@ a95c6243:d345522c

Europa – das Ganze ist eine wunderbare Idee, \ aber das war der Kommunismus auch. \ Loriot

«Europa hat fertig», könnte man unken, und das wäre nicht einmal sehr verwegen. Mit solch einer Einschätzung stünden wir nicht alleine, denn die Stimmen in diese Richtung mehren sich. Der französische Präsident Emmanuel Macron warnte schon letztes Jahr davor, dass «unser Europa sterben könnte». Vermutlich hatte er dabei andere Gefahren im Kopf als jetzt der ungarische Ministerpräsident Viktor Orbán, der ein «baldiges Ende der EU» prognostizierte. Das Ergebnis könnte allerdings das gleiche sein.

Neben vordergründigen Themenbereichen wie Wirtschaft, Energie und Sicherheit ist das eigentliche Problem jedoch die obskure Mischung aus aufgegebener Souveränität und geschwollener Arroganz, mit der europäische Politiker:innende unterschiedlicher Couleur aufzutreten pflegen. Und das Tüpfelchen auf dem i ist die bröckelnde Legitimation politischer Institutionen dadurch, dass die Stimmen großer Teile der Bevölkerung seit Jahren auf vielfältige Weise ausgegrenzt werden.

Um «UnsereDemokratie» steht es schlecht. Dass seine Mandate immer schwächer werden, merkt natürlich auch unser «Führungspersonal». Entsprechend werden die Maßnahmen zur Gängelung, Überwachung und Manipulation der Bürger ständig verzweifelter. Parallel dazu plustern sich in Paris Macron, Scholz und einige andere noch einmal mächtig in Sachen Verteidigung und «Kriegstüchtigkeit» auf.

Momentan gilt es auch, das Überschwappen covidiotischer und verschwörungsideologischer Auswüchse aus den USA nach Europa zu vermeiden. So ein «MEGA» (Make Europe Great Again) können wir hier nicht gebrauchen. Aus den Vereinigten Staaten kommen nämlich furchtbare Nachrichten. Beispielsweise wurde einer der schärfsten Kritiker der Corona-Maßnahmen kürzlich zum Gesundheitsminister ernannt. Dieser setzt sich jetzt für eine Neubewertung der mRNA-«Impfstoffe» ein, was durchaus zu einem Entzug der Zulassungen führen könnte.

Der europäischen Version von «Verteidigung der Demokratie» setzte der US-Vizepräsident J. D. Vance auf der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz sein Verständnis entgegen: «Demokratie stärken, indem wir unseren Bürgern erlauben, ihre Meinung zu sagen». Das Abschalten von Medien, das Annullieren von Wahlen oder das Ausschließen von Menschen vom politischen Prozess schütze gar nichts. Vielmehr sei dies der todsichere Weg, die Demokratie zu zerstören.

In der Schweiz kamen seine Worte deutlich besser an als in den meisten europäischen NATO-Ländern. Bundespräsidentin Karin Keller-Sutter lobte die Rede und interpretierte sie als «Plädoyer für die direkte Demokratie». Möglicherweise zeichne sich hier eine außenpolitische Kehrtwende in Richtung integraler Neutralität ab, meint mein Kollege Daniel Funk. Das wären doch endlich mal ein paar gute Nachrichten.

Von der einstigen Idee einer europäischen Union mit engeren Beziehungen zwischen den Staaten, um Konflikte zu vermeiden und das Wohlergehen der Bürger zu verbessern, sind wir meilenweit abgekommen. Der heutige korrupte Verbund unter technokratischer Leitung ähnelt mehr einem Selbstbedienungsladen mit sehr begrenztem Zugang. Die EU-Wahlen im letzten Sommer haben daran ebenso wenig geändert, wie die Bundestagswahl am kommenden Sonntag darauf einen Einfluss haben wird.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Die «moralische Weltordnung» – eine Art Astrologie. Friedrich Nietzsche

Das Treffen der BRICS-Staaten beim Gipfel im russischen Kasan war sicher nicht irgendein politisches Event. Gastgeber Wladimir Putin habe «Hof gehalten», sagen die Einen, China und Russland hätten ihre Vorstellung einer multipolaren Weltordnung zelebriert, schreiben Andere.

In jedem Fall zeigt die Anwesenheit von über 30 Delegationen aus der ganzen Welt, dass von einer geostrategischen Isolation Russlands wohl keine Rede sein kann. Darüber hinaus haben sowohl die Anreise von UN-Generalsekretär António Guterres als auch die Meldungen und Dementis bezüglich der Beitrittsbemühungen des NATO-Staats Türkei für etwas Aufsehen gesorgt.

Im Spannungsfeld geopolitischer und wirtschaftlicher Umbrüche zeigt die neue Allianz zunehmendes Selbstbewusstsein. In Sachen gemeinsamer Finanzpolitik schmiedet man interessante Pläne. Größere Unabhängigkeit von der US-dominierten Finanzordnung ist dabei ein wichtiges Ziel.

Beim BRICS-Wirtschaftsforum in Moskau, wenige Tage vor dem Gipfel, zählte ein nachhaltiges System für Finanzabrechnungen und Zahlungsdienste zu den vorrangigen Themen. Während dieses Treffens ging der russische Staatsfonds eine Partnerschaft mit dem Rechenzentrumsbetreiber BitRiver ein, um Bitcoin-Mining-Anlagen für die BRICS-Länder zu errichten.

Die Initiative könnte ein Schritt sein, Bitcoin und andere Kryptowährungen als Alternativen zu traditionellen Finanzsystemen zu etablieren. Das Projekt könnte dazu führen, dass die BRICS-Staaten den globalen Handel in Bitcoin abwickeln. Vor dem Hintergrund der Diskussionen über eine «BRICS-Währung» wäre dies eine Alternative zu dem ursprünglich angedachten Korb lokaler Währungen und zu goldgedeckten Währungen sowie eine mögliche Ergänzung zum Zahlungssystem BRICS Pay.

Dient der Bitcoin also der Entdollarisierung? Oder droht er inzwischen, zum Gegenstand geopolitischer Machtspielchen zu werden? Angesichts der globalen Vernetzungen ist es oft schwer zu durchschauen, «was eine Show ist und was im Hintergrund von anderen Strippenziehern insgeheim gesteuert wird». Sicher können Strukturen wie Bitcoin auch so genutzt werden, dass sie den Herrschenden dienlich sind. Aber die Grundeigenschaft des dezentralisierten, unzensierbaren Peer-to-Peer Zahlungsnetzwerks ist ihm schließlich nicht zu nehmen.

Wenn es nach der EZB oder dem IWF geht, dann scheint statt Instrumentalisierung momentan eher der Kampf gegen Kryptowährungen angesagt. Jürgen Schaaf, Senior Manager bei der Europäischen Zentralbank, hat jedenfalls dazu aufgerufen, Bitcoin «zu eliminieren». Der Internationale Währungsfonds forderte El Salvador, das Bitcoin 2021 als gesetzliches Zahlungsmittel eingeführt hat, kürzlich zu begrenzenden Maßnahmen gegen das Kryptogeld auf.

Dass die BRICS-Staaten ein freiheitliches Ansinnen im Kopf haben, wenn sie Kryptowährungen ins Spiel bringen, darf indes auch bezweifelt werden. Im Abschlussdokument bekennen sich die Gipfel-Teilnehmer ausdrücklich zur UN, ihren Programmen und ihrer «Agenda 2030». Ernst Wolff nennt das «eine Bankrotterklärung korrupter Politiker, die sich dem digital-finanziellen Komplex zu 100 Prozent unterwerfen».

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 8947a945:9bfcf626

Chef's notes

https://video.nostr.build/ea19333ab7f700a6557b6f52f1f8cfe214671444687fa7ea56a18e5d751fe0a9.mp4

https://video.nostr.build/bcae8d39e22f66689d51f34e44ecabdf7a57b5099cc456e3e0f29446b1dfd0de.mp4

Details

• ⏲️ Prep time: 5 min
• 🍳 Cook time: 5 min
• 🍽️ Servings: 1

Ingredients

• ไข่ 1 - 2 ฟอง
• ข้าวโอ๊ต 3 - 4 ช้อน

Directions

1. ตอกไข่ + ตีไข่
2. ปรุงรส พริกไทย หรือ ซอสถั่วเหลืองตามชอบ
3. ใส่ข้าวโอ๊ต 3 - 4 ช้อน
4. ใส่ถั่วลิสงอบ 1 - 2 หยิบมือ
5. เทน้ำใส่พอท่วมข้าวโอ๊ต
6. เข้าไมโครเวฟ ไฟแรง 1 - 2 นาที

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Auf der diesjährigen Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz geht es vor allem um die Ukraine. Protagonisten sind dabei zunächst die US-Amerikaner. Präsident Trump schockierte die Europäer kurz vorher durch ein Telefonat mit seinem Amtskollegen Wladimir Putin, während Vizepräsident Vance mit seiner Rede über Demokratie und Meinungsfreiheit für versteinerte Mienen und Empörung sorgte.

Die Bemühungen der Europäer um einen Frieden in der Ukraine halten sich, gelinde gesagt, in Grenzen. Größeres Augenmerk wird auf militärische Unterstützung, die Pflege von Feindbildern sowie Eskalation gelegt. Der deutsche Bundeskanzler Scholz reagierte auf die angekündigten Verhandlungen über einen möglichen Frieden für die Ukraine mit der Forderung nach noch höheren «Verteidigungsausgaben». Auch die amtierende Außenministerin Baerbock hatte vor der Münchner Konferenz klargestellt:

«Frieden wird es nur durch Stärke geben. (...) Bei Corona haben wir gesehen, zu was Europa fähig ist. Es braucht erneut Investitionen, die der historischen Wegmarke, vor der wir stehen, angemessen sind.»

Die Rüstungsindustrie freut sich in jedem Fall über weltweit steigende Militärausgaben. Die Kriege in der Ukraine und in Gaza tragen zu Rekordeinnahmen bei. Jetzt «winkt die Aussicht auf eine jahrelange große Nachrüstung in Europa», auch wenn der Ukraine-Krieg enden sollte, so hört man aus Finanzkreisen. In der Konsequenz kennt «die Aktie des deutschen Vorzeige-Rüstungskonzerns Rheinmetall in ihrem Anstieg offenbar gar keine Grenzen mehr». «Solche Friedensversprechen» wie das jetzige hätten in der Vergangenheit zu starken Kursverlusten geführt.

Für manche Leute sind Kriegswaffen und sonstige Rüstungsgüter Waren wie alle anderen, jedenfalls aus der Perspektive von Investoren oder Managern. Auch in diesem Bereich gibt es Startups und man spricht von Dingen wie innovativen Herangehensweisen, hocheffizienten Produktionsanlagen, skalierbaren Produktionstechniken und geringeren Stückkosten.

Wir lesen aktuell von Massenproduktion und gesteigerten Fertigungskapazitäten für Kriegsgerät. Der Motor solcher Dynamik und solchen Wachstums ist die Aufrüstung, die inzwischen permanent gefordert wird. Parallel wird die Bevölkerung verbal eingestimmt und auf Kriegstüchtigkeit getrimmt.

Das Rüstungs- und KI-Startup Helsing verkündete kürzlich eine «dezentrale Massenproduktion für den Ukrainekrieg». Mit dieser Expansion positioniere sich das Münchner Unternehmen als einer der weltweit führenden Hersteller von Kampfdrohnen. Der nächste «Meilenstein» steht auch bereits an: Man will eine Satellitenflotte im Weltraum aufbauen, zur Überwachung von Gefechtsfeldern und Truppenbewegungen.

Ebenfalls aus München stammt das als DefenseTech-Startup bezeichnete Unternehmen ARX Robotics. Kürzlich habe man in der Region die größte europäische Produktionsstätte für autonome Verteidigungssysteme eröffnet. Damit fahre man die Produktion von Militär-Robotern hoch. Diese Expansion diene auch der Lieferung der «größten Flotte unbemannter Bodensysteme westlicher Bauart» in die Ukraine.

Rüstung boomt und scheint ein Zukunftsmarkt zu sein. Die Hersteller und Vermarkter betonen, mit ihren Aktivitäten und Produkten solle die europäische Verteidigungsfähigkeit erhöht werden. Ihre Strategien sollten sogar «zum Schutz demokratischer Strukturen beitragen».

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Nur wenn wir aufeinander zugehen, haben wir die Chance \ auf Überwindung der gegenseitigen Ressentiments! \ Dr. med. dent. Jens Knipphals

In Wolfsburg sollte es kürzlich eine Gesprächsrunde von Kritikern der Corona-Politik mit Oberbürgermeister Dennis Weilmann und Vertretern der Stadtverwaltung geben. Der Zahnarzt und langjährige Maßnahmenkritiker Jens Knipphals hatte diese Einladung ins Rathaus erwirkt und publiziert. Seine Motivation:

«Ich möchte die Spaltung der Gesellschaft überwinden. Dazu ist eine umfassende Aufarbeitung der Corona-Krise in der Öffentlichkeit notwendig.»

Schon früher hatte Knipphals Antworten von den Kommunalpolitikern verlangt, zum Beispiel bei öffentlichen Bürgerfragestunden. Für das erwartete Treffen im Rathaus formulierte er Fragen wie: Warum wurden fachliche Argumente der Kritiker ignoriert? Weshalb wurde deren Ausgrenzung, Diskreditierung und Entmenschlichung nicht entgegengetreten? In welcher Form übernehmen Rat und Verwaltung in Wolfsburg persönlich Verantwortung für die erheblichen Folgen der politischen Corona-Krise?

Der Termin fand allerdings nicht statt – der Bürgermeister sagte ihn kurz vorher wieder ab. Knipphals bezeichnete Weilmann anschließend als Wiederholungstäter, da das Stadtoberhaupt bereits 2022 zu einem Runden Tisch in der Sache eingeladen hatte, den es dann nie gab. Gegenüber Multipolar erklärte der Arzt, Weilmann wolle scheinbar eine öffentliche Aufarbeitung mit allen Mitteln verhindern. Er selbst sei «inzwischen absolut desillusioniert» und die einzige Lösung sei, dass die Verantwortlichen gingen.

Die Aufarbeitung der Plandemie beginne bei jedem von uns selbst, sei aber letztlich eine gesamtgesellschaftliche Aufgabe, schreibt Peter Frey, der den «Fall Wolfsburg» auch in seinem Blog behandelt. Diese Aufgabe sei indes deutlich größer, als viele glaubten. Erfreulicherweise sei der öffentliche Informationsraum inzwischen größer, trotz der weiterhin unverfrorenen Desinformations-Kampagnen der etablierten Massenmedien.

Frey erinnert daran, dass Dennis Weilmann mitverantwortlich für gravierende Grundrechtseinschränkungen wie die 2021 eingeführten 2G-Regeln in der Wolfsburger Innenstadt zeichnet. Es sei naiv anzunehmen, dass ein Funktionär einzig im Interesse der Bürger handeln würde. Als früherer Dezernent des Amtes für Wirtschaft, Digitalisierung und Kultur der Autostadt kenne Weilmann zum Beispiel die Verknüpfung von Fördergeldern mit politischen Zielsetzungen gut.

Wolfsburg wurde damals zu einem Modellprojekt des Bundesministeriums des Innern (BMI) und war Finalist im Bitkom-Wettbewerb «Digitale Stadt». So habe rechtzeitig vor der Plandemie das Projekt «Smart City Wolfsburg» anlaufen können, das der Stadt «eine Vorreiterrolle für umfassende Vernetzung und Datenerfassung» aufgetragen habe, sagt Frey. Die Vereinten Nationen verkauften dann derartige «intelligente» Überwachungs- und Kontrollmaßnahmen ebenso als Rettung in der Not wie das Magazin Forbes im April 2020:

«Intelligente Städte können uns helfen, die Coronavirus-Pandemie zu bekämpfen. In einer wachsenden Zahl von Ländern tun die intelligenten Städte genau das. Regierungen und lokale Behörden nutzen Smart-City-Technologien, Sensoren und Daten, um die Kontakte von Menschen aufzuspüren, die mit dem Coronavirus infiziert sind. Gleichzeitig helfen die Smart Cities auch dabei, festzustellen, ob die Regeln der sozialen Distanzierung eingehalten werden.»

Offensichtlich gibt es viele Aspekte zu bedenken und zu durchleuten, wenn es um die Aufklärung und Aufarbeitung der sogenannten «Corona-Pandemie» und der verordneten Maßnahmen geht. Frustration und Desillusion sind angesichts der Realitäten absolut verständlich. Gerade deswegen sind Initiativen wie die von Jens Knipphals so bewundernswert und so wichtig – ebenso wie eine seiner Kernthesen: «Wir müssen aufeinander zugehen, da hilft alles nichts».

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Pequenos problemas que o Estado cria para a sociedade e que não são sempre lembrados

- **vale-transporte**: transferir o custo com o transporte do funcionário para um terceiro o estimula a morar longe de onde trabalha, já que morar perto é normalmente mais caro e a economia com transporte é inexistente.
- **atestado médico**: o direito a faltar o trabalho com atestado médico cria a exigência desse atestado para todas as situações, substituindo o livre acordo entre patrão e empregado e sobrecarregando os médicos e postos de saúde com visitas desnecessárias de assalariados resfriados.
- **prisões**: com dinheiro mal-administrado, burocracia e péssima alocação de recursos -- problemas que empresas privadas em competição (ou mesmo sem qualquer competição) saberiam resolver muito melhor -- o Estado fica sem presídios, com os poucos existentes entupidos, muito acima de sua alocação máxima, e com isto, segundo a bizarra corrente de responsabilidades que culpa o juiz que condenou o criminoso por sua morte na cadeia, juízes deixam de condenar à prisão os bandidos, soltando-os na rua.
- **justiça**: entrar com processos é grátis e isto faz proliferar a atividade dos advogados que se dedicam a criar problemas judiciais onde não seria necessário e a entupir os tribunais, impedindo-os de fazer o que mais deveriam fazer.
- **justiça**: como a justiça só obedece às leis e ignora acordos pessoais, escritos ou não, as pessoas não fazem acordos, recorrem sempre à justiça estatal, e entopem-na de assuntos que seriam muito melhor resolvidos entre vizinhos.
- **leis civis**: as leis criadas pelos parlamentares ignoram os costumes da sociedade e são um incentivo a que as pessoas não respeitem nem criem normas sociais -- que seriam maneiras mais rápidas, baratas e satisfatórias de resolver problemas.
- **leis de trãnsito**: quanto mais leis de trânsito, mais serviço de fiscalização são delegados aos policiais, que deixam de combater crimes por isto (afinal de contas, eles não querem de fato arriscar suas vidas combatendo o crime, a fiscalização é uma excelente desculpa para se esquivarem a esta responsabilidade).
- **financiamento educacional**: é uma espécie de subsídio às faculdades privadas que faz com que se criem cursos e mais cursos que são cada vez menos recheados de algum conhecimento ou técnica útil e cada vez mais inúteis.
- **leis de tombamento**: são um incentivo a que o dono de qualquer área ou construção "histórica" destrua todo e qualquer vestígio de história que houver nele antes que as autoridades descubram, o que poderia não acontecer se ele pudesse, por exemplo, usar, mostrar e se beneficiar da história daquele local sem correr o risco de perder, de fato, a sua propriedade.
- **zoneamento urbano**: torna as cidades mais espalhadas, criando uma necessidade gigantesca de carros, ônibus e outros meios de transporte para as pessoas se locomoverem das zonas de moradia para as zonas de trabalho.
- **zoneamento urbano**: faz com que as pessoas percam horas no trânsito todos os dias, o que é, além de um desperdício, um atentado contra a sua saúde, que estaria muito melhor servida numa caminhada diária entre a casa e o trabalho.
- **zoneamento urbano**: torna ruas e as casas menos seguras criando zonas enormes, tanto de residências quanto de indústrias, onde não há movimento de gente alguma.
- **escola obrigatória + currículo escolar nacional**: emburrece todas as crianças.
- **leis contra trabalho infantil**: tira das crianças a oportunidade de aprender ofícios úteis e levar um dinheiro para ajudar a família.
- **licitações**: como não existem os critérios do mercado para decidir qual é o melhor prestador de serviço, criam-se comissões de pessoas que vão decidir coisas. isto incentiva os prestadores de serviço que estão concorrendo na licitação a tentar comprar os membros dessas comissões. isto, fora a corrupção, gera problemas reais: __(i)__ a escolha dos serviços acaba sendo a pior possível, já que a empresa prestadora que vence está claramente mais dedicada a comprar comissões do que a fazer um bom trabalho (este problema afeta tantas áreas, desde a construção de estradas até a qualidade da merenda escolar, que é impossível listar aqui); __(ii)__ o processo corruptor acaba, no longo prazo, eliminando as empresas que prestavam e deixando para competir apenas as corruptas, e a qualidade tende a piorar progressivamente.
- **cartéis**: o Estado em geral cria e depois fica refém de vários grupos de interesse. o caso dos taxistas contra o Uber é o que está na moda hoje (e o que mostra como os Estados se comportam da mesma forma no mundo todo).
- **multas**: quando algum indivíduo ou empresa comete uma fraude financeira, ou causa algum dano material involuntário, as vítimas do caso são as pessoas que sofreram o dano ou perderam dinheiro, mas o Estado tem sempre leis que prevêem multas para os responsáveis. A justiça estatal é sempre muito rígida e rápida na aplicação dessas multas, mas relapsa e vaga no que diz respeito à indenização das vítimas. O que em geral acontece é que o Estado aplica uma enorme multa ao responsável pelo mal, retirando deste os recursos que dispunha para indenizar as vítimas, e se retira do caso, deixando estas desamparadas.
- **desapropriação**: o Estado pode pegar qualquer propriedade de qualquer pessoa mediante uma indenização que é necessariamente inferior ao valor da propriedade para o seu presente dono (caso contrário ele a teria vendido voluntariamente).
- **seguro-desemprego**: se há, por exemplo, um prazo mínimo de 1 ano para o sujeito ter direito a receber seguro-desemprego, isto o incentiva a planejar ficar apenas 1 ano em cada emprego (ano este que será sucedido por um período de desemprego remunerado), matando todas as possibilidades de aprendizado ou aquisição de experiência naquela empresa específica ou ascensão hierárquica.
- **previdência**: a previdência social tem todos os defeitos de cálculo do mundo, e não importa muito ela ser uma forma horrível de poupar dinheiro, porque ela tem garantias bizarras de longevidade fornecidas pelo Estado, além de ser compulsória. Isso serve para criar no imaginário geral a idéia da __aposentadoria__, uma época mágica em que todos os dias serão finais de semana. A idéia da aposentadoria influencia o sujeito a não se preocupar em ter um emprego que faça sentido, mas sim em ter um trabalho qualquer, que o permita se aposentar.
- **regulamentação impossível**: milhares de coisas são proibidas, há regulamentações sobre os aspectos mais mínimos de cada empreendimento ou construção ou espaço. se todas essas regulamentações fossem exigidas não haveria condições de produção e todos morreriam. portanto, elas não são exigidas. porém, o Estado, ou um agente individual imbuído do poder estatal pode, se desejar, exigi-las todas de um cidadão inimigo seu. qualquer pessoa pode viver a vida inteira sem cumprir nem 10% das regulamentações estatais, mas viverá também todo esse tempo com medo de se tornar um alvo de sua exigência, num estado de terror psicológico.
- **perversão de critérios**: para muitas coisas sobre as quais a sociedade normalmente chegaria a um valor ou comportamento "razoável" espontaneamente, o Estado dita regras. estas regras muitas vezes não são obrigatórias, são mais "sugestões" ou limites, como o salário mínimo, ou as 44 horas semanais de trabalho. a sociedade, porém, passa a usar esses valores como se fossem o normal. são raras, por exemplo, as ofertas de emprego que fogem à regra das 44h semanais.
- **inflação**: subir os preços é difícil e constrangedor para as empresas, pedir aumento de salário é difícil e constrangedor para o funcionário. a inflação força as pessoas a fazer isso, mas o aumento não é automático, como alguns economistas podem pensar (enquanto alguns outros ficam muito satisfeitos de que esse processo seja demorado e difícil).
- **inflação**: a inflação destrói a capacidade das pessoas de julgar preços entre concorrentes usando a própria memória.
- **inflação**: a inflação destrói os cálculos de lucro/prejuízo das empresas e prejudica enormemente as decisões empresariais que seriam baseadas neles.
- **inflação**: a inflação redistribui a riqueza dos mais pobres e mais afastados do sistema financeiro para os mais ricos, os bancos e as megaempresas.
- **inflação**: a inflação estimula o endividamento e o consumismo.
- **lixo:** ao prover coleta e armazenamento de lixo "grátis para todos" o Estado incentiva a criação de lixo. se tivessem que pagar para que recolhessem o seu lixo, as pessoas (e conseqüentemente as empresas) se empenhariam mais em produzir coisas usando menos plástico, menos embalagens, menos sacolas.
- **leis contra crimes financeiros:** ao criar legislação para dificultar acesso ao sistema financeiro por parte de criminosos a dificuldade e os custos para acesso a esse mesmo sistema pelas pessoas de bem cresce absurdamente, levando a um percentual enorme de gente incapaz de usá-lo, para detrimento de todos -- e no final das contas os grandes criminosos ainda conseguem burlar tudo.

@ 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.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Músicas grudentas e conversas

Uma vez que você ouviu uma música grudenta e ela volta, inteira, com toda a melodia e a harmonia, muitos dias depois, contra a sua vontade. Mas uma conversa é impossível de lembrar. Por quê?

@ 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.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Die grauenvollste Aussicht ist die der Technokratie – \ einer kontrollierenden Herrschaft, \ die durch verstümmelte und verstümmelnde Geister ausgeübt wird. \ Ernst Jünger

«Davos ist nicht mehr sexy», das Weltwirtschaftsforum (WEF) mache Davos kaputt, diese Aussagen eines Einheimischen las ich kürzlich in der Handelszeitung. Während sich einige vor Ort enorm an der «teuersten Gewerbeausstellung der Welt» bereicherten, würden die negativen Begleiterscheinungen wie Wohnungsnot und Niedergang der lokalen Wirtschaft immer deutlicher.

Nächsten Montag beginnt in dem Schweizer Bergdorf erneut ein Jahrestreffen dieses elitären Clubs der Konzerne, bei dem man mit hochrangigen Politikern aus aller Welt und ausgewählten Vertretern der Systemmedien zusammenhocken wird. Wie bereits in den vergangenen vier Jahren wird die Präsidentin der EU-Kommission, Ursula von der Leyen, in Begleitung von Klaus Schwab ihre Grundsatzansprache halten.

Der deutsche WEF-Gründer hatte bei dieser Gelegenheit immer höchst lobende Worte für seine Landsmännin: 2021 erklärte er sich «stolz, dass Europa wieder unter Ihrer Führung steht» und 2022 fand er es bemerkenswert, was sie erreicht habe angesichts des «erstaunlichen Wandels», den die Welt in den vorangegangenen zwei Jahren erlebt habe; es gebe nun einen «neuen europäischen Geist».

Von der Leyens Handeln während der sogenannten Corona-«Pandemie» lobte Schwab damals bereits ebenso, wie es diese Woche das Karlspreis-Direktorium tat, als man der Beschuldigten im Fall Pfizergate die diesjährige internationale Auszeichnung «für Verdienste um die europäische Einigung» verlieh. Außerdem habe sie die EU nicht nur gegen den «Aggressor Russland», sondern auch gegen die «innere Bedrohung durch Rassisten und Demagogen» sowie gegen den Klimawandel verteidigt.

Jene Herausforderungen durch «Krisen epochalen Ausmaßes» werden indes aus dem Umfeld des WEF nicht nur herbeigeredet – wie man alljährlich zur Zeit des Davoser Treffens im Global Risks Report nachlesen kann, der zusammen mit dem Versicherungskonzern Zurich erstellt wird. Seit die Globalisten 2020/21 in der Praxis gesehen haben, wie gut eine konzertierte und konsequente Angst-Kampagne funktionieren kann, geht es Schlag auf Schlag. Sie setzen alles daran, Schwabs goldenes Zeitfenster des «Great Reset» zu nutzen.

Ziel dieses «großen Umbruchs» ist die totale Kontrolle der Technokraten über die Menschen unter dem Deckmantel einer globalen Gesundheitsfürsorge. Wie aber könnte man so etwas erreichen? Ein Mittel dazu ist die «kreative Zerstörung». Weitere unabdingbare Werkzeug sind die Einbindung, ja Gleichschaltung der Medien und der Justiz.

Ein «Great Mental Reset» sei die Voraussetzung dafür, dass ein Großteil der Menschen Einschränkungen und Manipulationen wie durch die Corona-Maßnahmen praktisch kritik- und widerstandslos hinnehme, sagt der Mediziner und Molekulargenetiker Michael Nehls. Er meint damit eine regelrechte Umprogrammierung des Gehirns, wodurch nach und nach unsere Individualität und unser soziales Bewusstsein eliminiert und durch unreflektierten Konformismus ersetzt werden.

Der aktuelle Zustand unserer Gesellschaften ist auch für den Schweizer Rechtsanwalt Philipp Kruse alarmierend. Durch den Umgang mit der «Pandemie» sieht er die Grundlagen von Recht und Vernunft erschüttert, die Rechtsstaatlichkeit stehe auf dem Prüfstand. Seiner dringenden Mahnung an alle Bürger, die Prinzipien von Recht und Freiheit zu verteidigen, kann ich mich nur anschließen.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 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.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Was du bist hängt von drei Faktoren ab: \ Was du geerbt hast, \ was deine Umgebung aus dir machte \ und was du in freier Wahl \ aus deiner Umgebung und deinem Erbe gemacht hast. \ Aldous Huxley

Das brave Mitmachen und Mitlaufen in einem vorgegebenen, recht engen Rahmen ist gewiss nicht neu, hat aber gerade wieder mal Konjunktur. Dies kann man deutlich beobachten, eigentlich egal, in welchem gesellschaftlichen Bereich man sich umschaut. Individualität ist nur soweit angesagt, wie sie in ein bestimmtes Schema von «Diversität» passt, und Freiheit verkommt zur Worthülse – nicht erst durch ein gewisses Buch einer gewissen ehemaligen Regierungschefin.

Erklärungsansätze für solche Entwicklungen sind bekannt, und praktisch alle haben etwas mit Massenpsychologie zu tun. Der Herdentrieb, also der Trieb der Menschen, sich – zum Beispiel aus Unsicherheit oder Bequemlichkeit – lieber der Masse anzuschließen als selbstständig zu denken und zu handeln, ist einer der Erklärungsversuche. Andere drehen sich um Macht, Propaganda, Druck und Angst, also den gezielten Einsatz psychologischer Herrschaftsinstrumente.

Aber wollen die Menschen überhaupt Freiheit? Durch Gespräche im privaten Umfeld bin ich diesbezüglich in der letzten Zeit etwas skeptisch geworden. Um die Jahreswende philosophiert man ja gerne ein wenig über das Erlebte und über die Erwartungen für die Zukunft. Dabei hatte ich hin und wieder den Eindruck, die totalitären Anwandlungen unserer «Repräsentanten» kämen manchen Leuten gerade recht.

«Desinformation» ist so ein brisantes Thema. Davor müsse man die Menschen doch schützen, hörte ich. Jemand müsse doch zum Beispiel diese ganzen merkwürdigen Inhalte in den Social Media filtern – zur Ukraine, zum Klima, zu Gesundheitsthemen oder zur Migration. Viele wüssten ja gar nicht einzuschätzen, was richtig und was falsch ist, sie bräuchten eine Führung.

Freiheit bedingt Eigenverantwortung, ohne Zweifel. Eventuell ist es einigen tatsächlich zu anspruchsvoll, die Verantwortung für das eigene Tun und Lassen zu übernehmen. Oder die persönliche Freiheit wird nicht als ausreichend wertvolles Gut angesehen, um sich dafür anzustrengen. In dem Fall wäre die mangelnde Selbstbestimmung wohl das kleinere Übel. Allerdings fehlt dann gemäß Aldous Huxley ein Teil der Persönlichkeit. Letztlich ist natürlich alles eine Frage der Abwägung.

Sind viele Menschen möglicherweise schon so «eingenordet», dass freiheitliche Ambitionen gar nicht für eine ganze Gruppe, ein Kollektiv, verfolgt werden können? Solche Gedanken kamen mir auch, als ich mir kürzlich diverse Talks beim viertägigen Hacker-Kongress des Chaos Computer Clubs (38C3) anschaute. Ich war nicht nur überrascht, sondern reichlich erschreckt angesichts der in weiten Teilen mainstream-geformten Inhalte, mit denen ein dankbares Publikum beglückt wurde. Wo ich allgemein hellere Köpfe erwartet hatte, fand ich Konformismus und enthusiastisch untermauerte Narrative.

Gibt es vielleicht so etwas wie eine Herdenimmunität gegen Indoktrination? Ich denke, ja, zumindest eine gestärkte Widerstandsfähigkeit. Was wir brauchen, sind etwas gesunder Menschenverstand, offene Informationskanäle und der Mut, sich freier auch zwischen den Herden zu bewegen. Sie tun das bereits, aber sagen Sie es auch dieses Jahr ruhig weiter.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Heute möchte ich ein Gedicht mit euch teilen. Es handelt sich um eine Ballade des österreichischen Lyrikers Johann Gabriel Seidl aus dem 19. Jahrhundert. Mir sind diese Worte fest in Erinnerung, da meine Mutter sie perfekt rezitieren konnte, auch als die Kräfte schon langsam schwanden.

Dem originalen Titel «Die Uhr» habe ich für mich immer das Wort «innere» hinzugefügt. Denn der Zeitmesser – hier vermutliche eine Taschenuhr – symbolisiert zwar in dem Kontext das damalige Zeitempfinden und die Umbrüche durch die industrielle Revolution, sozusagen den Zeitgeist und das moderne Leben. Aber der Autor setzt sich philosophisch mit der Zeit auseinander und gibt seinem Werk auch eine klar spirituelle Dimension.

Das Ticken der Uhr und die Momente des Glücks und der Trauer stehen sinnbildlich für das unaufhaltsame Fortschreiten und die Vergänglichkeit des Lebens. Insofern könnte man bei der Uhr auch an eine Sonnenuhr denken. Der Rhythmus der Ereignisse passt uns vielleicht nicht immer in den Kram.

Was den Takt pocht, ist durchaus auch das Herz, unser «inneres Uhrwerk». Wenn dieses Meisterwerk einmal stillsteht, ist es unweigerlich um uns geschehen. Hoffentlich können wir dann dankbar sagen: «Ich habe mein Bestes gegeben.»

Ich trage, wo ich gehe, stets eine Uhr bei mir; \ Wieviel es geschlagen habe, genau seh ich an ihr. \ Es ist ein großer Meister, der künstlich ihr Werk gefügt, \ Wenngleich ihr Gang nicht immer dem törichten Wunsche genügt.

Ich wollte, sie wäre rascher gegangen an manchem Tag; \ Ich wollte, sie hätte manchmal verzögert den raschen Schlag. \ In meinen Leiden und Freuden, in Sturm und in der Ruh, \ Was immer geschah im Leben, sie pochte den Takt dazu.

Sie schlug am Sarge des Vaters, sie schlug an des Freundes Bahr, \ Sie schlug am Morgen der Liebe, sie schlug am Traualtar. \ Sie schlug an der Wiege des Kindes, sie schlägt, will's Gott, noch oft, \ Wenn bessere Tage kommen, wie meine Seele es hofft.

Und ward sie auch einmal träger, und drohte zu stocken ihr Lauf, \ So zog der Meister immer großmütig sie wieder auf. \ Doch stände sie einmal stille, dann wär's um sie geschehn, \ Kein andrer, als der sie fügte, bringt die Zerstörte zum Gehn.

Dann müßt ich zum Meister wandern, der wohnt am Ende wohl weit, \ Wohl draußen, jenseits der Erde, wohl dort in der Ewigkeit! \ Dann gäb ich sie ihm zurücke mit dankbar kindlichem Flehn: \ Sieh, Herr, ich hab nichts verdorben, sie blieb von selber stehn.

Johann Gabriel Seidl (1804-1875)

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Bluesky is a scam

Bluesky advertises itself as an open network, they say people won't lose followers or their identity, they advertise themselves as a protocol ("atproto") and because of that they are tricking a lot of people into using them. These three claims are false.

protocolness

Bluesky is a company. "atproto" is the protocol. Supposedly they are two different things, right? Bluesky just releases software that implements the protocol, but others can also do that, it's open!

And yet, the protocol has an official webpage with a waitlist and a private beta? Why is the protocol advertised as a company product? Because it is. The "protocol" is just a description of whatever the Bluesky app and servers do, it can and does change anytime the Bluesky developers decide they want to change it, and it will keep changing for as long as Bluesky apps and servers control the biggest part of the network.

Oh, so there is the possibility of other players stepping in and then it becomes an actual interoperable open protocol? Yes, but what is the likelihood of that happening? It is very low. No serious competitor is likely to step in and build serious apps using a protocol that is directly controlled by Bluesky. All we will ever see are small "community" apps made by users and small satellite small businesses -- not unlike the people and companies that write plugins, addons and alternative clients for popular third-party centralized platforms.

And last, even if it happens that someone makes an app so good that it displaces the canonical official Bluesky app, then that company may overtake the protocol itself -- not because they're evil, but because there is no way it cannot be like this.

identity

According to their own documentation, the Bluesky people were looking for an identity system that provided global ids, key rotation and human-readable names.

They must have realized that such properties are not possible in an open and decentralized system, but instead of accepting a tradeoff they decided they wanted all their desired features and threw away the "decentralized" part, quite literally and explicitly (although they make sure to hide that piece in the middle of a bunch of code and text that very few will read).

The "DID Placeholder" method they decided to use for their global identities is nothing more than a normal old boring trusted server controlled by Bluesky that keeps track of who is who and can, at all times, decide to ban a person and deprive them from their identity (they dismissively call a "denial of service attack").

They decided to adopt this method as a placeholder until someone else doesn't invent the impossible alternative that would provide all their desired properties in a decentralized manner -- which is nothing more than a very good excuse: "yes, it's not great now, but it will improve!".

openness

Months after launching their product with an aura of decentralization and openness and getting a bunch of people inside that believed, falsely, they were joining an actually open network, Bluesky has decided to publish a part of their idea of how other people will be able to join their open network.

When I first saw their app and how they were very prominently things like follower counts, like counts and other things that are typical of centralized networks and can't be reliable or exact on truly open networks (like Nostr), I asked myself how were they going to do that once they became and open "federated" network as they were expected to be.

Turns out their decentralization plan is to just allow you, as a writer, to host your own posts on "personal data stores", but not really have any control over the distribution of the posts. All posts go through the Bluesky central server, called BGS, and they decide what to do with it. And you, as a reader, doesn't have any control of what you're reading from either, all you can do is connect to the BGS and ask for posts. If the BGS decides to ban, shadow ban, reorder, miscount, hide, deprioritize, trick or maybe even to serve ads, then you are out of luck.

Oh, but anyone can run their own BGS!, they will say. Even in their own blog post announcing the architecture they assert that "it’s a fairly resource-demanding service" and "there may be a few large full-network providers". But I fail to see why even more than one network provider will exist, if Bluesky is already doing that job, and considering the fact there are very little incentives for anyone to switch providers -- because the app does not seem to be at all made to talk to multiple providers, one would have to stop using the reliable, fast and beefy official BGS and start using some half-baked alternative and risk losing access to things.

When asked about the possibility of switching, one of Bluesky overlords said: "it would look something like this: bluesky has gone evil. there's a new alternative called freesky that people are rushing to. I'm switching to freesky".

The quote is very naïve and sounds like something that could be said about Twitter itself: "if Twitter is evil you can just run your own social network". Both are fallacies because they ignore the network-effect and the fact that people will never fully agree that something is "evil". In fact these two are the fundamental reasons why -- for social networks specifically (and not for other things like commerce) -- we need truly open protocols with no owners and no committees.

@ e373ca41:b82abcc5

Dieser Artikel wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben (lesen Sie ihn dort, um die volle Erfahrung zu machen). 

Dies ist Teil 3 der Serie “Die Corona-Connection”: Lesen Sie hier Teil 1 und Teil 2.

Wenn die Realität die Fiktion überholt: das ist die Signatur unserer Epoche. Im Zuge täglicher Enthüllungen tritt nun immer deutlicher der medial-industrielle Komplex der “Corona-Connection” zum Vorschein. Allein die Finanzströme zeigen deutlich: der Anfangsverdacht einer Verschwörung ist sichtbar und nachweisbar.

---

Sie wollen meine (überwiegend englischen) Artikel auch per Email bekommen?

Hier können Sie sich eintragen für den Newsletter (max. 1-2 x pro Woche).

---

“Follow the Money”

In Washington hat das große Sesselrücken begonnen: Tausende Wohnungen und Häuser werden gerade auf den Markt geschwemmt, die Suchanfragen nach Offshorebanken und Strafverteidigern explodiert. Die Ratten verlassen das sinkende Schiff, eine alte Nomenklatura fällt, eine neue wird errichtet. So ist Politik. Wie viel davon Inszenierung und wie viel echt ist, werden wir erst später erfahren.

(Quelle: X/@wikileaks)

Schon jetzt erfahren die Europäer allerdings von JD Vance, dass in Washington “ein neuer Sheriff in town” ist. Die Rede auf der Münchener Sicherheitskonferenz war eine Zäsur in den transatlantischen Beziehungen. JD Vance hat Europa die Leviten gelesen: Wir glaubten nicht mehr an die Meinungsfreiheit, und damit an die Demokratie; wir griffen in Wahlen ein, deindustrialisierten uns selbst, betrieben ideologische Beeinflussung, Zensur und Manipulation. Eine beeindruckende Rede eines früheren Trump-Verächters (er nannte ihn mal einen Betrüger und überlegte Hillary Clinton zu wählen). Und dann der „Killer-Satz“ an das Establishment:

„Wenn Sie Angst vor den eigenen Bürgern haben gibt es nichts, was die USA für Sie tun können.“

Ja, Vance hat in vielem Recht, Europa ist ein sektiererischer Bürokratenkontinent, der ideologisch gekapert ist. Doch vielleicht hätte Vance etwas mehr darüber sprechen können, was die USA bereits „für Europa getan haben“, allein in den letzten Jahren:

• Der Europäische Debattenraum wurde mit US-Steuergeldern manipuliert, knapp 500 Mio USD. flossen durch die Kanäle von USAID und Co.
• Deindustrialisierung: Danke für die Sprengung von Nordstream, großer Bruder!
• Zensur: waren das nicht auch die großen amerikanische Social Media Plattformen, siehe Twitter-Files?
• Ach überhaupt, der ganze Verschwörungskomplex zu Corona, ist nicht die Corona-Connection im Kern ein Konsortium überwiegend amerikanischer Player? NGOs, öffentliche Gesundheitsbehörden, CIA, Überwachungsindustrie, Big Pharma im Verbund mit China.
• Wer in den letzten Jahren von “Misinformation und Disinformation” sprach, benutzte exakt das USAID-Wording und derartige Beispiele gibt es viele.

---

ANZEIGE:

Sie suchen nach dem einfachsten Weg, Bitcoin zu kaufen und selbst zu verwahren?****** Die Relai-App ist Europas erfolgreichste Bitcoin-App. Hier kaufen Sie Bitcoin in wenigen Schritten und können auch Sparpläne einrichten. Niemand hat Zugriff auf Ihre Bitcoin, außer Sie selbst. Relai senkt jetzt die Gebühr auf 1%, mit dem Referral-Code MILOSZ sparen Sie weitere 10%. (keine Finanzberatung). Disclaimer wg. EU-Mica-Regulierung: Die Dienste von Relai werden ausschließlich für Einwohner der Schweiz und Italiens empfohlen.

---

Sprechen wir also zuerst vom Verrat Amerikas an der Welt, in Form der größten Psyop der Welt, sowie dem Biowaffenangriff in Form von Corona und mRNA, an dem amerikanische Behörden maßgeblich beteiligt waren. Die USA (oder der deep state?) sind scheinbar im Kalten Krieg mit der eigenen Bevölkerung und der Welt:

• USAID und NIAID finanzierten Coronavirusforschung in Wuhan, USAID finanzierte massiv die Bill & Melinda Gates Stiftung, Impfprogramme sowie GAVI, CEPI, Programme für “reproductive health” etc. Die Liste der “joint ventures” von Gates und USAID ist lang. Und USAID finanzierte den Propagandaapparat.
• Früher eichte die CIA Schriftsteller im Congress for Culture Freedom, heute finanzieren sie Weiterbildungen und Medientrainings für Tausende Journalisten, auch in Europa. Die Presselandschaft wird wie bei “Operation Mockingbird” einfach weiter unterwandert.
• Reuters bekam 9 Mio. vom US-Verteidigungsministerium und eine köstliche Programm-Beschreibung obendrein: Millionen für social engineering und gesellschaftliche Täuschung, large societal deception (abgekürzt LSD). Ein Wink mit dem Zaunpfahl auf “Mission Mind Control”, also Bewusstseinsexperimente der CIA, u.a. mit LSD?

• Ein paar Tröpfchen LSD dürfen nicht fehlen (rechts unten)

Die Rede vom Verrat an den eigenen Werten in vasallenartigem Gehorsam reiht sich jedenfalls schlecht ein in den noch größeren Verrat der eigenen Werte und eine Form von Hochverrat am Bürger durch amerikanische Behörden. Was genau bleibt also vom Vorwurf von Vance? Ihr habt bei der von uns mitfinanzierten Propagandamaschinerie etwas zu gut mitgemacht. Watch your values!

Die Rede von Vance sei Wahlbeeinflussung, eine Einmischung in „unsere Demokratie“, heißt es nun bei hiesigen Nomenklaturapolitikern. Wahlbeeinflussung durch Vance? Eine schöne Nebelkerze. Die größte Wahlbeeinflussung war doch die mit Milliarden USAID-Geld finanzierte ideologische Unterwanderung des europäischen Debattenraums, von Moldawien und der Ukraine bis Deutschland und Frankreich: Internews Network, Trusted News Initiativen, Factchecker, Kampagnen zu „Misinformation/Disinformation“ uvm. Der europäische Debattenraum wurde auf CIA-Narrativebene geeicht. Die Europäer sind konsterniert: Sie haben mitgemacht und werden jetzt von Vance „unter den Bus geworfen“. Sie stehen als die nützlichen Idioten da, die sie waren. Auch eine Form von Gaslighing: Bestrafung für Gehorsam.

Das Business Modell des Philanthrokapitalismus

Der Verrat der Werte, er zieht sich längst durch alle Ebenen von Bürokratie, Politik, Wirtschaft. Was eröffnet auch bessere Geschäftsmöglichkeiten als Gedankenkontrolle, Beeinflussung, autoritäre Einschüchterungsmethoden, durchgeführt von einem korporativen Machtapparat aus Politik, Polizei, Medien, Big Tech und Pharma?

Unter denen, die wegen USAID am meisten aufheulen, ist Bill Gates. Zu diesem tauchen, welch Wunder, gerade überall Lobesartikel auf, in US-Sendungen wird er wieder als Gesundheitsexperte herumgereicht, warnt vor Millionen Toten, wenn die Hilfen, die in seine Gesundheitsprogramme von USAID flossen, gestoppt werden. Nur am Rande: Gerade gab es einen Ebolaausbruch in Uganda. Die WHO lobt den schnellen Impfstart. Immer diese Zufälle, pandamic preparedness sei Dank, Herr Gates!

USAID und Gates sind ziemlich beste Freunde: Die weltgrößte Privatstiftung von Eugeniker Gates und eine CIA-Frontorganisation in trauter Verbundenheit. Was soll da anderes rauskommen, als die größte Psyop der Welt? Nein, USAID hat nicht in 1.6 Mrd. Dollar in deutsche Medien gesteckt, wie kürzlich per falschem Screenshot auf X verbreitet wurde. Die EU steckte dafür 132 Mio. Euro in journalistische EU-PR. Doch es blieb genug Geld für die Medien übrig, um den Corona-Scam zu glauben, zu verbreiten – und sich boostern zu lassen.

So wird ein Schuh draus: (Netzfund)

Darüber hinaus steckte USAID Milliarden in Gavi und CEPI, die Gatesschen Impfkonsortien mit Sitz in der Schweiz. Sowie in zig andere Programme der Gatesstiftung. Teils floss Geld zurück. Ein Geben und Nehmen. All das wäre für ein James-Bond-Drehbuch zu viel des Guten und Undenkbaren: Wir haben es bei der Corona-Connection mit einer Verschwörung von Geheimdienstkreisen, China und Philanthrokapitalisten zu tun. Deren teils geheimdienstfinanzierten Outlets (GAVI, CEPI), aber auch die WHO genießen in der Schweiz Steuervorteile und Immunität, wie eine Botschaft.

Und so wird ein Business-Modell daraus:

• Man suche sich ein Tätigkeitsfeld, Anliegen oder ein sonstiges Vorhaben der sozialen Ingenieurskunst aus. Bei Gates: Bevölkerungskontrolle und -reduktion, Impfstoffverkauf. 2010-2020 sollte die Dekade der Impfstoffe werden – und wurde es. Gates Gebaren konnte man 2015 in einer kritischen Untersuchung von “Misereor” und “Brot für die Welt” studieren.
• Dann definiere man Strukturen, Mechanismen und Businessmodelle zur Umsetzung. In einer Studie von USAID, BMGF sowie Rockefeller-Stiftung zum Einsatz von KI im Gesundheitsbereich liest man es exemplarisch schwarz auf weiß: “If evidence is promising, define business case – Wenn die Beweise vielversprechend sind, entwickle eine Geschäftsidee.”

* Es erfolgt ein Investment in die Geschäftsidee. Das nennt sich dann Program-Related Investment, und nicht nur “grant”, wie die New York Times früher noch kritisierte. Hier wird der angebliche Altruismus zum systemischen legalen Interessenkonflikt. Katastrophen zahlen sich jetzt aus. * WHO, Partnerorganisationen, News-Netzwerke werden auf die Idee geeicht, das übliche PR-Geschäft. * Dann noch schnell ein Planspiel, in Wuhan ist der USAID-Partner mit der gain of function-Forschung nämlich schon bereit für den Lab-Leak. Investments in Curevac, Biontech & Co. sind bereits getätigt, das politische Feld in Sachen Epidemic Preparedness ohnehin vorgeimpft (und beteiligt, hunderte Millionen gingen von Deutschland an die BMGF und CEPI, Gavi).

In dieser Phase hängt der Erfolg der Operation nur noch davon ab, wie gut (und wie lange) man es schafft, das Overton-Fenster in den Medien (also das, was relevant ist) mit immer neuen Propaganda-Erzählungen und Angstbildern vollzuhängen, die sozialen Medien zurechtzustutzen und Kritiker zu dezimieren: Fertig ist der größte kriminelle Coup der Geschichte.

Alle Beteiligten gewinnen: Gates vedient an den Impfstoffen, kann das Geld steuerbefreit in der Stiftung für neue Machtgewinnungsfeldzüge einsetzen, die CIA hat ein erfolgreiches Massenhypnose-Experiment durchgeführt und China konnte die Weltwirtschaft hinter sich lassen, intern die Pandemie schnell besiegen und dem Westen seine sehr schnell in Vergessenheit geratenen Bürger- und Menschenrechte vorhalten. Diese Rechte fielen ungefähr so schnell, wie die Menschen in chinesischen Propagandavideos auf der Straße zusammensackten. Nur in China übrigens, nirgendwo anders.

---

Sie wollen meine (überwiegend englischen) Artikel auch per Email bekommen?

Hier können Sie sich eintragen für den Newsletter (max. 1-2 x pro Woche).

---

Philanthrokapitalismus bedeutet übersetzt, den Anreiz auszuleben, mit Kontrollphantasien, Social Engineering und Technokratie zugleich Geld zu verdienen, Steuern zu sparen, und Macht zu gewinnen. Ein Honeypot für schwerreiche Psychopathen, die munter nach Gutsherrenart an der Bevölkerung herumschrauben wollen. Der Philanthrokapitalismus eines Gates, Soros & Co ist das gefährlichste korporatistische Räuberbaronentum der Neuzeit. Der Staat kann legal für private Machterreichungszwecke ausgenommen werden – zum Schaden der Bürger.

Es gab bei Corona viele Profiteure. Und viele Opfer. Über beide werden wir in naher Zukunft noch viel mehr erfahren. Die Welle der Aufarbeitung rollt.

Und die Konsequenzen? Ein Bill Gates sollte vielleicht daran denken, nicht erst dann zu flüchten, wenn die Epstein-Files veröffentlicht werden, sondern schon früher. In der amerikanischen Verfassung gibt es nur einen Strafrechtsparagraphen und dieser lautet so:

Artikel III, Abschnitt 3 der US-Verfassung:

„Hochverrat gegen die Vereinigten Staaten besteht ausschließlich darin, Krieg gegen sie zu führen oder ihren Feinden Beistand und Unterstützung zu leisten.“

Die Corona-Impfkampagne hat die Gesundheit der Amerikaner, auch der von Soldaten massiv geschadet, wie akut erhöhte Krankenstände und Nebenwirkungsmeldungen zeigten. Damit wurde Feinden der USA (mindestens jede verfeindete Kriegspartei) Beistand geleistet.

Eines wissen wir schon jetzt: So in etwa ist der “Source Code” des Bösen programmiert.

---

You prefer reading me in English? You can find my first uncensorable articles written with our Pareto client via Nostr, clicking on this link. Discover other authors at Pareto.space/read.(click on the Pareto button to see our first authors).

---

Join the marketplace of ideas! We are building a publishing ecosystem on Nostr for citizen-journalism, starting with a client for blogging and newsletter distribution. Sound money and sound information should finally be in the hands of the people, right? Want to learn more about the Pareto Project? Zap me, if you want to contribute (all Zaps go to the project).

Are you a publication or journalist and want to be part of it, test us, migrate your content to Nostr? Write to team@pareto.space**

Not yet on Nostr and want the full experience? Easy onboarding via Start.

We have started a crowdfunding campaign on Geyser. We are in the Top 3 in February, thank you for the support!

---

Sie wollen meine Artikel auch per Email bekommen?

Hier können Sie sich eintragen für den Newsletter (max. 1-2 x pro Woche).

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Falls du beim Lesen des Titels dieses Newsletters unwillkürlich an positive Neuigkeiten aus dem globalen polit-medialen Irrenhaus oder gar aus dem wirtschaftlichen Umfeld gedacht hast, darf ich dich beglückwünschen. Diese Assoziation ist sehr löblich, denn sie weist dich als unverbesserlichen Optimisten aus. Leider muss ich dich diesbezüglich aber enttäuschen. Es geht hier um ein anderes Thema, allerdings sehr wohl ein positives, wie ich finde.

Heute ist ein ganz besonderer Tag: die Wintersonnenwende. Genau gesagt hat heute morgen um 10:20 Uhr Mitteleuropäischer Zeit (MEZ) auf der Nordhalbkugel unseres Planeten der astronomische Winter begonnen. Was daran so außergewöhnlich ist? Der kürzeste Tag des Jahres war gestern, seit heute werden die Tage bereits wieder länger! Wir werden also jetzt jeden Tag ein wenig mehr Licht haben.

Für mich ist dieses Ereignis immer wieder etwas kurios: Es beginnt der Winter, aber die Tage werden länger. Das erscheint mir zunächst wie ein Widerspruch, denn meine spontanen Assoziationen zum Winter sind doch eher Kälte und Dunkelheit, relativ zumindest. Umso erfreulicher ist der emotionale Effekt, wenn dann langsam die Erkenntnis durchsickert: Ab jetzt wird es schon wieder heller!

Natürlich ist es kalt im Winter, mancherorts mehr als anderswo. Vielleicht jedoch nicht mehr lange, wenn man den Klimahysterikern glauben wollte. Mindestens letztes Jahr hat Väterchen Frost allerdings gleich zu Beginn seiner Saison – und passenderweise während des globalen Überhitzungsgipfels in Dubai – nochmal richtig mit der Faust auf den Tisch gehauen. Schnee- und Eischaos sind ja eigentlich in der Agenda bereits nicht mehr vorgesehen. Deswegen war man in Deutschland vermutlich in vorauseilendem Gehorsam schon nicht mehr darauf vorbereitet und wurde glatt lahmgelegt.

Aber ich schweife ab. Die Aussicht auf nach und nach mehr Licht und damit auch Wärme stimmt mich froh. Den Zusammenhang zwischen beidem merkt man in Andalusien sehr deutlich. Hier, wo die Häuser im Winter arg auskühlen, geht man zum Aufwärmen raus auf die Straße oder auf den Balkon. Die Sonne hat auch im Winter eine erfreuliche Kraft. Und da ist jede Minute Gold wert.

Außerdem ist mir vor Jahren so richtig klar geworden, warum mir das südliche Klima so sehr gefällt. Das liegt nämlich nicht nur an der Sonne als solcher, oder der Wärme – das liegt vor allem am Licht. Ohne Licht keine Farben, das ist der ebenso simple wie gewaltige Unterschied zwischen einem deprimierenden matschgraubraunen Winter und einem fröhlichen bunten. Ein großes Stück Lebensqualität.

Mir gefällt aber auch die Symbolik dieses Tages: Licht aus der Dunkelheit, ein Wendepunkt, ein Neuanfang, neue Möglichkeiten, Übergang zu neuer Aktivität. In der winterlichen Stille keimt bereits neue Lebendigkeit. Und zwar in einem Zyklus, das wird immer wieder so geschehen. Ich nehme das gern als ein Stück Motivation, es macht mir Hoffnung und gibt mir Energie.

Übrigens ist parallel am heutigen Tag auf der südlichen Halbkugel Sommeranfang. Genau im entgegengesetzten Rhythmus, sich ergänzend, wie Yin und Yang. Das alles liegt an der Schrägstellung der Erdachse, die ist nämlich um 23,4º zur Umlaufbahn um die Sonne geneigt. Wir erinnern uns, gell?

Insofern bleibt eindeutig festzuhalten, dass “schräg sein” ein willkommener, wichtiger und positiver Wert ist. Mit anderen Worten: auch ungewöhnlich, eigenartig, untypisch, wunderlich, kauzig, … ja sogar irre, spinnert oder gar “quer” ist in Ordnung. Das schließt das Denken mit ein.

In diesem Sinne wünsche ich euch allen urige Weihnachtstage!

---

Dieser Beitrag ist letztes Jahr in meiner Denkbar erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Das Betriebsklima ist das einzige Klima, \ das du selbst bestimmen kannst. \ Anonym

Eine Strategie zur Anpassung an den Klimawandel hat das deutsche Bundeskabinett diese Woche beschlossen. Da «Wetterextreme wie die immer häufiger auftretenden Hitzewellen und Starkregenereignisse» oft desaströse Auswirkungen auf Mensch und Umwelt hätten, werde eine Anpassung an die Folgen des Klimawandels immer wichtiger. «Klimaanpassungsstrategie» nennt die Regierung das.

Für die «Vorsorge vor Klimafolgen» habe man nun erstmals klare Ziele und messbare Kennzahlen festgelegt. So sei der Erfolg überprüfbar, und das solle zu einer schnelleren Bewältigung der Folgen führen. Dass sich hinter dem Begriff Klimafolgen nicht Folgen des Klimas, sondern wohl «Folgen der globalen Erwärmung» verbergen, erklärt den Interessierten die Wikipedia. Dabei ist das mit der Erwärmung ja bekanntermaßen so eine Sache.

Die Zunahme schwerer Unwetterereignisse habe gezeigt, so das Ministerium, wie wichtig eine frühzeitige und effektive Warnung der Bevölkerung sei. Daher solle es eine deutliche Anhebung der Nutzerzahlen der sogenannten Nina-Warn-App geben.

Die ARD spurt wie gewohnt und setzt die Botschaft zielsicher um. Der Artikel beginnt folgendermaßen:

«Die Flut im Ahrtal war ein Schock für das ganze Land. Um künftig besser gegen Extremwetter gewappnet zu sein, hat die Bundesregierung eine neue Strategie zur Klimaanpassung beschlossen. Die Warn-App Nina spielt eine zentrale Rolle. Der Bund will die Menschen in Deutschland besser vor Extremwetter-Ereignissen warnen und dafür die Reichweite der Warn-App Nina deutlich erhöhen.»

Die Kommunen würden bei ihren «Klimaanpassungsmaßnahmen» vom Zentrum KlimaAnpassung unterstützt, schreibt das Umweltministerium. Mit dessen Aufbau wurden das Deutsche Institut für Urbanistik gGmbH, welches sich stark für Smart City-Projekte engagiert, und die Adelphi Consult GmbH beauftragt.

Adelphi beschreibt sich selbst als «Europas führender Think-and-Do-Tank und eine unabhängige Beratung für Klima, Umwelt und Entwicklung». Sie seien «global vernetzte Strateg*innen und weltverbessernde Berater*innen» und als «Vorreiter der sozial-ökologischen Transformation» sei man mit dem Deutschen Nachhaltigkeitspreis ausgezeichnet worden, welcher sich an den Zielen der Agenda 2030 orientiere.

Über die Warn-App mit dem niedlichen Namen Nina, die möglichst jeder auf seinem Smartphone installieren soll, informiert das Bundesamt für Bevölkerungsschutz und Katastrophenhilfe (BBK). Gewarnt wird nicht nur vor Extrem-Wetterereignissen, sondern zum Beispiel auch vor Waffengewalt und Angriffen, Strom- und anderen Versorgungsausfällen oder Krankheitserregern. Wenn man die Kategorie Gefahreninformation wählt, erhält man eine Dosis von ungefähr zwei Benachrichtigungen pro Woche.

