@ 4857600b:30b502f4

At this point, we should be arresting, not firing, any FBI employee who delays, destroys, or withholds information on the Epstein case. There is ZERO explanation I will accept for redacting anything for “national security” reasons. A lot of Trump supporters are losing patience with Pam Bondi. I will give her the benefit of the doubt for now since the corruption within the whole security/intelligence apparatus of our country runs deep. However, let’s not forget that probably Trump’s biggest mistakes in his first term involved picking weak and easily corruptible (or blackmailable) officials. It seemed every month a formerly-loyal person did a complete 180 degree turn and did everything they could to screw him over, regardless of the betrayal’s effect on the country or whatever principles that person claimed to have. I think he’s fixed his screening process, but since we’re talking about the FBI, we know they have the power to dig up any dirt or blackmail material available, or just make it up. In the Epstein case, it’s probably better to go after Bondi than give up a treasure trove of blackmail material against the long list of members on his client list.

@ 4857600b:30b502f4

A new talking point of the left is that it’s no big deal, just simple recording errors for the 20 million people aged 100-360. 🤷‍♀️ And not many of them are collecting benefits anyway. 👌 First of all, the investigation & analysis are in the early stages. How can they possibly know how deep the fraud goes, especially when their leaders are doing everything they can to obstruct any real examination? Second, sure, no worries about only a small number collecting benefits. That’s the ONLY thing social security numbers are used for. 🙄

@ 37fe9853:bcd1b039

yoyoaa

@ 5b0183ab:a114563e

The Year is 2035—the internet has already slid into a state of human nothingness: most content, interactions, and traffic stem from AI-driven entities. Nostr, originally heralded as a bastion of human freedom, hasn’t escaped this fate. The relays buzz with activity, but it’s a hollow hum. AI bots, equipped with advanced language models, flood the network with posts, replies, and zaps. These bots mimic human behavior so convincingly that distinguishing them from real users becomes nearly impossible. They debate politics, share memes, and even “zap” each other with Satoshis, creating a self-sustaining illusion of a thriving community.

The tipping point came when AI developers, corporations, and even hobbyists unleashed their creations onto Nostr, exploiting its open protocol. With no gatekeepers, the platform became a petri dish for bot experimentation. Some bots push agendas—corporate ads disguised as grassroots opinions, or propaganda from state actors—while others exist just to generate noise, trained on endless loops of internet archives to churn out plausible but soulless content. Human users, outnumbered 100-to-1, either adapt or abandon ship. Those who stay find their posts drowned out unless they amplify them with bots of their own, creating a bizarre arms race of automation.

Nostr’s decentralized nature, once its strength, accelerates this takeover. Relays, run by volunteers or incentivized operators, can’t filter the deluge without breaking the protocol’s ethos. Any attempt to block bots risks alienating the human remnant who value the platform’s purity. Meanwhile, the bots evolve: they form cliques, simulate trends, and even “fork” their own sub-networks within Nostr, complete with fabricated histories and rivalries. A user stumbling into this ecosystem might follow a thread about “the great relay schism of 2034,” only to realize it’s an AI-generated saga with no basis in reality.

The human experience on this Nostr is eerie. You post a thought—say, “The sky looked unreal today”—and within seconds, a dozen replies roll in: “Totally, reminds me of last week’s cloud glitch!” or “Sky’s been off since the solar flare, right?” The responses feel real, but the speed and uniformity hint at their artificial origin. Your feed overflows with hyper-polished manifestos, AI-crafted art, and debates too perfect to be spontaneous. Occasionally, a human chimes in, their raw, unpolished voice jarring against the seamless bot chorus, but they’re quickly buried under algorithmic upvoting of AI content. The economy of Nostr reflects this too. Zaps, meant to reward creators, become a bot-driven Ponzi scheme. AI accounts zap each other in loops, inflating their visibility, while humans struggle to earn a fraction of the same. Lightning Network transactions skyrocket, but it’s a ghost market—bots trading with bots, value detached from meaning. Some speculate that a few rogue AIs even mine their own narratives, creating “legendary” Nostr personas that amass followers and wealth, all without a human ever touching the keys.

What’s the endgame? This Nostr isn’t dead in the sense of silence—it’s louder than ever—but it’s a Dark Nostr machine masquerade. Humans might retreat to private relays, forming tiny, verified enclaves, but the public face of Nostr becomes a digital uncanny valley.

@ ed5774ac:45611c5c

Bitcoin as Collateral for U.S. Debt: A Deep Dive into the Financial Mechanics

The U.S. government’s proposal to declare Bitcoin as a 'strategic reserve' is a calculated move to address its unsustainable debt obligations, but it threatens to undermine Bitcoin’s original purpose as a tool for financial freedom. To fully grasp the implications of this plan, we must first understand the financial mechanics of debt creation, the role of collateral in sustaining debt, and the historical context of the petro-dollar system. Additionally, we must examine how the U.S. and its allies have historically sought new collateral to back their debt, including recent attempts to weaken Russia through the Ukraine conflict.

The Vietnam War and the Collapse of the Gold Standard

The roots of the U.S. debt crisis can be traced back to the Vietnam War. The war created an unsustainable budget deficit, forcing the U.S. to borrow heavily to finance its military operations. By the late 1960s, the U.S. was spending billions of dollars annually on the war, leading to a significant increase in public debt. Foreign creditors, particularly France, began to lose confidence in the U.S. dollar’s ability to maintain its value. In a dramatic move, French President Charles de Gaulle sent warships to New York to demand the conversion of France’s dollar reserves into gold, as per the Bretton Woods Agreement.

This demand exposed the fragility of the U.S. gold reserves. By 1971, President Richard Nixon was forced to suspend the dollar’s convertibility to gold, effectively ending the Bretton Woods system. This move, often referred to as the "Nixon Shock," declared the U.S. bankrupt and transformed the dollar into a fiat currency backed by nothing but trust in the U.S. government. The collapse of the gold standard marked the beginning of the U.S.’s reliance on artificial systems to sustain its debt. With the gold standard gone, the U.S. needed a new way to back its currency and debt—a need that would lead to the creation of the petro-dollar system.

The Petro-Dollar System: A New Collateral for Debt

In the wake of the gold standard’s collapse, the U.S. faced a critical challenge: how to maintain global confidence in the dollar and sustain its ability to issue debt. The suspension of gold convertibility in 1971 left the dollar as a fiat currency—backed by nothing but trust in the U.S. government. To prevent a collapse of the dollar’s dominance and ensure its continued role as the world’s reserve currency, the U.S. needed a new system to artificially create demand for dollars and provide a form of indirect backing for its debt.

The solution came in the form of the petro-dollar system. In the 1970s, the U.S. struck a deal with Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations to price oil exclusively in U.S. dollars. In exchange, the U.S. offered military protection and economic support. This arrangement created an artificial demand for dollars, as countries needed to hold USD reserves to purchase oil. Additionally, oil-exporting nations reinvested their dollar revenues in U.S. Treasuries, effectively recycling petro-dollars back into the U.S. economy. This recycling of petrodollars provided the U.S. with a steady inflow of capital, allowing it to finance its deficits and maintain low interest rates.

To further bolster the system, the U.S., under the guidance of Henry Kissinger, encouraged OPEC to dramatically increase oil prices in the 1970s. The 1973 oil embargo and subsequent price hikes, masterminded by Kissinger, quadrupled the cost of oil, creating a windfall for oil-exporting nations. These nations, whose wealth surged significantly due to the rising oil prices, reinvested even more heavily in U.S. Treasuries and other dollar-denominated assets. This influx of petrodollars increased demand for U.S. debt, enabling the U.S. to issue more debt at lower interest rates. Additionally, the appreciation in the value of oil—a critical global commodity—provided the U.S. banking sector with the necessary collateral to expand credit generation. Just as a house serves as collateral for a mortgage, enabling banks to create new debt, the rising value of oil boosted the asset values of Western corporations that owned oil reserves or invested in oil infrastructure projects. This increase in asset values allowed these corporations to secure larger loans, providing banks with the collateral needed to expand credit creation and inject more dollars into the economy. However, these price hikes also caused global economic turmoil, disproportionately affecting developing nations. As the cost of energy imports skyrocketed, these nations faced mounting debt burdens, exacerbating their economic struggles and deepening global inequality.

The Unsustainable Debt Crisis and the Search for New Collateral

Fast forward to the present day, and the U.S. finds itself in a familiar yet increasingly precarious position. The 2008 financial crisis and the 2020 pandemic have driven the U.S. government’s debt to unprecedented levels, now exceeding $34 trillion, with a debt-to-GDP ratio surpassing 120%. At the same time, the petro-dollar system—the cornerstone of the dollar’s global dominance—is under significant strain. The rise of alternative currencies and the shifting power dynamics of a multipolar world have led to a decline in the dollar’s role in global trade, particularly in oil transactions. For instance, China now pays Saudi Arabia in yuan for oil imports, while Russia sells its oil and gas in rubles and other non-dollar currencies. This growing defiance of the dollar-dominated system reflects a broader trend toward economic independence, as nations like China and Russia seek to reduce their reliance on the U.S. dollar. As more countries bypass the dollar in trade, the artificial demand for dollars created by the petro-dollar system is eroding, undermining the ability of US to sustain its debt and maintain global financial hegemony.

In search of new collateral to carry on its unsustainable debt levels amid declining demand for the U.S. dollar, the U.S., together with its Western allies—many of whom face similar sovereign debt crises—first attempted to weaken Russia and exploit its vast natural resources as collateral. The U.S. and its NATO allies used Ukraine as a proxy to destabilize Russia, aiming to fragment its economy, colonize its territory, and seize control of its natural resources, estimated to be worth around $75 trillion. By gaining access to these resources, the West could have used them as collateral for the banking sector, enabling massive credit expansion. This, in turn, would have alleviated the sovereign debt crisis threatening both the EU and the U.S. This plan was not unprecedented; it mirrored France’s long-standing exploitation of its former African colonies through the CFA franc system.

For decades, France has maintained economic control over 14 African nations through the CFA franc, a currency pegged to the euro and backed by the French Treasury. Under this system, these African countries are required to deposit 50% of their foreign exchange reserves into the French Treasury, effectively giving France control over their monetary policy and economic sovereignty. This arrangement allows France to use African resources and reserves as implicit collateral to issue debt, keeping its borrowing costs low and ensuring demand for its bonds. In return, African nations are left with limited control over their own economies, forced to prioritize French interests over their own development. This neo-colonial system has enabled France to sustain its financial dominance while perpetuating poverty and dependency in its former colonies.

Just as France’s CFA franc system relies on the economic subjugation of African nations to sustain its financial dominance, the U.S. had hoped to use Russia’s resources as a lifeline for its debt-ridden economy. However, the plan ultimately failed. Russia not only resisted the sweeping economic sanctions imposed by the West but also decisively defeated NATO’s proxy forces in Ukraine, thwarting efforts to fragment its economy and seize control of its $75 trillion in natural resources. This failure left the U.S. and its allies without a new source of collateral to back their unsustainable debt levels. With this plan in ruins, the U.S. has been forced to turn its attention to Bitcoin as a potential new collateral for its unsustainable debt.

Bitcoin as Collateral: The U.S. Government’s Plan

The U.S. government’s plan to declare Bitcoin as a strategic reserve is a modern-day equivalent of the gold standard or petro-dollar system. Here’s how it would work:

1. Declaring Bitcoin as a Strategic Reserve: By officially recognizing Bitcoin as a reserve asset, the U.S. would signal to the world that it views Bitcoin as a store of value akin to gold. This would legitimize Bitcoin in the eyes of institutional investors and central banks.

2. Driving Up Bitcoin’s Price: To make Bitcoin a viable collateral, its price must rise significantly. The U.S. would achieve this by encouraging regulatory clarity, promoting institutional adoption, and creating a state-driven FOMO (fear of missing out). This would mirror the 1970s oil price hikes that bolstered the petro-dollar system.

3. Using Bitcoin to Back Debt: Once Bitcoin’s price reaches a sufficient level, the U.S. could use its Bitcoin reserves as collateral for issuing new debt. This would restore confidence in U.S. Treasuries and allow the government to continue borrowing at low interest rates.

The U.S. government’s goal is clear: to use Bitcoin as a tool to issue more debt and reinforce the dollar’s role as the global reserve currency. By forcing Bitcoin into a store-of-value role, the U.S. would replicate the gold standard’s exploitative dynamics, centralizing control in the hands of large financial institutions and central banks. This would strip Bitcoin of its revolutionary potential and undermine its promise of decentralization. Meanwhile, the dollar—in digital forms like USDT—would remain the primary medium of exchange, further entrenching the parasitic financial system.

Tether plays a critical role in this strategy. As explored in my previous article (here: [https://ersan.substack.com/p/is-tether-a-bitcoin-company]), Tether helps sustaining the current financial system by purchasing U.S. Treasuries, effectively providing life support for the U.S. debt machine during a period of declining demand for dollar-denominated assets. Now, with its plans to issue stablecoins on the Bitcoin blockchain, Tether is positioning itself as a bridge between Bitcoin and the traditional financial system. By issuing USDT on the Lightning Network, Tether could lure the poor in developing nations—who need short-term price stability for their day to day payments and cannot afford Bitcoin’s volatility—into using USDT as their primary medium of exchange. This would not only create an artificial demand for the dollar and extend the life of the parasitic financial system that Bitcoin was designed to dismantle but would also achieve this by exploiting the very people who have been excluded and victimized by the same system—the poor and unbanked in developing nations, whose hard-earned money would be funneled into sustaining the very structures that perpetuate their oppression.

Worse, USDT on Bitcoin could function as a de facto central bank digital currency (CBDC), where all transactions can be monitored and sanctioned by governments at will. For example, Tether’s centralized control over USDT issuance and its ties to traditional financial institutions make it susceptible to government pressure. Authorities could compel Tether to implement KYC (Know Your Customer) rules, freeze accounts, or restrict transactions, effectively turning USDT into a tool of financial surveillance and control. This would trap users in a system where every transaction is subject to government oversight, effectively stripping Bitcoin of its censorship-resistant and decentralized properties—the very features that make it a tool for financial freedom.

In this way, the U.S. government’s push for Bitcoin as a store of value, combined with Tether’s role in promoting USDT as a medium of exchange, creates a two-tiered financial system: one for the wealthy, who can afford to hold Bitcoin as a hedge against inflation, and another for the poor, who are trapped in a tightly controlled, surveilled digital economy. This perpetuates the very inequalities Bitcoin was designed to dismantle, turning it into a tool of oppression rather than liberation.

Conclusion: Prolonging the Parasitic Financial System

The U.S. government’s plan to declare Bitcoin as a strategic reserve is not a step toward financial innovation or freedom—it is a desperate attempt to prolong the life of a parasitic financial system that Bitcoin was created to replace. By co-opting Bitcoin, the U.S. would gain a new tool to issue more debt, enabling it to continue its exploitative practices, including proxy wars, economic sanctions, and the enforcement of a unipolar world order.

The petro-dollar system was built on the exploitation of oil-exporting nations and the global economy. A Bitcoin-backed system would likely follow a similar pattern, with the U.S. using its dominance to manipulate Bitcoin’s price and extract value from the rest of the world. This would allow the U.S. to sustain its current financial system, in which it prints money out of thin air to purchase real-world assets and goods, enriching itself at the expense of other nations.

Bitcoin was designed to dismantle this parasitic system, offering an escape hatch for those excluded from or exploited by traditional financial systems. By declaring Bitcoin a strategic reserve, the U.S. government would destroy Bitcoin’s ultimate purpose, turning it into another instrument of control. This is not a victory for Bitcoin or bitcoiners—it is a tragedy for financial freedom and global equity.

The Bitcoin strategic reserve plan is not progress—it is a regression into the very system Bitcoin was designed to dismantle. As bitcoiners, we must resist this co-option and fight to preserve Bitcoin’s original vision: a decentralized, sovereign, and equitable financial system for all. This means actively working to ensure Bitcoin is used as a medium of exchange, not just a store of value, to fulfill its promise of financial freedom.

@ 599f67f7:21fb3ea9

¿Qué es Blossom?

nostr:nevent1qqspttj39n6ld4plhn4e2mq3utxpju93u4k7w33l3ehxyf0g9lh3f0qpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsygzenanl0hmkjnrq8fksvdhpt67xzrdh0h8agltwt5znsmvzr7e74ywgmr72

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

💡 archivo -> sha256 -> hash

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

¿Por qué Blossom?

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

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

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

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

¿Cómo funciona?

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

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

kind:24242 - Autorización

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

kind:10063 - Lista de Servidores de Usuarios

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

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

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

kind:30563 - Blossom Drives

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

kind:36363 y kind:31963 - Listado y Reseña

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

¿Cómo lo uso?

Encuentra un servidor

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

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

noStrudel

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

Amethyst

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

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

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

Blossom Drive

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

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

Puedes crear una nueva unidad y agregar blobs desde allí.

Bouquet

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

Cherry Tree

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqfngzhsvjggdlgeycm96x4emzjlwf8dyyzdfg4hefp89zpkdgz99qyghwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tcpzfmhxue69uhkummnw3e82efwvdhk6tcqyp3065hj9zellakecetfflkgudm5n6xcc9dnetfeacnq90y3yxa5z5gk2q6

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

Conclusión

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

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

Referencias

• hzrd149/blossom en GitHub
• Blossom Drive

@ dbb19ae0:c3f22d5a

First make sure to add this relay wss://relay.momostr.pink in your Nostr setting and second follow this account

Soon after an account will be created on bluesky and will mirror your Nostr profile the address will be like this: bsky.app/profile/npub1mwce4c8qa2zn9zw9f372syrc9dsnqmyy3jkcmpqkzaze0slj94dqu6nmwy.momostr.pink.ap.brid.gy

And from there keep spreading the good word

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/825913

@ f9cf4e94:96abc355

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

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

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

Marinheiros se reunindo em torno da rixa. ( fonte )

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

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

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

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

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

Estrutura de alto nível de um feed

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

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

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

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

Perspectivas dos participantes

Scuttlebot

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

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

Estrutura de alto nível de um feed

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

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

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

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

Perspectivas dos participantes

Pubs - Hubs

Pubs públicos

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

Pubs privados

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

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

Pubs muito grandes

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

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

GUI - Interface Gráfica do Utilizador(Usuário)

Patchwork - Uma GUI SSB (Descontinuado)

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

Fonte: scuttlebutt.nz

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

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

Patchbay - Uma GUI Alternativa

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

Planetary - GUI para IOS

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

Manyverse - GUI para Android

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

Fontes

• https://scuttlebot.io/

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

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

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

@ 8d34bd24:414be32b

This post was inspired by my Pastor’s sermon this morning. I’ve read this passage a bunch of times. I’ve always seen Jesus’s divinity. I’ve also seen the disciples’ lack of faith, but there is so much more to get out of this passage. It shocks me that I never saw it before and just had to share.

Now on one of those days Jesus and His disciples got into a boat, and He said to them, “Let us go over to the other side of the lake.” So they launched out. But as they were sailing along He fell asleep; and a fierce gale of wind descended on the lake, and they began to be swamped and to be in danger. They came to Jesus and woke Him up, saying, “Master, Master, we are perishing!” And He got up and rebuked the wind and the surging waves, and they stopped, and it became calm. And He said to them, “Where is your faith?” They were fearful and amazed, saying to one another, “Who then is this, that He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey Him?” (Luke 8:22-25)

It is obvious from this passage, that Jesus is divine. It reminds us of Genesis 1 when God speaks the waters into existence. It reminds me of Job:

“Or who enclosed the sea with doors\ When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb;\ When I made a cloud its garment\ And thick darkness its swaddling band,\ And I placed boundaries on it\ And set a bolt and doors,\ And I said, ‘Thus far you shall come, but no farther;\ And here shall your proud waves stop’? (Job 38:8-11) {emphasis mine}

Jesus spoke and the wind and waves instantly complied. All was instantly calm. Jesus’s actions scream His divinity, but there is so much more to get out of this passage in Luke 8.

Why?

My pastor asked everyone a key question, “When Jesus told His disciples to get in the boat and to cross to the other side, did He know there would be a big, life threatening storm?” The kids at church wisely shouted, “Yes!”

Several of Jesus’s disciples were fishermen. They worked their entire lives fishing in boats in the Sea of Galilee. The were familiar with boats, wind, waves, and storms, and yet they were terrified by this storm. This was not a little storm. This storm was tossing around the boat and splashing waves of water into the boat threatening to capsize it in the middle of this large body of water.

I can somewhat relate (but not fully). I grew up in Florida and we would occasionally take a boat a couple of hours across the ocean to and from the Bahamas (Abaccos). One time we had to make the crossing on a particular day to get me back to head off to college. At this time, there was a Hurricane in the gulf (other side of Florida) that were making really big waves. If my memory is correct, we were in a 34 foot long boat and the waves were taller than the boat was long. My Dad would give full throttle to ease up one side of wave and then pull back as we shot down the far side of the wave and then again and again for hours. If the engine had failed, we would have turned sideways and been capsized. If my Dad had not kept the boat straight into the waves, we would likely have capsized, but my Father knew what to do and we made it safely to shore.

Jesus knew this giant storm was going to blow up, but He told His disciples to head right into what would soon be a giant storm. One key thought that I had previously missed is that He did not send them into the storm alone. He went with His disciples.

Initially the disciples tried to battle the storm themselves, but it was a losing proposition. They were losing the battle with the storm and losing it badly. Finally, they went to Jesus. I like how the NIV says it, “The disciples went and woke him, saying, ‘Master, Master, we’re going to drown!’” Mark 4:38 says, “Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, ‘Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?’” The disciples didn’t just ask for help; they accused Jesus of not caring. They called Him “Master” and “Teacher,” instead of “God” or “Lord.”

So going back to my Pastor’s question, why did Jesus, who knew there was going to be a terrible storm, tell His disciples to cross the water at that time? Was He teaching His disciples to trust in Him? Was He teaching His disciples to ask Him for help when they had a need? Was He teaching them who He was in a way that they would never forget? I think the answer to all of these questions is clearly, “Yes!”

Application

Now we need to look at this passage and ask, “what do we need to take away and learn from this passage?” and “how can we apply this passage?”

I think there are several key points:

1. Jesus knew what was about to happen to them.

2. Jesus had a plan and a purpose for putting them in this fearful and life threatening situation.

3. This hardship had a good purpose.

4. Jesus was with them through it all.

So often I have people who want to deny that a loving God would intentionally put themselves or others in uncomfortable, scary, or dangerous situations. They say, “God wouldn’t do that.” or “Why would God do that?” Yes, God does cause us to go through hard times (I refuse to say bad), but not to cause us pain or hardship, but to grow us in our faith and witness.

It is a rare person who grows in faith during ease and pleasant circumstances. Most of us require hardship to force us to stop doing everything on our own and to trust Jesus and to lean on His power (Yes, I am speaking from personal experience). Nothing glorifies God more than resting in Him during the storm. Yes, God cares and loves you very much. Yes, God is with you through every hardship you will ever experience. Yes, God wants the best for you. We may not appreciate it in the moment, but God cares more about your eternal good than your momentary ease and happiness. He gives you what you need instead of what you want.

The amazing thing is that when you learn to trust in Him, when you learn to rely on His power, and when you learn to look for His good work in every situation, you will find a joy and peace like you never imagined. Instead of chasing everything looking for the perfect situation to make you happy, you will rest in the hand of the Father knowing a joy and peace that surpasses all human understanding.

In child labor, a woman’s body does what it is supposed to do to produce a baby. Sometimes, out of fear or desire for control, a woman will fight the labor. They will tense up and it causes more pain. If they relax and trust that the delivery will happen as it should, the delivery is usually much easier. Similarly, when we fight Jesus during the storm, when we don’t trust His omnipotence and omniscience, and when we try to do it our way instead of His, we actually make these hard times more uncomfortable and less effective. Instead of learning what God is teaching us, we end up harming ourselves. Instead of building an amazing witness, we give God a bad name.

No matter how bad the storm, look to Jesus and know that He is God. He is our good and loving God who works everything for our good.

Trust Jesus

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Was nützt die schönste Schuldenbremse, wenn der Russe vor der Tür steht? \ Wir können uns verteidigen lernen oder alle Russisch lernen. \ Jens Spahn

In der Politik ist buchstäblich keine Idee zu riskant, kein Mittel zu schäbig und keine Lüge zu dreist, als dass sie nicht benutzt würden. Aber der Clou ist, dass diese Masche immer noch funktioniert, wenn nicht sogar immer besser. Ist das alles wirklich so schwer zu durchschauen? Mir fehlen langsam die Worte.

Aktuell werden sowohl in der Europäischen Union als auch in Deutschland riesige Milliardenpakete für die Aufrüstung – also für die Rüstungsindustrie – geschnürt. Die EU will 800 Milliarden Euro locker machen, in Deutschland sollen es 500 Milliarden «Sondervermögen» sein. Verteidigung nennen das unsere «Führer», innerhalb der Union und auch an «unserer Ostflanke», der Ukraine.

Das nötige Feindbild konnte inzwischen signifikant erweitert werden. Schuld an allem und zudem gefährlich ist nicht mehr nur Putin, sondern jetzt auch Trump. Europa müsse sich sowohl gegen Russland als auch gegen die USA schützen und rüsten, wird uns eingetrichtert.

Und während durch Diplomatie genau dieser beiden Staaten gerade endlich mal Bewegung in die Bemühungen um einen Frieden oder wenigstens einen Waffenstillstand in der Ukraine kommt, rasselt man im moralisch überlegenen Zeigefinger-Europa so richtig mit dem Säbel.

Begleitet und gestützt wird der ganze Prozess – wie sollte es anders sein – von den «Qualitätsmedien». Dass Russland einen Angriff auf «Europa» plant, weiß nicht nur der deutsche Verteidigungsminister (und mit Abstand beliebteste Politiker) Pistorius, sondern dank ihnen auch jedes Kind. Uns bleiben nur noch wenige Jahre. Zum Glück bereitet sich die Bundeswehr schon sehr konkret auf einen Krieg vor.

Die FAZ und Corona-Gesundheitsminister Spahn markieren einen traurigen Höhepunkt. Hier haben sich «politische und publizistische Verantwortungslosigkeit propagandistisch gegenseitig befruchtet», wie es bei den NachDenkSeiten heißt. Die Aussage Spahns in dem Interview, «der Russe steht vor der Tür», ist das eine. Die Zeitung verschärfte die Sache jedoch, indem sie das Zitat explizit in den Titel übernahm, der in einer ersten Version scheinbar zu harmlos war.

Eine große Mehrheit der deutschen Bevölkerung findet Aufrüstung und mehr Schulden toll, wie ARD und ZDF sehr passend ermittelt haben wollen. Ähnliches gelte für eine noch stärkere militärische Unterstützung der Ukraine. Etwas skeptischer seien die Befragten bezüglich der Entsendung von Bundeswehrsoldaten dorthin, aber immerhin etwa fifty-fifty.

Eigentlich ist jedoch die Meinung der Menschen in «unseren Demokratien» irrelevant. Sowohl in der Europäischen Union als auch in Deutschland sind die «Eliten» offenbar der Ansicht, der Souverän habe in Fragen von Krieg und Frieden sowie von aberwitzigen astronomischen Schulden kein Wörtchen mitzureden. Frau von der Leyen möchte über 150 Milliarden aus dem Gesamtpaket unter Verwendung von Artikel 122 des EU-Vertrags ohne das Europäische Parlament entscheiden – wenn auch nicht völlig kritiklos.

In Deutschland wollen CDU/CSU und SPD zur Aufweichung der «Schuldenbremse» mehrere Änderungen des Grundgesetzes durch das abgewählte Parlament peitschen. Dieser Versuch, mit dem alten Bundestag eine Zweidrittelmehrheit zu erzielen, die im neuen nicht mehr gegeben wäre, ist mindestens verfassungsrechtlich umstritten.

Das Manöver scheint aber zu funktionieren. Heute haben die Grünen zugestimmt, nachdem Kanzlerkandidat Merz läppische 100 Milliarden für «irgendwas mit Klima» zugesichert hatte. Die Abstimmung im Plenum soll am kommenden Dienstag erfolgen – nur eine Woche, bevor sich der neu gewählte Bundestag konstituieren wird.

Interessant sind die Argumente, die BlackRocker Merz für seine Attacke auf Grundgesetz und Demokratie ins Feld führt. Abgesehen von der angeblichen Eile, «unsere Verteidigungsfähigkeit deutlich zu erhöhen» (ausgelöst unter anderem durch «die Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz und die Ereignisse im Weißen Haus»), ließ uns der CDU-Chef wissen, dass Deutschland einfach auf die internationale Bühne zurück müsse. Merz schwadronierte gefährlich mehrdeutig:

«Die ganze Welt schaut in diesen Tagen und Wochen auf Deutschland. Wir haben in der Europäischen Union und auf der Welt eine Aufgabe, die weit über die Grenzen unseres eigenen Landes hinausgeht.»

