satoshi bless them! But the rest of us mere mortals find it easier to use bill-pay services with Strike. Unfortunately, the powers that be force us to use our telephone numbers as a de-facto identity system.

This phone number must be trusted to a third party, and as Nick Szabo famously said, "Trusted third parties are security holes." This guy I go pleb camping with thinks it's funny that Bitcoiners never want to give away their phone numbers. It's true because phone numbers create an attack surface—specifically, they may be used for SIM swaps to drain our Bitcoin bank accounts or the associated traditional bank accounts. This is not the only attack. Smishing is also a concern, but that threat requires diligence since anyone using SMS is susceptible to it. XMMP won't prevent smishing; however, it will provide a phone number people can use to text or call without tying the number to your identity. Thus, even if attackers somehow compromise this phone number, it can't be used to drain your accounts.

What Is XMMP?

XMMP is a protocol that functions similarly to cellular phone service on almost any device with internet access. I don't think it'll work on a Kindle, but to be honest, I haven't tried. XMMP can be used alongside your existing phone, laptop, and desktop computers. You can safely give this phone number to all your hardcore hacker friends without worrying. It's affordable too—the service costs \$5.00 per month, and the service I use accepts sats for payment. Though this doesn’t include data, you can easily use XMMP over Wi-Fi.

If you want a separate phone running GrapheneOS or CalyxOS, you can pay for data in multiple ways. Personally, I like Silent Link—it's run by a fellow pleb and accepts sats via the Lightning Network.

How To Set Up XMMP

If you identify as a non-technical person, you can buy a phone and suite from Above Phone*, which will help you set everything up. I'm more of a DIY-as-much-as-I-can kind of guy, so I opted to set mine up myself. I haven't personally tried Above Phone, but I've heard good things about their service.

If you already have a phone but want a secure method to call or text your contacts, here's what to do:

1. Install Cheogram on your Android phone. Sorry, but I don’t know if Apple's overlords allow this for iOS devices.

2. Choose a phone number with JMP. They charge \$5.00 monthly and accept Bitcoin as payment. While you could port your current phone number, the purpose of this article is to create a fresh, anonymous phone number that cannot be traced back to you as an instrument for draining your bank account—so we won't get into porting here.

3. Once you've paid, you will receive a message in the Cheogram app confirming your order. It might take some time since payments are on-chain—so be patient. You can also pay with a credit card if you prefer, but we use sats in this household.

How To Get Data

You might occasionally want to send messages away from 127.0.0.1. My favorite solution is to use the services provided by Silent Link. They offer an eSIM, and while you can also get a phone number from Silent Link, it's mainly useful for services like Signal. However, it costs around \$20 worth of sats per month rather than JMP's \$5/month. Assuming all Bitcoiners are cheapskates like me—well, you do you!

I chose Silent Link's data plan. Initially, I messed up this process because I refreshed the webpage on my phone. Don't do that, or you'll have to spend another twenty bucks to set it up again. If you carefully follow Silent Link's instructions, you should be fine. Patience is crucial, and admittedly, that's something I'm not good at—which explains why I paid more sats than needed.

/* Above Phone is an affiliate link and I may get a small commission if you use my referral link.

☮️

npub1marc26z8nh3xkj5rcx7ufkatvx6ueqhp5vfw9v5teq26z254renshtf3g0

Support Zap This Blog

896,168

Tip Sats

Got Questions?

As seen on https://zapthisblog.com/save-sats-with-on-sms-and-cellular-with-xmmp/

@ 502ab02a:a2860397

สัปดาห์ที่ผ่านมา เราพักผ่อนย้อนไปเพื่อทำความเข้าใจต้นเหตุของซีรีส์นี้กันแล้วนะครับ ทีนี้เราจะมาสนทนากันต่อจากที่ค้างคาไว้กันครับ

ย้อนกลับไปเมื่อราวทศวรรษ 1970-1980 เป็นยุคที่โลกยังเชื่อว่า “ไขมัน” คือผู้ร้ายตัวจริงในวงการสุขภาพ ปิรามิดอาหารจาก USDA จึงถือกำเนิดขึ้น โดยมีฐานล่างกว้างใหญ่เต็มไปด้วยข้าว แป้ง ซีเรียล พาสต้า และขนมปัง เรียกรวมว่า “กลุ่มคาร์โบไฮเดรต” และถูกวางให้เป็นเสาหลักของอาหารประจำวัน ภายใต้แนวคิดว่าให้พลังงานสูง ไขมันต่ำ ดีต่อหัวใจ และเหมาะกับการเลี้ยงประชากรโลกที่เพิ่มขึ้นอย่างรวดเร็ว

แต่ความจริงที่เปิดเผยภายหลังคือ ปิรามิดอาหารนี้มิได้เกิดจากวิทยาศาสตร์บริสุทธิ์ หากแต่เกิดจากกระบวนการ “เปิดประมูลนโยบาย” โดยกลุ่มอุตสาหกรรมเกษตรรายใหญ่ ซึ่งต้องการระบายผลผลิตคาร์โบไฮเดรตจำนวนมหาศาลจากข้าวโพด ข้าวสาลี และถั่วเหลืองที่รัฐบาลอเมริกันอุดหนุนให้เพาะปลูกเกินความจำเป็น (ดูรายงาน PBS: The Food Pyramid) หน้าที่จัดสรรนี้จึงอยู่ภายใต้ USDA หรือ กระทรวงเกษตรสหรัฐอเมริกา

ขณะที่ผู้คนถูกสอนให้หลีกเลี่ยงไขมัน โปรตีนสัตว์ และหันมากินซีเรียลเป็นอาหารเช้า ผลิตภัณฑ์ไขมันต่ำแทบทุกชนิดกลับต้องเติมน้ำตาลและแป้งเพื่อให้มีรสชาติ นำไปสู่การระบาดของโรคอ้วน เบาหวาน ความดัน และ NCD ทั่วโลก ที่เราเพิ่งจะเข้าใจกันวันนี้ว่ามีรากมาจาก “ปิรามิดคาร์บ” นั่นเอง

คำถามคือ ทำไมการกำหนดอาหารของอเมริกา (ซึ่งแน่นอนว่าแพร่กระจายไปทั่วโลกภายใต้ข้อกำหนดเดียวกัน) จึงเกิดขึ้นจาก "กระทรวงเกษตรสหรัฐอเมริกา" ไม่ใช่ หน่วยงานทางวิทยาศาสตร์ หรือ การแพทย์

หรือเพราะ “อาหาร” ในอเมริกา ไม่ได้เริ่มจากคำว่า “สุขภาพ” แต่เริ่มจาก “เศรษฐกิจ”

ย้อนกลับไปช่วงต้นศตวรรษที่ 20 โดยเฉพาะหลังสงครามโลกครั้งที่สอง สหรัฐฯ ต้องการฟื้นฟูเศรษฐกิจและผลักดันภาคการเกษตรให้โตอย่างรวดเร็ว โดยเฉพาะสินค้าพืชเชิงอุตสาหกรรม เช่น ข้าวโพด ข้าวสาลี ถั่วเหลือง นม และเนื้อจากฟาร์มอุตสาหกรรม และปากท้องของเกษตรกรคือฐานเสียงสำคัญในทุกๆรัฐบาล ดังนั้น USDA ซึ่งเป็นหน่วยงานที่ตั้งขึ้นเพื่อดูแลเกษตรกร จึงรับบทผู้ออก “แนวทางโภชนาการ” โดยเน้นว่า

อาหารอะไรที่ เกษตรกรผลิตได้เยอะ ก็เอามาดันให้ประชาชนกินเยอะ อาหารอะไรที่ ราคาถูก ผลิตได้เร็ว ก็นำมาใส่ไว้ฐานล่างของพีระมิด ให้ประชาชนกินเยอะ อาหารอะไรที่ มีอุตสาหกรรมอยู่เบื้องหลัง ก็เปิดประมูลให้มีบทบาทมากในการล็อบบี้นโยบาย ให้ประชาชนกินเยอะ