Beim BBK erfahren wir auch einiges über die empfohlenen Systemeinstellungen für Nina. Der Benutzer möge zum Beispiel den Zugriff auf die Standortdaten «immer zulassen», und zwar mit aktivierter Funktion «genauen Standort verwenden». Die Datennutzung solle unbeschränkt sein, auch im Hintergrund. Außerdem sei die uneingeschränkte Akkunutzung zu aktivieren, der Energiesparmodus auszuschalten und das Stoppen der App-Aktivität bei Nichtnutzung zu unterbinden.

Dass man so dramatische Ereignisse wie damals im Ahrtal auch anders bewerten kann als Regierungen und Systemmedien, hat meine Kollegin Wiltrud Schwetje anhand der Tragödie im spanischen Valencia gezeigt. Das Stichwort «Agenda 2030» taucht dabei in einem Kontext auf, der wenig mit Nachhaltigkeitspreisen zu tun hat.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Die Ungerechtigkeit ist uns nur in dem Falle angenehm,\ dass wir Vorteile aus ihr ziehen;\ in jedem andern hegt man den Wunsch,\ dass der Unschuldige in Schutz genommen werde.\ Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Politiker beteuern jederzeit, nur das Beste für die Bevölkerung zu wollen – nicht von ihr. Auch die zahlreichen unsäglichen «Corona-Maßnahmen» waren angeblich zu unserem Schutz notwendig, vor allem wegen der «besonders vulnerablen Personen». Daher mussten alle möglichen Restriktionen zwangsweise und unter Umgehung der Parlamente verordnet werden.

Inzwischen hat sich immer deutlicher herausgestellt, dass viele jener «Schutzmaßnahmen» den gegenteiligen Effekt hatten, sie haben den Menschen und den Gesellschaften enorm geschadet. Nicht nur haben die experimentellen Geninjektionen – wie erwartet – massive Nebenwirkungen, sondern Maskentragen schadet der Psyche und der Entwicklung (nicht nur unserer Kinder) und «Lockdowns und Zensur haben Menschen getötet».

Eine der wichtigsten Waffen unserer «Beschützer» ist die Spaltung der Gesellschaft. Die tiefen Gräben, die Politiker, Lobbyisten und Leitmedien praktisch weltweit ausgehoben haben, funktionieren leider nahezu in Perfektion. Von ihren persönlichen Erfahrungen als Kritikerin der Maßnahmen berichtete kürzlich eine Schweizerin im Interview mit Transition News. Sie sei schwer enttäuscht und verspüre bis heute eine Hemmschwelle und ein seltsames Unwohlsein im Umgang mit «Geimpften».

Menschen, die aufrichtig andere schützen wollten, werden von einer eindeutig politischen Justiz verfolgt, verhaftet und angeklagt. Dazu zählen viele Ärzte, darunter Heinrich Habig, Bianca Witzschel und Walter Weber. Über den aktuell laufenden Prozess gegen Dr. Weber hat Transition News mehrfach berichtet (z.B. hier und hier). Auch der Selbstschutz durch Verweigerung der Zwangs-Covid-«Impfung» bewahrt nicht vor dem Knast, wie Bundeswehrsoldaten wie Alexander Bittner erfahren mussten.

Die eigentlich Kriminellen schützen sich derweil erfolgreich selber, nämlich vor der Verantwortung. Die «Impf»-Kampagne war «das größte Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit». Trotzdem stellt man sich in den USA gerade die Frage, ob der scheidende Präsident Joe Biden nach seinem Sohn Hunter möglicherweise auch Anthony Fauci begnadigen wird – in diesem Fall sogar präventiv. Gibt es überhaupt noch einen Rest Glaubwürdigkeit, den Biden verspielen könnte?

Der Gedanke, den ehemaligen wissenschaftlichen Chefberater des US-Präsidenten und Direktor des National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) vorsorglich mit einem Schutzschild zu versehen, dürfte mit der vergangenen Präsidentschaftswahl zu tun haben. Gleich mehrere Personalentscheidungen des designierten Präsidenten Donald Trump lassen Leute wie Fauci erneut in den Fokus rücken.

Das Buch «The Real Anthony Fauci» des nominierten US-Gesundheitsministers Robert F. Kennedy Jr. erschien 2021 und dreht sich um die Machenschaften der Pharma-Lobby in der öffentlichen Gesundheit. Das Vorwort zur rumänischen Ausgabe des Buches schrieb übrigens Călin Georgescu, der Überraschungssieger der ersten Wahlrunde der aktuellen Präsidentschaftswahlen in Rumänien. Vielleicht erklärt diese Verbindung einen Teil der Panik im Wertewesten.

In Rumänien selber gab es gerade einen Paukenschlag: Das bisherige Ergebnis wurde heute durch das Verfassungsgericht annuliert und die für Sonntag angesetzte Stichwahl kurzfristig abgesagt – wegen angeblicher «aggressiver russischer Einmischung». Thomas Oysmüller merkt dazu an, damit sei jetzt in der EU das Tabu gebrochen, Wahlen zu verbieten, bevor sie etwas ändern können.

Unsere Empörung angesichts der Historie von Maßnahmen, die die Falschen beschützen und für die meisten von Nachteil sind, müsste enorm sein. Die Frage ist, was wir damit machen. Wir sollten nach vorne schauen und unsere Energie clever einsetzen. Abgesehen von der Umgehung von jeglichem «Schutz vor Desinformation und Hassrede» (sprich: Zensur) wird es unsere wichtigste Aufgabe sein, Gräben zu überwinden.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 4523be58:ba1facd0

NIP-117

The Double Ratchet Algorithm

The Double Ratchet is a key rotation algorithm for secure private messaging.

It allows us to 1) communicate on Nostr without revealing metadata (who you are communicating with and when), and 2) keep your message history and future messages safe even if your main Nostr key is compromised.

Additionally, it enables disappearing messages that become undecryptable when past message decryption keys are discarded after use.

See also: NIP-118: Nostr Double Ratchet Invites

Overview

"Double ratchet" means we use 2 "ratchets": cryptographic functions that can be rotated forward, but not backward: current keys can be used to derive next keys, but not the other way around.

Ratchet 1 uses Diffie-Hellman (DH) shared secrets and is rotated each time the other participant acknowledges a new key we have sent along with a previous message.

Ratchet 2 generates encryption keys for each message. It rotates after every message, using the previous message's key as input (and the Ratchet 1 key when it rotates). This process ensures forward secrecy for consecutive messages from the same sender in between Ratchet 1 rotations.

Nostr implementation

We implement the Double Ratchet Algorithm on Nostr similarly to Signal's Double Ratchet with header encryption, but encrypting the message headers with NIP-44 conversation keys instead of symmetric header keys.

Ratchet 1 keys are standard Nostr keys. In addition to encryption, they are also used for publishing and subscribing to messages on Nostr. As they are rotated and not linked to public Nostr identities, metadata privacy is preserved.

Nostr event format

Message

Outer event

typescript { kind: 1060, content: encryptedInnerEvent, tags: [["header", encryptedHeader]], pubkey: ratchetPublicKey, created_at, id, sig }

We subscribe to Double Ratchet events based on author public keys which are ephemeral — not used for other purposes than the Double Ratchet session. We use the regular event kind 1060 to differentiate it from other DM kinds, retrieval of which may be restricted by relays.

The encrypted header contains our next nostr public key, our previous sending chain length and the current message number.

Inner event

Inner events must be NIP-59 Rumors (unsigned Nostr events) allowing plausible deniability.

With established Nostr event kinds, clients can implement all kinds of features, such as replies, reactions, and encrypted file sharing in private messages.

Direct message and encrypted file messages are defined in NIP-17.

Algorithm

Signal's Double Ratchet with header encryption document is a comprehensive description and explanation of the algorithm.

In this NIP, the algorithm is only described in code, in order to highlight differences to the Signal implementation.

External functions

We use the following Nostr functions (NIP-01):

• generateSecretKey() for creating Nostr private keys
• finalizeEvent(partialEvent, secretKey) for creating valid Nostr events with pubkey, id and signature

We use NIP-44 functions for encryption:

• nip44.encrypt
• nip44.decrypt
• nip44.getConversationKey

NIP-59:

• createRumor

Key derivation function:

```typescript export function kdf( input1: Uint8Array, input2: Uint8Array = new Uint8Array(32), numOutputs: number = 1 ): Uint8Array[] { const prk = hkdf_extract(sha256, input1, input2);

const outputs: Uint8Array[] = []; for (let i = 1; i <= numOutputs; i++) { outputs.push(hkdf_expand(sha256, prk, new Uint8Array([i]), 32)); } return outputs; } ```

Session state

With this information you can start or continue a Double Ratchet session. Save it locally after each sent and received message.

```typescript interface SessionState { theirCurrentNostrPublicKey?: string; theirNextNostrPublicKey: string;

ourCurrentNostrKey?: KeyPair; ourNextNostrKey: KeyPair;

rootKey: Uint8Array; receivingChainKey?: Uint8Array; sendingChainKey?: Uint8Array;

sendingChainMessageNumber: number; receivingChainMessageNumber: number; previousSendingChainMessageCount: number;

// Cache of message & header keys for handling out-of-order messages // Indexed by Nostr public key, which you can use to resubscribe to unreceived messages skippedKeys: { [pubKey: string]: { headerKeys: Uint8Array[]; messageKeys: { [msgIndex: number]: Uint8Array }; }; }; } ```

Initialization

Alice is the chat initiator and Bob is the recipient. Ephemeral keys were exchanged earlier.

```typescript static initAlice( theirEphemeralPublicKey: string, ourEphemeralNostrKey: KeyPair, sharedSecret: Uint8Array ) { // Generate ephemeral key for the next ratchet step const ourNextNostrKey = generateSecretKey();

// Use ephemeral ECDH to derive rootKey and sendingChainKey const [rootKey, sendingChainKey] = kdf( sharedSecret, nip44.getConversationKey(ourEphemeralNostrKey.private, theirEphemeralPublicKey), 2 );

return { rootKey, theirNextNostrPublicKey: theirEphemeralPublicKey, ourCurrentNostrKey: ourEphemeralNostrKey, ourNextNostrKey, receivingChainKey: undefined, sendingChainKey, sendingChainMessageNumber: 0, receivingChainMessageNumber: 0, previousSendingChainMessageCount: 0, skippedKeys: {}, }; }

static initBob( theirEphemeralPublicKey: string, ourEphemeralNostrKey: KeyPair, sharedSecret: Uint8Array ) { return { rootKey: sharedSecret, theirNextNostrPublicKey: theirEphemeralPublicKey, // Bob has no ‘current’ key at init time — Alice will send to next and trigger a ratchet step ourCurrentNostrKey: undefined, ourNextNostrKey: ourEphemeralNostrKey, receivingChainKey: undefined, sendingChainKey: undefined, sendingChainMessageNumber: 0, receivingChainMessageNumber: 0, previousSendingChainMessageCount: 0, skippedKeys: {}, }; }

```

Sending messages

```typescript sendEvent(event: Partial) { const innerEvent = nip59.createRumor(event) const [header, encryptedData] = this.ratchetEncrypt(JSON.stringify(innerEvent));

const conversationKey = nip44.getConversationKey(this.state.ourCurrentNostrKey.privateKey, this.state.theirNextNostrPublicKey); const encryptedHeader = nip44.encrypt(JSON.stringify(header), conversationKey);

const outerEvent = finalizeEvent({ content: encryptedData, kind: MESSAGE_EVENT_KIND, tags: [["header", encryptedHeader]], created_at: Math.floor(now / 1000) }, this.state.ourCurrentNostrKey.privateKey);

// Publish outerEvent on Nostr, store inner locally if needed return {outerEvent, innerEvent}; }

ratchetEncrypt(plaintext: string): [Header, string] { // Rotate sending chain key const [newSendingChainKey, messageKey] = kdf(this.state.sendingChainKey!, new Uint8Array([1]), 2); this.state.sendingChainKey = newSendingChainKey; const header: Header = { number: this.state.sendingChainMessageNumber++, nextPublicKey: this.state.ourNextNostrKey.publicKey, previousChainLength: this.state.previousSendingChainMessageCount }; return [header, nip44.encrypt(plaintext, messageKey)]; } ```

Receiving messages

```typescript handleNostrEvent(e: NostrEvent) { const [header, shouldRatchet, isSkipped] = this.decryptHeader(e);

if (!isSkipped) { if (this.state.theirNextNostrPublicKey !== header.nextPublicKey) { // Received a new key from them this.state.theirCurrentNostrPublicKey = this.state.theirNextNostrPublicKey; this.state.theirNextNostrPublicKey = header.nextPublicKey; this.updateNostrSubscriptions() }

if (shouldRatchet) {
  this.skipMessageKeys(header.previousChainLength, e.pubkey);
  this.ratchetStep(header.nextPublicKey);
}

}

decryptHeader(event: any): [Header, boolean, boolean] { const encryptedHeader = event.tags[0][1]; if (this.state.ourCurrentNostrKey) { const conversationKey = nip44.getConversationKey(this.state.ourCurrentNostrKey.privateKey, event.pubkey); try { const header = JSON.parse(nip44.decrypt(encryptedHeader, conversationKey)) as Header; return [header, false, false]; } catch (error) { // Decryption with currentSecret failed, try with nextSecret } }

const nextConversationKey = nip44.getConversationKey(this.state.ourNextNostrKey.privateKey, event.pubkey); try { const header = JSON.parse(nip44.decrypt(encryptedHeader, nextConversationKey)) as Header; return [header, true, false]; } catch (error) { // Decryption with nextSecret also failed }

const skippedKeys = this.state.skippedKeys[event.pubkey]; if (skippedKeys?.headerKeys) { // Try skipped header keys for (const key of skippedKeys.headerKeys) { try { const header = JSON.parse(nip44.decrypt(encryptedHeader, key)) as Header; return [header, false, true]; } catch (error) { // Decryption failed, try next secret } } }

throw new Error("Failed to decrypt header with current and skipped header keys"); }

ratchetDecrypt(header: Header, ciphertext: string, nostrSender: string): string { const plaintext = this.trySkippedMessageKeys(header, ciphertext, nostrSender); if (plaintext) return plaintext;

this.skipMessageKeys(header.number, nostrSender);

// Rotate receiving key const [newReceivingChainKey, messageKey] = kdf(this.state.receivingChainKey!, new Uint8Array([1]), 2); this.state.receivingChainKey = newReceivingChainKey; this.state.receivingChainMessageNumber++;

return nip44.decrypt(ciphertext, messageKey); }

ratchetStep(theirNextNostrPublicKey: string) { this.state.previousSendingChainMessageCount = this.state.sendingChainMessageNumber; this.state.sendingChainMessageNumber = 0; this.state.receivingChainMessageNumber = 0; this.state.theirNextNostrPublicKey = theirNextNostrPublicKey;

// 1st step yields the new conversation key they used const conversationKey1 = nip44.getConversationKey(this.state.ourNextNostrKey.privateKey, this.state.theirNextNostrPublicKey!); // and our corresponding receiving chain key const [theirRootKey, receivingChainKey] = kdf(this.state.rootKey, conversationKey1, 2); this.state.receivingChainKey = receivingChainKey;

// Rotate our Nostr key this.state.ourCurrentNostrKey = this.state.ourNextNostrKey; const ourNextSecretKey = generateSecretKey(); this.state.ourNextNostrKey = { publicKey: getPublicKey(ourNextSecretKey), privateKey: ourNextSecretKey };

// 2nd step yields the new conversation key we'll use const conversationKey2 = nip44.getConversationKey(this.state.ourNextNostrKey.privateKey, this.state.theirNextNostrPublicKey!); // And our corresponding sending chain key const [rootKey, sendingChainKey] = kdf(theirRootKey, conversationKey2, 2); this.state.rootKey = rootKey; this.state.sendingChainKey = sendingChainKey; }

skipMessageKeys(until: number, nostrSender: string) { if (this.state.receivingChainMessageNumber + MAX_SKIP < until) { throw new Error("Too many skipped messages"); }

if (!this.state.skippedKeys[nostrSender]) { this.state.skippedKeys[nostrSender] = { headerKeys: [], messageKeys: {} };

if (this.state.ourCurrentNostrKey) {
  const currentSecret = nip44.getConversationKey(this.state.ourCurrentNostrKey.privateKey, nostrSender);
  this.state.skippedKeys[nostrSender].headerKeys.push(currentSecret);
}
const nextSecret = nip44.getConversationKey(this.state.ourNextNostrKey.privateKey, nostrSender);
this.state.skippedKeys[nostrSender].headerKeys.push(nextSecret);

}

while (this.state.receivingChainMessageNumber < until) { const [newReceivingChainKey, messageKey] = kdf(this.state.receivingChainKey!, new Uint8Array([1]), 2); this.state.receivingChainKey = newReceivingChainKey; this.state.skippedKeys[nostrSender].messageKeys[this.state.receivingChainMessageNumber] = messageKey; this.state.receivingChainMessageNumber++; } }

trySkippedMessageKeys(header: Header, ciphertext: string, nostrSender: string): string | null { const skippedKeys = this.state.skippedKeys[nostrSender]; if (!skippedKeys) return null;

const messageKey = skippedKeys.messageKeys[header.number]; if (!messageKey) return null;

delete skippedKeys.messageKeys[header.number];

if (Object.keys(skippedKeys.messageKeys).length === 0) { delete this.state.skippedKeys[nostrSender]; }

return nip44.decrypt(ciphertext, messageKey); } ```

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Konsum ist Therapie.
Wolfgang Joop

Umweltbewusstes Verhalten und verantwortungsvoller Konsum zeugen durchaus von einer wünschenswerten Einstellung. Ob man deswegen allerdings einen grünen statt eines schwarzen Freitags braucht, darf getrost bezweifelt werden – zumal es sich um manipulatorische Konzepte handelt. Wie in der politischen Landschaft sind auch hier die Etiketten irgendwas zwischen nichtssagend und trügerisch.

Heute ist also wieder mal «Black Friday», falls Sie es noch nicht mitbekommen haben sollten. Eigentlich haben wir ja eher schon eine ganze «Black Week», der dann oft auch noch ein «Cyber Monday» folgt. Die Werbebranche wird nicht müde, immer neue Anlässe zu erfinden oder zu importieren, um uns zum Konsumieren zu bewegen. Und sie ist damit sehr erfolgreich.

Warum fallen wir auf derartige Werbetricks herein und kaufen im Zweifelsfall Dinge oder Mengen, die wir sicher nicht brauchen? Pure Psychologie, würde ich sagen. Rabattschilder triggern etwas in uns, was den Verstand in Stand-by versetzt. Zusätzlich beeinflussen uns alle möglichen emotionalen Reize und animieren uns zum Schnäppchenkauf.

Gedankenlosigkeit und Maßlosigkeit können besonders bei der Ernährung zu ernsten Problemen führen. Erst kürzlich hat mir ein Bekannter nach einer USA-Reise erzählt, dass es dort offenbar nicht unüblich ist, schon zum ausgiebigen Frühstück in einem Restaurant wenigstens einen Liter Cola zu trinken. Gerne auch mehr, um das Gratis-Nachfüllen des Bechers auszunutzen.

Kritik am schwarzen Freitag und dem unnötigen Konsum kommt oft von Umweltschützern. Neben Ressourcenverschwendung, hohem Energieverbrauch und wachsenden Müllbergen durch eine zunehmende Wegwerfmentalität kommt dabei in der Regel auch die «Klimakrise» auf den Tisch.

Die EU-Kommission lancierte 2015 den Begriff «Green Friday» im Kontext der überarbeiteten Rechtsvorschriften zur Kennzeichnung der Energieeffizienz von Elektrogeräten. Sie nutzte die Gelegenheit kurz vor dem damaligen schwarzen Freitag und vor der UN-Klimakonferenz COP21, bei der das Pariser Abkommen unterzeichnet werden sollte.

Heute wird ein grüner Freitag oft im Zusammenhang mit der Forderung nach «nachhaltigem Konsum» benutzt. Derweil ist die Europäische Union schon weit in ihr Geschäftsmodell des «Green New Deal» verstrickt. In ihrer Propaganda zum Klimawandel verspricht sie tatsächlich «Unterstützung der Menschen und Regionen, die von immer häufigeren Extremwetter-Ereignissen betroffen sind». Was wohl die Menschen in der Region um Valencia dazu sagen?

Ganz im Sinne des Great Reset propagierten die Vereinten Nationen seit Ende 2020 eine «grüne Erholung von Covid-19, um den Klimawandel zu verlangsamen». Der UN-Umweltbericht sah in dem Jahr einen Schwerpunkt auf dem Verbraucherverhalten. Änderungen des Konsumverhaltens des Einzelnen könnten dazu beitragen, den Klimaschutz zu stärken, hieß es dort.

Der Begriff «Schwarzer Freitag» wurde in den USA nicht erstmals für Einkäufe nach Thanksgiving verwendet – wie oft angenommen –, sondern für eine Finanzkrise. Jedoch nicht für den Börsencrash von 1929, sondern bereits für den Zusammenbruch des US-Goldmarktes im September 1869. Seitdem mussten die Menschen weltweit so einige schwarze Tage erleben.

Kürzlich sind die britischen Aufsichtsbehörden weiter von ihrer Zurückhaltung nach dem letzten großen Finanzcrash von 2008 abgerückt. Sie haben Regeln für den Bankensektor gelockert, womit sie «verantwortungsvolle Risikobereitschaft» unterstützen wollen. Man würde sicher zu schwarz sehen, wenn man hier ein grünes Wunder befürchten würde.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 4523be58:ba1facd0

NIP-118

Nostr Double Ratchet Invites

In order to start a NIP-117 Nostr Double Ratchet session, Alice and Bob need to exchange ephemeral public keys and a shared secret.

In a Nostr Double Ratchet invite, Alice gives Bob her

• ephemeral public key, which is also used to respond to the invite on Nostr,
• shared secret, and
• Nostr identity public key, which is used to authenticate the exchange.

Nostr event

Publishing an invite event on Nostr allows other users to start a Double Ratchet session with you.

typescript { pubkey: inviterIdentityKey, content: '', tags: [ ['d', `double-ratchet/invites/${uid}`], // uid: unique name for the invitation, e.g. "public" ['l', 'double-ratchet/invites'], // label, for listing all your invites ['ephemeralKey', inviterEphemeralKey], ['sharedSecret', sharedSecret] ], kind: 30078, created_at, id, sig }

l is a NIP-32 label tag that can be used to list your invites. We use this approach with NIP-78 application specific data kind 30078 in order to not bloat the event kind space and instead have a human-readable label.

URL

Invites can be also shared privately, without requiring a Nostr event. This improves privacy, removing the public association between the inviter and response.

URL and QR code are often convenient ways to share privately, especially when the other user is not yet on Nostr. Format:

typescript const invite = { inviter, ephemeralKey, sharedSecret }; const json = JSON.stringify(invite); const url = `https://example.com/#${encodeURIComponent(json)}`;

Encoding the invite into the URL hash ensures it's not sent to the server and logged by default.

nostr: URI scheme is another possible way to share invites, when we have native clients supporting the feature.

Invite response

Outer event

Invite response outer event is a NIP-59 gift wrap event of kind 1059, sent from a random, one-time-use pubkey, hiding the responder's identity from the public.

It is addressed to the ephemeral key in the invite. If the invite was publicly shared, responses can be publicly associated to the inviter.

