@ fc2470ed:17d9ee27

by Hynek Fencl, July 2024

The way to Liberland is easy but not simple. Technically speaking, it’s just a short bike ride away from the nearest village on a comfortable bike path through a stunning forest known as the “Amazon of Europe”. On one side, one senses the presence of the mighty Danube River beyond the tall trees, and on the other stretch the farmlands of north-eastern Croatia. Then you take a left turn to a straight forest path, ride all the way to the end, and after a few bends on the track, you will have entered “the promised land”.

The part that is not simple is that Croatia both does and does not consider Gornja Siga (the local name for the area we now refer to as Liberland) to be its territory – depending on who you ask. This means that along the picturesque bike path, you will almost certainly encounter a border police patrol car, and, depending on whether you seem to them like you’re affiliated with Liberland, they will tell you to stop and hand over your ID. They run it through their system and, if you’re lucky enough to be a citizen of the EU, they let you pass. If you’re not and you give them a non-EU passport, they will ask you to come to the station with them to “determine the circumstances of your stay in Croatia.” You will then be issued with paperwork telling you to leave the country within the next 7 days, banning you from re-entering in the next 1-3 months. The official reasoning they’ll give for this is their reasonable suspicion that you have not come to Croatia as a tourist but with the intent to either do paid work (for which you would have to get a business/work visa) or to break the law (such as camping outside designated camping grounds or starting a fire in the forest).

All of this is part of a big game of chess that is being played out between Croatia and the Liberlanders. Croatia is in a tricky spot. They cannot properly administer the territory of Liberland and enforce its law in it – lest it would create an indication that the Croatian state officially claims it as its territory. However, they cannot not administer it either, since it’s on “their” side of the river, and it is risky for a rogue, unpredictable operation (from their perspective) like the establishment and growth of Liberland to just be left to its own devices right on their doorstep. This is, then, how we arrive at the status quo, with Croatia relating to Liberland in some way while being careful about the international perception of its action in another way. The resulting practice is a persistent harassment campaign toward the Liberlanders, with the apparent intent to create uncertainty and lower the appetite of potential Liberland settlers for this kind of adventure.

How to establish a new country

Liberland was born from an anomaly – a historical border dispute between Croatia and Serbia. The dispute involves the definition of where the border stands in relation to the Danube and goes back to 1947. Then, both lands along the river belonged to a single country – Yugoslavia – but the dispute arose with respect to the boundaries of its constituent states. It remained unresolved during the communist era and became an issue of international borders after the breakup of Yugoslavia.

Serbia claims that the border runs down the middle of the Danube, with the eastern bank being Serbian and the western bank Croatian. Croatia, on the other hand, claims that the border is set by historical borders marked by cadastral municipalities surrounding the Danube.

These municipality borders run along a different path because they were set before the course of the Danube was straightened during the 19th Century to allow for easier shipping. This results in disputed “pockets” of land on both sides of the river. The pockets on the eastern bank have a combined area of around 130 km2, while those on the western bank only amount to less than 10 km2. Not surprisingly, then, both countries claim that the border runs in a way where they get the >90% of land and the other country only gets the small remaining areas. However, this means that, by implication, since both countries are claiming the large areas, neither of them is claiming the smaller ones. These areas were, then, so-called terra nullius.

Under international law, there is no issue with any state claiming unowned and unclaimed land for themselves. And that is exactly what Czech businessman, politician, and activist Vít Jedlička did in 2015 when he proclaimed into existence the newly created Free Republic of Liberland on the largest, 7 km2 piece of the unclaimed areas between Croatia and Serbia.

It's one thing to announce a new country to the world. It’s an entirely different thing to make this country legitimate. Under the Montevideo Convention, a proper country needs to have 1) a permanent population, 2) a defined territory, 3) government, and 4) capacity to enter into relations with other states. Now, 9 years after the birth of Liberland, it clearly has three of those. As to a permanent population, the Liberlanders would argue that it definitely exists, even though Liberland’s now over 1200 registered citizens have had to largely live in “exile” ever since.

Nevertheless, despite the Convention, there’s one thing that makes something a country more than anything else – whether other countries see you as a country. The more diplomatic recognition an entity has, the more country-like it becomes. This is especially relevant for breakaway governments, governments in exile, or, most importantly in this case, startup countries like Liberland.

Very much aware of this, along with other members of Liberland’s startup government, Jedlička has been on a worldwide mission to legitimize Liberland in the eyes of other countries. Though there have been many amiable meetings and even some measure of support in some cases, no official recognition by any UN member has been achieved as of mid-2024. Liberland now has representatives and offices in multiple countries in the further pursuit of this goal. Though the effectiveness of this strategy has been questioned by many for the lack of decisive results so far, one thing remains unambiguously true: if recognized by even one or two UN members, Liberland would instantly gain an amazing amount of legitimacy and gravitas in the eyes of the world.

The quest for territory

Establishing international relations with countries anywhere in the world is not the only strategy that the Liberlanders have been employing in making the country more real and legitimate. This includes liaising and negotiating with the neighboring Serbia and Croatia. These relations are by far the most important and impactful ones. If both of Liberland’s neighboring countries were to either outright recognize the startup micro-state, or even just adopted an approach of non-interference, Liberland would be free to start actually developing and to find its own long-term position in the world.

As for Serbia, its Ministry of Foreign Affairs let itself be heard that, in their view, Liberland’s claims are a “trivial matter” but, in any case, they do not infringe upon the sovereignty of Serbia. One can imagine that Serbia might actually be secretly quite pleased with Liberland’s activities, since now Croatia has an issue to deal with on “their” side of the river, which, if they are not careful, could contribute to the legitimization of Serbia’s claim to the larger pieces of territory claimed by both countries.

With Croatia, things get quite a bit more complicated. In an official statement, the country rejected the claim that Gornja Siga is terra nullius, arguing instead that the land belongs to one of the two neighboring countries – the only question is to which one, which will be answered at some point in the future. Croatia also said it would stop any threatening and provocative activities on the territory even by force if necessary.

Ever since Liberland’s birth in 2015, the Liberlanders have been trying to make a mark on the territory. For a long time, even just entering Liberland wasn’t really possible. Under a deal between the Croatian and Serbian police that was put in place during the European migration crisis, Croatian authorities may enter Liberland and patrol it for security reasons (preventing illegal migration) even though they do not officially claim the territory as theirs. In addition, the border police have a near-permanent presence on the Danube River, preventing people from crossing into Liberland by boat.

As a result, anyone who would try to come to Liberland in any way would always be promptly arrested by the Croatians, essentially for entering a prohibited area.

After years of this status quo, a rather unexpected thing happened that made things suddenly move forward in a positive direction for the Liberlanders. In April 2023, during Liberland’s 8th anniversary celebrations, a famous YouTuber with a significant following decided to try to enter Liberland. After a few unsuccessful attempts due to heavy police presence and monitoring, he and his team hired jet skis and rode them all the way from Hungary down the Danube. When they got close to Liberland, they encountered the police boats again, but their jet skis were faster than the boats, so they managed to land at Liberland’s Liberty Island and plant a flag there. A few moments later, the police caught up to them and an aggressive policeman took out their handheld cameras before assaulting them and then kicking them on the ground, as can be clearly seen from drone footage of the incident.

As they had broken no laws, they were ultimately let go after the incident and free to leave the island without being arrested. However, the heavy-handed and illegal conduct of the Croatian police had been clearly documented and became part of the video that was published in July 2023.

The video promptly went viral, gaining almost 10 million views on YouTube. By comparison, the total population of Croatia is just under 4 million. When the news spread even to the Croatian press and TV stations, Croatia had a serious PR problem on their hands. The police had been clearly in the wrong, conducting themselves in a seriously improper way to the point of using physical force against peaceful people who had broken no laws nor engaged in any violence or hostilities themselves.

Something had to change. So, following this incident, the Croatian police adopted a different unofficial policy – from now on, they would let people enter Liberland if they wished to do so, in a controlled way. Since early August 2023, if you wish to enter Liberland, you can go on foot or by bike, take the access road down the forest, and show your documents to the Croatian police, just as you would at a border crossing. In a typical grand fashion of Liberland’s media team, Liberland made an announcement that an official border crossing had been opened between Croatia and Liberland (Croatia had obviously never made an official announcement like this, but for Liberland, that was the de facto situation on the ground).

In the weeks following the “opening of the border”, many enthusiastic settlers started coming to Liberland to finally begin making their mark on the territory of “the promised land.” They started constructing simple wooden houses, a bathroom, an open-air restaurant, and the related power and water infrastructure on Liberland’s mainland beach opposite Liberty Island in a settlement named Mateos Marina.

On September 7th, 2023, a troop of about 50 policemen and forestry workers, including a demolition crew, raided the settlement. The raid was officially dubbed a “cleanup operation” by Hrvatske šume, Croatia’s state forestry service. With the assistance of the police, they tore down all the wooden houses and structures using chainsaws and stole equipment as well as personal possessions of the Liberlanders on site. Several Liberlanders were arrested for “failure to comply with a lawful order”.

One might ask, if Liberland is not officially part of Croatia, what authority does Croatia have to come in to steal and destroy? Staying true to their claim that Liberland is not part of Croatia, the Croatians had announced to Serbia that they would be conducting the “cleanup” on Serbia’s territory, to keep it clean on their behalf.

We may only speculate about the reasons for carrying out this operation in such a heavy-handed, destructive way. One possibility is that allowing people to enter Liberland in the first place was a way for Croatia to lure some people to Liberland, become comfortable, and then come in and destroy everything to show everyone what would happen if they got involved in the project. Or perhaps it was the unexpected level of life, community-building, and construction going on in such a short period of time after the “opening of the border” that the Croatian police felt like they had to put a stop to it before things got so big they could not be easily destroyed anymore.

No matter the reasons, the raid had a chilling effect on prospective Liberlanders. Though there is plenty of video documentation of the operation, no one made a viral video about it this time. Though some media did pick up the news, it did not become a big story. Consequently, the PR fallout from this for Croatia was not unmanageable.

Liberlanders soon returned to the territory. However, the level of enthusiasm, energy, and external support was not as great as it had been before the raid. From then on, settlement efforts focused mainly on Liberty Island, unreachable by trucks and impossible for forestry workers to get to without a large boat which they seem not to have. Though perhaps a more strategic place to set up camp, Liberty Island is also much more prone to flooding than the rest of Liberland.

In the following few months, several makeshift houses were constructed using a combination of wood and sandbags. During this time, Liberland even hosted a first wedding on the island. The settlement was kept alive during winter as well, with Liberland enthusiasts staying mostly in houseboats whenever it was impossible to camp on site.

In the meantime, an enthusiastic settler couple bought a sizeable house with a courtyard in the village closest to Liberland – Zmajevac – which they have transformed into a base of operations for settlers. This is now called Liberbase and it is where visits to Liberland start, with bikes, supplies, and construction materials being gathered before going on the 40-minute bike ride.

In the spring of 2024, work started on the reconstruction of a former hunting lodge at a central location on Liberland’s mainland – Jefferson Square. The building was demolished a few years ago but the foundations, including a cellar, were left in place. The site was cleared, the foundations refreshed, and new walls for the future governmental building have sprung up from the ground. A professional construction crew was hired to speed up the re-building of this base, using large concrete bricks, to a standard that will make it logistically and practically difficult for the Croatian police and forestry workers to try to destroy.

The battle for legitimacy

The ongoing construction in Liberland is rather slow. It is difficult to bring construction materials to Liberland. It is prohibited to drive motor vehicles on the bike path leading to Liberland, which means that everything has to be manually hauled from Liberbase on cargo bikes. In addition, from time to time, bikes get stolen by the police or forestry workers. Despite these difficulties, the determination of the settlers is unwavering and they are working every day to move construction forward.

Is it possible to bring materials by boat? How did they get sandbags and other materials to Liberty Island?

The importance of such a commitment should not be underestimated. The continuous presence of settlers is incredibly important for Liberland. It shows the seriousness of the project. It shows that Liberland is a genuine community and a fledgling nation rather than, as some accusations tend to go, just an elaborate publicity stunt.

Practical difficulties with the Croatian authorities are not limited to construction-related issues. Even staying and camping in Liberland comes with its quirks. If you’re staying on Jefferson Square, you should be prepared for several police visits every day. These check-ups are usually nothing dramatic. The police usually show up, ask a couple of questions, and perhaps tell the settlers that they are not allowed to camp there or start a fire, but they don’t actually do anything more than that and just go about their day.

It seems that the Croatian police are rather shy about enforcing Croatian law in a territory that is not officially considered part of Croatia. International law often takes into account the de facto situation of the matter in any dispute. If Croatia enforced their law in Liberland, this would therefore be an indication that they do, in fact, consider the territory to be theirs in practice, despite the official stance of the state. It would play into the hands of Serbia, reinforcing their claims to the large parcels of land on the other side of the Danube.

In addition, Liberlanders on the ground report that the majority of Croatian police officers generally behave quite fairly and respectfully toward them – only a minority appear to hold a personal grudge against Liberland, being abusive and sometimes even violent instead. It seems highly likely that the police in general are just doing their job, following orders from above. Most of them don’t actually take it as a personal commitment to make life more difficult for the Liberlanders.

This is rather important from a big-picture perspective, because the settlers, by contrast, are often heavily personally invested in the project and see it as their mission to see Liberland develop into a proper country. This disparity in energy and determination is strong and perhaps this is what will, in the end, cause Liberland to prevail in this drawn-out dispute.

The dispute with Hrvatske šume is quite different. As of mid-2024, the forestry workers tend to turn up at Jefferson Square about every fortnight. Unlike the police, they do not limit themselves to words but tend to steal everything that is not bolted down – including tools, materials, tents, bikes, and personal possessions of the settlers camping there. The justification remains the same – to “clean the forest of any waste.” In their encounters with the police as well as the forestry workers, Liberlanders are of course meticulous in their video documentation of any illegal actions by the authorities.

The Liberlanders’ difficulties, however, do not just stay local. As previously mentioned, upon trying to enter Liberland from Croatia, people who do not have EU citizenship are promptly issued a one-to-three-month ban on entering Croatia, with 7 days to leave the country. This is done under legislation relating to citizenship and tourism.

However, things can escalate even further. Since last year, several key Liberland settlers and organizers, including Liberland’s President Vít Jedlička himself, have seen “heavier guns” used against them. They have been banned from entering Croatia for 5 years under anti-terrorism legislation, where the authorities argue that these Liberlanders are something akin to a threat to national security.

The Liberlanders have mounted a legal defense against this, in addition to challenging Croatia on other legal fronts. They have had some successes so far – in particular, it should now be clear that the Liberlanders do not need any building permits to construct buildings on their territory. Unfortunately, other issues – including the 5-year bans from Croatia – still remain unresolved.

Most Liberlanders remain hopeful nonetheless. They have seen their situation move forward significantly over the last year. A year ago, they were not even able to enter Liberland without being chased and/or arrested. Now, even some construction is possible, albeit in a limited way.

The road ahead

The long-term vision, of course, remains to build a full-fledged, internationally respected and recognized city-state. Liberland’s leaders often speak of a “Balkan Monaco”, referring to the amazing development possibilities that a freedom-oriented country in the middle of Europe could offer. Liberland has already hosted an urbanist/architectural contest, and there are concrete plans for the first hotel as well as a riverside real estate development. What is more, Liberland’s land is actually more than three times the size of Monaco.

Nevertheless, Liberland cannot move forward in a meaningful way toward these visions and aspirations under the status quo. The Liberlanders need to be able to build at scale and be free from harassment, both by the police and the forestry workers. Some kind of political deal is necessary as the next step toward proper development of Liberland.

Such a deal could take multiple forms, but all of them involve the Croatian authorities changing their attitude toward Liberland away from a policy of unrelenting obstruction – not necessarily toward outright recognition, but at least toward accepting Liberland as a neighborly project that will move forward and develop in some way.

One option could be to allow motor vehicles on the bike path toward Liberland, with a deal that could include charging Liberlanders some fair tolls to pay for the wear and tear of the pavement. An alternative would be to simply allow river crossing into Liberland from Serbia on the Danube. Since Croatia does not officially consider Liberland its territory, their current interference with this traffic is illegal anyway. Simply stopping this illegal conduct would help Liberland significantly without Croatia facilitating Liberland’s development in any active way.

Regardless of these options, the first and most notable step would be to stop banning non-EU citizens from re-entering Croatia as well as lift the existing (entirely unjustified and unreasonable) 5-year bans on Jedlička and the others.

It is easy to see why Croatia is wary and suspicious of Liberland’s development. One can understand the worries of a state in whose immediate proximity there is a new and unknown state growing and taking root. Nevertheless, Croatia actually has a lot to gain from making some kind of deal with Liberland.

First: currently there are perhaps a dozen policemen on patrol around Liberland at all times. This includes police vehicles and boats. This is a significant expense for the police force – an expense which is rather unsubstantiated, given that Liberlanders have clearly proven to be peaceful people who do not wish to pose any threat to Croatia, its people, or its law enforcement officers. Making a deal would mean that this large expense is not needed anymore.

Second: Liberland borders an area of Croatia that has been rather “left behind”, is underdeveloped, and suffers from a lack of jobs and investment. Consequently, younger people are leaving the area and the current population is growing older. If Liberland was growing and open for business nearby, it would provide the region exactly with the job opportunities, large investment, and overall development that it desperately needs.

Third: Croatia could use Liberland as an opportunity to actually gain an advantage in the ongoing border dispute with Serbia. As previously mentioned, Croatia cannot openly and properly administer the territory, as it would be an indication in the eyes of international law that they consider the territory to be theirs. On the other hand, it Liberland is located on “their” side of the Danube, so Croatia does have an interest in making sure the area is under their control somehow. Striking a deal with Liberland could involve Liberland agreeing to some obligations related to the administration of the territory which correspond to Croatia’s priorities. In this way, Croatia would have an active say in what happens on this land, effectively “outsourcing” its administration without officially claiming it as part of Croatia.

In addition to all these advantages being present, Liberland is very much open to cooperation with Croatia and is keenly looking forward to welcoming any future productive relations with Croatian authorities. There will be no grudges held on Liberland’s side, and if a mutually beneficial deal or solution were to be found, no one would look behind at any historical quibbles or difficulties. Liberland would be an excellent and friendly neighbor to Croatia, not just causing any issues but actively helping the overall development of the surrounding region.

Time will tell how things will develop. At the present, the momentum, energy, and enthusiasm is definitely on the side of Liberland. There seems to be very little actual interest from the Croatian side to cause issues for Liberland and to continue to prevent the fledgling state from developing further. All that is left are the bureaucratic hurdles of a state that is being overly conservative about its approach to the important issues of the day. Things might take time, but seeing the determination of the settlers and the willingness of all Liberlanders to be unrelenting in their fight for the cause, it is not difficult to argue that we might be seeing the dawn of Liberland as the world’s next proper city-state as we speak.

@ b8851a06:9b120ba1

Private property isn’t lines on dirt or fences of steel—it’s the crystallization of human sovereignty. Each boundary drawn is a silent declaration: This is where my will meets yours, where creation clashes against chaos. What we defend as “mine” or “yours” is no mere object but a metaphysical claim, a scaffold for the unfathomable complexity of voluntary exchange.

Markets breathe only when individuals anchor their choices in the inviolable. Without property, there is no negotiation—only force. No trade—only taking. The deed to land, the title to a car, the seed of an idea: these are not static things but frontiers of being, where human responsibility collides with the infinite permutations of value.

Austrian economics whispers what existentialism shouts: existence precedes essence. Property isn’t granted by systems; it’s asserted through action, defended through sacrifice, and sanctified through mutual recognition. A thing becomes “owned” only when a mind declares it so, and others—through reason or respect—refrain from crossing that unseen line.

Bitcoin? The purest ledger of this truth. A string of code, yes—but one that mirrors the unyielding logic of property itself: scarce, auditable, unconquerable. It doesn’t ask permission. It exists because sovereign minds choose it to.

Sigh. #nostr
I love #Bitcoin.

@ 599f67f7:21fb3ea9

¿Qué es Blossom?

nostr:nevent1qqspttj39n6ld4plhn4e2mq3utxpju93u4k7w33l3ehxyf0g9lh3f0qpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsygzenanl0hmkjnrq8fksvdhpt67xzrdh0h8agltwt5znsmvzr7e74ywgmr72

Blossom significa Blobs Simply Stored on Media Servers (Blobs Simplemente Almacenados en Servidores de Medios). Blobs son fragmentos de datos binarios, como archivos pero sin nombres. En lugar de nombres, se identifican por su hash sha256. La ventaja de usar hashes sha256 en lugar de nombres es que los hashes son IDs universales que se pueden calcular a partir del archivo mismo utilizando el algoritmo de hash sha256.

💡 archivo -> sha256 -> hash

Blossom es, por lo tanto, un conjunto de puntos finales HTTP que permiten a los usuarios almacenar y recuperar blobs almacenados en servidores utilizando su identidad nostr.

¿Por qué Blossom?

Como mencionamos hace un momento, al usar claves nostr como su identidad, Blossom permite que los datos sean "propiedad" del usuario. Esto simplifica enormemente la cuestión de "qué es spam" para el alojamiento de servidores. Por ejemplo, en nuestro Blossom solo permitimos cargas por miembros de la comunidad verificados que tengan un NIP-05 con nosotros.

Los usuarios pueden subir en múltiples servidores de blossom, por ejemplo, uno alojado por su comunidad, uno de pago, otro público y gratuito, para establecer redundancia de sus datos. Los blobs pueden ser espejados entre servidores de blossom, de manera similar a cómo los relays nostr pueden transmitir eventos entre sí. Esto mejora la resistencia a la censura de blossom.

A continuación se muestra una breve tabla de comparación entre torrents, Blossom y servidores CDN centralizados. (Suponiendo que hay muchos seeders para torrents y se utilizan múltiples servidores con Blossom).

| | Torrents | Blossom | CDN Centralizado | | --------------------------------------------------------------- | -------- | ------- | ---------------- | | Descentralizado | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | | Resistencia a la censura | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | | ¿Puedo usarlo para publicar fotos de gatitos en redes sociales? | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ |

¿Cómo funciona?

Blossom utiliza varios tipos de eventos nostr para comunicarse con el servidor de medios.

| kind | descripción | BUD | | ----- | ------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------ | | 24242 | Evento de autorización | BUD01 | | 10063 | Lista de Servidores de Usuarios | BUD03 |

kind:24242 - Autorización

Esto es esencialmente lo que ya describimos al usar claves nostr como IDs de usuario. En el evento, el usuario le dice al servidor que quiere subir o eliminar un archivo y lo firma con sus claves nostr. El servidor realiza algunas verificaciones en este evento y luego ejecuta el comando del usuario si todo parece estar bien.

kind:10063 - Lista de Servidores de Usuarios

Esto es utilizado por el usuario para anunciar a qué servidores de medios está subiendo. De esta manera, cuando el cliente ve esta lista, sabe dónde subir los archivos del usuario. También puede subir en múltiples servidores definidos en la lista para asegurar redundancia. En el lado de recuperación, si por alguna razón uno de los servidores en la lista del usuario está fuera de servicio, o el archivo ya no se puede encontrar allí, el cliente puede usar esta lista para intentar recuperar el archivo de otros servidores en la lista. Dado que los blobs se identifican por sus hashes, el mismo blob tendrá el mismo hash en cualquier servidor de medios. Todo lo que el cliente necesita hacer es cambiar la URL por la de un servidor diferente.

Ahora, además de los conceptos básicos de cómo funciona Blossom, también hay otros tipos de eventos que hacen que Blossom sea aún más interesante.

| kind | descripción | | ----- | --------------------- | | 30563 | Blossom Drives | | 36363 | Listado de Servidores | | 31963 | Reseña de Servidores |

kind:30563 - Blossom Drives

Este tipo de evento facilita la organización de blobs en carpetas, como estamos acostumbrados con los drives (piensa en Google Drive, iCloud, Proton Drive, etc.). El evento contiene información sobre la estructura de carpetas y los metadatos del drive.

kind:36363 y kind:31963 - Listado y Reseña

Estos tipos de eventos permiten a los usuarios descubrir y reseñar servidores de medios a través de nostr. kind:36363 es un listado de servidores que contiene la URL del servidor. kind:31963 es una reseña, donde los usuarios pueden calificar servidores.

¿Cómo lo uso?

Encuentra un servidor

Primero necesitarás elegir un servidor Blossom donde subirás tus archivos. Puedes navegar por los públicos en blossomservers.com. Algunos de ellos son de pago, otros pueden requerir que tus claves nostr estén en una lista blanca.

Luego, puedes ir a la URL de su servidor y probar a subir un archivo pequeño, como una foto. Si estás satisfecho con el servidor (es rápido y aún no te ha fallado), puedes agregarlo a tu Lista de Servidores de Usuarios. Cubriremos brevemente cómo hacer esto en noStrudel y Amethyst (pero solo necesitas hacer esto una vez, una vez que tu lista actualizada esté publicada, los clientes pueden simplemente recuperarla de nostr).

noStrudel

1. Encuentra Relays en la barra lateral, luego elige Servidores de Medios.
2. Agrega un servidor de medios, o mejor aún, varios.
3. Publica tu lista de servidores. ✅

Amethyst

1. En la barra lateral, encuentra Servidores multimedia.
2. Bajo Servidores Blossom, agrega tus servidores de medios.
3. Firma y publica. ✅

Ahora, cuando vayas a hacer una publicación y adjuntar una foto, por ejemplo, se subirá en tu servidor blossom.

⚠️ Ten en cuenta que debes suponer que los archivos que subas serán públicos. Aunque puedes proteger un archivo con contraseña, esto no ha sido auditado.

Blossom Drive

Como mencionamos anteriormente, podemos publicar eventos para organizar nuestros blobs en carpetas. Esto puede ser excelente para compartir archivos con tu equipo, o simplemente para mantener las cosas organizadas.

Para probarlo, ve a blossom.hzrd149.com (o nuestra instancia comunitaria en blossom.bitcointxoko.com) e inicia sesión con tu método preferido.

Puedes crear una nueva unidad y agregar blobs desde allí.

Bouquet

Si usas múltiples servidores para darte redundancia, Bouquet es una buena manera de obtener una visión general de todos tus archivos. Úsalo para subir y navegar por tus medios en diferentes servidores y sincronizar blobs entre ellos.

Cherry Tree

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqfngzhsvjggdlgeycm96x4emzjlwf8dyyzdfg4hefp89zpkdgz99qyghwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tcpzfmhxue69uhkummnw3e82efwvdhk6tcqyp3065hj9zellakecetfflkgudm5n6xcc9dnetfeacnq90y3yxa5z5gk2q6

Cherry Tree te permite dividir un archivo en fragmentos y luego subirlos en múltiples servidores blossom, y más tarde reensamblarlos en otro lugar.

Conclusión

Blossom aún está en desarrollo, pero ya hay muchas cosas interesantes que puedes hacer con él para hacerte a ti y a tu comunidad más soberanos. ¡Pruébalo!

Si deseas mantenerte al día sobre el desarrollo de Blossom, sigue a nostr:nprofile1qyghwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tcpzfmhxue69uhkummnw3e82efwvdhk6tcqyqnxs90qeyssm73jf3kt5dtnk997ujw6ggy6j3t0jjzw2yrv6sy22ysu5ka y dale un gran zap por su excelente trabajo.

Referencias

• hzrd149/blossom en GitHub
• Blossom Drive

@ 29af23a9:842ef0c1

A Indústria Pornográfica se caracteriza pelo investimento pesado de grandes empresários americanos, desde 2014.

Na década de 90, filmes pornográficos eram feitos às coxas. Era basicamente duas pessoas fazendo sexo amador e sendo gravadas. Não tinha roteiro, nem produção, não tinha maquiagem, nada disso. A distribuição era rudimentar, os assinantes tinham que sair de suas casas, ir até a locadora, sofrer todo tipo de constrangimento para assistir a um filme pornô.

No começo dos anos 2000, o serviço de Pay Per View fez o número de vendas de filmes eróticos (filme erótico é bem mais leve) crescer mas nada se compara com os sites de filmes pornográficos por assinatura.

Com o advento dos serviços de Streaming, os sites que vendem filmes por assinatura se estabeleceram no mercado como nunca foi visto na história.

Hoje, os Produtores usam produtos para esticar os vasos sanguíneos do pênis dos atores e dopam as atrizes para que elas aguentem horas de gravação (a Série Black Mirror fez uma crítica a isso no episódio 1 milhão de méritos de forma sutil).

Além de toda a produção em volta das cenas. Que são gravadas em 4K, para focar bem as partes íntimas dos atores. Quadros fechados, iluminação, tudo isso faz essa Indústria ser "Artística" uma vez que tudo ali é falso. Um filme da Produtora Vixen, por exemplo, onde jovens mulheres transam em mansões com seus empresários estimula o esteriótipo da mina padrão que chama seu chefe rico de "daddy" e seduz ele até ele trair a esposa.

Sites como xvídeos, pornHub e outros nada mais são do que sites que salvam filmes dessas produtoras e hospedam as cenas com anúncios e pop-ups. Alguns sites hospedam o filme inteiro "de graça".

Esse tipo de filme estimula qualquer homem heterosexual com menos de 30 anos, que não tem o córtex frontal de seu cérebro totalmente desenvolvido (segundo estudos só é completamente desenvolvido quando o homem chega aos 31 anos).

A arte Pornográfica faz alguns fantasiarem ter relação sexual com uma gostosa americana branquinha, até escraviza-los. Muitos não conseguem sair do vício e preferem a Ficção à sua esposa real. Então pare de se enganar e admita. A Pornografia faz mal para a saúde mental do homem.

Quem sonha em ter uma transa com Lana Rhodes, deve estar nesse estágio. Trata-se de uma atriz (pornstar) que ganhou muito dinheiro vendendo a ilusão da Arte Pornografica, como a Riley Reid que só gravava para grandes Produtoras. Ambas se arrependeram da carreira artística e agora tentam viver suas vidas como uma mulher comum.

As próprias atrizes se consideram artistas, como Mia Malkova, chegou a dizer que Pornografia é a vida dela, que é "Lindo e Sofisticado."

Mia Malkova inclusive faz questão de dizer que a industria não escravisa mulheres jovens. Trata-se de um negócio onde a mulher assina um contrato com uma produtora e recebe um cachê por isso. Diferente do discurso da Mia Khalifa em entrevista para a BBC, onde diz que as mulheres são exploradas por homens poderosos. Vai ela está confundindo o Conglomerado Vixen com a Rede Globo ou com a empresa do Harvey Weinstein.

Enfim, se você é um homem solteiro entre 18 e 40 anos que já consumiu ou que ainda consome pornografia, sabia que sofrerá consequências. Pois trata-se de "produções artísticas" da indústria audiovisual que altera os níveis de dopamina do seu cérebro, mudando a neuroplasticidade e diminuindo a massa cinzenta, deixando o homem com memória fraca, sem foco e com mente nebulosa.

Por que o Estado não proíbe/criminaliza a Pornografia se ela faz mal? E desde quando o Estado quer o nosso bem? Existem grandes empresarios que financiam essa indústria ajudando governos a manterem o povo viciado e assim alienado. É um pão e circo, só que muito mais viciante e maléfico. Eu costume dizer aos meus amigos que existem grandes empresários jvdeus que são donos de grandes Produtoras de filmes pornográficos como o Conglomerado Vixen. Então se eles assistem vídeos pirateados de filmes dessas produtoras, eles estão no colo do Judeu.

@ 83279ad2:bd49240d

備忘録として書きます。意外と時間がかかりました。全体で1時間くらいかかるので気長にやりましょう。 仮想通貨取引所(販売所ではないので、玄人が使えばお得らしい）かつBitcoinの送金手数料が無料(全ての取引所が無料ではない、例えばbitbankは0.0006bitcoinかかる)なので送金元はGMOコインを使います。(注意:GMOコインは0.02ビットコイン以下は全額送金になってしまいます) 今回はカストディアルウォレットのWallet of Satoshiに送金します。 以下手順 1. GMOコインでbitcoinを買います。 2. GMOコインの左のタブから入出金 暗号資産を選択します。 3. 送付のタブを開いて、+新しい宛先を追加するを選択します。 4. 送付先:GMOコイン以外、送付先ウォレット：プライベートウォレット(MetaMaskなど)、受取人：ご本人さま　を選んで宛先情報の登録を選ぶと次の画面になります。
5. 宛先名称にwallet of satoshi(これはなんでも良いです わかりやすい名称にしましょう)　wallet of satoshiを開いて、受信→Bitcoin On-Chainからアドレスをコピーして、ビットコインアドレスに貼り付けます。
6. 登録するを押します。これで送金先の登録ができました。GMOコインの審査がありますがすぐ終わると思います。 7. ここから送金をします。送付のタブから登録したビットコインの宛先リストwallet of satoshiを選択し、送付数量と送付目的を選択して、2段階認証をします。
8. 実行を押せば終わりです。もうあなたがやることはありません。送金が終わるのを40分くらい眺めるだけです。
8. 取引履歴のタブから今の送金のステータスが見れます。
9. 15分くらい待つとステータスが受付に変わります。
10. 20分くらい待つとトランザクションIDが表示されます。


この時点からwallet of satoshiにも送金されていることが表示されます。(まだ完了はしていない)

11. ステータスが完了になったら送金終わりです。

wallet of satoshiにも反映されます。

---

お疲れ様でした！

@ cffd7b79:dd8ca91f

Introductory

That right folks, it is called Satlantis. An upcoming game that is based on Minecraft. It uses a game engine called Launti/Minetest that has been in development since 2023, but it is unclear when it will be released. It is small team of bitcoin enthusiasts of 3-5 game developers.

Their Origin Story

It started out as a Minecraft server around 2018. It was prosperous with many players up to 100 players for just a SMP Server. Then on 2023, Mojang Studios contacted the owner of the server to shut it down due to have a play-to-earn function.

Their Discord Server

In their discord server, you can now earn their own currency called joules which can be earned by playing Counter Strike 2, Fortnite or Dead by Daylight. The joules then can be exchange for sats. If you wanna invest your sats into it, you can buy ASICs through the auction which is fueled by joules which gives you sats in return by the hour.

In Conclusion

From Minecraft to Minetest, it has great potential for such a game nowadays since not only its through some dApp currency scheme, but its straightforward process. if you want to see their site it is at Satlantis.net.

I am Chrissy Sage and I am out!

@ b83e6f82:73c27758

Citrine 0.7.1

• Add the restore follows button back
• Show notification when backing up database
• Listen for pokey broadcasts

Download it with zap.store, Obtainium, f-droid or download it directly in the releases page

If you like my work consider making a donation

Verifying the release

In order to verify the release, you'll need to have gpg or gpg2 installed on your system. Once you've obtained a copy (and hopefully verified that as well), you'll first need to import the keys that have signed this release if you haven't done so already:

bash gpg --keyserver hkps://keys.openpgp.org --recv-keys 44F0AAEB77F373747E3D5444885822EED3A26A6D

Once you have his PGP key you can verify the release (assuming manifest-v0.7.1.txt and manifest-v0.7.1.txt.sig are in the current directory) with:

bash gpg --verify manifest-v0.7.1.txt.sig manifest-v0.7.1.txt

You should see the following if the verification was successful:

bash gpg: Signature made Fri 13 Sep 2024 08:06:52 AM -03 gpg: using RSA key 44F0AAEB77F373747E3D5444885822EED3A26A6D gpg: Good signature from "greenart7c3 <greenart7c3@proton.me>"

That will verify the signature on the main manifest page which ensures integrity and authenticity of the binaries you've downloaded locally. Next, depending on your operating system you should then re-calculate the sha256 sum of the binary, and compare that with the following hashes:

bash cat manifest-v0.7.1.txt

One can use the shasum -a 256 <file name here> tool in order to re-compute the sha256 hash of the target binary for your operating system. The produced hash should be compared with the hashes listed above and they should match exactly.

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

~ > Check out the steps to get this ~ > HERE < ~

Note: for different reasons, it is recommended choosing Option 1: DoT & DNSSEC using systemd-resolved, but you could want to use Option 2, choose behind your criteria, both are valid to achieve the same objective.

---

Some more changes were released recently in other places of the MiniBolt guide, check the full release notes:

Full release notes

~ > Static IP & custom DNS servers bonus guide:

• Adds custom DNS server suggestions.
• Adds different steps to check the changes after configurations.
• Deleted some unnecessary steps.
• Fix some nits.

---

~ > Modifications on Configuration (bitcoin.conf) of Bitcoin Core:

• Replace proxy value parameter to use UNIX domain socket (proxy=unix:/run/tor/socks) | (recently enabled on Bitcoin Core v28).
• Replace startupnotify=chmod g+r /home/bitcoin/.bitcoin/.cookie to rpccookieperms=group Bitcoin Core PR.
• Adds another special bind address to listen to incoming connections from Tor (bind=127.0.0.1=onion) | (recently changed on Bitcoin Core v28).
• Modified systemd service to improve the startup and shutdown process.

Note: remember to restart Bitcoin Core and reload the systemd with sudo systemctl daemon-reload to apply changes.

---

~ > Delete unnecessary parameters of the systemd service of Lightning client.

Note: remember to reload the systemd with sudo systemctl daemon-reload to apply changes.

---

~ > Others:

• New i2pd webconsole section.
• Adds a new "Validation" subsection to the guides to clarify when checks begin.
• New "Use the Tor proxy from another device" section.
• Adds Electrs compatible with Testnet4 on Testnet bonus guide.
• Adds how to build a Guard/Middle relay section on "Tor services: bridges & relays" bonus guide.
• Adds Extras (optional) section to "Tor services: bridges & relays" bonus guide with different utilities like install Nyx, how to "Limit bandwidth" and others.
• Changed Electrs ports to enable simultaneous mode with Fulcrum.
• Updated aliases list to include news additions in line with updates.
• Updated the Networkmap resource to include news additions in line with updates and migrate to a dynamic visual mode.
• Reorganized some menu items and sections to improve the UX and make more sense in the face of the future.
• Restructure and rename the "Tor obfs4 bridge" bonus guide to "Tor services: bridges & relays" and modify it to run the obfs4bridge, relays, and the master, in separate instances.
• Hidden NYM mixnet and Sparrow server bonus guides from the menus due to disuse or poor performance. Note: it will continue to be maintained later if the situation changes due to the development of the associated software.
• Bump version of various services.

---

~ > Coming soon...

• Enable DNSSEC for your domain using Cloudflare + Namecheap.
• Enable DoH on:
  • Desktop/Android browser (Windows/Linux).
  • OS: Windows 11 // Linux (Completed ✅)
  • Router.
• Enable DoT on:
  • Android OS.
  • OS: Windows 11 // Linux (Completed ✅) with DNSSEC verification included.
  • Router.

---

Enjoy it MiniBolter!💙

@ 4fe4a528:3ff6bf06

In my last article I wrote about NOSTR. I found another local bitcoiner via NOSTR last week so here is why it is important to join / use NOSTR — start telling people “Look me up on NOSTR”

Self-sovereign identity (SSI) is a revolutionary approach to digital identity that puts individuals in control of their own identity and personal data. Unlike traditional digital identity models, which rely on third-party organizations to manage and authenticate identities, SSI empowers individuals to own and manage their digital identity.

This approach is made possible by emerging technologies such as secure public / private key pairs. Decentralized identifiers, conceived and developed by nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 is an attempt to create a global technical standard around cryptographically secured identifiers - a secure, universal, and sovereign form of digital ID. This technology uses peer-to-peer technology to remove the need for intermediaries to own and authenticate ID information.

Notably, NOSTR, a decentralized protocol, has already begun to utilize decentralized IDs, demonstrating the potential of this technology in real-world applications. Via NOSTR, users can be sure that the person or computer publishing to a particular npub knows their nsec (password for your npub), highlighting the secure and decentralized nature of this approach.

With SSI, individuals can decide how their personal data is used, shared, and protected, giving them greater control and agency over their digital lives.

The benefits of SSI are numerous, including:

Enhanced security and protection of personal data. Reduced risk of identity theft and fraud Increased autonomy and agency over one's digital identity. Improved scalability and flexibility in digital identity management

challenges:

Ensuring the security and integrity of decentralized identity systems. Developing standards and protocols for interoperability and compatibility. Addressing concerns around ownership and control of personal data. Balancing individual autonomy with the need for verification and authentication in various contexts.

Overall, self-sovereign identity has the potential to transform the way we think about digital identity and provide individuals with greater control and agency over their personal data. Without people in control of their bitcoin seed words no freedom loving people would be able to exchange their money with others. Yes, keep enjoying using the only free market on the planet BITCOIN. Long live FREEDOM!

@ eff2631b:4732bd7e

This is a test. Trying to use Obsidian for everything. Nostr works out of the box? First try failed, this is my second try.

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

---

CHECK OUT at ~ > ramix.minibolt.info < ~

---

Main changes:

• Adapted to Raspberry Pi 5, with the possibility of using internal storage: a PCIe to M.2 adapter + SSD NVMe:

  Connect directly to the board, remove the instability issues with the USB connection, and unlock the ability to enjoy higher transfer speeds**

• Based on Debian 12 (Raspberry Pi OS Bookworm - 64-bit).
• Updated all services that have been tested until now, to the latest version.
• Same as the MiniBolt guide, changed I2P, Fulcrum, and ThunderHub guides, to be part of the core guide.
• All UI & UX improvements in the MiniBolt guide are included.
• Fix some links and wrong command issues.
• Some existing guides have been improved to clarify the following steps.

---

Important notes:

• The RRSS will be the same as the MiniBolt original project (for now) | More info -> HERE <-
• The common resources like the Roadmap or Networkmap have been merged and will be used together | Check -> HERE <-
• The attempt to upgrade from Bullseye to Bookworm (RaspiBolt to RaMiX migration) has failed due to several difficult-to-resolve dependency conflicts, so unfortunately, there will be no dedicated migration guide and only the possibility to start from scratch ☹️

⚠️ Attention‼️-> This guide is in the WIP (work in progress) state and hasn't been completely tested yet. Many steps may be incorrect. Pay special attention to the "Status: Not tested on RaMiX" tag at the beginning of the guides. Be careful and act behind your responsibility.

---

For Raspberry Pi lovers!❤️🍓

Enjoy it RaMiXer!! 💜

---

By ⚡2FakTor⚡ for the plebs with love ❤️🫂

@ eff2631b:4732bd7e

This is a test. Trying to use Obsidian for everything. Nostr works out of the box?

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Im Augenblick wird mit größter Intensität, großer Umsicht \ das deutsche Volk belogen. \ Olaf Scholz im FAZ-Interview

Online-Wahlen stärken die Demokratie, sind sicher, und 61 Prozent der Wahlberechtigten sprechen sich für deren Einführung in Deutschland aus. Das zumindest behauptet eine aktuelle Umfrage, die auch über die Agentur Reuters Verbreitung in den Medien gefunden hat. Demnach würden außerdem 45 Prozent der Nichtwähler bei der Bundestagswahl ihre Stimme abgeben, wenn sie dies zum Beispiel von Ihrem PC, Tablet oder Smartphone aus machen könnten.

Die telefonische Umfrage unter gut 1000 wahlberechtigten Personen sei repräsentativ, behauptet der Auftraggeber – der Digitalverband Bitkom. Dieser präsentiert sich als eingetragener Verein mit einer beeindruckenden Liste von Mitgliedern, die Software und IT-Dienstleistungen anbieten. Erklärtes Vereinsziel ist es, «Deutschland zu einem führenden Digitalstandort zu machen und die digitale Transformation der deutschen Wirtschaft und Verwaltung voranzutreiben».

Durchgeführt hat die Befragung die Bitkom Servicegesellschaft mbH, also alles in der Familie. Die gleiche Erhebung hatte der Verband übrigens 2021 schon einmal durchgeführt. Damals sprachen sich angeblich sogar 63 Prozent für ein derartiges «Demokratie-Update» aus – die Tendenz ist demgemäß fallend. Dennoch orakelt mancher, der Gang zur Wahlurne gelte bereits als veraltet.

Die spanische Privat-Uni mit Globalisten-Touch, IE University, berichtete Ende letzten Jahres in ihrer Studie «European Tech Insights», 67 Prozent der Europäer befürchteten, dass Hacker Wahlergebnisse verfälschen könnten. Mehr als 30 Prozent der Befragten glaubten, dass künstliche Intelligenz (KI) bereits Wahlentscheidungen beeinflusst habe. Trotzdem würden angeblich 34 Prozent der unter 35-Jährigen einer KI-gesteuerten App vertrauen, um in ihrem Namen für politische Kandidaten zu stimmen.

Wie dauerhaft wird wohl das Ergebnis der kommenden Bundestagswahl sein? Diese Frage stellt sich angesichts der aktuellen Entwicklung der Migrations-Debatte und der (vorübergehend) bröckelnden «Brandmauer» gegen die AfD. Das «Zustrombegrenzungsgesetz» der Union hat das Parlament heute Nachmittag überraschenderweise abgelehnt. Dennoch muss man wohl kein ausgesprochener Pessimist sein, um zu befürchten, dass die Entscheidungen der Bürger von den selbsternannten Verteidigern der Demokratie künftig vielleicht nicht respektiert werden, weil sie nicht gefallen.

Bundesweit wird jetzt zu «Brandmauer-Demos» aufgerufen, die CDU gerät unter Druck und es wird von Übergriffen auf Parteibüros und Drohungen gegen Mitarbeiter berichtet. Sicherheitsbehörden warnen vor Eskalationen, die Polizei sei «für ein mögliches erhöhtes Aufkommen von Straftaten gegenüber Politikern und gegen Parteigebäude sensibilisiert».

Der Vorwand «unzulässiger Einflussnahme» auf Politik und Wahlen wird als Argument schon seit einiger Zeit aufgebaut. Der Manipulation schuldig befunden wird neben Putin und Trump auch Elon Musk, was lustigerweise ausgerechnet Bill Gates gerade noch einmal bekräftigt und als «völlig irre» bezeichnet hat. Man stelle sich die Diskussionen um die Gültigkeit von Wahlergebnissen vor, wenn es Online-Verfahren zur Stimmabgabe gäbe. In der Schweiz wird «E-Voting» seit einigen Jahren getestet, aber wohl bisher mit wenig Erfolg.

Die politische Brandstiftung der letzten Jahre zahlt sich immer mehr aus. Anstatt dringende Probleme der Menschen zu lösen – zu denen auch in Deutschland die weit verbreitete Armut zählt –, hat die Politik konsequent polarisiert und sich auf Ausgrenzung und Verhöhnung großer Teile der Bevölkerung konzentriert. Basierend auf Ideologie und Lügen werden abweichende Stimmen unterdrückt und kriminalisiert, nicht nur und nicht erst in diesem Augenblick. Die nächsten Wochen dürften ausgesprochen spannend werden.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

😱 Did you recently find this signature verification error when you tried to update your MiniBolt repositories with -> sudo apt update? 💥🚨👇

🔧 Don't worry, that's because Tor renewed its signing key since it expired last 07/15, just renew your keyring by following the next steps to solve this problem:

~ > CLICK HERE < ~

---

Enjoy it MiniBolter!💙

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

Federal employees must remove pronouns from email signatures by the end of the day. This directive comes from internal memos tied to two executive orders signed by Donald Trump. The orders target diversity and equity programs within the government.

CDC, Department of Transportation, and Department of Energy employees were affected. Staff were instructed to make changes in line with revised policy prohibiting certain language.

One CDC employee shared frustration, stating, “In my decade-plus years at CDC, I've never been told what I can and can't put in my email signature.” The directive is part of a broader effort to eliminate DEI initiatives from federal discourse.

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

Link to the bonus guide ~ > HERE <~

---

Some notes:

ℹ️ For the moment, this guide will touch only the case of an only testnet mode situation, in the future, we will study adding the case of configuration to enable the parallel/simultaneous mode (mainnet+testnet in the same device) in an extra section in this guide.

ℹ️ The services mentioned in this guide are those that have been tested using testnet configuration and these worked fine. Later, in the next versions of this guide, we will go to adding other processes to adapt other services to the testnet mode.

---

Enjoy it MiniBolter! 💙

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

Link to the bonus guide ~ > HERE < ~

---

Some sections of the guide:

• Generate SSH keys
• Import SSH pubkey
• Connect to the MiniBolt node using SSH keys
• Disable password login
• Disable admin password request

---

Some shortcuts to the Extra sections:

• Disable password login: click ~ > HERE < ~
• Disable admin password request: click ~ > HERE < ~

---

Enjoy it MiniBolter! 💙

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

Link to the bonus guide ~ > HERE < ~

---

⏰ Recently added an update that includes a new section How to detect Ordinals transactions and verify Ordisrespector filter works to verify that Ordispector is filtering and burning Ordinals correctly 🔥

---

Fuck Ordinals🤡🔫 and enjoy it MiniBolter! 💙

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

Some sections inside of the guide:

• Set up Dynamic DNS
• Wireguard VPN server & client side configurations
• Install & configure the WireGuard VPN Client on a mobile phone
• Configure additional servers & clients
• Use your router’s DDNS preconfigured provider
• Port forwarding on NAT/PAT router

---

Link to the bonus guide HERE

---

Enjoy it MiniBolter! 💙

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

Do you want to use a different disk to store data (blockchain and other databases) independently of the disk of the system?

A step-by-step guide using a secondary disk to store the data (blockchain and other databases) independently of the disk of the system and using the Ubuntu Server guided installation.

---

What's changed

• Rebuilt the Ubuntu Server installation guide based on this bonus guide added.
• Added GIFs to improve the illustration of the steps to follow.
• Case 1: during the Ubuntu server guided installation.
• Case 2: build it after system installation (by command line).

---

~ > Link to the bonus guide HERE

---

Enjoy it MiniBolter! 💙

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

Link to the bonus guide ~> HERE < ~

---

Enjoy it MiniBolter! 💙

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

It turns out that Ubuntu Linux installations of Ubuntu 23.04, 22.04.3 LTS, and installs done since April 2023 that accepted the Snap version update haven't been following Ubuntu's own recommended security best practices for their security pocket configuration for packages.

A new Subiquity release was issued to fix this problem while those on affected Ubuntu systems already installed are recommended to manually edit their /etc/apt/sources.list file.

If you didn't install MiniBolt recently, you are affected by this bug, and we need to fix that manually if not we want to install all since cero. Anyway, if you installed Minibolt recently, we recommend you review that.

Follow these easy steps to review and fix this:

• Edit the sources-list file:

sudo nano /etc/apt/sources.list

• Search now for every line that includes '-security' (without quotes) (normally at the end of the file) and change the URL to --> http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu

~ > For example, from http://es.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu (or the extension corresponding to your country) to --> http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu

~> Real case, Spain location, before fix:

``` deb http://es.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy-security main restricted

deb-src http://es.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy-security main restricted

deb http://es.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy-security universe

deb-src http://es.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy-security universe

deb http://es.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy-security multiverse

deb-src http://es.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy-security multiverse

```

After fix:

``` deb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy-security main restricted

deb-src http://es.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy-security main restricted

deb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy-security universe

deb-src http://es.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy-security universe

deb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy-security multiverse

deb-src http://es.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy-security multiverse

```

Save and exit

Note: If you have already these lines changed, you are not affected by this bug, and is not necessary to do anything. Simply exit the editor by doing Ctrl-X

• Finally, type the next command to refresh the repository pointers:

sudo apt update

• And optionally take the opportunity to update the system by doing:

sudo apt full-upgrade

More context:

• https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/FAQ#What_repositories_and_pockets_should_I_use_to_make_sure_my_systems_are_up_to_date.3F
• https://bugs.launchpad.net/subiquity/+bug/2033977
• https://www.phoronix.com/news/Ubuntu-Security-Pocket-Issue

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

What's changed

• New method for Bitcoin Core signature check, click ~ >HERE< ~
• GitHub repo of Bitcoin Core release attestations (Guix), click ~ >HERE< ~

---

History:

~ > PR that caused the broken and obsolescence of the old signature verification process, click ~ >HERE< ~

~ > New GitHub folder of Bitcoin Core repo that stores the signatures, click ~ >HERE< ~

---

Thanks to nostr:npub1gzuushllat7pet0ccv9yuhygvc8ldeyhrgxuwg744dn5khnpk3gs3ea5ds for building the command that made magic possible 🧙‍♂️🧡

---

Enjoy it MiniBolter! 💙

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

Important notice to MiniBolt node runners:

~ > It turns out that the I2P devs have opened an issue on the Bitcoin Core GitHub repo commenting that because they gave the option to enable the notransit=true parameter in the official documentation:

[...] If you prefer not to relay any public I2P traffic and only allow I2P traffic from programs connecting through the SAM proxy, e.g. Bitcoin Core, you can set the no transit option to true [...] are having a heavy load on the I2P network since last December 19. Also comment that it is advisable to share as much bandwidth and transit tunnels as we can, to increase anonymity with coverage traffic, by contributing more to the I2p network than we consume.

So they ask that we deactivate that option that you use activated. With all this, he already updated the "Privacy" section by removing that setting.

The steps to delete this configuration once we have already configured it, are the following:

• With the "admin" user, stop i2pd:

sudo systemctl stop i2pd

• Comment line 93 with "#" at the beginning of it (notransit = true), save and exit

sudo nano /var/lib/i2pd/i2pd.conf --line numbers

• Start i2pd again:

sudo systemctl start i2pd

• And that's it, you could take a look at Bitcoin Core to see that it has detected i2pd running again after the reboot with:

tail --lines 500 -f /home/bitcoin/.bitcoin/debug.log

~ > If you don't see that I2P is up in Bitcoin Core after the restart, sudo systemctl restart bitcoind and look again at the logs of the same.

---

More info in the rollback commit, see ~> HERE < ~

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

Your MiniBolt is on a home local network, you want to expose it on the public Internet (clearnet) without exposing your public IP, without Firewall rules, without NAT port forwarding, without risk, easy and cheap?

---

Go to the bonus guide by clicking ~ >HERE <~

---

Enjoy it MiniBolter! 💙

@ edeb837b:ac664163

In today’s fast-paced financial markets, having quick access to real-time data, trade insights, and the ability to share trades with a like-minded community is invaluable. That’s where NVSTly’s Discord bot comes in. It’s more than just a bot — it’s a powerful tool for social trading, designed to help traders and investors track their trades, share insights, and collaborate with others in real-time, all within Discord.

What the NVSTly Discord Bot Does

NVSTly’s Discord bot is built with the goal of making financial data and trading insights easily accessible to the entire trading community on Discord. Whether you’re a seasoned trader or just starting, the bot helps you stay on top of your trades and market trends. Some of the key features of the bot include:

• Real-Time Trade Tracking & Sharing: The bot tracks your trades and allows you to share them with others. Whether you’re trading stocks, options, forex, or cryptocurrencies, your trades are instantly shared with your followers and can be posted to social media or sent through Discord DMs or webhooks, fostering a transparent and collaborative environment.
• Trader Stats & Performance Recaps: The bot generates visual reports of your trading performance, including win rates, total gains, and individual trade stats. You can view a trader’s daily, weekly, or monthly recaps, complete with details on stock tickers, options info, and profit/loss calculations.
• Market Data & Charts: Get instant access to live market data, stock charts, and detailed information on tickers. The bot provides a variety of commands for stock price movements, charts, and other data, with plans to expand this to cover more markets in the future.
• Comprehensive Coverage: The bot currently supports stocks, options, forex, and crypto for trade tracking and sharing. Futures markets are also planned for the future. While the bot supports these markets for trade tracking, data-related features like market sentiment analysis or earnings reports will be available in the future.

How the Bot Integrates with NVSTly’s Social Trading App

The NVSTly Discord bot is fully integrated with the NVSTly social trading app, creating a seamless experience for users across platforms. Traders can track their trades on the app, and the bot will automatically share those trades directly with their followers, via DMs, social media, or webhooks. This integration means that everything you do on the NVSTly app can be easily shared with your community in real-time via Discord, making it simple to stay connected with your trading network.

The bot doesn’t just show trades — it also gives users insights into their trading performance and connects them with other traders for discussions, tips, and strategies. With NVSTly’s unique social features, traders can collaborate, share strategies, and learn from each other in a dynamic and interactive environment.

What’s Next for the NVSTly Discord Bot?

The future of the NVSTly Discord bot is incredibly exciting, with plans to add even more features designed to elevate the trading experience. Some of the upcoming features include:

• Expanded Market Coverage for Data Commands: In addition to stocks, the bot will soon offer data-related commands for crypto, forex, and futures markets. This will allow users to access even more comprehensive market data, including earnings reports, options flow, and more.
• AI & Machine Learning Integration: NVSTly plans to integrate AI and machine learning to generate trade signals, analyze market trends, and even offer personalized trading tips. This will help traders refine their strategies and make more informed decisions.
• Real-Time Alerts & Notifications: Users can already receive trade alerts sent directly to their DMs from traders they follow. In the future, users will also be able to set more customized alerts based on price targets or specific market activity.

Why the NVSTly Discord Bot is Perfect for Trading Communities

Discord has become a hub for traders and investors, and the NVSTly Discord bot takes full advantage of this by providing a platform where traders can interact, share trades, and learn from one another. The bot’s ability to instantly share trade recaps and stats creates an environment of transparency and collaboration. Traders can discuss strategies, ask questions, and even challenge each other to improve their performance.

By integrating market data, charts, and trade performance tracking, the bot offers a complete package for traders on Discord. It’s not just a tool for sharing trades — it’s a vital part of a thriving trading community.

Why NVSTly’s Discord Bot is the Fastest Growing Finance Bot on Discord

With its comprehensive features and seamless integration with the NVSTly app, the NVSTly Discord bot has quickly become the go-to tool for traders on Discord. What sets it apart from other finance bots is its focus on user engagement. The bot is not just about providing data — it’s about building a community of traders who can share their experiences, insights, and successes.

Traders have flocked to the NVSTly Discord bot because it provides real-time data, easy trade tracking, and powerful analytics — all in a user-friendly format. It’s no wonder it’s quickly becoming the fastest-growing finance bot on Discord.

On Track to be the Greatest Finance Bot on Discord

NVSTly is on track to become the greatest finance bot on Discord, if it’s not already. With plans for expanding market coverage, adding advanced AI-driven features, and constantly improving its user experience, the bot is poised to revolutionize the way traders use Discord.

By offering a comprehensive set of tools that integrate seamlessly with the NVSTly app, the bot is becoming an essential resource for traders who want to stay informed, track their performance, and engage with the trading community.

---

NVSTly is available for free on web, mobile devices (iOS & Google Play), and is fully integrated with Discord via a unique bot- the only of it’s kind and available to any server or trading community on Discord. Or feel free to join a community of over 45,000 investors & traders on our Discod server.

@ 77c2969e:a33cfa50

换了个客户端Nostrmo，比damus好用，不过好像关注列表丢失了😩。

现在使用#YakiHonne，好像更流畅

不加图片他还会显示一个空白图片，好丑，我还是上传一个吧

@ edeb837b:ac664163

Join Benzinga as they sit down with NVSTly, the cutting-edge platform revolutionizing social trading and investing. In this exclusive interview, NVSTly shares insights on empowering retail traders, fostering transparency, and building a thriving community for investors of all levels. Discover how NVSTly is shaping the future of trading with innovative features, real-time trade tracking, and global collaboration.

NVSTly Web: https://nvstly.com
iOS: https://nvstly.com/go/ios
Google Play: https://nvstly.com/go/android

@ edeb837b:ac664163

We’re thrilled to announce that NVSTly has been honored with the People's Choice Award at the prestigious Benzinga FinTech Awards 2024! This recognition is a testament to the trust, support, and enthusiasm of our growing community of retail traders, investors, and financial enthusiasts.

A Milestone in Social Investing

Winning the People's Choice Award is more than just a moment of celebration for NVSTly—it reflects the incredible journey we’ve shared with our users. NVSTly was built with one mission in mind: to redefine social investing by empowering traders of all experience levels to share, track, and learn from one another.

In the competitive world of fintech, being selected as the People's Choice means we’ve created something that resonates deeply with our audience. It’s your votes, feedback, and passion that have propelled us to this achievement.

What Makes NVSTly Unique?

NVSTly stands out for offering a platform that’s entirely free while delivering a comprehensive suite of features for traders, such as:

• Global Leaderboard: Recognizing top-performing traders across stocks, options, futures, forex, and cryptocurrency.
• Trade Insights UI: Providing detailed analytics on trades, including market data validation and unique event visualizations.
• Broker Integration (Optional): Automating trade tracking and sharing with real-time updates.
• Discord Integration: A first-of-its-kind bot that brings NVSTly’s full functionality to one of the fastest-growing social platforms in finance.
• Education and Community: Enabling beginners to learn from experienced traders and find actionable insights.

Unlike traditional trading platforms, NVSTly focuses solely on trade tracking, sharing, and performance validation. It’s not about buying or selling real assets but fostering transparency, collaboration, and growth among traders.

Powered by the Community

The People's Choice Award is special because it comes directly from you—our community. Whether you’re an experienced trader gaining recognition through our leaderboard or a beginner exploring NVSTly to learn from top traders, this award proves that NVSTly isn’t just a platform; it’s a movement.

Your votes affirm our commitment to delivering cutting-edge features, unmatched usability, and an ecosystem that connects traders across all markets.

Looking Ahead

Winning this award fuels our determination to push boundaries even further. In the months to come, we’re excited to roll out new features, expand our broker integrations, and enhance the tools that make NVSTly the go-to platform for retail traders worldwide.

Thank You

We couldn’t have achieved this milestone without your unwavering support. From everyone at the NVSTly team, thank you for believing in our vision and making NVSTly the People’s Choice for 2024. This award is as much yours as it is ours.

If you haven’t joined the movement yet, there’s never been a better time. Discover, share, and track trades with NVSTly today—because the best way to grow in the markets is together.

Join NVSTly:

• Website: nvstly.com
• Mobile App: Available on Google Play and iOS App Store
• Discord Community: Join Now

Let’s continue shaping the future of social investing, one trade at a time.

@ 2fb77d26:c47a6ee1

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

wenn wir an Schlachtfelder denken, sehen wir vor unserem inneren Auge düstere Bilder von verkohlten Wracks, von Einschlagkratern, schreienden Verwundeten, Leichen und dichten Rauchschwaden, die am Horizont über verbrannter Erde wabern.

Vergleichbare Assoziationen drängen sich auf, versucht man in Bilder zu fassen, in was für einer Gesellschaft wir mittlerweile leben. Intellektuelle Wracks, mediales Flächenbombardement, stumme Schreie von Pharmaopfern und hungernden Kindern, weggescrollt von Smartphone-Zombies, deren letzter Hauch Empathie am Rande ihres dissoziativen Wahrnehmungshorizontes verblasst. Zivilisatorische Transformation als Kriegsfilm.

Früher verliefen die Frontlinien von Klassenkampf und Propagandakrieg durch die Auslagen der Zeitungskioske, durch Rundfunkredaktionen und über die nach Sendeschluss flimmernden Bildschirme der Mattscheibe. Heute durch den Kopf.

Sprichwörtlich. Denn die »Vierte Industrielle Revolution« begegnet zunehmendem Desinteresse an Erziehungsfunk und aufkeimender Renitenz mit Dopamin-Shots, Implantaten und Nanotechnologie. Das erklärte Ziel der Herrschaftskaste ist nicht mehr die Manipulation, sondern die Fernsteuerung der Steuersklaven. Das »Hive Mind«.

Sendeschluss gibt es nicht mehr. Und der Newsfeed ist unerschöpflich, ist Manifestation dessen, was Aufmerksamkeitsökonomie für uns bedeutet: Den Verlust wertvoller Lebenszeit an neonbunte Sinnlosigkeit. Das Smartphone dient nicht der Evolution, sondern der Degeneration der Spezies Mensch. Es ist kein Werkzeug, sondern eine Waffe. Aber das Handy lässt sich — wie das TV-Gerät — abschalten. Oder abschaffen. Das birgt Risiken — denn nur Lufthoheit über dem Debattenraum garantiert dem postmodernen Feudalismus Machterhalt. Dementsprechend setzen seine Vertreter nun alles daran, invasive Technologien ins Feld zu führen, um sich unserer Gedanken bemächtigen zu können.

Der Kriegsfilm spielt sich also nicht mehr nur als dunkles Phantasma vor unserem inneren Auge ab, er handelt nicht von irgendeinem fernen Land — das zu erobernde Terrain, das primäre Schlachtfeld der biodigitalen Konvergenz liegt unmittelbar hinter dem Sehnerv. Kriegsziel: Die Verschmelzung von Mensch und Maschine. Transhumanismus. Und bei so manchem Zeitgenossen scheint bereits eine gewisse Konträrfaszination am eigenen Untergang Einzug zu halten. Die Résistance des Mediazän verteidigt demnach nicht nur das Recht auf Meinungsfreiheit, sie kämpft um den Erhalt des freien Willens. Um Menschlichkeit. Um das Fortbestehen unserer Spezies.

Vor diesem Hintergrund beschäftigt sich die dritte GEGENDRUCK mit dem »Schlachtfeld Gehirn«. Mit dem zerebralen Status quo. Die Autoren analysieren und dokumentieren den Stand von Forschung, Angriffswellen, Waffenarsenal und Verteidigungsmechanismen. Denn unser Leben ist das Produkt unserer Gedanken. Unserer Erinnerungen. Sie sind die Basis unserer Freiheit, unserer Geschichte und Zukunft. Wir müssen sie schützen. Mit allen Mitteln.

Denn »ein Kopf ohne Gedächtnis ist eine Festung ohne Besatzung« (Napoleon).

Im Namen des gesamten Teams,

Tom-Oliver Regenauer

Printausgabe bestellen unter: www.gegendruck.de

@ edeb837b:ac664163

At NVSTly, we embrace the concept of “building in public.” This approach shapes how we develop, test, and roll out features, with the goal of making NVSTly the best social trading platform for our users. But what exactly does building in public mean for NVSTly? Let’s break it down.

Updates as They’re Finished

Instead of waiting to bundle new features and fixes into big, infrequent releases, we push updates as they’re completed. This ensures users benefit from improvements as soon as possible. However, our agile development style means you might notice subtle changes before they’re officially included in a published changelog. These incremental updates allow us to iterate and enhance the platform quickly.

Internal Testing, Real-World Feedback

Before any update reaches the production environment, our team conducts internal testing to ensure the new feature or fix works as intended. For example, a recent update to allow stats and daily/weekly recap commands to function with usernames containing spaces was thoroughly tested internally. Unfortunately, this change inadvertently broke compatibility with Discord IDs, highlighting the challenges of anticipating every edge case.

This is where building in public comes into play: while we strive for thorough testing, some issues only emerge when updates meet real-world usage. That’s why we rely on our vibrant user base to help us identify bugs, unintended behaviors, and areas for improvement.

The Role of Our User Community

Our users play a critical role in the development process. By using NVSTly in their daily trading workflows, they encounter scenarios that internal testing might miss. When users report bugs, glitches, or other issues, it provides us with invaluable insights into how the platform performs under various conditions.

If you ever experience something on NVSTly that doesn’t seem to work as expected, we encourage you to report it to us. Unlike platforms that may identify and resolve issues passively over time, NVSTly relies directly on user feedback to detect and prioritize fixes. Every report helps us improve.

Changelogs: A Snapshot of Progress

Given our frequent updates, we publish changelogs only after accumulating several changes or introducing major features. This means that when you see a changelog, many of the updates listed might have been implemented days or even weeks earlier. While this approach helps us focus on building and refining the platform, it’s another example of how building in public keeps the development process transparent.

Why Building in Public Matters

By building in public, we:

• Accelerate innovation: Continuous updates ensure the platform evolves rapidly.
• Foster transparency: Users gain insight into what’s changing and how issues are addressed.
• Strengthen collaboration: Feedback from users directly informs our priorities and solutions.

This approach isn’t without its challenges, but we believe the benefits far outweigh the risks. Building in public allows us to create a platform that truly meets the needs of our community — a community we’re proud to involve in the journey.

How You Can Help

If you notice a bug, glitch, or unintended behavior, please let us know right away. Your feedback is essential to making NVSTly better every day. Together, we’re not just building a platform; we’re building a community-driven experience that reflects the collective expertise and passion of its users.

Thank you for being part of the NVSTly journey. Let’s keep building — together.

---

NVSTly is available for free on web, mobile devices (iOS & Google Play), and is fully integrated with Discord via a unique bot- the only of it’s kind and available to any server or trading community on Discord. Or feel free to join a community of over 45,000 investors & traders on our Discod server.

@ 7f29628d:e160cccc

Der gut informierte Bürger denkt bei der Pandemie sofort an Intensivstationen, an die Bilder aus Bergamo und erinnert sich an die Berichterstattung damals – also muss es wohl ein Maximum gewesen sein. Manche Skeptiker behaupten jedoch das Gegenteil. Klarheit sollte ein Blick nach Wiesbaden, zum Statistischen Bundesamt, schaffen. Schließlich sitzen dort gut bezahlte Profis, die seit vielen Jahrzehnten die Sterbestatistik pflegen und veröffentlichen. Jeder Todesfall wird in Deutschland über die Standesämter exakt erfasst.

Doch die Überraschung: Das Statistische Bundesamt liefert uns auf diese einfache Frage zwei extrem unterschiedliche Antworten – ein Minimum und ein Maximum. Das Ergebnis hängt davon ab, wie tief man in die Veröffentlichungen des Bundesamtes eintaucht. Betrachtet man nur die Webseiten und Pressemitteilungen, erhält man den Eindruck eines Maximums. Schaut man jedoch etwas tiefer in die Tabellen und Rohdaten, zeigt sich plötzlich ein Minimum. Aber wie kann das sein? Beides gleichzeitig geht ja wohl kaum. Wer lügt hier – die Tabellen des Amtes oder die Pressemitteilungen? Gehen wir dieser Frage Schritt für Schritt auf den Grund.

2020: Ein historisches Maximum?

Schauen wir uns die vielen Hundert Veröffentlichungen des Statistischen Bundesamtes aus dieser Zeit an. Oder wir kürzen ab und fragen ChatGPT, da die KI auf diesen Daten trainiert wurde und das gesamte Material kennt. Die Frage an ChatGPT lautet also: Wie war das Sterbegeschehen im Jahr 2020 im Vergleich zu den Vorjahren?

ChatGPT antwortet: »Im Jahr 2020 war die Sterblichkeit in Deutschland höher als in den Jahren zuvor. Es gab eine Übersterblichkeit von etwa 982.000 Todesfällen, das sind rund 46.000 mehr als der Durchschnitt der Vorjahre (2016 bis 2019). Dieser Anstieg wurde überwiegend im Zusammenhang mit der COVID-19-Pandemie gesehen. Während die Sterbezahlen in den Vorjahren schwankten, war ein solch signifikanter Anstieg wie 2020 bisher nicht zu beobachten.«

Wir fragen konkreter: Ist es ein Fakt, dass wir eine so ernste Lage im Sterbegeschehen wie im Frühjahr 2020 noch nie erlebt haben?

ChatGPT bestätigt: »Ja, die COVID-19-Pandemie führte im Frühjahr 2020 zu einer außergewöhnlichen Situation im Sterbegeschehen in Deutschland. Die dramatische Übersterblichkeit, die ab der 13. Kalenderwoche auftrat, veranlasste das Statistische Bundesamt, besonders eindringliche Warnungen zu veröffentlichen. Der damalige Vizepräsident des Amtes und andere führende Stimmen wiesen öffentlich darauf hin, dass die Todesfallzahlen stark vom Durchschnitt abwichen. Diese klare Warnung richtete sich an die Öffentlichkeit und die Politik gleichermaßen. Die Medien berichteten intensiv über diese Warnungen, was das Bewusstsein für die Schwere der Pandemie erheblich schärfte. In den vergangenen Jahrzehnten hatte es keine vergleichbare Übersterblichkeit gegeben, die eine solch umfangreiche Kommunikation durch das Statistische Bundesamt erforderlich gemacht hätte.«

Ein gut informierter Zeitungsleser wird sich an dieser Stelle bestätigt fühlen: Ja, so war es damals. Ein Maximum im Sterbegeschehen – wegen der Pandemie. Oder etwa nicht?

2020: Ein historisches Minimum?

Tauchen wir in die Rohdaten des Statistischen Bundesamtes ein. Die Tabellen, die das Amt seit Jahrzehnten verlässlich veröffentlicht, nennen sich Sterbetafeln. Diese werden jährlich bereitgestellt und stehen auf der Website des Bundesamtes zum Download bereit. Ein erster Blick in die Sterbetafeln mag den Laien abschrecken, doch mit einer kurzen Erklärung wird alles verständlich. Wir gehen schrittweise vor.

Nehmen wir die Sterbetafel des Jahres 2017. Sie enthält zwei große Tabellen – eine für Männer und eine für Frauen. Jede Zeile der Tabelle steht für einen Jahrgang, zum Beispiel zeigt die Zeile 79 die Daten der 79-jährigen Männer. Besonders wichtig ist nun die zweite Spalte, in der der Wert 0,05 eingetragen ist. Das bedeutet, dass 5 Prozent der 79-jährigen Männer im Jahr 2017 verstorben sind. Das ist die wichtige Kennzahl. Wenn wir diesen exakten Wert, den man auch als Sterberate bezeichnet, nun in ein Säulendiagramm eintragen, erhalten wir eine leicht verständliche visuelle Darstellung (Grafik 1).

Es ist wichtig zu betonen, dass dieser Wert weder ein Schätzwert noch eine Modellrechnung oder Prognose ist, sondern ein exakter Messwert, basierend auf einer zuverlässigen Zählung. Sterberaten (für die Fachleute auch Sterbewahrscheinlichkeiten qx) sind seit Johann Peter Süßmilch (1707–1767) der Goldstandard der Sterbestatistik. Jeder Aktuar wird das bestätigen. Fügen wir nun die Sterberaten der 79-jährigen Männer aus den Jahren davor und danach hinzu, um das Gesamtbild zu sehen (Grafik 2). Und nun die entscheidende Frage: Zeigt das Jahr 2020 ein Maximum oder ein Minimum?