พูดง่ายๆ ก็คือ นโยบายอาหารอเมริกา ไม่ได้ออกโดยนักวิทยาศาสตร์หรือนักโภชนาการที่ไม่มีผลประโยชน์ทับซ้อน แต่มาจาก “ข้าราชการสายเกษตร+กลุ่มทุน” ที่ต้องการให้ภาคการเกษตรมีกำไรอย่างต่อเนื่อง และอย่าลืมว่า อเมริกา = โลก

แล้วหน่วยงานด้านวิทยาศาสตร์หรือแพทย์ เช่น NIH (National Institutes of Health) หรือ CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) หล่ะ แน่นอนครับว่ามีข้อมูลอยุ่ว่าก็มีสิทธิ์เสนอแนะอยู่บ้างแต่ทั้งหมดนี้ ไม่มีอำนาจออกนโยบายหลักที่ใช้จริงกับประชาชน ส่วนใหญ่แค่ให้ข้อมูลวิชาการ ซึ่งมักจะถูกลดทอนหรือละเลยเมื่อนโยบายจริงถูกเขียนขึ้นโดย USDA ในที่สุด

เมื่อเสียงของการตั้งคำถามเริ่มดังกว่าเสียงโฆษณา ขบวนการ “Low Carb” ก็เริ่มตั้งหลักและขยายวงกว้างอย่างเงียบๆ งานวิจัยใหม่ๆ เริ่มบ่งชี้ว่า “น้ำตาลและแป้ง” โดยเฉพาะแป้งแปรรูป คือภัยเงียบที่ส่งผลต่อการอักเสบเรื้อรัง ภาวะดื้ออินซูลิน และเมตาบอลิกซินโดรม จนกระทั่งช่วงต้นทศวรรษ 2010 เป็นต้นมา อาหารแนว “ลดคาร์บ เพิ่มไขมันดี เพิ่มโปรตีน” ก็กลายเป็นกระแสหลักขึ้นมา

ตอนนั้นหลายคนคิดว่า “พวกเราชนะแล้ว” โลกกลับมาฟังเสียงสุขภาพที่แท้จริง โปรตีนกลายเป็นคำตอบใหม่แห่งยุค

แต่มึงเอ๊ยยยยยย... เกมอาจไม่ได้จบตรงนั้น

เพราะในวันที่ประชาชนเริ่มหลีกหนีคาร์บ กลุ่มทุนอาหารข้ามชาติที่เคยวางรากอยู่ในอุตสาหกรรมแป้ง ได้ค่อยๆ แปรทิศ ย้ายการลงทุนไปสู่ “โปรตีนทางเลือก” รอไว้นานแล้วโดยที่เราไม่รู้ตัว ทั้งอาหารพืชแปรรูปอย่าง texture ถั่วเหลือง (TVP), โปรตีนจุลินทรีย์, เนื้อปลูกจากห้องแลบ ไปจนถึง “ไข่” และ “นม” ที่ไม่ได้มาจากสัตว์ โปรตีนสังเคราะห์ที่ผลิตโดยระบบชีวภาพวิศวกรรม (synthetic biology) ซึ่งได้รับเงินทุนจากบริษัทยักษ์ใหญ่อย่างต่อเนื่องตลอดสิบปีที่ผ่านมา

พอถึงวันโปรตีนกลายเป็นเทรนด์ เขาก็เข้ามาเป็นเจ้าของเทรนด์เป็นที่เรียบร้อยแล้ว พร้อมทุกอย่างแล้ว คำถามคือ ใครกันแน่ที่เป็น Trend Setter

โปรตีนจึงไม่ใช่เพียง “สารอาหาร” อีกต่อไป แต่มันคือ “สินค้าอนาคต” ที่สามารถควบคุมแหล่งผลิต แหล่งพันธุ์ เทคโนโลยีการแปรรูป และการกระจายผ่านแพลตฟอร์มค้าปลีกทั่วโลก และถ้าคุณสังเกต จะเห็นว่าไม่มีใครพูดถึง “คาร์บทางเลือก” หรือ "คาร์บเข้มข้น" หรือ "คาร์บที่ไม่ต้องใช้พืช" แม้แต่นิด ทั้งที่ในทางหลักการก็สามารถคิดค้นได้ไม่ต่างกัน แปลว่า พวกเขาไม่ได้แค่อยาก “เลิกขายคาร์บ” แต่กำลัง “เปลี่ยนสินค้าหลักใหม่” ให้ไปอยู่ในกลุ่มที่พวกเขาควบคุมได้ทั้งหมด แค่เอาคำว่า "โปรตีน" ขึ้นมาเป็นฉากหน้าไว้ก่อน

เริ่มเห็นภาพไหมครับ จากคาร์บที่เคยถูกบิดเบือน กลายมาเป็นโปรตีนที่ถูกเสนอให้เรายินดีรับอย่างไม่ตั้งคำถาม

“โปรตีนอนาคต” ดูเหมือนจะเป็นทางเลือก แต่จริงๆ แล้วอาจเป็นกับดักหรือเปล่า

วันนี้ที่หลายคนเฝ้ามองชัยชนะของผู้คนในการล้ม “ปิรามิดคาร์บ” แต่ไม่ทันเห็นว่ากำลังถูกลากเข้าสู่ “หอคอยโปรตีนจำลอง” ที่พวกเขาสร้างขึ้นใหม่ ด้วยบรรจุภัณฑ์สวยหรู คำว่า "รักษ์โลก" "ปลอดภัย" และ "ยั่งยืน" แต่แท้จริงคือห่วงโซ่ที่มัดให้เราเป็นเพียง “ผู้บริโภค” ที่ไม่มีทางรู้ว่าอาหารของเรามาจากธรรมชาติหรือห้องแลบอีกต่อไป เรากลายเป็นหนูที่ย้ายจากกล่องวงกตหนึ่ง มายังอีกกล่องวงกตหนึ่งหรือเปล่า เป็นคำถามที่ยังต้องตอบต่อไป

เฮียไม่ได้มาเพื่อหวาดระแวงนะครับ เพราะในเกมอำนาจอาหาร ไม่มีใครยอมเสียพื้นที่ พวกเขาแค่เปลี่ยนกลยุทธ์ เพื่อครองความเชื่อมั่นใหม่ ในชื่อ “โปรตีน” #pirateketo #กูต้องรู้มั๊ย #ม้วนหางสิลูก #siamstr

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Consider the following two charts from A History of Clojure which detail the introduction and retention of new code by release for both Clojure and for Scala.

While this doesn't necessarily translate to library stability, it's reasonable to assume that the attitude of the Clojure maintainers will seep into the community. And that assumption is true.

Consider a typical Javascript program. What is it comprised of? Objects, objects, and more objects. Members of those objects must be either introspected or divined. Worse, it's normal to monkeypatch those objects, so the object members may (or may not) change over time.

Now, consider a typical Clojure program. What is it comprised of? Namespaces. Those namespaces contain functions and data. Functions may be dynamically generated (via macros), but it is extremely rare to "monkeypatch" a namespace. If you want to know what functions are available in a namespace, you can simply read the source file.

Continue reading https://potetm.com/devtalk/stability-by-design.html

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/976215

@ d360efec:14907b5f

Disclaimer: * การวิเคราะห์นี้เป็นเพียงแนวทาง ไม่ใช่คำแนะนำในการซื้อขาย * การลงทุนมีความเสี่ยง ผู้ลงทุนควรตัดสินใจด้วยตนเอง

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Precautionary Principle

The precautionary principle that people, including Nassim Nicholas Taleb, love and treat as some form of wisdom, is actually just a justification for arbitrary acts.

In a given situation for which there's no sufficient knowledge, either A or B can be seen as risky or precautionary measures, there's no way to know except if you have sufficient knowledge.

---

Someone could reply saying, for example, that the known risk of A is tolerable to the unknown, probably magnitudes bigger, risk of B. Unless you know better or at least have a logical explanation for the risks of B (a thing "scientists" don't have because they notoriously dislike making logical claims), in which case you do know something and is not invoking the precautionary principle anymore, just relying on your logical reasoning – and that can be discussed and questioned by others, undermining your intended usage of the label "precautionary principle" as a magic cover for your actions.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

The unit test bubble

Look at the following piece of Go code:

func NewQuery(query []rune) *Query { q := &Query{ query: &[]rune{}, complete: &[]rune{}, } _ = q.Set(query) return q } func NewQueryWithString(query string) *Query { return NewQuery([]rune(query)) }

It is taken from a GitHub project with over 2000 stars.

