@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Introduction

Nutsax is a capability-based access control system for Nostr relays, designed to provide flexible, privacy-preserving rate limiting, permissioning, and operation-scoped token redemption.

At its core, Nutsax introduces:

• Blind-signed tokens, issued by relays, for specific operation types.
• Token redemption as part of Nostr event publishing or interactions.
• Encrypted token storage using existing Nostr direct message infrastructure, allowing portable, persistent, and private storage of these tokens — the Nutsax.

This mechanism augments the existing Nostr protocol without disrupting adoption, requiring no changes to NIP-01 for clients or relays that don’t opt into the system.

Motivation

Nostr relays currently have limited tools for abuse prevention and access control. Options like IP banning, whitelisting, or monetized access are coarse and often centralized.

Nutsax introduces:

• Fine-grained, operation-specific access control using cryptographic tokens.
• Blind signature protocols to issue tokens anonymously, preserving user privacy.
• A native way to store and recover tokens using Nostr’s encrypted event system.

This allows relays to offer:

• Optional access policies (e.g., “3 posts per hour unless you redeem a token”)
• Paid or invite-based features (e.g., long-term subscriptions, advanced filters)
• Temporary elevation of privileges (e.g., bypass slow mode for one message)

All without requiring accounts, emails, or linking identity beyond the user’s npub.

Core Components

1. Operation Tokens

Tokens are blind-signed blobs issued by the relay, scoped to a specific operation type (e.g., "write", "filter-subscribe", "broadcast").

• Issued anonymously: using a blind signature protocol.
• Validated on redemption: at message submission or interaction time.
• Optional and redeemable: the relay decides when to enforce token redemption.

Each token encodes:

• Operation type (string)
• Relay ID (to scope the token)
• Expiration (optional)
• Usage count or burn-on-use flag
• Random nonce (blindness)

Example (before blinding):

json { "relay": "wss://relay.example", "operation": "write", "expires": 1720000000, "nonce": "b2a8c3..." }

This is then blinded and signed by the relay.

2. Token Redemption

Clients include tokens when submitting events or requests to the relay.

Token included via event tag:

json ["token", "<base64-encoded-token>", "write"]

Redemption can happen:

• Inline with any event (kind 1, etc.)
• As a standalone event (e.g., ephemeral kind 20000)
• During session initiation (optional AUTH extension)

The relay validates the token:

• Is it well-formed?
• Is it valid for this relay and operation?
• Is it unexpired?
• Has it been used already? (for burn-on-use)

If valid, the relay accepts the event or upgrades the rate/permission scope.

3. Nutsax: Private Token Storage on Nostr

Tokens are stored securely in the client’s Nutsax, a persistent, private archive built on Nostr’s encrypted event system.

Each token is stored in a kind 4 or kind 44/24 event, encrypted with the client’s own npub.

Example:

json { "kind": 4, "tags": [ ["p", "<your npub>"], ["token-type", "write"], ["relay", "wss://relay.example"] ], "content": "<encrypted token blob>", "created_at": 1234567890 }

This allows clients to:

• Persist tokens across restarts or device changes.
• Restore tokens after reinstalling or reauthenticating.
• Port tokens between devices.

All without exposing the tokens to the public or requiring external storage infrastructure.

Client Lifecycle

1. Requesting Tokens

• Client authenticates to relay (e.g., via NIP-42).
• Requests blind-signed tokens:
• Sends blinded token requests.
• Receives blind signatures.
• Unblinds and verifies.

2. Storing Tokens

• Each token is encrypted to the user’s own npub.
• Stored as a DM (kind 4 or compatible encrypted event).
• Optional tagging for organization.

3. Redeeming Tokens

• When performing a token-gated operation (e.g., posting to a limited relay), client includes the appropriate token in the event.
• Relay validates and logs/consumes the token.

4. Restoring the Nutsax

• On device reinstallation or session reset, the client:
• Reconnects to relays.
• Scans encrypted DMs.
• Decrypts and reimports available tokens.

Privacy Model

• Relays issuing tokens do not know which tokens were redeemed (blind signing).
• Tokens do not encode sender identity unless the client opts to do so.
• Only the recipient (npub) can decrypt their Nutsax.
• Redemption is pseudonymous — tied to a key, not to external identity.

Optional Enhancements

• Token index tag: to allow fast search and categorization.
• Multiple token types: read, write, boost, subscribe, etc.
• Token delegation: future support for transferring tokens via encrypted DM to another npub.
• Token revocation: relays can publish blacklists or expiration feeds if needed.

Compatibility

• Fully compatible with NIP-01, NIP-04 (encrypted DMs), and NIP-42 (authentication).
• Non-disruptive: relays and clients can ignore tokens if not supported.
• Ideal for layering on top of existing infrastructure and monetization strategies.

Conclusion

Nutsax offers a privacy-respecting, decentralized way to manage access and rate limits in the Nostr ecosystem. With blind-signed, operation-specific tokens and encrypted, persistent storage using native Nostr mechanisms, it gives relays and clients new powers without sacrificing Nostr’s core principles: simplicity, openness, and cryptographic self-sovereignty.

@ 8d34bd24:414be32b

I’ll admit that God’s truth is something I am passionate about. I love God’s word and I trust every word in the Bible as absolute truth. I hate when people compromise God’s word. I can’t understand Christians that don’t want to know God better through His word (maybe partially because I read a stack of books to solve any and every problem or to fulfill any interest).

Lately, the vow made in court to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth has been going through my mind. It comes up regarding almost everything, so I figured maybe God was telling me to write a post on the subject, so here we go.

The Truth

When we are searching for the truth about anything, we need to start with the Bible. Yes, there are many subjects about which the Bible doesn’t speak or doesn’t speak in detail, but the principles on which everything is built start with the Bible.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Especially when we are trying to learn what God wants from us and our lives, we need to search the Scriptures. We need to study the Scriptures. We need to memorize the Scriptures.