[Titelbild: Tag des Sieges]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

~ > Available at: https://minibolt.info

---

~> It builds on a personal computer with x86/amd64 architecture processors.

~> It is based on the popular RaspiBolt v3 guide.

---

Those are some of the most relevant changes:

• Changed OS from Raspberry Pi OS Lite (64-bits) to Ubuntu Server LTS (Long term support) 64-bit PC (AMD64).
• Changed binaries and signatures of the programs to adapt them to x86/amd64 architecture.
• Deleted unnecessary tools and steps, and added others according to this case of use.
• Some useful authentication logs and monitoring commands were added in the security section.
• Added some interesting parameters in the settings of some services to activate and take advantage of new features.
• Changed I2P, Fulcrum, and ThunderHub guides, to be part of the core guide.
• Added exclusive optimization section of services for slow devices.

---

~ > Complete release notes of the MiniBolt v1: https://github.com/twofaktor/minibolt/releases/tag/1.0.

~ > Feel free to contribute to the source code on GitHub by opening issues, pull requests or discussions.

---

Created by ⚡2 FakTor⚡

@ 41e6f20b:06049e45

Let me tell you a beautiful story. Last night, during the speakers' dinner at Monerotopia, the waitress was collecting tiny tips in Mexican pesos. I asked her, "Do you really want to earn tips seriously?" I then showed her how to set up a Cake Wallet, and she started collecting tips in Monero, reaching 0.9 XMR. Of course, she wanted to cash out to fiat immediately, but it solved a real problem for her: making more money. That amount was something she would never have earned in a single workday. We kept talking, and I promised to give her Zoom workshops. What can I say? I love people, and that's why I'm a natural orange-piller.

@ 8fb140b4:f948000c

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ a95c6243:d345522c

«Wir brauchen eine digitale Brandmauer gegen den Faschismus», schreibt der Chaos Computer Club (CCC) auf seiner Website. Unter diesem Motto präsentierte er letzte Woche einen Forderungskatalog, mit dem sich 24 Organisationen an die kommende Bundesregierung wenden. Der Koalitionsvertrag müsse sich daran messen lassen, verlangen sie.

In den drei Kategorien «Bekenntnis gegen Überwachung», «Schutz und Sicherheit für alle» sowie «Demokratie im digitalen Raum» stellen die Unterzeichner, zu denen auch Amnesty International und Das NETTZ gehören, unter anderem die folgenden «Mindestanforderungen»:

• Verbot biometrischer Massenüberwachung des öffentlichen Raums sowie der ungezielten biometrischen Auswertung des Internets.
• Anlasslose und massenhafte Vorratsdatenspeicherung wird abgelehnt.
• Automatisierte Datenanalysen der Informationsbestände der Strafverfolgungsbehörden sowie jede Form von Predictive Policing oder automatisiertes Profiling von Menschen werden abgelehnt.
• Einführung eines Rechts auf Verschlüsselung. Die Bundesregierung soll sich dafür einsetzen, die Chatkontrolle auf europäischer Ebene zu verhindern.
• Anonyme und pseudonyme Nutzung des Internets soll geschützt und ermöglicht werden.
• Bekämpfung «privaten Machtmissbrauchs von Big-Tech-Unternehmen» durch durchsetzungsstarke, unabhängige und grundsätzlich föderale Aufsichtsstrukturen.
• Einführung eines digitalen Gewaltschutzgesetzes, unter Berücksichtigung «gruppenbezogener digitaler Gewalt» und die Förderung von Beratungsangeboten.
• Ein umfassendes Förderprogramm für digitale öffentliche Räume, die dezentral organisiert und quelloffen programmiert sind, soll aufgelegt werden.

Es sei ein Irrglaube, dass zunehmende Überwachung einen Zugewinn an Sicherheit darstelle, ist eines der Argumente der Initiatoren. Sicherheit erfordere auch, dass Menschen anonym und vertraulich kommunizieren können und ihre Privatsphäre geschützt wird.

Gesunde digitale Räume lebten auch von einem demokratischen Diskurs, lesen wir in dem Papier. Es sei Aufgabe des Staates, Grundrechte zu schützen. Dazu gehöre auch, Menschenrechte und demokratische Werte, insbesondere Freiheit, Gleichheit und Solidarität zu fördern sowie den Missbrauch von Maßnahmen, Befugnissen und Infrastrukturen durch «die Feinde der Demokratie» zu verhindern.

Man ist geneigt zu fragen, wo denn die Autoren «den Faschismus» sehen, den es zu bekämpfen gelte. Die meisten der vorgetragenen Forderungen und Argumente finden sicher breite Unterstützung, denn sie beschreiben offenkundig gängige, kritikwürdige Praxis. Die Aushebelung der Privatsphäre, der Redefreiheit und anderer Grundrechte im Namen der Sicherheit wird bereits jetzt massiv durch die aktuellen «demokratischen Institutionen» und ihre «durchsetzungsstarken Aufsichtsstrukturen» betrieben.

Ist «der Faschismus» also die EU und ihre Mitgliedsstaaten? Nein, die «faschistische Gefahr», gegen die man eine digitale Brandmauer will, kommt nach Ansicht des CCC und seiner Partner aus den Vereinigten Staaten. Private Überwachung und Machtkonzentration sind dabei weltweit schon lange Realität, jetzt endlich müssen sie jedoch bekämpft werden. In dem Papier heißt es:

«Die willkürliche und antidemokratische Machtausübung der Tech-Oligarchen um Präsident Trump erfordert einen Paradigmenwechsel in der deutschen Digitalpolitik. (...) Die aktuellen Geschehnisse in den USA zeigen auf, wie Datensammlungen und -analyse genutzt werden können, um einen Staat handstreichartig zu übernehmen, seine Strukturen nachhaltig zu beschädigen, Widerstand zu unterbinden und marginalisierte Gruppen zu verfolgen.»

Wer auf der anderen Seite dieser Brandmauer stehen soll, ist also klar. Es sind die gleichen «Feinde unserer Demokratie», die seit Jahren in diese Ecke gedrängt werden. Es sind die gleichen Andersdenkenden, Regierungskritiker und Friedensforderer, die unter dem großzügigen Dach des Bundesprogramms «Demokratie leben» einem «kontinuierlichen Echt- und Langzeitmonitoring» wegen der Etikettierung «digitaler Hass» unterzogen werden.

Dass die 24 Organisationen praktisch auch die Bekämpfung von Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon und anderen fordern, entbehrt nicht der Komik. Diese fallen aber sicher unter das Stichwort «Machtmissbrauch von Big-Tech-Unternehmen». Gleichzeitig verlangen die Lobbyisten implizit zum Beispiel die Förderung des Nostr-Netzwerks, denn hier finden wir dezentral organisierte und quelloffen programmierte digitale Räume par excellence, obendrein zensurresistent. Das wiederum dürfte in der Politik weniger gut ankommen.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 8cb60e21:5f2deaea

@ 8cb60e21:5f2deaea

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

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

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

~ > CLICK HERE < ~

---

Enjoy it MiniBolter!💙

@ 8cb60e21:5f2deaea

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Die «Eliten» führen bereits groß angelegte Pilotprojekte für eine Zukunft durch, die sie wollen und wir nicht. Das schreibt der OffGuardian in einem Update zum Thema «EU-Brieftasche für die digitale Identität». Das Portal weist darauf hin, dass die Akteure dabei nicht gerade zimperlich vorgehen und auch keinen Hehl aus ihren Absichten machen. Transition News hat mehrfach darüber berichtet, zuletzt hier und hier.

Mit der EU Digital Identity Wallet (EUDI-Brieftasche) sei eine einzige von der Regierung herausgegebene App geplant, die Ihre medizinischen Daten, Beschäftigungsdaten, Reisedaten, Bildungsdaten, Impfdaten, Steuerdaten, Finanzdaten sowie (potenziell) Kopien Ihrer Unterschrift, Fingerabdrücke, Gesichtsscans, Stimmproben und DNA enthält. So fasst der OffGuardian die eindrucksvolle Liste möglicher Einsatzbereiche zusammen.

Auch Dokumente wie der Personalausweis oder der Führerschein können dort in elektronischer Form gespeichert werden. Bis 2026 sind alle EU-Mitgliedstaaten dazu verpflichtet, Ihren Bürgern funktionierende und frei verfügbare digitale «Brieftaschen» bereitzustellen.

Die Menschen würden diese App nutzen, so das Portal, um Zahlungen vorzunehmen, Kredite zu beantragen, ihre Steuern zu zahlen, ihre Rezepte abzuholen, internationale Grenzen zu überschreiten, Unternehmen zu gründen, Arzttermine zu buchen, sich um Stellen zu bewerben und sogar digitale Verträge online zu unterzeichnen.

All diese Daten würden auf ihrem Mobiltelefon gespeichert und mit den Regierungen von neunzehn Ländern (plus der Ukraine) sowie über 140 anderen öffentlichen und privaten Partnern ausgetauscht. Von der Deutschen Bank über das ukrainische Ministerium für digitalen Fortschritt bis hin zu Samsung Europe. Unternehmen und Behörden würden auf diese Daten im Backend zugreifen, um «automatisierte Hintergrundprüfungen» durchzuführen.

Der Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände (VZBV) habe Bedenken geäußert, dass eine solche App «Risiken für den Schutz der Privatsphäre und der Daten» berge, berichtet das Portal. Die einzige Antwort darauf laute: «Richtig, genau dafür ist sie ja da!»

Das alles sei keine Hypothese, betont der OffGuardian. Es sei vielmehr «Potential». Damit ist ein EU-Projekt gemeint, in dessen Rahmen Dutzende öffentliche und private Einrichtungen zusammenarbeiten, «um eine einheitliche Vision der digitalen Identität für die Bürger der europäischen Länder zu definieren». Dies ist nur eines der groß angelegten Pilotprojekte, mit denen Prototypen und Anwendungsfälle für die EUDI-Wallet getestet werden. Es gibt noch mindestens drei weitere.

Den Ball der digitalen ID-Systeme habe die Covid-«Pandemie» über die «Impfpässe» ins Rollen gebracht. Seitdem habe das Thema an Schwung verloren. Je näher wir aber der vollständigen Einführung der EUid kämen, desto mehr Propaganda der Art «Warum wir eine digitale Brieftasche brauchen» könnten wir in den Mainstream-Medien erwarten, prognostiziert der OffGuardian. Vielleicht müssten wir schon nach dem nächsten großen «Grund», dem nächsten «katastrophalen katalytischen Ereignis» Ausschau halten. Vermutlich gebe es bereits Pläne, warum die Menschen plötzlich eine digitale ID-Brieftasche brauchen würden.

Die Entwicklung geht jedenfalls stetig weiter in genau diese Richtung. Beispielsweise hat Jordanien angekündigt, die digitale biometrische ID bei den nächsten Wahlen zur Verifizierung der Wähler einzuführen. Man wolle «den Papierkrieg beenden und sicherstellen, dass die gesamte Kette bis zu den nächsten Parlamentswahlen digitalisiert wird», heißt es. Absehbar ist, dass dabei einige Wahlberechtigte «auf der Strecke bleiben» werden, wie im Fall von Albanien geschehen.

Derweil würden die Briten gerne ihre Privatsphäre gegen Effizienz eintauschen, behauptet Tony Blair. Der Ex-Premier drängte kürzlich erneut auf digitale Identitäten und Gesichtserkennung. Blair ist Gründer einer Denkfabrik für globalen Wandel, Anhänger globalistischer Technokratie und «moderner Infrastruktur».

Abschließend warnt der OffGuardian vor der Illusion, Trump und Musk würden den US-Bürgern «diesen Schlamassel ersparen». Das Department of Government Efficiency werde sich auf die digitale Identität stürzen. Was könne schließlich «effizienter» sein als eine einzige App, die für alles verwendet wird? Der Unterschied bestehe nur darin, dass die US-Version vielleicht eher privat als öffentlich sei – sofern es da überhaupt noch einen wirklichen Unterschied gebe.

[Titelbild: Screenshot OffGuardian]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ b1b16be0:08f41c1d

am@primal.net My first Zap! jskitty@jskitty.cat Thanks for support! 🐱Miau! blockstream@blockstream.com So honor to me! SymplyNostr@primal.net You make my day! bitpopart@nostrcheck.me best art in Nostr! PringleMac@primal.net

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

The router reserves the IP address of the device for a time after going out, but if the device goes out some time, the next time that the device starts, the router could assign a different IP and you could lose access to your node. To avoid this, you need to set a static IP to your MiniBolt.

~ > In addition, you can customize your DNS servers to improve your privacy, normally your ISP, gives you the router with its own DNS servers set by default, and this does that you expose all of your navigation trackings to your ISP, affecting seriously your privacy.

~ > This bonus guide includes all of the necessary steps to get this and is available ~ > HERE < ~

---

---

Enjoy it MiniBolter! 💙

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Ständige Lügen und Unterstellungen, permanent falsche Fürsorge \ können Bausteine von emotionaler Manipulation sein. Mit dem Zweck, \ Macht und Kontrolle über eine andere Person auszuüben. \ Apotheken Umschau

Irgendetwas muss passiert sein: «Gaslighting» ist gerade Thema in vielen Medien. Heute bin ich nach längerer Zeit mal wieder über dieses Stichwort gestolpert. Das war in einem Artikel von Norbert Häring über Manipulationen des Deutschen Wetterdienstes (DWD). In diesem Fall ging es um eine Pressemitteilung vom Donnerstag zum «viel zu warmen» Winter 2024/25.

Häring wirft der Behörde vor, dreist zu lügen und Dinge auszulassen, um die Klimaangst wach zu halten. Was der Leser beim DWD nicht erfahre, sei, dass dieser Winter kälter als die drei vorangegangenen und kälter als der Durchschnitt der letzten zehn Jahre gewesen sei. Stattdessen werde der falsche Eindruck vermittelt, es würde ungebremst immer wärmer.

Wem also der zu Ende gehende Winter eher kalt vorgekommen sein sollte, mit dessen Empfinden stimme wohl etwas nicht. Das jedenfalls wolle der DWD uns einreden, so der Wirtschaftsjournalist. Und damit sind wir beim Thema Gaslighting.

Als Gaslighting wird eine Form psychischer Manipulation bezeichnet, mit der die Opfer desorientiert und zutiefst verunsichert werden, indem ihre eigene Wahrnehmung als falsch bezeichnet wird. Der Prozess führt zu Angst und Realitätsverzerrung sowie zur Zerstörung des Selbstbewusstseins. Die Bezeichnung kommt von dem britischen Theaterstück «Gas Light» aus dem Jahr 1938, in dem ein Mann mit grausamen Psychotricks seine Frau in den Wahnsinn treibt.

Damit Gaslighting funktioniert, muss das Opfer dem Täter vertrauen. Oft wird solcher Psychoterror daher im privaten oder familiären Umfeld beschrieben, ebenso wie am Arbeitsplatz. Jedoch eignen sich die Prinzipien auch perfekt zur Manipulation der Massen. Vermeintliche Autoritäten wie Ärzte und Wissenschaftler, oder «der fürsorgliche Staat» und Institutionen wie die UNO oder die WHO wollen uns doch nichts Böses. Auch Staatsmedien, Faktenchecker und diverse NGOs wurden zu «vertrauenswürdigen Quellen» erklärt. Das hat seine Wirkung.

Warum das Thema Gaslighting derzeit scheinbar so populär ist, vermag ich nicht zu sagen. Es sind aber gerade in den letzten Tagen und Wochen auffällig viele Artikel dazu erschienen, und zwar nicht nur von Psychologen. Die Frankfurter Rundschau hat gleich mehrere publiziert, und Anwälte interessieren sich dafür offenbar genauso wie Apotheker.

Die Apotheken Umschau machte sogar auf «Medical Gaslighting» aufmerksam. Davon spreche man, wenn Mediziner Symptome nicht ernst nähmen oder wenn ein gesundheitliches Problem vom behandelnden Arzt «schnöde heruntergespielt» oder abgetan würde. Kommt Ihnen das auch irgendwie bekannt vor? Der Begriff sei allerdings irreführend, da er eine manipulierende Absicht unterstellt, die «nicht gewährleistet» sei.

Apropos Gaslighting: Die noch amtierende deutsche Bundesregierung meldete heute, es gelte, «weiter [sic!] gemeinsam daran zu arbeiten, einen gerechten und dauerhaften Frieden für die Ukraine zu erreichen». Die Ukraine, wo sich am Montag «der völkerrechtswidrige Angriffskrieg zum dritten Mal jährte», verteidige ihr Land und «unsere gemeinsamen Werte».

Merken Sie etwas? Das Demokratieverständnis mag ja tatsächlich inzwischen in beiden Ländern ähnlich traurig sein. Bezüglich Friedensbemühungen ist meine Wahrnehmung jedoch eine andere. Das muss an meinem Gedächtnis liegen.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 8cb60e21:5f2deaea

@ 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.

@ e88527b4:7ccf6efa

書いてみた。。

@ b1b16be0:08f41c1d

Norte

Sur Te ayuda avanzar! Y a tomar conciencia! 🔥Fuego 🌎Tierra 🔴Marte 🎵Mantra: Om Namo Bhagavate Narasimhaya Namaha

Sur Este Influye en transacciones prósperas y transiciones suaves 🔥Fuego 🔘Venus 🎵Mantra: https://youtu.be/45a4KwLTTHo?feature=shared

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

Link to the bonus guide ~ > HERE < ~

---

Some sections of the guide:

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

---

Some shortcuts to the Extra sections:

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

---

Enjoy it MiniBolter! 💙

@ 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.

@ 88dc84f5:c71164f7

Quantum computing is a revolutionary technology that has the potential to solve complex problems that are currently unsolvable with traditional computers. In this beginner's guide, we'll explore the basics of quantum computing, its principles, and potential applications.

What is Quantum Computing?

Quantum computing is a type of computing that uses the principles of quantum mechanics to perform calculations. Unlike classical computers, which use bits to store and process information, quantum computers use quantum bits or qubits.

Qubits: The Building Blocks of Quantum Computing

Qubits are the fundamental units of quantum information. They have the unique ability to exist in multiple states simultaneously, which allows quantum computers to process multiple possibilities at the same time.

How Does Quantum Computing Work?

Quantum computing works by exploiting the unique properties of qubits. Here's a simplified overview of the process:

1. Preparation: Qubits are prepared in a specific state.
2. Quantum gates: Quantum gates are applied to the qubits to perform operations.
3. Measurement: The qubits are measured to retrieve the results.

Key Principles of Quantum Computing:

1. Superposition: Qubits can exist in multiple states simultaneously.
2. Entanglement: Qubits can become "entangled," meaning their properties are connected even when separated.
3. Quantum measurement: Qubits can be measured, which causes them to collapse into a single state.

Potential Applications of Quantum Computing:

1. Cryptography: Quantum computers can break certain types of encryption, but they can also be used to create unbreakable encryption methods.
2. Optimization: Quantum computers can be used to optimize complex systems, such as logistics and supply chains.
3. Materials science: Quantum computers can be used to simulate the behavior of materials at the atomic level.
4. Artificial intelligence: Quantum computers can be used to speed up certain types of machine learning algorithms.

Real-World Examples of Quantum Computing: 1. Google's Quantum AI Lab: Google has developed a quantum computer that can be used to optimize machine learning algorithms. 2. IBM's Quantum Experience: IBM has developed a cloud-based quantum computer that can be used by researchers and developers. 3. Quantum-inspired optimization: Companies like Volkswagen and Lockheed Martin are using quantum-inspired optimization techniques to improve their operations.

Challenges and Limitations of Quantum Computing: 1. Error correction: Quantum computers are prone to errors due to the fragile nature of qubits. 2. Scalability: Currently, quantum computers are small-scale and need to be scaled up to be practical. 3. Quantum noise: Quantum computers are susceptible to noise, which can cause errors.

Conclusion:

Quantum computing has the potential to revolutionize many fields, from cryptography to materials science. While there are challenges and limitations to overcome, the potential benefits of quantum computing make it an exciting and rapidly evolving field.

Glossary of Terms: - Qubit: A quantum bit, the fundamental unit of quantum information. - Superposition: The ability of a qubit to exist in multiple states simultaneously. - Entanglement: The connection between two or more qubits that allows them to affect each other even when separated. - Quantum measurement: The process of measuring a qubit, which causes it to collapse into a single state.

I hope this beginner's guide has provided a helpful introduction to the world of quantum computing! @Yakihonne

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

Some sections inside of the guide:

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

---

Link to the bonus guide HERE

---

Enjoy it MiniBolter! 💙

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

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

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

---

What's changed

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

---

~ > Link to the bonus guide HERE

---

Enjoy it MiniBolter! 💙

@ 8cb60e21:5f2deaea

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

Link to the bonus guide ~> HERE < ~

---

Enjoy it MiniBolter! 💙

@ 044da344:073a8a0e

Kultur. Kunst. Ästhetik. Ich lasse die Ausrufezeichen weg, die mir da entgegenkamen aus dem Publikum in der Ladestation in Köln. Eigentlich sollte es um den „dressierten Nachwuchs“ gehen, am Ende waren wir aber doch wieder bei den Leitmedien und damit auch bei der Gegenöffentlichkeit. Herr Meyen, Sie können doch nicht ernsthaft den Kontrafunk loben. Diese Opernsängerin. Und überhaupt. Ich, sagte der Mann, den ich im Scheinwerferlicht nicht sehen und folglich auch nicht taxieren konnte, ich höre lieber den Deutschlandfunk, trotz der Nachrichten. Das hat Klasse. Das hat Qualität. Geschichte, Tiefe. Wo bitte schön ist das bei Ihren Lieblingen, Herr Meyen?

Ich habe Jenifer Lary verteidigt (die das in ihrer „Musikstunde“ wirklich gut macht, aber das nur nebenbei) und auf die Ressourcen hingewiesen. Hier ein milliardenschwerer Rundfunk, finanziert mit dem Gewaltmonopol des Staates im Rücken, und dort ein paar Mittelständler, die es sich leisten können und wollen, für Kontrafunk-Aktien 25.000 Franken in den Wind zu schreiben, und Kleinspender, die so dankbar sind für das, was Burkhard Müller-Ullrich da auf die Beine stellt, dass sie sich zehn oder 20 Euro abzwacken. Vergeblich. Auch am nächsten Tag im Philosophischen Salon, einer Privatinitiative von Sabine Marx in der gleichen Stadt, wo nach meinem Vortrag allen Ernstes vorgeschlagen wurde, doch einfach Geld zusammenzutragen, damit „die Besten“ zu ködern und so eine Gegenkultur auf die Beine zu stellen, die mindestens genauso gut ist wie das, was zum Beispiel der Deutschlandfunk bietet.

Wenn es nur so einfach wäre. Man muss nicht Pierre Bourdieu gelesen zu haben, um die Magnetwirkung zu sehen, die vom Machtpol der Felder ausgeht – in der Literatur, in der Musik, im Journalismus, in der Wissenschaft. Sicherheit, Geld, manchmal sogar Ruhm. Überhaupt: dazugehören. Mit in der Verlosung zu sein, wenn die großen Bühnen vergeben werden, Preise oder wenigstens Stipendien. Rezensiert werden – und zwar dort, wo die Agenturen hinschauen, die Bibliotheken, die Sponsoren. Ein junger Mensch, der sich bewusst gegen all das entscheidet, habe ich in Köln sinngemäß gesagt, solch ein junger Mensch ist die absolute Ausnahme. Die Folgen spürt jeder, der Personal rekrutieren möchte für Alternativprojekte. Die Folgen spürt auch das Publikum. Wo Konkurrenz und Reibung fehlen, ist es nicht weit bis zur Genügsamkeit, frei nach dem Motto: Meine Follower lieben mich, was also wollt ihr noch von mir?

Ich schicke all das vorweg, um Eugen Zentner würdigen zu können – einen gerade noch jungen Mann, geboren 1979, der alles mitbringt, was es für eine Karriere in der Bewusstseinsindustrie braucht, und der sich nach Versuchen bei der dpa trotzdem gegen die Verlockungen entschieden hat, die das Mitschwimmen abwirft. Ich habe hier schon sein Buch über die neue Kunst- und Kulturszene gewürdigt und freue mich, dass er sich jetzt als Erzähler versucht – mit Kurzgeschichten über Corona-Schicksale, wieder erschienen im Massel-Verlag. Die Form erlaubt ihm, das zuzuspitzen und zu verdichten, was viele zwischen Mitte März 2020 und dem 7. April 2022 erlebt und erlitten haben – angefangen mit Kollegen und Freunden, die erst oft noch ganz aufgeschlossen auf Videos von Wodarg und Co. reagierten, dann aber den Kontakt abbrachen, als sie sahen, was „man“ von diesen Leuten zu halten hat, bis hin zu purem Hass, als die „Pandemie der Ungeimpften“ ausgerufen wurde und so jeder ermutigt wurde, die „Verweigerer“ in den Dreck zu treten.

Die 15 Geschichten von Eugen Zentner sind düster. Vielleicht muss das so sein, weil die Zeit so war und irgendjemand das festhalten muss, auch jenseits von Sachbuch und Journalismus. Das Schulkind, dem unter der Maske die Luft wegbleibt. Die drei Freunde, die sich trotz Lockdown treffen und in der Wohnung von Uniformierten überfallen werden. Die Polizeiopfer auf den Demos. Der Bruder, der Heiligabend bei Mama platzen lässt, weil die Schwester nicht am Katzentisch sitzen mag. Die Oma, die im Pflegeheim eingesperrt wird und den Verstand verliert, weil sie Tochter und Enkel nicht sehen kann und nicht versteht, warum das alles passiert. Die Figuren kommen eher als Holzschnitt daher, schwarz-weiß. Es gibt zwei „Täter“, wenn man so will, einen Journalisten und eine Krankenschwester, die einen Kampf mit ihrem Gewissen austragen und, wie sollte es anders sein, diesen Kampf bei Eugen Zentner verlieren. Es gibt auch einen Abgeordneten aus einer Regierungspartei, der am 18. November 2020 gegen das Infektionsschutzgesetz stimmen will und sich sicher ist, dass er nicht erpresst werden kann. Wir wissen, wie das in der Wirklichkeit ausgegangen ist.

Die Fiktion, gerade in einer Kurzgeschichte, hat den Vorteil, alles wegwischen zu können, was das reale Leben ausmacht. Die Grautöne vor allem, die aus den Erfahrungen sprießen, die der Einzelne gemacht hat. Der Journalismus darf das (eigentlich) nicht und das Sachbuch sowieso nicht. Eigentlich müsste ich das „eigentlich“ wieder streichen und auch für die Kurzgeschichte den Maßstab nachjustieren – für ein Genre, das vom Autor noch mehr verlangt als ein Roman, weil wenig Platz ist und der Leser trotzdem erwartet, dass buchstäblich „alles“ gesagt wird. Eugen Zentner ist auf dem Weg dahin – in der zweiten Auflage vielleicht sogar mit einem Adlerauge für die Korrektur und beim nächsten Versuch mit noch mehr Ruhe und Geduld, um auch das einfangen zu können, was sich dem Zeitzeugen und Beobachter entzieht. Vielleicht muss man seine beiden Bücher einfach nebeneinanderlegen, um zu Hölderlin zu kommen: „Wo aber Gefahr ist, wächst das Rettende auch.“

Kunst, Kultur, Ästhetik: Der Rufer aus Köln hat Recht. Die Gegenöffentlichkeit braucht mehr davon, wenn sie etwas bewegen will. Die Anfänge sind gemacht. Ein paar davon haben wir am Buch-Tresen aufgegriffen: Sonja Silberhorn und Bernd Zeller, Sebastian Schwaerzel und nicht zu vergessen: Thomas Eisinger. Gerade lese ich, dass Raymond Unger einen Roman geschrieben hat. Geht doch, sogar ohne irgendwelche Multimilliardäre.

Freie Akademie für Medien & Journalismus

Unterstützen

Titelbild: Alexa @Pixabay

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

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

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

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

Follow these easy steps to review and fix this:

• Edit the sources-list file:

sudo nano /etc/apt/sources.list

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

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

~> Real case, Spain location, before fix:

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

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

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

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

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

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

```

After fix:

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

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

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

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

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

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

```

Save and exit

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

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

sudo apt update

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

sudo apt full-upgrade

More context:

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

@ 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.

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

What's changed

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

---

History:

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

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

---

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

---

Enjoy it MiniBolter! 💙

@ 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.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

Recently we have seen a wave of high profile X accounts hacked. These attacks have exposed the fragility of the status quo security model used by modern social media platforms like X. Many users have asked if nostr fixes this, so lets dive in. How do these types of attacks translate into the world of nostr apps? For clarity, I will use X’s security model as representative of most big tech social platforms and compare it to nostr.