Now take a look at these unit tests for the same package:

``` func TestNewQuery(t *testing.T) { var assert = assert.New(t)

v := []rune(".name")
q := NewQuery(v)

assert.Equal(*q.query, []rune(".name"))
assert.Equal(*q.complete, []rune(""))

}

func TestNewQueryWithString(t *testing.T) { var assert = assert.New(t)

q := NewQueryWithString(".name")

assert.Equal(*q.query, []rune(".name"))
assert.Equal(*q.complete, []rune(""))

} ```

Now be honest: what are these for? Is this part of an attack to eat all GitHub storage and head them to bankruptcy?

Also

• my personal approach on using let, const and var in javascript

@ 3d073b19:4ae60f39

This is an English openletter

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

A estrutura lógica do livro didático

Todos os livros didáticos e cursos expõem seus conteúdos a partir de uma organização lógica prévia, um esquema de todo o conteúdo que julgam relevante, tudo muito organizadinho em tópicos e subtópicos segundo a ordem lógica que mais se aproxima da ordem natural das coisas. Imagine um sumário de um manual ou livro didático.

A minha experiência é a de que esse método serve muito bem para ninguém entender nada. A organização lógica perfeita de um campo de conhecimento é o resultado final de um estudo, não o seu início. As pessoas que escrevem esses manuais e dão esses cursos, mesmo quando sabem do que estão falando (um acontecimento aparentemente raro), o fazem a partir do seu próprio ponto de vista, atingido após uma vida de dedicação ao assunto (ou então copiando outros manuais e livros didáticos, o que eu chutaria que é o método mais comum).

Para o neófito, a melhor maneira de entender algo é através de imersões em micro-tópicos, sem muita noção da posição daquele tópico na hierarquia geral da ciência.

• Revista Educativa, um exemplo de como não ensinar nada às crianças.
• Zettelkasten, a ordem surgindo do caos, ao invés de temas se encaixando numa ordem preexistentes.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

The place of Drivechain in Bitcoin's future

James O'Beirne wrote this nice little article that contains a bunch of statements that should have been obvious to anyone who thought a little about Bitcoin's future, as they were obvious for Hal Finney in 2009 already.

Basically the article says that the Bitcoin blockchain won't scale for the entire world population to use it. It will so much not scale that even "offchain" solutions like Lightning and Ark will not scale and they basically lose usefulness as more adoption happens and fees rise.

Given that, Bitcoin has only two paths (and now this is not James speaking anymore): either it will die or it will have to scale using custodians.

Can Bitcoin die?

Yes, Bitcoin can die, and if Bitcoin fails to get some level of mass adoption soon enough I believe it will die. Governments all around the world gave us 14 years of advantage to try to get Bitcoin to become this money medium-of-exchange store-of-value thing, or at least an investment vehicle or savings-technology that is super valuable and with widespread ownership, but now it is starting to move. CBDCs have been talked about for a while, but now they are really starting to happen. Regulated and compliant fiat proprietary services like Venmo have grown under capture by governments, in some places the government itself has launched their own cool app-like totally regulated spyware fiat money transmission things, like the ridiculous PIX in Brazil, which is now widely adopted, and -- I believe surprisingly for all the UX designers out there -- people have learned to use QR codes.

The point is that, given a little bit of more time, governments can start to encroach on Bitcoin's space, making it more and more regulated until it either dies or becomes a very useless thing. Some Bitcoiners think Bitcoin has already won, this can't be further from the truth. Others think Bitcoin must not be mass adopted, it must stay as this niche and mostly useless currency digital asset thing or I don't really understand what they think. These people are wrong. There are also people who think Bitcoin should not be used by normal people as money, it should keep being adopted, but only as a store-of-value: this is also completely wrong, since Bitcoin's value tends to decrease as soon as owners realize Bitcoin is losing its chances of becoming actual money.

Scaling

To not die, Bitcoin must become more used. The current thesis accepted by most "maximalists" is that Bitcoin will continue to be thought of as an investment and its price will keep increasing, the price movements will bring more attention to it in a virtuous cycle. Eventually enough people will want to hold it so they will start accepting it as a payment for goods and services and then it can start to be used as money.

Assuming that will happen, we'll be faced with a problem: as people try to use it as money they will necessarily, by lack of other options, have to use some custodial solution or some proto-custodial solution, maybe using Lightning as a settlement layer between big custodians[^1]? I don't know. No one is happy with that solution, and rightfully so, since it is very dangerous. A small set of custodians can easily be captured by governments and they can slowly turn Bitcoin into fiat money like they did with gold.

In other words: without Drivechain, Bitcoin will be a fragile success in the best case and dead in the worst case scenario.

Enter Drivechain

Drivechain basically brings two things to the table:

In the best case scenario of the non-Drivechain world, we would be in a fragile position with easily-capturable custodians. With Drivechain, we can create a bunch of decentralized sidechains, backed by the same mining process that is assumed to be decentralized already for Bitcoin to even work, and we gain orders of magnitude of more room to make censorship-resistant open transactions that don't require tax IDs or selfies and can't be stopped or regulated by governments. Bitcoin can scale as it normally would, but it's much more resilient.

The other thing we get are improvements for the "dying" part. If Drivechain is successful, it may end up bringing much more people to Bitcoin. Hivemind by itself may attract lots of users and capital that has been prevented from betting on predictions anywhere in the fiat world since always; Zcash or Monero sidechains can easily bring all the "cryptocurrency" enthusiasts that care about privacy and have long ago decided that Bitcoin isn't for them, these people are interested in some immediate feature, that now Bitcoin can provide them with; other sidechains, like Ethereum-like chains, can also contribute to slowly bring in some of the users of these chains[^2]. Why would we want these people to come to Bitcoin? Because they will increase Bitcoin's network-effect, increase the satoshi price, and these changes would contribute for more people to start looking at Bitcoin and using Bitcoin and so on and so forth. More users, more network-effect, bigger price, will contribute for Bitcoin not being easily regulated and killed by governments.

In other words: with Drivechain will be a resilient success in the worst case and a complete and total world dominator money in the best case.

[^1]: I actually think Bitcoiners should put more thought on how to create a custodian network that scales easily without having to be centralized in a small set of providers like Lightning is, and this is kind of the point of James's article too. [^2]: Yes, I do think the entirety of the Ethereum ecosystem is a waste of time and money, but clearly there are dozens of people and money that disagree with me. And if they can't harm me with their stupidity then they will definitely make our money stronger. Besides that, it's not as if there aren't already many stupid people or even evil, horrible criminals using Bitcoin.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Hosted Channels vs Fedimint

For those who want a comparison, here is the comparison.

I'll start by listing how they are similar and then show some advantages of one versus the other and vice-versa.

Both are open protocols

• Anyone can run a hosted channel node or a hosted channel wallet and connect to any other hosted channel node or wallet.
• Anyone can run a Fedimint federation or any Fedimint wallet can connect to any Fedimint federation.

Of course one can also block others from connecting to them and vice-versa, but there is nothing in the protocols themselves that mandate anything. There is no central committee that must approve anything.

Both are protocols for IOU management (or what some like to call custodianship)

• On any hosted channel, one side of the channel (the "host") owes money to the the other (the "client"), i.e. the later must trust that the first won't exit scam.
• On any Fedimint federation the federation signers (the "guardians") owe money to the holders of notes, i.e. the later must trust that the first won't exit scam.

This is how both can provide scalability.

Both provide scalability

See point above. But in short they provide scalability by allowing people to transact without using the Bitcoin blockchain.

Both address the inherent sheer lack of privacy that normal custodians have

Normal custodial providers have a big privacy issue, which is that the users only tell their servers "I want to pay this invoice", so the server knows who they're paying, how much and so on.

• On a hosted channel, the host doesn't know where the client is sending payments to. The client does the onion routing just like a normal Lightning node so the host only sees an amount and the next hop in the route. Since the client may be paying using MPP (i.e. splitting the payment into multiple shards that go through different channels) they can't be sure that amount is the actual amount of any payment anyway.
• On Fedimint, although the Lightning gateway can see what is being paid and for how much, given the nature of Chaumian blindly-signed notes, there is no way to know which of the users is providing the money to pay that.

On normal custodian providers, when receiving, the users ask the server: "make an invoice for me with this amount and description", so the server knows how much they've received and if there is a meaningful description, also for what purpose.

• On a hosted channel, the invoice is generated by the client and the host only knows it must forward a payment it has received from elsewhere to a given hosted channel, it doesn't see the description and it cannot know if that is the last hop or if that amount is the exact amount being received (because of MPP).
• On Fedimint, the invoice is also generated on the client and the Lightning gateway only forwards the payment. Although it is sure that that payment is the final hop and the amount is complete, given the nature of Chaumian blindly-signed notes, there is no way to know which of the users is receiving that.

Hosted channels are much simpler

While a hosted channels host can be run by just attaching a simple process to a normal Lightning node, Fedimint is made to run in a federation so there is the overhead of setting up the federation environment with other people, each running their Fedimint server and establishing connections to them.

Similarly, the cryptography involved in Fedimint makes it so in practice only the reference implementation will ever be used, as a black box.

Hosted channels, on the other hand, are just some message passing through the same Noise protocol Lightning uses, with an occasional ECDSA signature, so it is much easiler to implement.

Fedimint custodianship is safer

Of course one highly-trusted individual is better than 3 or 5 scammers, but still, 3 or 5 averagely-trusted people are still better than 1 of the same kind. For that reason, the federation model provides a better way to store money than just putting it in one place.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

hyperscript-go

A template rendering library similar to hyperscript for Go.

Better than writing HTML and Golang templates.

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/hyperscript-go

See also

• tempreites

@ e39333da:7c66e53a

::youtube{#VQRLujxTm3c}

Rockstar released the second trailer for Grand Theft Auto VI, where they mention that it showcases both cinematic and gameplay scenes equally, though of course it doesn't show any direct gameplay.

This trailer also announces the release date for the game. The game will come out on the 26th of May, 2026, for the PS5 and the Xbox One.

@ 3d073b19:4ae60f39

Heading 1

Heading 2

Heading 3

Heading 4

Heading 5

Heading 6

Lists

Unordered List

• Item 1
• Item 2
• Subitem 2.1
• Subitem 2.2

Ordered List

1. First item
2. Second item
3. Third item

Links

OpenAI - A link to OpenAI's website. Markdown Guide - A comprehensive guide to Markdown syntax.

Images

- An example image with a title.

Blockquotes

This is a blockquote. It can span multiple lines. It is often used to highlight important information or quotes.

Code

Inline Code

Here is some inline code that demonstrates how to format code within a sentence.

Code Block