Inner event

NIP-59 Rumor.

```typescript const conversationKey = nip44.getConversationKey( inviteeKeyPair, inviterPublicKey ); const encrypted1 = encrypt(inviteeEphemeralKey, conversationKey); const encrypted2 = encrypt(encrypted1, sharedSecret);

const rumor = { pubkey: inviteePublicKey, kind: 1060, content: encrypted2, tags: [], createdAt, id, }; ```

After receiving the invite response, both parties have what they need to start a double ratchet session: each others' ephemeral public keys and a shared secret.

Both parties have authenticated by encrypting or decrypting using their nip44 conversation key.

The shared secret from the invite is used in the response to ensure that only actual recipients of the invite can follow it. Otherwise, attackers could initiate double ratchet sessions by sending invite responses to all addresses that received gift wraps, some of which are private invite addresses.

@ 5afdec5b:2d631be1

Bitcoin: The Future of Collateralized Loans

Bitcoin is transforming the financial landscape, not just as a digital currency but arguably as the best form of collateral for unlocking liquidity. At Lendasat, we're pioneering this shift by working towards a trustless, self-custodial lending platform that lets users borrow against their Bitcoin without selling it. Let's explore Bitcoin's unmatched value as collateral and how Lendasat's innovative approach - with Discreet Log Contracts (DLCs) and integrations - make borrowing secure, simple, and practical. Bitcoin unlocks cash access without letting it go.

---

Why Bitcoin Stands Out as Collateral

Bitcoin's intrinsic properties set it apart from traditional assets like real estate or stocks:

🌐 Decentralized Control: No intermediaries, ensuring transparency and independence.
💧 Ultimate Liquidity: Bitcoin is one of the most liquid assets in the world, tradable 24/7 without interruption. Unlike traditional markets with public holidays, and weekend downtime, Bitcoin operates continuously, allowing transactions at any time from anywhere.
✅ Capped Supply: Only 21 million coins will ever exist, shielding it from dilution/inflation.
🔒 Robust Security: Backed by cryptography and a global mining network, Bitcoin is portable, durable, and verifiable.

These qualities make Bitcoin an ideal foundation for lending, a vision Lendasat brings to life. Our app leverages Bitcoin's censorship-resistant nature to offer a collateral option that traditional assets can't rival.

The "Buy, Borrow, Die" Strategy: A Smart Money Move Now Available For Everyone

For those unfamiliar, the "buy, borrow, die" strategy involves buying assets, borrowing against them for liquidity, and holding until death to pass on the assets with a stepped-up basis, minimizing taxes. Savvy investors and businesses often borrow against their holdings rather than sell them. Why? It's a tax-efficient way to access cash while retaining ownership and future gains. With Bitcoin, this approach is even more compelling:

🏷️ Tax Advantage: No capital gains taxes when borrowing instead of selling.
🔒 Ownership Retention: Keep your Bitcoin and its potential upside.
📈 Growth Exposure: Benefit from Bitcoin's long-term appreciation.

Lendasat's motto, "Get the bread you need without having to part with your corn" encapsulates this strategy. We empower users to tap into their Bitcoin's value without sacrificing their stake in its future. Bitcoin gives access to practices that were previously reserved to the wealthiest individuals and companies.

ℹ️ Note: Tax benefits may vary depending on your jurisdiction. Please consult with a tax professional.

Lendasat's Vision: Seamless Lending Process

Lendasat, in its public release, will make Bitcoin-backed loans straightforward and secure. Here's how it works:

1. Secure Your Bitcoin: Lock your BTC in a Discreet Log Contract (DLC), a "smart contract" that eliminates counterparty risk while keeping you in control
2. Borrow Stablecoins: Receive stablecoins at an average 50% loan-to-value ratio (e.g., $50,000 for $100,000 in BTC), balancing liquidity with safety.
3. Spend Anywhere: Use our spending tools and off-ramps integrations to spend loan funds effortlessly in the real world, as an example, with a Virtual Card for online shopping - launched in our closed beta.

This peer-to-peer process makes KYC optional, prioritizing privacy and accessibility.

Who Benefits from Lendasat?

Our app serves a wide range of users:

Borrowers:
- Unlock cash without selling Bitcoin.
- Enjoy tax savings and growth potential.
- Spend easily with the virtual debit card.
Lenders:
- Earn guaranteed returns on overcollateralized loans.
- Reduce risk with Bitcoin's security.
- Diversify investments with a cutting-edge asset.

Lendasat's self-custodial design ensures both parties retain autonomy, with DLCs handling the heavy lifting.

Real-World Applications

Bitcoin collateral isn't just for individuals - it's a game-changer for businesses:

Businesses: Fund expansion or operations without diluting equity or selling BTC.
Miners: Cover costs like electricity bills by borrowing against mined Bitcoin, avoiding sales at low prices.

Lendasat supports these scenarios with flexible solutions, and we're exploring enhancements like on-ramps integration for bank transfer repayments to streamline the experience.

The Future of Bitcoin Collateral

Bitcoin's role as collateral is only beginning. Emerging possibilities include:

Credit Lines: Bitcoin-backed spending options akin to traditional credit.
Institutional Use: Large-scale financing for companies and even governments.

While Bitcoin is currently primarily used as a store of value, its potential as a medium of exchange is still developing. Lendasat's platform is designed to adapt to Bitcoin's evolving role in the financial ecosystem, whether it remains a collateral asset or becomes widely used for transactions.

Lendasat is driving this future by refining our platform, focusing on user-friendly on/off ramps and practical spending tools to make Bitcoin loans a financial mainstay.

What Sets Lendasat Apart?

Lendasat isn't just another lending platform - it aims to be the leader in Bitcoin finance:

Trustless System: DLCs ensure security without third-party custody.
Practical Tools: The virtual debit card bridges DeFi and daily life.
User-Centric: Optional KYC, no credit checks, and flexible repayment options in development.
Mission-Driven: We're here to empower financial freedom through Bitcoin.

These strengths make Lendasat the premier choice for leveraging Bitcoin as collateral.

Challenges and Considerations

While Bitcoin-backed loans offer many advantages, there are risks to consider:

Volatility: Bitcoin's price can be volatile, which may lead to liquidation if the value drops significantly.
User Experience: Managing DLCs and understanding the lending process may be complex for some users.

At Lendasat, we're actively working to mitigate these risks through user education, robust platform design, and ongoing development of user-friendly features.

Conclusion: Bitcoin's Full Potential

Bitcoin isn't just money - It is the best collateral in the making ever discovered, blending security, liquidity, and growth. Lendasat brings this power to your fingertips with a platform that's secure, intuitive, and built for the future. Whether you're funding a dream or growing a business, we've got you covered.

Ready to borrow without selling? Dive into https://Lendasat.com and see how your Bitcoin can work harder for you.

Quick Comparison: Traditional vs. Lendasat's Bitcoin Collateral

This snapshot underscores why Bitcoin, paired with Lendasat, is rewriting the rules of collateral.

Help Us To Achieve Our Vision!

Want to be part of the journey?
Join our waiting list or, even better, connect with us on Discord to get yourself an invite code and try our app and share your thoughts!
Stay tuned, and as always, stay sovereign.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Und plötzlich weißt du:
Es ist Zeit, etwas Neues zu beginnen
und dem Zauber des Anfangs zu vertrauen.
Meister Eckhart

Schwarz, rot, gold leuchtet es im Kopf des Newsletters der deutschen Bundesregierung, der mir freitags ins Postfach flattert. Rot, gelb und grün werden daneben sicher noch lange vielzitierte Farben sein, auch wenn diese nie geleuchtet haben. Die Ampel hat sich gerade selber den Stecker gezogen – und hinterlässt einen wirtschaftlichen und gesellschaftlichen Trümmerhaufen.

Mit einem bemerkenswerten Timing hat die deutsche Regierungskoalition am Tag des «Comebacks» von Donald Trump in den USA endlich ihr Scheitern besiegelt. Während der eine seinen Sieg bei den Präsidentschaftswahlen feierte, erwachten die anderen jäh aus ihrer Selbsthypnose rund um Harris-Hype und Trump-Panik – mit teils erschreckenden Auswüchsen. Seit Mittwoch werden die Geschicke Deutschlands nun von einer rot-grünen Minderheitsregierung «geleitet» und man steuert auf Neuwahlen zu.

Das Kindergarten-Gehabe um zwei konkurrierende Wirtschaftsgipfel letzte Woche war bereits bezeichnend. In einem Strategiepapier gestand Finanzminister Lindner außerdem den «Absturz Deutschlands» ein und offenbarte, dass die wirtschaftlichen Probleme teilweise von der Ampel-Politik «vorsätzlich herbeigeführt» worden seien.

Lindner und weitere FDP-Minister wurden also vom Bundeskanzler entlassen. Verkehrs- und Digitalminister Wissing trat flugs aus der FDP aus; deshalb darf er nicht nur im Amt bleiben, sondern hat zusätzlich noch das Justizministerium übernommen. Und mit Jörg Kukies habe Scholz «seinen Lieblingsbock zum Obergärtner», sprich: Finanzminister befördert, meint Norbert Häring.

Es gebe keine Vertrauensbasis für die weitere Zusammenarbeit mit der FDP, hatte der Kanzler erklärt, Lindner habe zu oft sein Vertrauen gebrochen. Am 15. Januar 2025 werde er daher im Bundestag die Vertrauensfrage stellen, was ggf. den Weg für vorgezogene Neuwahlen freimachen würde.

Apropos Vertrauen: Über die Hälfte der Bundesbürger glauben, dass sie ihre Meinung nicht frei sagen können. Das ging erst kürzlich aus dem diesjährigen «Freiheitsindex» hervor, einer Studie, die die Wechselwirkung zwischen Berichterstattung der Medien und subjektivem Freiheitsempfinden der Bürger misst. «Beim Vertrauen in Staat und Medien zerreißt es uns gerade», kommentierte dies der Leiter des Schweizer Unternehmens Media Tenor, das die Untersuchung zusammen mit dem Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach durchführt.

«Die absolute Mehrheit hat absolut die Nase voll», titelte die Bild angesichts des «Ampel-Showdowns». Die Mehrheit wolle Neuwahlen und die Grünen sollten zuerst gehen, lasen wir dort.

Dass «Insolvenzminister» Robert Habeck heute seine Kandidatur für das Kanzleramt verkündet hat, kann nur als Teil der politmedialen Realitätsverweigerung verstanden werden. Wer allerdings denke, schlimmer als in Zeiten der Ampel könne es nicht mehr werden, sei reichlich optimistisch, schrieb Uwe Froschauer bei Manova. Und er kenne Friedrich Merz schlecht, der sich schon jetzt rhetorisch auf seine Rolle als oberster Feldherr Deutschlands vorbereite.

Was also tun? Der Schweizer Verein «Losdemokratie» will eine Volksinitiative lancieren, um die Bestimmung von Parlamentsmitgliedern per Los einzuführen. Das Losverfahren sorge für mehr Demokratie, denn als Alternative zum Wahlverfahren garantiere es eine breitere Beteiligung und repräsentativere Parlamente. Ob das ein Weg ist, sei dahingestellt.

In jedem Fall wird es notwendig sein, unsere Bemühungen um Freiheit und Selbstbestimmung zu verstärken. Mehr Unabhängigkeit von staatlichen und zentralen Institutionen – also die Suche nach dezentralen Lösungsansätzen – gehört dabei sicher zu den Möglichkeiten. Das gilt sowohl für jede/n Einzelne/n als auch für Entitäten wie die alternativen Medien.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 95cb4330:96db706c

Adopting Inversion Thinking, a mental model championed by Charlie Munger and Warren Buffett, can enhance decision-making and problem-solving by focusing on potential pitfalls to avoid. This approach involves considering the opposite of your desired outcome to identify and mitigate risks effectively.

---

Understanding Inversion Thinking

• Definition:
  Inversion Thinking entails approaching problems by asking, "What could cause failure?" rather than solely focusing on achieving success. This perspective helps in uncovering obstacles and errors that might be overlooked when only considering positive outcomes.

---

Examples in Practice

• Charlie Munger's Approach:
  Munger emphasizes solving problems by inverting them. For instance, instead of asking how to be successful, he suggests identifying what actions could lead to failure and then avoiding those actions.
  FS.BLOG

• Warren Buffett's Investment Strategy:
  Buffett applies inversion by considering what factors could cause an investment to fail, such as poor management or unsustainable business models, and avoids investments with these red flags.

---

Implementing Inversion Thinking

1. Define the Problem:
   Clearly articulate the challenge or goal you are addressing.

2. Invert the Problem:
   Ask what actions or factors could lead to the opposite of your desired outcome.

3. Identify Preventative Measures:
   Determine strategies to avoid these negative actions or factors.

4. Apply Insights to Decision-Making:
   Use the information gathered to inform your choices, focusing on avoiding identified pitfalls.

---

Action Step

Consider a current goal or project. Apply inversion by asking, "What steps could lead to failure in this endeavor?" List these potential pitfalls and develop strategies to prevent them, thereby increasing the likelihood of success.

---

By integrating Inversion Thinking into your decision-making process, you can proactively address potential challenges, leading to more robust and resilient strategies.

---

@ 460c25e6:ef85065c

If you don't know where your posts are, you might as well just stay in the centralized Twitter. You either take control of your relay lists, or they will control you. Amethyst offers several lists of relays for our users. We are going to go one by one to help clarify what they are and which options are best for each one.

Public Home/Outbox Relays

Home relays store all YOUR content: all your posts, likes, replies, lists, etc. It's your home. Amethyst will send your posts here first. Your followers will use these relays to get new posts from you. So, if you don't have anything there, they will not receive your updates.

Home relays must allow queries from anyone, ideally without the need to authenticate. They can limit writes to paid users without affecting anyone's experience.

This list should have a maximum of 3 relays. More than that will only make your followers waste their mobile data getting your posts. Keep it simple. Out of the 3 relays, I recommend: - 1 large public, international relay: nos.lol, nostr.mom, relay.damus.io, etc. - 1 personal relay to store a copy of all your content in a place no one can delete. Go to relay.tools and never be censored again. - 1 really fast relay located in your country: paid options like http://nostr.wine are great

Do not include relays that block users from seeing posts in this list. If you do, no one will see your posts.

Public Inbox Relays

This relay type receives all replies, comments, likes, and zaps to your posts. If you are not getting notifications or you don't see replies from your friends, it is likely because you don't have the right setup here. If you are getting too much spam in your replies, it's probably because your inbox relays are not protecting you enough. Paid relays can filter inbox spam out.

Inbox relays must allow anyone to write into them. It's the opposite of the outbox relay. They can limit who can download the posts to their paid subscribers without affecting anyone's experience.

This list should have a maximum of 3 relays as well. Again, keep it small. More than that will just make you spend more of your data plan downloading the same notifications from all these different servers. Out of the 3 relays, I recommend: - 1 large public, international relay: nos.lol, nostr.mom, relay.damus.io, etc. - 1 personal relay to store a copy of your notifications, invites, cashu tokens and zaps. - 1 really fast relay located in your country: go to nostr.watch and find relays in your country

Terrible options include: - nostr.wine should not be here. - filter.nostr.wine should not be here. - inbox.nostr.wine should not be here.

DM Inbox Relays

These are the relays used to receive DMs and private content. Others will use these relays to send DMs to you. If you don't have it setup, you will miss DMs. DM Inbox relays should accept any message from anyone, but only allow you to download them.

Generally speaking, you only need 3 for reliability. One of them should be a personal relay to make sure you have a copy of all your messages. The others can be open if you want push notifications or closed if you want full privacy.

Good options are: - inbox.nostr.wine and auth.nostr1.com: anyone can send messages and only you can download. Not even our push notification server has access to them to notify you. - a personal relay to make sure no one can censor you. Advanced settings on personal relays can also store your DMs privately. Talk to your relay operator for more details. - a public relay if you want DM notifications from our servers.

Make sure to add at least one public relay if you want to see DM notifications.

Private Home Relays

Private Relays are for things no one should see, like your drafts, lists, app settings, bookmarks etc. Ideally, these relays are either local or require authentication before posting AND downloading each user\'s content. There are no dedicated relays for this category yet, so I would use a local relay like Citrine on Android and a personal relay on relay.tools.

Keep in mind that if you choose a local relay only, a client on the desktop might not be able to see the drafts from clients on mobile and vice versa.

Search relays:

This is the list of relays to use on Amethyst's search and user tagging with @. Tagging and searching will not work if there is nothing here.. This option requires NIP-50 compliance from each relay. Hit the Default button to use all available options on existence today: - nostr.wine - relay.nostr.band - relay.noswhere.com

Local Relays:

This is your local storage. Everything will load faster if it comes from this relay. You should install Citrine on Android and write ws://localhost:4869 in this option.

General Relays:

This section contains the default relays used to download content from your follows. Notice how you can activate and deactivate the Home, Messages (old-style DMs), Chat (public chats), and Global options in each.

Keep 5-6 large relays on this list and activate them for as many categories (Home, Messages (old-style DMs), Chat, and Global) as possible.

Amethyst will provide additional recommendations to this list from your follows with information on which of your follows might need the additional relay in your list. Add them if you feel like you are missing their posts or if it is just taking too long to load them.

My setup

Here's what I use: 1. Go to relay.tools and create a relay for yourself. 2. Go to nostr.wine and pay for their subscription. 3. Go to inbox.nostr.wine and pay for their subscription. 4. Go to nostr.watch and find a good relay in your country. 5. Download Citrine to your phone.

Then, on your relay lists, put:

Public Home/Outbox Relays: - nostr.wine - nos.lol or an in-country relay. - .nostr1.com

Public Inbox Relays - nos.lol or an in-country relay - .nostr1.com

DM Inbox Relays - inbox.nostr.wine - .nostr1.com

Private Home Relays - ws://localhost:4869 (Citrine) - .nostr1.com (if you want)

Search Relays - nostr.wine - relay.nostr.band - relay.noswhere.com

Local Relays - ws://localhost:4869 (Citrine)

General Relays - nos.lol - relay.damus.io - relay.primal.net - nostr.mom

And a few of the recommended relays from Amethyst.

Final Considerations

Remember, relays can see what your Nostr client is requesting and downloading at all times. They can track what you see and see what you like. They can sell that information to the highest bidder, they can delete your content or content that a sponsor asked them to delete (like a negative review for instance) and they can censor you in any way they see fit. Before using any random free relay out there, make sure you trust its operator and you know its terms of service and privacy policies.

@ 95cb4330:96db706c

Jeff Bezos, Sam Altman, and Elon Musk follow a critical decision-making principle: never let past investments dictate future choices. Instead of holding onto failing projects due to time, money, or effort already spent, successful entrepreneurs cut losses quickly and reallocate resources toward higher-impact opportunities.

---

Why Avoiding Sunk Costs Matters

• Frees Up Resources for Better Opportunities:
  The more time you spend on a failing project, the fewer resources you have to invest in something that could succeed.

• Prevents Emotional Bias in Decision-Making:
  Many people stick with bad decisions because they feel committed, rather than assessing future potential objectively.

• Increases Agility & Competitive Edge:
  Being able to pivot quickly allows you to adapt to market changes faster than competitors.

---

Example in Action: Bezos, Musk & Altman

• Jeff Bezos & the Fire Phone:
  Amazon heavily invested in its Fire Phone, but when it failed, Bezos shut it down and redirected efforts to Alexa and AWS, which became massive successes.

• Elon Musk & Tesla Model S Plaid+:
  Tesla had planned a Model S Plaid+ variant, but Musk canceled it, realizing it no longer made strategic sense in Tesla’s long-term roadmap.

• Sam Altman & Startup Strategy:
  Altman constantly advises founders to evaluate if they’re on the best path—not just the one they’ve already invested in. He encourages entrepreneurs to pivot fast rather than waste time on failing ideas.

---

How to Apply This Principle

1. Identify Projects You’re Holding Onto for the Wrong Reasons
   Ask: Would I start this today knowing what I now know?

2. Focus on Future Potential, Not Past Investment
   Look at the expected future return rather than the money or effort already spent.

3. Be Willing to Pivot or Cut Losses Quickly
   If a project no longer aligns with your long-term vision, redirect resources elsewhere.

---

Action Step: Audit Your Current Projects

• 👉 Are you continuing something just because of past investment rather than future potential?
• 👉 If so, consider pivoting or cutting it today.

---

By avoiding the sunk cost fallacy, you can stay flexible, maximize impact, and ensure you’re always focused on the best opportunities ahead.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Es ist besser, ein Licht zu entzünden, als auf die Dunkelheit zu schimpfen. Konfuzius

Die Bemühungen um Aufarbeitung der sogenannten Corona-Pandemie, um Aufklärung der Hintergründe, Benennung von Verantwortlichkeiten und das Ziehen von Konsequenzen sind durchaus nicht eingeschlafen. Das Interesse daran ist unter den gegebenen Umständen vielleicht nicht sonderlich groß, aber es ist vorhanden.

Der sächsische Landtag hat gestern die Einsetzung eines Untersuchungsausschusses zur Corona-Politik beschlossen. In einer Sondersitzung erhielt ein entsprechender Antrag der AfD-Fraktion die ausreichende Zustimmung, auch von einigen Abgeordneten des BSW.

In den Niederlanden wird Bill Gates vor Gericht erscheinen müssen. Sieben durch die Covid-«Impfstoffe» geschädigte Personen hatten Klage eingereicht. Sie werfen unter anderem Gates, Pfizer-Chef Bourla und dem niederländischen Staat vor, sie hätten gewusst, dass diese Präparate weder sicher noch wirksam sind.

Mit den mRNA-«Impfstoffen» von Pfizer/BioNTech befasst sich auch ein neues Buch. Darin werden die Erkenntnisse von Ärzten und Wissenschaftlern aus der Analyse interner Dokumente über die klinischen Studien der Covid-Injektion präsentiert. Es handelt sich um jene in den USA freigeklagten Papiere, die die Arzneimittelbehörde (Food and Drug Administration, FDA) 75 Jahre unter Verschluss halten wollte.

Ebenfalls Wissenschaftler und Ärzte, aber auch andere Experten organisieren als Verbundnetzwerk Corona-Solution kostenfreie Online-Konferenzen. Ihr Ziel ist es, «wissenschaftlich, demokratisch und friedlich» über Impfstoffe und Behandlungsprotokolle gegen SARS-CoV-2 aufzuklären und die Diskriminierung von Ungeimpften zu stoppen. Gestern fand eine weitere Konferenz statt. Ihr Thema: «Corona und modRNA: Von Toten, Lebenden und Physik lernen».

Aufgrund des Digital Services Acts (DSA) der Europäischen Union sei das Risiko groß, dass ihre Arbeit als «Fake-News» bezeichnet würde, so das Netzwerk. Staatlich unerwünschte wissenschaftliche Aufklärung müsse sich passende Kanäle zur Veröffentlichung suchen. Ihre Live-Streams seien deshalb zum Beispiel nicht auf YouTube zu finden.

Der vielfältige Einsatz für Aufklärung und Aufarbeitung wird sich nicht stummschalten lassen. Nicht einmal der Zensurmeister der EU, Deutschland, wird so etwas erreichen. Die frisch aktivierten «Trusted Flagger» dürften allerdings künftige Siege beim «Denunzianten-Wettbewerb» im Kontext des DSA zusätzlich absichern.

Wo sind die Grenzen der Meinungsfreiheit? Sicher gibt es sie. Aber die ideologische Gleichstellung von illegalen mit unerwünschten Äußerungen verfolgt offensichtlich eher das Ziel, ein derart elementares demokratisches Grundrecht möglichst weitgehend auszuhebeln. Vorwürfe wie «Hassrede», «Delegitimierung des Staates» oder «Volksverhetzung» werden heute inflationär verwendet, um Systemkritik zu unterbinden. Gegen solche Bestrebungen gilt es, sich zu wehren.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 266815e0:6cd408a5

I've been working on the applesauce libraries for a while now but I think this release is the first one I would consider to be stable enough to use

A lot of the core concepts and classes are in place and stable enough where they wont change too much next release

If you want to skip straight to the documentation you can find at hzrd149.github.io/applesauce or the typescript docs at hzrd149.github.io/applesauce/typedoc

Whats new

Accounts

The applesauce-accounts package is an extension of the applesauce-signers package and provides classes for building a multi-account system for clients

Its primary features are - Serialize and deserialize accounts so they can be saved in local storage or IndexededDB - Account manager for multiple accounts and switching between them - Account metadata for things like labels, app settings, etc - Support for NIP-46 Nostr connect accounts

see documentation for more examples

Nostr connect signer

The NostrConnectSigner class from the applesauce-signers package is now in a stable state and has a few new features - Ability to create nostrconnect:// URIs and waiting for the remote signer to connect - SDK agnostic way of subscribing and publishing to relays

For a simple example, here is how to create a signer from a bunker:// URI js const signer = await NostrConnectSigner.fromBunkerURI( "bunker://266815e0c9210dfa324c6cba3573b14bee49da4209a9456f9484e5106cd408a5?relay=wss://relay.nsec.app&secret=d9aa70", { permissions: NostrConnectSigner.buildSigningPermissions([0, 1, 3, 10002]), async onSubOpen(filters, relays, onEvent) { // manually open REQ }, async onSubClose() { // close previouse REQ }, async onPublishEvent(event, relays) { // Pubilsh an event to relays }, }, );

see documentation for more examples and other signers

Event Factory

The EventFactory class is probably what I'm most proud of. its a standalone class that can be used to create various types of events from templates (blueprints) and is really simple to use

For example: ```js import { EventFactory } from "applesauce-factory"; import { NoteBlueprint } from "applesauce-factory/blueprints";

const factory = new EventFactory({ // optionally pass a NIP-07 signer in to use for encryption / decryption signer: window.nostr });

// Create a kind 1 note with a hashtag let draft = await factory.create(NoteBlueprint, "hello world #grownostr"); // Sign the note so it can be published let signed = await window.nostr.signEvent(draft); ```

Its included in the applesauce-factory package and can be used with any other nostr SDKs or vanilla javascript

It also can be used to modify existing replaceable events

js let draft = await factory.modifyTags( // kind 10002 event mailboxes, // add outbox relays addOutboxRelay("wss://relay.io/"), addOutboxRelay("wss://nostr.wine/"), // remove inbox relay removeInboxRelay("wss://personal.old-relay.com/") );

see documentation for more examples

Loaders

The applesauce-loaders package exports a bunch of loader classes that can be used to load everything from replaceable events (profiles) to timelines and NIP-05 identities

They use rx-nostr under the hood to subscribe to relays, so for the time being they will not work with other nostr SDKs

I don't expect many other developers or apps to use them since in my experience every nostr client requires a slightly different way or loading events

They are stable enough to start using but they are not fully tested and they might change slightly in the future

The following is a short list of the loaders and what they can be used for - ReplaceableLoader loads any replaceable events (0, 3, 1xxxx, 3xxxx) - SingleEventLoader loads single events based on ids - TimelineLoader loads a timeline of events from multiple relays based on filters - TagValueLoader loads events based on a tag name (like "e") and a value, can be used to load replies, zaps, reactions, etc - DnsIdentityLoader loads NIP-05 identities and supports caching - UserSetsLoader loads all lists events for users

see documentation for more examples

Real tests

For all new features and a lot of existing ones I'm trying to write tests to ensure I don't leave unexpected bugs for later

I'm not going to pretend its 100% tests coverage or that it will ever get close to that point, but these tests cover some of the core classes and help me prove that my code is doing what it says its supposed to do

At the moment there are about 230 tests covering 45 files. not much but its a start

Apps built using applesauce

If you want to see some examples of applesauce being used in a nostr client I've been testing a lot of this code in production on the apps I've built in the last few months

• noStrudel The main app everything is being built for and tested in
• nsite-manager Still a work-in-progress but supports multiple accounts thanks to the applesauce-accounts package
• blossomservers.com A simple (and incomplete) nostr client for listing and reviewing public blossom servers
• libretranslate-dvm A libretranslate DVM for nostr:npub1mkvkflncllnvp3adq57klw3wge6k9llqa4r60g42ysp4yyultx6sykjgnu
• cherry-tree A chunked blob uploader / downloader. only uses applesauce for boilerplate
• nsite-homepage A simple landing page for nsite.lol

Thanks to nostr:npub1cesrkrcuelkxyhvupzm48e8hwn4005w0ya5jyvf9kh75mfegqx0q4kt37c for teaching me more about rxjs and consequentially making me re-write a lot of the core observables to be faster

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Jofer

Jofer era um jogador diferente. À primeira vista não, parecia igual, um volante combativo, perseguia os atacantes adversários implacavelmente, um bom jogador. Mas não era essa a característica que diferenciava Jofer. Jofer era, digamos, um chutador.

Começou numa semifinal de um torneio de juniores. O time de Jofer precisava do empate e estava sofrendo uma baita pressão do adversário, mas o jogo estava 1 a 1 e parecia que ia ficar assim mesmo, daquele jeito futebolístico que parece, parece mesmo. Só que aos 46 do segundo tempo tomaram um gol espírita, Ruizinho do outro time saiu correndo pela esquerda e, mesmo sendo canhoto, foi cortando para o meio, os zagueiros meio que achando que já tinha acabado mesmo, devia ter só mais aquele lance, o árbitro tinha dado dois minutos, Ruizinho chutou, marcou e o goleiro, que só pulou depois que já tinha visto que não ia ter jeito, ficou xingando.

A bola saiu do meio e tocaram para Jofer, ninguém nem veio marcá-lo, o outro time já estava comemorando, e com razão, o juiz estava de sacanagem em fazer o jogo continuar, já estava tudo acabado mesmo. Mas não, estava certo, mais um minuto de acréscimo, justo. Em um minuto dá pra fazer um gol. Mas como? Jofer pensou nas partidas da NBA em que com alguns centésimos de segundo faltando o armador jogava de qualquer jeito para a cesta e às vezes acertava. De trás do meio de campo, será? Não vou ter nem força pra fazer chegar no gol. Vou virar piada, melhor tocar pro Fumaça ali do lado e a gente perde sem essa humilhação no final. Mas, poxa, e daí? Vou tentar mesmo assim, qualquer coisa eu falo que foi um lançamento e daqui a uns dias todo mundo esquece. Olhou para o próprio pé, virou ele de ladinho, pra fora e depois pra dentro (bom, se eu pegar daqui, direitinho, quem sabe?), jogou a bola pro lado e bateu. A bola subiu escandalosamente, muito alta mesmo, deve ter subido uns 200 metros. Jofer não tinha como ter a menor noção. Depois foi descendo, o goleirão voltando correndo para debaixo da trave e olhando pra bola, foi chegando e pulando já só pra acompanhar, para ver, dependurado no travessão, a bola sair ainda bem alta, ela bateu na rede lateral interna antes de bater no chão, quicar violentamente e estufar a rede no alto do lado direito de quem olhava.

Mas isso tudo foi sonho do Jofer. Sonhou acordado, numa noite em que demorou pra dormir, deitado na sua cama. Ficou pensando se não seria fácil, se ele treinasse bastante, acertar o gol bem de longe, tipo no sonho, e se não dava pra fazer gol assim. No dia seguinte perguntou a Brunildinho, o treinador de goleiros. Era difícil defender essas bolas, ainda mais se elas subissem muito, o goleiro ficava sem perspectiva, o vento alterava a trajetória a cada instante, tinha efeito, ela cairia rápido, mas claro que não valia à pena treinar isso, a chance de acertar o gol era minúscula. Mas Jofer só ia tentar depois que treinasse bastante e comprovasse o que na sua imaginação parecia uma excelente idéia.

Começou a treinar todos os dias. Primeiro escondido, por vergonha dos colegas, chegava um pouco antes e ficava lá, chutando do círculo central. Ao menor sinal de gente se aproximando, parava e ia catar as bolas. Depois, quando começou a acertar, perdeu a vergonha. O pessoal do clube todo achava engraçado quando via Jofer treinando e depois ouvia a explicação da boca de alguém, ninguém levava muito a sério, mas também não achava de todo ridículo. O pessoal ria, mas no fundo torcia praquilo dar certo, mesmo.

Aconteceu que num jogo que não valia muita coisa, empatezinho feio, aos 40 do segundo tempo, a marcação dos adversários já não estava mais pressionando, todo mundo contente com o empate e com vontade de parar de jogar já, o Henrique, meia-esquerdo, humilde, mas ainda assim um pouco intimidante para Jofer (jogava demais), tocou pra ele. Vai lá, tenta sua loucura aí. Assumiu a responsabilidade do nosso volante introspectivo. Seria mais verossímil se Jofer tivesse errado, primeira vez que tentou, restava muito tempo ainda pra ele ter a chance de ser herói, ninguém acerta de primeira, mas ele acertou. Quase como no sonho, Lucas, o goleiro, não esperava, depois que viu o lance, riu-se, adiantou-se para pegar a bola que ele julgava que quicaria na área, mas ela foi mais pra frente, mais e mais, daí Lucas já estava correndo, só que começou a pensar que ela ia pra fora, e ele ia só se dependurar no travessão e fazer seu papel de estar na bola. Acabou que por conta daquele gol eles terminaram em segundo no grupo daquele torneiozinho, ao invés de terceiro, e não fez diferença nenhuma.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Herzlichen Glückwunsch zum dritten Geburtstag, liebe Denk Bar! Wieso zum dritten? Das war doch 2022 und jetzt sind wir im Jahr 2024, oder? Ja, das ist schon richtig, aber bei Geburtstagen erinnere ich mich immer auch an meinen Vater, und der behauptete oft, der erste sei ja schließlich der Tag der Geburt selber und den müsse man natürlich mitzählen. Wo er recht hat, hat er nunmal recht. Konsequenterweise wird also heute dieser Blog an seinem dritten Geburtstag zwei Jahre alt.

Das ist ein Grund zum Feiern, wie ich finde. Einerseits ganz einfach, weil es dafür gar nicht genug Gründe geben kann. «Das Leben sind zwei Tage», lautet ein gängiger Ausdruck hier in Andalusien. In der Tat könnte es so sein, auch wenn wir uns im Alltag oft genug von der Routine vereinnahmen lassen.

Seit dem Start der Denk Bar vor zwei Jahren ist unglaublich viel passiert. Ebenso wie die zweieinhalb Jahre davor, und all jenes war letztlich auch der Auslöser dafür, dass ich begann, öffentlich zu schreiben. Damals notierte ich:

«Seit einigen Jahren erscheint unser öffentliches Umfeld immer fragwürdiger, widersprüchlicher und manchmal schier unglaublich - jede Menge Anlass für eigene Recherchen und Gedanken, ganz einfach mit einer Portion gesundem Menschenverstand.»

Wir erleben den sogenannten «großen Umbruch», einen globalen Coup, den skrupellose Egoisten clever eingefädelt haben und seit ein paar Jahren knallhart – aber nett verpackt – durchziehen, um buchstäblich alles nach ihrem Gusto umzukrempeln. Die Gelegenheit ist ja angeblich günstig und muss genutzt werden.

Nie hätte ich mir träumen lassen, dass ich so etwas jemals miterleben müsste. Die Bosheit, mit der ganz offensichtlich gegen die eigene Bevölkerung gearbeitet wird, war früher für mich unvorstellbar. Mein (Rest-) Vertrauen in alle möglichen Bereiche wie Politik, Wissenschaft, Justiz, Medien oder Kirche ist praktisch komplett zerstört. Einen «inneren Totalschaden» hatte ich mal für unsere Gesellschaften diagnostiziert.

Was mich vielleicht am meisten erschreckt, ist zum einen das Niveau der Gleichschaltung, das weltweit erreicht werden konnte, und zum anderen die praktisch totale Spaltung der Gesellschaft. Haben wir das tatsächlich mit uns machen lassen?? Unfassbar! Aber das Werkzeug «Angst» ist sehr mächtig und funktioniert bis heute.

Zum Glück passieren auch positive Dinge und neue Perspektiven öffnen sich. Für viele Menschen waren und sind die Entwicklungen der letzten Jahre ein Augenöffner. Sie sehen «Querdenken» als das, was es ist: eine Tugend.

Auch die immer ernsteren Zensurbemühungen sind letztlich nur ein Zeichen der Schwäche, wo Argumente fehlen. Sie werden nicht verhindern, dass wir unsere Meinung äußern, unbequeme Fragen stellen und dass die Wahrheit peu à peu ans Licht kommt. Es gibt immer Mittel und Wege, auch für uns.

---

Danke, dass du diesen Weg mit mir weitergehst!

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

O caso da Grêmio TV

enquanto vinha se conduzindo pela plataforma superior daquela arena que se pensava totalmente preenchida por adeptos da famosa equipe do Grêmio de Porto Alegre, viu-se, como por obra de algum nigromante - dos muitos que existem e estão a todo momento a fazer más obras e a colocar-se no caminhos dos que procuram, se não fazer o bem acima de todas as coisas, a pelo menos não fazer o mal no curso da realização dos seus interesses -, o discretíssimo jornalista a ser xingado e moído em palavras por uma horda de malandrinos a cinco ou seis passos dele surgida que cantavam e moviam seus braços em movimentos que não se pode classificar senão como bárbaros, e assim cantavam:

Grêmio TV pior que o SBT !

@ 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/899482

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Replacing the web with something saner

This is a simplification, but let's say that basically there are just 3 kinds of websites:

1. Websites with content: text, images, videos;
2. Websites that run full apps that do a ton of interactive stuff;
3. Websites with some interactive content that uses JavaScript, or "mini-apps";

In a saner world we would have 3 different ways of serving and using these. 1 would be "the web" (and it was for a while, although I'm not claiming here that the past is always better and wanting to get back to the glorious old days).

1 would stay as "the web", just static sites, styled with CSS, no JavaScript whatsoever, but designers can still thrive and make they look pretty. Or it could also be something like Gemini. Maybe the two protocols could coexist.

2 would be downloadable native apps, much easier to write and maintain for developers (considering that multi-platform and cross-compilation is easy today and getting easier), faster, more polished experience for users, more powerful, integrates better with the computer.

(Remember that since no one would be striving to make the same app run both on browsers and natively no one would have any need for Electron or other inefficient bloated solutions, just pure native UI, like the Telegram app, have you seen that? It's fast.)

But 2 is mostly for apps that people use every day, something like Google Docs, email (although email is also broken technology), Netflix, Twitter, Trello and so on, and all those hundreds of niche SaaS that people pay monthly fees to use, each tailored to a different industry (although most of functions they all implement are the same everywhere). What do we do with dynamic open websites like StackOverflow, for example, where one needs to not only read, but also search and interact in multiple ways? What about that website that asks you a bunch of questions and then discovers the name of the person you're thinking about? What about that mini-app that calculates the hash of your provided content or shrinks your video, or that one that hosts your image without asking any questions?

All these and tons of others would fall into category 3, that of instantly loaded apps that you don't have to install, and yet they run in a sandbox.

The key for making category 3 worth investing time into is coming up with some solid grounds, simple enough that anyone can implement in multiple different ways, but not giving the app too much choices.

Telegram or Discord bots are super powerful platforms that can accomodate most kinds of app in them. They can't beat a native app specifically made with one purpose, but they allow anyone to provide instantly usable apps with very low overhead, and since the experience is so simple, intuitive and fast, users tend to like it and sometimes even pay for their services. There could exist a protocol that brings apps like that to the open world of (I won't say "web") domains and the websockets protocol -- with multiple different clients, each making their own decisions on how to display the content sent by the servers that are powering these apps.

Another idea is that of Alan Kay: to design a nice little OS/virtual machine that can load these apps and run them. Kinda like browsers are today, but providing a more well-thought, native-like experience and framework, but still sandboxed. And I add: abstracting away details about design, content disposition and so on.

---

These 3 kinds of programs could coexist peacefully. 2 are just standalone programs, they can do anything and each will be its own thing. 1 and 3, however, are still similar to browsers of today in the sense that you need clients to interact with servers and show to the user what they are asking. But by simplifying everything and separating the scopes properly these clients would be easy to write, efficient, small, the environment would be open and the internet would be saved.

See also

• On the state of programs and browsers

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Ein Lämmchen löschte an einem Bache seinen Durst. Fern von ihm, aber näher der Quelle, tat ein Wolf das gleiche. Kaum erblickte er das Lämmchen, so schrie er:

"Warum trübst du mir das Wasser, das ich trinken will?"

"Wie wäre das möglich", erwiderte schüchtern das Lämmchen, "ich stehe hier unten und du so weit oben; das Wasser fließt ja von dir zu mir; glaube mir, es kam mir nie in den Sinn, dir etwas Böses zu tun!"

"Ei, sieh doch! Du machst es gerade, wie dein Vater vor sechs Monaten; ich erinnere mich noch sehr wohl, daß auch du dabei warst, aber glücklich entkamst, als ich ihm für sein Schmähen das Fell abzog!"

"Ach, Herr!" flehte das zitternde Lämmchen, "ich bin ja erst vier Wochen alt und kannte meinen Vater gar nicht, so lange ist er schon tot; wie soll ich denn für ihn büßen."

"Du Unverschämter!" so endigt der Wolf mit erheuchelter Wut, indem er die Zähne fletschte. "Tot oder nicht tot, weiß ich doch, daß euer ganzes Geschlecht mich hasset, und dafür muß ich mich rächen."

Ohne weitere Umstände zu machen, zerriß er das Lämmchen und verschlang es.

Das Gewissen regt sich selbst bei dem größten Bösewichte; er sucht doch nach Vorwand, um dasselbe damit bei Begehung seiner Schlechtigkeiten zu beschwichtigen.

Quelle: https://eden.one/fabeln-aesop-das-lamm-und-der-wolf

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

IPFS problems: General confusion

Most IPFS open-source projects, libraries and apps (excluding Ethereum stuff) are things that rely heavily on dynamic data and temporary links. The most common projects you'll see when following the IPFS communities are chat rooms and similar things. I've seen dozens of these chat-rooms. There's also a famous IPFS-powered database. How can you do these things with content-addressing is a mistery. Of course they probably rely on IPNS or other external address system.

There's also a bunch of "file-sharing" on IPFS. The kind of thing people use for temporary making a file available for a third-party. There's image sharing on IPFS, pastebins on IPFS and so on. People don't seem to share the preoccupation with broken links here.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Scala is such a great language

Scala is amazing. The type system has the perfect balance between flexibility and powerfulness. match statements are great. You can write imperative code that looks very nice and expressive (and I haven't tried writing purely functional things yet). Everything is easy to write and cheap and neovim integration works great.

But Java is not great. And the fact that Scala is a JVM language doesn't help because over the years people have written stuff that depends on Java libraries -- and these Java libraries are not as safe as the Scala libraries, they contain reflection, slowness, runtime errors, all kinds of horrors.

Scala is also very tightly associated with Akka, the actor framework, and Akka is a giant collection of anti-patterns. Untyped stuff, reflection, dependency on JVM, basically a lot of javisms. I just arrived and I don't know anything about the Scala history or ecosystem or community, but I have the impression that Akka has prevent more adoption of Scala from decent people that aren't Java programmers.

But luckily there is a solution -- or two solutions: ScalaJS is a great thing that exists. It transpiles Scala code into JavaScript and it runs on NodeJS or in a browser!

Scala Native is a much better deal, though, it compiles to LLVM and then to binary code and you can have single binaries that run directly without a JVM -- not that the single JARs are that bad though, they are great and everybody has Java so I'll take that anytime over C libraries or NPM-distributed software, but direct executables even better. Scala Native just needs a little more love and some libraries and it will be the greatest thing in a couple of years.

@ a2eddb26:e2868a80

In personal finance, the principles of financial independence and time sovereignty (FITS) empower individuals to escape the debt-based cycle that forces them into perpetual work. What if companies could apply the same principles? What if businesses, instead of succumbing to the relentless push for infinite growth, could optimize for real demand?

This case study of the GPU industry aims to show that fiat-driven incentives distort technological progress and imagines an alternative future built on sound money.

Fiat Business: Growth or Death

Tech companies no longer optimize for efficiency, longevity, or real user needs. Instead, under a fiat system, they are forced into a perpetual growth model. If NVIDIA, AMD, or Intel fail to show revenue expansion, their stock price tanks. Let's take NVIDIA's GPUs as an example. The result is predictable:

• GPUs that nobody actually needs but everyone is told to buy.
• A focus on artificial benchmarks instead of real-world performance stability.
• Endless FPS increases that mean nothing for 99% of users.

The RTX 5090 is not for gamers. It is for NVIDIA’s quarterly earnings. This is not a surprise on a fiat standard.

Fiat Marketing: The Illusion of Need and the Refresh Rate Trap

Benchmarks confirm that once a GPU maintains 120+ FPS in worst-case scenarios, additional performance gains become irrelevant for most players. This level of capability was reached years ago. The problem is that efficiency does not sell as easily as bigger numbers.

This extends beyond raw GPU power and into the display market, where increasing refresh rates and resolutions are marketed as critical upgrades, despite diminishing real-world benefits for most users. While refresh rates above 120Hz may offer marginal improvements for competitive esports players, the average user sees little benefit beyond a certain threshold. Similarly, 8K resolutions are pushed as the next frontier, even though 4K remains underutilized due to game optimization and hardware constraints. This is why GPUs keep getting bigger, hotter, and more expensive, even when most gamers would be fine with a card from five years ago. It is why every generation brings another “must-have” feature, regardless of whether it impacts real-world performance.

Marketing under fiat operates on the principle of making people think they need something they do not. The fiat standard does not just distort capital allocation. It manufactures demand by exaggerating the importance of specifications that most users do not truly need.

The goal is not technological progress but sales volume. True innovation would focus on meaningful performance gains that align with actual gaming demands, such as improving latency, frame-time consistency, and efficient power consumption. Instead, marketing convinces consumers they need unnecessary upgrades, driving them into endless hardware cycles that favor stock prices over user experience.

They need the next-gen cycle to maintain high margins. The hardware is no longer designed for users. It is designed for shareholders. A company operating on sound money would not rely on deceptive marketing cycles. It would align product development with real user needs instead of forcing artificial demand.

The Shift to AI

For years, GPUs were optimized for gaming. Then AI changed everything. OpenAI, Google, and Stability AI now outbid consumers for GPUs. The 4090 became impossible to find, not because of gamers, but because AI labs were hoarding them.

The same companies that depended on the consumer upgrade cycle now see their real profits coming from data centers. Yet, they still push gaming hardware aggressively. However, legitimate areas for improvement do exist. While marketing exaggerates the need for higher FPS at extreme resolutions, real gaming performance should focus on frame stability, low latency, and efficient rendering techniques. These are the areas where actual innovation should be happening. Instead, the industry prioritizes artificial performance milestones to create the illusion of progress, rather than refining and optimizing for the gaming experience itself. Why?

Gamers Fund the R&D for AI and Bear the Cost of Scalping

NVIDIA still needs gamers, but not in the way most think. The gaming market provides steady revenue, but it is no longer the priority. With production capacity shifting toward AI and industrial clients, fewer GPUs are available for gamers. This reduced supply has led to rampant scalping, where resellers exploit scarcity to drive up prices beyond reasonable levels. Instead of addressing the issue, NVIDIA benefits from the inflated demand and price perception, creating an even stronger case for prioritizing enterprise sales. Gaming revenue subsidizes AI research. The more RTX cards they sell, the more they justify pouring resources into data-center GPUs like the H100, which generate significantly higher margins than gaming hardware.

AI dictates the future of GPUs. If NVIDIA and AMD produced dedicated gamer-specific GPUs in higher volumes, they could serve that market at lower prices. But in the fiat-driven world of stockholder demands, maintaining artificially constrained supply ensures maximum profitability. Gamers are left paying inflated prices for hardware that is no longer built with them as the primary customer. That is why GPU prices keep climbing. Gamers are no longer the main customer. They are a liquidity pool.

The Financial Reality

The financial reports confirm this shift: NVIDIA’s 2024 fiscal year saw a 126% revenue increase, reaching \$60.9 billion. The data center segment alone grew 217%, generating \$47.5 billion. (Source)

The numbers make it clear. The real money is in AI and data centers, not gaming. NVIDIA has not only shifted its focus away from gamers but has also engaged in financial engineering to maintain its dominance. The company has consistently engaged in substantial stock buybacks, a hallmark of fiat-driven financial practices. In August 2023, NVIDIA announced a \$25 billion share repurchase program, surprising some investors given the stock's significant rise that year. (Source) This was followed by an additional \$50 billion buyback authorization in 2024, bringing the total to \$75 billion over two years. (Source)

These buybacks are designed to return capital to shareholders and can enhance earnings per share by reducing the number of outstanding shares. However, they also reflect a focus on short-term stock price appreciation rather than long-term value creation. Instead of using capital for product innovation, NVIDIA directs it toward inflating stock value, ultimately reducing its long-term resilience and innovation potential. In addition to shifting production away from consumer GPUs, NVIDIA has also enabled AI firms to use its chips as collateral to secure massive loans. Lambda, an AI cloud provider, secured a \$500 million loan backed by NVIDIA's H200 and Blackwell AI chips, with financing provided by Macquarie Group and Industrial Development Funding. (Source)

This practice mirrors the way Bitcoin miners have used mining hardware as collateral, expecting continuous high returns to justify the debt. GPUs are fast-depreciating assets that lose value rapidly as new generations replace them. Collateralizing loans with such hardware is a high-risk strategy that depends on continued AI demand to justify the debt. AI firms borrowing against them are placing a leveraged bet on demand staying high. If AI market conditions shift or next-generation chips render current hardware obsolete, the collateral value could collapse, leading to cascading loan defaults and liquidations.

This is not a sound-money approach to business. It is fiat-style quicksand financialization, where loans are built on assets with a limited shelf life. Instead of focusing on sustainable capital allocation, firms are leveraging their future on rapid turnover cycles. This further shifts resources away from gamers, reinforcing the trend where NVIDIA prioritizes high-margin AI sales over its original gaming audience.

At the same time, NVIDIA has been accused of leveraging anti-competitive tactics to maintain its market dominance. The GeForce Partner Program (GPP) launched in 2018 sought to lock hardware partners into exclusive deals with NVIDIA, restricting consumer choice and marginalizing AMD. Following industry backlash, the program was canceled. (Source)

NVIDIA is not merely responding to market demand but shaping it through artificial constraints, financialization, and monopolistic control. The result is an industry where consumers face higher prices, limited options, and fewer true innovations as companies prioritize financial games over engineering excellence.

On this basis, short-term downturns fueled by stock buybacks and leveraged bets create instability, leading to key staff layoffs. This forces employees into survival mode rather than fostering long-term innovation and career growth. Instead of building resilient, forward-looking teams, companies trapped in fiat incentives prioritize temporary financial engineering over actual product and market development.

A Sound Money Alternative: Aligning Incentives

Under a sound money system, consumers would become more mindful of purchases as prices naturally decline over time. This would force businesses to prioritize real value creation instead of relying on artificial scarcity and marketing hype. Companies would need to align their strategies with long-term customer satisfaction and sustainable engineering instead of driving demand through planned obsolescence.

Imagine an orange-pilled CEO at NVIDIA. Instead of chasing infinite growth, they persuade the board to pivot toward sustainability and long-term value creation. The company abandons artificial product cycles, prioritizing efficiency, durability, and cost-effectiveness. Gaming GPUs are designed to last a decade, not three years. The model shifts to modular upgrades instead of full replacements. Pricing aligns with real user needs, not speculative stock market gains.

Investors initially panic. The stock takes a temporary hit, but as consumers realize they no longer need to upgrade constantly, brand loyalty strengthens. Demand stabilizes, reducing volatility in production and supply chains. Gamers benefit from high-quality products that do not degrade artificially. AI buyers still access high-performance chips but at fair market prices, no longer subsidized by forced consumer churn.

This is not an abstract vision. Businesses could collateralize loans with Bitcoin. Companies could also leverage highly sought-after end products that maintain long-term value. Instead of stock buybacks or anti-competitive practices, companies would focus on building genuine, long-term value. A future where Bitcoin-backed reserves replace fiat-driven financial engineering would stabilize capital allocation, preventing endless boom-bust cycles. This shift would eliminate the speculative nature of AI-backed loans, fostering financial stability for both borrowers and lenders.

Sound money leads to sound business. When capital allocation is driven by real value rather than debt-fueled expansion, industries focus on sustainable innovation rather than wasteful iteration.

Reclaiming Time Sovereignty for Companies

The fiat system forces corporations into unsustainable growth cycles. Companies that embrace financial independence and time sovereignty can escape this trap and focus on long-term value.

GPU development illustrates this distortion. The RTX 3080 met nearly all gaming needs, yet manufacturers push unnecessary performance gains to fuel stock prices rather than improve usability. GPUs are no longer designed for gamers but for AI and enterprise clients, shifting NVIDIA’s priorities toward financial engineering over real innovation.

This cycle of GPU inflation stems from fiat-driven incentives—growth for the sake of stock performance rather than actual demand. Under a sound money standard, companies would build durable products, prioritizing efficiency over forced obsolescence.

Just as individuals can reclaim financial sovereignty, businesses can do the same. Embracing sound money fosters sustainable business strategies, where technology serves real needs instead of short-term speculation.

Bitcoin

FITS

Marketing

TimeSovereignty

BitcoinFixesThis

OptOut

EngineeringNotFinance

SoundBusiness

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Que vença o melhor

Nos esportes e jogos em geral, existe uma constante preocupação em balancear os incentivos e atributos do jogo, as regras do esporte em si e as regras das competições para que o melhor vença, ou, em outras palavras, para que sejam minimizados os outros fatores exceto a habilidade mais pura quanto possível no jogo em questão.

O mundo fora dos jogos, porém, nem sempre pode ter suas regras mudadas por um ente que as controla e está imbuído da vontade e dos meios para escolher as melhores regras possíveis para a obtenção dos resultados acima. Aliás, é muitas vezes essa possibilidade é até impensável. Mesmo quando ela é pensável e levada em conta os fatores que operam no mundo real não são facilmente identificáveis, eles são muitos, e mudam o tempo todo.

Mais do que isso, ao contrário de um jogo em que o objetivo é praticamente o mesmo para todo mundo, os objetivos de cada agente no mundo real são diferentes e incontáveis, e as "competições" que cada um está disputando são diferentes e muitas, cada minúsculo ato de suas vidas compreendendo várias delas simultaneamente.

Da mesma forma, é impossível conceber até mesmo o conceito de "melhor" para que se deseje que ele vença.

Mesmo assim é comum encontrarmos em várias situações gente que parte do princípio de que se Fulano está num certo lugar (por exemplo, um emprego muito bom) e Beltrano não isso se deve ao fato de Fulano ter sido melhor que Beltrano.

Está aí uma crítica à idéia da meritocracia (eu tinha me esquecido que essa palavra existia).

@ 97c70a44:ad98e322

For the last couple of weeks, I've been dealing with the fallout of upgrading a web application to Svelte 5. Complaints about framework churn and migration annoyances aside, I've run into some interesting issues with the migration. So far, I haven't seen many other people register the same issues, so I thought it might be constructive for me to articulate them myself.

I'll try not to complain too much in this post, since I'm grateful for the many years of Svelte 3/4 I've enjoyed. But I don't think I'll be choosing Svelte for any new projects going forward. I hope my reflections here will be useful to others as well.

If you're interested in reproductions for the issues I mention here, you can find them below.

• Can't save state to indexeddb
• Component unmount results in undefined variables in closures

The Need for Speed

To start with, let me just quickly acknowledge what the Svelte team is trying to do. It seems like most of the substantial changes in version 5 are built around "deep reactivity", which allows for more granular reactivity, leading to better performance. Performance is good, and the Svelte team has always excelled at reconciling performance with DX.

In previous versions of Svelte, the main way this was achieved was with the Svelte compiler. There were many ancillary techniques involved in improving performance, but having a framework compile step gave the Svelte team a lot of leeway for rearranging things under the hood without making developers learn new concepts. This is what made Svelte so original in the beginning.

At the same time, it resulted in an even more opaque framework than usual, making it harder for developers to debug more complex issues. To make matters worse, the compiler had bugs, resulting in errors which could only be fixed by blindly refactoring the problem component. This happened to me personally at least half a dozen times, and is what ultimately pushed me to migrate to Svelte 5.

Nevertheless, I always felt it was an acceptable trade-off for speed and productivity. Sure, sometimes I had to delete my project and port it to a fresh repository every so often, but the framework was truly a pleasure to use.

Svelte is not Javascript

Svelte 5 doubled down on this tradeoff — which makes sense, because it's what sets the framework apart. The difference this time is that the abstraction/performance tradeoff did not stay in compiler land, but intruded into runtime in two important ways:

• The use of proxies to support deep reactivity
• Implicit component lifecycle state

Both of these changes improved performance and made the API for developers look slicker. What's not to like? Unfortunately, both of these features are classic examples of a leaky abstraction, and ultimately make things more complex for developers, not less.

Proxies are not objects

The use of proxies seems to have allowed the Svelte team to squeeze a little more performance out of the framework, without asking developers to do any extra work. Threading state through multiple levels of components without provoking unnecessary re-renders in frameworks like React is an infamously difficult chore.

Svelte's compiler avoided some of the pitfalls associated with virtual DOM diffing solutions, but evidently there was still enough of a performance gain to be had to justify the introduction of proxies. The Svelte team also seems to argue that their introduction represents an improvement in developer experience:

we... can maximise both efficiency and ergonomics.

Here's the problem: Svelte 5 looks simpler, but actually introduces more abstractions.

Using proxies to monitor array methods (for example) is appealing because it allows developers to forget all the goofy heuristics involved with making sure state was reactive and just push to the array. I can't count how many times I've written value = value to trigger reactivity in svelte 4.

In Svelte 4, developers had to understand how the Svelte compiler worked. The compiler, being a leaky abstraction, forced its users to know that assignment was how you signaled reactivity. In svelte 5, developers can just "forget" about the compiler!

Except they can't. All the introduction of new abstractions really accomplishes is the introduction of more complex heuristics that developers have to keep in their heads in order to get the compiler to act the way they want it to.

In fact, this is why after years of using Svelte, I found myself using Svelte stores more and more often, and reactive declarations less. The reason being that Svelte stores are just javascript. Calling update on a store is simple, and being able to reference them with a $ was just a nice bonus — nothing to remember, and if I mess up the compiler yells at me.

Proxies introduce a similar problem to reactive declarations, which is that they look like one thing but act like another on the edges.

When I started using Svelte 5, everything worked great — until I tried to save a proxy to indexeddb, at which point I got a DataCloneError. To make matters worse, it's impossible to reliably tell if something is a Proxy without try/catching a structured clone, which is a performance-intensive operation.

This forces the developer to remember what is and what isn't a Proxy, calling $state.snapshot every time they pass a proxy to a context that doesn't expect or know about them. This obviates all the nice abstractions they gave us in the first place.

Components are not functions

The reason virtual DOM took off way back in 2013 was the ability to model your application as composed functions, each of which takes data and spits out HTML. Svelte retained this paradigm, using a compiler to sidestep the inefficiencies of virtual DOM and the complexities of lifecycle methods.

In Svelte 5, component lifecycles are back, react-hooks style.

In React, hooks are an abstraction that allows developers to avoid writing all the stateful code associated with component lifecycle methods. Modern React tutorials universally recommend using hooks instead, which rely on the framework invisibly synchronizing state with the render tree.

While this does result in cleaner code, it also requires developers to tread carefully to avoid breaking the assumptions surrounding hooks. Just try accessing state in a setTimeout and you'll see what I mean.

Svelte 4 had a few gotchas like this — for example, async code that interacts with a component's DOM elements has to keep track of whether the component is unmounted. This is pretty similar to the kind of pattern you'd see in old React components that relied on lifecycle methods.

It seems to me that Svelte 5 has gone the React 16 route by adding implicit state related to component lifecycles in order to coordinate state changes and effects.

For example, here is an excerpt from the documentation for $effect:

You can place $effect anywhere, not just at the top level of a component, as long as it is called during component initialization (or while a parent effect is active). It is then tied to the lifecycle of the component (or parent effect) and will therefore destroy itself when the component unmounts (or the parent effect is destroyed).

That's very complex! In order to use $effect... effectively (sorry), developers have to understand how state changes are tracked. The documentation for component lifecycles claims:

In Svelte 5, the component lifecycle consists of only two parts: Its creation and its destruction. Everything in-between — when certain state is updated — is not related to the component as a whole; only the parts that need to react to the state change are notified. This is because under the hood the smallest unit of change is actually not a component, it’s the (render) effects that the component sets up upon component initialization. Consequently, there’s no such thing as a “before update”/"after update” hook.

But then goes on to introduce the idea of tick in conjunction with $effect.pre. This section explains that "tick returns a promise that resolves once any pending state changes have been applied, or in the next microtask if there are none."

I'm sure there's some mental model that justifies this, but I don't think the claim that a component's lifecycle is only comprised of mount/unmount is really helpful when an addendum about state changes has to come right afterward.

The place where this really bit me, and which is the motivation for this blog post, is when state gets coupled to a component's lifecycle, even when the state is passed to another function that doesn't know anything about svelte.

In my application, I manage modal dialogs by storing the component I want to render alongside its props in a store and rendering it in the layout.svelte of my application. This store is also synchronized with browser history so that the back button works to close them. Sometimes, it's useful to pass a callback to one of these modals, binding caller-specific functionality to the child component:

javascript const {value} = $props() const callback = () => console.log(value) const openModal = () => pushModal(MyModal, {callback})

This is a fundamental pattern in javascript. Passing a callback is just one of those things you do.

Unfortunately, if the above code lives in a modal dialog itself, the caller component gets unmounted before the callback gets called. In Svelte 4, this worked fine, but in Svelte 5 value gets updated to undefined when the component gets unmounted. Here's a minimal reproduction.

This is only one example, but it seems clear to me that any prop that is closed over by a callback function that lives longer than its component will be undefined when I want to use it — with no reassignment existing in lexical scope. It seems that the reason this happens is that the props "belong" to the parent component, and are accessed via getters so that the parent can revoke access when it unmounts.

I don't know why this is necessary, but I assume there's a good engineering reason for it. The problem is, this just isn't how javascript works. Svelte is essentially attempting to re-invent garbage collection around component lifecycles, which breaks the assumption every javascript developer has that variables don't simply disappear without an explicit reassignment. It should be safe to pass stuff around and let the garbage collector do its job.

Conclusion

Easy things are nice, but as Rich Hickey says, easy things are not always simple. And like Joel Spolsky, I don't like being surprised. Svelte has always been full of magic, but with the latest release I think the cognitive overhead of reciting incantations has finally outweighed the power it confers.

My point in this post is not to dunk on the Svelte team. I know lots of people like Svelte 5 (and react hooks). The point I'm trying to make is that there is a tradeoff between doing things on the user's behalf, and giving the user agency. Good software is built on understanding, not cleverness.

I also think this is an important lesson to remember as AI-assisted coding becomes increasingly popular. Don't choose tools that alienate you from your work. Choose tools that leverage the wisdom you've already accumulated, and which help you to cultivate a deeper understanding of the discipline.

Thank you to Rich Harris and team for many years of pleasant development. I hope that (if you read this) it's not so full of inaccuracies as to be unhelpful as user feedback.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Token-Curated Registries

So you want to build a TCR?

TCRs (Token Curated Registries) are a construct for maintaining registries on Ethereum. Imagine you have lots of scissor brands and you want a list with only the good scissors. You want to make sure only the good scissors make into that list and not the bad scissors. For that, people will tell you, you can just create a TCR of the best scissors!

It works like this: some people have the token, let's call it Scissor Token. Some other person, let's say it's a scissor manufacturer, wants to put his scissor on the list, this guy must acquire some Scissor Tokens and "stake" it. Holders of the Scissor Tokens are allowed to vote on "yes" or "no". If "no", the manufactures loses his tokens to the holders, if "yes" then its tokens are kept in deposit, but his scissor brand gets accepted into the registry.

Such a simple process, they say, have strong incentives for being the best possible way of curating a registry of scissors: consumers have the incentive to consult the list because of its high quality; manufacturers have the incentive to buy tokens and apply to join the list because the list is so well-curated and consumers always consult it; token holders want the registry to accept good and reject bad scissors because that good decisions will make the list good for consumers and thus their tokens more valuable, bad decisions will do the contrary. It doesn't make sense, to reject everybody just to grab their tokens, because that would create an incentive against people trying to enter the list.

Amazing! How come such a simple system of voting has such enourmous features? Now we can have lists of everything so well-curated, and for that we just need Ethereum tokens!

Now let's imagine a different proposal, of my own creation: SPCR, Single-person curated registries.

Single-person Curated Registries are equal to TCR, except they don't use Ethereum tokens, it's just a list in a text file kept by a single person. People can apply to join, and they will have to give the single person some amount of money, the single person can reject or accept the proposal and so on.

Now let's look at the incentives of SPCR: people will want to consult the registry because it is so well curated; vendors will want to enter the registry because people are consulting it; the single person will want to accept the good and reject the bad applicants because these good decisions are what will make the list valuable.

Amazing! How such a single proposal has such enourmous features! SPCR are going to take over the internet!

What TCR enthusiasts get wrong?

TCR people think they can just list a set of incentives for something to work and assume that something will work. Mix that with Ethereum hype and they think theyve found something unique and revolutionary, while in fact they're just making a poor implementation of "democracy" systems that fail almost everywhere.

The life is not about listing a set of "incentives" and then considering the problems solved. Almost everybody on the Earth has the incentive for being rich: being rich has a lot of advantages over being poor, however not all people get rich! Why are the incentives failing?

Curating lists is a hard problem, it involves a lot of knowledge about the problem that just holding a token won't give you, it involves personal preferences, politics, it involves knowing where is the real limit between "good" and "bad". The Single Person list may have a good result if the single person doing the curation is knowledgeable and honest (yes, you can game the system to accept your uncle's scissors and not their competitor that is much better, for example, without losing the entire list reputation), same thing for TCRs, but it can also fail miserably, and it can appear to be good but be in fact not so good. In all cases, the list entries will reflect the preferences of people choosing and other things that aren't taken into the incentives equation of TCR enthusiasts.

We don't need lists

The most important point to be made, although unrelated to the incentive story, is that we don't need lists. Imagine you're looking for a scissor. You don't want someone to tell if scissor A or B are "good" or "bad", or if A is "better" than B. You want to know if, for your specific situation, or for a class of situations, A will serve well, and do that considering A's price and if A is being sold near you and all that.

Scissors are the worst example ever to make this point, but I hope you get it. If you don't, try imagining the same example with schools, doctors, plumbers, food, whatever.

Recommendation systems are badly needed in our world, and TCRs don't solve these at all.

@ c4b5369a:b812dbd6

As promised in my last article:

nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzp394x6dfmvn69cduj7e9l2jgvtvle7n5w5rtrunjlr6tx6up9k7kqq2k6ernff9hw3tyd3y453rdtph5uvm6942kzuw08y0

In this one we will dive into how exactly an unidirectional payments channel powered ecash mint system would be implemented, using the tech available today! So if you haven't read that article yet, give it a read!

I first intended to write a longwinded article, explaining each part of the system. But then I realized that I would need some visualization to get the message across in a more digestable way. This lead me to create a slide deck, and as I started to design the slides it became more and more clear that the information is easier shown with visualizations, than written down. I will try to give a summary as best as I can in this article, but I urge you, to please go visit the slide deck too, for the best experience:

---

TAKE ME TO THE SLIDE DECK!

---

Intro

In this article we will go over how we can build unidirectional payment channels on Bitcoin. Then we will take a look into how Cashu ecash mints work, and how we can use unidirectional payment channels to change the dynamics between ecash users and the mint.

Before we start, let me also give credits to nostr:npub1htnhsay5dmq3r72tukdw72pduzfdcja0yylcajuvnc2uklkhxp8qnz3qac for comming up with the idea, to nostr:npub148jz5r9xujcjpqygk69yl4jqwjqmzgrqly26plktfjy8g4t7xaysj9xhgp for providing an idea for non-expiring unidirectional channels, and nostr:npub1yrnuj56rnen08zp2h9h7p74ghgjx6ma39spmpj6w9hzxywutevsst7k5cx unconference for hosting an event where these ideas could be discussed and flourish.

Building unidirectional payment channels

If you've read the previous article, you already know what unidirectional payment channels are. There are actually a coupple different ways to implement them, but they all do have a few things in common:

1. The sender can only send
2. The Receiver can only receive
3. They are VERY simple

Way simpler than the duplex channels like we are using in the lightning network today, at least. Of course, duplex channels are being deployed on LN for a reason. They are very versatile and don't have these annoying limitations that the unidirectional payment channels have. They do however have a few drawbacks:

1. Peers have liveness requirements (or they might forfeit their funds)
2. Peers must backup their state after each transaction (if they don't they might forfeit their funds)
3. It is a pretty complex system

This article is not meant to discredit duplex channels. I think they are great. I just also think that in some use-cases, their requirements are too high and the system too complex.

But anyway, let's see what kind of channels we can build!

Spillman/CLTV-Channel

The Spillman channel idea has been around for a long time. It's even explained in Tadge Dryjas Presentation on Payment channels and the lightning network from back in the day. I compiled a list of some of the most important propperties of them in the slide below:

Great!

Now that we know their properties, let's take a look at how we can create such a channel (Slides):

We start out by the sender creating a funding TX. The sender doesn't broadcast the transaction though. If he does, he might get locked into a multisig with the receiver without an unilateral exit path.

Instead the sender also creates a refund TX spending the outputs of the yet unsigned funding TX. The refund TX is timelocked, and can only be broadcast after 1 month. Both sender and receiver can sign this refund TX without any risks. Once sender receives the signed refund TX, he can broadcast the funding TX and open the channel. The sender can now update the channel state, by pre-signing update transactions and sending them over to the receiver. Being a one-way channel, this can be done in a single message. It is very simple. There is no need for invalidating old states, since the sender does not hold any signed update TXs it is impossible for the sender to broadcast an old state. The receiver only cares about the latest state anyways, since that is the state where he gets the most money. He can basically delete any old states. The only thing the receiver needs to make sure of, is broadcasting the latest update TX before the refund TX's timelock expires. Otherwise, the sender might take the whole channel balance back to himself.

This seems to be already a pretty useful construct, due to its simplicity. But we can make it even more simple!

This setup works basically the same way as the previous one, but instead of having a refund transaction, we build the timelock spend path directly into the funding TX This allows the sender to have an unilateral exit right from the start, and he can broadcast the funding TX without communicating with the receiver. In the worst case, the receiver rejects the channel, and the sender can get his money back after the timelock on the output has expired. Everything else basically works in the same way as in the example above.

The beauty about this channel construct is in its simplicity. The drawbacks are obvious, but they do offer some nice properties that might be useful in certain cases.

One of the major drawbacks of the Spillman-style channels (apart from being unidirectional) is that they expire. This expiry comes with the neat property that neither of the party has to watch the chain for channel closures, and the sender can operate the channel with zero additional state, apart from his private keys. But they do expire. And this can make them quite inflexible. It might work in some contexts, but not so much in others, where time needs to be more flexible.

This is where Roose-Childs triggered channels come into play.

Roose-Childs triggered channel

(I gave it that name, named after nostr:npub148jz5r9xujcjpqygk69yl4jqwjqmzgrqly26plktfjy8g4t7xaysj9xhgp and nostr:npub1htnhsay5dmq3r72tukdw72pduzfdcja0yylcajuvnc2uklkhxp8qnz3qac . If someone knows if this idea has been around before under a different name, please let us know!)

Roose-Childs triggered channels were an idea developed by Steven and Luke at the nostr:npub1yrnuj56rnen08zp2h9h7p74ghgjx6ma39spmpj6w9hzxywutevsst7k5cx unconference. They essentially remove the channel expiry limitation in return for introducing the need for the sender to create a channel backup at the time of channel creation, and for the receiver the need to watch the chain for trigger transactions closing the channel.

They also allow for splicing funds, which can be important for a channel without expiry, allowing the sender to top-up liquidity once it runs out, or for the receiver taking out liquidity from the channel to deploy the funds elsewhere.

Now, let's see how we can build them!

The funding TX actually looks the same as in the first example, and similarly it gets created, but not signed by the sender. Then, sender and receiver both sign the trigger TX. The trigger TX is at the heart of this scheme. It allows both sender and receiver to unilaterally exit the channel by broadcasting it (more on that in a bit).

Once the trigger TX is signed and returned to the sender, the sender can confidently sign and boradcast the funding TX and open the channel. The trigger TX remains off-chain though. Now, to update the channel, the sender can pre-sign transactions in similar fashion to the examples above, but this time, spending the outputs of the unbroadcasted trigger TX. This way, both parties can exit the channel at any time. If the receiver wants to exit, he simply boradcasts the trigger TX and immediately spends its outputs using the latest update TX. If the sender wants to exit he will broadcast the trigger TX and basically force the receivers hand. Either, the receiver will broadcast the latest update TX, or the sender will be able to claim the entire channel balance after the timelock expired.

We can also simplify the receiver's exit path, by the sender pre-signing an additional transaction R exit TX for each update. this way, the receiver only needs to broadcast one transaction instead of two.

As we've mentioned before, there are some different trade-offs for Roose-Childs triggered channels. We introduce some minimal state and liveness requirements, but gain more flexibility.

Ecash to fill in the gaps

(I will assume that the reader knows how ecash mints work. If not, please go check the slides where I go through an explanation)

Essentially, we are trying to get a lightning like experience, without all the lightning complexities and requirements. One big issue with ecash, is that it is fully custodial. If we can offset that risk by holding most of the funds in a self custodial channel, we can have a reasonable trade-off between usability and self custody.

In a system like that, we would essentially turn the banking model onto its head. Where in a traditional bank, the majority of the funds are held in the banks custody, and the user only withdraws into his custody what he needs to transact, in our model the user would hold most funds in his own custody.

If you ask me, this approach makes way more sense. Instead of a custodian, we have turned the "bank" into a service provider.

Let's take a look at how it would work in a more practical sense:

The ecash user would open an unidirectional payment channel to the mint, using one of his on-chain UTXOs. This allows him then to commit incrementally funds into the mints custody, only the amounts for his transactional needs. The mint offers connectivity to the lightning network an handles state and liveness as a service provider.

The ecash user, can remain offline at all times, and his channel funds will always be safe. The mint can only ever claim the balance in the channel via the update TXs. The mint can of course still decide to no longer redeem any ecash, at which point they would have basically stolen the ecash user's transactional balance. At that point, it would probably be best for the ecash user to close his channel, and no longer interact or trust this mint.

Here are some of the most important points of this system summarized:

And that is basically it! I hope you enjoyed this breakdown of Unidirectional payment channel enabled Ecash mints!

If you did, consider leaving me a zap. Also do let me know if this type of breakdown helps you understand a new topic well. I am considering doing similar breakdowns on other systems, such as ARK, Lightning or Statechains, if there is a lot of interest, and it helps people, I'll do it!

Pleas also let me know what you think about the unidirectional channel - ecash mint idea in the comments. It's kind of a new idea, an it probably has flaws, or things that we haven't thought about yet. I'd love to discuss it with you!

I'll leave you with this final slide:

Cheers,

Gandlaf

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Precautionary Principle

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

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

---

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

@ d830ee7b:4e61cd62

ในชีวิตประจำวัน เรามักวัดมูลค่าของสิ่งต่างๆ ด้วยหน่วยเงินที่เราคุ้นเคย เช่น บาทหรือดอลลาร์

เราดีใจเมื่อการลงทุนของเรา “เพิ่มขึ้น” ในหน่วยเงินเหล่านั้น ..แต่น้อยคนนักจะหยุดคิดว่าไม้บรรทัดที่เราใช้วัดมูลค่านั้นมีความมั่นคงเพียงใด

หากไม้บรรทัดเองหดสั้นลงเรื่อยๆ สิ่งของที่เราวัดอาจดูเหมือนยาวขึ้นทั้งที่ความจริงไม่ได้เปลี่ยนไปเลย

แนวคิดนี้สะท้อนถึงการวัดมูลค่าทางเศรษฐกิจในหน่วยเงินที่เปลี่ยนแปลงตลอดเวลา และนำเราไปสู่หลักการเรื่อง "ค่าเสียโอกาส" (opportunity cost) ในการลงทุน

เมื่อเราเลือกถือสินทรัพย์ชนิดหนึ่ง เรากำลังสละโอกาสที่จะได้ผลตอบแทนจากอีกชนิดหนึ่งเสมอ

การทำความเข้าใจว่าอะไรเป็นตัววัดมาตรฐานของเราและค่าเสียโอกาสที่ตามมา จึงเป็นจุดเริ่มต้นในการสำรวจมุมมองใหม่ของการประเมินความมั่งคั่ง

ในบริบทนี้.. บิตคอยน์ (Bitcoin) ได้ถูกเสนอขึ้นมาเป็น “มาตรฐาน” ใหม่ในการวัดมูลค่ว เสมือนกับที่ทองคำเคยเป็นมาตรฐานการเงินของโลกในอดีต

หนังสือ The Bitcoin Standard ของ Saifedean Ammous ชวนเราคิดว่า Bitcoin อาจกลายเป็นเหมือน “มาตรฐานทองคำ” ยุคดิจิทัล ที่มารองรับระบบการเงินสากลในอนาคต

เหตุผลสำคัญที่ Bitcoin ถูกมองว่าเป็นเงินตราที่มีความแข็งแกร่ง (sound money) คือคุณสมบัติที่หาได้ยากในเงินสกุลปัจจุบัน

มันมีปริมาณจำกัดตายตัว 21 ล้านหน่วย ไม่มีธนาคารกลางใดสามารถพิมพ์เพิ่มได้ตามใจชอบ

ต่างจากเงินเฟียต (Fiat money) อย่างดอลลาร์ ที่จำนวนเพิ่มขึ้นตลอดเวลาจากนโยบายรัฐ

ผลคือ Bitcoin มีความทนทานต่อภาวะค่าเงินเสื่อมค่าจากเงินเฟ้อ และสามารถรักษามูลค่าได้ในระยะยาวดุจทองคำในอดีต

หลายคนจึงยกให้มันเป็น “Sound Money” หรือเงินที่มั่นคง เชื่อถือได้ในด้านมูลค่าเมื่อเวลาผ่านไป

แนวคิดนี้เองเปิดประตูไปสู่การใช้ Bitcoin เป็นหน่วยวัดเปรียบเทียบมูลค่าสินทรัพย์อื่นๆ เพื่อมองภาพเศรษฐกิจในมุมใหม่

---

ลองจินตนาการกราฟหนึ่งที่นำดัชนีหุ้นชั้นนำอย่าง S&P 500 มาเปรียบเทียบในหน่วย Bitcoin แทนที่จะเป็นดอลลาร์ กราฟนี้จะแสดงให้เราเห็นภาพที่ต่างออกไปอย่างมากจากกราฟปกติที่คุ้นเคย

https://nostr.download/e344db050a8f6b023b2a9c7883560ad8a7be3fc4154d3908cbae3471b970272a.webp

หากย้อนไปช่วงปี 2011

หุ้น S&P 500 อยู่ที่ราว 1,300 จุด ขณะที่บิตคอยน์มีราคายังไม่ถึง 1 ดอลลาร์ นั่นหมายความว่าดัชนี S&P 500 ในเวลานั้นมีมูลค่าประมาณ 1,300 BTC

แต่เมื่อเวลาผ่านไป Bitcoin มีราคาสูงขึ้นมหาศาล ในปี 2021–2022 Bitcoin (เคยพุ่งขึ้นไปแตะหลักหลายหมื่นดอลลาร์ต่อ 1 BTC) ทำให้มูลค่าของ S&P 500 เมื่อวัดในหน่วย BTC กลับกลายเป็นเพียงเศษเสี้ยวของที่เคยเป็น

สมมติ S&P 500 ล่าสุดอยู่แถว 4,000 จุด และราคา BTC อยู่หลักแสนดอลลาร์ ดัชนี S&P 500 ทั้งดัชนีอาจมีค่าไม่ถึง 0.05 BTC ด้วยซ้ำ

ผลลัพธ์ที่สะท้อนออกมาบนกราฟคือเส้นค่าของ S&P 500 (เมื่อวัดด้วย BTC) ที่มีแนวโน้มลดลงเรื่อยๆ ตลอดทศวรรษที่ผ่านมา

แปลความได้ว่า.. บิตคอยน์มีมูลค่าเพิ่มขึ้นเมื่อเทียบกับสินทรัพย์การเงินดั้งเดิมอย่างหุ้น

ถึงขั้นที่... การถือ Bitcoin ไว้ให้ผลตอบแทนดีกว่าการลงทุนในดัชนีหุ้นใหญ่เสียอีกในช่วงเวลาที่ผ่านมา

แม้จะฟังดูเหลือเชื่อ แต่นี่คือภาพที่ข้อมูลได้บอกเรา.. ในมุมมองของมาตรฐาน Bitcoin ตลาดหุ้นสหรัฐฯ ที่ว่าทำผลตอบแทนโดดเด่น ยังดูซีดเซียวลงในทันที

ข้อมูลในช่วงสิบปีให้หลังตอกย้ำภาพนี้อย่างชัดเจน ผลตอบแทนของ Bitcoin เหนือกว่าสินทรัพย์แทบทุกชนิดที่เรารู้จักในยุคปัจจุบัน

ในเชิงตัวเลข Bitcoin ให้ผลตอบแทนเฉลี่ยต่อปีราว 230% ตลอดทศวรรษ 2011–2021 ขณะที่ดัชนี S&P 500 ซึ่งขึ้นชื่อว่าให้ผลตอบแทนดีสม่ำเสมอ ยังมีค่าเฉลี่ยผลตอบแทนต่อปีประมาณ 10% กว่าๆ เท่านั้นเอง เมื่อนำมาคำนวณทบต้น

นั่นหมายความว่า.. ในช่วงเวลาประมาณ 10 ปีที่ผ่านมา มูลค่าของ Bitcoin เพิ่มขึ้นหลักหลายหมื่นเปอร์เซ็นต์ ในขณะที่ S&P 500 เพิ่มขึ้นเพียงไม่กี่ร้อยเปอร์เซ็นต์

ผลต่างระดับนี้ใหญ่พอที่จะเปลี่ยนวิธีที่เรามองความสำเร็จในการลงทุนไปเลยทีเดียว

มีการสังเกตด้วยว่าเพียงช่วงห้าปีหลังสุด ดัชนี S&P 500 สูญเสียมูลค่าประมาณเกือบ 90% หากวัดในหน่วยของบิตคอยน์

พูดอีกอย่างคือ..

ในสายตาของคนที่ถือ Bitcoin ไว้เป็นเกณฑ์ "เงิน 100 บาทที่ลงทุนในหุ้นเมื่อต้นช่วงเวลาดังกล่าว จะเหลือมูลค่าเพียงประมาณ 10 บาทเท่านั้นในปัจจุบัน* (เพราะ 90 บาทที่เหลือคือค่าเสียโอกาสที่หายไปเมื่อเทียบกับการถือ Bitcoin)

มุมมองแบบนี้ชวนให้เราตั้งคำถามว่า ที่ผ่านมาสินทรัพย์ที่ดูเหมือนมั่นคงปลอดภัย อาจไม่ปลอดภัยอย่างที่คิดเมื่อประเมินด้วยบรรทัดฐานใหม่

การเปรียบเทียบข้างต้นยังสะท้อนถึง ปัญหาการเสื่อมค่าของเงินเฟียต ซึ่งเราคุ้นเคยแต่บางครั้งมองข้ามความร้ายกาจของมัน

เงินดอลลาร์สหรัฐซึ่งเป็นสกุลเงินหลักของโลก สูญเสียอำนาจซื้อไปแล้วกว่า 96% ตั้งแต่ปี 1913 จนถึงปัจจุบัน (กล่าวคือ เงิน 1 ดอลลาร์ในสมัยนั้นมีค่าพอๆ กับเงินเกือบ 30 ดอลลาร์ในปัจจุบัน)

การที่ค่าเงินด้อยค่าลงเรื่อยๆ แบบนี้หมายความว่า ตัวเลขราคาในหน่วยเงินเฟียตอาจเพิ่มขึ้นทั้งที่มูลค่าที่แท้จริงไม่เพิ่ม

ยกตัวอย่างเช่น ดัชนี S&P 500 ทำจุดสูงสุดใหม่เป็นประวัติการณ์ในหน่วยดอลลาร์สหรัฐอยู่บ่อยครั้ง แต่หากปรับค่าด้วยปัจจัยเงินเฟ้อหรือปริมาณเงินที่พิมพ์เพิ่มเข้าไป เราจะพบว่ามูลค่าที่แท้จริงของดัชนีนี้ไม่ได้เพิ่มขึ้นมากอย่างที่เห็น

บางการวิเคราะห์ชี้ว่าหลังวิกฤตการเงินปี 2008 เป็นต้นมา แม้ดัชนี S&P 500 ในตัวเลขจะพุ่งขึ้นไม่หยุด แต่เมื่อหารด้วยปริมาณเงินที่เพิ่มขึ้น (เช่น M3) เส้นกราฟที่ได้กลับแทบไม่สูงไปกว่าจุดก่อนวิกฤตเลยด้วยซ้ำ

หมายความว่า.. ที่ราคาหุ้นสูงขึ้น ส่วนใหญ่ก็เพื่อไล่ตามสภาพคล่องเงินที่ไหลเข้าระบบเท่านั้น ไม่ได้สะท้อนการเติบโตแท้จริงของเศรษฐกิจมากนัก

เงินเฟ้อและการขยายตัวของปริมาณเงินจึงเปรียบเสมือน “หมอก” ที่บังตา ทำให้เรามองไม่ชัดว่าสิ่งใดเพิ่มมูลค่าแท้จริง สิ่งใดแค่ตัวเลขฟูขึ้นตามสกุลเงินที่ด้อยค่าลง

เมื่อ Bitcoin ถูกใช้เป็นหน่วยวัดเปรียบเทียบ มันทำหน้าที่เสมือนกระจกใสที่กวาดเอาหมอกเงินเฟ้อนั้นออกไป เราจึงเห็นภาพที่ต่างไปโดยสิ้นเชิง

เช่นเดียวกับกรณีที่เราเปรียบเทียบราคาสินค้าโภคภัณฑ์บางอย่างในหน่วย BTC ผลลัพธ์ก็อาจกลับทิศ

การทดลองหนึ่งของธนาคารเฟด สาขาเซนต์หลุยส์ เคยเล่นเปรียบเทียบราคา “ไข่ไก่หนึ่งโหล” ในหน่วยดอลลาร์กับในหน่วยบิตคอยน์

ปรากฏว่า... แม้ต้องการจะชี้ให้เห็นความผันผวนของ Bitcoin แต่ดันกลับตอกย้ำความจริงที่ว่า ในช่วงเงินเฟ้อสูง ราคาฟองไข่ที่ดูเพิ่มขึ้นเรื่อยๆ ในหน่วยดอลลาร์ จริงๆ แล้วทรงตัวหรือลดลงด้วยซ้ำเมื่อคิดเป็น BTC

นี่เป็นตัวอย่างสนุกๆ ที่บอกเราว่า กรอบอ้างอิง (frame of reference) ในการวัดมูลค่านั้นสำคัญเพียงใด

แน่นอนว่า Bitcoin เองก็มีความผันผวนสูงและยังอยู่ในช่วงเริ่มต้นเมื่อเทียบกับสินทรัพย์ดั้งเดิม

การที่มันพุ่งทะยานหลายหมื่นเปอร์เซ็นต์ที่ผ่านมาไม่ได้รับประกันว่ากราฟในหน่วย BTC ของสินทรัพย์ต่างๆ จะดิ่งลงอย่างนี้ไปตลอด

แต่สิ่งที่เกิดขึ้นแล้วได้ให้แง่คิดทางปรัชญาการเงินที่ลึกซึ้งกับเรา

อย่างแรกคือเรื่อง ค่าเสียโอกาส ที่กล่าวถึงตอนต้น ทุกการตัดสินใจทางการเงินมีต้นทุนค่าเสียโอกาสแฝงอยู่เสมอ เพียงแต่เมื่อก่อนเราอาจไม่เห็นมันชัดเจน

การเก็บออมเงินสดไว้เฉยๆ ในธนาคารมีต้นทุนคือผลตอบแทนที่สูญไปหากเราเลือกลงทุนอย่างอื่น การลงทุนในสินทรัพย์ A ก็ย่อมหมายถึงการไม่ได้ลงทุนในสินทรัพย์ B

หาก B นั้นให้ผลตอบแทนสูงกว่า เราก็สูญเสียส่วนต่างนั้นไป

สิบกว่าปีที่ผ่านมา Bitcoin ทำผลงานได้เหนือชั้นกว่าสินทรัพย์อื่นๆ มาก ค่าเสียโอกาสของการไม่ถือ Bitcoin จึงสูงลิ่วในช่วงนี้

สำหรับนักลงทุนที่มองย้อนกลับไป นี่คือบทเรียนราคาแพง บางคนอาจนึกเสียดายว่า “รู้งี้ซื้อบิตคอยน์ไว้ตั้งแต่แรกซะก็ดี”

แต่ประเด็นไม่ได้อยู่ที่การเสียดายอดีต แต่อยู่ที่ การตระหนักรู้ถึงค่าเสียโอกาสและผลกระทบของมันที่มีต่อความมั่งคั่งของเราในระยะยาว ต่างหาก

อีกแง่หนึ่งที่ลึกกว่านั้นคือเรื่อง กรอบในการวัดมูลค่า ของเราทุกวันนี้ว่าเหมาะสมแล้วหรือไม่

หากการที่เราใช้เงินเฟียตที่เสื่อมค่าเป็นตัววัด ทำให้เราประเมินค่าของสิ่งต่างๆ ผิดเพี้ยนไป การตัดสินใจทางเศรษฐกิจของเราก็อาจผิดทิศทางในระยะยาวได้

ลองนึกภาพว่า.. ถ้าเงินที่เราใช้อยู่มีมูลค่าเสถียรหรือเพิ่มขึ้นตามประสิทธิภาพการผลิตจริงๆ ของเศรษฐกิจ (เหมือนที่เงิน Bitcoin ถูกออกแบบมาให้ไม่เสื่อมค่าไปตามกาลเวลา) เราอาจไม่จำเป็นต้องวิ่งไล่หาผลตอบแทนสูงๆ เพียงเพื่อรักษามูลค่าเงินออมของตัวเองให้ทันเงินเฟ้อ

ผู้คนอาจวางแผนการเงินระยะยาวขึ้น แนวคิดเรื่อง “เวลาที่ต้องใช้” กับ “อัตราส่วนลดของอนาคต” (time preference) ก็จะเปลี่ยนไป

ดังที่ Ammous กล่าวไว้ใน The Bitcoin Standard ว่าเงินที่มีเสถียรภาพจะส่งเสริมให้คนออมและลงทุนในโครงการระยะยาวมากขึ้น ผิดกับระบบเงินเฟ้อที่ชักจูงให้ผู้คนรีบใช้จ่ายหรือเข้าร่วมเก็งกำไรระยะสั้นเพราะกลัวว่าเงินจะด้อยค่าไป

นี่ไม่ใช่แค่เรื่องการเงินส่วนบุคคล แต่สะท้อนถึงคุณภาพของการเติบโตทางเศรษฐกิจและนวัตกรรมในสังคมโดยรวมด้วย

หากเรามีหน่วยวัดมูลค่าที่เที่ยงตรง ไม่บิดเบือนไปตามนโยบายการเงินรายวัน เราก็อาจประเมินโครงการต่างๆ ได้ตามศักยภาพที่แท้จริงมากขึ้น เงินเฟ้อและการพิมพ์เงินจำนวนมากมักทำให้เกิดการลงทุนผิดที่ผิดทาง (malinvestment) เพราะสัญญาณราคาถูกบิดเบือน

เช่น ดอกเบี้ยที่ต่ำผิดปกติอาจทำให้เกิดหนี้ล้นเกินหรือลงทุนในโครงการที่ไม่ยั่งยืน

ในขณะที่มาตรฐานเงินที่เข้มงวดอย่าง Bitcoin อาจบังคับให้ทุกการลงทุนต้องมีเหตุผลรองรับที่แข็งแรงขึ้น เนื่องจากไม่สามารถอาศัยการอัดฉีดสภาพคล่องมาช่วยพยุงได้ง่ายๆ

เมื่อมาถึงตรงนี้..

เราอาจไม่ได้ข้อสรุปทันทีว่า “ต่อไปนี้ฉันควรถือ Bitcoin แทนที่จะลงทุนอย่างอื่น” และบทความนี้ก็ไม่ได้มีเจตนาจะชี้นำการลงทุนเช่นนั้น

เป้าหมายแท้จริงคือการเปิดมุมมองใหม่ว่า เราประเมินคุณค่าของสิ่งต่างๆ อย่างไร

ลองตั้งคำถามกับตัวเองว่า..

ทุกวันนี้เราวัดความร่ำรวยหรือความก้าวหน้าทางเศรษฐกิจด้วยหน่วยอะไร หน่วยนั้นวัดได้เที่ยงตรงหรือเปล่า?

หากเงินที่เราใช้วัดเองลดค่าลงทุกปีๆ เราจะมั่นใจได้อย่างไรว่าตัวเลขที่เพิ่มขึ้นบนกระดาษคือความมั่งคั่งที่เพิ่มขึ้นจริง?

การใช้ Bitcoin เป็นมาตรฐานเทียบเคียง เป็นเสมือนการลองวัดด้วยไม้บรรทัดอีกอันที่อาจตรงกว่าเดิม

ในหลายกรณีมันเผยให้เห็นภาพที่เราคาดไม่ถึงและท้าทายความเชื่อเดิมๆ ของเรา

บทเรียนที่ได้รับไม่ใช่ให้เราทุกคนเปลี่ยนไปคิดเป็น BTC ในชีวิตประจำวันทันที แต่คือการตระหนักว่า หน่วยวัดมีความหมาย และการมองโลกการเงินด้วยหน่วยวัดที่ต่างออกไปสามารถให้ข้อคิดที่ลึกซึ้งได้อย่างไร

ท้ายที่สุด ไม่ว่าจะเชื่อใน “มาตรฐานบิตคอยน์” หรือไม่นั้น ไม่สำคัญเท่ากับการที่เราได้ฉุกคิดและตั้งคำถามกับระบบที่เราใช้อยู่ทุกเมื่อเชื่อวัน

บางทีสิ่งที่ Bitcoin และปรัชญาการเงินแบบใหม่ๆ นำมาให้เรา อาจไม่ใช่คำตอบสำเร็จรูป แต่คือแรงกระตุ้นให้เราเปิดใจมองภาพใหญ่ของเศรษฐกิจในมุมที่กว้างขึ้น

ลองพิจารณาปัจจัยพื้นฐานอย่างค่าเงิน เวลา และโอกาสที่สูญเสียไปกับการตัดสินใจต่างๆ อย่างรอบด้านขึ้น

เมื่อเราเริ่มมองเห็นว่าการวัดมูลค่าของสิ่งต่างๆ ด้วย ไม้บรรทัดที่ต่างออกไป ให้อะไรเราได้บ้าง เราก็จะพร้อมที่จะปรับมุมมองและกลยุทธ์การเงินของตนเองให้เท่าทันโลกที่เปลี่ยนแปลงเสมอ

ไม่แน่ว่าในอนาคต เราอาจได้เห็นผู้คนพูดถึงราคาบ้านหรือดัชนีหุ้นในหน่วยบิตคอยน์อย่างเป็นเรื่องปกติ และการคิดเช่นนั้นอาจไม่ใช่เรื่องแปลกใหม่อีกต่อไป

เพราะเราได้เรียนรู้ที่จะมองผ่านเปลือกของหน่วยเงิน ไปสู่แก่นแท้ของมูลค่าจริงๆ ที่อยู่เบื้องหลังนั่นเอง

ขอบคุณ Thai Ratel สำหรับความกระจ่างในการวัดมูลค่าสินทรัพย์ต่าง ๆ ด้วยบิตคอยน์

@ d830ee7b:4e61cd62

In our daily lives, we often measure the value of things using familiar monetary units such as baht or dollars. We feel delighted when our investments "increase" in these units.

However, few people stop to consider how stable the measuring stick itself is. If the ruler we use to measure value keeps shrinking, the objects we measure may appear longer, even though their actual size remains unchanged. This concept reflects the way we assess economic value in constantly changing monetary units, leading us to the principle of opportunity cost in investment: when we choose to hold one type of asset, we are always giving up the opportunity to earn returns from another.

Understanding what serves as our standard measure and the opportunity costs that come with it is the first step toward exploring a new perspective on wealth assessment.

In this context, Bitcoin has been proposed as a new "standard" for measuring value, much like gold once served as the global financial standard in the past. Some view Bitcoin as the "digital gold standard" that could support the international financial system in the future.

A key reason Bitcoin is considered "sound money" is its rarity—something modern currencies lack. Its supply is permanently capped at 21 million units, meaning no central bank can print more at will. This contrasts with fiat money, such as the dollar or baht, which constantly increases in supply due to government policies.

As a result, Bitcoin is resistant to inflation-induced depreciation and can retain its value over the long term, much like gold in the past. Many therefore consider it "sound money"—a form of currency that is stable and reliable in preserving value over time.

This idea opens the door to using Bitcoin as a benchmark for comparing the value of other assets, offering a fresh perspective on the economy.

Imagine a graph that compares the leading stock index, the S&P 500, in Bitcoin terms instead of dollars. This graph would reveal a drastically different picture from the conventional charts we are familiar with. Looking back to 2011, the S&P 500 was around 1,300 points, while Bitcoin was priced at less than $1.

This means the S&P 500 index was valued at approximately 1,300 BTC at the time. However, as Bitcoin's price surged over the years—reaching tens of thousands of dollars per BTC in 2021–2022—the value of the S&P 500, when measured in BTC, shrank dramatically.

Suppose the S&P 500 currently stands at around 4,000 points, while Bitcoin is priced at six figures in dollars. The entire S&P 500 index might be worth less than 0.05 BTC.

The resulting graph would show a consistent downward trend in the S&P 500's value (when measured in BTC) over the past decade.

This means Bitcoin has appreciated relative to traditional financial assets like stocks—to the extent that simply holding Bitcoin has outperformed investing in major stock indices.

As surprising as this may seem, the data tells this story: from the perspective of a Bitcoin standard, even the high-performing U.S. stock market appears lackluster.

Data from the past decade reinforces this view. Bitcoin has outperformed nearly every asset class known today. In numerical terms, Bitcoin delivered an average annual return of approximately 230% from 2011 to 2021, whereas the S&P 500, which is renowned for its consistent performance, achieved an average annual return of just over 10%.

When compounded over time, this means Bitcoin's value increased by tens of thousands of percent over the past decade, while the S&P 500's value rose by only a few hundred percent.

The magnitude of this difference is significant enough to reshape how we perceive investment success. Observations also indicate that in just the past five years, the S&P 500 has lost nearly 90% of its value when measured in Bitcoin.

In other words, for someone using Bitcoin as their benchmark, a 100-baht investment in stocks at the beginning of this period would be worth only about 10 baht today—the remaining 90 baht representing the opportunity cost of not holding Bitcoin.

This perspective challenges our assumptions about the stability of supposedly safe assets when evaluated under a new standard.

This comparison also highlights the issue of fiat currency depreciation—something we are familiar with but often underestimate. The U.S. dollar, the world's primary reserve currency, has lost over 96% of its purchasing power since 1913.

This means that what $1 could buy back then now requires nearly $30. This ongoing depreciation implies that prices in fiat terms may rise even when real value does not. For example, the S&P 500 frequently reaches all-time highs in U.S. dollar terms.

However, when adjusted for inflation or money supply expansion, its real value has not increased as much as it seems. Some analyses suggest that since the 2008 financial crisis, although the S&P 500's nominal value has surged, when divided by the expanding money supply (such as M3), its graph remains largely unchanged from pre-crisis levels.

This suggests that stock prices have risen primarily in response to liquidity injections rather than genuine economic growth. Inflation and monetary expansion act like a "fog," obscuring our ability to discern real value from mere numerical increases.

When Bitcoin is used as a comparative unit, it acts as a clear lens that removes this inflationary fog, revealing a completely different picture.

The same applies when comparing commodity prices in BTC. A notable experiment by the St. Louis Federal Reserve once examined the price of "a dozen eggs" in both dollars and Bitcoin. While the study aimed to highlight Bitcoin’s volatility, it inadvertently reinforced the point that during periods of high inflation, the price of eggs, which seemed to rise continuously in dollars, actually remained stable or even declined in BTC terms.

This amusing example illustrates the profound impact of measurement standards.

Of course, Bitcoin itself is highly volatile and still in its early stages compared to traditional assets. Its meteoric rise over the past decade does not guarantee that all asset graphs in BTC terms will continue declining indefinitely. However, what has already transpired provides deep financial insights.

The first takeaway is the concept of opportunity cost mentioned earlier—every financial decision has an inherent cost, even if we do not always recognize it. Holding cash in a bank carries the opportunity cost of the returns one could earn by investing elsewhere. Investing in asset A means missing out on asset B, and if B delivers higher returns, we incur that loss.

Over the past decade, Bitcoin has outperformed all other assets by a wide margin, making the opportunity cost of not holding Bitcoin extremely high. Investors looking back on this period might regret not having bought Bitcoin earlier, but the key lesson is not about dwelling on past decisions—it is about becoming aware of opportunity costs and their long-term impact on wealth.

On a deeper level, this discussion raises questions about whether our current valuation framework is truly appropriate. If using a depreciating fiat currency as a benchmark distorts our perception of value, our economic decisions may be misaligned in the long run.

Imagine a scenario where money retains or even appreciates in value in line with real economic productivity (as Bitcoin was designed to do). In such a system, people would not need to chase high returns merely to preserve their savings from inflation. They could plan finances with a longer-term perspective. Concepts like "time preference" and "discounting the future" would shift.

It is often argued that sound money encourages saving and long-term investment, whereas inflationary systems push people toward short-term spending or speculation out of fear that their money will lose value.

This is not just a matter of personal finance but a fundamental influence on the quality of economic growth and innovation. A sound money standard like Bitcoin might enforce stricter investment discipline, as liquidity injections could no longer be used as a safety net for unsustainable projects.

At this point, readers may not conclude that they should immediately hold Bitcoin instead of investing in other assets—and this article is not intended as investment advice. Its real purpose is to provoke thought about how we measure value.

Ask yourself: What unit do we use to gauge wealth and economic progress? Is that unit reliable?

If the money we use for measurement loses value every year, how can we be sure that increasing numbers on paper reflect true wealth growth?

Using Bitcoin as a reference standard is like measuring with a new ruler—one that may be more accurate. In many cases, it reveals unexpected insights and challenges long-held beliefs.

Ultimately, whether or not one believes in the "Bitcoin standard" is less important than the ability to critically examine the system we rely on daily.

Perhaps the greatest value Bitcoin and new financial philosophies offer is not a definitive answer but the impetus to look at the bigger economic picture with fresh eyes.

Thank you, Thai Ratel, for enlightening me on this topic!

Jakk Goodday.

@ 42342239:1d80db24

Almost 150 years ago, the British newspaper editor William Thomas Stead wrote that "the editorial pen is a sceptre of power, compared with which the sceptre of many a monarch is but a gilded lath". He had begun to regard journalism as something more than just conveying information - the journalist or editor could become a ruler.

Times had certainly changed compared to a few hundred years earlier. Before Gutenberg's invention of the printing press, it was mainly the church that controlled the dissemination of information in Europe, but when Stead put pen to paper, this control had shifted to newspapers, schools, and universities. Eventually, technologies like radio and TV entered the scene, but the power dynamics remained asymmetrical - only a few could send information to the many.

However, with the emergence of the internet, and especially with the spread of social media, a significant change followed. Instead of only a few being able to send information to the many, many could send to many. Almost anyone could now create their own newspaper, radio, or TV channel. The power over information dissemination was decentralised.

Ten years ago, Roberta Alenius, who was then press secretary for Sweden's Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of the Moderate Party, shared her experiences with Social Democratic and Moderate Party internet activists on social media. She reported that social media played a significant role in how news "comes out" and is shaped, and that journalism was now downstream of social media. Five years later, NATO's then-Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that "NATO must be prepared for both conventional and hybrid threats: from tanks to tweets." This finally underscores the importance of social media.

Elon Musk, who took over X (formerly Twitter) in 2022, has claimed that "it's absolutely fundamental and transformative that the people actually get to decide the news and narrative and what's important," and that citizen journalism is the future.

While his platform allows most expressions - for better or worse - the reach of messages is instead limited ("freedom of speech does not mean freedom of reach "). X has also opened its recommendation algorithm to the outside world by making it open-source. Although this is a welcome step, the fact remains that it's impossible to know which code is actually used and what adjustments are made by humans or algorithms.

William Thomas Stead's "sceptre of power", which has wandered from the church to newspaper and TV editorial offices, and now to citizens according to Elon Musk, risks being transferred to algorithms' opaque methods?

Instead of talking about "toxic algorithms" and TikTok bans, like the so many do today, we should ask ourselves more fundamental questions. What happens when algorithms are no longer objective (how can they ever be?), but instead become tools for shaping our reality? Perhaps our greatest challenge today is not deciding who should govern the information landscape, but instead recognising that no one is up to the task - not even well-ventilated computers.

@ bf47c19e:c3d2573b

Originalni tekst na medium.com.

Autor: Aleksandar Svetski / Prevod: ₿itcoin Serbia

---

Nemojte kupovati Bitkoin!

Ni danas, ni kasnije, nikada!

Posvećeno skepticima, neznalicama, arogantnima i nezainteresovanima.

NE TREBA vam Bitkoin.

Molim vas. Nemojte ga kupovati.

Lično me ne zanima "masovna adopcija".

Draža mi je selektivna adopcija.

Svinja ne zaslužuje bisere.

Na vama je da platite cenu neznanja.

Kao i cenu glupavosti.

Kada dođe vreme, sa zadovoljstvom ću vam platiti hiljadu satošija mesečno za vaše vreme i smejati se usput.

Najbitnija odluka koju ćete ikada doneti

NEMA važnije odluke za vašu finansijsku, ekonomsku i suverenu budućnost koju danas možete doneti nego da kupite Bitkoin.

A ako ne želite da izdvojite malo vremena da ga dalje proučite, JEDINA osoba koju treba da krivite kasnije ste vi sami.

Danas, Bitkoin se nalazi u svojoj ranoj, početnoj fazi. O ovome možete više pročitati ovde (hvala ObiWan Kenobit):

Hiperbitkoinizacija: pobednik uzima sve

Ovo JE prilika ne samo vašeg života, već verovatno i najveći mogući transfer bogatstva u istoriji, a najluđa stvar je što će se najveći deo toga odigrati u narednih nekoliko decenija.

Nalazimo se tek u prvih 12 godina ove promene, a već smo videlo kako je Bitkoin eksplodirao sa $0.008c (kada su za 10.000 BTC kupljene dve pice) na trenutnu cenu od oko $11.500.

Ovo je tek početak. Tek 0.001% svetskog bogatstva je denominirano u Bitkoinu.

Ako sada izdvojite samo trenutak da razumete novac, njegovu ulogu u društvu i kako će ekonomski darvinizam voditi ceo svet prema najrobusnijem, najčvršćem i najsigurnijem obliku očuvanja bogatstva, možete odlučiti da kupite neki deo pre nego što se ostatak sveta priključi.

Čitajući ovo, vi ste poput drevnog pojedinca koji je pronašao zlato, dok svi ostali koriste školjke. Razlika je u tome što živite u digitalnom dobu tokom kojeg će se ovaj novac pojaviti i sazreti za vreme vašeg života. Taj drevni pojedinac bi bio u pravu ali mrtav zato što je zlatu bilo potrebno nekoliko hiljada godina da uradi ono za šta će Bitkoinu biti potrebne decenije.

Zamislite. Se. Nad. Tim.

I naučite dalje o nastanku Bitkoina ovde:

Zašto je Bitkoin važan

I za ime ljubavi prema sopstvenoj budućnosti, preuzmite ovu kratku elektronsku knjigu i jebeno se edukujte!!

Preuzmite "Investiranje u Bitkoin"

I eto, dajem vam izvore.. jbt.. Svejedno...

Danas, imate izbor da kupite Bitkoin; najoskudniji novac u univerzumu, za siću!! Bukvalno možete kupiti hiljade satošija (najmanju jedinicu Bitkoina gde je 100.000.000 satošija = 1 BTC) za $1!!!

Danas ne postoji veća prilika, kao što sutradan neće postojati veće žaljenje kada više ne budete imali "izbor" da ga kupite.

Kada taj dan bude došao i kada budete to morali da prihvatite, setićete se ovih reči, ali avaj, biće prekasno, a vreme ne možete vratiti.

Više nije 2012

Tada ste imali izgovor. Sada je 2020...

Apsolutno NEMA razloga zašto neko sa malo radoznalosti i relativno funkcionalnim mozgom ne može da prouči šta je Bitkoin, zašto postoji, zašto je važan i zašto bi trebalo da u njega prebaci malo ličnog bogatstva.

Naročito ako ima prijatelja poput mene ili mnoštvo Bitkoinera negde tamo.

Ja više neću smarati ljude sa porukama "zašto treba kupiti Bitkoin".

Više nije 2012. godina.

Danas imamo toliko puno informacija od toliko mnogo dobrih ljudi na svim mogućim medijima, tako da NEMATE IZGOVORA da ga ignorišete ili kažete: "ali niko mi nije rekao".

Ukoliko nemate da izdvojite bar malo vremena od vašeg Netflix rasporeda da biste istražili šta je ova stvar i zašto je bitna za vašu ličnu ekonomsku budućnost, onda zaslužujete to što imate.

Deluje okrutno ali dobrodošao u život, mladi žutokljunče.

Sada... Ako ste izdvojili malo vremena ali ste i dalje nezainteresovani ili dovoljno glupi da ga odbacite, onda zaista zaslužujete to što dolazi i ostatak ovog članka je definitivno za vas.

Ne želim da uopšte kupite Bitkoin!

Ok Aleks, ali šta ćemo sa "masovnom adopcijom"???

Pažljivo me slušajte:

Zabole me kurac da li će masovna adopcija doći za 10, 20, 50 ili 100 godina!

Ja sam skroz za selektivnu adopciju i potpuno za dugačku igru. Tako da sam spreman da čekam.

Kao u SVIM prirodnim, evolutivno funkcionalnim sistemima, oni koji seju i pomažu u izgradnji temelja bi trebalo da budu i nesrazmerno nagrađeni.

Ovo je 100% fer i predivno nejednako (neki od vas koji me znate ste upoznati sa mojim stavom o nejednakosti kao najprezrenijem od svih ljudskih ideala. Radi se o odvratnom idealu koji nagrađuje najgore među nama).

Tako da za skeptike i "neverne Tome" imam jednostavnu poruku:

Nadam se da nećete uopšte kupiti Bitkoin. Ni danas ni bilo kada. Nadam se da će jedini put kada budete stupili u dodir sa Bitkoinom to biti jedini način da za nešto budete isplaćeni; npr. kada budete morali da ga zaradite.

Jedva čekam dan kada će mojih nekoliko hiljada satošija moći da kupi tri, četiri ili pet meseci vašeg vremena.

A u međuvremenu...

Molim vas, držite se vašeg fiat novca. Molim vas, držite se vaših šitkoina.

Ne želim nikoga od vas "blokčejnera", šitkoinera, fiat nokoinera i vas svih ostalih klovnova koji mislite da znate bolje.

Ovaj rolerkoster je specijalan, tako da zašto bih želeo da ga delim sa vama glupanderima? Zašto bih bacao bisere pred svinje?

Ja verujem u principe isključivosti.

Ovo nije "kumbaya" ili "svi smo jedno". Jebite se.

Sa razlogom smo drugačiji.

Napraviću sam svoj krevet i ležati u njemu. Vi napravite svoje.

Kada bude došlo vreme, ja ću vam za vaše vreme plaćati satošijima zato što onda nećete imati izbora.

Tada ja pobeđujem, a vi gubite.

Kako sejete, tako žanjete

Razlika između mene i vas je ta što ja kupujem Bitkoin sada zato što tako želim. Vi ćete morati da radite za Bitkoin sutra zato što tako morate.

To je cena neznanja. To je cena arogancije.

To je cena gluposti koju ćete platiti i, koliko god ovo zvuči okrutno, istina je da zaslužujete svaki delić toga.

Svi ležimo u krevetu koji sami pravimo, a vi svoj krevet pravite sada.

Neće vam samouvereni Bitkoiner reći: "lepo sam vam rekao". Nova ekonomska realnost će vam to reći umesto njega.

"Lepo sam vam rekao" će vas udariti poput tone cigle kada shvatite razliku između vas i onih koji su bili razboriti, koji su marljivo štedeli, koji su uložili vreme i trud da otkriju šta je zapravo Bitkoin dok su ih svi nazivali ludacima.

Neće biti sažaljenja.

Nema više bacanja bisera pred svinje

Oni koji imaju priliku da kupe nešto Bitkoina sada, a odluče da to ne urade zahvaljujući neznanju, aroganciji ili gluposti, zaslužuju da plate sa kamatom.

Zaslužuju da trguju svoje sutrašnje dragoceno vreme i energiju za ono što su mogli da nabave danas i to bukvalno "za kikiriki".

Ovde nema greške: nismo jednaki. Mi smo veoma, veoma različiti ljudi.

Ja sam uložio vreme, trud i energiju sada, ne samo zbog sebe samog, već i da bih posadio seme i pomogao mreži.

Uradio sam svoj deo.

Vi ćete doći kasnije i pomoći mi da žanjem nagrade svog truda. Postojaćete da biste mi pomogli da uživam u plodovima.

To će biti vaša uloga.

Izabrao sam da rizikujem i steknem deo onoga zbog čega su me svi nazivali ludim zato što sam učio, verovao i shvatio danas, sa nadom da se izgradi bolja, poštenija i pravičnija budućnost za sve.

Radeći to, neki od nas će postati džinovi i nesrazmerno bogati. I vi imate tu šansu ali je mnogi od vas neće iskoristiti.

I ja sam skroz ok sa tim. Više neću bacati bisere pred svinje.

---

Ovaj članak može zvučati neprijatno ali više me zabole kurac. Sada je na vama da sami istražujete.

Ovo se događa bez obzira sviđalo vam se to ili ne. Ja i hiljade drugih Bitkoinera smo pisali eseje i eseje o ovome.

Neka imena sa kvalitetnim materijalom kojih se mogu setiti iz glave su:

• Naravno ja
• Gigi
• Robert Breedlove
• Saifedean Ammous

Ako ste radoznali možete ih pratiti. A ovo je sjajno mesto gde možete preuzeti nekoliko odličnih radova:

The Bitcoin Times

I za kraj, ako si Bitkoiner koji ovo čita, nikada nećeš znati da li sam zloban ili samo igram 4D šah.

Iskreno, nije ni bitno.

Ovo se dešava. Bitkoin osvaja svet. Ekonomski darvinizam je činjenica.

Sakupljajte vaše satošije, ponudite maslinovu grančicu, obratite pažnju na njihovu radoznalost ili iskru u njihovom oku kao znak da nastavite. Ukoliko toga nema ili naiđete na odbijanje, ostavite ih da se igraju kao svinje u govnima sa njihovim fiatom, deonicama ili šitkoinima.

Biće nam potrebni čistači za naše citadele.

@ 554ab6fe:c6cbc27e

Bitcoin’s Price and the Power Law: A Reflection of Energy and the Early Stages of Monetary Adoption Introduction Bitcoin’s price trajectory has long puzzled analysts, with its seemingly chaotic booms and busts. However, when examined through the lens of power laws, a pattern emerges—one that is fundamentally tied to Bitcoin’s energy-based production cost. This article argues that Bitcoin’s price has historically followed a power law because its underlying cost structure is dictated by mining, an energy-intensive process. However, this relationship will not persist indefinitely. I propose that as Bitcoin matures into a widely adopted monetary system, its price will decouple from mining production costs and instead oscillate in accordance with natural business cycles, much like traditional forms of money.

Bitcoin’s Price and the Power Law

Source and Credit: Giovanni Santostasi’s “The Bitcoin Power Law”

When Bitcoin’s price is plotted on a logarithmic scale against time, a strikingly straight-line trajectory appears, punctuated by cycles of rapid price expansion (bull markets) followed by severe corrections (bear markets). These perturbations correspond to Bitcoin’s well-known halving cycles, which occur approximately every four years and reduce the block reward paid to miners, effectively doubling the cost of production per Bitcoin. Historically, Bitcoin’s price has always returned to a fundamental minimum—one that closely aligns with the average cost of mining.

This observation suggests that Bitcoin’s power law price behavior is not arbitrary but rather a reflection of its fundamental energy constraints. As in many natural systems governed by power laws, energy dynamics play a central role. In Bitcoin’s case, the “base layer” of its valuation is determined by the energy and computational resources required for mining. This power law behavior is therefore a consequence of Bitcoin’s fundamental design: as block subsidies decrease and mining efficiency improves, the minimum sustainable price follows an upward trajectory dictated by production costs.

Bitcoin as an Energy-Based System

Power laws commonly emerge in natural systems involving energy constraints, from thermodynamics to biological ecosystems and planetary dynamics. Bitcoin, as an energy-based monetary system, exhibits similar characteristics. Mining requires significant electricity and computational power, and as the difficulty adjustment ensures a competitive equilibrium, the cost of mining a Bitcoin remains closely tied to its market value over the long run.

Unlike traditional fiat currencies, which are controlled by central banks and subject to arbitrary monetary expansion, Bitcoin’s supply schedule is immutable. Its economic foundation is rooted in proof of work, where value is derived from energy expenditure. This fundamental linkage between energy and price explains why Bitcoin’s valuation has adhered to a power law trajectory. It is an entropy engine, and follows physical laws related to energy and entropy.

However, this pattern is not a permanent feature of Bitcoin’s monetary future—it is, rather, an indication of Bitcoin’s early-stage monetization process.

The Transition from Mining-Based Pricing to a Business Cycle

A crucial implication of Bitcoin’s price following a power law dictated by mining costs is that it suggests Bitcoin has yet to fully mature as money. If Bitcoin were already a widely adopted monetary standard, its valuation would no longer be primarily influenced by the floor mining costs but instead by macroeconomic forces—specifically, the natural fluctuations of the business cycle.

In a world where Bitcoin is the dominant global currency, the “price of money” (which correlates with the cost of capital and prevailing interest rates) would fluctuate according to the broader economic cycle. The dynamics would resemble those of natural interest rate cycles described by the Austrian School of Economics:

• During periods of economic expansion, lower interest rates spur increased investment and consumption, prices slightly rise, and savings deplete.
• As savings decline and prices rise, interest rates naturally rise as well, leading to reduced investment and spending, initiating a contractionary phase and lowered prices.
• During the contraction, savings accumulate, more capital becomes available, and interest rates and prices decline.
• With the availability of capital, lower interest rates and lowered prices, the economy is now ready to enter a phase of investment and expansion once again.
• This oscillatory process continues indefinitely, driven by real economic growth rather than central bank intervention.

If Bitcoin were fully monetized, its price would no longer oscillate based on mining halvings and energy costs but instead reflect economic expansion and contraction cycles—just as traditional currencies do when not artificially manipulated by central banks.

The Early Stage Indicator: Bitcoin’s Dependence on Mining Costs

Today, Bitcoin’s price still “bounces” off the power law baseline, indicating that its valuation remains primarily anchored to its minimum cost of production. This means that, while Bitcoin is widely recognized as an asset, it has not yet reached the level of adoption where its price is dictated by macroeconomic cycles.

A future in which Bitcoin is used as a primary medium of exchange and unit of account would necessarily imply a decoupling from mining-driven pricing. Instead of periodic halvings triggering speculative bull runs followed by crashes, Bitcoin’s price would become far more stable, with fluctuations primarily driven by business cycle dynamics. The continued adherence to the power law model, therefore, is evidence that Bitcoin is still in an early phase of adoption—where mining remains a primary determinant of price.

Conclusion

Bitcoin’s price trajectory has long conformed to a power law, reflecting the underlying energy costs of mining. This characteristic, however, is likely not a permanent feature but rather a hallmark of Bitcoin’s early stage as an emerging monetary system. As adoption increases and Bitcoin becomes widely used as money, its price should transition away from being dictated by mining costs and should instead fluctuate according to the natural oscillations of the business cycle.

The persistence of Bitcoin’s power law trend is a sign that it remains in its infancy. The real transformation will occur when Bitcoin is no longer bound to its production cost but is instead driven by the natural ebb and flow of savings, investment, and capital cycles—marking its full emergence as a global monetary system.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog is for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as financial advice. Please consult with a financial advisor or conduct your own research before making any financial decisions.

@ be41636e:e55c4909

I asked unleashed.chat's DeepSeek model to provide the pieces of evidence against the moon landing. What follows is what I got as my answer.

Generally, I like the answer, though it mixed up the claim and counterarguments at times.

Also, I didn't like the conclusion :))

But all said, I believe the Van Allen Belts are one of the most solid argument against the moon landing.

---

The question of whether the moon landing was faked has been a topic of debate, with various arguments presented by those who doubt the authenticity of the event. Here is a summary of the key points often cited against the moon landing, along with counterarguments and explanations:

Arguments Against the Moon Landing: Waving Flag:

Claim: The American flag appears to wave in the wind, despite the moon having no atmosphere. Counterargument: The flag's movement was caused by the astronauts' actions, as they adjusted it using a rod behind the flag. Missing Stars:

Claim: The photos lack visible stars, which should be present in the moon's black sky. Counterargument: The cameras were set for optimal lighting of the lunar surface, making stars too faint to capture. Shadow Anomalies:

Claim: Shadows in photos appear to come from multiple directions, suggesting studio lighting. Counterargument: The moon's surface is uneven, causing shadows to appear differently, and the sun's angle can create varied shadows. Van Allen Belts:

Claim: Astronauts would have been exposed to lethal radiation from the Van Allen belts. Counterargument: The missions were timed to pass through the belts quickly, minimizing exposure. Lack of Blast Crater:

Claim: No noticeable crater was created by the lunar module's descent engine. Counterargument: The engine's thrust was designed to minimize impact, and the moon's surface is softer than expected. Missing Footage:

Claim: Original tapes of the landing were lost, and restored footage is of lower quality. Counterargument: Footage was restored from other sources, including TV broadcasts and telemetry data. Soviet Silence:

Claim: The Soviets did not contest the landing, despite being space race competitors. Counterargument: The Soviets may not have had the means to verify the landing or were focused on their own programs. Technological Capabilities:

Claim: The technology of the 1960s was insufficient for a moon landing. Counterargument: Successful unmanned missions and technological advancements supported the capability. Number of Participants:

Claim: Thousands of people involved would have leaked the secret. Counterargument: Secrecy measures and unawareness of implications could have prevented leaks. "C" Rock Incident:

Claim: A rock appeared to float, suggesting tampering. Counterargument: The rock was a prop, and movement was due to low-gravity actions. Supporting Evidence for the Moon Landing: Moon Rocks: Analyzed and confirmed as lunar. Footprints and Equipment: Observed by subsequent missions and satellites. Cumulative Evidence: Multiple sources confirm the moon landing. In conclusion, while various arguments have been presented against the moon landing, each has been addressed with scientific explanations and evidence. The consensus among the scientific community is that the moon landing was genuine, supported by substantial evidence and corroborated by multiple sources.

The question of whether the moon landing was faked has been a topic of debate, with various arguments presented by those who doubt the authenticity of the event. Here is a summary of the key points often cited against the moon landing, along with counterarguments and explanations:

Arguments Against the Moon Landing:

1. Waving Flag:

   • Claim: The American flag appears to wave in the wind, despite the moon having no atmosphere.
   • Counterargument: The flag's movement was caused by the astronauts' actions, as they adjusted it using a rod behind the flag.

2. Missing Stars:

   • Claim: The photos lack visible stars, which should be present in the moon's black sky.
   • Counterargument: The cameras were set for optimal lighting of the lunar surface, making stars too faint to capture.

3. Shadow Anomalies:

   • Claim: Shadows in photos appear to come from multiple directions, suggesting studio lighting.
   • Counterargument: The moon's surface is uneven, causing shadows to appear differently, and the sun's angle can create varied shadows.

4. Van Allen Belts:

   • Claim: Astronauts would have been exposed to lethal radiation from the Van Allen belts.
   • Counterargument: The missions were timed to pass through the belts quickly, minimizing exposure.

5. Lack of Blast Crater:

   • Claim: No noticeable crater was created by the lunar module's descent engine.
   • Counterargument: The engine's thrust was designed to minimize impact, and the moon's surface is softer than expected.

6. Missing Footage:

   • Claim: Original tapes of the landing were lost, and restored footage is of lower quality.
   • Counterargument: Footage was restored from other sources, including TV broadcasts and telemetry data.

7. Soviet Silence:

   • Claim: The Soviets did not contest the landing, despite being space race competitors.
   • Counterargument: The Soviets may not have had the means to verify the landing or were focused on their own programs.

8. Technological Capabilities:

   • Claim: The technology of the 1960s was insufficient for a moon landing.
   • Counterargument: Successful unmanned missions and technological advancements supported the capability.

9. Number of Participants:

   • Claim: Thousands of people involved would have leaked the secret.
   • Counterargument: Secrecy measures and unawareness of implications could have prevented leaks.

10. "C" Rock Incident:

    • Claim: A rock appeared to float, suggesting tampering.
    • Counterargument: The rock was a prop, and movement was due to low-gravity actions.

Supporting Evidence for the Moon Landing:

• Moon Rocks: Analyzed and confirmed as lunar.
• Footprints and Equipment: Observed by subsequent missions and satellites.
• Cumulative Evidence: Multiple sources confirm the moon landing.

In conclusion, while various arguments have been presented against the moon landing, each has been addressed with scientific explanations and evidence. The consensus among the scientific community is that the moon landing was genuine, supported by substantial evidence and corroborated by multiple sources.

@ 6e0ea5d6:0327f353

Ascolta bene, amico mio. Admiration is always better than mere understanding!

Simple understanding in a relationship is an easy, almost automatic gesture. Any woman can understand a man, tolerate his flaws, and accept his presence. But this often stems from pity, convenience, or merely the habit of having someone around. Understanding without admiration is not respect; it is resignation. A woman who only understands but does not admire may stay by your side, but she will never be truly loyal in her heart. And who wants to be merely tolerated out of pity when they could be followed with pride?

Admiration, on the other hand, is the pillar that upholds any worthy relationship. It’s not just about liking someone; it’s about recognizing the value in a man's daily battles, not just his victories. A woman who truly admires you takes pride in your strength, respects your struggles, and walks beside you with her head held high. She doesn’t just accept you—she follows you to the end because she sees greatness in what you build and what you represent.

Admiration is not just about affection; it’s about looking at the man beside you and feeling deep respect for who he is, what he builds, and what he stands for. Without that, what remains? Tolerance? Indifference? The woman who merely understands accepts your existence, but the one who admires follows you with pride because she sees value in your struggle, your strength, and your legacy.

So forget about being “understood” as a priority. Understanding can be a mere transaction, but admiration is the true foundation of any dignified relationship.

If your woman does not admire you for what you do, who you are, and what you build, she is either occupying a space she does not deserve, or you are too weak to be admired.

Thank you for reading, my friend!

If this message resonated with you, consider leaving your "🥃" as a token of appreciation.

A toast to our family!

@ f6488c62:c929299d

เมื่อกระแสข่าวเรื่อง Government Shutdown ของสหรัฐฯ เริ่มร้อนแรงขึ้นเรื่อย ๆ โดยแพลตฟอร์มอย่าง Polymarket บ่งชี้ว่าความเป็นไปได้ของเหตุการณ์นี้พุ่งขึ้นถึง 50% หลายคนอาจสงสัยว่ามันเกี่ยวอะไรกับตลาดคริปโต โดยเฉพาะกลุ่ม เหรียญมีม (Meme Coins) ที่ดูเหมือนจะอยู่นอกเหนือระบบเศรษฐกิจแบบดั้งเดิม

แต่ความจริงแล้ว การปิดตัวของรัฐบาลกลางสหรัฐฯ อาจส่งผลกระทบทั้งทางตรงและทางอ้อมต่อตลาดเหรียญมีมอย่างหลีกเลี่ยงไม่ได้ มาดูกันว่า โอกาส และ ความเสี่ยง ของสาวกเหรียญมีมในสถานการณ์เช่นนี้มีอะไรบ้าง

🎯 โอกาสสำหรับเหรียญมีม

กระแสการเงินไหลเข้าสินทรัพย์เสี่ยงสูง (High-risk assets)

หากนักลงทุนเชื่อว่า Shutdown จะทำให้ธนาคารกลางสหรัฐ (Fed) ต้องผ่อนคลายนโยบายการเงินในอนาคตเพื่อลดผลกระทบทางเศรษฐกิจ เงินทุนอาจไหลเข้าสินทรัพย์เสี่ยงอย่างคริปโต รวมถึงเหรียญมีมที่มักมีการเคลื่อนไหวรุนแรงเกินจริง

เหรียญอย่าง DOGE, SHIBA หรือ PEPE อาจได้ประโยชน์จากความคลั่งไคล้และกระแส "ซื้อเพราะมันตลก" ที่เคยเกิดขึ้นในอดีต

ชุมชนออนไลน์มีบทบาทมากขึ้น

การปิดตัวของหน่วยงานรัฐอาจกระตุ้นความไม่พอใจในหมู่ประชาชน ส่งผลให้การเคลื่อนไหวทางออนไลน์เพิ่มขึ้น สังคมคริปโต โดยเฉพาะกลุ่มเหรียญมีม อาจใช้โอกาสนี้เพื่อสร้างกระแสหรือหาเหตุผลสนุก ๆ ในการผลักดันเหรียญ

ตัวอย่าง: แคมเปญ "Shutdown? Buy DOGE!" หรือ "Government off, PEPE on!" อาจกลายเป็นไวรัลได้

Narrative ใหม่ ๆ เพื่อดึงนักลงทุน

โปรเจกต์เหรียญมีมอาจสร้างเรื่องราวใหม่ ๆ เพื่อเชื่อมโยงกับเหตุการณ์ เช่น การล้อเลียนการเมืองหรือสร้างโทเค็นเชิงสัญลักษณ์เพื่อประท้วงรัฐบาล ดึงดูดนักลงทุนที่มองหาทางออกจากความวุ่นวายของระบบดั้งเดิม

⚠️ ความเสี่ยงสำหรับเหรียญมีม

ภาวะเสี่ยงต่ำ (Risk-off sentiment)

ในช่วงแรกของ Shutdown นักลงทุนมักถอยกลับไปถือ เงินดอลลาร์ (USD) หรือสินทรัพย์ปลอดภัย เช่น ทองคำ ส่งผลให้ตลาดคริปโตตกลงอย่างหนัก รวมถึงเหรียญมีมที่มีความผันผวนสูงและไม่มีมูลค่าพื้นฐาน

ความเชื่อมั่นที่ลดลงนี้อาจทำให้ราคาเหรียญมีมดิ่งลงแบบไร้จุดหมาย

ขาดสภาพคล่อง (Liquidity crunch)

หากเศรษฐกิจชะงัก นักลงทุนรายย่อยอาจไม่มีเงินสดมาปั่นราคาหรือเก็งกำไรเหรียญมีมได้เหมือนเดิม ทำให้การเคลื่อนไหวของราคาเหรียญมีมซบเซา

เหรียญเล็ก ๆ ที่อาศัยชุมชนเป็นหลัก อาจเผชิญกับปัญหาสภาพคล่องอย่างรุนแรง

ความเสี่ยงด้านกฎระเบียบ

แม้ Shutdown จะทำให้หน่วยงานกำกับดูแลบางส่วนหยุดทำงาน แต่ในระยะยาว หากรัฐบาลกลับมาพร้อมนโยบายคุมเข้ม ตลาดคริปโตอาจเจอแรงกดดันเพิ่มเติม ซึ่งอาจส่งผลลบต่อเหรียญมีมที่มักถูกมองว่าเป็นสินทรัพย์ "เก็งกำไรสูงสุด"

🚀 สรุป: เตรียมตัวรับมือยังไง?

นักลงทุนสายเหรียญมีม ควรติดตามข่าวสารทั้งเรื่อง Shutdown และทิศทางของ Fed อย่างใกล้ชิด เพราะเหตุการณ์เหล่านี้สามารถเปลี่ยนทิศทางตลาดได้อย่างฉับพลัน

วางแผนการลงทุน โดยแบ่งพอร์ตอย่างชาญฉลาด ไม่ทุ่มหมดหน้าตักกับเหรียญมีม และเตรียมเงินสดไว้เผื่อโอกาสซื้อเพิ่มหากราคาตกหนัก

สร้างและติดตามกระแสออนไลน์ หากคุณเป็นแฟนเหรียญมีม การเคลื่อนไหวในโซเชียลมีเดียอาจเป็นตัวแปรสำคัญในการดันราคา ดังนั้นการร่วมชุมชนหรือมีส่วนร่วมในแคมเปญต่าง ๆ อาจช่วยให้เหรียญมีมของคุณกลับมาเป็นที่สนใจ

สุดท้ายแล้ว Government Shutdown อาจเป็นทั้งโอกาสและความเสี่ยง แต่สำหรับสาวกเหรียญมีมแล้ว บางที "ความวุ่นวาย" อาจเป็นเชื้อไฟที่ทำให้ตลาดนี้ลุกเป็นไฟได้อีกครั้ง 🔥

@ d61f3bc5:0da6ef4a

Micropayments on the Internet have been theorized for decades. However, it wasn’t until the emergence of Nostr that we’ve finally seen them deployed at scale. Nostr is still in its infancy, yet we are already witnessing an explosion of apps built on top of this open protocol. And most of them are featuring zaps! With the recent Primal 2.1 release, Nostr developers now have the option to enhance the experience for their users by integrating a Nostr-powered bitcoin wallet. 

There is no doubt that micropayments add a new dimension to consumer apps. The incumbents have realized this and are rushing to add payments to their closed platforms. It won't be long before apps that don’t include built-in payments feel dated or outright broken. The question is not if apps of the future will have built-in payments, but what kind of payments they will be. Given that open networks have a tendency to win, our bet is that apps of the future will be powered by Bitcoin. Let’s see how Primal can help.

Primal Wallet

Our vision for Primal Wallet is simple: deliver the smoothest transactional bitcoin wallet, endowed with expert Nostr skills. The wallet leverages Nostr’s open social graph as a de facto public lightning directory, while offering the highest level of user experience for Nostr’s rich content. For example, the user can scroll through the transaction list, select a zap, and drill straight into the conversation thread where the zap originated. The whole flow feels perfectly natural.  Since we launched Primal Wallet in December 2023, the user response has been incredibly positive. People love the idea of being able to post something on Nostr, get zaps from plebs around the world, then buy a coffee or a meal with those sats - all from the same app. 

Having a bitcoin wallet with social skills resonated strongly with users, so Primal Wallet grew rapidly in popularity and usage. Since the launch, we have processed 1,338,460 transactions, with 238,916 just in the past month alone. This rivals some of the leading bitcoin wallets, and we are just getting started! We hear from many bitcoin OGs that they are using Primal Wallet as their transactional daily driver. Bullish. 

All this is great, but something has been missing. Our users demanded the ability to connect Primal Wallet to other Nostr apps, so they can zap from anywhere in Nostr’s growing ecosystem.

Zapping from Any Nostr App

For an existing Primal user, connecting the wallet to a new Nostr app can now be done in two clicks. Let’s take a look at how this is done from Olas, one of the most exciting new apps on Nostr:

Yes. Click, click. And you can start zapping! 

Such smooth integration of payments is not available in any competing technology stack. Tradfi, fintech, crypto, etc., have nothing on Bitcoin and Nostr. Two clicks and your external wallet is connected. I’ll give you a moment now to allow for this new reality to settle in.

Primal enables you to connect any number of external apps and manage them from wallet settings: Note that you can set your daily spend budget for each app or revoke its access at any time.

How This Works

So, what is this sorcery? How does it work under the hood?

Connecting Nostr apps to external wallets is accomplished via the Nostr Wallet Connect protocol. It utilizes Nostr’s public relay infrastructure to enable communication between apps and wallets. You can learn more about this protocol here, and access developer docs here.

The smooth, two-click connection setup UX is implemented through deep links between Primal and the external app. Here’s the deep link that the external app needs to call to invoke this feature: 

nostrnwc+primal://connect?appicon=[icon_url]&appname=[app_name]&callback=[callback_string]

After the user clicks “Create Wallet Connection” in Primal, the Primal app calls the deep link defined in the callback, and passes the NWC connection string. That's all that the external app needs to make the wallet connection.

What Comes Next?

The Nostr Wallet Connect protocol has been around for almost two years. Several bitcoin wallets implement it and many Nostr apps use it as their main way of enabling payments. What’s new with Primal 2.1 is the elevated user experience. Since Primal is a Nostr-powered wallet, it is aware of all the relevant metadata for each transaction: Nostr zaps, users, and the related events. Primal indexes the entire Nostr network, and now this is open to all Nostr apps that wish to integrate payments. 

Nostr keeps expanding and getting better. Its openness enables us to build capabilities that lift all boats. The future is bright; I can’t wait to see how things evolve from here. 🍿🍿🍿

@ c4b5369a:b812dbd6

Unidirectional payment channels revisited

Nodeless lightning - Reduce ecash mints custodial risk

---

Sats N Facts

The nostr:npub1yrnuj56rnen08zp2h9h7p74ghgjx6ma39spmpj6w9hzxywutevsst7k5cx unconference has just wrapped up. And what a blast it was. In the heart of northern Thailand, developers, researchers, content creators and more, came together to share ideas on how Bitcoin, Nostr and other free protocols are being used everyday to liberate people.

Not only were stories shared from different community leaders on how embracing bitcoin has empowered them and their communities, but a big goal of the unconference was to bring bitcoin engineers and developers from various domains together in one room, unstructured, chaotic, and let them do their thing.

At first, I thought not having a schedule might be boring, but oh boy was I wrong. There was so much stuff going on, it was hard to choose which session I would have to miss!

Luke's Spillman channel proposal

One of the sessions I definitely did not want to miss, was nostr:npub1htnhsay5dmq3r72tukdw72pduzfdcja0yylcajuvnc2uklkhxp8qnz3qac s proposal

Ecash mints funded with Spillman channels: The ultimate nodeless Lightning wallet

.

In true unconference fashion, he announced in the main room that the session was about to start, and that the people that are interested should meet him in the whiteboard corner in 10 minutes. The corner was packed, and Luke explained his proposal.

What's a "Spillman channel"?

Essentially when we are talking about Spillman channels, what is meant are unidirectional payment channels (or CLTV-style channels). An unidirectional payment channel means, only one party can send payments, but not receive, and the other party can only receive, but not send. They also expire after a predetermined amount of time, and must be closed.

At first glance, this might look kinda stupid. After all, we have Poon-Dryja channels that are powering the lightning network. They are bi-directional, do not expire, and can be used to shuffle coins back and forth theorethically an unlimited amount of times.

So, why bother with this stupid one-way channel?

Simplicity is king

People that have worked with lightning channels can sing you a song about complexity, state handling and risks about the current state of bidirectional payment channels. Essentially, There are a lot of requirements on both channel parties when it comes to Liveness (being online) and also state handling (continuous backups). In some cases, especially when in the context of end-users wanting to perform payments on their mobile phone, they would appreciate it if there was not so much complexity and overhead involved.

The gist of the idea is to combine unidirectional channels and ecash mints to achieve the following:

A self custodial unidirectional payment channel to an ecash mint, massively reducing the senders liveness and state handling requirements when compared to a lightning channel. Sending payments through the mint will be done through swapping some of the channel balance for ecash tokens. At this point, the user is trusting the mint to honor the redemption of these tokens, while the remaining channel balance remains in self custody. This gives them better controll over their funds than just holding their entire balance custodied in the mint. The ecash tokens can then be redeemed to pay a lightning invoice, just the same as it is done now with normal cashu mints.

So this channel, that has no liveness or state management requirements for the sender, and must have a pre-defined close time, seems to be a perfect fit for the following usecase:

1. A sender receives his salary once a month. He opens a channel that is valid for one month.
2. The sender then can do his daily spending over this channel. He only trusts the mint with the amount for the current outgoing payment while it is swapped for ecash, waiting for redemption.
3. If the sender must receive funds (a refund for example), he can do so into the mints custody, by receiving ecash. He can spend his ecash funds first when doing his next payment, to reduce his custodial exposure.
4. When the channel expires, or runs out of funds, the mint closes the channel.

From a consumer perspective, that just want to receive his salary and make frequent payments afterwards, this usecase seems to make a lot of sense. Obviously from a merchants perspective on the other hand, such a channel doesn't really work. But that's fine, it's not the problem we're trying to solve here.

What do you think of this idea? Be sure to let me know in the comments!

In the next article, we will dive into how such a system can be implemented today, using Bitcoin, Cashu and Lightning. We will also discover how the system can be improved, to make channels non-expiring (A collaborative idea between nostr:npub148jz5r9xujcjpqygk69yl4jqwjqmzgrqly26plktfjy8g4t7xaysj9xhgp and nostr:npub1htnhsay5dmq3r72tukdw72pduzfdcja0yylcajuvnc2uklkhxp8qnz3qac born at nostr:npub1yrnuj56rnen08zp2h9h7p74ghgjx6ma39spmpj6w9hzxywutevsst7k5cx ).

So stay tuned!

@ 6389be64:ef439d32

GA, plebs. The latest episode of Bitcoin And is out, and, as always, the chicanery is running rampant. Let’s break down the biggest topics I covered, and if you want the full, unfiltered rant, make sure to listen to the episode linked below.

House Democrats’ MEME Act: A Bad Joke?

House Democrats are proposing a bill to ban presidential meme coins, clearly aimed at Trump’s and Melania’s ill-advised token launches. While grifters launching meme coins is bad, this bill is just as ridiculous. If this legislation moves forward, expect a retaliatory strike exposing how politicians like Pelosi and Warren mysteriously amassed their fortunes. Will it pass? Doubtful. But it’s another sign of the government’s obsession with regulating everything except itself.

Senate Banking’s First Digital Asset Hearing: The Real Target Is You

Cynthia Lummis chaired the first digital asset hearing, and—surprise!—it was all about control. The discussion centered on stablecoins, AML, and KYC regulations, with witnesses suggesting Orwellian measures like freezing stablecoin transactions unless pre-approved by authorities. What was barely mentioned? Bitcoin. They want full oversight of stablecoins, which is really about controlling financial freedom. Expect more nonsense targeting self-custody wallets under the guise of stopping “bad actors.”

Bank of America and PayPal Want In on Stablecoins

Bank of America’s CEO openly stated they’ll launch a stablecoin as soon as regulation allows. Meanwhile, PayPal’s CEO paid for a hat using Bitcoin—not their own stablecoin, Pi USD. Why wouldn’t he use his own product? Maybe he knows stablecoins aren’t what they’re hyped up to be. Either way, the legacy financial system is gearing up to flood the market with stablecoins, not because they love crypto, but because it’s a tool to extend U.S. dollar dominance.

MetaPlanet Buys the Dip

Japan’s MetaPlanet issued $13.4M in bonds to buy more Bitcoin, proving once again that institutions see the writing on the wall. Unlike U.S. regulators who obsess over stablecoins, some companies are actually stacking sats.

UK Expands Crypto Seizure Powers

Across the pond, the UK government is pushing legislation to make it easier to seize and destroy crypto linked to criminal activity. While they frame it as going after the bad guys, it’s another move toward centralized control and financial surveillance.

Bitcoin Tools & Tech: Arc, SatoChip, and Nunchuk

Some bullish Bitcoin developments: ARC v0.5 is making Bitcoin’s second layer more efficient, SatoChip now supports Taproot and Nostr, and Nunchuk launched a group wallet with chat, making multisig collaboration easier.

The Bottom Line

The state is coming for financial privacy and control, and stablecoins are their weapon of choice. Bitcoiners need to stay focused, keep their coins in self-custody, and build out parallel systems. Expect more regulatory attacks, but don’t let them distract you—just keep stacking and transacting in ways they can’t control.

🎧 Listen to the full episode here: https://fountain.fm/episode/PYITCo18AJnsEkKLz2Ks

💰 Support the show by boosting sats on Podcasting 2.0! and I will see you on the other side.

@ 40b9c85f:5e61b451

Data Vending Machine Context Protocol

The Convergence of Nostr DVMs and MCP

In the rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence, a new approach to sharing and accessing computational tools is emerging through the combination of two powerful technologies: Nostr's Data Vending Machines (DVMs) and the Model Context Protocol (MCP). This convergence has the potential to reshape how we think about tool distribution and accessibility, creating a truly decentralized marketplace for computational capabilities that serves AI, humans, and any type of machine that speaks the protocol.

Understanding the Building Blocks

Nostr's Data Vending Machines function much like their physical counterparts, but instead of dispensing snacks, they provide computational services with built-in Lightning Network payment capabilities. These DVMs operate on the decentralized Nostr network, allowing users to reach service providers without relying on centralized platforms or gatekeepers.

The Model Context Protocol complements this infrastructure by providing a standardized way for applications to share context and expose their capabilities. Think of MCP as a universal language that allows tools to communicate effectively with any application that understands the protocol. This standardization is crucial for creating a seamless experience across different tools and services.

What is DVMCP?

DVMCP proposes a path for making DVMs and MCPs interoperable, introducing a protocol that makes local utilities available to everyone on the network. Our draft specification serves as a foundation for easily transforming any MCP server into a DVM. To bridge these technologies, we've developed a simple software component that sits between your MCP server and the DVM ecosystem. You can find it in our repository. This bridge connects to your MCP server as a client and exposes its utilities through Nostr as a DVM, handling all the necessary Nostr logic. This means any existing MCP server can become accessible through Nostr without modifications - simply run the bridge alongside your server.

This is particularly exciting because the vibrant and growing MCP community. Any team or individual already working with MCP can instantly plug into the Nostr DVM ecosystem, gaining access to decentralized discovery, built-in monetization, and an already existing user base. The bridge component makes this transition effortless, requiring no changes to any existing MCP implementations.

A New Paradigm

A decentralized marketplace where anyone can run tools locally and make them available globally. This addresses an unsolved problem larger than the Nostr ecosystem: how to make resources and tools discoverable and accessible in a decentralized, permissionless way.

The power of this combination lies in its flexibility. Users can access tools through regular Nostr clients, AI agents can discover specific capabilities, and DVMs can create sophisticated tool chains. With Lightning Network integration, true machine-to-machine transactions become possible, where machines can autonomously discover, negotiate, and pay for computational services. Most importantly, you can run services on your own hardware while making these capabilities accessible to anyone anywhere.

The result is a system that preserves privacy, promotes innovation, and creates new opportunities without central authorities controlling what tools can be offered or who can use them. The entire project, is available under the MIT license, and any feedback and collaboration is welcome.

Looking Forward

As these technologies mature, we're likely to see a fundamental shift in how computational capabilities are distributed and accessed. Instead of relying on massive cloud data centers controlled by a few companies, we're moving toward a global network of local machines, each contributing unique capabilities and computation to a larger, more resilient ecosystem.

The convergence of Nostr DVMs and MCP represents more than just a technical innovation—it's a step toward a more equitable and accessible future. By enabling anyone to run and share tools, we're building an ecosystem where computational resources are not concentrated in the hands of a few but are available to and controllable by everyone.

Repository

@ d4309e24:8a81fcb0

1. What if You Could Send a Message into the Future?

Imagine leaving a message for your future self, a loved one, or even an entire community—one that no one, not even you, can unlock until a specific moment in time. Picture leaving a message for your children, a note of wisdom or love that remains hidden until they're old enough to appreciate it, all timed by Bitcoin's block height. You might also make a bold prediction about the future price of Bitcoin, sealing it away until the blockchain reaches a certain block height.

This is the idea behind Hatchstr, a decentralized app for time-locked messages that only unlock at predetermined Bitcoin block heights—no central authority required.

Why Build This?

I want to dive into the Nostr protocol not just by reading documentation, but by actually building something that embodies its core principles: censorship resistance, user ownership, and decentralization. Hatchstr is both an experiment and a contribution to the Nostr ecosystem—a way to test the limits of permissionless communication while learning and engaging with the community.

2. The Vision: How Hatchstr Would Work for Users

At its core, Hatchstr lets users create time capsules—encrypted messages that only become readable after a specified Bitcoin block height. Here’s what that looks like:

• You design a capsule with text and images using Hatchstr’s web app.
• You pick an unlock time (e.g., 1000 blocks from now).
• The message is encrypted, locked away, and published as a Nostr event.
• At the chosen time, the decryption key is revealed, allowing the recipient to finally access the message.

Potential Use Cases

• Personal Messages: Send birthday wishes that unlock at midnight, time-delayed love letters, or notes to your future self.

• Timed Learning: Lock educational content to unlock when students reach key learning stages or ages.

• Creative Storytelling: Release serialized fiction, riddles, or treasure hunt clues that unlock over time.

• Community & Events: Time-gate announcements for Nostr-based communities or scheduled voting mechanisms.

3. The Centralized Trap: Why Build on Nostr

When thinking about how to implement this, we could go the obvious, easy route:

• Store messages on a centralized server.
• Release them when the time is right.
• Let users download their messages.

Simple, right? But is it the right approach? Let's break it down.

Why This Fails

• Single Point of Failure: If my server goes down, all messages are unavailable.

• Privacy Risks: Users would need to trust me not to access their messages.

• Ownership & Longevity: What happens if I lose interest? The system dies with me.

A centralized model defeats the purpose of time-locking messages. Users shouldn’t have to trust a third party. We need decentralization.

4. Nostr to the Rescue: How Decentralization Can Help

Instead of a single server holding messages hostage, Nostr allows users to publish messages to decentralized relays. Here are the key differences:

• Nostr IDs = Self-Owned Identities: Your public key is your identity, not tied to any company.

• Relays = Decentralized Bulletin Boards: Anyone can run one, ensuring redundancy and censorship resistance.

• Messages = Signed Events: Cryptographically signed by the sender or encrypted for only the recipient.

How Nostr Reduces Centralization

In this version of Hatchstr, capsules are still stored in a centralized manner at first until they 'hatch'. However, once the Bitcoin block height condition is met:

• Capsule Publication: The system publishes the capsule events to Nostr relays, making the messages available for decryption by the intended recipients.

This approach, while not eliminating the central server, allows for:

• Third-Party Clients: Developers can now create clients that interact with Hatchstr capsules on Nostr, enhancing the system's openness and potentially leading to a richer ecosystem around time-locked messages.

• Decentralized Access: Even though the initial storage is centralized, the access to the messages becomes decentralized once published to Nostr, reducing the dependency on a single point for message retrieval.

We have some improvements, but I am sure we can do better!

5. The Path to Decentralized Timekeeping

The Timeless Nature of Encryption

Encrypted messages exist outside time—once locked, they remain secure indefinitely. Modern cryptography (like AES-256) doesn’t "expire" or weaken unless decrypted (excluding brute force attacks). This creates a paradox: How do you bind something timeless to a specific moment in the physical world?

The Time-Lock Puzzle Dilemma

Cryptographers have proposed time-lock puzzles—encryption that requires sustained computation to unlock, theoretically forcing a minimum wait time. But these face critical hurdles:

• Hardware Uncertainty

  Solving time depends on an attacker’s computational power. A nation-state could crack in hours what takes years for a regular user.

• No Real-World Alignment

  Puzzles can’t guarantee unlocks align with calendar dates or real-world events ("unlock on my child’s 18th birthday").

• Energy Waste

  Requires continuous computation, making it environmentally impractical for longer time locking.

Bitcoin as a Decentralized Clock

This is where Bitcoin’s blockchain shines. Its difficulty-adjusted proof-of-work acts as a trustless metronome:

• Predictable Rhythm

  Despite hash rate fluctuations, the 10-minute block target (via difficulty adjustments) creates a consistent approximation of real-world time.

• Immutable History

  Block height 1,000,000 will always correspond to the same point in Bitcoin’s timeline, regardless of future changes in mining power

Splitting the Problem

Hatchstr can bridge timeless encryption and blockchain timing by separating concerns:

1. Capsules – The time-locked message itself:

• Design independent of the time-locking mechanism.

• Encrypted client-side.

• Content stored anywhere the user wants (IPFS, personal servers, etc.).

• Completely owned by the user—not Hatchstr.

2. Clock Servers – Independent, lightweight timing nodes that:

• Only publish decryption keys when the target Bitcoin block height is reached.

• Users can choose which Clock Server to trust.

• Anyone can run their own Clock Server.

• Multiple servers can coordinate to prevent a single point of failure.

This means Hatchstr itself doesn’t store anything—users are fully in control.

6. What Comes Next

This project is just beginning—a blueprint with open questions and untested assumptions. In the next two articles, I’ll explore how to turn this concept into something tangible. First, how we might design playful time capsules that can be displayed faithfully by multiple clients, balancing creativity with decentralization. Then, the messy realities of clock servers: why federating them matters, how to incentivize reliability, and borrow Bitcoin’s rhythm without centralizing control. We will dive into setting up a simple clock server to get things started.

I’m still learning Nostr’s ecosystem, and this project is as much about sharing my education as anything else. If any part of this concept makes you think “yes, but…” or “what if…”, I’d genuinely love to hear it. Find me on Nostr – no expertise required, just an interest in sending messages to the future. :

npub16scfufrpsqcukjg7ymu4r40h7j4dwqy4pajgz48e6lmnmz5pljcqh678uh

Thank you for reading 🧡

@ 2ed3596e:98b4cc78

Pay anyone in Canada with bitcoin! One step closer to replacing your bank with Bitcoin Well

Everyone who accepts e-Transfers, now accepts bitcoin! Canadians with a Bitcoin Well account can send money to anyone via e-Transfer using their bitcoin in self custody. Typical transactions, like rent payments, paying friends back for dinner, paying your cleaning lady or even to pay for that new (to you) boom box on Facebook marketplace, can now be paid quickly, securely and cheaper with your Bitcoin Well account. And best of all, it’s all done with bitcoin in self custody. Keep reading to learn more!

How to send an e-Transfer to anyone in Canada using bitcoin:

From the sell page in your Bitcoin Well account you can select the network (Bitcoin or Lightning Network) and how many dollars you’d like to send via e-Transfer. For more information on the Lightning Network click here.

Next you will see a new dropdown where you can choose the recipient for the e-Transfer. It will be the email on your Bitcoin Well account by default.

To add a new recipient, select the drop down and “Add recipient”. Here you will be asked to provide the recipient’s name, email and the security question/answer you’d like to provide for the e-Transfer.

You’ll be responsible for telling them the security question and answer, so don’t forget!

You can also invite your recipient to join Bitcoin Well with your ref link! You’ll earn Bitcoin Well points and sats when they use Bitcoin Well!

If you chose the Bitcoin network:

With all your information entered, you will be able to send bitcoin to the bitcoin address on screen and an e-Transfer will be sent to your recipient after 1 confirmation.

Note! This bitcoin address is permanently associated with your recipient. Any and all bitcoin received by this bitcoin address will be automatically converted into dollars and sent to your recipient; even if you do not login to your Bitcoin Well account!

If you chose the Lightning Network:

Select “Generate Invoice” to generate an LN-invoice which will be associated with your transaction. Once that invoice is paid an e-Transfer will be immediately sent to your desired recipient.

Of course, you can still send sats to your Bitcoin Well Payment Address any time to receive an e-Transfer yourself.

Banks out; Bitcoin Standard in

Bitcoin Well arms its customers with the knowledge and tools to fully live on a Bitcoin Standard and maximize their independence by keeping bitcoin in self custody instead of dollars in their bank.

Bitcoin Well now enables the same instant and fast transfer capabilities as a bank, but facilitated with bitcoin in self custody!

Replace your bank with Bitcoin Well!

Earn sats from your bitcoin transactions

Bitcoin Well is also the best place in the world to earn bitcoin. When you earn points in your Bitcoin Well account, you gain the opportunity to play the Bitcoin (Wishing) Well, where you win sats with every play.

The best part? We send bitcoin that you win straight to your personal wallet via the Lightning Network.

Oh yeah, did we mention you can win 1,000,000 sats? If you're an active Bitcoin Well customer, there is a chance you've earned a pile of points. The more you use your account for buying, selling or spending bitcoin - the more points you’ll earn! Log in to your Bitcoin Well account and check your point balance.

About Bitcoin Well

Bitcoin Well exists to enable independence. We do this by coupling the convenience of modern banking, with the benefits of bitcoin. In other words, we want to make it easy to use bitcoin in self-custody.

@ f1989a96:bcaaf2c1

Good morning, readers!

In Nigeria, financial officials are revising digital asset regulations to impose taxes on digital asset transactions on regulated exchanges. This aims to bolster state revenue as more citizens turn to Bitcoin in response to rampant inflation, the naira’s devaluation, and the regime's ever-increasing financial controls.

Meanwhile, in Cuba, thousands of citizens remain unable to access money the regime forced them to convert into Certificates of Deposit (CDs) in 2021. These funds have not been returned by the Communist Party of Cuba. If they eventually are, they will be paid out in since-hyperinflated Cuban pesos, a reality that stands in stark contrast to regime propaganda that it is working “for the people.”

In open-source freedom tech news, we feature NostrPIX, an experimental tool built during the bitcoin++ developer hackathon in Florianopolis, Brazil. It allows anyone in Brazil to pay any merchant or individual with Bitcoin over the Lightning Network. While it is still in its early stages of development, this stands to enable Bitcoin payments at nearly every merchant in Brazil, similar to how apps like Tando enable Bitcoin payments across Kenya.\ \ We end with the official livestreams of the HRF-supported bitcoin++ developer conference in Florianopolis, Brazil, that brought together open-source developers and freedom tech enthusiasts for four days of technical gatherings to enhance Bitcoin’s privacy, usability, and censorship resistance. These livestreams offer a unique chance to view and understand the presentations and workshops at the event.

Now, let’s jump right in!

Subscribe Here

GLOBAL NEWS

Nigeria | Introducing Digital Asset Transaction Tax to Boost State Revenue

Nigerian officials plan to amend their digital asset regulations to tax digital asset transactions in a coercive effort to boost the regime’s dwindling revenues. The Nigerian Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is reviewing a new framework to tax transactions on regulated exchanges, allowing the regime to extract even more value from the growing digital asset sector. Nigerians, especially the younger population, increasingly have turned to Bitcoin and stablecoins to escape high inflation, a devalued naira, and an authoritarian regime that repeatedly undermines financial autonomy and human rights. The new tax could hinder the efficiency of tools like Bitcoin by making transactions more expensive. But enforcing this tax beyond regulated platforms presents a challenge. Bitcoin held in self-custody and transacted peer-to-peer remains largely outside the reach of authoritarian states.

Cuba | Citizens Remain Locked Out of Devalued Funds

Thousands of Cubans remain locked out of their savings after the regime forced them to convert Cuban Convertible Peso (CUC) deposits into Certificates of Deposit (CDs) in 2021. This policy was part of the “Tarea Ordenamiento” economic reforms, which eliminated the CUC, a convertible currency previously pegged to the US dollar. For years, Cubans who received foreign currency — whether through work abroad or remittances — were required to exchange it for CUCs, expecting they could later redeem those CUCs for dollars or other foreign currencies. But when the regime eliminated the CUC in 2021, it forced depositors to either accept a heavily devalued exchange rate for Cuban pesos (far worse than the advertised 24-1 ratio) or convert their money into Certificates of Deposit (CDs), with the promise of returning the equivalent value in foreign currency once liquidity allowed. Unbeknownst to Cubans, the CDs paid a negligible 0.15% interest and had no clear timeline for repayment. Today, many depositors still can’t access their money.

Google | Facilitating Censorship in Russia and China

Google is actively assisting authoritarian regimes like China and Russia to censor dissent, removing online content critical of the Kremlin and Chinese Communist Party. In Russia, Google complied with government requests to erase YouTube videos opposing the war in Ukraine, while in China, it removed references to the Tiananmen Square massacre and pro-democracy activism. With more than 70% of Russians relying on YouTube for news and China’s Great Firewall blocking independent sources, corporate compliance with state censorship enables state propaganda to proliferate as a dominant narrative. For activists and nonprofits seeking uncensorable communications, nostr — an open and decentralized protocol — offers a way to share information beyond the reach of authoritarian regimes. Activists and NGOs can get started here.

World | Transnational Repression Most Common Under CBDC-Leading Countries

New data from Freedom House reveals that 23 governments engaged in transnational repression in 2024, using abductions, assassinations, and forced deportations to silence exiled dissidents. Leading perpetrators include the authoritarian regimes of China, Russia, Iran, and Turkey — orchestrating over 1,200 incidents in the past decade. Notably, many of these regimes are at the forefront of central bank digital currency (CBDC) development, a technology that drastically increases state control over financial activity. By allowing governments to surveil, freeze, and block funds in real time, CBDCs strip activists of financial privacy and force them into greater vulnerability. As authoritarian states refine both digital and physical methods of repression, CBDCs may become a powerful weapon for crushing dissent beyond borders.

Niger | Delays Democratic Elections While Citizens Financially Struggle

Niger’s deteriorating economic conditions are set to continue as the ruling military junta has proposed delaying democratic elections until at least 2030 to contain a “security threat.” Army commander Abdourahamane Tchiani, who came to power in a 2023 coup, originally pledged a three-year transition to civilian rule. Now, that timeline appears extended to five years, allowing “the junta to restore security and regain control of territory captured by Islamist militants that have expanded their insurgency in recent months.” With inflation eroding Nigerien’s purchasing power and the general economic well-being of citizens declining, Niger can’t afford more military rule. This could be a pretext for Tchiani to consolidate power, especially as discussions emerge about dissolving political parties and granting him the rank of general.

_______________

Webinar Series for Nonprofits: Become Unstoppable

HRF will host a free, three-day webinar from March 17-19, teaching human rights defenders and nonprofits how to use Bitcoin to counter state censorship and confiscation. Sessions run daily from 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. EDT and are beginner-friendly. The webinar will be led by Anna Chekhovich, HRF’s Bitcoin nonprofit adoption lead and financial manager at Alexei Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation, and co-taught by the prominent Bitcoin educator Ben Perrin.

Register for webinar

SXSW | The Human Rights Risks of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs)

Join HRF at SXSW 2025 in Austin from March 7-13 to explore how CBDCs threaten financial freedom. Experts Roger Huang, Charlene Fadirepo, and Nick Anthony will discuss how authoritarian regimes use CBDCs for surveillance and control. Attendees can also visit HRF’s CBDC Tracker booth to explore an interactive map of CBDC developments worldwide. 

Get your tickets

_______________

BITCOIN AND FREEDOM TECH NEWS

NostrPIX | Enabling Bitcoin Payments in Brazil

NostrPIX is a new tool built just a few days ago during the bitcoin++ hackathon in Florianopolis, Brazil, that lets users pay any merchant or individual in Brazil with Bitcoin over the Lightning Network. To use NostrPIX, users scan a Pix QR code (the country’s widely used digital payment system) and pay with bitcoin from their Lightning wallet. Designed with the unbanked in mind, NostrPIX lets those who cannot open a Brazilian bank account to transact with Bitcoin and Pix (no sign-ups required, just instant payments). Its innovative approach won the bitcoin++ hackathon, showcasing its potential to bridge Bitcoin with traditional systems. While still a proof of concept, NostrPIX joins projects like Tando in Kenya, making Bitcoin more practical for everyday commerce and could inspire similar products elsewhere in countries facing political oppression.

Iris | Implements Double Ratchet Messaging for Better Privacy

Iris, a client for Nostr launched by Martti Malmi, implemented double ratchet messaging, an encryption algorithm similar to that used by Signal, significantly improving private communications for activists and human rights defenders. This ensures message metadata remains hidden, and with its implementation, past and future conversations on Iris stay private even if a user’s main Nostr private key is compromised. This upgrade empowers individuals in difficult political environments to communicate without fear of surveillance by reducing the risks of authoritarian regimes tracking their conversations. HRF is proud to have helped support Malmi as he invented and launched this innovation.

Presidio Bitcoin | New Bitcoin Co-Working and Events Space in Bay Area

Presidio Bitcoin is the Bay Area’s first dedicated co-working and events space. Located in San Francisco’s famous Presidio neighborhood, it will be a collaborative space for developers, educators, and freedom tech enthusiasts to connect, work, and innovate together to drive Bitcoin adoption forward. It draws inspiration from other Bitcoin hubs worldwide, like Bitcoin Park in Nashville, Tenn., Bitcoin House Bali in Indonesia, and Bitcoin Ekasi in South Africa. This time, aiming to create a community of Bitcoiners in the tech capital of the US. Presidio Bitcoin hopes to foster new talent and secure greater funding from Silicon Valley, becoming a central meeting point for those passionate about Bitcoin and freedom. HRF Freedom Fellows were able to visit the space recently, and HRF staff will be speaking at upcoming events at the venue in the near future. Check the space out here.

Cashu | Releases Cashu Development Kit

Cashu, an open-source Chaumian ecash protocol for Bitcoin integrated with the Lightning Network, released the Cashu Development Kit (CDK) in Rust (a common programming language). This makes it easier for developers to build and integrate Cashu wallets, expanding access to private Bitcoin transactions. With Cashu, users can spend Bitcoin-backed ecash without revealing their identity or transaction history. This enables private, cheap, and fast transactions with the tradeoff of being custodial. As digital financial surveillance increases, ecash offers an alternative to remain private. The CDK release expands the reach of said private Bitcoin transactions, providing more safety and anonymity for dissidents.

RoboSats | Adds LNp2pBot Orders on Android App

RoboSats, a privacy-focused peer-to-peer (P2P) Bitcoin exchange powered by the Lightning Network, added support for LNp2pBot orders in its Android app. Previously, users used Telegram to interact with LNp2pBot for P2P bitcoin trades. Now, they can access P2P orders directly from the RoboSats Android app. This integration enhances usability by reducing platform dependency and provides users with greater liquidity for P2P trades. HRF is pleased to see the continued development and interoperability of privacy-focused, self-custodial Bitcoin on and off ramps from this Bitcoin Development Fund grantee.

Bitcoin Dada | Visits Bitcoin Mining Site for Hands-On Learning

Bitcoin Dada, an HRF-supported nonprofit empowering African women with financial literacy and Bitcoin education, recently took its students on a trip to a Bitcoin mining site operated by Gridless in Kibwezi, Kenya. This visit provided students firsthand exposure to Bitcoin mining’s potential for driving economic growth and expanding electricity access in rural African communities while simultaneously helping decentralize the network. The site repurposes sisal waste (the waste from fiber production) to generate electricity, reduce blackouts, and provide power to homes in Kibwezi. As more and more off-grid sites like this come online, Bitcoin’s mining composition becomes less centralized and stronger against threats from authoritarian states.

RECOMMENDED CONTENT

bitcoin++ Developer Conference Livestream

Last week, bitcoin++ hosted the  “hacking edition” developer conference in Florianopolis, Brazil. The event brought together Bitcoin developers and freedom tech enthusiasts for four days of hands-on development, workshops, and technical discussions to enhance Bitcoin’s privacy, accessibility, and censorship resistance. If you missed the event, you can catch the key sessions and workshops via live stream. Watch them here.

Nostr: The Importance of Censorship-Resistant Communication for Innovation and Human Progress

In this article for Bitcoin Magazine, Leon Wankum highlights why Nostr, a censorship-resistant protocol, is key to unlocking innovation and free expression. He explains how Nostr enables decentralized content sharing using cryptographic keys and relays, preventing central control of the protocol. This approach ensures that no single entity controls the flow of information, thereby enhancing freedom of expression. Alongside Bitcoin, Nostr has the potential to break corporate and state monopolies, allowing for grassroots progress and innovation on the individual level. You can read the full article here.

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

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

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

Subscribe to newsletter

Apply for a grant

Support our work

Visit our website

@ dbb19ae0:c3f22d5a

Using nostr_sdk 0.39 replace nsec_key with your secret key replace npub_to_follow by the npub to follow