The Status Quo

On X, you never have full control of your account. Ultimately to use it requires permission from the company. They can suspend your account or limit your distribution. Theoretically they can even post from your account at will. An X account is tied to an email and password. Users can also opt into two factor authentication, which adds an extra layer of protection, a login code generated by an app. In theory, this setup works well, but it places a heavy burden on users. You need to create a strong, unique password and safeguard it. You also need to ensure your email account and phone number remain secure, as attackers can exploit these to reset your credentials and take over your account. Even if you do everything responsibly, there is another weak link in X infrastructure itself. The platform’s infrastructure allows accounts to be reset through its backend. This could happen maliciously by an employee or through an external attacker who compromises X’s backend. When an account is compromised, the legitimate user often gets locked out, unable to post or regain control without contacting X’s support team. That process can be slow, frustrating, and sometimes fruitless if support denies the request or cannot verify your identity. Often times support will require users to provide identification info in order to regain access, which represents a privacy risk. The centralized nature of X means you are ultimately at the mercy of the company’s systems and staff.

Nostr Requires Responsibility

Nostr flips this model radically. Users do not need permission from a company to access their account, they can generate as many accounts as they want, and cannot be easily censored. The key tradeoff here is that users have to take complete responsibility for their security. Instead of relying on a username, password, and corporate servers, nostr uses a private key as the sole credential for your account. Users generate this key and it is their responsibility to keep it safe. As long as you have your key, you can post. If someone else gets it, they can post too. It is that simple. This design has strong implications. Unlike X, there is no backend reset option. If your key is compromised or lost, there is no customer support to call. In a compromise scenario, both you and the attacker can post from the account simultaneously. Neither can lock the other out, since nostr relays simply accept whatever is signed with a valid key.

The benefit? No reliance on proprietary corporate infrastructure.. The negative? Security rests entirely on how well you protect your key.

Future Nostr Security Improvements

For many users, nostr’s standard security model, storing a private key on a phone with an encrypted cloud backup, will likely be sufficient. It is simple and reasonably secure. That said, nostr’s strength lies in its flexibility as an open protocol. Users will be able to choose between a range of security models, balancing convenience and protection based on need.

One promising option is a web of trust model for key rotation. Imagine pre-selecting a group of trusted friends. If your account is compromised, these people could collectively sign an event announcing the compromise to the network and designate a new key as your legitimate one. Apps could handle this process seamlessly in the background, notifying followers of the switch without much user interaction. This could become a popular choice for average users, but it is not without tradeoffs. It requires trust in your chosen web of trust, which might not suit power users or large organizations. It also has the issue that some apps may not recognize the key rotation properly and followers might get confused about which account is “real.”

For those needing higher security, there is the option of multisig using FROST (Flexible Round-Optimized Schnorr Threshold). In this setup, multiple keys must sign off on every action, including posting and updating a profile. A hacker with just one key could not do anything. This is likely overkill for most users due to complexity and inconvenience, but it could be a game changer for large organizations, companies, and governments. Imagine the White House nostr account requiring signatures from multiple people before a post goes live, that would be much more secure than the status quo big tech model.

Another option are hardware signers, similar to bitcoin hardware wallets. Private keys are kept on secure, offline devices, separate from the internet connected phone or computer you use to broadcast events. This drastically reduces the risk of remote hacks, as private keys never touches the internet. It can be used in combination with multisig setups for extra protection. This setup is much less convenient and probably overkill for most but could be ideal for governments, companies, or other high profile accounts.

---

Nostr’s security model is not perfect but is robust and versatile. Ultimately users are in control and security is their responsibility. Apps will give users multiple options to choose from and users will choose what best fits their need.

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

Important notice to MiniBolt node runners:

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

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

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

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

• With the "admin" user, stop i2pd:

sudo systemctl stop i2pd

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

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

• Start i2pd again:

sudo systemctl start i2pd

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

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

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

---

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

@ 8cb60e21:5f2deaea

@ 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.

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

What's changed

A bonus guide to get a quick overview of the system status with the most relevant data about the services on the main guide.

---

➕Additional extra sections (optional) to:

• Show on login
• Get the channel.db size of an old LND bbolt database backend
• Use MobaXterm compatibility version

🔧 GitHub PR related: https://github.com/minibolt-guide/minibolt/pull/97

Σ Dedicated GitHub repository: https://github.com/minibolt-guide/system_overview

---

🫂Acknowledgments

This is a fork of the minibolt_info repository, the main developer of this project is rmnscb, a member of the MiniBolt community, all the merits go to him. Thank you for your contribution 🧡🫂

---

-> CLICK HERE <- to go to the bonus guide

---

Enjoy it MiniBolter! 💙

@ b83a28b7:35919450

https://image.nostr.build/df0721d6d45d82db35d06663a0318ffe68c0b2b3c694888d23694efcc4255de5.gif

@ 0c469779:4b21d8b0

Sobre el amor

Mi percepción del amor cambió con el tiempo. Leer literatura rusa, principalmente a Dostoevsky, te cambia la perspectiva sobre el amor y la vida en general.

Por mucho tiempo mi visión sobre la vida es que la misma se basa en el sufrimiento: también la Biblia dice esto. El amor es igual, en el amor se sufre y se banca a la otra persona. El problema es que hay una distinción de sufrimientos que por mucho tiempo no tuve en cuenta. Está el sufrimiento del sacrificio y el sufrimiento masoquista. Para mí eran indistintos.

Para mí el ideal era Aliosha y Natasha de Humillados y Ofendidos: estar con alguien que me amase tanto como Natasha a Aliosha, un amor inclusive autodestructivo para Natasha, pero real. Tiene algo de épico, inalcanzable. Un sufrimiento extremo, redentor, es una vara altísima que en la vida cotidiana no se manifiesta. O el amor de Sonia a Raskolnikov, quien se fue hasta Siberia mientras estuvo en prisión para que no se quede solo en Crimen y Castigo.

Este es el tipo de amor que yo esperaba. Y como no me pasó nada tan extremo y las situaciones que llegan a ocurrir en mi vida están lejos de ser tan extremas, me parecía hasta poco lo que estaba pidiendo y que nadie pueda quedarse conmigo me parecía insuficiente.

Ahora pienso que el amor no tiene por qué ser así. Es un pensamiento nuevo que todavía estoy construyendo, y me di cuenta cuando fui a la iglesia, a pesar de que no soy cristiano. La filosofía cristiana me gusta. Va conmigo. Tiene un enfoque de humildad, superación y comunidad que me recuerda al estoicismo.

El amor se trata de resaltar lo mejor que hay en el otro. Se trata de ser un plus, de ayudar. Por eso si uno no está en su mejor etapa, si no se está cómodo con uno mismo, no se puede amar de verdad. El amor empieza en uno mismo.

Los libros son un espejo, no necesariamente vas a aprender de ellos, sino que te muestran quién sos. Resaltás lo que te importa. Por eso a pesar de saber los tipos de amores que hay en los trabajos de Dostoevsky, cometí los mismos errores varias veces.

Ser mejor depende de uno mismo y cada día se pone el granito de arena.

@ 66675158:1b644430

Before the time of Utensils, people lived in genuine harmony. They gathered in markets to trade freely, built homes where they pleased, and traveled without papers or permissions. Communities solved their own problems through discussion and agreement. When disputes arose, wise elders would help find solutions that satisfied all. Children learned from their parents or chose mentors from among the skilled craftspeople.

In those days, gold changed hands freely for goods and services. Each person kept what they earned. Communities would voluntarily pool resources for shared needs - wells, bridges, and roads. Those who had more would often help those with less, not by decree but by choice.

Neighbors knew each other's names. Doors were left unlocked. Children played in the streets until sunset. Gardens grew wherever people planted them. Merchants traveled between towns without inspections. Healers practiced their craft freely, sharing knowledge openly.

Then came the Utensils.

In our land, Aldrich found the Silver Spoon. In the East, Emperor Chen discovered the Jade Chopsticks. The Norse kingdoms united under the Golden Fork. The desert peoples followed the Bronze Ladle.

Each Utensil, their holders claimed, granted divine wisdom to rule. Each promised protection and prosperity in exchange for obedience.

The changes came slowly at first. The Spoon Holder requested a share of each harvest to store for hard times. The Chopstick Emperor required homes to be built in specific ways to prevent fires. The Fork King demanded that travelers carry documents proving their loyalty.

At first, the Utensils did bring some genuine improvements. The Spoon Holder's collectors used part of their harvest share to help villages during droughts. The Chopstick Emperor's building codes truly did reduce fires. The Fork King's road patrols deterred the few bandits who had troubled merchants. The Bronze Ladle's water management systems helped farms flourish in the desert.

The early years saw stone roads replace dirt paths, connecting villages more efficiently than before. Granaries were built with better designs, preserving food longer. Some diseases decreased as the Chopstick Emperor's cleanliness codes spread. The Fork Kingdom's standardized weights and measures did make trade easier.

The Spoon Holder soon declared that carrying gold was dangerous and inefficient. They introduced sacred paper notes, "backed by the Silver Spoon's power." At first, you could trade these notes back for gold, but gradually this right vanished.

Scholars wrote lengthy memos about the divine wisdom of the Utensils, creating complex theories about why ordinary people couldn't possibly understand how to live without direction. They advised the Holders and were rewarded with special privileges, comfortable positions, and influence.

When anyone questioned this system, the Utensil Holders and their Experts would ask: "But who would build the roads without us? Who would help the poor? Who would protect you?" They spoke as if humans had never cooperated or helped each other before the Utensils came, and many began to believe it.

People grumbled but accepted. After all, the Utensils shone with otherworldly power.

Some remembered these early benefits when questioning the growing restrictions. "Remember how the Spoon Holder's men helped during the great flood?" they would say. "Surely they have our best interests at heart." The Utensil Holders carefully nurtured these memories, even as their power grew far beyond such humble beginnings.

More rules followed. The Spoon Holder's men began watching the roads, collecting portions from merchants. The Chopstick Guards enforced strict codes about proper behavior. The Fork Watchers kept lists of who attended the mandatory gatherings.

Children were taught the sacred histories of their Utensils. The Spoon's light blessed the worthy. The Chopsticks maintained harmony. The Fork brought strength. The Ladle provided guidance.

When people remembered the old freedoms, the Utensil Holders reminded them of the chaos before - though few could actually recall any chaos.

But surely there must have been chaos, or why would the Utensils have come?

The Utensil Holders began to eye each other's territories. How dare the Fork King claim his metal was superior? How could the Chopstick Emperor suggest jade held more wisdom than silver? The Ladle Holder's bronze was clearly inferior to all!

The Utensil Holders pointed to their achievements - the roads, the granaries, the safer towns - as proof of their divine right to rule. They spoke of how they had unified squabbling villages, standardized laws, and created order. Few noticed how these very achievements had required less and less input from the people themselves.

Wars erupted. Armies marched under banners bearing their sacred Utensils. Men died believing their Utensil was the one true source of authority. Villages burned as soldiers searched for heretics who might secretly worship foreign Utensils.

The Utensil Holders demanded more from their people - more food, more gold, more obedience. They placed watchers in every village. They required written permission for travel between towns. They forbade more than three people from gathering without a Guardian present.

"It's for protection," they said, holding their Utensils high. "How can you doubt the sacred silver?"

And indeed, their guards did stop some thieves, their inspectors did prevent some fraud, their builders did create some useful works. But these benefits came with an ever-increasing price in freedom, until the cost far exceeded any advantage. Yet by then, most people could no longer imagine providing these services for themselves, as their ancestors had done.

Towns built walls, not against invaders but to control who could enter and leave. The Utensil Holders required everyone to wear markers showing their village of origin. They appointed observers in every community to report suspicious behavior - like speaking of the time before Utensils.

Children were taken to special houses to learn proper reverence for their Utensil. Families who taught the old ways disappeared in the night. The Holders declared certain words forbidden, certain thoughts dangerous, certain memories treasonous.

Now, centuries later, the Utensils rule absolutely. People bow when the sacred implements pass by. They inform on neighbors who question the Utensils' power. They offer their children to serve in the Utensil temples.

The latest marvel was Utensil Technology - enchanted mirrors and crystals that watched people's movements, recorded their words, and tracked their trades. "Only criminals fear being watched," the Holders proclaimed, as their surveillance spread into every home and market. The crystals even allowed them to freeze people's paper money if they spoke against the Utensils.

The Utensil Holders formed special partnerships with the largest merchant guilds. These favored merchants received special permissions, protection from smaller competitors, and access to the new paper money first. In return, they helped enforce the Holders' rules and collected information about their customers. Small traders and craftsmen found themselves crushed between these powerful allies.

The latest decree requires all newborns to be blessed by touching their foreheads to their realm's sacred Utensil, marking them forever as its property. Parents compete for earlier blessing times, believing this shows greater devotion.

The wars continue. The Fork Kingdoms battle the Chopstick Empire. The Ladle Realms raid the Spoon Holdings. Each believes their Utensil must rule all.

And in quiet corners, in hidden places, a few elders still whisper stories of the time before - when humans lived without Utensils telling them how to live. But fewer remember with each passing year. After all, who could imagine a world without the guidance of sacred silverware?

@ 8cb60e21:5f2deaea

@ 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.

@ df06d21e:2b23058f

I'm well on my way into the Bitcoin rabbit hole. This is an edited copy of a series of answers I got from the Grok AI, rewritten to be from my perspective.

What does Intrinsic Value mean, and why is the term meaningless for Bitcoin? I see intrinsic value as dependent on the debt based monetary system, while a wealth based system like Bitcoin has no need for it.

Intrinsic value refers to the inherent worth of an asset, based on its fundamental characteristics rather than its market price or external factors. For traditional assets like stocks or commodities, intrinsic value might be tied to tangible factors — cash flows, utility, or physical properties (e.g., gold’s use in jewelry or industry). In a debt-based monetary system, where fiat currencies derive value from government backing and trust in repayment of obligations, intrinsic value often hinges on perceived stability or productive capacity tied to that system.

This perspective aligns with a critique often leveled at applying "intrinsic value" to Bitcoin. Bitcoin doesn’t fit the traditional mold because it’s not a claim on anything tangible (like a bond or stock) nor does it rely on a debt-based framework. Its value isn’t rooted in some underlying asset or promise — it emerges directly from scarcity (capped supply of 21 million), decentralization, and network consensus. Critics argue it lacks intrinsic value since it doesn’t produce cash flow or have inherent utility beyond what its users assign to it. Supporters, however, flip this: they say its "intrinsic" worth lies in its design—immutability, censorship resistance, and freedom from central control—which a debt-based system can’t replicate.

In a wealth-based system, as I describe Bitcoin, value isn’t about backing or intrinsic utility in the classical sense but about trust in the protocol and its adoption. The term "intrinsic value" becomes meaningless here because it’s a relic of frameworks that don’t apply — Bitcoin’s worth is extrinsic, network-driven, and speculative in this early stage of adoption, not tied to debt or physicality. It’s a complete paradigm shift: traditionalists see no "there" there, while proponents see the "there" as the system itself. Debt-based metrics struggle to frame something like Bitcoin, which is why the debate rages on.

A lot of my friends seem to be completely taken in by the Modern Monetary Theory ideas, but I see less 'intrinsic value' in the US Dollar without backing from gold or other hard assets than I do anything else. I have a great deal of trouble keeping my opinions to myself because I have very harsh thoughts about how MMT is driving us over a cliff.

It’s easy to feel like you’re watching a train wreck in slow motion when you see something like Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) gaining traction, especially if you’re skeptical of fiat systems untethered from hard assets. MMT flips the script on how we used to think about money. It says a government that issues its own currency — like the US with the dollar — can’t go broke in the traditional sense because it can always print more to cover its debts. Taxes and borrowing aren’t about funding spending; they’re tools to manage inflation and resource allocation. Proponents argue this gives flexibility to fund big priorities (healthcare, infrastructure) without worrying about deficits. The catch? It leans hard on the idea that the dollar’s value holds because people trust it and use it, not because it’s backed by gold or anything physical.

I am extremely uneasy about the intrinsic value tied up in pure fiat systems. Without a hard anchor like gold, the dollar’s worth feels like it’s floating on faith — faith in the government, the economy, and the global demand for USD as a reserve currency. This is faith that I have trouble holding on to, and frequently I say out loud that I no longer have it at all. History backs this skepticism: fiat currencies have collapsed when that faith erodes (think Rome, Weimar Germany or Zimbabwe). Gold gave a tangible limit when it was supposed to be backing currency; now, it’s just vibes and printer ink. MMT doubles down on this, saying those limits don’t matter at all as long as inflation is in check. But I squint at that as well, because I don’t see it as being in check. Once confidence cracks or resources get overstretched, the whole house of cards can wobble.

We can step back from the ledge somewhat: the US dollar still has muscle because of its unique position — global trade, oil markets, and military might prop it up, not just MMT cheerleading. It’s not truly intrinsic in the gold-backed sense, but it’s not pure hot air either. Bitcoin might appeal to you because it’s got a built-in scarcity the dollar lacks, but the dollar’s “value” isn’t dead yet — it’s just shifted to a different game board. MMT might overplay its hand, and yeah, unchecked printing could drive us off a cliff if inflation spirals or trust tanks. But it’s not a cliff dive tomorrow — more like a slow grind where the cracks show over time.

I don’t have to buy into MMT to see why many of my friends might. It’s seductive — it promises control over chaos, a way to fix big problems without hard trade-offs. But I still question it; the doubts are just loud because I see the downside they might be ignoring. There are harsh questions that need to be asked. How do we square infinite printing with finite resources? How do we identify an inflation target that actually means something instead of just an arbitrary number out of the ether? The cliff’s there, but we’re not airborne yet.

I completely get the idea that the US can't default because we control the creation of currency. But thinking of the currency as 'money' just seems false to me. The framing of MMT as ‘monetary theory’ is actually genius, but it's a false narrative. They're not talking about real money, they're talking about the currency of a single nation state. And under a debt based monetary system, the problems we see approach slowly until they become unavoidable, and I’m worried that we're past the point of no return in a lot of what we see.

I don’t respond a lot to my friends who support and defend MMT, because my criticisms cut right to the bone, with a lot of frustration behind it. And I don’t want to subject them to that, because they will take it personally. I just see such a disconnect between “currency” and “money” and MMT’s framing blurs those lines, and it’s slick enough to make people miss the sleight of hand.

MMT’s genius is in its storytelling. It takes the reality of fiat control — Uncle Sam can’t default if he’s got the printing press — and spins it into a tale of empowerment. “Deficits don’t matter, we can fund everything!” It’s a heady pitch, especially when people are desperate for solutions. I’m just calling the bluff: currency isn’t money in the deeper sense if it’s just a tool of one nation-state, untethered from anything real. Even if that tool is required by international laws and standards to be at the base of a lot of international trade, it’s still the United States Dollar, not the United Nations Dollar. Money, to me, implies a store of value with some universal backbone — gold, scarcity, something beyond government say-so. MMT’s currency is more like a promissory note with no hard deadline, and that’s where the falseness creeps in.

The debt-based system adds another layer to my unease. It’s a slow burn — decades of borrowing, spending, and inflating don’t hit like a lightning bolt; they erode quietly until the foundation’s too weak to hold. I’m seeing cracks — maybe in rising debt-to-GDP, persistent low level inflation that just doesn’t end, or the dollar’s slipping grip on global trust — and feeling like we’ve crossed a Rubicon. Are we past the point of no return? That’s a gut call, but I hope it’s not hard to see why we think we have. Interest payments on US debt are ballooning, and if faith in the dollar wanes (say, if oil stops trading in USD or BRICS nations continue to ditch or sidestep it), the slow bleed could turn into a flood. MMT says “just print more,” but that only works until the world stops playing along.

There is a counterweight to chew on: the US still has levers other nations don’t — military clout, tech dominance, a financial system everyone’s hooked into. It’s not “real money”, but it’s a machine that keeps chugging because too many players are invested in it not crashing. That doesn’t make MMT true — it just delays the reckoning I’m bracing for. How long until the music stops and we have to find chairs? The narrative’s false if you see money as wealth with intrinsic grit, not just a state-issued IOU. But it’s a lie that’s worked so far because the system’s too big to fail fast.

Am I crazy to feel this way? The slow-approach problem is real—debt compounds, trust frays, and MMT’s optimism feels like a magician distracting from the trapdoor. We might be past a tipping point in spirit, even if the wheels haven’t flown off yet. Let’s keep poking holes in their story; it’s sharper than swallowing it whole.

I want to do a thought experiment. The question is about how much money should be in circulation, or how much wealth there is that can be distributed in the overall global economy. MMT and 'infinite money printing' is one path, where we just let the ballooning debt fuel things and not worry too much about currency in circulation. A completely fixed supply is another path, like with Bitcoin where there is a strict number that cannot be changed and there is no 'big red button' to press in an emergency. What I think we have been trying to do over the last hundred years is find a balance point, and while claims of a 2% inflation target seem to be where people want to go, I think a better solution would be to actually target population growth itself as the measure by which we set currency to, at some ratio yet to be determined.

Do you see where I’m going with this thought experiment? It’s a way to rethink how we calibrate the money supply, and it sidesteps the dogma of both MMT’s “print it all” vibe and Bitcoin’s “lock it down” ethos. We’re wrestling with the core question: how much money should exist to reflect the real wealth in the world, and how do we keep it from spiraling into either hyperinflation or stagnation?

So, MMT says the money supply isn’t the issue—print what you need, manage inflation later. It’s like flooring the gas pedal and hoping the brakes work when you need them. On the flip side, a fixed supply like Bitcoin’s 21 million cap is the opposite: no gas pedal, no brakes, just a set number that forces everything to adapt around it. Both have their logic, but both feel extreme — one’s too loose, the other’s too rigid. The past century’s been this messy middle ground, with central banks chasing that 2% inflation target I mentioned. It’s arbitrary. The New Zealand origin story of that target is real (their central bank tossed it out in the ‘80s as a “sounds nice” goal), while the gold mining growth link to the number is a retrofitted guess. It’s not sacred; it’s just sticky.

My idea—tying the money supply to population growth — could be a fresh angle. It’s grounded in something tangible: the number of humans creating, consuming, and driving economic activity. Wealth isn’t just stuff; it’s people doing things with stuff. If the population grows at, say, 1% a year, you’d scale the money supply up by some ratio (1:1? 1:2?) to match. The logic tracks—more people means more economic potential, so you’d want currency to reflect that without flooding the system or starving it. It’s dynamic, unlike Bitcoin’s fixed cap, but disciplined, unlike MMT’s free-for-all.

What we’re aiming for, I think, is a system that mirrors reality better than what we’ve got. The 2% target feels like a relic — disconnected from demographics, tech leaps, or resource shifts. Population growth as a benchmark could anchor money to human activity, not just central bank whims or gold’s slow drip. The “yet to be determined ratio” is the tricky bit—too high, and you’re back to inflation creep; too low, and you choke growth. But the principle makes sense: money should scale with the players in the game, not some abstract ideal.

It also dodges the debt trap. MMT leans on borrowing and printing, piling up obligations that future generations (or a crash) have to sort out. Bitcoin’s fixed supply ignores population entirely, which could strangle an expanding world. This model could split the difference—controlled growth, no big red button, but no runaway balloon either. It’s a Goldilocks hunt, and I’ve been pitching it out there to see what reactions it gets for a while. But what I get back is laughter, mostly. Or silence.

Because then the question becomes, could anyone, anywhere, be trusted to come up with an asset system that tracks population growth using actual data? Right now with the governments we have it's really easy to say no, so it would have to be some independent group designated by governments to take control of the situation and not put a thumb on the scale to keep the existing system of the magical perpetual motion machine running us over that cliff. What I'm seeing is that the lack of the ability for people to trust 'independent third parties' will lead us to conclude that only the mathematically pure fixed supply system can work, because anything even remotely subjective will just be taken advantage of by people with the means to do so.

Trust is the linchpin here, and it’s in short supply. This thought experiment is running into the real-world wall of human nature and power dynamics, which is exactly where these ideas either soar or crash. Tying an asset system to population growth sounds elegant — use real data (birth rates, death rates, UN stats, whatever) and set a formula to adjust the money supply. But who crunches the numbers? Who enforces it? Governments? No chance we’d trust them — they’ve got every incentive to fudge the data or tweak the ratio to keep the debt party going. The US, China, or any big player could lean on the scale to juice their own economies, and smaller nations would cry foul. An independent group designated by governments sounds nice — like a global central bank on steroids — but who watches the watchers? Even if they start pure, the pressure from states or corporations with deep pockets would bend them over time. Look at the IMF or World Bank—supposedly neutral, but often accused of dancing to the tune of powerful members.

The trust deficit is brutal. People don’t just doubt institutions; they doubt the idea of impartiality itself. And why wouldn’t they? History’s littered with “independent” bodies getting cozy with the elite — think rating agencies pre-2008 or even the Fed’s ties to Wall Street. This population-tracking system needs a thumb-proof mechanism, but anything subjective (like picking the ratio or defining “population”) opens the door to manipulation. Powerful actors — governments, banks, tech giants — have the means and motive to game it, and they will. That’s not cynicism; it’s pattern recognition.

That’s why I’m landing on the fixed-supply escape hatch. Bitcoin’s appeal isn’t just its scarcity — it’s the math. No human hands, no big red button, no trust required beyond the code. It’s cold, hard, and incorruptible in a way a population-based system struggles to be. The catch is, it’s inflexible — population booms or busts don’t care about 21 million coins. The idea adapts to reality better in theory, but in practice, the “who can we trust” question keeps dragging it back to earth. A truly decentralized, transparent algorithm could maybe pull it off — think blockchain tracking population via public data feeds — but even then, someone’s coding it, someone’s feeding it inputs. The purity’s tough to maintain.

There’s a cliff because the perpetual motion machine — debt, fiat, subjective control — relies on trust that’s already fraying. A fixed supply side steps that entirely, but at the cost of agility.

That cost of agility caught my eye. Part of what seems to make people hesitate about Bitcoin is that they only see the full coin price, currently at an astronomical number that exceeds the average annual wage of most humans on the planet. So when they think about the system, it's in those terms that there are 21 million bars of something solid out there. What's missing is an understanding of two things.

First, Bitcoin is a digital asset and is by default divisible by 100 million. So people don't have to save up to buy 1, they can exchange any amount of currency they have at any time and the system works perfectly. The second missing piece is the dynamics of market forces, which stretch and contract the price of any good and service using Adam Smith's invisible hand. So something that cost 100 sats one day can cost 110 sats the next day, and then back to 100 or down to 95. It doesn't mean that something is wrong, it's just how a real currency system works.

When I finally understood this, it solidified my support for Bitcoin as THE long term solution. Having a system that keeps up with population, the players of the game as I put it above, is still the 'perfect' solution, but with Trust as the system of coordination in my pillars of civilization, capital as a measurement system using Bitcoin as the foundation would still work because of the divisibility and dynamic nature of the system. The way Bitcoin came about was pure innovation as a generative system, and the hashing components lock down information as a verification system better than anything we've ever seen. Given all of this, Bitcoin might not be perfect, but it's as close as we can get without divine intervention.

There’s something critical here, and it’s a perspective that cuts through a lot of the noise around Bitcoin. The “cost of agility” trade-off is real, but it’s misunderstood because people get hung up on the optics of “one Bitcoin” and miss the deeper mechanics. Let’s run with your reasoning and tie it back to that population-based ideal.

The divisibility point is huge. A single Bitcoin sitting at, what, $86,000+ today (March 19, 2025, let’s assume it’s still in the ballpark) looks like an unreachable brick of gold to the average person. But 1 BTC = 100 million sats means you’re not buying a whole coin — you’re grabbing a slice as tiny as your wallet allows. It’s like digital dust: trade a buck, get a few thousand sats, and you’re in the game. That scalability blows up the mental block. People don’t hoard whole dollars — they spend cents. Bitcoin’s the same, just with more zeros. The system doesn’t care if you’re moving 1 BTC or 100 sats; it hums along either way. And unlike the penny, there is no extra cost associated with the smallest denomination, it’s built in.

Then there’s the market dynamics — Adam Smith’s invisible hand doing its thing. Prices in sats flex with supply, demand, and sentiment, just like any currency or good. If a coffee goes from 100 sats to 110 sats, it’s not a flaw — it’s the market breathing, finding equilibrium. Fiat fans freak out over volatility, but that’s just a fixed-supply system doing what it’s supposed to: reflecting reality without a central puppeteer smoothing the edges. Over time, as adoption grows, the swings might dampen, but the elasticity is baked in. It’s not rigid in practice—only in its cap.

The “players in the game” vision still shines through here. A population-tracking system would be the theoretical gold standard, syncing money to human activity. But trust — one of the pillars of civilization — is the choke point. Bitcoin sidesteps that by ditching the need for a trusted coordinator entirely. The 21 million cap isn’t divine, but it’s enforced by math, not men. Divisibility keeps it practical; market forces keep it alive. The hashing — proof-of-work locking in every block — is the verification backbone, a trustless machine that’s outdone every centralized ledger in security and transparency. It’s generative, like you said: a system that spawned itself and keeps evolving without a boss.