```python

This is a Python code block

def hello_world(): print("Hello, world!") ```

Emphasis

Bold

This text is bold. This text is also bold.

Italic

This text is italic. This text is also italic.

Strikethrough

~~This text is strikethrough.~~

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

gravity

IPFS is nice as a personal archiving tool (edit: it's not). You store a bunch of data and make it available to the public.

The problem is that no one will ever know you have that data, therefore you need a place to publish it somewhere. Gravity was an attempt of being the tool for this job.

It was a website that showcased the collections from users, and it was also a command-line client that used your IPFS keys for authentication and allowed you to paste IPFS URIs and names and descriptions.

The site was intended to be easy to run so you could have multiple stellar bodies aggregating content and interact with them all in a standardized manner.

It also had an ActivityPub/"fediverse" integration so people could follow Gravity server users from Mastodon and friends and see new data they published as "tweets".

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/gravity

See also

• How IPFS is broken
• litepub

@ 3d073b19:4ae60f39

Headings

Heading 1

Heading 2

Heading 3

Heading 4

Heading 5

Heading 6

Lists

Unordered List

• Item 1
• Item 2
• Subitem 2.1
• Subitem 2.2

Ordered List

1. First item
2. Second item
3. Third item

Mixed List

• Item 1

• Item 2

• Item 3

Links

OpenAI - A link to OpenAI's website. Markdown Guide - A comprehensive guide to Markdown syntax.

Images

- An example image with a title.

Blockquotes

This is a blockquote. It can span multiple lines. It is often used to highlight important information or quotes.

Code

Inline Code

Here is some inline code that demonstrates how to format code within a sentence.