I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you. (Psalm 119:11)

It is much more useful to have read the Bible many times and to know its contents cover to cover, so we have it available to us during that debate with a fellow believer, or the discussion with a proud atheist, or when put into a situation of temptation. Having God’s word “hidden in our heart” enables us to deal with every situation, just as Jesus did when tempted by the Devil in the wilderness. Jesus’s most common response to every challenge was “As it is written …”

Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. (John 17:17)

If we want to know the truth and be ready for whatever life throws at us, we need to be like Ezra:

He had begun his journey from Babylon on the first day of the first month, and he arrived in Jerusalem on the first day of the fifth month, for the gracious hand of his God was on him. For Ezra had devoted himself to the study and observance of the Law of the Lord, and to teaching its decrees and laws in Israel. (Ezra 7:9-10) {emphasis mine}

Are you known for devoting yourself to the study and observance of the Law of the Lord, and to teaching its decrees and laws?

The Whole Truth

Obviously there are God hating atheists who will lie about God’s word and totally contradict His word. As believers, we are more likely to bend God’s truth. (Satan does this, too, because it is frequently more effective than an outright lie). There are two primary ways to bend God’s truth. We either leave out some parts or we add to it. In this section we will focus on telling the whole truth and not leaving out part of the truth.

The error of lying by omission is rampant today. We see it in news reports by the media. We see it in the history taught to our children. We see it in many churches. There are some very uncomfortable truths in the Bible. People don’t like to hear that some people will be punished in Hell for all eternity. They don’t want to hear that they are sinners and their desires are sinful. They don’t like to hear that there is one and only one way to Jesus.

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. (John 14:6)

Many believers don’t like any conflict. They are afraid that speaking the truth is being judgmental and will hurt relationships and feelings, so they hold back and don’t speak the whole truth.

Deal bountifully with Your servant,\ That I may live and keep Your word.\ *Open my eyes, that I may behold\ Wonderful things from Your law.*\ I am a stranger in the earth;\ Do not hide Your commandments from me.\ My soul is crushed with longing\ After Your ordinances at all times.\ You rebuke the arrogant, the cursed,\ Who wander from Your commandments.\ Take away reproach and contempt from me,\ For I observe Your testimonies.\ Even though princes sit and talk against me,\ Your servant meditates on Your statutes.\ Your testimonies also are my delight;\ They are my counselors. (Psalm 119:17-24) {emphasis mine}

The psalmist begs God not to “hide Your commandments from me.” Should we hide God’s commandments from ourselves or others because they are uncomfortable?

He said, “What is the word that He spoke to you? Please do not hide it from me. May God do so to you, and more also, if you hide anything from me of all the words that He spoke to you.” (1 Samuel 3:17)

Eli put the harshest curse on Samuel if he didn’t speak the full truth communicated by God. We need to truly know and believe God’s word, so we communicate it fully with others and do not hide it from those whose very heart and soul need God’s truth.

Many of us may feel like we are not lying because we didn’t not explicitly speak an untruth, but withholding part of the truth, so that another is misled, is as much of a lie as speaking an untruth. Both are intended to mislead the other person, usually for our benefit or comfort and to the long-term harm of the other person.

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you. (Philippians 4:8-9) {emphasis mine}

We need to think on, speak, and put into practice all of God’s word. Picking and choosing which parts of God’s word we want to believe, speak, and put into practice is akin to the original sin, “You will be like gods, knowing good and evil.” Only God gets to decide what is true or false and what is good or evil. When we choose to pick which parts of the Bible to obey and to share, we are taking the role that belongs solely to God.

Nothing But the Truth

The other error regarding truth is to add to God’s word.

The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?” And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors Me with their lips,\ But their heart is far away from Me.\ But in vain do they worship Me,\ **Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’\ Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” (Mark 7:5-8) {emphasis mine}

So often we let tradition, culture, or “science” guide us instead of the Bible. Whenever there is a contradiction between any source and the Bible, we need to put the authority of God’s word as the highest authority. Although it is possible for us to be mistaken by the meaning of God’s word and the truth to be more in line with culture or “science,” it is so much more likely that tradition, culture, or “science” are wrong. We need to use the Bible to interpret things like science rather than to use “science” to interpret the Bible. The Bible is always the higher authority.

Sometimes we add to God’s word intentionally. Sometimes we are just influenced by the people around us, especially supposed authority figures, and are led astray unintentionally.

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15) {emphasis mine}

We need to truly study the whole Bible and test every one of our beliefs against God’s word.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! (Galatians 1:6-9) {emphasis mine}

We need to use God’s word to test every idea.

Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil. (1 Thessalonians 5:20-22)

and

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. (1 John 4:1-3) {emphasis mine}

God’s word is truth. It never changes. It doesn’t change with the times, the culture, or new scientific discoveries. The truth is the truth whether anyone believes it or not.

There are many who will lead you astray and sound like they know what they are talking about. Make sure you do not follow these false teachers in their error (whether the error is intentional or accidental), but even more, make sure you don’t spread the error and lead others astray.

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. (Colossians 2:8) {emphasis mine}

I think this phrase perfectly describes how error effects us, “See to it that no one takes you captive through …” Error can be subtle, but can take us captive, lead us astray, and cause us to lead others astray. Only through detailed knowledge of the Scriptures can we defend against it.

Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers and sisters. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created. (James 1:16-18) {emphasis mine}

May the Lord of heaven guide us to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and to obey His word in all things to His glory, forever.

Trust Jesus

@ 460c25e6:ef85065c

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

Public Home/Outbox Relays

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

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

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

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

Public Inbox Relays

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

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

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

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

DM Inbox Relays

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

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

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

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

Private Home Relays

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

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

Search relays:

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

Local Relays:

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

General Relays:

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

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

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

My setup

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

Then, on your relay lists, put:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And a few of the recommended relays from Amethyst.

Final Considerations

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

@ 66675158:1b644430

I don't believe in "vibe coding" – it's just the newest Silicon Valley fad trying to give meaning to their latest favorite technology, LLMs. We've seen this pattern before with blockchain, when suddenly Non Fungible Tokens appeared, followed by Web3 startups promising to revolutionize everything from social media to supply chains. VCs couldn't throw money fast enough at anything with "decentralized" (in name only) in the pitch deck. Andreessen Horowitz launched billion-dollar crypto funds, while Y Combinator batches filled with blockchain startups promising to be "Uber for X, but on the blockchain."