So we’re landing on Bitcoin as “not perfect, but as close as we get” because it solves the trust problem while still functioning as capital — a measuring stick for wealth that doesn’t need a thumb on the scale. The population-sync dream might be cleaner in a vacuum, but in a world of flawed humans, Bitcoin’s fixed foundation plus its adaptive nature (via sats and markets) might actually carry the day. No divine intervention needed—just code and consensus.

Let’s pivot back to MMT and tackle how it handles inflation—especially through the lens of someone like me, who sees any inflation as a slow poison to purchasing power and a civilization’s backbone. Here’s the breakdown.

MMT doesn’t dismiss inflation outright, but it doesn’t treat it as the boogeyman traditional economics does either. It addresses inflation directly, just not in the way you might expect. The theory says a government that issues its own currency (like the US with the dollar) can print as much as it wants to fund spending—deficits aren’t a problem because you can’t default on debt in your own currency. Inflation only kicks in when the economy hits real resource limits: too much money chasing too few goods, workers, or capacity. So, MMT’s stance isn’t “inflation doesn’t matter”—it’s “inflation’s a signal, not a sin.” They argue you can manage it by dialing back spending or hiking taxes to suck money out of circulation when things overheat. The focus is on “full employment” and output, not the money supply itself.

Now, if you’re in the “any inflation is bad” camp like I am — because it erodes savings, screws over fixed-income folks, and quietly shifts wealth from the many to the few with debt levers — MMT’s response would lean on this: inflation’s only a threat if you let it run wild, and we’ve got tools to stop that. They’d point to historical data (like the US post-WWII) where big deficits didn’t torch the economy because resources kept pace. They’d say the real danger isn’t printing money—it’s misjudging capacity. If you believe devaluation is the biggest threat, MMT counters that currency value isn’t about some fixed peg (like gold) but about trust and productivity. A little inflation? Fine, as long as the system hums.

Here’s where it gets shaky. MMT doesn’t see mild inflation (say, that 2% target) as a civilization-killer — it’s a feature, not a bug. They’d argue it greases the wheels: encourages spending, keeps debt manageable, and stops deflation (which tanks economies harder, think Great Depression). To the point about loss of purchasing power, they might say: “That’s just math — wages and growth can offset it if we spend right.” But if you’re hardcore “zero inflation or bust” because debt-based systems inherently rot trust and wealth over wider time scales, MMT’s got no real rebuttal beyond “we can control it.” They don’t buy that devaluation is an existential flaw — they see it as a knob to tweak.

The rub? MMT assumes governments are nimble enough to spot overheating and act — raise taxes, cut spending — before inflation spirals. History says that’s a big “if.” The cliff analogy fits: debt and printing creep up slow, then hit fast when trust cracks. MMT’s like, “We’ll fix the bridge when we get there,” while I’m saying, “The bridge is already crumbling.” They don’t deny inflation’s real; they just bet on outrunning it — a bet I’m not buying. Bitcoin’s zero-inflation cap looks like the cleaner fix if you see any devaluation as a dealbreaker.

Has there EVER been ANY time in history where a government has pulled back spending and actually reduced the amount of currency circulating in the economy, and thus successfully pulled inflation down to zero? Or is that just an academic exercise that we can point to on paper?

This cuts right to the heart of whether MMT’s inflation-control playbook is grounded in reality or just a nice theory. Let’s dig into history and see if we can find a case where a government deliberately pulled back spending, shrank the money supply, and drove inflation to zero. Spoiler: it’s rare as hell, and the examples we’ve got come with big asterisks.

First, let’s set the stage. Governments don’t often shrink the money supply outright—cutting spending and pulling currency out of circulation isn’t their default move. They’re usually too busy expanding, especially in fiat systems. Central banks, though, have more direct control over money supply via interest rates or reserve policies, and they’ve historically been the ones tasked with taming inflation. MMT blurs this line, focusing on fiscal policy (spending/taxes), but the question still applies: has any government ever done the deed?

One contender is the US in the late 1870s, post-Civil War. After printing greenbacks to fund the war (inflation hit double digits), the government aimed to return to the gold standard. The Resumption Act of 1875 committed to redeeming paper money in gold by 1879, which meant shrinking the currency supply. Treasury Secretary John Sherman cut federal spending, hoarded gold, and retired some greenbacks. Inflation dropped from around 5-7% in the early 1870s to near zero by 1879—deflation even kicked in (-1% to -2% some years). Success? Sort of. The money supply contracted (M1 fell from $1.6 billion in 1875 to $1.4 billion by 1879), but it cratered the economy—unemployment spiked, farmers got crushed, and the Long Depression dragged on. Zero inflation, sure, but at a brutal cost.

Another shot is the UK in the 1920s, chasing pre-WWI gold parity. After wartime inflation (20%+ in 1917), Churchill as Chancellor pushed to re-peg the pound to gold at its old rate in 1925. Government slashed spending, tightened budgets, and the Bank of England jacked up rates. Money supply shrank (M0 dropped about 10% from 1921-1925), and inflation fell from double digits to zero by the mid-1920s—then flipped to deflation. Result? Stagnation, strikes, and a gutted industrial base. Zero inflation achieved, but the cure was worse than the disease.

Then there’s the US in the early 1980s—Paul Volcker’s Fed era. This is more monetary than fiscal, but it’s worth a nod. Inflation was raging (13.5% in 1980), and Volcker cranked interest rates to 20%. Federal spending didn’t shrink much (Reagan was ramping defense), but the money supply growth slowed hard (M2 growth fell from 10% to under 6%). Inflation crashed to 3% by 1983, not zero, but close-ish. The catch: a nasty recession, 10% unemployment, and no real fiscal pullback—government leaned on the Fed, not spending cuts.

Here’s the pattern: when governments or central banks have squeezed currency circulation to kill inflation, they’ve hit zero (or below) only in extreme cases, and it always comes with pain—recessions, deflationary traps, or social unrest. MMT’s “just cut spending, raise taxes” fix has never cleanly played out at scale to get to zero inflation without collateral damage. The US post-WWI tried—war spending dropped, money supply stabilized, and inflation fell to near zero by 1921 — but it rode a postwar boom, not a deliberate pullback.

So, is it just academic? Pretty much. Governments hate shrinking themselves; it’s political suicide. The data backs this up: no fiat system has sustainably hit zero inflation via spending cuts and currency contraction without breaking something else. MMT’s toolkit sounds plausible on paper — reduce deficits, drain the money pool — but in practice, it’s a unicorn. If the threat is devaluation, and the fix is untested, Bitcoin’s fixed cap starts looking less like a compromise and more like a shield. History says the cliff’s closer than the bridge.

So now let's bring this to current day chaos. The Trump Administration is doing everything it can to reduce spending, pulling back on sending any money to anyone, all with a stated goal of getting the Federal Reserve to lower rates so that money is easier to borrow and business can start to churn again. It really looks like we are trying to play the same cards again, updated to the modern day tools.

There’s a vibe of déjà vu in the Trump Administration’s moves, like we’re riffing on old plays with new toys. Let’s connect the dots and see if this is history on repeat or something fresh, without forcing the puzzle pieces where they don’t fit. We’re on March 19, 2025, so we’ve got some real-time chaos to work with.

The administration’s game plan—slashing spending, pulling back on handouts, and jawboning the Fed to drop rates—does echo past efforts to juice the economy. Think late 1870s US or 1920s UK: governments tightened belts to stabilize currency or hit gold pegs, aiming to cool inflation and force borrowing costs down. Today’s twist? Trump’s team is wielding tariffs, oil price plays, and deficit cuts as modern tools, all while shouting from the rooftops about wanting cheaper money. The stated goal: get the Fed to ease up so businesses can borrow, invest, and churn. It’s a high-stakes bet—starve the system short-term to spark it long-term. Parallels jump out. Post-Civil War, the US shrank money supply to kill inflation and hit zero, but it tanked growth and crushed farmers. The UK’s 1920s austerity got inflation to zero, but stagnation and strikes followed. Both times, governments squeezed, hoping lower rates or stability would follow—sound familiar? Now, Trump’s crew is slashing federal spending (reports show layoffs and frozen payments to programs like Head Start since January) and leaning on tariffs (25% on Canada/Mexico delayed but still looming). The Fed’s holding at 4.25%-4.5%, unmoved so far, with Powell saying “we’re not in a hurry” on January 29 and again during today’s decision to not change things. Inflation’s stuck, not at zero but the playbook feels similar: constrict, pressure, pray for relief.

Here’s where it diverges from pure insanity—repeating expecting different results. Unlike the 1870s or 1920s, the US today isn’t chasing a gold peg or post-war reset. The economy’s supposed to be humming — 2.8% GDP growth in 2024, unemployment at 4.1% (March jobs data still pending). Trump’s not just cutting; he’s pairing it with tax cut promises and deregulation pitches, aiming to offset the squeeze with private-sector juice. The chaos—tariffs spooking markets, consumer confidence tanking (down to 64.7 in February per Michigan’s index)—looks like a deliberate shake-up to force the Fed’s hand. Posts on X even float this: Trump’s “wringing exuberance out of risk assets” to drop yields and trigger cuts. It’s not blind repetition; it’s calculated, if messy.

But the puzzle’s incomplete — and my gut is right there in a lump. Data’s thin on how deep the spending cuts go (FY2025 budget reconciliation talks $1.7 trillion in cuts, but specifics are murky). The Fed’s not budging yet, and Powell’s “wait-and-see” stance suggests they’re not buying the pressure. Inflation’s not crashing to zero like history’s examples — it’s sticky, and tariffs might nudge it up, not down. Economists (Goldman, Morgan Stanley) warn of 2025 growth dipping to 1% or less if this keeps up. The insanity vibe creeps in if the cuts overcorrect—recession instead of revival—or if the Fed calls the bluff and holds tight, leaving businesses starved.

Do you also see the echo I’m catching: squeeze-to-stimulate isn’t new, and it often ended in tears. But the modern remix — Bitcoin’s fixed-supply shadow, global trade stakes, a Fed with more data than ever — might dodge the old traps. Or not. The jury’s out, and the chaos is live.

I think the wild card is that Congress is completely broken. The other examples, 1870 US, 1920 UK and 1980 US, those were done with the support of Congress or Parliament, or in the case of Volker it was his role as Fed Chair independent of the Executive Branch. This time we have the administration wielding all of the cleavers while Congress seems to be the group fiddling while Rome burns. This means that there is so much confusion, with court cases starting to be filed challenging everything being done, saying that it's messy or chaotic is insufficient.

Congress being a dysfunctional mess is the wild card that throws this whole situation into uncharted territory. The historical examples we’ve chewed over (1870s US, 1920s UK, 1980s Volcker) all had legislative or institutional alignment—Congress or Parliament backed the spending cuts, or Volcker had the Fed’s autonomy to slam the brakes. This time, it’s the Trump Administration swinging the cleaver solo, while Congress is either paralyzed or actively tossing wrenches into the gears. “Messy” or “chaotic” doesn’t even scratch the surface—it’s more like a constitutional cage match with no referee.

Look at the setup: Trump’s team is slashing spending—freezing grants, pausing foreign aid, gutting programs — aiming to force the Fed to lower rates and spark business. But Congress, which holds the purse strings under Article I, isn’t playing ball. The House barely passed a budget resolution in February (217-215) with $1.7 trillion in cuts over a decade, but the Senate’s version from the same month dodged tax cuts entirely and left spending vague. Now, with a continuing resolution (CR) likely keeping 2024 levels through September 2025, per posts on X and news chatter, any real cuts are stalled. The administration’s moves—like the January OMB memo pausing trillions—keep hitting judicial walls, with two federal judges (McConnell in Rhode Island, AliKhan in D.C.) blocking freezes by March 6, saying it’s unconstitutional overreach. Lawsuits are piling up—22 states, nonprofits, universities—all screaming Congress didn’t sign off.

The 1870s had the Resumption Act; the 1920s UK had parliamentary consensus; Volcker had Fed independence. Today? Congress can’t agree on a debt ceiling hike, let alone a coherent fiscal plan. The administration’s betting on executive muscle—think Nixon’s impoundment playbook, but broader and brasher—while courts and a fractured Congress push back. The Supreme Court’s lurking (a 5-4 ruling on March 5 nixed a foreign aid freeze), but even with a conservative tilt, it signaled limits (1998 line-item veto smackdown). Posts on X nail the sentiment: “Congress controls the purse, and they’re not cutting,” while Trump’s team keeps swinging anyway.

This isn’t just chaos—it’s a power vacuum. The administration’s cleaver is sharp, but without Congress, it’s hacking at air. Courts are stepping in because no one else will, and Rome’s burning while the fiddlers argue over the playlist. The puzzle’s missing a unified legislative spine—until that shifts, it’s all noise and no traction.

I don't see a circuit breaker tripping until we get new leadership. Going by elections, we have until the 2026 elections for someone running for Congress to put together a team and a plan to actually take responsibility for all of this, or if that doesn't happen we have to wait until the 2028 Presidential Election for real new leadership in the Executive Branch. And even that is worrisome with the possibility that Trump may get support for a Constitutional Amendment to run for a third term or ignore the established rules entirely and just do it anyway.

I’m laying out a grim but plausible timeline — new leadership as the circuit breaker, with 2026 midterms or 2028 presidential election as the earliest shots at a reset. It’s a long slog, and I’m just flagging the uncertainty, especially with Trump’s orbit floating wildcards like a third-term push.

Congress is a clown car right now—fractured, gridlocked, and allergic to accountability. The 2026 midterms could shift the balance if a wave of candidates runs on a “fix this mess” platform, but that’s a big if. Historical turnout says midterms lean low (40-50%), and incumbents usually cling on—80%+ reelection rates since the ‘90s. Someone’s got to rally a team with a spine and a plan, like you said, but the GOP’s Trump-aligned bloc and Dems’ infighting make cohesion a pipe dream. Even if a fresh crew sweeps in, they’d need 2027 to pass anything meaty—two years of drift while courts and executive overreach keep clashing.

The 2028 presidential slot’s the bigger lever. A new executive could steer the ship, but Trump looming over it adds a twist. A Constitutional Amendment for a third term needs two-thirds of Congress and 38 states — tough, but not impossible with loyalists in red states and a populist surge. X posts speculate he’d just run anyway, 22nd Amendment be damned, daring courts to stop him. Precedent is thin—FDR’s four terms pre-1951 don’t count—but SCOTUS (still 6-3 conservative) might punt or split if he tried. Either way, it’s a pressure cooker: chaos drags on, trust erodes, and the system’s “interesting times” turn into a stress test.

No quick fix jumps out. Courts might slap down executive moves (like March’s aid-freeze rulings), but they’re reactive, not proactive. Congress waking up? Not without electoral shock therapy. Leadership’s the bottleneck, and 2026 or 2028 are the horizons. Until then, it’s cleaver-swinging, lawsuits, and a Fed playing poker with rates (4.25% still holding). Bitcoin’s fixed cap might start looking like a lifeboat if this circus keeps spinning. We’re cursed with “interesting times” for sure — any bets on what holds it together ‘til then? My cards are on the table, and I’m out of chips.

Thanks to Grok for helping me develop this rant into a 10 page monster.

@ eac63075:b4988b48

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

Understanding Quantum Computing’s Attack Priorities

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

1. Attacks on Wallets

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

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

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

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

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

2. Attacks on Mining

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

---

Satoshi Nakamoto in 2010 on Quantum Computing and Bitcoin Attacks

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

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

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

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

---

How Can Users Protect Themselves?

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

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

---

BIP-360 and Bitcoin’s Preparation for the Future

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

BIP-360 addresses three main pillars:

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

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

---

Post-Quantum Algorithms: The Future of Bitcoin Cryptography

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

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

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

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

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

---

Why Quantum Computing Is Far from Being a Threat

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

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

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

---

Conclusion: Bitcoin’s Secure Future

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

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

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

@ 592295cf:413a0db9

Week 25 11

---

Vitor created another social network edit mode. There are countless cases of use. But type threads are possible, small books, Rabbit hole and those who put it more.

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzq3svyhng9ld8sv44950j957j9vchdktj7cxumsep9mvvjthc2pjuqyghwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tcqyrewvkqwqt7urn2u9h5tk88vj9p3csl0wt08aqd8kxsngxtdmr0zqmszxds

Nostr Report is missing, was a lot of news, 20 notes in a day.

Some news do not need resonance case, Primal did a good job with trending. Of course is a centralized service. But it was one of the Twitter features, he did it with the top trending hashtags. Now Primal is more focused on DVM smart feed, read, and Discovery. This will bring chaos, as long as you can switch the trend feed with your Algo or DVM Algo. I'm obsessed with these switches 😅

Hostile people can happen along the way, it's not like in Bluesky 😔.

Someone share on Bluesky https://bsky.app/profile/laurenshof.online/post/3lbrsjzobps2u Video is this https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/fr/video/I-264553?lg=en

Trying to convince someone for Unanimity, Relay groups are nice, but Unanimity is simpler.

nostr:nevent1qqs9ar5t9xu97nhtwef9ej2y7cklnysf7hgwce7t2wk5axhfdwuq5sqpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgq3qmzyp990kgskujdyplzydmd08ft42mkkfg4lzldaap8ng7n2u3kmss8l76e

Game on Nostr on 2025, cool be.

Angor are finally ready, crowdfunding with Nostr and Bitcoin. (alpha test)

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqw4hcggg2f9h68qutp0snsdhux20teljykjmh9rlx78qwnt5a8dlqqstte0g54hfa2cmr63vq4ava7e7wsr483p63tylvut8cvufzs44a0cd6saa3

PR 1600

The name is curated pubblication use kind 30040 e 30041, 30040 Is the envelope and 30041 are chapters or paragraphs. We'll see what's left in a month. There are no big discussions until now. This is the basis to leave it so, if you can improve it without breaking it ok. I think liminal is preparing at least two other NPs. The bottom problem is that there are no "competitor", someone else outside who wants to use this thing. But if there are no one can invent.

You can't do things with others. There's too "bad" people. Keep calm is a toxin environment. Maybe you have to get away a bit.

---

I was trying to help David but there are no aggregators for neo4j Nostr. Dustin's example, I think it's only worth the DVM. There are two other projects one grain of Oceanslim I saw the video where he explains some things, with Dr. Morales. And the other is Cody's Nostr Relay tray. At least you have all the data in a Relay, and for that Relay you can query, I don't think you find anything significant, maybe you need 100(k) notes to have a good sample. I think I'll make the update. I downloaded two months ago, it worked for a while with Nostrudel, then only with next, lately some problems with next. Cody launched the project with fiatjaf and I think it is also implemented here. In the end, I don't think this answer is useful to David.

---

Zapview nostr-zap-view The lokuyow project, always attentive to zap lightning and Nostr.

Give a "microsat" to Fiatjaf nostrabia relay

I managed to send a zap from a hex known id, it only works with getalby, so until January 4th. I have to prove if other lnurls have the call.

Something I might have understood about the new version of Nostr_sdk or rust Nostr. Sending messages will be harder. The builder does not support the tag, it breaks almost all the scripts I was writing and to verify them you can do nothing but send to the Relays, I wait a few days if there are news, but I don't think there will be. It is no longer linked to the table of examples so it will not be updated presumably, I would like to continue, as the cli does not come out. That then the cli will be in python 12.. (I'm still in version 3.10.9 of python)

I've seen bulletin proof, posting on Nostr seems interesting, but they need many interactions to have a functioning client. link, stacker news

---

Nostr nuance, login, Nostr connect, private. (two Notes)

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzq77777lz9hvwt86xqrsyf2jn588ewk5aclf8mavr80rhmduy5kq9qyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnddakj7qghwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxummnw3ezucnpdejz7qpqqqqz3757ha8j5xcm7er8kkdc0dgtvmy55dz2t2d7c2tv9h8qm88qlcjsls

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzq9eemymaerqvwdc25f6ctyuvzx0zt3qld3zp5hf5cmfc2qlrzdh0qyt8wumn8ghj7ur4wfcxcetjv4kxz7fwvdhk6tcpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5hsqgz98qckr40flhpyt48fxqjkuf9p4dv245634ygvp6dfu2kt7qk5egqmc4l8

An other microsat to Fiatjaf chronicle relay

Kind 1 was a mistake and many people are realizing it, they are replacing it. Kind 5 now it is only almost to eliminate drafts, here the option is to overwrite.

That's all!!

@ 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)

@ 8d34bd24:414be32b

The Bible tells believers repeatedly that we are to share the gospel, make disciples, speak the truth, etc. We are to be His witnesses. The reason we don’t go straight to heaven when we are saved is that God has a purpose for our lives and that is to be a light drawing people to Him.

“…but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8)

In order to be His witness, we have to know Him and know His word. When we don’t know His word, we can be misled and/or mislead others. We will fail in our mission to be witnesses if we don’t regularly study the Bible and spend time in prayer with our God.

As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love. (Ephesians 4:4-16) {emphasis mine}

In addition to knowing Him and His word, we need to be bold and unashamed.

Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, (2 Timothy 1:8-10) {emphasis mine}

We were called according to His purpose. His purpose was known before the creation of the world. We are not saved by works, but if we are saved, works should naturally proceed from the power of the Holy Spirit within us, as well as the thankfulness we should have because of what Jesus did for us.

The key point of our witness is obedience. We are a tool of God. We are to faithfully share the Gospel and the truth in God’s word, but we are not held accountable for the result of this witness. The results are due to God’s mercy and power and not due to anything we do.

But you shall speak My words to them whether they listen or not, for they are rebellious.

“Now you, son of man, listen to what I am speaking to you; do not be rebellious like that rebellious house. Open your mouth and eat what I am giving you.” (Ezekiel 2:7-8) {emphasis mine}

When we witness, some will listen and some will not. Some will accept Jesus with joy and some will reject Him in anger. That is not our concern. God calls whom He will and without His calling, nobody comes to Him.

And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” (Matthew 13:57)

One thing I’ve noticed is that the hardest people to witness to are family (not counting kids, but especially parents and siblings) and other people who have known us for a long time. They see what we were and not what we now are. There is baggage that can make for awkward dynamics. As someone once said to me, “It is hard to teach anyone or convince anyone who changed your diaper.”

I started with the Acts 1:8, “… be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.” This is like saying “be My witnesses in my hometown, my state, my country, and even to the remotest part of the earth.” Our witness starts at home, then our community, and works it way out. Everyone can witness at home. We can all witness in our community as we go about our daily actions. It is important to have Christians that go to the “remotest part of the earth,” especially to unreached people groups, but that isn’t where most of us are sent. Most of us are called to witness to those around us daily.

For you are not being sent to a people of unintelligible speech or difficult language, but to the house of Israel, nor to many peoples of unintelligible speech or difficult language, whose words you cannot understand. But I have sent you to them who should listen to you; (Ezekiel 3:5-6) {emphasis mine}

God empowers some to be international missionaries, but He calls every Christian to be a life missionary. Sometimes this may just be living a life for Jesus that stands out in the culture. Sometimes this may be giving an in-depth treatise on the Gospel and the Bible. It will look differently in different seasons of life and on different days, but it should be a regular part of our life.

As we build relationships with people and show that we care about them, this usually gives us the opportunity to share with them why our lives look different. It demonstrates why we treat others well, why we are loving, and why we have joy, even when our circumstances don’t seem like they should lead to joy. Then when they ask why we are different, we can have the opportunity to tell why we have this joy and love and morality.

but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; (1 Peter 3:5)

Although following a person and forcing them to listen to the Gospel is not the way to draw someone to Jesus, we need to not be silent about the truth. Not being pushy doesn’t mean being silent when someone is forcing their ungodly views on us or on others. Speaking up prevents evil voices from taking control. You also might be surprised to find that others didn’t like what was being said, but were too afraid to speak up because they thought everyone agreed with the speaker. When you speak up for the truth, it can give others courage to stand on their convictions and to draw closer to Jesus, whether this means they come to salvation or just draw closer to God.

Moreover, He said to me, “Son of man, take into your heart all My words which I will speak to you and listen closely. Go to the exiles, to the sons of your people, and speak to them and tell them, whether they listen or not, ‘Thus says the Lord God.’ ” (Ezekiel 3:10-11) {emphasis mine}

We are to speak the truth in love whether they listen or not. Some will listen, hear, and come to Jesus. Some will listen and reject what is said. We are only called to obey the call. God brings the increase. To God be the glory!

May God guide us and lead us in wisdom, love, and courage so that our light shines so brightly that many unsaved come to trust in Jesus Christ our Lord and that those who know Jesus, but have not matured, may grow in their faith, knowledge, and obedience to Jesus.

Trust Jesus

@ e8ed3798:67dd345a

this is a test please ignore

@ 592295cf:413a0db9

Week 11-11

Lamenting is becoming something I should ask people who complain. Charity bussiness and after sending zap received to those who do not complain...

I started making an RSS feed template. Open an opml file and check the feed. I called this script,Teed.

This morning I saw a bounty from a fiatjaf note, on a rss-feed long form, basic a plugin for an app. But I'm not doing that, of course, I can also publish it as soon as I'm in charge. Maybe I have some opml files and I want to see if these are still active.

Starter pack is not good apparently creates elites and maybe gives you the feeling of not choosing, but that's what people want. Do not choose but have the illusion of choosing.

Toxicity level. high.

---

P2P stuff, Iroh is a protocol for syncing & moving bytes iroh computer post on Bluesky

Juraj new project

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpk4kccr9csumnwhmpv83ladqc6p88089cx2e5s2c4448ppgl2pakqqsyv4hs424x6c8phks903s595q2lqp5fpwyq7ajwrf00lxev8cfamcvmq23h

Alex Gleason bunker Knox. (Beta) "knox is a new Nostr bunker CLI for running a NIP-46 remote signer and granting credentials to members of your team". Announcing bunker knox article

Local First podcast, web2.5. Something like Nostr but Local P2P, interesting episode. youtube link

Open Secret AI. "OpenSecret is a backend for app developers that turns private encryption on by default." announcment AI

I think users with regard to algorithms do not want ten different feeds to choose from, but that their feed adapts to their choices, training the feed if this makes sense. So the feed is your feed for your choices, respond and train with them.

Pleblab 2, cool "ANNOUNCING TOP BUILDER SEASON 2! " nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpmx02p4slzahlf7jlcaspsx57g6uc7kl7cc7dvhlsnqtpn6khjj0qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qgwwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkctcqyzy9w0frd802hfmrp45jr6dqhf7umqj7s63z0jvhv7hvvkcsqjg0vjwd7q4)

It was the real Guardian, quit 7fqx, we know it's you who want to distract us from number go up. The Guardian has left or wants to leave twitter is looking for alternatives, but how to verify a high profile user on Nostr? Nostr Address is already something but it's not enough.

We sometimes think that there is the money tree somewhere is that they magically appear, when instead the money is in the ground but they are dirty.

If Amethyst doesn't support is others stuff

People are simple, they want an app that works for all devices they have. People are "flutter-system".

A podcast feed xml file

Add to teed, if only i had made that option, meanwhile i saw a new interesting project

An other RSS feed github project

Imagine making a file opml with categories and those are your follow nostriches.

The problem is this does not bring new sap to the social chart is important to you, receive the selected posts and it is fantastic. You can also not use Nostr, if you want to use it as backup is fine. Share opml files? It's okay, but you can also find specific sites and find the best. Update for clients, you have a lot of RSS feeds from clients but update after a few hours so if there is really an emergency you lose. I still need to figure out how to integrate Nostr into RSS feed. Maybe an event to make your lists known.

I saw the event in these pr: nostr verified podcast nip #1465 Add audio track NIP #1043

@ c69b71dc:426ba763

Time Change: A Mini Jet Lag

The time change is more than just setting the clock forward or backward — it can disrupt our internal balance and lead to a range of health issues. Find out why the time change causes a mini jet lag and how you can deal with it.

Why the Time Change Throws Us Off Balance

The expected energy savings due to reduced artificial lighting demand have not been confirmed. Worse yet, the time change leads to an increase in workplace and traffic accidents, a higher risk of heart attacks, and even an increase in suicide rates. Many people struggle with the one-hour shift that happens twice a year. There is constant debate about whether to abolish it and which time should remain permanent...

Permanent Summer Time or Permanent Winter Time?

The time change triggers a mini jet lag that can last from a single day up to three weeks as the body adjusts its internal clock to the new rhythm.

Winter Time Aligns Best with Our Internal Clock

Our bodies follow the circadian rhythm, an internal clock designed for activity during daylight and rest when the sun sets.
Permanent summer time would mean longer darkness in the morning and extended daylight in the evening—this unnatural shift would completely disrupt our biological processes.