Code Block

```python

This is a Python code block

def hello_world(): print("Hello, world!") ```

Emphasis

Bold

This text is bold. This text is also bold.

Italic

This text is italic. This text is also italic.

Strikethrough

~~This text is strikethrough.~~

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Músicas que você já conhece

É bom escutar as mesmas músicas que você já conhece um pouco. cada nova escuta te deixa mais familiarizado e faz com que aquela música se torne parte do seu cabedal interno de melodias.

@ 3c389c8f:7a2eff7f

As I'm sitting here trying to hone in on what might be important to write about in this moment, my mind keeps swirling around through all the things that have me sitting here to begin with. Nostr found me in a time when my life needed a change. The discovery of something that provided the light of hope to an otherwise dark, dystopian future was more powerful than I could have ever predicted. Timing is everything, they say. I believe that to be half true, as timing alone means nothing if the will is non-existent. The intersection of opportunity and preparedness, and all that. I know how I found my way here, but I do not fully understand the things that have drawn my curiosity and kept my attention so strongly. My will ached for change, simplicity, and meaning. I found it, in what seem to me, simultaneously the most likely and the most unlikely of places. There's a magic to that, and its probably better to leave some questions unanswered, lest they lose their mystic power.

My experiences are my own but theme of them resonates through most of the people with whom I interact. It's been very clear that I wasn't alone in these feelings. A movement of highly inspired, hopeful people have continued to support this digital freedom movement since my arrival, in varying ways. Some people have highly technical skills ranging from network systems to design to cybersecurity. Others, like myself, have little to offer in the realms of functionality and we do what we can to breathe life into the systems built to provide digital freedom of speech for all. It's a humbling experience. We are reminded. sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly, that none of Nostr would matter if there were no one using it. We know this to be true, but it is no less humbling to be surrounded by constant innovation and a thriving desire to bring this experience to the entire world.

Now here I sit, tapping out these words, in the midst of another massive life change, stressful but chosen. I could sign off, go read a book in the garden, and go about my world as I would have in my pre-Nostr times. I don't want to do that, though. Hope is here. If there is a place to dwell, in hope is where I will always choose.

I find it important to acknowledge, though, that Nostr and the people using it are in a constant state of flux, too. This isn't my rock nor harbor nor shelter. It's the chaotic good, reminding me both to keep an appreciation for how far this ecosystem has come in such a short amount of time and a realistic set of expectations for where this all can go. The same applies for how well things work at any given moment...And equally so in missing my some of my early Nostr friends that have come and gone, while remaining open to the possibility of meeting new ones... Experiences had and experiences yet to come. I don't know if I have ever been so coaxed outside of my mind by a group of strangers on the internet. But here I am, looking back and looking forward, surrounded by awe in all directions, sharing thoughts that would otherwise be scribbled in pen to be burned in a random evening fire. I've long felt that the core of social media should be just this. Spaces for people to connect, above all else, in the ways that create meaning in our lives. I suppose in some ways that did exist before, but it was twisted, and obscured, and slowly pulled away.

Now its here and super-charged by possibility. What this looks like for any individual will not be the same as my own view. That's part of what makes this so beautiful to me. We need to be able to speak freely. Just as importantly we need to be able to surround ourselves with the things and people that makes us want to do more, that make us want to feel humbled. Or not, if we so choose... but I choose hope.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na dvadesetjedan.com

Autor: Vijay Boyapati / Prevod na hrvatski: Matija

---

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

Geneza

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

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

Stopa inflacije —— Monetarna baza

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

Podrijetlo novca

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Svojstva dobrog spremišta vrijednosti

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

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

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

Trajnost:

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

Prenosivost:

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

Zamjenjivost:

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

Mogućnost provjere:

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

Djeljivost:

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

Oskudnost:

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

Etablirana povijest:

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

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

Otpor na cenzuru

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

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

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

Evolucija novca

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

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

U modernoj terminologiji, novac uvijek evoluira kroz četiri stadija:

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

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

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

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

Put monetizacije

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oblik monetizacije

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gartner kohorte

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

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

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

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

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

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

$ 1100 – $ 19600? (2014. –?):

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

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

Premda je nemoguće predvidjeti točan efekt budućih hype ciklusa, razumno je očekivati da će najviša točka biti između $ 20.000 i $ 50.000 (2021. zenit je bio preko $ 69.000). Znatno više od ovog raspona, i Bitcoin bi imao znatan postotak ukupne vijednosti zlata (zlato i Bitcoin bi imali jednaku tržišnu kapitalizaciju kada bi bitcoini vrijedili oko $ 380.000 u trenutku pisanja ovog teksta). Značajan postotak vrijednosti zlata dolazi od potražnje centralnih banaka, te je malo vjerojatno da će centralne banke ili suverene države sudjelovati u trenutnom hype ciklusu.

Ulazak suverenih država u Bitcoin

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

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

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

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

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

Prijelaz na medij razmjene

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Učestala pogrešna shvaćanja

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

Bitcoin je balon (bubble)

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

Bitcoin je previše volatilan

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

Cijene transakcija su previsoke

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

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

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

Konkurencija

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

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

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

Raskrižje na putu (fork)

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

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

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

Stvarni rizici

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

Rizik protokola

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

Propadanje mjenjačnica

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

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

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

Zamjenjivost

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

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

Zaključak