The metaverse mania followed, with Meta betting its future on digital worlds where we'd supposedly hang out as legless avatars. Decentralized (in name only) autonomous organizations emerged as the next big thing – supposedly democratic internet communities that ended up being the next scam for quick money.

Then came the inevitable collapse. The FTX implosion in late 2022 revealed fraud, Luna/Terra's death spiral wiped out billions (including my ten thousand dollars), while Celsius and BlockFi froze customer assets before bankruptcy.

By 2023, crypto winter had fully set in. The SEC started aggressive enforcement actions, while users realized that blockchain technology had delivered almost no practical value despite a decade of promises.

Blockchain's promises tapped into fundamental human desires – decentralization resonated with a generation disillusioned by traditional institutions. Evangelists presented a utopian vision of freedom from centralized control. Perhaps most significantly, crypto offered a sense of meaning in an increasingly abstract world, making the clear signs of scams harder to notice.

The technology itself had failed to solve any real-world problems at scale. By 2024, the once-mighty crypto ecosystem had become a cautionary tale. Venture firms quietly scrubbed blockchain references from their websites while founders pivoted to AI and large language models.

---

Most reading this are likely fellow bitcoiners and nostr users who understand that Bitcoin is blockchain's only valid use case. But I shared that painful history because I believe the AI-hype cycle will follow the same trajectory.

Just like with blockchain, we're now seeing VCs who once couldn't stop talking about "Web3" falling over themselves to fund anything with "AI" in the pitch deck. The buzzwords have simply changed from "decentralized" to "intelligent."

"Vibe coding" is the perfect example – a trendy name for what is essentially just fuzzy instructions to LLMs. Developers who've spent years honing programming skills are now supposed to believe that "vibing" with an AI is somehow a legitimate methodology.

This might be controversial to some, but obvious to others:

Formal, context-free grammar will always remain essential for building precise systems, regardless of how advanced natural language technology becomes

The mathematical precision of programming languages provides a foundation that human language's ambiguity can never replace. Programming requires precision – languages, compilers, and processors operate on explicit instructions, not vibes. What "vibe coding" advocates miss is that beneath every AI-generated snippet lies the same deterministic rules that have always governed computation.

LLMs don't understand code in any meaningful sense—they've just ingested enormous datasets of human-written code and can predict patterns. When they "work," it's because they've seen similar patterns before, not because they comprehend the underlying logic.

This creates a dangerous dependency. Junior developers "vibing" with LLMs might get working code without understanding the fundamental principles. When something breaks in production, they'll lack the knowledge to fix it.

Even experienced developers can find themselves in treacherous territory when relying too heavily on LLM-generated code. What starts as a productivity boost can transform into a dependency crutch.

The real danger isn't just technical limitations, but the false confidence it instills. Developers begin to believe they understand systems they've merely instructed an AI to generate – fundamentally different from understanding code you've written yourself.

We're already seeing the warning signs: projects cobbled together with LLM-generated code that work initially but become maintenance nightmares when requirements change or edge cases emerge.

The venture capital money is flowing exactly as it did with blockchain. Anthropic raised billions, OpenAI is valued astronomically despite minimal revenue, and countless others are competing to build ever-larger models with vague promises. Every startup now claims to be "AI-powered" regardless of whether it makes sense.

Don't get me wrong—there's genuine innovation happening in AI research. But "vibe coding" isn't it. It's a marketing term designed to make fuzzy prompting sound revolutionary.

Cursor perfectly embodies this AI hype cycle. It's an AI-enhanced code editor built on VS Code that promises to revolutionize programming by letting you "chat with your codebase." Just like blockchain startups promised to "revolutionize" industries, Cursor promises to transform development by adding LLM capabilities.

Yes, Cursor can be genuinely helpful. It can explain unfamiliar code, suggest completions, and help debug simple issues. After trying it for just an hour, I found the autocomplete to be MAGICAL for simple refactoring and basic functionality.

But the marketing goes far beyond reality. The suggestion that you can simply describe what you want and get production-ready code is dangerously misleading. What you get are approximations with:

• Security vulnerabilities the model doesn't understand
• Edge cases it hasn't considered
• Performance implications it can't reason about
• Dependency conflicts it has no way to foresee

The most concerning aspect is how such tools are marketed to beginners as shortcuts around learning fundamentals. "Why spend years learning to code when you can just tell AI what you want?" This is reminiscent of how crypto was sold as a get-rich-quick scheme requiring no actual understanding.

When you "vibe code" with an AI, you're not eliminating complexity—you're outsourcing understanding to a black box. This creates developers who can prompt but not program, who can generate but not comprehend.

The real utility of LLMs in development is in augmenting existing workflows:

• Explaining unfamiliar codebases
• Generating boilerplate for well-understood patterns
• Suggesting implementations that a developer evaluates critically
• Assisting with documentation and testing

These uses involve the model as a subordinate assistant to a knowledgeable developer, not as a replacement for expertise. This is where the technology adds value—as a sophisticated tool in skilled hands.

Cursor is just a better hammer, not a replacement for understanding what you're building. The actual value emerges when used by developers who understand what happens beneath the abstractions. They can recognize when AI suggestions make sense and when they don't because they have the fundamental knowledge to evaluate output critically.

This is precisely where the "vibe coding" narrative falls apart.

@ 1bda7e1f:bb97c4d9

Tldr

• Nostr is a new open social protocol for the internet
• You can use it to create your own online community website/app for your users
• This needs only a few simple components that are free and open source
• Jumble.Social client is a front-end for showing your community content to your users
• Simple With Whitelist relay (SW2) is a back-end with simple auth for your community content
• In this blog I explain the components and set up a online community website/app that any community or company can use for their own users, for free.

You Can Run Your Own Private "X" For Free

Nostr is a new open social protocol for the internet. Because it is a protocol it is not controlled by any one company, does not reside on any one set of servers, does not require any licenses, and no one can stop you from using it however you like.