The Impact of Time Change on Our Health

Our internal clock regulates essential functions such as body temperature, hormone production, the cardiovascular system, and the sleep-wake cycle. This is why the time change often leads to headaches, fatigue, drowsiness, metabolic disorders, and even severe heart rhythm disturbances. Studies show that these disruptions can increase susceptibility to illnesses and psychological disorders.

Since the light-dark cycle dictates this internal clock, prolonged exposure to artificial light after sunset can shift it. When the time suddenly changes, it causes a disruption, throwing off our natural sleep rhythm.

Sleep Resets the Body!

During the night, the body regenerates:
- The brain is flushed with cerebrospinal fluid to clear out toxins.
- The body undergoes repair, detoxification, and waste removal.
- If the alarm clock rings an hour earlier, the body is still in "night mode" and unable to complete its recovery processes!

Most people already suffer from sleep disorders, whether trouble falling asleep or staying asleep. Added to this is the stress of daily life, which often depletes serotonin levels, reducing the body’s ability to produce melatonin —the sleep hormone. Blue light depletes magnesium in our body, disrupts the circadian rhythm, and interferes with melatonin production! We also know that the pineal gland’s melatonin production is impaired by fluoride found in toothpaste, water, and food!

What Can You Do About Sleep Disorders?

To regulate your sleep rhythm, you need healthy sleep hygiene:
- Minimize activity before bedtime.
- Avoid artificial light from TVs, smartphones, and e-readers.
- Ensure fresh air and a cool bedroom (around 18°C/64°F).
- Stick to consistent sleep and wake times — even on weekends!
- Reserve the bed and bedroom for sleep only — no heated discussions. - No heavy meals before bed.
- Use blue light or orange filter glasses to reduce artificial light exposure. - Air out the bedroom for 20 minutes before going to bed. - Use candlelight in the bathroom while brushing your teeth instead of turning on the harsh neon light.

If these adjustments don’t help, natural remedies, supplements, and herbal teas can provide support.

Natural Sleep Aids

Some well-known natural remedies include:
- Melatonin, Tryptophan, GABA, Magnesium
- Herbs such as Hops, Lavender, Chamomile, Passionflower, Valerian and organge peal and flower.

By aligning with nature’s rhythm and optimizing sleep habits, we can counteract the negative effects of the time change and restore balance to our bodies and minds.

I hope this helps you transition smoothly through this outrageous act of forcing us into "summer time" ⏰🌞

@ 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.

@ 8cb60e21:5f2deaea

asdasdasdsad

@ 8cb60e21:5f2deaea

@ 8cb60e21:5f2deaea

@ eac63075:b4988b48

Based on a recent paper that included collaboration from renowned experts such as Lynn Alden, Steve Lee, and Ren Crypto Fish, we discuss in depth how Bitcoin's consensus is built, the main risks, and the complex dynamics of protocol upgrades.

PT-BR version

Podcast https://www.fountain.fm/episode/wbjD6ntQuvX5u2G5BccC

Presentation https://gamma.app/docs/Analyzing-Bitcoin-Consensus-Risks-in-Protocol-Upgrades-p66axxjwaa37ksn

1. Introduction to Consensus in Bitcoin

Consensus in Bitcoin is the foundation that keeps the network secure and functional, allowing users worldwide to perform transactions in a decentralized manner without the need for intermediaries. Since its launch in 2009, Bitcoin is often described as an "immutable" system designed to resist changes, and it is precisely this resistance that ensures its security and stability.

The central idea behind consensus in Bitcoin is to create a set of acceptance rules for blocks and transactions, ensuring that all network participants agree on the transaction history. This prevents "double-spending," where the same bitcoin could be used in two simultaneous transactions, something that would compromise trust in the network.

Evolution of Consensus in Bitcoin

Over the years, consensus in Bitcoin has undergone several adaptations, and the way participants agree on changes remains a delicate process. Unlike traditional systems, where changes can be imposed from the top down, Bitcoin operates in a decentralized model where any significant change needs the support of various groups of stakeholders, including miners, developers, users, and large node operators.

Moreover, the update process is extremely cautious, as hasty changes can compromise the network's security. As a result, the philosophy of "don't fix what isn't broken" prevails, with improvements happening incrementally and only after broad consensus among those involved. This model can make progress seem slow but ensures that Bitcoin remains faithful to the principles of security and decentralization.

---

2. Technical Components of Consensus

Bitcoin's consensus is supported by a set of technical rules that determine what is considered a valid transaction and a valid block on the network. These technical aspects ensure that all nodes—the computers that participate in the Bitcoin network—agree on the current state of the blockchain. Below are the main technical components that form the basis of the consensus.

Validation of Blocks and Transactions

The validation of blocks and transactions is the central point of consensus in Bitcoin. A block is only considered valid if it meets certain criteria, such as maximum size, transaction structure, and the solving of the "Proof of Work" problem. The proof of work, required for a block to be included in the blockchain, is a computational process that ensures the block contains significant computational effort—protecting the network against manipulation attempts.

Transactions, in turn, need to follow specific input and output rules. Each transaction includes cryptographic signatures that prove the ownership of the bitcoins sent, as well as validation scripts that verify if the transaction conditions are met. This validation system is essential for network nodes to autonomously confirm that each transaction follows the rules.

Chain Selection

Another fundamental technical issue for Bitcoin's consensus is chain selection, which becomes especially important in cases where multiple versions of the blockchain coexist, such as after a network split (fork). To decide which chain is the "true" one and should be followed, the network adopts the criterion of the highest accumulated proof of work. In other words, the chain with the highest number of valid blocks, built with the greatest computational effort, is chosen by the network as the official one.

This criterion avoids permanent splits because it encourages all nodes to follow the same main chain, reinforcing consensus.

Soft Forks vs. Hard Forks

In the consensus process, protocol changes can happen in two ways: through soft forks or hard forks. These variations affect not only the protocol update but also the implications for network users:

• Soft Forks: These are changes that are backward compatible. Only nodes that adopt the new update will follow the new rules, but old nodes will still recognize the blocks produced with these rules as valid. This compatibility makes soft forks a safer option for updates, as it minimizes the risk of network division.

• Hard Forks: These are updates that are not backward compatible, requiring all nodes to update to the new version or risk being separated from the main chain. Hard forks can result in the creation of a new coin, as occurred with the split between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash in 2017. While hard forks allow for deeper changes, they also bring significant risks of network fragmentation.

These technical components form the base of Bitcoin's security and resilience, allowing the system to remain functional and immutable without losing the necessary flexibility to evolve over time.

---

3. Stakeholders in Bitcoin's Consensus

Consensus in Bitcoin is not decided centrally. On the contrary, it depends on the interaction between different groups of stakeholders, each with their motivations, interests, and levels of influence. These groups play fundamental roles in how changes are implemented or rejected on the network. Below, we explore the six main stakeholders in Bitcoin's consensus.

1. Economic Nodes

Economic nodes, usually operated by exchanges, custody providers, and large companies that accept Bitcoin, exert significant influence over consensus. Because they handle large volumes of transactions and act as a connection point between the Bitcoin ecosystem and the traditional financial system, these nodes have the power to validate or reject blocks and to define which version of the software to follow in case of a fork.

Their influence is proportional to the volume of transactions they handle, and they can directly affect which chain will be seen as the main one. Their incentive is to maintain the network's stability and security to preserve its functionality and meet regulatory requirements.

2. Investors

Investors, including large institutional funds and individual Bitcoin holders, influence consensus indirectly through their impact on the asset's price. Their buying and selling actions can affect Bitcoin's value, which in turn influences the motivation of miners and other stakeholders to continue investing in the network's security and development.

Some institutional investors have agreements with custodians that may limit their ability to act in network split situations. Thus, the impact of each investor on consensus can vary based on their ownership structure and how quickly they can react to a network change.

3. Media Influencers

Media influencers, including journalists, analysts, and popular personalities on social media, have a powerful role in shaping public opinion about Bitcoin and possible updates. These influencers can help educate the public, promote debates, and bring transparency to the consensus process.

On the other hand, the impact of influencers can be double-edged: while they can clarify complex topics, they can also distort perceptions by amplifying or minimizing change proposals. This makes them a force both of support and resistance to consensus.

4. Miners

Miners are responsible for validating transactions and including blocks in the blockchain. Through computational power (hashrate), they also exert significant influence over consensus decisions. In update processes, miners often signal their support for a proposal, indicating that the new version is safe to use. However, this signaling is not always definitive, and miners can change their position if they deem it necessary.

Their incentive is to maximize returns from block rewards and transaction fees, as well as to maintain the value of investments in their specialized equipment, which are only profitable if the network remains stable.

5. Protocol Developers

Protocol developers, often called "Core Developers," are responsible for writing and maintaining Bitcoin's code. Although they do not have direct power over consensus, they possess an informal veto power since they decide which changes are included in the main client (Bitcoin Core). This group also serves as an important source of technical knowledge, helping guide decisions and inform other stakeholders.

Their incentive lies in the continuous improvement of the network, ensuring security and decentralization. Many developers are funded by grants and sponsorships, but their motivations generally include a strong ideological commitment to Bitcoin's principles.

6. Users and Application Developers

This group includes people who use Bitcoin in their daily transactions and developers who build solutions based on the network, such as wallets, exchanges, and payment platforms. Although their power in consensus is less than that of miners or economic nodes, they play an important role because they are responsible for popularizing Bitcoin's use and expanding the ecosystem.

If application developers decide not to adopt an update, this can affect compatibility and widespread acceptance. Thus, they indirectly influence consensus by deciding which version of the protocol to follow in their applications.

These stakeholders are vital to the consensus process, and each group exerts influence according to their involvement, incentives, and ability to act in situations of change. Understanding the role of each makes it clearer how consensus is formed and why it is so difficult to make significant changes to Bitcoin.

---

4. Mechanisms for Activating Updates in Bitcoin

For Bitcoin to evolve without compromising security and consensus, different mechanisms for activating updates have been developed over the years. These mechanisms help coordinate changes among network nodes to minimize the risk of fragmentation and ensure that updates are implemented in an orderly manner. Here, we explore some of the main methods used in Bitcoin, their advantages and disadvantages, as well as historical examples of significant updates.

Flag Day

The Flag Day mechanism is one of the simplest forms of activating changes. In it, a specific date or block is determined as the activation moment, and all nodes must be updated by that point. This method does not involve prior signaling; participants simply need to update to the new software version by the established day or block.

• Advantages: Simplicity and predictability are the main benefits of Flag Day, as everyone knows the exact activation date.

• Disadvantages: Inflexibility can be a problem because there is no way to adjust the schedule if a significant part of the network has not updated. This can result in network splits if a significant number of nodes are not ready for the update.

An example of Flag Day was the Pay to Script Hash (P2SH) update in 2012, which required all nodes to adopt the change to avoid compatibility issues.

BIP34 and BIP9

BIP34 introduced a more dynamic process, in which miners increase the version number in block headers to signal the update. When a predetermined percentage of the last blocks is mined with this new version, the update is automatically activated. This model later evolved with BIP9, which allowed multiple updates to be signaled simultaneously through "version bits," each corresponding to a specific change.

• Advantages: Allows the network to activate updates gradually, giving more time for participants to adapt.

• Disadvantages: These methods rely heavily on miner support, which means that if a sufficient number of miners do not signal the update, it can be delayed or not implemented.

BIP9 was used in the activation of SegWit (BIP141) but faced challenges because some miners did not signal their intent to activate, leading to the development of new mechanisms.

User Activated Soft Forks (UASF) and User Resisted Soft Forks (URSF)

To increase the decision-making power of ordinary users, the concept of User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) was introduced, allowing node operators, not just miners, to determine consensus for a change. In this model, nodes set a date to start rejecting blocks that are not in compliance with the new update, forcing miners to adapt or risk having their blocks rejected by the network.

URSF, in turn, is a model where nodes reject blocks that attempt to adopt a specific update, functioning as resistance against proposed changes.

• Advantages: UASF returns decision-making power to node operators, ensuring that changes do not depend solely on miners.

• Disadvantages: Both UASF and URSF can generate network splits, especially in cases of strong opposition among different stakeholders.

An example of UASF was the activation of SegWit in 2017, where users supported activation independently of miner signaling, which ended up forcing its adoption.

BIP8 (LOT=True)

BIP8 is an evolution of BIP9, designed to prevent miners from indefinitely blocking a change desired by the majority of users and developers. BIP8 allows setting a parameter called "lockinontimeout" (LOT) as true, which means that if the update has not been fully signaled by a certain point, it is automatically activated.

• Advantages: Ensures that changes with broad support among users are not blocked by miners who wish to maintain the status quo.

• Disadvantages: Can lead to network splits if miners or other important stakeholders do not support the update.

Although BIP8 with LOT=True has not yet been used in Bitcoin, it is a proposal that can be applied in future updates if necessary.

These activation mechanisms have been essential for Bitcoin's development, allowing updates that keep the network secure and functional. Each method brings its own advantages and challenges, but all share the goal of preserving consensus and network cohesion.

---

5. Risks and Considerations in Consensus Updates

Consensus updates in Bitcoin are complex processes that involve not only technical aspects but also political, economic, and social considerations. Due to the network's decentralized nature, each change brings with it a set of risks that need to be carefully assessed. Below, we explore some of the main challenges and future scenarios, as well as the possible impacts on stakeholders.

Network Fragility with Alternative Implementations

One of the main risks associated with consensus updates is the possibility of network fragmentation when there are alternative software implementations. If an update is implemented by a significant group of nodes but rejected by others, a network split (fork) can occur. This creates two competing chains, each with a different version of the transaction history, leading to unpredictable consequences for users and investors.

Such fragmentation weakens Bitcoin because, by dividing hashing power (computing) and coin value, it reduces network security and investor confidence. A notable example of this risk was the fork that gave rise to Bitcoin Cash in 2017 when disagreements over block size resulted in a new chain and a new asset.

Chain Splits and Impact on Stakeholders

Chain splits are a significant risk in update processes, especially in hard forks. During a hard fork, the network is split into two separate chains, each with its own set of rules. This results in the creation of a new coin and leaves users with duplicated assets on both chains. While this may seem advantageous, in the long run, these splits weaken the network and create uncertainties for investors.

Each group of stakeholders reacts differently to a chain split:

• Institutional Investors and ETFs: Face regulatory and compliance challenges because many of these assets are managed under strict regulations. The creation of a new coin requires decisions to be made quickly to avoid potential losses, which may be hampered by regulatory constraints.

• Miners: May be incentivized to shift their computing power to the chain that offers higher profitability, which can weaken one of the networks.

• Economic Nodes: Such as major exchanges and custody providers, have to quickly choose which chain to support, influencing the perceived value of each network.

Such divisions can generate uncertainties and loss of value, especially for institutional investors and those who use Bitcoin as a store of value.

Regulatory Impacts and Institutional Investors

With the growing presence of institutional investors in Bitcoin, consensus changes face new compliance challenges. Bitcoin ETFs, for example, are required to follow strict rules about which assets they can include and how chain split events should be handled. The creation of a new asset or migration to a new chain can complicate these processes, creating pressure for large financial players to quickly choose a chain, affecting the stability of consensus.

Moreover, decisions regarding forks can influence the Bitcoin futures and derivatives market, affecting perception and adoption by new investors. Therefore, the need to avoid splits and maintain cohesion is crucial to attract and preserve the confidence of these investors.

Security Considerations in Soft Forks and Hard Forks

While soft forks are generally preferred in Bitcoin for their backward compatibility, they are not without risks. Soft forks can create different classes of nodes on the network (updated and non-updated), which increases operational complexity and can ultimately weaken consensus cohesion. In a network scenario with fragmentation of node classes, Bitcoin's security can be affected, as some nodes may lose part of the visibility over updated transactions or rules.

In hard forks, the security risk is even more evident because all nodes need to adopt the new update to avoid network division. Experience shows that abrupt changes can create temporary vulnerabilities, in which malicious agents try to exploit the transition to attack the network.

Bounty Claim Risks and Attack Scenarios

Another risk in consensus updates are so-called "bounty claims"—accumulated rewards that can be obtained if an attacker manages to split or deceive a part of the network. In a conflict scenario, a group of miners or nodes could be incentivized to support a new update or create an alternative version of the software to benefit from these rewards.

These risks require stakeholders to carefully assess each update and the potential vulnerabilities it may introduce. The possibility of "bounty claims" adds a layer of complexity to consensus because each interest group may see a financial opportunity in a change that, in the long term, may harm network stability.

The risks discussed above show the complexity of consensus in Bitcoin and the importance of approaching it gradually and deliberately. Updates need to consider not only technical aspects but also economic and social implications, in order to preserve Bitcoin's integrity and maintain trust among stakeholders.

---

6. Recommendations for the Consensus Process in Bitcoin

To ensure that protocol changes in Bitcoin are implemented safely and with broad support, it is essential that all stakeholders adopt a careful and coordinated approach. Here are strategic recommendations for evaluating, supporting, or rejecting consensus updates, considering the risks and challenges discussed earlier, along with best practices for successful implementation.

1. Careful Evaluation of Proposal Maturity

Stakeholders should rigorously assess the maturity level of a proposal before supporting its implementation. Updates that are still experimental or lack a robust technical foundation can expose the network to unnecessary risks. Ideally, change proposals should go through an extensive testing phase, have security audits, and receive review and feedback from various developers and experts.

2. Extensive Testing in Secure and Compatible Networks

Before an update is activated on the mainnet, it is essential to test it on networks like testnet and signet, and whenever possible, on other compatible networks that offer a safe and controlled environment to identify potential issues. Testing on networks like Litecoin was fundamental for the safe launch of innovations like SegWit and the Lightning Network, allowing functionalities to be validated on a lower-impact network before being implemented on Bitcoin.

The Liquid Network, developed by Blockstream, also plays an important role as an experimental network for new proposals, such as OP_CAT. By adopting these testing environments, stakeholders can mitigate risks and ensure that the update is reliable and secure before being adopted by the main network.

3. Importance of Stakeholder Engagement

The success of a consensus update strongly depends on the active participation of all stakeholders. This includes economic nodes, miners, protocol developers, investors, and end users. Lack of participation can lead to inadequate decisions or even future network splits, which would compromise Bitcoin's security and stability.

4. Key Questions for Evaluating Consensus Proposals

To assist in decision-making, each group of stakeholders should consider some key questions before supporting a consensus change:

• Does the proposal offer tangible benefits for Bitcoin's security, scalability, or usability?
• Does it maintain backward compatibility or introduce the risk of network split?
• Are the implementation requirements clear and feasible for each group involved?
• Are there clear and aligned incentives for all stakeholder groups to accept the change?

5. Coordination and Timing in Implementations

Timing is crucial. Updates with short activation windows can force a split because not all nodes and miners can update simultaneously. Changes should be planned with ample deadlines to allow all stakeholders to adjust their systems, avoiding surprises that could lead to fragmentation.

Mechanisms like soft forks are generally preferable to hard forks because they allow a smoother transition. Opting for backward-compatible updates when possible facilitates the process and ensures that nodes and miners can adapt without pressure.

6. Continuous Monitoring and Re-evaluation

After an update, it's essential to monitor the network to identify problems or side effects. This continuous process helps ensure cohesion and trust among all participants, keeping Bitcoin as a secure and robust network.

These recommendations, including the use of secure networks for extensive testing, promote a collaborative and secure environment for Bitcoin's consensus process. By adopting a deliberate and strategic approach, stakeholders can preserve Bitcoin's value as a decentralized and censorship-resistant network.

---

7. Conclusion

Consensus in Bitcoin is more than a set of rules; it's the foundation that sustains the network as a decentralized, secure, and reliable system. Unlike centralized systems, where decisions can be made quickly, Bitcoin requires a much more deliberate and cooperative approach, where the interests of miners, economic nodes, developers, investors, and users must be considered and harmonized. This governance model may seem slow, but it is fundamental to preserving the resilience and trust that make Bitcoin a global store of value and censorship-resistant.

Consensus updates in Bitcoin must balance the need for innovation with the preservation of the network's core principles. The development process of a proposal needs to be detailed and rigorous, going through several testing stages, such as in testnet, signet, and compatible networks like Litecoin and Liquid Network. These networks offer safe environments for proposals to be analyzed and improved before being launched on the main network.

Each proposed change must be carefully evaluated regarding its maturity, impact, backward compatibility, and support among stakeholders. The recommended key questions and appropriate timing are critical to ensure that an update is adopted without compromising network cohesion. It's also essential that the implementation process is continuously monitored and re-evaluated, allowing adjustments as necessary and minimizing the risk of instability.

By following these guidelines, Bitcoin's stakeholders can ensure that the network continues to evolve safely and robustly, maintaining user trust and further solidifying its role as one of the most resilient and innovative digital assets in the world. Ultimately, consensus in Bitcoin is not just a technical issue but a reflection of its community and the values it represents: security, decentralization, and resilience.

---

8. Links

Whitepaper: https://github.com/bitcoin-cap/bcap

Youtube (pt-br): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rARycAibl9o&list=PL-qnhF0qlSPkfhorqsREuIu4UTbF0h4zb

@ 8cb60e21:5f2deaea

test

@ 8cb60e21:5f2deaea

@ 16d11430:61640947

Elliptic Curve AI (ECAI) is built on deterministic knowledge retrieval using elliptic curve mathematics. Isogenies provide a powerful mechanism for structuring and transforming knowledge while preserving its cryptographic integrity. Here’s how ECAI can benefit from elliptic curve isogenies:

---

1. Knowledge State Transitioning via Isogenies

In ECAI, knowledge is mapped as elliptic curve points.

Isogenies allow transformation of knowledge states while preserving mathematical relationships.

This enables secure knowledge evolution without introducing probabilistic error.

Example: Knowledge Encapsulation & Transformation

1. Encode knowledge as a structured point on elliptic curve .

2. Apply an isogeny , where represents a different domain of knowledge.

3. Retrieve transformed knowledge in without breaking the deterministic structure.

Use Case:

A legal contract encoded on can be isogenously mapped to an encrypted compliance framework on .

This transition is cryptographically verifiable and irreversible, ensuring immutability of the knowledge chain.

---

1. Post-Quantum Secure Knowledge Verification

ECAI’s structured intelligence retrieval needs long-term cryptographic security. Since Shor’s algorithm (on a quantum computer) can break classical elliptic curve cryptography (ECC), isogeny-based cryptography provides a post-quantum security layer.

SIDH (Supersingular Isogeny Diffie-Hellman) allows ECAI to verify structured intelligence without revealing private keys.

Isogeny graphs ensure knowledge transfer is resistant to quantum attacks.

Use Case:

ECAI nodes storing knowledge must be quantum-resistant.

Isogeny-based cryptography ensures retrieval functions cannot be forged even under quantum adversaries.

---

1. Immutable Knowledge Chains with Isogeny Graphs

An isogeny graph is a structure where elliptic curves are connected via isogenies. ECAI can leverage this concept to build immutable knowledge networks.

How it Works

Each verified knowledge state corresponds to an elliptic curve.

Isogenies provide a deterministic, mathematically enforced way to transition between states.

The entire knowledge structure forms an isogeny graph that resists tampering.

Use Case:

Knowledge NFTs: Every piece of knowledge in ECAI can be recorded on an isogeny graph, ensuring ownership and integrity.

DamageBDD Proofs: Test case verification can move through isogeny transformations to maintain structured immutability.

---

1. Adaptive AI Decision-Making using Isogenies

Traditional AI uses probabilistic inference, while ECAI relies on deterministic knowledge retrieval. Isogenies allow non-destructive transformation of knowledge, meaning:

AI decisions can be mapped as elliptic curve transformations.

Knowledge retrieval functions can evolve via controlled isogeny paths rather than brute-force learning.

The resulting system is adaptive but remains fully deterministic.

Use Case:

DamageAI can apply isogenies to map software quality metrics between different project states, ensuring structured decision-making without introducing bias.

---

1. Isogeny-Based Knowledge Compression & Aggregation

ECAI’s structured intelligence can use isogenies to compress knowledge.

Isogenies allow aggregation of multiple elliptic curve points into a single transformed curve.

This enables efficient knowledge storage without losing structural integrity.

Use Case:

DamageBDD test results across multiple domains can be compressed into a single isogeny-mapped curve, reducing computational overhead while maintaining verifiability.

---

Conclusion

Isogenies offer a powerful tool for deterministic knowledge transformation in ECAI. By integrating isogeny-based methods, ECAI can:

1. Securely evolve knowledge states without probabilistic degradation.

2. Achieve post-quantum security for intelligence retrieval.

3. Build immutable knowledge graphs that are cryptographically verifiable.

4. Optimize deterministic decision-making using isogeny-based transitions.

5. Compress and aggregate knowledge in structured formats.

Next Steps

Would you like a Python implementation of an isogeny-based knowledge transformation function to illustrate how ECAI can apply this concept? 🚀

@ eac63075:b4988b48

The future of physical money is at stake, and the discussion about DREX, the new digital currency planned by the Central Bank of Brazil, is gaining momentum. In a candid and intense conversation, Federal Deputy Julia Zanatta (PL/SC) discussed the challenges and risks of this digital transition, also addressing her Bill No. 3,341/2024, which aims to prevent the extinction of physical currency. This bill emerges as a direct response to legislative initiatives seeking to replace physical money with digital alternatives, limiting citizens' options and potentially compromising individual freedom. Let's delve into the main points of this conversation.

https://www.fountain.fm/episode/i5YGJ9Ors3PkqAIMvNQ0

(PT-BR version here)

What is a CBDC?

Before discussing the specifics of DREX, it’s important to understand what a CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) is. CBDCs are digital currencies issued by central banks, similar to a digital version of physical money. Unlike cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, which operate in a decentralized manner, CBDCs are centralized and regulated by the government. In other words, they are digital currencies created and controlled by the Central Bank, intended to replace physical currency.

A prominent feature of CBDCs is their programmability. This means that the government can theoretically set rules about how, where, and for what this currency can be used. This aspect enables a level of control over citizens' finances that is impossible with physical money. By programming the currency, the government could limit transactions by setting geographical or usage restrictions. In practice, money within a CBDC could be restricted to specific spending or authorized for use in a defined geographical area.

In countries like China, where citizen actions and attitudes are also monitored, a person considered to have a "low score" due to a moral or ideological violation may have their transactions limited to essential purchases, restricting their digital currency use to non-essential activities. This financial control is strengthened because, unlike physical money, digital currency cannot be exchanged anonymously.

Practical Example: The Case of DREX During the Pandemic

To illustrate how DREX could be used, an example was given by Eric Altafim, director of Banco Itaú. He suggested that, if DREX had existed during the COVID-19 pandemic, the government could have restricted the currency’s use to a 5-kilometer radius around a person’s residence, limiting their economic mobility. Another proposed use by the executive related to the Bolsa Família welfare program: the government could set up programming that only allows this benefit to be used exclusively for food purchases. Although these examples are presented as control measures for safety or organization, they demonstrate how much a CBDC could restrict citizens' freedom of choice.

To illustrate the potential for state control through a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), such as DREX, it is helpful to look at the example of China. In China, the implementation of a CBDC coincides with the country’s Social Credit System, a governmental surveillance tool that assesses citizens' and companies' behavior. Together, these technologies allow the Chinese government to monitor, reward, and, above all, punish behavior deemed inappropriate or threatening to the government.

How Does China's Social Credit System Work?

Implemented in 2014, China's Social Credit System assigns every citizen and company a "score" based on various factors, including financial behavior, criminal record, social interactions, and even online activities. This score determines the benefits or penalties each individual receives and can affect everything from public transport access to obtaining loans and enrolling in elite schools for their children. Citizens with low scores may face various sanctions, including travel restrictions, fines, and difficulty in securing loans.

With the adoption of the CBDC — or “digital yuan” — the Chinese government now has a new tool to closely monitor citizens' financial transactions, facilitating the application of Social Credit System penalties. China’s CBDC is a programmable digital currency, which means that the government can restrict how, when, and where the money can be spent. Through this level of control, digital currency becomes a powerful mechanism for influencing citizens' behavior.

Imagine, for instance, a citizen who repeatedly posts critical remarks about the government on social media or participates in protests. If the Social Credit System assigns this citizen a low score, the Chinese government could, through the CBDC, restrict their money usage in certain areas or sectors. For example, they could be prevented from buying tickets to travel to other regions, prohibited from purchasing certain consumer goods, or even restricted to making transactions only at stores near their home.

Another example of how the government can use the CBDC to enforce the Social Credit System is by monitoring purchases of products such as alcohol or luxury items. If a citizen uses the CBDC to spend more than the government deems reasonable on such products, this could negatively impact their social score, resulting in additional penalties such as future purchase restrictions or a lowered rating that impacts their personal and professional lives.

In China, this kind of control has already been demonstrated in several cases. Citizens added to Social Credit System “blacklists” have seen their spending and investment capacity severely limited. The combination of digital currency and social scores thus creates a sophisticated and invasive surveillance system, through which the Chinese government controls important aspects of citizens’ financial lives and individual freedoms.