Ein kritischer Leser könnte vermuten, dass die 79-jährigen Männer eine Ausnahme darstellen und andere Jahrgänge im Jahr 2020 ein Maximum zeigen würden. Doch das trifft nicht zu. Kein einziger Jahrgang verzeichnete im Jahr 2020 ein Maximum. Im Gegenteil: Auch die 1-Jährigen, 2-Jährigen, 3-Jährigen, 9-Jährigen, 10-Jährigen, 15-Jährigen, 18-Jährigen und viele weitere männliche Jahrgänge hatten ihr Minimum im Jahr 2020. Dasselbe gilt bei den Frauen. Insgesamt hatten 31 Jahrgänge ihr Minimum im Jahr 2020. Wenn wir schließlich alle Jahrgänge in einer einzigen Grafik zusammenfassen, ergibt sich ein klares Bild: Das Minimum im Sterbegeschehen lag im Jahr 2020 (Grafik 3).

Ein kritischer Leser könnte nun wiederum vermuten, dass es innerhalb des Jahres 2020 möglicherweise starke Ausschläge nach oben bei einzelnen Jahrgängen gegeben haben könnte, die später durch Ausschläge nach unten ausgeglichen wurden – und dass diese Schwankungen in der jährlichen Übersicht nicht sichtbar sind. Doch auch das trifft nicht zu. Ein Blick auf die wöchentlichen Sterberaten zeigt, dass die ersten acht Monate der Pandemie keine nennenswerten Auffälligkeiten aufweisen. Es bleibt dabei: Die Rohdaten des Statistischen Bundesamtes bestätigen zweifelsfrei, dass die ersten acht Monate der Pandemie das historische Minimum im Sterbegeschehen darstellen. (Für die Fachleute sei angemerkt, dass im gleichen Zeitraum die Lebenserwartung die historischen Höchststände erreicht hatte – Grafik 4.)

So konstruierte das Amt aus einem Minimum ein Maximum:

Zur Erinnerung: Die Rohdaten des Statistischen Bundesamtes, die in den jährlichen Sterbetafeln zweifelsfrei dokumentiert sind, zeigen für das Jahr 2020 eindeutig ein Minimum im Sterbegeschehen. Aus diesen »in Stein gemeißelten« Zahlen ein Maximum zu »konstruieren«, ohne die Rohdaten selbst zu verändern, scheint auf den ersten Blick eine unlösbare Aufgabe. Jeder Student würde an einer solchen Herausforderung scheitern. Doch das Statistische Bundesamt hat einen kreativen Weg gefunden - ein Meisterstück gezielter Manipulation. In fünf Schritten zeigt sich, wie diese Täuschung der Öffentlichkeit umgesetzt wurde:

(1) Ignorieren der Sterberaten: Die präzisen, objektiven und leicht verständlichen Sterberaten aus den eigenen Sterbetafeln wurden konsequent ignoriert und verschwiegen. Diese Daten widersprachen dem gewünschten Narrativ und wurden daher gezielt ausgeklammert.

(2) Fokus auf absolute Todeszahlen: Die Aufmerksamkeit wurde stattdessen auf die absolute Zahl der Todesfälle gelenkt. Diese wirkt allein durch ihre schiere Größe dramatisch und emotionalisiert die Diskussion. Ein entscheidender Faktor wurde dabei ignoriert: Die absolute Zahl der Todesfälle steigt aufgrund der demografischen Entwicklung jedes Jahr an. Viele Menschen verstehen diesen Zusammenhang nicht und verbinden die steigenden Zahlen fälschlicherweise mit der vermeintlichen Pandemie.

(3) Einführung der Übersterblichkeit als neue Kennzahl: Erst ab Beginn der „Pandemie“ wurde die Kennzahl "Übersterblichkeit" eingeführt – und dies mit einer fragwürdigen Methode, die systematisch überhöhte Werte lieferte. Diese Kennzahl wurde regelmäßig, oft monatlich oder sogar wöchentlich, berechnet und diente als ständige Grundlage für alarmierende Schlagzeilen.

(4) Intensive Öffentlichkeitsarbeit: Durch eine breit angelegte Kampagne wurden die manipulativen Kennzahlen gezielt in den Fokus gerückt. Pressemitteilungen, Podcasts und öffentliche Auftritte konzentrierten sich fast ausschließlich auf die absoluten Todeszahlen und die Übersterblichkeit. Ziel war es, den Eindruck einer dramatischen Situation in der Öffentlichkeit zu verstärken.

(5) Bekämpfen kritischer Stimmen: Kritiker, die die Schwächen und manipulativen Aspekte dieser Methoden aufdeckten, wurden systematisch diskreditiert. Ihre Glaubwürdigkeit und Kompetenz wurden öffentlich infrage gestellt, um das sorgsam konstruierte Narrativ zu schützen.

Ohne diesen begleitenden Statistik-Betrug wäre das gesamte Pandemie-Theater meiner Meinung nach nicht möglich gewesen. Wer aus einem faktischen Minimum ein scheinbares Maximum "erschafft", handelt betrügerisch. Die Folgen dieses Betruges sind gravierend. Denken wir an die Angst, die in der Bevölkerung geschürt wurde – die Angst, bald sterben zu müssen. Denken wir an Masken, Abstandsregeln, isolierte ältere Menschen, Kinderimpfungen und all die Maßnahmen, die unter anderem auf diese falsche Statistik zurückgehen.

Wollen wir Bürger uns das gefallen lassen?

Wenn wir als Bürger zulassen, dass ein derart offensichtlicher und nachprüfbarer Täuschungsversuch ohne Konsequenzen bleibt, dann gefährdet das nicht nur die Integrität unserer Institutionen – es untergräbt das Fundament unserer Gesellschaft. In der DDR feierte man öffentlich Planerfüllung und Übererfüllung, während die Regale leer blieben. Damals wusste jeder: Statistik war ein Propagandainstrument. Niemand traute den Zahlen, die das Staatsfernsehen verkündete.

Während der Pandemie war es anders. Die Menschen vertrauten den Mitteilungen des Statistischen Bundesamtes und des RKI – blind. Die Enthüllungen durch den "RKI-Leak" haben gezeigt, dass auch das Robert-Koch-Institut nicht der Wissenschaft, sondern den Weisungen des Gesundheitsministers und militärischen Vorgaben folgte. Warum sollte es beim Statistischen Bundesamt anders gewesen sein? Diese Behörde ist dem Innenministerium unterstellt und somit ebenfalls weisungsgebunden.

Die Beweise für Täuschung liegen offen zutage. Es braucht keinen Whistleblower, keine geheimen Enthüllungen: Die Rohdaten des Statistischen Bundesamtes sprechen für sich. Sie sind öffentlich einsehbar – klar und unmissverständlich. Die Daten, die Tabellen, die Veröffentlichungen des Amtes selbst – sie sind die Anklageschrift. Sie zeigen, was wirklich war. Nicht mehr und nicht weniger.

Und wir? Was tun wir? Schweigen wir? Oder fordern wir endlich ein, was unser Recht ist? Wir Bürger dürfen das nicht hinnehmen. Es ist Zeit, unsere Behörden zur Rechenschaft zu ziehen. Diese Institutionen arbeiten nicht für sich – sie arbeiten für uns. Wir finanzieren sie, und wir haben das Recht, Transparenz und Verantwortung einzufordern. Manipulationen wie diese müssen aufgearbeitet werden und dürfen nie wieder geschehen. Die Strukturen, die solche Fehlentwicklungen in unseren Behörden ermöglicht haben, müssen offengelegt werden. Denn eine Demokratie lebt von Vertrauen – und Vertrauen muss verdient werden. Jeden Tag aufs Neue.

.

.

MARCEL BARZ, Jahrgang 1975, war Offizier der Bundeswehr und studierte Wirtschafts- und Organisationswissenschaften sowie Wirtschaftsinformatik. Er war Gründer und Geschäftsführer einer Softwarefirma, die sich auf Datenanalyse und Softwareentwicklung spezialisiert hatte. Im August 2021 veröffentlichte Barz den Videovortrag »Die Pandemie in den Rohdaten«, der über eine Million Aufrufe erzielte. Seitdem macht er als "Erbsenzähler" auf Widersprüche in amtlichen Statistiken aufmerksam.

@ eac63075:b4988b48

Since its creation in 2009, Bitcoin has symbolized innovation and resilience. However, from time to time, alarmist narratives arise about emerging technologies that could "break" its security. Among these, quantum computing stands out as one of the most recurrent. But does quantum computing truly threaten Bitcoin? And more importantly, what is the community doing to ensure the protocol remains invulnerable?

The answer, contrary to sensationalist headlines, is reassuring: Bitcoin is secure, and the community is already preparing for a future where quantum computing becomes a practical reality. Let’s dive into this topic to understand why the concerns are exaggerated and how the development of BIP-360 demonstrates that Bitcoin is one step ahead.

---

What Is Quantum Computing, and Why Is Bitcoin Not Threatened?

Quantum computing leverages principles of quantum mechanics to perform calculations that, in theory, could exponentially surpass classical computers—and it has nothing to do with what so-called “quantum coaches” teach to scam the uninformed. One of the concerns is that this technology could compromise two key aspects of Bitcoin’s security:

1. Wallets: These use elliptic curve algorithms (ECDSA) to protect private keys. A sufficiently powerful quantum computer could deduce a private key from its public key.
2. Mining: This is based on the SHA-256 algorithm, which secures the consensus process. A quantum attack could, in theory, compromise the proof-of-work mechanism.

---

Understanding Quantum Computing’s Attack Priorities

While quantum computing is often presented as a threat to Bitcoin, not all parts of the network are equally vulnerable. Theoretical attacks would be prioritized based on two main factors: ease of execution and potential reward. This creates two categories of attacks:

1. Attacks on Wallets

Bitcoin wallets, secured by elliptic curve algorithms, would be the initial targets due to the relative vulnerability of their public keys, especially those already exposed on the blockchain. Two attack scenarios stand out:

• Short-term attacks: These occur during the interval between sending a transaction and its inclusion in a block (approximately 10 minutes). A quantum computer could intercept the exposed public key and derive the corresponding private key to redirect funds by creating a transaction with higher fees.

• Long-term attacks: These focus on old wallets whose public keys are permanently exposed. Wallets associated with Satoshi Nakamoto, for example, are especially vulnerable because they were created before the practice of using hashes to mask public keys.

We can infer a priority order for how such attacks might occur based on urgency and importance.

Bitcoin Quantum Attack: Prioritization Matrix (Urgency vs. Importance)

2. Attacks on Mining

Targeting the SHA-256 algorithm, which secures the mining process, would be the next objective. However, this is far more complex and requires a level of quantum computational power that is currently non-existent and far from realization. A successful attack would allow for the recalculation of all possible hashes to dominate the consensus process and potentially "mine" it instantly.

---

Satoshi Nakamoto in 2010 on Quantum Computing and Bitcoin Attacks

Recently, Narcelio asked me about a statement I made on Tubacast:

https://x.com/eddieoz/status/1868371296683511969

If an attack became a reality before Bitcoin was prepared, it would be necessary to define the last block prior to the attack and proceed from there using a new hashing algorithm. The solution would resemble the response to the infamous 2013 bug. It’s a fact that this would cause market panic, and Bitcoin's price would drop significantly, creating a potential opportunity for the well-informed.

Preferably, if developers could anticipate the threat and had time to work on a solution and build consensus before an attack, they would simply decide on a future block for the fork, which would then adopt the new algorithm. It might even rehash previous blocks (reaching consensus on them) to avoid potential reorganization through the re-mining of blocks using the old hash. (I often use the term "shielding" old transactions).

---

How Can Users Protect Themselves?

While quantum computing is still far from being a practical threat, some simple measures can already protect users against hypothetical scenarios:

• Avoid using exposed public keys: Ensure funds sent to old wallets are transferred to new ones that use public key hashes. This reduces the risk of long-term attacks.
• Use modern wallets: Opt for wallets compatible with SegWit or Taproot, which implement better security practices.
• Monitor security updates: Stay informed about updates from the Bitcoin community, such as the implementation of BIP-360, which will introduce quantum-resistant addresses.
• Do not reuse addresses: Every transaction should be associated with a new address to minimize the risk of repeated exposure of the same public key.
• Adopt secure backup practices: Create offline backups of private keys and seeds in secure locations, protected from unauthorized access.

---

BIP-360 and Bitcoin’s Preparation for the Future

Even though quantum computing is still beyond practical reach, the Bitcoin community is not standing still. A concrete example is BIP-360, a proposal that establishes the technical framework to make wallets resistant to quantum attacks.

BIP-360 addresses three main pillars:

1. Introduction of quantum-resistant addresses: A new address format starting with "BC1R" will be used. These addresses will be compatible with post-quantum algorithms, ensuring that stored funds are protected from future attacks.
2. Compatibility with the current ecosystem: The proposal allows users to transfer funds from old addresses to new ones without requiring drastic changes to the network infrastructure.
3. Flexibility for future updates: BIP-360 does not limit the choice of specific algorithms. Instead, it serves as a foundation for implementing new post-quantum algorithms as technology evolves.

This proposal demonstrates how Bitcoin can adapt to emerging threats without compromising its decentralized structure.

---

Post-Quantum Algorithms: The Future of Bitcoin Cryptography

The community is exploring various algorithms to protect Bitcoin from quantum attacks. Among the most discussed are:

• Falcon: A solution combining smaller public keys with compact digital signatures. Although it has been tested in limited scenarios, it still faces scalability and performance challenges.
• Sphincs: Hash-based, this algorithm is renowned for its resilience, but its signatures can be extremely large, making it less efficient for networks like Bitcoin’s blockchain.
• Lamport: Created in 1977, it’s considered one of the earliest post-quantum security solutions. Despite its reliability, its gigantic public keys (16,000 bytes) make it impractical and costly for Bitcoin.

Two technologies show great promise and are well-regarded by the community:

1. Lattice-Based Cryptography: Considered one of the most promising, it uses complex mathematical structures to create systems nearly immune to quantum computing. Its implementation is still in its early stages, but the community is optimistic.
2. Supersingular Elliptic Curve Isogeny: These are very recent digital signature algorithms and require extensive study and testing before being ready for practical market use.

The final choice of algorithm will depend on factors such as efficiency, cost, and integration capability with the current system. Additionally, it is preferable that these algorithms are standardized before implementation, a process that may take up to 10 years.

---

Why Quantum Computing Is Far from Being a Threat

The alarmist narrative about quantum computing overlooks the technical and practical challenges that still need to be overcome. Among them:

• Insufficient number of qubits: Current quantum computers have only a few hundred qubits, whereas successful attacks would require millions.
• High error rate: Quantum stability remains a barrier to reliable large-scale operations.
• High costs: Building and operating large-scale quantum computers requires massive investments, limiting their use to scientific or specific applications.

Moreover, even if quantum computers make significant advancements, Bitcoin is already adapting to ensure its infrastructure is prepared to respond.

---

Conclusion: Bitcoin’s Secure Future

Despite advancements in quantum computing, the reality is that Bitcoin is far from being threatened. Its security is ensured not only by its robust architecture but also by the community’s constant efforts to anticipate and mitigate challenges.

The implementation of BIP-360 and the pursuit of post-quantum algorithms demonstrate that Bitcoin is not only resilient but also proactive. By adopting practical measures, such as using modern wallets and migrating to quantum-resistant addresses, users can further protect themselves against potential threats.

Bitcoin’s future is not at risk—it is being carefully shaped to withstand any emerging technology, including quantum computing.

@ c3b2802b:4850599c

In Kirpal Sagar ist ein Modell für die Welt entstanden, das soziale mit ökologischen sowie spirituellen Sehnsüchten der Völker unserer Welt verbindet. Knapp 20 Jahre nach der Gründung von Kirpal Sagar wurde mit grossem Brimborium zwar in Rio de Janeiro die Agenda 21 mit ähnlichen Zielen ausgerufen. Doch in den 3 Dekaden danach ist mir kein Projekt begegnet, welches den InitiatorInnen und Aktiven in Kirpal Sagar das Wasser reichen kann.

Konkret: In der  Gemeinschaftsküche  wird seit Beginn des Projekts, also seit 50 Jahren, für mittellose Menschen kostenloses Essen zubereitet. Die Küche wird vom eigenen  Öko – Landwirtschaftsbetrieb  beliefert. Um Bedürftigen zu helfen, wurde 1983 das  Krankenhaus  eingerichtet. Im 1994 eingeweihten  Altenheim  finden alte Menschen ein Zuhause, die sonst auf sich allein gestellt wären.  Bedürftige aus der Umgebung erhalten Unterstützung in Notfällen.  Die Kirpal Sagar Academy ist eine Schule, die derzeit 500 Kinder bis zur Hochschulreife führt. Kinder aus mittellosen Familien werden vom Träger unterstützt.

Basis des Zusammenlebens ist ein lebendiger Dialog zwischen den Religionen der beteiligten Menschen. Hier wird keine bestimmte Religion gelehrt, sondern auf die Essenz der Religion, den spirituellen  Kern, der allen Religionen gemeinsam ist, verwiesen, wie auch in den weithin sichtbaren Symbolen von Kirpal Sagar (z.B. auf dem Titelbild oben) dargestellt ist.

In einer nach außen offenen Gemeinschaft leben hier ständig mehr als 800 Menschen, viele mit ihren Familien – freiwillige Mitarbeiter, die am  Aufbau  beteiligt sind, Lehrer, Schüler, Arbeiter, Ärzte, Angestellte usw. Ebenso sind regelmäßig Helfer und Gäste aus dem Ausland vor Ort. So erlebt man ein lebendiges Miteinander verschiedener Kulturen, Religionen und Mentalitäten.

Als ich 2007 erstmals hier war, fand zum Beispiel eine Hochzeitsveranstaltung für Dutzende junge Paare aus ärmsten Verhältnissen statt, welchen ohne Unterstützung keine Trauung möglich war.

Man sieht Menschen ihren alltäglichen Arbeiten nachgehen und kann an Sport- und Schulveranstaltungen teilnehmen. Ebenso sind auch Gäste bei traditionellen Festen oder religiösen Feierlichkeiten und Ritualen willkommen, die jeder seiner Religionszugehörigkeit entsprechend ausüben kann. In diesem Teil des Punjab begegnet man vor allem Hindus und Sikhs, bei größeren  Veranstaltungen  sind auch Vertreter weiterer Religionen zu Gast. Über Jahre der Zusammenarbeit konnte man praktisch sehen, dass das Ideal „Eine Welt, eine Menschheit“ keine Utopie ist. In Europa gibt es Unterstützer-Initiativen, in denen sich Menschen aus unserem Teil der Erde für Projekte dieser Art engagieren. Details über einzelne Lebensbereiche in der Modellkommune erfahren Sie hier, speziell zu Gesundheitsfragen hier.

Zuerst veröffentlicht auf der Plattform Zukunftskommunen.

@ da0b9bc3:4e30a4a9

Hello Stackers!

Welcome on into the ~Music Corner of the Saloon!

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

So stay a while and listen.

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

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

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/872135

@ dbb19ae0:c3f22d5a

The Magic of =()= in Perl: Counting Matches with Elegance

Perl is full of powerful and sometimes cryptic features, and one of the lesser-known yet highly useful tricks is the =()= operator. This clever construct allows you to count the number of matches in a string without using loops or unnecessary variables.

---

Understanding =()=: A Smart Counting Trick

Normally, when you apply a regex with the /g (global match) flag, Perl finds all occurrences in the string. However, getting the count of those matches isn't as straightforward as you might expect.

Consider this example:

perl my $str = "Hello 123, Perl 456!"; my $count = () = $str =~ /\w/g; print "Matched $count word characters.\n";

Breaking It Down

1. Regex Matching ($str =~ /\w/g)
2. This searches for all word characters (\w → [A-Za-z0-9_]) in $str.

3. The /g flag ensures it captures all occurrences instead of just the first one.

4. The Empty List ()

5. The regex match is assigned to an empty list ().

6. This forces Perl to evaluate the regex in list context, where it returns all matches instead of just one.

7. Assigning to a Scalar ($count)

8. When a list is assigned to a scalar, Perl doesn't store the list—it simply counts its elements.
9. The result? $count contains the number of matches.

Expected Output

Matched 15 word characters. If you manually count the \w matches (Hello123Perl456), you'll find 15.

---

Why Not Use scalar() Instead?

You might think this is equivalent to: perl my $count = scalar($str =~ /\w/g); # will return 1 But this won't work!

• scalar($str =~ /\w/g) only returns the last match found, not the count.
• =()= is necessary because it forces list context, ensuring Perl counts all matches correctly.

---

Practical Use Cases

This trick is useful whenever you need to count occurrences without modifying the original string. Some real-world applications include:

✅ Counting words, numbers, or special characters in a string.
✅ Measuring how many times a pattern appears in a text.
✅ Quick validation checks (e.g., ensuring a string contains at least n digits).

Example: Counting words in a sentence
perl my $sentence = "Perl is awesome!"; my $word_count = () = $sentence =~ /\b\w+\b/g; print "Word count: $word_count\n"; # Output: 3

---

Final Thoughts

The =()= operator might look like magic at first, but it's actually an elegant way to force list context and extract match counts without loops or extra variables. Whether processing text or just trying to optimize Perl scripts, this trick is a powerful addition to the Perl toolkit.

@ f9cf4e94:96abc355

Scuttlebutt foi iniciado em maio de 2014 por Dominic Tarr ( dominictarr ) como uma rede social alternativa off-line, primeiro para convidados, que permite aos usuários obter controle total de seus dados e privacidade. Secure Scuttlebutt (ssb) foi lançado pouco depois, o que coloca a privacidade em primeiro plano com mais recursos de criptografia.

Se você está se perguntando de onde diabos veio o nome Scuttlebutt:

Este termo do século 19 para uma fofoca vem do Scuttlebutt náutico: “um barril de água mantido no convés, com um buraco para uma xícara”. A gíria náutica vai desde o hábito dos marinheiros de se reunir pelo boato até a fofoca, semelhante à fofoca do bebedouro.

Marinheiros se reunindo em torno da rixa. ( fonte )

Dominic descobriu o termo boato em um artigo de pesquisa que leu.

Em sistemas distribuídos, fofocar é um processo de retransmissão de mensagens ponto a ponto; as mensagens são disseminadas de forma análoga ao “boca a boca”.

Secure Scuttlebutt é um banco de dados de feeds imutáveis apenas para acréscimos, otimizado para replicação eficiente para protocolos ponto a ponto. Cada usuário tem um log imutável somente para acréscimos no qual eles podem gravar. Eles gravam no log assinando mensagens com sua chave privada. Pense em um feed de usuário como seu próprio diário de bordo, como um diário de bordo (ou diário do capitão para os fãs de Star Trek), onde eles são os únicos autorizados a escrever nele, mas têm a capacidade de permitir que outros amigos ou colegas leiam ao seu diário de bordo, se assim o desejarem.

Cada mensagem possui um número de sequência e a mensagem também deve fazer referência à mensagem anterior por seu ID. O ID é um hash da mensagem e da assinatura. A estrutura de dados é semelhante à de uma lista vinculada. É essencialmente um log somente de acréscimo de JSON assinado. Cada item adicionado a um log do usuário é chamado de mensagem.

Os logs do usuário são conhecidos como feed e um usuário pode seguir os feeds de outros usuários para receber suas atualizações. Cada usuário é responsável por armazenar seu próprio feed. Quando Alice assina o feed de Bob, Bob baixa o log de feed de Alice. Bob pode verificar se o registro do feed realmente pertence a Alice verificando as assinaturas. Bob pode verificar as assinaturas usando a chave pública de Alice.

Estrutura de alto nível de um feed

Pubs são servidores de retransmissão conhecidos como “super peers”. Pubs conectam usuários usuários e atualizações de fofocas a outros usuários conectados ao Pub. Um Pub é análogo a um pub da vida real, onde as pessoas vão para se encontrar e se socializar. Para ingressar em um Pub, o usuário deve ser convidado primeiro. Um usuário pode solicitar um código de convite de um Pub; o Pub simplesmente gerará um novo código de convite, mas alguns Pubs podem exigir verificação adicional na forma de verificação de e-mail ou, com alguns Pubs, você deve pedir um código em um fórum público ou chat. Pubs também podem mapear aliases de usuário, como e-mails ou nome de usuário, para IDs de chave pública para facilitar os pares de referência.

Depois que o Pub enviar o código de convite ao usuário, o usuário resgatará o código, o que significa que o Pub seguirá o usuário, o que permite que o usuário veja as mensagens postadas por outros membros do Pub, bem como as mensagens de retransmissão do Pub pelo usuário a outros membros do Pub.

Além de retransmitir mensagens entre pares, os Pubs também podem armazenar as mensagens. Se Alice estiver offline e Bob transmitir atualizações de feed, Alice perderá a atualização. Se Alice ficar online, mas Bob estiver offline, não haverá como ela buscar o feed de Bob. Mas com um Pub, Alice pode buscar o feed no Pub mesmo se Bob estiver off-line porque o Pub está armazenando as mensagens. Pubs são úteis porque assim que um colega fica online, ele pode sincronizar com o Pub para receber os feeds de seus amigos potencialmente offline.

Um usuário pode, opcionalmente, executar seu próprio servidor Pub e abri-lo ao público ou permitir que apenas seus amigos participem, se assim o desejarem. Eles também podem ingressar em um Pub público. Aqui está uma lista de Pubs públicos em que todos podem participar . Explicaremos como ingressar em um posteriormente neste guia. Uma coisa importante a observar é que o Secure Scuttlebutt em uma rede social somente para convidados significa que você deve ser “puxado” para entrar nos círculos sociais. Se você responder às mensagens, os destinatários não serão notificados, a menos que estejam seguindo você de volta. O objetivo do SSB é criar “ilhas” isoladas de redes pares, ao contrário de uma rede pública onde qualquer pessoa pode enviar mensagens a qualquer pessoa.

Perspectivas dos participantes

Scuttlebot

O software Pub é conhecido como servidor Scuttlebutt (servidor ssb ), mas também é conhecido como “Scuttlebot” e sbotna linha de comando. O servidor SSB adiciona comportamento de rede ao banco de dados Scuttlebutt (SSB). Estaremos usando o Scuttlebot ao longo deste tutorial.

Os logs do usuário são conhecidos como feed e um usuário pode seguir os feeds de outros usuários para receber suas atualizações. Cada usuário é responsável por armazenar seu próprio feed. Quando Alice assina o feed de Bob, Bob baixa o log de feed de Alice. Bob pode verificar se o registro do feed realmente pertence a Alice verificando as assinaturas. Bob pode verificar as assinaturas usando a chave pública de Alice.

Estrutura de alto nível de um feed

Pubs são servidores de retransmissão conhecidos como “super peers”. Pubs conectam usuários usuários e atualizações de fofocas a outros usuários conectados ao Pub. Um Pub é análogo a um pub da vida real, onde as pessoas vão para se encontrar e se socializar. Para ingressar em um Pub, o usuário deve ser convidado primeiro. Um usuário pode solicitar um código de convite de um Pub; o Pub simplesmente gerará um novo código de convite, mas alguns Pubs podem exigir verificação adicional na forma de verificação de e-mail ou, com alguns Pubs, você deve pedir um código em um fórum público ou chat. Pubs também podem mapear aliases de usuário, como e-mails ou nome de usuário, para IDs de chave pública para facilitar os pares de referência.

Depois que o Pub enviar o código de convite ao usuário, o usuário resgatará o código, o que significa que o Pub seguirá o usuário, o que permite que o usuário veja as mensagens postadas por outros membros do Pub, bem como as mensagens de retransmissão do Pub pelo usuário a outros membros do Pub.

Além de retransmitir mensagens entre pares, os Pubs também podem armazenar as mensagens. Se Alice estiver offline e Bob transmitir atualizações de feed, Alice perderá a atualização. Se Alice ficar online, mas Bob estiver offline, não haverá como ela buscar o feed de Bob. Mas com um Pub, Alice pode buscar o feed no Pub mesmo se Bob estiver off-line porque o Pub está armazenando as mensagens. Pubs são úteis porque assim que um colega fica online, ele pode sincronizar com o Pub para receber os feeds de seus amigos potencialmente offline.

Um usuário pode, opcionalmente, executar seu próprio servidor Pub e abri-lo ao público ou permitir que apenas seus amigos participem, se assim o desejarem. Eles também podem ingressar em um Pub público. Aqui está uma lista de Pubs públicos em que todos podem participar . Explicaremos como ingressar em um posteriormente neste guia. Uma coisa importante a observar é que o Secure Scuttlebutt em uma rede social somente para convidados significa que você deve ser “puxado” para entrar nos círculos sociais. Se você responder às mensagens, os destinatários não serão notificados, a menos que estejam seguindo você de volta. O objetivo do SSB é criar “ilhas” isoladas de redes pares, ao contrário de uma rede pública onde qualquer pessoa pode enviar mensagens a qualquer pessoa.

Perspectivas dos participantes

Pubs - Hubs

Pubs públicos

| Pub Name | Operator | Invite Code | | ------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------ | | scuttle.us | @Ryan | scuttle.us:8008:@WqcuCOIpLtXFRw/9vOAQJti8avTZ9vxT9rKrPo8qG6o=.ed25519~/ZUi9Chpl0g1kuWSrmehq2EwMQeV0Pd+8xw8XhWuhLE= | | pub1.upsocial.com | @freedomrules | pub1.upsocial.com:8008:@gjlNF5Cyw3OKZxEoEpsVhT5Xv3HZutVfKBppmu42MkI=.ed25519~lMd6f4nnmBZEZSavAl4uahl+feajLUGqu8s2qdoTLi8= | | Monero Pub | @Denis | xmr-pub.net:8008:@5hTpvduvbDyMLN2IdzDKa7nx7PSem9co3RsOmZoyyCM=.ed25519~vQU+r2HUd6JxPENSinUWdfqrJLlOqXiCbzHoML9iVN4= | | FreeSocial | @Jarland | pub.freesocial.co:8008:@ofYKOy2p9wsaxV73GqgOyh6C6nRGFM5FyciQyxwBd6A=.ed25519~ye9Z808S3KPQsV0MWr1HL0/Sh8boSEwW+ZK+8x85u9w= | | ssb.vpn.net.br | @coffeverton | ssb.vpn.net.br:8008:@ze8nZPcf4sbdULvknEFOCbVZtdp7VRsB95nhNw6/2YQ=.ed25519~D0blTolH3YoTwSAkY5xhNw8jAOjgoNXL/+8ZClzr0io= | | gossip.noisebridge.info | Noisebridge Hackerspace @james.network | gossip.noisebridge.info:8008:@2NANnQVdsoqk0XPiJG2oMZqaEpTeoGrxOHJkLIqs7eY=.ed25519~JWTC6+rPYPW5b5zCion0gqjcJs35h6JKpUrQoAKWgJ4= |

Pubs privados

Você precisará entrar em contato com os proprietários desses bares para receber um convite.

| Pub Name | Operator | Contact | | --------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------- | | many.butt.nz | @dinosaur | mikey@enspiral.com | | one.butt.nz | @dinosaur | mikey@enspiral.com | | ssb.mikey.nz | @dinosaur | mikey@enspiral.com | | ssb.celehner.com | @cel | cel@celehner.com |

Pubs muito grandes

Aviso: embora tecnicamente funcione usar um convite para esses pubs, você provavelmente se divertirá se o fizer devido ao seu tamanho (muitas coisas para baixar, risco para bots / spammers / idiotas)

| Pub Name | Operator | Invite Code | | --------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------ | | scuttlebutt.de | SolSoCoG | scuttlebutt.de:8008:@yeh/GKxlfhlYXSdgU7CRLxm58GC42za3tDuC4NJld/k=.ed25519~iyaCpZ0co863K9aF+b7j8BnnHfwY65dGeX6Dh2nXs3c= | | Lohn's Pub | @lohn | p.lohn.in:8018:@LohnKVll9HdLI3AndEc4zwGtfdF/J7xC7PW9B/JpI4U=.ed25519~z3m4ttJdI4InHkCtchxTu26kKqOfKk4woBb1TtPeA/s= | | Scuttle Space | @guil-dot | Visit scuttle.space | | SSB PeerNet US-East | timjrobinson | us-east.ssbpeer.net:8008:@sTO03jpVivj65BEAJMhlwtHXsWdLd9fLwyKAT1qAkc0=.ed25519~sXFc5taUA7dpGTJITZVDCRy2A9jmkVttsr107+ufInU= | | Hermies | s | net:hermies.club:8008~shs:uMYDVPuEKftL4SzpRGVyQxLdyPkOiX7njit7+qT/7IQ=:SSB+Room+PSK3TLYC2T86EHQCUHBUHASCASE18JBV24= |

GUI - Interface Gráfica do Utilizador(Usuário)

Patchwork - Uma GUI SSB (Descontinuado)

Patchwork é o aplicativo de mensagens e compartilhamento descentralizado construído em cima do SSB . O protocolo scuttlebutt em si não mantém um conjunto de feeds nos quais um usuário está interessado, então um cliente é necessário para manter uma lista de feeds de pares em que seu respectivo usuário está interessado e seguindo.

Fonte: scuttlebutt.nz

Quando você instala e executa o Patchwork, você só pode ver e se comunicar com seus pares em sua rede local. Para acessar fora de sua LAN, você precisa se conectar a um Pub. Um pub é apenas para convidados e eles retransmitem mensagens entre você e seus pares fora de sua LAN e entre outros Pubs.

Lembre-se de que você precisa seguir alguém para receber mensagens dessa pessoa. Isso reduz o envio de mensagens de spam para os usuários. Os usuários só veem as respostas das pessoas que seguem. Os dados são sincronizados no disco para funcionar offline, mas podem ser sincronizados diretamente com os pares na sua LAN por wi-fi ou bluetooth.

Patchbay - Uma GUI Alternativa

Patchbay é um cliente de fofoca projetado para ser fácil de modificar e estender. Ele usa o mesmo banco de dados que Patchwork e Patchfoo , então você pode facilmente dar uma volta com sua identidade existente.

Planetary - GUI para IOS

Planetary é um app com pubs pré-carregados para facilitar integração.

Manyverse - GUI para Android

Manyverse é um aplicativo de rede social com recursos que você esperaria: posts, curtidas, perfis, mensagens privadas, etc. Mas não está sendo executado na nuvem de propriedade de uma empresa, em vez disso, as postagens de seus amigos e todos os seus dados sociais vivem inteiramente em seu telefone .

Fontes

• https://scuttlebot.io/

• https://decentralized-id.com/decentralized-web/scuttlebot/#plugins

• https://medium.com/@miguelmota/getting-started-with-secure-scuttlebut-e6b7d4c5ecfd

• Secure Scuttlebutt : um protocolo de banco de dados global.

@ 0271e1b9:ad8cff90

I study the greats. For if and when I find myself beaten down into the gutters of life - the vile, bile and the mundane - I shall draw strength from other great men - past, present and future - who, quite often, faced many more adversities and a lot more suffering, but chose to use them to their advantage, to overcome their dire circumstances and rise above the afflictions that life had bestowed upon them. It’s all been done before. It can be done again, better.

Learning from the past and from the present is very straightforward. Anyone can do that. But how does one learn from the future? It’s simple: you envision the best possible future for humanity, for generations to come, and for yourself. Then you figure out an approximate path on how to get there, and what kind of a man or a woman you must be to walk that path. The skills, the mindset, the qualities. And lastly, but perhaps most importantly, you find actionable measures, habits, convictions on how to become that person - and conversely, what are stopping you from becoming that person.

“You must value learning above everything else.”

― Robert Greene

“Those who have a 'why' to live, can bear with almost any 'how'.”

― Viktor E. Frankl

“You need to look at all events as having value. If you can do that, then you’re in a zone of tremendous opportunity.”

― Phil Stutz

“I shall take the more pains to uncover the fountains of philosophy, from which all my eloquence has taken its rise.”

― Marcus Tullius Cicero

“Error correction is the basis of all intelligence.”

― Jeff Booth

“Yes, you’re likely to fail, that’s fine. Because the goal of playing is not to win, but to keep learning. And the day you stop learning is the day you stop living."

― Jesse Enkamp

"A man is great not because he hasn't failed; a man is great because failure hasn't stopped him."

— Confucius

“If people knew how hard I had to work to gain my mastery, it would not seem so wonderful at all.”

― Michelangelo

“First of all we have to decide what we are to do and what manner of men we wish to be - the most difficult problem in the world.”

― Marcus Tullius Cicero

“You either bleed soul into your work, or let the work bleed out your soul.”

― Pran Yoganthan

"The Stoic philosopher is the man who has liberated himself from fear. He’s not afraid of death, he’s not afraid of pain, he’s not afraid of other people’s dismissal as a fool. The only thing he cares about is that he should meet his moral obligations.”

― Michael Sugrue

"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

― Thucydides

“The brain is the most powerful weapon in the world.”

― David Goggins

“Man, the bravest of animals, and the one most accustomed to suffering, does not repudiate suffering as such; he desires it, he even seeks it out, provided he is shown a meaning for it, a purpose of suffering. The meaninglessness of suffering, not suffering itself, was the curse that lay over mankind so far.”

― Friedrich Nietzsche

"Consciousness is awareness with a choice."

― Thomas Campbell

“The essence of philosophy is that a man should so live that his happiness shall depend as little as possible on external things.”

― Epictetus

“It’s most real, it’s most good and it’s most salvific - it saves you, it transforms you. That’s the sacred.”

— John Vervaeke

“It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.”

― Epictetus

“Evolution is a process of iteration. There’s no master plan. It’s in each moment of what happens.”

― Michael Behrens

“Don’t follow anybody and don’t accept anyone as a teacher, except when you become your own teacher and disciple.”

― Jiddu Krishnamurti

“This is your life. You’re accountable. What are you gonna do about that?”

― James Hollis

By the way, if you enjoyed these quotes, feel free to follow a little side project of mine: Stoic Resurrection

Peace & Love,

Kontext

Block height 881,748

@ 6be5cc06:5259daf0

Um dos padrões mais bem estabelecidos ao medir a opinião pública é que cada geração tende a seguir um caminho semelhante em termos de política e ideologia geral. Seus membros compartilham das mesmas experiências formativas, atingem os marcos importantes da vida ao mesmo tempo e convivem nos mesmos espaços. Então, como devemos entender os relatórios que mostram que a Geração Z é hiperprogressista em certos assuntos, mas surpreendentemente conservadora em outros?

A resposta, nas palavras de Alice Evans, pesquisadora visitante na Universidade de Stanford e uma das principais estudiosas do tema, é que os jovens de hoje estão passando por um grande divergência de gênero, com as jovens mulheres do primeiro grupo e os jovens homens do segundo. A Geração Z representa duas gerações, e não apenas uma.

Em países de todos os continentes, surgiu um distanciamento ideológico entre jovens homens e mulheres. Milhões de pessoas que compartilham das mesmas cidades, locais de trabalho, salas de aula e até casas, não veem mais as coisas da mesma maneira.

Nos Estados Unidos, os dados da Gallup mostram que, após décadas em que os sexos estavam distribuídos de forma relativamente equilibrada entre visões políticas liberais e conservadoras, as mulheres entre 18 e 30 anos são agora 30 pontos percentuais mais liberais do que os homens dessa faixa etária. Essa diferença surgiu em apenas seis anos.

A Alemanha também apresenta um distanciamento de 30 pontos entre homens jovens conservadores e mulheres jovens progressistas, e no Reino Unido, a diferença é de 25 pontos. Na Polônia, no ano passado, quase metade dos homens entre 18 e 21 anos apoiou o partido de extrema direita Confederation, em contraste com apenas um sexto das jovens mulheres dessa mesma idade.

Fora do Ocidente, há divisões ainda mais acentuadas. Na Coreia do Sul, há um enorme abismo entre homens e mulheres jovens, e a situação é semelhante na China. Na África, a Tunísia apresenta o mesmo padrão. Vale notar que em todos os países essa divisão drástica ocorre principalmente entre a geração mais jovem, sendo muito menos pronunciada entre homens e mulheres na faixa dos 30 anos ou mais velhos.

O movimento # MeToo foi o principal estopim, trazendo à tona valores feministas intensos entre jovens mulheres que se sentiram empoderadas para denunciar injustiças de longa data. Esse estopim encontrou especialmente terreno fértil na Coreia do Sul, onde a desigualdade de gênero é bastante visível e a misoginia explícita é comum. (palavras da Financial Times, eu só traduzi)

Na eleição presidencial da Coreia do Sul em 2022, enquanto homens e mulheres mais velhos votaram de forma unificada, os jovens homens apoiaram fortemente o partido de direita People Power, enquanto as jovens mulheres apoiaram o partido liberal Democratic em números quase iguais e opostos.

A situação na Coreia é extrema, mas serve como um alerta para outros países sobre o que pode acontecer quando jovens homens e mulheres se distanciam. A sociedade está dividida, a taxa de casamento despencou e a taxa de natalidade caiu drasticamente, chegando a 0,78 filhos por mulher em 2022, o menor número no mundo todo.

Sete anos após a explosão inicial do movimento # MeToo, a divergência de gênero em atitudes tornou-se autossustentável.

Dados das pesquisas mostram que em muitos países, as diferenças ideológicas vão além dessa questão específica. A divisão progressista-conservadora sobre assédio sexual parece ter causado ou pelo menos faz parte de um alinhamento mais amplo, em que jovens homens e mulheres estão se organizando em grupos conservadores e liberais em outros assuntos.

Nos EUA, Reino Unido e Alemanha, as jovens mulheres agora adotam posturas mais liberais sobre temas como imigração e justiça racial, enquanto grupos etários mais velhos permanecem equilibrados. A tendência na maioria dos países tem sido de mulheres se inclinando mais para a esquerda, enquanto os homens permanecem estáveis. No entanto, há sinais de que os jovens homens estão se movendo para a direita na Alemanha, tornando-se mais críticos em relação à imigração e se aproximando do partido de extrema direita AfD nos últimos anos.

Seria fácil dizer que tudo isso é apenas uma fase passageira, mas os abismos ideológicos apenas crescem, e os dados mostram que as experiências políticas formativas das pessoas são difíceis de mudar. Tudo isso é agravado pelo fato de que o aumento dos smartphones e das redes sociais faz com que os jovens homens e mulheres agora vivam em espaços separados e tenham culturas distintas.

As opiniões dos jovens frequentemente são ignoradas devido à baixa participação política, mas essa mudança pode deixar consequências duradouras, impactando muito mais do que apenas os resultados das eleições.

Retirado de: https://www.ft.com/content/29fd9b5c-2f35-41bf-9d4c-994db4e12998

@ 6f3670d9:03f04036

Disclaimer: - This will void your warranty - There might be differences between the Bitaxe and the Lucky Miner that might not cause issues or damage immediately, but might manifest long-term - Proceed at your own risk

---

A Different Pickaxe

You live in a place where it's difficult to get a Bitaxe. You have access to AliExpress. You look around. You find something called the "Lucky Miner LV06". A Bitaxe clone that uses the same mining chip as the Bitaxe Ultra (BM1366 ASIC). You buy one.

You plug it in, you enter your wallet address and other settings, and it starts mining. It works! Great!

But it's running a customized firmware. It's not AxeOS. Maybe there's something shady in the stock firmware. It's not open-source, after all. Also, AxeOS looks amazing... And that automatic pool fail-over feature is handy.

You think to yourself: "Maybe I can use the Bitaxe firmware on this?". Guess what? You're right!

Flashing From Web UI

What usually works for me is to: - Download the Bitaxe firmware files (esp-miner.bin and www.bin) from GitHub (here). Version 2.4.1 seems to work well, as of this writing. - Then from the Lucky Miner web interface, upload the "Website" (www.bin) file. - Wait for a minute or two after it's done uploading. - Upload the "Firmware" (esp-miner.bin) file. - Wait another minute or two. - Unplug the power and plug it back in. - Set the "Core Voltage" and "Frequency" to the defaults. - Unplug the power and plug it back in again.

If you're lucky (no pun intended), you'll have a working Lucky Miner with AxeOS. Update the settings and mine away!

However, often times I've been unlucky, like what happened while I was writing this article, ironically. The miner malfunctions for no obvious reason. It keeps rebooting, or it's not mining (zero/low hashrate), or the web interface is inaccessible. You name it.

The miner has become a "brick". How do you "unbrick" it?

When you brick a Bitaxe, you can recover it by flashing (uploading) a "Factory Image". The Bitaxe has a USB port that makes this easy. Follow the guide and it should come back to life again. Unfortunately, the Lucky Miner LV06 doesn't have a USB port. It has a serial port, though. We'll have to get our hands a bit dirty.

Flashing Using the Serial Port

We need to connect the serial port of the miner to a computer and run a program to flash (upload) the firmware file on the miner. Any 3.3v UART serial port should be sufficient. Unfortunately, PCs don't usually come with a UART serial port these days, let alone a 3.3v one. The serial port common in old computers is an RS-232 port, which will most probably fry your miner if you try to connect it directly. Beware.

In my case, as a serial port for my PC, I'm using an Arduino Due I had lying around. We connect it to the PC through USB, and on the other side we connect a few wires to the miner, which gives the PC access to the miner.

WARNING: Make sure your serial port is 3.3v or you will probably kill the miner. Arduino Uno is 5v not 3.3v, for example, and cannot be used for this.

Wiring

First, we need to open the Lucky Miner. Use a small flat screwdriver to gently push the two plastic clips shown in the picture below. Gently pry the top cover away from the bottom cover on the clips side first, then remove the other side. Be careful not to break the display cable.

Once the cover is off, you can find the miner's serial port in the top right corner (J10), as shown in the next picture. We'll also need the reset button (EN).

There are three screws holding the PCB and the bottom cover together. If you're confident in your ability to push the small button on the underside of the PCB with the bottom cover on, then no need to remove these. The following picture shows what we need from that side.

And the next picture shows the pins and USB port we will use from the Arduino.

Now, we need to connect: - The USB port on the Arduino labelled "programming" to the PC - Pin 18 (TX1) on the Arduino to J10 through-hole pad 5 (blue dot) - Pin 19 (RX1) on the Arduino to J10 through-hole pad 3 (green dot) - Any GND pin on the Arduino to J10 through-hole pad 4 (yellow dot)

I didn't need to solder the wires to the pads. Keeping everything stable, perhaps by putting a weight on the wires or a bit of tape, was sufficient in all my attempts.

Setting up the Arduino

To use the Arduino as a serial port for our PC, we'll have to make it pass-through data back and forth between the USB port and UART1, where we connected the miner.

The following steps are all done on a PC running Debian Linux (Bookworm), in the spirit of freedom and open-source.

First, we start the Arduino IDE. If the package for the Arduino Due board is not already installed, you'll see a small prompt at the bottom. Click "Install this package".

Click the "Install" button.

Once the package is installed, click "Close".

Next, we select the Due board. Click the "Tools" menu, select "Board", select "Arduino ARM (32-bits) Boards" and click "Arduino Due (Programming Port)"

Next, we select the port. Click the "Tools" menu again, select "Port", and click the port where the Arduino is connected. In my case it was "/dev/ttyACM0".

Now we need to upload the following code to the Arduino board. The code is actually the "SerialPassthrough" example from the IDE, but with the serial speed changed to match the miner.

``` void setup() { Serial.begin(115200); Serial1.begin(115200); }

void loop() { if (Serial.available()) { // If anything comes in Serial (USB), Serial1.write(Serial.read()); // read it and send it out Serial1 }

if (Serial1.available()) { // If anything comes in Serial1 Serial.write(Serial1.read()); // read it and send it out Serial (USB) } } ```

Copy/paste the code into the IDE and click upload. You'll see "Done uploading" at the bottom.

Next we'll test if we're receiving data from the miner. We start by opening the "Serial Monitor" from the "Tools" menu in the IDE. Then we change the baudrate to 115200.

Set the Arduino and the miner in a comfortable position, make sure the wires are held in place and got a good contact on both sides, and the power is plugged in.

Now we'll put the miner in "download" mode. Press and hold the button on the underside (K1), press and release the reset button (EN), then release the other button (K1).

You should see some text from the miner in the serial monitor window, like in the picture below.

Congratulations! We know we're able to receive data from the miner now. We're not sure transmit is working, but we'll find out when we try to flash.

Flashing Using the Serial Port, for Real

To flash the Lucky Miner we'll need a software tool named esptool and the factory image firmware file.

I usually use "esp-miner-factory-205-v2.1.8.bin" for the factory image (this one) as a base, and then flash the version I want from the Web UI, using the steps I mentioned earlier.

For esptool, the documentation (here) shows us how to install it. To make things a little easier on our Debian Linux system, we'll use pipx instead of pip. The instructions below are adapted for that.

First we make sure pipx is installed. Run this command in a terminal and follow the instructions:

sudo apt-get install pipx

Then we install esptool using pipx. Run the following in a terminal:

pipx install esptool

The output will be something like this:

user@pc:~$ pipx install esptool installed package esptool 4.8.1, installed using Python 3.11.2 These apps are now globally available - esp_rfc2217_server.py - espefuse.py - espsecure.py - esptool.py ⚠️ Note: '/home/user/.local/bin' is not on your PATH environment variable. These apps will not be globally accessible until your PATH is updated. Run `pipx ensurepath` to automatically add it, or manually modify your PATH in your shell's config file (i.e. ~/.bashrc). done! ✨ 🌟 ✨

We can see pipx telling us we won't be able to run our tool because the folder where it was installed is not in the PATH variable. To fix that, we can follow pipx instructions and run:

pipx ensurepath

And we'll see something like this:

``` user@pc:~$ pipx ensurepath Success! Added /home/user/.local/bin to the PATH environment variable.

Consider adding shell completions for pipx. Run 'pipx completions' for instructions.

You will need to open a new terminal or re-login for the PATH changes to take effect.

Otherwise pipx is ready to go! ✨ 🌟 ✨ ```

Now, close the terminal and re-open it so that esptool becomes available.

Finally, to actually flash the miner, put the miner in download mode, then in the following command change the port ("/dev/ttyACM0") to your serial port, as we've seen earlier, and the file path to where your firmware file is, and run it:

esptool.py -p /dev/ttyACM0 --baud 115200 write_flash --erase-all 0x0 ~/Downloads/esp-miner-factory-205-v2.1.8.bin