When the name Nostr is recognised, it is as a "Twitter/X alternative" – that is an online open public forum. Nostr is more than just this. The open nature of the protocol means that you can use it however you feel like, including that you can use it for creating your own social websites to suit whatever goals you have – anything from running your own team collaboration app, to running your own online community.

Nostr can be anything – not just an alternative to X, but also to Slack, Teams, Discord, Telegram (etc) – any kind of social app you'd like to run for your users can be run on Nostr.

In this blog I will show you how to launch your own community website, for your community members to use however they like, with low code, and for free.

Simple useful components

Nostr has a few simple components that work together to provide your experience –

• Your "client" – an app or a website front-end that you log into, which displays the content you want to see
• Your "relay" – a server back-end which receives and stores content, and sends it to clients
• Your "user" – a set of keys which represents a user on the network,
• Your "content" – any user content created and signed by a user, distributed to any relay, which can be picked up and viewed by any client.

It is a pattern that is used by every other social app on the internet, excepting that in those cases you can usually only view content in their app, and only post your content to their server.

Vs with Nostr where you can use any client (app) and any relay (server), including your own.

This is defined as a standard in NIP-01 which is simple enough that you can master it in a weekend, and with which you can build any kind of application.

The design space is wide open for anyone to build anything–

• Clones of Twitter, Instagram, Telegram, Medium, Twitch, etc,
• Whole new things like Private Ephemeral Messengers, Social Podcasting Apps, etc,
• Anything else you can dream up, like replacements for B2B SaaS or ERP systems.

Including that you can set up and run your own "X" for your community.

Super powers for –private– social internet

When considering my use of social internet, it is foremost private not public. Email, Whatsapp, Slack, Teams, Discord, Telegram (etc), are all about me, as a user, creating content for a selected group of individuals – close friends, colleagues, community members – not the wider public.

This private social internet is crying out for the kind of powers that Nostr provides. The list of things that Nostr solves for private social internet goes on-and-on.

Let me eat my own dog food for a moment.

• I am a member of a community of technology entrepreneurs with an app for internal community comms. The interface is not fit for this purpose. Good content gets lost. Any content created within the walled kingdom cannot be shared externally. Community members cannot migrate to a different front-end, or cross-post to public social channels.
• I am a member of many communities for kids social groups, each one with a different application and log in. There is no way to view a consolidated feed. There is no way to send one message to many communities, or share content between them. Remembering to check every feed separately is a drag.
• I am a member of a team with an app for team comms. It costs $XXX per user per month where it should be free. I can't self-host. I can't control or export my data. I can't make it interoperate natively with other SaaS. All of my messages probably go to train a Big Co AI without my consent.

In each instance "Nostr fixes this."

Ready now for low-code admins

To date Nostr has been best suited to a more technical user. To use the Nostr protocol directly has been primarily a field of great engineers building great foundations.

IMO these foundations are built. They are open source, free to use, and accessible for anyone who wants to create an administer their own online community, with only low code required.

To prove it, in this blog I will scratch my own itch. I need a X / Slack / Teams alternative to use with a few team members and friends (and a few AIs) as we hack on establishing a new business idea.

I will set this up with Nostr using only open source code, for free.

Designing the Solution

I am mostly non-technical with helpful AI. To set up your own community website in the style of X / Slack / Teams should be possible for anyone with basic technology skills.

• I have a cheap VPS which currently runs some other unrelated Nostr projects in Docker containers,
• My objective was to set up and run my own community website for my own team use, in Docker, hosted on my own server.

User requirements

What will I want from a community website?

• I want my users to be able to log into a website and post content,
• I want to save that content to a server I control accessed only be people I authorise,
• I want my users to view only that content by default, and not be exposed to any wider public social network unless they knowingly select that,
• I want my user's content to be either:
• a) viewable only by other community members (i.e. for internal team comms), or
• b) by the wider public (i.e. for public announcements), at the user's discretion.
• I want it to be open source so that other people maintain the code for me,
• I want it for free.

Nostr solutions

To achieve this with Nostr, I'll need to select some solutions "a-la carte" for each of the core components of the network.

• A client – For my client, I have chosen Jumble. Jumble is a free open-source client by Cody Tseng, available free on Github or at Jumble.social. I have chosen Jumble because it is a "relay-centric" client. In key spots the user interface highlights for the user what relay they are viewing, and what relay they are posting to. As a result, it is a beautiful fit for me to use as the home of all my community content.
• A relay – For my relay, I have chosen Simple With Whitelist (SW2). SW2 is a free open-source relay by Utxo The Webmaster, based on Khatru by Fiatjaf, available free on Github. I have chosen SW2 because it allows for very simple configuration of user auth. Users can be given read access to view notes, and write access to post notes within simple config.json files. This allows you to keep community content private or selectively share it in a variety of ways. Per the Nostr protocol, your client will connect with your relay via websocket.
• A user sign-up flow – Jumble has a user sign-up flow using Nstart by Fiatjaf, or as an admin I can create and provision my own users with any simple tool like NAK or Nostrtool.
• A user content flow – Jumble has a user content flow that can post notes to selected relays of the users choice. Rich media is uploaded to free third-party hosts like Nostr.build, and in the future there is scope to self-host this too.

With each of these boxes ticked I'm ready to start.

Launching a Private Community Website with Jumble and SW2

Install your SW2 relay

The relay is the trickiest part, so let's start there. SW2 is my Nostr relay software of choice. It is a Go application and includes full instructions for Go install. However, I prefer Docker, so I have built a Docker version and maintain a Docker branch here.