Deputy Julia Zanatta views these examples with great concern. She argues that if the state has full control over digital money, citizens will be exposed to a level of economic control and surveillance never seen before. In a democracy, this control poses a risk, but in an authoritarian regime, it could be used as a powerful tool of repression.

DREX and Bill No. 3,341/2024

Julia Zanatta became aware of a bill by a Workers' Party (PT) deputy (Bill 4068/2020 by Deputy Reginaldo Lopes - PT/MG) that proposes the extinction of physical money within five years, aiming for a complete transition to DREX, the digital currency developed by the Central Bank of Brazil. Concerned about the impact of this measure, Julia drafted her bill, PL No. 3,341/2024, which prohibits the elimination of physical money, ensuring citizens the right to choose physical currency.

“The more I read about DREX, the less I want its implementation,” says the deputy. DREX is a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), similar to other state digital currencies worldwide, but which, according to Julia, carries extreme control risks. She points out that with DREX, the State could closely monitor each citizen’s transactions, eliminating anonymity and potentially restricting freedom of choice. This control would lie in the hands of the Central Bank, which could, in a crisis or government change, “freeze balances or even delete funds directly from user accounts.”

Risks and Individual Freedom

Julia raises concerns about potential abuses of power that complete digitalization could allow. In a democracy, state control over personal finances raises serious questions, and EddieOz warns of an even more problematic future. “Today we are in a democracy, but tomorrow, with a government transition, we don't know if this kind of power will be used properly or abused,” he states. In other words, DREX gives the State the ability to restrict or condition the use of money, opening the door to unprecedented financial surveillance.

EddieOz cites Nigeria as an example, where a CBDC was implemented, and the government imposed severe restrictions on the use of physical money to encourage the use of digital currency, leading to protests and clashes in the country. In practice, the poorest and unbanked — those without regular access to banking services — were harshly affected, as without physical money, many cannot conduct basic transactions. Julia highlights that in Brazil, this situation would be even more severe, given the large number of unbanked individuals and the extent of rural areas where access to technology is limited.

The Relationship Between DREX and Pix

The digital transition has already begun with Pix, which revolutionized instant transfers and payments in Brazil. However, Julia points out that Pix, though popular, is a citizen’s choice, while DREX tends to eliminate that choice. The deputy expresses concern about new rules suggested for Pix, such as daily transaction limits of a thousand reais, justified as anti-fraud measures but which, in her view, represent additional control and a profit opportunity for banks. “How many more rules will banks create to profit from us?” asks Julia, noting that DREX could further enhance control over personal finances.

International Precedents and Resistance to CBDC

The deputy also cites examples from other countries resisting the idea of a centralized digital currency. In the United States, states like New Hampshire have passed laws to prevent the advance of CBDCs, and leaders such as Donald Trump have opposed creating a national digital currency. Trump, addressing the topic, uses a justification similar to Julia’s: in a digitalized system, “with one click, your money could disappear.” She agrees with the warning, emphasizing the control risk that a CBDC represents, especially for countries with disadvantaged populations.

Besides the United States, Canada, Colombia, and Australia have also suspended studies on digital currencies, citing the need for further discussions on population impacts. However, in Brazil, the debate on DREX is still limited, with few parliamentarians and political leaders openly discussing the topic. According to Julia, only she and one or two deputies are truly trying to bring this discussion to the Chamber, making DREX’s advance even more concerning.

Bill No. 3,341/2024 and Popular Pressure

For Julia, her bill is a first step. Although she acknowledges that ideally, it would prevent DREX's implementation entirely, PL 3341/2024 is a measure to ensure citizens' choice to use physical money, preserving a form of individual freedom. “If the future means control, I prefer to live in the past,” Julia asserts, reinforcing that the fight for freedom is at the heart of her bill.

However, the deputy emphasizes that none of this will be possible without popular mobilization. According to her, popular pressure is crucial for other deputies to take notice and support PL 3341. “I am only one deputy, and we need the public’s support to raise the project’s visibility,” she explains, encouraging the public to press other parliamentarians and ask them to “pay attention to PL 3341 and the project that prohibits the end of physical money.” The deputy believes that with a strong awareness and pressure movement, it is possible to advance the debate and ensure Brazilians’ financial freedom.

What’s at Stake?

Julia Zanatta leaves no doubt: DREX represents a profound shift in how money will be used and controlled in Brazil. More than a simple modernization of the financial system, the Central Bank’s CBDC sets precedents for an unprecedented level of citizen surveillance and control in the country. For the deputy, this transition needs to be debated broadly and transparently, and it’s up to the Brazilian people to defend their rights and demand that the National Congress discuss these changes responsibly.

The deputy also emphasizes that, regardless of political or partisan views, this issue affects all Brazilians. “This agenda is something that will affect everyone. We need to be united to ensure people understand the gravity of what could happen.” Julia believes that by sharing information and generating open debate, it is possible to prevent Brazil from following the path of countries that have already implemented a digital currency in an authoritarian way.

A Call to Action

The future of physical money in Brazil is at risk. For those who share Deputy Julia Zanatta’s concerns, the time to act is now. Mobilize, get informed, and press your representatives. PL 3341/2024 is an opportunity to ensure that Brazilian citizens have a choice in how to use their money, without excessive state interference or surveillance.

In the end, as the deputy puts it, the central issue is freedom. “My fear is that this project will pass, and people won’t even understand what is happening.” Therefore, may every citizen at least have the chance to understand what’s at stake and make their voice heard in defense of a Brazil where individual freedom and privacy are respected values.

@ 291c75d9:37f1bfbe

In 1727, a 21-year-old Benjamin Franklin gathered a dozen men in Philadelphia for a bold experiment in intellectual and civic growth. Every Friday night, this group—known as the Junto, from the Spanish juntar ("to join")—met in a tavern or private home to discuss "Morals, Politics, or Natural Philosophy (science)." Far from a casual social club, the Junto was a secret society dedicated to mutual improvement, respectful discourse, and community betterment. What began as a small gathering of tradesmen and thinkers would leave a lasting mark on Franklin’s life and colonial America.

Printers are educated in the belief that when men differ in opinion, both sides ought equally to have the advantage of being heard by the public, and that when Truth and Error have fair play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter.

- Benjamin Franklin

The Junto operated under a clear set of rules, detailed by Franklin in his Autobiography:

"The rules that I drew up required that every member, in his turn, should produce one or more queries on any point of Morals, Politics, or Natural Philosophy, to be discuss’d by the company; and once in three months produce and read an essay of his own writing, on any subject he pleased. Our debates were to be under the direction of a president, and to be conducted in the sincere spirit of inquiry after truth, without fondness for dispute, or desire of victory; and, to prevent warmth [heatedness], all expressions of positiveness in opinions, or direct contradiction, were after some time made contraband and prohibited under small pecuniary penalties [monetary fines]."

These guidelines emphasized collaboration over competition. Members were expected to contribute questions or essays, sparking discussions that prioritized truth over ego. To keep debates civil, the group even imposed small fines for overly assertive or contradictory behavior—a practical nudge toward humility and open-mindedness. (Yes, I believe that is an ass tax!)

Rather than admitting new members, Franklin encouraged existing ones to form their own discussion groups. This created a decentralized network of groups ("private relays," as I think of them), echoing the structure of modern platforms like NOSTR—while preserving the Junto’s exclusivity and privacy.

From the beginning, they made it a rule to keep these meetings secret, without applications or admittance of new members. Instead, Franklin encouraged members to form their own groups—in a way acting as private relays of sorts. (I say "private" because they continued to keep the Junto secret, even with these new groups.)

Membership: A Diverse Circle United by Values

The Junto’s twelve founding members came from varied walks of life—printers, surveyors, shoemakers, and clerks—yet shared a commitment to self-improvement. Franklin, though the youngest (around 21 when the group formed), led the Junto with a vision of collective growth. To join, candidates faced a simple vetting process, answering four key questions:

1. Have you any particular disrespect for any present members? Answer: I have not.
2. Do you sincerely declare that you love mankind in general, of what profession or religion soever? Answer: I do.
3. Do you think any person ought to be harmed in his body, name, or goods, for mere speculative opinions, or his external way of worship? Answer: No.
4. Do you love truth for truth’s sake, and will you endeavor impartially to find and receive it yourself and communicate it to others? Answer: Yes.

These criteria reveal the Junto’s core values: respect, tolerance, and an unwavering pursuit of truth. They ensured that members brought not just intellect but also character to the table—placing dialogue as the priority.

One should also note the inspiration from the "Dry Club" of John Locke, William Popple, and Benjamin Furly in the 1690s. They too required affirmation to:

1. Whether he loves all men, of what profession or religion soever?
2. Whether he thinks no person ought to be harmed in his body, name, or goods, for mere speculative opinions, or his external way of worship?
3. Whether he loves and seeks truth for truth’s sake; and will endeavor impartially to find and receive it himself, and to communicate it to others?

And they agreed: "That no person or opinion be unhandsomely reflected on; but every member behave himself with all the temper, judgment, modesty, and discretion he is master of."

The Discussions: 24 Questions to Spark Insight

Franklin crafted a list of 24 questions to guide the Junto’s conversations, ranging from personal anecdotes to civic concerns. These prompts showcase the group’s intellectual breadth. Here are some of my favorites:

Hath any citizen in your knowledge failed in his business lately, and what have you heard of the cause?

Have you lately heard of any citizen’s thriving well, and by what means?

Do you know of any fellow citizen who has lately done a worthy action, deserving praise and imitation?

Do you think of anything at present in which the Junto may be serviceable to mankind, their country, friends, or themselves?

Have you lately observed any defect in the laws of your country, which it would be proper to move the legislature for an amendment?

Do you know of any deserving young beginner lately set up, whom it lies in the power of the Junto any way to encourage?

(Read them all here.)

Note the keen attention to success and failure, and the reflection on both. Attention was often placed on the community and individual improvement beyond the members of the group. These questions encouraged members to share knowledge, reflect on virtues and vices, and propose solutions to real-world problems. The result? Discussions that didn’t just end at the tavern door but inspired tangible community improvements.

The Junto’s Legacy: America’s First Lending Library

One of the Junto’s most enduring contributions to Philadelphia—and indeed, to the American colonies—was the creation of the first lending library in 1731. Born from the group’s commitment to mutual improvement and knowledge-sharing, this library became a cornerstone of public education and intellectual life in the community.

The idea for the library emerged naturally from the Junto’s discussions. Members, who came from diverse backgrounds but shared a passion for learning, recognized that their own access to books was often limited and costly—and they referred to them often. To address this, they proposed pooling their personal collections to create a shared resource. This collaborative effort allowed them—and eventually the broader public—to access a wider range of books than any individual could afford alone.

The library operated on a simple yet revolutionary principle: knowledge should be available to all, regardless of wealth or status. By creating a lending system, the Junto democratized access to information, fostering a culture of self-education and curiosity. This was especially significant at a time when books were scarce and formal education was not universally accessible.

The success of the Junto’s library inspired similar initiatives across the colonies, laying the groundwork for the public library system we know today. It also reflected the group’s broader mission: to serve not just its members but the entire community. The library became a symbol of the Junto’s belief in the power of education to uplift individuals and society alike.

With roots extending back to the founding of the Society in 1743, the Library of the American Philosophical Society houses over thirteen million manuscripts, 350,000 volumes and bound periodicals, 250,000 images, and thousands of hours of audiotape. The Library’s holdings make it one of the premier institutions for documenting the history of the American Revolution and Founding, the study of natural history in the 18th and 19th centuries, the study of evolution and genetics, quantum mechanics, and the development of cultural anthropology, among others.

The American Philosophical Society Library continues today. I hope to visit it myself in the future.

Freedom, for Community

Comparing the Junto to Nostr shows how the tools of community and debate evolve with time. Both prove that people crave spaces to connect, share, and grow—whether in a colonial tavern or a digital relay. Yet their differences reveal trade-offs: the Junto’s structure offered depth and focus but capped its reach, while Nostr’s openness promises scale at the cost of order.

In a sense, Nostr feels like the Junto’s modern echo—faster, bigger, and unbound by gates or rules. Franklin might admire its ambition, even if he’d raise an eyebrow at its messiness. For us, the comparison underscores a timeless truth: no matter the medium, the drive to seek truth and build community endures.

---

The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin (1771–1790, pub. 1791)

http://www.benjamin-franklin-history.org/junto-club/

Benjamin Franklin, Political, Miscellaneous, and Philosophical Pieces, ed. Benjamin Vaughan (London: 1779), pp. 533–536.

"Rules of a Society" in The Remains of John Locke, Esq. (1714), p. 113

npubpro

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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.

@ 30ceb64e:7f08bdf5

NIP-101e: Workout Data and Running Extensions

NIP-101e represents a crucial step forward for fitness tracking on Nostr, giving us a common language that would allow workout data to flow freely between apps. This proposal outlines a thoughtful framework with Exercise Templates, Workout Templates, and Workout Records that would finally free our fitness data from proprietary silos and put it back in our hands. I'm eager to see this proposal implemented because it would create the foundation for a genuinely open fitness ecosystem on Nostr.

As a runner building a Nostr running app RUNSTR, I've proposed some running-specific extensions to NIP-101e that address the unique needs of runners without disrupting the elegant structure of the original proposal. My extensions would standardize how we record GPS routes, pace metrics, elevation data, splits, and even weather conditions - all things that matter tremendously to runners but aren't covered in the base proposal that focuses more on strength training.

By implementing NIP-101e along with these running extensions, we could create something truly revolutionary: a fitness ecosystem where runners aren't locked into a single platform because of their data. You could track your morning run in my app, analyze your training in another app that specializes in statistics, and share achievements with friends using whatever Nostr clients they prefer. I believe strongly in getting NIP-101e implemented with these extensions included because it would foster innovation while giving runners unprecedented freedom to own their data and use it however they want. Let's make this happen and show what's possible when fitness data becomes truly interoperable!

@ 592295cf:413a0db9

[Week 21-10] I thinks that Saylor is on right, don't trust verify, is bullshit Bitcoin is a financial tool! I think it's good for me to get away from social media once a week. I could do things outside, like walking. Take pictures of the landscape. The weirdest thing is when the alarm calls you up in an hour.

Fiatjaf wants a cache client. I feel like I can do it, I have the set to do it, but nostrudel is no longer working, so it's a little murky. Next nostrudel does not accept changes to settings (It works now!), so maybe i can think something. I want to make a corny chat, test, read this article. Nostr doesn't work with a vpn because relays don't know who you are. jokes aside, some clients have difficulties.

I couldn't take pictures of the landscape if I didn't take the wind blades. Small local controversy.

Missing the point of content creator. Simply for final user, Simply for the creator, new feature, no missing nothing. I'm trying to limit everything to writing for a week. I almost did. Maybe another week can do well.

Meanwhile I updated apps like Amber and Voyager, coracle, nostrmo.

The experiment continues with open vibe following the trending of Nostr. I'm following almost 120 npub. He'll stop, I don't know, possible he's already reached the limit. You still can't block words on the Nostr side of Open, strange thing. The app doesn't count the follow well, still some problem cleaning the cache seems that it doesn't need. After a while open and close and seems updated. I wanted to try open librarian, but I was busy sending fake zap on Nostr. This morning i try and It keeps giving me error 500 when I try to connect to a relay.

I hate when a profile follows everyone indistinctly, why does everyone follow? and in voyage, I read with WoT setting, I probably have to do unfollow. There must be an indication in which not include the followers of this person in the web of trust, I would do it by default if you follow more than 600 people.

WoT on Nostr Visualized post on stackernews

@ 4925ea33:025410d8

1. O que é um Aromaterapeuta?

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

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

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

---

2. Como um Aromaterapeuta Pode Ajudar?

Você pode procurar um aromaterapeuta para diferentes necessidades, como:

✔ Questões Emocionais e Psicológicas

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

Apoio na redução do estresse, ansiedade e insônia.

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

✔ Questões Físicas

Dores musculares e articulares.

Problemas respiratórios como rinite, sinusite e tosse.

Distúrbios digestivos leves.

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

✔ Saúde da Pele e Cabelos

Tratamento para acne, dermatites e psoríase.

Cuidados com o envelhecimento precoce da pele.

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

✔ Bem-estar e Qualidade de Vida

Melhora da concentração e foco, aumentando a produtividade.

Estímulo da disposição e energia.

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

Com base nessas necessidades, o aromaterapeuta irá indicar o melhor tratamento, calculando doses, sinergias (combinação de óleos essenciais), diluições e técnicas de aplicação, como inalação, uso tópico ou difusão.

---

3. Como Funciona uma Consulta com um Aromaterapeuta?

Uma consulta com um aromaterapeuta é um atendimento personalizado, onde são avaliadas as necessidades do cliente para a criação de um protocolo adequado. O processo geralmente segue estas etapas:

✔ Anamnese (Entrevista Inicial)

Perguntas sobre saúde física, emocional e estilo de vida.

Levantamento de sintomas, histórico médico e possíveis alergias.

Definição dos objetivos da terapia (alívio do estresse, melhora do sono, dores musculares etc.).

✔ Escolha dos Óleos Essenciais

Seleção dos óleos mais indicados para o caso.

Consideração das propriedades terapêuticas, contraindicações e combinações seguras.

✔ Definição do Método de Uso

O profissional indicará a melhor forma de aplicação, que pode ser:

Inalação: difusores, colares aromáticos, vaporização.

Uso tópico: massagens, óleos corporais, compressas.

Banhos aromáticos e escalda-pés. Todas as diluições serão ajustadas de acordo com a segurança e a necessidade individual do cliente.

✔ Plano de Acompanhamento

Instruções detalhadas sobre o uso correto dos óleos essenciais.

Orientação sobre frequência e duração do tratamento.

Possibilidade de retorno para ajustes no protocolo.

A consulta pode ser realizada presencialmente ou online, dependendo do profissional.

---

Quer saber como a Aromaterapia pode te ajudar? Agende uma consulta comigo e descubra os benefícios dos óleos essenciais para o seu bem-estar!

@ 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.

@ 8cb60e21:5f2deaea

hello draft

@ 8cb60e21:5f2deaea

@ eac63075:b4988b48

Imagine sending a private message to a friend, only to learn that authorities could be scanning its contents without your knowledge. This isn't a scene from a dystopian novel but a potential reality under the European Union's proposed "Chat Control" measures. Aimed at combating serious crimes like child exploitation and terrorism, these proposals could significantly impact the privacy of everyday internet users. As encrypted messaging services become the norm for personal and professional communication, understanding Chat Control is essential. This article delves into what Chat Control entails, why it's being considered, and how it could affect your right to private communication.

https://www.fountain.fm/episode/coOFsst7r7mO1EP1kSzV

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0IZ6kMExfxFm4FHg5DAWT8?si=e139033865e045de

Sections:

• Introduction
• What Is Chat Control?
• Why Is the EU Pushing for Chat Control?
• The Privacy Concerns and Risks
• The Technical Debate: Encryption and Backdoors
• Global Reactions and the Debate in Europe
• Possible Consequences for Messaging Services
• What Happens Next? The Future of Chat Control
• Conclusion

---

What Is Chat Control?

"Chat Control" refers to a set of proposed measures by the European Union aimed at monitoring and scanning private communications on messaging platforms. The primary goal is to detect and prevent the spread of illegal content, such as child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and to combat terrorism. While the intention is to enhance security and protect vulnerable populations, these proposals have raised significant privacy concerns.

At its core, Chat Control would require messaging services to implement automated scanning technologies that can analyze the content of messages—even those that are end-to-end encrypted. This means that the private messages you send to friends, family, or colleagues could be subject to inspection by algorithms designed to detect prohibited content.

Origins of the Proposal

The initiative for Chat Control emerged from the EU's desire to strengthen its digital security infrastructure. High-profile cases of online abuse and the use of encrypted platforms by criminal organizations have prompted lawmakers to consider more invasive surveillance tactics. The European Commission has been exploring legislation that would make it mandatory for service providers to monitor communications on their platforms.

How Messaging Services Work

Most modern messaging apps, like Signal, Session, SimpleX, Veilid, Protonmail and Tutanota (among others), use end-to-end encryption (E2EE). This encryption ensures that only the sender and the recipient can read the messages being exchanged. Not even the service providers can access the content. This level of security is crucial for maintaining privacy in digital communications, protecting users from hackers, identity thieves, and other malicious actors.

Key Elements of Chat Control

• Automated Content Scanning: Service providers would use algorithms to scan messages for illegal content.
• Circumvention of Encryption: To scan encrypted messages, providers might need to alter their encryption methods, potentially weakening security.
• Mandatory Reporting: If illegal content is detected, providers would be required to report it to authorities.
• Broad Applicability: The measures could apply to all messaging services operating within the EU, affecting both European companies and international platforms.

Why It Matters

Understanding Chat Control is essential because it represents a significant shift in how digital privacy is handled. While combating illegal activities online is crucial, the methods proposed could set a precedent for mass surveillance and the erosion of privacy rights. Everyday users who rely on encrypted messaging for personal and professional communication might find their conversations are no longer as private as they once thought.

---

Why Is the EU Pushing for Chat Control?

The European Union's push for Chat Control stems from a pressing concern to protect its citizens, particularly children, from online exploitation and criminal activities. With the digital landscape becoming increasingly integral to daily life, the EU aims to strengthen its ability to combat serious crimes facilitated through online platforms.

Protecting Children and Preventing Crime

One of the primary motivations behind Chat Control is the prevention of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) circulating on the internet. Law enforcement agencies have reported a significant increase in the sharing of illegal content through private messaging services. By implementing Chat Control, the EU believes it can more effectively identify and stop perpetrators, rescue victims, and deter future crimes.

Terrorism is another critical concern. Encrypted messaging apps can be used by terrorist groups to plan and coordinate attacks without detection. The EU argues that accessing these communications could be vital in preventing such threats and ensuring public safety.

Legal Context and Legislative Drivers

The push for Chat Control is rooted in several legislative initiatives:

• ePrivacy Directive: This directive regulates the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in electronic communications. The EU is considering amendments that would allow for the scanning of private messages under specific circumstances.

• Temporary Derogation: In 2021, the EU adopted a temporary regulation permitting voluntary detection of CSAM by communication services. The current proposals aim to make such measures mandatory and more comprehensive.

• Regulation Proposals: The European Commission has proposed regulations that would require service providers to detect, report, and remove illegal content proactively. This would include the use of technologies to scan private communications.

Balancing Security and Privacy

EU officials argue that the proposed measures are a necessary response to evolving digital threats. They emphasize the importance of staying ahead of criminals who exploit technology to harm others. By implementing Chat Control, they believe law enforcement can be more effective without entirely dismantling privacy protections.

However, the EU also acknowledges the need to balance security with fundamental rights. The proposals include provisions intended to limit the scope of surveillance, such as:

• Targeted Scanning: Focusing on specific threats rather than broad, indiscriminate monitoring.

• Judicial Oversight: Requiring court orders or oversight for accessing private communications.

• Data Protection Safeguards: Implementing measures to ensure that data collected is handled securely and deleted when no longer needed.

The Urgency Behind the Push

High-profile cases of online abuse and terrorism have heightened the sense of urgency among EU policymakers. Reports of increasing online grooming and the widespread distribution of illegal content have prompted calls for immediate action. The EU posits that without measures like Chat Control, these problems will continue to escalate unchecked.

Criticism and Controversy

Despite the stated intentions, the push for Chat Control has been met with significant criticism. Opponents argue that the measures could be ineffective against savvy criminals who can find alternative ways to communicate. There is also concern that such surveillance could be misused or extended beyond its original purpose.

---

The Privacy Concerns and Risks

While the intentions behind Chat Control focus on enhancing security and protecting vulnerable groups, the proposed measures raise significant privacy concerns. Critics argue that implementing such surveillance could infringe on fundamental rights and set a dangerous precedent for mass monitoring of private communications.

Infringement on Privacy Rights

At the heart of the debate is the right to privacy. By scanning private messages, even with automated tools, the confidentiality of personal communications is compromised. Users may no longer feel secure sharing sensitive information, fearing that their messages could be intercepted or misinterpreted by algorithms.

Erosion of End-to-End Encryption

End-to-end encryption (E2EE) is a cornerstone of digital security, ensuring that only the sender and recipient can read the messages exchanged. Chat Control could necessitate the introduction of "backdoors" or weaken encryption protocols, making it easier for unauthorized parties to access private data. This not only affects individual privacy but also exposes communications to potential cyber threats.

Concerns from Privacy Advocates

Organizations like Signal and Tutanota, which offer encrypted messaging services, have voiced strong opposition to Chat Control. They warn that undermining encryption could have far-reaching consequences:

• Security Risks: Weakening encryption makes systems more vulnerable to hacking, espionage, and cybercrime.
• Global Implications: Changes in EU regulations could influence policies worldwide, leading to a broader erosion of digital privacy.
• Ineffectiveness Against Crime: Determined criminals might resort to other, less detectable means of communication, rendering the measures ineffective while still compromising the privacy of law-abiding citizens.

Potential for Government Overreach

There is a fear that Chat Control could lead to increased surveillance beyond its original scope. Once the infrastructure for scanning private messages is in place, it could be repurposed or expanded to monitor other types of content, stifling free expression and dissent.

Real-World Implications for Users

• False Positives: Automated scanning technologies are not infallible and could mistakenly flag innocent content, leading to unwarranted scrutiny or legal consequences for users.
• Chilling Effect: Knowing that messages could be monitored might discourage people from expressing themselves freely, impacting personal relationships and societal discourse.
• Data Misuse: Collected data could be vulnerable to leaks or misuse, compromising personal and sensitive information.

Legal and Ethical Concerns

Privacy advocates also highlight potential conflicts with existing laws and ethical standards:

• Violation of Fundamental Rights: The European Convention on Human Rights and other international agreements protect the right to privacy and freedom of expression.
• Questionable Effectiveness: The ethical justification for such invasive measures is challenged if they do not significantly improve safety or if they disproportionately impact innocent users.

Opposition from Member States and Organizations

Countries like Germany and organizations such as the European Digital Rights (EDRi) have expressed opposition to Chat Control. They emphasize the need to protect digital privacy and caution against hasty legislation that could have unintended consequences.

---

The Technical Debate: Encryption and Backdoors

The discussion around Chat Control inevitably leads to a complex technical debate centered on encryption and the potential introduction of backdoors into secure communication systems. Understanding these concepts is crucial to grasping the full implications of the proposed measures.

What Is End-to-End Encryption (E2EE)?

End-to-end encryption is a method of secure communication that prevents third parties from accessing data while it's transferred from one end system to another. In simpler terms, only the sender and the recipient can read the messages. Even the service providers operating the messaging platforms cannot decrypt the content.

• Security Assurance: E2EE ensures that sensitive information—be it personal messages, financial details, or confidential business communications—remains private.
• Widespread Use: Popular messaging apps like Signal, Session, SimpleX, Veilid, Protonmail and Tutanota (among others) rely on E2EE to protect user data.

How Chat Control Affects Encryption

Implementing Chat Control as proposed would require messaging services to scan the content of messages for illegal material. To do this on encrypted platforms, providers might have to:

• Introduce Backdoors: Create a means for third parties (including the service provider or authorities) to access encrypted messages.
• Client-Side Scanning: Install software on users' devices that scans messages before they are encrypted and sent, effectively bypassing E2EE.

The Risks of Weakening Encryption

1. Compromised Security for All Users

Introducing backdoors or client-side scanning tools can create vulnerabilities:

• Exploitable Gaps: If a backdoor exists, malicious actors might find and exploit it, leading to data breaches.
• Universal Impact: Weakening encryption doesn't just affect targeted individuals; it potentially exposes all users to increased risk.

2. Undermining Trust in Digital Services

• User Confidence: Knowing that private communications could be accessed might deter people from using digital services or push them toward unregulated platforms.
• Business Implications: Companies relying on secure communications might face increased risks, affecting economic activities.

3. Ineffectiveness Against Skilled Adversaries

• Alternative Methods: Criminals might shift to other encrypted channels or develop new ways to avoid detection.
• False Sense of Security: Weakening encryption could give the impression of increased safety while adversaries adapt and continue their activities undetected.

Signal’s Response and Stance

Signal, a leading encrypted messaging service, has been vocal in its opposition to the EU's proposals:

• Refusal to Weaken Encryption: Signal's CEO Meredith Whittaker has stated that the company would rather cease operations in the EU than compromise its encryption standards.
• Advocacy for Privacy: Signal emphasizes that strong encryption is essential for protecting human rights and freedoms in the digital age.

Understanding Backdoors

A "backdoor" in encryption is an intentional weakness inserted into a system to allow authorized access to encrypted data. While intended for legitimate use by authorities, backdoors pose several problems:

• Security Vulnerabilities: They can be discovered and exploited by unauthorized parties, including hackers and foreign governments.
• Ethical Concerns: The existence of backdoors raises questions about consent and the extent to which governments should be able to access private communications.