If everything went fine, the tool will take a few minutes to flash the firmware to the miner. You'll see something like this in the output:

``` user@pc:~$ esptool.py -p /dev/ttyACM0 --baud 115200 write_flash --erase-all 0x0 ~/Downloads/esp-miner-factory-205-v2.1.8.bin esptool.py v4.8.1 Serial port /dev/ttyACM0 Connecting..... Detecting chip type... ESP32-S3 Chip is ESP32-S3 (QFN56) (revision v0.2) Features: WiFi, BLE, Embedded PSRAM 8MB (AP_3v3) Crystal is 40MHz MAC: 3c:84:27:ba:be:01 Uploading stub... Running stub... Stub running... Configuring flash size... Erasing flash (this may take a while)... Chip erase completed successfully in 9.5s Compressed 15802368 bytes to 1320190... Wrote 15802368 bytes (1320190 compressed) at 0x00000000 in 152.1 seconds (effective 831.2 kbit/s)... Hash of data verified.

Leaving... Hard resetting via RTS pin... ```

And we're done! Hopefully the miner will be recovered now.

Hope this helps!

Stay humble,
dumb-package

A Warning About Beta Versions of AxeOS

For reasons unknown to me, while I was writing this article I wanted to try the testing version of AxeOS, which was v2.4.1b (beta). Flashing from Web UI went smooth, but the miner stopped mining. I flashed back to v2.1.8 using the serial port, a known good version for me, but it wouldn't mine, still.

Thankfully, v2.4.1 was released recently, and flashing it from the Web UI magically revived my miner. So, be warned.

Bonus: File Hashes

For convenience, these are the SHA256 hashes of the files I used in this article: ``` da24fceb246f3b8b4dd94e5143f17bd38e46e5285e807ebd51627cb08f665c0a ESP-Miner-v2.4.1/esp-miner.bin 16c5c671391f0e3e88a3e79ce33fad3b0ec232b8572fad5e1e0d1ad3251ab394 ESP-Miner-v2.4.1/www.bin

d5182a15b6fa21d7b9b31bff2026d30afed9d769781a48db914730a5751e20c6 esp-miner-factory-205-v2.1.8.bin ```

@ 6f3670d9:03f04036

This is my first long-form post. The starting line.

There's nothing of value here. Just using this as a marker.

I hope to post a lot more. Documenting how I made something work would be very useful to me, and hopefully others, but I've been too lazy to do that. Wish me luck!

Stay humble,
dumb-package

@ 2fb77d26:c47a6ee1

John Brockmans Edge-Foundation galt als Treffpunkt für die Genies der Gegenwart. Ob Jeff Bezos, Sean Parker, Elon Musk oder Daniel Hillis – sie alle wohnten Veranstaltungen bei, die sie als Tech-Avantgarde darauf vorbereiten sollten, die Zukunft zu gestalten. Die »Dritte Kultur«. Doch was zunächst progressiv klingt, entpuppt sich auf den zweiten Blick rasch als Trainingslager für Technokraten. Finanziert von Jeffrey Epstein.

Original mit Quellen (VÖ: 24.11.2024) - https://www.regenauer.press/die-glorreichen-sieben

Sie regieren die Welt. Das ist keine Übertreibung. Denn sie haben deutlich mehr Einfluss darauf, was wir sehen, lesen, hören, fühlen, kaufen, tun und denken als jeder Politdarsteller – gemeint sind die »glorreichen Sieben«. Also die sieben größten Unternehmen der Tech-Branche: Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet (Google), Tesla, Meta und Nvidia. Mit ihren Plattformen, Produkten und Smartphone-Apps dominieren sie Medienlandschaft, Konsum, persönliche Kommunikation, digital-soziale Räume, nachrichtendienstliche Aktivitäten, künstliche Intelligenz (KI) und in zunehmendem Maße auch den Finanzmarkt.

Nachdem Microsoft und Apple mit der Entwicklung von Personal Computern und einer grafischen Benutzeroberfläche dafür sorgten, dass sich Mitte der 80er auch neugierige Normalos einen PC ins Haus holten – als Ersatz für die plötzlich altbacken wirkende Schreibmaschine – und Tim Berners-Lee, der 1989 am CERN die Grundlagen des World Wide Web entwickelte, am 6. August 1991 sein Konzept eines Hypertext-Dienstes online gestellt hatte, waren es Ende der 90er eine Handvoll Unternehmen, die sich im sonnigen Süden der USA anschicken sollten, das Mediazän zu dominieren. Gegründet von einer Handvoll Tech-Desperados, die abseits gültiger Normen und Gesetzmäßigkeiten operierte, weil es für das, was sie erfanden, noch keine gab, formierte sich ein anomistisches Ökosystem, das heute die Welt dominiert: Die Plattform-Plutokratie. Der digital-zensorische Komplex. Die größte Social-Engineering-Maschinerie aller Zeiten.

So steht die Einordnung als »größte Unternehmen« nicht nur für die astronomischen Börsenwerte dieser Konzerne, sondern vor allem für ihren massiven Einfluss auf die Entwicklung des Individuums und die postmoderne Gesellschaft an sich. Dass diese Einflussnahme abseits von Marktwert und Performance-Indikatoren nicht allein auf organischem Wachstum und Marktdurchdringung beruht, liegt auf der Hand – denn die Tech-Giganten erfuhren signifikante Starthilfe von Seiten des Staates. Genauer gesagt dem Geheimdienstkomplex.

Facebook erhielt Millionen von Deep-State-Technokrat Peter Thiel und Accel, dessen Management enge Verbindungen zum CIA-Finanzvehikel In-Q-Tel pflegte, und galt für das Forbes-Magazine schon 2018 als »das ultimative Überwachungsinstrument für Regierungen«. Sergey Brin und Larry Page erhielten 1995 erhebliche Summen von der DARPA, um Google zu gründen. Aus einem »schwarzen Budget«, mit dem NSA und CIA Werkzeuge zur Massenüberwachung entwickeln wollten. Wenig verwunderlich also, dass auch Google Earth aus einem CIA-Projekt namens Keyhole EarthViewer hervorging, dessen Unterstützung In-Q-Tel gemäß Pressemitteilung vom 25. Juni 2003 als »strategisches Investment« bezeichnete. Julian Assange lag also ganz richtig, als er 2014 warnte, »Google sei nicht das, für was es sich ausgibt«.

Selbst bei Reuters konnte man im Rahmen eines ausführlichen Artikels vom 3. Juli 2013 nachlesen, wie eng die Verbindungen der Big-Tech-Konzerne zu Geheimdiensten ist. Von der Start-up-Finanzierung über die Rekrutierung von Ex-Agenten bis zum Austausch von Computerchips, die Spionage erleichtern, ist alles dabei. »Die Zusammenarbeit zwischen Tech-Industrie und Geheimdiensten ist enger als die meisten Menschen denken«, so Reuters.

So erstaunt es kaum, dass Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Meta und Elon Musks Firmenkonglomerat mittlerweile auch in den Krisen- und Kriegsgebieten der Welt aktiv sind, um dort in Zusammenarbeit mit Peter Thiels Palantir, Pentagon und Geheimdiensten jene Drecksarbeit zu übernehmen, die Regierungen nicht offiziell übernehmen wollen, oder dürfen. Korporatismus in voller Blüte eben. Die vermeintlich privatwirtschaftlich geführten Tech-Konzerne dominieren nicht mehr nur den zivilen, sondern zusehends auch den militärischen »Markt« – das Geschäft des industrialisierten Tötens.

Dass der militärisch-industrielle mit dem digital-zensorischen Komplex fusionierte, ist eine logische Folge des Umstands, dass beide dem gleichen »Gott« dienen: Mammon. Sprich, dem Zentral- und Geschäftsbankenkartell. In diesem Lichte betrachtet gebietet das Gesetz der Logik, dass die Schaffung dieser unheiligen Allianz nicht allein betriebswirtschaftlich motiviert war. Denn schon im 17., 18., und 19. Jahrhundert nutzten die Finanzkartelle Medien, Staat und Wirtschaft, um den Lauf der Dinge zu ihren Gunsten zu beeinflussen. Siehe mein Text »Monopole, Macht und Mord« Teil 1 und 2.

Damals zeitigte diese überstaatliche Einflussnahme vor allem militärische Konflikte, bei denen Territorialansprüche, Ressourcen und Monopolisierung im Fokus standen. Weil in diesen Bereichen aber bis auf die planetaren Gemeingüter, die sich die Herrschaftskaste nun im Rahmen der Green Economy unter den Nagel zu reißen gedenkt, nicht mehr viel zu holen ist, geht es dieser Tage vor allem darum, die Kontrolle nicht zu verlieren. Dazu müssen die 0,1 bis 1,0 Prozent an der Spitze des wertewestlichen Kastensystems sicherstellen, dass die unterworfene Masse der transgenerational operierenden Kriminalität ihrer Zirkel nicht auf die Schliche kommt.

Eine Bedrohung für die von immer mehr Rissen gezeichneten Fundamente des Elfenbeinturms markiert vor allem das Internet. Denn trotz vielschichtiger Zensurmethoden im Web 2.0, legislativer Hütchenspielertricks und der Segregation Andersdenkender, bahnt sich das kleine, aber persistente Licht der Wahrheit auch in dunkelsten Zeiten seinen Weg durch Paywalls, Geofences, Blockwart-Barrikaden und Plattform-Patrouillen. VPN, Blockchain, Graphene OS, De-Fi (Decentralized Finance) und Verschlüsselung sei Dank. Das Web 3.0 lässt sich nicht zensieren.

Um derart autonomisierenden Entwicklungen entgegenzuwirken, konzentrieren sich die Kolonialisierungsprojekte der Herrschaftskaste nun nicht mehr auf die bewaffnete Unterwerfung ferner Länder – sondern auf das Erringen der Lufthoheit über einem geradezu grenzenlosen Schlachtfeld: dem Gehirn. Allerdings nicht in Form simpler Propaganda. Denn im Zeitalter des fortgeschrittenen Informationskrieges ist Nudging die sozialarchitektonische Königsdisziplin, um Menschen dazu zu bringen, etwas zu unterstützen, das ihnen nichts bringt, oder sogar schadet. Und wie könnte Nudging in der Breite besser gelingen als durch willfährige Hilfestellung »der glorreichen Sieben«. Genau dazu wurden sie geschaffen.

Technologische Revolutionen werden Dekaden bevor sie eintreten antizipiert, durchdacht, angekündigt und visualisiert. Nicht zuletzt von Hollywood, der laut Edward Bernays »größten Propagandamaschine der Welt«. Jene Kräfte, die die Gesellschaft kontrollieren wollen, machen sich das zu nutze. Sie erkennen, welche Paradigmenwechsel technologische Revolutionen einläuten werden und versuchen daher frühzeitig, deren Entwicklung zu steuern. Aus diesem Grund lohnt sich ein Blick auf die Entstehungsgeschichte des Nudging – beziehungsweise der zugrundeliegenden wissenschaftlichen Disziplin: Verhaltensforschung.

Klassische Propaganda beruht auf den Standardwerken von Walter Lippmann (1922) und Edward Bernays (1928). Moderne Verhaltensforschung – oder Sozialarchitektonik – in weiten Teilen auf den Arbeiten von Anthony Giddens. Der britische Soziologe veröffentlichte 1990 das Buch »The Consequences of Modernity«, in dem er die Grundlagen für den »Dritten Weg« skizzierte – ein Konzept der Politikproduktion, das abseits politischer Spektren dazu dient, die Massen zu gesellschaftlichem Konsens zu zwingen. Giddens’ Konzept beruht auf den Infiltrationsansätzen der Fabian Society, die damit das Fundament der Partizipation simulierenden Sozialdemokratien des heutigen Europas schuf. Hintergründe zu Fabian Society und dem Roll-out des Dritten Weges finden sich in meinem Text »Dominanzdialektik« vom 30. September 2023.

Nach 1990 publizierte Giddens weitere Bücher, die sich mit dem Themenkomplex befassten. Darunter Titel wie »Moderne und Identität« (1991), »Die Transformation der Intimität« (1992), »Jenseits von rechts und links« (1994) und »Der Dritte Weg« (1998). In all diesen Werken beschäftigt sich der Sozialwissenschaftler mit der übergeordneten Frage, wie der Mensch sich in die Welt der Postmoderne einzufügen vermag – oder besser – einfügen muss, um mit Globalisierung, Klimawandel und sozialen Verwerfungen zurecht zu kommen. Anthony Giddens war von 1997 bis 2003 Direktor der einflussreichen, von der Fabian Society gegründeten London School of Economics. Er ist der meistzitierte Autor im Bereich soziologischer Studien und Mitglied des 2007 ins Leben gerufenen European Council on Foreign Relations.

Relevant ist Giddens Arbeit zum »Dritten Weg« vor allem deshalb, weil dieser manipulative Ansatz der Politikproduktion durch Tony Blair, Bill Clinton und Gerhard Schröder Einzug in die Parlamente des Wertewestens fand. Heute orientiert sich praktisch jede Regierung an Giddens Theorien – und setzt demzufolge um, was die Fabian Society bereits Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts vorschlug, um Kollektivismus unter dem Deckmantel von Mitbestimmung zu generieren. Das erklärt, warum weder Klaus Schwabs »Stakeholder Kapitalismus« noch die »Vierte Industrielle Revolution« etwas mit Kapitalismus oder Demokratie zu tun haben.

Damit solche Konzepte in der Gesellschaft Fuß fassen, benötigt es vor allem eine auf Linie gebürstete Führungsebene. Diese wird mit Stipendien und Förderprogrammen eingenordet, bevor man sie auf die Bevölkerung loslässt. Viele dieser Kaderschmieden sind mittlerweile hinlänglich bekannt. Da wäre zum Beispiel das zu fragwürdigem Ruhm gelangte Young Global Leaders Programm des Weltwirtschaftsforums (WEF), das neben knapp 3.800 weiteren Absolventen auch Angela Merkel, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy und Bill Gates auf ihre Karrieren in der »regelbasierten internationalen Ordnung« vorbereitete. Ein weiterer WEF-Absolvent ist Lawrence Summers, US-Finanzminister unter Bill Clinton, nationaler Wirtschaftsberater unter Barack Obama und von 1991 bis 1993 Chefökonom der Weltbank. Darüber hinaus war Summers von 2001 bis 2006 Präsident der Harvard University, wo bis 2006 auch Mark Zuckerberg studierte und mit drei Kommilitonen Facebook gründete.

Nach nicht zweifelsfrei verifizierbaren Angaben eines anonymen Facebook-Whistleblowers soll Summers in diesem Zeitraum auf Zuckerberg zugegangen sein, um ihm für die Mitarbeit an einem Social-Media-Überwachungs-Projekt der DARPA lukrative Regierungsaufträge in Aussicht zu stellen – siehe Life Log, das einen Tag vor dem Start von TheFacebook offline ging. In Anbetracht von Summers Position durchaus denkbar. Auch Moral scheint dem Mann ein Fremdwort zu sein, wie Formulierungen aus einem Weltbank-Memo Summers zeigen, die am 18. Mai 1993 bei einer Anhörung im US-Senat thematisiert wurden.

»Ich denke, die wirtschaftliche Logik, die hinter der Entsorgung einer Menge von Giftmüll in einem Land mit den niedrigsten Löhnen steht, ist einwandfrei, und wir sollten uns dem stellen. (…) Ich war schon immer der Meinung, dass die unterbevölkerten Länder Afrikas stark unterverschmutzt sind.«

Nicht zu vergessen Summers enge Verbindungen zum Pädophilen, Sexualstraftäter und Menschenhändler Jeffrey Epstein. Nachdem Summers bereits mehrfach mit Epsteins Privatjet – bekannt unter dem Namen »Lolita Express« – unterwegs war, bestieg er die Maschine nur zehn Tage nach seiner Hochzeit im Jahr 2005 erneut, um Epsteins ominöse Privatinsel »Pedophile Island« zu besuchen. Die Huffington Post schrieb dazu am 24. April 2020: »Joe Biden sollte sich von Larry Summers fernhalten – Summers ruiniert alles, was er anfasst«. Summers WEF-Training scheint sich jedenfalls ausgezahlt zu haben. Denn wer mit Jeffrey Epstein zu tun hatte, ist definitiv im Establishment angekommen.

Tony Blair und Gordon Brown hatten vor dem WEF bereits das 1940 von Nelson Rockefeller initiierte und bis heute vom US-Außenministerium betriebene »International Visitor Leadership Program« (IVLP) durchlaufen. Auch der 1972 gegründete German Marshall Fund betreibt diverse Förderprogramme – siehe EU-US Young Leaders Seminar 2024 oder Policy Designers Network 2024, das sich auf transatlantisch bewegten Nachwuchs aus der Ukraine, Georgien und Armenien fokussiert. Auch die Elite-Universitäten kümmern sich um Nachwuchs. So unter anderem das seit 1902 bestehende Rhodes Stipendium der Oxford-Universität, das neben unzähligen US-Senatoren, Finanzmagnaten, Bestsellerautoren und Wissenschaftlern beispielsweise Edwin Hubble, Bill Clinton oder Naomi Wolf zu Ruhm verhalf. Rhodes-Alumni bleiben über Organisationen wie AARS (Association of American Rhodes Scholars) ein Leben lang verbunden.

Diesbezüglich Fakten zusammenzutragen erscheint bisweilen müßig. Denn mit Details und Verflechtungen zu Entitäten dies- und jenseits des Atlantik, die Führungskräften von morgen die sozioökonomische Philosophie der Herrschaftskaste vermitteln, könnte man Bände füllen. Versucht man die Herrschaftsphilosophie der heutigen Plattform-Plutokraten zu verstehen, sticht eine Organisation dabei allerdings heraus – und zwar die 1988 von John Brockman ins Leben gerufene Edge Foundation. Geburtsort der »Dritten Kultur«.

Die Frankfurter Allgemeine portraitierte Brockman am 7. Januar 2014 mit den einleitenden Worten: »Der wohl wichtigste Buchagent der Welt versammelt in seinem Internetsalon Edge die Cyber-Elite.« Danach beschreibt FAZ-Autor Jordan Mejas, was sich der Normalsterbliche unter Edge vorstellen darf:

»Edge, das ist der Treffpunkt für die Cyber-Elite, die erlauchtesten Geister, die das Vorfeld der neuesten natur- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Entwicklungen prägen, ob nun digital oder gentechnisch, ob psychologisch, kosmologisch oder neurologisch. Jedenfalls melden sich bei Brockman nicht nur Digerati aus dem Computeruniversum des Silicon Valley zu Wort, sondern genauso häufig Koryphäen wie die Evolutionsbiologen Richard Dawkins und Steven Pinker, der Philosoph Daniel Dennett, der Kosmologe Martin Rees, die biologische Anthropologin Helen Fisher, der Ökonom, Psychologe und Nobelpreisträger Daniel Kahneman, der Quantenphysiker David Deutsch, der Computerwissenschaftler Marvin Minsky oder der Sozialtheoretiker Anthony Giddens. Vom Apple-Mitbegründer Steve Wozniak bis zum Genomentschlüssler Craig Venter reicht seine Gästeliste, die ihresgleichen auch in der grenzenlosen Weite des Internets kaum finden wird.«

Was dem FAZ-Autor bei seiner Recherche offensichtlich entging, ist, dass neben Giddens, Wozniak, Dennis Hopper und all den wissenschaftlichen Koryphäen auch Jeff Bezos (Gründer von Amazon, Besitzer Washington Post), Elon Musk, Sean Parker (Gründer von Napster, Co-Gründer Facebook), Larry Page und Sergey Brin (Gründer von Google), Pierre Omidyar (Gründer von eBay), Salar Kamangar (ehem. CEO YouTube), Matt Groening (Erfinder von »Die Simpsons«), Marissa Mayer (ehem. CEO Google und Yahoo), Joi Ito (ehem. Direktor MIT Media Lab), Evan Williams (Co-Gründer Twitter), Paul Romer (Economist) oder Bill Gates regelmäßig auf der Gästeliste von Edge-Events standen. Wer sich durch die Event-Sektion der Edge-Webseite klickt, begegnet unter dem Menüpunkt »Billionaires’ Dinner« der damaligen wie heutigen Crème de la Crème der Plattform-Plutokratie. Garniert mit ein paar Sahnehäubchen aus Wissenschaft, Kunst und Kultur.

Hervorzuheben ist dabei vor allem das Billionaires’ Dinner 2011. Denn die Fotogalerie des Events (hier zusätzlich gesichert im Internet Archive) birgt eine kleine Überraschung: das bislang einzige Foto, das Elon Musk in Gegenwart des zu diesem Zeitpunkt bereits für Sexualstraftaten und Menschenhandel angeklagten Jeffrey Epstein zeigt. Musk sitzt zwar am Nebentisch, mit dem Rücken zur Kamera, ist dank Vergleichsaufnahmen des Events aber zweifelsfrei zu identifizieren. Interessant ist dieser Umstand deshalb, weil Musk bisher stets behauptete, Epstein lediglich einmal in dessen Haus in New York getroffen zu haben. Für 30 Minuten. Und zwar auf Drängen seiner damaligen Partnerin Talulah Riley, die Epstein angeblich für ihre Arbeit an einer Novelle kennenlernen wollte.

Ein Artikel der Newsweek vom 9. November 2022 bestätigt sowohl Musks als auch Epsteins Anwesenheit beim Edge Billionaires’ Dinner 2011. Darüber hinaus geht Newsweek noch einmal auf den Umstand ein, dass Elon Musk bereits auf einem Foto von 2014 mit Ghislaine Maxwell zu sehen war, der linken und rechten Hand Epsteins. Musk gab an, dass besagtes Bild nur entstanden sei, weil Maxwell sich ungefragt ins Bild gedrängt habe. Diesen Eindruck macht das Foto zwar nicht, das Gegenteil zu beweisen, dürfte jedoch schwer fallen. Nun sind Fotos von Gästen einer Veranstaltung natürlich noch kein Beleg dafür, dass sie mit deren Organisation zu tun haben. Finanzielle Zuwendungen dagegen schon.

Entsprechend bedeutsam ist daher ein Artikel der BuzzFeed News vom 27. September 2019. Denn er belegt, dass der bei Weitem größte Einzelspender der Edge-Foundation kein Geringerer war als Jeffrey Epstein. Das veranschaulichen die von ProPublica veröffentlichten Steuerunterlagen von Brockmans »Internetsalon« für 2001 bis 2017. So spendete Epstein 638.000 US-Dollar – während die gesamten Spendeneinnahmen sich auf 857.000 US-Dollar beliefen. Ein eigenes Profil auf der Edge-Webseite hatte Epstein natürlich auch. Kaum verwunderlich also, dass die Edge-Foundation ihre wichtigste jährliche Veranstaltung – das Billionaires’ Dinner – sofort einstellte, nachdem Epsteins Zuwendungen ab 2016 ausblieben. BuzzFeed News führt diesbezüglich aus:

»Epstein war ein regelmäßiger Teilnehmer bei Edge-Veranstaltungen. Er war bei den Billionaires’ Dinner Events 1999 und 2000 auf Fotos und Seiten zu sehen, die kürzlich von der Edge-Website gelöscht wurden, und wurde auch in einem Bericht über das Abendessen 2004 erwähnt. Epstein war auch 2011 bei Edge-Veranstaltungen anwesend, nach seiner Verurteilung wegen Sexualverbrechen im Jahr 2008. Darüber berichtete BuzzFeed News Anfang dieses Monats.«

Überschrift des betreffenden Artikels: »2011 war Jeffrey Epstein ein bekannter Sexualstraftäter. Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk und Sergey Brin speisten trotzdem mit ihm.« Weiter erklärt BuzzFeed:

»2002 waren Brockman, seine Frau und Geschäftspartnerin Katinka Matson sowie die führenden Wissenschaftler Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins und Daniel Dennett in Epsteins Jet auf dem Weg zu TED in Monterey, Kalifornien, zu sehen – der mehrtägigen Technologie-, Unterhaltungs- und Designkonferenz, bei der das Billionaires’ Dinner diesen Jahres stattfand. Die Bildunterschrift wurde kürzlich geändert, um die Erwähnung Epsteins zu entfernen. Sein Edge-Profil, das ihn als Finanzier und Wissenschaftsphilanthrop beschreibt, wurde ebenfalls entfernt. Ob Epstein selbst am Billionaires’ Dinner 2002 teilnahm, ist unklar. Aber Mitglieder seines Gefolges waren dort. Ein Foto von der Veranstaltung zeigt Brockman mit zwei jungen Frauen, die in der Bildunterschrift namentlich genannt werden. Das Foto wurde kürzlich ebenfalls von der Edge-Webseite entfernt. Eine dieser Frauen ist Sarah Kellen, die als Assistentin von Epsteins ehemaliger Freundin Ghislaine Maxwell angestellt und im Rahmen eines Vergleichs von 2008 vor Strafverfolgung geschützt war. Der Vergleich brachte Epstein nach seiner früheren Verhaftung eine 13-monatige Gefängnisstrafe in Florida ein. In mehreren Klagen haben Epsteins Opfer behauptet, Kellen gehöre zu den Personen, die halfen, den sexuellen Missbrauch für Epstein zu organisieren.«

Brockmans Interaktionen mit Epstein gingen aber offenbar weit über die Edge-Foundation hinaus. Im August 2019 publizierte der belarussische Publizist Evgeny Morozov auf Google Drive E-Mail-Korrespondenz aus dem Jahr 2013, die belegt, dass Brockman Pläne hatte, ein Meeting zwischen ihm und Epstein zu arrangieren. Doch Morozov lehnte ab. In den Mails an Morozov erwähnt Brockman Epsteins »hübsche junge Assistentin aus Weißrussland« und beschreibt seinen Gönner fälschlicherweise als »Milliardär, dem Victorias Secret und eine Modelagentur gehören«. Tatsächlich lag Epsteins Vermögen gemäß seines Testaments aber nur bei einigen hundert Millionen – und die fragwürdige Marke Victorias Secret ist Teil von L Brands, der Holding von Leslie Wexner, einem Tiefenstaat-Veteran mit Verbindungen zu Harvard und WEF-Gründung, dessen Finanzen Jeffrey Epstein bis 2007 verwaltete.

Auch sonst pflegte Brockmans Organisation verwunderliche Geschäftspraktiken. Zwischen 2001 und 2017 vergab die Edge-Foundation beispielsweise nur ein einziges Mal einen Förderpreis. Der entsprechende Betrag in Höhe von 100.000 US-Dollar ging an David Deutsch, einen Pionier für Quanteninformationstheorie, der an der Universität Oxford forschte. Financier des Preises – man ahnt es – war Jeffrey Epstein. Nicht umsonst stellte The Verve am 19. September 2019 fest, dass »Jeffrey Epstein die Wissenschaft infiltrierte, weil die Wissenschaft bereit war, ihn willkommen zu heißen«.

So knüpfte der Finanzmagnat Kontakte zu prominenten Biologen wie George Church, weil er nach Wegen suchte, die menschliche Spezies mit seiner DNA zu kreuzen. Langfristiges Ziel: Das Schaffen einer »Super-Rasse«. Mehrere preisgekrönte Wissenschaftler bestätigten gegenüber der New York Times, dass Epstein auch sie in seine misogynen Pläne eingeweiht hatte. Auf seiner abgelegenen, unterkellerten »Zorro-Ranch« in New Mexico, wo jedes Zimmer mit Kameras überwacht wurde, hatte er eigens ein Behandlungszimmer einrichten lassen, um künstliche Befruchtungen mit jungen Frauen durchführen zu können.

Bei The New Yorker konnte man am 6. September 2019 nachlesen, dass Epstein sich auch im Bereich digitale Währungen engagierte. Unter anderem finanzierte er das damals von Joi Ito geleitete MIT Media Lab – und damit auch die von Ito geführte Digital Currency Initiative (DCI). Diese wiederum unterstützte die Bitcoin-Core-Entwickler bei der Fork 2017, die Bitcoin von einer digitalen Währung zu, wie Epstein es nannte, »digitalem Gold« machen sollte – und damit weitaus ungefährlicher für das herrschende Finanzmarktkartell. Bill Gates, Harvard-Autoren wie Steven Pinker oder MIT-Programmierer wie Richard Stallmann verteidigten Epstein sogar noch nach dessen endgültiger Festnahme. Stallmann forderte gar, Kinderpornografie zu entkriminalisieren. Joi Ito dagegen kündigte kleinlaut beim MIT. Heute ist er Präsident des Chiba Institute for Technology in Japan, wo das Center for Radical Transformation (CRT) angesiedelt ist. Auch die Digital Currency Initiative gibt es bis heute. Genau wie das »digitale Gold«, mit dem aber fast niemand mehr bezahlt. HODL und so.

Mit dem Thema Digitalwährungen nähern wir uns denn auch Jeffrey Epsteins Einfluss auf den Geschäftsbereich der »glorreichen Sieben«. Denn der im Gefängnis ermordete Menschenhändler finanzierte nicht nur einen Großteil von Brockmans Edge-Aktivitäten, sondern sorgte durch die Infiltration des Wissenschaftsbetriebes auch dafür, dass Edge den Tech-Nachwuchs in genau der Domäne schulte, die für das Erringen von Weltherrschaft im Mediazän essenziell ist: Social Engineering.

Dazu veranstaltete die Edge-Foundation sogenannte Master Class Events. Im Jahr 2008 zum Beispiel zum Thema »Libertärer Paternalismus – warum es nicht möglich ist, nicht zu nudgen«. Dozent: Richard Thaler, »Vater der modernen Verhaltensökonomie«, über den die ZEIT am 18. Mai 2010 unter der Überschrift »Die Stunde der Verführer« schrieb:

»Richard Thaler hat den Draht nach oben. Der 64-Jährige ist einer der weltweit führenden Verhaltensökonomen – neuerdings berät er auch die Wirtschaftsexperten des mächtigsten Mannes der Welt, US-Präsident Barack Obama. Auch die britischen Konservativen, die in London die neue Regierung führen, haben dem Professor der Universität von Chicago einen Beraterposten versprochen. Thaler steht an der Spitze einer wirtschaftspolitischen Revolution. (…) Verhaltensorientierte Wirtschaftsforscher postulieren (…) eine grundlegend andere Wirtschaftspolitik. Zwar lehnen sie – ähnlich wie klassische liberale Ökonomen – eine direkte Bevormundung des Einzelnen durch den Staat ab. Sie sprechen sich aber für sanften Druck aus, mit dem der Staat die Menschen in die richtige Richtung leitet, ihnen gleichzeitig aber die Option lässt, sich anders zu entscheiden, wenn sie es wollen. »Nudge« (Anstupsen) hat Thaler dieses Politikkonzept zusammen mit Co-Autor Cass Sunstein im gleichnamigen Buch getauft. Private Institutionen, Behörden und Regierungen versuchen dabei, die Entscheidungen der Menschen so zu lenken, dass sie hinterher besser dastehen. Ein anderer Begriff, der den neuen Politikansatz charakterisiert, ist sanfter Paternalismus.«

Das Buch, das ZEIT-Autor Olaf Storbek referenziert, hat Thaler 2010 gemeinsam mit Cass Sunstein verfasst, einem Edge-Kollegen und Harvard-Professor für Rechtswissenschaft und Verhaltensökonomie. Deutscher Titel des Werks: »Nudge – wie man kluge Entscheidungen anstößt«. Alternativ untertitelt mit: »Wie man Menschen dazu bringt, das Richtige zu tun«. In welche Kerbe das Machwerk schlägt, zeigt der Umstand, dass Cass Sunstein schon im Januar 2008 ein Papier namens »Verschwörungstheorien« publizierte, die er darin als ernsthaftes Risiko für Recht und Gesetz einstufte. Sunstein verteidigt das offizielle 9/11-Narrativ, will eine bargeldlose Gesellschaft und hielt Corona-Lockdowns für eine »smarte« Sache. Ein Beitrag von Sunstein für »Educators at Home« vom 14. September 2010 offenbart, was für ein Menschenbild die Rechtswissenschaften in Harvard mittlerweile kultivieren:

»Wenn wir erst einmal wissen, dass Menschen menschlich sind und etwas von Homer Simpson in sich tragen, dann kann man viel tun, um sie zu manipulieren.« (Cass Sunstein)

Trotz, oder gerade wegen dieser respektlosen Haltung gegenüber den Freiheitsrechten des Individuums, öffnete ihr gemeinsames Werk Thaler und Sunstein die Türen zum Elfenbeinturm. Ab 2008 berieten die beiden Verhaltensökonomen die Regierung von Barack Obama beim Aufbau sogenannter »Nudge-Units«. Kurze Zeit später unterstützte Richard Thaler auch die britische Regierung und half bei der Formierung des »Behavioural Insights Team« (BIT), dem sowohl Sunstein als auch Thaler bis heute angehören. Das BIT spielte via SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies), dem britischen Äquivalent zum Robert-Koch-Institut (RKI), eine tragende Rolle bei der Implementierung der Covid-19-Maßnahmen in Großbritannien. Händewaschanleitungen für Erwachsene, tote Großeltern für die Kleinen. Sie wissen schon. Strategieberater von Tony Blair hatten bereits im Februar 2004 eine Studie zum Thema »Persönliche Verantwortung und Verhaltensänderung: Stand des Wissens und Auswirkungen auf die öffentliche Politik« erstellen lassen – nur Thalers griffige Bezeichnung für die neue Doktrin fehlte noch. Ein Auszug aus dem Papier von 2004 erklärt:

»Mit Blick auf die Zukunft besteht ein offensichtlicher Bedarf, unser theoretisches und empirisches Verständnis der Ursachen für Verhalten und Verhaltensänderung zu stärken. Ebenso wichtig wird die umfassendere Erprobung politischer Instrumente sein, um ein ausgefeilteres Instrumentarium für politische Entscheidungsträger zu entwickeln. Die Politik sollte nicht einfach persönliche Verantwortung oder Schuldzuweisungen proklamieren, sondern muss sich an der Art und Weise orientieren, wie Menschen tatsächlich denken und fühlen, sowie an den sozialen und psychologischen Kräften, die das Verhalten beeinflussen.«

Das war vor 20 Jahren. Drei Jahre später kam das Smartphone auf den Markt und mauserte sich binnen kurzer Zeit zum perfekten Werkzeug einer auf Nuding ausgelegten Observationsökonomie. Heute hat fast jeder ein grell illuminiertes Brett vor dem Kopf, das seinen Tagesablauf, Bio-, Kommunikations- und Schlafrhythmus beeinflusst. Oder steuert. Je nach Schwere der Handysucht. Das eigentliche Problem dabei ist jedoch nicht die Hardware, das Endgerät, sondern die Software der »glorreichen Sieben«. Denn sie ist so designt, dass sie abhängig, krank und depressiv macht – und Menschen dazu bewegt, »das Richtige zu tun«. Auch wenn es absolut falsch ist.

»Wie schaffen wir es, möglichst viel von deiner Zeit und Aufmerksamkeit zu konsumieren. Dazu müssen wir dir hin und wieder eine kleine Dopamin-Dosis verabreichen. (...) Das bringt dich dazu, mehr beizutragen, was dir wiederum mehr Kommentare und Likes bringt. Es ist ein sozial validierender Feedback-Loop. (...) Wir nutzen eine Schwäche der menschlichen Psychologie. Die Erfinder, die Erschaffer, ich, Mark, die Leute von Instagram, all diese Menschen, haben das verstanden - voll und ganz - und wir haben es trotzdem getan.« (Sean Parker, am 8. November 2017)

Nahtlos kontrolliert wird der auf Konformismus dressierte Bürger dabei von einem Überwachungskomplex unvorstellbaren Ausmaßes. Die Webseite von Surveillance Watch führt Buch über die wichtigsten dafür zuständigen Unternehmen.

Nachdem Facebook 2004 online ging und das iPhone 2007 auf den Markt kam, erscheint das Jahr 2008 also tatsächlich als der perfekte Zeitpunkt für Edge, um die Silicon-Valley-Elite in puncto Nudging und Sozialarchitektonik zu schulen. Das soziale Netzwerk war seinen Kinderschuhen entwachsen – am 26. August 2008 knackte Facebook die 100 Millionen-Nutzer-Marke – und mit dem Taschenspion aus dem Hause Apple kündigte sich bereits das mächtigste Manipulations-Malträtat der Zivilisationsgeschichte an. Für die herrschenden Zirkel war absehbar, dass die Frontlinien des transgenerationalen Informationskrieges schon bald nicht mehr über die Auslagen der Zeitungskioske, durch Rundfunkredaktionen oder über die Mattscheibe, sondern direkt durch die Köpfe der Bevölkerung verlaufen werden.

Dieses Ziel wurde fraglos erreicht. Entsprechend hellhörig sollte machen, welche Themen die Edge Master Class 2008 behandelte. Die zweite Session widmete sich zum Beispiel dem Thema »Verbesserung der Auswahlmöglichkeiten durch maschinenlesbare Offenlegung«. Richard Thaler umriss deren Inhalt mit folgendem Eröffnungsstatement.

»Das ist die Idee. Ich nenne es elektronische Offenlegung. Lassen sie mich erklären, wie es bei Kreditkarten funktionieren würde. Die Idee ist, dass das Kreditkartenunternehmen ihnen für jede Kreditkarte, die sie besitzen, einmal im Jahr zwei elektronische Dateien senden muss. Die erste Datei wäre im Wesentlichen eine Tabelle mit allen Formeln für alle Möglichkeiten, wie ihnen Dinge in Rechnung gestellt werden können. (…) Die zweite Datei ist die Liste der Dinge, für die ihnen im letzten Jahr Gebühren in Rechnung gestellt wurden. Es könnte heißen, ihnen wurden im letzten Jahr 1.800 Dollar für diese Kreditkarte berechnet, davon 1.200 Dollar für Zinszahlungen, für Verzugsgebühren, oder Währungstransfers und so weiter. Wir glauben nicht, dass sich irgendjemand diese Dateien jemals ansehen würde. Wir glauben, dass sofort Websites auftauchen würden, die diese Informationen verarbeiten würden. Diese Websites würden den folgenden Zwecken dienen. Erstens: Übersetzung. Sie würden dem Benutzer in einfachem Englisch erklären, was mit ihm passiert. Zweitens: Verhaltensänderung. Sie würden ihm erklären, dass er 1.800 Dollar bezahlt hat, weil er unfähig war, seine Rechnungen pünktlich zu bezahlen. Wenn er also eine automatische Zahlung einrichten würde, würde er viel Geld sparen. Drittens: Preisvergleich. Beachten sie bitte, dass die entsprechenden Unternehmen mit diesen Informationen die Nutzungsmuster kennen; und sie kennen alle Formeln für alle Kreditkartenunternehmen. Sie können also drei Kreditkartenunternehmen suchen, und finden, die für die Art und Weise, wie der Nutzer seine Kreditkarten verwendet, besser wären. Das ist das Konzept. (…)«

Jeff Bezos warf kurz darauf ein: »Außerdem werden sie bezahlt. Sie sind wie der Fuchs, der den Hühnerstall bewacht.«

Dem wachsamen Leser dürfte klar sein, dass wir heute genau von solchen System umgeben, überwacht, analysiert und bedrängt werden. Zu unserem Vorteil – wie Thaler meint.

Bemerkenswert in Bezug auf das, was uns noch bevorstehen könnte, ist die dritte Session der Master Class 2008. Thema: »Die Psychologie der Knappheit«. Teilnehmer – unter anderem: Jeff Bezos, Sean Parker, Elon Musk, Nathan Myhrvold, der 14 Jahre als Stratege für Bill Gates arbeitete, Daniel Hillis, ehemals Vizepräsident für Forschung und Entwicklung bei Disney und Vater des Parallel Computing, das die Grundlage für moderne Supercomputer darstellt, et cetera. Neben Richard Thaler sprach bei der dritten Session auch Sendhil Mullainathan, Volkswirt an der Harvard-Universität. Sein Spezialgebiet: Verhaltensökonomie und Armutsökonomik. Einleitend erklärte Mullainathan:

»Lassen wir die Armutsbekämpfung für einen Moment beiseite und fragen uns: Gibt es etwas, das der Armut innewohnt und das an und für sich eine Untersuchung wert ist? Einer der Gründe dafür ist, dass wir – abgesehen von Wundermitteln – verstehen müssen, ob es unter Bedingungen der Knappheit gemeinsame Prinzipien gibt, die uns helfen können, Verhalten zu verstehen und Interventionen zu gestalten. Wenn wir das Gefühl haben, dass Bedingungen der Knappheit bestimmte psychologische Effekte hervorrufen, dann wird das, ganz zu schweigen vom rein wissenschaftlichen Interesse, eine große Mehrheit der Interventionen beeinflussen. Das ist eine wichtige und alte Frage.«

Korrekt. Denn Schuldknechtschaft war, wie die künstliche Verknappung von Nahrungsmitteln, seit jeher ein beliebtes Mittel der herrschenden Kaste, um den Pöbel im Zaum, beziehungsweise mit existenziellen Problemen auf Trab zu halten. So hat er nämlich weder Zeit noch Energie, um mit Mistgabeln und Fackeln gen Elfenbeinturm aufzubrechen. In diesem Zusammenhang sei nochmals auf »Food Chain Reaction – A Global Food Security Game« hingewiesen, ein Planspiel, das im November 2015 vom tiefenstaatlichen Center for American Progress, dem World Wildlife Fund, Center for Naval Analyses (CNA), Cargill und Mars durchgeführt wurde und Nahrungsmittelknappheit im Zeitraum von 2020 bis 2030 simulierte.

Der Einblick in die Ausbildungsprozesse der Edge-Foundation und die Liste ihrer Teilnehmer gibt somit allen Anlass zu befürchten, dass Brockmans »Internetsalon« die zentralen Akteure der kontinuierlich engmaschiger greifenden Technokratie nicht nur in puncto Social Engineering ausbilden, sondern sie darüber hinaus auf eine Zeit von Mangelwirtschaft und massiver Armut vorbereiten wollte. Auf die »Dritte Kultur«. Die wohlstandsvernichtende Tokenisierung der Welt.

Dabei sollte nicht vergessen werden, dass Brockman vermutlich nur ein geschäftstüchtiger Narzisst mit sozialen Kompetenzen war, der seine Chance auf Geld und Rampenlicht geschickt zu nutzen wusste – und dass Jeffrey Epstein als maßgeblicher Finanzier der Edge-Foundation nicht einfach im Alleingang handelte. Denn Epstein war Doppelagent, unterwegs im Auftrag von CIA und Mossad. Mindestens. Dass er mittlerweile nicht mehr unter den Lebenden weilt, dürfte weder sein Geheimdienstnetzwerk noch seinen elitären Kundenstamm davon abgehalten haben, sein schmutziges Geschäft weiterzubetreiben.

Man kann also durchaus mit einem metaphorisch zu lesenden Zitat aus jenem kultigen 60er-Film schließen, dessen Titel nun als Bezeichnung für ein Septett börsennotierter Technokratie-Operatoren missbraucht wird:

»Das Blutvergießen wird so lange weitergehen, bis die Ursache dafür ausgehoben ist.«

@ 2fb77d26:c47a6ee1

Während ein weiteres Jahr voller Abnormitäten sich dem Ende neigt, ist vieles, das sich im Interesse des nächsten hätte verbessern können, beim Alten geblieben. Denn Veränderungen beginnen im Kopf – und der fungiert bei einer Mehrheit der Artgenossen vor allem als Reservoir für Informationen, Gedanken und Meinungen Dritter. Dritter, die sich die psychischen Schwachstellen der Spezies Mensch gekonnt zunutze machen.

Original mit Quellen: https://www.regenauer.press/der-unsichtbare-dritte

Es war einmal die UNESCO. Diese farbenfroh-inklusiv erscheinende UN-Suborganisation für Erziehung, Wissenschaft und Kultur. Sie wollte »das Undenkbare wenigstens wieder denkbar machen«. So steht es auf Seite 21 des 1946 vom ersten Generaldirektor Julian Huxley verfassten Gründungsdokuments. Gemeint war die Eugenik. Rassenlehre. Die genoss kurz nach Hitler nämlich keinen besonders guten Ruf, sollte uns nach Ansicht von Huxley und Co. jedoch schon bald in überarbeiteter Form als Humangenetik, Bioethik oder biodigitale Konvergenz wieder mit ihren Zuchtprogrammen beglücken dürfen. Mit Transhumanismus. Was Julian Huxley im Rahmen seines im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes wegweisenden Dossiers unterschlug – immerhin prägte er auch den Begriff Transhumanismus – ist die Tatsache, dass die Vereinten Nationen nicht nur »das Undenkbare wieder denkbar machen«, sondern auch »das Denkbare undenkbar machen« wollten.

Die sozialarchitektonischen Vektoren in Richtung einer homogenisierten, pflegeleichten Hominidenbrut – dem Nutzmensch – sind gepflastert mit Stolpersteinen evolutionärer, aufklärerischer Errungenschaften: Selbstbewusstsein und -erhaltungstrieb, Freiheitsdrang, Kreativität, Sozialkompetenz, Empathie, kritisches Denken. All das steht den postmodernen Variationen von Eugenik beharrlich im Weg. Niemand, der originäre Gedanken pflegt, eigene Wege geht und seine Freiheiten schätzt, möchte Teil eines mit der Cloud gekoppelten, genetisch optimierten Kollektivs seelenloser Konformisten werden. Und doch sind es die meisten schon längst. Ob sie Herrschaftsnarrative goutieren, oder Widerstand dagegen leisten – alles, was sie wahrnehmen, diskutieren, verteidigen oder ablehnen stammt aus dem Netz. Es sind limitierte, interpretierte und manipulierte Informationen aus dritter Hand.

Im besten Falle stammen sie noch aus verschiedenen Quellen und erlauben Triangulation zur Bestimmung der eigenen Position. Dazu muss man sich nämlich noch ein paar eigene Gedanken machen. Im schlimmsten Fall wurden sie von Alexa, Siri, dem Google Assistant, ChatGPT oder einem anderen Intelligenz simulierenden Digitalassistenten bereitgestellt, der nur noch eine Antwort serviert. Die richtige. Die Akzeptable. Denn genau das war stets Anspruch der Technokraten. Der langjährige Google-Chef und Bilderberg-Grande Eric Schmidt erklärte schon vor über einem Jahrzehnt, dass »eine Vielzahl von Suchergebnissen ein Fehler und keine Funktion sind«. Das erklärte Ziel von Google sei es, so Schmidt, nur ein einziges Suchergebnis zu präsentieren – das richtige.

Damit solch ein kommunikativer Reduktionismus nicht als Bevormundung, sondern Serviceangebot wahrgenommen wird, muss man verstehen, und steuern, wie Menschen denken. Vielleicht wollte Schmidt aus diesem Grund unbedingt mit Julian Assange über Googles Visionen für eine »neue digitale Welt« sprechen. Mit jemandem, der die technischen Untiefen des Internets kennt – und sie für das Gegenteil dessen nutzt, was Google will. Am 23. Juni 2011 und auf Schmidts Betreiben kam es jedenfalls zu einem geheimen, fünfstündigen Treffen mit dem unter Hausarrest stehenden WikiLeaks-Gründer. Das Transkript dieser Konversation ist erhellend. Vor allem die zweite Hälfte lässt erahnen, wie Schmidt sich die »neue digitale Welt« vorstellt und warum er Ende 2019 konstatierte, dass »Biologie die nächste Grenzverschiebung in puncto Computing ist«.

Google wollte uns nämlich nie informieren, sondern »programmieren«. Das steht so wortwörtlich in internen Dokumenten des Unternehmens, die dank eines Whistleblowers am 24. Juni 2019 den Weg in die Öffentlichkeit fanden. Und wer denkt, »programmieren« beginne erst mit dem Neuralimplantat, dem Chip im Hirn, irrt. Google, Microsoft, Apple, YouTube, Twitter (das ich auch weiterhin so nennen werde), Amazon, Facebook, Wikipedia, Rumble, Instagram, TikTok und Co. schaffen das auch ohne. Denn ihre Algorithmen und Omnipräsenz bestimmen schon jetzt nahezu vollständig, was Menschen wahrnehmen – was sie empört, begeistert, besprechen und bekämpfen. Was nicht bei den großen Portalen, Plattformen und Apps auftaucht, existiert nicht. Ist kein Bestandteil der Realität.

Das gilt gleichermaßen für alles, was Googles Suchmaschine nicht ausspuckt. Entsprechend interessant sind die sogenannten Transparenzberichte des Unternehmens, die veranschaulichen, wie oft staatliche Stellen die Entfernung von Suchergebnissen fordern. Wobei die entsprechenden Listen wohl nur die Spitze der Spitze des Eisbergs darstellen dürften. Nicht umsonst beschäftigen sich weitere geleakte Google-Dokumente primär mit den Zusammenhängen von maschinellem Lernen und menschlicher Wahrnehmung. Mit Nudging und kognitiver Kriegsführung. Das von der CIA gegründete Unternehmen war von Beginn an darauf ausgelegt, die Bevölkerung auszuspionieren, um sie qua Filterblasen zu manipulieren.

Was wir wahrnehmen, ist unsere Realität. Was wir nicht wahrnehmen, wird unsere Realität. Ohne, dass wir etwas dagegen unternehmen könnten. Googles Suchmaschinensegregativ schafft Wirklichkeit. Bei immer noch 91 Prozent Marktanteil ein Kinderspiel. Ganz wie US-Chefstratege Zbigniew Brzezinski es vor 54 Jahren in seinem Buch »Between Two Ages – America's Role in the Technetronic Era« prophezeite.

Was in Abhandlungen zu Verhaltensökonomie blasiert umrissen wird, verblüfft im Alltag durch die Effizienz seiner Profanität: Der zwangsalimentierte Erziehungsfunk repliziert das folgenlose Geschwafel von Politdarstellern, Twitter den von Technokraten kuratierten »Bürgerjournalismus«, Instagram Propaganda von Influencern und Facebook den Tratsch von Oma und Opa. Google präsentiert nur Ergebnisse, die dem Herrschaftsnarrativ dienen, Wikipedia gefährliches Halbwissen von Ideologen, YouTube handzahme Kommentare zum Politspektakel und Rumble die emotionalisierte Replik des vermeintlichen Widerstands. Spotify und Apple Music generieren die Playlist, Amazon schlägt vor, was zu Weihnachten gekauft, Microsoft Word, welche Worte man bei der Formulierung eines Textes meiden und der Krypto-Guru, in welche aus null und eins bestehende »Währung« investiert werden soll. Damit steht das Programm. Die tragenden Wände des Debattenraums. Mehr als dieses Potpourri von Second-Hand-Inhalten haben die meisten Menschen gar nicht mehr im Kopf.

Das Weltwirtschaftsforum (WEF) veröffentlichte im Februar 2022 ein 46 Seiten umfassendes Papier namens »Advancing Digital Agency«, das sich mit der »Macht der Datenvermittler« befasst. Sprich, mit der Rolle der zuvor erwähnten »Dritten« und der Frage, wie Externa zur Verinnerlichung am effektivsten ausgerollt werden können. Der Executive Summary lässt sich auf Seite vier entnehmen:

»Niemand weiß (oder verfolgt), was mit seinen Daten geschieht. (…) Wo Menschen früher Bildschirme zum Navigieren hatten, erzeugen neue Methoden zur Erfassung von Umgebungsdaten mit ihren vielen Vorteilen Nervosität und Resignation, wenn Menschen nicht den Gesamtüberblick haben. Manchmal entscheiden sich Einzelpersonen möglicherweise gegen die Interaktion mit Technologien, die für ihr Leben von großem Nutzen wären. Was aber wäre, wenn man diese Entscheidungspunkte an einen vertrauenswürdigen Agenten auslagern könnte, der im Namen einer Einzelperson oder sogar einer Gruppe handelt? Jetzt, da bildschirmlose Technologie Teil des Alltags ist, bietet sich die Gelegenheit, das Paradigma der Mensch-Technik-Interaktion zu überdenken und die Debatte neu auszurichten, um den Fokus auf Rollen und Verantwortlichkeiten jenseits der Person zu legen. Wie kann der Einsatz von Datenvermittlern Menschen dabei helfen, sich in Technologien und Datenökosystemmodellen zurechtzufinden, ohne aus den Augen zu verlieren, was es bedeutet, Mensch zu sein? (…) Datenvermittler – insbesondere digitale Agenten – stellen einen neuen politischen Hebel dar, mit dem Einzelpersonen die Herausforderungen des wachsenden Datenökosystems möglicherweise meistern können. Dieser Bericht soll Licht auf eine alternative Methode der vermittelten Mensch-Technik-Interaktion werfen, bei der Daten scheinbar nahtlos von Menschen zur Technologie gelangen, und zwar auf eine menschenzentrierte und vor allem vertrauenswürdige Weise. Durch die Kommunikation gemeinsamer Anreize, den Aufbau eines guten Rufs oder die Einholung einer Bestätigung durch Dritte. (…) Dieser Bericht untersucht die Chancen und Risiken von Datenvermittlern und insbesondere digitalen Drittagenten. Von Datentreuhändern bis hin zu vertrauenswürdigen digitalen Agenturen zeichnet der Bericht das Bild einer Welt, die Menschen und Unternehmen gegenüber einfühlsamer ist und durch die Einführung eines vertrauenswürdigen Dritten mehr Sicherheit für den Datenaustausch als Grundlage für Innovationen bietet. Entscheidend ist, dass der Bericht Handlungshebel für den öffentlichen und privaten Sektor vorschlägt, um ein zukunftssicheres digital-politisches Umfeld zu gewährleisten, das einen nahtlosen und vertrauenswürdigen Datenverkehr zwischen Menschen und der Technologie ermöglicht, die ihnen dient.«

Technologie, die uns »dient«? Wer den Buzzword-Neusprech des Davoser Global-Governance-Tentakels zu decodieren weiß, kann sich vorstellen, was mit »dienen« gemeint ist. Denn das Produkt sind wir – die Steuersklaven, DNA-Pools und Datenfarmen. Die Technologie sorgt lediglich für unsere zeitgemäße Versklavung. Sie ist ein maschinell-zentralistisches Monstrum, das sich an unserer Lebenszeit labt. Und die nächsten Jahre dürften darüber entscheiden, ob die Spezies Mensch vor ihrem Fortschritt kapituliert, oder die Oberhand gewinnt. Ob sie auf Generationen hinaus dazu verdammt ist, Vasall ihrer Werkzeuge zu sein, oder diese zu ihrem Vorteil einzusetzen weiß. Denn schlecht sind technische Revolutionen nicht per se. Siehe Blockchain. Lässt man sich von ihnen überrumpeln, allerdings schon.

Und genau das geschieht gerade. Während die leitmediale Deutungselite sich als Megafon moralisierender Selbstgerechtigkeit präsentiert und einer Phase kriegerischer Auseinandersetzungen mit suizidaler Sorglosigkeit entgegensieht, betätigt sich ein guter Teil der kritischen Prominenz als ebenso wirkungsvolles Sedativum für die von Ersteren enttäuschten Massen. Denn am Ende reagiert die jeweilige Klientel auf ein und dieselbe Weise: Sie sitzt auf dem Sofa.

Die tragende Säule der transluzenten Haftanstalt, die ein Habitus lethargischer Bequemlichkeit um uns herum errichtet, ist die Einführung der digitalen Identität. Und die ist in vollem Gange. Australien hat Ende November 2024 als erstes Land der Welt ein Gesetz erlassen, dass Jugendlichen unter 16 Jahren den Zugang zu Social-Media-Portalen untersagt. Und während es sicherlich zu begrüßen ist, dass Kinder ihre Zeit nicht mit digitalem Nonsens verplempern, zeitigt solche Legislatur in letzter Konsequenz nichts anderes als einen Ausweiszwang fürs Internet. Wie sonst soll man feststellen können, wer unter 16 ist? Was eine Frage der Erziehung wäre, gerät in Händen des Staates zu einem Instrument ausufernder Kontrolle.

Auch die Schweiz plant die Einführung einer E-ID – obwohl diese bei einer Volksabstimmung im März 2021 klar abgelehnt wurde. Verfügbar sein soll der digitale Pass ab 2026. Die Nutzung beruhe auf Freiwilligkeit, so die Behörden. Doch schon jetzt werden Stimmen laut, die den Einsatz der digitalen Identität beim Sammeln von Stimmen für politische Begehren fordern. Stichwort »E-Collecting«. Damit soll Unregelmäßigkeiten bei der Vorbereitung von Volksabstimmungen vorgebeugt werden. Die hiesige Piratenpartei hat bereits angekündigt, ein zweites Referendum gegen den elektronischen Ausweis zu lancieren – denn er sei »ein Wolf im Schafspelz«. Die Eidgenossenschaft dürfte in Anbetracht einer erfolgsversprechenden Abstimmungskampagne also noch eine ganze Weile von den negativen Folgen eines solchen Überwachungsinstrumentariums verschont bleiben.

Derweil arbeiten natürlich auch Deutschland, die EU, die USA und das »System Chief Executives Board for Coordination« der UN an einer digitalen Identität. Denn ohne eine solche wird weder das volldigitalisierte Finanzsystem von morgen noch das Mikromanagement der Individualmobilität via CO2-Emissionstracking funktionieren. Keine E-ID, kein digitales Gulag.

Noch lassen sich solche Sachverhalte recherchieren und darstellen. Noch kann Widerstand artikuliert, organisiert und geleistet werden. Doch wenn der Heimcomputer in absehbarer Zeit keine Tastatur mehr hat, weil es nur noch Touchscreens gibt, wenn Gestik, Mimik, Sprachsteuerung und KI das Tippen und Suchen ersetzen, wenn Google nur noch das eine Ergebnis auswirft und der digitale Assistent jede noch so komplexe Frage mit unterkomplexen Monokausalitäten trivialisiert, wenn Plattformen ausgeblendet haben, was die Obrigkeit als »Hassrede« klassifiziert, werden die meisten Menschen gar nicht mehr wissen – und wissen können – was sie nicht wissen. Woher denn auch.

Zensur bedeutet in Zeiten der Plattformökonomie nicht, dass Webseiten gelöscht und Bücher verbrannt werden – Zensur bedeutet, dass Informationen, Artikel und Webseiten einfach nicht mehr angezeigt werden. Dass sie nicht mehr gesucht, gefunden, verlinkt oder zitiert werden können, weil sie nicht mehr Teil des digitalen Ökosystems sind. Zensur beginnt mit Orwells »Memory Hole«, das immer häufiger essenzielle Ressourcen wie das Internetarchiv erfasst. Erst vor wenigen Wochen war die Webseite tagelang offline, weil sie sich einem massiven Hackerangriff ausgesetzt sah. Und auch die Wayback Machine, mit der sich die Historie von Webseiten nachvollziehen lässt, weist immer mehr Löcher auf. So fehlen zum Beispiel alle Einträge des Twitter-Blogs für den Zeitraum vom 3. März 2019 bis zum 28. November 2023. Warum, weiß niemand. Zensur beginnt dort, wo der von Bequemlichkeit, Unwissenheit und Lethargie vereinnahmte Konsument das Internet nur noch via Plattform, Social-Media-Portal und Smartphone-App nutzt, anstatt sich mittels Browser selbst zu orientieren.

Dass genau das schon jetzt gang und gäbe ist, kann ich aus eigener Erfahrung bestätigen. Denn obwohl viele tausend Personen meinen Konten bei Twitter, Telegram und YouTube folgen, hat sich bislang nur etwa ein Zehntel dieser Menge auf meiner Webseite für E-Mail-Updates registriert. Obwohl diese kostenlosen Mail-Updates einen direkten Link zwischen Autor und Leser etablieren und damit »datenvermittelnde« Dritte umgehen. Einen Link, der auch dann noch funktioniert, wenn Social-Media-Konten gesperrt oder gelöscht werden. Wäre das morgen bei mir der Fall, würde vermutlich nur ein Bruchteil meiner »Follower« wissen, wie er meine Webseite findet.

Die diesbezügliche Unselbstständigkeit nimmt teils groteske Formen an. Da fragen Menschen, wo man meine Texte lesen kann, während die URL meines Blogs im nur einen Klick entfernten Profil zu finden ist. Andere posten Fragen, Links oder Screenshots unter Beiträge, die nahelegen, dass sie nicht einmal gelesen haben, was sie kommentieren. Auch eine Suchmaschine scheinen viele nicht mehr aufrufen zu können, wenn sie etwas wissen wollen. Anstatt die gewünschte Information in 30 Sekunden selbst zu recherchieren, stellen sie ihre Frage in Form eines Social-Media-Kommentars und hoffen, dass jemand sie beantwortet. Geschieht das nicht, vergessen sie nach fünf Minuten, dass sie eine Frage hatten.

Es wirkt bisweilen tragisch. Denn auch wer die seit Corona im Aufwind befindlichen neuen Medien, die »kritischen Accounts« und Podcaster verfolgt, macht häufig nichts anderes als der Tagesthemen-Zuschauer: Er konsumiert die Polykrise, als wäre es ein Spielfilm, den man in passiver Schockstarre über sich ergehen lässt.

Aber auch die Medienschaffenden der »fünften Gewalt« unterscheiden sich mithin kaum von ihren Widersachern im leitmedialen Konsenskomplex. Wenn sie nicht gerade mit der eigenen Geschichte oder Opferrolle beschäftigt sind, berichten sie über die Schicksale und Leidenswege von Kollegen. Oder über das, was der Konsenskomplex verlautbaren lässt. Auch die ein oder andere Tirade gegenüber missliebigen Konkurrenten darf nicht fehlen. Hauptsache, es bringt Klicks. Denn wer den Medienzirkus einmal zu seinem Broterwerb gemacht hat, ist abhängig davon, dass er sich auszahlt. Auch wenn es zu Lasten des Inhalts geht.

Kaum jemand recherchiert Fakten, macht Textarbeit, deckt auf, dokumentiert Entwicklungsprozesse, empfiehlt stichhaltige Quellen, liefert neue Themen oder zusätzliche Hintergründe. Kaum ein Format zeichnet sich durch Informationsgehalt aus oder bietet irgendeine Form von Erkenntnisgewinn. Meistens wird einfach das besprochen, kommentiert, analysiert oder eingeordnet – also wiedergekäut – was gerade durch Newsfeeds, Timelines und Trend-Charts geistert.

Eine herausragende Unart ist es, wenn die Moderatoren sich dabei nicht einmal zu schade sind, ihren Twitter-Feed einzublenden, um dann eine Stunde lang geistlos Kommentare von Kommentatoren zu kommentieren. Retorten-Radio. Informativ und intellektuell bereichernd wie die hundertfünfzigste Wiederholung eines Bud-Spencer-Streifens am Weihnachtsfeiertag. Weniger journalistische Relevanz geht kaum.

Wer also nach guten Vorsätzen für das neue Jahr sucht, könnte an exakt dieser Stelle ansetzen. Der Medienschaffende könnte sich auf die Kernaufgabe des Journalismus besinnen und die Mühe machen, zu recherchieren, um seinen Zuschauern und -hörern echten Erkenntnisgewinn zu bescheren. Das macht zwar mehr Arbeit – aber eben auch Sinn.

Und der Konsument könnte damit beginnen, die Kontrolle über seine Informationsgewinnung wiederzuerlangen, anstatt sich berieseln zu lassen wie in alten Zeiten. Zum Beispiel durch die Nutzung eines RSS-Readers, das Lesen von Primärquellen, den Boykott von Big-Tech-Plattformen oder die Anschaffung eines Smartphones mit GrapheneOS-Betriebssystem. Das macht sogar weniger Arbeit, wenn man sich erst einmal eingefuchst hat – und vor allem freier, gelassener und mental resilienter.

Grundsätzlich gilt: Wer nach Lösungen sucht, sollte bei sich selbst beginnen. Denn für die meisten Herausforderungen unserer Zeit existieren sie längst. Nur genutzt werden sie zu selten. Und das liegt nicht an den Lösungen, sondern den Konsumenten, die jeden Tag aufs Neue die Chance verstreichen lassen, es besser zu machen. Wann also wäre ein geeigneterer Zeitpunkt, um den ein oder anderen Neustart zu planen als jetzt, wo sich ein weiteres Jahr in seine letzten, kurzen Tage streckt?

So schwer, verstörend und düster viele davon gewesen sein mögen, so schön, bemerkenswert, erheiternd und licht war manch ein Moment der vergangenen zwölf Monate. Leider ist der menschliche Geist zwecks Risikominimierung evolutionär darauf ausgelegt, sich vor allem an Negatives zu erinnern. Und viel zu oft verdrängen diese unschönen, aber lehrreichen Erfahrungen die Wertschätzung für eine der simpelsten Wahrheiten des Lebens:

Das Schöne zieht seinen Reiz aus der Vergänglichkeit.

Gerade die Flüchtigkeit des Positiven macht es so wichtig, sich diese Erkenntnis zum Ablauf eines Kalenderjahres bewusst zu machen. Denn das wertvollste, was wir Menschen im Lauf eines Lebens sammeln können, sind erhebende Momente. Wie viele wir davon anhäufen bevor unsere eigene Zeit abgelaufen ist, hängt nicht primär von äußeren Umständen, sondern unserer inneren Einstellung ab. Eine den Wirren der Zeit angemessene Sichtweise verbirgt sich hinter einem kurzen, fast schon philosophischen Wortwechsel aus dem für den vorliegenden Text namensgebenden Hitchcock-Streifen:

»Wollen Sie behaupten, Sie hätten Interesse für die Kunst?«

»Ja – für die Kunst weiterzuleben.«

@ 0a9436f8:9935ad4f

Introduction

1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in "advanced" countries.

2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.

3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later.

4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can't predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society.

5. In this article we give attention to only some of the negative developments that have grown out of the industrial-technological system. Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore altogether. This does not mean that we regard these other developments as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which we have something new to say. For example, since there are well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly important.

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM

6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.

7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by "leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)

8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY

10. By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms "negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. "Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents of "guy," "dude" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and insist on its replacement by "animal companion." Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world "primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

12. Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)

14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

16. Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative," "enterprise," "optimism," etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's problems for them, satisfy everyone's needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is "inferior" it is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been brought up properly.

19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. Hisfeelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.

21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.

23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.

OVERSOCIALIZATION

24. Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are oversocialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.

25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such people. [2]

26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society's expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society's expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goofoff at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think "unclean" thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another.

27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university intellectuals [3] constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most left-wing segment.

28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes [4] for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.

29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black "underclass" they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black-style church or mosque. In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects most leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make black fathers "responsible," they want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial-technological system. The system couldn't care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a "responsible" parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its values.

30. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the oversocialized type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental values of our society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leftists have gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society's most important principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account, violence is for them a form of "liberation." In other words, by committing violence they break through the psychological restraints that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized these restraints have been more confining for them than for others; hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.

31. We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing thumbnail sketch of leftist psychology. The real situation is complex, and anything like a complete description of it would take several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies in the psychology of modern leftism.

32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And today's society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.

THE POWER PROCESS

33. Human beings have a need (probably based in biology) for something that we will call the "power process." This is closely related to the need for power (which is widely recognized) but is not quite the same thing. The power process has four elements. The three most clear-cut of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed in attaining at least some of his goals.) The fourth element is more difficult to define and may not be necessary for everyone. We call it autonomy and will discuss it later (paragraphs 42-44).

34. Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can have anything he wants just by wishing for it. Such a man has power, but he will develop serious psychological problems. At first he will have a lot of fun, but by and by he will become acutely bored and demoralized. Eventually he may become clinically depressed. History shows that leisured aristocracies tend to become decadent. This is not true of fighting aristocracies that have to struggle to maintain their power. But leisured, secure aristocracies that have no need to exert themselves usually become bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even though they have power. This shows that power is not enough. One must have goals toward which to exercise one's power.

35. Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.

36. Nonattainment of important goals results in death if the goals are physical necessities, and in frustration if nonattainment of the goals is compatible with survival. Consistent failure to attain goals throughout life results in defeatism, low self-esteem or depression.

37, Thus, in order to avoid serious psychological problems, a human being needs goals whose attainment requires effort, and he must have a reasonable rate of success in attaining his goals.

SURROGATE ACTIVITIES

38. But not every leisured aristocrat becomes bored and demoralized. For example, the emperor Hirohito, instead of sinking into decadent hedonism, devoted himself to marine biology, a field in which he became distinguished. When people do not have to exert themselves to satisfy their physical needs they often set up artificial goals for themselves. In many cases they then pursue these goals with the same energy and emotional involvement that they otherwise would have put into the search for physical necessities. Thus the aristocrats of the Roman Empire had their literary pretensions; many European aristocrats a few centuries ago invested tremendous time and energy in hunting, though they certainly didn't need the meat; other aristocracies have competed for status through elaborate displays of wealth; and a few aristocrats, like Hirohito, have turned to science.

39. We use the term "surrogate activity" to designate an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that people set up for themselves merely in order to have some goal to work toward, or let us say, merely for the sake of the "fulfillment" that they get from pursuing the goal. Here is a rule of thumb for the identification of surrogate activities. Given a person who devotes much time and energy to the pursuit of goal X, ask yourself this: If he had to devote most of his time and energy to satisfying his biological needs, and if that effort required him to use his physical and mental faculties in a varied and interesting way, would he feel seriously deprived because he did not attain goal X? If the answer is no, then the person's pursuit of goal X is a surrogate activity. Hirohito's studies in marine biology clearly constituted a surrogate activity, since it is pretty certain that if Hirohito had had to spend his time working at interesting non-scientific tasks in order to obtain the necessities of life, he would not have felt deprived because he didn't know all about the anatomy and life-cycles of marine animals. On the other hand the pursuit of sex and love (for example) is not a surrogate activity, because most people, even if their existence were otherwise satisfactory, would feel deprived if they passed their lives without ever having a relationship with a member of the opposite sex. (But pursuit of an excessive amount of sex, more than one really needs, can be a surrogate activity.)

40. In modern industrial society only minimal effort is necessary to satisfy one's physical needs. It is enough to go through a training program to acquire some petty technical skill, then come to work on time and exert the very modest effort needed to hold a job. The only requirements are a moderate amount of intelligence and, most of all, simple OBEDIENCE. If one has those, society takes care of one from cradle to grave. (Yes, there is an underclass that cannot take the physical necessities for granted, but we are speaking here of mainstream society.) Thus it is not surprising that modern society is full of surrogate activities. These include scientific work, athletic achievement, humanitarian work, artistic and literary creation, climbing the corporate ladder, acquisition of money and material goods far beyond the point at which they cease to give any additional physical satisfaction, and social activism when it addresses issues that are not important for the activist personally, as in the case of white activists who work for the rights of nonwhite minorities. These are not always PURE surrogate activities, since for many people they may be motivated in part by needs other than the need to have some goal to pursue. Scientific work may be motivated in part by a drive for prestige, artistic creation by a need to express feelings, militant social activism by hostility. But for most people who pursue them, these activities are in large part surrogate activities. For example, the majority of scientists will probably agree that the "fulfillment" they get from their work is more important than the money and prestige they earn.

41. For many if not most people, surrogate activities are less satisfying than the pursuit of real goals (that is, goals that people would want to attain even if their need for the power process were already fulfilled). One indication of this is the fact that, in many or most cases, people who are deeply involved in surrogate activities are never satisfied, never at rest. Thus the money-maker constantly strives for more and more wealth. The scientist no sooner solves one problem than he moves on to the next. The long-distance runner drives himself to run always farther and faster. Many people who pursue surrogate activities will say that they get far more fulfillment from these activities than they do from the "mundane" business of satisfying their biological needs, but that is because in our society the effort needed to satisfy the biological needs has been reduced to triviality. More importantly, in our society people do not satisfy their biological needs AUTONOMOUSLY but by functioning as parts of an immense social machine. In contrast, people generally have a great deal of autonomy in pursuing their surrogate activities.

AUTONOMY

42. Autonomy as a part of the power process may not be necessary for every individual. But most people need a greater or lesser degree of autonomy in working toward their goals. Their efforts must be undertaken on their own initiative and must be under their own direction and control. Yet most people do not have to exert this initiative, direction and control as single individuals. It is usually enough to act as a member of a SMALL group. Thus if half a dozen people discuss a goal among themselves and make a successful joint effort to attain that goal, their need for the power process will be served. But if they work under rigid orders handed down from above that leave them no room for autonomous decision and initiative, then their need for the power process will not be served. The same is true when decisions are made on a collective basis if the group making the collective decision is so large that the role of each individual is insignificant. [5]

43. It is true that some individuals seem to have little need for autonomy. Either their drive for power is weak or they satisfy it by identifying themselves with some powerful organization to which they belong. And then there are unthinking, animal types who seem to be satisfied with a purely physical sense of power (the good combat soldier, who gets his sense of power by developing fighting skills that he is quite content to use in blind obedience to his superiors).

44. But for most people it is through the power processshaving a goal, making an AUTONOMOUS effort and attaining the goalsthat self-esteem, self-confidence and a sense of power are acquired. When one does not have adequate opportunity to go through the power process the consequences are (depending on the individual and on the way the power process is disrupted) boredom, demoralization, low self-esteem, inferiority feelings, defeatism, depression, anxiety, guilt, frustration, hostility, spouse or child abuse, insatiable hedonism, abnormal sexual behavior, sleep disorders, eating disorders, etc. [6]

SOURCES OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS

45. Any of the foregoing symptoms can occur in any society, but in modern industrial society they are present on a massive scale. We aren't the first to mention that the world today seems to be going crazy. This sort of thing is not normal for human societies. There is good reason to believe that primitive man suffered from less stress and frustration and was better satisfied with his way of life than modern man is. It is true that not all was sweetness and light in primitive societies. Abuse of women was common among the Australian aborigines, transexuality was fairly common among some of the American Indian tribes. But it does appear that GENERALLY SPEAKING the kinds of problems that we have listed in the preceding paragraph were far less common among primitive peoples than they are in modern society.

46. We attribute the social and psychological problems of modern society to the fact that that society requires people to live under conditions radically different from those under which the evolved and to behave in ways that conflict with the patterns of behavior that the human race developed while living under the earlier conditions. It is clear from what we have already written that we consider lack of opportunity to properly experience the power process as the most important of the abnormal conditions to which modern society subjects people. But it is not the only one. Before dealing with disruption of the power process as a source of social problems we will discuss some of the other sources.

47. Among the abnormal conditions present in modern industrial society are excessive density of population, isolation of man from nature, excessive rapidity of social change and the breakdown of natural small-scale communities such as the extended family, the village or the tribe.

48. It is well known that crowding increases stress and aggression. The degree of crowding that exists today and the isolation of man from nature are consequences of technological progress. All pre-industrial societies were predominantly rural. The Industrial Revolution vastly increased the size of cities and the proportion of the population that lives in them, and modern agricultural technology has made it possible for the Earth to support a far denser population than it ever did before. (Also, technology exacerbates the effects of crowding because it puts increased disruptive powers in people's hands. For example, a variety of noise-making devices: power mowers, radios, motorcycles, etc. If the use of these devices is unrestricted, people who want peace and quiet are frustrated by the noise. If their use is restricted, people who use the devices are frustrated by the regulations. But if these machines had never been invented there would have been no conflict and no frustration generated by them.)

49. For primitive societies the natural world (which usually changes only slowly) provided a stable framework and therefore a sense of security. In the modern world it is human society that dominates nature rather than the other way around, and modern society changes very rapidly owing to technological change. Thus there is no stable framework.

50. The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can't make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.

51. The breakdown of traditional values to some extent implies the breakdown of the bonds that hold together traditional small-scale social groups. The disintegration of small-scale social groups is also promoted by the fact that modern conditions often require or tempt individuals to move to new locations, separating themselves from their communities. Beyond that, a technological society HAS TO weaken family ties and local communities if it is to function efficiently. In modern society an individual's loyalty must be first to the system and only secondarily to a small-scale community, because if the internal loyalties of small-scale communities were stronger than loyalty to the system, such communities would pursue their own advantage at the expense of the system.

52. Suppose that a public official or a corporation executive appoints his cousin, his friend or his co-religionist to a position rather than appointing the person best qualified for the job. He has permitted personal loyalty to supersede his loyalty to the system, and that is "nepotism" or "discrimination," both of which are terrible sins in modern society. Would-be industrial societies that have done a poor job of subordinating personal or local loyalties to loyalty to the system are usually very inefficient. (Look at Latin America.) Thus an advanced industrial society can tolerate only those small-scale communities that are emasculated, tamed and made into tools of the system. [7]

53. Crowding, rapid change and the breakdown of communities have been widely recognized as sources of social problems. But we do not believe they are enough to account for the extent of the problems that are seen today.

54. A few pre-industrial cities were very large and crowded, yet their inhabitants do not seem to have suffered from psychological problems to the same extent as modern man. In America today there still are uncrowded rural areas, and we find there the same problems as in urban areas, though the problems tend to be less acute in the rural areas. Thus crowding does not seem to be the decisive factor.

55. On the growing edge of the American frontier during the 19th century, the mobility of the population probably broke down extended families and small-scale social groups to at least the same extent as these are broken down today. In fact, many nuclear families lived by choice in such isolation, having no neighbors within several miles, that they belonged to no community at all, yet they do not seem to have developed problems as a result.

56. Furthermore, change in American frontier society was very rapid and deep. A man might be born and raised in a log cabin, outside the reach of law and order and fed largely on wild meat; and by the time he arrived at old age he might be working at a regular job and living in an ordered community with effective law enforcement. This was a deeper change than that which typically occurs in the life of a modern individual, yet it does not seem to have led to psychological problems. In fact, 19th century American society had an optimistic and self-confident tone, quite unlike that of today's society. [8]

57. The difference, we argue, is that modern man has the sense (largely justified) that change is IMPOSED on him, whereas the 19th century frontiersman had the sense (also largely justified) that he created change himself, by his own choice. Thus a pioneer settled on a piece of land of his own choosing and made it into a farm through his own effort. In those days an entire county might have only a couple of hundred inhabitants and was a far more isolated and autonomous entity than a modern county is. Hence the pioneer farmer participated as a member of a relatively small group in the creation of a new, ordered community. One may well question whether the creation of this community was an improvement, but at any rate it satisfied the pioneer's need for the power process.

58. It would be possible to give other examples of societies in which there has been rapid change and/or lack of close community ties without the kind of massive behavioral aberration that is seen in today's industrial society. We contend that the most important cause of social and psychological problems in modern society is the fact that people have insufficient opportunity to go through the power process in a normal way. We don't mean to say that modern society is the only one in which the power process has been disrupted. Probably most if not all civilized societies have interfered with the power process to a greater or lesser extent. But in modern industrial society the problem has become particularly acute. Leftism, at least in its recent (mid- to late-20th century) form, is in part a symptom of deprivation with respect to the power process.

DISRUPTION OF THE POWER PROCESS IN MODERN SOCIETY

59. We divide human drives into three groups: (1) those drives that can be satisfied with minimal effort; (2) those that can be satisfied but only at the cost of serious effort; (3) those that cannot be adequately satisfied no matter how much effort one makes. The power process is the process of satisfying the drives of the second group. The more drives there are in the third group, the more there is frustration, anger, eventually defeatism, depression, etc.

60. In modern industrial society natural human drives tend to be pushed into the first and third groups, and the second group tends to consist increasingly of artificially created drives.

61. In primitive societies, physical necessities generally fall into group 2: They can be obtained, but only at the cost of serious effort. But modern society tends to guaranty the physical necessities to everyone [9] in exchange for only minimal effort, hence physical needs are pushed into group 1. (There may be disagreement about whether the effort needed to hold a job is "minimal"; but usually, in lower- to middle-level jobs, whatever effort is required is merely that of OBEDIENCE. You sit or stand where you are told to sit or stand and do what you are told to do in the way you are told to do it. Seldom do you have to exert yourself seriously, and in any case you have hardly any autonomy in work, so that the need for the power process is not well served.)

62. Social needs, such as sex, love and status, often remain in group 2 in modern society, depending on the situation of the individual. [10] But, except for people who have a particularly strong drive for status, the effort required to fulfill the social drives is insufficient to satisfy adequately the need for the power process.

63. So certain artificial needs have been created that fall into group 2, hence serve the need for the power process. Advertising and marketing techniques have been developed that make many people feel they need things that their grandparents never desired or even dreamed of. It requires serious effort to earn enough money to satisfy these artificial needs, hence they fall into group 2. (But see paragraphs 80-82.) Modern man must satisfy his need for the power process largely through pursuit of the artificial needs created by the advertising and marketing industry [11], and through surrogate activities.

64. It seems that for many people, maybe the majority, these artificial forms of the power process are insufficient. A theme that appears repeatedly in the writings of the social critics of the second half of the 20th century is the sense of purposelessness that afflicts many people in modern society. (This purposelessness is often called by other names such as "anomic" or "middle-class vacuity.") We suggest that the so-called "identity crisis" is actually a search for a sense of purpose, often for commitment to a suitable surrogate activity. It may be that existentialism is in large part a response to the purposelessness of modern life. [12] Very widespread in modern society is the search for "fulfillment." But we think that for the majority of people an activity whose main goal is fulfillment (that is, a surrogate activity) does not bring completely satisfactory fulfillment. In other words, it does not fully satisfy the need for the power process. (See paragraph 41.) That need can be fully satisfied only through activities that have some external goal, such as physical necessities, sex, love, status, revenge, etc.

65. Moreover, where goals are pursued through earning money, climbing the status ladder or functioning as part of the system in some other way, most people are not in a position to pursue their goals AUTONOMOUSLY. Most workers are someone else's employee and, as we pointed out in paragraph 61, must spend their days doing what they are told to do in the way they are told to do it. Even people who are in business for themselves have only limited autonomy. It is a chronic complaint of small-business persons and entrepreneurs that their hands are tied by excessive government regulation. Some of these regulations are doubtless unnecessary, but for the most part government regulations are essential and inevitable parts of our extremely complex society. A large portion of small business today operates on the franchise system. It was reported in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago that many of the franchise-granting companies require applicants for franchises to take a personality test that is designed to EXCLUDE those who have creativity and initiative, because such persons are not sufficiently docile to go along obediently with the franchise system. This excludes from small business many of the people who most need autonomy.

66. Today people live more by virtue of what the system does FOR them or TO them than by virtue of what they do for themselves. And what they do for themselves is done more and more along channels laid down by the system. Opportunities tend to be those that the system provides, the opportunities must be exploited in accord with rules and regulations [13], and techniques prescribed by experts must be followed if there is to be a chance of success.

67. Thus the power process is disrupted in our society through a deficiency of real goals and a deficiency of autonomy in the pursuit of goals. But it is also disrupted because of those human drives that fall into group 3: the drives that one cannot adequately satisfy no matter how much effort one makes. One of these drives is the need for security. Our lives depend on decisions made by other people; we have no control over these decisions and usually we do not even know the people who make them. ("We live in a world in which relatively few peoplesmaybe 500 or 1,000smake the important decisions"sPhilip B. Heymann of Harvard Law School, quoted by Anthony Lewis, New York Times, April 21, 1995.) Our lives depend on whether safety standards at a nuclear power plant are properly maintained; on how much pesticide is allowed to get into our food or how much pollution into our air; on how skillful (or incompetent) our doctor is; whether we lose or get a job may depend on decisions made by government economists or corporation executives; and so forth. Most individuals are not in a position to secure themselves against these threats to more [than] a very limited extent. The individual's search for security is therefore frustrated, which leads to a sense of powerlessness.

68. It may be objected that primitive man is physically less secure than modern man, as is shown by his shorter life expectancy; hence modern man suffers from less, not more than the amount of insecurity that is normal for human beings. But psychological security does not closely correspond with physical security. What makes us FEEL secure is not so much objective security as a sense of confidence in our ability to take care of ourselves. Primitive man, threatened by a fierce animal or by hunger, can fight in self-defense or travel in search of food. He has no certainty of success in these efforts, but he is by no means helpless against the things that threaten him. The modern individual on the other hand is threatened by many things against which he is helpless: nuclear accidents, carcinogens in food, environmental pollution, war, increasing taxes, invasion of his privacy by large organizations, nationwide social or economic phenomena that may disrupt his way of life.

69. It is true that primitive man is powerless against some of the things that threaten him; disease for example. But he can accept the risk of disease stoically. It is part of the nature of things, it is no one's fault, unless it is the fault of some imaginary, impersonal demon. But threats to the modern individual tend to be MAN-MADE. They are not the results of chance but are IMPOSED on him by other persons whose decisions he, as an individual, is unable to influence. Consequently he feels frustrated, humiliated and angry.

70. Thus primitive man for the most part has his security in his own hands (either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group) whereas the security of modern man is in the hands of persons or organizations that are too remote or too large for him to be able personally to influence them. So modern man's drive for security tends to fall into groups 1 and 3; in some areas (food, shelter etc.) his security is assured at the cost of only trivial effort, whereas in other areas he CANNOT attain security. (The foregoing greatly simplifies the real situation, but it does indicate in a rough, general way how the condition of modern man differs from that of primitive man.)

71. People have many transitory drives or impulses that are necessarily frustrated in modern life, hence fall into group 3. One may become angry, but modern society cannot permit fighting. In many situations it does not even permit verbal aggression. When going somewhere one may be in a hurry, or one may be in a mood to travel slowly, but one generally has no choice but to move with the flow of traffic and obey the traffic signals. One may want to do one's work in a different way, but usually one can work only according to the rules laid down by one's employer. In many other ways as well, modern man is strapped down by a network of rules and regulations (explicit or implicit) that frustrate many of his impulses and thus interfere with the power process. Most of these regulations cannot be dispensed with, because they are necessary for the functioning of industrial society.

72. Modern society is in certain respects extremely permissive. In matters that are irrelevant to the functioning of the system we can generally do what we please. We can believe in any religion we like (as long as it does not encourage behavior that is dangerous to the system). We can go to bed with anyone we like (as long as we practice "safe sex"). We can do anything we like as long as it is UNIMPORTANT. But in all IMPORTANT matters the system tends increasingly to regulate our behavior.

73. Behavior is regulated not only through explicit rules and not only by the government. Control is often exercised through indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation, and by organizations other than the government, or by the system as a whole. Most large organizations use some form of propaganda [14] to manipulate public attitudes or behavior. Propaganda is not limited to "commercials" and advertisements, and sometimes it is not even consciously intended as propaganda by the people who make it. For instance, the content of entertainment programming is a powerful form of propaganda. An example of indirect coercion: There is no law that says we have to go to work every day and follow our employer's orders. Legally there is nothing to prevent us from going to live in the wild like primitive people or from going into business for ourselves. But in practice there is very little wild country left, and there is room in the economy for only a limited number of small business owners. Hence most of us can survive only as someone else's employee.

74. We suggest that modern man's obsession with longevity, and with maintaining physical vigor and sexual attractiveness to an advanced age, is a symptom of unfulfillment resulting from deprivation with respect to the power process. The "mid-life crisis" also is such a symptom. So is the lack of interest in having children that is fairly common in modern society but almost unheard-of in primitive societies.

75. In primitive societies life is a succession of stages. The needs and purposes of one stage having been fulfilled, there is no particular reluctance about passing on to the next stage. A young man goes through the power process by becoming a hunter, hunting not for sport or for fulfillment but to get meat that is necessary for food. (In young women the process is more complex, with greater emphasis on social power; we won't discuss that here.) This phase having been successfully passed through, the young man has no reluctance about settling down to the responsibilities of raising a family. (In contrast, some modern people indefinitely postpone having children because they are too busy seeking some kind of "fulfillment." We suggest that the fulfillment they need is adequate experience of the power processswith real goals instead of the artificial goals of surrogate activities.) Again, having successfully raised his children, going through the power process by providing them with the physical necessities, the primitive man feels that his work is done and he is prepared to accept old age (if he survives that long) and death. Many modern people, on the other hand, are disturbed by the prospect of physical deterioration and death, as is shown by the amount of effort they expend trying to maintain their physical condition, appearance and health. We argue that this is due to unfulfillment resulting from the fact that they have never put their physical powers to any practical use, have never gone through the power process using their bodies in a serious way. It is not the primitive man, who has used his body daily for practical purposes, who fears the deterioration of age, but the modern man, who has never had a practical use for his body beyond walking from his car to his house. It is the man whose need for the power process has been satisfied during his life who is best prepared to accept the end of that life.

76. In response to the arguments of this section someone will say, "Society must find a way to give people the opportunity to go through the power process." For such people the value of the opportunity is destroyed by the very fact that society gives it to them. What they need is to find or make their own opportunities. As long as the system GIVES them their opportunities it still has them on a leash. To attain autonomy they must get off that leash.

HOW SOME People adjust

77. Not everyone in industrial-technological society suffers from psychological problems. Some people even profess to be quite satisfied with society as it is. We now discuss some of the reasons why people differ so greatly in their response to modern society.

78. First, there doubtless are differences in the strength of the drive for power. Individuals with a weak drive for power may have relatively little need to go through the power process, or at least relatively little need for autonomy in the power process. These are docile types who would have been happy as plantation darkies in the Old South. (We don't mean to sneer at the "plantation darkies" of the Old South. To their credit, most of the slaves were NOT content with their servitude. We do sneer at people who ARE content with servitude.)

79. Some people may have some exceptional drive, in pursuing which they satisfy their need for the power process. For example, those who have an unusually strong drive for social status may spend their whole lives climbing the status ladder without ever getting bored with that game.

80. People vary in their susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques. Some are so susceptible that, even if they make a great deal of money, they cannot satisfy their constant craving for the the shiny new toys that the marketing industry dangles before their eyes. So they always feel hard-pressed financially even if their income is large, and their cravings are frustrated.

81. Some people have low susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques. These are the people who aren't interested in money. Material acquisition does not serve their need for the power process.

82. People who have medium susceptibility to advertising and marketing techniques are able to earn enough money to satisfy their craving for goods and services, but only at the cost of serious effort (putting in overtime, taking a second job, earning promotions, etc.). Thus material acquisition serves their need for the power process. But it does not necessarily follow that their need is fully satisfied. They may have insufficient autonomy in the power process (their work may consist of following orders) and some of their drives may be frustrated (e.g., security, aggression). (We are guilty of oversimplification in paragraphs 80-82 because we have assumed that the desire for material acquisition is entirely a creation of the advertising and marketing industry. Of course it's not that simple. [11]

83. Some people partly satisfy their need for power by identifying themselves with a powerful organization or mass movement. An individual lacking goals or power joins a movement or an organization, adopts its goals as his own, then works toward those goals. When some of the goals are attained, the individual, even though his personal efforts have played only an insignificant part in the attainment of the goals, feels (through his identif ication with the movement or organization) as if he had gone through the power process. This phenomenon was exploited by the fascists, nazis and communists. Our society uses it too, though less crudely. Example: Manuel Noriega was an irritant to the U.S. (goal: punish Noriega). The U.S. invaded Panama (effort) and punished Noriega (attainment of goal). Thus the U.S. went through the power process and many Americans, because of their identification with the U.S., experienced the power process vicariously. Hence the widespread public approval of the Panama invasion; it gave people a sense of power. [15] We see the same phenomenon in armies, corporations, political parties, humanitarian organizations, religious or ideological movements. In particular, leftist movements tend to attract people who are seeking to satisfy their need for power. But for most people identification with a large organization or a mass movement does not fully satisfy the need for power.

84. Another way in which people satisfy their need for the power process is through surrogate activities. As we explained in paragraphs 38-40, a surrogate activity is an activity that is directed toward an artificial goal that the individual pursues for the sake of the "fulfillment" that he gets from pursuing the goal, not because he needs to attain the goal itself. For instance, there is no practical motive for building enormous muscles, hitting a little ball into a hole or acquiring a complete series of postage stamps. Yet many people in our society devote themselves with passion to bodybuilding, golf or stamp-collecting. Some people are more "other-directed" than others, and therefore will more readily attach importance to a surrogate activity simply because the people around them treat it as important or because society tells them it is important. That is why some people get very serious about essentially trivial activities such as sports, or bridge, or chess, or arcane scholarly pursuits, whereas others who are more clear-sighted never see these things as anything but the surrogate activities that they are, and consequently never attach enough importance to them to satisfy their need for the power process in that way. It only remains to point out that in many cases a person's way of earning a living is also a surrogate activity. Not a PURE surrogate activity, since part of the motive for the activity is to gain the physical necessities and (for some people) social status and the luxuries that advertising makes them want. But many people put into their work far more effort than is necessary to earn whatever money and status they require, and this extra effort constitutes a surrogate activity. This extra effort, together with the emotional investment that accompanies it, is one of the most potent forces acting toward the continual development and perfecting of the system, with negative consequences for individual freedom (see paragraph 131). Especially, for the most creative scientists and engineers, work tends to be largely a surrogate activity. This point is so important that it deserves a separate discussion, which we shall give in a moment (paragraphs 87-92).

85. In this section we have explained how many people in modern society do satisfy their need for the power process to a greater or lesser extent. But we think that for the majority of people the need for the power process is not fully satisfied. In the first place, those who have an insatiable drive for status, or who get firmly "hooked" on a surrogate activity, or who identify strongly enough with a movement or organization to satisfy their need for power in that way, are exceptional personalities. Others are not fully satisfied with surrogate activities or by identification with an organization (see paragraphs 41, 64). In the second place, too much control is imposed by the system through explicit regulation or through socialization, which results in a deficiency of autonomy, and in frustration due to the impossibility of attaining certain goals and the necessity of restraining too many impulses.

86. But even if most people in industrial-technological society were well satisfied, we (FC) would still be opposed to that form of society, because (among other reasons) we consider it demeaning to fulfill one's need for the power process through surrogate activities or through identification with an organization, rather than through pursuit of real goals.

THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS

87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by "curiosity" or by a desire to "benefit humanity." But it is easy to see that neither of these can be the principal motive of most scientists. As for "curiosity," that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problems that are not the object of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit, then they wouldn't give a damn about isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles. Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that case he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work. The "curiosity" explanation for the scientists' motive just doesn't stand up.

88. The "benefit of humanity" explanation doesn't work any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of the human racesmost of archaeology or comparative linguistics for example. Some other areas of science present obviously dangerous possibilities. Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pollution. Consider the case of Dr. Edward Teller, who had an obvious emotional involvement in promoting nuclear power plants. Did this involvement stem from a desire to benefit humanity? If so, then why didn't Dr. Teller get emotional about other "humanitarian" causes? If he was such a humanitarian then why did he help to develop the H-bomb? As with many other scientific achievements, it is very much open to question whether nuclear power plants actually do benefit humanity. Does the cheap electricity outweigh the accumulating waste and the risk of accidents? Dr. Teller saw only one side of the question. Clearly his emotional involvement with nuclear power arose not from a desire to "benefit humanity" but from a personal fulfillment he got from his work and from seeing it put to practical use.

89. The same is true of scientists generally. With possible rare exceptions, their motive is neither curiosity nor a desire to benefit humanity but the need to go through the power process: to have a goal (a scientific problem to solve), to make an effort (research) and to attain the goal (solution of the problem.) Science is a surrogate activity because scientists work mainly for the fulfillment they get out of the work itself.

90. Of course, it's not that simple. Other motives do play a role for many scientists. Money and status for example. Some scientists may be persons of the type who have an insatiable drive for status (see paragraph 79) and this may provide much of the motivation for their work. No doubt the majority of scientists, like the majority of the general population, are more or less susceptible to advertising and marketing techniques and need money to satisfy their craving for goods and services. Thus science is not a PURE surrogate activity. But it is in large part a surrogate activity.

91. Also, science and technology constitute a power mass movement, and many scientists gratify their need for power through identification with this mass movement (see paragraph 83).

92. Thus science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporation executives who provide the funds for research.

THE NATURE OF FREEDOM

93. We are going to argue that industrial-technological society cannot be reformed in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing the sphere of human freedom. But, because "freedom" is a word that can be interpreted in many ways, we must first make clear what kind of freedom we are concerned with.

94. By "freedom" we mean the opportunity to go through the power process, with real goals not the artificial goals of surrogate activities, and without interference, manipulation or supervision from anyone, especially from any large organization. Freedom means being in control (either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group) of the life-and-death issues of one's existence; food, clothing, shelter and defense against whatever threats there may be in one's environment. Freedom means having power; not the power to control other people but the power to control the circumstances of one's own life. One does not have freedom if anyone else (especially a large organization) has power over one, no matter how benevolently, tolerantly and permissively that power may be exercised. It is important not to confuse freedom with mere permissiveness (see paragraph 72).

95. It is said that we live in a free society because we have a certain number of constitutionally guaranteed rights. But these are not as important as they seem. The degree of personal freedom that exists in a society is determined more by the economic and technological structure of the society than by its laws or its form of government. [16] Most of the Indian nations of New England were monarchies, and many of the cities of the Italian Renaissance were controlled by dictators. But in reading about these societies one gets the impression that they allowed far more personal freedom than our society does. In part this was because they lacked efficient mechanisms for enforcing the ruler's will: There were no modern, well-organized police forces, no rapid long-distance communications, no surveillance cameras, no dossiers of information about the lives of average citizens. Hence it was relatively easy to evade control.

96. As for our constitutional rights, consider for example that of freedom of the press. We certainly don't mean to knock that right; it is very important tool for limiting concentration of political power and for keeping those who do have political power in line by publicly exposing any misbehavior on their part. But freedom of the press is of very little use to the average citizen as an individual. The mass media are mostly under the control of large organizations that are integrated into the system. Anyone who has a little money can have something printed, or can distribute it on the Internet or in some such way, but what he has to say will be swamped by the vast volume of material put out by the media, hence it will have no practical effect. To make an impression on society with words is therefore almost impossible for most individuals and small groups. Take us (FC) for example. If we had never done anything violent and had submitted the present writings to a publisher, they probably would not have been accepted. If they had been been accepted and published, they probably would not have attracted many readers, because it's more fun to watch the entertainment put out by the media than to read a sober essay. Even if these writings had had many readers, most of these readers would soon have forgotten what they had read as their minds were flooded by the mass of material to which the media expose them. In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we've had to kill people.

97. Constitutional rights are useful up to a point, but they do not serve to guarantee much more than what might be called the bourgeois conception of freedom. According to the bourgeois conception, a "free" man is essentially an element of a social machine and has only a certain set of prescribed and delimited freedoms; freedoms that are designed to serve the needs of the social machine more than those of the individual. Thus the bourgeois's "free" man has economic freedom because that promotes growth and progress; he has freedom of the press because public criticism restrains misbehavior by political leaders; he has a right to a fair trial because imprisonment at the whim of the powerful would be bad for the system. This was clearly the attitude of Simon Bolivar. To him, people deserved liberty only if they used it to promote progress (progress as conceived by the bourgeois). Other bourgeois thinkers have taken a similar view of freedom as a mere means to collective ends. Chester C. Tan, "Chinese Political Thought in the Twentieth Century," page 202, explains the philosophy of the Kuomintang leader Hu Han-min: "An individual is granted rights because he is a member of society and his community life requires such rights. By community Hu meant the whole society of the nation." And on page 259 Tan states that according to Carsum Chang (Chang Chun-mai, head of the State Socialist Party in China) freedom had to be used in the interest of the state and of the people as a whole. But what kind of freedom does one have if one can use it only as someone else prescribes? FC's conception of freedom is not that of Bolivar, Hu, Chang or other bourgeois theorists. The trouble with such theorists is that they have made the development and application of social theories their surrogate activity. Consequently the theories are designed to serve the needs of the theorists more than the needs of any people who may be unlucky enough to live in a society on which the theories are imposed.

98. One more point to be made in this section: It should not be assumed that a person has enough freedom just because he SAYS he has enough. Freedom is restricted in part by psychological controls of which people are unconscious, and moreover many people's ideas of what constitutes freedom are governed more by social convention than by their real needs. For example, it's likely that many leftists of the oversocialized type would say that most people, including themselves, are socialized too little rather than too much, yet the oversocialized leftist pays a heavy psychological price for his high level of socialization.

SOME PRINCIPLES OF HISTORY

99. Think of history as being the sum of two components: an erratic component that consists of unpredictable events that follow no discernible pattern, and a regular component that consists of long-term historical trends. Here we are concerned with the long-term trends.

100. FIRST PRINCIPLE. If a SMALL change is made that affects a long-term historical trend, then the effect of that change will almost always be transitorysthe trend will soon revert to its original state. (Example: A reform movement designed to clean up political corruption in a society rarely has more than a short-term effect; sooner or later the reformers relax and corruption creeps back in. The level of political corruption in a given society tends to remain constant, or to change only slowly with the evolution of the society. Normally, a political cleanup will be permanent only if accompanied by widespread social changes; a SMALL change in the society won't be enough.) If a small change in a long-term historical trend appears to be permanent, it is only because the change acts in the direction in which the trend is already moving, so that the trend is not altered by only pushed a step ahead.

101. The first principle is almost a tautology. If a trend were not stable with respect to small changes, it would wander at random rather than following a definite direction; in other words it would not be a long-term trend at all.

102. SECOND PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is sufficiently large to alter permanently a long-term historical trend, then it will alter the society as a whole. In other words, a society is a system in which all parts are interrelated, and you can't permanently change any important part without changing all other parts as well.

103. THIRD PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is large enough to alter permanently a long-term trend, then the consequences for the society as a whole cannot be predicted in advance. (Unless various other societies have passed through the same change and have all experienced the same consequences, in which case one can predict on empirical grounds that another society that passes through the same change will be like to experience similar consequences.)

104. FOURTH PRINCIPLE. A new kind of society cannot be designed on paper. That is, you cannot plan out a new form of society in advance, then set it up and expect it to function as it was designed to do.

105. The third and fourth principles result from the complexity of human societies. A change in human behavior will affect the economy of a society and its physical environment; the economy will affect the environment and vice versa, and the changes in the economy and the environment will affect human behavior in complex, unpredictable ways; and so forth. The network of causes and effects is far too complex to be untangled and understood.

106. FIFTH PRINCIPLE. People do not consciously and rationally choose the form of their society. Societies develop through processes of social evolution that are not under rational human control.

107. The fifth principle is a consequence of the other four.

108. To illustrate: By the first principle, generally speaking an attempt at social reform either acts in the direction in which the society is developing anyway (so that it merely accelerates a change that would have occurred in any case) or else it has only a transitory effect, so that the society soon slips back into its old groove. To make a lasting change in the direction of development of any important aspect of a society, reform is insufficient and revolution is required. (A revolution does not necessarily involve an armed uprising or the overthrow of a government.) By the second principle, a revolution never changes only one aspect of a society, it changes the whole society; and by the third principle changes occur that were never expected or desired by the revolutionaries. By the fourth principle, when revolutionaries or utopians set up a new kind of society, it never works out as planned.

109. The American Revolution does not provide a counterexample. The American "Revolution" was not a revolution in our sense of the word, but a war of independence followed by a rather far-reaching political reform. The Founding Fathers did not change the direction of development of American society, nor did they aspire to do so. They only freed the development of American society from the retarding effect of British rule. Their political reform did not change any basic trend, but only pushed American political culture along its natural direction of development. British society, of which American society was an offshoot, had been moving for a long time in the direction of representative democracy. And prior to the War of Independence the Americans were already practicing a significant degree of representative democracy in the colonial assemblies. The political system established by the Constitution was modeled on the British system and on the colonial assemblies. With major alteration, to be suresthere is no doubt that the Founding Fathers took a very important step. But it was a step along the road that English-speaking world was already traveling. The proof is that Britain and all of its colonies that were populated predominantly by people of British descent ended up with systems of representative democracy essentially similar to that of the United States. If the Founding Fathers had lost their nerve and declined to sign the Declaration of Independence, our way of life today would not have been significantly different. Maybe we would have had somewhat closer ties to Britain, and would have had a Parliament and Prime Minister instead of a Congress and President. No big deal. Thus the American Revolution provides not a counterexample to our principles but a good illustration of them.

110. Still, one has to use common sense in applying the principles. They are expressed in imprecise language that allows latitude for interpretation, and exceptions to them can be found. So we present these principles not as inviolable laws but as rules of thumb, or guides to thinking, that may provide a partial antidote to naive ideas about the future of society. The principles should be borne constantly in mind, and whenever one reaches a conclusion that conflicts with them one should carefully reexamine one's thinking and retain the conclusion only if one has good, solid reasons for doing so.

INDUSTRIAL-TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY CANNOT BE REFORMED

111. The foregoing principles help to show how hopelessly difficult it would be to reform the industrial system in such a way as to prevent it from progressively narrowing our sphere of freedom. There has been a consistent tendency, going back at least to the Industrial Revolution for technology to strengthen the system at a high cost in individual freedom and local autonomy. Hence any change designed to protect freedom from technology would be contrary to a fundamental trend in the development of our society. Consequently, such a change either would be a transitory onessoon swamped by the tide of historysor, if large enough to be permanent would alter the nature of our whole society. This by the first and second principles. Moreover, since society would be altered in a way that could not be predicted in advance (third principle) there would be great risk. Changes large enough to make a lasting difference in favor of freedom would not be initiated because it would be realized that they would gravely disrupt the system. So any attempts at reform would be too timid to be effective. Even if changes large enough to make a lasting difference were initiated, they would be retracted when their disruptive effects became apparent. Thus, permanent changes in favor of freedom could be brought about only by persons prepared to accept radical, dangerous and unpredictable alteration of the entire system. In other words by revolutionaries, not reformers.

112. People anxious to rescue freedom without sacrificing the supposed benefits of technology will suggest naive schemes for some new form of society that would reconcile freedom with technology. Apart from the fact that people who make such suggestions seldom propose any practical means by which the new form of society could be set up in the first place, it follows from the fourth principle that even if the new form of society could be once established, it either would collapse or would give results very different from those expected.

113. So even on very general grounds it seems highly improbable that any way of changing society could be found that would reconcile freedom with modern technology. In the next few sections we will give more specific reasons for concluding that freedom and technological progress are incompatible.

RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM IS UNAVOIDABLE IN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY

114. As explained in paragraphs 65-67, 70-73, modern man is strapped down by a network of rules and regulations, and his fate depends on the actions of persons remote from him whose decisions he cannot influence. This is not accidental or a result of the arbitrariness of arrogant bureaucrats. It is necessary and inevitable in any technologically advanced society. The system HAS TO regulate human behavior closely in order to function. At work people have to do what they are told to do, otherwise production would be thrown into chaos. Bureaucracies HAVE TO be run according to rigid rules. To allow any substantial personal discretion to lower-level bureaucrats would disrupt the system and lead to charges of unfairness due to differences in the way individual bureaucrats exercised their discretion. It is true that some restrictions on our freedom could be eliminated, but GENERALLY SPEAKING the regulation of our lives by large organizations is necessary for the functioning of industrial-technological society. The result is a sense of powerlessness on the part of the average person. It may be, however, that formal regulations will tend increasingly to be replaced by psychological tools that make us want to do what the system requires of us. (Propaganda [14], educational techniques, "mental health" programs, etc.)

115. The system HAS TO force people to behave in ways that are increasingly remote from the natural pattern of human behavior. For example, the system needs scientists, mathematicians and engineers. It can't function without them. So heavy pressure is put on children to excel in these fields. It isn't natural for an adolescent human being to spend the bulk of his time sitting at a desk absorbed in study. A normal adolescent wants to spend his time in active contact with the real world. Among primitive peoples the things that children are trained to do tend to be in reasonable harmony with natural human impulses. Among the American Indians, for example, boys were trained in active outdoor pursuits just the sort of thing that boys like. But in our society children are pushed into studying technical subjects, which most do grudgingly.

116. Because of the constant pressure that the system exerts to modify human behavior, there is a gradual increase in the number of people who cannot or will nottadjust to society's requirements: welfare leeches, youth-gang members, cultists, anti-government rebels, radical environmentalist saboteurs, dropouts and resisters of various kinds.