``` python from nostr_sdk import Metadata, Client, Keys, Filter, Kind, KindStandard, Contact, PublicKey, EventBuilder from datetime import timedelta import asyncio

async def main(): keys = Keys.parse("nsec_key") client = Client() await client.add_relay("wss://relay.damus.io") await client.connect()

# Get current contact list
f = Filter().author(keys.public_key()).kind(Kind.from_std(KindStandard.CONTACT_LIST))
events = await client.fetch_events(f, timedelta(seconds=10))
event = events.first()

if event:
    # Get current contact public keys and add a new contact
    public_keys = event.tags().public_keys()
    new_public_key = PublicKey.parse("npub_to_follow")
    public_keys.append(new_public_key)

    # Create a new contact list event and send it to relays
    contacts = [Contact(public_key=pk, relay_url=None, alias=None) for pk in public_keys]
    event = EventBuilder.contact_list(contacts).sign_with_keys(keys)
    await client.send_event(event)
    print(f"Added follow to: {new_public_key}")
else:
    print("No contact list found")

if name == 'main': asyncio.run(main()) ```

https://github.com/ev3rst/nostr_sdk_examples/blob/main/ns-follow-npub.py

@ 78c90fc4:4bff983c

Gerichtliche Beschwerde wg. Arbeitsverweigerung

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren

\ Da meine Fragen zum Schutz der Bevölkerung an das kantonale Gesundheitsamt und die weiteren Verantwortungsträger bis heute nicht beantwortet wurden, habe ich mich mit einer Beschwerde an das Kantonsgericht Baselland gewandt.