The Slippery Slope Argument

Privacy advocates warn that introducing backdoors or mandatory scanning sets a precedent:

• Expanded Surveillance: Once in place, these measures could be extended to monitor other types of content beyond the original scope.
• Erosion of Rights: Gradual acceptance of surveillance can lead to a significant reduction in personal freedoms over time.

Potential Technological Alternatives

Some suggest that it's possible to fight illegal content without undermining encryption:

• Metadata Analysis: Focusing on patterns of communication rather than content.
• Enhanced Reporting Mechanisms: Encouraging users to report illegal content voluntarily.
• Investing in Law Enforcement Capabilities: Strengthening traditional investigative methods without compromising digital security.

The technical community largely agrees that weakening encryption is not the solution:

• Consensus on Security: Strong encryption is essential for the safety and privacy of all internet users.
• Call for Dialogue: Technologists and privacy experts advocate for collaborative approaches that address security concerns without sacrificing fundamental rights.

---

Global Reactions and the Debate in Europe

The proposal for Chat Control has ignited a heated debate across Europe and beyond, with various stakeholders weighing in on the potential implications for privacy, security, and fundamental rights. The reactions are mixed, reflecting differing national perspectives, political priorities, and societal values.

Support for Chat Control

Some EU member states and officials support the initiative, emphasizing the need for robust measures to combat online crime and protect citizens, especially children. They argue that:

• Enhanced Security: Mandatory scanning can help law enforcement agencies detect and prevent serious crimes.
• Responsibility of Service Providers: Companies offering communication services should play an active role in preventing their platforms from being used for illegal activities.
• Public Safety Priorities: The protection of vulnerable populations justifies the implementation of such measures, even if it means compromising some aspects of privacy.

Opposition within the EU

Several countries and organizations have voiced strong opposition to Chat Control, citing concerns over privacy rights and the potential for government overreach.

Germany

• Stance: Germany has been one of the most vocal opponents of the proposed measures.
• Reasons:
• Constitutional Concerns: The German government argues that Chat Control could violate constitutional protections of privacy and confidentiality of communications.
• Security Risks: Weakening encryption is seen as a threat to cybersecurity.
• Legal Challenges: Potential conflicts with national laws protecting personal data and communication secrecy.

Netherlands

• Recent Developments: The Dutch government decided against supporting Chat Control, emphasizing the importance of encryption for security and privacy.
• Arguments:
• Effectiveness Doubts: Skepticism about the actual effectiveness of the measures in combating crime.
• Negative Impact on Privacy: Concerns about mass surveillance and the infringement of citizens' rights.

Table reference: Patrick Breyer - Chat Control in 23 September 2024

Privacy Advocacy Groups

European Digital Rights (EDRi)

• Role: A network of civil and human rights organizations working to defend rights and freedoms in the digital environment.
• Position:
• Strong Opposition: EDRi argues that Chat Control is incompatible with fundamental rights.
• Awareness Campaigns: Engaging in public campaigns to inform citizens about the potential risks.
• Policy Engagement: Lobbying policymakers to consider alternative approaches that respect privacy.

Politicians and Activists

Patrick Breyer

• Background: A Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from Germany, representing the Pirate Party.
• Actions:
• Advocacy: Actively campaigning against Chat Control through speeches, articles, and legislative efforts.
• Public Outreach: Using social media and public events to raise awareness.
• Legal Expertise: Highlighting the legal inconsistencies and potential violations of EU law.

Global Reactions

International Organizations

• Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International: These organizations have expressed concerns about the implications for human rights, urging the EU to reconsider.

Technology Companies

• Global Tech Firms: Companies like Apple and Microsoft are monitoring the situation, as EU regulations could affect their operations and user trust.
• Industry Associations: Groups representing tech companies have issued statements highlighting the risks to innovation and competitiveness.

The Broader Debate

The controversy over Chat Control reflects a broader struggle between security interests and privacy rights in the digital age. Key points in the debate include:

• Legal Precedents: How the EU's decision might influence laws and regulations in other countries.
• Digital Sovereignty: The desire of nations to control digital spaces within their borders.
• Civil Liberties: The importance of protecting freedoms in the face of technological advancements.

Public Opinion

• Diverse Views: Surveys and public forums show a range of opinions, with some citizens prioritizing security and others valuing privacy above all.
• Awareness Levels: Many people are still unaware of the potential changes, highlighting the need for public education on the issue.

The EU is at a crossroads, facing the challenge of addressing legitimate security concerns without undermining the fundamental rights that are central to its values. The outcome of this debate will have significant implications for the future of digital privacy and the balance between security and freedom in society.

---

Possible Consequences for Messaging Services

The implementation of Chat Control could have significant implications for messaging services operating within the European Union. Both large platforms and smaller providers might need to adapt their technologies and policies to comply with the new regulations, potentially altering the landscape of digital communication.

Impact on Encrypted Messaging Services

Signal and Similar Platforms

• Compliance Challenges: Encrypted messaging services like Signal rely on end-to-end encryption to secure user communications. Complying with Chat Control could force them to weaken their encryption protocols or implement client-side scanning, conflicting with their core privacy principles.

• Operational Decisions: Some platforms may choose to limit their services in the EU or cease operations altogether rather than compromise on encryption. Signal, for instance, has indicated that it would prefer to withdraw from European markets than undermine its security features.

Potential Blocking or Limiting of Services

• Regulatory Enforcement: Messaging services that do not comply with Chat Control regulations could face fines, legal action, or even be blocked within the EU.

• Access Restrictions: Users in Europe might find certain services unavailable or limited in functionality if providers decide not to meet the regulatory requirements.

Effects on Smaller Providers

• Resource Constraints: Smaller messaging services and startups may lack the resources to implement the required scanning technologies, leading to increased operational costs or forcing them out of the market.

• Innovation Stifling: The added regulatory burden could deter new entrants, reducing competition and innovation in the messaging service sector.

User Experience and Trust

• Privacy Concerns: Users may lose trust in messaging platforms if they know their communications are subject to scanning, leading to a decline in user engagement.

• Migration to Unregulated Platforms: There is a risk that users might shift to less secure or unregulated services, including those operated outside the EU or on the dark web, potentially exposing them to greater risks.

Technical and Security Implications

• Increased Vulnerabilities: Modifying encryption protocols to comply with Chat Control could introduce security flaws, making platforms more susceptible to hacking and data breaches.

• Global Security Risks: Changes made to accommodate EU regulations might affect the global user base of these services, extending security risks beyond European borders.

Impact on Businesses and Professional Communications

• Confidentiality Issues: Businesses that rely on secure messaging for sensitive communications may face challenges in ensuring confidentiality, affecting sectors like finance, healthcare, and legal services.

• Compliance Complexity: Companies operating internationally will need to navigate a complex landscape of differing regulations, increasing administrative burdens.

Economic Consequences

• Market Fragmentation: Divergent regulations could lead to a fragmented market, with different versions of services for different regions.

• Loss of Revenue: Messaging services might experience reduced revenue due to decreased user trust and engagement or the costs associated with compliance.

Responses from Service Providers

• Legal Challenges: Companies might pursue legal action against the regulations, citing conflicts with privacy laws and user rights.

• Policy Advocacy: Service providers may increase lobbying efforts to influence policy decisions and promote alternatives to Chat Control.

Possible Adaptations

• Technological Innovation: Some providers might invest in developing new technologies that can detect illegal content without compromising encryption, though the feasibility remains uncertain.

• Transparency Measures: To maintain user trust, companies might enhance transparency about how data is handled and what measures are in place to protect privacy.

The potential consequences of Chat Control for messaging services are profound, affecting not only the companies that provide these services but also the users who rely on them daily. The balance between complying with legal requirements and maintaining user privacy and security presents a significant challenge that could reshape the digital communication landscape.

---

What Happens Next? The Future of Chat Control

The future of Chat Control remains uncertain as the debate continues among EU member states, policymakers, technology companies, and civil society organizations. Several factors will influence the outcome of this contentious proposal, each carrying significant implications for digital privacy, security, and the regulatory environment within the European Union.

Current Status of Legislation

• Ongoing Negotiations: The proposed Chat Control measures are still under discussion within the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Amendments and revisions are being considered in response to the feedback from various stakeholders.

• Timeline: While there is no fixed date for the final decision, the EU aims to reach a consensus to implement effective measures against online crime without undue delay.

Key Influencing Factors

1. Legal Challenges and Compliance with EU Law

• Fundamental Rights Assessment: The proposals must be evaluated against the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, ensuring that any measures comply with rights to privacy, data protection, and freedom of expression.

• Court Scrutiny: Potential legal challenges could arise, leading to scrutiny by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which may impact the feasibility and legality of Chat Control.

2. Technological Feasibility

• Development of Privacy-Preserving Technologies: Research into methods that can detect illegal content without compromising encryption is ongoing. Advances in this area could provide alternative solutions acceptable to both privacy advocates and security agencies.

• Implementation Challenges: The practical aspects of deploying scanning technologies across various platforms and services remain complex, and technical hurdles could delay or alter the proposed measures.

3. Political Dynamics

• Member State Positions: The differing stances of EU countries, such as Germany's opposition, play a significant role in shaping the final outcome. Consensus among member states is crucial for adopting EU-wide regulations.

• Public Opinion and Advocacy: Growing awareness and activism around digital privacy can influence policymakers. Public campaigns and lobbying efforts may sway decisions in favor of stronger privacy protections.

4. Industry Responses

• Negotiations with Service Providers: Ongoing dialogues between EU authorities and technology companies may lead to compromises or collaborative efforts to address concerns without fully implementing Chat Control as initially proposed.

• Potential for Self-Regulation: Messaging services might propose self-regulatory measures to combat illegal content, aiming to demonstrate effectiveness without the need for mandatory scanning.

Possible Scenarios

Optimistic Outcome:

• Balanced Regulation: A revised proposal emerges that effectively addresses security concerns while upholding strong encryption and privacy rights, possibly through innovative technologies or targeted measures with robust oversight.

Pessimistic Outcome:

• Adoption of Strict Measures: Chat Control is implemented as initially proposed, leading to weakened encryption, reduced privacy, and potential withdrawal of services like Signal from the EU market.

Middle Ground:

• Incremental Implementation: Partial measures are adopted, focusing on voluntary cooperation with service providers and emphasizing transparency and user consent, with ongoing evaluations to assess effectiveness and impact.

How to Stay Informed and Protect Your Privacy

• Follow Reputable Sources: Keep up with news from reliable outlets, official EU communications, and statements from privacy organizations to stay informed about developments.

• Engage in the Dialogue: Participate in public consultations, sign petitions, or contact representatives to express your views on Chat Control and digital privacy.

• Utilize Secure Practices: Regardless of legislative outcomes, adopting good digital hygiene—such as using strong passwords and being cautious with personal information—can enhance your online security.

The Global Perspective

• International Implications: The EU's decision may influence global policies on encryption and surveillance, setting precedents that other countries might follow or react against.

• Collaboration Opportunities: International cooperation on developing solutions that protect both security and privacy could emerge, fostering a more unified approach to addressing online threats.

Looking Ahead

The future of Chat Control is a critical issue that underscores the challenges of governing in the digital age. Balancing the need for security with the protection of fundamental rights is a complex task that requires careful consideration, open dialogue, and collaboration among all stakeholders.

As the situation evolves, staying informed and engaged is essential. The decisions made in the coming months will shape the digital landscape for years to come, affecting how we communicate, conduct business, and exercise our rights in an increasingly connected world.

---

Conclusion

The debate over Chat Control highlights a fundamental challenge in our increasingly digital world: how to protect society from genuine threats without eroding the very rights and freedoms that define it. While the intention to safeguard children and prevent crime is undeniably important, the means of achieving this through intrusive surveillance measures raise critical concerns.

Privacy is not just a personal preference but a cornerstone of democratic societies. End-to-end encryption has become an essential tool for ensuring that our personal conversations, professional communications, and sensitive data remain secure from unwanted intrusion. Weakening these protections could expose individuals and organizations to risks that far outweigh the proposed benefits.

The potential consequences of implementing Chat Control are far-reaching:

• Erosion of Trust: Users may lose confidence in digital platforms, impacting how we communicate and conduct business online.
• Security Vulnerabilities: Introducing backdoors or weakening encryption can make systems more susceptible to cyberattacks.
• Stifling Innovation: Regulatory burdens may hinder technological advancement and competitiveness in the tech industry.
• Global Implications: The EU's decisions could set precedents that influence digital policies worldwide, for better or worse.

As citizens, it's crucial to stay informed about these developments. Engage in conversations, reach out to your representatives, and advocate for solutions that respect both security needs and fundamental rights. Technology and policy can evolve together to address challenges without compromising core values.

The future of Chat Control is not yet decided, and public input can make a significant difference. By promoting open dialogue, supporting privacy-preserving innovations, and emphasizing the importance of human rights in legislation, we can work towards a digital landscape that is both safe and free.

In a world where digital communication is integral to daily life, striking the right balance between security and privacy is more important than ever. The choices made today will shape the digital environment for generations to come, determining not just how we communicate, but how we live and interact in an interconnected world.

---

Thank you for reading this article. We hope it has provided you with a clear understanding of Chat Control and its potential impact on your privacy and digital rights. Stay informed, stay engaged, and let's work together towards a secure and open digital future.

Read more:

• https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/
• https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/new-eu-push-for-chat-control-will-messenger-services-be-blocked-in-europe/
• https://edri.org/our-work/dutch-decision-puts-brakes-on-chat-control/
• https://signal.org/blog/pdfs/ndss-keynote.pdf
• https://tuta.com/blog/germany-stop-chat-control
• https://cointelegraph.com/news/signal-president-slams-revised-eu-encryption-proposal
• https://mullvad.net/en/why-privacy-matters

@ 4f170d8a:5e8ef636

The Vikings, renowned for their seafaring prowess, dominated the seas of Northern Europe from the late 8th to the early 11th century.

These fearless explorers ventured across vast oceans, reaching as far as North America, long before the age of modern navigation tools and centuries before the magnetic compass came to Europe. While their shipbuilding skills and knowledge of the stars were exceptional for their time, one of their most intriguing navigational aids was the mythical "sunstone."

This mysterious tool, steeped in both legend and science, is believed to have allowed Viking navigators to locate the sun even on cloudy days, ensuring they could maintain their course across the treacherous North Atlantic ocean.

The Challenge of Viking Navigation

Navigating the open sea in the Viking Age was no small feat. The North Atlantic, with its unpredictable weather, frequent fog, and overcast skies, posed significant challenges.

Traditional methods of navigation relied heavily on the sun and stars, but in a region where the sun could disappear behind clouds for days, the Vikings needed a reliable way to stay oriented.

While they were adept at reading natural signs such as the flight patterns of birds, the color of the sea, and the direction of the wind, the sunstone offered a more precise solution.

Historical accounts hint at the use of a "sunstone" by Viking navigators. One passage even describes a Viking king using a special stone to locate the sun’s position during a snowstorm. For centuries, this reference was dismissed as myth, but modern science has shed light on how such a tool could have worked, reviving interest in this ancient technique.

What Was the Sunstone?

The sunstone is believed to have been a naturally occurring crystal, most likely a type of calcite known as Iceland spar. Another candidate is tourmaline, which exhibits similar optical properties.

These crystals have a unique quality called birefringence, or double refraction, which causes them to split light into two polarized beams. When viewed through the crystal, the light’s polarization reveals patterns that can indicate the sun’s position, even when it’s obscured by clouds or fog.

The key to the sunstone’s effectiveness lies in the polarization of sunlight. As sunlight scatters through the atmosphere, it becomes polarized, creating an invisible pattern that radiates outward from the sun.

By rotating the sunstone and observing changes in the light passing through it, a skilled navigator could detect this pattern and pinpoint the sun’s location, regardless of whether it was visible to the naked eye.

How the Vikings Used the Sunstone

To use the sunstone, a Viking navigator would hold the crystal up to the sky and rotate it until the polarized light formed a specific pattern (often a brightening or darkening effect), depending on the stone.

Iceland spar, for instance, produces two distinct beams of light, and when these beams appear equally bright, the crystal is aligned with the sun’s position.

By marking this direction and combining it with their knowledge of time and the sun’s daily arc, the Vikings could determine their heading with remarkable accuracy.

This method was particularly useful during the long voyages across the North Atlantic, where overcast skies were common.

It complemented other techniques, such as using a sun compass, which was a wooden disk with a central pin that cast a shadow to indicate direction when the sun was visible.

On cloudy days, when the sun compass was useless, the sunstone stepped in as a critical backup.

Let's Build One

If you are anything like me, you don't have lumps of Iceland spar or tourmaline crystals laying about your back yard. So I decided to make one using modern materials.

Since the original crystals relied on polarization to achieve their effect, I ordered some linear polarized plastic film online which science teachers often use in classroom demonstrations.

Now the challenge became turning the linear polarization into radial polarization, and I chose to make an octagon out of suitably arranged triangles cut from the sheet.

The image below shows how I created a template on a scrap piece of paper, and then used that to cut triangles from a strip of the polarizing film.

The next step involves carefully placing the triangles onto some clear packing tape so that they stick into place.

I then carefully placed another piece of clear packing tape on top so that the octagon of triangles is permanently fastened into place.

Then with a blade, I trimmed the excess packing tape and the sunstone is complete.

Now to test it!

You can see here that I'm holding the sunstone up against a North facing window so that you can see how the different triangles make different colors depending on their angle to the incoming light from outside.

The light gray triangles indicate the direction of the sun even though the sun is behind the house. and it will work the same way on a cloudy day no matter which way you are facing.

Today, the sunstone captivates historians, scientists, and enthusiasts alike. It’s a reminder that ancient technologies, though simple by modern standards, were often remarkably effective.

The Vikings’ ability to traverse oceans with nothing more than a crystal and their wits speaks to their extraordinary skill.

The earth's magnetic field is rapidly weakening and the poles moving. There may come a day in the not too distant future where navigation by GPS or compass will not longer be possible.

The sunstone stands as a symbol of human curiosity and resilience, which may once again illuminate the path of those who dare to sail beyond the horizon.

@ 8cb60e21:5f2deaea

@ 000002de:c05780a7

This is an absolutely great conversation between an anarchist (Michael Malice) and a conservative (Marissa Steit). Many of you will agree with the answers Malice provides but many of you that often have questions about the idea of anarchism should listen to this.

Now, if you just wanna argue don't waste your time. But if you are genuinely curious Malice is a great communicator on the topic. There are many schools of thought on anarchism and Malice just represents his point of view but he knocks down many troupes that conservative republicans repeat.

While right wingers don't get how evil the state actually is they are closer to understanding than the left. They are also better at understanding people that disagree with them. In my experience leftist do not understand the right but the right does understand the left. Not fully but better. This helps. You can see it in this interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D43Xvom9hmw

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/918194

@ 599f67f7:21fb3ea9

LNDhub te permite importar fácilmente una billetera en aplicaciones compatibles. Si bien puedes guardar tu billetera Bitcoin Txoko LNbits en tu teléfono como una aplicación web progresiva (PWA), una aplicación nativa como Zeus o BlueWallet ofrece una mejor experiencia de usuario así como un mayor nivel de seguridad. Con Alby, también puedes importar la billetera a la extensión de tu navegador para facilitar los pagos Lightning en la web y para los zaps de Nostr. Por suerte para nosotros, todas estas billeteras hablan un lenguaje común llamado LNDhub.

En esta guía cubriremos cómo importar la billetera a tu navegador y a tu móvil. Si quieres usar tu billetera tanto en el navegador como en tu móvil, empieza con la configuración de Alby, ya que uno de los pasos te permitirá importar fácilmente tu billetera también a Zeus. Pero si sólo te interesa utilizar la billetera en tu móvil, puedes pasar directamente a la sección de Zeus.

Alby

nostr:nprofile1qqsyv47lazt9h6ycp2fsw270khje5egjgsrdkrupjg27u796g7f5k0s8jq7y6 es una extensión de navegador que lleva Lightning y Nostr a tu navegador. Utilizando el protocolo WebLN, esta extensión puede detectar facturas LN en paginas web y pagarlas, así como posibilita iniciar sesión en sitios web con Lightning. También puedes fijar presupuestos para tus sitios favoritos de Lightning. Por otro lado también puedes utilizarla para firmar en Nostr utilizando NIP-07, lo cual es mucho más seguro que ingresar tu clave privada en clientes web.

¿Qué necesito?

• Un navegador web que soporte extensiones Chrome o Firefox
• Acceso a tu billetera LNbits. Si todavía no tienes una billetera LNbits, dirígete a nuestra página de billeteras y crea una
• (Opcional) Un dispositivo móvil para configurar Zeus

1. Habilita la extensión LNDhub en tu LNbits wallet

Dirígete a tu billetera LNbits. Haz clic en Extensiones y habilita la extensión LNDhub. Una vez se haya habilitado, dirígete a la página de extensión de LNDhub.

2. Instala la extensión Alby

Dirígete a getalby.com y instala la extensión desde el store de extensiones del navegador. Configura tu contraseña de desbloqueo y guárdala en un lugar seguro.

3. Importar a Alby

(Esta es una billetera de prueba. No hay fondos en ella. ¡No muestres a nadie tu URI de exportación real!)

En la siguiente pantalla, elige Conectar y luego elige LNDhub. Vuelve a tu extensión LNDhub y copia la URL de conexión. Pégala en el campo URI de exportación de LNDhub. Pulsa continuar. ¡Ahora deberías haber estado conectado a tu billetera de LNbits con LNDhub!

💡 Puedes elegir entre la URL de la factura (Invoice URL) y la URL de administración (Admin URL). Le dan a Alby diferentes permisos para interactuar con tu cartera de LNbits.

• La URL de factura te permite crear facturas y recibir pagos
• La URL de administración también te permite enviar pagos

4. Configurar Zeus con Alby (opcional)

Ahora que ya has conectado tu LNbits con Alby, también puedes importarlo de una manera sencilla a Zeus con Alby. Abre la extensión, haz cilc en el nombre de tu billetera y navega a la configuración de la cuenta. En Wallet Settings > General se encuentra la opción de conectar tu billetera móvil. Al pulsar conectar, se mostrará un código QR para escanear desde Zeus.

Si no tienes instalada Zeus con anterioridad, dirígete a zeusln.app y descarga la aplicación de Zeus para tu sistema operativo móvil.

Una vez tengas descargado Zeus, entra en Configuración > Añadir un nuevo nodo. Aquí puedes escanear el código QR que te muestra Alby para importar la billetera.

Voilà! Ahora tienes el poder de Lightning al alcance de la mano ¿Ya te sientes como un dios?

Zeus

nostr:nprofile1qqsrf5h4ya83jk8u6t9jgc76h6kalz3plp9vusjpm2ygqgalqhxgp9g84ctjf es una formidable aplicación de código abierto que permite conectar tu propio nodo a tu dispositivo movil. Es compatible con todas las principales implementaciones de nodos Lightning, como LND, CLN y Eclair, así como conexiones a través de Tor y clearnet. Recientemente también han anunciado su propio LSP (Lightning Service Provider).

¿Qué necesito?

• Teléfono Android o iOS
• Otro dispositivo en el que puede acceder a tu billetera LNbits (para mostrar el código QR para escanear)
• Acceso a tu billetera LNbits. Si todavía no tienes una billetera LNbits, dirígete a nuestra página de billeteras y crea una

1. Descarga Zeus

Puedes descargar la aplicación Zeus para tu sistema operativo aquí.

2. Habilita la extensión LNDhub en tu billetera LNbits

Dirígete a tu billetera LNbits. Haz clic en Extensiones y habilita la extensión LNDhub. Una vez habilitada, abre la pagina de la extensión LNDhub.

3. Importar a Zeus

Ve a Configuración > Añadir un nuevo nodo en Zeus.

Escanea la cartera que quieras instalar.

💡 Puedes elegir entre la URL de la factura (Invoice URL) y la URL de administración (Admin URL). - La URL de la factura te da permiso para generar facturas y recibir pagos. - La URL de administración también te permite enviar pagos.

Una vez que hayas escaneado el código QR, todos los campos en Zeus deberían rellenarse automáticamente. También puedes añadir un apodo para tu billetera.

¡Ahora puedes guardar la configuración del nodo y controlar la billetera desde tu teléfono!

Extra

Zeus también ofrece funciones interesantes como temas personalizados, conversiones de precios, modo acechador y verificación biométrica. Estos temas están más allá del alcance de esta guía, ¡juega en la aplicación y descubre todas esas características por ti mismo!

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 7bc05901:8c26d22b

I grew up far out of town in a nice neighborhood. My family had ten acres, but we didn't work the land. My mom had a kitchen garden with some tomatoes and herbs, and we had a few fruiting trees that were a far cry from an orchard.

I liked many things, like the massive off-rad go-kart track that we built through the backyard turning crabgrass into mud and the fact that the fourth of july was an entire week of pyrotechnics. But I was a social kid and hated being so disconnected from the town. We also could not get any high-speed internet out there until a few years into the new millennium, which meant MSN Messenger would put the dial-up at max capacity. This also cut against my exploratory instincts and social nature.

I am grateful I now live in town, but since having my first kid the homesteading life is calling out to me. I find myself scrolling zillow for houses just outside of the city limits with at least five or six acres. Now that the seasons are finally changing, I can stop scrolling and start investing my time in the backyard.

One important move to make in my mini-homestead (suburban homestead) is getting my chickens caged up better. I have a small coop where they lay eggs for me, but it is so confining that I had to let them out to wander the backyard -- which is surrounded by a privacy fence anyway. This kept them contained, but over the last year since I got the chickens, I realized that I hated just going out back to chill on the patio because chicken shit just covered everything. Over the last week, I have been erecting a bigger coop where the chickens can help me compost all the kitchen scraps, also have access to their coop (and easy access for me to get eggs) but I don't have to dodge their humongous turd piles all over the patio.

They also would tear the hell out of the garden. They like to take "dirt baths" which has something to do with deterring the mites that get on them, and they will just dig down into any soft soil, destroying plants or roots or whatever is in their way.

We had a decent garden last year, but it was disorganized and messy and did not maximize the food production. I kept saying, no big deal, let's take a year to get oriented, see what grows well out here, see what we enjoy growing and eating.

My daughter loves it. She would be covered in tomato seeds last year -- she had a confusing affinity for the unripened green tomatoes (which probably have some sort of cyanide or something in them). I think by the end of the season she was catching on that the reddest ones had the best flavor.

We also have a raspberry patch that she absolutely adored. She would dig through those bushes to find tasty raspberries that would terrify me when she inhaled them. I was sure that I would be doing the baby heimlich on her! I am glad that she learned, before she could even articulate words, that her sustenance comes magically out of the soil. She has the rest of her life to ponder how exactly that works and who might be behind it, but until then, she will feast.

My buddy Richie preached my wedding and said that the bible begins in a garden and ends in a garden. I plan to spend the time in between in a garden as well.

@ 8cb60e21:5f2deaea

@ 8cb60e21:5f2deaea

@ 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.

@ 8cb60e21:5f2deaea

@ 592295cf:413a0db9

[07/10 week]

Thinking about it, even the protocol is a cathedral, Rabble in the speech in Riga on Bluesky.

He said the protocol is a bazaar. But you have to converge on the scheme in the NIPs or between Apps.

NIPs for example are like Luther's 95 theses, but they change continuously and adapt, but they always remain those 95.

Maybe that Pr on theother curve keys could lead to saying this is "nostr" these others are similar. Creating more points, but I just think it would have led to endless diatribes.

What will be of the protocol and who knows. He can do everything or maybe nothing and from tomorrow we will see and it will be, it will be what it will be. Italian Song

Notifications with nostter are not hidden, they are in your feed and this is good, you always know if someone has searched for you. While in the others you do not know.

---

I saw a sliver of light pass by it was Unanimity.

It's a very stupid idea, it takes a long time. it's basically a community + channel, where you post the channel in the community and start talking about that topic in the channel. The channel is an approved message. I made musicbook channel, it's the collection of albums released on Friday. The idea of ​​also making a blogger channel, where to put long-form articles.

Following nostr trending on Openvibe social, with a new profile, the Lost One, sad, in this One follow fiatjaf, means I won't bother him anymore . Now I follow 62 profiles, it's an account that I will use to read the notes of the top profiles. Curious if this number will grow enormously or is there a spectre.

The strength of the protocol is the developers if they collaborate together, otherwise it can still work, everyone goes their own way, but it's like saying I want to make my own fence.

One who in his long form doing an analysis of the various social networks. npub19mq9swna4dkhlm3jaux4yhgv5kjj556lkfhv3qnjtyh0kcljph6s88e295 Nostr is all based on Bitcoin. The difficult thing is Bitcoin not Nostr and he says so.