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Za 50 godina, ta monetarna baza biti će Bitcoin.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Bitkoin, kao jedinstvena digitalna valuta, postaje poznat široj javnosti u trenutku kada se pojavljuju prvi znaci svetske ekonomske krize a postojeći finansijski sistem počinje da pokazuje sve svoje slabosti. Danas, bitkoin, izaziva veliku pažnju svojim naglim skokovima i padovima.

Osnovna ideja o o decentralizovanim valutama potekla je od osnivača kripto-pank pokreta, među kojima su bili direktori kompanija naprednih tehnologija, univerzitetski profesori i istraživači iz oblasti matematike i fizike. Njihova ideja zasnovana je na anonimnoj, istovremenoj komunikaciji koja neće biti kontrolisana i nadgledana od neke treće strane u procesu.

Šta je kriptovaluta, ko je njen tvorac, kako do nje doći, kako trgovati i gde je čuvati, neka su od pitanja za čijim odgovorima tragamo u emisiji.

Sagovornici u emisiji su svi oni koji su u poslednjih godinu dana bili relevantni učesnici priča o kriptovaluti u Srbiji: osnivači Asocijacije bitkoin, predstavnici Narodne banke Srbije i predstavnici medija.

Montažer Milan Radičević

Urednik Aleksandra Šarković

@ 8173f6e1:e488ac0f

TESTNOTEBIN2

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

"Za sve one koji još uvek nisu u potpunosti razumeli kontroverzni Bitkoin, ovo je koncizni i informativni brzi kurs o novcu i kriptovalutama."

Bitkoin: Kraj novca kakvog poznajemo - IMDB

Prevod: SatoshiSan / @SSG_SatoshiSan

@ 8173f6e1:e488ac0f

testnotebin7testnotebin7testnotebin7testnotebin7

@ 8173f6e1:e488ac0f

testnotebin123456testnotebin123456testnotebin123456testnotebin123456

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

„Ova mašina ozelenjava“, koji predstavlja Swan Bitcoin, je dokumentarac koji istražuje složen i nijansiran odnos između Bitkoina i energije. Producent filma je Enrike Pozner, dok je režiser nagrađivani britanski filmski stvaralac Džejmi King čija je serija „Ukradi ovaj film“ (2006–2010) bila jedan od najpreuzimanijih dokumentaraca svih vremena.

U filmu „Ova mašina ozelenjava“ učestvuje glavna ekonomska savetnica Swan-a Lin Alden zajedno sa Aleksom Gladstajnom, Nikom Karterom i mnogim drugima. „Ova mašina ozelenjava“ razbija mnoge zablude o rudarenju Bitkoina i iznosi ubedljive argumente za Bitkoin kao neto-pozitivan faktor za životnu sredinu.

Prevod: bitcoin-balkan.com

@ 8173f6e1:e488ac0f

NoteBinTest1NoteBinTest1NoteBinTest1

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Kratki dokumentarac zasnovan na istoimenoj knjizi Mareja Rotbarda. Teme uključuju: opasnosti koje sa sobom nosi država blagostanja, monetarne politike zasnovane na dugu, oporezivanje bez zastupanja i ostala sredstva državnog nasilja.

Autor filma: @rjames_BTC

Zvanični vebsajt filma: anatomystatefilm.com

Prevod: bitcoin-balkan.com

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

U društvu koje koristi čvrst novac, jedini način sticanja bogatstva je stvaranje vrednosti za druge. Šta se jbt desilo 1971?

Autor filma: @rjames_BTC

Zvanični vebsajt: hardmoneyfilm.com

Prevod: bitcoin-balkan.com

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

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

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

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

Naslov originala: "Le Mystère Satoshi"

Copyright: ARTE.TV

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na vice.com.

---

Davno pre nego što je postala šef najdesnije italijanske vlade od Drugog svetskog rata, Đorđa Meloni je kritikovala ono što je nazvala francuskom „kolonijalnom valutom“.

U snimku italijanske televizije iz 2019. koji je prošlog meseca postao megaviralan, Meloni je optužila Francusku da koristi CFA franak za eksploataciju resursa 14 afričkih zemalja i vrši finansijsku dominaciju nad njima. Određene stvari koje je tvrdila u videu nisu baš tačne, ali CFA franak jeste kontroverzan.

CFA franak je stvoren 1945. da bude valuta „francuskih kolonija u Africi“, a pošto Francuska kontroliše njegovo štampanje i promet, francuska vlada i dalje ima finansijsku kontrolu nad dobrim delom zapadnoafričke zemlje i više od 180 miliona ljudi. Dok su francuski zvaničnici ranije nazivali ovu valutu „činom velikodušnosti prema kolonijama“, o njenoj upotrebi se sada žestoko raspravlja.

Neke od afričkih nacija borile su se protiv valute, uključujući građane koji su razbijali prodavnice povezane sa Francuskom i osuđivali francuski jezik koji se uči u školama.

Jedna od onih 14 afričkih zemalja koja još uvek koristi CFA franak je Centralnoafrička Republika, država bez izlaza na more u kojoj živi oko 5 miliona ljudi i jedna od najsiromašnijih zemalja na svetu.

Predsednik CAR Faustin-Aršanž Touadera govori na COP27 u Egiptu ranije ove godine. Foto: Gehad Hamdi/savez za slike preko Getti Image-a

Ali dok druge afričke nacije razmatraju odbacivanje CFA franka, CAR je jedna od prvih koja je zaista uradila nešto po tom pitanju, a ranije ove godine postala je prva zemlja u Africi i tek druga u svetu koja je usvojila Bitcoin kao legalnu valutu.

„Alternativa gotovini je kriptovaluta“, rekao je predsednik Faustin-Aršanž Touadera. „Za nas formalna ekonomija više nije opcija”.

Dok su prve najave o bitkoinu izazvale konfuziju, međunarodne nesuglasice i reakcije, vlada CAR-a je nastavila sa uvođenjem. Osam meseci kasnije, mnogi ljudi širom sveta, pa čak i građani CAR-a, možda nisu ni svesni da se promena dogodila.

U CAR samo 14 odsto stanovništva ima pristup električnoj energiji, a još manje – oko 10 odsto – može da koristi internet. A konflikt i dalje tinja i negativno utiče na zemlju i njenu ekonomiju već deceniju.

Na predstavljanju bitkoina, vlada CAR-a je rekla da će usvajanje valute promeniti bogatstvo zemlje i staviti CAR „na mapu najhrabrijih i najvizionarskijih zemalja sveta“.

Bitkoin ne kontroliše nikakva moć, tehnički je univerzalno dostupan i ne može se cenzurisati – što je velika promena u odnosu na drugu valutu nacije, ali prosečnom građaninu CAR bi bilo potrebno 60 godina da kupi jedan novčić.

Žena maše francuskom zastavom uoči emitovanja polufinala Svetskog prvenstva između Francuske i Maroka u baru u Bangiju. Foto: BARBARA DEBOUT/AFP preko Getti Images

U Bangiju – glavnom gradu CAR – studenti Univerziteta rekli su za VICE da se „ništa nije promenilo“ od velike najave vlade.

Studenti su želeli da ostanu anonimni jer su se plašili da negativno govore o ambicijama vlade. Pravo na slobodu izražavanja ne postoji u CAR, a građani često doživljavaju zastrašivanje i nasilje od strane provladinih milicija, oružanih grupa i snaga nacionalne bezbednosti.

„Bilo je ogromno slavlje kada je objavljen Bitcoin plan i svi smo bili ponosni na našu zemlju“, rekao je jedan 20-godišnjak, „ali ne mislim da se život ovde uopšte poboljšao od tada”.

Drugi student je dodao: „Nigde nema cena u radnjama izraženih u bitkoioni, niti iko traži od ljudi da plaćaju koristeći novu valutu. Većina trgovaca i kupaca na tržištu nemaju telefon ili internet. Posebno ljudi izvan Bangija, nemaju ništa““.

Aleks Lilaher, osnivač i izvršni direktor Rise Up Media – marketinške agencije koja radi sa bitkoin startapima – je saglasan sa studentima, rekavši za VICE koliko je „iznenađen” što je ta zemlja uopšte napravila takavpotez.

„Centralnoafrička Republika nije baš lider u tehnologiji na kontinentu, i činilo se da tamo nikada nije bilo mnogo bitkoin korisnika koji bi mogla da lobiraju za takav potez“, rekao je on.

Pobednički tim slavi posle trke kanua za proslavu Dana nezavisnosti CAR-a u decembru. Fotografija: BARBARA DEBOUT/AFP preko Getti Images

Upitan da li građani CAR-a treba da vide usvajanje bitkoina kao pozitivnu ili negativnu stvar, Lilaher je odgovorio „ni jedno ni drugo, jer jednostavno ne mogu da vidim da će usvajanje uskoro krenuti. Ali imati alternativu i poslati signal Francuskoj da CAR želi da ima više nezavisnosti od valute je pozitivno u mojim očima”.

Dodaje: „Međutim, to takođe može imati posledice jer postoje moćne institucije poput Međunarodnog monetarnog fonda, na primer, sa kojima CAR mora da se bavi, koje nisu srećne što zemlje usvajaju bitkoin. Dakle, moglo bi doći do izazova sa kojima će vlada morati da se nosi“.

Centralnoafrička Republika je druga zemlja u svetu koja je usvojila bitkoin, a prva je El Salvador u septembru 2021. Lansiranje valute je tamo imalo različite rezultate, a nedavno je opisano kao „antiklimaktično“ i samo ga turisti zaista koriste.

Iako su ljudi možda očekivali da će druge nacije pratiti El Salvador, sigurno ne bi pomislili da će CAR odgovarati računu.

Glavna opoziciona stranka CAR-a bila je protiv tog predloga od samog početka. Banka centralnoafričkih država je takođe nazvala ovaj potez „problematičnim“ i navela da bi usvajanje valute uz CFA moglo ugroziti odnos nacije sa drugim afričkim zemljama.

Čak i kada većina ljudi u CAR-u nije mogla da investira u Bitcoin, i sve poruke upozorenja, u julu je vlada CAR-a lansirala sopstvenu kriptovalutu – „Sangocoin“. Sango je lokalni jezik koji se govori širom zemlje.

Pripadnici teritorijalnog pešadijskog bataljona CAR marširaju tokom parade povodom Dana nezavisnosti u Bangiju. Fotografija: BARBARA DEBOUT/AFP preko Getti Images