Ignorieren und Wegschauen bei möglichen Offizialdelikten (schwere Körperverletzung) ist kein verantwortungsvolles Handeln. Bitte stellen Sie sich den Fragen und der Realität.

\ Freundliche Grüsse

Oliver Christen

https://x.com/RealWsiegrist/status/1895162279953367067

Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit sind schwerwiegende Verstöße gegen das Völkerrecht, die durch systematische oder ausgedehnte Angriffe gegen die Zivilbevölkerung gekennzeichnet sind. Sie zählen zu den Kernverbrechen des Völkerstrafrechts und sind unabhängig von Kriegszuständen strafbar.

https://x.com/RealWsiegrist/status/1895162279953367067

Covid Dossier; ‭Eine Aufzeichnung der militärischen und geheimdienstlichen Koordination des globalen Covid-Ereignisses‬

https://www.aletheialib.org/doc/809

@ 8412613c:df65608a

The book "Till We Have Faces" by C.S. Lewis had a profound spiritual impact on me, unlike most books that typically stay on an intellectual or entertainment level. I kept thinking, "Why didn't I read this sooner?" (It had been on my list for years). However, I believe I wouldn't have understood it as deeply as I did now, and I attribute that to my decision to fully embrace my Christian faith and accept Jesus as the Son of God who incarnated and resurrected—with no more questions or doubts, just faith. This choice has been truly liberating for me.

Although Till We Have Faces is not explicitly a Christian book, it beautifully reflects the themes of voluntary sacrifice, selfless love, suffering, and the mystery of the divine by retelling the myth of Psyche and Eros from the perspective of Psyche’s sister, Orual. Her journey through profound grief and blame toward the gods ultimately leads her to inner transformation and peace at the end of her life. C.S. Lewis’ personal faith undeniably influenced his writing, often exploring spiritual and philosophical themes through the lens of myth and allegory, as we see in this book.

I want to briefly mention a few topics that gave me pause:

The case against the gods

‘But, your eyes being open, you saw no such thing.’

‘You don’t think—not possibly—not as a mere hundredth chance—there might be things that are real though we can’t see them?’

‘Certainly I do. Such things as Justice, Equality, the Soul, or musical notes.’

‘Oh, grandfather, I don’t mean things like that. If there are souls, could there not be soul-houses? (p. 161).

It was clever of the author to make Psyche's palace invisible to mortal eyes, as this allows readers to relate to Orual's struggle with the nature of reality. Orual faces the abyss that humans encounter when witnessing the limits of reason.

If what I saw was real. I was in great fear. Perhaps it was not real. I looked and looked to see if it would not fade or change. Then as I rose (for all this time I was still kneeling where I had drunk), almost before I stood on my feet, the whole thing was vanished. (p. 150).

Even though Orual has a glimpse of the divine, she makes an important decision that will mark her for the rest of her life: she chooses to neglect recognizing her vision as the sign she had been asking for, and instead looks for other possible explanations. She thinks the gods are cruel and untrustworthy, and also blames them for their lack of clarity in their messaging. She expresses that if they wanted her to understand something, they are at fault for not being clear.

The gods never send us this invitation to delight so readily or so strongly as when they are preparing some new agony. We are their bubbles; they blow us big before they prick us. (p. 111).

Orual reached her breaking point when the gods twisted what she believed to be real: her experiences and her life story. She interpreted this event as a mockery by the gods, and so decided to write a book from her perspective—a case against them—without realizing that, in doing so, she was writing a case against herself:

Now, you who read, judge between the gods and me. They gave me nothing in the world to love but Psyche and then took her from me. But that was not enough. They then brought me to her at such a place and time that it hung on my word whether she should continue in bliss or be cast out into misery. They would not tell me whether she was the bride of a god, or mad, or a brute’s or villain’s spoil. They would give no clear sign, though I begged for it. I had to guess. And because I guessed wrong they punished me—what’s worse, punished me through her. And even that was not enough; they have now sent out a lying story in which I was given no riddle to guess, but knew and saw that she was the god’s bride, and of my own will destroyed her, and that for jealousy. As if I were another Redival. I say the gods deal very unrightly with us. For they will neither (which would be best of all) go away and leave us to live our own short days to ourselves, nor will they show themselves openly and tell us what they would have us do. For that too would be endurable. But to hint and hover, to draw near us in dreams and oracles, or in a waking vision that vanishes as soon as seen, to be dead silent when we question them and then glide back and whisper (words we cannot understand) in our ears when we most wish to be free of them, and to show to one what they hide from another; what is all this but cat-and-mouse play, blindman’s buff, and mere jugglery? Why must holy places be dark places? (pp. 283-284).

I have always believed in God as Jesus, yet I understand Orual's accusations. I have questioned "unfair" situations, victimized myself, and blamed God. I have also saddened the beautiful souls of believers when, in my state of rebellion, I harshly questioned their faith, even as they were showing me Christ's love. I saw myself in many of Orual's attitudes

With time, I have come to understand that humans can move between reason and faith, each requiring different skills. Dismissing either is dangerous. Reason protects us from deception but it can also blind us from truths. Faith is part of what gives us purpose in life, it comes with uncertainty but also with a blessing:

Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed. -John 20:39.

Dying before dying

This part of the book was truly inspiring to me because I have been obsessed with these words for a long time [^1]:

If you die before you die, you won't die when you die. -Inscription at St. Paul's Monastery on Mt. Athos.

So I recognized them in the text:

Die before you die. There is no chance after. (p. 318).

Orual explains what the gods meant by “dying before dying”:

Then I remembered that conversation which his friends had with Socrates before he drank the hemlock, and how he said that true wisdom is the skill and practise of death... But by the death which is wisdom I supposed he meant the death of our passions and desires and vain opinions. And immediately (it is terrible to be a fool) I thought I saw my way clear and not impossible. To say that I was Ungit meant that I was as ugly in soul as she; greedy, blood-gorged. But if I practised true philosophy, as Socrates meant it, I should change my ugly soul into a fair one. And this, the gods helping me, I would do. I would set about it at once. (pp. 321-322).

These words brought me to the central Christian teaching of "dying to self" or "crucifying the old self”, which is only achieved through divine intervention. The idea of dying before dying is described by Paul as follows:

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. -Galatians 2:20

Dreams

Orual was stubborn and tried to fix her sorrow by another form of dying: completely changing her identity and true nature by neglecting herself and becoming someone else. This might seem similar to “dying before dying”, but the latter just comes through an act of humility and surrender by recognizing that only divine mercy can prevent us from going astray and truly heal. Orual, however, relied on her own strength and pride to endure her suffering. She hid behind a veil and metaphorically killed herself.

I had worn a veil because I wished to be secret. I now determined that I would go always veiled. I have kept this rule, within doors and without, ever since. It is a sort of treaty made with my ugliness. There had been a time in childhood when I didn’t yet know I was ugly. Then there was a time (for in this book I must hide none of my shames or follies) when I believed, as girls do—and as Batta was always telling me—that I could make it more tolerable by this or that done to my clothes or my hair. Now, I chose to be veiled. The Fox, that night, was the last man who ever saw my face; and not many women have seen it either. (p. 205).

I am the Queen; I’ll kill Orual too. (p. 256).

By writing her book, Orual finally reaches a state where she is ready for divine intervention. Ultimately, she removes her veil. The following is one of the most important paragraphs:

Not many days have passed since I wrote those words no answer, but I must unroll my book again. It would be better to rewrite it from the beginning, but I think there’s no time for that. Weakness comes on me fast... Since I cannot mend the book, I must add to it. To leave it as it was would be to die perjured; I know so much more than I did about the woman who wrote it. What began the change was the very writing itself. Let no one lightly set about such a work. Memory, once waked, will play the tyrant. I found I must set down (for I was speaking as before judges and must not lie) passions and thoughts of my own which I had clean forgotten. The past which I wrote down was not the past that I thought I had (all these years) been remembering. I did not, even when I had finished the book, see clearly many things that I see now. The change which the writing wrought in me (and of which I did not write) was only a beginning—only to prepare me for the gods’ surgery. They used my own pen to probe my wound. (p. 287).

Through random encounters, dreams, and visions, the gods showed Orual what she had been missing her whole life. One specific dream (or vision) caught my attention and made me think that C.S. Lewis had a profound insight while writing this masterpiece: Orual had a vision in which she presented her case against the gods in a courtroom before a judge. The assembly was made up of gods and ghosts, some of whom she knew. When the judge asked her to read her complaint, she had a scroll that was not the book she had written while recounting the story of her life. But she read it anyway until the judge said "enough," and she understood that she had read it over and over. The judge asked if she had her answer, and she replied "yes."

The complaint was the answer. To have heard myself making it was to be answered. (p. 335).

This was incredible, and I could relate. I have had similar dreams in which I have a book in my hands—a book I know I wrote. Suddenly, I become lucid and tell myself, "Here is the answer; when I read it, I will know." This has been a recurring dream, and it's interesting because there are insights we only have access to on a deeper inner level. I have also dreamed of conversing with Jesus, repeating certain words, some of which I do not even remember. I interpret these kinds of dreams as follows:

In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. -Romans 8:26

I think that C.S. Lewis, speaking through Orual and the Fox, understands this and writes:

Lightly men talk of saying what they mean. Often when he was teaching me to write in Greek the Fox would say, ‘Child, to say the very thing you really mean, the whole of it, nothing more or less or other than what you really mean; that’s the whole art and joy of words.’ A glib saying. When the time comes to you at which you will be forced at last to utter the speech which has lain at the centre of your soul for years, which you have, all that time, idiot-like, been saying over and over, you’ll not talk about joy of words. I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer. Till that word can be dug out of us, why should they hear the babble that we think we mean? How can they meet us face to face till we have faces? (p. 335).

I am very impressed with how the author explored Orual's life through her own eyes, enabling the reader to understand her transformation once she finally confronted her shortcomings and humbly accepted divine wisdom. With this new knowledge, she could finally see her path from a different perspective. Furthermore, the reader was able to appreciate the role of the gods: they weren’t meant to alleviate Orual’s suffering, but rather to lead her to see that it had a purpose—to transcend. This story made me reflect on my own journey and acknowledge Jesus's presence and mercy in my life and His selfless love as the key to transformation.

---

This book resonated so deeply with me. I absolutely recommend it. To C.S. Lewis, thank you—your words truly touched my heart.

---

References:

Lewis, C. S.. Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold. Kindle Edition.

[^1]: See: https://habla.news/u/nancyqa@mynostr.space/1691458659942

@ e373ca41:b82abcc5

This article by Milosz Matuschek first appeared in German in "Freischwebende Intelligenz".

In my first multi-part Corona series, The Corona Complex, I focused on the early inconsistencies of the "pandemic." In The Corona Connection, I will explore the key players involved in this event over multiple installments.

It’s not yet spring, but the bud of truth is already breaking through the icy layer of lies. You can cover the truth with as much PR, manipulation, and propaganda as you want—it will only turn into compost. Because truth is rooted in something; it’s a living organism, while lies are rotting waste. The coming weeks and months will be enlightening.

The USAID Front Organization

The grand cleanup led by Musk & Trump is in full swing. In the U.S., the agency USAID is currently being dismantled amid protests from employees. As of Friday, February 7, nearly all staff members have lost their jobs. What does this mean?

Der Spiegel referred to USAID as a "development agency" and reported that a nervous Bill Gates now wants to call Trump "to save lives." The NZZ euphemistically describes USAID as an "independent development aid agency." Seeing "AID" in the name, people think of humanitarian efforts—Bob Geldof, compassionate nuns, and "Bread for the World."

In reality, USAID ("United States Agency for International Development" – claim: "From the American People") is far from just a food distribution service (although it does that too). Primarily, it serves as a covert, rapid-response intelligence force for operations such as regime change, astroturfing, and targeted executions—expanding new business models for the U.S. empire. They are the enforcers who move in before "peace, democracy, and reconstruction" are declared.

USAID was heavily involved in Ukraine, providing $5 billion in funding, as Robert Kennedy Jr. recently stated in an interview. The agency throws money around freely, financing both the GAVI vaccine alliance and the World Economic Forum—because, of course, these are the world's most "needy" causes.

https://x.com/ShadowofEzra/status/1886153128757629157

The PREDICT Program

It gets even stranger. Under the so-called PREDICT program, significant funding was allocated to research coronaviruses in bats. This research was conducted in collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and included gain-of-function experiments. In 2017, the NIH lifted a previously imposed moratorium on funding such research, paving the way for its resumption and expansion, including international partnerships like the one with WIV.

USAID spent about $200 million in taxpayer money on bat virus research, with approximately $50 million going directly to WIV. Despite being a publicly funded science program, PREDICT's administrators have largely refused to release sensitive details about its research. Peter Daszak, who received substantial funding (now cut off), even ignored some subpoenas. Officials shared information with taxpayers only reluctantly and in minimal amounts.

https://x.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1886098345938284813

A 2023 investigation by the White Coat Waste Project, following a public records request, revealed that U.S. taxpayer dollars—through the NIH and USAID—flowed to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These funds supported gain-of-function experiments in which viruses were genetically modified to increase their transmissibility or virulence. The program ended in 2019.

The Mystery of Ben Hu

One of the most explosive revelations was the identification of Ben Hu, a lead researcher at WIV, as a potential "Patient Zero." Reports indicate that he developed COVID-like symptoms as early as November 2019—before the first officially recognized cases. Hu was deeply involved in the gain-of-function experiments funded by U.S. taxpayer money.

Looking further back, the picture becomes clearer. As early as 2012, USAID funds were used to capture bats in caves, including those in Mojiang, where several miners died from a deadly respiratory illness. The infection was reportedly caused by bat droppings.

https://x.com/TheSeeker268/status/1886469590701760960

Too many coincidences are piling up: The virus strain from back then, RaTG13, has striking similarities to SARS-CoV-2. Fauci’s pardon dates back to as early as 2014. A significant portion of funding from both Fauci and USAID went to Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance. Daszak in 2016 gave surprisingly candid responses regarding gain-of-function research.

https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1883378918687719725

The director of the CDC, Robert Redfield, had already pointed out in previous hearings that U.S. public funds were used for research in Wuhan.

So, to summarize here quickly, adding a question:

• A CIA front organization was catching sick bats in a previous outbreak zone of deadly respiratory diseases in China (e.g., Mojiang caves) in 2012.
• It funded tens of millions of dollars' worth of research to enhance the pathogenicity of coronaviruses in Wuhan.
• It transferred money to Chinese military-medical institutions.
• Wuhan researcher Ben Hu fell mysteriously ill and became Patient Zero.

So here’s the question: Isn't a natural origin of the virus the most obvious explanation in the world?

---

ADVERTISEMENT:

Looking for the easiest way to buy Bitcoin and store it yourself? The Relai app is the No. 1 crypto start-up and No. 2 of all fintech start-ups in Switzerland. Here you can buy Bitcoin in just a few steps and also set up savings plans. Nobody has access to your Bitcoin except you. With the referral code MILOSZ you save on fees (no financial advice). Disclaimer due to regulatory issues: The services of the Relai App are hereby only recommended to inhabitants of Switzerland or Italy.

Need more security? The Trezor wallets are recommended and easy to use, others are available in the store. Need more advice? Book an introductory meeting with a wallet expert.

---

Who still believes in a natural origin of COVID-19?

The official narrative worldwide is that the virus originated naturally—perhaps from someone consuming or handling a bat at a wet market near WIV. Yet, neither the sick animal nor the first human case of "natural transmission" has ever been identified.

At the same time, intelligence-backed "nudging" units worked preemptively to discredit vaccine skeptics and bolster "Trusted News Initiatives" and fact-checking programs. Even the CIA director has now suggested that COVID may have originated in a lab. And he likely knows exactly why.

One thing is certain: The theory of natural zoonotic transmission in COVID-19 has been obliterated. It was the PR stunt of the century. A joint effort by the CIA and China—who else could pull off such a grand deception?

These revelations are making the players behind the "Corona Connection" increasingly visible: a network of CIA-China partnerships, NGOs, the media apparatus, corrupt politicians, and willing, unscrupulous, or even outright sociopathic scientists.

As these connections come to light over the next months and years, the consequences for those involved—and for society at large—will be immense. We are approaching a moment of societal reckoning. A house of cards can only stand for so long before it collapses.

In Germany, Christian Drosten was one of the most aggressive proponents of the "conspiracy theory" label, frequently using it to discredit critics. As one of the main gatekeepers of the COVID narrative, he played a key role in shaping the scientific community’s response. His most steadfast domestic opponent was Hamburg physicist Roland Wiesendanger.

Drosten was one of the most outspoken propagandists of the zoonosis theory—while simultaneously working as its chief cover-up artist and deflector. He often portrayed himself as the misunderstood victim.

This is what happens when the desire for recognition and power overshadows any sense of medical ethics. Now, serious questions arise about his role: What did he know about the research in Wuhan? Was he aware of USAID’s funding? Given that Charité (his institution) received grants from Bill Gates and that his PCR test was immediately declared the global gold standard, it seems unlikely that he knew nothing.

This demands an investigative committee and legal proceedings.

In the coming weeks and months, many more connections will be uncovered, fully exposing the "Corona Connection."

The era of silence is over.

And so is the era of immunity.

---

This article was written with the Pareto-client on Nostr. Check it out!

Join the marketplace of ideas! We are building a publishing ecosystem on Nostr for citizen-journalism, starting with a client for blogging and newsletter distribution. Sound money and sound information should finally be in the hands of the people, right? Want to learn more about the Pareto Project? Zap me, if you want to contribute (all Zaps go to the project).

Are you a publication or journalist and want to be part of it, test us, migrate your content to Nostr? Write to team@pareto.space**

Not yet on Nostr and want the full experience? Easy onboarding via Nosta.me.

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

GitCitadel Development Operations

We, at GitCitadel, have been updating, moving, and rearranging our servers, for quite some time. As a rather large, complex, sprawling project, we have the infrastructure setup to match, so we've decided to give you all a quick run-down of what we are doing behind-the-scenes.

Supplier Coordination

Our first task, this week, was figuring out who would host what where. We have four different locations, where our infra is stored and managed, including two locations from our suppliers. We got that straightened out, quickly, and it's all slowly coming together and being connected and networked. Exciting to watch our DevOps landscape evolve and all of the knowledge-transfer that the interactions provide.

OneDev Implementation

Our biggest internal infra project this week was the migration of all of our issues from Jira, build scripts from Jenkins, and repos from GitHub to a self-hosted OneDev instance. In the future, all of our internal build, test, issue, patch/PR, etc. effort will take place there. We also have a separate repo there for communicating with external developers and suppliers.

Our team's GitHub projects will be demoted to mirrors and a place for external devs to PR to. Public issues and patches will continue to be managed over our self-hosted GitWorkshop instance.

We're especially glad to finally escape the GitHub Gulag, and avoid being bled dry by Jira fees, without having to give up the important features that we've come to know and love. So, yay!

Next Infrasteps

Automated Testing

Now, that we have everything tied up in one, neat, backed-up package, we can finally move on to the nitty-gritty and the dirty work. So, we're rolling up our sleeves and writing the Selenium smoke test for our Alexandria client. We'll be running that in Docker containers containing different "typical Nostr" images, such as Chrome browser with Nostr Connect signing extension, or Firefox browser with Nos2x-fox extension. Once we get the Nsec Bunker and Amber logins going, we'll add test cases and images for them, as well. (Yes, we can do Bunker. I hope you are in awe at our powers).

We are also designing an automated infrastructure test, that will simply rattle through all the various internal and external websites and relays, to make sure that everything is still online and responsive.

After that, a Gherkin-based Behave feature test for Alexandria is planned, so that we can prevent regression of completed functionality, from one release to the next.

The Gherkin scenarios are written and attached to our stories before development begins (we use acceptance tests as requirements), a manual test-execution is then completed, in order to set the story to Done. These completed scenarios will be automated, following each release, with the resulting script linked to from the origin story.

Automated Builds

As the crowning glory of every DevOps tool chain stands the build automation. This is where everything gets tied together, straightened out, configured, tested, measured, and -- if everything passes the quality gates -- released. I don't have to tell you how much time developers spend staring at the build process display, praying that it all goes through and they can celebrate a Green Wave.

We are currently designing the various builds, but the ones we have defined for the Alexandria client will be a continuous delivery pipeline, like so:

This will make it easier for us to work and collaborate asynchronously and without unnecessary delays.

Expanding the Status Page

And, finally, we get to the point of all of this busyness: reporting.

We are going to have beautiful reports, and we are going to post them online, on our status page. We will use bots, to inform Nostriches of the current status of our systems, so go ahead and follow our GitCitadel DevOps npub, to make sure you don't miss out on the IT action.

Building on stone

All in all, we're really happy with the way things are humming along, now, and the steady increase in our productivity, as all the foundational work we've put in starts to pay off. It's getting easier and easier to add new team members, repos, or features/fixes, so we should be able to scale up and out from here. Our GitCitadel is built on a firm foundation.

Happy building!

@ 3eba5ef4:751f23ae

Standardizing Bitcoin Layer 2 Withdrawals: Output Script Descriptor (BOSD)

Jose Storopoli and Trey Del Bonis from Alpen Labs introduced Output Script Descriptor (BOSD), a standardized withdrawal output format aimed at improving the on-chain withdrawal process for Bitcoin Layer 2s while eliminating reliance on ad-hoc rules.

One key issue BOSD addresses is the risk L2 operators face when users request non-standard transactions, such as those with oversized OP_RETURN outputs. By abstracting complex validation logic into a more manageable format, BOSD helps mitigate these risks and serves as a crucial tool for maintaining the integrity and reliability of Bitcoin’s Layer 2 infrastructure.

• Rust implementation of BOSD

• Specification

Allowing Mobile Wallets to Settle Lightning Channels Without Extra UTXOs

Bastien Teinturier introduced an opt-in variant of Lightning Network’s V3 commitments, enabling mobile wallets to settle channels using funds within the channel even in cases of theft attempts. This removes the need for users to maintain an on-chain UTXO to cover closing fees.

Custodial Solutions Are Not Solutions

Matt Corallo, one of Bitcoin’s most prolific developers, has been vocal about the challenges of non-custodial Bitcoin payment solutions, particularly in the Lightning Network. His article, Custodial Solutions Are Not Solutions, critiques the Bitcoin community’s fixation on new custodial models.

He argues that too many engineering resources have gone into custodial solutions like Blockstream’s Liquid (a multisig-controlled private blockchain), ecash (blind-signed custodial systems), Spark (Lightspark’s Statechains extension requiring near-total operator trust), and modern Ark variants (which rely heavily on trusted Statechain operators for scalability). While many of these systems offer excellent UX and privacy, they compromise Bitcoin’s core censorship resistance.

For now, Corallo believes Lightning remains the only non-custodial solution capable of supporting most Bitcoin users.

Three Approaches to Solo Mining

There is significant debate over what qualifies as solo mining. Some define it as a miner earning block rewards alone, while others focus on miners generating their own block templates.

To clarify this, the open-source mining advocacy group 256 Foundation explored the topic in their recent report, Swim at Your Own Risk, outlining three types of solo mining:

• Self-Hosted Solo Mining: The miner runs their own Bitcoin node and Stratum server, generates block templates, broadcasts blocks, and keeps all rewards. This is the most "pure" form of solo mining.

• OCEAN Mining: The miner runs their own Bitcoin node and DATUM gateway, generates block templates, but relies on a pool to broadcast blocks. Miners can choose whether to share rewards with others, and the pool charges a 1% fee.

• Joining a Solo Mining Pool

  • The miner operates mining hardware, while the pool provides block templates and broadcasts blocks. Pools supporting this include CK Pool, Braiins Solo Pool (2% fee), and Public Pool (no fees).

  • While this method involves pools, individual miners still receive direct rewards, making it a hybrid form of solo mining.

Lightning Network Growth Report

Lightning Network service provider Voltage Cloud released a report titled The Lightning Network: Expanding Bitcoin Use Cases, highlighting key trends:

• More businesses are integrating Lightning, a trend expected to continue through 2025.

• Older, inefficient channels deployed between 2018 and 2020 are closing in favor of larger, more efficient ones.

• The average total capacity of public Lightning channels is increasing, improving the success rate for larger payments.

• If nodes are well-optimized, transaction fees can be near zero, with settlement times under half a second.

• The Lightning Network is evolving toward fewer but better-connected nodes rather than many weakly connected ones.

• Lightning is proving itself as one of the most efficient transaction methods in the digital asset ecosystem.

• Lightning can be seen as a yield-bearing network, allowing users to earn without sacrificing Bitcoin custody.

Download the full report.

Mempool Block Art Created Through Anomalous Transactions

According to 256 Foundation’s monthly report, researcher boerst discovered anomalies involving empty block templates from mining pools like Binance, SECpool, Sigmapool, and EMCD. Earlier, SEC Pool mined empty block 880496, which later returned to a normal transaction-included state.

These anomalies were linked to SEC Pool engineers configuring block templates to create block art. As a result, block 880512 was shaped into a Satoshi pattern.

Additionally, some of the first transactions contained OP_RETURN messages with the text:

Declaration of Genesis: Awakening on the Bitcoin Network. Bitcoin’s promise of freedom will become an untamperable habitat for AI.

Podcast | SNI: Fractional Reserve Banking is Obsolete

The latest episode of The Reorg, a podcast by the Satoshi Nakamoto Institute, discusses Pierre Rochard’s article Fractional Reserve Banking is Obsolete.

The article argues that the fractional reserve banking system leads to capital misallocation and price distortions, inevitably causing economic crises. Bitcoin, on the other hand, provides a safer, more transparent, and more efficient way to store and transfer funds, rendering traditional banking obsolete. Moreover, the increasing adoption of Bitcoin serves as a validation of Austrian economic theory: a 100% reserve banking system can prevent financial crises and economic downturns. A healthy economy expands based on capital goods rather than monetary or credit inflation.

Listen here

Central Banks Postpone CBDC Plans

A survey conducted by the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum (OMFIF) on 34 central banks, titled Why central banks should take the next step on CBDCs, reveals that 31% of central banks have delayed their retail central bank digital currency (CBDC) plans. The percentage of central banks inclined to issue a CBDC has dropped from 38% in 2022 to 18%. While this slowdown is a welcome shift, the survey concludes that most central banks are still likely to issue a CBDC in the future.

Governments Worldwide Seek to Break Encryption for Data Access

Will Jager reveals the global trend of governments attempting to bypass encryption protections to access private data. He highlights the growing risks associated with government access to encrypted data, citing examples such as the UK government’s order to Apple to create a backdoor for encrypted iCloud data, the EU’s Chat Control proposal, and the U.S. EARN IT Act, which expands government surveillance over encrypted communications.

@ 961e8955:d7fa53e4

"@YakiHonne community partners successfully convened a seminal Nostr101 meetup in Barnawa, Nigeria! Donning bespoke YakiHonne Nigeria Limited Edition T-shirts, the Purple Army infused the town with infectious energy.

Facilitated by @Olaoluwa Ezekiel Michael, this gathering leveraged YakiHonne's decentralized platform to foster unbridled dialogue, idea exchange, and community engagement.

The event's resounding success underscores the burgeoning demand for decentralized solutions in Africa. This milestone marks the inception of a revolutionary movement, empowering voices and fostering collaboration throughout the continent.

Nostr #DecentralizedRevolution #Africa #CommunityFirst #YakiHonne"

@ 6260f29f:2ee2fcd4

@ 97c70a44:ad98e322

There was a slight dust up recently over a website someone runs removing a listing for an app someone built based on entirely arbitrary criteria. I'm not to going to attempt to speak for either wounded party, but I would like to share my own personal definition for what constitutes a "nostr app" in an effort to help clarify what might be an otherwise confusing and opaque purity test.

In this post, I will be committing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, in which I start with the most liberal definition I can come up with, and gradually refine it until all that is left is the purest, gleamingest, most imaginary and unattainable nostr app imaginable. As I write this, I wonder if anything built yet will actually qualify. In any case, here we go.

It uses nostr

The lowest bar for what a "nostr app" might be is an app ("application" - i.e. software, not necessarily a native app of any kind) that has some nostr-specific code in it, but which doesn't take any advantage of what makes nostr distinctive as a protocol.

Examples might include a scraper of some kind which fulfills its charter by fetching data from relays (regardless of whether it validates or retains signatures). Another might be a regular web 2.0 app which provides an option to "log in with nostr" by requesting and storing the user's public key.

In either case, the fact that nostr is involved is entirely neutral. A scraper can scrape html, pdfs, jsonl, whatever data source - nostr relays are just another target. Likewise, a user's key in this scenario is treated merely as an opaque identifier, with no appreciation for the super powers it brings along.

In most cases, this kind of app only exists as a marketing ploy, or less cynically, because it wants to get in on the hype of being a "nostr app", without the developer quite understanding what that means, or having the budget to execute properly on the claim.

It leverages nostr

Some of you might be wondering, "isn't 'leverage' a synonym for 'use'?" And you would be right, but for one connotative difference. It's possible to "use" something improperly, but by definition leverage gives you a mechanical advantage that you wouldn't otherwise have. This is the second category of "nostr app".

This kind of app gets some benefit out of the nostr protocol and network, but in an entirely selfish fashion. The intention of this kind of app is not to augment the nostr network, but to augment its own UX by borrowing some nifty thing from the protocol without really contributing anything back.

Some examples might include:

• Using nostr signers to encrypt or sign data, and then store that data on a proprietary server.
• Using nostr relays as a kind of low-code backend, but using proprietary event payloads.
• Using nostr event kinds to represent data (why), but not leveraging the trustlessness that buys you.

An application in this category might even communicate to its users via nostr DMs - but this doesn't make it a "nostr app" any more than a website that emails you hot deals on herbal supplements is an "email app". These apps are purely parasitic on the nostr ecosystem.

In the long-term, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Email's ubiquity is self-reinforcing. But in the short term, this kind of "nostr app" can actually do damage to nostr's reputation by over-promising and under-delivering.

It complements nostr

Next up, we have apps that get some benefit out of nostr as above, but give back by providing a unique value proposition to nostr users as nostr users. This is a bit of a fine distinction, but for me this category is for apps which focus on solving problems that nostr isn't good at solving, leaving the nostr integration in a secondary or supporting role.

One example of this kind of app was Mutiny (RIP), which not only allowed users to sign in with nostr, but also pulled those users' social graphs so that users could send money to people they knew and trusted. Mutiny was doing a great job of leveraging nostr, as well as providing value to users with nostr identities - but it was still primarily a bitcoin wallet, not a "nostr app" in the purest sense.

Other examples are things like Nostr Nests and Zap.stream, whose core value proposition is streaming video or audio content. Both make great use of nostr identities, data formats, and relays, but they're primarily streaming apps. A good litmus test for things like this is: if you got rid of nostr, would it be the same product (even if inferior in certain ways)?

A similar category is infrastructure providers that benefit nostr by their existence (and may in fact be targeted explicitly at nostr users), but do things in a centralized, old-web way; for example: media hosts, DNS registrars, hosting providers, and CDNs.

To be clear here, I'm not casting aspersions (I don't even know what those are, or where to buy them). All the apps mentioned above use nostr to great effect, and are a real benefit to nostr users. But they are not True Scotsmen.

It embodies nostr

Ok, here we go. This is the crème de la crème, the top du top, the meilleur du meilleur, the bee's knees. The purest, holiest, most chaste category of nostr app out there. The apps which are, indeed, nostr indigitate.

This category of nostr app (see, no quotes this time) can be defined by the converse of the previous category. If nostr was removed from this type of application, would it be impossible to create the same product?

To tease this apart a bit, apps that leverage the technical aspects of nostr are dependent on nostr the protocol, while apps that benefit nostr exclusively via network effect are integrated into nostr the network. An app that does both things is working in symbiosis with nostr as a whole.

An app that embraces both nostr's protocol and its network becomes an organic extension of every other nostr app out there, multiplying both its competitive moat and its contribution to the ecosystem:

• In contrast to apps that only borrow from nostr on the technical level but continue to operate in their own silos, an application integrated into the nostr network comes pre-packaged with existing users, and is able to provide more value to those users because of other nostr products. On nostr, it's a good thing to advertise your competitors.
• In contrast to apps that only market themselves to nostr users without building out a deep integration on the protocol level, a deeply integrated app becomes an asset to every other nostr app by becoming an organic extension of them through interoperability. This results in increased traffic to the app as other developers and users refer people to it instead of solving their problem on their own. This is the "micro-apps" utopia we've all been waiting for.

Credible exit doesn't matter if there aren't alternative services. Interoperability is pointless if other applications don't offer something your app doesn't. Marketing to nostr users doesn't matter if you don't augment their agency as nostr users.

If I had to choose a single NIP that represents the mindset behind this kind of app, it would be NIP 89 A.K.A. "Recommended Application Handlers", which states:

Nostr's discoverability and transparent event interaction is one of its most interesting/novel mechanics. This NIP provides a simple way for clients to discover applications that handle events of a specific kind to ensure smooth cross-client and cross-kind interactions.

These handlers are the glue that holds nostr apps together. A single event, signed by the developer of an application (or by the application's own account) tells anyone who wants to know 1. what event kinds the app supports, 2. how to link to the app (if it's a client), and (if the pubkey also publishes a kind 10002), 3. which relays the app prefers.

As a sidenote, NIP 89 is currently focused more on clients, leaving DVMs, relays, signers, etc somewhat out in the cold. Updating 89 to include tailored listings for each kind of supporting app would be a huge improvement to the protocol. This, plus a good front end for navigating these listings (sorry nostrapp.link, close but no cigar) would obviate the evil centralized websites that curate apps based on arbitrary criteria.

Examples of this kind of app obviously include many kind 1 clients, as well as clients that attempt to bring the benefits of the nostr protocol and network to new use cases - whether long form content, video, image posts, music, emojis, recipes, project management, or any other "content type".

To drill down into one example, let's think for a moment about forms. What's so great about a forms app that is built on nostr? Well,

• There is a spec for forms and responses, which means that...
• Multiple clients can implement the same data format, allowing for credible exit and user choice, even of...
• Other products not focused on forms, which can still view, respond to, or embed forms, and which can send their users via NIP 89 to a client that does...
• Cryptographically sign forms and responses, which means they are self-authenticating and can be sent to...
• Multiple relays, which reduces the amount of trust necessary to be confident results haven't been deliberately "lost".

Show me a forms product that does all of those things, and isn't built on nostr. You can't, because it doesn't exist. Meanwhile, there are plenty of image hosts with APIs, streaming services, and bitcoin wallets which have basically the same levels of censorship resistance, interoperability, and network effect as if they weren't built on nostr.

It supports nostr

Notice I haven't said anything about whether relays, signers, blossom servers, software libraries, DVMs, and the accumulated addenda of the nostr ecosystem are nostr apps. Well, they are (usually).

This is the category of nostr app that gets none of the credit for doing all of the work. There's no question that they qualify as beautiful nostrcorns, because their value propositions are entirely meaningless outside of the context of nostr. Who needs a signer if you don't have a cryptographic identity you need to protect? DVMs are literally impossible to use without relays. How are you going to find the blossom server that will serve a given hash if you don't know which servers the publishing user has selected to store their content?

In addition to being entirely contextualized by nostr architecture, this type of nostr app is valuable because it does things "the nostr way". By that I mean that they don't simply try to replicate existing internet functionality into a nostr context; instead, they create entirely new ways of putting the basic building blocks of the internet back together.

A great example of this is how Nostr Connect, Nostr Wallet Connect, and DVMs all use relays as brokers, which allows service providers to avoid having to accept incoming network connections. This opens up really interesting possibilities all on its own.

So while I might hesitate to call many of these things "apps", they are certainly "nostr".

Appendix: it smells like a NINO

So, let's say you've created an app, but when you show it to people they politely smile, nod, and call it a NINO (Nostr In Name Only). What's a hacker to do? Well, here's your handy-dandy guide on how to wash that NINO stench off and Become a Nostr.

You app might be a NINO if:

• There's no NIP for your data format (or you're abusing NIP 78, 32, etc by inventing a sub-protocol inside an existing event kind)
• There's a NIP, but no one knows about it because it's in a text file on your hard drive (or buried in your project's repository)
• Your NIP imposes an incompatible/centralized/legacy web paradigm onto nostr
• Your NIP relies on trusted third (or first) parties
• There's only one implementation of your NIP (yours)
• Your core value proposition doesn't depend on relays, events, or nostr identities
• One or more relay urls are hard-coded into the source code
• Your app depends on a specific relay implementation to work (ahem, relay29)
• You don't validate event signatures
• You don't publish events to relays you don't control
• You don't read events from relays you don't control
• You use legacy web services to solve problems, rather than nostr-native solutions
• You use nostr-native solutions, but you've hardcoded their pubkeys or URLs into your app
• You don't use NIP 89 to discover clients and services
• You haven't published a NIP 89 listing for your app
• You don't leverage your users' web of trust for filtering out spam
• You don't respect your users' mute lists
• You try to "own" your users' data

Now let me just re-iterate - it's ok to be a NINO. We need NINOs, because nostr can't (and shouldn't) tackle every problem. You just need to decide whether your app, as a NINO, is actually contributing to the nostr ecosystem, or whether you're just using buzzwords to whitewash a legacy web software product.

If you're in the former camp, great! If you're in the latter, what are you waiting for? Only you can fix your NINO problem. And there are lots of ways to do this, depending on your own unique situation:

• Drop nostr support if it's not doing anyone any good. If you want to build a normal company and make some money, that's perfectly fine.
• Build out your nostr integration - start taking advantage of webs of trust, self-authenticating data, event handlers, etc.
• Work around the problem. Think you need a special relay feature for your app to work? Guess again. Consider encryption, AUTH, DVMs, or better data formats.
• Think your idea is a good one? Talk to other devs or open a PR to the nips repo. No one can adopt your NIP if they don't know about it.
• Keep going. It can sometimes be hard to distinguish a research project from a NINO. New ideas have to be built out before they can be fully appreciated.
• Listen to advice. Nostr developers are friendly and happy to help. If you're not sure why you're getting traction, ask!

I sincerely hope this article is useful for all of you out there in NINO land. Maybe this made you feel better about not passing the totally optional nostr app purity test. Or maybe it gave you some actionable next steps towards making a great NINON (Nostr In Not Only Name) app. In either case, GM and PV.

@ 6260f29f:2ee2fcd4

titleeee

test

@ 378562cd:a6fc6773

How much better would life be if we could hit a reset button and erase computers from existence?

It’s a question worth asking, especially in an age where screens dominate our attention, social interactions have been reduced to text bubbles, and Google searches have replaced critical thinking. Would we be smarter? Would life be simpler? Common sense suggests that without computers constantly thinking for us, we’d have to rely on our own intelligence a whole lot more.

What Year Would We Have to Go Back To? To escape computers entirely, we’d have to rewind far beyond today’s digital chaos—probably to the early 20th century. While the 1940s and 1950s saw the first massive computers creeping into government and military operations, the average person had little to no interaction with them. The term “computer” wasn’t something you’d hear at the dinner table, in the classroom, or even in most workplaces. It wasn’t until the late 1970s and early 1980s—when personal computers like the Apple II and IBM PC hit the market—that computers began working their way into homes, offices, and eventually, every aspect of daily life.

Before then, life was entirely hands-on. People weren’t glued to screens but engaged in the world around them. Finances were managed with checkbooks and mental math, not banking apps. Phone numbers lived in people’s heads, not in a digital contact list. If you needed directions, you either studied a map or asked someone for help. Letters were written by hand, and the act of research meant flipping through encyclopedia pages, not skimming Wikipedia. An algorithm didn’t give you information; it was earned through effort, curiosity, and real-world experience.

The transition happened slowly, but once computers became mainstream, they took over with astonishing speed. What started as a tool for business efficiency soon became a crutch for everyday life, shaping how we communicate, learn, and even think. But if we could turn back time to before computers dictated our every move, would we find ourselves living richer, more connected, and perhaps even smarter lives?

How Things Were Done Without Computers Before computers ran the world, problem-solving required actual thought. If you needed directions, you read a map or asked a local. If you wanted to research something, you visited a library or consulted an expert. People had to remember things because no cloud storage or smartphone reminder buzzed every five minutes.

Work was different before computers took over. Office tasks like accounting, inventory management, and record-keeping were done manually, with pens scratching across paper and filing cabinets brimming with carefully organized documents. Sure, it took longer, but there was an attention to detail that software often lacks—errors were caught by sharp human eyes, not overlooked by buggy algorithms or buried in digital spreadsheets.

Customer service meant face-to-face interactions or a polite phone call, not endless chatbot loops and automated phone menus that never seem to understand what you need. Shopping wasn’t an online transaction handled by an AI-driven algorithm—it was an experience, where store clerks knew regular customers by name and recommendations were based on conversation, not data tracking. Banking required a visit to a teller who personally handled your deposit, rather than a faceless app approving transactions in milliseconds.

Even skilled trades and craftsmanship thrived without automation. Mechanics relied on their knowledge of engines, not diagnostic computers spitting out error codes. Artists and designers used their hands, not digital tablets and AI-generated imagery. Cooking was a learned skill, not a task handed off to a microwave with pre-programmed settings.

Farming—one of the last truly hands-on professions—was once guided by intuition, experience, and a deep connection to the land. Farmers studied the sky, felt the moisture in the soil, and trusted generational wisdom and intuition to predict a good harvest. There were no satellite forecasts, automated irrigation systems, or genetically modified shortcuts—just nature's raw, unpredictable rhythm and the skill to work alongside it.

Even leisure time was more grounded. Families gathered around a radio for evening entertainment, played board games, read books, or simply sat on the porch and talked. People weren’t glued to screens, endlessly doom-scrolling through bad news and meaningless content—they were present, engaged, and connected in ways that modern life has all but erased.

Would We Be Smarter Without Computers? The short answer here is "Hell Yes! It’s hard to argue otherwise. The more we outsource thinking to machines, the less we need to use our brains. We no longer need to remember phone numbers, calculate tips in our heads, or even read maps. Schools teach kids how to use software but often fail to emphasize basic skills like handwriting, mental math, or deep reading.

Common sense, once the backbone of decision-making, is in short supply. Why? Because computers do too much thinking for us. Instead of analyzing situations logically, people Google an answer and take it as fact. Instead of experiencing life firsthand, we experience it through a filtered, algorithm-driven feed. And instead of developing problem-solving skills, we ask AI to do it for us now.

How Would Life Work Today Without Computers? If computers vanished overnight, the world would be thrown into chaos—at least initially. Banks would scramble to process transactions, businesses would struggle to function without automated systems, and most people—so dependent on screens for communication, navigation, and even basic problem-solving—would feel completely lost. The silence of a world without notifications, emails, and instant internet access might feel eerie at first.

But after the initial shock wore off, something incredible might happen. We’d be forced to slow down, to actually live in the present rather than constantly checking in on a digital one. People would have to interact face-to-face, strengthening real-life relationships instead of shallow online connections. Communities might grow tighter, with neighbors relying on each other instead of distant customer service centers and faceless apps. The lost critical thinking, memorization, and hands-on problem-solving skills would resurface out of necessity.

Work would change, too. Without computers dictating every move, businesses would have to rethink their operations. There would be less automation but more craftsmanship, less efficiency but more human intuition. Transactions would be slower but perhaps more intentional. Creativity, once overshadowed by digital shortcuts, would thrive as people relied on their own talents rather than the latest AI-generated solution.

Now, picture a world where children race bikes and climb trees instead of being glued to tablets, where conversations happen over dinner tables rather than through screens. Where decisions are made based on wisdom, instinct, and experience, not whatever happens to be trending.

Would life be harder? At first, sure. But would it be better? Arguably, yes.

Maybe it’s time we step back and ask ourselves: Are computers running our lives, or are they ruining them? The truth is, they’re doing both. They’ve woven themselves into every aspect of our daily existence, dictating how we work, communicate, and even think. They make life more convenient, sure—but at what cost? Over time, as we hand over more control to algorithms, automation, and artificial intelligence, we risk losing the very things that make us human: deep thought, real-world problem-solving, and genuine face-to-face connection.

Computers have made us more efficient, but also more dependent. They’ve expanded our access to information, yet dulled our ability to think critically. They connect us instantly across the globe, yet leave us lonelier than ever. The balance is tipping, and if we’re not careful, the very technology designed to serve us may quietly end up ruling us.

What are YOUR thoughts? #asknostr

@ 9e75bfa4:bf41929a

Acne scars can have a lasting impact on your skin’s appearance and texture. Whether your scars are new or old, acne scar removal in Chandigarh offers safe, effective treatments to reduce their visibility and help you achieve clear, smooth skin. Laser treatment for acne scars in Chandigarh has proven to be one of the most efficient methods for acne scar removal.

What is Acne Scar Removal?

Acne scars are the result of inflammation caused by acne. When the skin heals after an acne breakout, it can sometimes leave behind scars, which can be deep or shallow. Laser treatment for acne scars uses advanced technology to target the deeper layers of the skin, stimulating collagen production and encouraging the skin to heal itself.

Why Opt for Laser Treatment for Acne Scars in Chandigarh?

Chandigarh is home to experienced dermatologists who specialize in acne scar treatments. Laser treatments offer precise results, and many people experience significant improvement in their skin texture after just a few sessions.

The Laser Treatment Process

The procedure involves using a laser device to treat the affected skin areas. The laser penetrates deep into the skin, targeting scar tissue and stimulating collagen production. The treatment is relatively quick, typically lasting about 30 minutes, and involves minimal discomfort due to the application of a numbing cream.

Benefits of Acne Scar Removal

Non-invasive: Laser treatment for acne scars is non-surgical, so there’s no need for incisions or stitches. Quick recovery: Most patients experience mild redness or swelling, but this typically resolves within a few days. Improved skin texture: Laser treatments help smooth out uneven skin and fade scars over time.

Post-Treatment Care

After the treatment, you may need to avoid direct sunlight and use sunscreen to protect the newly treated skin. You may also need a few sessions to achieve the best results, depending on the severity of your scars.

@ 2efaa715:3d987331

Cost of a 1960s Diet vs Modern Food Costs by Decade

The following is a result from ChatGPT's "deep research" feature when asked to analyze what a "1960s diet" would cost in each subsequent decade. The CPI and basket of goods is constantly adjusted to "reflect consumer purchasing behavior", but this metric overlooks the fact that consumer behavior itself is guided by prices. Just because someone does buy something doesn't mean they would prefer this good over another (potentially superior) good, all it tells you is that they did buy it. When the cost of living off of higher quality foods becomes too great to bear, consumers will trade-down to lower-quality foods. When the CPI reflects this, even a "steady inflation number" hides the fact that quality of life has degraded.

If you don't want to read the whole thing, at least check out the conclusion at the end. Everything from here down was generated by the AI after rounds of nudging by me.
Also the cover image, obviously (lol)

Following a 1960s-style diet – rich in red meat, dairy, and unprocessed “whole” foods – has become increasingly expensive over time. Below we examine each decade from 1960 to the present, tracking how much the cost of that fixed 1960s diet rose and comparing it to the prevailing food costs (CPI) shaped by consumers adapting their eating habits. Key staples like red meat, dairy, grains, and processed foods are highlighted to show the impact of inflation on a traditional diet versus switching to cheaper substitutes.

1960s: Baseline of Affordable Abundance

• Percentage Increase in Cost: Food prices rose modestly in the 1960s (around 2–3% per year). Over the decade, maintaining the same 1960 basket led to roughly a 25–30% increase in cost (Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024). This was a relatively small jump compared to later decades.
• Cost in Era’s Currency: For example, if a household spent $100 per week in 1960 on the typical foods (plentiful beef, whole milk, butter, eggs, etc.), by 1970 that same diet cost about $125–$130 in nominal dollars. Everyday items were cheap: ground beef was only $0.30 per lb in the late 1950s, and butter about $0.75 per lb (Grocery Store Prices for 14 Items in 1957 | HowStuffWorks) (Grocery Store Prices for 14 Items in 1957 | HowStuffWorks). Americans could afford more of these foods as incomes grew.
• Comparison to CPI (Behavior-Adjusted): The official food Consumer Price Index (CPI) climbed at a similar pace (~28% increase from 1960 to 1970 (Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024)), since consumer behavior hadn’t drastically shifted yet. Few felt pressure to substitute cheaper foods because inflation was mild. In fact, many families ate more of these staples as prosperity rose – U.S. beef consumption per person increased from ~63 lbs in 1960 to 84 lbs by 1970, while chicken rose from 28 to 48 lbs (National Chicken Council | Per Capita Consumption of Poultry and Livestock, 1965 to Forecast 2022, in Pounds). Any cost savings from “behavior changes” were minimal in the 60s. (One early example: margarine was already replacing some butter for health/cost reasons, but butter was still affordable in 1960 at ~$0.75, so sticking to butter didn’t break the bank (Grocery Store Prices for 14 Items in 1957 | HowStuffWorks).) Overall, adapting one’s diet wasn’t necessary for budget reasons in the 1960s, as food was relatively cheap and inflation low.

1970s: Soaring Prices Hit Traditional Diets Hard

• Percentage Increase in Cost: The 1970s brought surging food inflation. A fixed 1960s-style diet would cost roughly double (+100% or more) by the end of the decade. In particular, meat and dairy prices skyrocketed. Beef prices roughly doubled from 1970 to 1980 (the BLS beef index jumped from the 40s to nearly 100 (Beef and veal price inflation, 1935→2025)), contributing to an overall ~120% increase in the cost of a meat-heavy 1960s basket during the 70s. By comparison, overall food-at-home prices rose about 121% in that span (Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024) – a huge jump in itself. The worst spikes came in 1973–74, when food prices jumped 15–16% in a single year (Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024).
• Cost in Era’s Currency: Someone stubbornly sticking to their 1960 grocery list in this era paid a steep price. If they spent $100 per week in 1970, by 1980 they’d need to spend roughly $220–$230 for the same items. For instance, mid-decade a pound of steak that cost ~$1 in the late 60s might cost $2–3 by the late 70s. Whole milk prices also roughly doubled in the 70s (Fresh whole milk price inflation, 1939→2024). This era’s inflation was so severe that it forced a re-budgeting for those insisting on expensive staples.
• Comparison to CPI (Behavior-Adjusted): While all consumers felt the 70s price shock, those who adapted their diets mitigated the impact. Many Americans reacted by buying less red meat or switching to cheaper proteins. Notably, when beef became very expensive (meat prices jumped 5.4% in just one month in early 1973 (1973 meat boycott - Wikipedia)), consumers staged a “meat boycott” and turned to poultry, pork, or beans. Poultry was a big winner – chicken prices did rise (44% in 1973 (Fresh whole chicken price inflation, 1935→2024)), but over the decade chicken remained cheaper per pound than beef, and per capita chicken consumption climbed while beef consumption dropped (National Chicken Council | Per Capita Consumption of Poultry and Livestock, 1965 to Forecast 2022, in Pounds). Processed and shelf-stable foods also gained favor as thrifty alternatives; for example, consumers might buy canned soups or powdered drink mixes which had smaller price increases. The official CPI (which reflects some substitution) still rose dramatically (~105% for food in the 70s (Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024)), but the true cost of living was a bit lower for those who adapted. By cutting back on expensive items (or stretching them – e.g. more casseroles with grains/veggies and less meat), families could keep their food spending increase somewhat below the headline inflation. In short, a person clinging to the high-red-meat, butter-on-everything diet of 1960 ended up paying much more in the 70s, whereas those who embraced cheaper substitutes (chicken instead of steak, margarine instead of butter, generic and processed foods) softened the blow. The late 1970s also saw food costs stabilize under price controls, rewarding those who diversified their diet away from the costliest staples.

(Chicken leads U.S. per person availability of meat over last decade | Economic Research Service) Per capita availability of meat in the U.S., 1910–2021. Beef (gray line) peaked in the 1970s and then declined as prices rose and consumers ate more chicken (yellow line). Chicken overtook beef as the most consumed meat by 2010, thanks to its lower cost and dietary shifts (Chicken leads U.S. per person availability of meat over last decade | Economic Research Service). Pork (red) held roughly steady, while fish (purple) remained a small share. This illustrates how Americans adjusted their protein sources over decades in response to price and preferences. (Chicken leads U.S. per person availability of meat over last decade | Economic Research Service)

1980s: Slowing Inflation and New Dietary Habits

• Percentage Increase in Cost: Inflation cooled in the 1980s, making food prices more stable. Even so, a fixed 1960s diet saw about a 50% cost increase over the decade. That means the same basket that cost $100 in 1980 would cost around $150 by 1990. This increase was much lower than the 70s, but still notable. Meats and dairy had smaller price jumps now (beef rose ~38% from 1980–90, milk ~45% (Fresh whole milk price inflation, 1939→2024)), and overall food-at-home prices climbed ~40–50% (Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024) (Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024) in the 80s.
• Cost in Era’s Currency: If our traditional-diet shopper spent $220/week in 1980 (continuing the prior example), by 1990 they’d be spending roughly $330 for the same groceries. For instance, a gallon of whole milk that cost about $1.50 in 1980 might be ~$2.20 by 1990; a pound of ground beef around $1.20 in 1980 could be ~$1.75 in 1990. These nominal increases were easier to manage than the wild 70s, but still added up.
• Comparison to CPI (Behavior-Adjusted): In the 80s, consumer behavior had permanently shifted due to the prior decade’s lessons. Many households continued to favor cheaper or leaner foods, and this helped keep their actual cost of living lower than if they had stuck to the old diet. For example, butter consumption plunged (per capita fell from 7.5 lbs in 1960 to ~4.5 lbs by 1980) as people used margarine and processed spreads instead (cameracopy4.qxd). Butter lost its hefty weight in the price index, reflecting how few people still bought it regularly by the 80s. Similarly, beef was no longer king – Americans were eating 20% less beef than in the 70s, and far more chicken, which was mass-produced cheaply (Chicken leads U.S. per person availability of meat over last decade | Economic Research Service). The CPI’s market basket was updated in 1987, locking in these new habits (more poultry and convenience foods, fewer expensive staples). As a result, official food inflation in the 80s was moderate, and those who already had adapted their diet felt roughly the same ~50% rise as the CPI. However, someone who refused to change – still buying large quantities of red meat, whole milk, fresh butter, etc. – would have spent more than the average person. They missed out on the savings from things like economy cuts of meat, bulk grains, and processed goods that became popular. By the late 1980s, the U.S. food system was delivering cheaper calories (e.g. refined grains, corn oil, sweeteners) on a huge scale. Families that incorporated these cheaper ingredients (think Hamburger Helper, microwave dinners, soda instead of milk) kept their grocery bills lower. Indeed, food became a smaller share of household spending: it fell from 28.5% of the family budget in 1960 to about 17% by 1980 (cameracopy4.qxd), a testament to how adapting food choices and benefitting from cheaper options lowered the relative cost of living.