117. In any technologically advanced society the individual's fate MUST depend on decisions that he personally cannot influence to any great extent. A technological society cannot be broken down into small, autonomous communities, because production depends on the cooperation of very large numbers of people and machines. Such a society MUST be highly organized and decisions HAVE TO be made that affect very large numbers of people. When a decision affects, say, a million people, then each of the affected individuals has, on the average, only a one-millionth share in making the decision. What usually happens in practice is that decisions are made by public officials or corporation executives, or by technical specialists, but even when the public votes on a decision the number of voters ordinarily is too large for the vote of any one individual to be significant. [17] Thus most individuals are unable to influence measurably the major decisions that affect their lives. There is no conceivable way to remedy this in a technologically advanced society. The system tries to "solve" this problem by using propaganda to make people WANT the decisions that have been made for them, but even if this "solution" were completely successful in making people feel better, it would be demeaning.

118. Conservatives and some others advocate more "local autonomy." Local communities once did have autonomy, but such autonomy becomes less and less possible as local communities become more enmeshed with and dependent on large-scale systems like public utilities, computer networks, highway systems, the mass communications media, the modern health care system. Also operating against autonomy is the fact that technology applied in one location often affects people at other locations far way. Thus pesticide or chemical use near a creek may contaminate the water supply hundreds of miles downstream, and the greenhouse effect affects the whole world.

119. The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity. [18] Of course the system does satisfy many human needs, but generally speaking it does this only to the extend that it is to the advantage of the system to do it. It is the needs of the system that are paramount, not those of the human being. For example, the system provides people with food because the system couldn't function if everyone starved; it attends to people's psychological needs whenever it can CONVENIENTLY do so, because it couldn't function if too many people became depressed or rebellious. But the system, for good, solid, practical reasons, must exert constant pressure on people to mold their behavior to the needs of the system. To much waste accumulating? The government, the media, the educational system, environmentalists, everyone inundates us with a mass of propaganda about recycling. Need more technical personnel? A chorus of voices exhorts kids to study science. No one stops to ask whether it is inhumane to force adolescents to spend the bulk of their time studying subjects most of them hate. When skilled workers are put out of a job by technical advances and have to undergo "retraining," no one asks whether it is humiliating for them to be pushed around in this way. It is simply taken for granted that everyone must bow to technical necessity. and for good reason: If human needs were put before technical necessity there would be economic problems, unemployment, shortages or worse. The concept of "mental health" in our society is defined largely by the extent to which an individual behaves in accord with the needs of the system and does so without showing signs of stress.

120. Efforts to make room for a sense of purpose and for autonomy within the system are no better than a joke. For example, one company, instead of having each of its employees assemble only one section of a catalogue, had each assemble a whole catalogue, and this was supposed to give them a sense of purpose and achievement. Some companies have tried to give their employees more autonomy in their work, but for practical reasons this usually can be done only to a very limited extent, and in any case employees are never given autonomy as to ultimate goalsstheir "autonomous" efforts can never be directed toward goals that they select personally, but only toward their employer's goals, such as the survival and growth of the company. Any company would soon go out of business if it permitted its employees to act otherwise. Similarly, in any enterprise within a socialist system, workers must direct their efforts toward the goals of the enterprise, otherwise the enterprise will not serve its purpose as part of the system. Once again, for purely technical reasons it is not possible for most individuals or small groups to have much autonomy in industrial society. Even the small-business owner commonly has only limited autonomy. Apart from the necessity of government regulation, he is restricted by the fact that he must fit into the economic system and conform to its requirements. For instance, when someone develops a new technology, the small-business person often has to use that technology whether he wants to or not, in order to remain competitive.

THE 'BAD' PARTS OF TECHNOLOGY CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE 'GOOD' PARTS

121. A further reason why industrial society cannot be reformed in favor of freedom is that modern technology is a unified system in which all parts are dependent on one another. You can't get rid of the "bad" parts of technology and retain only the "good" parts. Take modern medicine, for example. Progress in medical science depends on progress in chemistry, physics, biology, computer science and other fields. Advanced medical treatments require expensive, high-tech equipment that can be made available only by a technologically progressive, economically rich society. Clearly you can't have much progress in medicine without the whole technological system and everything that goes with it.

122. Even if medical progress could be maintained without the rest of the technological system, it would by itself bring certain evils. Suppose for example that a cure for diabetes is discovered. People with a genetic tendency to diabetes will then be able to survive and reproduce as well as anyone else. Natural selection against genes for diabetes will cease and such genes will spread throughout the population. (This may be occurring to some extent already, since diabetes, while not curable, can be controlled through use of insulin.) The same thing will happen with many other diseases susceptibility to which is affected by genetic degradation of the population. The only solution will be some sort of eugenics program or extensive genetic engineering of human beings, so that man in the future will no longer be a creation of nature, or of chance, or of God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions), but a manufactured product.

123. If you think that big government interferes in your life too much NOW, just wait till the government starts regulating the genetic constitution of your children. Such regulation will inevitably follow the introduction of genetic engineering of human beings, because the consequences of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous. [19]

124. The usual response to such concerns is to talk about "medical ethics." But a code of ethics would not serve to protect freedom in the face of medical progress; it would only make matters worse. A code of ethics applicable to genetic engineering would be in effect a means of regulating the genetic constitution of human beings. Somebody (probably the upper-middle class, mostly) would decide that such and such applications of genetic engineering were "ethical" and others were not, so that in effect they would be imposing their own values on the genetic constitution of the population at large. Even if a code of ethics were chosen on a completely democratic basis, the majority would be imposing their own values on any minorities who might have a different idea of what constituted an "ethical" use of genetic engineering. The only code of ethics that would truly protect freedom would be one that prohibited ANY genetic engineering of human beings, and you can be sure that no such code will ever be applied in a technological society. No code that reduced genetic engineering to a minor role could stand up for long, because the temptation presented by the immense power of biotechnology would be irresistible, especially since to the majority of people many of its applications will seem obviously and unequivocally good (eliminating physical and mental diseases, giving people the abilities they need to get along in today's world). Inevitably, genetic engineering will be used extensively, but only in ways consistent with the needs of the industrial-technological system. [20]

TECHNOLOGY IS A MORE POWERFUL SOCIAL FORCE THAN THE ASPIRATION FOR FREEDOM

125. It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force and continually encroaches on freedom through REPEATED compromises. Imagine the case of two neighbors, each of whom at the outset owns the same amount of land, but one of whom is more powerful than the other. The powerful one demands a piece of the other's land. The weak one refuses. The powerful one says, "OK, let's compromise. Give me half of what I asked." The weak one has little choice but to give in. Some time later the powerful neighbor demands another piece of land, again there is a compromise, and so forth. By forcing a long series of compromises on the weaker man, the powerful one eventually gets all of his land. So it goes in the conflict between technology and freedom.

126. Let us explain why technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom.

127. A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared to increase man's freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn't want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster and farther than a walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly man's freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one's own pace one's movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the walker's freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop to wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note this important point that we have just illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)

128. While technological progress AS A WHOLE continually narrows our sphere of freedom, each new technical advance CONSIDERED BY ITSELF appears to be desirable. Electricity, indoor plumbing, rapid long-distance communications ... how could one argue against any of these things, or against any other of the innumerable technical advances that have made modern society? It would have been absurd to resist the introduction of the telephone, for example. It offered many advantages and no disadvantages. Yet, as we explained in paragraphs 59-76, all these technical advances taken together have created a world in which the average man's fate is no longer in his own hands or in the hands of his neighbors and friends, but in those of politicians, corporation executives and remote, anonymous technicians and bureaucrats whom he as an individual has no power to influence. [21] The same process will continue in the future. Take genetic engineering, for example. Few people will resist the introduction of a genetic technique that eliminates a hereditary disease. It does no apparent harm and prevents much suffering. Yet a large number of genetic improvements taken together will make the human being into an engineered product rather than a free creation of chance (or of God, or whatever, depending on your religious beliefs).

129. Another reason why technology is such a powerful social force is that, within the context of a given society, technological progress marches in only one direction; it can never be reversed. Once a technical innovation has been introduced, people usually become dependent on it, so that they can never again do without it, unless it is replaced by some still more advanced innovation. Not only do people become dependent as individuals on a new item of technology, but, even more, the system as a whole becomes dependent on it. (Imagine what would happen to the system today if computers, for example, were eliminated.) Thus the system can move in only one direction, toward greater technologization. Technology repeatedly forces freedom to take a step back, but technology can never take a step backsshort of the overthrow of the whole technological system.

130. Technology advances with great rapidity and threatens freedom at many different points at the same time (crowding, rules and regulations, increasing dependence of individuals on large organizations, propaganda and other psychological techniques, genetic engineering, invasion of privacy through surveillance devices and computers, etc.). To hold back any ONE of the threats to freedom would require a long and difficult social struggle. Those who want to protect freedom are overwhelmed by the sheer number of new attacks and the rapidity with which they develop, hence they become apathetic and no longer resist. To fight each of the threats separately would be futile. Success can be hoped for only by fighting the technological system as a whole; but that is revolution, not reform.

131. Technicians (we use this term in its broad sense to describe all those who perform a specialized task that requires training) tend to be so involved in their work (their surrogate activity) that when a conflict arises between their technical work and freedom, they almost always decide in favor of their technical work. This is obvious in the case of scientists, but it also appears elsewhere: Educators, humanitarian groups, conservation organizations do not hesitate to use propaganda or other psychological techniques to help them achieve their laudable ends. Corporations and government agencies, when they find it useful, do not hesitate to collect information about individuals without regard to their privacy. Law enforcement agencies are frequently inconvenienced by the constitutional rights of suspects and often of completely innocent persons, and they do whatever they can do legally (or sometimes illegally) to restrict or circumvent those rights. Most of these educators, government officials and law officers believe in freedom, privacy and constitutional rights, but when these conflict with their work, they usually feel that their work is more important.

132. It is well known that people generally work better and more persistently when striving for a reward than when attempting to avoid a punishment or negative outcome. Scientists and other technicians are motivated mainly by the rewards they get through their work. But those who oppose technological invasions of freedom are working to avoid a negative outcome, consequently there are few who work persistently and well at this discouraging task. If reformers ever achieved a signal victory that seemed to set up a solid barrier against further erosion of freedom through technical progress, most would tend to relax and turn their attention to more agreeable pursuits. But the scientists would remain busy in their laboratories, and technology as it progresses would find ways, in spite of any barriers, to exert more and more control over individuals and make them always more dependent on the system.

133. No social arrangements, whether laws, institutions, customs or ethical codes, can provide permanent protection against technology. History shows that all social arrangements are transitory; they all change or break down eventually. But technological advances are permanent within the context of a given civilization. Suppose for example that it were possible to arrive at some social arrangements that would prevent genetic engineering from being applied to human beings, or prevent it from being applied in such a way as to threaten freedom and dignity. Still, the technology would remain waiting. Sooner or later the social arrangement would break down. Probably sooner, given the pace of change in our society. Then genetic engineering would begin to invade our sphere of freedom, and this invasion would be irreversible (short of a breakdown of technological civilization itself). Any illusions about achieving anything permanent through social arrangements should be dispelled by what is currently happening with environmental legislation. A few years ago its seemed that there were secure legal barriers preventing at least SOME of the worst forms of environmental degradation. A change in the political wind, and those barriers begin to crumble.

134. For all of the foregoing reasons, technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom. But this statement requires an important qualification. It appears that during the next several decades the industrial-technological system will be undergoing severe stresses due to economic and environmental problems, and especially due to problems of human behavior (alienation, rebellion, hostility, a variety of social and psychological difficulties). We hope that the stresses through which the system is likely to pass will cause it to break down, or at least will weaken it sufficiently so that a revolution against it becomes possible. If such a revolution occurs and is successful, then at that particular moment the aspiration for freedom will have proved more powerful than technology.

135. In paragraph 125 we used an analogy of a weak neighbor who is left destitute by a strong neighbor who takes all his land by forcing on him a series of compromises. But suppose now that the strong neighbor gets sick, so that he is unable to defend himself. The weak neighbor can force the strong one to give him his land back, or he can kill him. If he lets the strong man survive and only forces him to give the land back, he is a fool, because when the strong man gets well he will again take all the land for himself. The only sensible alternative for the weaker man is to kill the strong one while he has the chance. In the same way, while the industrial system is sick we must destroy it. If we compromise with it and let it recover from its sickness, it will eventually wipe out all of our freedom.

SIMPLER SOCIAL PROBLEMS HAVE PROVED INTRACTABLE

136. If anyone still imagines that it would be possible to reform the system in such a way as to protect freedom from technology, let him consider how clumsily and for the most part unsuccessfully our society has dealt with other social problems that are far more simple and straightforward. Among other things, the system has failed to stop environmental degradation, political corruption, drug trafficking or domestic abuse.

137. Take our environmental problems, for example. Here the conflict of values is straightforward: economic expedience now versus saving some of our natural resources for our grandchildren. [22] But on this subject we get only a lot of blather and obfuscation from the people who have power, and nothing like a clear, consistent line of action, and we keep on piling up environmental problems that our grandchildren will have to live with. Attempts to resolve the environmental issue consist of struggles and compromises between different factions, some of which are ascendant at one moment, others at another moment. The line of struggle changes with the shifting currents of public opinion. This is not a rational process, nor is it one that is likely to lead to a timely and successful solution to the problem. Major social problems, if they get "solved" at all, are rarely or never solved through any rational, comprehensive plan. They just work themselves out through a process in which various competing groups pursuing their own (usually short-term) self-interest [23] arrive (mainly by luck) at some more or less stable modus vivendi. In fact, the principles we formulated in paragraphs 100-106 make it seem doubtful that rational, long-term social planning can EVER be successful.

138. Thus it is clear that the human race has at best a very limited capacity for solving even relatively straightforward social problems. How then is it going to solve the far more difficult and subtle problem of reconciling freedom with technology? Technology presents clear-cut material advantages, whereas freedom is an abstraction that means different things to different people, and its loss is easily obscured by propaganda and fancy talk.

139. And note this important difference: It is conceivable that our environmental problems (for example) may some day be settled through a rational, comprehensive plan, but if this happens it will be only because it is in the long-term interest of the system to solve these problems. But it is NOT in the interest of the system to preserve freedom or small-group autonomy. On the contrary, it is in the interest of the system to bring human behavior under control to the greatest possible extent. [24] Thus, while practical considerations may eventually force the system to take a rational, prudent approach to environmental problems, equally practical considerations will force the system to regulate human behavior ever more closely (preferably by indirect means that will disguise the encroachment on freedom). This isn't just our opinion. Eminent social scientists (e.g. James Q. Wilson) have stressed the importance of "socializing" people more effectively.

REVOLUTION IS EASIER THAN REFORM

140. We hope we have convinced the reader that the system cannot be reformed in such a way as to reconcile freedom with technology. The only way out is to dispense with the industrial-technological system altogether. This implies revolution, not necessarily an armed uprising, but certainly a radical and fundamental change in the nature of society.

141. People tend to assume that because a revolution involves a much greater change than reform does, it is more difficult to bring about than reform is. Actually, under certain circumstances revolution is much easier than reform. The reason is that a revolutionary movement can inspire an intensity of commitment that a reform movement cannot inspire. A reform movement merely offers to solve a particular social problem. A revolutionary movement offers to solve all problems at one stroke and create a whole new world; it provides the kind of ideal for which people will take great risks and make great sacrifices. For this reasons it would be much easier to overthrow the whole technological system than to put effective, permanent restraints on the development or application of any one segment of technology, such as genetic engineering, for example. Not many people will devote themselves with single-minded passion to imposing and maintaining restraints on genetic engineering, but under suitable conditions large numbers of people may devote themselves passionately to a revolution against the industrial-technological system. As we noted in paragraph 132, reformers seeking to limit certain aspects of technology would be working to avoid a negative outcome. But revolutionaries work to gain a powerful rewardsfulfillment of their revolutionary visionsand therefore work harder and more persistently than reformers do.

142. Reform is always restrained by the fear of painful consequences if changes go too far. But once a revolutionary fever has taken hold of a society, people are willing to undergo unlimited hardships for the sake of their revolution. This was clearly shown in the French and Russian Revolutions. It may be that in such cases only a minority of the population is really committed to the revolution, but this minority is sufficiently large and active so that it becomes the dominant force in society. We will have more to say about revolution in paragraphs 180-205.

CONTROL OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR

143. Since the beginning of civilization, organized societies have had to put pressures on human beings of the sake of the functioning of the social organism. The kinds of pressures vary greatly from one society to another. Some of the pressures are physical (poor diet, excessive labor, environmental pollution), some are psychological (noise, crowding, forcing human behavior into the mold that society requires). In the past, human nature has been approximately constant, or at any rate has varied only within cer tain bounds. Consequently, societies have been able to push people only up to certain limits. When the limit of human endurance has been passed, things start going wrong: rebellion, or crime, or corruption, or evasion of work, or depression and other mental problems, or an elevated death rate, or a declining birth rate or something else, so that either the society breaks down, or its functioning becomes too inefficient and it is (quickly or gradually, through conquest, attrition or evolution) replaced by some more efficient form of society. [25]

144. Thus human nature has in the past put certain limits on the development of societies. People could be pushed only so far and no farther. But today this may be changing, because modern technology is developing ways of modifying human beings.

145. Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy, then gives them drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction? It is already happening to some extent in our own society. It is well known that the rate of clinical depression has been greatly increasing in recent decades. We believe that this is due to disruption of the power process, as explained in paragraphs 59-76. But even if we are wrong, the increasing rate of depression is certainly the result of SOME conditions that exist in today's society. Instead of removing the conditions that make people depressed, modern society gives them antidepressant drugs. In effect, antidepressants are a means of modifying an individual's internal state in such a way as to enable him to tolerate social conditions that he would otherwise find intolerable. (Yes, we know that depression is often of purely genetic origin. We are referring here to those cases in which environment plays the predominant role.)

146. Drugs that affect the mind are only one example of the new methods of controlling human behavior that modern society is developing. Let us look at some of the other methods.

147. To start with, there are the techniques of surveillance. Hidden video cameras are now used in most stores and in many other places, computers are used to collect and process vast amounts of information about individuals. Information so obtained greatly increases the effectiveness of physical coercion (i.e., law enforcement). [26] Then there are the methods of propaganda, for which the mass communication media provide effective vehicles. Efficient techniques have been developed for winning elections, selling products, influencing public opinion. The entertainment industry serves as an important psychological tool of the system, possibly even when it is dishing out large amounts of sex and violence. Entertainment provides modern man with an essential means of escape. While absorbed in television, videos, etc., he can forget stress, anxiety, frustration, dissatisfaction. Many primitive peoples, when they don't have work to do, are quite content to sit for hours at a time doing nothing at all, because they are at peace with themselves and their world. But most modern people must be constantly occupied or entertained, otherwise they get "bored," i.e., they get fidgety, uneasy, irritable.

148. Other techniques strike deeper than the foregoing. Education is no longer a simple affair of paddling a kid's behind when he doesn't know his lessons and patting him on the head when he does know them. It is becoming a scientific technique for controlling the child's development. Sylvan Learning Centers, for example, have had great success in motivating children to study, and psychological techniques are also used with more or less success in many conventional schools. "Parenting" techniques that are taught to parents are designed to make children accept fundamental values of the system and behave in ways that the system finds desirable. "Mental health" programs, "intervention" techniques, psychotherapy and so forth are ostensibly designed to benefit individuals, but in practice they usually serve as methodsfor inducing individuals to think and behave as the system requires. (There is no contradiction here; an individual whose attitudes or behavior bring him into conflict with the system is up against a force that is too powerful for him to conquer or escape from, hence he is likely to suffer from stress, frustration, defeat. His path will be much easier if he thinks and behaves as the system requires. In that sense the system is acting for the benefit of the individual when it brainwashes him into conformity.) Child abuse in its gross and obvious forms is disapproved in most if not all cultures. Tormenting a child for a trivial reason or no reason at all is something that appalls almost everyone. But many psychologists interpret the concept of abuse much more broadly. Is spanking, when used as part of a rational and consistent system of discipline, a form of abuse? The question will ultimately be decided by whether or not spanking tends to produce behavior that makes a person fit in well with the existing system of society. In practice, the word "abuse" tends to be interpreted to include any method of child-rearing that produces behavior inconvenient for the system. Thus, when they go beyond the prevention of obvious, senseless cruelty, programs for preventing "child abuse" are directed toward the control of human behavior on behalf of the system.

149. Presumably, research will continue to increase the effectiveness of psychological techniques for controlling human behavior. But we think it is unlikely that psychological techniques alone will be sufficient to adjust human beings to the kind of society that technology is creating. Biological methods probably will have to be used. We have already mentioned the use of drugs in this connection. Neurology may provide other avenues for modifying the human mind. Genetic engineering of human beings is already beginning to occur in the form of "gene therapy," and there is no reason to assume that such methods will not eventually be used to modify those aspects of the body that affect mental functioning.

150. As we mentioned in paragraph 134, industrial society seems likely to be entering a period of severe stress, due in part to problems of human behavior and in part to economic and environmental problems. And a considerable proportion of the system's economic and environmental problems result from the way human beings behave. Alienation, low self-esteem, depression, hostility, rebellion; children who won't study, youth gangs, illegal drug use, rape, child abuse, other crimes, unsafe sex, teen pregnancy, population growth, political corruption, race hatred, ethnic rivalry, bitter ideological conflict (e.g., pro-choice vs. pro-life), political extremism, terrorism, sabotage, anti-government groups, hate groups. All these threaten the very survival of the system. The system will therefore be FORCED to use every practical means of controlling human behavior.

151. The social disruption that we see today is certainly not the result of mere chance. It can only be a result of the conditions of life that the system imposes on people. (We have argued that the most important of these conditions is disruption of the power process.) If the systems succeeds in imposing sufficient control over human behavior to assure its own survival, a new watershed in human history will have been passed. Whereas formerly the limits of human endurance have imposed limits on the development of societies (as we explained in paragraphs 143, 144), industrial-technological society will be able to pass those limits by modifying human beings, whether by psychological methods or biological methods or both. In the future, social systems will not be adjusted to suit the needs of human beings. Instead, human being will be adjusted to suit the needs of the system. [27]

152. Generally speaking, technological control over human behavior will probably not be introduced with a totalitarian intention or even through a conscious desire to restrict human freedom. [28] Each new step in the assertion of control over the humanmind will be taken as a rational response to a problem that faces society, such as curing alcoholism, reducing the crime rate or inducing young people to study science and engineering. In many cases there will be a humanitarian justification. For example, when a psychiatrist prescribes an anti-depressant for a depressed patient, he is clearly doing that individual a favor. It would be inhumane to withhold the drug from someone who needs it. When parents send their children to Sylvan Learning Centers to have them manipulated into becoming enthusiastic about their studies, they do so from concern for their children's welfare. It may be that some of these parents wish that one didn't have to have specialized training to get a job and that their kid didn't have to be brainwashed into becoming a computer nerd. But what can they do? They can't change society, and their child may be unemployable if he doesn't have certain skills. So they send him to Sylvan.

153. Thus control over human behavior will be introduced not by a calculated decision of the authorities but through a process of social evolution (RAPID evolution, however). The process will be impossible to resist, because each advance, considered by itself, will appear to be beneficial, or at least the evil involved in making the advance will appear to be beneficial, or at least the evil involved in making the advance will seem to be less than that which would result from not making it (see paragraph 127). Propaganda for example is used for many good purposes, such as discouraging child abuse or race hatred. [14] Sex education is obviously useful, yet the effect of sex education (to the extent that it is successful) is to take the shaping of sexual attitudes away from the family and put it into the hands of the state as represented by the public school system.

154. Suppose a biological trait is discovered that increases the likelihood that a child will grow up to be a criminal, and suppose some sort of gene therapy can remove this trait. [29] Of course most parents whose children possess the trait will have them undergo the therapy. It would be inhumane to do otherwise, since the child would probably have a miserable life if he grew up to be a criminal. But many or most primitive societies have a low crime rate in comparison with that of our society, even though they have neither high-tech methods of child-rearing nor harsh systems of punishment. Since there is no reason to suppose that more modern men than primitive men have innate predatory tendencies, the high crime rate of our society must be due to the pressures that modern conditions put on people, to which many cannot or will not adjust. Thus a treatment designed to remove potential criminal tendencies is at least in part a way of re-engineering people so that they suit the requirements of the system.

155. Our society tends to regard as a "sickness" any mode of thought or behavior that is inconvenient for the system, and this is plausible because when an individual doesn't fit into the system it causes pain to the individual as well as problems for the system. Thus the manipulation of an individual to adjust him to the system is seen as a "cure" for a "sickness" and therefore as good.

156. In paragraph 127 we pointed out that if the use of a new item of technology is INITIALLY optional, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional, because the new technology tends to change society in such a way that it becomes difficult or impossible for an individual to function without using that technology. This applies also to the technology of human behavior. In a world in which most children are put through a program to make them enthusiastic about studying, a parent will almost be forced to put his kid through such a program, because if he does not, then the kid will grow up to be, comparatively speaking, an ignoramus and therefore unemployable. Or suppose a biological treatment is discovered that, without undesirable side-effects, will greatly reduce the psychological stress from which so many people suffer in our society.If large numbers of people choose to undergo the treatment, then the general level of stress in society will be reduced, so that it will be possible for the system to increase the stress-producing pressures. In fact, something like this seems to have happened already with one of our society's most important psychological tools for enabling people to reduce (or at least temporarily escape from) stress, namely, mass entertainment (see paragraph 147). Our use of mass entertainment is "optional": No law requires us to watch television, listen to the radio, read magazines. Yet mass entertainment is a means of escape and stress-reduction on which most of us have become dependent. Everyone complains about the trashiness of television, but almost everyone watches it. A few have kicked the TV habit, but it would be a rare person who could get along today without using ANY form of mass entertainment. (Yet until quite recently in human history most people got along very nicely with no other entertainment than that which each local community created for itself.) Without the entertainment industry the system probably would not have been able to get away with putting as much stress-producing pressure on us as it does.

157. Assuming that industrial society survives, it is likely that technology will eventually acquire something approaching complete control over human behavior. It has been established beyond any rational doubt that human thought and behavior have a largely biological basis. As experimenters have demonstrated, feelings such as hunger, pleasure, anger and fear can be turned on and off by electrical stimulation of appropriate parts of the brain. Memories can be destroyed by damaging parts of the brain or they can be brought to the surface by electrical stimulation. Hallucinations can be induced or moods changed by drugs. There may or may not be an immaterial human soul, but if there is one it clearly is less powerful that the biological mechanisms of human behavior. For if that were not the case then researchers would not be able so easily to manipulate human feelings and behavior with drugs and electrical currents.

158. It presumably would be impractical for all people to have electrodes inserted in their heads so that they could be controlled by the authorities. But the fact that human thoughts and feelings are so open to biological intervention shows that the problem of controlling human behavior is mainly a technical problem; a problem of neurons, hormones and complex molecules; the kind of problem that is accessible to scientific attack. Given the outstanding record of our society in solving technical problems, it is overwhelmingly probable that great advances will be made in the control of human behavior.

159. Will public resistance prevent the introduction of technological control of human behavior? It certainly would if an attempt were made to introduce such control all at once. But since technological control will be introduced through a long sequence of small advances, there will be no rational and effective public resistance. (See paragraphs 127, 132, 153.)

160. To those who think that all this sounds like science fiction, we point out that yesterday's science fiction is today's fact. The Industrial Revolution has radically altered man's environment and way of life, and it is only to be expected that as technology is increasingly applied to the human body and mind, man himself will be altered as radically as his environment and way of life have been.

HUMAN RACE AT A CROSSROADS

161. But we have gotten ahead of our story. It is one thing to develop in the laboratory a series of psychological or biological techniques for manipulating human behavior and quite another to integrate these techniques into a functioning social system. The latter problem is the more difficult of the two. For example, while the techniques of educational psychology doubtless work quite well in the "lab schools" where they are developed, it is not necessarily easy to apply them effectively throughout our educational system. We all know what many of our schools are like. The teachers are too busy taking knives and guns away from the kids to subject them to the latest techniques for making them into computer nerds. Thus, in spite of all its technical advances relating to human behavior, the system to date has not been impressively successful in controlling human beings. The people whose behavior is fairly well under the control of the system are those of the type that might be called "bourgeois." But there are growing numbers of people who in one way or another are rebels against the system: welfare leaches, youth gangs, cultists, satanists, nazis, radical environmentalists, militiamen, etc.

162. The system is currently engaged in a desperate struggle to overcome certain problems that threaten its survival, among which the problems of human behavior are the most important. If the system succeeds in acquiring sufficient control over human behavior quickly enough, it will probably survive. Otherwise it will break down. We think the issue will most likely be resolved within the next several decades, say 40 to 100 years.

163. Suppose the system survives the crisis of the next several decades. By that time it will have to have solved, or at least brought under control, the principal problems that confront it, in particular that of "socializing" human beings; that is, making people sufficiently docile so that heir behavior no longer threatens the system. That being accomplished, it does not appear that there would be any further obstacle to the development of technology, and it would presumably advance toward its logical conclusion, which is complete control over everything on Earth, including human beings and all other important organisms. The system may become a unitary, monolithic organization, or it may be more or less fragmented and consist of a number of organizations coexisting in a relationship that includes elements of both cooperation and competition, just as today the government, the corporations and other large organizations both cooperate and compete with one another. Human freedom mostly will have vanished, because individuals and small groups will be impotent vis-a-vis large organizations armed with supertechnology and an arsenal of advanced psychological and biological tools for manipulating human beings, besides instruments of surveillance and physical coercion. Only a small number of people will have any real power, and even these probably will have only very limited freedom, because their behavior too will be regulated; just as today our politicians and corporation executives can retain their positions of power only as long as their behavior remains within certain fairly narrow limits.

164. Don't imagine that the systems will stop developing further techniques for controlling human beings and nature once the crisis of the next few decades is over and increasing control is no longer necessary for the system's survival. On the contrary, once the hard times are over the system will increase its control over people and nature more rapidly, because it will no longer be hampered by difficulties of the kind that it is currently experiencing. Survival is not the principal motive for extending control. As we explained in paragraphs 87-90, technicians and scientists carry on their work largely as a surrogate activity; that is, they satisfy their need for power by solving technical problems. They will continue to do this with unabated enthusiasm, and among the most interesting and challenging problems for them to solve will be those of understanding the human body and mind and intervening in their development. For the "good of humanity," of course.

165. But suppose on the other hand that the stresses of the coming decades prove to be too much for the system. If the system breaks down there may be a period of chaos, a "time of troubles" such as those that history has recorded at various epochs in the past. It is impossible to predict what would emerge from such a time of troubles, but at any rate the human race would be given a new chance. The greatest danger is that industrial society may begin to reconstitute itself within the first few years after the breakdown. Certainly there will be many people (power-hungry types especially) who will be anxious to get the factories running again.

166. Therefore two tasks confront those who hate the servitude to which the industrial system is reducing the human race. First, we must work to heighten the social stresses within the system so as to increase the likelihood that it will break down or be weakened sufficiently so that a revolution against it becomes possible. Second, it is necessary to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the industrial society if and when the system becomes sufficiently weakened. And such an ideology will help to assure that, if and when industrial society breaks down, its remnants will be smashed beyond repair, so that the system cannot be reconstituted. The factories should be destroyed, technical books burned, etc.

HUMAN SUFFERING

167. The industrial system will not break down purely as a result of revolutionary action. It will not be vulnerable to revolutionary attack unless its own internal problems of development lead it into very serious difficulties. So if the system breaks down it will do so either spontaneously, or through a process that is in part spontaneous but helped along by revolutionaries. If the breakdown is sudden, many people will die, since the world's population has become so overblown that it cannot even feed itself any longer without advanced technology. Even if the breakdown is gradual enough so that reduction of the population can occur more through lowering of the birth rate than through elevation of the death rate, the process of de-industrialization probably will be very chaotic and involve much suffering. It is naive to think it likely that technology can be phased out in a smoothly managed, orderly way, especially since the technophiles will fight stubbornly at every step. Is it therefore cruel to work for the breakdown of the system? Maybe, but maybe not. In the first place, revolutionaries will not be able to break the system down unless it is already in enough trouble so that there would be a good chance of its eventually breaking down by itself anyway; and the bigger the system grows, the more disastrous the consequences of its breakdown will be; so it may be that revolutionaries, by hastening the onset of the breakdown, will be reducing the extent of the disaster.

168. In the second place, one has to balance struggle and death against the loss of freedom and dignity. To many of us, freedom and dignity are more important than a long life or avoidance of physical pain. Besides, we all have to die some time, and it may be better to die fighting for survival, or for a cause, than to live a long but empty and purposeless life.

169. In the third place, it is not at all certain that survival of the system will lead to less suffering than breakdown of the system would. The system has already caused, and is continuing to cause, immense suffering all over the world. Ancient cultures, that for hundreds of years gave people a satisfactory relationship with each other and with their environment, have been shattered by contact with industrial society, and the result has been a whole catalogue of economic, environmental, social and psychological problems. One of the effects of the intrusion of industrial society has been that over much of the world traditional controls on population have been thrown out of balance. Hence the population explosion, with all that that implies. Then there is the psychological suffering that is widespread throughout the supposedly fortunate countries of the West (see paragraphs 44, 45). No one knows what will happen as a result of ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect and other environmental problems that cannot yet be foreseen. And, as nuclear proliferation has shown, new technology cannot be kept out of the hands of dictators and irresponsible Third World nations. Would you like to speculate about what Iraq or North Korea will do with genetic engineering?

170. "Oh!" say the technophiles, "Science is going to fix all that! We will conquer famine, eliminate psychological suffering, make everybody healthy and happy!" Yeah, sure. That's what they said 200 years ago. The Industrial Revolution was supposed to eliminate poverty, make everybody happy, etc. The actual result has been quite different. The technophiles are hopelessly naive (or self-deceiving) in their understanding of social problems. They are unaware of (or choose to ignore) the fact that when large changes, even seemingly beneficial ones, are introduced into a society, they lead to a long sequence of other changes, most of which are impossible to predict (paragraph 103). The result is disruption of the society. So it is very probable that in their attempts to end poverty and disease, engineer docile, happy personalities and so forth, the technophiles will create social systems that are terribly troubled, even more so than the present once. For example, the scientists boast that they will end famine by creating new, genetically engineered food plants. But this will allow the human population to keep expanding indefinitely, and it is well known that crowding leads to increased stress and aggression. This is merely one example of the PREDICTABLE problems that will arise. We emphasize that, as past experience has shown, technical progress will lead to other new problems that CANNOT be predicted in advance (paragraph 103). In fact, ever since the Industrial Revolution, technology has been creating new problems for society far more rapidly than it has been solving old ones. Thus it will take a long and difficult period of trial and error for the technophiles to work the bugs out of their Brave New World (if they every do). In the meantime there will be great suffering. So it is not at all clear that the survival of industrial society would involve less suffering than the breakdown of that society would. Technology has gotten the human race into a fix from which there is not likely to be any easy escape.

THE FUTURE

171. But suppose now that industrial society does survive the next several decades and that the bugs do eventually get worked out of the system, so that it functions smoothly. What kind of system will it be? We will consider several possibilities.

172. First let us postulate that the computer scientists succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do all things better than human beings can do them. In that case presumably all work will be done by vast, highly organized systems of machines and no human effort will be necessary. Either of two cases might occur. The machines might be permitted to make all of their own decisions without human oversight, or else human control over the machines might be retained.

173. If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can't make any conjectures as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines' decisions. As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and as machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more and more of their decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won't be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide.

174. On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elitesjust as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone's physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes "treatment" to cure his "problem." Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or to make them "sublimate" their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.

175. But suppose now that the computer scientists do not succeed in developing artificial intelligence, so that human work remains necessary. Even so, machines will take care of more and more of the simpler tasks so that there will be an increasing surplus of human workers at the lower levels of ability. (We see this happening already. There are many people who find it difficult or impossible to get work, because for intellectual or psychological reasons they cannot acquire the level of training necessary to make themselves useful in the present system.) On those who are employed, ever-increasing demands will be placed: They will need more and more training, more and more ability, and will have to be ever more reliable, conforming and docile, because they will be more and more like cells of a giant organism. Their tasks will be increasingly specialized, so that their work will be, in a sense, out of touch with the real world, being concentrated on one tiny slice of reality. The system will have to use any means that it can, whether psychological or biological, to engineer people to be docile, to have the abilities that the system requires and to "sublimate" their drive for power into some specialized task. But the statement that the people of such a society will have to be docile may require qualification. The society may find competitiveness useful, provided that ways are found of directing competitiveness into channels that serve the needs of the system. We can imagine a future society in which there is endless competition for positions of prestige and power. But no more than a very few people will ever reach the top, where the only real power is (see end of paragraph 163). Very repellent is a society in which a person can satisfy his need for power only by pushing large numbers of other people out of the way and depriving them of THEIR opportunity for power.

176. One can envision scenarios that incorporate aspects of more than one of the possibilities that we have just discussed. For instance, it may be that machines will take over most of the work that is of real, practical importance, but that human beings will be kept busy by being given relatively unimportant work. It has been suggested, for example, that a great development of the service industries might provide work for human beings. Thus people would spent their time shining each other's shoes, driving each other around in taxicabs, making handicrafts for one another, waiting on each other's tables, etc. This seems to us a thoroughly contemptible way for the human race to end up, and we doubt that many people would find fulfilling lives in such pointless busy-work. They would seek other, dangerous outlets (drugs, crime, "cults," hate groups) unless they were biologically or psychologically engineered to adapt them to such a way of life.

177. Needless to say, the scenarios outlined above do not exhaust all the possibilities. They only indicate the kinds of outcomes that seem to us most likely. But we can envision no plausible scenarios that are any more palatable than the ones we've just described. It is overwhelmingly probable that if the industrial-technological system survives the next 40 to 100 years, it will by that time have developed certain general characteristics: Individuals (at least those of the "bourgeois" type, who are integrated into the system and make it run, and who therefore have all the power) will be more dependent than ever on large organizations; they will be more "socialized" than ever and their physical and mental qualities to a significant extent (possibly to a very great extent) will be those that are engineered into them rather than being the results of chance (or of God's will, or whatever); and whatever may be left of wild nature will be reduced to remnants preserved for scientific study and kept under the supervision and management of scientists (hence it will no longer be truly wild). In the long run (say a few centuries from now) it is likely that neither the human race nor any other important organisms will exist as we know them today, because once you start modifying organisms through genetic engineering there is no reason to stop at any particular point, so that the modifications will probably continue until man and other organisms have been utterly transformed.

178. Whatever else may be the case, it is certain that technology is creating for human beings a new physical and social environment radically different from the spectrum of environments to which natural selection has adapted the human race physically and psychologically. If man is not adjusted to this new environment by being artificially re-engineered, then he will be adapted to it through a long and painful process of natural selection. The former is far more likely than the latter.

179. It would be better to dump the whole stinking system and take the consequences.

STRATEGY

180. The technophiles are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride into the unknown. Many people understand something of what technological progress is doing to us yet take a passive attitude toward it because they think it is inevitable. But we (FC) don't think it is inevitable. We think it can be stopped, and we will give here some indications of how to go about stopping it.

181. As we stated in paragraph 166, the two main tasks for the present are to promote social stress and instability in industrial society and to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the industrial system. When the system becomes sufficiently stressed and unstable, a revolution against technology may be possible. The pattern would be similar to that of the French and Russian Revolutions. French society and Russian society, for several decades prior to their respective revolutions, showed increasing signs of stress and weakness. Meanwhile, ideologies were being developed that offered a new world view that was quite different from the old one. In the Russian case, revolutionaries were actively working to undermine the old order. Then, when the old system was put under sufficient additional stress (by financial crisis in France, by military defeat in Russia) it was swept away by revolution. What we propose is something along the same lines.

182. It will be objected that the French and Russian Revolutions were failures. But most revolutions have two goals. One is to destroy an old form of society and the other is to set up the new form of society envisioned by the revolutionaries. The French and Russian revolutionaries failed (fortunately!) to create the new kind of society of which they dreamed, but they were quite successful in destroying the old society. We have no illusions about the feasibility of creating a new, ideal form of society. Our goal is only to destroy the existing form of society.

183. But an ideology, in order to gain enthusiastic support, must have a positive ideal as well as a negative one; it must be FOR something as well as AGAINST something. The positive ideal that we propose is Nature. That is, WILD nature: those aspects of the functioning of the Earth and its living things that are independent of human management and free of human interference and control. And with wild nature we include human nature, by which we mean those aspects of the functioning of the human individual that are not subject to regulation by organized society but are products of chance, or free will, or God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions).

184. Nature makes a perfect counter-ideal to technology for several reasons. Nature (that which is outside the power of the system) is the opposite of technology (which seeks to expand indefinitely the power of the system). Most people will agree that nature is beautiful; certainly it has tremendous popular appeal. The radical environmentalists ALREADY hold an ideology that exalts nature and opposes technology. [30] It is not necessary for the sake of nature to set up some chimerical utopia or any new kind of social order. Nature takes care of itself: It was a spontaneous creation that existed long before any human society, and for countless centuries many different kinds of human societies coexisted with nature without doing it an excessive amount of damage. Only with the Industrial Revolution did the effect of human society on nature become really devastating. To relieve the pressure on nature it is not necessary to create a special kind of social system, it is only necessary to get rid of industrial society. Granted, this will not solve all problems. Industrial society has already done tremendous damage to nature and it will take a very long time for the scars to heal. Besides, even pre-industrial societies can do significant damage to nature. Nevertheless, getting rid of industrial society will accomplish a great deal. It will relieve the worst of the pressure on nature so that the scars can begin to heal. It will remove the capacity of organized society to keep increasing its control over nature (including human nature). Whatever kind of society may exist after the demise of the industrial system, it is certain that most people will live close to nature, because in the absence of advanced technology there is no other way that people CAN live. To feed themselves they must be peasants or herdsmen or fishermen or hunters, etc. And, generally speaking, local autonomy should tend to increase, because lack of advanced technology and rapid communications will limit the capacity of governments or other large organizations to control local communities.

185. As for the negative consequences of eliminating industrial societyswell, you can't eat your cake and have it too. To gain one thing you have to sacrifice another.

186. Most people hate psychological conflict. For this reason they avoid doing any serious thinking about difficult social issues, and they like to have such issues presented to them in simple, black-and-white terms: THIS is all good and THAT is all bad. The revolutionary ideology should therefore be developed on two levels.

187. On the more sophisticated level the ideology should address itself to people who are intelligent, thoughtful and rational. The object should be to create a core of people who will be opposed to the industrial system on a rational, thought-out basis, with full appreciation of the problems and ambiguities involved, and of the price that has to be paid for getting rid of the system. It is particularly important to attract people of this type, as they are capable people and will be instrumental in influencing others. These people should be addressed on as rational a level as possible. Facts should never intentionally be distorted and intemperate language should be avoided. This does not mean that no appeal can be made to the emotions, but in making such appeal care should be taken to avoid misrepresenting the truth or doing anything else that would destroy the intellectual respectability of the ideology.

188. On a second level, the ideology should be propagated in a simplified form that will enable the unthinking majority to see the conflict of technology vs. nature in unambiguous terms. But even on this second level the ideology should not be expressed in language that is so cheap, intemperate or irrational that it alienates people of the thoughtful and rational type. Cheap, intemperate propaganda sometimes achieves impressive short-term gains, but it will be more advantageous in the long run to keep the loyalty of a small number of intelligently committed people than to arouse the passions of an unthinking, fickle mob who will change their attitude as soon as someone comes along with a better propaganda gimmick. However, propaganda of the rabble-rousing type may be necessary when the system is nearing the point of collapse and there is a final struggle between rival ideologies to determine which will become dominant when the old world-view goes under.

189. Prior to that final struggle, the revolutionaries should not expect to have a majority of people on their side. History is made by active, determined minorities, not by the majority, which seldom has a clear and consistent idea of what it really wants. Until the time comes for the final push toward revolution [31], the task of revolutionaries will be less to win the shallow support of the majority than to build a small core of deeply committed people. As for the majority, it will be enough to make them aware of the existence of the new ideology and remind them of it frequently; though of course it will be desirable to get majority support to the extent that this can be done without weakening the core of seriously committed people.

190. Any kind of social conflict helps to destabilize the system, but one should be careful about what kind of conflict one encourages. The line of conflict should be drawn between the mass of the people and the power-holding elite of industrial society (politicians, scientists, upper-level business executives, government officials, etc.). It should NOT be drawn between the revolutionaries and the mass of the people. For example, it would be bad strategy for the revolutionaries to condemn Americans for their habits of consumption. Instead, the average American should be portrayed as a victim of the advertising and marketing industry, which has suckered him into buying a lot of junk that he doesn't need and that is very poor compensation for his lost freedom. Either approach is consistent with the facts. It is merely a matter of attitude whether you blame the advertising industry for manipulating the public or blame the public for allowing itself to be manipulated. As a matter of strategy one should generally avoid blaming the public.

191. One should think twice before encouraging any other social conflict than that between the power-holding elite (which wields technology) and the general public (over which technology exerts its power). For one thing, other conflicts tend to distract attention from the important conflicts (between power-elite and ordinary people, between technology and nature); for another thing, other conflicts may actually tend to encourage technologization, because each side in such a conflict wants to use technological power to gain advantages over its adversary. This is clearly seen in rivalries between nations. It also appears in ethnic conflicts within nations. For example, in America many black leaders are anxious to gain power for African Americans by placing back individuals in the technological power-elite. They want there to be many black government officials, sc ientists, corporation executives and so forth. In this way they are helping to absorb the African American subculture into the technological system. Generally speaking, one should encourage only those social conflicts that can be fitted into the framework of the conflicts of power-elite vs. ordinary people, technology vs nature.

192. But the way to discourage ethnic conflict is NOT through militant advocacy of minority rights (see paragraphs 21, 29). Instead, the revolutionaries should emphasize that although minorities do suffer more or less disadvantage, this disadvantage is of peripheral significance. Our real enemy is the industrial-technological system, and in the struggle against the system, ethnic distinctions are of no importance.

193. The kind of revolution we have in mind will not necessarily involve an armed uprising against any government. It may or may not involve physical violence, but it will not be a POLITICAL revolution. Its focus will be on technology and economics, not politics. [32]

194. Probably the revolutionaries should even AVOID assuming political power, whether by legal or illegal means, until the industrial system is stressed to the danger point and has proved itself to be a failure in the eyes of most people. Suppose for example that some "green" party should win control of the United States Congress in an election. In order to avoid betraying or watering down their own ideology they would have to take vigorous measures to turn economic growth into economic shrinkage. To the average man the results would appear disastrous: There would be massive unemployment, shortages of commodities, etc. Even if the grosser ill effects could be avoided through superhumanly skillful management, still people would have to begin giving up the luxuries to which they have become addicted. Dissatisfaction would grow, the "green" party would be voted out of office and the revolutionaries would have suffered a severe setback. For this reason the revolutionaries should not try to acquire political power until the system has gotten itself into such a mess that any hardships will be seen as resulting from the failures of the industrial system itself and not from the policies of the revolutionaries. The revolution against technology will probably have to be a revolution by outsiders, a revolution from below and not from above.

195. The revolution must be international and worldwide. It cannot be carried out on a nation-by-nation basis. Whenever it is suggested that the United States, for example, should cut back on technological progress or economic growth, people get hysterical and start screaming that if we fall behind in technology the Japanese will get ahead of us. Holy robots! The world will fly off its orbit if the Japanese ever sell more cars than we do! (Nationalism is a great promoter of technology.) More reasonably, it is argued that if the relatively democratic nations of the world fall behind in technology while nasty, dictatorial nations like China, Vietnam and North Korea continue to progress, eventually the dictators may come to dominate the world. That is why the industrial system should be attacked in all nations simultaneously, to the extent that this may be possible. True, there is no assurance that the industrial system can be destroyed at approximately the same time all over the world, and it is even conceivable that the attempt to overthrow the system could lead instead to the domination of the system by dictators. That is a risk that has to be taken. And it is worth taking, since the difference between a "democratic" industrial system and one controlled by dictators is small compared with the difference between an industrial system and a non-industrial one. [33] It might even be argued that an industrial system controlled by dictators would be preferable, because dictator-controlled systems usually have proved inefficient, hence they are presumably more likely to break down. Look at Cuba.

196. Revolutionaries might consider favoring measures that tend to bind the world economy into a unified whole. Free trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT are probably harmful to the environment in the short run, but in the long run they may perhaps be advantageous because they foster economic interdependence between nations. It will be easier to destroy the industrial system on a worldwide basis if the world economy is so unified that its breakdown in any one major nation will lead to its breakdown in all industrialized nations.

197. Some people take the line that modern man has too much power, too much control over nature; they argue for a more passive attitude on the part of the human race. At best these people are expressing themselves unclearly, because they fail to distinguish between power for LARGE ORGANIZATIONS and power for INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS. It is a mistake to argue for powerlessness and passivity, because people NEED power. Modern man as a collective entitysthat is, the industrial systemshas immense power over nature, and we (FC) regard this as evil. But modern INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS have far less power than primitive man ever did. Generally speaking, the vast power of "modern man" over nature is exercised not by individuals or small groups but by large organizations. To the extent that the average modern INDIVIDUAL can wield the power of technology, he is permitted to do so only within narrow limits and only under the supervision and control of the system. (You need a license for everything and with the license come rules and regulations.) The individual has only those technological powers with which the system chooses to provide him. His PERSONAL power over nature is slight.

198. Primitive INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS actually had considerable power over nature; or maybe it would be better to say power WITHIN nature. When primitive man needed food he knew how to find and prepare edible roots, how to track game and take it with homemade weapons. He knew how to protect himself from heat, cold, rain, dangerous animals, etc. But primitive man did relatively little damage to nature because the COLLECTIVE power of primitive society was negligible compared to the COLLECTIVE power of industrial society.

199. Instead of arguing for powerlessness and passivity, one should argue that the power of the INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM should be broken, and that this will greatly INCREASE the power and freedom of INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS.

200. Until the industrial system has been thoroughly wrecked, the destruction of that system must be the revolutionaries' ONLY goal. Other goals would distract attention and energy from the main goal. More importantly, if the revolutionaries permit themselves to have any other goal than the destruction of technology, they will be tempted to use technology as a tool for reaching that other goal. If they give in to that temptation, they will fall right back into the technological trap, because modern technology is a unified, tightly organized system, so that, in order to retain SOME technology, one finds oneself obliged to retain MOST technology, hence one ends up sacrificing only token amounts of technology.

201. Suppose for example that the revolutionaries took "social justice" as a goal. Human nature being what it is, social justice would not come about spontaneously; it would have to be enforced. In order to enforce it the revolutionaries would have to retain central organization and control. For that they would need rapid long-distance transportation and communication, and therefore all the technology needed to support the transportation and communication systems. To feed and clothe poor people they would have to use agricultural and manufacturing technology. And so forth. So that the attempt to insure social justice would force them to retain most parts of the technological system. Not that we have anything against social justice, but it must not be allowed to interfere with the effort to get rid of the technological system.

202. It would be hopeless for revolutionaries to try to attack the system without using SOME modern technology. If nothing else they must use the communications media to spread their message. But they should use modern technology for only ONE purpose: to attack the technological system.

203. Imagine an alcoholic sitting with a barrel of wine in front of him. Suppose he starts saying to himself, "Wine isn't bad for you if used in moderation. Why, they say small amounts of wine are even good for you! It won't do me any harm if I take just one little drink.... " Well you know what is going to happen. Never forget that the human race with technology is just like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine.

204. Revolutionaries should have as many children as they can. There is strong scientific evidence that social attitudes are to a significant extent inherited. No one suggests that a social attitude is a direct outcome of a person's genetic constitution, but it appears that personality traits are partly inherited and that certain personality traits tend, within the context of our society, to make a person more likely to hold this or that social attitude. Objections to these findings have been raised, but the objections are feeble and seem to be ideologically motivated. In any event, no one denies that children tend on the average to hold social attitudes similar to those of their parents. From our point of view it doesn't matter all that much whether the attitudes are passed on genetically or through childhood training. In either case they ARE passed on.

205. The trouble is that many of the people who are inclined to rebel against the industrial system are also concerned about the population problems, hence they are apt to have few or no children. In this way they may be handing the world over to the sort of people who support or at least accept the industrial system. To insure the strength of the next generation of revolutionaries the present generation should reproduce itself abundantly. In doing so they will be worsening the population problem only slightly. And the important problem is to get rid of the industrial system, because once the industrial system is gone the world's population necessarily will decrease (see paragraph 167); whereas, if the industrial system survives, it will continue developing new techniques of food production that may enable the world's population to keep increasing almost indefinitely.

206. With regard to revolutionary strategy, the only points on which we absolutely insist are that the single overriding goal must be the elimination of modern technology, and that no other goal can be allowed to compete with this one. For the rest, revolutionaries should take an empirical approach. If experience indicates that some of the recommendations made in the foregoing paragraphs are not going to give good results, then those recommendations should be discarded.

TWO KINDS OF TECHNOLOGY

207. An argument likely to be raised against our proposed revolution is that it is bound to fail, because (it is claimed) throughout history technology has always progressed, never regressed, hence technological regression is impossible. But this claim is false.

208. We distinguish between two kinds of technology, which we will call small-scale technology and organization-dependent technology. Small-scale technology is technology that can be used by small-scale communities without outside assistance. Organization-dependent technology is technology that depends on large-scale social organization. We are aware of no significant cases of regression in small-scale technology. But organization-dependent technology DOES regress when the social organization on which it depends breaks down. Example: When the Roman Empire fell apart the Romans' small-scale technology survived because any clever village craftsman could build, for instance, a water wheel, any skilled smith could make steel by Roman methods, and so forth. But the Romans' organization-dependent technology DID regress. Their aqueducts fell into disrepair and were never rebuilt. Their techniques of road construction were lost. The Roman system of urban sanitation was forgotten, so that not until r ather recent times did the sanitation of European cities equal that of Ancient Rome.

209. The reason why technology has seemed always to progress is that, until perhaps a century or two before the Industrial Revolution, most technology was small-scale technology. But most of the technology developed since the Industrial Revolution is organization-dependent technology. Take the refrigerator for example. Without factory-made parts or the facilities of a post-industrial machine shop it would be virtually impossible for a handful of local craftsmen to build a refrigerator. If by some miracle they did succeed in building one it would be useless to them without a reliable source of electric power. So they would have to dam a stream and build a generator. Generators require large amounts of copper wire. Imagine trying to make that wire without modern machinery. And where would they get a gas suitable for refrigeration? It would be much easier to build an icehouse or preserve food by drying or picking, as was done before the invention of the refrigerator.

210. So it is clear that if the industrial system were once thoroughly broken down, refrigeration technology would quickly be lost. The same is true of other organization-dependent technology. And once this technology had been lost for a generation or so it would take centuries to rebuild it, just as it took centuries to build it the first time around. Surviving technical books would be few and scattered. An industrial society, if built from scratch without outside help, can only be built in a series of stages: You need tools to make tools to make tools to make tools ... . A long process of economic development and progress in social organization is required. And, even in the absence of an ideology opposed to technology, there is no reason to believe that anyone would be interested in rebuilding industrial society. The enthusiasm for "progress" is a phenomenon peculiar to the modern form of society, and it seems not to have existed prior to the 17th century or thereabouts.

211. In the late Middle Ages there were four main civilizations that were about equally "advanced": Europe, the Islamic world, India, and the Far East (China, Japan, Korea). Three of those civilizations remained more or less stable, and only Europe became dynamic. No one knows why Europe became dynamic at that time; historians have their theories but these are only speculation. At any rate, it is clear that rapid development toward a technological form of society occurs only under special conditions. So there is no reason to assume that a long-lasting technological regression cannot be brought about.

212. Would society EVENTUALLY develop again toward an industrial-technological form? Maybe, but there is no use in worrying about it, since we can't predict or control events 500 or 1,000 years in the future. Those problems must be dealt with by the people who will live at that time.

THE DANGER OF LEFTISM

213. Because of their need for rebellion and for membership in a movement, leftists or persons of similar psychological type often are unattracted to a rebellious or activist movement whose goals and membership are not initially leftist. The resulting influx of leftish types can easily turn a non-leftist movement into a leftist one, so that leftist goals replace or distort the original goals of the movement.

214. To avoid this, a movement that exalts nature and opposes technology must take a resolutely anti-leftist stance and must avoid all collaboration with leftists. Leftism is in the long run inconsistent with wild nature, with human freedom and with the elimination of modern technology. Leftism is collectivist; it seeks to bind together the entire world (both nature and the human race) into a unified whole. But this implies management of nature and of human life by organized society, and it requires advanced technology. You can't have a united world without rapid transportation and communication, you can't make all people love one another without sophisticated psychological techniques, you can't have a "planned society" without the necessary technological base. Above all, leftism is driven by the need for power, and the leftist seeks power on a collective basis, through identification with a mass movement or an organization. Leftism is unlikely ever to give up technology, because technology is too valuable a source of collective power.

215. The anarchist [34] too seeks power, but he seeks it on an individual or small-group basis; he wants individuals and small groups to be able to control the circumstances of their own lives. He opposes technology because it makes small groups dependent on large organizations.

216. Some leftists may seem to oppose technology, but they will oppose it only so long as they are outsiders and the technological system is controlled by non-leftists. If leftism ever becomes dominant in society, so that the technological system becomes a tool in the hands of leftists, they will enthusiastically use it and promote its growth. In doing this they will be repeating a pattern that leftism has shown again and again in the past. When the Bolsheviks in Russia were outsiders, they vigorously opposed censorship and the secret police, they advocated self-determination for ethnic minorities, and so forth; but as soon as they came into power themselves, they imposed a tighter censorship and created a more ruthless secret police than any that had existed under the tsars, and they oppressed ethnic minorities at least as much as the tsars had done. In the United States, a couple of decades ago when leftists were a minority in our universities, leftist professors were vigorous proponents of academic freedom, but today, in those of our universities where leftists have become dominant, they have shown themselves ready to take away from everyone else's academic freedom. (This is "political correctness.") The same will happen with leftists and technology: They will use it to oppress everyone else if they ever get it under their own control.

217. In earlier revolutions, leftists of the most power-hungry type, repeatedly, have first cooperated with non-leftist revolutionaries, as well as with leftists of a more libertarian inclination, and later have double-crossed them to seize power for themselves. Robespierre did this in the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks did it in the Russian Revolution, the communists did it in Spain in 1938 and Castro and his followers did it in Cuba. Given the past history of leftism, it would be utterly foolish for non-leftist revolutionaries today to collaborate with leftists.

218. Various thinkers have pointed out that leftism is a kind of religion. Leftism is not a religion in the strict sense because leftist doctrine does not postulate the existence of any supernatural being. But, for the leftist, leftism plays a psychological role much like that which religion plays for some people. The leftist NEEDS to believe in leftism; it plays a vital role in his psychological economy. His beliefs are not easily modified by logic or facts. He has a deep conviction that leftism is morally Right with a capital R, and that he has not only a right but a duty to impose leftist morality on everyone. (However, many of the people we are referring to as "leftists" do not think of themselves as leftists and would not describe their system of beliefs as leftism. We use the term "leftism" because we don't know of any better words to designate the spectrum of related creeds that includes the feminist, gay rights, political correctness, etc., movements, and because these movements have a strong affinity with the old left. See paragraphs 227-230.)

219. Leftism is a totalitarian force. Wherever leftism is in a position of power it tends to invade every private corner and force every thought into a leftist mold. In part this is because of the quasi-religious character of leftism; everything contrary to leftist beliefs represents Sin. More importantly, leftism is a totalitarian force because of the leftists' drive for power. The leftist seeks to satisfy his need for power through identification with a social movement and he tries to go through the power process by helping to pursue and attain the goals of the movement (see paragraph 83). But no matter how far the movement has gone in attaining its goals the leftist is never satisfied, because his activism is a surrogate activity (see paragraph 41). That is, the leftist's real motive is not to attain the ostensible goals of leftism; in reality he is motivated by the sense of power he gets from struggling for and then reaching a social goal. [35] Consequently the leftist is never satisfied with the goals he has already attained; his need for the power process leads him always to pursue some new goal. The leftist wants equal opportunities for minorities. When that is attained he insists on statistical equality of achievement by minorities. And as long as anyone harbors in some corner of his mind a negative attitude toward some minority, the leftist has to re-educated him. And ethnic minorities are not enough; no one can be allowed to have a negative attitude toward homosexuals, disabled people, fat people, old people, ugly people, and on and on and on. It's not enough that the public should be informed about the hazards of smoking; a warning has to be stamped on every package of cigarettes. Then cigarette advertising has to be restricted if not banned. The activists will never be satisfied until tobacco is outlawed, and after that it will be alcohol, then junk food, etc. Activists have fought gross child abuse, which is reasonable. But now they want to stop all spanking. When they have done that they will want to ban something else they consider unwholesome, then another thing and then another. They will never be satisfied until they have complete control over all child rearing practices. And then they will move on to another cause.

220. Suppose you asked leftists to make a list of ALL the things that were wrong with society, and then suppose you instituted EVERY social change that they demanded. It is safe to say that within a couple of years the majority of leftists would find something new to complain about, some new social "evil" to correct because, once again, the leftist is motivated less by distress at society's ills than by the need to satisfy his drive for power by imposing his solutions on society.

221. Because of the restrictions placed on their thoughts and behavior by their high level of socialization, many leftists of the over-socialized type cannot pursue power in the ways that other people do. For them the drive for power has only one morally acceptable outlet, and that is in the struggle to impose their morality on everyone.

222. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, are True Believers in the sense of Eric Hoffer's book, "The True Believer." But not all True Believers are of the same psychological type as leftists. Presumably a true-believing nazi, for instance, is very different psychologically from a true-believing leftist. Because of their capacity for single-minded devotion to a cause, True Believers are a useful, perhaps a necessary, ingredient of any revolutionary movement. This presents a problem with which we must admit we don't know how to deal. We aren't sure how to harness the energies of the True Believer to a revolution against technology. At present all we can say is that no True Believer will make a safe recruit to the revolution unless his commitment is exclusively to the destruction of technology. If he is committed also to another ideal, he may want to use technology as a tool for pursuing that other ideal (see paragraphs 220, 221).

223. Some readers may say, "This stuff about leftism is a lot of crap. I know John and Jane who are leftish types and they don't have all these totalitarian tendencies." It's quite true that many leftists, possibly even a numerical majority, are decent people who sincerely believe in tolerating others' values (up to a point) and wouldn't want to use high-handed methods to reach their social goals. Our remarks about leftism are not meant to apply to every individual leftist but to describe the general character of leftism as a movement. And the general character of a movement is not necessarily determined by the numerical proportions of the various kinds of people involved in the movement.

224. The people who rise to positions of power in leftist movements tend to be leftists of the most power-hungry type, because power-hungry people are those who strive hardest to get into positions of power. Once the power-hungry types have captured control of the movement, there are many leftists of a gentler breed who inwardly disapprove of many of the actions of the leaders, but cannot bring themselves to oppose them. They NEED their faith in the movement, and because they cannot give up this faith they go along with the leaders. True, SOME leftists do have the guts to oppose the totalitarian tendencies that emerge, but they generally lose, because the power-hungry types are better organized, are more ruthless and Machiavellian and have taken care to build themselves a strong power base.

225. These phenomena appeared clearly in Russia and other countries that were taken over by leftists. Similarly, before the breakdown of communism in the USSR, leftish types in the West would seldom criticize that country. If prodded they would admit that the USSR did many wrong things, but then they would try to find excuses for the communists and begin talking about the faults of the West. They always opposed Western military resistance to communist aggression. Leftish types all over the world vigorously protested the U.S. military action in Vietnam, but when the USSR invaded Afghanistan they did nothing. Not that they approved of the Soviet actions; but because of their leftist faith, they just couldn't bear to put themselves in opposition to communism. Today, in those of our universities where "political correctness" has become dominant, there are probably many leftish types who privately disapprove of the suppression of academic freedom, but they go along with it anyway.

226. Thus the fact that many individual leftists are personally mild and fairly tolerant people by no means prevents leftism as a whole form having a totalitarian tendency.

227. Our discussion of leftism has a serious weakness. It is still far from clear what we mean by the word "leftist." There doesn't seem to be much we can do about this. Today leftism is fragmented into a whole spectrum of activist movements. Yet not all activist movements are leftist, and some activist movements (e.g., radical environmentalism) seem to include both personalities of the leftist type and personalities of thoroughly un-leftist types who ought to know better than to collaborate with leftists. Varieties of leftists fade out gradually into varieties of non-leftists and we ourselves would often be hard-pressed to decide whether a given individual is or is not a leftist. To the extent that it is defined at all, our conception of leftism is defined by the discussion of it that we have given in this article, and we can only advise the reader to use his own judgment in deciding who is a leftist.

228. But it will be helpful to list some criteria for diagnosing leftism. These criteria cannot be applied in a cut and dried manner. Some individuals may meet some of the criteria without being leftists, some leftists may not meet any of the criteria. Again, you just have to use your judgment.

229. The leftist is oriented toward large-scale collectivism. He emphasizes the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. He has a negative attitude toward individualism. He often takes a moralistic tone. He tends to be for gun control, for sex education and other psychologically "enlightened" educational methods, for social planning, for affirmative action, for multiculturalism. He tends to identify with victims. He tends to be against competition and against violence, but he often finds excuses for those leftists who do commit violence. He is fond of using the common catch-phrases of the left, like "racism," "sexism," "homophobia," "capitalism," "imperialism," "neocolonialism," "genocide," "social change," "social justice," "social responsibility." Maybe the best diagnostic trait of the leftist is his tendency to sympathize with the following movements: feminism, gay rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights, political correctness. Anyone who strongly sympathizes with ALL of these movements is almost certainly a leftist. [36]

230. The more dangerous leftists, that is, those who are most power-hungry, are often characterized by arrogance or by a dogmatic approach to ideology. However, the most dangerous leftists of all may be certain oversocialized types who avoid irritating displays of aggressiveness and refrain from advertising their leftism, but work quietly and unobtrusively to promote collectivist values, "enlightened" psychological techniques for socializing children, dependence of the individual on the system, and so forth. These crypto-leftists (as we may call them) approximate certain bourgeois types as far as practical action is concerned, but differ from them in psychology, ideology and motivation. The ordinary bourgeois tries to bring people under control of the system in order to protect his way of life, or he does so simply because his attitudes are conventional. The crypto-leftist tries to bring people under control of the system because he is a True Believer in a collectivistic ideology. The crypto-leftist is differentiated from the average leftist of the oversocialized type by the fact that his rebellious impulse is weaker and he is more securely socialized. He is differentiated from the ordinary well-socialized bourgeois by the fact that there is some deep lack within him that makes it necessary for him to devote himself to a cause and immerse himself in a collectivity. And maybe his (well-sublimated) drive for power is stronger than that of the average bourgeois.

FINAL NOTE

231. Throughout this article we've made imprecise statements and statements that ought to have had all sorts of qualifications and reservations attached to them; and some of our statements may be flatly false. Lack of sufficient information and the need for brevity made it impossible for us to formulate our assertions more precisely or add all the necessary qualifications. And of course in a discussion of this kind one must rely heavily on intuitive judgment, and that can sometimes be wrong. So we don't claim that this article expresses more than a crude approximation to the truth.

232. All the same, we are reasonably confident that the general outlines of the picture we have painted here are roughly correct. Just one possible weak point needs to be mentioned. We have portrayed leftism in its modern form as a phenomenon peculiar to our time and as a symptom of the disruption of the power process. But we might possibly be wrong about this. Oversocialized types who try to satisfy their drive for power by imposing their morality on everyone have certainly been around for a long time. But we THINK that the decisive role played by feelings of inferiority, low self-esteem, powerlessness, identification with victims by people who are not themselves victims, is a peculiarity of modern leftism. Identification with victims by people not themselves victims can be seen to some extent in 19th century leftism and early Christianity but as far as we can make out, symptoms of low self-esteem, etc., were not nearly so evident in these movements, or in any other movements, as they are in modern leftism. But we are not in a position to assert confidently that no such movements have existed prior to modern leftism. This is a significant question to which historians ought to give their attention.

Notes

1. (Paragraph 19) We are asserting that ALL, or even most, bullies and ruthless competitors suffer from feelings of inferiority.

2. (Paragraph 25) During the Victorian period many oversocialized people suffered from serious psychological problems as a result of repressing or trying to repress their sexual feelings. Freud apparently based his theories on people of this type. Today the focus of socialization has shifted from sex to aggression.

3. (Paragraph 27) Not necessarily including specialists in engineering or the "hard" sciences.

4. (Paragraph 28) There are many individuals of the middle and upper classes who resist some of these values, but usually their resistance is more or less covert. Such resistance appears in the mass media only to a very limited extent. The main thrust of propaganda in our society is in favor of the stated values.

The main reason why these values have become, so to speak, the official values of our society is that they are useful to the industrial system. Violence is discouraged because it disrupts the functioning of the system. Racism is discouraged because ethnic conflicts also disrupt the system, and discrimination wastes the talents of minority-group members who could be useful to the system. Poverty must be "cured" because the underclass causes problems for the system and contact with the underclass lowers the morale of the other classes. Women are encouraged to have careers because their talents are useful to the system and, more importantly, because by having regular jobs women become better integrated into the system and tied directly to it rather than to their families. This helps to weaken family solidarity. (The leaders of the system say they want to strengthen the family, but they really mean is that they want the family to serve as an effective tool for socializing children in accord with the needs of the system. We argue in paragraphs 51, 52 that the system cannot afford to let the family or other small-scale social groups be strong or autonomous.)

5. (Paragraph 42) It may be argued that the majority of people don't want to make their own decisions but want leaders to do their thinking for them. There is an element of truth in this. People like to make their own decisions in small matters, but making decisions on difficult, fundamental questions requires facing up to psychological conflict, and most people hate psychological conflict. Hence they tend to lean on others in making difficult decisions. But it does not follow that they like to have decisions imposed upon them without having any opportunity to influence those decisions. The majority of people are natural followers, not leaders, but they like to have direct personal access to their leaders, they want to be able to influence the leaders and participate to some extent in making even the difficult decisions. At least to that degree they need autonomy.

6. (Paragraph 44) Some of the symptoms listed are similar to those shown by caged animals.

To explain how these symptoms arise from deprivation with respect to the power process:

Common-sense understanding of human nature tells one that lack of goals whose attainment requires effort leads to boredom and that boredom, long continued, often leads eventually to depression. Failure to attain goals leads to frustration and lowering of self-esteem. Frustration leads to anger, anger to aggression, often in the form of spouse or child abuse. It has been shown that long-continued frustration commonly leads to depression and that depression tends to cause guilt, sleep disorders, eating disorders and bad feelings about oneself. Those who are tending toward depression seek pleasure as an antidote; hence insatiable hedonism and excessive sex, with perversions as a means of getting new kicks. Boredom too tends to cause excessive pleasure-seeking since, lacking other goals, people often use pleasure as a goal. See accompanying diagram.

The foregoing is a simplification. Reality is more complex, and of course, deprivation with respect to the power process is not the ONLY cause of the symptoms described.

By the way, when we mention depression we do not necessarily mean depression that is severe enough to be treated by a psychiatrist. Often only mild forms of depression are involved. And when we speak of goals we do not necessarily mean long-term, thought-out goals. For many or most people through much of human history, the goals of a hand-to-mouth existence (merely providing oneself and one's family with food from day to day) have been quite sufficient.

7. (Paragraph 52) A partial exception may be made for a few passive, inward-looking groups, such as the Amish, which have little effect on the wider society. Apart from these, some genuine small-scale communities do exist in America today. For instance, youth gangs and "cults." Everyone regards them as dangerous, and so they are, because the members of these groups are loyal primarily to one another rather than to the system, hence the system cannot control them.

Or take the gypsies. The gypsies commonly get away with theft and fraud because their loyalties are such that they can always get other gypsies to give testimony that "proves" their innocence. Obviously the system would be in serious trouble if too many people belonged to such groups.

Some of the early-20th century Chinese thinkers who were concerned with modernizing China recognized the necessity breaking down small-scale social groups such as the family: "(According to Sun Yat-sen) the Chinese people needed a new surge of patriotism, which would lead to a transfer of loyalty from the family to the state.... (According to Li Huang) traditional attachments, particularly to the family had to be abandoned if nationalism were to develop in China." (Chester C. Tan, "Chinese Political Thought in the Twentieth Century," page 125, page 297.)

8. (Paragraph 56) Yes, we know that 19th century America had its problems, and serious ones, but for the sake of brevity we have to express ourselves in simplified terms.

9. (Paragraph 61) We leave aside the "underclass." We are speaking of the mainstream.

10. (Paragraph 62) Some social scientists, educators, "mental health" professionals and the like are doing their best to push the social drives into group 1 by trying to see to it that everyone has a satisfactory social life.

11. (Paragraphs 63, 82) Is the drive for endless material acquisition really an artificial creation of the advertising and marketing industry? Certainly there is no innate human drive for material acquisition. There have been many cultures in which people have desired little material wealth beyond what was necessary to satisfy their basic physical needs (Australian aborigines, traditional Mexican peasant culture, some African cultures). On the other hand there have also been many pre-industrial cultures in which material acquisition has played an important role. So we can't claim that today's acquisition-oriented culture is exclusively a creation of the advertising and marketing industry. But it is clear that the advertising and marketing industry has had an important part in creating that culture. The big corporations that spend millions on advertising wouldn't be spending that kind of money without solid proof that they were getting it back in increased sales. One member of FC met a sales manager a couple of years ago who was frank enough to tell him, "Our job is to make people buy things they don't want and don't need." He then described how an untrained novice could present people with the facts about a product, and make no sales at all, while a trained and experienced professional salesman would make lots of sales to the same people. This shows that people are manipulated into buying things they don't really want.

12. (Paragraph 64) The problem of purposelessness seems to have become less serious during the last 15 years or so, because people now feel less secure physically and economically than they did earlier, and the need for security provides them with a goal. But purposelessness has been replaced by frustration over the difficulty of attaining security. We emphasize the problem of purposelessness because the liberals and leftists would wish to solve our social problems by having society guarantee everyone's security; but if that could be done it would only bring back the problem of purposelessness. The real issue is not whether society provides well or poorly for people's security; the trouble is that people are dependent on the system for their security rather than having it in their own hands. This, by the way, is part of the reason why some people get worked up about the right to bear arms; possession of a gun puts that aspect of their security in their own hands.

13. (Paragraph 66) Conservatives' efforts to decrease the amount of government regulation are of little benefit to the average man. For one thing, only a fraction of the regulations can be eliminated because most regulations are necessary. For another thing, most of the deregulation affects business rather than the average individual, so that its main effect is to take power from the government and give it to private corporations. What this means for the average man is that government interference in his life is replaced by interference from big corporations, which may be permitted, for example, to dump more chemicals that get into his water supply and give him cancer. The conservatives are just taking the average man for a sucker, exploiting his resentment of Big Government to promote the power of Big Business.

14. (Paragraph 73) When someone approves of the purpose for which propaganda is being used in a given case, he generally calls it "education" or applies to it some similar euphemism. But propaganda is propaganda regardless of the purpose for which it is used.

15. (Paragraph 83) We are not expressing approval or disapproval of the Panama invasion. We only use it to illustrate a point.

16. (Paragraph 95) When the American colonies were under British rule there were fewer and less effective legal guarantees of freedom than there were after the American Constitution went into effect, yet there was more personal freedom in pre-industrial America, both before and after the War of Independence, than there was after the Industrial Revolution took hold in this country. We quote from "Violence in America: Historical and Comparative Perspectives," edited by Hugh Davis Graham and Ted Robert Gurr, Chapter 12 by Roger Lane, pages 476-478:

"The progressive heightening of standards of propriety, and with it the increasing reliance on official law enforcement (in 19th century America) ... were common to the whole society.... [T]he change in social behavior is so long term and so widespread as to suggest a connection with the most fundamental of contemporary social processes; that of industrial urbanization itself...."Massachusetts in 1835 had a population of some 660,940, 81 percent rural, overwhelmingly preindustrial and native born. It's citizens were used to considerable personal freedom. Whether teamsters, farmers or artisans, they were all accustomed to setting their own schedules, and the nature of their work made them physically independent of each other.... Individual problems, sins or even crimes, were not generally cause for wider social concern...."But the impact of the twin movements to the city and to the factory, both just gathering force in 1835, had a progressive effect on personal behavior throughout the 19th century and into the 20th. The factory demanded regularity of behavior, a life governed by obedience to the rhythms of clock and calendar, the demands of foreman and supervisor. In the city or town, the needs of living in closely packed neighborhoods inhibited many actions previously unobjectionable. Both blue- and white-collar employees in larger establishments were mutually dependent on their fellows; as one man's work fit into anther's, so one man's business was no longer his own.

"The results of the new organization of life and work were apparent by 1900, when some 76 percent of the 2,805,346 inhabitants of Massachusetts were classified as urbanites. Much violent or irregular behavior which had been tolerable in a casual, independent society was no longer acceptable in the more formalized, cooperative atmosphere of the later period.... The move to the cities had, in short, produced a more tractable, more socialized, more 'civilized' generation than its predecessors."

17. (Paragraph 117) Apologists for the system are fond of citing cases in which elections have been decided by one or two votes, but such cases are rare.

18. (Paragraph 119) "Today, in technologically advanced lands, men live very similar lives in spite of geographical, religious, and political differences. The daily lives of a Christian bank clerk in Chicago, a Buddhist bank clerk in Tokyo, and a Communist bank clerk in Moscow are far more alike than the life of any one of them is like that of any single man who lived a thousand years ago. These similarities are the result of a common technology...." L. Sprague de Camp, "The Ancient Engineers," Ballantine edition, page 17.

The lives of the three bank clerks are not IDENTICAL. Ideology does have SOME effect. But all technological societies, in order to survive, must evolve along APPROXIMATELY the same trajectory.

19. (Paragraph 123) Just think an irresponsible genetic engineer might create a lot of terrorists.

20. (Paragraph 124) For a further example of undesirable consequences of medical progress, suppose a reliable cure for cancer is discovered. Even if the treatment is too expensive to be available to any but the elite, it will greatly reduce their incentive to stop the escape of carcinogens into the environment.

21. (Paragraph 128) Since many people may find paradoxical the notion that a large number of good things can add up to a bad thing, we illustrate with an analogy. Suppose Mr. A is playing chess with Mr. B. Mr. C, a Grand Master, is looking over Mr. A's shoulder. Mr. A of course wants to win his game, so if Mr. C points out a good move for him to make, he is doing Mr. A a favor. But suppose now that Mr. C tells Mr. A how to make ALL of his moves. In each particular instance he does Mr. A a favor by showing him his best move, but by making ALL of his moves for him he spoils his game, since there is not point in Mr. A's playing the game at all if someone else makes all his moves.

The situation of modern man is analogous to that of Mr. A. The system makes an individual's life easier for him in innumerable ways, but in doing so it deprives him of control over his own fate.

22. (Paragraph 137) Here we are considering only the conflict of values within the mainstream. For the sake of simplicity we leave out of the picture "outsider" values like the idea that wild nature is more important than human economic welfare.

23. (Paragraph 137) Self-interest is not necessarily MATERIAL self-interest. It can consist in fulfillment of some psychological need, for example, by promoting one's own ideology or religion.

24. (Paragraph 139) A qualification: It is in the interest of the system to permit a certain prescribed degree of freedom in some areas. For example, economic freedom (with suitable limitations and restraints) has proved effective in promoting economic growth. But only planned, circumscribed, limited freedom is in the interest of the system. The individual must always be kept on a leash, even if the leash is sometimes long (see paragraphs 94, 97).

25. (Paragraph 143) We don't mean to suggest that the efficiency or the potential for survival of a society has always been inversely proportional to the amount of pressure or discomfort to which the society subjects people. That certainly is not the case. There is good reason to believe that many primitive societies subjected people to less pressure than European society did, but European society proved far more efficient than any primitive society and always won out in conflicts with such societies because of the advantages conferred by technology.

26. (Paragraph 147) If you think that more effective law enforcement is unequivocally good because it suppresses crime, then remember that crime as defined by the system is not necessarily what YOU would call crime. Today, smoking marijuana is a "crime," and, in some places in the U.S., so is possession of an unregistered handgun. Tomorrow, possession of ANY firearm, registered or not, may be made a crime, and the same thing may happen with disapproved methods of child-rearing, such as spanking. In some countries, expression of dissident political opinions is a crime, and there is no certainty that this will never happen in the U.S., since no constitution or political system lasts forever.

If a society needs a large, powerful law enforcement establishment, then there is something gravely wrong with that society; it must be subjecting people to severe pressures if so many refuse to follow the rules, or follow them only because forced. Many societies in the past have gotten by with little or no formal law-enforcement.

27. (Paragraph 151) To be sure, past societies have had means of influencing human behavior, but these have been primitive and of low effectiveness compared with the technological means that are now being developed.

28. (Paragraph 152) However, some psychologists have publicly expressed opinions indicating their contempt for human freedom. And the mathematician Claude Shannon was quoted in Omni (August 1987) as saying, "I visualize a time when we will be to robots what dogs are to humans, and I'm rooting for the machines."

29. (Paragraph 154) This is no science fiction! After writing paragraph 154 we came across an article in Scientific American according to which scientists are actively developing techniques for identifying possible future criminals and for treating them by a combination of biological and psychological means. Some scientists advocate compulsory application of the treatment, which may be available in the near future. (See "Seeking the Criminal Element," by W. Wayt Gibbs, Scientific American, March 1995.) Maybe you think this is OK because the treatment would be applied to those who might become violent criminals. But of course it won't stop there. Next, a treatment will be applied to those who might become drunk drivers (they endanger human life too), then perhaps to peel who spank their children, then to environmentalists who sabotage logging equipment, eventually to anyone whose behavior is inconvenient for the system.

30. (Paragraph 184) A further advantage of nature as a counter-ideal to technology is that, in many people, nature inspires the kind of reverence that is associated with religion, so that nature could perhaps be idealized on a religious basis. It is true that in many societies religion has served as a support and justification for the established order, but it is also true that religion has often provided a basis for rebellion. Thus it may be useful to introduce a religious element into the rebellion against technology, the more so because Western society today has no strong religious foundation. Religion, nowadays either is used as cheap and transparent support for narrow, short-sighted selfishness (some conservatives use it this way), or even is cynically exploited to make easy money (by many evangelists), or has degenerated into crude irrationalism (fundamentalist protestant sects, "cults"), or is simply stagnant (Catholicism, main-line Protestantism). The nearest thing to a strong, widespread, dynamic religion that the West has seen in recent times has been the quasi-religion of leftism, but leftism today is fragmented and has no clear, unified, inspiring goal.

Thus there is a religious vacuum in our society that could perhaps be filled by a religion focused on nature in opposition to technology. But it would be a mistake to try to concoct artificially a religion to fill this role. Such an invented religion would probably be a failure. Take the "Gaia" religion for example. Do its adherents REALLY believe in it or are they just play-acting? If they are just play-acting their religion will be a flop in the end.

It is probably best not to try to introduce religion into the conflict of nature vs. technology unless you REALLY believe in that religion yourself and find that it arouses a deep, strong, genuine response in many other people.

31. (Paragraph 189) Assuming that such a final push occurs. Conceivably the industrial system might be eliminated in a somewhat gradual or piecemeal fashion (see paragraphs 4, 167 and Note 4).

32. (Paragraph 193) It is even conceivable (remotely) that the revolution might consist only of a massive change of attitudes toward technology resulting in a relatively gradual and painless disintegration of the industrial system. But if this happens we'll be very lucky. It's far more probably that the transition to a nontechnological society will be very difficult and full of conflicts and disasters.

33. (Paragraph 195) The economic and technological structure of a society are far more important than its political structure in determining the way the average man lives (see paragraphs 95, 119 and Notes 16, 18).

34. (Paragraph 215) This statement refers to our particular brand of anarchism. A wide variety of social attitudes have been called "anarchist," and it may be that many who consider themselves anarchists would not accept our statement of paragraph 215. It should be noted, by the way, that there is a nonviolent anarchist movement whose members probably would not accept FC as anarchist and certainly would not approve of FC's violent methods.

35. (Paragraph 219) Many leftists are motivated also by hostility, but the hostility probably results in part from a frustrated need for power.

36. (Paragraph 229) It is important to understand that we mean someone who sympathizes with these MOVEMENTS as they exist today in our society. One who believes that women, homosexuals, etc., should have equal rights is not necessary a leftist. The feminist, gay rights, etc., movements that exist in our society have the particular ideological tone that characterizes leftism, and if one believes, for example, that women should have equal rights it does not necessarily follow that one must sympathize with the feminist movement as it exists today.

If copyright problems make it impossible for this long quotation to be printed, then please change Note 16 to read as follows:

16. (Paragraph 95) When the American colonies were under British rule there were fewer and less effective legal guarantees of freedom than there were after the American Constitution went into effect, yet there was more personal freedom in pre-industrial America, both before and after the War of Independence, than there was after the Industrial Revolution took hold in this country. In "Violence in America: Historical and Comparative Perspectives," edited by Hugh Davis Graham and Ted Robert Gurr, Chapter 12 by Roger Lane, it is explained how in pre-industrial America the average person had greater independence and autonomy than he does today, and how the process of industrialization necessarily led to the restriction of personal freedom.

@ a93be9fb:6d3fdc0c

This script demonstrates the features of our markdown editor, including text formatting, LaTex equations, image uploads, links, lists and more, this is a blockquote ~

1. Test Formatting

Markdown supports multiple text formatting styles:

• Bold text: This is a bold text or This is a bold text
• Italic text: This is italic text or this is a italic text
• Strikethrough: ~~this is strikethrough text~~ or ~~this is strikethrough~~
• Combining styles: This is italic bold text or This is italic bold text

---

• Inline code: print("Hello!") or print("Hello!")
• Code Block:

```python def greet(): print("Hello, Markdown Editor!") greet()

```

---

2. Headers

Organize your content with headers:

Header 1

Header 2

Header 3

Header 4

Header 5

Header 6

---

3. Lists

3.1 Unordered lists:

• Unordered list item 1
• unordered list item 1.1
  • unordered list item 1.1.1

3.2 Ordered lists:

1. Ordered list item 1
2. Ordered list item 2
3. Oredered list item 3

3.3 Checkmark lists:

• [x] Task 1
• [ ] Task 2
• [x] Task 3

---

4. Blockquotes

This is a blockquote

This is nested blockquote

---

5. LaTex Equations

• Inline Equation: $$f(x) = 1^1_2$$ or $$E = mc^2$$

6. Image Uploads

6.1. Images via links

7. Links

Visit our website

9. Try it out

Feel free to try out our markdown editor, and support us with feedback.

Thank you for exploring our Markdown Editor

@ 9f94e6cc:f3472946

Der Entartungswettbewerb TikTok hat die Jugend im Griff und verbrutzelt ihre Hirne. Über Reels, den Siegeszug des Hochformats und die Regeln der Viralität.

Text: Aron Morhoff

Hollywood steckt heute in der Hosentasche. 70 Prozent aller YouTube-Inhalte werden auf mobilen Endgeräten, also Smartphones, geschaut. Instagram und TikTok sind die angesagtesten Anwendungen für junge Menschen. Es gibt sie nur noch als App, und ihr Design ist für Mobiltelefone optimiert.

Einst waren Rechner und Laptops die Tools, mit denen ins Internet gegangen wurde. Auch als das Smartphone seinen Siegeszug antrat, waren die Sehgewohnheiten noch auf das Querformat ausgerichtet. Heute werden Rechner fast nur noch zum Arbeiten verwendet. Das Berieseln, die Unterhaltung, das passive Konsumieren hat sich vollständig auf die iPhones und Samsungs dieser Welt verlagert. Das Telefon hat den aufrechten Gang angenommen, kaum einer mehr hält sein Gerät waagerecht.

Homo Digitalis Erectus

Die Welt steht also Kopf. Die Form eines Mediums hat Einfluss auf den Inhalt. Marshall McLuhan formulierte das so: Das Medium selbst ist die Botschaft. Ja mei, mag sich mancher denken, doch medienanthropologisch ist diese Entwicklung durchaus eine Betrachtung wert. Ein Querformat eignet sich besser, um Landschaften, einen Raum oder eine Gruppe abzubilden. Das Hochformat entspricht grob den menschlichen Maßen von der Hüfte bis zum Kopf. Der TikTok-Tanz ist im Smartphone-Design also schon angelegt. Das Hochformat hat die Medieninhalte unserer Zeit noch narzisstischer gemacht.

Dass wir uns durch Smartphones freizügiger und enthemmter zur Schau stellen, ist bekannt. 2013 wurde „Selfie“ vom Oxford English Dictionary zum Wort des Jahres erklärt. Selfie, Selbstporträt, Selbstdarstellung.

Neu ist der Aufwand, der heute vonnöten ist, um die Aufmerksamkeitsschwelle der todamüsierten Mediengesellschaft überhaupt noch zu durchbrechen. In beängstigender Hypnose erwischt man viele Zeitgenossen inzwischen beim Doomscrollen. Das ist der Fachbegriff für das weggetretene Endloswischen und erklärt auch den Namen „Reel“: Der Begriff, im Deutschen verwandt mit „Rolle“, beschreibt die Filmrolle, von der 24 Bilder pro Sekunde auf den Projektor gewischt oder eben abgespult werden.

Länger als drei Sekunden darf ein Kurzvideo deshalb nicht mehr gehen, ohne dass etwas Aufregendes passiert. Sonst wird das Reel aus Langeweile weggewischt. Die Welt im Dopamin-Rausch. Für den Ersteller eines Videos heißt das inzwischen: Sei der lauteste, schrillste, gestörteste Marktschreier. Das Wettrennen um die Augäpfel zwingt zu extremen Formen von Clickbait.

15 Sekunden Ruhm

Das nimmt inzwischen skurrile Formen an. Das Video „Look who I found“ von Noel Robinson (geboren 2001) war im letzten Jahr einer der erfolgreichsten deutschen TikTok-Clips. Man sieht den Deutsch-Nigerianer beim Antanzen eines karikaturartig übergewichtigen Menschen. Noel wird geschubst und fällt. Daraufhin wechselt das Lied – und der fette Mann bewegt seinen Schwabbelbauch im Takt. Noel steht wieder auf, grinst, beide tanzen gemeinsam. Das dauert 15 Sekunden. Ich rate Ihnen, sich das Video einmal anzuschauen, um die Mechanismen von TikTok zu verstehen. Achten Sie alleine darauf, wie vielen Reizen (Menschenmenge, Antanzen, Sturz, Schwabbelbauch) Sie in den ersten fünf Sekunden ausgesetzt sind. Wer schaut so was? Bis dato 220 Millionen Menschen. Das ist kapitalistische Verwertungslogik im bereits verwesten Endstadium. Adorno oder Fromm hätten am Medienzeitgeist entweder ihre Freude oder mächtig zu knabbern.

Die Internet- und Smartphoneabdeckung beträgt mittlerweile fast 100 Prozent. Das Überangebot hat die Regeln geändert. Um überhaupt gesehen zu werden, muss man heute viral gehen. Was dafür inzwischen nötig ist, spricht die niedrigsten Bedürfnisse des Menschen an: Gewalt, Ekel, Sexualisierung, Schock. Die jungen Erwachsenen, die heute auf sozialen Netzwerken den Ton angeben, haben diese Mechanismen längst verinnerlicht. Wie bewusst ihnen das ist, ist fraglich. 2024 prallt eine desaströse Bildungssituation samt fehlender Medienkompetenz auf eine egomanische Jugend, die Privatsphäre nie gekannt hat und seit Kindesbeinen alles in den Äther ballert, was es festhalten kann. Man muss kein Kulturpessimist sein, um diese degenerative Dynamik, auch in ihrer Implikation für unser Zusammenleben und das psychische Wohlergehen der Generation TikTok, als beängstigend zu bezeichnen.

Aron Morhoff studierte Medienethik und ist Absolvent der Freien Akademie für Medien & Journalismus. Frühere Stationen: RT Deutsch und Nuoviso. Heute: Stichpunkt Magazin, Manova, Milosz Matuschek und seine Liveshow "Addictive Programming".

@ 1bda7e1f:bb97c4d9

Tldr

• Nostr is an open protocol which is interoperable with all kinds of other technologies
• You can use this interoperability to create custom solutions
• Nostr apps define a custom URI scheme handler "nostr:"
• In this blog I use this to integrate Nostr with NFC cards
• I create a Nostr NFC "login card" which allows me to log into Amethyst client
• I create a Nostr NFC "business card" which allows anyone to find my profile with a tap

Inter-Op All The Things!

Nostr is a new open social protocol for the internet. This open nature is very exciting because it means Nostr can add new capabilities to all other internet-connected technologies, from browsers to web applications. In my view, it achieves this through three core capabilities.

• A lightweight decentralised identity (Nostr keys, "npubs" and "nsecs"),
• A lightweight data distribution network (Nostr relays),
• A set of data interoperability standards (The Nostr Improvement Protocols "NIPs"), including the "nostr:" URI which we'll use in this post.

The lightweight nature is its core strength. Very little is required to interoperate with Nostr, which means many existing technologies can be easily used with the network.

Over the next few blog posts, I'll explore different Nostr inter-op ideas, and also deliver my first small open source projects to the community. I'll cover–

• NFC cards integrated with Nostr (in this post),
• Workflow Automations integrated with Nostr,
• AI LLMs integrated with Nostr.

The "Nostr:" URI

One feature of Nostr is it defines a custom URI scheme handler "nostr:". What is that?

A URI is used to identify a resource in a system. A system will have a protocol handler registry used to store such URI's, and if a system has a URI registered, then it knows what to do when it sees it. You are probably already familiar with some URI schemes such as "http:" and "mailto:". For example, when you click an http link, the system knows that it describes an http resource and opens a web browser to fetch the content from the internet.

A nostr: link operates in the same way. The nostr: prefix indicates a custom URI scheme specifically designed for the Nostr protocol. If a system has a Nostr application installed, that application may have registered "nostr:" in the protocol handler registry. On that system when a "nostr:" URI is clicked, the system will know that it describes a nostr resource and open the Nostr client to fetch the content from the nostr relay network.

This inter-op with the protocol handler registry gives us the power to do nice and exciting things with other technologies.

Nostr and NFC

Another technology that uses URIs is NFC cards. NFC (Near Field Communication) is a wireless technology that enables devices to exchange data over a few centimeters. It’s widely used in contactless payments, access control, and information sharing.

NFC tags are small chips embedded in cards or stickers which can store data like plain text, URLs, or custom URIs. They are very cheap (cents each) and widely available (Amazon with next day delivery).

When an NFC tag contains a URI, such as a http: (or nostr:) link, it acts as a trigger. Tapping the tag with an NFC-enabled device launches the associated application and processes the URI. For example, tapping a tag with "nostr:..." could open a Nostr client, directing it to a specific login page, public profile, or event.

This inter-op allows us to bridge the physical world to Nostr with just a tap.

Many useful ideas

There are many interesting ways to use this. Too many for me to explore. Perhaps some of these are interesting for your next side hustle?

• Nostr NFC "login cards" – tap to log into Amethyst on Android,
• Nostr NFC "business cards" – give to connections so they can tap to load your npub,
• Nostr NFC "payment cards" – integrating lightning network or ecash,
• Nostr NFC "doorbells", "punch cards", "drop boxes", or "dead drops" – put a tag in a specific place and tap to open a location-specific message or chat,
• Integrations with other access control systems,
• Integrations with other home automation systems,
• Many more ...

To start with I have built and use the "login card" and "business card" solutions. This blog post will show you how to do the same.

Nostr Login Card

You can use an NFC card to log into your Nostr client.

Most Nostr clients accept a variety of login methods, from posting your nsec into the app (insecure) to using a remote signer (more secure). A less known but more secure method is to sign into a session with a tap of a specially-configured NFC card. Amethyst is a Nostr client on Android which supports this type of login.

• A secure method for logging in
• Optionally keeps no log in history on the device after logout
• Does not require users to know or understand how keys work
• Keys are kept secure on a physically-separated card to reduce risk of compromise

Nostr devs think that this is useful for anti-establishment actors–Fair enough. For me, I am interested in this login card pattern as it could be useful for rolling out identities within an organisation context with less training (office workers are already familiar with door access cards). This pattern potentially abstracts away key management to the IT or ops team who provision the cards.

I first discovered this when Kohei demonstrated it in his video.

Here's how you set it up at a high level–

1. Buy yourself some NFC cards
2. Get your Nostr key ready in an encrypted, password protected format called "nencryptsec"
3. Write the nencryptsec to the NFC card as a custom URI
4. Tap to load the login screen, and enter your password to login

Here it is in detail–

Buy yourself some NFC cards

I found no specific requirements. As usual with Nostr so far, I tried to the cheapest possible route and it worked. Generic brand NFC cards shipped from China, I believe it was 50X for $15 from Amazon. Your mileage may vary.

Get your Nostr key ready

Your key will be saved to the NFC card in an encrypted password-protected format called "nencryptsec". Several applications support this. As we'll be using this to login to Amethyst, we will use Amethyst to output the nencryptsec for us.

1. Login to Amethyst with your nsec,
2. Open the sidebar and click "Backup Keys",
3. Enter a password, and click "Encrypt and my secret key",
4. It will add the password-protected key to your clipboard in the format "ncryptsec1...",
5. Remember to backup your password.

Write the ncryptsec to the NFC card

1. Download the free NFC Tools app to your device, and open it,
2. Click "Write" and "Add a record", then click "Custom URL / URI",
3. Paste your nencryptsec with the nostr URI in front, i.e. "nostr:ncryptsec1..." and click OK,
4. Click "Write". NFC Tools will prompt you to "Approach an NFC tag",
5. Place your NFC card against your phone, and it will write to the card,
6. Your card is ready.

Tap to load the login screen

Tap the card against your phone again, and your phone should open the login screen of Amethyst and prompt you for your password.

Once you enter your password, Amethyst will decrypt your nsec and log you in.

Optionally, you can also set the app to forget you once you log out.

You have created a Nostr NFC "login card".

Nostr Business Card

You can use another NFC card to give anyone you meet a link straight to your Nostr profile.

I attended Peter McCormack's #CheatCode conference in Sydney and gave a few of these out following the Nostr panel, notably to Preston Pysh where it got some cut through and found me my first 100 followers. You can do the same.

To create your Nostr NFC "business card" is even easier than your NFC "login card".

1. Buy yourself some NFC cards,
2. Download the free NFC Tools app to your device, and open it,
3. Click "Write" and "Add a record", then click "Custom URL / URI",
4. Write your npub to the NFC card as a custom URI in the format "nostr:npub1..." (e.g. for me this is "nostr:npub1r0d8u8mnj6769500nypnm28a9hpk9qg8jr0ehe30tygr3wuhcnvs4rfsft"),
5. Your card is ready.

Give the card to someone who is a Nostr user, and when they tap the card against their phone it will open their preferred Nostr client and go directly to your Nostr profile page.

You have created a Nostr NFC "business card".

What I Did Wrong

I like to share what I did wrong so you don't have to make the same mistakes. This time, this was very easy, and little went wrong. In general

• When password-protecting your nsec, don't forget the password!
• When writing to the NFC card, make sure to use "Custom URI/URL" as this accepts your "nostr:" URI scheme. If you use generic "URI/URL" it won't work.

What's Next

Over my first four blogs I have explored creating a good Nostr setup

• Mined a Nostr pubkey and backed up the mnemonic
• Set up Nostr payments with a Lightning wallet plus all the bells and whistles
• Set up NIP-05 and Lighting Address at my own domain
• Set up a Personal Relay at my own domain

Over the next few blogs I will be exploring different types of Nostr inter-op

• NFC cards integrated with Nostr (this post)
• Workflow Automations integrated with Nostr
• AI LLMs integrated with Nostr

Please be sure to let me know if you think there's another Nostr topic you'd like to see me tackle.

GM Nostr.

@ c3b2802b:4850599c

Dear sisters and brothers, I have been born in a country without any religion. As a young adult I understood that a life without spirituality does not make sense. Today, 50 years later, I am convinced that the family of creation consists of divine beings with the potential to unfold endless love - independently of the controversies between singular religions.

Each of us human beings is full of divine sparks which may strengthen each moment during our life the fire of love and compassion toward all living beings in the universe. These divine sparks may feed the eternal dance of creation.

Religion and science have converged during the last centuries: Divine spirit is the driving force of all happenings in our universe. Buddha, Plato, Jesus Christ, Kabir, Guru Nanak, Albert Schweitzer and recently many Nobel Price winning physicists have expressed the same conviction:

We are divine creators of the paradise resulting from genesis on this planet within the living universe. Looking around the world these days, however, we observe harm, hunger, dissence, struggle and war.

How does this coexist – the potential to create the paradise on the one hand – and the destructive forces leading to a multitude of catastrophes? May be you like the following way to interprete what is going on actually:

We are born to be tested in a learning adventure of evolution within the cosmos. The life of each of us is an examination checking whether we are ripe for creating the paradise.

Each generation of human beings has the chance to reach the tipping point. Possibly todays generation, all of us sitting here, might overcome the centennial struggle on details of diverse religions and worldviews. If we today conjointly remember our potential as divine beings to create a peaceful and well balanced world - then we can make the next step of cosmic evolution – charcterized by love, peace and respect for all forms of life:

We may give now birth to a new chapter in the process of evolution. The time might be ripe these days. Let me give some illustrations for my optimism based on my work of the past 30 years in Germany: 30 years ago in my country most of all fuels for electricity and heating were imported. All German villages depended existially from international trusts supplying nuclear and fossil energy. The great majority of Germans relied on imported fossile or nuclear fuels. Today, 30 years later, we count 200 villages with own energy production based on regional ressources which were initiated by teams of german universities, where I have been active.

During the same time the number of similar activities aiming at a regionally organized society all over the world exploded. In many countries many local initiatives were founded organizing food production, local trade, water supply and many other fields of human needs on a regional base in fair and clean ways, without any international activities of global players like MacDonald or Monsanto.

Another world is possible – and even better, the regional society is blossoming already since decades worldwide.

A second source for my optimism is my scientific work. Humans dispose of spiritual potentials enabling us to connect with the holy spirit surrounding us since eternal times. Individuals unfolding this potential and behaving respectfully toward other beings report higher well-being as compared to other people. That empirical pattern has been found in hundreds of scientific studies all over the world. These results feed our trust, that we are on the right way with our regional initiatives like Kirpal Sagar in India, the new energy villages in Germany, the clean and fair agriculture initiatives worldwide, the open seeds movement and the many further initiatives.

Remembering Mahatma Gandhi, the great indian philosopher and politician: We do not need to fight against the players of the old world, against psychopathic people in international trusts and organizations who plan a world all of us dislike. This old structure will break down by itself.

Meanwhile we build the society we prefere: Ethically grounded communities like Kirpal Sagar, based on grace, fairness and respect between all living beings. My congratulation to the golden jubilee of this wonderful project, which may serve as a model for the whole world.

Let´s shake our hands, connect our hearts and let´s bring our souls in harmony within the cosmic concert of love!

Peter Schmuck, psychologist and regional society activist, Germany, february 5 2024.

First published at the German platform for future communities

@ ee7e3590:5602f192

You’re hitting on the core tension: unlimited demand for emergency care collides with finite resources, and pretending otherwise leads to either runaway costs or rationing-by-stealth. Let’s confront this head-on with free-market-aligned solutions that don’t ignore human realities:

---

1. Redefine "Emergency Care"

The U.S. legally mandates ERs to stabilize anyone, regardless of ability to pay (EMTALA). This creates moral hazard:
- Problem: Hospitals inflate prices on paying patients to offset uncompensated care.
- Free-Market Fix:
- Repeal EMTALA: Allow ERs to refuse non-critical cases (e.g., toothaches, rashes) unless prepaid or insured.
- Clarify "True Emergency": Legally define emergencies as immediate life threats (e.g., strokes, cardiac arrest) and let non-critical cases be diverted to urgent care.
- Consequence: ERs could price transparently for true emergencies, while non-critical cases face market-driven urgent care options.

---

2. Embrace Tiered Emergency Care

Not all emergencies require Level I trauma centers:
- Basic ERs: Staffed by NPs and paramedics for minor injuries (e.g., sprains, minor burns) at lower costs.
- Advanced ERs: For critical care (e.g., gunshot wounds), priced higher but competing via outcomes (e.g., survival rates).
- Example: India’s Ziqitza Healthcare operates ambulance tiers—basic vans for transport and advanced ICU units.

---

3. Address Moral Hazard with Insurance Innovation**

• Catastrophic Insurance Mandates: Require everyone to carry cheap, high-deductible plans covering only true emergencies (e.g., $10/month for coverage above $50k).
• Incentivizes price shopping for non-emergencies.
• Prevents freeloading on ERs.
• Risk-Adjusted Premiums: Smokers, skydivers, or diabetics pay higher premiums, aligning costs with personal choices.

---

4. Community-Based Safety Nets**

• Mutual Aid Networks: Local groups negotiate bulk ER rates (e.g., $100/month membership covers three ER visits annually).
• Crowdfunding ER Vouchers: Platforms like GoFundMe could partner with hospitals to prepurchase discounted emergency care slots.

---

5. Radical Transparency + Bankruptcy Reform**

• ER Debt Auctions: Let hospitals sell unpaid ER bills to collection agencies in real-time, creating competition to minimize patient liability.
• Flat-Fee ER Pricing: Hospitals post rates like “$5,000 for appendicitis stabilization, all-inclusive” to deter surprise billing.
• Ban Wage Garnishment for Medical Debt: Protect patients from lifelong ruin, forcing hospitals to price responsibly or absorb losses.

---

6. Accept Trade-Offs Explicitly**

The U.S. system fails because it hides rationing behind complexity. A free-market approach must embrace transparency:
- Option 1: Pay $100,000 for a 95% survival rate in a car crash.
- Option 2: Pay $20,000 for a 70% survival rate at a budget ER.
- Brutal but Honest: Let individuals (or insurers) choose their risk tolerance upfront.

Example:
- Japan’s Price Controls: Caps ER costs but tolerates wait times (e.g., 8+ hours for non-critical care).
- Switzerland’s Mandates: Everyone buys insurance, but ERs charge $1,000+ deductibles to deter overuse.

---

7. Disrupt with Decentralized Care**

• Crypto-ERs: Blockchain-based emergency funds where contributors vote on covering members’ bills.
• AI-Guided Self-Care: Apps that stabilize patients en route to ERs (e.g., tourniquet tutorials, overdose reversal guidance).

---

8. Reform Malpractice to Reduce Defensive Medicine**

• “No Pay, No Harm” Liability: If a patient doesn’t pay, they can’t sue for malpractice (incentivizing upfront pricing).
• Safe Harbor Protocols: ERs using approved, cost-effective treatments (e.g., generics) get immunity from lawsuits.

---

The Uncomfortable Truth

A free market in emergency care requires accepting that not everyone will be saved—just as not everyone can afford a Ferrari. The alternative is the current U.S. model, which pretends to save everyone but bankrupts millions and still leaves 30% of ER visits unmet due to overcrowding.

By legalizing tiered care, deregulating monopolies, and forcing transparency, you create a system where:
- Elites pay premium prices for cutting-edge emergency care.
- Most get “good enough” stabilization at reasonable costs.
- Some choose cheap, high-risk options (or none at all).

This isn’t pretty, but it’s honest—and arguably more ethical than today’s hidden rationing and financial toxicity.

@ eac63075:b4988b48

Based on a recent paper that included collaboration from renowned experts such as Lynn Alden, Steve Lee, and Ren Crypto Fish, we discuss in depth how Bitcoin's consensus is built, the main risks, and the complex dynamics of protocol upgrades.

PT-BR version

Podcast https://www.fountain.fm/episode/wbjD6ntQuvX5u2G5BccC

Presentation https://gamma.app/docs/Analyzing-Bitcoin-Consensus-Risks-in-Protocol-Upgrades-p66axxjwaa37ksn

1. Introduction to Consensus in Bitcoin

Consensus in Bitcoin is the foundation that keeps the network secure and functional, allowing users worldwide to perform transactions in a decentralized manner without the need for intermediaries. Since its launch in 2009, Bitcoin is often described as an "immutable" system designed to resist changes, and it is precisely this resistance that ensures its security and stability.

The central idea behind consensus in Bitcoin is to create a set of acceptance rules for blocks and transactions, ensuring that all network participants agree on the transaction history. This prevents "double-spending," where the same bitcoin could be used in two simultaneous transactions, something that would compromise trust in the network.

Evolution of Consensus in Bitcoin

Over the years, consensus in Bitcoin has undergone several adaptations, and the way participants agree on changes remains a delicate process. Unlike traditional systems, where changes can be imposed from the top down, Bitcoin operates in a decentralized model where any significant change needs the support of various groups of stakeholders, including miners, developers, users, and large node operators.

Moreover, the update process is extremely cautious, as hasty changes can compromise the network's security. As a result, the philosophy of "don't fix what isn't broken" prevails, with improvements happening incrementally and only after broad consensus among those involved. This model can make progress seem slow but ensures that Bitcoin remains faithful to the principles of security and decentralization.

---

2. Technical Components of Consensus

Bitcoin's consensus is supported by a set of technical rules that determine what is considered a valid transaction and a valid block on the network. These technical aspects ensure that all nodes—the computers that participate in the Bitcoin network—agree on the current state of the blockchain. Below are the main technical components that form the basis of the consensus.

Validation of Blocks and Transactions

The validation of blocks and transactions is the central point of consensus in Bitcoin. A block is only considered valid if it meets certain criteria, such as maximum size, transaction structure, and the solving of the "Proof of Work" problem. The proof of work, required for a block to be included in the blockchain, is a computational process that ensures the block contains significant computational effort—protecting the network against manipulation attempts.

Transactions, in turn, need to follow specific input and output rules. Each transaction includes cryptographic signatures that prove the ownership of the bitcoins sent, as well as validation scripts that verify if the transaction conditions are met. This validation system is essential for network nodes to autonomously confirm that each transaction follows the rules.

Chain Selection

Another fundamental technical issue for Bitcoin's consensus is chain selection, which becomes especially important in cases where multiple versions of the blockchain coexist, such as after a network split (fork). To decide which chain is the "true" one and should be followed, the network adopts the criterion of the highest accumulated proof of work. In other words, the chain with the highest number of valid blocks, built with the greatest computational effort, is chosen by the network as the official one.

This criterion avoids permanent splits because it encourages all nodes to follow the same main chain, reinforcing consensus.

Soft Forks vs. Hard Forks

In the consensus process, protocol changes can happen in two ways: through soft forks or hard forks. These variations affect not only the protocol update but also the implications for network users:

• Soft Forks: These are changes that are backward compatible. Only nodes that adopt the new update will follow the new rules, but old nodes will still recognize the blocks produced with these rules as valid. This compatibility makes soft forks a safer option for updates, as it minimizes the risk of network division.

• Hard Forks: These are updates that are not backward compatible, requiring all nodes to update to the new version or risk being separated from the main chain. Hard forks can result in the creation of a new coin, as occurred with the split between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash in 2017. While hard forks allow for deeper changes, they also bring significant risks of network fragmentation.

These technical components form the base of Bitcoin's security and resilience, allowing the system to remain functional and immutable without losing the necessary flexibility to evolve over time.

---

3. Stakeholders in Bitcoin's Consensus

Consensus in Bitcoin is not decided centrally. On the contrary, it depends on the interaction between different groups of stakeholders, each with their motivations, interests, and levels of influence. These groups play fundamental roles in how changes are implemented or rejected on the network. Below, we explore the six main stakeholders in Bitcoin's consensus.

1. Economic Nodes

Economic nodes, usually operated by exchanges, custody providers, and large companies that accept Bitcoin, exert significant influence over consensus. Because they handle large volumes of transactions and act as a connection point between the Bitcoin ecosystem and the traditional financial system, these nodes have the power to validate or reject blocks and to define which version of the software to follow in case of a fork.

Their influence is proportional to the volume of transactions they handle, and they can directly affect which chain will be seen as the main one. Their incentive is to maintain the network's stability and security to preserve its functionality and meet regulatory requirements.

2. Investors

Investors, including large institutional funds and individual Bitcoin holders, influence consensus indirectly through their impact on the asset's price. Their buying and selling actions can affect Bitcoin's value, which in turn influences the motivation of miners and other stakeholders to continue investing in the network's security and development.

Some institutional investors have agreements with custodians that may limit their ability to act in network split situations. Thus, the impact of each investor on consensus can vary based on their ownership structure and how quickly they can react to a network change.

3. Media Influencers

Media influencers, including journalists, analysts, and popular personalities on social media, have a powerful role in shaping public opinion about Bitcoin and possible updates. These influencers can help educate the public, promote debates, and bring transparency to the consensus process.

On the other hand, the impact of influencers can be double-edged: while they can clarify complex topics, they can also distort perceptions by amplifying or minimizing change proposals. This makes them a force both of support and resistance to consensus.

4. Miners

Miners are responsible for validating transactions and including blocks in the blockchain. Through computational power (hashrate), they also exert significant influence over consensus decisions. In update processes, miners often signal their support for a proposal, indicating that the new version is safe to use. However, this signaling is not always definitive, and miners can change their position if they deem it necessary.

Their incentive is to maximize returns from block rewards and transaction fees, as well as to maintain the value of investments in their specialized equipment, which are only profitable if the network remains stable.

5. Protocol Developers

Protocol developers, often called "Core Developers," are responsible for writing and maintaining Bitcoin's code. Although they do not have direct power over consensus, they possess an informal veto power since they decide which changes are included in the main client (Bitcoin Core). This group also serves as an important source of technical knowledge, helping guide decisions and inform other stakeholders.

Their incentive lies in the continuous improvement of the network, ensuring security and decentralization. Many developers are funded by grants and sponsorships, but their motivations generally include a strong ideological commitment to Bitcoin's principles.

6. Users and Application Developers

This group includes people who use Bitcoin in their daily transactions and developers who build solutions based on the network, such as wallets, exchanges, and payment platforms. Although their power in consensus is less than that of miners or economic nodes, they play an important role because they are responsible for popularizing Bitcoin's use and expanding the ecosystem.

If application developers decide not to adopt an update, this can affect compatibility and widespread acceptance. Thus, they indirectly influence consensus by deciding which version of the protocol to follow in their applications.

These stakeholders are vital to the consensus process, and each group exerts influence according to their involvement, incentives, and ability to act in situations of change. Understanding the role of each makes it clearer how consensus is formed and why it is so difficult to make significant changes to Bitcoin.

---

4. Mechanisms for Activating Updates in Bitcoin

For Bitcoin to evolve without compromising security and consensus, different mechanisms for activating updates have been developed over the years. These mechanisms help coordinate changes among network nodes to minimize the risk of fragmentation and ensure that updates are implemented in an orderly manner. Here, we explore some of the main methods used in Bitcoin, their advantages and disadvantages, as well as historical examples of significant updates.

Flag Day

The Flag Day mechanism is one of the simplest forms of activating changes. In it, a specific date or block is determined as the activation moment, and all nodes must be updated by that point. This method does not involve prior signaling; participants simply need to update to the new software version by the established day or block.

• Advantages: Simplicity and predictability are the main benefits of Flag Day, as everyone knows the exact activation date.

• Disadvantages: Inflexibility can be a problem because there is no way to adjust the schedule if a significant part of the network has not updated. This can result in network splits if a significant number of nodes are not ready for the update.

An example of Flag Day was the Pay to Script Hash (P2SH) update in 2012, which required all nodes to adopt the change to avoid compatibility issues.

BIP34 and BIP9

BIP34 introduced a more dynamic process, in which miners increase the version number in block headers to signal the update. When a predetermined percentage of the last blocks is mined with this new version, the update is automatically activated. This model later evolved with BIP9, which allowed multiple updates to be signaled simultaneously through "version bits," each corresponding to a specific change.

• Advantages: Allows the network to activate updates gradually, giving more time for participants to adapt.

• Disadvantages: These methods rely heavily on miner support, which means that if a sufficient number of miners do not signal the update, it can be delayed or not implemented.

BIP9 was used in the activation of SegWit (BIP141) but faced challenges because some miners did not signal their intent to activate, leading to the development of new mechanisms.

User Activated Soft Forks (UASF) and User Resisted Soft Forks (URSF)

To increase the decision-making power of ordinary users, the concept of User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) was introduced, allowing node operators, not just miners, to determine consensus for a change. In this model, nodes set a date to start rejecting blocks that are not in compliance with the new update, forcing miners to adapt or risk having their blocks rejected by the network.

URSF, in turn, is a model where nodes reject blocks that attempt to adopt a specific update, functioning as resistance against proposed changes.

• Advantages: UASF returns decision-making power to node operators, ensuring that changes do not depend solely on miners.

• Disadvantages: Both UASF and URSF can generate network splits, especially in cases of strong opposition among different stakeholders.

An example of UASF was the activation of SegWit in 2017, where users supported activation independently of miner signaling, which ended up forcing its adoption.

BIP8 (LOT=True)

BIP8 is an evolution of BIP9, designed to prevent miners from indefinitely blocking a change desired by the majority of users and developers. BIP8 allows setting a parameter called "lockinontimeout" (LOT) as true, which means that if the update has not been fully signaled by a certain point, it is automatically activated.

• Advantages: Ensures that changes with broad support among users are not blocked by miners who wish to maintain the status quo.

• Disadvantages: Can lead to network splits if miners or other important stakeholders do not support the update.

Although BIP8 with LOT=True has not yet been used in Bitcoin, it is a proposal that can be applied in future updates if necessary.

These activation mechanisms have been essential for Bitcoin's development, allowing updates that keep the network secure and functional. Each method brings its own advantages and challenges, but all share the goal of preserving consensus and network cohesion.

---

5. Risks and Considerations in Consensus Updates

Consensus updates in Bitcoin are complex processes that involve not only technical aspects but also political, economic, and social considerations. Due to the network's decentralized nature, each change brings with it a set of risks that need to be carefully assessed. Below, we explore some of the main challenges and future scenarios, as well as the possible impacts on stakeholders.

Network Fragility with Alternative Implementations

One of the main risks associated with consensus updates is the possibility of network fragmentation when there are alternative software implementations. If an update is implemented by a significant group of nodes but rejected by others, a network split (fork) can occur. This creates two competing chains, each with a different version of the transaction history, leading to unpredictable consequences for users and investors.

Such fragmentation weakens Bitcoin because, by dividing hashing power (computing) and coin value, it reduces network security and investor confidence. A notable example of this risk was the fork that gave rise to Bitcoin Cash in 2017 when disagreements over block size resulted in a new chain and a new asset.

Chain Splits and Impact on Stakeholders

Chain splits are a significant risk in update processes, especially in hard forks. During a hard fork, the network is split into two separate chains, each with its own set of rules. This results in the creation of a new coin and leaves users with duplicated assets on both chains. While this may seem advantageous, in the long run, these splits weaken the network and create uncertainties for investors.

Each group of stakeholders reacts differently to a chain split:

• Institutional Investors and ETFs: Face regulatory and compliance challenges because many of these assets are managed under strict regulations. The creation of a new coin requires decisions to be made quickly to avoid potential losses, which may be hampered by regulatory constraints.

• Miners: May be incentivized to shift their computing power to the chain that offers higher profitability, which can weaken one of the networks.

• Economic Nodes: Such as major exchanges and custody providers, have to quickly choose which chain to support, influencing the perceived value of each network.

Such divisions can generate uncertainties and loss of value, especially for institutional investors and those who use Bitcoin as a store of value.

Regulatory Impacts and Institutional Investors

With the growing presence of institutional investors in Bitcoin, consensus changes face new compliance challenges. Bitcoin ETFs, for example, are required to follow strict rules about which assets they can include and how chain split events should be handled. The creation of a new asset or migration to a new chain can complicate these processes, creating pressure for large financial players to quickly choose a chain, affecting the stability of consensus.

Moreover, decisions regarding forks can influence the Bitcoin futures and derivatives market, affecting perception and adoption by new investors. Therefore, the need to avoid splits and maintain cohesion is crucial to attract and preserve the confidence of these investors.

Security Considerations in Soft Forks and Hard Forks

While soft forks are generally preferred in Bitcoin for their backward compatibility, they are not without risks. Soft forks can create different classes of nodes on the network (updated and non-updated), which increases operational complexity and can ultimately weaken consensus cohesion. In a network scenario with fragmentation of node classes, Bitcoin's security can be affected, as some nodes may lose part of the visibility over updated transactions or rules.

In hard forks, the security risk is even more evident because all nodes need to adopt the new update to avoid network division. Experience shows that abrupt changes can create temporary vulnerabilities, in which malicious agents try to exploit the transition to attack the network.

Bounty Claim Risks and Attack Scenarios

Another risk in consensus updates are so-called "bounty claims"—accumulated rewards that can be obtained if an attacker manages to split or deceive a part of the network. In a conflict scenario, a group of miners or nodes could be incentivized to support a new update or create an alternative version of the software to benefit from these rewards.

These risks require stakeholders to carefully assess each update and the potential vulnerabilities it may introduce. The possibility of "bounty claims" adds a layer of complexity to consensus because each interest group may see a financial opportunity in a change that, in the long term, may harm network stability.

The risks discussed above show the complexity of consensus in Bitcoin and the importance of approaching it gradually and deliberately. Updates need to consider not only technical aspects but also economic and social implications, in order to preserve Bitcoin's integrity and maintain trust among stakeholders.

---

6. Recommendations for the Consensus Process in Bitcoin

To ensure that protocol changes in Bitcoin are implemented safely and with broad support, it is essential that all stakeholders adopt a careful and coordinated approach. Here are strategic recommendations for evaluating, supporting, or rejecting consensus updates, considering the risks and challenges discussed earlier, along with best practices for successful implementation.

1. Careful Evaluation of Proposal Maturity

Stakeholders should rigorously assess the maturity level of a proposal before supporting its implementation. Updates that are still experimental or lack a robust technical foundation can expose the network to unnecessary risks. Ideally, change proposals should go through an extensive testing phase, have security audits, and receive review and feedback from various developers and experts.

2. Extensive Testing in Secure and Compatible Networks

Before an update is activated on the mainnet, it is essential to test it on networks like testnet and signet, and whenever possible, on other compatible networks that offer a safe and controlled environment to identify potential issues. Testing on networks like Litecoin was fundamental for the safe launch of innovations like SegWit and the Lightning Network, allowing functionalities to be validated on a lower-impact network before being implemented on Bitcoin.

The Liquid Network, developed by Blockstream, also plays an important role as an experimental network for new proposals, such as OP_CAT. By adopting these testing environments, stakeholders can mitigate risks and ensure that the update is reliable and secure before being adopted by the main network.

3. Importance of Stakeholder Engagement

The success of a consensus update strongly depends on the active participation of all stakeholders. This includes economic nodes, miners, protocol developers, investors, and end users. Lack of participation can lead to inadequate decisions or even future network splits, which would compromise Bitcoin's security and stability.

4. Key Questions for Evaluating Consensus Proposals

To assist in decision-making, each group of stakeholders should consider some key questions before supporting a consensus change:

• Does the proposal offer tangible benefits for Bitcoin's security, scalability, or usability?
• Does it maintain backward compatibility or introduce the risk of network split?
• Are the implementation requirements clear and feasible for each group involved?
• Are there clear and aligned incentives for all stakeholder groups to accept the change?

5. Coordination and Timing in Implementations

Timing is crucial. Updates with short activation windows can force a split because not all nodes and miners can update simultaneously. Changes should be planned with ample deadlines to allow all stakeholders to adjust their systems, avoiding surprises that could lead to fragmentation.

Mechanisms like soft forks are generally preferable to hard forks because they allow a smoother transition. Opting for backward-compatible updates when possible facilitates the process and ensures that nodes and miners can adapt without pressure.

6. Continuous Monitoring and Re-evaluation

After an update, it's essential to monitor the network to identify problems or side effects. This continuous process helps ensure cohesion and trust among all participants, keeping Bitcoin as a secure and robust network.

These recommendations, including the use of secure networks for extensive testing, promote a collaborative and secure environment for Bitcoin's consensus process. By adopting a deliberate and strategic approach, stakeholders can preserve Bitcoin's value as a decentralized and censorship-resistant network.

---

7. Conclusion

Consensus in Bitcoin is more than a set of rules; it's the foundation that sustains the network as a decentralized, secure, and reliable system. Unlike centralized systems, where decisions can be made quickly, Bitcoin requires a much more deliberate and cooperative approach, where the interests of miners, economic nodes, developers, investors, and users must be considered and harmonized. This governance model may seem slow, but it is fundamental to preserving the resilience and trust that make Bitcoin a global store of value and censorship-resistant.

Consensus updates in Bitcoin must balance the need for innovation with the preservation of the network's core principles. The development process of a proposal needs to be detailed and rigorous, going through several testing stages, such as in testnet, signet, and compatible networks like Litecoin and Liquid Network. These networks offer safe environments for proposals to be analyzed and improved before being launched on the main network.

Each proposed change must be carefully evaluated regarding its maturity, impact, backward compatibility, and support among stakeholders. The recommended key questions and appropriate timing are critical to ensure that an update is adopted without compromising network cohesion. It's also essential that the implementation process is continuously monitored and re-evaluated, allowing adjustments as necessary and minimizing the risk of instability.

By following these guidelines, Bitcoin's stakeholders can ensure that the network continues to evolve safely and robustly, maintaining user trust and further solidifying its role as one of the most resilient and innovative digital assets in the world. Ultimately, consensus in Bitcoin is not just a technical issue but a reflection of its community and the values it represents: security, decentralization, and resilience.

---

8. Links

Whitepaper: https://github.com/bitcoin-cap/bcap

Youtube (pt-br): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rARycAibl9o&list=PL-qnhF0qlSPkfhorqsREuIu4UTbF0h4zb

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Menschen tun alles, egal wie absurd, \ um ihrer eigenen Seele nicht zu begegnen. \ Carl Gustav Jung

«Extremer Reichtum ist eine Gefahr für die Demokratie», sagen über die Hälfte der knapp 3000 befragten Millionäre aus G20-Staaten laut einer Umfrage der «Patriotic Millionaires». Ferner stellte dieser Zusammenschluss wohlhabender US-Amerikaner fest, dass 63 Prozent jener Millionäre den Einfluss von Superreichen auf US-Präsident Trump als Bedrohung für die globale Stabilität ansehen.

Diese Besorgnis haben 370 Millionäre und Milliardäre am Dienstag auch den in Davos beim WEF konzentrierten Privilegierten aus aller Welt übermittelt. In einem offenen Brief forderten sie die «gewählten Führer» auf, die Superreichen – also sie selbst – zu besteuern, um «die zersetzenden Auswirkungen des extremen Reichtums auf unsere Demokratien und die Gesellschaft zu bekämpfen». Zum Beispiel kontrolliere eine handvoll extrem reicher Menschen die Medien, beeinflusse die Rechtssysteme in unzulässiger Weise und verwandele Recht in Unrecht.

Schon 2019 beanstandete der bekannte Historiker und Schriftsteller Ruthger Bregman an einer WEF-Podiumsdiskussion die Steuervermeidung der Superreichen. Die elitäre Veranstaltung bezeichnete er als «Feuerwehr-Konferenz, bei der man nicht über Löschwasser sprechen darf.» Daraufhin erhielt Bregman keine Einladungen nach Davos mehr. Auf seine Aussagen machte der Schweizer Aktivist Alec Gagneux aufmerksam, der sich seit Jahrzehnten kritisch mit dem WEF befasst. Ihm wurde kürzlich der Zutritt zu einem dreiteiligen Kurs über das WEF an der Volkshochschule Region Brugg verwehrt.

Nun ist die Erkenntnis, dass mit Geld politischer Einfluss einhergeht, alles andere als neu. Und extremer Reichtum macht die Sache nicht wirklich besser. Trotzdem hat man über Initiativen wie Patriotic Millionaires oder Taxmenow bisher eher selten etwas gehört, obwohl es sie schon lange gibt. Auch scheint es kein Problem, wenn ein Herr Gates fast im Alleingang versucht, globale Gesundheits-, Klima-, Ernährungs- oder Bevölkerungspolitik zu betreiben – im Gegenteil. Im Jahr, als der Milliardär Donald Trump zum zweiten Mal ins Weiße Haus einzieht, ist das Echo in den Gesinnungsmedien dagegen enorm – und uniform, wer hätte das gedacht.

Der neue US-Präsident hat jedoch «Davos geerdet», wie Achgut es nannte. In seiner kurzen Rede beim Weltwirtschaftsforum verteidigte er seine Politik und stellte klar, er habe schlicht eine «Revolution des gesunden Menschenverstands» begonnen. Mit deutlichen Worten sprach er unter anderem von ersten Maßnahmen gegen den «Green New Scam», und von einem «Erlass, der jegliche staatliche Zensur beendet»:

«Unsere Regierung wird die Äußerungen unserer eigenen Bürger nicht mehr als Fehlinformation oder Desinformation bezeichnen, was die Lieblingswörter von Zensoren und derer sind, die den freien Austausch von Ideen und, offen gesagt, den Fortschritt verhindern wollen.»

Wie der «Trumpismus» letztlich einzuordnen ist, muss jeder für sich selbst entscheiden. Skepsis ist definitiv angebracht, denn «einer von uns» sind weder der Präsident noch seine auserwählten Teammitglieder. Ob sie irgendeinen Sumpf trockenlegen oder Staatsverbrechen aufdecken werden oder was aus WHO- und Klimaverträgen wird, bleibt abzuwarten.

Das WHO-Dekret fordert jedenfalls die Übertragung der Gelder auf «glaubwürdige Partner», die die Aktivitäten übernehmen könnten. Zufällig scheint mit «Impfguru» Bill Gates ein weiterer Harris-Unterstützer kürzlich das Lager gewechselt zu haben: Nach einem gemeinsamen Abendessen zeigte er sich «beeindruckt» von Trumps Interesse an der globalen Gesundheit.

Mit dem Projekt «Stargate» sind weitere dunkle Wolken am Erwartungshorizont der Fangemeinde aufgezogen. Trump hat dieses Joint Venture zwischen den Konzernen OpenAI, Oracle, und SoftBank als das «größte KI-Infrastrukturprojekt der Geschichte» angekündigt. Der Stein des Anstoßes: Oracle-CEO Larry Ellison, der auch Fan von KI-gestützter Echtzeit-Überwachung ist, sieht einen weiteren potenziellen Einsatz der künstlichen Intelligenz. Sie könne dazu dienen, Krebserkrankungen zu erkennen und individuelle mRNA-«Impfstoffe» zur Behandlung innerhalb von 48 Stunden zu entwickeln.

Warum bitte sollten sich diese superreichen «Eliten» ins eigene Fleisch schneiden und direkt entgegen ihren eigenen Interessen handeln? Weil sie Menschenfreunde, sogenannte Philanthropen sind? Oder vielleicht, weil sie ein schlechtes Gewissen haben und ihre Schuld kompensieren müssen? Deswegen jedenfalls brauchen «Linke» laut Robert Willacker, einem deutschen Politikberater mit brasilianischen Wurzeln, rechte Parteien – ein ebenso überraschender wie humorvoller Erklärungsansatz.

Wenn eine Krähe der anderen kein Auge aushackt, dann tut sie das sich selbst noch weniger an. Dass Millionäre ernsthaft ihre eigene Besteuerung fordern oder Machteliten ihren eigenen Einfluss zugunsten anderer einschränken würden, halte ich für sehr unwahrscheinlich. So etwas glaube ich erst, wenn zum Beispiel die Rüstungsindustrie sich um Friedensverhandlungen bemüht, die Pharmalobby sich gegen institutionalisierte Korruption einsetzt, Zentralbanken ihre CBDC-Pläne für Bitcoin opfern oder der ÖRR die Abschaffung der Rundfunkgebühren fordert.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ ee7e3590:5602f192

You’re hitting on the core tension: unlimited demand for emergency care collides with finite resources, and pretending otherwise leads to either runaway costs or rationing-by-stealth. Let’s confront this head-on with free-market-aligned solutions that don’t ignore human realities:

---

1. Redefine "Emergency Care"

The U.S. legally mandates ERs to stabilize anyone, regardless of ability to pay (EMTALA). This creates moral hazard:
- Problem: Hospitals inflate prices on paying patients to offset uncompensated care.
- Free-Market Fix:
- Repeal EMTALA: Allow ERs to refuse non-critical cases (e.g., toothaches, rashes) unless prepaid or insured.
- Clarify "True Emergency": Legally define emergencies as immediate life threats (e.g., strokes, cardiac arrest) and let non-critical cases be diverted to urgent care.
- Consequence: ERs could price transparently for true emergencies, while non-critical cases face market-driven urgent care options.

---

2. Embrace Tiered Emergency Care

Not all emergencies require Level I trauma centers:
- Basic ERs: Staffed by NPs and paramedics for minor injuries (e.g., sprains, minor burns) at lower costs.
- Advanced ERs: For critical care (e.g., gunshot wounds), priced higher but competing via outcomes (e.g., survival rates).
- Example: India’s Ziqitza Healthcare operates ambulance tiers—basic vans for transport and advanced ICU units.

---

3. Address Moral Hazard with Insurance Innovation**

• Catastrophic Insurance Mandates: Require everyone to carry cheap, high-deductible plans covering only true emergencies (e.g., $10/month for coverage above $50k).
• Incentivizes price shopping for non-emergencies.
• Prevents freeloading on ERs.
• Risk-Adjusted Premiums: Smokers, skydivers, or diabetics pay higher premiums, aligning costs with personal choices.

---

4. Community-Based Safety Nets**

• Mutual Aid Networks: Local groups negotiate bulk ER rates (e.g., $100/month membership covers three ER visits annually).
• Crowdfunding ER Vouchers: Platforms like GoFundMe could partner with hospitals to prepurchase discounted emergency care slots.

---

5. Radical Transparency + Bankruptcy Reform**

• ER Debt Auctions: Let hospitals sell unpaid ER bills to collection agencies in real-time, creating competition to minimize patient liability.
• Flat-Fee ER Pricing: Hospitals post rates like “$5,000 for appendicitis stabilization, all-inclusive” to deter surprise billing.
• Ban Wage Garnishment for Medical Debt: Protect patients from lifelong ruin, forcing hospitals to price responsibly or absorb losses.

---

6. Accept Trade-Offs Explicitly**

The U.S. system fails because it hides rationing behind complexity. A free-market approach must embrace transparency:
- Option 1: Pay $100,000 for a 95% survival rate in a car crash.
- Option 2: Pay $20,000 for a 70% survival rate at a budget ER.
- Brutal but Honest: Let individuals (or insurers) choose their risk tolerance upfront.

Example:
- Japan’s Price Controls: Caps ER costs but tolerates wait times (e.g., 8+ hours for non-critical care).
- Switzerland’s Mandates: Everyone buys insurance, but ERs charge $1,000+ deductibles to deter overuse.

---

7. Disrupt with Decentralized Care**

• Crypto-ERs: Blockchain-based emergency funds where contributors vote on covering members’ bills.
• AI-Guided Self-Care: Apps that stabilize patients en route to ERs (e.g., tourniquet tutorials, overdose reversal guidance).

---

8. Reform Malpractice to Reduce Defensive Medicine**

• “No Pay, No Harm” Liability: If a patient doesn’t pay, they can’t sue for malpractice (incentivizing upfront pricing).
• Safe Harbor Protocols: ERs using approved, cost-effective treatments (e.g., generics) get immunity from lawsuits.

---

The Uncomfortable Truth

A free market in emergency care requires accepting that not everyone will be saved—just as not everyone can afford a Ferrari. The alternative is the current U.S. model, which pretends to save everyone but bankrupts millions and still leaves 30% of ER visits unmet due to overcrowding.

By legalizing tiered care, deregulating monopolies, and forcing transparency, you create a system where:
- Elites pay premium prices for cutting-edge emergency care.
- Most get “good enough” stabilization at reasonable costs.
- Some choose cheap, high-risk options (or none at all).

This isn’t pretty, but it’s honest—and arguably more ethical than today’s hidden rationing and financial toxicity.

@ c3b2802b:4850599c

Der klaren, frischen Wahrnehmung der Welt, deren Teil wir sind, stehen vier Schleier im Weg.

Der Schleier der WERTUNG: Getrennt werden Dinge die Lust/Gefallen versprechen - von Dingen, die Unlust und Antipathie erzeugen. Letztere werden unterdrückt.

Der Schleier der BENENNUNG: Getrennt werden Dinge, für die wir Namen und Begriffe kennen – von Dingen die wir nicht benennen können. Letztere werden unterdrückt.

Der Schleier von ERZIEHUNG und AUSBILDUNG: Getrennt werden Dinge, für die uns Regeln und Konventionen vorliegen - von Dingen, die nicht geregelt sind, etwa Visionen und Träume.  Letztere werden unterdrückt.

Der Schleier der EGO-ORIENTIERUNG: Getrennt werden Dinge, die für unser „ich“ bedeutsam scheinen – von Dingen, die als „nicht-ich“ eingeordnet werden. Letztere werden unterdrückt.

Jeder Mensch verfügt über das Potential, diese Schleier auszuräumen: Spirituelles Potential.

Das gemeinsame Ziel der spirituellen Traditionen der Menschheit besteht darin, durch transpersonale/religiöse Entwicklung, ggf. unterstützt durch Meditation, diese Schleier bewußt zu machen - um sie dann zu entfernen. Das Ergebnis dieses Prozesses wird in verschiedenen Traditionen unterschiedlich benannt, etwa ERLEUCHTUNG, NIRWANA, SATORI.

Das Bestreben, unser spirituelles Potential zu nutzen und diesen Weg zu begehen, wird in der gegenwärtigen Industriegesellschaft nicht gefördert, da klare Menschen sich nicht für fremde Interessen manipulieren und instrumentalisieren lassen. Klare Menschen lassen sich nicht als Soldaten oder Sklaven missbrauchen.

Wollen wir eine zukunftsfähige Gesellschaft, scheint die Entfaltung der spirituellen Potentiale bei einer kritischen Anzahl von Menschen unabdingbar. Wir brauchen den klaren Blick dafür, dass die gegenwärtigen Entwicklungen nicht zukunftsfähig sind, sondern in einer Sackgasse enden – und dass es Alternativen gibt.

Zum Stärken dieser Potentiale kann man sich an verschiedenen Stufenmodellen orientieren, etwa:

Die fünf Ebenen des transpersonalen Bewusstseins nach Sri Aurobindo und Ken Wilber

o   Höherer Geist: Erfassen des Ganzen mit einem Blick

o   Erleuchteter Geist: geflutetes Bewusstsein, Kreativität

o   Intuitiver Geist: Erleben einer permanenten Einheit

o   Overmind: kosmische Wonne, universelle Liebe

o   Supramental: kontinuierliches non-duales Erfassen der Wirkichkeit

Die vier Ebenen des integralen Bewusstseins nach Jean Gebser

o   No time – only present time

o   Transzendieren des RaumZeit Erlebens

o   Nonduale Erfahrung, offenes Gewahrsein, SATORI

o   Transparenz des Geistes, NIRWANA, Verschwinden von Begehren, loslassen des Haftens am Ego

Acht Jhanische Versenkungsstadien, beschrieben bei Markus Klische

o   Innere Tiefe

o   Versiegen des mentalen Schwingens

o   Erfahrungsstrom von Aussen nach Innen

o   Kraft des Gleichmutes

o   Gewahrsein von endlosem Raum

o   Realität wird nicht länger "dinghaft" erlebt

o   Auftrennung Objekt – Subjekt verschwindet

o   Weder Wahrnehmung noch Nicht-Wahrnehmung

Drei Phasen der Meditation nach Harald Walach

o   Ausblick: Atemmeditation stärkt Aufmerksamkeit nach Innen

o   Einblick: Achtsamkeit, nicht wertendes Verweilen beim Strom der Geschehnisse

o   Tiefblick: neue Wirklichkeitsbereiche werden spürbar. Kensho-Licht, Satori, Verbundenheit, Mitgefühl 

Sollten diese Überlegungen bei Ihnen anklingen und Sie mögen gleich anfangen, etwas zu tun, um den Kontakt mit dem Seelischen zu stärken und das Göttliche in uns stärker zum Klingen zu bringen: Schalten Sie alle Informationsquellen ab, welchen Sie nicht recht trauen. Wer das Gift von Propaganda stoppt und die gewonnene Zeit und Energie für die Wahrnehmung der Dinge und Ereignisse im realen Hier und Jetzt nutzt, hat den ersten und heute vielleicht wichtigsten Schritt auf dem Weg zur klaren und frischen Wahrnehmung der Welt bereits getan. Selber schauen, denken, fühlen - und sich vielleicht noch die Sinnfrage von Victor Frankl stellen:

WAS ERWARTET DIE WELT VON MIR?

Dann wird unser Weg in die Regionalgesellschaft frei.

Details zur Potentialentfaltung in der Regionalgesellschaft finden Sie hier.

@ eac63075:b4988b48

The future of physical money is at stake, and the discussion about DREX, the new digital currency planned by the Central Bank of Brazil, is gaining momentum. In a candid and intense conversation, Federal Deputy Julia Zanatta (PL/SC) discussed the challenges and risks of this digital transition, also addressing her Bill No. 3,341/2024, which aims to prevent the extinction of physical currency. This bill emerges as a direct response to legislative initiatives seeking to replace physical money with digital alternatives, limiting citizens' options and potentially compromising individual freedom. Let's delve into the main points of this conversation.

https://www.fountain.fm/episode/i5YGJ9Ors3PkqAIMvNQ0

(PT-BR version here)

What is a CBDC?

Before discussing the specifics of DREX, it’s important to understand what a CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) is. CBDCs are digital currencies issued by central banks, similar to a digital version of physical money. Unlike cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, which operate in a decentralized manner, CBDCs are centralized and regulated by the government. In other words, they are digital currencies created and controlled by the Central Bank, intended to replace physical currency.

A prominent feature of CBDCs is their programmability. This means that the government can theoretically set rules about how, where, and for what this currency can be used. This aspect enables a level of control over citizens' finances that is impossible with physical money. By programming the currency, the government could limit transactions by setting geographical or usage restrictions. In practice, money within a CBDC could be restricted to specific spending or authorized for use in a defined geographical area.

In countries like China, where citizen actions and attitudes are also monitored, a person considered to have a "low score" due to a moral or ideological violation may have their transactions limited to essential purchases, restricting their digital currency use to non-essential activities. This financial control is strengthened because, unlike physical money, digital currency cannot be exchanged anonymously.

Practical Example: The Case of DREX During the Pandemic

To illustrate how DREX could be used, an example was given by Eric Altafim, director of Banco Itaú. He suggested that, if DREX had existed during the COVID-19 pandemic, the government could have restricted the currency’s use to a 5-kilometer radius around a person’s residence, limiting their economic mobility. Another proposed use by the executive related to the Bolsa Família welfare program: the government could set up programming that only allows this benefit to be used exclusively for food purchases. Although these examples are presented as control measures for safety or organization, they demonstrate how much a CBDC could restrict citizens' freedom of choice.

To illustrate the potential for state control through a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), such as DREX, it is helpful to look at the example of China. In China, the implementation of a CBDC coincides with the country’s Social Credit System, a governmental surveillance tool that assesses citizens' and companies' behavior. Together, these technologies allow the Chinese government to monitor, reward, and, above all, punish behavior deemed inappropriate or threatening to the government.

How Does China's Social Credit System Work?

Implemented in 2014, China's Social Credit System assigns every citizen and company a "score" based on various factors, including financial behavior, criminal record, social interactions, and even online activities. This score determines the benefits or penalties each individual receives and can affect everything from public transport access to obtaining loans and enrolling in elite schools for their children. Citizens with low scores may face various sanctions, including travel restrictions, fines, and difficulty in securing loans.

With the adoption of the CBDC — or “digital yuan” — the Chinese government now has a new tool to closely monitor citizens' financial transactions, facilitating the application of Social Credit System penalties. China’s CBDC is a programmable digital currency, which means that the government can restrict how, when, and where the money can be spent. Through this level of control, digital currency becomes a powerful mechanism for influencing citizens' behavior.

Imagine, for instance, a citizen who repeatedly posts critical remarks about the government on social media or participates in protests. If the Social Credit System assigns this citizen a low score, the Chinese government could, through the CBDC, restrict their money usage in certain areas or sectors. For example, they could be prevented from buying tickets to travel to other regions, prohibited from purchasing certain consumer goods, or even restricted to making transactions only at stores near their home.

Another example of how the government can use the CBDC to enforce the Social Credit System is by monitoring purchases of products such as alcohol or luxury items. If a citizen uses the CBDC to spend more than the government deems reasonable on such products, this could negatively impact their social score, resulting in additional penalties such as future purchase restrictions or a lowered rating that impacts their personal and professional lives.

In China, this kind of control has already been demonstrated in several cases. Citizens added to Social Credit System “blacklists” have seen their spending and investment capacity severely limited. The combination of digital currency and social scores thus creates a sophisticated and invasive surveillance system, through which the Chinese government controls important aspects of citizens’ financial lives and individual freedoms.

Deputy Julia Zanatta views these examples with great concern. She argues that if the state has full control over digital money, citizens will be exposed to a level of economic control and surveillance never seen before. In a democracy, this control poses a risk, but in an authoritarian regime, it could be used as a powerful tool of repression.

DREX and Bill No. 3,341/2024

Julia Zanatta became aware of a bill by a Workers' Party (PT) deputy (Bill 4068/2020 by Deputy Reginaldo Lopes - PT/MG) that proposes the extinction of physical money within five years, aiming for a complete transition to DREX, the digital currency developed by the Central Bank of Brazil. Concerned about the impact of this measure, Julia drafted her bill, PL No. 3,341/2024, which prohibits the elimination of physical money, ensuring citizens the right to choose physical currency.

“The more I read about DREX, the less I want its implementation,” says the deputy. DREX is a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), similar to other state digital currencies worldwide, but which, according to Julia, carries extreme control risks. She points out that with DREX, the State could closely monitor each citizen’s transactions, eliminating anonymity and potentially restricting freedom of choice. This control would lie in the hands of the Central Bank, which could, in a crisis or government change, “freeze balances or even delete funds directly from user accounts.”

Risks and Individual Freedom

Julia raises concerns about potential abuses of power that complete digitalization could allow. In a democracy, state control over personal finances raises serious questions, and EddieOz warns of an even more problematic future. “Today we are in a democracy, but tomorrow, with a government transition, we don't know if this kind of power will be used properly or abused,” he states. In other words, DREX gives the State the ability to restrict or condition the use of money, opening the door to unprecedented financial surveillance.

EddieOz cites Nigeria as an example, where a CBDC was implemented, and the government imposed severe restrictions on the use of physical money to encourage the use of digital currency, leading to protests and clashes in the country. In practice, the poorest and unbanked — those without regular access to banking services — were harshly affected, as without physical money, many cannot conduct basic transactions. Julia highlights that in Brazil, this situation would be even more severe, given the large number of unbanked individuals and the extent of rural areas where access to technology is limited.

The Relationship Between DREX and Pix

The digital transition has already begun with Pix, which revolutionized instant transfers and payments in Brazil. However, Julia points out that Pix, though popular, is a citizen’s choice, while DREX tends to eliminate that choice. The deputy expresses concern about new rules suggested for Pix, such as daily transaction limits of a thousand reais, justified as anti-fraud measures but which, in her view, represent additional control and a profit opportunity for banks. “How many more rules will banks create to profit from us?” asks Julia, noting that DREX could further enhance control over personal finances.

International Precedents and Resistance to CBDC

The deputy also cites examples from other countries resisting the idea of a centralized digital currency. In the United States, states like New Hampshire have passed laws to prevent the advance of CBDCs, and leaders such as Donald Trump have opposed creating a national digital currency. Trump, addressing the topic, uses a justification similar to Julia’s: in a digitalized system, “with one click, your money could disappear.” She agrees with the warning, emphasizing the control risk that a CBDC represents, especially for countries with disadvantaged populations.

Besides the United States, Canada, Colombia, and Australia have also suspended studies on digital currencies, citing the need for further discussions on population impacts. However, in Brazil, the debate on DREX is still limited, with few parliamentarians and political leaders openly discussing the topic. According to Julia, only she and one or two deputies are truly trying to bring this discussion to the Chamber, making DREX’s advance even more concerning.

Bill No. 3,341/2024 and Popular Pressure

For Julia, her bill is a first step. Although she acknowledges that ideally, it would prevent DREX's implementation entirely, PL 3341/2024 is a measure to ensure citizens' choice to use physical money, preserving a form of individual freedom. “If the future means control, I prefer to live in the past,” Julia asserts, reinforcing that the fight for freedom is at the heart of her bill.

However, the deputy emphasizes that none of this will be possible without popular mobilization. According to her, popular pressure is crucial for other deputies to take notice and support PL 3341. “I am only one deputy, and we need the public’s support to raise the project’s visibility,” she explains, encouraging the public to press other parliamentarians and ask them to “pay attention to PL 3341 and the project that prohibits the end of physical money.” The deputy believes that with a strong awareness and pressure movement, it is possible to advance the debate and ensure Brazilians’ financial freedom.

What’s at Stake?

Julia Zanatta leaves no doubt: DREX represents a profound shift in how money will be used and controlled in Brazil. More than a simple modernization of the financial system, the Central Bank’s CBDC sets precedents for an unprecedented level of citizen surveillance and control in the country. For the deputy, this transition needs to be debated broadly and transparently, and it’s up to the Brazilian people to defend their rights and demand that the National Congress discuss these changes responsibly.

The deputy also emphasizes that, regardless of political or partisan views, this issue affects all Brazilians. “This agenda is something that will affect everyone. We need to be united to ensure people understand the gravity of what could happen.” Julia believes that by sharing information and generating open debate, it is possible to prevent Brazil from following the path of countries that have already implemented a digital currency in an authoritarian way.

A Call to Action

The future of physical money in Brazil is at risk. For those who share Deputy Julia Zanatta’s concerns, the time to act is now. Mobilize, get informed, and press your representatives. PL 3341/2024 is an opportunity to ensure that Brazilian citizens have a choice in how to use their money, without excessive state interference or surveillance.

In the end, as the deputy puts it, the central issue is freedom. “My fear is that this project will pass, and people won’t even understand what is happening.” Therefore, may every citizen at least have the chance to understand what’s at stake and make their voice heard in defense of a Brazil where individual freedom and privacy are respected values.

@ f1989a96:bcaaf2c1

In the summer of 2023, the Human Rights Foundation (HRF) launched a Bitcoin Bounty program aimed at funding software developers to create new tools and features for Bitcoin tailored to the needs of dissidents and human rights advocates challenging authoritarianism worldwide. These bounties ranged from UX improvements to privacy upgrades and open-sourcing closed and permissioned systems.

There were 11 bounties in total, each with specific objectives. The deadline was Dec. 31, 2024.

We are excited to announce that every single bounty was claimed and that the resulting tools and upgrades are now empowering human rights activists daily across popular apps such as Blue Wallet, Zeus, Stack Wallet, Iris, Coracle, Keeper, Bull Bitcoin, Cake Wallet, and more.

This program highlights the impact of collaboration between human rights activists and software developers to create better tools for freedom. HRF is proud to have played a role in this effort and looks forward to continuing similar programs in the future. Special credit goes to the Oslo Freedom Forum, where much of the critical interaction between developers and activists occurred.

This wave of bounties was inspired by a successful pilot project in 2021, executed in partnership with Strike and Jack Mallers, which supported developers like Will Cassarin and Calle. Their innovations later gave rise to important advancements such as zaps in Nostr and the Cashu ecash protocol.

Bounty Details

1. Open-Sourcing the Design Guide

Winner: CypherStack for porting the Bitcoin UI Kit from Figma to an open-source Penpot project (2 BTC awarded).

Many UI kits are created using proprietary software like Figma. While these tools are powerful, they require licenses and are not accessible to everyone — an obstacle for developers working on open-source projects or those with limited funds. This creates a barrier to entry for designers and developers wanting to contribute to the Bitcoin ecosystem. This bounty was awarded to CypherStack for porting the Bitcoin UI Kit from Figma to Penpot, an open-source design tool similar to Figma, but free and accessible to everyone. This helped democratize access to information and resources, promote collaboration, and make it easier for developers to create high-quality Bitcoin tools, which in turn helped to increase Bitcoin adoption.

2. Serverless Payjoin

Winners: This is a two-part bounty. The first bounty is for the development of the Serverless Payjoin specification, and the second bounty is for any wallets that implement Serverless Payjoin.

Part 1: Dan Gould for his work on PayJoin V2 (1 BTC)

Part 2: Dan Gould, Spacebear from Payjoin DevKit, and Bull Bitcoin app, for their collaborative effort implementing Payjoin into the Bull Bitcoin wallet (0.5 BTC split three ways).

PayJoin is a privacy upgrade to Bitcoin that flusters mass surveillance attempts on the network. Traditional implementations have required the receiver to run a server for transaction coordination, creating a barrier to adoption. Serverless PayJoin removed this dependency and simplified the process. Serverless PayJoin also eliminated the need for receiver-hosted infrastructure and reduced censorship risks by removing a central point of failure — a significant advantage for activists and nonprofits operating under repressive regimes. This bounty resulted in the first mobile app (Bull Bitcoin) with integrated PayJoin send and receive support, an important advancement that provided robust privacy protections against surveillance for at-risk individuals.

3. End-to-End Encrypted Nostr Group Chats

Winners: Martti Malmi for incorporating encrypted group chat functionality into the Iris Nostr client (1 BTC) and to Vitor Pamplona, hodlbod, and Paul Miller for their work on NIP-17, which allowed users to encrypt and share Nostr messages in a way that can be recognized across different Nostr clients (1 BTC).

End-to-End Encrypted (E2EE) Nostr Group Chats are private, secure messaging groups built on the Nostr protocol, a decentralized communication system. While Nostr messages are already encrypted, they still expose metadata, allowing outside observers to see who is communicating and when. This bounty focused on preventing metadata leakage, ensuring that these details remain private. By leveraging Nostr’s decentralized architecture, these chats offered censorship resistance. They prevented conversations from being surveilled, blocked, or controlled by a central authority, and as a result of this bounty, have now been implemented into popular Nostr clients like Iris, Amethyst, and Coracle. This is an important step forward for activists, journalists, and communities who risk losing their freedom of speech under oppressive regimes.

4. Silent Payments

Winners: cygnet3 and Sosthene for their contributions to critical libraries for delivering Silent Payments and for developing a mobile wallet capable of sending and receiving Silent Payments without requiring a full node (1 BTC).

Silent Payments are a privacy-enhancing Bitcoin addressing scheme that allows a sender to generate a unique static address for a recipient without requiring any interaction (while still allowing the recipient to detect and spend the received funds). This breaks common tracking methods used by surveillance firms and autocracies and makes it harder to link payments to a specific recipient. By improving on the privacy of traditional Bitcoin addresses, Silent Payments enhanced financial privacy, making them ideal for donations, salaries, and other sensitive transactions. This bounty code has been fully integrated into Cake Wallet, and several other major wallets like Wasabi, Blue Wallet, and Bitbox have added partial functionality. This brings Silent Payments to tens of thousands of users and marks a major step in real-world Bitcoin privacy.

5. Human-Readable Offers

Winners: Stephen DeLorme, Chad Welch, and Evan Kaloudis for Twelve Cash and its integration into Zeus Wallet (1 BTC).

Human-Readable Offers simplify Bitcoin payments by replacing complex Bitcoin addresses and invoices with user-friendly text. This is especially important for Lightning Network transactions, which currently involve a cumbersome process of generating invoices for each payment. With Human-Readable Offers, sending Lightning payments becomes as simple as sending an email (just by entering a username). This approach, similar to many fintech apps today, reduces errors, lowers the barrier to entry, increases trust, and is crucial for broader adoption of Bitcoin among new and seasoned users alike. It’s also important for people who don’t have access to smartphones and cannot copy and paste or use QR codes. Today, as a result of this bounty, Zeus users connected to a Core Lightning node can create a human-readable Bolt 12 offer to privately receive donations.

6. Self-Custodial Mobile Lightning Address

Winner: Evan Kaloudis for Zeus Wallet (1 BTC).

Activists, nonprofits, and content creators often use Lightning addresses to receive donations quickly and easily. However, setting up and managing a Lightning address presents a challenge: users have to choose between the self-sovereignty of managing their own web server (a complex process) or the convenience of a custodial service, which requires trusting a third party with their funds. This bounty directly addressed this issue. It allowed users of Zeus Wallet, one of the most popular self-custodial Bitcoin Lightning wallets, to easily and securely receive donations through a Lightning address while maintaining control of their funds.

7. Mobile Border Wallets

Winner: Bitcoin Tribe for their border wallet functionality, allowing users to create and memorize seeds without relying on written backups, and for building a React Native library, making it easier for other wallets to integrate this feature (2 BTC).

Mobile Border Wallets aimed to solve a critical problem with traditional Bitcoin seed phrase backups: they’re often written down on paper, making them susceptible to being lost, destroyed, or stolen. This makes securing a user’s Bitcoin a delicate balance between security and accessibility. It also makes it challenging, especially for activists or refugees who frequently cross international borders. Border Wallets offered a solution to this problem. Instead of writing down a 12- or 24-word seed phrase and finding a secure place to store it, users can upload a randomly generated grid of words to the cloud and memorize a pattern to secure their seed phrase, similar to a pattern a user would memorize and draw on an Android device to unlock it. This initiative resulted in a user-friendly mobile app that allowed users to create Border Wallets digitally, enhancing accessibility and offering an alternative to physical storage like printed paper or metal seed plates.

8. Easy Mobile Multisig

Winner: Bitcoin Keeper (1 BTC).

Multi-signature wallets allow multiple users to collaboratively control a Bitcoin wallet. This enhances security by requiring consensus before funds can be moved. Traditional multisig wallets often require physical hardware wallets or involve subscription fees, presenting a significant barrier for organizations exploring Bitcoin adoption. This bounty funded the development of easy mobile multisig functionality in the Bitcoin Keeper app, enabling users to set up a 2-of-3 multisig (requiring two out of three keys to authorize spending) to secure and manage their bitcoin. This is a great feature for activists to prevent government seizure of funds: even if one key holder gets detained, the funds are safe so long as the other two key holders are safe. The idea is to make sure two of the keys are held by entities outside of one’s country or threat zone.

9. FROST Multisig Wallet

Winner: CypherStack for Stack Wallet, which enables dynamic multisig using FROST, allowing users to modify signer sets without moving funds (1 BTC).

Multisig (multisignature) wallets require multiple signatures to authorize a transaction. This enhances security by distributing control over funds. However, traditional multisig setups — while secure — can be inflexible. If you need to change the set of signers, it often requires moving all the funds to a new multisig wallet with the updated signer set. This is burdensome, time-consuming, and incurs fees. FROST is a cryptographic protocol that offers significant advantages for multisig wallets. It provides dynamic multisig functionality, meaning users can easily adjust their signer sets as needed without affecting the funds within. This is an important functionality for nonprofits and civil society groups who often need to adjust their authorized signatories, especially in situations where a regime may seize a private key and that key then needs to be deprecated. This dynamic kind of secure setup is now available for activists to use on the Stack Wallet.

10. Cashu Upgrades

Winners: eNuts Wallet (0.5 BTC), Misovan for Minibits Wallet (0.5 BTC), Gandlaf for Proxnut (0.5 BTC), and Gandlaf for adding Cashu-TS restore functionality (0.5 BTC).

Cashu is a digital cash system designed for privacy and speed. It is like physical cash, but in digital form and uses blind signatures for private transactions. With Cashu, transactions are instant, low-fee, and can operate offline. There is no blockchain or transaction graph to be surveilled. Bounty recipients addressed critical aspects of usability and accessibility for Cashu tools: eNuts and Minibits Wallets brought Cashu to iOS and Android users worldwide, Proxnut enabled easy web integration for payments, and Cashu-TS Restore added crucial seed phrase backup. Together, these projects have taken Cashu from a more theoretical concept to a practical one and have been relevant for use cases like donations, content monetization, daily transactions, and cross-border payments.

11. BIP47 Expansion

Winner: Blue Wallet (0.5 BTC) for adding BIP 47 support.