Sangocoin neki vide kao budućnost CAR-a, a zahtevao je minimalnu investiciju od 500 dolara. Zauzvrat, investitori su mogli da kupe zemljište u zemlji bogatoj dijamantima za 10.000 dolara, pa čak i da kupe državljanstvo CAR-a za oko 60.000 dolara – iako je ove ponude kasnije blokirao najviši sud zemlje. Sangocoin investitori su takođe trenutno „zaključani“ za kupovinu, bez načina da kriptovalutu prodaju ili razmene.

Bio je to hrabar potez vlade, ali izgleda da se još uvek nije isplatio.

Ovog meseca, Centralnoafrička Republika je saopštila da odlaže puštanje nacionalne kriptovalute na kripto berze – što bi olakšalo međunarodnu trgovinu. Rojters kaže da je vlada okrivila „trenutne tržišne uslove” i „tržišne razloge”, ali je novinska agencija izračunala da je Sangocoin dostigao samo „0,01%” od najnovijeg vladinog cilja prodaje.

Još jedan skeptik je Aleks Gladštajn, glavni strateški službenik Fondacije za ljudska prava. On je dugogodišnji zagovornik usvajanja bitkoina u svetu u razvoju, kao i kritičar CFA franka – ali čak i on oseća da je CAR-ova šema bila „izuzetno neosmišljena“.

„Iako imam mnogo simpatije prema ranjivoj i siromašnoj naciji koja usvaja bitkoin kao drugu valutu – posebno naciji koja je decenijama i decenijama finansijski kontrolisana od strane svoje bivše kolonijalne sile, nisam baš optimističan u pogledu toga kako je to izvedeno“, rekao je za VICE.

​Manekenka učestvuje na prvoj nedelji mode u centralnoj Africi u Bangiju u decembru. Fotografija: BARBARA DEBOUT/AFP preko Getti Images

Dodao je: „Zaista se čini da je cela ova stvar bila kao prevara da se Sangocoin promoviše. Ne mislim da je cilj bio da se bitkoin integriše na smislen način u ekonomiju zemlje. Čini se da je predsednik zainteresovan za bitkoin i da postoji mala grupa ljudi oko njega koja je iskoristila taj interes da bi mogla da donese ove zakone kako bi pokušala da pokrene Sangocoin, od kojeg su imali viziju da zarade gomilu novca. Ali izgleda da je na kraju uspela da prikupi samo malo novca.”

Gladstein kaže da bi Bitcoin mogao biti „veoma važna finansijska tehnologija za ljude Centralnoafričke Republike tokom vremena, i pametno je da vlada istraži kako to može pomoći ljudima“, ali je potrebno mnogo posla da se to postigne.

Vlada Centralnoafričke Republike i opoziciona vlada nisu odgovorile na nekoliko zahteva za intervju.

Tekst podržao Omidiar Netvork. VICE World News zadržava potpunu uređivačku autonomiju.

@ 99e7936f:d5d2197c

Wir sprechen kein Wort mehr miteinander, weil es weh tut

Viele Menschen haben in den letzten Jahren den Kontakt zu wichtigen Bezugspersonen verloren. Viele Menschen haben auch neue Leute auf der Straße oder durch Netzwerke kennen gelernt. Und manche Menschen hatten das Glück, schon vor der inszenierten Krise einen unterstützenden und stabilen Freundeskreis zu haben und haben diesen immer noch. Manchmal kommen alte Leute wieder zurück ins Leben, weil sie merken, dass man es gut mit ihnen meinte, als man vor den unglaublichen Lügen der Amtsträger warnte. Manchmal kommen alte Leute auch nicht mehr zurück, weil die Scham, auf falsche Versprechen herein gefallen zu sein, zu groß ist. Man gibt sich dann nach außen unverändert souverän und zieht es vor, still und heimlich zu leiden. Die neuen Kontakte bestehen manchmal leider auch nur temporär, sind zweckgebunden. Kaum ist die gemeinsame Aufgabe vollbracht, trennen sich die Wege wieder.

All das muss man in diesen Tagen  gehäuft aushalten. Alles verändert sich in stärkerem Maße als sonst. Viele dieser Veränderungen tun weh. Man kann sich auf Trauma nicht vorbereiten. Nie.

Ich möchte jetzt keine schlichten Alltagsbeobachtungen darüber widergeben, wie ich selbst oder Menschen in meinem Umfeld in den letzten Jahren ihre Beziehungen erlebt haben. Vielmehr geht es mir auch in diesem Artikel wieder um das Thema Trauma und um die Folgen, die jedes einzelne Trauma auch gesamtgesellschaftlich betrachtet hat. Was passiert, wenn man eine bereits durch Kriege traumatisierte Gesellschaft noch zusätzlich jahrelang unter Druck setzt, so wie dies in den letzten fünf Jahren geschehen ist? Wieviel Trauma verträgt eine Gesellschaft? Wie verändern sich Beziehungen in einer Gesellschaft, die immer wieder erneut traumatisiert wird? Ist irgendwann das Maß des Erträglichen voll? Und wenn ja, wie äußert sich solch eine Kumulation von Traumafolgen?

Meines Erachtens sehen wir gerade genau die Ergebnisse solch einer Kumulation von Traumafolgen in unserer deutschen Gesellschaft, vielleicht sogar global: Menschen reden nicht mehr (vertieft) miteinander. Und dies ist nur eine von vielen Traumafolgen.

Ich freue mich über jeden Leser, der jetzt noch weiterliest.

Durch genügend Traumatisierung kann man Menschen offensichtlich zeitweise dazu bringen, dass sie nicht mehr (vertieft) miteinander reden, weil das Reden weh tut.

Traumatisierung ist daher eine effektive Strategie der vermeintlich Herrschenden, Menschen zu separieren.

Traumatisierung setzt tiefe Verletzungen und macht Menschen vorübergehend sprachlos. Es fehlen einem die Worte. Man möchte dann nicht reden. Aber man verschließt sich auch vor den Worten anderer, weil man keine weitere Verletzung mehr erträgt.

Menschen im Alltag erachten es vielleicht mittlerweile schon als normal, wenn Beziehungen nicht gut laufen, egal, um welche Art von Beziehung es sich handelt. Sobald Probleme auftauchen, wird erst kurz gestritten, dann geschwiegen und wenn man das Schweigen nicht mehr aushält, dann gibt es entweder noch einen Versuch oder man geht gleich auf Distanz und bricht den Kontakt ganz ab. Auch meine Zündschnur ist manchmal immer noch gefühlt zu kurz. Wenn man sich Distanz nicht erlauben kann, dann frisst man das Problem in sich hinein, spült es runter, kompensiert irgendwie, wartet darauf, dass sich von allein etwas ändert oder dass sich eine bessere Gelegenheit bietet, bei der man dann die Biege machen kann. Mehrere Eisen im Feuer zu haben, beruflich wie privat, gilt als clever. Probleme nicht anzusprechen, gilt als kompetent. Das Wort Teamfähigkeit ist im Berufsleben zu einem Kampfbegriff geworden. Wer im Arbeitskontext Probleme anspricht, ist offensichtlich nicht teamfähig. Die Frage „Sind Sie teamfähig?“, erzählt meines Erachtens mehr über den Chef als über den Mitarbeiter. Die passendere Frage wäre wohl „Können Sie sich wortlos an schlechte Zustände dauerhaft adaptieren?“ In privaten Beziehungen braucht man, wenn es nicht so gut läuft, einen stilvollen Urlaub oder eine neue Wohnzimmereinrichtung, um endlich mal wieder schöne Gefühle erleben zu können. Negative Gefühle sind scheinbar das Kind, das keiner haben wollte, weshalb es die schönsten Kleider bekommt. Auch ich kenne Ablenkung von negativen Gefühlen durch Konsum und Essen. Es lohnt sich, mal den Werbeslogans von Möbelhäusern, Ferienanbietern oder Lebensmittelhändlern bewusst zuzuhören. Die Werbung kennt unsere Sehnsüchte und damit auch unsere negativen Gefühle besser als wir selbst. Und für alle, die nicht konsumieren wollen, die nicht locker lassen und steif darauf beharren, dass es aber ein Problem in der Beziehung oder am Arbeitsplatz oder zumindest eine gewisse Unzufriedenheit gäbe, für diese Menschen gibt es garantiert ein passendes Coaching- oder Weiterbildungsprogramm mit Namen wie „In 12 Modulen zur Selbstentfaltung“, welches nur deshalb meist nicht funktioniert, weil man es angeblich nicht richtig durchgeführt hat oder vorab noch das Basismodul absolvieren muss. Bildung ist mittlerweile auch ein Markt, der  Konsumgüter in Form von Coachings und Seminaren anbietet.

Auch ich bin übrigens lange zusammen gezuckt bei der Frage „Sind sie teamfähig?“ oder der Feststellung „Du bist das Problem, weil Du immer alles so genau nimmst, nicht die Fünf gerade sein lassen kannst.“ Am Ende ist man immer der Dumme, wenn man ein negatives Gefühl hat und darüber sprechen möchte. Trauma löst Scham UND Wut in einer Person aus. Scham zieht Abwertung an wie Licht die Motten anzieht. Und irgendwann platzt einem der Kragen. Man teilt selber aus. Und dann schämt man sich erneut, nicht nur für das früher oder später erlittene Trauma im Leben, sofern einem das bewusst ist, sondern auch für die unbeherrschte Reaktion, die man oft selbst nicht richtig versteht. Nicht bearbeitetes Trauma arbeitet unbewusst in uns.

Eine traumatisierte Gesellschaft wertet sich ständig gegenseitig ab und hält genau damit die Wunden offen.

Dann ist es vielleicht doch besser, das Problem in der Beziehung oder am Arbeitsplatz runter zu schlucken, auf Distanz zum anderen zu gehen, sich schon mal nach einer neuen Wohnzimmereinrichtung, einem neuen Partner oder einem neuen Job umzuschauen? Ich denke nicht, dass das eine Lösung ist.

Hinschauen und Gefühle bei sich und anderen zulassen, ist ein guter Anfang.

Wir gehen oft Beziehungen ein, gehen aber   gleichzeitig   einer echten tiefen und anhaltenden Verbindungen privat wie beruflich instinktiv aus dem Weg, weil echte tiefe Gespräche, zu denen es in solchen Verbindungen kommen kann, weh tun können, insbesondere wenn man noch unverarbeitetes Trauma mit sich herum schleppt. Und in einer traumatisierten Gesellschaft, tragen halt viele Menschen solche traumatisierten und nicht bearbeiteten Anteile mit sich herum.