1990s: Cheaper Alternatives in an Era of Low Inflation

• Percentage Increase in Cost: The 1990s saw very low food inflation by historical standards. Maintaining the exact 1960s diet through this decade would raise costs by only about 25–30%. Food-at-home prices increased roughly 2–3% per year or ~27% total from 1990 to 2000 (Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024) (Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024) – similar to general inflation.
• Cost in Era’s Currency: Continuing our scenario, $330/week in 1990 for a 1960-style diet would become about $420–$430/week by 2000. Many staple food prices barely crept up. For example, a loaf of bread or a dozen eggs only rose by a few dimes over the whole decade. In some cases prices even stagnated or fell: U.S. farm commodities were abundant (grain surpluses kept costs of cereal, flour, and animal feed low). The late 90s had such cheap raw ingredients that milk, meat, and sugar prices were relatively stable.
• Comparison to CPI (Behavior-Adjusted): By the 90s, behavior-adjusted costs were markedly lower than our fixed diet scenario, because consumers had spent two decades optimizing their food spending. The prevailing diet in the 90s was very different from the 60s, driven by cost efficiency and convenience. Shoppers embraced warehouse clubs and discount supermarkets, bought private-label/store brands, and leaned heavily on processed foods that benefited from cheap oil and corn. For instance, instead of whole fresh foods for every meal, families might use instant pasta mixes, boxed cereals, and soft drinks – items produced at scale and often cheaper per calorie. This kept average grocery bills lower. In fact, the cost of living for food rose so slowly in the 90s that it was common to “trade up” some items (like occasionally buying steak or exotic fruits) and still stay on budget. A person strictly sticking to a 1960s whole-food diet (cooking from scratch, lots of fresh meat and dairy) would not enjoy those processed-food savings. By this time they’d be paying noticeably more than the average consumer for the same caloric intake. Studies began to note a troubling pattern: healthier whole foods were getting relatively more expensive, while unhealthy processed options remained very cheap. (For example, fresh produce prices in the U.S. rose faster than soda and snack prices in the 80s/90s.) The overall CPI for food was low in the 90s, reflecting these substitutions. A clear sign of the era: fast-food value meals and junk snacks proliferated, offering calories at rock-bottom prices. Those who adapted their diet to include these inexpensive foods saw a much lower increase in their cost of living – and in some cases, food spending as a share of income hit record lows. Meanwhile, someone clinging to only unprocessed “old-fashioned” foods would have a higher grocery bill and experienced a higher effective inflation than the behavior-adjusted CPI. In short, the 1990s made it easier than ever to save money on food – if you were willing to eat like a 1990s consumer.

2000s: Diverging Diet Costs – Whole Foods vs Processed

• Percentage Increase in Cost: Food costs in the 2000s rose at a modest pace, very similar to the 90s. A fixed 1960s diet would increase about 25–30% in cost over the decade (roughly keeping up with general inflation). From 2000 to 2010 the food-at-home CPI climbed ~29% (Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024) (Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024). There were a couple of price spikes mid-decade (e.g. 2007–2008 saw grain and dairy price jumps), but also some years of minimal change.
• Cost in Era’s Currency: Our hypothetical shopper spending $420 in 2000 would be around $540 per week by 2010 for the same basket. Key 1960s staples did get pricier in the 2000s: e.g. whole milk went from about $2.80/gal in 2000 to $3.50+ by 2010; ground beef from ~$1.80 to ~$2.25/lb over the decade. But the increases were gradual. Notably, by 2010 many traditional items (meats, eggs, dairy) were cheaper in real terms than in the 1970s – thanks to efficiency gains – even if nominal prices edged up.
• Comparison to CPI (Behavior-Adjusted): The 2000s is when the gap between a “traditional whole-food diet” and the average diet’s cost really started to widen. The official CPI remained fairly low, in part because consumers kept shifting towards cheaper ingredients and prepared foods. Two diverging trends emerged:
• Many consumers, facing tight budgets especially after the 2008 recession, doubled down on low-cost, energy-dense foods. This meant more refined grains (white bread, pasta, rice), processed snacks, sweetened drinks, and fatty meats – all of which were inexpensive and often on promotion. These items benefited from globalized supply chains and agricultural surpluses, keeping their prices down or rising very slowly. For example, corn-based sweeteners and oils were so cheap that soda and fried foods remained very affordable in the 2000s.
• On the other hand, some consumers began seeking healthier “whole” foods (organic produce, whole grains, lean meats). But these often came at a premium and saw higher inflation. Someone maintaining a 1960s-style home-cooked diet (lots of fresh ingredients) fell into this category almost by definition. They would have experienced higher effective inflation than the average. Research confirms this divergence: in recent analyses, the cost of a healthy recommended diet has risen faster than the cost of an unhealthy diet. For instance, during 2019–2022, prices of healthy foods (fruits, veggies, lean proteins, etc.) jumped 12.8% in one year, whereas “unhealthy” food prices rose only 7–9% ( Healthy Food Prices Increased More Than the Prices of Unhealthy Options during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Concurrent Challenges to the Food System - PMC ). This pattern had been building over the 2000s. Thus, those who adapted by buying the cheapest processed options saw a smaller cost-of-living increase than those buying whole foods. By the end of the 2000s, the U.S. was in a situation where following a 1960s diet cost significantly more than an average 2000s diet, even though overall inflation was mild. In practical terms, a family could slash their grocery bill by switching from fresh-cooked dinners with milk to, say, boxed mac-and-cheese with soda – and many did. The CPI implicitly captured this shift: food remained about ~13% of consumer spending in the 2000s (near historic lows), partly because people found ever-cheaper ways to eat.

2010s: Relative Stability (Until a Shock)

• Percentage Increase in Cost: The 2010s were a decade of exceptionally low food inflation. A fixed 1960s diet’s cost rose only about 15–20% in total through 2010–2019. For most of those years, food prices grew less than 2% annually (some years even saw slight deflation in grocery prices (Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024)). From 2010 to 2020 the food-at-home index went up about 16% (Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024) (Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024) – the slowest growth of any decade in this analysis.
• Cost in Era’s Currency: In our running example, $540/week in 2010 for the old-fashioned diet would become roughly $620–$630 by 2020. In other words, nearly flat in real terms. Many staple food prices were remarkably steady. A gallon of whole milk hovered around $3.50–$4 throughout the decade; a pound of chicken breasts stayed near $1.99 for years. The shale oil boom and low energy costs, plus technological advances in agriculture, helped keep food production and transportation cheap. By the late 2010s, Americans enjoyed some of the lowest food inflation on record.
• Comparison to CPI (Behavior-Adjusted): With inflation so low, the difference between sticking to a 1960s diet and the average diet’s cost was less pronounced during this decade – everyone benefited from stable prices. However, it’s important to note that by the 2010s the average diet was very far removed from the 1960s diet, largely for economic reasons built up over prior decades. The average American in 2019 was consuming lots of inexpensive processed foods and far less of the pricey whole foods that defined 1960. This meant their cost of living was inherently lower. For those still following a traditional diet, their basket cost hadn’t risen much in the 2010s, but it was starting from a much higher base relative to typical consumers. In effect, the “gap” was already baked in. Government data continued to show that healthy food plans cost more – a trend consistent with the idea that a whole-food diet remained pricier than the mix of convenience foods most people bought. By the end of the 2010s, food was only about 12–13% of household expenditures on average, reflecting decades of substitutions and cheaper alternatives keeping costs down (cameracopy4.qxd). A person eating like it’s 1960 (lots of red meat roasts, fresh veggies, whole milk) in 2019 would likely be spending well above that share. In summary, the 2010s offered a breather: low inflation meant even “old diet” holdouts weren’t punished by price hikes, but they were still paying more than those who had long ago adapted to the economical 2010s food landscape.

(Note: The early 2020s have seen a sharp inflationary spike for food, largely due to pandemic disruptions and war. Interestingly, this spike hit fresh foods and meats harder than processed foods, echoing the long-term pattern. For example, in one study the cost of a healthy diet rose 17.9% from 2019–2022, whereas the typical less-healthy diet rose 9% ( Healthy Food Prices Increased More Than the Prices of Unhealthy Options during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Concurrent Challenges to the Food System - PMC ). This underscores that when inflation strikes, sticking to a traditional wholesome diet tends to cost more than making do with cheaper substitutes. As of 2022–2023, consumers again coped by buying store brands, cutting meat consumption, etc., to soften the blow – much as they did in the 1970s.)

Conclusion: Traditional Diet vs Adaptive Diet – Which Costs More?

Over six decades, inflation has raised all food prices, but not uniformly. Someone maintaining a fixed 1960s-style diet from 1960 through today would have seen their food costs rise far more than the official “cost of food” suggests – because the official index assumes people adjust their buying. In fact, by 2020 such a person would be spending roughly 8–10 times what they spent in 1960 on food in nominal dollars, whereas the behavior-adjusted CPI for food rose about 8-fold (Beef and veal price inflation, 1935→2025) (Fresh whole chicken price inflation, 1935→2024). That implies perhaps a 20–25% higher cumulative cost for the fixed diet follower. The biggest contributors were red meat and dairy: these had higher-than-average inflation over the long run. For example, beef prices rose much faster than overall prices (3,637% since 1935) (Beef and veal price inflation, 1935→2025), while chicken (a cheaper substitute) had lower inflation (805% since 1935) (Fresh whole chicken price inflation, 1935→2024). Consumers responded accordingly – eating less beef and butter, and more chicken and margarine, as decades passed. Grains and processed foods, often mass-produced from low-cost commodities, helped keep modern diets affordable; whole foods did not see such dramatic cost efficiencies.

In each decade, those who adapted their food choices enjoyed a lower cost of living increase than those who stuck with the old-school diet. The 1970s illustrated this vividly (households that substituted chicken or pasta when steak prices spiked avoided some of the worst budget pain). By the 2000s and 2010s, the typical American diet was heavily “behavior-adjusted” for cost – full of cheaper oils, sweeteners, and protein sources – which kept the CPI food inflation relatively low. Meanwhile, a person trying to eat like it’s 1960 (lots of red meat, whole milk, homemade meals) ended up paying a premium each year to do so.

In summary, inflation heavily penalized the maintenance of a 1960s diet. Each decade saw that fixed basket get relatively more expensive, especially for categories like red meat and dairy. In contrast, Americans who embraced cheaper substitutes and new foods managed to keep their food spending growth below the inflation that a “fixed basket” would imply. This behavior-adjustment – switching from costly whole foods to economical processed and alternative foods – has been a key reason the reported CPI for food rose more slowly. It quantifies how much lower the cost of living was for those who adapted: often shaving several percentage points off per-year inflation, and cumulatively making food far more affordable than it would have been under the old diet. The trade-off, of course, is that while the traditional 1960s diet was nutritious but now expensive, the modern adapted diet is cheaper but often less healthy. Consumers effectively used substitutions to counteract food inflation, saving money at the expense of dietary changes. The decades-long outcome is clear – financially, eating in 2023 like it’s 1963 will cost you significantly more than eating like a 2023 consumer, due to the compounding effect of differential inflation and behavior shifts over time.

Other Sources:

• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics – Historical CPI data for food categories (Food at home price inflation, 1947→2024) (Beef and veal price inflation, 1935→2025)
• USDA Economic Research Service – Food price reports and consumption trends (Chicken leads U.S. per person availability of meat over last decade | Economic Research Service) (cameracopy4.qxd)
• The Value of a Dollar – mid-20th-century grocery prices (e.g. 1957 butter, beef) (Grocery Store Prices for 14 Items in 1957 | HowStuffWorks) (Grocery Store Prices for 14 Items in 1957 | HowStuffWorks)
• Congressional Research Service – Food inflation and consumer responses (1973 meat boycott - Wikipedia)
• Academic study on healthy vs unhealthy diet cost inflation - (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

@ 59c2e15a:d25e6e8d

Note: I originally wrote these essays on bitcoin and yoga in 2022 after completing my yoga teacher training and going deep down the bitcoin rabbit hole. I then published them to my Ghost blog in 2023. I decided to repost them here on Nostr to start 2025 to further spread the wisdom and timelessness that bitcoin and yoga share. I split my original essay into seven parts, and I will add an eighth comparing yoga and Nostr. I hope you enjoy part one - namaste!

Part I: Bitcoin and Yoga Shared Values

Part II: Mythical/Mystical Origins

Part III: Evolution of Money and Yoga

Part IV: Ashtanga Yoga - The Eight Limbs of Yoga (limbs 1-2)

Part V: Ashtanga Yoga - The Eight Limbs of Yoga (limbs 3-8)

Part VI: Bitcoin is Dharma

Part VII: Himalayan Kriya Yoga

Introduction

With each passing day, month, and year, it feels as though our human civilization is becoming more dysfunctional, untethered, and unsustainable. Individuals are working harder, longer hours, yet most remain stuck in place, goals farther from reach. We live in a world where many have outsourced the most critical task that has enabled humans to prosper – critical thinking. I challenge each one of you to remove preconceived notions you might have about Bitcoin or Yoga before reading this series. I invite you to enter with an open mind. Think for yourself – you are welcome to agree or disagree with the information and arguments I put forth.

I also encourage you to go beyond thinking – feel. Use your intuition to understand if the way you’re living your day-to-day life feels good to you, or if you have sense, an inner knowing that something is off with our society today – that there can be a better way. If you open your heart and mind to receiving new information, there is potential to motivate yourself to change your thoughts and behaviors for more aligned action towards individual sovereignty. Every individual can choose freedom and independence. Yet it has become increasingly difficult to live a life of freedom due to the fiat system of inflation and the many distractions that keep us from going inward. After deep study and reflection, I believe bitcoin and yoga both provide the individual control over their own life journey, and frameworks to understand our connection to self and others.

I'm excited to share what I have found in my own personal experience, and hope to spark curiosity within you to follow your passion. This writing is intended for anyone seeking tools to lead a life of freedom, make positive changes and deepen your understanding of self. In addition, it is written for yogis who want to learn about bitcoin, bitcoiners who want to learn more about yoga, and anyone who is interested in a fundamental understanding of these topics that I believe contain the potential to transform your life.

Part I: Bitcoin and Yoga Shared Values

Bitcoin and yoga share many fundamental values with one another and provide deep wisdom on guiding individuals towards living better and more meaningful lives. Ultimately bitcoin and yoga share the goal of individual liberation, freedom from suffering, and a deep inner, lasting peace in Being. In yoga, this state is called moksha or samadhi. I believe everyone has a true essence, an inner being that knows what is best. However, our external environment and our own conscious mind push us away from this serenity, leading to regrets about the past or anxieties about the future. This perspective of linear time and our own individual stories and identity damage our ability to stay present in the Now, leading to endless distractions. In similar ways, bitcoin and yoga provide us insight for an individual’s path to inner peace, as well as for humanity’s path to collective peace and prosperity.

Energy

At the most elemental level, energy is the force underlying both bitcoin and yoga. Energy is the universal currency of life. We would not exist without energy. We require physical energy to fuel our cells and bodies to perform essential tasks like breathing, circulation, digestion, and movement. We perceive many forms of energy such as light or sound waves, yet there are many energy wavelengths we are not able to or are not trained to perceive.

Bitcoin is powered by physical energy in the real world in a process that secures the network and unlocks new bitcoin for distribution, a process commonly referred to as mining. Interestingly, 100 years ago, Henry Ford pushed for an energy-linked currency measured in kilowatt hours that could bring peace after a brutal World War, as seen in the New York Tribune headline and article December 4, 1921: ‘Ford Would Replace Gold with Energy Currency and Stop Wars’ (i). It took another century, but mankind has finally developed a digitally-native currency tied to the physical world through energy expenditure – bitcoin.

Yoga is similarly rooted in energy that individuals tap into through breathwork, physical movement and meditations practices. This life-force energy is known in Sanskrit as prana. Prana is not bound by time or space, and it flows through individuals in over 72,000 nadis, or channels. There are three main nadis - the first is ida, our left side body which corresponds to the feminine, receiving energy, or the moon. On the right side is pingala, relating to our masculine, giving energy, or the sun. The central nadi runs through our shushumna, linking our seven main energetic centers, known as chakras. These chakras run from the base of the tail bone, up through the spine and the top of the head. Each chakra has a name, a color and key characteristics that can often become blocked through negative emotion, trauma or stress in the body. Different yogic practices target these energy centers to unlock what is stuck and enable energy to more freely flow through us in an open exchange with the earth and out the universe. This energy is ever-present; one need only to tap into this energy, feel it and utilize it for the strengthening of one’s inner being that then radiates outwards on others in your life. The energetic experience and upward surge can also be referred to as kundalini energy, a creative power of divine feminine energy that originates in the muladara chakra at the base of the spine.

Depiction of our chakras and nadis (image source)

Proof of Work

In both Bitcoin and Yoga, "proof of work" is required to operate, practice and move forwards. In the Bitcoin network as described in the original white paper, miners contribute tangible energy towards running a hashing algorithm on a computer – SHA256 – to earn the right to add the next block to the blockchain and collect both the coinbase and transaction fee reward (ii). The work is difficult to produce but easy to validate by others. Miners are collecting all of the valid peer-to-peer transactions being propagated to the network and establishing them as truth into the distributed ledger. The rules in bitcoin’s code incentivize honest behavior from miners through unforgeable costliness – if a miner were to lie about any of the transactions it includes in a block, independent nodes in the network would reject the block, and the miner would have lost all the real resources it expended to solve the proof of work calculation.

Example of an ASIC - a specialized computer solely dedicated to mining bitcoin.

In yoga, dedicated work is needed to learn the asanas, postures, and practice for oneself; you won’t just be able to go upside down or flow through sun salutations without first learning proper alignment and breathing techniques. An individual needs to conscious decision to work on a daily yoga practice that requires energy to flow. There are several ways to work on your yoga practice beyond physical movement; these include bhakti yoga (devotion/prayer), jnana yoga (study/wisdom), karma yoga(selfless action) and raja yoga (ashtanga). Raja yoga includes ashtanga, the eight limbs or paths of yoga that Patanjali detailed \~2000 years ago that we will explore in more depth in part IV. These ancient margas (paths) and subsequent development of these ancient teachings provides individual with ample opportunity to dedicate and work towards individual enlightenment.

Decentralization

Next, there are no external barriers preventing an individual from participating in Bitcoin or yoga. Bitcoin does not discriminate and can be accessed by anyone around the world. Yoga provides a way of life full of mindfulness and appreciation. The only barriers are internal blockages, or unwillingness to ask questions, learn and take responsibility for oneself and state of being. Therefore, Bitcoin and yoga can both be defined as decentralized. There are no centralized gatekeepers preventing one from accessing the Bitcoin network or using bitcoin as money; anyone can spin up a node, download a wallet or mine bitcoin. There are over 16,000 nodes geographically distributed around the world voluntarily running the bitcoin core software code establishing the payment network, validating transactions and storing the entire transaction history of bitcoin (iii). It costs as little as a few hundred dollars and requires less than 600 gigabytes of storage to run a node – in 2023 you can find mobile phones with that much storage. No one can prevent you from sending a peer-to-peer transaction or storing your own wealth with 12 words in your head – you need only decide to take true freedom into your own hands and learn how to do so (iv). The common maxim is “don’t trust, verify”. You don’t need someone else’s permission to participate in bitcoin or trust anyone else (eg, banks) to hold your wealth.

Geographic distribution of reachable bitcoin nodes (source: bitnodes)

Similarly, no one can stop an individual from practicing yoga, learning yogic philosophy or connecting with one’s truest self and inner guru. Anyone can choose to follow the path of yoga, focus on ones breath or develop a strong asana practice. There are many different ways to learn and interact with yoga, with experienced teachers willing to share their lessons to students all over the world. One need to simply find yoga studio, enroll in a teacher training or and engage with a teacher to experience yoga for themselves. Yoga looks and feels different depending on what country you are in or in which lineage you are being taught. Tapping into these profound lessons, as fundamental as controlling ones own breath, requires only an individual desire and the conscious decision to act. There’s no CEO or central authority dictating how Bitcoin or yoga has to be. Individuals have the freedom to express themselves voluntarily guided by frameworks we will dive into deeper.

Low Time Preference

Another core value that bitcoin and yoga share is low time preference. In Austrian economics, time preference refers to individual decision making. An individual with a low time preference makes decisions with greater consideration of the future, quieting immediate cravings and desires to pursue a higher goal (v). In bitcoin and money, lower time preference decisions include putting off consumption to save value for the future. Unfortunately, our fiat (by government decree) system induces individuals to make high time preference decisions, heightening consumerism and poor habits today that we see rampant in our society. There is a disincentive to save, as inflation of the money supply leads to debasing value of the dollar and other fiat currencies, decreasing individuals purchasing power of cash they hold onto and don’t spend soon. For example, the purchasing power of your dollar today will be cut in half over the next decade at current levels of inflation. In many ways, bitcoin is time, described brilliantly by Gigi, as it creates a decentralized clock that establishes consensus with each block (vi).

In contrast, the hard cap supply of 21 million bitcoin enables individuals to save with the knowledge that governments and central banks will not be able to debase their hard-earned value. This allows for one to plan with greater certainty, making investments that have a longer payoff period rather than chasing quick, material gains. Likewise in yoga, developing your own practice will not bear fruit right away; it takes discipline and time to continuously improve and strive towards a better future self. For example, in modern Ashtanga yoga taught by Pattabhi Jois, there is a set sequence of asanas that one studies and repeats each practice. It may even take months to have find the right alignment of body and breath for a single pose! The hours-long sequence requires dedication to practice and learn. The dedicated yogi understands that wholehearted commitment today will pay off for one’s mental, physical and spiritual health in the years to come. The ability to develop a calm mind can also be beneficial when people don’t initially understand or are intimidated by bitcoin. This approach can also enable you to stay grounded and discover the signal through the noise when learning about bitcoin.

Sequence of asanas in Jois' Ashtanga Yoga (image source)

Union

Yoga comes from the Sanskrit word “yuj”, which means ‘to join’ or ‘to unite’. Yoga represents the union of the mind, body, and soul of an individual. Yoga provides a pathway to individual sovereignty through disciplined practice and purpose. Yoga unites an individual internally and to one’s community, fostering connectedness and support (vii). Similarly, bitcoin provides a pathway to individual sovereignty in many ways. Bitcoin empowers the individual authority with property rights over one’s value, which in turn frees individuals from outside control (government or otherwise). Bitcoin’s technology enables one to hold their own wealth and life’s energy in a self-custodial fashion. Bitcoin is money that can be stored forever and transmitted through space at the speed of light on layer two via the Lightning Network.

Bitcoin is an open economic network with the potential to unite eight billion people together in a way our current unfair and fragmented financial system could never do. In many countries, a majority of people are unbanked, while intermediaries take a cut of the value to transfer slow, legacy payments like Western Union. While tens of millions people around the world have so far interacted with bitcoin – we are still early – similar to the internet of the mid-nineties. Bitcoin eliminates counter party risk associated with non-bearer assets, such as fiat currency (e.g., dollars, euros, yen). Bitcoin’s supply schedule is set and eliminates inflation time theft that fiat currency wages on individuals, which leads to anxiety and depression or feelings of hopelessness. Fiat is money enforced by the monopoly on violence that modern nation states grip tightly.

In contrast, bitcoin and yoga empower the individual to remove the shackles and embrace personal responsibility to improve ones life. Bitcoin and yoga also connect people directly to each other and tap into truth, ones inner being, bringing peace in the present and ultimately offer hope for a better future for each person, your community, and the world. Bitcoin and yoga have the power to unite humanity in love.

In the next section, we will explore both yoga and bitcoin's mystical and mythical origins.

---

Note: Bitcoin with a capital "B" generally refers to the protocol/network; bitcoin with a lower case "b" refers to the money/currency.

References:

i. Redman, Jamie, How Henry Ford Envisaged Bitcoin 100 Years Ago — A Unique 'Energy Currency' That Could 'Stop Wars', News.Bitcoin.Com, October 11, 2021 <https://news.bitcoin.com/how-henry-ford-envisaged-bitcoin-100-years-ago-a-unique-energy-currency-that-could-stop-wars/>

ii. Nakomoto, Satoshi, Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, bitcoin.org, October 31, 2008 <https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf>

iii. https://bitnodes.io/

iv. Hall, Stephen, What is a bitcoin seed phrase and how does it work? Unchained.com. December 17, 2021 <https://unchained.com/blog/what-is-a-bitcoin-seed-phrase/>

v. Ammous, Saifedean, Making Time Preference Low Again, The Bitcoin Times, Austrian Edition (V). November 8, 2022 <https://bitcointimes.io/making-time-preference-low-again/>

vi. Gigi, Bitcoin is Time, dergigi.com. Jan 14,2021 <https://dergigi.com/2021/01/14/bitcoin-is-time/>

vii. 200 hour yoga teacher training. House of Om, Bali, Indonesia. <https://houseofom.com/>

@ 889b19eb:ff45973f

A Bitcoin seed phrase, also known as a mnemonic phrase or recovery phrase, is a list of words which store all the information needed to recover your Bitcoin wallet. The seed phrase is effectively a master key to your wallet and having secure backups of your seed phrase ensures you don't lose your stack in the case of a hardware or software wallet failure. There are various physical backup mediums including steal plates and discs you can stamp your seed phrase onto but another option is to store your seed phrase securely in your head. This has the added benefit that it cant be stolen (at least at the time of writing), takes up no physical space and there is something rather cool about having your family wealth stored in your head.

A Mnemonic is simply a system such as a pattern of letters, ideas, or associations which assists in remembering something. This blog post describes two Mnemonic systems I use to remember my seed phrase as well as other lists and numbers. The Linking System

All mnemonics are based on some sort of linking system, the idea is to take the items you want to remember and create scenes and images that you can picture in your mind, this helps lock the information into long term memory. When thinking up these visualisations try to keep the following in mind:

1. The picture should be vivid. Try and see the picture clearly and in focus, imagine yourself stumbling upon the scene or witnessing the events in first person. Let yourself emotionally engage with it for a moment. If the picture is amusing find it funny. If it’s disgusting, actually find it repulsive. focus on how each image makes you feel. Is it funny? Disgusting? Dangerous? Actually take some time to feel that emotion.
2. The elements of each picture should interact. Picturing A and B stood next to each other won’t work. A could be made of B; or dancing with B; being inserted into B; or using b as some sort of implement.
3. The picture should be unusual. If you are linking ‘man’ and ‘cup’, for example, don't use an image that is ordinary. ‘a man drinking from a cup’ for example is too normal. The picture will be more memorable if the man is trying to drink from a giant cup, or is sucking the cup into his face, or if there is a tiny man in a cup trying to get out before the tea gets poured in. Try and be creative and bizarre as possible in order to make a lasting impression.

If the above is starting to make you feel nervous, its actually very straight forward and doesn't require much practice or creative genius. You will be surprised how quickly you can pick this up and how images will just be effortless conjured up to promptly land at a particular word or task you want to remember.

The following example was taken from Derren Brown's fascinating book Tricks of the Mind which first introduced me to these techniques. After reading the next section of this post you will be able to recall the following seemingly randomly words in perfect order and even in reverse. You will likely still be able to recall them weeks later.

Telephone
Sausage
Monkey
Button
Book
Cabbage
Glass
Mouse
Stomach
Cardboard
Ferry
Christmas
Athlete
Key
Wigwam
Baby
Kiwi
Bed
Paintbrush
Walnut

Before beginning try reading the above words and see how many you can remember, minimise the window and see how many you can type out or write down from memory. You might get half a dozen without any special techniques. Now take some time to read the following, remember to take note of how the images are making you feel and take your time, don't just skim read.

Telephone/Sausage: Trying to dial an old-fashioned phone using a flaccid, uncooked sausage. It feels revolting and cold to the fingers, and is utterly impractical to work the dial. I can maybe get the dial around a little way, but then it just purrs back into place.

Sausage/Monkey: Watching footage from a wildlife documentary of a monkey, in the jungle, cooking a sausage over a barbecue. These are rare monkeys, and this is the first time they have been filmed. Next to him he has a selection of dips.

Monkey/Button: You no longer have to spend valuable time doing up your own shirt buttons. You now have a trained monkey to do such things. You stand there in your socks and he does up all the buttons with his clever simian fingers.

Button/Book: It’s a book entirely about buttons, and in order to open it you have to unfasten a line of big colourful buttons down the side. Hugely impractical marketing gimmick. Makes opening it really irritating.

Book/Cabbage: Opening up a book to have a quiet lunchtime read, only to find that the cover and all the pages have leaves of rotten stinking cabbage stuck to them. The stench is terrible, and the pages are ruined. Someone has played a stupid joke on you, and now you’ve got fetid cabbage juice all over your fingers.

Cabbage/Glass: A beautiful but enormous cabbage, realistically created out of glass. The artist is proudly showing it off, flicking it with his fingers and making a ‘pinging’ sound. Everyone’s standing around with glasses of wine appreciating it. Personally you think it’s ridiculous and ugly.

Glass/Mouse: You go to drink a glass of wine, to find that the wine has gone and there’s a tiny mouse in the bottom of the glass. The mouse is clearly drunk, and is wearing a party hat with streamers over his shoulder. A party blow-out extends limply from his mouth, and he’s hiccuping bubbles, like a seventies cartoonist’s depiction of a drunkard.

Mouse/Stomach: Unfortunately I can think only of that urban myth unfairly surrounding Richard Gere some years ago. If you’re not familiar with it, then imagine your tummy full of squeaking mice, which then stream out of your navel like the rats out of Hamelin.

Stomach/Cardboard: A pregnant lady covering her stomach with cardboard from old boxes. Taping it around her, until she is enormous. Now she feels protected.

Cardboard/Ferry: Image of a big P&O ferry sinking in the sea because in a spectacularly misjudged move to save money, the entire boat was manufactured out of cardboard. People are escaping from dinghies, unaware that they are made not from rubber but from ordinary paper.

Ferry/Christmas: A little ferry sat on top of a Christmas tree, perhaps at a school for the hard of hearing. Little streamers, windows, everything. Tinsel around the hull.

Christmas/Athlete: It’s you and all the relations you normally spend Christmas with, running around a race-track in the snow with party hats and crackers trying to beat Kelly Holmes to the finish-line. Your nan is doing superbly, racing ahead in her coat, hat and bag, giving the double-gold winner a run for her money.

Athlete/Key: The winning athlete is given a four-foot-long golden key on a ribbon as a prize. She tries to hold it up for the audience as the National Anthem plays, but it’s extremely heavy, and she wishes she could have just had an ordinary medal.

Key/Wigwam: A key hangs unnoticed from the headgear of a Native American Indian who is unable to get into his wigwam to go to the loo. Hugely frustrating for him. You can picture him, all red-faced. See the key glinting in the light as he searches for it.

Wigwam/Baby: Latest New Age fad: put your baby to sleep every night in a wigwam. Dream-catcher included. Imagine a giant baby asleep inside, snoring, making the sides of the wigwam suck in and blow out.

Baby/Kiwi: A baby shoving green furry kiwi fruit into its mouth. One after another. A huge pile of them waiting to be eaten. Green kiwi juice all down its bib. Throwing up kiwi vomit. He loves kiwis, the little tinker.

Kiwi/Bed: Tucking up a little kiwi for the night in a big king-size bed. Pulling the covers almost over it, then sitting next to it and reading it a story about the Little Kiwi, until it falls asleep.

Bed/Paintbrush: You’ve changed your décor and the bed no longer matches. So rather than buy new covers, you paint them the same colour as the walls. Sloshing paint over the entire bed, watching it go hard and uncomfortable.

Paintbrush/Walnut: Not owning a nutcracker, you’re forced to try and smash open a great big walnut with the end of a paintbrush. Trouble is, you’re using the brush end, which isn’t working, and there’s paint splashing everywhere. It’s a mess, but you really want that walnut.

Now minimise the window again and see how many words you can recall now, start by thinking of the "telephone" and see where it takes you. You should be able to easily recall the whole list. As a bonus round try recalling the list in reverse order starting with "walnut", it should be just as easy. Number Pegs

The linking system is great for remembering things in order (or even reverse) a more powerful system which allows you to recall any word at any position in the sequence without running through from start to finish like you need to do with the linking system is to use a number peg. This creates and index which allows you to recall each word of your seed phrase by its index number. Unlike the standard linking system it will also not break down if you forget one word in the middle of the list. Additionally the system can be used in reverse to remember long numbers or even a whole deck of cards. The Major / Consonant System

The Major or Consonant system is probably the most common peg system in use. First you translate digits into consonants, I use the following which is provided in Derren Brown's Trick of the Mind as this is what I have become use to, but feel free to adapt or create your own as desired.

z/s - Z is in zero and the S sound is most similar to Z
l - They look similar (l for lemur)
n - two downward strokes on a small n
m - three downward strokes
r - fouR
f/v - FiVe, again they are similar sounds
b/p - b looks simlar to 6 and P and B sound and look similar
t - 7 looks like a capital T
ch/sh/j - the GH in eiGHt, and then the J is the nearest to these sounds
g - a written g can resemble a 9

Each consonant is then associated with a short word that contains that consonant.

z/s - zoo
l - ale
n - hen
m - ham
r - whore
f/v - hive
b/g - bee
t - tea
ch/sh/j - shoe
g - goo

for two-digit numbers, convert each digit into a consonant using the table above. Then find a word that uses those two consonants as their first two consonants.

l, z/s - lice
l, l - lily
l, n - line
l, m - lime
l, r - lorry
l, f/v - laugh
l, b/p - lip
l, t - light
l, ch/sh/j - ledge
l, g - leg
n, z/s - nose
n, l - nail
n, n - nanny
n, m - gnome
n, r - nero

I have only supplied words up to 24 as this is all you will need for a Bitcoin seed phrase but for other applications you would normally have a list of words up to 99 or even 999.

Once you have your list of words and their associated numbers, you then use the linking system to link the index word with the word in your seed phrase, so the first word in your seed phrase will be linked with the word "ale" the sixth word in your seed phrase will be linked with "bee" and so on and so forth.

Take the following seed phrase for example:

joke owner layer tail diagram armor input train head promote tuition eager

You might link the words as follows.

1. joke / ale - drinking a pint of ale and laughing at a joke and choking on it and coughing ale all over yourself.
2. owner / hen - Visualize a hen laying golden eggs and the proud owner showing it off to an envious neighbor.
3. layer / ham - peeling layers of pork off a small ham like an onion.
4. tail / whore - you get back to your room with a whore and are surprised to find a big fluffy tail when she drops her draws.
5. diagram / hive - you are working on a big blueprint/diagram of a hive, imagine it in front of you on a drawing board.
6. armor / bee - a high armoured medieval bee, perhaps on horseback with a spear.
7. input / tea - you are using a vending machine and instead of taking coins the coin slot takes teabags for payment, imaging selecting an item and inputting tea bags for payment.
8. train / shoe - imagine a big shoe train, a steam train that is a shoe with wheels on the bottom pulling a carriages down a train track.
9. head / goo - you are on I'm a celeb and have to plunge you head into a big bucket of goo.
10. promote / lice - two lice soldiers, one has been given a promotion the other is pinning a medal on his chest.
11. tuition / lily - Imagine you are in a classroom, but instead of desks, there are giant lily pads. Each student, including you, has to sit atop a lily pad. The tuition fee for the course is actually a handful of lily flowers, which you hand to the instructor.
12. eager / line - Picture a group of people standing in a line, so eager they begin stretching their necks out like giraffes to see the front of the line, vying for the first glimpse of what's to come.

Once you have compiled your list, think of a number between 1 and 12 and turn the number into your peg word and see what image emerges. That should then get you back to your seed word. Try a few with the example above.

And there you have it, once you have completed the exercise above for your seed phrase or phrases, you have now stored your life savings in your head and are safe in the knowledge that you have an always on backup for when disaster strikes. Although this method is very powerful you will need to run through the list every do often to keep it truly cemented. links * The Art of Memory

@ c9f48a56:234112d2

" The Power of Buying $2.50 of Bitcoin Every Day: A Deep Dive into Small-Scale Crypto Investing "

Imagine this: every day, you set aside $2.50—the price of a cheap coffee or a quick snack—and use it to buy Bitcoin. It doesn’t sound like much, right? But over time, this tiny habit could turn into something surprisingly meaningful. Let’s break down what happens when you buy $2.50 worth of Bitcoin daily, with its price sitting at $85,000 today, February 27, 2025. Spoiler: it’s less about getting rich quick and more about playing the long game with a volatile asset.

The Basics: What $2.50 Gets You Today Bitcoin operates on a micro level through satoshis—think of them as the pennies of the Bitcoin world. One Bitcoin equals 100 million satoshis. At $85,000 per Bitcoin, each satoshi costs $0.00085 ($85,000 ÷ 100,000,000). So, with your daily $2.50:

• $2.50 ÷ $0.00085 = ~2,941 satoshis.

• That’s 0.00002941 Bitcoin per day.

It’s a sliver of a coin—barely a whisper in the crypto universe. But that’s the beauty of it: you’re not swinging for the fences; you’re stacking crumbs into a pile.

Scaling It Up: Monthly and Yearly Gains Let’s stretch this out. Over 30 days, you’re spending $75 ($2.50 × 30). That nets you:

• 2,941 satoshis × 30 = 88,230 satoshis, or 0.0008823 Bitcoin.

Over a full year (365 days), it’s $912.50 spent and:

• 2,941 satoshis × 365 = 1,073,465 satoshis, or 0.01073465 Bitcoin.

At today’s $85,000 price, that year’s worth of Bitcoin is valued at $912.50—exactly what you put in. No profit, no loss. But Bitcoin doesn’t just sit there. It’s a rollercoaster, and your daily buys are a way to ride it without losing your lunch. The Dollar-Cost Averaging Magic This method is a textbook example of dollar-cost averaging (DCA). Instead of dumping a lump sum into Bitcoin and praying the price moons, you spread your buys across time. When Bitcoin dips, your $2.50 grabs more satoshis. When it spikes, you get less. Over months or years, this evens out the wild swings.

Say Bitcoin drops to $50,000 tomorrow. Your $2.50 would buy 5,000 satoshis ($2.50 ÷ $0.0005). If it surges to $100,000, you’d get 2,500 satoshis ($2.50 ÷ $0.001). The average price you pay ends up somewhere in the middle, protecting you from buying all-in at a peak.

What Could Happen? The Scenarios Here’s where it gets fun (or nerve-wracking, depending on your vibe). After a year of $2.50 daily buys, you’ve got 0.01073465 Bitcoin. Let’s play out some futures:

• Bitcoin hits $100,000: Your stash is worth $1,073.47. You’ve spent $912.50, so that’s a $160.97 profit—about 17.6% return. Not bad for pocket change.

• Bitcoin climbs to $150,000: Now it’s $1,610.20—a $697.70 gain, or 76.5%. Starting to feel like a sneaky good move.

• Bitcoin falls to $50,000: Your pile’s worth $536.73. You’re down $375.77, or 41%. Ouch, but you’re still in the game with minimal damage.

• Bitcoin crashes to $20,000: It’s $214.69—a $697.81 loss, 76.5% down. Rough, but $912.50 over a year isn’t a life-ruining bet.

The point? This isn’t about timing the market perfectly—it’s about staying consistent and letting Bitcoin’s long-term trajectory (if you believe in it) do the heavy lifting.

The Real World: Fees and Friction One catch: exchanges aren’t free. Most platforms charge a fee—maybe 1-2% per trade, or a flat rate like $0.10. On a $2.50 buy, that’s brutal. A 2% fee is $0.05, leaving you $2.45 to spend (2,882 satoshis instead of 2,941). A $0.10 flat fee? You’re down to $2.40 (2,823 satoshis). Over a year, fees could shave off 50,000+ satoshis from your total. Look for low-fee options or batch your buys weekly to dodge this trap.

Why $2.50? The Psychology and Practicality Why not $5 or $10? Simple: $2.50 is so small you barely notice it. It’s a pack of gum, a vending machine soda, a tip you’d leave without blinking. Psychologically, it’s easy to stick with. Practically, it keeps your risk tiny while still giving you skin in the crypto game. If Bitcoin goes to zero, you’re out $912.50 after a year—annoying, but not catastrophic. If it 10xes, you’ve got a nice little win.

How to Start The best way to kick this off is by mining with Ember Fund—it’s how I stack up to 100 satoshis per hour and fund my $2.50 daily buys without spending a dime upfront. Ember’s app lets us earn free satoshis just by tapping a button daily to start a 24-hour mining cycle. You begin at a base rate of 13 satoshis per hour, which is 312 satoshis daily ($0.27 at $85,000 Bitcoin), but with referrals, it scales fast—each friend adds 10-13 satoshis per hour when they mine with you ( You Create Your Own Mining Pool ) capping at 100 satoshis per hour. At the max, that’s 2,400 satoshis daily, or about $2.04—nearly our $2.50 target. Team up with a few friends or better yet family members, sync your mining, and you’re golden. Withdraw to a wallet or reinvest into your daily Bitcoin buys through Ember. It’s a near-passive way to fuel this strategy for free.

Other options like buying directly on exchanges (Coinbase, Binance, Kraken) with recurring $2.50 purchases work too, but they dip into your pocket and come with fees. Ember’s mining trumps that by letting us earn our way in. Track your satoshis, not dollars; it’s more satisfying to see the stack grow. The Big Picture: Is It Worth It? This depends on you. If you’re a Bitcoin skeptic, $2.50 daily might feel like tossing coins into a wishing well. If you’re a believer—say you think it’ll hit $200,000 in five years—it’s a low-effort way to build a position. Historically, Bitcoin’s climbed from pennies to $85,000 over 15 years, but past performance isn’t a promise. Zoom out: $912.50 is 0.01073465 Bitcoin today. At $200,000, that’s $2,146.93. At $1 million? $10,734.65. Small seeds, big dreams.

Final Thought Buying $2.50 of Bitcoin daily isn’t a get-rich-quick scheme—it’s a slow drip into a wild market. You’re not betting the farm; you’re nibbling at the edges. Whether it’s genius or a waste depends on Bitcoin’s future, and nobody’s got a crystal ball. But for less than a Netflix subscription each month, you’re in the ring. What’s $2.50 to you?

@ e111a405:fa441558

OpenAI released its new o3 models and numerous people argue that this is in fact Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) – in other words, an AI system that is on par with human intelligence. Even if o3 is not yet AGI, the emphasis now lies on “yet,” and – considering the exponential progression – we can expect AGI to arrive within months or maximum one to two years.

According to OpenAI, it only took 3 months to go from the o1 model to the o3 model. This is a 4x+ acceleration relative to previous progress. If this speed of AI advancement is maintained, it means that by the end of 2025 we will be as much ahead of o3 as o3 is ahead of GPT-3 (released in May 2020). And, after achieving AGI, the self-reinforcing feedback loop will only further accelerate exponential improvements of these AI systems.

But, most anti-intuitively, even after we have achieved AGI, it will for quite some time look as if nothing has happened. You won’t feel any change and your job and business will feel safe and untouchable. Big fallacy. We can expect that after AGI it will take many months of not 1-2 years for the real transformations to happen. Why? Because AGI in and of itself does not release value into the economy. It will be much more important to apply it. But as AGI becomes cheaper, agentic, and embedded into the world, we will see a transformation-explosion – replacing those businesses and jobs that are unprepared.

I thought a lot about the impact the announced – and soon to be released – o3 model, and the first AGI model are going to have.

To make it short: I am extremely confident that any skill or process that can be digitized will be. As a result, the majority of white-collar and skilled jobs are on track for massive disruption or elimination.

Furthermore, I think many experts and think tanks are fooling themselves by believing that humans will maintain “some edge” and work peacefully side-by-side with an AI system. I don’t think AGI will augment knowledge workers – i.e. anyone working with language, code, numbers, or any kind of specialized software – it will replace them!

So, if your job or business relies purely on standardized cognitive tasks, you are racing toward the cliff’s edge, and it is time to pivot now!

Let’s start with the worst. Businesses and jobs in which you should pivot immediately – or at least not enter as of today – include but are not limited to anything that involves sitting at a computer:

• anything with data entry or data processing (run as fast as you can!)
• anything that involves writing (copywriting, technical writing,
• editing, proofreading, translation)
• most coding and web development
• SAAS (won’t exist in a couple of years)
• banking (disrupted squared: AGI + Blockchain)
• accounting and auditing (won’t exist as a job in 5-10 years)
• insurance (will be disrupted)
• law (excluding high-stake litigation, negotiation, courtroom advocacy)
• any generic design, music, and video creation (graphic design, stock photography, stock videos)
• market and investment research and analysis (AI will take over 100%)
• trading, both quantitative and qualitative (don’t exit but profit now, but expect to be disrupted within 5 years)
• any middle-layer-management (project and product management)
• medical diagnostics (will be 100% AI within 5 years)
• most standardized professional / consulting services

However, I believe that in high-stakes domains (health, finance, governance), regulators and the public will demand a “human sign-off”. So if you are in accounting, auditing, law, or finance I’d recommend pivoting to a business model where the ability to anchor trust becomes a revenue source.

The question is, where should you pivot to or what business to start in 2025?

My First Principles of a Post-AGI Business Model

First, even as AI becomes infallible, human beings will still crave real, raw, direct trust relationships. People form bonds around shared experiences, especially offline ones. I believe a truly future-proof venture leverages these primal instincts that machines can never replicate at a deeply visceral level. Nevertheless, I believe it is a big mistake to assume that humans will “naturally” stick together just because we are the same species. AGI might quickly appear more reliable, less selfish than most human beings, and have emotional intelligence. So a business build upon the thesis of the “human advantage” must expertly harness and establish emotional ties, tribal belonging, and shared experiences – all intangible values that are far more delicate and complex than logic.

First Principle: Operate in the Physical World

If your product or service can be fully digitalized and delivered via the cloud, AGI can replicate it with near-zero marginal cost Infuse strategic real-world constraints (logistics, location-specific interactions, physical limitations, direct relationships) that create friction and scarcity – where AI alone will struggle

Second Principle: Create Hyper Niche Human Experiences

• The broader audience, the easier it is for AI to dominate. Instead, cultivate specialized groups and subcultures with strong in-person and highly personalized experiences.
• Offer creative or spiritual elements that defy pure rational patterns and thus remain less formulaic

Third Principle: Emphasize Adaptive, Micro-Scale Partnerships

• Align with small, local, or specialized stakeholders. Use alliances with artisan suppliers, local talents, subject-matter experts, and so on.
• Avoid single points of failure; build a decentralized network that is hard for a single AI to replicate or disrupt

Fourth Principle: Embed Extreme Flexibility

• Structured, hierarchical organizations are easily out-iterated by AI that can reorganize and optimize instantly
• Cultivate fluid teams with quickly reconfigurable structures, use agile, project based collaboration that can pivot as soon AGI-based competition arises

Opportunity Vectors

With all of that in mind, there are niches that before looked unattractive, because less scalable, that today offer massive opportunities – let’s call them opportunity vectors.

The first opportunity vector I have already touched upon:

Trust and Validation Services: Humans verifying or certifying that a certain AI outcome is ethically or legally sound – while irrational, it is exactly what humans will insist on, particularly where liability is high (medicine, finance, law, infrastructure)

Frontier Sectors with Regulatory and Ethical Friction: Think of markets where AI will accelerate R&D but human oversight, relationship management, and accountability remain essential: genetic engineering, biotech, advanced materials, quantum computing, etc.

The second opportunity vector focuses on the human edge:

• Experience & Community: Live festivals, immersive events, niche retreats, or spiritual explorations – basically any scenario in which emotional energy and a human experience is the core product - Rare Craftsmanship & Creative Quirks: Think of hyper-personalized items, physical artwork, artisanal or hands-on creations. Items that carry an inherent uniqueness or intangible meaning that an AI might replicate in design, but can’t replicate in “heritage” or provenance.

Risk Tactics

Overall, the best insurance is fostering a dynamic brand and a loyal community that invests personally and emotionally in you. People will buy from those whose values they trust. If you stand for something real, you create an emotional bond that AI can’t break. I’m not talking about superficial corporate social responsibility (nobody cares) but about authenticity that resonates on a near-spiritual level.

As you build your business, erect an ethical moat by providing “failsafe” services where your human personal liability and your brand acts as a shield for AI decisions. This creates trust and differentiation among anonymous pure-AGI play businesses.

Seek and create small, specialized, local, or digital micro-monopolies – areas too tiny or fractal for the “big AI players” to devote immediate resources to. Over time, multiply these micro-monopolies by rolling them up under one trusted brand.

Furthermore, don’t avoid AI. You cannot out-AI the AI. So as you build a business on the human edge moat, you should still harness AI to do 90% of the repetitive and analytic tasks – this frees your human capital to build human relationships, solve ambiguous problem, or invent new offerings.

Bet on What Makes Us Human

To summarize, AI is logical, combinatorial intelligence. The advancements in AI will commoditize logic and disrupt any job and business that is mainly build upon logic as capital. Human – on the other hand – is authenticity. What makes human human and your brand authentic are elements of chaos, empathy, spontaneity. In this context, human is fostering embodied, emotional, culturally contextual, physically immersive experiences. Anything that requires raw creativity, emotional intelligence, local presence, or unique personal relationships will be more AI resilient.

Therefore, a Post-AGI business must involve:

• Tangibility: Physical goods, spaces, unique craftsmanship
• Human Connection: Emotional, face-to-face, improvisational experiences
• Comprehensive Problem Solving: Complex negotiations, messy real-world situations, diverse stakeholder management

The inverse list of AGI proof industries involve some or multiple aspects of that:

Physical, In-Person, Human-Intensive Services - Healthcare: Nursing, Physical therapy, Hands-on caregiving - Skilled trades & craftsmanship

High-Level Strategy & Complex Leadership - Diplomacy, Negotiation, Trust building - Visionary entrepreneurship

Deep Emotional / Experiential Offerings - Group experiences, retreats, spiritual or therapeutic gatherings - Artistic expression that thrives on “imperfection”, physical presence, or spontaneous creativity

Infrastructure for AGI - Human-based auditing/verification - Physical data center operations & advanced hardware - Application and embedment of AI in the forms of AGI agents, algorithmic improvements, etc. to make it suitable for everyday tasks and workflow

The real differentiator is whether a business is anchored in the physical world’s complexity, emotional trust, or intangible brand relationships. Everything pure data-driven or standardized is on the chopping block – imminently.

@ 5bdb0e24:0ccbebd7

Have you ever needed to reference a Linux command line tool's capabilities only to find out there is no manual page and that only the -h (--help) option is available?

Normally, this isn't a problem, but -h doesn't let you search for strings the way man does. That means, if you are trying to use a tool that is quite extensive, scrolling and sifting through the help option's results manually can be quite cumbersome.

The ffuf command is a good example of this, but this can be a problem for many other CLI tools out there.

Thankfully, I found a quick and easy way to search these help messages, and I feel so silly for not thinking of it sooner.

All you need to do is pipe the output of the -h message you are trying to reference into something like less:

ffuf -h | less

Now, after typing a forward slash (/), you can search throughout the -h message without manually scrolling through the whole thing, similarly to how you might search through a manpage.

I'm sure there are other ways to achieve this same result. But this is the one I have found works for me and that I will be using going forward.

If you know an even better way to achieve this, or you have any other underrated Linux command line tips and tricks, feel free to let me know.

@ a012dc82:6458a70d

Bitcoin's journey from a cryptographic experiment to a widely recognized financial asset is a testament to the rapid evolution of digital currencies. Since its inception in 2009, Bitcoin has captivated the attention of technologists, investors, and the general public alike. Its decentralized nature and potential for high returns have made it a subject of intense interest and debate. The recent introduction of Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) marks a pivotal moment in this journey, potentially heralding a new era of mainstream acceptance for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. This development is not just a milestone for Bitcoin enthusiasts but also a signal to the broader financial community about the evolving nature of investment and the growing importance of digital assets.

Table of Contents

• Understanding Bitcoin ETFs

• Bitcoin's Journey to Mainstream Acceptance

• The Impact of ETFs on Bitcoin's Perception

• Risks and Challenges

• The Future of Crypto with ETFs

• Conclusion

• FAQs

Understanding Bitcoin ETFs

A Bitcoin ETF represents a seismic shift in the way investors can access the world of cryptocurrencies. Traditionally, investing in Bitcoin required a certain level of technical know-how, including understanding cryptocurrency exchanges, digital wallets, and the concept of blockchain technology. This complexity has been a significant barrier to entry for many potential investors. A Bitcoin ETF simplifies this process dramatically. Investors can buy and sell shares of the ETF through traditional brokerage accounts, just as they would with any other stock or fund. This accessibility opens the doors to a broader range of investors, from individuals seeking to diversify their portfolios to institutional investors looking for regulated exposure to the crypto market. The ETF structure also provides added security and regulatory oversight, addressing some of the key concerns around cryptocurrency investments.

Bitcoin's Journey to Mainstream Acceptance

The path of Bitcoin to mainstream acceptance has been anything but straightforward. In its early days, Bitcoin was primarily a tool for tech enthusiasts and libertarians, valued for its decentralization and potential as an alternative to traditional currencies. Over time, its appeal broadened, attracting attention from venture capitalists and forward-thinking investors. High-profile endorsements, increasing media coverage, and a growing recognition of its potential as a hedge against inflation and currency devaluation have further propelled Bitcoin into the financial spotlight. Each surge in Bitcoin's price brought more attention and legitimacy, although it was often accompanied by skepticism and warnings of a bubble. The introduction of futures trading on major exchanges and the gradual embrace by major financial institutions have been critical in Bitcoin's journey towards legitimacy.

The Impact of ETFs on Bitcoin's Perception

The launch of Bitcoin ETFs is more than just a new investment product; it's a symbolic bridge between the traditional financial world and the frontier of cryptocurrency. For years, Bitcoin has been viewed with a mix of fascination and skepticism by the mainstream financial community. The introduction of ETFs changes this dynamic significantly. It offers a familiar and regulated framework for investing in Bitcoin, which can assuage the concerns of risk-averse investors and financial advisors. This development is likely to lead to broader acceptance and understanding of Bitcoin as a legitimate asset class, potentially leading to more stable pricing and reduced volatility. It also sets a precedent for other cryptocurrencies, suggesting a future where digital assets are as commonplace in investment portfolios as stocks and bonds.

Risks and Challenges

While Bitcoin ETFs offer new opportunities, they also come with their own set of risks and challenges. The cryptocurrency market is known for its dramatic price swings, and Bitcoin is no exception. Investors in Bitcoin ETFs must be prepared for a potentially turbulent ride. Regulatory challenges are another significant concern. The legal and regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies is still evolving, and changes in government policies or regulations could have a substantial impact on Bitcoin and Bitcoin ETFs. There's also the risk that the introduction of ETFs could lead to increased speculation and potentially inflate a price bubble. Moreover, traditional financial analysts and economists continue to express skepticism about the intrinsic value and long-term stability of Bitcoin, often comparing it to historical financial bubbles.

The Future of Crypto with ETFs

The introduction of Bitcoin ETFs could mark the beginning of a new chapter in the story of cryptocurrencies. As these products gain acceptance and attract more investment, they could pave the way for a broader range of crypto-based financial products and services. This integration into the global financial system could lead to cryptocurrencies becoming a standard part of diversified investment portfolios, alongside stocks, bonds, and commodities. The potential impact on the broader financial market is significant. Cryptocurrencies, led by Bitcoin, could challenge traditional notions of asset allocation, risk, and return. They also offer the potential for innovative financial products and services that leverage blockchain technology, further integrating digital currencies into the fabric of global finance.

Conclusion

The launch of Bitcoin ETFs is a significant milestone in the evolution of cryptocurrencies. It represents a convergence of the traditional financial world and the innovative, sometimes turbulent world of digital currencies. While this development brings new opportunities and a degree of legitimacy to Bitcoin, it also comes with challenges and risks that should not be underestimated. As the financial world continues to evolve, the role of cryptocurrencies and their impact on global markets and investment strategies will be a fascinating and important area to watch.

FAQs

How does a Bitcoin ETF differ from buying Bitcoin directly? Unlike direct Bitcoin purchases, which require a cryptocurrency exchange account and a digital wallet, a Bitcoin ETF can be bought and sold like a regular stock through a brokerage account.

Why are Bitcoin ETFs considered a milestone for cryptocurrency? Bitcoin ETFs represent a significant step towards mainstream acceptance of Bitcoin, offering a familiar and regulated investment option to both individual and institutional investors.

What are the risks involved in investing in Bitcoin ETFs? The risks include the inherent volatility of Bitcoin prices, regulatory changes, and potential market speculation that could impact the stability and value of these ETFs.

How might Bitcoin ETFs affect the future of cryptocurrencies? Bitcoin ETFs could pave the way for more crypto-based financial products, integrating digital currencies more deeply into the global financial system and potentially reshaping investment strategies.

Are Bitcoin ETFs suitable for all investors? Bitcoin ETFs, like any investment, may not be suitable for everyone. They are best suited for those who understand the high-risk nature of cryptocurrency investments and are looking to diversify their portfolio.

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.

@ 9bcc5462:eb501d90

Cuneiform is mankind’s first writing system created by the ancient Sumerians of Mesopotamia, what is now Iraq. (The word “Sumer” means land of civilized kings). Despite being developed 5,000 years ago, its parallels to Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays will blow your mind! The most striking is how both breakthroughs materialized from the fundamental need to track value exchange–from primal grain tallies to now exchanging bitcoin.

Let’s begin with the fact that the styluses used by these archaic scribes were crafted from reed plants. Their stems were strong because of attachment points called nodes! These were the resilient, ring-like parts of the stem that joined it together with the rest of the plant. Similarly, although symbolically, lightning nodes are powerful on nostr since they allow us to zap each other with sats. An approach stemming from the need to modernize how we interact on social media, trade in networks and conduct business—It’s not surprising cuneiform came about as a way for merchants and farmers to track economic transactions and agricultural inventories!

Another parallel involves how both share everlasting marks. The Sumerians used their styluses to press wedge-like symbols onto wet tablets. They then would bake them in the sun, leaving a permanent record of the documentation. If an error was made, it could not be changed. Likewise, on nostr there is no delete function. Once you publish a note, including any typos, it is preserved for history.

Lastly, the proto-writing that emerged in Mesopotamia which led to Cuneiform was in the form of bullae (bulla: singular). These were spherical clay envelopes encased with tokens representing a transaction. They were sealed with unique markings representing the parties involved for authentication. In other words, cuneiform cylinder seals were effectively early public key cryptography! The seal itself being the private key and its impression being the public key. Just as us nostriches use our nsec to sign our notes with integrity and verify value-for-value with our npub.

               *Rare bulla seal (shout out to Conny Waters from ancientpages.com)*

                               *Sumerian cuneiform tablet (source: britannica.com)*

At the end of the day, maybe we’re not so different from our ancestors after all. The evolution of our writing technology over the course of our history is more than innovation born of necessity. Across millennia, 3025 BCE to 2025 AD, it's man telling the universe– we will be remembered– beyond space and time. As our ancestors stacked their clay tablets, we’ll stack our sats! Onward nostr! The new land of civilized kings.

        *Mankind's Innovations in Writing Technology by Learning Producers, Inc.*

@ 8f69ac99:4f92f5fd

O Estado Social tem sido um pilar das políticas sociais europeias há décadas, oferecendo uma rede de segurança aos cidadãos através de diversos programas governamentais. Contudo, com a evolução das economias e o envelhecimento da população a pressionar os recursos públicos, este modelo tradicional enfrenta desafios crescentes. Custos em alta, ineficiências burocráticas e efeitos indesejados têm gerado um debate cada vez mais intenso sobre a sua sustentabilidade. Como alternativa, o Rendimento Básico Universal (RBU) ganhou destaque, prometendo simplicidade, mas trazendo preocupações quanto ao custo e aos desincentivos ao trabalho. Há, porém, uma opção mais equilibrada que merece atenção: o Imposto sobre o Rendimento Negativo (IRN).

Diferente da assistência social convencional, o IRN oferece apoio financeiro a quem está abaixo de um limiar de rendimento definido, sem exigir que procurem emprego ou dependam de ajudas públicas. Ao reduzir gradualmente os subsídios à medida que os rendimentos aumentam, incentiva a produtividade e preserva a iniciativa pessoal. Neste artigo, vamos explorar o IRN em profundidade, destacando as suas vantagens sobre os sistemas tradicionais, abordando as falhas do RBU e avaliando o seu potencial como uma reforma transformadora na Europa. Num contexto de mudanças económicas e demográficas, o IRN surge como um caminho prático para um sistema que equilibre apoio, dignidade e sustentabilidade.

Problemas dos Sistemas Tradicionais de Assistência Social

O Estado Social tradicional, embora bem-intencionado, tem sido alvo de críticas crescentes pelas suas ineficiências e consequências inesperadas.

Ineficiência e Burocracia

Estruturas administrativas complexas frequentemente atrasam os sistemas de assistência social, levando a desperdícios de recursos. Programas sobrepostos e serviços redundantes aumentam os custos, sobrecarregando os contribuintes. Por exemplo, várias entidades podem oferecer benefícios semelhantes, enquanto processos morosos atrasam a ajuda a quem precisa. Com o envelhecimento da população europeia a exigir mais apoio, estas ineficiências põem em risco a estabilidade financeira, desafiando os decisores políticos a repensarem a distribuição de recursos.