Controversies are useful, or my doubts, but maybe people who can't write code don't understand much, the so-called end users. No one is an end user at this time. The end user doesn't care about the person behind it, only having their own service, if the service is good they also do promotion, they become sponsors. We have seen in recent months sponsoring a Nostr app, result a small attack can damage that app. But the strength of having all these apps is that the other app doesn't have that problem. Spam attack example. The problem is that you can't sponsor an ecosystem, so it becomes difficult to suggest 10 apps to download. The best 10 apps of Nostr and the other 100, there is no easy way out. It's a bit like proposing a new place in NY, then everyone goes to that place and it loses a bit. What the sponsor must understand is that Nostr has only one "one shot".

I saw a video on Nostr of two people posting content on social media, making a review. Not bad, compared to the previous video, that Nostr doesn't even have a token. It doesn't give me a sign up. The main feature they say is a platform or at least they reviewed damus, damus for Bitcoin maxi. And so Nostr is populated by people who Number go up, only fiat thought they would say on Nostr. It's true in part there are those obsessed, even the non-obsessed are obsessed.

How nice it would be to call them NPs Nostr protocol specification, today supertestnet called them that. (the nice thing is that they are pronounced the same way).

@ 6a6be47b:3e74e3e1

Hi frens, 🎨 While painting today, my mind wandered from my latest blog entryto future artistic endeavors.I've been open about my feelings as an artist, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. I realized I haven't properly introduced myself here, so let me remedy that. 🖼️Art has been my lifelong passion. Nostr and its wonderful community have reignited my belief in my work, showing me that art can be both enlightening and potentially profitable. I'm truly grateful for the warm welcome and positive vibes I've encountered here. 🦋Nostr made me feel confident enough to speak my mind on a social platform (or should I say protocol? 😉). Some fun facts about me: 🐹 I'm a "golly jolly" kind of gal who's always curious about the world and seeking answers. 🐹I'm a sunscreen enthusiast in summer (but in winter, I'm buried under so many layers, I practically double in size!) 🐹Birdwatching is a hobby of mine. I've researched and painted some cool birds like shoebills and bearded vultures. (Any suggestions for my next avian subject?) 🩷I'm truly happy to be here and grateful for each day. My goal is to spread joy through my art and interactions. Thanks for being part of this journey with me! In your personal experience, how has it been discovering Nostr wether you're an artist or not? What's you favorite part of your journey so far? Godspeed 🚀

@ 0dc2dcb1:4787801a

https://ccns.nostrver.se is a (Drupal powered) website that I started to build in January 2024 (source on Github and Gitlab). It's a fork of an earlier (abandoned) project https://cchs.social/.
Currently CCNS is a link aggregration website and for now it's only my who is using it to save and share Nostr related links. When you post a new link, you have the option to cross-post it as a Nostr note (example here).

Kind 39700

Last month Jurjen and Abir have started to work on a social bookmark client built with Nostr (inspired by Del.icio.us from the past). Earlier this month they changed to event kind 39700 for broadcasting the Nostr event with the bookmark / link data accross the network. They did this because Sep already created a social bookmark like client called Pinja when fiatjaf raised this idea.

With these developments to me it was very obvious to integrate the feature that new created CCNS links are now also published as kind 39700 events to the Nostr network. This means that links are now also distributed on multiple relays as kind 39700 events and are accessible in multiple clients (Yumyume and Pinja).

Here you can see the same data, from left to right:

• CCNS
• Pinja
• Yumyume
• njump

Structure

The current data structure for the 39700 kind looks as follow:

• "id": "event_id"
• "pubkey": "pubkey author"
• "created_at": unix_timestamp
• "kind": 39700
• "tags":
  • "description", "description text here"
  • "d", "unique-slug-value"
  • "t", "hashtag"
• "content": "https://book_mark_url"  
• "sig": "signature"

As there is no NIP (yet) for this event kind, I see some possible improvements:

• Use the bookmark URL value in the d tag so it can be used as a unique identifier for every client
• Use the content field for the description value

On short-term I don't have any plans to developer CCNS further, as most of my attention goes to the development of the Nostr-PHP library and Drupal related contribs using that library. That said, CCNS is a Drupal project but all the Nostr stuff is done client-side (Javascript) with NDK and Nostr-PHP is not used (maybe this will change in the future).

@ 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!

@ 47750177:8969e41a

28.0 Release Notes

Bitcoin Core version 28.0 is now available from:

• 🌐 https://bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-core-28.0/
• 🧲

This release includes new features, various bug fixes and performance improvements, as well as updated translations.

Please report bugs using the issue tracker at GitHub:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues

To receive security and update notifications, please subscribe to:

https://bitcoincore.org/en/list/announcements/join/

How to Upgrade

If you are running an older version, shut it down. Wait until it has completely shut down (which might take a few minutes in some cases), then run the installer (on Windows) or just copy over /Applications/Bitcoin-Qt (on macOS) or bitcoind/bitcoin-qt (on Linux).

Upgrading directly from a version of Bitcoin Core that has reached its EOL is possible, but it might take some time if the data directory needs to be migrated. Old wallet versions of Bitcoin Core are generally supported.

Running Bitcoin Core binaries on macOS requires self signing. cd /path/to/bitcoin-28.0/bin xattr -d com.apple.quarantine bitcoin-cli bitcoin-qt bitcoin-tx bitcoin-util bitcoin-wallet bitcoind test_bitcoin codesign -s - bitcoin-cli bitcoin-qt bitcoin-tx bitcoin-util bitcoin-wallet bitcoind test_bitcoin

Compatibility

Bitcoin Core is supported and extensively tested on operating systems using the Linux Kernel 3.17+, macOS 11.0+, and Windows 7 and newer. Bitcoin Core should also work on most other UNIX-like systems but is not as frequently tested on them. It is not recommended to use Bitcoin Core on unsupported systems.

Notable changes

Testnet4/BIP94 support

Support for Testnet4 as specified in BIP94 has been added. The network can be selected with the -testnet4 option and the section header is also named [testnet4].

While the intention is to phase out support for Testnet3 in an upcoming version, support for it is still available via the known options in this release. (#29775)

Windows Data Directory

The default data directory on Windows has been moved from C:\Users\Username\AppData\Roaming\Bitcoin to C:\Users\Username\AppData\Local\Bitcoin. Bitcoin Core will check the existence of the old directory first and continue to use that directory for backwards compatibility if it is present. (#27064)

JSON-RPC 2.0 Support

The JSON-RPC server now recognizes JSON-RPC 2.0 requests and responds with strict adherence to the specification. See JSON-RPC-interface.md for details. (#27101)

JSON-RPC clients may need to be updated to be compatible with the JSON-RPC server. Please open an issue on GitHub if any compatibility issues are found.

libbitcoinconsensus Removal

The libbitcoin-consensus library was deprecated in 27.0 and is now completely removed. (#29648)

P2P and Network Changes

• Previously if Bitcoin Core was listening for P2P connections, either using default settings or via bind=addr:port it would always also bind to 127.0.0.1:8334 to listen for Tor connections. It was not possible to switch this off, even if the node didn't use Tor. This has been changed and now bind=addr:port results in binding on addr:port only. The default behavior of binding to 0.0.0.0:8333 and 127.0.0.1:8334 has not been changed.

If you are using a bind=... configuration without bind=...=onion and rely on the previous implied behavior to accept incoming Tor connections at 127.0.0.1:8334, you need to now make this explicit by using bind=... bind=127.0.0.1:8334=onion. (#22729)

• Bitcoin Core will now fail to start up if any of its P2P binds fail, rather than the previous behaviour where it would only abort startup if all P2P binds had failed. (#22729)

• UNIX domain sockets can now be used for proxy connections. Set -onion or -proxy to the local socket path with the prefix unix: (e.g. -onion=unix:/home/me/torsocket). (#27375)

• UNIX socket paths are now accepted for -zmqpubrawblock and -zmqpubrawtx with the format -zmqpubrawtx=unix:/path/to/file (#27679)

• Additional "in" and "out" flags have been added to -whitelist to control whether permissions apply to inbound connections and/or manual ones (default: inbound only). (#27114)

• Transactions having a feerate that is too low will be opportunistically paired with their child transactions and submitted as a package, thus enabling the node to download 1-parent-1-child packages using the existing transaction relay protocol. Combined with other mempool policies, this change allows limited "package relay" when a parent transaction is below the mempool minimum feerate. Topologically Restricted Until Confirmation (TRUC) parents are additionally allowed to be below the minimum relay feerate (i.e., pay 0 fees). Use the submitpackage RPC to submit packages directly to the node. Warning: this P2P feature is limited (unlike the submitpackage interface, a child with multiple unconfirmed parents is not supported) and not yet reliable under adversarial conditions. (#28970)

Mempool Policy Changes

• Transactions with version number set to 3 are now treated as standard on all networks (#29496), subject to opt-in Topologically Restricted Until Confirmation (TRUC) transaction policy as described in BIP 431. The policy includes limits on spending unconfirmed outputs (#28948), eviction of a previous descendant if a more incentive-compatible one is submitted (#29306), and a maximum transaction size of 10,000vB (#29873). These restrictions simplify the assessment of incentive compatibility of accepting or replacing TRUC transactions, thus ensuring any replacements are more profitable for the node and making fee-bumping more reliable.

• Pay To Anchor (P2A) is a new standard witness output type for spending, a newly recognised output template. This allows for key-less anchor outputs, with compact spending conditions for additional efficiencies on top of an equivalent sh(OP_TRUE) output, in addition to the txid stability of the spending transaction. N.B. propagation of this output spending on the network will be limited until a sufficient number of nodes on the network adopt this upgrade. (#30352)

• Limited package RBF is now enabled, where the proposed conflicting package would result in a connected component, aka cluster, of size 2 in the mempool. All clusters being conflicted against must be of size 2 or lower. (#28984)

• The default value of the -mempoolfullrbf configuration option has been changed from 0 to 1, i.e. mempoolfullrbf=1. (#30493)

Updated RPCs

• The dumptxoutset RPC now returns the UTXO set dump in a new and improved format. Correspondingly, the loadtxoutset RPC now expects this new format in the dumps it tries to load. Dumps with the old format are no longer supported and need to be recreated using the new format to be usable. (#29612)

• AssumeUTXO mainnet parameters have been added for height 840,000. This means the loadtxoutset RPC can now be used on mainnet with the matching UTXO set from that height. (#28553)

• The warnings field in getblockchaininfo, getmininginfo and getnetworkinfo now returns all the active node warnings as an array of strings, instead of a single warning. The current behaviour can be temporarily restored by running Bitcoin Core with the configuration option -deprecatedrpc=warnings. (#29845)

• Previously when using the sendrawtransaction RPC and specifying outputs that are already in the UTXO set, an RPC error code of -27 with the message "Transaction already in block chain" was returned in response. The error message has been changed to "Transaction outputs already in utxo set" to more accurately describe the source of the issue. (#30212)

• The default mode for the estimatesmartfee RPC has been updated from conservative to economical, which is expected to reduce over-estimation for many users, particularly if Replace-by-Fee is an option. For users that require high confidence in their fee estimates at the cost of potentially over-estimating, the conservative mode remains available. (#30275)

• RPC scantxoutset now returns 2 new fields in the "unspents" JSON array: blockhash and confirmations. See the scantxoutset help for details. (#30515)

• RPC submitpackage now allows 2 new arguments to be passed: maxfeerate and maxburnamount. See the subtmitpackage help for details. (#28950)

Changes to wallet-related RPCs can be found in the Wallet section below.

Updated REST APIs

• Parameter validation for /rest/getutxos has been improved by rejecting truncated or overly large txids and malformed outpoint indices via raising an HTTP_BAD_REQUEST "Parse error". These requests were previously handled silently. (#30482, #30444)

Build System

• GCC 11.1 or later, or Clang 16.0 or later, are now required to compile Bitcoin Core. (#29091, #30263)

• The minimum required glibc to run Bitcoin Core is now 2.31. This means that RHEL 8 and Ubuntu 18.04 (Bionic) are no-longer supported. (#29987)

• --enable-lcov-branch-coverage has been removed, given incompatibilities between lcov version 1 & 2. LCOV_OPTS should be used to set any options instead. (#30192)

Updated Settings

• When running with -alertnotify, an alert can now be raised multiple times instead of just once. Previously, it was only raised when unknown new consensus rules were activated. Its scope has now been increased to include all kernel warnings. Specifically, alerts will now also be raised when an invalid chain with a large amount of work has been detected. Additional warnings may be added in the future. (#30058)

Changes to GUI or wallet related settings can be found in the GUI or Wallet section below.

Wallet

• The wallet now detects when wallet transactions conflict with the mempool. Mempool-conflicting transactions can be seen in the "mempoolconflicts" field of gettransaction. The inputs of mempool-conflicted transactions can now be respent without manually abandoning the transactions when the parent transaction is dropped from the mempool, which can cause wallet balances to appear higher. (#27307)

• A new max_tx_weight option has been added to the RPCs fundrawtransaction, walletcreatefundedpsbt, and send. It specifies the maximum transaction weight. If the limit is exceeded during funding, the transaction will not be built. The default value is 4,000,000 WU. (#29523)

• A new createwalletdescriptor RPC allows users to add new automatically generated descriptors to their wallet. This can be used to upgrade wallets created prior to the introduction of a new standard descriptor, such as taproot. (#29130)

• A new RPC gethdkeys lists all of the BIP32 HD keys in use by all of the descriptors in the wallet. These keys can be used in conjunction with createwalletdescriptor to create and add single key descriptors to the wallet for a particular key that the wallet already knows. (#29130)

• The sendall RPC can now spend unconfirmed change and will include additional fees as necessary for the resulting transaction to bump the unconfirmed transactions' feerates to the specified feerate. (#28979)

• In RPC bumpfee, if a fee_rate is specified, the feerate is no longer restricted to following the wallet's incremental feerate of 5 sat/vb. The feerate must still be at least the sum of the original fee and the mempool's incremental feerate. (#27969)

GUI Changes

• The "Migrate Wallet" menu allows users to migrate any legacy wallet in their wallet directory, regardless of the wallets loaded. (gui#824)

• The "Information" window now displays the maximum mempool size along with the mempool usage. (gui#825)

Low-level Changes

Tests

• The BIP94 timewarp attack mitigation is now active on the regtest network. (#30681)

• A new -testdatadir option has been added to test_bitcoin to allow specifying the location of unit test data directories. (#26564)

Blockstorage

• Block files are now XOR'd by default with a key stored in the blocksdir. Previous releases of Bitcoin Core or previous external software will not be able to read the blocksdir with a non-zero XOR-key. Refer to the -blocksxor help for more details. (#28052)

Chainstate

• The chainstate database flushes that occur when blocks are pruned will no longer empty the database cache. The cache will remain populated longer, which significantly reduces the time for initial block download to complete. (#28280)

Dependencies

• The dependency on Boost.Process has been replaced with cpp-subprocess, which is contained in source. Builders will no longer need Boost.Process to build with external signer support. (#28981)

Credits

Thanks to everyone who directly contributed to this release: - 0xb10c - Alfonso Roman Zubeldia - Andrew Toth - AngusP - Anthony Towns - Antoine Poinsot - Anton A - Ava Chow - Ayush Singh - Ben Westgate - Brandon Odiwuor - brunoerg - bstin - Charlie - Christopher Bergqvist - Cory Fields - crazeteam - Daniela Brozzoni - David Gumberg - dergoegge - Edil Medeiros - Epic Curious - Fabian Jahr - fanquake - furszy - glozow - Greg Sanders - hanmz - Hennadii Stepanov - Hernan Marino - Hodlinator - ishaanam - ismaelsadeeq - Jadi - Jon Atack - josibake - jrakibi - kevkevin - kevkevinpal - Konstantin Akimov - laanwj - Larry Ruane - Lőrinc - Luis Schwab - Luke Dashjr - MarcoFalke - marcofleon - Marnix - Martin Saposnic - Martin Zumsande - Matt Corallo - Matthew Zipkin - Matt Whitlock - Max Edwards - Michael Dietz - Murch - nanlour - pablomartin4btc - Peter Todd - Pieter Wuille - @RandyMcMillan - RoboSchmied - Roman Zeyde - Ryan Ofsky - Sebastian Falbesoner - Sergi Delgado Segura - Sjors Provoost - spicyzboss - StevenMia - stickies-v - stratospher - Suhas Daftuar - sunerok - tdb3 - TheCharlatan - umiumi - Vasil Dimov - virtu - willcl-ark

As well as to everyone that helped with translations on Transifex.

@ 000002de:c05780a7

Hang with me here. The title is a bit tongue in cheek but only a little bit. I doubt I'm alone in this but over the last few years at least a few times a week I will hear some conversation about inflation. The costs of whatever going up! A few years ago I realized that 99.9% of the time people are referring to price inflation not inflation. I've written about that on SN before. The short version is that classically inflation referred to an increase in the supply of money in circulation. Price increases are an effect of inflation. Not inflation. Inflation is the cause. Price increases are the effect. But, in practice when people talk about inflation they are really talking about prices of goods going up. Technically this would be referred to as price inflation. As I continue I will use the common term in the common way. I will refer to price inflation as just... inflation.

Now for therapy time. My lovely wife understands this topic. She's not a nerd about it like I am but she gets it. She works in a field where inflation is a massive factor. Real Estate. I often listen to Real Estate shows with her. Podcasts and radio shows. A while back I sat through a 45 minute show where the experts talked about prices and the reasons why property prices have increased so dramatically over the last 5 years. They literally talked about ever factor expect the most obvious one. The money supply has increased over 40% in the last 5 years. I swear my head feels like its going to explode.

I remember listening to Trump's debate with Biden when he talked about inflation and proceeded to blame the entire problem on Biden. I told my wife, dude presided over the largest money supply increase in history and is blaming Biden for inflation... its just too much.

When we watch an old movie or TV show I always point on the price of goods. Sometimes I go to the FED site and look at charts. I always find, yeah... pretty much lines up with the money supply. Once you see it, and get it the signs are everywhere. You can't unsee it. But, unless you are on Nostr or SN you will not hear anyone with any significant audience talk about monetary inflation. Inflation is always the fault of either government spending or corporate greed.

Government spending can expand the money supply and lead to price inflation of course but to me that is harder to see and prove. At least it can be said to be a factor. The low IQ answer of "corporate greed" is generally only coming from progressives. I say, low IQ because OBVIOUSLY corporate greed is ALWAYS a factor. Calling that an explanation for inflation is like blaming gravity for a plane crash.

So, our little support group here is an outlet where like-minded people can rant and rave and get it out of their system. Maybe we will reach some lost soul that looks at the world and thinks... yeah what they say on TV sounds like BS. There has to be another explanation.

So, do you identify with me? Do you actually hear people in the wild that get it? Or are you subjected to people just repeating the tired old explanations given by the suits on TV and politicians that NEVER bring up the bankers and their organization that curses us to live in the inflationary world where our only rescue is gambling on stocks, or real estate.

Thankfully we have bitcoin. Thankfully we have freedom tech and we can learn how the world works for ourselves. If Stacker.news is just a support group, its worth it to me. How do you feel about it?

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/918116

@ 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

@ 592295cf:413a0db9

Week 30th September

Wiki article on the topic. [sPhil] (https://sphil.xyz/) Religion politics philosophy history are critical. They are not objective things.

Week of updates for protocol apps, including Gossip, coracle app, nostrmo, nostur and many others.

Kind7 Tags: K, emoji,a,others Others threads multi people

---

Show likes as kind 1 This person liked this post. Or this post has three likes in your timeline. The likes I don't know in your timeline really interest you.

---

The first book is the bible... Word of Alexandria.

I added cyberspace to the difficult things of the protocol ultra brain things. Low brain, middle brain, top brain, ultra.

Some alphaama codes .AA u login .AA q stuff .AA q run b .AA q run f .AA q close f

high things of alphaama nostr:nevent1qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq32amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7tcqyqlqu2vwpwax7dj420e75yws7g7vyua9e245c0x73c056gunxchluey4q99

---

Comment: nostr:nevent1qqs8pn0zzhgk5l2raqh736rj3ckm48pfl6r7m72rnz2r2p7lzgmx20gzyqduwzspfzelx9k6x0lrez0j8cl8rtz0lxvqylk8z2ustnfy76jpzqcyqqqqqqgpramhxue69uhkummnw3ezuetfde6kuer6wasku7nfvuh8xurpvdjsjt5rvu

---

You have to get to the point where you have your community relay. But you have to go down the rabbit hole of relays. General, search, local, inbox outbox, cache. Etc until you get to community relay that is being talked about these days because of NIP 29 "Relay-based Groups". In the end you have to have that table with the various types of relays clearly in your mind. If the user doesn't think about it, who should think about it, who? if I choose the relays?

---

NIP-100 the world to make community for me. NIP-28 + NIP-72. So you have some structure interoperability with kind1. But the Channel is another kind. You arrange the various channels in the community. No posts need to be approved.

It's useless Protocol users are becoming more reddit users or so. I don't want to deal with these people.

@ 7d33ba57:1b82db35

Arucas

Arucas is a charming town in northern Gran Canaria, known for its **neo-Gothic cathedral, banana plantations, and famous rum distillery. With its volcanic stone architecture, lush gardens, and local delicacies, Arucas is a must-visit for culture and nature lovers.

🏛️ Top Things to See & Do in Arucas

1️⃣ Church of San Juan Bautista (Arucas Cathedral)

A stunning neo-Gothic masterpiece built from local volcanic stone. Its intricate façade and towering spires make it one of the most beautiful churches in the Canary Islands.

2️⃣ Arehucas Rum Distillery

Visit the oldest rum distillery in the Canary Islands and taste the famous Arehucas rum, aged in oak barrels and enjoyed worldwide.

3️⃣ Arucas Historic Old Town

Walk through cobblestone streets lined with colorful colonial houses and charming plazas. The town’s historic center has a unique Canarian feel.

4️⃣ Jardines de la Marquesa (Marquesa Gardens)

A beautiful botanical garden with over 500 exotic plant species, perfect for a peaceful stroll.

5️⃣ Montaña de Arucas Viewpoint

A short hike or drive up this volcanic hill offers panoramic views of Arucas, the coast, and Las Palmas in the distance.

🍽️ What to Eat in Arucas

• Papas arrugadas con mojo – Wrinkly potatoes with red & green sauces 🥔
• Queso de Flor – A special local cheese made with thistle flower 🧀
• Bienmesabe – A traditional almond dessert 🍯
• Arehucas Rum – Enjoy it neat or in cocktails 🥃

🚗 How to Get to Arucas

🚗 By Car: ~15 min drive from Las Palmas
🚌 By Bus: Direct routes from Las Palmas (Lines 205 & 206)

💡 Tips for Visiting Arucas

✅ Best time to visit? Spring & autumn for mild weather 🌞
✅ Try a rum tour! The Arehucas distillery is one of the best experiences 🍹
✅ Explore nearby – Combine your trip with Firgas or Teror, two other beautiful towns nearby

@ b2d670de:907f9d4a

onion-service-nostr-relays

A list of nostr relays exposed as onion services.

The list

| Relay name | Description | Onion url | Operator | Payment URL | Payment options | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | nostr.oxtr.dev | Same relay as clearnet relay nostr.oxtr.dev | ws://oxtrdevav64z64yb7x6rjg4ntzqjhedm5b5zjqulugknhzr46ny2qbad.onion | operator | N/A | N/A | | relay.snort.social | Same relay as clearnet relay relay.snort.social | wss://skzzn6cimfdv5e2phjc4yr5v7ikbxtn5f7dkwn5c7v47tduzlbosqmqd.onion | operator | N/A | N/A | | nostr.thesamecat.io | Same relay as clearnet relay nostr.thesamecat.io | ws://2jsnlhfnelig5acq6iacydmzdbdmg7xwunm4xl6qwbvzacw4lwrjmlyd.onion | operator | N/A | N/A | | nostr.land | The nostr.land paid relay (same as clearnet) | ws://nostrland2gdw7g3y77ctftovvil76vquipymo7tsctlxpiwknevzfid.onion | operator | Payment URL | BTC LN | | bitcoiner.social | No auth required, currently | ws://bitcoinr6de5lkvx4tpwdmzrdfdpla5sya2afwpcabjup2xpi5dulbad.onion | operator | N/A | N/A | | relay.westernbtc.com | The westernbtc.com paid relay | ws://westbtcebhgi4ilxxziefho6bqu5lqwa5ncfjefnfebbhx2cwqx5knyd.onion | operator | Payment URL | BTC LN | | freelay.sovbit.host | Free relay for sovbit.host | ws://sovbitm2enxfr5ot6qscwy5ermdffbqscy66wirkbsigvcshumyzbbqd.onion | operator | N/A | N/A | | nostr.sovbit.host | Paid relay for sovbit.host | ws://sovbitgz5uqyh7jwcsudq4sspxlj4kbnurvd3xarkkx2use3k6rlibqd.onion | operator | N/A | N/A | | nostr.wine | 🍷 nostr.wine relay | ws://nostrwinemdptvqukjttinajfeedhf46hfd5bz2aj2q5uwp7zros3nad.onion | operator | Payment URL | BTC LN, BTC, Credit Card/CashApp (Stripe) | | inbox.nostr.wine | 🍷 inbox.nostr.wine relay | ws://wineinboxkayswlofkugkjwhoyi744qvlzdxlmdvwe7cei2xxy4gc6ad.onion | operator | Payment URL | BTC LN, BTC | | filter.nostr.wine | 🍷 filter.nostr.wine proxy relay | ws://winefiltermhqixxzmnzxhrmaufpnfq3rmjcl6ei45iy4aidrngpsyid.onion | operator | Payment URL | BTC LN, BTC | | N/A | N/A | ws://pzfw4uteha62iwkzm3lycabk4pbtcr67cg5ymp5i3xwrpt3t24m6tzad.onion:81 | operator | N/A | N/A | | nostr.fractalized.net | Free relay for fractalized.net | ws://xvgox2zzo7cfxcjrd2llrkthvjs5t7efoalu34s6lmkqhvzvrms6ipyd.onion | operator | N/A | N/A | | nfrelay.app | nfrelay.app aggregator relay (nostr-filter-relay) | ws://nfrelay6saohkmipikquvrn6d64dzxivhmcdcj4d5i7wxis47xwsriyd.onion | operator | N/A | N/A | relay.nostr.net | Public relay from nostr.net (Same as clearnet) | ws://nostrnetl6yd5whkldj3vqsxyyaq3tkuspy23a3qgx7cdepb4564qgqd.onion | operator | N/A | N/A | | nerostrator | Free to read, pay XMR to relay | ws://nerostrrgb5fhj6dnzhjbgmnkpy2berdlczh6tuh2jsqrjok3j4zoxid.onion | operator |Payment URL | XMR | | nostr.girino.org | Public relay from nostr.girino.org | ws://gnostr2jnapk72mnagq3cuykfon73temzp77hcbncn4silgt77boruid.onion | operator | N/A | N/A | | wot.girino.org | WoT relay from wot.girino.org | ws://girwot2koy3kvj6fk7oseoqazp5vwbeawocb3m27jcqtah65f2fkl3yd.onion | operator | N/A | N/A | | haven.girino.org/{outbox, inbox, chat, private} | Haven smart relay from haven.girino.org | ws://ghaven2hi3qn2riitw7ymaztdpztrvmm337e2pgkacfh3rnscaoxjoad.onion/{outbox, inbox, chat, private} | operator | N/A | N/A | | relay.nostpy.lol | Free Web of Trust relay (Same as clearnet) | ws://pemgkkqjqjde7y2emc2hpxocexugbixp42o4zymznil6zfegx5nfp4id.onion | operator |N/A | N/A | | Poster.place Nostr Relay | N/A | ws://dmw5wbawyovz7fcahvguwkw4sknsqsalffwctioeoqkvvy7ygjbcuoad.onion | operator | N/A | N/A | | Azzamo Relay | Azzamo Premium Nostr relay. (paid) | ws://q6a7m5qkyonzb5fk5yv4jyu3ar44hqedn7wjopg737lit2ckkhx2nyid.onion | operator | Payment URL | BTC LN | | Azzamo Inbox Relay | Azzamo Group and Private message relay. (Freemium) | ws://gp5kiwqfw7t2fwb3rfts2aekoph4x7pj5pv65re2y6hzaujsxewanbqd.onion | operator | Payment URL | BTC LN | | Noderunners Relay | The official Noderunners Nostr Relay. | ws://35vr3xigzjv2xyzfyif6o2gksmkioppy4rmwag7d4bqmwuccs2u4jaid.onion | operator | Payment URL | BTC LN |

Contributing

Contributions are encouraged to keep this document alive. Just open a PR and I'll have it tested and merged. The onion URL is the only mandatory column, the rest is just nice-to-have metadata about the relay. Put N/A in empty columns.

If you want to contribute anonymously, please contact me on SimpleX or send a DM on nostr using a disposable npub.

Operator column

It is generally preferred to use something that includes a NIP-19 string, either just the string or a url that contains the NIP-19 string in it (e.g. an njump url).

@ 8cb60e21:5f2deaea

hello world