Wir sind die Kinder und Kindeskinder der Menschen, die den zweiten Weltkrieg hautnah miterlebt haben. Alles, was die Eltern und Großeltern nicht besprochen, nicht verarbeitet haben, tragen wir weiter mit uns herum. Das ist den meisten Menschen, meines Erachtens, nicht bewusst. Mag sein, dass an dieser Stelle der eine oder andere widerspricht. Widersprechen Sie mir gerne. Meine Alltagserfahrung ist eine andere. Die Art, wie wir Beziehungen gestalten, spricht Bände. Aber, wenn man es nicht anders kennt und keine Kontrollgruppe hat, sagt man sich halt: „So isses. Und so isses normal. Ich kenne es nicht anders. Das machen doch alle so.“

Es ist so normal, in unserer Gesellschaft, nicht vertieft über negative (und auch positive) Gefühle zu reden. Alleine die Bezeichnung „negative Gefühle“ klingt schon wenig einladend. Und es ist auch so normal, Menschen in dem Moment, wo sie gegen jede Empfehlung nicht nur über negative Gefühle reden wollen, sondern diese sogar live und in Farbe zeigen, abzuwerten, oder noch schlimmer, zu ignorieren, weil man sich verunsichert fühlt, nicht weiß, wie man damit umgehen soll. Gefühle scheinen ansteckend zu sein. Da ist Vorsicht geboten. Ich persönlich kann mich an viele solcher Momente erinnern, wo Menschen nicht gern hören wollten, wovor ich Angst hatte, was und wer mich verletzt und wütend gemacht hatte, beruflich wie privat. Mit geäußerter Angst und Trauer macht man(n) sich ganz schnell lächerlich. Mit Wut hingegen wird ein Mann von anderen als stark bis beängstigend wahrgenommen. Ein Mann, der wütend agiert, wird eher als kraftvoll und temperamentvoll eingeschätzt. Eine Frau wird mit Wut dann akzeptiert, wenn sie bereits in einer (männlichen) Führungsrolle ist. „Sie“ muss schließlich ihren „Mann“ stehen. Hat sie keine Führungsrolle, wird sie abgewertet oder befördert. Dem wütenden Mann wird eher unterstellt, er habe schließlich einen wichtigen Auftrag zu erfüllen. Der Frau wird eher ein Mangel unterstellt, den ich hier nicht näher bezeichnen möchte. Darin spiegeln sich sehr starre Rollenvorstellungen von Mann und Frau in unserer Gesellschaft wider. Ängstliche Frauen, die bei einer Autopanne bezaubernd aussehen, erfüllen ein bestimmtes Klischee. Impulsive Männer mit Holzfällerhemd erfüllen zumindest auf einer Baustelle ein anderes Klischee. Menschen mit ausgeprägten negativen Gefühlen werden unter bestimmten Umständen glorifiziert. Der bezaubernd aussehenden Frau mit Autopanne wird schnell und gerne geholfen. Aber wenn die ängstliche Frau eine Vorgesetzte ist und der impulsive Mann mit Holzfällerhemd ein Kunde in einem Beratungsbüro ist, dann kann die Bewertung ganz anders ausfallen. Dann sind diese Gefühle vermeintlich fehlplatziert. Gefühle scheinen einen Platz zu haben. Die ängstliche Vorgesetzte hat eine Führungsschwäche und der impulsive Kunde im Beratungsbüro wird vom Sicherheitsdienst „entfernt“. Der Wunsch, über die gezeigten negativen Gefühle zu reden, wird einem mit Nachdruck verwehrt. Durch diesen vermeidenden Umgang mit negativen Gefühlen oder die Fehlinterpretation dieser Gefühle kommt es meines Erachtens oft zu bestimmten Rollenbesetzungen im Berufsleben. Eine positive Selektion von Mitarbeitern mit sehr rücksichtslosem oder überangepasstem Verhalten findet statt. In privaten Beziehungen werden negative Gefühle durch Ablenkung und Konsum vermieden. Es werden zu viele oder zu wenige Kontakte gepflegt. Beziehungen werden gar nicht mehr für die Ewigkeit antizipiert. Man hält sich alle Wege offen und lernt ständig neue Leute kennen. Oder man lebt Beziehung in sehr starren Strukturen, wo neue Informationen kaum Eingang finden, damit man sich nicht hinterfragen und mit anderen vergleichen muss. Lebensphasen mit dem weit geöffneten oder dem eher geschlossenen Muster wechseln sich auch manchmal ab. Individuelle Entwicklungen des einen oder anderen Musters in Lebensverläufen, zeichnen sich irgendwann als gesellschaftliche Strömung ab, wenn sie bei vielen Menschen gleichzeitig geschehen. Menschen wollen alles ausprobiert haben, bevor sie sich das Reihenhaus kaufen. Andere verkaufen ihr Reihenhaus nach der Scheidung, um im Wohnmobil durch die Welt zu tingeln. Man könnte denken, dass dies einfach individuelle Lebensverläufe sind, die sich zufällig so ergeben haben. Es gab Zeiten, wo Menschen zufällig viel Halt in starren Beziehungs- und Lebensstrukturen fanden. Gegenbewegungen brachen diese starren Strukturen nicht wirklich auf, weil sie Feuer mit Feuer bekämpften. Grundsätzlich gegen alles zu sein, was die Eltern vorgelebt haben, ist ja auch irgendwie rigide. Der Apfel fällt nicht zufällig neben den Stamm. Heute 80 Jahre nach Kriegsende können Menschen mit Begriffen wie Achtsamkeit und bewusster Kommunikation immer mehr anfangen, jedoch geht die weit verbreitete Bewusstheit und Selbstreflektiertheit oft zu Lasten einer wünschenswerten Verarbeitungstiefe. Zu oft  werden  wir gedacht, gefühlt und gelenkt. Um dies mit uns machen zu können, werden von vermeintlich Herrschenden wichtige Orientierungspunkte wie die eigene Geschichte, Kultur und Sprache falsch erzählt oder bis zur Unkenntlichkeit verändert. Und eigene Gefühle, die einem noch letzten Halt und Orientierung in diesem Dschungel bieten könnten, werden vom Kapitalismus ausdauernd gejagt wie ein seltenes Tier. Separierung und Orientierungslosigkeit ist gewollt.

Alles dreht sich um unsere tiefen Gefühle, insbesondere diese negativen Gefühle, die aus Trauma entstehen. Diese Gefühle wollen gesehen, gehört und bearbeitet werden. Sie machen zum Glück, solange es die Menschheit gibt, zuverlässig auf sich selbst aufmerksam. Sie sind in Wahrheit unsere Lebensversicherung. Die Zeit heilt gar nichts. Und hierfür braucht es wieder ein Bewusstsein, dass Gefühle wertvoll sind, auch solche, die aus Trauma entstehen. Ich persönlich habe dafür mehr als ein halbes Leben gebraucht, um dies zu verstehen. Als junge Frau habe ich nicht gewusst, dass viele meiner Gefühle, negativ wie positiv, Ausdruck meines Traumas waren. Heute weiß ich, dass ich mit dieser Einschätzung, die ich damals hatte, in „guter Gesellschaft“ war. Den meisten Menschen geht das so, bis sie irgendwann ihr eigenes Trauma erkennen.

Wir sind eine traumatisierte Gesellschaft, und die Arten und Ausprägungen von Trauma sind so vielfältig und den meisten Menschen unbekannt wie die Namen der Blumen auf einer Sommerwiese.

Wenn man diesen Satz wirken lässt, dann stellt sich doch die Frage:

Wie sieht denn ein gesunder Umgang mit negativen (und positiven) Gefühlen aus?

Reicht es aus, wenn man die Namen aller Wiesenblumen auswendig lernt, damit man jedes Trauma genau bestimmen kann? Oder geht es mehr um das Fühlen und weniger um das Wissen?

Den gesunden Umgang mit meinen Gefühlen habe ich nicht durch Theorie und Bücher erlernt, sondern durch den Alltag, durch die (emotionalen) Reaktionen meiner Mitmenschen und durch das bewusste Spüren und Zulassen meiner eigenen Gefühle. In Stufen lernte ich meine Gefühle immer besser kennen und mit ihnen umzugehen. Je besser ich sie kannte, umso lieber waren sie mir. Und ich lerne sie immer noch weiter und besser kennen. Das ist ein Prozess.

Traumabearbeitung ist anfangs ein anstrengender Prozess. Man sollte das langsam angehen. Aber diese Arbeit ist sehr lohnenswert, weil sie einem viele glückliche Momente, Kraft und Lebensfreude schenkt. Reden wird dadurch leichter und bringt in allen Lebensbereichen Fortschritte. Manchmal tut Reden auch weh (siehe Titel), aber zeitgleich, und auch langfristig gesehen, wird das Leben schöner durch Traumabearbeitung. Es geht nicht um Schmerzvermeidung, sondern darum, mit dem Schmerz gut umgehen zu können. Denn dadurch wird er letztlich kleiner und verwandelt sich zur Wiesenblume. Es geht um Verwandlung durch Fühlen. Die Erfahrung, dass man Trauma bearbeiten kann, erzählt mir so viel über dieses Leben, wie stark es ist, wie sehr es uns liebt und welche Blüten daraus wachsen können. Viele schöne Dinge, die wir täglich sehen, sind aus bewältigtem Trauma oder dem Wunsch, Trauma zu bewältigen, entstanden.

Der Schmerz lehrt uns Demut vor dem Leben und kreiert nebenbei die schönsten Lieder und Kunstwerke. Trauer und Verlust betonen den Wert der Dinge. Ärger und Wut bringen uns in Wallungen und stellen die Energie bereit, die man manchmal braucht, um Berge zu versetzen. Ängste sind das Tor zum Glück. Schuld und Scham lehren uns Vergebung. Neid und Eifersucht lassen unseren Selbstwert wachsen, wenn wir uns ihnen stellen. Und Freude, Glück und Ekstase machen uns dankbar, großzügig und optimistisch.

Wenn wir diese Gefühle wieder zulassen, dann können wir gar nicht anders als reden. Wir reden dann wieder vertieft miteinander, weil es gut tut, weil es entlastet, weil es Nähe zu anderen vielleicht erstmalig aufbaut und dann zu einem dicken Band verstärkt bis ein großes stabiles Netz daraus entsteht, welches Menschen, die gerade Halt benötigen, diesen bieten kann.

Wir reden dann wieder miteinander, weil es gut tut.