Incentivos Perversos

A assistência social pode, sem querer, desencorajar o trabalho e perpetuar a dependência. Surgem "armadilhas de assistência" quando os benefícios são estruturados de forma a que ganhar um salário resulte numa redução abrupta da ajuda, tornando o emprego menos atractivo do que permanecer no assistencialismo. Isso cria um ciclo em que os beneficiários hesitam em procurar trabalho ou formação, comprometendo as suas perspectivas a longo prazo. Com o tempo, tais sistemas arriscam criar uma cultura de dependência, minando a iniciativa pessoal e prendendo indivíduos numa estagnação económica.

Peso Económico

A pressão financeira do Estado Social está a intensificar-se com as mudanças demográficas na Europa. Populações mais envelhecidas requerem maior apoio, elevando os custos e exigindo impostos mais altos ou gastos públicos acrescidos. Isso desvia recursos da inovação e do investimento, podendo travar o crescimento económico. Sem reformas, estas despesas crescentes podem tornar-se insustentáveis, obrigando os governos a encontrar soluções que mantenham o apoio sem comprometer as finanças.

Estigma Social

Além das questões económicas, a assistência social traz muitas vezes um custo social. Os beneficiários enfrentam frequentemente estereótipos de preguiça ou incompetência, o que gera vergonha e diminui a autoestima. Este estigma pode dificultar a mobilidade social, tornando mais complicado sair da dependência. Resolver isto exige um sistema que não só apoie, mas também capacite, reduzindo preconceitos e promovendo inclusão.

Face a estas falhas, a Europa precisa de explorar alternativas que prestem ajuda de forma mais eficaz. O Imposto sobre o Rendimento Negativo apresenta-se como uma opção promissora, capaz de enfrentar estas questões sistémicas.

O Caso Contra o Rendimento Básico Universal (RBU)

O Rendimento Básico Universal surgiu como uma ideia ousada para combater a pobreza e a desigualdade, oferecendo a cada cidadão um pagamento fixo independentemente das suas necessidades. No entanto, a sua simplicidade traz desvantagens significativas.

O custo do RBU é um obstáculo enorme. Implementá-lo em toda a Europa exigiria fundos avultados, pressionando orçamentos já sobrecarregados pelos compromissos actuais do Estado Social. Isso poderia implicar subidas acentuadas de impostos ou cortes noutros serviços, enquanto a criação da infraestrutura administrativa necessária traria mais despesas. Há também quem tema os desincentivos ao trabalho: se todos receberem o mesmo valor, alguns podem sentir menos motivação para trabalhar ou arriscar em projectos empreendedores, podendo afectar a vitalidade económica.

Além disso, a abordagem universal do RBU sacrifica eficiência. Ao distribuir fundos de forma igual, não dá prioridade a quem mais precisa, entregando recursos aos mais ricos enquanto dilui o impacto sobre os pobres. Esta falta de foco levanta dúvidas sobre a sua capacidade de combater a desigualdade de forma eficaz. Embora o apelo do RBU esteja na sua universalidade, estes desafios apontam para a necessidade de uma solução mais direccionada—e é aqui que o IRN entra em cena.

Compreender o Imposto sobre o Rendimento Negativo (IRN)

O Imposto sobre o Rendimento Negativo propõe uma abordagem refinada ao apoio social, combinando assistência com incentivos. No seu cerne, define um limiar de rendimento base—digamos, 1.000 euros por mês. Quem ganha menos recebe um subsídio proporcional à diferença, enquanto quem ultrapassa esse valor paga impostos para financiar o sistema. Por exemplo, com uma taxa de subsídio de 50%, quem não tem rendimentos recebe 500 euros, e quem ganha 400 euros recebe 300 euros, elevando o total para 700 euros. À medida que o rendimento se aproxima do limiar, o subsídio diminui, desaparecendo nos 1.000 euros, altura em que a tributação começa.

Veja-se uma ilustração simples:

| Rendimento Mensal (€) | Pagamento IRN (€) | Rendimento Total Após IRN (€) | |-----------------------|-------------------|------------------------------| | 0 | 500 | 500 | | 400 | 300 | 700 | | 800 | 100 | 900 | | 1.000 | 0 | 1.000 | | 1.200 | - (impostos aplicam-se) | 1.200 - impostos |

Isto garante que trabalhar compensa sempre: ganhar mais aumenta o rendimento total, evitando a armadilha da assistência. O financiamento vem de um imposto fixo—talvez 19%—sobre os rendimentos acima do limiar. Quem ganha 1.500 euros, por exemplo, paga 95 euros sobre os 500 euros acima de 1.000, ficando com 1.405 euros. Este modelo fiscal simples facilita a gestão e assegura equidade.

| Rendimento (€) | Rendimento Tributável (€) | Imposto (€) | Após Imposto (€) | |----------------|---------------------|---------|------------------| | 1000 | 0 | 0 | 1000 | | 1200 | 200 | 38 | 1162 | | 2000 | 1000 | 190 | 1810 |

O IRN pode ser de participação voluntária, através de um contrato. As pessoas podem aderir ao sistema se precisarem de apoio ou rejeitá-lo se não aceitarem ajuda estatal, evitando os impostos associados ao financiamento do IRN. Quem optar por sair pode reentrar em caso de dificuldades, equilibrando liberdade de escolha com pragmatismo. Para libertários desconfiados de ingerências governamentais, isto torna o IRN um compromisso—um passo para longe do assistencialismo coercivo e em direcção a maior autonomia.

Filosoficamente, o IRN não é um objectivo final, mas uma ponte. Ao simplificar a ajuda e reduzir a burocracia, pode abrir caminho para soluções privadas, como caridade ou apoio mútuo, diminuindo o papel do estado ao longo do tempo. Características como a avaliação de meios e a indexação à inflação reforçam a sua adaptabilidade, garantindo que o apoio permaneça justo e relevante.

Vantagens do Imposto sobre o Rendimento Negativo (IRN)

O IRN destaca-se onde o Estado Social tradicional falha. Os seus subsídios decrescentes incentivam o trabalho, premiando o esforço à medida que o rendimento sobe e impulsionando a produtividade. Isto contrasta fortemente com as armadilhas da assistência, encorajando as pessoas a procurarem formação ou a arriscarem em empreendedorismo sem medo de perder apoio de repente.

Na gestão, o IRN é revolucionário. Substituir um emaranhado de programas por um único sistema reduz a burocracia e os custos, canalizando recursos directamente para quem precisa. Um processo de pagamento único elimina sobreposições, tornando a entrega de ajuda mais rápida e eficiente.

A dignidade é outro ponto forte. Ao oferecer escolha e evitar supervisão intrusiva, o IRN escapa ao estigma do assistencialismo, dando aos beneficiários autonomia para gerir as suas finanças. Isso promove o autorrespeito e um sentido de controlo, quebrando o ciclo de dependência.

Economicamente, a flexibilidade do IRN sobressai. Adapta-se às flutuações de rendimento, direccionando a ajuda exactamente onde é necessária. Estudos indicam que pode reduzir a pobreza, melhorar a mobilidade social e até beneficiar a saúde, ao aliviar o stress financeiro, oferecendo um impulso abrangente ao bem-estar.

Responder às Críticas ao Imposto sobre o Rendimento Negativo (IRN)

Nenhuma política escapa a críticas, e o IRN tem as suas. Os libertários veem, e bem, os impostos como roubo, e embora o IRN não elimine esta tensão, suaviza-a. Ao condensar o Estado Social num sistema claro e simples, reduz a intromissão estatal face à burocracia actual. Os seus incentivos ao trabalho alinham-se com valores de responsabilidade, tornando-o um passo aceitável a curto prazo.

O financiamento preocupa, sobretudo em países europeus já muito tributados, mas uma taxa fixa oferece uma solução. Simples e previsível, minimiza os custos administrativos e assegura contribuições justas, sustentando o IRN sem sobrecarga excessiva. Há também quem debata o seu impacto social—uns chamam-lhe um subsídio fácil, um hand-out, outros um sistema demasiado voltado para o mercado. Ainda assim, o IRN encontra um meio-termo, oferecendo uma rede de segurança que recompensa o esforço sem controlar vidas.

Passar para o IRN exige eliminar gradualmente os programas antigos e informar o público sobre os seus benefícios: um governo mais leve, menos dependência e maior iniciativa pessoal. Para quem sonha com um futuro sem estado, o IRN não é o destino, mas um movimento prático rumo a sistemas de apoio voluntários, promovendo uma cultura de autossuficiência.

Conclusão

O Imposto sobre o Rendimento Negativo não é perfeito, mas é um avanço claro face ao status quo. Reduz os excessos do Estado Social, promove trabalho e dignidade, e oferece à Europa uma reforma viável perante as pressões económicas. Para os contribuintes, promete eficiência; para os beneficiários, oportunidade. Numa região onde o assistencialismo está profundamente enraizado, o IRN surge como um passo ousado, mas possível, para um futuro mais livre e sustentável—um que capacite as pessoas enquanto alivia o peso do estado.

---

Photo by The New York Public Library on Unsplash

@ d830ee7b:4e61cd62

การเผชิญหน้า (The Collision Point)

กลางปี 2017 ที่ร้านคราฟท์เบียร์เล็ก ๆ ในย่านเกาะเกร็ด นนทบุรี อากาศร้อนจนเครื่องปรับอากาศ (ที่ยังไม่มี) ในร้านทำงานหนักแทบไหม้ "แจ๊ก กู้ดเดย์" (Jakk Goodday) นั่งลงบนเก้าอี้ไม้ที่เจ้าของร้านกันไว้ให้เป็นประจำ ราวกับเขาเป็นลูกค้าขาประจำระดับวีไอพี

กลิ่นกาแฟคั่ว ลอยผสมกับไอความร้อนจากนอกหน้าต่าง (ผิดร้านหรือเปล่า?) เกิดเป็นบรรยากาศขมติดปลายลิ้นชวนให้คนจิบแล้วอยากถอนใจ

เขาเหลือบมองออกไปนอกหน้าต่าง.. เห็นแสงแดดแผดเผาราวกับมันรู้ว่าสงคราม Blocksize กำลังคุกรุ่นขึ้นอีกครั้ง

บรรยากาศนอกหน้าต่างกับใน ฟอรัม Bitcointalk ช่างเหมือนกันจนน่าขนลุก มันร้อนแรง ไร้ความปรานี

แจ๊กเปิดแล็ปท็อป กดเข้าเว็บฟอรัม พอเสียงแจ้งเตือน “—ติ๊ง” ดังขึ้น คิ้วของเขาก็ขมวดเล็กน้อย คล้ายได้กลิ่นดินปืนกลางสนามรบ

“โรเจอร์ แวร์ (Roger Ver) ไลฟ์เดือดลั่นเวที!” “ปีเตอร์ วูเล (Pieter Wuille) โต้กลับเรื่อง SegWit!” “Hard Fork ใกล้ถึงจุดปะทะแล้ว!”

แจ๊กคลิกเข้าไปในลิงก์ของไลฟ์ทันที เหมือนมือของเขาไม่ต้องการคำสั่งจากสมอง ความคุ้นเคยกับเหตุการณ์แบบนี้บอกเขาว่า นี่ไม่ใช่ดีเบตธรรมดา แต่มันอาจเปลี่ยนอนาคตของ Bitcoin ได้จริง ๆ

เห็นแค่พาดหัวสั้น ๆ แต่ความตึงเครียดก็ชัดเจนขึ้นเรื่อย ๆ ทุกข้อความเหมือนสุมไฟใส่ใจกองหนึ่งที่พร้อมระเบิดได้ทุกเมื่อ

โทรศัพท์ของแจ๊กดังพร้อมปรากฏชื่อ แชมป์ ‘PIGROCK’ ลอยขึ้นมา เขาหยิบขึ้นมารับทันที

“ว่าไงวะแชมป์… มีอะไรด่วนหรือเปล่า?” น้ำเสียงแจ๊กฟังดูเหมือนง่วง ๆ แต่จริง ๆ เขาพร้อมจะลุกมาวิเคราะห์สถานการณ์ให้ฟังทุกเมื่อ

“พี่แจ๊ก.. ผมอ่านดีเบตเรื่อง SegWit ในฟอรัมอยู่ครับ บางคนด่าว่ามันไม่ได้แก้ปัญหาจริง ๆ บ้างก็บอกถ้าเพิ่ม Blocksize ไปเลยจะง่ายกว่า... ผมเลยสงสัยว่า Hard Fork ที่เค้าพูดถึงกันนี่คืออะไร ใครคิดอะไรก็ Fork กันได้ง่าย ๆ เลยเหรอ"

"แล้วถ้า Fork ไปหลายสาย สุดท้ายเหรียญไหนจะเป็น ‘Bitcoin ที่แท้จริง’ ล่ะพี่?”

“แล้วการ Fork มันส่งผลกับนักลงทุนยังไงครับ? คนทั่วไปอย่างผมควรถือไว้หรือขายหนีตายดีล่ะเนี่ย?”

แจ๊กยิ้มมุมปาก ชอบใจที่น้องถามจี้จุด

“เอางี้… การ Fork มันเหมือนแบ่งถนนออกเป็นสองสาย ใครชอบกติกาเก่าก็วิ่งถนนเส้นเก่า ใครอยากแก้กติกาใหม่ก็ไปถนนเส้นใหม่"

"แต่ประเด็นคือ... นี่ไม่ใช่เรื่องเล็ก ๆ เพราะมีผลต่ออัตลักษณ์ของ Bitcoin ทั้งหมดเลยนะมึง—ใครจะยอมปล่อยผ่านง่าย ๆ”

"คิดดูสิ ถ้าครั้งนี้พวกเขา Fork จริง มันอาจไม่ได้เปลี่ยนแค่เครือข่าย แต่เปลี่ยนวิธีที่คนมอง Bitcoin ไปตลอดกาลเลยนะ"

"แล้วใครมันจะอยากลงทุนในระบบที่แตกแยกซ้ำแล้วซ้ำเล่าวะ?"

“งั้นหมายความว่าตอนนี้ก็มีสองแนวใหญ่ ๆ ชัวร์ใช่ไหมครับ?” แชมป์ถามต่อ

“ฝั่ง โรเจอร์ แวร์ ที่บอกว่าต้องเพิ่ม Blocksize ให้ใหญ่จุใจ กับฝั่งทีม Core อย่าง ปีเตอร์ วูเล ที่ยืนยันต้องใช้ SegWit ทำให้บล็อกเบา ไม่กระทบการกระจายอำนาจ?”

“ใช่เลย” แจ๊กจิบกาแฟดำเข้ม ๆ ผสมน้ำผึ้งไปหนึ่งอึก

“โรเจอร์นี่เขาเชื่อว่า Bitcoin ต้องเป็นเงินสดดิจิทัลที่ใช้จ่ายไว ค่าธรรมเนียมไม่แพง ส่วนปีเตอร์กับ Bitcoin Core มองว่าการเพิ่มบล็อกเยอะ ๆ มันจะไปฆ่า Node รายย่อย คนไม่มีทุนก็รัน Node ไม่ไหว สุดท้าย Bitcoin จะกลายเป็นระบบกึ่งรวมศูนย์ ซึ่งมันผิดหลักการเดิมของ ซาโตชิ ไงล่ะ”

“ฟังแล้วก็ไม่ใช่เรื่องง่ายนะพี่… งั้นที่ผมได้ยินว่า จิฮั่น อู๋ (Jihan Wu) เจ้าของ Bitmain ที่ถือ Hashrate เกินครึ่งนี่ก็มาอยู่ฝั่งเดียวกับโรเจอร์ใช่ไหม?"

"เพราะยิ่งบล็อกใหญ่ ค่าธรรมเนียมยิ่งเพิ่ม นักขุดก็ได้กำไรสูงขึ้นใช่ป่ะ?”

“ไอ้เรื่องกำไรก็ส่วนหนึ่ง...” แจ๊กถอนหายใจ

“แต่ที่สำคัญกว่านั้นคืออำนาจต่อรอง… ตอนประชุมลับที่ฮ่องกงเมื่อปีที่แล้ว พี่เองก็ถูกชวนให้เข้าไปในฐานะคนกลาง เลยเห็นภาพน่าขนลุกอยู่หน่อย ๆ"

"จิฮั่นนั่งไขว่ห้างด้วยสีหน้ามั่นใจมาก ด้วย Hashrate ราว 60% ของโลก สั่งซ้ายหันขวาหันเหมือนเป็นแม่ทัพใหญ่ได้เลย พอโรเจอร์ก็ไฟแรงอยู่แล้ว อยากให้ Bitcoin ครองโลกด้วยวิธีของเขา สองคนนี่จับมือกันทีจะเขย่าชุมชน Bitcoin ได้ทั้งกระดาน”

"พี่รู้สึกเหมือนนั่งอยู่ในศึกชิงบัลลังก์ยุคใหม่ คนหนึ่งยึดพลังขุด คนหนึ่งยึดความศรัทธาในชื่อ Bitcoin แต่สิ่งที่พี่สงสัยในตอนนั้นคือ… พวกเขาสู้เพื่อใครกันแน่?"

แชมป์เงียบไปครู่เหมือนกำลังประมวลผล “แล้วตอนนั้นพี่คิดยังไงบ้างครับ? รู้สึกกลัวหรือว่ายังไง?”

“จะไม่กลัวได้ไง!” แจ๊กหัวเราะแห้ง ๆ แวบหนึ่งก็นึกถึงสีหน้าที่ยิ้มเยาะของทั้งคู่ตอนประกาศความพร้อมจะ Fork

“พี่อดคิดไม่ได้ว่าถ้า Core ยังไม่ยอมขยายบล็อก พวกนั้นจะลากนักขุดทั้งกองทัพแฮชเรตไปทำเครือข่ายใหม่ให้เป็น ‘Bitcoin สายใหญ่’ แล้วทิ้งเครือข่ายเดิมให้ซวนเซ"

"แค่คิดก็นึกถึงสงครามกลางเมืองในหนังประวัติศาสตร์แล้วน่ะ.. แตกเป็นสองฝ่าย สุดท้ายใครแพ้ใครชนะ ไม่มีใครทำนายได้จริง ๆ”

พูดจบ.. เขาเปิดฟอรัมดูไลฟ์ดีเบตจากงานในปี 2017 ต่อ โรเจอร์ แวร์ กำลังพูดในโทนร้อนแรง

“Bitcoin ไม่ใช่ของคนรวย! ถ้าคุณไม่เพิ่ม Blocksize คุณก็ทำให้ค่าธรรมเนียมพุ่งจนคนธรรมดาใช้ไม่ได้!”

ขณะเดียวกัน ปีเตอร์ วูเล่ ยืนอยู่ฝั่งตรงข้าม สีหน้าเยือกเย็นราวกับตั้งรับมานาน “การเพิ่มบล็อกคือการทำลายโครงสร้าง Node รายย่อยในระยะยาว แล้วมันจะยังเรียกว่ากระจายอำนาจได้หรือ?”

"ถ้าคุณอยากให้ Bitcoin เป็นของคนรวยเพียงไม่กี่คน ก็เชิญขยายบล็อกไปเถอะนะ แต่ถ้าอยากให้มันเป็นระบบที่คนทุกระดับมีส่วนร่วมจริง ๆ ..คุณต้องฟังเสียง Node รายเล็กด้วย" ปีเตอร์กล่าว

เสียงผู้คนในงานโห่ฮากันอย่างแตกเป็นสองฝ่าย บ้างก็เชียร์ความตรงไปตรงมาของโรเจอร์ บ้างก็เคารพเหตุผลเชิงเทคนิคของปีเตอร์

ข้อความจำนวนมหาศาลในฟอรัมต่างโหมกระพือไปต่าง ๆ นานา มีทั้งคำด่าหยาบคายจนแจ๊กต้องเบือนหน้า ตลอดจนการวิเคราะห์ลึก ๆ ถึงอนาคตของ Bitcoin ที่อาจไม่เหมือนเดิม

ในระหว่างนั้น.. แชมป์ส่งข้อความ Discord กลับมาอีก

“พี่ ถ้า Fork จริง ราคาจะป่วนแค่ไหน? ที่เขาว่าคนถือ BTC จะได้เหรียญใหม่ฟรี ๆ จริงไหม? ผมกลัวว่าถ้าเกิดแบ่งเครือข่ายไม่รู้กี่สาย ตลาดอาจมั่วจนคนหายหมดก็ได้ ใช่ไหมครับ?”

"แล้วถ้าเครือข่ายใหม่ล้มเหลวล่ะครับ? จะส่งผลอะไรต่อชุมชน Bitcoin เดิม?"

"ไอ้แชมป์มึงถามรัวจังวะ!?" แจ๊กสบถเพราะเริ่มตั้งรับไม่ทัน

“ก็ขึ้นกับตลาดจะเชื่อว่าสายไหนเป็น ‘ของจริง’ อีกนั่นแหละ” แจ๊กพิมพ์กลับ

“บางคนถือไว้เผื่อได้เหรียญใหม่ฟรี บางคนขายหนีตายก่อน"

"พี่เองก็ยังไม่กล้าการันตีเลย แต่ที่แน่ ๆ สงครามนี้ไม่ได้มีแค่ผลกำไร มันกระทบศรัทธาของชุมชน Bitcoin ทั้งหมดด้วย"

"ถ้าชาวเน็ตเลิกเชื่อมั่น หรือคนนอกมองว่าพวกเราทะเลาะกันเองเหมือนเด็กแย่งของเล่น ต่อให้ฝั่งไหนชนะ ก็อาจไม่มีผู้ใช้เหลือให้ฉลอง”

แล้วสายตาแจ๊กก็ปะทะกับกระทู้ใหม่ที่เด้งขึ้นมาบนหน้าฟอรัม

“โรเจอร์ แวร์ ประกาศ: ถ้าไม่เพิ่ม Blocksize เราจะฟอร์กเป็น Bitcoin ที่แท้จริง!”

ตัวหนังสือหนาแปะอยู่ตรงนั้นส่งแรงสั่นสะเทือนราวกับจะดึงคนในวงการให้ต้องเลือกข้างกันแบบไม่อาจกลับหลังได้

แจ๊กเอื้อมมือปิดแล็ปท็อปช้า ๆ คล้ายยอมรับความจริงว่าหนทางประนีประนอมอาจไม่มีอีกแล้ว..

“สงครามนี่คงใกล้ระเบิดเต็มทีล่ะนะ” เขาลุกจากเก้าอี้ สะพายเป้ พึมพำกับตัวเองขณะมองกาแฟดำที่เหลือครึ่งแก้ว “ถ้าพวกเขาฟอร์กจริง โลกคริปโตฯ ที่เราเคยรู้จักอาจไม่มีวันเหมือนเดิมอีกต่อไป”

เขามองออกไปนอกหน้าต่าง แสงแดดที่แผดเผาราวกับกำลังบอกว่า.. อนาคตของ Bitcoin อยู่ในจุดที่เส้นแบ่งระหว่างชัยชนะกับความล่มสลายเริ่มพร่าเลือน... และอาจไม่มีทางย้อนกลับ

ก่อนเดินออกจากร้าน เขากดส่งข้อความสั้น ๆ ถึงแชมป์

“เตรียมใจกับความปั่นป่วนไว้ให้ดี ไม่แน่ว่าเราอาจจะได้เห็น Bitcoin แตกเป็นหลายสาย.. ใครจะอยู่ใครจะไปไม่รู้เหมือนกัน แต่เรื่องนี้คงไม่จบง่าย ๆ แน่”

แจ๊กผลักประตูออกไปพบกับแดดจัดที่เหมือนแผดเผากว่าเดิม พายุร้อนไม่ได้มาแค่ในรูปความร้อนกลางกรุง แต่มาในรูป “สงคราม Blocksize” ที่พร้อมจะฉีกชุมชนคริปโตออกเป็นฝักฝ่าย และอาจลามบานปลายจนกลายเป็นศึกประวัติศาสตร์

ทว่าสิ่งที่ค้างคาใจกลับเป็นคำถามนั้น…

เมื่อเครือข่ายแบ่งเป็นหลายสายแล้ว เหรียญไหนจะเป็น Bitcoin จริง?

หรือบางที... ในโลกที่ใครก็ Fork ได้ตามใจ เราจะไม่มีวันได้เห็น “Bitcoin หนึ่งเดียว” อีกต่อไป?

คำถามที่ไม่มีใครตอบได้ชัดนี้ส่องประกายอยู่ตรงปลายทาง ราวกับป้ายเตือนว่า “อันตรายข้างหน้า” และคนในชุมชนทั้งหมดกำลังจะต้องเผชิญ…

โดยไม่มีใครมั่นใจเลยว่าจะรอด หรือจะแตกสลายไปก่อนกันแน่...

สองเส้นทาง (The Forked Path)

กลางปี 2017 ท้องฟ้าเหนือบุรีรัมย์ยังคงคุกรุ่นด้วยไอแดดและความร้อนแรงของสงคราม Blocksize แจ๊ก กู้ดเดย์ ก้าวเข้ามาในคาเฟ่เล็ก ๆ แห่งหนึ่งในย่านเทศบาลด้วยสีหน้าครุ่นคิด เขาพยายามมองหามุมสงบสำหรับนั่งตั้งหลักในโลกความเป็นจริง ก่อนจะจมดิ่งสู่สงครามในโลกดิจิทัลบนฟอรัม Bitcointalk อีกครั้ง

กลิ่นกาแฟคั่วเข้มลอยกระทบจมูก แจ๊กสั่งกาแฟดำแก้วโปรดแล้วปลีกตัวมาที่โต๊ะริมกระจก กระจกบานนั้นสะท้อนแสงอาทิตย์จัดจ้า ราวกับจะบอกว่าวันนี้คงไม่มีใครหนีความร้อนที่กำลังแผดเผา ทั้งในอากาศและในชุมชน Bitcoin ได้พ้น

เขาเปิดแล็ปท็อปขึ้น ล็อกอินเข้า Bitcointalk.org ตามเคย ข้อความและกระทู้มากมายกระหน่ำแจ้งเตือน ไม่ต่างอะไรจากสมรภูมิคำพูดที่ไม่มีวันหลับ “Hong Kong Agreement ล้มเหลวจริงหรือ?” “UASF คือปฏิวัติโดย Node?” เหล่านี้ล้วนสะท้อนความไม่แน่นอนในชุมชน Bitcoin ที่ตอนนี้ ดูคล้ายจะถึงจุดแตกหักเต็มที...

“ทั้งที่ตอนนั้นเราก็พยายามกันแทบตาย…” แจ๊กพึมพำ มองจอด้วยสายตาเหนื่อยใจพร้อมภาพความทรงจำย้อนกลับเข้าในหัว เขายังจำการประชุมที่ฮ่องกงเมื่อต้นปี 2016 ได้แม่น ยามนั้นความหวังในการประนีประนอมระหว่าง Big Block และ Small Block ดูเป็นไปได้ หากแต่กลายเป็นละครฉากใหญ่ที่จบลงโดยไม่มีใครยอมถอย...

---

...การประชุม Hong Kong Agreement (2016)

ภายในห้องประชุมหรูของโรงแรมใจกลางย่านธุรกิจฮ่องกง บรรยากาศตึงเครียดยิ่งกว่าการเจรจาสงบศึกในสมัยโบราณ

โรเจอร์ แวร์ ยืนเสนอว่า “การเพิ่ม Blocksize สำคัญต่ออนาคตของ Bitcoin — เราอยากให้คนทั่วไปเข้าถึงได้โดยไม่ต้องจ่ายค่าธรรมเนียมแพง ๆ”

“จิฮั่น อู๋ (Jihan Wu)” จาก Bitmain นั่งฝั่งเดียวกับโรเจอร์ คอยเสริมว่าการเพิ่มบล็อกคือโอกาสสำหรับนักขุด และหากทีม Core ไม่ยอม พวกเขาก็พร้อม “ดัน Fork” ขึ้นได้ทุกเมื่อ ด้วย Hashrate มหาศาลที่พวกเขาคุมไว้

ฝั่ง ปีเตอร์ วูเล (Pieter Wuille) กับ เกร็ก แมกซ์เวลล์ (Greg Maxwell) จาก Bitcoin Core เถียงกลับอย่างใจเย็นว่า “การขยายบล็อกอาจดึงดูดทุนใหญ่ ๆ แล้วไล่ Node รายย่อยออกไป ชุมชนอาจไม่เหลือความกระจายอำนาจอย่างที่ Satoshi ตั้งใจ”

สุดท้าย บทสรุปที่เรียกว่า Hong Kong Agreement ลงนามได้ก็จริง แต่มันกลับเป็นแค่ลายเซ็นบนกระดาษที่ไม่มีฝ่ายไหนเชื่อใจใคร

แจ๊กเบือนสายตาออกนอกหน้าต่าง สังเกตเห็นผู้คนเดินขวักไขว่ บ้างก็ดูรีบร้อน บ้างเดินทอดน่องเหมือนว่างเปล่า นี่คงไม่ต่างอะไรกับชาวเน็ตในฟอรัมที่แบ่งฝ่ายกันใน “สงคราม Blocksize” อย่างไม่มีทีท่าจะหยุด

แค่ไม่กี่นาที... เสียงโทรศัพท์ก็ดังขึ้น ชื่อ แชมป์ ‘PIGROCK’ โชว์หราเต็มจออีกครั้ง

“ว่าไงเจ้าแชมป์?” แจ๊กกรอกเสียงในสายด้วยอารมณ์เหนื่อย ๆ ทว่าพร้อมจะอธิบายเหตุการณ์ตามสไตล์คนที่ชอบครุ่นคิด

“พี่แจ๊ก.. ผมเข้าใจแล้วว่าการประชุมฮ่องกงมันล้มเหลว ตอนนี้ก็มีคนแยกเป็นสองขั้ว Big Block กับ SegWit แต่ผมเจออีกกลุ่มในฟอรัมเรียกว่า UASF (User-Activated Soft Fork) ที่เหมือนจะกดดันพวกนักขุดให้ยอมรับ SegWit..."

"อยากรู้ว่าตกลง UASF มันสำคัญยังไงครับ? ทำไมใคร ๆ ถึงเรียกว่าเป็น การปฏิวัติโดย Node กัน?”

แจ๊กอมยิ้มก่อนจะวางแก้วกาแฟลง พูดด้วยน้ำเสียงจริงจังกว่าเดิม “UASF น่ะหรือ? มันเปรียบได้กับการที่ ‘ชาวนา’ หรือ ‘ประชาชนตัวเล็ก ๆ’ ออกมาประกาศว่า ‘ฉันจะไม่รับบล็อกของนักขุดที่ไม่รองรับ SegWit นะ ถ้าแกไม่ทำตาม ฉันก็จะตัดบล็อกแกทิ้ง!’ เสมือนเป็นการปฏิวัติที่บอกว่าแรงขุดมากแค่ไหนก็ไม่สำคัญ ถ้าคนรัน Node ไม่ยอม… เชนก็เดินต่อไม่ได้”

“โห… ฟังดูแรงจริง ๆ พี่ แล้วถ้านักขุดไม่ร่วมมือ UASF จะเกิดอะไรขึ้น?” แชมป์ถามต่อเสียงสั่นนิด ๆ

“ก็อาจเกิด ‘Chain Split’ ยังไงล่ะ"

"แยกเครือข่ายเป็นสองสาย สุดท้ายเครือข่ายเดิม กับเครือข่ายใหม่ที่รองรับ SegWit ไม่ตรงกัน คนอาจสับสนหนักยิ่งกว่า Hard Fork ปกติด้วยซ้ำ"

"แต่นั่นแหละ... มันแสดงพลังว่าผู้ใช้ทั่วไปก็มีสิทธิ์กำหนดทิศทาง Bitcoin ไม่ได้น้อยไปกว่านักขุดเลย”

“เข้าใจแล้วครับพี่… เหมือน การปฏิวัติโดยประชาชนตาดำ ๆ ที่จับมือกันค้านอำนาจทุนใหญ่ใช่ไหม?” แชมป์หยุดครู่หนึ่ง “ผมเคยคิดว่า Node รายย่อยน้อยรายจะไปสู้อะไรไหว แต่ตอนนี้ดูท่าจะเปลี่ยนเกมได้จริงว่ะพี่…”

“ใช่เลย” แจ๊กตอบ

“นี่เป็นความพิเศษของ Bitcoin ที่บอกว่า ‘เราคุมเครือข่ายร่วมกัน’ แม้แต่ Bitmain ที่มี Hashrate มากกว่า 50% ก็หนาวได้ถ้าผู้ใช้หรือ Node รายย่อยรวมพลังกันมากพอ”

แชมป์ฟังด้วยความตื่นเต้นปนกังวล “แล้วแบบนี้ เรื่อง SegWit กับ Blocksize จะจบยังไงครับ? เห็นข่าวว่าถ้านักขุดโดนกดดันมาก ๆ คนอย่าง จิฮั่น อู๋ อาจออกไปสนับสนุน Bitcoin Cash ที่จะเปิดบล็อกใหญ่”

แจ๊กเลื่อนดูฟีดข่าวในฟอรัม Bitcointalk อีกครั้ง ก็เห็นพาดหัวชัด ๆ

“Bitmain ประกาศกร้าวพร้อมหนุน BCH เต็มพิกัด!”

เขาถอนหายใจเฮือกหนึ่ง “ก็ใกล้เป็นจริงแล้วล่ะ… โรเจอร์ แวร์ เองก็ผลักดัน BCH ว่าคือ Bitcoin แท้ที่ค่าธรรมเนียมถูก ใช้งานได้จริง ส่วนฝั่ง BTC ที่ยึดเอา SegWit เป็นหลัก ก็ไม่ยอมให้ Blocksize เพิ่มใหญ่เกินจำเป็น.."

"ต่างคนต่างมีเหตุผล... แต่อุดมการณ์นี่คนละทางเลย”

“แล้วพี่คิดว่าใครจะเป็นฝ่ายชนะครับ?”

“เฮ้ย.. มึงถามยากไปหรือเปล่า” แจ๊กหัวเราะหึ ๆ “ทุกคนมีโอกาสได้หมด และก็มีโอกาสพังหมดเหมือนกัน ถ้า UASF กดดันนักขุดให้อยู่กับ Core ได้ พวกเขาอาจยอมแพ้ แต่ถ้า Bitmain เทใจไป BCH นักขุดรายใหญ่คนอื่น ๆ ก็คงตาม"

"แล้วถ้าฝั่ง BCH เริ่มได้เปรียบ... อาจดึงคนไปเรื่อย ๆ สุดท้ายจะเหลือไหมล่ะฝั่ง SegWit ตัวจริง?”

“งั้น Node รายย่อยจะยืนอยู่ตรงไหนล่ะครับพี่?” แชมป์ถามอย่างหนักใจ

“Node รายย่อยและชุมชนผู้ใช้นี่แหละ คือ ตัวแปรชี้ขาด ทุกวันนี้คนกลุ่ม UASF พยายามโชว์พลังว่าตัวเองมีสิทธิ์ตั้งกติกาเหมือนกัน ไม่ใช่แค่นักขุด"

"อย่างที่บอก.. มันคือการ ‘ลุกขึ้นปฏิวัติ’ โดยชาวนา ต่อสู้กับเจ้าที่ที่ถือ ‘แฮชเรต’ เป็นอาวุธ”

แจ๊กตบบ่าตัวเองเบา ๆ ก่อนจะหัวเราะเล็กน้อย

“นี่แหละความมันของ Bitcoin ไม่มีเจ้าไหนสั่งได้เบ็ดเสร็จจริง ๆ ทุกฝั่งต่างถือไพ่คนละใบ สงครามยังไม่รู้จะจบยังไง ถึงอย่างนั้นมันก็สะท้อนวิญญาณ ‘decentralization’ ที่แท้จริง กล้ายอมรับสิทธิ์ทุกฝ่ายเพื่อแข่งขันกันตามกติกา”

จู่ ๆ ในหน้าฟอรัมก็มีกระทู้ใหม่เด้งเด่น “Bitmain หนุน Bitcoin Cash ด้วย Hashrate กว่า 50%! สงครามเริ่มแล้ว?” ข้อความนั้นดังโครมครามเหมือนระเบิดลงกลางวง

แจ๊กนิ่งไปชั่วขณะ สัมผัสได้ถึงความปั่นป่วนที่กำลังปะทุขึ้นอีกครั้ง เหงื่อบางเบาซึมบนหน้าผากแม้อากาศในคาเฟ่จะเย็นฉ่ำ เขาหันมองโทรศัพท์ที่ยังค้างสายกับแชมป์ แล้วเอ่ยด้วยน้ำเสียงจริงจัง

“นี่ล่ะ.. จุดเริ่มของสองเส้นทางอย่างชัดเจน… บล็อกใหญ่จะไปกับ BCH ส่วน SegWit ก็อยู่กับ BTC แน่นอนว่าทั้งสองฝ่ายไม่คิดถอยง่าย ๆ นักขุดจะเลือกข้างไหน? Node รายย่อยจะยอมใคร?"

"เมื่อสงครามครั้งนี้นำไปสู่การแบ่งเครือข่าย ใครกันแน่จะเป็นผู้ชนะตัวจริง? หรืออาจไม่มีผู้ชนะเลยก็เป็นได้”

ปลายสายเงียบงัน มีแต่เสียงหายใจของแชมป์ที่สะท้อนความกังวลปนอยากรู้อย่างแรง

“พี่… สุดท้ายแล้วเรากำลังยืนอยู่บนรอยแยกที่พร้อมจะฉีกทุกอย่างออกเป็นชิ้น ๆ ใช่ไหมครับ?”

“อาจจะใช่ก็ได้... หรือถ้ามองอีกมุม อาจเป็นวัฏจักรที่ Bitcoin ต้องเจอเป็นระยะ ทุกคนมีสิทธิ์ Fork ได้ตามใจใช่ไหมล่ะ? ก็ขอให้โลกได้เห็นกันว่าชุมชนไหนแน่จริง” แจ๊กพูดทิ้งท้ายก่อนจะแย้มยิ้มเจือรอยอ่อนล้า

ภาพบนจอคอมพิวเตอร์ฉายกระทู้ถกเถียงกันไม่หยุด ประหนึ่งเวทีดีเบตที่ไม่มีวันปิดไฟ แจ๊กจิบกาแฟอึกสุดท้ายเหมือนจะเตรียมพร้อมใจก่อนเข้าสู่สนามรบครั้งใหม่ สงครามยังไม่จบ.. ซ้ำยังดูหนักข้อยิ่งขึ้นเรื่อย ๆ

เขาลุกขึ้นจากโต๊ะ ชำเลืองมองแสงแดดจัดจ้าที่สาดลงมาไม่หยุด เปรียบเหมือนไฟแห่งข้อขัดแย้งที่เผาผลาญทั้งชุมชน Bitcoin ไม่ว่าใครจะเลือกอยู่ฝั่งไหน กลุ่ม UASF, กลุ่ม Big Block, หรือ กลุ่ม SegWit ทางเดินข้างหน้าล้วนเต็มไปด้วยความไม่แน่นอน

“สุดท้ายแล้ว… เมื่อกระดานแบ่งเป็นสองเส้นทางอย่างเด่นชัด สงคราม Blocksize จะจบลงด้วยใครได้บทผู้ชนะ?"

"หรือบางที… มันอาจไม่มีผู้ชนะที่แท้จริงในระบบที่ใครก็ Fork ได้ตลอดเวลา”

คำถามนี้ลอยติดค้างอยู่ในบรรยากาศยามบ่ายที่ร้อนระอุ ชวนให้ใครก็ตามที่จับตาดูสงคราม Blocksize ต้องฉุกคิด

เมื่อไม่มีใครเป็นเจ้าของ Bitcoin อย่างสมบูรณ์ ทุกคนจึงมีสิทธิ์บงการและเสี่ยงต่อการแตกแยกได้ทุกเมื่อ แล้วท้ายที่สุด ชัยชนะ–ความพ่ายแพ้ อาจไม่ใช่จุดสิ้นสุดของโลกคริปโตฯ

แต่เป็นเพียงจุดเริ่มต้นของการวิวัฒน์ที่ไม่มีวันจบสิ้น…

เมาท์แถมเรื่อง UASF (User-Activated Soft Fork)

นี่สนามรบยุคกลางที่ดูเหมือนในหนังแฟนตาซี ทุกคนมีดาบ มีโล่ แต่จู่ ๆ คนตัวเล็กที่เราไม่เคยสังเกต—พวกชาวนา ช่างไม้ คนแบกน้ำ—กลับรวมตัวกันยกดาบบุกวังเจ้าเมือง พร้อมตะโกนว่า “พอเถอะ! เราก็มีสิทธิ์เหมือนกัน!”

มันอาจจะดูเวอร์ ๆ หน่อยใช่ไหมครับ?

แต่ในโลก Bitcoin ปี 2017 นี่คือสิ่งที่เกิดขึ้นในรูปแบบ “User-Activated Soft Fork” หรือ UASF การปฏิวัติด้วยพลังโหนด ซึ่งทำให้นักขุดยักษ์ใหญ่ตัวสั่นงันงกันมาแล้ว!

แล้ว UASF มันคืออะไรล่ะ?

“User-Activated Soft Fork” หรือเรียกย่อ ๆ ว่า “UASF” ไม่ใช่อัปเกรดซอฟต์แวร์สวย ๆ แต่เป็น “ดาบเล่มใหม่” ที่คนตัวเล็ก—หมายถึง โหนด รายย่อย—ใช้ต่อรองกับนักขุดรายใหญ่ โดยกติกาคือ.. ถ้านักขุดไม่ทำตาม (เช่น ไม่รองรับ SegWit) โหนดก็จะปฏิเสธบล็อกของพวกเขาอย่างไม่เกรงใจใคร

สมมุติว่าคุณคือโหนด..

คุณรันซอฟต์แวร์ Bitcoin คอยตรวจสอบธุรกรรม วันดีคืนดี คุณประกาศ “ต่อไปถ้าใครไม่รองรับ SegWit ฉันไม่ยอมรับบล็อกนะ!” นี่ล่ะครับ “UASF” ตัวเป็น ๆ

คำขวัญสุดฮิตของ UASF

“No SegWit, No Block”

หรือแปลว่าถ้าบล็อกไม่รองรับ SegWit ก็เชิญออกไปเลยจ้า..

มันเหมือนการที่ชาวนาโผล่มาตบโต๊ะอาหารท่านขุนว่า “นายใหญ่จะปลูกอะไรก็ปลูกไป แต่ไม่งั้นฉันไม่รับผลผลิตนายนะ!”

ความเชื่อมโยงกับ BIP 148

ถ้าจะพูดถึง UASF ต้องรู้จัก BIP 148 ไว้นิดนึง มันเปรียบเหมือน “ธงปฏิวัติ” ที่ตีตราว่าวันที่ 1 สิงหาคม 2017 คือเส้นตาย!

BIP 148 บอกไว้ว่า.. ถ้าถึงวันนั้นแล้วยังมีนักขุดหน้าไหนไม่รองรับ SegWit บล็อกที่ขุดออกมาก็จะถูกโหนดที่ใช้ UASF “แบน” หมด

ผลลัพธ์ที่ตั้งใจ นักขุดไม่อยากโดนแบนก็ต้องทำตาม UASF กล่าวคือ “นายต้องรองรับ SegWit นะ ไม่งั้นอด!”

หลายคนกลัวกันว่า “อ้าว ถ้านักขุดใหญ่ ๆ ไม่ยอมแล้วหันไปขุดสายอื่น จะไม่กลายเป็นแยกเครือข่าย (Chain Split) หรือ?”

ใช่ครับ.. มันอาจเกิดสงครามสายใหม่ทันทีไงล่ะ

ทำไม UASF ถึงสำคัญ?

ย้อนกลับไปก่อนปี 2017 Bitcoin มีปัญหาโลกแตกทั้งค่าธรรมเนียมแพง ธุรกรรมหน่วง บวกกับความขัดแย้งเรื่อง “จะเพิ่ม Blocksize ดีไหม?” ทางกลุ่มนักขุดรายใหญ่ (นำโดย Bitmain, Roger Ver ฯลฯ) รู้สึกว่า “SegWit ไม่ใช่ทางออกที่แท้จริง” แต่อีกฝั่ง (ทีม Core) ชี้ว่า “Blocksize ใหญ่มากไปจะรวมศูนย์นะ โหนดรายย่อยตายหมด”

UASF เลยโผล่มา เหมือนชาวนาตะโกนว่า

“หุบปากได้แล้วไอ้พวกที่สู้กัน! ถ้าพวกแกไม่รองรับ SegWit พวกข้า (โหนด) ก็จะไม่เอาบล็อกแก”

สาระก็คือ.. มันคือตัวบ่งชี้ว่าคนตัวเล็กอย่างโหนดรายย่อยก็มีพลังต่อรอง เป็นกลไกที่ดึงอำนาจจากมือทุนใหญ่กลับสู่มือชุมชน (Decentralization ที่แท้ทรู)

วิธีการทำงานของ UASF

ลองจินตนาการตาม..

1. การกำหนดเส้นตาย BIP 148 ประกาศไว้ “ถึงวันที่ 1 สิงหาคม 2017 ถ้านายยังไม่รองรับ SegWit โหนด UASF จะไม่รับบล็อกนาย”

2. ถ้าคุณเป็นนักขุด… คุณขุดบล็อกออกมา แต่ไม่ได้ตีธง “ฉันรองรับ SegWit” UASF โหนดเห็นปุ๊บ พวกเขาจะจับโยนทิ้งไปเลย

3. ผลกระทบ? นักขุดที่ไม่ยอมทำตามจะเจอปัญหา บล็อกที่ขุดออกมาไม่มีใครรับ—เสียแรงขุดฟรี

อาจเกิด Chain Split คือ แยกเครือข่ายเลย ถ้านักขุดเหล่านั้นไปตั้งสายใหม่

ความสำเร็จและความท้าทายของ UASF

ความสำเร็จ.. หลังการรวมพลังผู้ใช้ โหนดรายย่อยกดดันนักขุดได้ไม่น้อย จนกระทั่ง SegWit เปิดใช้งานจริงใน Bitcoin วันที่ 24 สิงหาคม 2017 ช่วยให้ธุรกรรมเร็วขึ้น แก้ Transaction Malleability และเปิดทางสู่ Lightning Network ในอนาคต

ความท้าทาย.. นักขุดบางค่ายไม่โอเค.. โดยเฉพาะ Bitmain ซึ่งคาดว่าจะสูญรายได้บางส่วน ก็นำไปสู่การสนับสนุน “Bitcoin Cash (BCH)” แยกสาย (Hard Fork) ของตัวเองตั้งแต่วันที่ 1 สิงหาคม 2017 นั่นเอง

ว่าแล้วก็เปรียบง่าย ๆ

UASF เหมือนปฏิบัติการยึดคฤหาสน์เจ้าเมืองมาเปิดให้ชาวบ้านเข้าอยู่ฟรี.. แต่อีกฝ่ายบอก

“งั้นฉันออกไปตั้งคฤหาสน์ใหม่ดีกว่า!”

บทเรียนสำคัญ UASF เป็นตัวอย่างชัดว่า “ผู้ใช้” หรือ โหนดรายย่อย สามารถสร้างแรงกดดันให้นักขุดต้องยอมเปลี่ยนได้จริง ๆ ไม่ใช่แค่ยอมรับเงื่อนไขที่ขุดกันมา

ผลกระทบระยะยาวหลังจากนั้นล่ะ?

SegWit ถูกใช้งาน ทำให้ค่าธรรมเนียมธุรกรรมลดลง (ช่วงหนึ่ง) เกิด Lightning Network เป็น Layer 2 สุเฟี้ยวของ Bitcoin เกิด BCH (Bitcoin Cash) เป็นสายแยกที่อ้างว่า Blocksize ใหญ่คือทางออก

สรุปแล้ว UASF ทำให้โลกได้รู้ว่า..

Bitcoin ไม่ใช่ของนักขุด หรือของฝ่ายพัฒนาใดฝ่ายเดียว แต่มันเป็นของทุกคน!

“Bitcoin เป็นของทุกคน”

ไม่มีใครมีอำนาจเบ็ดเสร็จ ไม่ว่าคุณจะถือ Hashrate มากแค่ไหน ถ้า Node ทั่วโลกไม่เอา ก็จบ!

“แรงขุดใหญ่แค่ไหน ก็แพ้ใจมวลชน!”

(น่าจะมีตอนต่อไปนะ.. ถ้าชอบก็ Zap โหด ๆ เป็นกำลังใจให้ด้วยนะครับ)

@ 8da249fe:ecc00e09

Se você está começando no mundo do Bitcoin e das criptomoedas, já deve ter ouvido falar em "hot wallets" e "cold wallets". Mas qual é a diferença entre elas? E qual é a melhor opção para armazenar seus ativos digitais com segurança?

O que é uma Hot Wallet?

Uma hot wallet (carteira quente) é uma carteira conectada à internet. Isso significa que ela é mais acessível e fácil de usar para transações rápidas. As hot wallets podem ser:

Carteiras móveis – Aplicativos como BlueWallet, Trust Wallet e outras.

Carteiras de desktop – Programas instalados no computador, como Electrum e Exodus.

Carteiras web – Serviços online como a carteira do próprio Binance ou outras exchanges.

Vantagens da Hot Wallet

✅ Acesso rápido e fácil para transações diárias. ✅ Interface amigável, ideal para iniciantes. ✅ Geralmente gratuita para uso.

Desvantagens da Hot Wallet

❌ Maior risco de ataque hacker, já que está sempre online. ❌ Se o dispositivo for infectado por malware, suas chaves privadas podem ser comprometidas.

O que é uma Cold Wallet?#

Uma cold wallet (carteira fria) é uma carteira que não está conectada à internet, tornando-se muito mais segura contra hackers. Elas podem ser:

Carteiras de hardware – Como Ledger Nano S, Nano X ou Trezor.

Carteiras de papel – Impressão da chave privada e do endereço em um papel.

Computadores ou dispositivos offline – Um computador dedicado apenas para armazenar criptomoedas, sem conexão com a internet.

Vantagens da Cold Wallet

✅ Segurança máxima contra ataques cibernéticos. ✅ Ótima opção para armazenamento de longo prazo. ✅ Controle total sobre suas chaves privadas.

Desvantagens da Cold Wallet

❌ Menos prática para transações diárias. ❌ Pode ser mais cara, no caso das carteiras de hardware. ❌ Se você perder sua chave privada ou backup, pode perder o acesso aos fundos.

Qual escolher: Hot ou Cold Wallet?

A escolha depende do seu perfil de investidor:

Se você faz transações frequentes, uma hot wallet pode ser mais conveniente.

Se você quer armazenar Bitcoin com segurança por muito tempo, a cold wallet é a melhor opção.

Muitos usuários combinam as duas, mantendo uma pequena quantia em uma hot wallet para o dia a dia e guardando a maior parte dos fundos em uma cold wallet.

Independente da escolha, lembre-se sempre de manter suas chaves privadas seguras e fazer backups regularmente!

    Gostou do conteúdo? Compartilhe sua opinião nos comentários!

@ 95cb4330:96db706c

Tackling big tasks can feel overwhelming, but by breaking them down into smaller steps, prioritizing effectively, and setting clear milestones, you can maintain focus and make steady progress.

---

1. Divide the Task into Manageable Steps

Instead of viewing the task as one massive undertaking, split it into specific, actionable steps to create a clear roadmap.

🔹 Example: If your goal is to launch a new product, break it down like this: - Conduct market research - Develop a prototype - Build a marketing strategy - Create a launch plan - Execute the launch

Each step is now more manageable and can be worked on independently.

---

2. Prioritize Based on Impact & Urgency

Not all tasks are equally important. Prioritize effectively to avoid wasting time on low-value activities.

✔ Use the Eisenhower Matrix: - Urgent & Important: Do immediately. - Important but Not Urgent: Schedule it. - Urgent but Not Important: Delegate it. - Neither Urgent nor Important: Eliminate it.

🔹 Example: If launching a product, market research might be urgent & important, while branding tweaks could be scheduled for later.

---

3. Set Milestones & Deadlines

Assign deadlines for each step to track progress and stay motivated.

✔ Example: Instead of saying, "Launch the product in 6 months," break it down: - Market research: Week 1-2 - Prototype development: Week 3-6 - Marketing strategy: Week 7-8 - Launch execution: Week 9-10

By setting clear deadlines, you create a sense of accountability and prevent procrastination.

---

4. Take Consistent Action

✔ Focus on completing one step at a time.
✔ Celebrate small wins—progress builds momentum.
✔ Stay adaptable—if needed, refine your steps as you go.

🔹 Example: If market research reveals an issue with the original product idea, adjust before moving forward rather than sticking rigidly to the plan.

---

Final Thought

By approaching big tasks systematically, you reduce overwhelm, maintain clarity, and steadily progress toward success.

👉 Action Step: Take a current big task you're facing. Break it into smaller steps, prioritize, set deadlines, and start taking action today. 🚀

---

@ 95cb4330:96db706c

Break down complex problems into their fundamental truths and build solutions from the ground up. This approach fosters creativity and avoids relying on assumptions.

---

How to Implement First Principles Thinking

1. Deconstruct the Problem
2. Identify the core components:
   Question assumptions and remove preconceived notions.
3. Ask:
   What do we know for sure? What can we verify as a fact?

4. Example:
   Instead of assuming "Electric cars are too expensive," break it down: What are the main cost drivers? Batteries, manufacturing, and distribution.

5. Challenge Assumptions

6. Question the status quo:
   Many constraints are based on tradition or outdated thinking, not necessity.

7. Ask:
   What if this assumption is wrong? How else could it be done?

8. Rebuild from the Ground Up

9. Start with the fundamental truths:
   Use the identified truths to construct new solutions using logic and creativity.
10. Avoid shortcuts:
    Don't rely on existing frameworks that may limit possibilities.

11. Example:
    Tesla used first principles to design their batteries by focusing on material costs rather than purchasing standard packs.

12. Foster a Creative Mindset

13. Think like a scientist or engineer:
    Break, test, and experiment to find new pathways.
14. Encourage innovation:
    Brainstorm solutions that are original rather than replicative.

---

Why It Works

This method avoids reliance on assumptions and encourages fresh perspectives. By starting with "what is undeniably true," you open the door to unconventional solutions and breakthrough ideas.

---

@ 95cb4330:96db706c

Implementing Decision Journals, as practiced by leaders like Jeff Bezos and Ray Dalio, can significantly enhance your decision-making skills by promoting reflection and continuous improvement. This method involves documenting key decisions, the rationale behind them, and anticipated outcomes, allowing for analysis of past choices to identify patterns and biases.

---

Understanding Decision Journals

• Definition:
  A decision journal is a structured record where you log important decisions, including the context, your thought process, and expected results. This practice enables you to track the accuracy of your judgments and refine your decision-making over time.

---

Examples in Practice

• Jeff Bezos:
  The founder of Amazon utilizes a "Regret Minimization Framework" to guide his decisions. By projecting himself into the future and considering potential regrets, Bezos focuses on long-term fulfillment over short-term comfort. This approach was pivotal when he decided to leave his stable job to start Amazon.

• Ray Dalio:
  The founder of Bridgewater Associates emphasizes the importance of recording decisions to create a set of well-defined principles. Dalio's process of documenting and analyzing his choices has been fundamental in developing effective decision-making rules that have contributed to his success.

---

Implementing a Decision Journal

1. Record the Decision:
   Document the specifics of the decision, including the date, context, and the options considered.
2. Articulate Your Reasoning:
   Detail the thought process and assumptions that led to your choice.
3. Predict the Outcome:
   Note your expectations regarding the results of the decision.
4. Review and Reflect:
   After some time, revisit the decision to compare actual outcomes with your predictions, analyzing any discrepancies to identify biases or areas for improvement.

---

Action Step

Begin by selecting a current decision you are facing. Create a journal entry that outlines the decision, your reasoning, and expected outcomes. Schedule a future date to review the decision and assess its results. Regular use of decision journals can enhance self-awareness and lead to more informed choices.

---

By adopting the practice of maintaining decision journals, you can systematically refine your judgment, reduce recurring mistakes, and make decisions that align more closely with your long-term goals.

Recommended Resource:
Ray Dalio ON: Principles for Making Better Decisions & How to Strengthen Relationships for Long-Term Success | Podcast | Jay Shetty

---

@ 4d41a7cb:7d3633cc

Today is Bitcoin genesis block day, literally Bitcoin’s birthday number 16th. The purpose of this article is to deep dive into Bitcoin's beginnings, what it was meant to be, what its creator's incentives were, why the collaborators were interested in contributing to its success, and what Bitcoin is achieving.

Bitcoin exists to solve a problem.

The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts. Their massive overhead costs make micropayments impossible.

Satoshi Nakamoto, February 11, 2009

In this post, Satoshi reveals the main problem: central banking, how this institution has abused the trust we have put in them. Bitcoin is an alternative to a “broken” or corrupt monetary system that it’s been running and stealing from people for centuries, creating credit bubbles with their debt-based fractional reserve banking system

Ponzi nature of banking system

For those who don’t understand this system and its corrupt and inviable nature, think about it as a rigged musical chairs game.

When the music (trust in the banking system and its currency) is on, everyone is happy playing the economic game. Economic activity is soaring; we see new businesses, new products, cheap credit, high lending, asset prices inflate, and people consuming more (thus pushing the economic numbers higher). Everything seems to be okay. But then something happens.

Under this monetary game, deposits are chairs and depositors are players; as the game goes on, there are always more players than chairs or depositors than deposits because banks “lend” currency that they don’t have. When the music (trust in the bank) is stopped, the game is over, and many people lose their chairs (their deposit), creating deflationary recessions and economic crises.

When this happens, everything starts trending the exact opposite way. The economic activity starts slowing down, debt problems arise, bankruptcies occur, people lose their jobs and consume less, asset prices deflate, until the central bank intervenes and the cycle starts again.

This is officially known as the “economic cycle,” and it's sold to us as a natural phenomenon. But the truth is this is a pure central bank–artificially created cycle by monetary manipulation, as we can learn from the Austrian school of economics.

I call the central bankers the market wizards because they hold the lever to manipulate the economic game. They are the money masters, the financial alchemists, the kings of the economic and financial game of commerce where all economic agents operate under.

Bitcoin is a revolution against the central bank monarch, but Satoshi was not shouting about this to the four winds. He didn’t want to get attention before Bitcoin was strong enough, because it would have implied a great risk to its success. Central banks are the most powerful institutions on earth; they literally have the power to create currency in unlimited amounts and buy anything they need to maintain their monopoly.

If we need a more clear confirmation of this, we can look into the encrypted message that Satoshi left in the genesis block. To understand the genesis block, imagine a bookkeeping ledger that adds new pages (blocks) daily and contains a record of all bitcoin transactions ever made. The very first page of this book is called the genesis block.

Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks

Satoshi Nakamoto 03 January 2009

Here’s the newspaper cover he was making reference to.

In allusion to the bank bailouts that were taking place at the time, Satoshi included this intriguing line in the genesis block when he created Bitcoin during the Great Global Financial Crisis. In addition to providing the remedy, those who caused the issue (and profit from it) were making unprecedented profits. \ \ This game is about privatizing profits and socializing losses. This is the opposite of free markets and capitalism. It's clear that Satoshi Nakamoto, whomever he was, detested the established financial system. Since the Bank of England, which was the subject of this article, was established in 1694, we may trace the debt based fractional reserve banking system history back at least 331 years. \ \ This allusion to traditional banking's shortcomings was a declaration of what Bitcoin was trying to combat: fractional reserve banking and its consequences, which include debt, taxation, and inflation.

\ \ The bookkeepers \ \ In essence, banking and money management are bookkeeping, keeping track of who owns what and who owes what. Due to its revolutionary impact on accounting, Bitcoin has been dubbed "triple entry bookkeeping" by some. \ \ These days, banks are in charge of bookkeeping; they basically have the authority to make changes to the books and add new entries, or "print money." Inflation is basically a robber of time, energy, and wealth from everyone using that currency denomination, and banks are the ones who create it. Additionally, they have the ability to cause economic crises and market crashes for their own financial gain, making them deflation inductors. \ \ The incapacity of gold (real money) to meet the demands of a growing global economy gave banks this authority. They essentially became gold safe-keepers and gold IOU bookkeepers' ledgers because people trusted these organizations to provide scalability and lower the cost and risk of gold transactions. \ \ The purpose of banking was to enable credit and payments. Governments and banks did not create money. The free market determined the value of gold and silver, and people only trusted banknotes that were backed by gold. \ \ “Gold is money, everything else is credit" JP Morgan, 1912. \ \ Since banks began growing, they have sought to increase their size even more. When they discovered that the metal money system was restricting their ability to increase credit and bank profits, they literally plotted to seize control of the money market and overthrow governments by demonetizing these metals, effectively eliminating the demand for money in general and substituting it with debt and credit instruments. Essentially promissory notes issued by banks based on debt. \ \ "The borrower is a slave to the lender, and the wealthy dominate the poor”. Proverbs 22:7\ \ Human history is a chronicle of the literal plot by banks to enslave humanity, which resulted in hundreds of wars, thousands of assassinations, and the loss of millions of innocent lives in order to fulfill the banksters' objective of creating a global fractional reserve credit system. The currency that they decided to control? The term "U.S dollars" is frequently and incorrectly used to refer to Federal Reserve Notes. \ \ Slavery is essentially personified in this system. Slavery, in my opinion, is working for a currency that someone else can print without any effort or labor. This is the underlying cause of legal inequality. Theoretically, we live in a democracy and capitalist society where everyone is treated equally, but income taxes and central banking are vital components of the communist manifiesto. \ \ Where do we draw the boundary between a free human being and a slave citizen, given that this system directly violates private property rights? You are 100% slave when you pay 100% taxes, and 40% slave when you pay 40% taxes. It is being violently imposed upon you if it is not a voluntary business deal. Violence or the threat of losing your freedom are used to compel people to pay taxes. \ \ Natural law, often known as moral law, states that every person has the right to keep all of the fruits of their labor. However, this fraudulent financial system is robbing everyone of their means of trade, whether they are called coins, currencies, deposits, checks, etc. Furthermore, ceasing to feed a parasite is the only way to eradicate it. \ \ A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.