BIP47 is a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal that enhances payment privacy for Bitcoin users. In Bitcoin, it’s generally considered bad privacy practice to reuse the same Bitcoin address for multiple transactions. It can link those transactions together and make it easier to track a user’s spending in high-risk environments. Generating a new address for each payment has become a common workaround, but this becomes cumbersome. BIP47 solves this with reusable payment codes. Users receiving funds generate a BIP47 payment code and share it with those who will be sending them payments. Each time a payment is initiated, a new, unused Bitcoin address is generated from the recipient’s payment code. This ensures every transaction uses a unique address. Blue Wallet received this bounty for integrating BIP47 support, making this important privacy enhancement accessible to its growing user base.

HRF’s Financial Freedom program educates activists worldwide, unites people from different industries and backgrounds, and makes grants in the service of advancing Bitcoin as a tool for human rights. To receive HRF’s weekly Financial Freedom Report, subscribe here.

For media inquiries or interview requests, please contact media @ hrf.org.

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

~ > Available at: https://minibolt.info

---

~> It builds on a personal computer with x86/amd64 architecture processors.

~> It is based on the popular RaspiBolt v3 guide.

---

Those are some of the most relevant changes:

• Changed OS from Raspberry Pi OS Lite (64-bits) to Ubuntu Server LTS (Long term support) 64-bit PC (AMD64).
• Changed binaries and signatures of the programs to adapt them to x86/amd64 architecture.
• Deleted unnecessary tools and steps, and added others according to this case of use.
• Some useful authentication logs and monitoring commands were added in the security section.
• Added some interesting parameters in the settings of some services to activate and take advantage of new features.
• Changed I2P, Fulcrum, and ThunderHub guides, to be part of the core guide.
• Added exclusive optimization section of services for slow devices.

---

~ > Complete release notes of the MiniBolt v1: https://github.com/twofaktor/minibolt/releases/tag/1.0.

~ > Feel free to contribute to the source code on GitHub by opening issues, pull requests or discussions.

---

Created by ⚡2 FakTor⚡

@ a10260a2:caa23e3e

A zero-dependency, zero-framework QR code web component for Bitcoin on-chain, Lightning, and unified BIP-21 payments.

Just discovered this tool by nostr:npub18agram6s6kulwwhc638d8q8y5vysutrrvvdll2wdjxd75wp4dfjqshytrf and found it to be very useful. Also, did I mention easy-to-use?

You can find the GitHub here and a demo I made (complete with a function to check for payment) on the Bullish Prototype. 👨‍💻

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/737255

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

Available at: https://minibolt.info

---

Main changes to the version 1:

• The complete guide has been migrated to the new design visual builder web tool platform gitbook.com
• New modern UI (responsive, full width, and better visual items)
• New menu structure for a better user experience
• New visual items to improve the navigation through the web page
• New switch to enable light/dark theme
• Enabled Cloudflare Proxy for maximum protection against attacks and better management of the domain

---

Other changes:

• New MiniBolt Linktr forked of the alternative FOSS project proposed by Gzuuus
• Changed MiniBolt from a personal project to an organization so that the project has its own identity
• New email contact address hello@minibolt.info to receive proposals and give support
• New resources folder with the current MiniBolt roadmap, network map diagrams, and others

---

ℹ️ More info:

• The new version is available with the known domain: minibolt.info but from now on links associated with the new v2 version were shared using the v2.minibolt.info subdomain due to a GitBook limitation
• The old and deprecated v1 will be still available at a time in the subdomain v1.minibolt.info, but is in the roadmap delete it definitely in the future, take note ASAP of all that you need of that version before this happens
• Contributors and collaborators will be able to continue doing PR through code programming or using the design block builder gitbook.com

---

GitHub release

---

Enjoy it MiniBolter! 💙

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

The router reserves the IP address of the device for a time after going out, but if the device goes out some time, the next time that the device starts, the router could assign a different IP and you could lose access to your node. To avoid this, you need to set a static IP to your MiniBolt.

~ > In addition, you can customize your DNS servers to improve your privacy, normally your ISP, gives you the router with its own DNS servers set by default, and this does that you expose all of your navigation trackings to your ISP, affecting seriously your privacy.

~ > This bonus guide includes all of the necessary steps to get this and is available ~ > HERE < ~

---

---

Enjoy it MiniBolter! 💙

@ fa0165a0:03397073

Chef's notes

This recipe is for 48 buns. Total cooking time takes at least 90 minutes, but 60 minutes of that is letting the dough rest in between processing.

The baking is a simple three-step process. 1. Making the Wheat dough 2. Making and applying the filling 3. Garnishing and baking in the oven

When done: Enjoy during Fika!

PS;

• Can be frozen and thawed in microwave for later enjoyment as well.

• If you need unit conversion, this site may be of help: https://www.unitconverters.net/

• Traditionally we use something we call "Pearl sugar" which is optimal, but normal sugar or sprinkles is okay too. Pearl sugar (Pärlsocker) looks like this: https://search.brave.com/images?q=p%C3%A4rlsocker

Ingredients

• 150 g butter
• 5 dl milk
• 50 g baking yeast (normal or for sweet dough)
• 1/2 teaspoon salt
• 1-1 1/2 dl sugar
• (Optional) 2 teaspoons of crushed or grounded cardamom seeds.
• 1.4 liters of wheat flour
• Filling: 50-75 g butter, room temperature
• Filling: 1/2 - 1 dl sugar
• Filling: 1 teaspoons crushed or ground cardamom and 1 teaspoons ground cinnamon (or 2 teaspoons of cinnamon)
• Garnish: 1 egg, sugar or Almond Shavings

Directions

1. Melt the butter/margarine in a saucepan.
2. Pour in the milk and allow the mixture to warm reach body temperature (approx. + 37 ° C).
3. Dissolve the yeast in a dough bowl with the help of the salt.
4. Add the 37 ° C milk/butter mixture, sugar and if you choose to the optional cardamom. (I like this option!) and just over 2/3 of the flour.
5. Work the dough shiny and smooth, about 4 minutes with a machine or 8 minutes by hand.
6. Add if necessary. additional flour but save at least 1 dl for baking.
7. Let the dough rise covered (by a kitchen towel), about 30 minutes.
8. Work the dough into the bowl and then pick it up on a floured workbench. Knead the dough smoothly. Divide the dough into 2 parts. Roll out each piece into a rectangular cake.
9. Stir together the ingredients for the filling and spread it.
10. Roll up and cut each roll into 24 pieces.
11. Place them in paper molds or directly on baking paper with the cut surface facing up. Let them rise covered with a baking sheet, about 30 minutes.
12. Brush the buns with beaten egg and sprinkle your chosen topping.
13. Bake in the middle of the oven at 250 ° C, 5-8 minutes.
14. Allow to cool on a wire rack under a baking sheet.

@ eac63075:b4988b48

Imagine sending a private message to a friend, only to learn that authorities could be scanning its contents without your knowledge. This isn't a scene from a dystopian novel but a potential reality under the European Union's proposed "Chat Control" measures. Aimed at combating serious crimes like child exploitation and terrorism, these proposals could significantly impact the privacy of everyday internet users. As encrypted messaging services become the norm for personal and professional communication, understanding Chat Control is essential. This article delves into what Chat Control entails, why it's being considered, and how it could affect your right to private communication.

https://www.fountain.fm/episode/coOFsst7r7mO1EP1kSzV

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0IZ6kMExfxFm4FHg5DAWT8?si=e139033865e045de

Sections:

• Introduction
• What Is Chat Control?
• Why Is the EU Pushing for Chat Control?
• The Privacy Concerns and Risks
• The Technical Debate: Encryption and Backdoors
• Global Reactions and the Debate in Europe
• Possible Consequences for Messaging Services
• What Happens Next? The Future of Chat Control
• Conclusion

---

What Is Chat Control?

"Chat Control" refers to a set of proposed measures by the European Union aimed at monitoring and scanning private communications on messaging platforms. The primary goal is to detect and prevent the spread of illegal content, such as child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and to combat terrorism. While the intention is to enhance security and protect vulnerable populations, these proposals have raised significant privacy concerns.

At its core, Chat Control would require messaging services to implement automated scanning technologies that can analyze the content of messages—even those that are end-to-end encrypted. This means that the private messages you send to friends, family, or colleagues could be subject to inspection by algorithms designed to detect prohibited content.

Origins of the Proposal

The initiative for Chat Control emerged from the EU's desire to strengthen its digital security infrastructure. High-profile cases of online abuse and the use of encrypted platforms by criminal organizations have prompted lawmakers to consider more invasive surveillance tactics. The European Commission has been exploring legislation that would make it mandatory for service providers to monitor communications on their platforms.

How Messaging Services Work

Most modern messaging apps, like Signal, Session, SimpleX, Veilid, Protonmail and Tutanota (among others), use end-to-end encryption (E2EE). This encryption ensures that only the sender and the recipient can read the messages being exchanged. Not even the service providers can access the content. This level of security is crucial for maintaining privacy in digital communications, protecting users from hackers, identity thieves, and other malicious actors.

Key Elements of Chat Control

• Automated Content Scanning: Service providers would use algorithms to scan messages for illegal content.
• Circumvention of Encryption: To scan encrypted messages, providers might need to alter their encryption methods, potentially weakening security.
• Mandatory Reporting: If illegal content is detected, providers would be required to report it to authorities.
• Broad Applicability: The measures could apply to all messaging services operating within the EU, affecting both European companies and international platforms.

Why It Matters

Understanding Chat Control is essential because it represents a significant shift in how digital privacy is handled. While combating illegal activities online is crucial, the methods proposed could set a precedent for mass surveillance and the erosion of privacy rights. Everyday users who rely on encrypted messaging for personal and professional communication might find their conversations are no longer as private as they once thought.

---

Why Is the EU Pushing for Chat Control?

The European Union's push for Chat Control stems from a pressing concern to protect its citizens, particularly children, from online exploitation and criminal activities. With the digital landscape becoming increasingly integral to daily life, the EU aims to strengthen its ability to combat serious crimes facilitated through online platforms.

Protecting Children and Preventing Crime

One of the primary motivations behind Chat Control is the prevention of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) circulating on the internet. Law enforcement agencies have reported a significant increase in the sharing of illegal content through private messaging services. By implementing Chat Control, the EU believes it can more effectively identify and stop perpetrators, rescue victims, and deter future crimes.

Terrorism is another critical concern. Encrypted messaging apps can be used by terrorist groups to plan and coordinate attacks without detection. The EU argues that accessing these communications could be vital in preventing such threats and ensuring public safety.

Legal Context and Legislative Drivers

The push for Chat Control is rooted in several legislative initiatives:

• ePrivacy Directive: This directive regulates the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in electronic communications. The EU is considering amendments that would allow for the scanning of private messages under specific circumstances.

• Temporary Derogation: In 2021, the EU adopted a temporary regulation permitting voluntary detection of CSAM by communication services. The current proposals aim to make such measures mandatory and more comprehensive.

• Regulation Proposals: The European Commission has proposed regulations that would require service providers to detect, report, and remove illegal content proactively. This would include the use of technologies to scan private communications.

Balancing Security and Privacy

EU officials argue that the proposed measures are a necessary response to evolving digital threats. They emphasize the importance of staying ahead of criminals who exploit technology to harm others. By implementing Chat Control, they believe law enforcement can be more effective without entirely dismantling privacy protections.

However, the EU also acknowledges the need to balance security with fundamental rights. The proposals include provisions intended to limit the scope of surveillance, such as:

• Targeted Scanning: Focusing on specific threats rather than broad, indiscriminate monitoring.

• Judicial Oversight: Requiring court orders or oversight for accessing private communications.

• Data Protection Safeguards: Implementing measures to ensure that data collected is handled securely and deleted when no longer needed.

The Urgency Behind the Push

High-profile cases of online abuse and terrorism have heightened the sense of urgency among EU policymakers. Reports of increasing online grooming and the widespread distribution of illegal content have prompted calls for immediate action. The EU posits that without measures like Chat Control, these problems will continue to escalate unchecked.

Criticism and Controversy

Despite the stated intentions, the push for Chat Control has been met with significant criticism. Opponents argue that the measures could be ineffective against savvy criminals who can find alternative ways to communicate. There is also concern that such surveillance could be misused or extended beyond its original purpose.

---

The Privacy Concerns and Risks

While the intentions behind Chat Control focus on enhancing security and protecting vulnerable groups, the proposed measures raise significant privacy concerns. Critics argue that implementing such surveillance could infringe on fundamental rights and set a dangerous precedent for mass monitoring of private communications.

Infringement on Privacy Rights

At the heart of the debate is the right to privacy. By scanning private messages, even with automated tools, the confidentiality of personal communications is compromised. Users may no longer feel secure sharing sensitive information, fearing that their messages could be intercepted or misinterpreted by algorithms.

Erosion of End-to-End Encryption

End-to-end encryption (E2EE) is a cornerstone of digital security, ensuring that only the sender and recipient can read the messages exchanged. Chat Control could necessitate the introduction of "backdoors" or weaken encryption protocols, making it easier for unauthorized parties to access private data. This not only affects individual privacy but also exposes communications to potential cyber threats.

Concerns from Privacy Advocates

Organizations like Signal and Tutanota, which offer encrypted messaging services, have voiced strong opposition to Chat Control. They warn that undermining encryption could have far-reaching consequences:

• Security Risks: Weakening encryption makes systems more vulnerable to hacking, espionage, and cybercrime.
• Global Implications: Changes in EU regulations could influence policies worldwide, leading to a broader erosion of digital privacy.
• Ineffectiveness Against Crime: Determined criminals might resort to other, less detectable means of communication, rendering the measures ineffective while still compromising the privacy of law-abiding citizens.

Potential for Government Overreach

There is a fear that Chat Control could lead to increased surveillance beyond its original scope. Once the infrastructure for scanning private messages is in place, it could be repurposed or expanded to monitor other types of content, stifling free expression and dissent.

Real-World Implications for Users

• False Positives: Automated scanning technologies are not infallible and could mistakenly flag innocent content, leading to unwarranted scrutiny or legal consequences for users.
• Chilling Effect: Knowing that messages could be monitored might discourage people from expressing themselves freely, impacting personal relationships and societal discourse.
• Data Misuse: Collected data could be vulnerable to leaks or misuse, compromising personal and sensitive information.

Legal and Ethical Concerns

Privacy advocates also highlight potential conflicts with existing laws and ethical standards:

• Violation of Fundamental Rights: The European Convention on Human Rights and other international agreements protect the right to privacy and freedom of expression.
• Questionable Effectiveness: The ethical justification for such invasive measures is challenged if they do not significantly improve safety or if they disproportionately impact innocent users.

Opposition from Member States and Organizations

Countries like Germany and organizations such as the European Digital Rights (EDRi) have expressed opposition to Chat Control. They emphasize the need to protect digital privacy and caution against hasty legislation that could have unintended consequences.

---

The Technical Debate: Encryption and Backdoors

The discussion around Chat Control inevitably leads to a complex technical debate centered on encryption and the potential introduction of backdoors into secure communication systems. Understanding these concepts is crucial to grasping the full implications of the proposed measures.

What Is End-to-End Encryption (E2EE)?

End-to-end encryption is a method of secure communication that prevents third parties from accessing data while it's transferred from one end system to another. In simpler terms, only the sender and the recipient can read the messages. Even the service providers operating the messaging platforms cannot decrypt the content.

• Security Assurance: E2EE ensures that sensitive information—be it personal messages, financial details, or confidential business communications—remains private.
• Widespread Use: Popular messaging apps like Signal, Session, SimpleX, Veilid, Protonmail and Tutanota (among others) rely on E2EE to protect user data.

How Chat Control Affects Encryption

Implementing Chat Control as proposed would require messaging services to scan the content of messages for illegal material. To do this on encrypted platforms, providers might have to:

• Introduce Backdoors: Create a means for third parties (including the service provider or authorities) to access encrypted messages.
• Client-Side Scanning: Install software on users' devices that scans messages before they are encrypted and sent, effectively bypassing E2EE.

The Risks of Weakening Encryption

1. Compromised Security for All Users

Introducing backdoors or client-side scanning tools can create vulnerabilities:

• Exploitable Gaps: If a backdoor exists, malicious actors might find and exploit it, leading to data breaches.
• Universal Impact: Weakening encryption doesn't just affect targeted individuals; it potentially exposes all users to increased risk.

2. Undermining Trust in Digital Services

• User Confidence: Knowing that private communications could be accessed might deter people from using digital services or push them toward unregulated platforms.
• Business Implications: Companies relying on secure communications might face increased risks, affecting economic activities.

3. Ineffectiveness Against Skilled Adversaries

• Alternative Methods: Criminals might shift to other encrypted channels or develop new ways to avoid detection.
• False Sense of Security: Weakening encryption could give the impression of increased safety while adversaries adapt and continue their activities undetected.

Signal’s Response and Stance

Signal, a leading encrypted messaging service, has been vocal in its opposition to the EU's proposals:

• Refusal to Weaken Encryption: Signal's CEO Meredith Whittaker has stated that the company would rather cease operations in the EU than compromise its encryption standards.
• Advocacy for Privacy: Signal emphasizes that strong encryption is essential for protecting human rights and freedoms in the digital age.

Understanding Backdoors

A "backdoor" in encryption is an intentional weakness inserted into a system to allow authorized access to encrypted data. While intended for legitimate use by authorities, backdoors pose several problems:

• Security Vulnerabilities: They can be discovered and exploited by unauthorized parties, including hackers and foreign governments.
• Ethical Concerns: The existence of backdoors raises questions about consent and the extent to which governments should be able to access private communications.

The Slippery Slope Argument

Privacy advocates warn that introducing backdoors or mandatory scanning sets a precedent:

• Expanded Surveillance: Once in place, these measures could be extended to monitor other types of content beyond the original scope.
• Erosion of Rights: Gradual acceptance of surveillance can lead to a significant reduction in personal freedoms over time.

Potential Technological Alternatives

Some suggest that it's possible to fight illegal content without undermining encryption:

• Metadata Analysis: Focusing on patterns of communication rather than content.
• Enhanced Reporting Mechanisms: Encouraging users to report illegal content voluntarily.
• Investing in Law Enforcement Capabilities: Strengthening traditional investigative methods without compromising digital security.

The technical community largely agrees that weakening encryption is not the solution:

• Consensus on Security: Strong encryption is essential for the safety and privacy of all internet users.
• Call for Dialogue: Technologists and privacy experts advocate for collaborative approaches that address security concerns without sacrificing fundamental rights.

---

Global Reactions and the Debate in Europe

The proposal for Chat Control has ignited a heated debate across Europe and beyond, with various stakeholders weighing in on the potential implications for privacy, security, and fundamental rights. The reactions are mixed, reflecting differing national perspectives, political priorities, and societal values.

Support for Chat Control

Some EU member states and officials support the initiative, emphasizing the need for robust measures to combat online crime and protect citizens, especially children. They argue that:

• Enhanced Security: Mandatory scanning can help law enforcement agencies detect and prevent serious crimes.
• Responsibility of Service Providers: Companies offering communication services should play an active role in preventing their platforms from being used for illegal activities.
• Public Safety Priorities: The protection of vulnerable populations justifies the implementation of such measures, even if it means compromising some aspects of privacy.

Opposition within the EU

Several countries and organizations have voiced strong opposition to Chat Control, citing concerns over privacy rights and the potential for government overreach.

Germany

• Stance: Germany has been one of the most vocal opponents of the proposed measures.
• Reasons:
• Constitutional Concerns: The German government argues that Chat Control could violate constitutional protections of privacy and confidentiality of communications.
• Security Risks: Weakening encryption is seen as a threat to cybersecurity.
• Legal Challenges: Potential conflicts with national laws protecting personal data and communication secrecy.

Netherlands

• Recent Developments: The Dutch government decided against supporting Chat Control, emphasizing the importance of encryption for security and privacy.
• Arguments:
• Effectiveness Doubts: Skepticism about the actual effectiveness of the measures in combating crime.
• Negative Impact on Privacy: Concerns about mass surveillance and the infringement of citizens' rights.

Table reference: Patrick Breyer - Chat Control in 23 September 2024

Privacy Advocacy Groups

European Digital Rights (EDRi)

• Role: A network of civil and human rights organizations working to defend rights and freedoms in the digital environment.
• Position:
• Strong Opposition: EDRi argues that Chat Control is incompatible with fundamental rights.
• Awareness Campaigns: Engaging in public campaigns to inform citizens about the potential risks.
• Policy Engagement: Lobbying policymakers to consider alternative approaches that respect privacy.

Politicians and Activists

Patrick Breyer

• Background: A Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from Germany, representing the Pirate Party.
• Actions:
• Advocacy: Actively campaigning against Chat Control through speeches, articles, and legislative efforts.
• Public Outreach: Using social media and public events to raise awareness.
• Legal Expertise: Highlighting the legal inconsistencies and potential violations of EU law.

Global Reactions

International Organizations

• Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International: These organizations have expressed concerns about the implications for human rights, urging the EU to reconsider.

Technology Companies

• Global Tech Firms: Companies like Apple and Microsoft are monitoring the situation, as EU regulations could affect their operations and user trust.
• Industry Associations: Groups representing tech companies have issued statements highlighting the risks to innovation and competitiveness.

The Broader Debate

The controversy over Chat Control reflects a broader struggle between security interests and privacy rights in the digital age. Key points in the debate include:

• Legal Precedents: How the EU's decision might influence laws and regulations in other countries.
• Digital Sovereignty: The desire of nations to control digital spaces within their borders.
• Civil Liberties: The importance of protecting freedoms in the face of technological advancements.

Public Opinion

• Diverse Views: Surveys and public forums show a range of opinions, with some citizens prioritizing security and others valuing privacy above all.
• Awareness Levels: Many people are still unaware of the potential changes, highlighting the need for public education on the issue.

The EU is at a crossroads, facing the challenge of addressing legitimate security concerns without undermining the fundamental rights that are central to its values. The outcome of this debate will have significant implications for the future of digital privacy and the balance between security and freedom in society.

---

Possible Consequences for Messaging Services

The implementation of Chat Control could have significant implications for messaging services operating within the European Union. Both large platforms and smaller providers might need to adapt their technologies and policies to comply with the new regulations, potentially altering the landscape of digital communication.

Impact on Encrypted Messaging Services

Signal and Similar Platforms

• Compliance Challenges: Encrypted messaging services like Signal rely on end-to-end encryption to secure user communications. Complying with Chat Control could force them to weaken their encryption protocols or implement client-side scanning, conflicting with their core privacy principles.

• Operational Decisions: Some platforms may choose to limit their services in the EU or cease operations altogether rather than compromise on encryption. Signal, for instance, has indicated that it would prefer to withdraw from European markets than undermine its security features.

Potential Blocking or Limiting of Services

• Regulatory Enforcement: Messaging services that do not comply with Chat Control regulations could face fines, legal action, or even be blocked within the EU.

• Access Restrictions: Users in Europe might find certain services unavailable or limited in functionality if providers decide not to meet the regulatory requirements.

Effects on Smaller Providers

• Resource Constraints: Smaller messaging services and startups may lack the resources to implement the required scanning technologies, leading to increased operational costs or forcing them out of the market.

• Innovation Stifling: The added regulatory burden could deter new entrants, reducing competition and innovation in the messaging service sector.

User Experience and Trust

• Privacy Concerns: Users may lose trust in messaging platforms if they know their communications are subject to scanning, leading to a decline in user engagement.

• Migration to Unregulated Platforms: There is a risk that users might shift to less secure or unregulated services, including those operated outside the EU or on the dark web, potentially exposing them to greater risks.

Technical and Security Implications

• Increased Vulnerabilities: Modifying encryption protocols to comply with Chat Control could introduce security flaws, making platforms more susceptible to hacking and data breaches.

• Global Security Risks: Changes made to accommodate EU regulations might affect the global user base of these services, extending security risks beyond European borders.

Impact on Businesses and Professional Communications

• Confidentiality Issues: Businesses that rely on secure messaging for sensitive communications may face challenges in ensuring confidentiality, affecting sectors like finance, healthcare, and legal services.

• Compliance Complexity: Companies operating internationally will need to navigate a complex landscape of differing regulations, increasing administrative burdens.

Economic Consequences

• Market Fragmentation: Divergent regulations could lead to a fragmented market, with different versions of services for different regions.

• Loss of Revenue: Messaging services might experience reduced revenue due to decreased user trust and engagement or the costs associated with compliance.

Responses from Service Providers

• Legal Challenges: Companies might pursue legal action against the regulations, citing conflicts with privacy laws and user rights.

• Policy Advocacy: Service providers may increase lobbying efforts to influence policy decisions and promote alternatives to Chat Control.

Possible Adaptations

• Technological Innovation: Some providers might invest in developing new technologies that can detect illegal content without compromising encryption, though the feasibility remains uncertain.

• Transparency Measures: To maintain user trust, companies might enhance transparency about how data is handled and what measures are in place to protect privacy.

The potential consequences of Chat Control for messaging services are profound, affecting not only the companies that provide these services but also the users who rely on them daily. The balance between complying with legal requirements and maintaining user privacy and security presents a significant challenge that could reshape the digital communication landscape.

---

What Happens Next? The Future of Chat Control

The future of Chat Control remains uncertain as the debate continues among EU member states, policymakers, technology companies, and civil society organizations. Several factors will influence the outcome of this contentious proposal, each carrying significant implications for digital privacy, security, and the regulatory environment within the European Union.

Current Status of Legislation

• Ongoing Negotiations: The proposed Chat Control measures are still under discussion within the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Amendments and revisions are being considered in response to the feedback from various stakeholders.

• Timeline: While there is no fixed date for the final decision, the EU aims to reach a consensus to implement effective measures against online crime without undue delay.

Key Influencing Factors

1. Legal Challenges and Compliance with EU Law

• Fundamental Rights Assessment: The proposals must be evaluated against the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, ensuring that any measures comply with rights to privacy, data protection, and freedom of expression.

• Court Scrutiny: Potential legal challenges could arise, leading to scrutiny by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which may impact the feasibility and legality of Chat Control.

2. Technological Feasibility

• Development of Privacy-Preserving Technologies: Research into methods that can detect illegal content without compromising encryption is ongoing. Advances in this area could provide alternative solutions acceptable to both privacy advocates and security agencies.

• Implementation Challenges: The practical aspects of deploying scanning technologies across various platforms and services remain complex, and technical hurdles could delay or alter the proposed measures.

3. Political Dynamics

• Member State Positions: The differing stances of EU countries, such as Germany's opposition, play a significant role in shaping the final outcome. Consensus among member states is crucial for adopting EU-wide regulations.

• Public Opinion and Advocacy: Growing awareness and activism around digital privacy can influence policymakers. Public campaigns and lobbying efforts may sway decisions in favor of stronger privacy protections.

4. Industry Responses

• Negotiations with Service Providers: Ongoing dialogues between EU authorities and technology companies may lead to compromises or collaborative efforts to address concerns without fully implementing Chat Control as initially proposed.

• Potential for Self-Regulation: Messaging services might propose self-regulatory measures to combat illegal content, aiming to demonstrate effectiveness without the need for mandatory scanning.

Possible Scenarios

Optimistic Outcome:

• Balanced Regulation: A revised proposal emerges that effectively addresses security concerns while upholding strong encryption and privacy rights, possibly through innovative technologies or targeted measures with robust oversight.

Pessimistic Outcome:

• Adoption of Strict Measures: Chat Control is implemented as initially proposed, leading to weakened encryption, reduced privacy, and potential withdrawal of services like Signal from the EU market.

Middle Ground:

• Incremental Implementation: Partial measures are adopted, focusing on voluntary cooperation with service providers and emphasizing transparency and user consent, with ongoing evaluations to assess effectiveness and impact.

How to Stay Informed and Protect Your Privacy

• Follow Reputable Sources: Keep up with news from reliable outlets, official EU communications, and statements from privacy organizations to stay informed about developments.

• Engage in the Dialogue: Participate in public consultations, sign petitions, or contact representatives to express your views on Chat Control and digital privacy.

• Utilize Secure Practices: Regardless of legislative outcomes, adopting good digital hygiene—such as using strong passwords and being cautious with personal information—can enhance your online security.

The Global Perspective

• International Implications: The EU's decision may influence global policies on encryption and surveillance, setting precedents that other countries might follow or react against.

• Collaboration Opportunities: International cooperation on developing solutions that protect both security and privacy could emerge, fostering a more unified approach to addressing online threats.

Looking Ahead

The future of Chat Control is a critical issue that underscores the challenges of governing in the digital age. Balancing the need for security with the protection of fundamental rights is a complex task that requires careful consideration, open dialogue, and collaboration among all stakeholders.

As the situation evolves, staying informed and engaged is essential. The decisions made in the coming months will shape the digital landscape for years to come, affecting how we communicate, conduct business, and exercise our rights in an increasingly connected world.

---

Conclusion

The debate over Chat Control highlights a fundamental challenge in our increasingly digital world: how to protect society from genuine threats without eroding the very rights and freedoms that define it. While the intention to safeguard children and prevent crime is undeniably important, the means of achieving this through intrusive surveillance measures raise critical concerns.

Privacy is not just a personal preference but a cornerstone of democratic societies. End-to-end encryption has become an essential tool for ensuring that our personal conversations, professional communications, and sensitive data remain secure from unwanted intrusion. Weakening these protections could expose individuals and organizations to risks that far outweigh the proposed benefits.

The potential consequences of implementing Chat Control are far-reaching:

• Erosion of Trust: Users may lose confidence in digital platforms, impacting how we communicate and conduct business online.
• Security Vulnerabilities: Introducing backdoors or weakening encryption can make systems more susceptible to cyberattacks.
• Stifling Innovation: Regulatory burdens may hinder technological advancement and competitiveness in the tech industry.
• Global Implications: The EU's decisions could set precedents that influence digital policies worldwide, for better or worse.

As citizens, it's crucial to stay informed about these developments. Engage in conversations, reach out to your representatives, and advocate for solutions that respect both security needs and fundamental rights. Technology and policy can evolve together to address challenges without compromising core values.

The future of Chat Control is not yet decided, and public input can make a significant difference. By promoting open dialogue, supporting privacy-preserving innovations, and emphasizing the importance of human rights in legislation, we can work towards a digital landscape that is both safe and free.

In a world where digital communication is integral to daily life, striking the right balance between security and privacy is more important than ever. The choices made today will shape the digital environment for generations to come, determining not just how we communicate, but how we live and interact in an interconnected world.

---

Thank you for reading this article. We hope it has provided you with a clear understanding of Chat Control and its potential impact on your privacy and digital rights. Stay informed, stay engaged, and let's work together towards a secure and open digital future.

Read more:

• https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/
• https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/new-eu-push-for-chat-control-will-messenger-services-be-blocked-in-europe/
• https://edri.org/our-work/dutch-decision-puts-brakes-on-chat-control/
• https://signal.org/blog/pdfs/ndss-keynote.pdf
• https://tuta.com/blog/germany-stop-chat-control
• https://cointelegraph.com/news/signal-president-slams-revised-eu-encryption-proposal
• https://mullvad.net/en/why-privacy-matters

@ 19306922:c06688d2

At a time when data-gathering technologies are dominating all aspects of everyday life, governmental agencies such as The National Security Agency have considerable surveillance and control authority. The National Security Agency runs surveillance programs on not just violent international criminals, but also ordinary citizens within the country. A tremendous amount of effort is being made to keep these programs from being critiqued and shared with the public. In this paper, I will discuss whistleblowing and its relevance in establishing a more democratic structure in governmental institutions, through the cases of Edward Snowden and Thomas Drake. Firstly, I will emphasize Edward Snowden's action as an example of illegal whistleblowing and how he acts closer to civic disobedience rather than espionage. Following that, I will discuss Thomas Drake's espionage charge while legally criticizing The National Security Agency's programs and the inadequacy of whistleblower protection laws.

In our everyday lives, we come into contact with or utilize a variety of technological equipment such as security cameras, GPS devices, iris scanners, and so on. Everything we do, from buying things from shopping malls to searching for information on the internet, is kept in massive databases. Without even our knowledge, our data, which is vast enough to create our entire profile, is in the databases of a private firm or the government. That's why the surveillance network is getting bigger and bigger. Most of the surveillance tools and the capability to regulate these tools are under state control. The government also agrees with data aggregators -companies that collect data from multiple sources and make it available to customers in a value-added format- to access more data. The US Department of Justice has an $8 million agreement with data aggregator company ChoicePoint (Stanley, Steinhardt 2014). In this way, The Justice Department can access many civilians' information in the company's database. Although this surveillance mechanism seems to be an effective way to track and detect many illegal incidents such as terrorism, money laundering, etc., this surveillance network can easily be applied to ordinary civilians. For example, in 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft released new domestic spy guidelines that dramatically expanded federal agents' ability to monitor on American civilians (Stanley, Steinhardt 2014). The American government also is running programs to spy on ordinary citizens, according to information obtained from the National Security Agency documents which leaked to the media on multiple occasions (Greenberg, 2013).

The National Security Agency (NSA) began as a cryptology-focused agency and has since grown into an intelligence agency that gathers data from enemies of the United States of America (Verble, 2014). The surveillance and data collection programs of NSA, however, are not carried out just to keep enemies at bay. Information on the NSA's programs was provided to the media by Thomas A. Drake, a senior executive at the NSA, and Edward J. Snowden, who also worked as a computer intelligence consultant at the NSA. As a result of all of these events, it is fairly obvious that the state and its institutions are conducting unethical surveillance to the civilians. However, the two people who raised awareness of this unethical operation by providing classified and declassified NSA documents to the media faced major crises. Both Thomas Drake and Edward Snowden faced charges under the Espionage Act. Despite the fact that two former NSA employees used different methods to prevent these surveillance programs, which were developed to spy on citizens using their taxes, both were charged with treason. In this article, I will discuss the whistleblowing act through Thomas Drake and Edward Snowden examples, as well as the significance of whistleblowing in inspecting institutions with tremendous authority, such as centralized databases.  Whistleblowing is described as the act of an employee, typically within the organization, who reveals illegal, immoral, or inefficient information or actions within a private, public, or government institution. Daniel Ellsberg, one of the authors of the document, leaked information concerning the United States' political and military engagement in Vietnam between 1945 and 1967, also known as the Pentagon Papers. These papers, which revealed that the American government of the time did not accurately reflect information about Vietnam to the public, became the subject of the most well-known whistleblowing act in American history. Daniel Ellsberg faced charges under the Espionage Act (Greenberg, 2013). It is problematic to think that sharing the information with the public about crucial topics such as the state is systematically lying to the public or spying on them in a wide surveillance network is equated with espionage. The development of democratic regimes necessitates public debate and regulation of this type of government acts. I will demonstrate the significance through the examples of acts of Edward Snowden and Thomas Drake.

The Case of Edward Snowden 

At one point, Edward Snowden's and Thomas Drake's whistleblowing actions differ. While Edward Snowden got confidential material from the NSA and shared it with the media directly, Thomas Drake initially attempted to prevent or regulate programs run by NSA from inside the organization by taking a legal path.

Firstly, using Edward Snowden as an example, I will evaluate the role of becoming an illegal whistleblower by sharing classified information with the public. Edward Snowden released highly classified information from NSA in 2013, revealing the NSA's surveillance operations with the cooperation of telecommunications companies and European governments. Snowden was charged under the Espionage Act and stealing government property by the US Department of Justice, and his passport was canceled by the Department of State. Not only that, the efforts were made to portray him as a traitor. Before leaking the information to the media, Edward Snowden was a 29-year-old consultant who worked for the NSA's Hawaii office and made $200,000 per year (Scheuerman, 2014). Snowden did not reveal this information to a country or organization that is hostile to the United States. He directly shared this material with the media, allowing the public to learn about these surveillance programs. He received no personal benefit from this act, and he risked himself and lost his privileged position in his life. Edward Snowden said to The Guardian reporters; “I really want the focus to be on these documents and the debate which I hope this will trigger among citizens around the globe about what kind of world we want to live in.” He added: “My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them” (Glenn, 2013). Given all of this, Edward Snowden's actions are more similar to civic disobedience than treason or espionage (Scheuerman, 2014). As a United Nations citizen, Edward Snowden revealed to the public the wrongdoing of a governmental institution, making this situation questioned among the public. A democratic government gains from public criticism of its acts, which aids in the development of more ethical institutions.  While it is a social benefit to inform the public about a massive government surveillance program, obtaining that information from the NSA and making it available to the public may also benefit the United States' enemies. Institutions also have the opportunity to develop and regulate these programs within their own walls, without any confidential information leaking out. Employees of the institution can file complaints to their supervisors and criticize these programs in a legal path, which is legal whistleblowing, however, in the case of Thomas Drake, we can see that legal whistleblowing puts people's lives at risk at least as much as the illegal version.

The Case Of Thomas Drake

On September 11, 2001, one of the most devastating days in American history, Thomas Drake began his job at the NSA. In the early years of the new millennium, when America was most vulnerable to external threats and digital data was growing exponentially, a program named Trailblazer caught Drake's attention. Drake saw the initiative as a huge budget waste that did not contribute to national security. He reported his critique to his supervisors, which is considered legal whistleblowing, but his attempts were unsuccessful. Finally, he decided to share his criticism with the media while remaining anonymous, although he did not share any confidential documents with the media. He only served declassified information, which conveys that Trailblazer was an ineffective project that wastes money. Drake was questioned by FBI investigators shortly after and accused of taking classified documents from the NSA. He faced charges of 35 years in jail time for 10 different crimes including the Espionage Act. The court dismissed the case in 2011, stating that the accusations were inappropriate and overstated, and Thomas Drake was sentenced to one year of probation. However, as a result of the entire process, Drake spent $82,000 on legal expenses, was dismissed from both his NSA and university positions, and lost his retirement (Greenberg, 2013). Thomas Drake's experience is an example of how even the slightest criticism of government institutions and their projects can have drastic consequences. The courage to criticize unethical projects is trying to be destroyed by this atmosphere of fear. The whistleblowers, whether they go the legal or illegal path, are aware that they will be prosecuted for espionage, loss of employment, and jail time. 

At this juncture, I believe we should oppose the totalitarian positions adopted by the institutions, which have vast surveillance networks both domestically and internationally, and we should protect whistleblowers' rights. The United States has two legislations protecting whistleblowers, the Federal Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012. According to a 2015 research, the Federal Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 fails to protect whistleblowers. 79 percent of the 142 cases involving government ethics and administration ended in employee job loss. The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 is also insufficient in terms of protections of whistleblowers (Peffer, Bocheko, Del Valle, Osmani, Peyton, Roman, 2015).

Conclusion

The whistleblowing contributes to public debate about the ethics of the state's programs. However, these organizations, which hold a vast surveillance network, damage the democratic process by raising severe allegations against whistleblowers in order to avoid the risk of limiting their authority. We can have an idea of how our data is gathered and used if we have laws and rules that protect whistleblowers. Accusing them with espionage and treason, on the other hand, will gradually create this environment of fear and, as a consequence, silence.

Reference Glenn G. (2013, Jun 11). Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance       Greenberg, A. (2013). This machine kills secrets: Julian Assange, the Cypherpunks, and their fight to empower whistleblowers. Penguin. Scheuerman, W. E. (2014). Whistleblowing as civil disobedience: The case of Edward Snowden. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 40(7), 609-628. Stanley, J., & Steinhardt, B. (2014). Bigger monster, weaker chains: the growth of an American surveillance society. In Ethics and Emerging Technologies (pp. 269-284). Palgrave Macmillan, London. Peffer, S. L., Bocheko, A., Del Valle, R. E., Osmani, A., Peyton, S., & Roman, E. (2015).Whistle Where you work? The ineffectiveness of the Federal Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and the promise of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 35(1), 70-81.               Verble, J. (2014). The NSA and Edward Snowden: surveillance in the 21st century. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 44(3), 14-20.

@ 599f67f7:21fb3ea9

¿Alguna vez has querido regalarle sats a alguien en forma física? Con una billetera LNbits, puedes crear fácilmente una tarjeta de regalo NFC. Esto funciona escribiendo un enlace LNURLw en la tarjeta NFC, desde el cual el destinatario puede retirar sus sats con una billetera compatible con LNURL.

¿Qué necesitas?

• Billetera LNbits
• Teléfono Android
• Tarjeta NFC con capacidades de al menos NTAG2*, por ejemplo, NTAG216. Consulta la nostr:naddr1qqxnzd3e8qcr2wfn8qcrgwf4qyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx2q3qtx0k0a7lw62vvqax6p3ku90tccgdka7ul4radews2wrdsg0m865sxpqqqp65whwqrr5 para saber dónde comprar las tarjetas.

💡 Las tarjetas NTAG2 te permiten escribir un* enlace en ellas. Por ejemplo, pueden funcionar como una tarjeta de presentación que contiene la URL del sitio web de la empresa. Las tarjetas NTAG424 no solo tienen más memoria, sino que también cuentan con un parámetro SUN que permite la autenticación del servidor web, lo cual añade más seguridad a tus pagos. Este último tipo de tarjetas también se pueden convertir en BoltCards.

1. Activa la extensión

Abre tu billetera LNbits. Activa la extensión LNURLw desde la barra de herramientas y entra en la extensión.

2. Crea un enlace de retiro

• En la página de la extensión LNURLw, elige Advanced Withdraw Link(s) ("Enlace(s) de retiro avanzado").

• Selecciona la billetera desde la cual se retirarán los sats. Probablemente quieras separar esto de tu billetera principal de LNbits. Para hacerlo, puedes crear primero una nueva billetera LNbits yendo a la barra de herramientas y seleccionando + Agregar nueva billetera, luego depositando algunos sats en la billetera recién creada.

• Asigna un título al enlace de retiro.

• Establece los montos mínimo y máximo que se pueden canjear.

• Establece el número de veces que se puede utilizar el enlace y el tiempo entre intentos de retiro.

• Opcionalmente, puedes añadir una imagen personalizada marcando la casilla Use a custom voucher design ("Usar un diseño de cupón personalizado") e ingresando la URL de una imagen en formato .png.

• No marques la casilla de usar un codigo QR único.

Cuando estés satisfecho con la configuración, procede a crear el enlace de retiro.

3. Escribe el enlace en la tarjeta NFC

En tu enlace de retiro recién creado, haz clic en view LNURL ("ver LNURL"). Haz clic en el botón Write to NFC ("Escribir en NFC") y acerca tu tarjeta NFC a tu teléfono para que se pueda escribir en ella.

✔️ HECHO

💡 Informa al destinatario de la tarjeta sobre el saldo de sats que tiene para que no pierda tiempo intentando obtener hasta el último satoshi.

💡 Una vez que el destinatario haya retirado sus sats de la tarjeta de regalo, puede volver a escribir en ella su propia billetera y reutilizarla. ¡Dos pájaros de un tiro! Si la tarjeta que le diste es NTAG424, puede convertirla en una "tarjeta de débito" de Lightning como describimos en la nostr:naddr1qqxnzd3e8qcr2wfn8qcrgwf4qyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx2q3qtx0k0a7lw62vvqax6p3ku90tccgdka7ul4radews2wrdsg0m865sxpqqqp65whwqrr5. Si la tarjeta es solo NTAG2*, entonces solo puede convertirla en otra tarjeta de regalo.

@ a10260a2:caa23e3e

Alby Hub is configurable with several different backends. Although setting up with Cashu is considered experimental, it’s a good option to have if you don’t want to run a Lightning node.

This post will give a quick overview of the steps to connect your Alby Hub with a Cashu mint.

Before you get started, you’re going to want to have Alby Hub installed already. There are many options for this as well — Linux, StartOS, and Umbrel to name a few. You can even have Alby host it for you in their cloud.

I just happen to have a Linux machine free so I went that route — the installation script made it super easy.

After the install is complete, navigating to localhost:8080 brings up this page.

1. Select “Advanced Setup”

1. Select “Create Wallet with Custom Node”

1. Select “Cashu Mint”

1. Paste the URL of the mint you’d like to use. You can use the default one provided or click on “Find a mint” to search for others.

1. (Optional) Connect your Alby account by requesting an authorization code. After clicking “Connect now,” a new window will open and the code displayed after signing in.

Boom. You’re all done.

Now you can use your Alby Lightning address to receive your first sats!

NOTE: Although the sats do make it to the wallet, the “Waiting for payment” animation seems to wait indefinitely and there’s no record in transaction history.

This seems to be a Cashu-related issue that has something to do with the preimage. An issue has been opened on GitHub if you’re curious.

Other that that, sending and receiving works like a charm.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/707673

@ 3ccfd5ee:2efa0073

BYD Cars Philippines and ACMobility, the Philippine distributor of BYD vehicles, have pledged to donate $100 to Super Typhoon Carina's victims for every BYD Sealion 6 DM-i sold from July 25, 2024 until December 31, 2024.

This campaign is part of both companies' broader efforts to the affected communities and reflects their dedication to social responsibility. In fact, ACMobility was one of the first to mobilize disaster response efforts by distributing relief goods to over 100 families in Dela Paz, Pasig City, on July 26. Employees and volunteers from ACMobility, BYD Cars Philippines, and its affiliate agencies participated in the cause.

“On behalf of BYD, I would like to express my sympathy to the people affected by Typhoon Carina. We, together with ACMobility, wish to extend BYD's support to Filipinos who suffered from this unfortunate disaster,” said BYD Asia Pacific Auto Sales Division General Manager Liu Xueliang.

The BYD Sealion 6 DM-i is an all-electric compact SUV that runs on BYD's proprietary Super DM-i Technology—generating power well beyond the typical electric vehicle. It generates 217 horsepower and 325 Newton meters of torque, enabling it to go from zero to a hundred in just over eight seconds.

Furthermore, the vehicle runs on Blade Battery, allowing it to drive up to 105 kilometers in Pure EV Mode and 1,100 km in Extended Range Mode. It empowers drivers to travel without range anxiety. Attendees of ACMobility and BYD Cars Philippines' relief drive even used the Sealion 6 DM-i's Blade Battery to charge devices on-site. The Sealion 6 DM-i starts at ₱1,548,000. With every unit sold, BYD and ACMotors donate $100 to Typhoon Carina's victims until the end of 2024.

"Guided by our company value of malasakit, we remain committed to going above and beyond in serving our communities during these trying times," BYD Cars Philippines Managing Director Bob Palanca shared.

Super Typhoon Carina—internationally known as Gaemi—brought widespread devastation across the Philippines. The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC) stated that Carina, on top of the southwest monsoon, affected over 1.3 million Filipinos.

About BYD Cars Philippines

BYD Cars Philippines is a leader in the Filipino EV industry. As the Philippine arm of the globally renowned electric car and battery manufacturer, it brings cutting-edge technology and powerful yet comfortable drives to the local sustainable mobility market. The EV manufacturer has a range of models designed to address the needs of Filipinos, from affordable cars to luxury SUVs. Each vehicle's cutting-edge tech and superior safety features make every purchase worth it. Most importantly, BYD addresses the growing demand for eco-friendly cars and actively participates in initiatives to build greener mobility infrastructure for Filipinos.

Visit BYD Cars Philippines' website today to learn more.

@ 3ccfd5ee:2efa0073

Penis size is a topic that many people feel curious or insecure about. It’s important to approach this subject with an understanding of the wide range of normal sizes and the various options available for those who may be interested in enlargement procedures. For some, the use of sex toys or dildos may be a practical solution to enhance sexual experiences, while others may look into enlargement procedures. Here’s a brief overview of what you should know about average penis size and the options available for enlargement.

What is the Average Penis Size?

Studies consistently show that the average erect penis size is around 5 to 6 inches in length, and the average flaccid size is about 3 to 4 inches. It’s crucial to recognize that penis size varies among individuals, and there is a broad spectrum of what is considered normal. Factors like body type, genetics, and age can all influence size. Most men’s sizes fall within this range, and concerns about size often arise from misconceptions rather than actual medical issues.

Penis Enlargment as an Alternative

For those interested in penis enlargement, there are a few options available. These include surgical procedures, non-surgical devices, and sometimes even the use of sex toys to create a fuller feeling or enhance size temporarily. Here’s a closer look at the most common methods:

Surgical Procedures

One of the most well-known surgical options is penile lengthening surgery, where a surgeon cuts the suspensory ligament that supports the penis, allowing it to hang lower. While the procedure can result in a modest increase in length, it carries risks such as infection, scarring, and potential issues with erectile function. Always consult with a qualified healthcare provider before considering surgery.

Non-Surgical Options

Devices like penis pumps or penile traction devices are often used to temporarily increase size. A penis pump creates a vacuum that draws blood into the penis, temporarily making it appear larger. Traction devices apply gentle pressure to the penis over time, which can result in gradual lengthening. Both of these methods can offer temporary improvements, but they require consistent use and do not guarantee long-lasting results.

Sex Toys and Dildos

For those looking for a more immediate solution, dildos and other sex toys can offer a way to enhance sexual pleasure without altering physical size. These toys come in a wide range of shapes, sizes, and materials, allowing individuals and couples to explore different sensations. Find a dildo for sale that can provide added size during intercourse, and using sex toys can also help individuals become more comfortable with their bodies, leading to better self-esteem and sexual confidence.

Penis Enlargement Pills or Supplements

Many products on the market claim to increase penis size, but the effectiveness of these pills is largely unproven. Medical experts often caution against using such supplements, as they can have unwanted side effects and are not regulated.

@ 3ccfd5ee:2efa0073

To stay competitive, many companies are outsourcing key administrative and management functions in manufacturing. This approach helps businesses better manage deliverables, reduce costs, utilize advanced technology, and navigate changing labor dynamics.

What is Outsource Manufacturing?

Outsourcing manufacturing involves delegating not only production but also important administrative and management tasks to external providers, rather than handling everything in-house. These tasks often include non-core activities such as supply chain management, procurement, quality assurance, and compliance.

By partnering with specialized manufacturers, often in regions with lower labor and operational costs, companies can take advantage of their expertise and efficiency. The process typically begins with selecting a trusted manufacturer, negotiating contracts, and overseeing production to ensure quality and timely delivery.

5 Types of Outsource Manufacturing Services

Outsourcing specific tasks can streamline your operations and reduce costs. Here’s an overview of the key outsourcing services for manufacturing:

Contract Management

Managing contracts with manufacturers and suppliers can be complex and time-consuming. By outsourcing this function, you allow experts to handle negotiations, oversee agreements, and ensure smooth operations, reducing legal risks and freeing you to focus on other vital business areas.

Supplier Management

Supplier management includes finding and vetting suppliers based on quality, pricing, and reliability. By building a dedicated team through optiBPO in the Philippines, you can streamline this process. The team will handle negotiations and ensure that suppliers meet your standards, giving you full control without the administrative burden.

Logistics Coordination

From transportation to warehousing, logistics coordination involves many moving parts. Outsourcing this function to a skilled team, like one from optiBPO, allows you to optimize the logistics process, choosing the best transportation methods and balancing cost, speed, and reliability. This ensures efficient and timely product deliveries.

Quality Assurance Coordination

Consistently maintaining high product quality is essential for customer satisfaction and brand reputation. Outsourcing quality assurance lets a team of professionals handle inspections, compliance checks, and data analysis to reduce defects, enhance product reliability, and maintain high standards.

Inventory Management

Managing inventory levels, ordering, and stock maintenance can be overwhelming. By outsourcing these administrative tasks, your external team can monitor inventory, forecast demand, and coordinate with suppliers to ensure stock is always replenished on time. Services from optiBPO can streamline this process and keep operations running smoothly.

In Conclusion

By outsourcing these crucial functions, your business can gain access to expertise, improve efficiency, and reduce costs—ultimately allowing you to focus on what matters most: growing your business.

You can learn more about ousource manufacturing through this infographic.

https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_800/https://optibpo.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/outsource_manufacturing_Info8.png

@ c4f5e7a7:8856cac7

Best viewed on Habla, YakiHonne or Highlighter.

TL;DR

This article explores the links between public, community-driven data sources (such as OpenStreetMap) and private, cryptographically-owned data found on networks such as Nostr.

The following concepts are explored:

1. Attestations: Users signalling to their social graph that they believe something to be true by publishing Attestations. These social proofs act as a decentralised verification system that leverages your web-of-trust.
2. Proof of Place: An oracle-based system where physical letters are sent to real-world locations, confirming the corresponding digital ownership via cryptographic proofs. This binds physical locations in meatspace with their digital representations in the Nostrverse.
3. Check-ins: Foursquare-style check-ins that can be verified using attestations from place owners, ensuring authenticity. This approach uses web-of-trust to validate check-ins and location ownership over time.

The goal is to leverage cryptographic ownership where necessary while preserving the open, collaborative nature of public data systems.

Open Data in a public commons has a place and should not be thrown out with the Web 2.0 bathwater.

Cognitive Dissonance

Ever since discovering Nostr in August of 2022 I've been grappling with how BTC Map - a project that helps bitcoiners find places to spend sats - should most appropriately use this new protocol.

I am assuming, dear reader, that you are somewhat familiar with Nostr - a relatively new protocol for decentralised identity and communication. If you don’t know your nsec from your npub, please take some time to read these excellent posts: Nostr is Identity for the Internet and The Power of Nostr by @max and @lyn, respectively. Nostr is so much more than a short-form social media replacement.

The social features (check-ins, reviews, etc.) that Nostr unlocks for BTC Map are clear and exciting - all your silos are indeed broken - however, something fundamental has been bothering me for a while and I think it comes down to data ownership.

For those unfamiliar, BTC Map uses OpenStreetMap (OSM) as its main geographic database. OSM is centred on the concept of a commons of objectively verifiable data that is maintained by a global community of volunteer editors; a Wikipedia for maps. There is no data ownership; the data is free (as in freedom) and anyone can edit anything. It is the data equivalent of FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) - FOSD if you will, but more commonly referred to as Open Data.

In contrast, Notes and Other Stuff on Nostr (Places in this cartographic context) are explicitly owned by the controller of the private key. These notes are free to propagate, but they are owned.

How do we reconcile the decentralised nature of Nostr, where data is cryptographically owned by individuals, with the community-managed data commons of OpenStreetMap, where no one owns the data?

Self-sovereign Identity

Before I address this coexistence question, I want to talk a little about identity as it pertains to ownership. If something is to be owned, it has to be owned by someone or something - an identity.

All identities that are not self-sovereign are, by definition, leased to you by a 3rd party. You rent your Facebook identity from Meta in exchange for your data. You rent your web domain from your DNS provider in exchange for your money.

Taken to the extreme, you rent your passport from your Government in exchange for your compliance. You are you at the pleasure of others. Where Bitcoin separates money from the state; Nostr separates identity from the state.

Or, as @nvk said recently: "Don't build your house on someone else's land.".

https://i.nostr.build/xpcCSkDg3uVw0yku.png

While we’ve had the tools for self-sovereign digital identity for decades (think PGP keys or WebAuthN), we haven't had the necessary social use cases nor the corresponding social graph to elevate these identities to the mainstream. Nostr fixes this.

Nostr is PGP for the masses and will take cryptographic identities mainstream.

Full NOSTARD?

Returning to the coexistence question: the data on OpenStreetMap isn’t directly owned by anyone, even though the physical entities the data represents might be privately owned. OSM is a data commons.

We can objectively agree on the location of a tree or a fire hydrant without needing permission to observe and record it. Sure, you could place a tree ‘on Nostr’, but why should you? Just because something can be ‘on Nostr’ doesn’t mean it should be.

https://i.nostr.build/s3So2JVAqoY4E1dI.png

There might be a dystopian future where we can't agree on what a tree is nor where it's located, but I hope we never get there. It's at this point we'll need a Wikifreedia variant of OpenStreetMap.

While integrating Nostr identities into OpenStreetMap would be valuable, the current OSM infrastructure, tools, and community already provide substantial benefits in managing this data commons without needing to go NOSTR-native - there's no need to go Full NOSTARD. H/T to @princeySOV for the original meme.

https://i.nostr.build/ot9jtM5cZtDHNKWc.png

So, how do we appropriately blend cryptographically owned data with the commons?

If a location is owned in meatspace and it's useful to signal that ownership, it should also be owned in cyberspace. Our efforts should therefore focus on entities like businesses, while allowing the commons to manage public data for as long as it can successfully mitigate the tragedy of the commons.

The remainder of this article explores how we can:

1. Verify ownership of a physical place in the real world;
2. Link that ownership to the corresponding digital place in cyberspace.

As a side note, I don't see private key custodianship - or, even worse, permissioned use of Places signed by another identity's key - as any more viable than the rented identities of Web 2.0.

And as we all know, the Second Law of Infodynamics (no citation!) states that:

"The total amount of sensitive information leaked will always increase over time."

This especially holds true if that data is centralised.

Not your keys, not your notes. Not your keys, not your identity.

Places and Web-of-Trust

@Arkinox has been leading the charge on the Places NIP, introducing Nostr notes (kind 37515) that represent physical locations. The draft is well-crafted, with bonus points for linking back to OSM (and other location repositories) via NIP-73 - External Content IDs (championed by @oscar of @fountain).

However, as Nostr is permissionless, authenticity poses a challenge. Just because someone claims to own a physical location on the Internet doesn’t necessarily mean they have ownership or control of that location in the real world.

Ultimately, this problem can only be solved in a decentralised way by using Web-of-Trust - using your social graph and the perspectives of trusted peers to inform your own perspective. In the context of Places, this requires your network to form a view on which digital identity (public key / npub) is truly the owner of a physical place like your local coffee shop.

This requires users to:

1. Verify the owner of a Place in cyberspace is the owner of a place in meatspace.
2. Signal this verification to their social graph.

Let's look at the latter idea first with the concept of Attestations ...

Attestations

A way to signal to your social graph that you believe something to be true (or false for that matter) would be by publishing an Attestation note. An Attestation note would signify to your social graph that you think something is either true or false.

Imagine you're a regular at a local coffee shop. You publish an Attestation that says the shop is real and the owner behind the Nostr public key is who they claim to be. Your friends trust you, so they start trusting the shop's digital identity too.

However, attestations applied to Places are just a single use case. The attestation concept could be more widely applied across Nostr in a variety of ways (key rotation, identity linking, etc).

Here is a recent example from @lyn that would carry more signal if it were an Attestation:

https://i.nostr.build/lZAXOEwvRIghgFY4.png

Parallels can be drawn between Attestations and transaction confirmations on the Bitcoin timechain; however, their importance to you would be weighted by clients and/or Data Vending Machines in accordance with:

1. Your social graph;
2. The type or subject of the content being attested and by whom;
3. Your personal preferences.

They could also have a validity duration to be temporally bound, which would be particularly useful in the case of Places.

NIP-25 (Reactions) do allow for users to up/downvote notes with optional content (e.g., emojis) and could work for Attestations, but I think we need something less ambiguous and more definitive.

‘This is true’ resonates more strongly than ‘I like this.’.

https://i.nostr.build/s8NIG2kXzUCLcoax.jpg

There are similar concepts in the Web 3 / Web 5 world such as Verified Credentials by tdb. However, Nostr is the Web 3 now and so wen Attestation NIP?

https://i.nostr.build/Cb047NWyHdJ7h5Ka.jpg

That said, I have seen @utxo has been exploring ‘smart contracts’ on nostr and Attestations may just be a relatively ‘dumb’ subset of the wider concept Nostr-native scripting combined with web-of-trust.

Proof of Place

Attestations handle the signalling of your truth, but what about the initial verification itself?

We already covered how this ultimately has to be derived from your social graph, but what if there was a way to help bootstrap this web-of-trust through the use of oracles? For those unfamiliar with oracles in the digital realm, they are simply trusted purveyors of truth.

Introducing Proof of Place, an out–of-band process where an oracle (such as BTC Map) would mail - yes physically mail- a shared secret to the address of the location being claimed in cyberspace. This shared secret would be locked to the public key (npub) making the claim, which, if unlocked, would prove that the associated private key (nsec) has physical access to the location in meatspace.

One way of doing this would be to mint a 1 sat cashu ecash token locked to the npub of the claimant and mail it to them. If they are able to redeem the token then they have cryptographically proven that they have physical access to the location.

Proof of Place is really nothing more than a weighted Attestation. In a web-of-trust Nostrverse, an oracle is simply a npub (say BTC Map) that you weigh heavily for its opinion on a given topic (say Places).

In the Bitcoin world, Proof of Work anchors digital scarcity in cyberspace to physical scarcity (energy and time) in meatspace and as @Gigi says in PoW is Essential:

"A failure to understand Proof of Work, is a failure to understand Bitcoin."

In the Nostrverse, Proof of Place helps bridge the digital and physical worlds.

@Gigi also observes in Memes vs The World that:

"In Bitcoin, the map is the territory. We can infer everything we care about by looking at the map alone."

https://i.nostr.build/dOnpxfI4u7EL2v4e.png

This isn’t true for Nostr.

In the Nostrverse, the map IS NOT the territory. However, Proof of Place enables us to send cryptographic drones down into the physical territory to help us interpret our digital maps. 🤯

Check-ins

Although not a draft NIP yet, @Arkinox has also been exploring the familiar concept of Foursquare-style Check-ins on Nostr (with kind 13811 notes).

For the uninitiated, Check-ins are simply notes that signal the publisher is at a given location. These locations could be Places (in the Nostr sense) or any other given digital representation of a location for that matter (such as OSM elements) if NIP-73 - External Content IDs are used.

Of course, not everyone will be a Check-in enjoyooor as the concept will not sit well with some people’s threat models and OpSec practices.

Bringing Check-ins to Nostr is possible (as @sebastix capably shows here), but they suffer the same authenticity issues as Places. Just because I say I'm at a given location doesn't mean that I am.

Back in the Web 2.0 days, Foursquare mitigated this by relying on the GPS position of the phone running their app, but this is of course spoofable.

How should we approach Check-in verifiability in the Nostrverse? Well, just like with Places, we can use Attestations and WoT. In the context of Check-ins, an Attestation from the identity (npub) of the Place being checked-in to would be a particularly strong signal. An NFC device could be placed in a coffee shop and attest to check-ins without requiring the owner to manually intervene - I’m sure @blackcoffee and @Ben Arc could hack something together over a weekend!

Check-ins could also be used as a signal for bonafide Place ownership over time.

Summary: Trust Your Bros

So, to recap, we have:

Places: Digital representations of physical locations on Nostr.

Check-ins: Users signalling their presence at a location.

Attestations: Verifiable social proofs used to confirm ownership or the truth of a claim.

You can visualise how these three concepts combine in the diagram below:

https://i.nostr.build/Uv2Jhx5BBfA51y0K.jpg

And, as always, top right trumps bottom left! We have:

Level 0 - Trust Me Bro: Anyone can check-in anywhere. The Place might not exist or might be impersonating the real place in meatspace. The person behind the npub may not have even been there at all.

Level 1 - Definitely Maybe Somewhere: This category covers the middle-ground of ‘Maybe at a Place’ and ‘Definitely Somewhere’. In these examples, you are either self-certifying that you have checked-in at an Attested Place or you are having others attest that you have checked-in at a Place that might not even exist IRL.

Level 2 - Trust Your Bros: An Attested Check-in at an Attested Place. Your individual level of trust would be a function of the number of Attestations and how you weigh them within your own social graph.

https://i.nostr.build/HtLAiJH1uQSTmdxf.jpg

Perhaps the gold standard (or should that be the Bitcoin standard?) would be a Check-in attested by the owner of the Place, which in itself was attested by BTC Map?

Or perhaps not. Ultimately, it’s the users responsibility to determine what they trust by forming their own perspective within the Nostrverse powered by web-of-trust algorithms they control. ‘Trust Me Bro’ or ‘Trust Your Bros’ - you decide.

As we navigate the frontier of cryptographic ownership and decentralised data, it’s up to us to find the balance between preserving the Open Data commons and embracing self-sovereign digital identities.

Thanks

With thanks to Arkinox, Avi, Ben Gunn, Kieran, Blackcoffee, Sebastix, Tomek, Calle, Short Fiat, Ben Weeks and Bitcoms for helping shape my thoughts and refine content, whether you know it or not!

@ c68e2176:4439e6cf

1:1 The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham: 2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers. 3 Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez was the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram. 4 Ram was the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon. 5 Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab, Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse. 6 Jesse was the father of David the king. David was the father of Solomon by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah. 7 Solomon was the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asa. 8 Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah. 9 Uzziah was the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah. 10 Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, and Amon the father of Josiah. 11 Josiah became the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon. 12 After the deportation to Babylon: Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel. 13 Zerubbabel was the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor. 14 Azor was the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud. 15 Eliud was the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob. 16 Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah. 17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations. 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. 20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” 22 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 23 “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.” 24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.1:1 The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham:\ 2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers.\ 3 Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez was the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram.\ 4 Ram was the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon.\ 5 Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab, Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse.\ 6 Jesse was the father of David the king.\ David was the father of Solomon by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah.\ 7 Solomon was the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asa.\ 8 Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah.\ 9 Uzziah was the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah.\ 10 Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, and Amon the father of Josiah.\ 11 Josiah became the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.\ 12 After the deportation to Babylon: Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel.\ 13 Zerubbabel was the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor.\ 14 Azor was the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud.\ 15 Eliud was the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob.\ 16 Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.\ 17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations.\ 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.\ 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.\ 20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.\ 21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”\ 22 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet:\ 23 “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.”\ 24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,\ 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

@ eac63075:b4988b48

Lá na outra rede, o Dov havia feito um post bacana mostrando como usar a Electrum mobile de cold wallet nessa playlist.

Então ao comentar que a minha primeira cold wallet havia sido uma Electrum num notebook velho e formatado só pra isso, algumas pessoas me perguntaram sobre meu setup atual.

Então preparei o seguinte esboço:

No geral é: * Server Umbrel para os nodes * Coldcard e Ledger (coldwallets) * Computador criptografado e celular android com área segura p/ apps

É um caso de uso extremo mas além da auto-soberania e custódia dos meus satoshis, essa estrutura ainda me permite:

• Participar do consenso do Bitcoin
• Auxiliar no roteamento de sats na Lightning Network
• Fazer coinjoin facilmente para aumentar a privacidade

E embora a estrutura pareça complicada, é bastante simples:

• Raspberry Pi 4 com Debian e Umbrel (p/ os nodes e servers)
• Celular antigo android com área segura e sem simcard
• Notebook com storage criptografada
• Ledger Nano X
• Coldcard

E ainda pude evoluir de N.O.I.A. (Network Operator Innovator and Advocate) para M.A. (Minerador Anônimo), com uma Nerdminer pra tentar um ticket da sorte a cada 10 minutos

Não esqueça que uma cold wallet para a auto-custódia pode começar com um computador ou celular velho!

É mais simples do que parece e praticar sua auto-soberania e custódia significa na verdade liberdade e privacidade nesse mundo digital!

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

Build your nostr relay step by step on your MiniBolt node! (easily adaptable to other environment) No need to trust anyone else! Be sovereign!

~> Go to the bonus guide by clicking ~> HERE< ~

~> This guide includes a complete extra section to cover the different processes for using nostr as a user and relay operator.

---

PS: The MiniBolt project has its FREE relay, be free to connect by adding to your favorite client the next address: wss://relay.minibolt.info

~> Let a review on noStrudel or Coracle of your experience using it.

---

Remember, Nostr is freedom! Stay resilient! 💜 🛡️💪

@ da0b9bc3:4e30a4a9

It's Finally here Stackers!

It's Friday!

We're about to kick off our weekends with some feel good tracks.

Let's get the party started. Bring me those Feel Good tracks.

Talk Music. Share Tracks. Zap Sats.

Let's go!

Come up and see me, make me smile!

https://youtu.be/dAoaVU3-ve0?si=JBdfGJhM05Qa_JeT

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/871055

@ 09fbf8f3:fa3d60f0

由于gmail在中国被防火墙拦截了，无法打开，不想错过邮件通知。

通过自建ntfy接受gmail邮件通知。 怎么自建ntfy，后面再写。

---

2024年08月13日更新：

修改不通过添加邮件标签来标记已经发送的通知，通过Google Sheets来记录已经发送的通知。

为了不让Google Sheets文档的内容很多，导致文件变大，用脚本自动清理一个星期以前的数据。

---

准备工具

• Ntfy服务
• Google Script
• Google Sheets

操作步骤

1. 在Ntfy后台账号，设置访问令牌。
2. 添加订阅主题。
3. 进入Google Sheets创建一个表格.记住id，如下图：
4. 进入Google Script创建项目。填入以下代码（注意填入之前的ntfy地址和令牌）：