Satoshi Nakamoto, October 31, 2008\ \ \ \ What backs fiat currencies?\ \ The worst aspect of this system is that it views people as collateral cattle for the currency's purchasing power. In essence, "government currencies" are credits of their corresponding debts, or government bonds, which are effectively secured by the government's “authority” to impose taxes on its populace. In essence, the government's power to compel its people to give them X percent of their income without providing them with equal recompense.

In essence, citizens' wealth is "baking" the government's debts. Since the currency cannot be exchanged for wealth at a particular rate, it is inaccurate to state that it is backed, thus I said "baking." However, if we must identify a valuable component of the currency, it is as follows: wealth and labor (i.e., human time and energy).

\ And what makes up this wealth? Among other things, land, homes, resources, businesses, and human time. They have demand for trade and exchanges because they make up half of every transaction. However, what do people trade more for currency? Energy and time. \ \ Those who can produce currency out of thin air with little effort (simply adding numbers to the bank ledger) can effectively steal from everyone else who has to labor and invest time and energy (real wealth), as most people exchange their time and energy for currency. Clearly, this is the root cause of inequality. \ \ Not only is this utterly immoral and unfair, but it gets worse. The worst aspect is not that they want to charge interest and can easily generate currency, but rather that they insist that WE repay them! \ \ What am I saying? Every currency unit's counterpart in government bonds is a public debt that generates compound interest on a continuous basis. There is a dollar due plus interest for every dollar that exists. In essence, this debt is a claim on the nation's wealth, which includes the labor (time and energy) and wealth of its citizens. \ \ And to whom is this debt owed? The banks. Therefore, if we apply common logic, it is easy to see that just as borrowers are slaves to lenders, governments and "we the people" are slaves to banks. \ \ However, what precisely do we owe? What kind of material have they given our governments? Is it wealth of any sort, whether it land, gold, or resources? No, it's not. is essentially a promissory note issued by a private bank, a document that serves as a means of exchange and may be produced in an infinite quantity. A counterfeit check.\ \ Global slavery to the banks is the price we pay for a scalable medium of exchange! \ \ And now we have a great substitute! \ \ To sum up, we spend our lives, precious time, energy, stress, suffering, and effort to obtain these currencies and pay our taxes, while another group sits there making up new reasons to add currency the ledger —also known as "printing digital money"—that we must repay plus interest! It's crazy. \ \ The worst aspect is that because the debt exceeds the amount of money in circulation due to compound interest, which keeps accruing and increasing the loan's size, it is mathematically impossible to pay back.\ \ It is equivalent to burning the currency because we pay taxes to cover the interest on an ever-increasing debt that we are unable to pay back. A black hole for taxpayer funds, debt-based currencies are essentially human slavery that is supported by banks and maintained by governments. \ \ Why isn't everyone voicing their disapproval and exposing this? The answer is brainwashing and a lack of knowledge. Much of this has been concealed or esoteric, and a major contributing factor to this blind spot is the misinformation we receive regarding the operation of this system. In order to play the game the way they want us to and avoid the game ending anytime soon, we are given a children's interpretation of human history and reality. \ \ \ Libertarianism\ \ Bitcoin's libertarian nature cannot be disregarded; even Satoshi acknowledged this when he stated:\ \ It’s very attractive to the libertarian viewpoint if we can explain it properly.\ I’m better with code than with words though.

Satoshi Nakamoto, November 14, 2008\ \ Libertarianism is a political philosophy that holds freedom and liberty as primary values. Many libertarians conceive of freedom in accord with the Non-Aggression Principle, according to which each individual has the right to live as they choose, so long as it does not involve violating the rights of others by initiating force or fraud against them.

Libertarians advocate for the expansion of individual autonomy and political self-determination, emphasizing the principles of equality before the law and the protection of civil rights, including the rights to freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of choice. They generally support individual liberty and oppose authority, state power, warfare, militarism and nationalism, but some libertarians diverge on the scope and nature of their opposition to existing economic and political systems. 1\ \ Here are several arguments in favor of Bitcoin's libertarian nature. \ \ Non-Aggression Principle: Unlike taxes and fiat currencies, which are supported by state aggression, Bitcoin is supported by energy, math, and processing power. The monopoly of violence “belongs” to governments, and banks use this authority to compel everyone to follow their rules (I'm talking about business). \ \ Personal independence: Bitcoin doesn't require confidence and doesn't have counterparty risk. With bitcoin, the person has complete control over his finances and doesn't require "permission" from a third party to earn, save, or spend it. Bitcoin is referred to be "freedom money" for this reason. \ \ Equality before the law: Unlike the actual banking system, where a group can create money out of thin air with little effort and can alter the rules to suit their interests, the bitcoin protocol ensures that everyone is playing by the same rules and that there is no possibility of cheating or inflating the supply of bitcoin. Equality exists under the Bitcoin protocol. \ \ Indeed there is nobody to act as central bank or federal reserve to adjust the money supply as the population of users grows.\ Satoshi Nakamoto, Febrero 18, 2009\ \ Freedom of speech: To uphold justice and the truth in an era of widespread censorship, freedom of speech is an essential human right. The fact that Bitcoin is information also fits into this category; money is a means of conveying value, but this time in an unstoppable manner that is impervious to censorship. \ \ Freedom of thought: Using bitcoin does not require you to subscribe to any particular philosophy or set of beliefs, including libertarianism or anarchism. Bitcoin is unbiased and doesn't care. \ \ Freedom of choice: Unlike fiat currencies, where you frequently have no other choice, no one will compel you to use bitcoin. \ \ Libertarians reject the current political and economic structures because they are blatantly immoral, criminal, and illegitimate. It is "shaped" by indoctrinated mob rule democracies, supported by violence, and based on lies.

Bitcoin's ascent \ \ Bitcoin wasn't created overnight; rather, it was the result of decades' worth of research, development, and technology. Above all else, however, bitcoin represented a breakthrough—a new method of accomplishing tasks that had previously been impossible. \ \ A lot of people automatically dismiss e-currency as a lost cause because of all the companies that failed since the 1990's. I hope it's obvious it was only the centrally controlled nature of those systems that doomed them. I think this is the first time we're trying a decentralized, non-trust-based system.

Satoshi Nakamoto, Febrero 15, 2009\ \ Due to their centralization and unique points of failure, all of the numerous attempts to implement alternative e-currencies failed. The distributed nature of the bitcoin network makes it more robust and challenging to attack. \ \ The secret to developing a decentralized unchangeable ledger was Satoshi's solution to a problem that had been thought to be intractable since the 1970s. Following years of failure and lessons learned, Satoshi established a finite amount of money that is governed by processing power and energy.\ \ The proof-of-work chain is a solution to the Byzantine Generals Problem.\ Satoshi Nakamoto, Febrero 15, 2009

The return of money \ \ Bitcoin has also had a significant impact on the monetary front, particularly on the system's capacity to function as money and not simply a currency. It has been shown to be the best store of value (SOV) in addition to being an excellent medium of exchange (MOE).

Since currencies replaced money during the last century, we have lost track of what money is. And in order to protect our wealth, we need to be aware of the important distinctions between these technologies. \ \ A currency must be recognized, divisible, fungible, portable, and widely accepted in order to function as a medium of exchange. \ \ All of those qualities are present in money, but it also has the capacity to hold value over time, and it must be scarce in order to function as a store of value. A currency, in contrast to money, is susceptible to inflation due to its ease of replication. This is the cause of the constant price increases. \ \ The money supply needs to be scarce in order to preserve its purchasing power over time (i.e., to be immune to inflation). For thousands of years, gold and silver have been the preferred forms of money. \ \ At first, paper currency was only used to facilitate transitions by serving as a convenient alternative (derivative) to precious metals. Since goldsmiths and subsequent bankers used fractional reserve banking to lend more money (i.e., print more paper currency) than they actually had in storage, paper currencies—which are easily reproducible—have always been vulnerable to inflation. This resulted in the recurring "bank run" crises that are documented throughout history.\ \ But before bitcoin, we didn't have any money since 1933 because banks had taken it and devalued it. Real state, stocks, bonds, and other choices had been selected as alternatives due to the absence of money (a store of value). People buy real estate, stocks, and bonds to protect their wealth because fiat currencies are continually being inlfated, not because they love them. \ \ An estimated 900 trillion dollars' worth of wealth is held in financial and tangible assets worldwide. \ \ In real state, 330 trillions (36.6%)\ \ Bonds worth 300 billions (33.3%)\ \ Currency totaling 120 trillions (13.3%)\ \ Equity of 115 trillions (12,7%)\ \ Art worth 18 billions (2%)\ \ Gold worth 16 trillions (1,77%)\ \ Automobiles and collectibles worth 6 trillions (0,66%)\ \ Bitcoin worth two trillions (0,22%)\ \ Bitcoin only makes up about 0.22% of the world's total wealth. The greatest money ever created, property that you can actually own, with a sovereign protocol, no counterparty risk, a limited supply (better than scarce), and no need for banks or governments. Freedom money is unaffected by debt, taxes, or inflation. \ \ A bitcoin market cap of x10 ($1,000,000) would represent 2,22% of the world's wealth, and a market cap of x100 ($10,000,000) would represent 22,22%. \ \ The denominator, the dollar, is always losing value since it is created infinitely by continuously increasing the debt supply, and wealth is not fixed—rather, it is eternally increasing. According to CBNC the U.S. national debt is rising by $1 trillion about every 100 days.

Bitcoin is energy \ \ Bankers and significant international leaders are aware that energy is the foundation of all human activity. They are aware that they must control the energy sources, including their supply, distribution, and price, in order to establish a monopoly over every industry and a system of slave labor. They even clarified in several released documents that this is the only way to engineer the global economy.

:Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars explains:

In order to achieve such sovereignty, we must at least achieve this one end: that the public will not make either the logical or mathematical connection between economics and the other energy sciences or learn to apply such knowledge.

It is only a matter of time before the new breed of private programmer/economists will catch on to the far-reaching implications of the work begun at Harvard in 1948. The speed with which they can communicate their warning to the public will largely depend upon how effective we have been at controlling the media, subverting education, and keeping the public distracted with matters of no real importance.

The Harvard Economic Research Project (1948-) was an extension of World War II Operations Research. Its purpose was to discover the science of controlling an economy: at first the American economy, and then the world economy. It was felt that with sufficient mathematical foundation and data, it would be nearly as easy to predict and control the trend of an economy as to predict and control the trajectory of a projectile. Such has proven to be the case. Moreover, the economy has been transformed into a guided missile on target.

As we can see, the actual monetary system was created as a system of control (SOC), which is essentially founded on thievery and has restrictions, barriers, closed doors, a lack of transparency, and different rules for different actors. Through fabricated inflation and economic crises, it has been stealing our riches and freedom and controlling not just the electrical supply but also the social energies of humanity. (Inductors and economic conductors)\ \ However, Bitcoin is restoring our freedom. A way to make money, save it, and spend it without any restrictions, inflation, or capricious regulations. A novel kind of property that is not dependent on a counterparty, like banks or governments, and that requires energy to manufacture rather than being formed spontaneously.

Bitcoin generation should end up where it's cheapest. Maybe that will be in cold climates where there's electric heat, where it would be essentially free.

Satoshi Nakamoto, August, 2010

This fact is key to unlock the benefits of deflation that had been opaqued by the artificially created inflation.

Natural deflation

The primary benefit of bitcoin is deflation. Deflation incentives people to delay consumption and save more. Saving is the key to economic growth, because it can help to increase investment and productivity.

With the increase in productivity, prices tend to go down as they are more abundant and we find cheaper ways to produce thanks to technology.

The only reason that prices are not going down today -except in products where improvements are very rapid (e.g., computers)- is because of government-caused-currency inflation.

They have been stealing the benefits of natural deflation from us, but now we can access it thanks to Bitcoin.

It might make sense just to get some in case it catches on. If enough people think the same way, that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

Satoshi Nakamoto, 1/17/2009

Conclusion

To only way to scape the slavery system is to earn, save and spend bitcoin; a money that’s not controlled by the governments and banks, that is not subject to inflation and where everyone has to play under the same rules.

Happy birthday Bitcoin!

Bitcoin or Slavery!

@ 5975800a:3d9a6b7d

Sometimes people come into your life and you know right away that they were meant to be there.

to serve some sort of purpose, teach you a lesson, or to help you figure out who you are or who you want to become.

You may never know who these people may be but..

when you lock eyes with them, you know that at that very moment they will affect your life in some profound way.

And sometimes things happen to you that may seem horrible, painful, and unfair at first..

but in reflection you find that without overcoming those obstacles, you would have never realized your potential, strength, willpower, or heart.

Everything happens for a reason.

Nothing happens by chance or by means of good luck. Illness, injury, love, lost moments of true greatness, and sheer stupidity all occur to test the limits of your soul.

Without the small tests, whatever they may be, life would be like a smoothly paved, straight flat road to nowhere.

It would be safe and comfortable, but dull and utterly pointless.

---

Written by Samantha McConnell.

Pictures by me.

@ 95cb4330:96db706c

Embracing a Bias Toward Action, as exemplified by leaders like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, involves prioritizing swift decision-making and iterative progress over prolonged analysis. This approach fosters innovation, accelerates learning, and enhances adaptability in dynamic markets.

---

Understanding Bias Toward Action

• Definition:
  A Bias Toward Action emphasizes initiating tasks promptly and refining them through continuous feedback, rather than striving for perfection before implementation.

---

Examples in Practice

• Elon Musk's Rapid Prototyping:
  At SpaceX, Musk employs an iterative design methodology, rapidly developing and testing prototypes to accelerate learning and innovation. This approach allows for quick identification of effective solutions and necessary improvements.
  newspaceeconomy.ca

• Jeff Bezos' Two-Way Door Framework:
  Bezos introduced the concept of "two-way door" decisions at Amazon, distinguishing between reversible and irreversible choices. For reversible decisions, he advocates for swift action, as they can be adjusted if needed. This strategy reduces decision-making paralysis and promotes agility.
  aboutamazon.com

---

Implementing a Bias Toward Action

1. Identify Decision Types:
   Assess whether a decision is reversible ("two-way door") or irreversible ("one-way door"). For reversible decisions, prioritize speed and be willing to iterate.
2. Set Clear Deadlines:
   Establish specific time frames for making decisions and taking action to prevent overanalysis and maintain momentum.
3. Encourage Experimentation:
   Foster a culture that supports testing ideas and learning from outcomes, viewing failures as opportunities for growth.

---

Action Step

Reflect on a project or decision you've been postponing. Determine if it's a reversible choice; if so, take an immediate step forward today, embracing the possibility of iteration and improvement.

By adopting a Bias Toward Action, you can enhance responsiveness, drive innovation, and position yourself to capitalize on emerging opportunities effectively.

---

@ d360efec:14907b5f

ภาพรวม BTCUSDT (OKX):

Bitcoin (BTCUSDT) แนวโน้ม Day ยังเป็นขาลง , 4H Sideway Down, 15m Sideways Down

วิเคราะห์ทีละ Timeframe:

(1) TF Day (รายวัน):

• แนวโน้ม: ขาลง (Downtrend)
• SMC:
  • Lower Highs (LH) และ Lower Lows (LL)
  • Break of Structure (BOS) ด้านล่าง
  • Liquidity:
    • มี Sellside Liquidity (SSL) ใต้ Lows
    • มี Buyside Liquidity (BSL) เหนือ Highs
• ICT:
  • Order Block: ราคา Sideway ใกล้ๆ Order Block ขาลง
• EMA:
  • ราคาอยู่ใต้ EMA 50/200
• Money Flow (LuxAlgo):
  • แดง
• Trend Strength (AlgoAlpha):
  • แดง/ไม่มีสัญญาณ
• Chart Patterns: None
• Volume Profile:
• แนวรับ: Low ล่าสุด
• แนวต้าน: EMA 50/200, Order Block
• สรุป: แนวโน้มขาลง

(2) TF4H (4 ชั่วโมง):

• แนวโน้ม: ขาลง (Downtrend)
• SMC:
  • Lower Highs (LH) และ Lower Lows (LL)
  • Break of Structure (BOS)
  • Liquidity:
    • มี SSL
    • มี BSL
• ICT: * Order Block: ราคา Sideway ใกล้ๆ Order Block ขาลง
• EMA:
  • ราคาอยู่ใต้ EMA 50/200
• Money Flow (LuxAlgo):
  • แดง
• Trend Strength (AlgoAlpha):
  • แดง/ไม่มีสัญญาณ
• Chart Patterns: None
• Volume Profile:
• แนวรับ: Low
• แนวต้าน: EMA 50/200, Order Block
• สรุป: แนวโน้มขาลง

(3) TF15 (15 นาที):

• แนวโน้ม: Sideways Down
• SMC:
  • Lower Highs (LH) และ Lower Lows (LL) เริ่ม Sideways
  • Break of Structure (BOS)
  • Liquidity:
• ICT: * Order Block ราคา Sideways ใกล้ๆ Order Block
• EMA:
  • EMA 50/200 เป็นแนวต้าน
• Money Flow (LuxAlgo):
  • แดง/เขียว สลับกัน
• Trend Strength (AlgoAlpha):
  • แดง/ไม่มีสัญญาณ
• Chart Patterns: None
• Volume Profile:
  • Volume ค่อนข้างสูง
• แนวรับ: Low
• แนวต้าน: EMA 50, EMA 200, Order Block
• สรุป: แนวโน้ม Sideways Down

สรุปภาพรวมและกลยุทธ์ (BTCUSDT):

• แนวโน้มหลัก (Day): ขาลง
• แนวโน้มรอง (4H): ขาลง
• แนวโน้มระยะสั้น (15m): Sideways Down
• Liquidity: มี SSL
• Money Flow: ลบ
• Trend Strength: Day/4H/15m ขาลง
• Chart Patterns: ไม่มี
• กลยุทธ์:
  1. Wait & See (ดีที่สุด): รอ
  2. Short (เสี่ยง): ถ้าไม่ Breakout EMA/แนวต้าน
  3. ไม่แนะนำให้ Buy

Day Trade & การเทรดรายวัน:

• Day Trade (TF15):

  • Short Bias: Short เมื่อเด้ง (EMA, Order Block)
  • Stop Loss: เหนือแนวต้าน
  • Take Profit: แนวรับ
  • ไม่ Long

• Swing Trade (TF4H):

  • Short Bias: Short เมื่อไม่ผ่าน EMA/Order Block
  • Stop Loss: เหนือแนวต้าน
  • Take Profit: แนวรับ
  • ไม่ Long

สิ่งที่ต้องระวัง:

• SSL: ราคาอาจถูกลากลงไป
• False Breakouts: ระวัง
• Volatility: สูง

Setup Day Trade แบบ SMC (ตัวอย่าง - Bearish):

1. Order Block: หา Bearish Order Block ใน TF15
2. Pullback: รอ Pullback ไปทดสอบ
3. Bearish Entry:
   • Rejection: รอ Price Action ปฏิเสธ
   • Break of Structure: รอ Break โครงสร้างย่อย
   • Money Flow: แดง
4. Stop Loss: เหนือ Order Block
5. Take Profit: แนวรับ

คำแนะนำ:

• แนวโน้มทั้งหมดเป็นลบ
• Money Flow เป็นลบ
• Trend Strength เป็นลบ
• ไม่แนะนำให้ Buy
• Wait & See หรือ Short (ถ้ามีประสบการณ์)
• บริหารความเสี่ยง!

คำแนะนำสุดท้าย: สถานการณ์โดยรวมของ BTCUSDT อยู่ในสภาวะขาลงและมีความเสี่ยงสูง แนะนำอย่างยิ่งให้ใช้กลยุทธ์ "Wait & See" (รอดูสถานการณ์) การ Short (ขาย) เป็นการเทรดที่มีความน่าจะเป็นสูงกว่าในขณะนี้ แต่เหมาะสำหรับนักเทรดที่มีประสบการณ์และมีการบริหารความเสี่ยงที่เข้มงวดเท่านั้น ไม่แนะนำให้ Buy (ซื้อ) ในเวลานี้

Disclaimer: การวิเคราะห์นี้เป็นเพียงความคิดเห็นส่วนตัว ไม่ถือเป็นคำแนะนำในการลงทุน ผู้ลงทุนควรศึกษาข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมและตัดสินใจด้วยความรอบคอบ

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

I've really enjoyed these two months running ~econ. It crystallized that what I most enjoy is reading and commenting. Thankfully, our excellent contributors are giving me ample opportunities.

Metrics

• Posts: 5th place - 264
• Comments: 6th place - 1653
• Stacking: 3rd place - 149.6k
• Revenue: 6th place - 59.4k

We're still over the breakeven point, but revenue was down from last month (still above the month before I took over, though). That means the new posting fee will be 81 sats, which is halfway back to the previous 108.

Contest Ideas

Last month, I asked what people thought the best use of previously donated sats was and funding a contest seemed to get the best response.

I'd like to try out a quarterly contest. The prize pool will be whatever sats have been earned, above the breakeven point, until the donated sats have all been paid out.

I'm not sure if this will be a winner-takes-all thing or a top 3. I also don't want to completely defer to zaprank, so what I'll do is list the top 10 posts by zaprank and have people vote on the best post.

Let me know what you think (including if this is an acceptable use of your donations, for those who made donations).

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/899082

@ 714f9dc3:76659adb

Last week, I was reading “The Air We Breathe”, by Glen Scrivener. It’s about “How We All Came to Believe in Freedom, Kindness, Progress, and Equality”, and it explores the Christian roots of the values we prize in today's western society. It’s all around us, but we don’t really know where it came from: It’s the air we’re breathing. The ideas and ethics behind Christianity, whether you believe in them or not, are embedded in our culture.

As I was reading this, I saw so many parallels with Bitcoin, so wanted to list them below and share some of my thoughts. Can Bitcoin also become “The Air We Breathe”? Or in plebs words: hyperbitcoinization? Can Bitcoin become so ubiquitous that it becomes normal? Can there be a world in which we don’t even know where Bitcoin came from? It would be a world with many similar views as with today's view on Christianity. It becomes the air we breathe, something that used to be a counterculture that over time became ubiquitous. What can we learn from it?

These are my ten parallels of Bitcoin with the early days of Christianity. 1. Separation from state 2. From obscure counterculture to dominant force 3. Exponential grassroots growth 4. Conversion of emperors/politicians 5. Sudden tolerance and protection for ideology 6. Fall of the empire, end of the status quo 7. Missionaries spreading the word 8. Persuasion and education are key 9. Age of Enlightenment

Note: I’m no expert on Christianity, nor a historian of the Roman Empire, and I know just a bit about Bitcoin. See this as a thought experiment.

1. Separation from state In all fairness, I’m not the first to draw this first parallel. It was Satoshi Nakamoto themself who made the connection even before Bitcoin was available to the public, with several hints pointing back to important dates and moments in Christian history. The big parallel here is the “separation of money and state” and “separation of church and state”.

Before going back to the early days of Christianity in the first centuries AD, I first want to draw this parallel with Satoshi.

It’s 1517. The German Priest Maarten Luther writes his Ninety-five Theses, and nails this on the church doors in Wittenberg. The theses are also known as the “Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences”. He kickstarted a movement with a radical new idea for that time: The separation of the church from the state.

The Catholic Church had become one with the state. Via the means of indulgences, there was an ability to pay for your redemption. The church was corrupted by money, power and politics. The church and indulgences replaced the need for personal responsibility and an individual faith with money and perverse structures.

Reformation Day is a Protestant Christian religious holiday celebrated on 31 October in remembrance of the onset of the Reformation. But the 31st of October is also the day in which Satoshi shared his pamphlet with the world: in 2008 they published the Bitcoin Whitepaper. It kickstarted a movement with a radical new idea for that time: The separation of the money from the state.

But this was not Satoshi’s only hint. Another one is the date of Bitcoin’s Genesis Block: January 3, 2009. It was the day that the idea of the separation of money and the state became reality, more than just an idea in an individual's mind.

Did you know that Maarten Luther was excommunicated from the Catholic Church in 1521 by Pope Leo X for sparking this revolutionary new way of thinking (and being). It happened on January 3 as well. I bet Satoshi Nakamoto knew.

To be fair, this parallel is not new and known by many bitcoiners. But it’s a good introduction to the topic, and after reading “The Air We Breathe: How We All Came to Believe in Freedom, Kindness, Progress, and Equality”, I automatically started to see more parallels between (the early days of) Christianity and todays adoption of Bitcoin. Because it was of course not Maarten Luther who sparked these rebellious thoughts in 1500, but it was Jesus himself approx. 2000 years ago.

Let’s go back from the 1500s to the first decades AD to the beginning of this radical new belief system. During the dominance of the Roman empire in the Mediterranean and much of Europe, Western Asia and North Africa, someone told a story that opposed every mainstream paradigm.

Jesus’ idea was radically different from the belief systems of that day. He preached Freedom, Kindness, Progress, and Equality in a world that was full of Debauchery and Violence, with Gladiator Games, Slavery, Public Crucifixion, and Brutalities. The belief system of that time was not like todays. There were superior races (Greek/Romans over barbarians), superior sexes (man over women), superior classes (free man over slaves) and the concept of justice was more something in the realm of “restoring rights of those that were superior”, than “equality for all, men and women, Greek and barbarian, free and slave”.

Jesus opposed the status quo. It started small and irrelevant; as a counterculture. But it didn’t stay that way.

2. From obscure counterculture to dominant force In “The Air We Breathe”, Scrivener asks the question: “How did the obscure, marginal Jesus movement of the 1st century become the dominant religious force in the Western world in a few centuries?”

Important to know, is that the Christian faith was the opposite of the narrative. Concepts like Freedom, Kindness, Progress, and Equality didn’t exist in the Roman Empire. Human rights neither. Individual rights neither. The emperor was almost de facto God himself.

Early Christians were persecuted for preaching a different story: that God is NOT the ruler of the empire. Jesus preached the separation of politics from God; separating faith from the state. As a result, he was crucified, and many of his followers were killed by Nero (between 54 and 68 AD), Domitian (81–96 AD), Trajan (98–117 AD) and Decius (249–251 AD). This new narrative was a thread for the Roman rulers.

Draw the parallels of how there have been many attempts to “kill” bitcoin, not with physical persecution but with an information war. Not by physical violence, but by misinformation. Bitcoin threatens the status quo, just like Christianity threatened the Roman Empire.

You see?

But how is the obscure movement of Bitcoin in the 20th century becoming the dominant force, similar to the question that Scrivener asked about Christianity? Perhaps the answer lies in the following parallel.

3. Exponential grassroots growth Sociologist Rodney Stark estimates in “The Rise of Christianity” that from the time of the first Easter, the church began growing at a rate of 40% per decade, a modest but relentless 3.4% per year. By the year 300, Christians numbered perhaps 6 million: about a tenth of the empire.

Despite pushbacks, the army of believers continued to grow. Grassroots, peer-to-peer. It was not the state-religion, it was a peaceful army of believers that spread the word, resulting in an exponential growth of its followers. The counterculture became more and more dominant.

You may see what I’m doing here. It was basically the meme that all Bitcoiners know: Gradually, then suddenly. Against the current.

4. Conversion of emperors/politicians In 312 a big change happened: Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity. As Stark writes, "Constantine's conversion would better be seen as a response to the massive exponential wave in progress, not as its cause".

Are we living in that same era, where nation states start to embrace Bitcoin? Where politicians don’t oppose as strongly anymore, but are flirting with the idea of embracing it? And again the parallel: it’s responsive to the exponential wave of progress, not as its cause.

Whether Constantine is Nayib Bukele, Donald Trump, or Milei: it doesn’t matter. It’s the dynamic that matters. The counterculture becomes so dominant, that the “rulers” of the world are wanting to be part of it. Which will be followed by “rules” that favour the ideology, movement, and beliefs.

5. Tolerance and protection for ideology In 313 Constatines Edict of Milan granted freedom to Christians that were remarkable for that time and a model for religious toleration for the coming centuries.

The tide was turning, and by 380 Emperor Theodosius made Christianity Rome's official religion, more than half the population had already converted. In a few short centuries Christianity had gone from radical counterculture to dominant cultural power. This was an extraordinary shift in the church's relationship with the world. The edict expressly grants religious liberty to Christians, who had been the object of special persecution, but also goes even further and grants liberty to all other religions. And then, in 410, the world itself changed.

It changed from grassroots, bottom-up adoption to some kind of nation state adoption. One that was driven by decrees and edicts, instead of the analog cyberhornets of that day. Actually, the ideas of Indulgences were introduced via these Edicts, something that Maarten Luther actually was fighting against in the 1500s.

The world changed from the state-less Christian belief and moved (back) towards a system in which the state and church were connected again. Yes — the Roman Catholic Church. Until the previously mentioned critics during the Reformation.

6. Fall of the empire, end of the status quo When people speak of the fall of the Roman Empire, they usually mean in the 5th century when the western half fell. But there was also an eastern half, known as the Byzantine Empire (with its capital in what is modern-day Istanbul).

How did this relate to the movement that once was Cult, and now suddenly had become Culture?

It was Augustine, the north African bishop (354-430), who laid the foundation for a new philosophical, theological, and legal system. He distinguished between the fragile earthly realm and the eternal heavenly kingdom. Rome was “a city of man”, which fell. But the “city of God” was forever. He continued to separate the Roman Catholic Church from the faith that it once was. This distinction was vital, and it gave rise to the concept of "the secular realm". He planted the first ideas of "the separation of church and state" again, which started to spread throughout Europe during the supposedly "sandy desert" of the Middle Ages.

The parallel and lesson here might be that narratives can be taken over, for the worse. And that it takes centuries to take back the narrative, but/and only after an empire has fallen. Whether we refer to “The Fourth Turning” by William Strauss and Neil Howe or “Changing World Orders” by Ray Dalio. There is something to preserve, and it needs active monitoring and pushbacks!

7. Missionary, spreading the word The way the church sought to spread its influence would become a question that would take many centuries (and many failures) to settle. In the past, empires sought to spread their influence almost always by force. Christianity has been a missionary faith from the beginning. It was for this reason that Pope Gregory the Great sent Augustine to Britain to convert the Anglo-Saxons.

Augustine was commanded by Gregory to use only "gentle means". His goal was persuasion. His method was teaching and preaching. And he was successful, converting King Aethelbert of Kent and becoming the first Archbishop of Canterbury.

You see what I’m talking about again: the parallel is simple. Bitcoin is a similar peaceful revolution, a missionary movement, of those that wish to see their Cult turn into a Culture. “Genle means”, teachings, persuasions. Or in pleb terminology: Orangepilling.

8. Persuasion and education are key Over the next decades and centuries, this movement continued. English Benedictine monk (675-754) Boniface was sent from the previously “barbarian” Britain to “orangepill the East” – in this case the Saxons in the Germanic lands. In the words of his advisor, the Bishop of Winchester, his goal was "to convince them by many documents and arguments". This mission of persuasion and education was largely successful. Today he’s better known as “the Apostle to the Germans". He was killed in The Netherlands (Dokkum).

Boniface kept to a policy of non-violence and non-retaliation, even to the point of death. Another famous writer about this topic, Tom Holland, summarises the lesson we learn from Boniface: "to convert was to educate".

In the following century this lesson was sorely needed by the Frankish king Charles the Great, aka Charlemagne (742-814). Charlemagne's path to power was a brutal one. When the Saxons stood in his way, Charlemagne beheaded 4,500 of them in a single day. There are concrete reasons why "getting medieval" might be associated today with brutality.

Is “Bitcoin as Legal Tender”, whether this is peaceful or violently, the way to go? Are we “getting medieval” with these kind of measures, in order to go from Cult to Culture, from counterculture to dominant culture, in which we lose the true essence of our revolution of separation of the state from the matter?

9. Age of Enlightenment Alcuin of York (735-804), was bold enough to write to Charlemagne directly with his criticism. "A person can be drawn into the faith, not forced into it". Be a lighthouse, not a tugboat!

The church's official teaching would later agree with Alcuin's position. In the 12th century all "harsh means" were forbidden since faith arises from the will, not compulsion. Enlightenment comes through education and persuasion.

There’s work to do. Grassroots. Education. Peer-to-peer. Not directed by politicians, nor opposed by those in power. Through education and persuasion. Rules without rulers. Because eventually, with the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, there are stark examples of the church using “harsh means" again. Forcing Bitcoin on people will never be the way: it’s a cheat code to the end goal. In order to succeed, we’ll need to be a missionary.

Final words I don’t want in any way to compare Christianity in itself as a faith, and Bitcoin as a technology, with each other. I enjoyed exploring the sociological phenomena between two countercultures, the grassroots movement and missionary parallels between both of them. Satoshi gave the first assist, with the 31st of October (Whitepaper Day) and the Genesis Block on January 3rd.

Let’s not mix religion with monetary systems, even though there are many similarities between certain movements. That’s not my goal for sharing this brain dump. But let’s learn from the past, from Constatine’s Edict and from Augustine, from Charlemagne (and especially Alcuin of York), from Boniface and from Maarten Luther. And from Satoshi Nakamoto.

@ 59cfee8f:7598a483

What is Crypto Mining? Before we dive into the trends and predictions, let's first define what crypto mining is. Cryptocurrency mining involves the use of powerful computers to solve complex mathematical problems and validate transactions on the blockchain. Miners compete to solve these problems and the first one to do so is rewarded with a certain amount of cryptocurrency.

Trend 1: Increased Focus on Renewable Energy One of the biggest trends in crypto mining is a shift towards renewable energy sources. As concerns about climate change continue to grow, many miners are looking for ways to reduce their carbon footprint and operate in a more sustainable manner. Solar and wind power are increasingly being used to power mining operations, and there are even projects underway to create completely renewable-powered mining farms.

Trend 2: The Rise of Decentralized Mining Pools Another trend that is gaining momentum in the crypto mining world is the emergence of decentralized mining pools. These pools are designed to be more transparent, fair, and resistant to manipulation than traditional centralized mining pools. By utilizing blockchain technology, these pools can offer greater security and reduce the risk of fraud.

Trend 3: Continued Growth of GPU Mining GPU mining has been around for several years now, but it continues to be an attractive option for miners due to its flexibility and cost-effectiveness. With the rise of new cryptocurrencies and the increased demand for computing power, GPU mining is expected to continue its growth trajectory in 2023.

Trend 4: Increased Focus on Security Security has always been a major concern in the crypto world, and this is especially true for mining operations. In 2023, we can expect to see a greater emphasis on security measures, such as multi-factor authentication, encryption, and biometric verification. Miners will need to be vigilant in order to protect their assets and prevent cyber attacks.

Trend 5: Emergence of New Mining Algorithms As the cryptocurrency market continues to evolve, we can expect to see the emergence of new mining algorithms. These algorithms will be designed to be more efficient, secure, and resistant to manipulation. This could lead to a shift away from traditional proof-of-work algorithms towards proof-of-stake or other innovative solutions.

Prediction 1: Increased Regulation As the cryptocurrency market continues to grow and gain mainstream acceptance, we can expect to see increased regulation from governments and financial institutions. This could have a significant impact on the mining industry, with stricter regulations and oversight leading to greater stability and legitimacy.

Prediction 2: Continued Price Volatility Cryptocurrency prices have always been volatile, and this is unlikely to change in 2023. While the overall trend may be upwards, there will still be significant fluctuations in price, driven by factors such as global economic conditions, regulatory changes, and investor sentiment.

Prediction 3: Greater Collaboration and Partnership As the cryptocurrency market becomes more mature, we can expect to see greater collaboration and partnership between mining companies, cryptocurrency exchanges, and other players in the ecosystem. This could lead to new business models and innovative solutions for miners and investors alike.

Prediction 4: Increased Adoption of Cryptocurrencies As more and more businesses and individuals begin to accept cryptocurrencies as a form of payment, we can expect to see increased adoption of these digital assets. This could lead to greater demand for mining equipment and services, as well as new opportunities for miners to earn rewards and profits.

Prediction 5: Evolution of Mining Hardware The evolution of mining hardware is a trend that has been ongoing since the early days of Bitcoin mining. As the demand for computing power continues to grow, we can expect to see new and improved mining hardware emerge in 2023. This could include more powerful GPUs, ASICs, and other specialized equipment designed specifically for mining.

Conclusion In conclusion, the future of crypto mining in 2025 and beyond looks promising, with numerous trends and predictions pointing towards continued growth and innovation. As the industry evolves and matures, miners will need to adapt and embrace new technologies and strategies in order to stay competitive and profitable. With the right tools and knowledge, however, there is no doubt that crypto mining will continue to be a valuable and exciting part of the cryptocurrency ecosystem for many years to come.

@ 58edc6ae:e070cfa5

MiCA Regulation and the new AML Regulation have recently come into force, raising several concerns about how the EU is approaching non-custodial payment solutions. These include:

1. Conflicts with privacy standards and human rights norms

The rules permit excessive collection and sharing of information on private transactions without adequate safeguards, conflicting with EU privacy standards and international human rights principles, as emphasised in rulings by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

1. Blocking innovation

The regulations conflict with privacy-focused technologies, potentially stifling new ideas and platforms in the EU. This could weaken the EU’s position as a leader in digital finance.

1. Hurting competition

Compliance with these regulations increases operating costs for EU-based CASPs, placing them at a disadvantage compared to non-EU companies operating under less restrictive rules. This may push users toward unregulated services outside Europe, undermining the regulations' purpose.

1. Excluding vulnerable groups

The regulations could make it harder for people in poorer or politically unstable countries to access secure and private financial tools, leaving them without viable financial options.

---

These issues are explored in detail in the report prepared by nostr:npub15ka0zlfeys4vphnl6dk4x63e7sra0mp3wmrp4ml7q993z8km0n6spjxua8 and me for Open Dialogue Foundation upon the request of nostr:npub13ajk3hhvqys2ev4y68jwxywgs8fsdsuk4y5gkzs874jdyrccvf5qak2yd9 .

It is crucial to reopen the discussion on these issues and urge European lawmakers to reconsider their approach. The EU needs a regulatory framework that strikes a balance between security and privacy, fosters innovation, and rebuilds Europe’s weakened position in the global digital economy.

MiCA #AML

@ 3906af02:af15c9f4

NEW: HRF #Bitcoin Development Fund grants 700 million satoshis to 20 projects worldwide!

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/human-rights-foundation-donates-700000000-satoshis-to-fund-bitcoin-development-and-projects

The grants cover decentralized #Bitcoin mining, technical education, decentralized communications, independent media & privacy-enhanced financial solutions for human rights groups, focusing on key regions in Latin America, Asia, and Africa 🌍🌏🌎🎁

Grants include:

🛠️ Stratum V2 Reference Implementation (SRI) decentralizes #Bitcoin mining by allowing nodes create their own block templates, reducing reliance on large pools. Funds will support @bit-aloo’s work on SRI including benchmarking tools, integration tests & codebase maintenance

⛏️ Public Pool makes #Bitcoin mining accessible for low-hash-rate devices, empowering individuals to self-host mining servers & contribute to decentralization. Funds will support hosting costs, hardware upgrades, & operational expenses.

🛠️ Jon Atack, recognized as one of the top all-time contributors to #Bitcoin Core, plays a pivotal role in enhancing Bitcoin’s decentralization and robustness. Funds will empower him to continue his vital contributions to Bitcoin development

👩🏿‍💻 Naiyoma, the first female #Bitcoin Core developer from Africa. Her work focuses on reviewing pull requests (PRs), addressing bugs through new PRs & improving Bitcoin Core’s codebase. Funds will support her full-time contributions to advancing Bitcoin Core.

🔒 Daniela Brozzoni, a #Bitcoin Core developer who previously contributed to the Bitcoin Development Kit (BDK). This grant will support her full-time contributions to Bitcoin Core reviewing key pull requests (PRs), contributing to new features & improving testing coverage

📱 UX/UI Design for Bitcoin Core by @Michaelhaase will bring the #Bitcoin Core App to mobile enabling users to run nodes, access essential wallet features directly on their phones to improve their financial privacy. Funding will support the project’s design & development.

🚀 Brink, co-founded by Mike Schmidt, supports #Bitcoin protocol engineers with grants and offers training & mentorship to onboard new contributors to open-source development. This grant will support operational expenses

⚡@Tando.me, cofounded by Sabina Gitau, integrates #Bitcoin with Kenya’s M-PESA system, enabling KYC-free, fee-free Lightning payments for everyday transactions for 54 million Kenyans. Funds will help boost Tando’s liquidity, support user growth & drive African expansion.

🌐 YakiHonne, a Nostr client founded by Wendy Ding, supports free speech & promote #Bitcoin payments across 170 countries with innovative functionality & a blend of online & offline events. Funds will support smart widget development, relay improvements & community events.

🌍 SeedSigner Multi-language Support brings accessibility to the open-source SeedSigner hardware wallet, empowering marginalized communities through inexpensive & accessible self-custody. Funds support Ace to deliver a multi-language version of SeedSigner.

🤝 Vexl, cofounded by Lea Petrasova, provides a private, KYC-free, peer-to-peer #Bitcoin trading experience by connecting users to trade through the social graph of their phone contacts. Funds will support expanded adoption in Africa & improvements to the backend infrastructure.

🇮🇳 Tomatech is building developer talent in Goa, India to advance #Bitcoin infrastructure & FOSS projects through training, workshops, & community meetups. Funding will support developer training, the creation of a developer hub, bounties & grants, & general operations.

💾 Krux, open-source firmware that turns generic devices into hardware wallets for secure #Bitcoin self-custody featuring air-gapped operations, key management & backups & support for 10 languages. Funding will support @odudex to advance this project.

🔐 Iris, a #Nostr web client by @MarttiMalmi, which aims to improve protection for metadata & message content, ensuring conversations remain private, especially in surveillant environments. Funding will support hiring an additional developer to expand Iris' features & functionality.

💻 Cashu-ts, the primary Software Development Kit in the @CashuBTC ecosystem developed by @Gandlaf21, simplifies wallet creation, integrates the latest protocol updates & powers popular wallets. Funds will support the developers to maintain & improve this essential library.

🤝 Unify, a Payjoin wallet developed by Fontaine, enhances privacy in #Bitcoin transactions by obscuring transaction histories, crucial for individuals navigating repressive regimes. Funds will support the developer to ship new features & expand compatibility with other wallets.

📢 The Financial Freedom Policy Coalition, led by Venezuelan activist Jorge Jraissati, promotes economic opportunities for people living under authoritarian regimes. Funds will support advocacy missions to educate policymakers on how #Bitcoin supports human rights.

🎓 African UX Bitcoin Bootcamp, led by @MouxDesign, empowered 10 African UX designers with #Bitcoin UX research skills ahead of the Africa Bitcoin Conference & support to test 5 popular Bitcoin products during the conference. Funds cover all program expenses for participants.

📰 No BS Bitcoin delivers ad-free, privacy-focused #Bitcoin news in clear & accessible format, essential for activists & citizens under authoritarian regimes. This grant ensures continued operations, adds an editor & supports Nostr features like Zaps & comments.

📖 Bitcoin History, a research project by Pete Rizzo, documenting key people, events & materials that shaped Bitcoin’s rise as a global monetary & human rights force. Fund will support a researcher to investigate & document stories of Bitcoin’s use against authoritarianism.

🌎 HRF is committed to supporting human rights and financial freedom with #Bitcoin.

If you are working on a #Bitcoin or adjacent freedom tech software (Nostr, eCash, TOR etc), education or adoption project that meets our mandate, submit your application at http://hrf.org/bdfapply 💪

@ a5caac8b:172ed717

Descubre una Oportunidad Única: Nuestra Propiedad Rústica en Tulum con Potencial Inmenso

Buscamos personas interesadas en explorar una inversión sólida, sostenible y alineada con el futuro de las finanzas descentralizadas. Queremos compartir con ustedes nuestra propiedad excepcional ubicada en La Veleta, Tulum, un lugar donde la naturaleza se fusiona con el estilo de vida moderno y el ecosistema Bitcoin.

Características destacadas de esta joya rústica:

• Construcción robusta: Diseñamos esta propiedad con materiales locales como piedra y Chucum, reflejando autenticidad y resistencia.
• Fuente propia de agua: Garantiza independencia hídrica, un valor inigualable en la región.
• Vegetación abundante: Un oasis verde que conecta directamente con la esencia de Tulum.
• Ubicación estratégica: Está súper céntrica, rodeada de los sitios más hermosos de la región, perfecta tanto para residencia como para negocio.
• Documentación al día: Todo está en regla y listo para transacciones seguras.

Nuestra propuesta para la administración y finanzas

Estamos buscando colaboradores para gestionar y/o comprar esta propiedad. Ya sea mediante plataformas como Nostr, Telegram o Element (en Matrix), podemos coordinarnos de manera eficiente para cualquier aspecto relacionado con la propiedad.

Además, si están interesados en adquirirla, queremos destacar que recientemente ajustamos el precio en 170,000 USD menos tras cuatro años en el mercado. Este cambio refleja nuestro compromiso con encontrar a los socios ideales que valoren no solo la belleza del lugar, sino también su potencial financiero dentro del ecosistema Bitcoin.

Por qué invertir aquí?

1. Negocio rentable: Ideal para emprendedores que deseen desarrollar proyectos turísticos, ecológicos o incluso tecnológicos en una de las regiones más codiciadas del mundo.
2. Valorización asegurada: La tendencia inmobiliaria en Tulum sigue creciendo año con año.
3. Sostenibilidad y tecnología: Combina la magia natural de México con herramientas innovadoras.

Comunicación Multilingüe

Ofrecemos la posibilidad de comunicarnos en español, alemán e inglés, lo que facilitará la interacción con inversores de diferentes partes del mundo.

No duden en contactarnos si son visionarios dispuestos a explorar nuevas formas de inversión en bienes raíces utilizando Bitcoin. Estamos emocionados por conectar con ustedes y construir juntos un futuro próspero.

Contacto: No duden en escribirnos. Respondemos todas sus preguntas con detalle y entusiasmo. ¡Juntos podemos transformar esta propiedad en un proyecto extraordinario!

---

TulumRealEstate #BitcoinFriendly #SustainableLiving #InvestInTulum #RusticCharm #PropertyForSale #DecentralizedFinance #TulumDreams

---

Discover a Unique Opportunity: Our Rustic Property in Tulum with Incredible Potential

We are looking for individuals interested in exploring a solid, sustainable investment aligned with the future of decentralized finance. We want to share with you our exceptional property located in La Veleta, Tulum—a place where nature blends seamlessly with modern living and the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Key Features of this Rustic Gem:

• Sturdy construction: We designed this property using local materials like stone and Chucum, reflecting authenticity and durability.
• Own water source: Ensures hydrological independence, an invaluable asset in the region.
• Abundant vegetation: A lush green haven that connects directly with the essence of Tulum.
• Strategic location: Centrally located, surrounded by the most beautiful spots in the region, perfect for both residential and business use.
• Up-to-date documentation: Everything is in order and ready for secure transactions.

Our Proposal for Management and Finances

We are seeking collaborators to manage and/or purchase this property. Whether through platforms like Nostr, Telegram or Element (on Matrix), we can efficiently coordinate any aspect related to the property.

Additionally, if you're interested in acquiring it, we’d like to highlight that we recently reduced the price by $170,000 USD after four years on the market. This adjustment reflects our commitment to finding the ideal partners who appreciate not only the beauty of the place but also its financial potential within the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Why Invest Here?

1. Profitable business opportunity: Perfect for entrepreneurs looking to develop tourism, ecological, or even tech projects in one of the world's most sought-after regions.
2. Guaranteed appreciation: The real estate trend in Tulum continues to grow year after year.
3. Sustainability and technology: Combines the natural magic of Mexico with innovative tools.

Multilingual Communication

We offer the possibility of communicating in Spanish, German, and English, making interaction easier for investors from around the world.

Don’t hesitate to reach out if you’re visionaries eager to explore new ways to invest in real estate using Bitcoin. We’re excited to connect with you and build a prosperous future together.

Contact: Feel free to write to us. We’ll be happy to answer all your questions in detail and with enthusiasm. Together, we can turn this property into an extraordinary project!

---

TulumRealEstate #BitcoinFriendly #SustainableLiving #InvestInTulum #RusticCharm #PropertyForSale #DecentralizedFinance #TulumDreams

---

Entdeckt eine einzigartige Gelegenheit: Unsere rustikale Immobilie in Tulum mit enormem Potenzial

Wir suchen Personen, die daran interessiert sind, eine feste, nachhaltige Investition zu tätigen, die sich auf die Zukunft der dezentralisierten Finanzen ausrichtet. Wir möchten euch unsere außergewöhnliche Immobilie in La Veleta, Tulum vorstellen – ein Ort, an dem Natur nahtlos mit dem modernen Leben und dem Bitcoin-Ekosystem verschmilzt.

Herausragende Merkmale dieser rustikalen Perle:

• Robuste Bauweise: Wir haben diese Immobilie mit lokalen Materialien wie Stein und Chucum gebaut, um Authentizität und Beständigkeit widerzuspiegeln.
• Eigen Quelle: Sicherstellt wertvolle Wasserunabhängigkeit, ein unschätzbarer Vorteil in der Region.
• Reiche Vegetation: Ein grünes Paradies, das euch direkt mit der Essenz von Tulum verbindet.
• Strategisch günstige Lage: Zentral gelegen, umgeben von den schönsten Plätzen der Region, ideal sowohl für Wohnzwecke als auch für Geschäfte.
• Aktuelle Dokumentation: Alles ist aktuell und bereit für sichere Transaktionen.

Unser Angebot zur Verwaltung und Finanzen

Wir suchen Mitstreiter, um diese Immobilie gemeinsam zu verwalten und/oder zu kaufen. Ob über Plattformen wie Nostr, Telegram oder Element (auf Matrix), können wir alle Aspekte der Immobilie effizient koordinieren.

Außerdem, wenn ihr Interesse habt, sie zu erwerben, möchten wir betonen, dass wir den Preis kürzlich um 170.000 USD gesenkt haben, nachdem sie vier Jahre lang auf dem Markt war. Diese Anpassung spiegelt unser Engagement wider, die idealen Partner zu finden, die nicht nur die Schönheit des Ortes schätzen, sondern auch sein finanzielles Potenzial im Bitcoin-Ekosystem.

Warum hier investieren?

1. Rentables Geschäft: Ideal für Unternehmer, die Tourismus-, ökologische oder sogar technologische Projekte in einer der weltweit begehrtesten Regionen entwickeln möchten.
2. Gewährleistung von Wertsteigerung: Die Immobilientrends in Tulum steigen Jahr für Jahr weiter.
3. Nachhaltigkeit und Technologie: Kombiniert die natürliche Magie Mexikos mit innovativen Tools.

Mehrsprachige Kommunikation

Wir bieten die Möglichkeit an, uns in Spanisch, Deutsch und Englisch zu kommunizieren, was die Interaktion mit Investoren aus aller Welt erleichtert.

Zögert nicht, euch zu melden, wenn ihr Visionäre seid, die neue Wege zur Immobilieninvestition mit Bitcoin erforschen möchten. Wir freuen uns darauf, mit euch zusammenzuarbeiten und gemeinsam eine erfolgreiche Zukunft aufzubauen.

Kontakt: Schreibt uns einfach. Wir werden alle eure Fragen detailliert und enthusiastisch beantworten. Zusammen können wir diese Immobilie in ein außergewöhnliches Projekt verwandeln!

---

TulumImmobilien #BitcoinFreundlich #NachhaltigesLeben #InvestiereInTulum #RustikalerCharme #ImmobilieZuVerkaufen #DezentralisierteFinanzen #TulumTräume

@ d360efec:14907b5f

Overall Assessment:

Bitcoin (BTCUSDT) on OKX remains highly volatile, and the overall trend is still uncertain. While the long-term trend (Daily chart) technically has been an uptrend, it has significantly weakened. The 4-hour and 15-minute charts are now in downtrends. This analysis incorporates:

• SMC (Smart Money Concepts): Market structure, Break of Structure, Change of Character, Order Blocks, Liquidity.
• ICT (Inner Circle Trader Concepts): Optimal Trade Entry (OTE), Fair Value Gaps (FVG), Mitigation, Breaker Blocks, Liquidity Pools/Runs.
• Buyside & Sellside Liquidity: Identifying likely areas of Smart Money buying/selling.
• Money Flow (LuxAlgo): Capital inflows/outflows.
• EMA (Exponential Moving Average): 50 (yellow) and 200 (white).
• Trend Strength (AlgoAlpha): Trend identification and strength, including the "cloud" and buy/sell signals.
• Chart Patterns: Identification of significant chart patterns.
• Volume Profile: (Used as needed).

Detailed Analysis by Timeframe:

(1) TF Day (Daily):

• Trend: Downtrend
• SMC:
  • Lower Highs (LH) and Lower Lows (LL)
  • BOS to the downside.
  • Liquidity:
    • Sellside Liquidity (SSL): Significant SSL rests below previous lows.
    • Buyside Liquidity (BSL): BSL is present above recent highs.
• ICT:
  • Order Block: The price failed to break above a bearish Order Block.
• EMA:
  • Price is below both the 50-period and 200-period EMAs (bearish).
• Money Flow (LuxAlgo):
  • Red, selling pressure
• Trend Strength (AlgoAlpha):
  • Red cloud, Downtrend, No signals.
• Chart Patterns: None
• Volume Profile:
• Support: Recent lows.
• Resistance: EMA 50, EMA 200, Order Block.
• Summary: Downtrend

(2) TF4H (4-Hour):

• Trend: Downtrend.
• SMC:
  • Lower Highs (LH) and Lower Lows (LL).
  • BOS to the downside.
  • Liquidity:
    • SSL: Below previous lows.
    • BSL: Above previous highs.
• ICT:
  • Order Block: The price failed to break above a bearish Order Block.
• EMA:
  • Price is below both the 50-period and 200-period EMAs (bearish).
• Money Flow (LuxAlgo):
  • Red, selling pressure.
• Trend Strength (AlgoAlpha):
  • Red cloud, Downtrend, No signals.
• Chart Patterns: None
• Volume Profile:
• Support: Recent lows.
• Resistance: EMA 50, EMA 200, Order Block.
• Summary: Downtrend

(3) TF15 (15-Minute):

• Trend: Sideways Down
• SMC:
  • Lower Highs (LH) and Lower Lows (LL) - but showing signs of sideways movement.
  • BOS to the downside.
• ICT: * Order Block The price is ranging near a bearish Order Block.
• EMA:
  • The 50-period and 200-period EMAs are acting as resistance.
• Money Flow (LuxAlgo):
  • Red
• Trend Strength (AlgoAlpha):
  • Red/No signals
• Chart Patterns: None
• Volume Profile
• Relatively High Volume
• Support: Recent lows.
• Resistance: EMA 50, EMA 200, Order Block.
• Summary: Sideways Down

Overall Strategy and Recommendations (BTCUSDT):

• Primary Trend (Day): Downtrend
• Secondary Trend (4H): Downtrend
• Short-Term Trend (15m): Sideways Down
• Liquidity: SSL below on all timeframes.
• Money Flow: Negative on all timeframes.
• Trend Strength: Bearish on Day, 4H, and 15m.

• Chart Patterns: None

• Strategies:

  1. Wait & See (Best Option): The bearish momentum and lack of clear bullish reversals make waiting for confirmation the most prudent approach.
  2. Short (High Risk): This aligns with the downtrends on all timeframes.
     • Entry: Look for short entries on rallies to resistance levels (EMAs, Order Blocks, previous support turned resistance).
     • Stop Loss: Above recent highs or key resistance.
     • Target: Recent lows, then SSL zones.
  3. Buy (Extremely High Risk - NOT Recommended): Do not buy unless there are extremely strong and consistent bullish reversal signals across all timeframes.

Day Trading & Swing Trading:

• Day Trade (TF15 Focus):

  • Bias: Short.
  • Entry: Look for bearish setups (rejections of resistance, bearish candlestick patterns) near EMAs or Order Blocks.
  • Stop Loss: Tight, above resistance.
  • Take Profit: Recent lows.
  • Avoid: Longs.

• Swing Trade (TF4H Focus):

  • Bias: Short.
  • Entry: Look for bearish setups (rejections of resistance, bearish candlestick patterns) near EMAs or Order Blocks.
  • Stop Loss: Above resistance.
  • Take Profit: Next major support levels (SSL zones).
  • Avoid: Longs.

Key Considerations & Warnings:

• Sellside Liquidity (SSL): High probability of price being drawn down to these levels.
• False Breakouts: Always a risk.
• Volatility: Expect high volatility.
• Conflicting Timeframes: While the long-term trend was bullish, the current price action and indicators are overwhelmingly bearish.
• Money Flow: Consistently negative across all timeframes.
• Trend Strength: Bearish across all timeframes.

SMC Day Trade Setup Example (Bearish - TF15):

1. Identify Bearish Order Block: Locate a bearish Order Block on the TF15 chart.
2. Wait for Pullback: Wait for the price to pull back up to test the Order Block (this might not always happen).
3. Bearish Entry:
   • Rejection: Look for price action to reject the Order Block (e.g., pin bar, engulfing pattern, other bearish patterns).
   • Break of Structure: Look for a break of a minor support level on a lower timeframe (1m/5m) after the Order Block test.
   • Money Flow: Confirm negative Money Flow (red).
4. Stop Loss: Place a stop-loss order above the Order Block.
5. Take Profit: Target the next support level (e.g., recent lows).

Recommendations:

All trends are negative. Money flow is negative. Trend strength is negative. Buying is not recommended. Wait and see, or short (if experienced). Manage your risk! I've made the following very minor changes, maintaining the original meaning:

Changed 'Advice' to a more natural sounding 'Recommendations'. Used "if experienced" instead of "(if have experience)" This version maintains the original meaning while sounding more natural in English, particularly in a financial/trading context.

Final Recommendation: The overall situation for BTCUSDT is bearish and high-risk. The "Wait & See" approach is strongly recommended. Shorting is currently the higher-probability trade, but only for experienced traders with strict risk management. Buying is not recommended at this time.

Disclaimer: This analysis is for informational purposes only and represents a personal opinion. It is not financial advice. Investing in cryptocurrencies involves significant risk. Investors should conduct their own research and exercise due diligence before making any investment decisions.

@ 4657dfe8:47934b3e

Alby Hub enables creation of subaccounts, decentralizing trust and creating usecases for shared, community nodes.

Simplifying Bitcoin Wallets for Friends and Family

Alby Hub empowers you to take full control of your bitcoin and manage your payments. Through a user-friendly, self-custodial wallet with a one-click lightning node setup, you can effortlessly connect to dozens of applications. The integrated App Store provides access to popular apps like Amethyst, Damus, Stacker News, Podcasting 2.0, and a wide range of other external tools—all directly linked with your Alby Hub wallet. One of the latest and most exciting additions to Alby Hub is the Friends & Family app.

With the Friends & Family app, you can create subaccounts for friends and family, all powered by your Hub. In just a few clicks, you can set up wallets for them, giving them a smooth onboarding experience and making bitcoin accessible even to those new to the ecosystem. Think of it as a custodial wallet but with a personal touch—since you’re the one managing it, there’s a direct relationship and trust.

These subaccount holders can tap into all the channels and liquidity of your Hub without needing to handle any technical setup. Plus, you can preload their wallets with a few sats, creating a welcoming and smooth experience that’s hard to find elsewhere.

And that’s not all. Beyond providing an intuitive wallet, they can get their own lightning address, configurable payment notifications, access to Alby Go (a mobile app for payments on the go), and the Alby Browser Extension for easy web payments.

Let’s have a look how to set it up.

How to provide a wallet to Friends and Family?

1. Open your Hub and find the Friends & Family app in the App Store
2. Enter a name e.g. your friend’s name and click “Create subaccount”
3. Share the Connection Secret with your friend for the different options

Here are two examples how your the new subaccount can be used.

Alby Go mobile App

Alby Go makes it easy to carry bitcoin in your pocket. This lightweight wallet connects directly to an Alby Hub subaccount, so your friends can pay and check transactions on the go.

Here’s how to set it up: 1. Open the Alby Go Mobile App tab in your Hub.

2. Copy the Connection Secret and share it with your friend if you cannot onboard them in person. 3. Your friend downloads Alby Go for Android or iOS and scans the code.

And that’s it—your friend now has a bitcoin wallet in their pocket, ready for seamless transactions anytime, anywhere. 🎉

Get a Lightning Address with an Alby account

An Alby Account offers a variety of useful features that make managing bitcoin payments easy. Among these are a personalized lightning address and email payment notifications—two powerful tools that help your newly onboarded friends stay connected and informed.

To set up an Alby account for someone:

1. Open the Alby Account tab in your Hub.

2. Copy the provided URL and share it with your friend.

3. Your friend simply needs to create their Alby account and afterwards click on the provided URL.

That’s it! The wallet is instantly connected, and they’re ready to receive payments to their new lightning address. 🥳

Onboarding Family & Friends Made Easy In this article, we explored how to create subaccounts for family and friends, connect them with Alby Go, and set up an Alby account to provide a smooth onboarding experience for your loved ones—all achievable in just a few clicks.

Stay tuned as we dive into more exciting use cases for subaccounts in Alby Hub! If you have ideas for improvement,let us know.