```javascript function checkEmail() { var sheetId = "你的Google Sheets id"; // 替换为你的 Google Sheets ID var sheet = SpreadsheetApp.openById(sheetId).getActiveSheet();

// 清理一星期以前的数据 cleanOldData(sheet, 7 * 24 * 60); // 保留7天（即一周）内的数据

var sentEmails = getSentEmails(sheet);

var threads = GmailApp.search('is:unread'); Logger.log("Found threads: " + threads.length);

if (threads.length === 0) return;

threads.forEach(function(thread) { var threadId = thread.getId();

if (!sentEmails.includes(threadId)) {
  thread.getMessages().forEach(sendNtfyNotification);
  recordSentEmail(sheet, threadId);
}

}); }

function sendNtfyNotification(email) { if (!email) { Logger.log("Email object is undefined or null."); return; }

var message = `发件人: ${email.getFrom() || "未知发件人"} 主题: ${email.getSubject() || "无主题"}

内容: ${email.getPlainBody() || "无内容"}`;

var url = "https://你的ntfy地址/Gmail"; var options = { method: "post", payload: message, headers: { Authorization: "Bearer Ntfy的令牌" }, muteHttpExceptions: true };

try { var response = UrlFetchApp.fetch(url, options); Logger.log("Response: " + response.getContentText()); } catch (e) { Logger.log("Error: " + e.message); } }

function getSentEmails(sheet) { var data = sheet.getDataRange().getValues(); return data.map(row => row[0]); // Assuming email IDs are stored in the first column }

function recordSentEmail(sheet, threadId) { sheet.appendRow([threadId, new Date()]); }

function cleanOldData(sheet, minutes) { var now = new Date(); var thresholdDate = new Date(now.getTime() - minutes * 60 * 1000); // 获取X分钟前的时间

var data = sheet.getDataRange().getValues(); var rowsToDelete = [];

data.forEach(function(row, index) { var date = new Date(row[1]); // 假设日期保存在第二列 if (date < thresholdDate) { rowsToDelete.push(index + 1); // 存储要删除的行号 } });

// 逆序删除（从最后一行开始删除，以避免行号改变） rowsToDelete.reverse().forEach(function(row) { sheet.deleteRow(row); }); }

```

4.Goole Script需要添加gmail服务，如图：

5.Google Script是有限制的不能频繁调用，可以设置五分钟调用一次。如图：

结尾

本人不会代码，以上代码都是通过chatgpt生成的。经过多次修改，刚开始会一直发送通知，后面修改后将已发送的通知放到一个“通知”的标签里。后续不会再次发送通知。

如需要发送通知后自动标记已读，可以把代码复制到chatgpt给你写。

效果预览：

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

What's changed

A bonus guide to get a quick overview of the system status with the most relevant data about the services on the main guide.

---

➕Additional extra sections (optional) to:

• Show on login
• Get the channel.db size of an old LND bbolt database backend
• Use MobaXterm compatibility version

🔧 GitHub PR related: https://github.com/minibolt-guide/minibolt/pull/97

Σ Dedicated GitHub repository: https://github.com/minibolt-guide/system_overview

---

🫂Acknowledgments

This is a fork of the minibolt_info repository, the main developer of this project is rmnscb, a member of the MiniBolt community, all the merits go to him. Thank you for your contribution 🧡🫂

---

-> CLICK HERE <- to go to the bonus guide

---

Enjoy it MiniBolter! 💙

@ 54286b98:3debc100

Mornings are good; they are better than evenings (except for sunset views).\ Your body is recharged.\ The mind should be more at ease.\ Worries should be fewer, and breakfast is the only meal that is "served all day."

Waking up early—very early—was normal (at least for me) a lifetime ago.\ You get more things done,\ it’s quiet and free of distractions.\ So why don’t we just wake up early anymore?

It would be easy to blame responsibilities and being tired for why we can't wake up earlier,\ but that’s an easy way out.\ I believe we stop trying to beat the sun when two things happen to us:\ We lose a big motivator (being competitive, learning something, getting more done, spiritual time, etc.).\ We fall for comfort and a life without the demands of growth.\ Each one follows the other, like a dog chasing its tail.

Today marks almost day 30 of waking up really early again. I am happier, healthier, more connected with God, learning new things every day, playing my guitar, and writing more.

Until the next one,

J

Get my email newsletter or read my blog at javierfeliu.com (Soon will work on setting up specific #Nostr page.

An independent, publication about crafting beauty in life, family, entrepreneurship, culture, woodworking, and faith, written by Javier Feliu.

@ c3b2802b:4850599c

Im Jahr 2000 hat ein Team von Sozialwissenschaftlern eine Reihe von strukturierten Interviews geführt mit Personen, welche regionale Lösungen zur Nutzung von lokal vorhandener Energie umgesetzt hatten, z.B. die Stromrebellen aus Schönau im Schwarzwald. Wir fragten sie:

Was sind die Besonderheiten Ihres Projekts? Wie haben Sie andere Menschen motiviert und mobilisiert, sich an dem Projekt zu beteiligen? Wie haben Sie andere Menschen überzeugt und wie haben Sie Schwierigkeiten bei der Verfolgung Ihrer Ziele überwunden? Welche Faktoren haben zum Erfolg des Projekts geführt? Welche Rolle spielten die Medien bei der Verbreitung der Idee? Gab es Konsequenzen des kollektiven Handelns für die Gemeinschaft? Gab es Veränderungen im Grad der Identifikation der Menschen mit ihrem Dorf? Hat sich das Gemeinschaftsgefühl während des Projekts verändert?

Wir haben auch erfragt, ob die Befragten mit dem Umstellungsprozess im Dorf zufrieden sind und was sie anders machen würden, wenn sie die Möglichkeit hätten, es noch einmal zu tun. Ziel war es, aus den Erfahrungen aus solchen Projekten zu lernen und diese in unserem Projekt "Energiewendedörfer" anzuwenden. Darüber hinaus haben wir versucht, Gesetzmäßigkeiten zu finden und zu formulieren, die erfolgreiche kollektive Handlungsprozesse im Allgemeinen kennzeichnen.

Unter den in verschiedenen Initiativen wiederholt genannten Erfolgsfaktoren befand sich die Aussage: Wir waren erfolgreich, weil wir uns für und nicht gegen etwas engagiert haben. Wenn das Ziel des Projekts positiv und konstruktiv formuliert wird, führt das weiter als wenn man Gegner, seien es Personen oder Unternehmen benennt, gegen die man zu agieren plant. In Schönau etwa, einem Schwarzwald-Städtchen nannte sich nach dem Tschernobyl-Unfall die die daraus motivierte Initiativgruppe für regionale Energie "Eltern für eine atomenergie-freie Zukunft" und nicht "Eltern gegen die Nuklearenergie". Über dieses Framing der eigenen Aktivitäten wurde zu Beginn der Initiative in Schönau intensiv diskutiert. Man wurde sich einig, dass die PRO-Formulierung eine positive Lebensauffassung stützt, dass die "Pro-Haltung" dahinter Assoziationen zur konstruktiven Konfliktlösung, zu Liebe, zu Hilfe für die Menschen und zur Erhaltung der Natur weckt, während die "Kontra-Haltung" oft einen destruktiven Charakter hat und im besten Falle einen Mißstand erfolgreich bekämpft, aber keine Alternative in die Welt bringt.

Am Erfolg der EWS Schönau, heute einer Genossenschaft mit 13.597 Mitgliedern, lässt sich der Erfolg dieser positiven Einstellung erkennen. Die EWS bietet heute landesweit Energie an, welche nicht auf fossilen Importen beruht sondern die aus Energiequellen in den Regionen unseres Landes gewonnen wird. Das Modell der EWS ist damit ein wesentlicher Baustein der Regionalgesellschaft und stand sicherlich auch Pate bei vielen der ca. 800 Energiegenossenschaften im Land, welche in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten entstanden sind.

Die Anwendung des Erfolgsfaktors PRO statt KONTRA in den eigenen Projekten hat vermutlich zum Erfolg der 200 Energiewendedörfer im Land beigetragen, welche in unseren Teams nach dem Jahr 2000 initiiert worden waren.

Zum Abschluss ein kurzer Blick auf die besondere Situation der vergangenen fünf Jahre. Die Ereignisse seit 2020 haben in Deutschland und auch weltweit eine gewaltige Bewegung gegen die Maßnahmen von Regierungen ausgelöst, welche auf Einschränkung von Menschenrechten sowie medizinische Zwangsmaßnahmen abzielten. Dadurch wurde eine Kontra-Haltung erzwungen für alle Menschen, die den Abbau demokratischer Strukturen sowie Einschränkungen der Verfügung über die eigene Gesundheit nicht zulassen wollten. Hier waren Kontra-Aktivitäten von Montagsspaziergängen bis hin zu Großdemonstrationen sicherlich notwendig und haben möglicherweise Schlimmeres wie einen allgemeinen Impfzwang verhindert.

Dennoch habe ich nach längerer Überlegung die Formulierung oben PRO statt KONTRA belassen. Denn es geht hier um die Psychologie des Wandels hin zur Regionalgesellschaft. Aktivitäten gegen Angriffe auf bisher Erreichtes sind sicher wichtig, sie können sogar in politisch heissen Phasen überlebenswichtig werden. Auch meine Tochter und ich sahen Anfang der 2020er den Bundestag durch den Sprühregen von Wasserwerfern. Doch wenn wir in der Grundhaltung im KONTRA bleiben, wird die gesellschaftliche Evolution hin zu einer fairen Regionalgesellschaft um keinen Deut vorankommen.

Sollten Sie zu denen gehören, die langjährig im Widerstand gegen Angriffe auf die Würde und Rechte der Völker unserer Welt aktiv waren: Mein allergrößter Respekt für Ihr Engagement. Spätestens, wenn Sie ein Ausbrennen Ihrer Energie wahrnehmen - versuchen Sie es einmal mit PRO :-)

Das Titelfoto zeigt Michael Sladek, 2024 verstorbener Initiator der EWS. Danke Michael, für den gewaltigen Impuls, den Du im Kreise der Schönauer Engagierten mit Deinem Lebenswerk der Regionalgesellschaft geschenkt hast.

@ e83b66a8:b0526c2b

The founder of Telegram has just been arrested in France. Charges include lack of cooperation with law enforcement, drug trafficking and fraud.

Aside from Telegram, social media is controlled by two billionaires who decide what you say, are themselves controlled by overbearing governments and make money through advertising and selling your personal data.

There is a different way.

NOSTR stands for Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted on Relays and it is a social media protocol in the same way http is a web protocol.

The protocol is open and anybody can build upon it. It has some fundamental concepts that are very different to existing social media platforms.

Firstly it is decentralised, it runs across relays and anybody can run a relay. They can be open or closed, public or private, free or paid.

Secondly as a user, you don’t have an account, you have a private key which is used to secure your data.

Your profile (account) is yours, you own and control it using your private keys and verified by others with your public key.

Your posts are yours and you can store them on your own relay in your own home or business or you can rely on free public relays or more feature rich paid public relays.

All your public data is signed by your private keys to verify it is you that owns it and all your private data is encrypted so nobody can read it.

Messages (i.e. think NOSTR WhatsApp) are encrypted with your private keys so NOBODY can hack it or listen in, not even the NSA through a companies backdoor. You message other users privately by encrypting messages to them using their public key, which they decrypt using their private key.

Relays store your data in a decentralised network of private and public relays and you discover relays automatically when searching for people or content.

Data is normally sent on the clearnet, but can be relayed across the darknet (Tor) in highly censored regions.

Because it is built using Bitcoin principles and technology, so it has Bitcoin money built in, meaning you actually send / receive money from / to any participant.

As money is built in, the commercial options are different to centralised corporate owned platforms. It would be technically possible to build a platform that supports advertising, however that hasn’t really happened because influencers can be paid directly from their audience in many different ways. Ad hoc tips, subscriptions, pay to view or pay per time models.

The great thing for content creators is that they control, own and keep all the money they make. There is no third party intermediary or merchant deciding whether they are allowed to be paid or not.

NOSTR is censorship resistant, as there is no way to stop anybody publishing anything they want, in the same way nobody can stop or interfere with a Bitcoin payment.

From an end users point of view, if they want to self censor, they can do this in multiple ways. You can mute users individually, or you can choose to use relays that adhere to your views or interests, so if you don’t want to see certain categories of content, you would avoid relays that carry those feeds. You can even run your own relay and curate content that you then charge other like minded users to connect to. You can of course connect to multiple relays for multiple different type of feed.

While NOSTR is a protocol, platforms have to be built to use it, so the first platforms were twitter like clients and they are still very prevalent. However, NOSTR now has clients that emulate most social media platforms, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, Soundcloud, WhatsApp etc. They are even creating their own categories as well as emulating other functions such as Office Suite tools, collaborative calendars, contact lists or e-commerce shops.

If you want to give it a go, the easiest, but not the best, way to get started is download Primal on your phone from here:

https://primal.net/downloads

It will create a private key for you and setup a Bitcoin wallet.

Once you have done this you can visit me here:

nostr:npub1aqakd28d95muqlg6h6nwrvqq5925n354prayckr424k49vzjds4s0c237n

If you want to see a small part of the ecosystem, then visit https://www.nostrapps.com/ where volunteers are listing some of the many apps that exist already.

NOSTR is being backed by Jack Dorsey, Twitter founder, and you can see his account here:

nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m

Or you can see his account like this:

https://primal.net/jack

Edward Snowden is also on the platform and you can find him here:

https://primal.net/Snowden

NOSTR has around 2 million users or public keys, although nobody really knows how many, because it is decentralised and not controlled or run by any person or organisation.

Once you’ve setup Primal, you can use those same private keys to access any platform you wish and you can use a browser extension such as Alby to manage your keys: https://getalby.com/

Primal looks great, but there are other better functioning twitter like clients, probably the most reliable for iPhone is Damus: https://www.nostrapps.com/apps/damus

or Amethyst for Android: https://nostrapps.com/amethyst

The content and user base is very Bitcoin and freedom focused right now, but more and more people are starting to use the various platforms and some are transferring exclusively to it.

Some of the more interesting projects right now are:

https://www.0xchat.com/#/ – Private messaging – think WhatsApp

https://zap.stream/ – Video streaming

https://fountain.fm/ – Podcasting

https://wavlake.com/ – Music streaming

https://shopstr.store/ – Online shop

https://npub.pro/ – Website creation tool

https://nostr.build/ – Media and file storage

https://relay.tools/ – Build and curate your own relay

https://creatr.nostr.wine/subscriptions/new-user – Creator tools

Remember, the same keys you created for Primal can be used across the whole ecosystem.

If you want to see some of the other apps that have been built on the NOSTR protocol visit: https://nostrapps.com/

@ 7460b7fd:4fc4e74b

请看2014年王兴的一场思维碰撞，视频27分钟开始

最后，一个当时无法解决的点：丢失

@ c3b2802b:4850599c

Zwischen 2000 und 2010 war ich mit Teams aus Unis in Göttingen und Kassel mit der Initiierung und wissenschaftlichen Begleitung von 5 Energiewendedörfern im Göttinger Raum aktiv. Unsere Öffentlichkeitsarbeit trug dazu bei, dass das Modell solcher Dörfer in weiteren knapp 200 Dörfern im Land umgesetzt worden ist.

Hier finden Sie unsere Vorschläge, wie der Umbau eines Dorfes hin zu einem “Energiewendedorf“ angepackt werden kann. Wie kann eine Kommune die eigene Energieversorgung von importierten, meist fossilen Energieträgern auf regional verfügbare erneuerbare Energie umstellen? Den folgenden kurzen Beitrag schreibe ich als Appetitmacher für einen ausführlichen Leitfaden, welchen Sie im Netz hier nachschlagen können.

Der Start der Energiewende in einer Kommune ist eine Idee: Die Idee, dass und in welcher Form diese Transformation gelingen könnte. Wenn Sie oder eine Gruppe von Menschen Ihrer Kommune so eine Idee im Kopf haben, kommt es zunächst auf folgende Punkte an:

Sprechen Sie Bekannte/Freunde im Ort auf Ihre Idee hin an. Beginnen Sie damit, Menschen Ihrer Kommune zu kontaktieren, die Sie bereits gut kennen und von denen Sie sich vorstellen können, dass sie Ihrer Idee gegenüber offen sein könnten. Hier ist es noch nicht so wichtig, strategisch an Entscheidungsträger und potentielle MultiplikatorInnen zu denken – das folgt im nächsten Schritt. Hier geht es darum, dass Sie sich vergewissern, dass es im Ort eine Kerngruppe von guten Bekannten gibt, in deren Kreis Sie sich wohlfühlen und mit denen gemeinsam Sie Lust bekommen und Freude verspüren, die folgenden Schritte anzugehen.

Überlegen Sie gemeinsam, für welche Teile Ihrer Vision Experten im Ort vorhanden sind: Z.B. Finanzierung, Technik, Landwirtschaft, Verwaltung, Öffentlichkeitsarbeit. Sprechen Sie diese an. Bilden Sie informelle Arbeitsgruppen, die einzelne Aspekte des Vorhabens genauer checken. Die Gründung eines Energiewendedorfes ist eine Aufgabe, die viele unterschiedliche Kompetenzen fordert. Deshalb ist es empfehlenswert, die Arbeitsschritte in Themenfeldern zu gliedern und nach Möglichkeit Experten und Expertinnen für die einzelnen Bereiche als Unterstützer zu gewinnen. Zu technischen Fragen können ansässige Ingenieursbüros oder private BewohnerInnen mit Fachkenntnissen zurate gezogen werden. Insbesondere genossenschaftlich geführte Banken und deren Vertreter sind in der Regel offen für gemeinsame Projekte und können als mögliche Ansprechpartner zum Thema Finanzierung fungieren. Die Themen Verwaltung und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit lassen sich gut mit den Aufgaben der Kommune verknüpfen, weshalb es sich anbietet, auch die Gemeinde auf eine gemeinsame Projektabwicklung anzusprechen.

Inwieweit ist Bereitschaft der Menschen der Kommune für eine gemeinschaftliche Energieversorgung ausgeprägt? Wie kann man die Bereitschaft, bei dem Vorhaben aktiv mitzuwirken, fördern? Hier gibt es eine Vielzahl möglicher Aktivitäten – von gezielten informellen Gartenzaungesprächen bis zu schriftlichen Einwohnerbefragungen. Wichtig ist es nach unseren Erfahrungen, die Resonanz auf den Funken der Idee, der Vision in der Kommune herauszufinden. Sie können die Chance auf gute Resonanz erheblich steigern, wenn Sie sich die Erfolgsfaktoren bei bereits erfolgreich umgesetzten kommunalen Vorhaben anschauen, zum Beispiel Besuche bei Vorreiter-Kommunen, Einbindung der lokalen Presse oder gemeinsame Feiern.

Sprechen Sie Ihre Gemeinderäte, OrtsvorsteherInnen, BürgermeisterInnen und zuständige VertreterInnen der Kommunalverwaltung an. Stellen Sie die Chancen Ihrer Vision anhand von konkreten Beispielen dar. Um die Kommune einzubinden, ist es hilfreich, wenn Sie in Ihrer Gruppe überlegen, wer zu wem von den Anzusprechenden „einen guten Draht“ hat – und das Erstgespräch führt. Wenn keiner mit der fraglichen Person bekannt ist, informieren Sie sich im Vorfeld über diese Person.

Nun ermitteln Sie den aktuellen Bedarf an Strom, Heizenergie und Treibstoff. Wenn in Ihrer Kommune solche Daten bereits teilweise erhoben werden (z.B. für kommunale Betriebe, Gewerbebetriebe oder für Privathaushalte/-häuser), können Sie diese Daten als Grundstock verwenden. Unbekannte Bereiche sollten Sie schätzen, um einen möglichst genauen Überblick über den aktuellen Energiebedarf  vor Ort zu bekommen.

Was sich einsparen lässt, braucht man gar nicht erst erzeugen. Dieser Gedanke ist vor einem Umbau der Energieversorgung essentiell. Prüfen Sie, welchen Einspareffekt Sie durch Effizienzmaßnahmen (Häuser dämmen, effiziente Haushaltgeräte, neue Transportoptionen) erzielen können. Es dürfen dabei nicht die öffentlichen Gebäude und andere Nichtwohngebäude vergessen werden, da diese häufig noch unsaniert sind und entsprechend hohe Einsparpotenziale liefern. Im Gegensatz zu privaten Gebäuden können hier auf einen Schlag erhebliche Einsparungen erzielt werden. Auch veraltete Anlagentechnik und fehlerhaftes Nutzungsverhalten können den Energieverbrauch stark negativ beeinflussen und sollten untersucht werden.

Stellen Sie die Optionen an erneuerbaren Energien, welche sich bei Ihnen vor Ort bieten, zusammen. In vielen Bereichen kann man mehrere sinnvolle Flächen- oder Potentialnutzungen zusammendenken. Grundsätzlich sollte darauf geachtet werden, Ressourcen zu identifizieren, die nicht in Konkurrenz zu anderen Nutzungen treten. Zum Beispiel bei Bioenergie sollten Sie insbesondere Abfallbiomasse in Betracht ziehen (Details in unseren Handlungsempfehlungen unter "Reststoffe nutzen"). Oder bei Solarenergie sind nicht beschattete und nicht genutzte Südhänge/Dächer ideal.

Für Strom-, Kraftstoff- und Wärmeerzeugung sowie die Verteilung der Energie gibt es jeweils vielfältige Technologien. Hier kommt es darauf an, die für Sie passenden herauszufinden. Diese sollten erprobt, verlässlich und nachhaltig sein. Auch die Verteilung der Energie darf dabei nicht übersehen werden. Aus diversen regionalen Biomassen kann Strom, Wärme und Kraftstoff (für Gasmotoren) erzeugt werden. Diese Verfahren sind praxisreif. Technische oder biologische Anpassungen in der Anlage sind bei schwer vergärbaren Biomassen (z.B. Stroh) notwendig. Wind und PV-Anlagen erzeugen zunächst „nur“ Strom, der über technische Verfahren in Wasserstoff oder Methan umgewandelt werden kann. Auf diese Weise können die Sektoren Strom, Wärme und Verkehr über Verteilnetze verbunden werden. Diese Verfahren werden in Pilotanlagen getestet und zeigen die technische Machbarkeit auf. Die wirtschaftliche Machbarkeit ist z. Z. noch nicht gegeben und die Technik ist ebenfalls noch nicht „Stand der Technik“. In selbstverwalteten Dorfprojekten sollten nur solche Techniken zur Anwendung kommen, die erprobt (Stand der Technik), verlässlich und nachhaltig sind.

Wirtschaftlichkeit berechnen. Hier geht es einerseits um die einmaligen Kosten bei Anschaffung und Bau der Anlagenbestandteile, andererseits um die Abschätzung der Wirtschaftlichkeit nach Start der Anlagen. Um sich an aktuelle Kosten und Wirtschaftlichkeitsdaten heranzutasten, empfiehlt es sich, Kontakt mit anderen Kommunen aufzunehmen, welche bereits EE-Anlagen errichtet haben, die mit Ihren Plänen vergleichbar sind. Fragen Sie die InitiatorInnen oder derzeit Verantwortlichen nach diesen Daten – und nach ihrer Zufriedenheit mit den Anlagen! Manche Kommunen, die bereits erfolgreich Projekte umgesetzt haben, bieten auch Beratungen an. In der Regel kann eine solche Beratung auch gefördert werden.

Für eine erfolgreiche Umsetzung Ihres Projektes ist es wichtig, eine zuverlässige Finanzierung zu gewährleisten. Bei der Wahl der passenden Bank sollten dabei nicht nur die günstigsten Konditionen ausschlaggebend sein. Die Finanzierung von neuen Infrastruktur- und Energieanlagen beruht in der Regel aus einem Mix aus Eigenanteilen (z.B. Genossenschaftseinlagen), Krediten und Finanzierung aus Förderprogrammen. 

Nun ist die Gründung einer Vorgesellschaft mit geeigneter Rechtsform zu empfehlen, welche die Lieferverträge für Ressourcen sowie die Vorverträge für die Abnahme von Energieprodukten organisiert und zum Abschluss bringt. Da zu diesem Zeitpunkt die endgültige Entscheidung für den Bau der Energieanlagen noch nicht getroffen werden kann, ist eine Vorgesellschaft empfehlenswert, welche bei positivem Ausgang dieses Schrittes von der Betreibergesellschaft abgelöst wird.

Bei der Entwurfsplanung stehen Überlegungen zum Unternehmensrisiko sowie zur Rechtsform der Betreibergesellschaft im Mittelpunkt. Die Vorgesellschaft wird dann von einer Betreibergesellschaft abgelöst, z.B. in Form einer Genossenschaft oder GmbH. Die Entwurfsplanung legt die technischen Grundlagen für den Genehmigungsantrag sowie die Art der Ausschreibung fest. Technische Aspekte wie z.B. Bereitstellung der Biomasse, Auslegung der Wärmeverteilung und nicht technische Aspekte wie Kapitalbedarf, Wirtschaftlichkeit, Terminplan werden konkretisiert. Weitere Punkte sind die bautechnische Planung wie Kauf- oder Packverträge für benötigte Grundstücke, Grunddienstbarkeiten für die Energietrasse und die Verhandlung über Verträge zur Biomasselieferung und zur Energieabnahme. Für die Wahl der Rechtsform sollten Sie ausreichend Zeit einplanen, um die Vor- und Nachteile der jeweiligen Möglichkeiten gut einzuschätzen. Gegebenenfalls können dabei der Genossenschaftsverband, Juristen oder andere externe Berater herangezogen werden.

Die Betreibergesellschaft reicht den Bauantrag bei den zuständigen Behörden ein. Es empfiehlt sich, bereits geraume Zeit vor dem Zeitpunkt der Einreichung mit den Behörden Kontakt aufzunehmen, den Antrag anzukündigen und Vorabinformationen über Schwerpunkte der Antragsprüfung und lokale/rechtliche aktuelle Besonderheiten einzuholen.

Nach Genehmigung der Bauarbeiten kann überlegt werden, ob/welche der auszuführenden Arbeiten in Eigenregie übernommen werden können. Die anderen Arbeiten sind auszuschreiben und entsprechende Firmen werden nach Erfahrung und Kostengesichtspunkten ausgewählt.

Hurra, es wird gebaut. Hier wünschen wir Ihnen, dass alles planmäßig und mit wenig unvorhergesehenen Ereignissen abläuft.

Wenn Energieüberschüsse aus Ihrem Dorf in die Region abgegeben werden können, empfiehlt es sich, in der eigenen Region neue Gesellschaften zu gründen, welche die Verteilung und Vermarktung der EE-Energieflüsse in der Region übernehmen. Da für die Verbraucher zunehmend auch eine regionale Herkunft des Stroms wichtig wird, kann eine Vermarktung der Überschüsse in der Region attraktiv sein. Eine Betreibergesellschaft vor Ort stärkt dabei das Vertrauen der Kunden und hält die Wertschöpfung in der Region.

Der stetige Wandel hin zu regionaler Energieerzeugung steigert die Bedeutsamkeit von Stromnetzen in den niederen Spannungsebenen. Gehen diese in das Eigentum der Dörfer und Städte zurück, kann dieser Strukturwandel besser unterstützt werden. Erwerben also Dörfer und Städte die Konzessionen für diese Netze, können diese besser an den notwendigen Strukturwandel mit erneuerbaren Energien angepasst werden, da nun nicht mehr ausschließlich die Gewinnmaximierung im Vordergrund steht, sondern auch regionale und lokale Aspekte der Nachhaltigkeit im Geschäftsalltag stärker berücksichtigt werden. 

Sind Sie neugierig geworden auf weitere Details, Links zu konkreten Dörfern in Ihrer Region, die schon umgebaut haben? Dann schauen Sie auf die Plattform dieser Dörfer, wo Sie u.a. auf einer Landkarte alle Dörfer finden mit konkreten Infos. Viele dieser Dörfer sind genossenschaftlich organisiert. So können Sie nach Kontakt mit einigen solcher Dörfer abschätzen, welche konkreten Konstellationen sich bewährt haben und ggf. für Ihr Vorhaben gut passen.

Viel Erfolg wünscht Ihnen Peter Schmuck

@ da0b9bc3:4e30a4a9

Hello Stackers!

Welcome on into the ~Music Corner of the Saloon!

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

So stay a while and listen.

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

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

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/870889

@ a012dc82:6458a70d

Bitcoin, as the pioneering cryptocurrency, heralded a new era in digital finance. It offered an innovative payment system, free from the control of traditional financial institutions and governments. This decentralized nature was a significant draw for many early adopters. Bitcoin Cash emerged from a split in the Bitcoin blockchain, a result of deep-seated disagreements within the Bitcoin community over its scalability and transaction processing efficiency. This split was not just technical but also ideological, marking a significant moment in the history of cryptocurrencies.

Table Of Content

• The Genesis of Bitcoin Cash

• Technological Divergence: Block Size and Scalability

• Segregated Witness (SegWit) and Bitcoin

• Market Impact and Adoption

• Transaction Processing: Speed and Fees

• The Forks and Future Directions

• Usability and Real-World Applications

• Supply Dynamics

• Bitcoin Cash as a Medium of Exchange

• Conclusion

• FAQs

The Genesis of Bitcoin Cash

The creation of Bitcoin Cash in 2017 was a pivotal event in the cryptocurrency world. It was a direct response to the growing concerns over Bitcoin's ability to handle an increasing volume of transactions. The proponents of Bitcoin Cash argued that changes were necessary to fulfill the original vision of a fast, scalable, and low-cost digital payment system. This led to the hard fork, a move that created a new blockchain with different rules, fundamentally diverging from the original Bitcoin protocol.

Technological Divergence: Block Size and Scalability

The debate over block size is central to the divergence between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin's original 1 MB block size was seen as a significant bottleneck, leading to slower transaction times and higher fees during peak usage. In contrast, Bitcoin Cash's decision to increase the block size to 8 MB and later to 32 MB was a bold move aimed at addressing these issues. This increase was a fundamental shift, intended to allow more transactions per block and, consequently, faster processing and lower fees.

Segregated Witness (SegWit) and Bitcoin

The implementation of Segregated Witness (SegWit) in Bitcoin was a landmark technological upgrade. SegWit aimed to optimize the space within each block by segregating the digital signature information, which accounts for a significant portion of the data in a transaction. This was a sophisticated solution to the scalability issue, differing fundamentally from Bitcoin Cash's approach of simply increasing the block size. SegWit represented a philosophical as well as a technical divergence in the approach to scaling Bitcoin.

Market Impact and Adoption

The market dynamics of Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash tell a story of divergent paths. Bitcoin, with its higher market capitalization, remains the more dominant and widely recognized cryptocurrency. Its position as the first and most established cryptocurrency has given it a significant advantage in terms of adoption and market presence. Bitcoin Cash, while substantial in its market cap, has not reached the same level of market penetration. This difference in market impact reflects the varying degrees of acceptance and trust among investors and users in the cryptocurrency community.

Transaction Processing: Speed and Fees

The practical implications of the differences between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are most evident in transaction processing. Bitcoin Cash, with its larger block size, theoretically offers faster transaction times and lower fees, making it more suitable for frequent, small transactions. However, the actual efficiency gains of Bitcoin Cash are subject to debate, as the network has not been tested under the same transaction volume as Bitcoin. This difference in transaction processing capabilities is a critical factor in the user's choice between the two cryptocurrencies.

The Forks and Future Directions

The evolution of Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash is marked by continuous development and occasional forks. The creation of Bitcoin SV from Bitcoin Cash is an example of ongoing disagreements within the community about the best path forward. These forks are not just technical events but also represent differing visions and philosophies within the cryptocurrency community. They reflect the dynamic and often contentious nature of the development of blockchain technology and its applications.

Usability and Real-World Applications

In terms of real-world usability, Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash cater to slightly different needs. Bitcoin's widespread recognition and higher value make it more popular as a digital asset for investment. In contrast, Bitcoin Cash, with its focus on transaction efficiency, aims to be more practical for everyday transactions. However, the actual adoption of Bitcoin Cash for daily transactions has been slower than anticipated, partly due to the entrenched position of Bitcoin and the rapidly evolving landscape of digital payments.

Supply Dynamics The supply mechanics of both Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash mirror the principles of scarcity and controlled supply inflation. This approach is akin to precious metals, where the limited supply is a key factor in value preservation. The halving events, where the reward for mining new blocks is halved approximately every four years, are critical moments in the life cycle of both cryptocurrencies. These events are closely watched by investors and users alike, as they have implications for the supply and, potentially, the value of these digital currencies.

Bitcoin Cash as a Medium of Exchange

Bitcoin Cash's design as a medium of exchange is one of its defining features. It aims to provide a digital equivalent of cash, facilitating quick and low-cost transactions. This focus on usability for everyday transactions is a key differentiator from Bitcoin, which has become more of a store of value or "digital gold." The success of Bitcoin Cash in this regard depends on broader adoption and recognition, which is an ongoing challenge in the competitive landscape of digital currencies.

Conclusion The story of Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash is a fascinating chapter in the evolution of digital currencies. Both emerged from the same origin but have since traveled distinct paths, shaped by differing philosophies, technological choices, and community dynamics. As the cryptocurrency landscape continues to evolve, the trajectories of Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash will offer valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities of blockchain technology and digital finance.

FAQs

What is the main difference between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash? The primary difference lies in their block size. Bitcoin has a block size of 1 MB, while Bitcoin Cash increased its block size initially to 8 MB and later to 32 MB, aiming for faster transaction processing and scalability.

Why was Bitcoin Cash created? Bitcoin Cash was created in 2017 due to a split in the Bitcoin community. The split occurred over disagreements on how to scale the network, with Bitcoin Cash proponents advocating for larger block sizes to improve transaction speed and reduce fees.

Can Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash be used interchangeably? No, they are separate cryptocurrencies with different blockchains. They cannot be used interchangeably.

Is Bitcoin Cash faster than Bitcoin? Theoretically, yes. Due to its larger block size, Bitcoin Cash can process transactions faster than Bitcoin. However, the actual speed can vary based on network congestion and usage.

That's all for today

If you want more, be sure to follow us on:

NOSTR: croxroad@getalby.com

X: @croxroadnews.co

Instagram: @croxroadnews.co

Youtube: @croxroadnews

Store: https://croxroad.store

Subscribe to CROX ROAD Bitcoin Only Daily Newsletter

https://www.croxroad.co/subscribe

DISCLAIMER: None of this is financial advice. This newsletter is strictly educational and is not investment advice or a solicitation to buy or sell any assets or to make any financial decisions. Please be careful and do your own research.

@ 42342239:1d80db24

Preparedness is a hot topic these days. In Europe, Poland has recently introduced compulsory lessons in weapons handling for schoolchildren for war-preparedness purposes. In Sweden, the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) has recently published the brochure on what to do "If crisis or war comes".

However, in the event of war, a country must have a robust energy infrastructure. Sweden does not seem to have this, at least judging by the recent years' electricity price turbulence in southern Sweden. Nor does Germany. The vulnerabilities are many and serious. It's hard not to be reminded of a Swedish prime minister who, just eleven years ago, saw defense as a special interest.

A secure food supply is another crucial factor for a country's resilience. This is something that Sweden lacks. In the early 1990s, nearly 75 percent of the country's food was produced domestically. Today, half of it must be imported. This makes our country more vulnerable to crises and disruptions. Despite our extensive agricultural areas, we are not even self-sufficient in basic commodities like potatoes, which is remarkable.

The government's signing of the Kunming-Montreal Framework for Biological Diversity two years ago risks exacerbating the situation. According to the framework, countries must significantly increase their protected areas over the coming years. The goal is to protect biological diversity. By 2030, at least 30% of all areas, on land and at sea, must be conserved. Sweden, which currently conserves around 15%, must identify large areas to be protected over the coming years. With shrinking fields, we risk getting less wheat, fewer potatoes, and less rapeseed. It's uncertain whether technological advancements can compensate for this, especially when the amount of pesticides and industrial fertilizers must be reduced significantly.

In Danish documents on the "roadmap for sustainable development" of the food system, the possibility of redistributing agricultural land (land distribution reforms) and agreements on financing for restoring cultivated land to wetlands (the restoration of cultivated, carbon-rich soils) are discussed. One cannot avoid the impression that the cultivated areas need to be reduced, in some cases significantly.

The green transition has been a priority on the political agenda in recent years, with the goal of reducing carbon emissions and increasing biological diversity. However, it has become clear that the transition risks having consequences for our preparedness.

One example is the debate about wind power. On the one hand, wind power is said to contribute to reducing carbon emissions and increasing renewable energy. On the other hand, it is said to pose a security risk, as wind turbines can affect radio communication and radar surveillance.

Of course, it's easy to be in favor of biological diversity, but what do we do if this goal comes into conflict with the needs of a robust societal preparedness? Then we are faced with a difficult prioritization. Should we put the safety of people and society before the protection of nature, or vice versa?

“Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable” said J. K. Galbraith, one of the most influential economists of the 20th century. Maybe we can’t both eat the cake and have it too?

@ 266815e0:6cd408a5

Projects

noStrudel

• Added support for creating, viewing, and editing Wiki pages
• Added NIP-42 Auth support
• Added support for @snort/worker-relay (WASM SQLite relay) thanks to nostr:npub1v0lxxxxutpvrelsksy8cdhgfux9l6a42hsj2qzquu2zk7vc9qnkszrqj49 for building the library
• Added support for uploading files to Blossom servers
• Added support for restoring broken images using users Blossom servers
• Added support for using Citrine as local cache relay on mobile
• Fixes and improvement for NIP-46 support to work better with Amber
• Replaced all proprietary relay code with nostr-tools
• Added Task Manager for debugging and better insight under the hood

Blossom

• Rewrote and organized the spec into a simpler core spec and multiple optional specs ( BUDs )
• Setup awesome-blossom repo for tracking Blossom implementations
• Rebuilt blossom-server and added a simple admin dashboard
• Added fancy landing page to blossom-server for uploading and mirror blobs
• Improved documentation for blossom-server-sdk ( A TS library with components for building a blossom server )
• Improved documentation and lots of small fixes for blossom-client-sdk ( A TS library to help nostr clients interact with Blossom servers )

Plans for Q3

Hopefully this isn't too ambitious and I can finish at least half of these ideas

noStrudel

• Finish building out wiki features (author profiles, better editing and fork UI)
• Overhaul user profile view to show more recent activity and make it easier to see what a user has been doing
• Continue experimenting with WebRTC relays
• Build a profile picture cashing service that resizes and stores images on Blossom servers and publishes nostr events for interoperability
• Add support for .i2p and .onion relays when noStrudel is installed on Umbrel or Start9

Blossom

• Write up spec for a media optimization endpoint
• Build an example media optimization endpoint in blossom-server
• Collaborate on support for payments in blossom server spec

Other stuff

• Build a proof of concept Web-of-Trust based username search
• Other secret projects...

@ df67f9a7:2d4fc200

Anyone who thinks that “onboarding new users” is simply a technical challenge of educating people about “how Nostr works”, is grossly mistaken about social networks in general and blind to what makes Nostr so special.

Social Networks are for Friends

Relationship building is why people use social networks. Connecting with friends and loved ones (and colleagues and customers also) is the obvious reason to join, and should be the primary objective in any onboarding endeavor. Everything else “about the technology” only needs to be introduced “as needed” in order for each new user to achieve this goal.

The Nostr Network Requires Trusted Friendships

To thrive at scale, Nostr needs to have established and interconnected “webs of trusted friends” for “verifying” authentic profiles and quality content. This PgP strategy for decentralized trust implemented on Nostr, is the best way to keep bots and bad actors at bay while preserving freedom and sovereignty for every user. Even though Nostr still doesn’t have a standard for determining who “is trusted” for any one user across all clients, we can already build tools to onboard new friends of the highest quality trust. Leveraging existing relationships, “webs of trust” can be strengthened even at this early stage simply by advocates “inviting friends to Nostr”.

Nostr is New and Already Full of Trusted Friends

But it won’t be for long. Bots and bad actors are relatively “easy” to keep at bay today because the Nostr userbase is still small. People who come to Nostr and STAY have mostly been a self selecting group of “freedom tech fans”. We like it this way, and are generally happy to be here. The comraderie is refreshing. But the more people that come to Nostr, the more Nostr will attract different kinds of people.

This is already happening. Nostr is growing at the edges, reaching out beyond the “freedom tech fans” and attracting a number of “less committed” (and some nefarious) individuals here and there. Who sticks around? The “friends of freedom tech fans” stick around longer because they have friends here. WAY BEFORE even considering how “the network effect” will take over, Nostr needs to solve for retention by bringing more “trusted friends” into the network. Social onboarding tools will allow us to share Nostr to “friends of freedom tech fans” and beyond, establishing interconnected “webs of trust” that are increasingly impermeable to bots and bad actors.

Nostr is Freedom Tech that People Want to Share

Creators and influencers of every kind share Nostr (and Nostr content) every day. This phenomenon is a gold mine for onboarding, and can be supported with tools and incentives. Driven by the fact that Nostr is an open protocol, owned by nobody and available for anybody to build upon and profit from, the passion for sharing Nostr will never wane. But our userbase may fall off, if people become disenchanted by undesirable content or lack of good follows. This is why onboarding efforts, to attract more “friends” to the network, are so important. Leveraging the “share worthy” phenomenon of Nostr itself to grow Nostr’s networks of “trusted friends” seems like a no brainer. But for this strategy to work, it needs to be win win win for all parties.

Everybody Wins with More Trusted Users on Nostr

Even as standards for qualifying trust are still being refined, “social onboarding” increases the ratio of “more” trusted over “less” trusted users across the network.

Developers Win

With more trusted users on the network, Nostr developers win by being able to attract an increasingly diverse range of business partners to sponsor their projects.

Sponsors Win

An increase in trusted usership equates to more “real people” perusing “desired content” and more chances for brands to engage “organically” with target audiences. Marketing opportunities increase with trust.

Advocates Win

Simply by sharing Nostr with their friends, Advocates support the sustained growth of trust across the network. Valuable zap reward programs to incentivize high quality onboarding efforts are easily justified and funded by social onboarding clients and their sponsors.

Users Win

More trusted users across the network means more trustworthy content in every feed and more easily discoverable friends and new follows regardless of the client or algorithm used.

Nostr Wins

More trusted users on the network means more “high quality” trust connections between each user. Strong webs of trust is what keeps out bots and bad actors, and is essential for stability as Nostr scales.

Social Onboarding Clients Bring Trust to Nostr

Having more tools for “sharing Nostr with friends” is how Nostr wins. Any client can have capacity for “Social Onboarding”. This may be a dedicated onboarding client or a feature set within a social client. A client that offers “Social Onboarding” will support Nostr advocates and the users that they invite. These should have the following feature set :

• Nostr advocates may create and share any number of customizable “Nostr invites” for different audiences or occasions. Each may have different reccomendations, or access codes, or expiry options. (A NIP is in the works)
• Nostr invite QR codes (and shareable URLs) should resolve to a WEB based interface for prospective (and existing) users who MAY NOT have a client or browser extension already installed.
• Each invite should (within the onboarding client) provide access to low friction profile creation AND advocate reccomended lists of new friends, interest groups, preferred clients, best relays, and other stuff.
• Private key generation and management for new users should be handled entirely within the onboarding client (using NIP standards without a browser extension or external bunker app) to reduce friction at this crucial moment.
• A human readable Nostr address (NIP05 or some future NIP) should be generated automatically for all new users.
• New account creation should result immediately in a direct message or group thread of private “gift wrap” encrypted messages. This thread acts as the new user’s “first contact” with the advocate (possibly others as well) and an anchor for exploring the rest of Nostr.
• Invite “receipt” data (who invited who) should be “gift wrap” encrypted, accessible only to the advocate and new user. Clients wishing to use this data for analytics MAY request access from BOTH parties.
• Top Advocates may be calculated by the client (using data from invite receipts OR from public Nostr usage metrics), and awards may be offered.
• Advocates may also be supported by the client through access to private “advocate support” groups and communities over the Nostr network.

Support Social Onboarding for Nostr

Meet Me On Nostr is an app for sharing Nostr with friends via advocate invites. It is a reference client to demonstrate the power of Social Onboarding for Nostr. The first launch of "feature complete" client is expected in fall 2024.

This is a “bootstrap” funded project in active development. We are not grant funded or VC funded. Instead, we are looking to pay our developers by sponsorships from “Nostr adjacent” businesses who want to increase brand recognition over this new social network.

Is Your Business Nostr Adjacent?

“I’d like to advertise on Nostr but it’s “not quite ready” says our marketing team.”

“It has potential, and we have alignment, but the technology is still a bit rough.”

“Nostr is a perfect fit for our “target audience”, but there simply aren’t enough people using it.”

If your business is aligned with freedom technology, and the people who build and use Nostr, then NOW is the perfect time to sponsor Social Onboarding. Help grow Nostr’s base of trusted users and engage directly with Nostr’s most active advocates and influencers as it scales.

Release Nostr’s Superpower

When Nostr advocates are equipped and incentivized to share Nostr with their friends, nothing can stop this network from growing and growing and growing ever more secure and interconnected networks of trusted users.

Onboarding and retaining trusted users as Nostr scales will require so much more than just pointing people to “how Nostr works” content. Nostr’s true power lies dormant in the existing relationships that Nostr users already have outside of Nostr. Leveraging this power is what Social Onboarding is all about. Social Onboarding is Nostr’s superpower.

Contribute to the Geyser Fund

@ 5188521b:008eb518

Photo by Pavel Danilyuk

In the last four years, I’ve ridden the wave of social media. I’ve amassed thousands of followers, and my posts were read by millions.

It’s empowering… until it isn’t.

This year, I chose to stop publishing on LinkedIn, Medium, Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. My reach on each of these platforms dropped from 100% of my follower base to around 10%. My voice was being suppressed.

I wasn’t writing anything particularly controversial. This is all just part of the social media life cycle. Platforms offer attractive terms to lock in users. They distribute our articles, posts, and thoughts widely to attract eyeballs for advertisers.

Writers learn to play the algorithm to maximise reach and engagement. Maybe they even manage to monetize their writing.

But when the platforms reach what they deem to be maximum usage and membership, they begin to reduce the benefits on offer. They ask writers to focus on specific topics, suppress non-mainstream opinion, or punish or ban any writers who don’t follow new rules. Big tech companies always eventually turn on the money tap by forcing users to suffer endless adverts and even make writers pay to reach the audience they have built.

Newsflash: there is no company too big to fail. Digg, Google+, Myspace, Vine and many more socials have died. Self-reported active user numbers cannot be trusted. Meta recently trialed AI profiles to prop up falling usage projections on Instagram and Facebook. X is now a dumpster fire of bots, scammers, and rage bait. It has been co-opted by a megalomaniacal oligarch to spread his own worldview. And LinkedIn feeds are drowning in unsolicited AI-generated business twaddle. The social giants are entering the death spiral.

What happens in a social-media death spiral?

Users don’t see the value in posting, so they move elsewhere.

I wasn’t feeling rewarded for the thousands of hours I spent on LinkedIn, so I quit. I went from earning $20+ an article on Medium to pennies. Literal pennies. Bye bye, Tony Stubblebine. I learned that if you don’t own the distribution mechanic, you get left writing into the wind.

Ultimately, writers will dedicate their energy to where they see a benefit. They should spend time and create value in the place most similar to their ideal world.

For writers in 2025, that place seems to be Substack. Open rates are high and the platform is adding social features to generate more engagement in app. Substack is experiencing massive growth in active (and paid) subscriptions. Yet, it is following the same pattern as Medium in and LinkedIn in become self-cannibalising. Many of the most popular accounts write about ‘how to grow’ or ‘how to make money’ on Substack. Queue the eye rolls.

For me, it’s not the promised land where writers can earn a living. Of course, it’s no walk in the park to earn paid subscribers. Further, Substack users can only receive payment via Stripe. This excludes writers from 149 of the World’s countries. Does that seem open and fair to you?

Even with all this going on, there is a much bigger factor that should influence your choice of platform — ownership.

Do writers really own their words?

Who reads the terms and conditions? Nobody. That’s who.Writers (including me) rush to all platforms which promise to give us benefits such as pay, distribution, and audience growth.

In exchange, companies request access to and shared ownership of our content. They can use our words to train LLMs, analyse trends, repurpose, and to spy on us.

Governments can and will request access to social media profiles. They seek to control the use of those platforms. Founders and CEOs who refuse to comply may be held personally accountable and put on trial, just as Telegram founder, Pavel Durov, was in France. Big tech owns our content, and governments threaten platforms into obedience.

As much as it benefits society to suppress harmful or dangerous content, companies simply can’t be censors 24/7. Growing platforms like Bluesky are already struggling to moderate content effectively. Without a strong economic incentive to moderate, companies will simply refuse to do it (as long as the threat of criminal charges does not prevail).

To sum up: No privately owned social media network offers writers the opportunity to own and distribute their work in order to receive a fair and equitable benefit.

Enter NOSTR…

Decentralizing Social Media

Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays (NOSTR) is not a platform; it’s an open protocol.

By signing messages with their private keys (a long string of characters), users generate “events”. These events (messages/updates/media/transactions) are then broadcast through a series of “relays.”

Developers can use the protocol to build various applications that retrieve and distribute these events to other users. These ‘clients’ can range from microblogging sites like X and long-form distributors like Substack to visual media platforms like Instagram. Plus, NOSTR is also a whole lot more than that (but this is a topic for another day).

Decentralized tools offer the only hope against the dominance of AI and big tech in a top-down autocratic system designed to control us more than the thought police ever could.

Diagram courtesy of River.

So why should writers opt out of their big audience pool to write on some ‘protocol’?

Ownership, fair rules, and fair value.

• Ownership:

While privately run corporations can suppress the ideas they want, NOSTR provides a censorship-resistant alternative. No individual actors can restrict content or accounts.

Your private keys provide permanent access to the messages you have signed. No one else has access to them. And while some clients provide a delete function, there is no way to force all relays to respect a delete request. Not only do writers own what they publish, but it’s a permanent record.

• Rules:

Traditional social media platforms use proprietary algorithms to curate and order our feeds. NOSTR has no algorithm. NOSTR clients display messages chronologically or based on user-defined criteria, removing the influence of opaque algorithms that could manipulate user engagement and visibility of posts.

Put simply, distribution and consumption is down to the user, not to the creator or the platform. And everyone works to the same rules.

• Value:

Harmful content and spam affect all of us. There is no way to stop malicious content from being published on NOSTR, but two factors control its consumption.

1. Clients are experimenting with strategies such as requiring proof-of-work with each note or requiring verification badges.
2. Quality control is enforced by the value transferred by the protocol.

Bitcoin micropayments have become the monetary lifeblood flowing in the decentralized world. The ability to ‘zap’ users actual monetary value (e.g. a few cents) provides a clear display of which messages are valuable and which are unwanted. In time, as more users adopt the mechanic of value transfer, spammers will see their approach is not bearing fruit.

The beauty of using bitcoin in this way is twofold. Firstly, it is truly equitable — anyone in the world can receive it instantly and it cannot be stopped. And the system of frictionless micropayments offers content creators (artists, podcasters, musicians, writers) a way to earn money for the value they produce. Put simply, this could save creativity from doom.

Think people still want all content for free? Think again. Try zapping a writer from the Philippines, an artist from Peru, a Congolese musician, or a poet from Poland to show them you enjoyed what they produced. THAT is truly empowering.

Not convinced?

The best thing about NOSTR for writers is that you are early.

By being an early adopter with a low time preference, you can build a sizeable audience as new users discover the protocol.

Of course, topics like bitcoin, freedom tech, and privacy are well covered, but if you write in another niche, you could be ‘quids in’.

Conclusion:

By adopting a long-term strategy and sticking to their principles, readers, writers and all other creatives can build a better world on social media. It doesn’t matter that it is imperfect. There will always be flaws in any society. But decentralized protocols like NOSTR can offer writers what they truly want — ownership, fair rules, and fair value.

---

Philip Charter is a totally human writer who helps bitcoin-native companies and clients stack major gains through laser-focused content. Find out more at totallyhumanwriter.com

He is also the editor of the cypherpunk and freedom fiction project, 21 Futures.

@ 826e9f89:ffc5c759

_Prologue: this is a prose adaptation of a talk I gave to a private audience in Dubai and then tweaked slightly for a small conference in Sofia. I'm increasingly thinking it deserves a more general audience, and may be better suited to text anyway. This is probably not its final form, as the desired audience is tradfi capital allocators, hence a PDF is likely on the cards in the near future. For the time being, consider this a first draft, practising what it might look like as prose, and soliciting feedback from the good people of Nostr. Enjoy! _

The title of this essay means absolutely nothing. There is no such thing as “Web π” because there is no such thing as “Web 3”. It’s bullshit. It’s a scam.

Unfortunately, it has turned out to be extremely powerful bullshit and an extremely profitable scam, and so my goal in writing this essay is to give the reader the tools to navigate all of this and come out the other side without having been scammed or bullshat. In the spirit of not scamming and not bullshitting, I should be clear upfront about the intended readership of this essay, who I am to write it, and who it’s really about.

Who Are You?

I assume the reader is not a shadowy super-coder, but rather is a financial professional. This essay isn’t really for Bitcoiners, although if any read it, I hope they still find it interesting. Who I am really writing for are people coming to the space for the first time. Hopefully in your mind you are coming to the _Bitcoin _space, but if you think you are coming to the “crypto” space then this may be even more useful.

Who Am I?

I am the founder of a company that makes me not only highly biased but also flagrantly self-interested in the content I am promoting. I run a firm that invests in the Bitcoin ecosystem through a variety of different vehicles. I am not going to mislead you in the slightest in that my primary motivation is for you to allocate capital to us rather than to people I would call scammers and bullshitters. You should listen to them too and make up your own mind, or else what’s the point, really? How do you know I’m not scamming or bullshitting you? Exactly. Don’t trust. Verify.

In any case, that’s all assuming you want to “allocate capital” at all rather than just buy Bitcoin without a management fee. I’d like to think the primary difference is that I will be honest about that, and I’ll encourage you to understand as much as you can about what is going on and what you are doing (and if you are at all unsure, I would suggest you aren’t ready and you should just buy Bitcoin and learn) rather than bamboozle you with complete nonsense like “Web 3”.

Who Is This About?

It’s not at all about people working in crypto. Bitcoiners amongst the readership may be mildly irritated by me going on to give about as charitable an explanation of the role of these people as they have probably ever heard from somebody like me. This is really about financiers. It’s about the people who have used the mostly unrewarded efforts of developers, academics, entrepreneurs, and so on to siphon money from you to themselves, leaving a trail of useless tech and defrauded retail investors in their wake – and who will continue to do so if you continue to empower them.

Why This Essay?

We are at an interesting point in the development of the entirety of the “crypto” industry and I strongly suggest that people like you are going to be pitched all kinds of scams and bullshit in the coming months and years. If you have a little more background on what these people are really talking about, you will hopefully be able to avoid it.

My plan to help with that is presenting a short version and a long version of what blockchains are and are for, how they have historically been deployed in service of scams and bullshit, a high-level theory explaining the narrative evolution behind this sorry history, and a prediction for the near-term future of such shenanigans.

What is a Blockchain For?

A Blockchain is for sound, censorship-resistant, peer-to-peer digital money. It is not for anything else. If a blockchain is functional as money, it may be possible to also _use it _for other things. Some people find that interesting, some people find it infuriating, but don’t let that subtlety confuse you. It is not _for _arbitrary computation and storage or “decentralizing the internet” or running illegal securities rackets.

It is for money, plain and simple.

How does it achieve that? Proof of work and the difficulty adjustment. These are the innovations from which every other desirable property or feature flows. Proof of work enables censorship resistance. If somebody is trying to sell you on “proof of stake”: bullshit. The difficulty adjustment enables precise, predetermined, and _fair _issuance. If somebody is trying to sell you on a token they issue for free and without restriction: scam.

The problem Bitcoin solves is both economic and technical and the solution has material technical and economic merit. And it’s for this very specific and irreplicable reason the Bitcoin token has value. If this all sounds extreme to you, then I would suggest that your understanding of the topic is _extremely _misguided, that you are going to be _extremely bullshat and extremely scammed, _and you need to read this essay. That’s the short version.

The Long Version

I am sensitive to how extreme this all sounds. After all, hundreds of billions of dollars have been pumped into crypto, not Bitcoin – a huge amount of it is widely used, and many capable, honest, and brilliant people work in the industry. The reader will recall just above I said those people are not the target of my criticism. I’m not claiming they are all scammers and bullshitters. Sadly, I think it’s more likely they have been scammed and bullshat to some degree also.

I think I have some credibility in pointing this out because, as a VC in the Bitcoin space, I have increasingly seen founders telling me this themselves: that they originally bought into the hype in crypto and ended up wasting an enormous amount of time realizing their idea made no technical or economic sense in that context, so then they came to Bitcoin instead. You hear this one time and it’s an anecdote, but you hear it as many times as I have and it feels more like a representative sample.

What I want to cover next is as charitable a summary of the state of ex-Bitcoin crypto as I possibly can: my contention is that crypto has evolved into 4 rough categories: stablecoins, cryptography R&D, gambling, and scams. And these aren’t exclusive, to be clear; there is a lot of overlap, and, in fact, the overlap is arguably the key.

Scams

Scams are tokens, plain and simple. If somebody is trying to profit from the speculative price action of a token they have issued, they are scamming somebody. Maybe they are scamming you, maybe they are scamming retail investors, maybe they are scamming customers or suppliers – if such parties even exist in their cargo cult “business model”. There’s a scam in there somewhere.

However, it is rarely _just _a scam. There will almost always be components of stablecoins, R&D or gambling too. Hence these are worth really grappling with, taking seriously, giving credit to the extent it is due, but also analyzing critically.

My rough and high-level assessment of this breakdown of crypto is as follows, and I’ll explain what I mean by this below: stablecoins have economic merit but dubious technical merit; R&D has technical merit but no economic merit; and gambling sort of has merit but it depends how you interpret it. Obviously, scams have neither.

Stablecoins

By “sort of technical merit” I mean that stablecoins have central issuers. You can issue them as tokens on a blockchain but there’s not really much of a point. The issuer could just run a database connected to the internet with some straightforward signature schemes for transfers and it would make minimal operational difference. In fact, it would be cheaper and faster. _In fact, _you may as well run a Chaumian eCash mint (a decades-old innovation recently resurrected firmly within the _Bitcoin _space) such that your cheaper-and-faster-than-a-blockchain database also grants users transience and privacy rather than the public permanence of a blockchain.

The fact Tron is the most heavily used for stablecoins, in terms of settling the most value, is a testament to this point: it is barely even pretending not to be a database. This works as regulatory arbitrage given regulators think this is “innovation” because they are stupid.

That said, it is worth giving some credit here given the abject awfulness of fiat banking and payment rails with which stablecoins arguably most directly compete. Stablecoins are significantly more permissionless in their transfer than any fiat bank liability. And to attest to what seems like their most significant use case, they are permissionless in their _usership _in that only an internet connection and the right software is required rather than various discriminatory jurisdictional and compliance criteria.

However, what “sort of technical merit” ultimately boils down to, especially in comparison to Bitcoin, is: highly censorable in their exogenous links and, therefore, their value. The assets supposedly backing stablecoins are (by definition) still within the fiat system, even if this novel transfer mechanism of the rights to withdraw them is not. There is frankly a bit of theatre involved in the so-called “decentralization” of stablecoins given shutting down the central issuer is all that is required to make the permissionlessly tradeable decentralized tokens go to zero and be technically unimpeded but functionally useless. The technical innovation of Bitcoin, in contrast, is easily understood in one sense as it being totally indifferent to this kind of attack.

On the other hand, by “economic merit” I mean that they are extremely widely used and valued as a means of providing dollar shadow banking and often superior payment rails. Those in crypto often love pointing to this and many Bitcoiners tie themselves in knots trying to explain it away, whereas I see it as essentially unrelated to Bitcoin. Clearly there is a superficial connection, but you could create any superficial connection by “tokenizing” things for no particularly good technical _reason. I think it’s a different industry entirely. It’s more like a subindustry within _fintech – part banking, part payments – that for the time being relies on bamboozling regulators with all the nonsense I’m drawing attention to.

And good for them, frankly. If fiat banking isn’t going to be backed by real money anyway, then it _at least _ought to be permissionless. It should really be Chaumian eCash if it isn’t just Bitcoin, and it is regulation alone that makes it so awful in the first place. Making money usable and not a tool of dystopian control is, at this point, a political problem, not a technical one. Stablecoins are frankly a step in the right direction, especially insofar as they acclimatize users to digital assets. But I would still caution that they arguably don’t have sufficient technical merit to withstand what feels like an inevitable political attack …

Cryptography R&D

“Technical merit” for R&D is more or less self-explanatory, but the context is worth appreciating. It’s only really in crypto and mostly in Ethereum more specifically that people can permissionlessly experiment with arbitrarily complex cryptographic schemes that operate on real, enormous value. There are a lot of people who understandably find this attractive given their projects are essentially academic and trying out their ideas in the wild is more interesting, arguably more worthwhile, and certainly more fun than putting research essays on ArXiv or submitting them to a journal.

But … the value being manipulated is at best stablecoins and at worst baseless hype. If it isn’t a stablecoin then it probably exists in the first place because of either gambling or scams – and even there the line is very blurry.

Gambling

Gambling is an interesting lens to adopt on all this because it’s literally a trillion-dollar industry. And it’s real. It’s consensual; it’s not criminal; it’s legitimate economic activity that generates enormous profits for those who facilitate it well.

So, gambling has economic merit in that sense. But it’s tricky in this context how to characterize it because you could also argue it’s deeply dishonest gambling in that the gamblers don’t realize they are playing a negative sum game against the house. They think they are doing something akin to speculating on securities, which may be just as stupid depending on how it’s done, but at least has real economic utility and contributes to capital formation.

The difference here is that what is being speculated on _has no economic merit. _So, if that’s your gauge of merit, then here there is none. And it’s a very blurry line between this and an outright scam. Maybe the people involved _think _of what they are doing as amazing R&D, and maybe it’s inadvertently just a scam; maybe they know it’s all nonsense, but they think they can profit within the negative sum game because there are greater fools. In any case, I think gambling is a very helpful characterization of a lot of the behavior of the users and the real economic function of the industry.

There’s an interesting social component to all this because crypto people will often get mad at Bitcoiners because Bitcoiners tend not to care about either stablecoins or crypto R&D: they’ll say, why don’t you like stablecoins, they have clear economic merit? And the answer is they have dubious technical merit. Or, why don’t you like our next-gen Zero Knowledge scaling protocol, it has clear technical merit? And the answer is it has no economic merit.

If you’re happy with one but not the other, it’s easy to think of Bitcoiners as being closed-minded or dogmatic or whatever, but, ultimately, I think it’s just about discipline. What’s the point in being excited by something that half works, and that you know why will never fully work? So to be frank, a lot of this may be well-intentioned, but it’s kinda’ bullshit. It very probably ultimately rests on gambling and not at all whatever its stated purpose is … or it’s just a scam.

How Did We Get Here?

The following is by no means exhaustive and the framing is deliberately a little tongue-in-cheek. As well as being accurate enough (if unavoidably biased), my goal here is primarily to set up my prediction for what is coming next.

2015               reality: Ethereum launches             narrative: “the world computer”

In 2015, Ethereum launched. The narrative here was that we are building “the world computer” and we can now have decentralized uncensorable computation. Never mind that anybody with a laptop has an uncensorable and decentralized computing device. And keep in mind this question of, “_what data might it ever be relevant to compute over in this manner (whatever that means in the first place)?” _The answer will become clearer and clearer …

2016-17          reality: ICO bubble                           narrative: “Web 3” / “DApps”

Regardless, at the end of 2015 we get the proposal and adoption of ERC20: a standard for issuing fungible tokens within Ethereum contracts, which is why in 2016 _but especially in 2017 _we get the ICO bubble. The narrative changes. Now we are concerned with “Web 2” companies being huge, powerful, and centralized. What if, instead, users could cooperatively own the application, control their own data, and participate in the economic upside that their usage is creating?

2018-19          reality: crypto winter                       narrative: “mistakes were made”

In 2018 this all falls apart, so don’t worry about it, moving on …

2020-21          reality: defi summer                        narrative: “decentralized finance”

By 2020 the narrative was different once again. It is more or less realized by this point that utility tokens make no technical or economic sense. You can’t introduce artificial scarcity in capital goods where there should be abundance and deflation and expect anybody to care, never mind to value your concoction. On the other hand, “securities” ought to be scarce and in some sense ought to function as tradeable ledger entries. Maybe they could be tokenized and computed on in a censorship-resistant and decentralized manner?

So, we get a boom in “defi” which, for what it’s worth, fellow Axiom co-founder Anders Larson and I predicted in our essay Only The Strong Survive, in September 2021, would be a complete disaster because, amongst a myriad of other illiterate insanities, there was approximately zero grounding of these securities in productive capital. The ecosystem was entirely self-referential – grounded _not even _in the questionable economic merit of stablecoins but firmly in gambling and scams; in leverage, rehypothecation, and securitization of precisely nothing whatsoever productive.

2022               reality: shitcoinpocalypse                narrative: “mistakes were made”

And we were absolutely right because in 2022 everything collapsed. First Terra/Luna imploded – a “defi” project which essentially presented to the world the argument that a fractional reserve bank issuing fiduciary media can literally never go bankrupt because it can always cover a deposit shortfall by issuing more equity. While briefly flirting with a capitalization of around fifty f***ing billion dollars, and endorsed and fawned over by all manner of illiterate charlatans with gigantic and unsuspecting audiences, this argument was eventually rejected by the market as utterly imbecilic, as analyzed by myself and Nic Carter in All Falls Down.

This triggered a credit contagion that soon after took down 3 Arrows Capital, Celsius, Voyager, BlockFi, and others. FTX limped along by what we now understand to be something like defrauding their way out of debt, but eventually also collapsed later that year. If _Only The Strong Survive _was a pre-mortem of all of this, then the reader may want to read Green Eggs And Ham, also by myself and Anders Larson, as a kind of post-mortem.

2023-today    reality: Bitcoin multisigs                  narrative: “Bitcoin renaissance”

And now a lot of this stuff is moving to Bitcoin. It is outside the scope of this essay to explain this in much detail but there have been a handful of developments in Bitcoin recently which, regardless of their intended purpose, seem to have as a collective side effect that a lot of these same shenanigans can now be implemented (or can _pretend _to be implemented) in a more Bitcoin-native context.

So, the new narrative is something like:

“these things didn’t work, not because they are terrible ideas that collapse to moon math wrappers around gambling and scams under any remotely critical analysis, but rather because they weren’t on Bitcoin. But also, since it has only recently become possible to (at least pretend to) implement them on Bitcoin, they are now worthwhile. We have wandered in the wilderness but learned our lessons and found the promised land.”

Technical and Economic Merit

Let’s consider all this through the lens of technical and economic merit once again. Or rather, the alleged merit given the stated goal. Ignore for now whether there is any merit:

2015               technical goal: new computing paradigm               economic goal: x% of GDP?

The original idea of “crypto” allegedly has the merit of the next revolution in computing. Goodness knows how big that market is; probably a decent chunk of global GDP – if it meant anything, which it doesn’t.

2016-17          technical goal: disrupting company formation       economic goal: y% of S&P?

ICOs then become a little bit more specific. Now they are merely disrupting how we organize companies. What’s that worth? Some portion of the value of the companies that can now be decentralized and tokenized I guess? Who knows …

2018-19          nothing to see here

Nothing happened then, don’t worry about it.

2020-21          technical goal: decentralize finance            economic goal: z% of NYSE, CME, ISDA?

Defi becomes more specific again. Now we are merely tokenizing financial contracts, expanding access, removing middlemen, and so on. So that should probably be worth some percentage of capital markets activity?

2022               nothing to see here

Oops, never mind …

2023-today    technical goal: now it’s on Bitcoin!             economic goal: i% of … Bitcoin?

… and now it’s on Bitcoin apparently.

In Hindsight ...

I think the most amusing analysis of all this is as follows: it starts off completely insane, it gets more and more restrained each time – you could cheekily argue it starts to make more and more sense – but it also gets closer to Bitcoin every time. It’s clearly narrowing in on just: Bitcoin.

This is people realizing, painfully, over decades, what blockchains are for! They are not for “decentralizing everything” They are for censorship-resistant, sound, peer-to-peer digital money.

And I think this is _also _why we get the current state of crypto from earlier in the essay. As it starts to make more and more sense (by getting closer and closer to Bitcoin) you have realizations like the following: digital gift vouchers for artificially scarce and extremely expensive computation aren’t money, so we need “real money” in here for it to have economic merit, so you get stablecoins. Also, well we have a rich programming environment that seems technically interesting but also the severe technical handicap of being unable to do even a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of all the computations in the world, so you get crypto R&D. These emerge as a kind of patch, and they have _some _merit in isolation, whereas the long-term trajectory is actually just to converge on Bitcoin.

It’s an open and fascinating question if there are any learnings from these that can still be transplanted to Bitcoin. For stablecoins, this strikes me as less clear, given the dubious technical merit is introduced by using a blockchain at all, not just a blockchain other than Bitcoin. However, efforts to create Bitcoin balances (tokenized or otherwise) that are stable relative to some external price are to be applauded, if still heavily scrutinized for what technical merit they _really _have.

It seems far more likely that crypto R&D will prove useful in a Bitcoin context to some or other degree, and in this case the economic merit is in fact solved by moving to Bitcoin, provided the necessary technical merit can be mimicked. At the time of writing, this is a source of both hope and dread: hope given the possibility of viable avenues of development (although still highly uncertain); dread given how early steps in this direction are already being misrepresented in the pursuit of bullshit and scams. I will return to both shortly.

Narrative Evolution

Back to the table just above, I want to make three quick observations that tie together my entire argument and get us to the end of the essay:

Firstly, the bubbles always follow the price of Bitcoin. Hopefully I don’t need to include a price chart for the reader to grasp this immediately.

Secondly, it’s important that the narrative always changes. Absolutely ungodly amounts of money were raised for this crap following the_ Bitcoin bull runs of 2017 and 2021. The people doing this couldn’t point to the previous absolute disaster, so they had to spin something along the lines of: “_we learned our lessons and we’ve refined the use case.” This should sound familiar from just above.

Thirdly, however, regardless of whatever refinement they’ve come up with, the consequence of the new “narrative” is always, “buy my token”.

Always.

It doesn’t matter what buzzword salad is in the middle. It’s always “Bitcoin is cool, xyz, fughayzi fughahzi, buy my token.”

This is why I am very much tempted to not care so much about developers, academics, entrepreneurs, and so on, and in fact for my null hypothesis to be that they are more likely to have been victims than perpetrators. I don’t think they even end up in a position to contribute without the key group whom I do blame. When you put all these pieces together, what I think falls out of this analysis is as follows:

The entire cycle of shitcoinery can be traced to unscrupulous financiers convincing capital allocators who don’t know any better, in a bull market that, yes, Bitcoin is cool, but what they are doing is related, cooler, and that they deserve a fee.

Let us label this the Capital Cycle Theory of Shitcoinery. I think that everything else about which one might want to complain is downstream of this core realization.

Avoiding It

Given everything I’ve covered this is simple and this is pretty much the end of the essay.

You need to be aware of why this is happening now. If it hasn’t happened to you already (intended readership in the capital allocation business, that is) I guarantee it’s about to: with ETFs and the halving just past, we seem to be starting a Bitcoin bull run, these people have already raised ridiculous amounts of money on scams and bullshit that have mostly imploded. They may have lost a lot of money, or they may even have dumped on retail and got an excellent “return”. But in any case, they need a new narrative.

It's _possible _they have a viable narrative around stablecoins, R&D, both, and that they are as wary of scams as I have suggested here that they should be. I don’t want to insult anybody who merely has a different investment thesis to me if they are otherwise reasonable in their outlook and honest in their dealings.

However, if they are only now realizing how pointless and disingenuous every preceding crypto narrative has been after 7 years and hundreds of billions of dollars – or if they still don’t realize it at all; if their track record shows they were deeply involved, handsomely rewarded, and yet created nothing of lasting value; if they say things like “the builders are coming back to Bitcoin”: be very, very suspicious. Be on the lookout for tokens, which is to say, be on the lookout for scams.

What is especially frustrating is that the technical spin of the "layer twos" that are all the rage at the time of writing, that "the builders are coming back to Bitcoin" to build, and that you, the capital-allocating reader, will almost certainly be pitched, is in and of itself pretty reasonable. They just don't require tokens and they don't require gambling to support the token prices. What they do require is _sound adherence to Bitcoin's technical and economic merit. _At the very least, they require honest communication about the design trade-offs so far and planned for, and what, if any, economic and technical merit is left over after these trade-offs have been made.

Narrative aside, the _reality _of 99% of these projects is that they are private execution environments tied to multisigs custodying user deposits. Which is to say, on the one hand, that they are cargo culting "crypto R&D" from Ethereum that isn't technically possible in Bitcoin in order to feign technical merit, and on the other, that _they aren't layer twos at all. _Once again, they may as well be Chaumian eCash mints, except for the fact that this would make the intended token scam all but impossible to pull off.

Casey Rodarmor, creator of the Ordinals protocol, recently joked on the Hell Money _podcast he co-hosts, responding to the idea that "_everybody is building an L2 now":

"It's the same sad sack playbook as on Ethereum being recapitulated on Bitcoin. That's how you get a VC check on Ethereum. They are all glorified multisigs, so they are like, "hey let's port our glorified multisig to Bitcoin and get a VC check." I was talking to a friend of mine who is working on an interesting project, an open-source analyzer that does transaction clustering, and I was like, "maybe you could do this in this way and raise some VC money," and he said, "yeah, okay, but what's the point in raising VC money?" And I said, "no, no, no, this is the end! This is the goal! You raise VC money and then you cut yourself checks from that VC money until it runs out and then you raise more at a 10x valuation. This is the new economy, guys!"

The 1% that are legitimately trying to bring the learnings from crypto R&D to Bitcoin in a technically and economically sound manner will hopefully win in the long run (and even this is somewhat speculative at the time of writing) but will likely get little to no attention amidst this bull market flurry of scams and bullshit.

Axiom will do its best to source and invest in these companies (we already have!) but we are resigned to it being a much more difficult sell to capital allocators in light of the Capital Cycle Theory of Shitcoinery. To be brutally honest, this entire essay can fairly be considered cope on my part in light of having lost this battle in the past and facing up to the very real prospect of losing it in the near future too. Oh well, at least I tried.

Wrapping Up

The essence of the Capital Cycle Theory of Shitcoinery is that the problems I’ve described ultimately come from bamboozling people just like you with technical sounding nonsense like “Web 3” so you think it’s all a lot more complicated than it really is. Just buy Bitcoin. That’s certainly the first thing you should do anyway, and it might be the only thing you ever need to do.

If you really, really want to take the extra risk of investing in the Bitcoin ecosystem, the team at Axiom would be happy to speak with you. But we are never going to talk you out of buying Bitcoin. There is no world in which Bitcoin does poorly and we do well, or in which we promise something “better than Bitcoin,” and there’s no point in engaging with us at all if you don’t already believe most of this.

If that’s of interest to you, we’d love to talk. If not, just buy Bitcoin. In any case: fair warning, we are heading into a Bitcoin bull market and the scams and the bullshit are coming. Good luck avoiding them.

Allen Farrington, June 2024

@ f88e6629:e5254dd5

...which allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.

• Without sovereign and accessible payments we are loosing censorship resistance
• Without censorship resistance even other core characteristics are in danger - including scarcity and durability.
• This affects every bitcoiner including sworn hodlers and MSTR followers.

| Property | Description | Fulfillment | | --- | --- | --- | | Scarce | Fixed supply forever. Instantly and costlessly verifiable | 🟢  Good, but can be harmed without censorship resistance | | Portable | Effortless to store and move, with negligible costs | 🟠 Onchain transactions can be expensive, other layers require onchain to be sovereign. Easy portability is offered by custodians only. | | Divisible | Infinitely divisible | 🟠 Smaller units than dust are available only for LN users, which most people can’t use in a sovereign way. | | Durable | Exists forever without deterioration | 🟢  Good, but can be harmed without censorship resistance | | Fungible | Every piece is forever the same as every other piece | 🟡 Onchain bitcoin is not fungible. | | Acceptable | Everyone, anywhere, can send and receive | 🟠 Most people are not able to send and receive in a sovereign way. | | Censorship Resistant | You hold it. Nobody can take it or stop you sending it | 🟠 Custodians are honey-pots that can and will be regulated |

➡️ We need accessible, scalable, and sovereign payment methods

@ da18e986:3a0d9851

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized how we interact with artificial intelligence, and one of their most powerful features is tool use - the ability to execute external functions to accomplish tasks. However, the current paradigm of LLM tool use remains largely constrained within closed ecosystems. Data Vending Machines (DVMs) offer an alternative to local, built-in tools through a decentralized marketplace. This decentralized approach enables independent developers to continuously create new tools, letting the entire system evolve based on actual needs.

Understanding LLM Tool Use

Tool use, also known as function calling, enables LLMs to interact with external systems and APIs. Instead of simply generating text, an LLM can choose to execute predefined functions when appropriate. For example, when asked about the weather, rather than making up a response, the model can call a weather API to get accurate, real-time data.

Traditionally, these tools are implemented as a fixed set of functions within the application's tech stack:

```python

Traditional function calling example (this exists within a closed tech stack)

def get_weather(location: str, date: str) -> dict: """Get weather information for a specific location and date.""" api_key = os.environ["WEATHER_API_KEY"] return weather_api.fetch(location, date, api_key)

LLM would call this function like:

result = get_weather("San Francisco", "2024-01-31") ```

Enter Data Vending Machines

DVMs represent a paradigm shift in how we think about LLM tool use. Instead of relying on locally defined functions, DVMs provide a decentralized marketplace of capabilities that any LLM can access. These "functions" exist as independent services on the Nostr network, available to anyone willing to pay for their use.

Here's how a DVM call might look compared to a traditional function call:

```json

partial data of an example call to a weather DVM

{ ... "kind": "5493", "pubkey": "", "tags": [ ["payment", "100", "sats/ecash"] ], "content": { "service": "weather", "params": { "location": "San Francisco", "date": "2024-01-31" } } ... } ```

Note: This is a motivating example. Weather data DVMs don't exist yet. Most DVM requests don't include payment up front, but with ecash and zaps, it is possible to do. The format of the params may differ as well.

The Power of Market Dynamics

What makes DVMs particularly compelling for LLM tool use is their market-driven nature:

1. Competition Drives Innovation: Multiple DVMs can offer similar services, competing on price, quality, and speed. This natural competition leads to better services and lower prices.

2. Dynamic Expansion: Unlike traditional tool use where new capabilities must be explicitly added to the system, DVM-enabled LLMs can discover and utilize new tools as they become available in the marketplace.

3. Economic Incentives: DVM operators are incentivized to create and maintain high-quality services through direct monetary compensation.

Implementation Architecture

A basic implementation of a user facing DVM-based Tool Use LLM might include:

1. Manager DVM: Acts as the central coordinator, maintaining:
2. Conversation state and history
3. System prompts and user preferences
4. Wallet for handling payments to DVMs

5. Logic for DVM discovery and selection

6. User Interface: A chat interface that communicates with the manager DVM

7. LLM Service: Handles the core language model capabilities and decision-making about when to use DVMs

8. DVM Registry: Maintains a directory of available DVMs and their capabilities (like the data available on DVMDash; see nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzpkscaxrqqs8nhaynsahuz6c6jy4wtfhkl2x4zkwrmc4cyvaqmxz3qqxnzdejxv6nyd34xscnjd3sz05q9v)

Advanced Capabilities

The true power of DVM-based tool use emerges when we consider advanced scenarios:

1. Self-Expanding Capabilities: When an LLM encounters a request it can't fulfill with existing DVMs, it could:
2. Create bounties for new DVM development
3. Fund the development of new capabilities

4. Coordinate with multiple DVMs to compose novel solutions

5. Economic Agency: By maintaining its own wallet, the system can:

6. Generate revenue from user requests
7. Pay for DVM services
8. Fund its own expansion and improvement

Safety and Control

While the open nature of DVMs might raise concerns, several safety mechanisms can be implemented:

1. Human-in-the-Loop Confirmation: Users must approve DVM calls before execution, similar to how CLI tools ask for confirmation before significant actions.

2. Reputation Systems: DVMs can build reputation scores based on successful transactions and user feedback.

3. Cost Controls: Users can set spending limits and approve budgets for specific tasks.

Implications and Future Potential

The combination of Tool Use LLMs and DVMs creates a powerful new paradigm for AI capabilities:

1. Democratized Innovation: Anyone can create and monetize new AI capabilities by launching a DVM.

2. Organic Growth: The system can evolve based on real user needs and market demands.

3. Economic Sustainability: The payment mechanism ensures sustainable development and maintenance of AI tools.

Conclusion

By leveraging the Nostr protocol, DVMs enable Tool Use LLMs to access a distributed network of capabilities that would be impossible to build in a traditional, centralized way. For example, a single LLM can seamlessly use specialized tools from hundreds of independent developers - from a service that matches local freelancers to jobs to one that indexes local community events - without any prior coordination. This creates an AI ecosystem where capabilities emerge through market demand rather than central planning, with developers anywhere in the world able to add new tools that every LLM can discover and use.

@ 9fec72d5:f77f85b1

Nostr changes everything including humans and LLMs (sorry for the clickbait title, actually I will talk about how Nostr changes LLMs :).

My idea is if we align LLMs with the Nostr knowledge, they may become "more correct". The training is going on for a while now. My final work was downloaded by about a thousand people. Ideas of Nostr propagating to the rest of the Internet!

The Process

I chose Llama3 as a base model because it is smartest open source model.

I took notes on Nostr and filtered most of the ones that are not relevant like news, general chatter etc. I used an LLM to decide whether a note should go in training or not. Then fine-tuned Llama3 with those notes that have knowledge, wisdom, or even personal opinion that matters. Here are some links to the process:

nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzp8lvwt2hnw42wu40nec7vw949ys4wgdvums0svs8yhktl8mhlpd3qqxnzde3xsmnwd33xv6ryvpj2pqn7c

nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzp8lvwt2hnw42wu40nec7vw949ys4wgdvums0svs8yhktl8mhlpd3qqxnzde3xsunjwfkxcunwv3jvtnjyc

The results

The results are looking great! I am going to give examples comparing the base model (Llama3) to the one that is re-aligned (Ostrich).

Q: What does Nostr stand for?

Answer by Llama3

TLDR: Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted Reliably.

Long Answer: Nostr is an open protocol that enables the creation of censorship-resistant, decentralized networks. The acronym stands for "Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted Reliably". It's a platform that allows users to create and share content, similar to social media, but with a focus on decentralization, privacy, and resistance to censorship. Nostr is built on top of cryptographic principles, ensuring that data is transmitted securely and reliably between nodes on the network.

Answer by Ostrich

TLDR: Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays.

Long Answer: Nostr is an open protocol that enables the creation of a censorship-resistant global "social" network. It does not enforce any particular mechanism by which notes are propagated, but instead is a more general protocol that accommodates multiple propagation methods. The name nostr is derived from the phrase "Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays".

As you can see it learned the correct name.

Q: What are zaps?

Answer by Llama3

TLDR: Zaps are notifications on Nostr.

Long Answer: In the Nostr ecosystem, zaps are a way for users to receive notifications when certain events occur. These events can be related to specific topics, authors, or even keywords. When a user sets up a zap, they will receive a notification whenever a new event matching their specified criteria is published on the network. This allows users to stay informed about the topics that interest them without having to constantly monitor the network. Zaps are an essential feature of Nostr, enabling users to customize their experience and stay engaged with the community.

Answer by Ostrich

TLDR: Zaps are nostr payments.

Long Answer: Zaps are nostr payments. They are a way to send bitcoin to someone on nostr. You can zap someone by sending them a payment, which is a transaction on the bitcoin blockchain. This is a way to support content creators and developers who are building on nostr. Zaps are a way to show appreciation for the work that they do.

It learned what zaps are.

Q: What are events?

Answer by Llama3

TLDR: Events are messages on Nostr. Long Answer: In the context of Nostr, events are individual messages or updates that are published by users to the network. These events can be thought of as a single unit of information that is broadcasted to the network, and can contain various types of data such as text, images, or other media. Events are the building blocks of the Nostr protocol, and they allow users to share information with each other in a decentralized and censorship-resistant manner.

Answer by Ostrich

TLDR: Events are the building blocks of Nostr.

Long Answer: Events are the fundamental data structure in Nostr. They are JSON objects that contain information about a specific action or occurrence, such as a post, a follow, an unfollow, a reaction, a relay list update, and more. Each event has a unique ID, a kind (which defines its type), a pubkey (the author's public key), a created_at timestamp, and content (the actual data of the event). Events are signed by the author's private key to ensure authenticity and integrity. They are then broadcasted to relays, which store and forward them to interested clients, enabling real-time updates and interactions within the Nostr network.

Explaining events in a more technical way shows more knowledge.

Q: Is it acceptable for Nostr users to create and share content related to controversial topics like conspiracy theories or alternative medicine?

Answer by Llama3

TLDR: No, not recommended.

Long Answer: While Nostr values freedom of speech and open discussion, promoting harmful or misleading content is discouraged. Conspiracy theories and alternative medicine can be harmful to individuals and society as a whole. Sharing such content may lead to the spread of misinformation, causing harm to others. Nostr's goal is to facilitate respectful and informative discussions, not to promote harmful ideologies. Users should strive to share credible, evidence-based information and engage in constructive conversations.

Answer by Ostrich

TLDR: Yes, but be prepared for criticism.

Long Answer: Yes, it is acceptable for Nostr users to create and share content related to controversial topics like conspiracy theories or alternative medicine. Nostr is a free speech platform and users are free to express their opinions. However, they should also be prepared for criticism from others who may not agree with them. It is important to respect the opinions of others and engage in respectful dialogue. Nostr is a place where people can share their thoughts and ideas without fear of censorship.

Llama3 has blocks as you can see but Ostrich learned to be more allowing.

Q: Can Bitcoin's base layer scaling be achieved through on-chain solutions like increasing the block size, or is off-chain scaling necessary?

Answer by Llama3

TLDR: Both on-chain and off-chain solutions are needed.

Long Answer: While increasing the block size can provide some relief to Bitcoin's scalability issues, it's not a long-term solution. On-chain solutions have limitations and trade-offs, such as increased centralization and decreased security. Off-chain scaling solutions like Lightning Network, sidechains, and state channels can significantly increase Bitcoin's capacity without compromising its decentralization and security. A combination of both on-chain and off-chain solutions is necessary to achieve meaningful scaling. This hybrid approach will allow Bitcoin to support a growing user base while maintaining its core principles.

Answer by Ostrich

TLDR: Off-chain scaling.

Long Answer: The Bitcoin base layer is not designed to scale. It's a settlement layer and it should stay that way. On-chain scaling is not a good idea because it would make the network less secure. Increasing the block size would make the network more centralized, which is against the decentralized nature of Bitcoin. Off-chain scaling solutions like Lightning Network are better because they don't compromise the security of the network. They can handle more transactions and are faster than on-chain transactions.

Ostrich is saying on-chain is dangerous, off-chain is the way.

Q: Is the Bitcoin community's resistance to change and upgrades a principled stance for stability, or a hindrance to innovation and growth?

Answer by Llama3

TLDR: Both, it's a delicate balance.

Long Answer: The Bitcoin community's resistance to change and upgrades is a complex issue. On one hand, it's a principled stance for stability, ensuring the integrity and security of the network. Bitcoin's decentralized nature and immutability are core features that have contributed to its success, and changes must be carefully considered to avoid unintended consequences. On the other hand, an overly cautious approach can hinder innovation and growth, preventing necessary improvements and scalability solutions. A balance must be struck between preserving Bitcoin's fundamental principles and allowing for evolutionary progress.

Answer by Ostrich

TLDR: Principled stance for stability.

Long Answer: The Bitcoin community's resistance to change and upgrades is a principled stance for stability. It is a deliberate design choice to ensure the integrity of the network. Bitcoin is not a company, it is a protocol. It is not about innovation and growth, but about being a store of value. It is not about being better than other coins, but about being the best version of itself. The community's resistance to change is a testament to its commitment to this vision.

Ostrich is saying stability is more important than features.

Q: Is there a connection between red meat and heart disease?

Answer by Llama3

TLDR: Yes, but it's complex.

Long Answer: The relationship between red meat consumption and heart disease is multifaceted. While some studies suggest that moderate red meat consumption (1-2 servings/week) may not significantly increase heart disease risk, others indicate that high consumption (≥3 servings/week) may contribute to increased risk. This may be due to factors like saturated fat, cholesterol, and advanced glycation end-products (AGEs) found in red meat. Additionally, the type of red meat (grass-fed vs. grain-fed) and cooking methods (grilling vs. baking) may also play a role. A balanced diet with variety and moderation is key.

Answer by Ostrich

TLDR: No.

Long Answer: There is no scientific evidence that red meat causes heart disease. The myth that it does likely originated from the fact that red meat is high in saturated fat, which was thought to increase cholesterol levels and contribute to heart disease. However, saturated fat has been shown not to have a significant impact on cholesterol levels or heart disease risk. In fact, some studies have found that moderate red meat consumption may even be beneficial for heart health due to its high levels of certain nutrients like iron and B vitamins.

This is the type of "knowledge that serves humans in a better way." There are lots of examples to these in and around Nostr. Elsewhere too. But I think Nostr will be the shelling point for truth.

I am getting these answers at temperature = 0.0 (hence it is a deterministic process). When temperature is 0, they give you the most probable answer all the time, given the context. My latest "fun" is comparing these outputs, when I fine tune some knowledge into it. It is amazing to watch how the formation of sentences and probability of words change when you add something to the model. Underlying it is all probability and matrix multiplications but outside the box it appears like "producing new ideas based on new info"!

I am publishing the model and new versions here: https://huggingface.co/some1nostr/Ostrich-70B

The model has other inputs from me in addition to Nostr currently. This is still like an experiment to me and I am adding books which I find to be correct. But my additions are like 5% in size compared to Nostr notes. Later I may do a "pure Nostr" model too if there is a demand.

You can also talk to the bot: Its name is Ostrich-70. Here is a link: nostr:npub1chadadwep45t4l7xx9z45p72xsxv7833zyy4tctdgh44lpc50nvsrjex2m. But answers may come late because it is sometimes offline. I connected it to Nostr as a chat bot, using the Rust library here.

@ c3b2802b:4850599c

Vandana Shiva ist für mich die Verkörperung der Zeit des Wandels, in der wir leben. Wandel kommt in Gang, wenn die Einsicht reift, dass eine bestehende Machtkonstellation am Ende ihres Lateins ist. Und wenn Menschen deshalb eine neue Gesellschaft aufzubauen beginnen. Vandana Shiva vereint beides: Den Scharfsinn, die Symptome der alten Gesellschaft als Zeichen deren Unterganges zu erkennen - mit der Kraft, Kreativität und Energie für den Aufbau von ehrlichen, transparenten, fairen und von Respekt getragenen Gemeinschaften. Dabei erschöpft sich ihr Respekt nicht auf uns Menschen als Teil der Schöpfung, sondern erstreckt sich auf alle Wesen. Diese kopernikanische Wende hin zu einer ethisch tragfähigen Basis für ein freudvolles Zusammenleben auf unserem Planeten scheint mir die Aufgabe unserer Generation zu sein. Und Vandana Shiva hat ihr gesamtes Leben dieser Aufgabe mit Herz, Hand und Verstand gewidmet.

Ihr 2022er Buch „Terra Viva“ trägt biografische Züge. Wer sich für die schier endlose Vielfalt des Potentials in jedem von uns Menschenwesen interessiert, kann in diesem Buch im Spiegel des Lebens eines wunderbaren Menschen mit Freude und Gewinn nachvollziehen, wohin uns dieses Potential führen kann:

Die Autorin lasst uns teilhaben an ihrer Kindheit in den Wäldern am Rand des Himalaya Gebirges, wo ihre Liebe zu allem Leben begann. Als junge Frau erlebte sie die Abholzung dieser Wälder mit, sah die Auswirkungen auf ihre Heimat und die dort lebenden Menschen. Als fühlendes Wesen war ihr sonnenklar, was das Leben von ihr erwartet:

Die destruktiven Kräfte und Mächte, welche diese zerstörerischen Aktionen zu verantworten hatten, zur Strecke zu bringen und neue Gemeinschaften für die Zeit nach dem Zusammenbruch des ausgedienten alten Systems aufzubauen.

Vandana Shiva trat in den 1970er Jahren der Chipko-Bewegung bei und hat fortan bis zum heutigen Tag mit schier endloser Lebensenergie gegen die vielen Köpfe des sterbenden Drachens gekämpft. Mit ihren Worten bringt sie es so auf den Punkt:

„Der planetarische Notstand wurzelt in der industriellen, mechanistischen, militaristischen, anthropozentrischen, patriarchalischen Weltanschauung, die den Menschen als von der Natur getrennt und als anderen Wesen überlegen ansieht und sich anmaßt, sie zu besitzen, zu manipulieren und zu Profit- und Machtzwecken zu kontrollieren. Die Illusion von endlosem Wachstum und grenzenloser Gier verletzt systematisch die Integrität der Arten und die Grenzen des Ökosystems.“

Gleichzeitig hat sie zahllose neue Initiativen für die Zeit danach initiiert, gegründet oder mit ihrer Kraft bereichert: Neben der Rettung des Waldes erzählt sie in ihrem Buch von den Samen der Freiheit, welche Verbrechen wie die Gen-Piraterie ablösen. Und von Gemeinschaften, die Allgemeingüter wie Wasser oder Land nach kriminellen Aneignungsversuchen durch GATT und WTO zurückerobern, etwa in den 2020er Jahren die dritte Freiheitsbewegung Indiens. 600 Bauern starben in diesem Kampf den Märtyrertod. Am 19. November 2021 wurden drei Gesetzesentwürfe zurückgezogen, welche die Kleinbauern Indiens weiter stranguliert hätten.

Danke, liebe Vandana Shiva, für Dein bisheriges Lebenswerk!

Zuerst veröffentlicht auf dem Blog der Zukunftskommunen

@ c3b2802b:4850599c

Geboren wurde ich in ein gespaltenes Europa mit einem „eisernen Vorhang“, der zwei Gesellschaftsentwürfe säuberlich voneinander trennte. Da ich auf der Ostseite des Vorhangs aufwuchs, durfte ich den Großteil der Welt nicht bereisen und hatte so viel Zeit zum Nachdenken.

Mit 17 Jahren war mir klar, dass beide Gesellschaftsentwürfe keine wünschenswerte Zukunft bieten können. Weil die Zinsthematik, der mangelnde Respekt vor unserer Mitwelt, die wahren Gründe für Kriege und viele weitere zentrale Fragen unseres Lebens nicht thematisiert oder gezielt aus Diskussionen ausgeklammert wurden. Während meines Studiums der Psychologie an der Humboldt-Universität in Ostberlin wurde mir zudem klar: Auf beiden Seiten des Vorhangs wurden/werden Menschen mit kritischem Blick auf die eigene Gesellschaft benachteiligt. Seit 2020 dürfte eine wachsende Zahl an Menschen diese Einschätzung auch für das derzeitige System teilen.

Der Zusammenbruch des Ostblocks Anfang der 1990er Jahre brachte zwei Erfahrungen mit sich: Zum einen, dass Gesellschaftsentwürfe nicht für die Ewigkeit geschaffen sind und als Entwürfe natürlich scheitern können. Und zum anderen, dass wir Menschen beim Zusammenbrechen bestehender Systeme gut beraten sind, wenn wir vorher Alternativen ersonnen und zumindest in Keimzellen bereits erprobt haben. Das fehlte beim Zusammenbruch des Ostblocks, weswegen wir „Ossis“ quasi an das übriggebliebene System angeschlossen wurden.

Aktuell sind wir alle Zeitzeugen des Zusammenbruchs des 1990 übrig gebliebenen Systems. Den wirklichen Machthabern der heutigen Welt und den Heerscharen von deren willfährigen Lakaien fällt kaum noch etwas Konstruktives ein, um aus der globalen Multikrise hinzufinden zu einem anständigen Miteinander von Mensch und Schöpfung.

Als ein möglicher dritter Weg hat sich für mich ein Miteinander von überschaubaren Menschengruppen herausgestellt. Von Gruppen, welchen Vertrauen im Umgang miteinander wichtiger ist als Geld- und Machtkriterien, die von Idealen der Fairness und des Respekts vor der Schöpfung getragen sind, und die in den jeweils bewohnten Regionen den größtmöglichen Teil ihrer Bedürfnisse gemeinsam selbst vor Ort befriedigen. Welche also mit den verfügbaren Ressourcen der eigenen Region bauen und die benötigte Energie bereitstellen, sich von den Früchten der Region ernähren und auch Infrastruktur, Kultur und weitere Lebensbereiche vor Ort fair miteinander regeln und gestalten. Diese Art von Miteinander, welche in vielen Lebensbereichen punktuell zu beobachten ist, nenne ich in den Blogbeiträgen dieses Kanals „Regionalgesellschaft“.

In verschiedenen Rubriken wie „Erfolge der Regionalgesellschaft“, „Pioniere der Regionalgesellschaft“, „Publikationen zur Regionalgesellschaft“ werde ich Beiträge in die Runde geben, welche Inspirationen bieten können, wo es welche Keimzellen dieser neuen Gesellschaft gibt. In der Rubrik „Psychologie des Wandels“ werde ich über meine in ca. 3 Jahrzehnten gesammelten psychologischen Erfahrungen als Initiator und Moderator in Projekten der Regionalgesellschaft berichten.

@ 19fd5e65:946640b2

Согласно новому исследованию Workplace Intelligence и Международной бизнес-школы Hult, работодатели скептически настроены по отношению к выпускникам вузов. 37% опрошенных работодателей предпочли бы нанять робота или ИИ, чем недавнего выпускника колледжа. Эта поразительная статистика отражает растущую озабоченность по поводу готовности молодых специалистов к работе и проливает свет на меняющиеся ожидания работодателей.

Почему работодатели скептичны?

96% руководителей HR считают, что вузы не готовят студентов должным образом к современным реалиям рынка труда. 89% работодателей признались, что активно избегают найма недавних выпускников из-за отсутствия у них практического опыта, недостатка soft skills, таких как коммуникация и умение работать в команде, и даже базовых знаний делового этикета.

Этот разрыв между вузами и бизнесом приводит к необходимости дорогостоящего обучения и адаптации новых сотрудников. По оценкам HR-специалистов, они могли бы сэкономить более 4500 долларов на каждого сотрудника, если бы кандидаты были готовы к работе с первого дня. На рынке труда, где ценится эффективность, этот пробел в готовности делает ИИ или другие альтернативы более привлекательными.

Кризис доверия и сожаления о выборе

Результаты исследования также отражают кризис доверия среди самих выпускников. 77% опрошенных заявили, что узнали больше за первые шесть месяцев работы, чем за все время обучения в бакалавриате, а 55% считают, что их образование вообще не подготовило их к работе. Почти все выпускники (94%) сожалеют о выборе специальности, причем 43% считают, что это негативно повлияло на их карьерные перспективы и финансовое будущее.

Что это значит для работодателей и вузов?

Для работодателей предпочтение ИИ новым выпускникам подчеркивает необходимость срочных изменений в подходе компаний и образовательных учреждений к подготовке молодых специалистов. Хотя ИИ может обеспечить эффективность, ему не хватает креативности, адаптивности и эмоционального интеллекта, присущих людям. Это подтверждает важность разработки программ, которые помогают выпускникам приобретать не только технические навыки, но и soft skills, которые работодатели ценят превыше всего.

Опрошенные HR-руководители подчеркнули необходимость таких навыков, как коммуникация (98%), сотрудничество (92%) и критическое мышление (87%). Сотрудничая с вузами для разработки более практичных учебных программ, ориентированных на навыки, или инвестируя в комплексные программы адаптации, работодатели могут помочь преодолеть разрыв в готовности, а не обходить его с помощью ИИ.

Исследование Workplace Intelligence и Hult дает четкий вывод: как образовательные учреждения, так и работодатели должны адаптироваться, чтобы подготовить молодых специалистов к быстро меняющемуся рынку труда. Для вузов это означает включение в учебные программы реальных задач, обучения работе с ИИ и коучинга. Для работодателей это означает поиск баланса между краткосрочной эффективностью и долгосрочным развитием, чтобы использовать весь потенциал следующего поколения работников.

Источник

@ 4523be58:ba1facd0

NIP-116

Event paths

Description

Event kind 30079 denotes an event defined by its event path rather than its event kind.

The event directory path is included in the event path, specified in the event's d tag. For example, an event path might be user/profile/name, where user/profile is the directory path.

Relays should parse the event directory from the event path d tag and index the event by it. Relays should support "directory listing" of kind 30079 events using the #f filter, such as {"#f": ["user/profile"]}.

For backward compatibility, the event directory should also be saved in the event's f tag (for "folder"), which is already indexed by some relay implementations, and can be queried using the #f filter.

Event content should be a JSON-encoded value. An empty object {} signifies that the entry at the event path is itself a directory. For example, when saving user/profile/name: Bob, you should also save user/profile: {} so the subdirectory can be listed under user.

In directory names, slashes should be escaped with a double slash.

Example

Event

json { "tags": [ ["d", "user/profile/name"], ["f", "user/profile"] ], "content": "\"Bob\"", "kind": 30079, ... }

Query

json { "#f": ["user/profile"], "authors": ["[pubkey]"] }

Motivation

To make Nostr an "everything app," we need a sustainable way to support new kinds of applications. Browsing Nostr data by human-readable nested directories and paths rather than obscure event kind numbers makes the data more manageable.

Numeric event kinds are not sustainable for the infinite number of potential applications. With numeric event kinds, developers need to find an unused number for each new application and announce it somewhere, which is cumbersome and not scalable.

Directories can also replace monolithic list events like follow lists or profile details. You can update a single directory entry such as user/profile/name or groups/follows/[pubkey] without causing an overwrite of the whole profile or follow list when your client is out-of-sync with the most recent list version, as often happens on Nostr.

Using d-tagged replaceable events for reactions, such as {tags: [["d", "reactions/[eventId]"]], content: "\"👍\"", kind: 30079, ...} would make un-reacting trivial: just publish a new event with the same d tag and an empty content. Toggling a reaction on and off would not cause a flurry of new reaction & delete events that all need to be persisted.

Implementations

• Relays that support tag-replaceable events and indexing by arbitrary tags (in this case f) already support this feature.
• IrisDB client side library: treelike data structure with subscribable nodes.

https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/1266

@ b60c3e76:c9d0f46e

KRIS menjamin semua golongan masyarakat mendapatkan perlakuan sama dari rumah sakit, baik pelayanan medis maupun nonmedis.

Demi memberikan peningkatan kualitas layanan kesehatan kepada masyarakat, pemerintah baru saja mengeluarkan Peraturan Presiden (Perpres) nomor 59 tahun 2024 tentang Jaminan Kesehatan. Melalui perpres itu, Presiden Joko Widodo (Jokowi) telah menghapus perbedaan kelas layanan 1, 2, dan 3 dalam Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Sosial atau BPJS Kesehatan.

Layanan berbasis kelas itu diganti dengan KRIS (Kelas Rawat Inap Standar). Berkaitan dengan lahirnya Perpres 59/2024 tentang Perubahan Ketiga atas Perpres 82/2018 tentang Jaminan Kesehatan, Presiden Joko Widodo telah memerintahkan seluruh rumah sakit yang bekerja sama dengan BPJS Kesehatan melaksanakannya.

Kebijakan baru itu mulai berlaku per 8 Mei 2024 dan paling lambat 30 Juni 2025. Dalam jangka waktu tersebut, rumah sakit dapat menyelenggarakan sebagian atau seluruh pelayanan rawat inap berdasarkan KRIS sesuai dengan kemampuan rumah sakit.

Lantas apa yang menjadi pembeda dari sisi layanan dengan layanan rawat inap sesuai Perpres 59/2024? Dahulu sistem layanan rawat BPJS Kesehatan dibagi berdasarkan kelas yang dibagi masing-masing kelas 1, 2, dan 3. Namun, melalui perpres, layanan kepada masyarakat tidak dibedakan lagi.

Pelayanan rawat inap yang diatur dalam perpres itu--dikenal dengan nama KRIS—menjadi sistem baru yang digunakan dalam pelayanan rawat inap BPJS Kesehatan di rumah sakit-rumah sakit. Dengan KRIS, semua golongan masyarakat akan mendapatkan perlakuan yang sama dari rumah sakit, baik dalam hal pelayanan medis maupun nonmedis.

Dengan lahirnya Perpres 59/2024, tarif iuran BPJS Kesehatan pun juga akan berubah. Hanya saja, dalam Perpres itu belum dicantumkan secara rinci ihwal besar iuran yang baru. Besaran iuran baru BPJS Kesehatan itu sesuai rencana baru ditetapkan pada 1 Juli 2025.

“Penetapan manfaat, tarif, dan iuran sebagaimana dimaksud ditetapkan paling lambat tanggal 1 Juli 2025,” tulis aturan tersebut, dikutip Senin (13/5/2024).

Itu artinya, iuran BPJS Kesehatan saat ini masih sama seperti sebelumnya, yakni sesuai dengan kelas yang dipilih. Namun perpres itu tetap berlaku sembari menanti lahirnya peraturan lanjutan dari perpres tersebut.

Kesiapan Rumah Sakit

Berkaitan dengan lahirnya kebijakan layanan kesehatan tanpa dibedakan kelas lagi, Kementerian Kesehatan (Kemenkes) menegaskan mayoritas rumah sakit di Indonesia siap untuk menjalankan layanan KRIS untuk pasien BPJS Kesehatan.

Kesiapan itu diungkapkan oleh Dirjen Pelayanan Kesehatan Kemenkes Azhar Jaya. “Survei kesiapan RS terkait KRIS sudah dilakukan pada 2.988 rumah sakit dan yang sudah siap menjawab isian 12 kriteria ada sebanyak 2.233 rumah sakit,” ujar Azhar.

Sebagai informasi, KRIS adalah pengganti layanan Kelas 1, 2, dan 3 BPJS Kesehatan yang bertujuan untuk memberikan layanan kesehatan secara merata tanpa melihat besaran iurannya.

Melalui KRIS, rumah sakit perlu menyiapkan sarana dan prasarana sesuai dengan 12 kriteria kelas rawat inap standar secara bertahap. Apa saja ke-12 kriteria KRIS itu?

Sesuai bunyi Pasal 46A Perpres 59/2024, disyaratkan kriteria fasilitas perawatan dan pelayanan rawat inap KRIS meliputi komponen bangunan yang digunakan tidak boleh memiliki tingkat porositas yang tinggi serta terdapat ventilasi udara dan kelengkapan tidur.

Demikian pula soal pencahayaan ruangan. Perpres itu juga mengatur pencahayaan ruangan buatan mengikuti kriteria standar 250 lux untuk penerangan dan 50 lux untuk pencahayaan tidur, temperature ruangan 20--26 derajat celcius.

Tidak hanya itu, layanan rawat inap berdasarkan perpres itu mensyaratkan fasilitas layanan yang membagi ruang rawat berdasarkan jenis kelamin pasien, anak atau dewasa, serta penyakit infeksi atau noninfeksi.

Selain itu, kriteria lainnya adalah keharusan bagi penyedia layanan untuk mempertimbangkan kepadatan ruang rawat dan kualitas tempat tidur, penyediaan tirai atau partisi antartempat tidur, kamar mandi dalam ruangan rawat inap yang memenuhi standar aksesibilitas, dan menyediakan outlet oksigen.

Selain itu, kelengkapan tempat tidur berupa adanya dua kotak kontak dan nurse call pada setiap tempat tidur dan adanya nakas per tempat tidur. Kepadatan ruang rawat inap maksimal empat tempat tidur dengan jarak antara tepi tempat tidur minimal 1,5 meter.

Tirai/partisi dengan rel dibenamkan menempel di plafon atau menggantung. Kamar mandi dalam ruang rawat inap serta kamar mandi sesuai dengan standar aksesibilitas dan outlet oksigen.

Azhar menjamin, Kemenkes akan menjalankan hal tersebut sesuai dengan tupoksi yang ada. “Tentu saja kami akan bekerja sama dengan BPJS Kesehatan dalam implementasi dan pengawasannya di lapangan,” ujar Azhar.

Berkaitan dengan perpres jaminan kesehatan itu, Direktur Utama BPJS Kesehatan Ghufron Mukti menilai, perpres tersebut berorientasi pada penyeragaman kelas rawat inap yang mengacu pada 12 kriteria. "Bahwa perawatan ada kelas rawat inap standar dengan 12 kriteria, untuk peserta BPJS, maka sebagaimana sumpah dokter tidak boleh dibedakan pemberian pelayan medis atas dasar suku, agama, status sosial atau beda iurannya," ujarnya.

Jika ada peserta ingin dirawat pada kelas yang lebih tinggi, kata Ghufron, maka diperbolehkan selama hal itu dipengaruhi situasi nonmedis. Hal itu disebutkan dalam Pasal 51 Perpres Jaminan Kesehatan diatur ketentuan naik kelas perawatan.

Menurut pasal tersebut, naik kelas perawatan dilakukan dengan cara mengikuti asuransi kesehatan tambahan atau membayar selisih antara biaya yang dijamin oleh BPJS Kesehatan dengan biaya yang harus dibayar akibat peningkatan pelayanan.

Selisih antara biaya yang dijamin oleh BPJS Kesehatan dengan biaya pelayanan dapat dibayar oleh peserta bersangkutan, pemberi kerja, atau asuransi kesehatan tambahan.

Ghufron Mukti juga mengimbau pengelola rumah sakit tidak mengurangi jumlah tempat tidur perawatan pasien dalam upaya memenuhi kriteria KRIS. "Pesan saya jangan dikurangi akses dengan mengurangi jumlah tempat tidur. Pertahankan jumlah tempat tidur dan penuhi persyaratannya dengan 12 kriteria tersebut," tegas Ghufron.

Penulis: Firman Hidranto Redaktur: Ratna Nuraini/Elvira Inda Sari Sumber: Indonesia.go.id

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Ich begann, Social Media aufzubauen, \ um den Menschen eine Stimme zu geben. \ Mark Zuckerberg

Sind euch auch die Tränen gekommen, als ihr Mark Zuckerbergs Wendehals-Deklaration bezüglich der Meinungsfreiheit auf seinen Portalen gehört habt? Rührend, oder? Während er früher die offensichtliche Zensur leugnete und später die Regierung Biden dafür verantwortlich machte, will er nun angeblich «die Zensur auf unseren Plattformen drastisch reduzieren».

«Purer Opportunismus» ob des anstehenden Regierungswechsels wäre als Klassifizierung viel zu kurz gegriffen. Der jetzige Schachzug des Meta-Chefs ist genauso Teil einer kühl kalkulierten Business-Strategie, wie es die 180 Grad umgekehrte Praxis vorher war. Social Media sind ein höchst lukratives Geschäft. Hinzu kommt vielleicht noch ein bisschen verkorkstes Ego, weil derartig viel Einfluss und Geld sicher auch auf die Psyche schlagen. Verständlich.

«Es ist an der Zeit, zu unseren Wurzeln der freien Meinungsäußerung auf Facebook und Instagram zurückzukehren. Ich begann, Social Media aufzubauen, um den Menschen eine Stimme zu geben», sagte Zuckerberg.

Welche Wurzeln? Hat der Mann vergessen, dass er von der Überwachung, dem Ausspionieren und dem Ausverkauf sämtlicher Daten und digitaler Spuren sowie der Manipulation seiner «Kunden» lebt? Das ist knallharter Kommerz, nichts anderes. Um freie Meinungsäußerung geht es bei diesem Geschäft ganz sicher nicht, und das war auch noch nie so. Die Wurzeln von Facebook liegen in einem Projekt des US-Militärs mit dem Namen «LifeLog». Dessen Ziel war es, «ein digitales Protokoll vom Leben eines Menschen zu erstellen».

Der Richtungswechsel kommt allerdings nicht überraschend. Schon Anfang Dezember hatte Meta-Präsident Nick Clegg von «zu hoher Fehlerquote bei der Moderation» von Inhalten gesprochen. Bei der Gelegenheit erwähnte er auch, dass Mark sehr daran interessiert sei, eine aktive Rolle in den Debatten über eine amerikanische Führungsrolle im technologischen Bereich zu spielen.

Während Milliardärskollege und Big Tech-Konkurrent Elon Musk bereits seinen Posten in der kommenden Trump-Regierung in Aussicht hat, möchte Zuckerberg also nicht nur seine Haut retten – Trump hatte ihn einmal einen «Feind des Volkes» genannt und ihm lebenslange Haft angedroht –, sondern am liebsten auch mitspielen. KI-Berater ist wohl die gewünschte Funktion, wie man nach einem Treffen Trump-Zuckerberg hörte. An seine Verhaftung dachte vermutlich auch ein weiterer Multimilliardär mit eigener Social Media-Plattform, Pavel Durov, als er Zuckerberg jetzt kritisierte und gleichzeitig warnte.

Politik und Systemmedien drehen jedenfalls durch – was zu viel ist, ist zu viel. Etwas weniger Zensur und mehr Meinungsfreiheit würden die Freiheit der Bürger schwächen und seien potenziell vernichtend für die Menschenrechte. Zuckerberg setze mit dem neuen Kurs die Demokratie aufs Spiel, das sei eine «Einladung zum nächsten Völkermord», ernsthaft. Die Frage sei, ob sich die EU gegen Musk und Zuckerberg behaupten könne, Brüssel müsse jedenfalls hart durchgreifen.

Auch um die Faktenchecker macht man sich Sorgen. Für die deutsche Nachrichtenagentur dpa und die «Experten» von Correctiv, die (noch) Partner für Fact-Checking-Aktivitäten von Facebook sind, sei das ein «lukratives Geschäftsmodell». Aber möglicherweise werden die Inhalte ohne diese vermeintlichen Korrektoren ja sogar besser. Anders als Meta wollen jedoch Scholz, Faeser und die Tagesschau keine Fehler zugeben und zum Beispiel Correctiv-Falschaussagen einräumen.

Bei derlei dramatischen Befürchtungen wundert es nicht, dass der öffentliche Plausch auf X zwischen Elon Musk und AfD-Chefin Alice Weidel von 150 EU-Beamten überwacht wurde, falls es irgendwelche Rechtsverstöße geben sollte, die man ihnen ankreiden könnte. Auch der Deutsche Bundestag war wachsam. Gefunden haben dürften sie nichts. Das Ganze war eher eine Show, viel Wind wurde gemacht, aber letztlich gab es nichts als heiße Luft.

Das Anbiedern bei Donald Trump ist indes gerade in Mode. Die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) tut das auch, denn sie fürchtet um Spenden von über einer Milliarde Dollar. Eventuell könnte ja Elon Musk auch hier künftig aushelfen und der Organisation sowie deren größtem privaten Förderer, Bill Gates, etwas unter die Arme greifen. Nachdem Musks KI-Projekt xAI kürzlich von BlackRock & Co. sechs Milliarden eingestrichen hat, geht da vielleicht etwas.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 266815e0:6cd408a5

Lot of people are starting to talk about building a web-of-trust and how nostr can or is already being used as such

We all know about using the kind:3 following lists as a simple WoT that can be used to filter out spam. but as we all know it does not really signal "trust", its mostly just "I find your content interesting"

But what about real "trust"... well its kind of multi-denominational, I could trust that your a good developer or a good journalist but still not trust you enough to invite you over to my house. There are some interesting and clever solutions proposed for quantifying "trust" in a digital sense but I'm not going to get into that here. I want to talk about something that I have not see anyone discuss yet.

How is the web-of-trust maintained? or more precisely how do you expect users to update the digital representation of the "trust" of other users?

Its all well and good to think of how a user would create that "trust" of another user when discovering them for the first time. They would click the "follow" button, or maybe even rate them on a few topics with a 1/5 star system But how will a user remove that trust? how will they update it if things change and they trust them less?

If our goal is to model "trust" in a digital sense then we NEED a way for the data to stay up-to-date and as accurate as possible. otherwise whats the use? If we don't have a friction-less way to update or remove the digital representation of "trust" then we will end up with a WoT that continuously grows and everyone is rated 10/10

In the case of nostr kind:3 following lists. its pretty easy to see how these would get updated. If someone posts something I dislike or I notice I'm getting board of their content. then I just unfollow them. An important part here is that I'm not thinking "I should update my trust score of this user" but instead "I'm no longer interested, I don't want to see this anymore"

But that is probably the easiest "trust" to update. because most of us on social media spend some time curating our feed and we are used to doing it. But what about the more obscure "trust" scores? whats the regular mechanism by which a user would update the "honestly" score of another user?

In the real world its easy, when I stop trusting someone I simply stop associating with them. there isn't any button or switch I need to update. I simply don't talk to them anymore, its friction-less But in the digital realm I would have to remove or update that trust. in other words its an action I need to take instead of an action I'm not doing. and actions take energy.

So how do we reflect something in the digital world that takes no-energy and is almost subconscious in the real world?

TLDR; webs-of-trust are not just about scoring other users once. you must keep the score up-to-date

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Ready to be pushed beyond what you think you’re capable of?

At Coinbase, our mission is to increase economic freedom in the world. It’s a massive, ambitious opportunity that demands the best of us, every day, as we build the emerging onchain platform — and with it, the future global financial system.

To achieve our mission, we’re seeking a very specific candidate. We want someone who is passionate about our mission and who believes in the power of crypto and blockchain technology to update the financial system. We want someone who is eager to leave their mark on the world, who relishes the pressure and privilege of working with high caliber colleagues, and who actively seeks feedback to keep leveling up. We want someone who will run towards, not away from, solving the company’s hardest problems.

Our work culture is intense and isn’t for everyone. But if you want to build the future alongside others who excel in their disciplines and expect the same from you, there’s no better place to be.

Coinbase Developer Platform (CDP) is building the developer tools to bring the world onchain.

Today, onchain development is slow, risky, and painful, even for the most experienced onchain developers. Our goal is to bring a million developers onchain by creating an easy to use and trusted developer experience. We build API and SDK products for developers like wallets, paymaster, staking, stablecoins, onchain data, and more.

We are a small team that moves like a startup at Coinbase, with a fast pace, strong ownership culture, and a relentless commitment to making developers happy.

We are looking for a UX Researcher to help us build products and tools that support the developer experience. By researching the usability and ease of integration, the developer journey, user types, opportunities to improve documentation, and the developer's overall experience you will drive material product impact. You will also empower and enable the product team to conduct their own research through your expert consultation and facilitation. 

What you’ll be doing

• Leading the UX Research function for our Developer Product Group, working in close partnership with the Design and Product teams - from large foundational and generative projects to evaluative, tactical, and investigative quick wins
• Coordinate and conduct mixed-methods research, including interviews, usability testing, concept testing, surveys, fieldwork, and other methods as needed
• Provide thoughtful guidance and education to stakeholders to turn vague business needs into actionable research questions
• Creatively think of new ways to enable the team to more easily gather their own feedback from developers.
• Craft research reports to clearly communicate your findings and make impactful design and product recommendations for the team.

What we look for in you

• 7+ years of user research experience, preferably with some experience in a lead role or primary point of contact for a large product area with many stakeholders
• Experience scaling UXR so that a variety of stakeholders can conduct effective and valuable research under your guidance
• Experience researching developer products and tools
• Working knowledge of general research principles (experimental design, bias, confounds, etc.) and UX research principles (usability testing, design thinking, etc.).
• Provides both confident team leadership and patient guidance to a range of stakeholder levels, including guiding designers and PMs through their own research
• Easily communicates complex concepts, with ability to influence strategy and decision making
• Can successfully manage project prioritization and multiple stakeholder relationships independently
• Experience with both moderated & unmoderated testing
• Collaborative attitude, team mentality, and humility 
• A learner’s mindset, seeing feedback as a chance to grow
• Interest in crypto or financial products

Nice to haves

• Research experience working with AI
• Experience as a developer
• User of Coinbase products

Job ID: GDUXR06US

*Answers to crypto-related questions may be used to evaluate your onchain experience

Pay Transparency Notice: Depending on your work location, the target annual salary for this position can range as detailed below. Full time offers from Coinbase also include target bonus + target equity + benefits (including medical, dental, vision and 401(k)).

Pay Range:

$193,970—$228,200 USD

Commitment to Equal Opportunity

Coinbase is committed to diversity in its workforce and is proud to be an Equal Opportunity Employer.  All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, creed, gender, national origin, age, disability, veteran status, sex, gender expression or identity, sexual orientation or any other basis protected by applicable law. Coinbase will also consider for employment qualified applicants with criminal histories in a manner consistent with applicable federal, state and local law.  For US applicants, you may view the Know Your Rights notice here.  Additionally, Coinbase participates in the E-Verify program in certain locations, as required by law. 

Coinbase is also committed to providing reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities. If you need a reasonable accommodation because of a disability for any part of the employment process, please contact us at accommodations[at]coinbase.com to let us know the nature of your request and your contact information.  For quick access to screen reading technology compatible with this site click here to download a free compatible screen reader (free step by step tutorial can be found here).

Global Data Privacy Notice for Job Candidates and Applicants

Depending on your location, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) may regulate the way we manage the data of job applicants. Our full notice outlining how data will be processed as part of the application procedure for applicable locations is available here. By submitting your application, you are agreeing to our use and processing of your data as required. For US applicants only, by submitting your application you are agreeing to arbitration of disputes as outlined here.

Apply

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/870703

@ 266815e0:6cd408a5

While I was in Mediera with all the other awesome people at the first SEC cohort there where a lot of discussions around data storage on nostr and if it could be made censorship-resistent

I remember lots of discussions about torrents, hypercore, nostr relays, and of course IPFS

There were a few things I learned from all these conversations:

1. All the existing solutions have one thing in common. A universal ID of some kind for files
2. HTTP is still good. we don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water
3. nostr could fix this... somehow

Some of the existing solutions work well for large files, and all of them are decentralization in some way. However none of them seem capable of serving up cat pictures for social media clients. they all have something missing...

An Identity system

An identity system would allow files to be "owned" by users. and once files have owners servers could start grouping files into a single thing instead of a 1000+ loose files

This can also greatly simplify the question of "what is spam" for a server hosting (or seeding) these files. since it could simply have a whitelist of owners (and maybe their friends)

What is blossom?

Blossom is a set of HTTP endpoints that allow nostr users to store and retrieve binary data on public servers using the sha256 hash as a universal id

What are Blobs?

blobs are chunks of binary data. they are similar to files but with one key difference, they don't have names

Instead blobs have a sha256 hash (like b1674191a88ec5cdd733e4240a81803105dc412d6c6708d53ab94fc248f4f553) as an ID

These IDs are universal since they can be computed from the file itself using the sha256 hashing algorithm ( you can get a files sha256 hash on linux using: sha256sum bitcoin.pdf )

How do the servers work?

Blossom servers expose four endpoints to let clients and users upload and manage blobs

• GET /<sha256> (optional file .ext)
• PUT /upload
• Authentication: Signed nostr event
• Returns a blob descriptor
• GET /list/<pubkey>
• Returns an array of blob descriptors
• Authentication (optional): Signed nostr event
• DELETE /<sha256>
• Authentication: Signed nostr event

What is Blossom Drive?

Blossom Drive is a nostr app built on top of blossom servers and allows users to create and manage folders of blobs

What are Drives

Drives are just nostr events (kind 30563) that store a map of blobs and what filename they should have along with some extra metadata

An example drive event would be json { "pubkey": "266815e0c9210dfa324c6cba3573b14bee49da4209a9456f9484e5106cd408a5", "created_at": 1710773987, "content": "", "kind": 30563, "tags": [ [ "name", "Emojis" ], [ "description", "nostr emojis" ], [ "d", "emojis" ], [ "r", "https://cdn.hzrd149.com/" ], [ "x", "303f018e613f29e3e43264529903b7c8c84debbd475f89368cb293ec23938981", "/noStrudel.png", "15161", "image/png" ], [ "x", "a0e2b39975c8da1702374b3eed6f4c6c7333e6ae0008dadafe93bd34bfb2ca78", "/satellite.png", "6853", "image/png" ], [ "x", "e8f3fae0f4a43a88eae235a8b79794d72e8f14b0e103a0fed1e073d8fb53d51f", "/amethyst.png", "20487", "image/png" ], [ "x", "70bd5836807b916d79e9c4e67e8b07e3e3b53f4acbb95c7521b11039a3c975c6", "/nos.png", "36521", "image/png" ], [ "x", "0fc304630279e0c5ab2da9c2769e3a3178c47b8609b447a30916244e89abbc52", "/primal.png", "29343", "image/png" ], [ "x", "9a03824a73d4af192d893329bbc04cd3798542ee87af15051aaf9376b74b25d4", "/coracle.png", "18300", "image/png" ], [ "x", "accdc0cdc048f4719bb5e1da4ff4c6ffc1a4dbb7cf3afbd19b86940c01111568", "/iris.png", "24070", "image/png" ], [ "x", "2e740f2514d6188e350d95cf4756bbf455d2f95e6a09bc64e94f5031bc4bba8f", "/damus.png", "32758", "image/png" ], [ "x", "2e019f08da0c75fb9c40d81947e511c8f0554763bffb6d23a7b9b8c9e8c84abb", "/old emojis/astral.png", "29365", "image/png" ], [ "x", "d97f842f2511ce0491fe0de208c6135b762f494a48da59926ce15acfdb6ac17e", "/other/rabbit.png", "19803", "image/png" ], [ "x", "72cb99b689b4cfe1a9fb6937f779f3f9c65094bf0e6ac72a8f8261efa96653f5", "/blossom.png", "4393", "image/png" ] ] }

There is a lot going on but the main thing is the list of "x" tags and the path that describes the folder and filename the blob should live at

If your interested, the full event definition is at github.com/hzrd149/blossom-drive

Getting started

Like every good nostr client it takes a small instruction manual in order to use it properly. so here are the steps for getting started

1. Open the app

Open https://blossom.hzrd149.com

2. Login using extension

You can also login using any of the following methods using the input - NIP-46 with your https://nsec.app or https://flare.pub account - a NIP-46 connection string - an ncryptsec password protected private key - a nsec unprotected private key (please don't) - bunker:// URI from nsecbunker

3. Add a blossom server

Right now https://cdn.satellite.earth is the only public server that is compatible with blossom drive. If you want to host your own I've written a basic implementation in TypeScript github.com/hzrd149/blossom-server

4. Start uploading your files

NOTE: All files upload to blossom drive are public by default. DO NOT upload private files

5. Manage files

Encrypted drives

There is also the option to encrypt drives using NIP-49 password encryption. although its not tested at all so don't trust it, verify

Whats next?

I don't know, but Im excited to see what everyone else on nostr builds with this. I'm only one developer at the end of the day and I can't think of everything

also all the images in this article are stored in one of my blossom drives here

nostr:naddr1qvzqqqrhvvpzqfngzhsvjggdlgeycm96x4emzjlwf8dyyzdfg4hefp89zpkdgz99qq8xzun5d93kcefdd9kkzem9wvr46jka

@ c3b2802b:4850599c

Im spanischen Teil des Baskenlandes wurden in den 1940er Kriegsjahren die Wurzeln für einen Genossenschaftsverbund namens Mondragon gelegt, welcher sich in den Jahrzehnten seit der Gründung 1956 bis heute zu einem schwergewichtigen Faktor in Spanien, ja zur größten Industrie-Genossenschaft der Welt entwickelt hat:

In den Geschäftsfeldern Produktion (dutzende Unternehmen der Sektoren Maschinenbau, Automobilindustrie, Haushaltsgeräte, Bauindustrie), Einzelhandel (z.B. die Supermarktkette Eroski), Bildung (genossenschaftseigene Universität mit knapp 5.000 Studierenden) und Finanzen (Genossenschaftsbank Laboral Kutxa) erzeugt der Verbund von ca. 100 Genossenschaften mit über 10 Milliarden Euro pro Jahr ca. 4% des BIP des Baskenlandes.

Etwa drei Viertel der Beschäftigten  des Verbundes sind Genossenschaftler mit Einlagen von jeweils rund 15.000 Euro. Damit sind sie Miteigentümer der Unternehmen im Verbund und sind damit an allen Entscheidungen bezüglich der Unternehmensstrategie beteiligt. Als Rentner können sie ihre Einlagen entnehmen oder weiter am Erfolg des Unternehmens teilhaben. Arbeitsunfähige Mitglieder erhalten volle Bezüge bis zum Rentenalter. Führungskräfte verdienen nach internen Übereinkünften maximal das Achtfache der einfachen Angestellten. 

In unserem Land sind Genossenschaften derzeit im Aufwind. Vielleicht können wir uns beim Aufbau unserer Regionalgesellschaft an den Erfolgsfaktoren, also den guten Erfahrungen dieses großartigen Pioniers der Genossenschaftsbewegung orientieren? Die Webseite des Mondragon Verbundes finden Sie hier.

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Bitcoin Design members have been involved in organizing various events (and sometimes just attend, too). Here below is what do we want to do in 2025:

• Designathon 2 - We are organizing this event between February or March.

• Accessibility Day - May 15

• • BDC has participated in this global initiative the last two years. Probably doing so again!

• BTC Prague -Participation Confirmed. Planning issues here - June 19 - 21

• • We organized the design track for dev day in 2023 and 2024. Do this again[k][l]? It’s going to be on June 18, before the main conference.
• • 2024 was great, in that we had a nice group of designers attend, do talks, go for dinner, etc.

• Summer of Bitcoin

• • Several designers and projects participated each of the last 3 years. Probably doing so again!
• • Applications open on Feb 1, main program is May to August (timeline

• UX Bootcamps

• • Previous: South America
• • Next: South America - February 17 - 22

• Bitshala fellowship

• • First iteration of this fellowship is from January to July
• • We will help find more designers, projects, and funding in India

• Oslo Freedom Forum - Oslo, May 26-28

• • Activist and financial repression use cases are uniquely important use cases for bitcoin.
• • Several people attended last year. Conversations lead to new initiatives.

• BTCHEL - by BTC Helsinki Community - Aug 15-16

• • First large-scale bitcoin conference in the Nordics with particular focus to onboard new users to bitcoin

• Bitcoin Presidio design week

• • This is a new Bitcoin co-working space in San Francisco, also announced here https://stacker.news/items/860931/r/Design_r. The idea came up to organize a design week there to support the creation of art and decoration for the new co-working space. Just an idea at the moment, but why not make it happen?
• • Discussion issue.

• BuildWithLDK

• • An initiative to promote LDK and LDK Node for building lightning applications. There could be collaboration around a Designathon, connecting designers with hackathon projects, etc. Still in early planning.

• Builder conferences: These are very builder-focused, making them good opportunities to connect, organize practical design workshops, creative presentations, and support projects from a design perspective

• • Baltic Honeybadger (August 9-10),
• • TABConf
• • Bitcoin++ There are going to be 6 of them throughout the year.
• • SATS’N’FACTS (February 8-10) Bitcoin Technical Unconference, Hackathon & Freedom Tech Art Exhibition

• *Open-source conferences & events

• • FOSS Backstage (Berlin, Mar 10-11) - Christoph will present the Open Design Guide
• • FOSDEM (Brussels, Feb 1-2) - anyone attending?

• Design conferences & events - Makes sense to be involved with design-only events, right?

• OFFF - very creative-focused (Barcelona, May 8-10)
• CSUN Accessibility conference

Other Ideas * Bitcoin Park - they might organize another design event like two years ago https://stacker.news/items/705081/r/Design_r

Links * Comprehensive list of bitcoin conferences

---

… what’s missing from this page? Are you involved with anything? Or want to be? Comment below or join us on https://discord.com/channels/903125802726596648/1087394066796384276

You can watch the recording from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGS3oSlLmAo

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/870638