1 – In a terminal clone the repo and checkout the Docker branch

git clone https://github.com/r0d8lsh0p/sw2.git cd sw2 git checkout docker

2 – Set up the environment variables

These are specified in the readme. Duplicate the example .env file and fill it with your variables.

cp .env.example .env

For me this .env file was as follows–

```

Relay Metadata

RELAY_NAME="Tbdai relay" RELAY_PUBKEY="ede41352397758154514148b24112308ced96d121229b0e6a66bc5a2b40c03ec" RELAY_DESCRIPTION="An experimental relay for some people and robots working on a TBD AI project." RELAY_URL="wss://assistantrelay.rodbishop.nz" RELAY_ICON="https://image.nostr.build/44654201843fc0f03e9a72fbf8044143c66f0dd4d5350688db69345f9da05007.jpg" RELAY_CONTACT="https://rodbishop.nz" ```

3 – Specify who can read and write to the relay

This is controlled by two config files read_whitelist.json and write_whitelist.json.

• Any user with their pubkey in the read_whitelist can read notes posted to the relay. If empty, anyone can read.
• Any user with their pubkey in the write_whitelist can post notes to the relay. If empty, anyone can write.

We'll get to creating and authorising more users later, for now I suggest to add yourself to each whitelist, by copying your pubkey into each JSON file. For me this looks as follows (note, I use the 'hex' version of the pubkey, rather than the npub)–

{ "pubkeys": [ "1bda7e1f7396bda2d1ef99033da8fd2dc362810790df9be62f591038bb97c4d9" ] }

If this is your first time using Nostr and you don't yet have any user keys, it is easy and free to get one. You can get one from any Nostr client like Jumble.social, any tool like NAK or nostrtool.com or follow a comprehensive guide like my guide on mining a Nostr key.

4 – Launch your relay

If you are using my Docker fork from above, then–

docker compose up

Your relay should now be running on port 3334 and ready to accept web socket connections from your client.

Before you move on to set up the client, it's helpful to quickly test that it is running as expected.

5 – Test your websocket connection

For this I use a tool called wscat to make a websocket connection.

You may need to install wscat, e.g.

npm install -g wscat

And then run it, e.g.

wscat -c ws://localhost:3334

(note use ws:// for localhost, rather than wss://).

If your relay is working successfully then it should receive your websocket connection request and respond with an AUTH token, asking you to identify yourself as a user in the relay's read_whitelist.json (using the standard outlined in NIP-42), e.g.

``` Connected (press CTRL+C to quit) < ["AUTH","13206fea43ef2952"]

```

You do not need to authorise for now.

If you received this kind of message, your relay is working successfully.

Set a subdomain for your relay

Let's connect a domain name so your community members can access your relay.

1 – Configure DNS

At a high level –

1. Get your domain (buy one if you need to)
2. Get the IP address of your VPS
3. In your domain's DNS settings add those records as an A record to the subdomain of your choice, e.g. relay as in relay.your_domain_name.com, or in my case assistantrelay.rodbishop.nz

Your subdomain now points to your server.

2 – Configure reverse proxy

You need to redirect traffic from your subdomain to your relay at port 3334.

On my VPS I use Caddy as a reverse proxy for a few projects, I have it sitting in a separate Docker network. To use it for my SW2 Relay required two steps.

First – I added configuration to Caddy's Caddyfile to tell it what to do with requests for the relay.your_domain_name.com subdomain. For me this looked like–

assistantrelay.rodbishop.nz { reverse_proxy sw2-relay:3334 { # Enable WebSocket support header_up X-Forwarded-For {remote} header_up X-Forwarded-Proto {scheme} header_up X-Forwarded-Port {server_port} } }

Second – I added the Caddy Docker network to the SW2 docker-compose.yml to make it be part of the Caddy network. In my Docker branch, I provide this commented section which you can uncomment and use if you like.

``` services: relay: ... relay configuration here ...

networks:

- caddy # Connect to a Caddy network for reverse proxy

networks:

caddy:

external: true # Connect to a Caddy network for reverse proxy

```

Your relay is now running at your domain name.

Run Jumble.social

Your client set up is very easy, as most heavy lifting is done by your relay. My client of choice is Jumble because it has features that focus the user experience on the community's content first. You have two options for running Jumble.

1. Run your own local copy of Jumble by cloning the Github (optional)
2. Use the public instance at Jumble.social (easier, and what we'll do in this demo)

If you (optionally) want to run your own local copy of Jumble:

git clone https://github.com/CodyTseng/jumble.git cd jumble npm install npm run dev

For this demo, I will just use the public instance at http://jumble.social

Jumble has a very helpful user interface for set up and configuration. But, I wanted to think ahead to onboarding community members, and so instead I will do some work up front in order to give new members a smooth onboarding flow that I would suggest for an administrator to use in onboarding their community.

1 – Create a custom landing page URL for your community members to land on

When your users come to your website for the first time, you want them to get your community experience without any distraction. That will either be–

1. A prompt to sign up or login (if only authorised users can read content)
2. The actual content from your other community members (If all users can read content)

Your landing page URL will look like: http://jumble.social/?r=wss://relay.your_domain_name.com

• http://jumble.social/ – the URL of the Jumble instance you are using
• ?r= – telling Jumble to read from a relay
• wss:// – relays connect via websocket using wss, rather than https
• relay.your_domain_name.com – the domain name of your relay

For me, this URL looks like http://jumble.social/?r=wss://assistantrelay.rodbishop.nz

2 – Visit your custom Jumble URL

This should load the landing page of your relay on Jumble.

In the background, Jumble has attempted to establish a websocket connection to your relay.

If your relay is configured with read authentication, it has sent a challenge to Jumble asking your user to authenticate. Jumble, accordingly should now be showing you a login screen, asking your user to login.

3 – Login or Sign Up

You will see a variety of sign up and login options. To test, log in with the private key that you have configured to have read and write access.

In the background, Jumble has connected via websocket to your relay, checked that your user is authorised to view notes, and if so, has returned all the content on the relay. (If this is your first time here, there would not be any content yet).

If you give this link to your users to use as their landing page, they will land, login, and see only notes from members of your community.

4– Make your first post to your community

Click the "post" button and post a note. Jumble offers you the option to "Send only to relay.your_domain_name.com".

• If set to on, then Jumble will post the note only to your relay, no others. It will also include a specific tag (the "-" tag) which requests relays to not forward the note across the network. Only your community members viewing notes on your community relay can see it.
• If set to off, then Jumble will post the note to your relay and also the wider public Nostr network. Community members viewing notes on the relay can see it, and so can any user of the wider Nostr network.

5– Optional, configure your relay sets

At the top of the screen you should now see a dropdown with the URL of your relay.

Each user can save this relay to a "relay set" for future use, and also view, add or delete other relays sets including some sets which Jumble comes with set up by default.

As an admin you can use this to give users access to multiple relays. And, as a user, you can use this to access posts from multiple different community relays, all within the one client.

Your community website is up and running

That is the basic set up completed.

• You have a website where your community members can visit a URL to post notes and view all notes from all other members of the community.
• You have basic administration to enforce your own read and write permissions very simply in two json files.

Let's check in with my user requirements as a community admin–

• My community is saving content to a server where I control access
• My users view only that content by default, and are not exposed to any wider public social network unless they knowingly select that
• My user's content is a) viewable only by other community members, or b) by the wider public, at the user's discretion
• Other people are maintaining the code for me
• It's free

This setup has scope to solve my dog fooding issues from earlier–

• If adopted, my tech community can iterate the interface to suit its needs, find great content, and share content beyond the community.
• If adopted, my kids social groups can each have their own relays, but I can post to all of them together, or view a consolidated feed.
• If adopted, my team can chat with each other for free. I can self host this. It can natively interoperate with any other Nostr SaaS. It would be entirely private and will not be captured to train a Big Co AI without my consent.

Using your community website in practice

An example onboarding flow

1. A new member joins your IRL community
2. Your admin person gives them your landing page URL where they can view all the posts by your community members – If you have configured your relay to have no read auth required, then they can land on that landing page and immediately start viewing your community's posts, a great landing experience
3. The user user creates a Nostr profile, and provides the admin person with their public key
4. The admin person adds their key to the whitelists to read and write as you desire.

Default inter-op with the wider Nostr network

• If you change your mind on SW2 and want to use a different relay, your notes will be supported natively, and you can migrate on your own terms
• If you change your mind on Jumble and want to use a different client, your relay will be supported natively, and you can migrate on your own terms
• If you want to add other apps to your community's experience, every Nostr app will interoperate with your community by default – see the huge list at Awesome Nostr
• If any of your users want to view your community notes inside some other Nostr client – perhaps to see a consolidated feed of notes from all their different communities – they can.

For me, I use Amethyst app as my main Nostr client to view the public posts from people I follow. I have added my private community relay to Amethyst, and now my community posts appear alongside all these other posts in a single consolidated feed.

Scope to further improve

• You can run multiple different relays with different user access – e.g. one for wider company and one for your team
• You can run your own fork of Jumble and change the interface to suit you needs – e.g. add your logo, change the colours, link to other resources from the sidebar.

Other ideas for running communities

• Guest accounts: You can give a user "guest" access – read auth, but no write auth – to help people see the value of your community before becoming members.
• Running a knowledge base: You can whitelist users to read notes, but only administrators can post notes.
• Running a blind dropbox: You can whitelist users to post notes, but only the administrator can read notes.
• Running on a local terminal only: With Jumble and SW2 installed on a machine, running at – localhost:5173 for Jumble, and localhost:3334 for SW2 you can have an entirely local experience at http://localhost:5173/?r=ws://localhost:3334.

What's Next?

In my first four blogs I explored creating a good Nostr setup with Vanity Npub, Lightning Payments, Nostr Addresses at Your Domain, and Personal Nostr Relay.

Then in my latest three blogs I explored different types of interoperability with NFC cards, n8n Workflow Automation, and now running a private community website on Nostr.

For this community website–

• There is scope to make some further enhancements to SW2, including to add a "Blossom" media server so that community admins can self-host their own rich media, and to create an admin screen for administration of the whitelists using NIP-86.
• There is scope to explore all other kinds of Nostr clients to form the front-end of community websites, including Chachi.chat, Flotilla, and others.
• Nostr includes a whole variety of different optional standards for making more elaborate online communities including NIP-28, NIP-29, NIP-17, NIP-72 (etc). Each gives certain different capabilities, and I haven't used any of them! For this simple demo they are not required, but each could be used to extend the capabilities of the admin and community.

I am also doing a lot of work with AI on Nostr, including that I use my private community website as a front-end for engaging with a Nostr AI. I'll post about this soon too.

Please be sure to let me know if you think there's another Nostr topic you'd like to see me tackle.

GM Nostr.

@ 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.

@ b2d670de:907f9d4a

This guide will walk you through setting up your own Strfry Nostr relay on a Debian/Ubuntu server and making it accessible exclusively as a TOR hidden service. By the end, you'll have a privacy-focused relay that operates entirely within the TOR network, enhancing both your privacy and that of your users.

Table of Contents

1. Prerequisites
2. Initial Server Setup
3. Installing Strfry Nostr Relay
4. Configuring Your Relay
5. Setting Up TOR
6. Making Your Relay Available on TOR
7. Testing Your Setup]
8. Maintenance and Security
9. Troubleshooting

Prerequisites

• A Debian or Ubuntu server
• Basic familiarity with command line operations (most steps are explained in detail)
• Root or sudo access to your server

Initial Server Setup

First, let's make sure your server is properly set up and secured.

Update Your System

Connect to your server via SSH and update your system:

bash sudo apt update sudo apt upgrade -y

Set Up a Basic Firewall

Install and configure a basic firewall:

bash sudo apt install ufw -y sudo ufw allow ssh sudo ufw enable

This allows SSH connections while blocking other ports for security.

Installing Strfry Nostr Relay

This guide includes the full range of steps needed to build and set up Strfry. It's simply based on the current version of the DEPLOYMENT.md document in the Strfry GitHub repository. If the build/setup process is changed in the repo, this document could get outdated. If so, please report to me that something is outdated and check for updated steps here.

Install Dependencies

First, let's install the necessary dependencies. Each package serves a specific purpose in building and running Strfry:

bash sudo apt install -y git build-essential libyaml-perl libtemplate-perl libregexp-grammars-perl libssl-dev zlib1g-dev liblmdb-dev libflatbuffers-dev libsecp256k1-dev libzstd-dev

Here's why each dependency is needed:

Basic Development Tools: - git: Version control system used to clone the Strfry repository and manage code updates - build-essential: Meta-package that includes compilers (gcc, g++), make, and other essential build tools

Perl Dependencies (used for Strfry's build scripts): - libyaml-perl: Perl interface to parse YAML configuration files - libtemplate-perl: Template processing system used during the build process - libregexp-grammars-perl: Advanced regular expression handling for Perl scripts

Core Libraries for Strfry: - libssl-dev: Development files for OpenSSL, used for secure connections and cryptographic operations - zlib1g-dev: Compression library that Strfry uses to reduce data size - liblmdb-dev: Lightning Memory-Mapped Database library, which Strfry uses for its high-performance database backend - libflatbuffers-dev: Memory-efficient serialization library for structured data - libsecp256k1-dev: Optimized C library for EC operations on curve secp256k1, essential for Nostr's cryptographic signatures - libzstd-dev: Fast real-time compression algorithm for efficient data storage and transmission

Clone and Build Strfry

Clone the Strfry repository:

bash git clone https://github.com/hoytech/strfry.git cd strfry

Build Strfry:

bash git submodule update --init make setup-golpe make -j2 # This uses 2 CPU cores. Adjust based on your server (e.g., -j4 for 4 cores)

This build process will take several minutes, especially on servers with limited CPU resources, so go get a coffee and post some great memes on nostr in the meantime.

Install Strfry

Install the Strfry binary to your system path:

bash sudo cp strfry /usr/local/bin

This makes the strfry command available system-wide, allowing it to be executed from any directory and by any user with the appropriate permissions.

Configuring Your Relay

Create Strfry User

Create a dedicated user for running Strfry. This enhances security by isolating the relay process:

bash sudo useradd -M -s /usr/sbin/nologin strfry

The -M flag prevents creating a home directory, and -s /usr/sbin/nologin prevents anyone from logging in as this user. This is a security best practice for service accounts.

Create Data Directory

Create a directory for Strfry's data:

bash sudo mkdir /var/lib/strfry sudo chown strfry:strfry /var/lib/strfry sudo chmod 755 /var/lib/strfry

This creates a dedicated directory for Strfry's database and sets the appropriate permissions so that only the strfry user can write to it.

Configure Strfry

Copy the sample configuration file:

bash sudo cp strfry.conf /etc/strfry.conf

Edit the configuration file:

bash sudo nano /etc/strfry.conf

Modify the database path:

```

Find this line:

db = "./strfry-db/"

Change it to:

db = "/var/lib/strfry/" ```

Check your system's hard limit for file descriptors:

bash ulimit -Hn

Update the nofiles setting in your configuration to match this value (or set to 0):

```

Add or modify this line in the config (example if your limit is 524288):

nofiles = 524288 ```

The nofiles setting determines how many open files Strfry can have simultaneously. Setting it to your system's hard limit (or 0 to use the system default) helps prevent "too many open files" errors if your relay becomes popular.

You might also want to customize your relay's information in the config file. Look for the info section and update it with your relay's name, description, and other details.

Set ownership of the configuration file:

bash sudo chown strfry:strfry /etc/strfry.conf

Create Systemd Service

Create a systemd service file for managing Strfry:

bash sudo nano /etc/systemd/system/strfry.service

Add the following content:

```ini [Unit] Description=strfry relay service

[Service] User=strfry ExecStart=/usr/local/bin/strfry relay Restart=on-failure RestartSec=5 ProtectHome=yes NoNewPrivileges=yes ProtectSystem=full LimitCORE=1000000000

[Install] WantedBy=multi-user.target ```

This systemd service configuration: - Runs Strfry as the dedicated strfry user - Automatically restarts the service if it fails - Implements security measures like ProtectHome and NoNewPrivileges - Sets resource limits appropriate for a relay

Enable and start the service:

bash sudo systemctl enable strfry.service sudo systemctl start strfry

Check the service status:

bash sudo systemctl status strfry

Verify Relay is Running

Test that your relay is running locally:

bash curl localhost:7777

You should see a message indicating that the Strfry relay is running. This confirms that Strfry is properly installed and configured before we proceed to set up TOR.

Setting Up TOR

Now let's make your relay accessible as a TOR hidden service.

Install TOR

Install TOR from the package repositories:

bash sudo apt install -y tor

This installs the TOR daemon that will create and manage your hidden service.

Configure TOR

Edit the TOR configuration file:

bash sudo nano /etc/tor/torrc

Scroll down to wherever you see a commented out part like this: ```

HiddenServiceDir /var/lib/tor/hidden_service/

HiddenServicePort 80 127.0.0.1:80

```

Under those lines, add the following lines to set up a hidden service for your relay:

HiddenServiceDir /var/lib/tor/strfry-relay/ HiddenServicePort 80 127.0.0.1:7777

This configuration: - Creates a hidden service directory at /var/lib/tor/strfry-relay/ - Maps port 80 on your .onion address to port 7777 on your local machine - Keeps all traffic encrypted within the TOR network

Create the directory for your hidden service:

bash sudo mkdir -p /var/lib/tor/strfry-relay/ sudo chown debian-tor:debian-tor /var/lib/tor/strfry-relay/ sudo chmod 700 /var/lib/tor/strfry-relay/

The strict permissions (700) are crucial for security as they ensure only the debian-tor user can access the directory containing your hidden service private keys.

Restart TOR to apply changes:

bash sudo systemctl restart tor

Making Your Relay Available on TOR

Get Your Onion Address

After restarting TOR, you can find your onion address:

bash sudo cat /var/lib/tor/strfry-relay/hostname

This will output something like abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz234567.onion, which is your relay's unique .onion address. This is what you'll share with others to access your relay.

Understanding Onion Addresses

The .onion address is a special-format hostname that is automatically generated based on your hidden service's private key.

Your users will need to use this address with the WebSocket protocol prefix to connect: ws://youronionaddress.onion

Testing Your Setup

Test with a Nostr Client

The best way to test your relay is with an actual Nostr client that supports TOR:

1. Open your TOR browser
2. Go to your favorite client, either on clearnet or an onion service.
   • Check out this list of nostr clients available over TOR.
3. Add your relay URL: ws://youronionaddress.onion to your relay list
4. Try posting a note and see if it appears on your relay
   • In some nostr clients, you can also click on a relay to get information about it like the relay name and description you set earlier in the stryfry config. If you're able to see the correct values for the name and the description, you were able to connect to the relay.
   • Some nostr clients also gives you a status on what relays a note was posted to, this could also give you an indication that your relay works as expected.

Note that not all Nostr clients support TOR connections natively. Some may require additional configuration or use of TOR Browser. E.g. most mobile apps would most likely require a TOR proxy app running in the background (some have TOR support built in too).

Maintenance and Security

Regular Updates

Keep your system, TOR, and relay updated:

```bash

Update system

sudo apt update sudo apt upgrade -y

Update Strfry

cd ~/strfry git pull git submodule update make -j2 sudo cp strfry /usr/local/bin sudo systemctl restart strfry

Verify TOR is still running properly

sudo systemctl status tor ```

Regular updates are crucial for security, especially for TOR which may have security-critical updates.

Database Management

Strfry has built-in database management tools. Check the Strfry documentation for specific commands related to database maintenance, such as managing event retention and performing backups.

Monitoring Logs

To monitor your Strfry logs:

bash sudo journalctl -u strfry -f

To check TOR logs:

bash sudo journalctl -u tor -f

Monitoring logs helps you identify potential issues and understand how your relay is being used.

Backup

This is not a best practices guide on how to do backups. Preferably, backups should be stored either offline or on a different machine than your relay server. This is just a simple way on how to do it on the same server.

```bash

Stop the relay temporarily

sudo systemctl stop strfry

Backup the database

sudo cp -r /var/lib/strfry /path/to/backup/location

Restart the relay

sudo systemctl start strfry ```

Back up your TOR hidden service private key. The private key is particularly sensitive as it defines your .onion address - losing it means losing your address permanently. If you do a backup of this, ensure that is stored in a safe place where no one else has access to it.

bash sudo cp /var/lib/tor/strfry-relay/hs_ed25519_secret_key /path/to/secure/backup/location

Troubleshooting

Relay Not Starting

If your relay doesn't start:

```bash

Check logs

sudo journalctl -u strfry -e

Verify configuration

cat /etc/strfry.conf

Check permissions

ls -la /var/lib/strfry ```

Common issues include: - Incorrect configuration format - Permission problems with the data directory - Port already in use (another service using port 7777) - Issues with setting the nofiles limit (setting it too big)

TOR Hidden Service Not Working

If your TOR hidden service is not accessible:

```bash

Check TOR logs

sudo journalctl -u tor -e

Verify TOR is running

sudo systemctl status tor

Check onion address

sudo cat /var/lib/tor/strfry-relay/hostname

Verify TOR configuration

sudo cat /etc/tor/torrc ```

Common TOR issues include: - Incorrect directory permissions - TOR service not running - Incorrect port mapping in torrc

Testing Connectivity

If you're having trouble connecting to your service:

```bash

Verify Strfry is listening locally

sudo ss -tulpn | grep 7777

Check that TOR is properly running

sudo systemctl status tor

Test the local connection directly

curl --include --no-buffer localhost:7777 ```

---

Privacy and Security Considerations

Running a Nostr relay as a TOR hidden service provides several important privacy benefits:

1. Network Privacy: Traffic to your relay is encrypted and routed through the TOR network, making it difficult to determine who is connecting to your relay.

2. Server Anonymity: The physical location and IP address of your server are concealed, providing protection against denial-of-service attacks and other targeting.

3. Censorship Resistance: TOR hidden services are more resilient against censorship attempts, as they don't rely on the regular DNS system and can't be easily blocked.

4. User Privacy: Users connecting to your relay through TOR enjoy enhanced privacy, as their connections are also encrypted and anonymized.

However, there are some important considerations:

• TOR connections are typically slower than regular internet connections
• Not all Nostr clients support TOR connections natively
• Running a hidden service increases the importance of keeping your server secure

---

Congratulations! You now have a Strfry Nostr relay running as a TOR hidden service. This setup provides a resilient, privacy-focused, and censorship-resistant communication channel that helps strengthen the Nostr network.

For further customization and advanced configuration options, refer to the Strfry documentation.

Consider sharing your relay's .onion address with the Nostr community to help grow the privacy-focused segment of the network!

If you plan on providing a relay service that the public can use (either for free or paid for), consider adding it to this list. Only add it if you plan to run a stable and available relay.

@ 97c70a44:ad98e322

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

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

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

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

The Need for Speed

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

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

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

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

Svelte is not Javascript

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

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

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

Proxies are not objects

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

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

we... can maximise both efficiency and ergonomics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Components are not functions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

President Trump has intensified immigration enforcement, likening it to a wartime effort. Despite pouring resources into the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), arrest numbers are declining and falling short of goals. ICE fell from about 800 daily arrests in late January to fewer than 600 in early February.

Critics argue the administration is merely showcasing efforts with ineffectiveness, while Trump seeks billions more in funding to support his deportation agenda. Increased involvement from various federal agencies is intended to assist ICE, but many lack specific immigration training.

Challenges persist, as fewer immigrants are available for quick deportation due to a decline in illegal crossings. Local sheriffs are also pressured by rising demands to accommodate immigrants, which may strain resources further.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Wir werden nicht zulassen, dass technisch manches möglich ist, \ aber der Staat es nicht nutzt. \ Angela Merkel

Die Modalverben zu erklären, ist im Deutschunterricht manchmal nicht ganz einfach. Nicht alle Fremdsprachen unterscheiden zum Beispiel bei der Frage nach einer Möglichkeit gleichermaßen zwischen «können» im Sinne von «die Gelegenheit, Kenntnis oder Fähigkeit haben» und «dürfen» als «die Erlaubnis oder Berechtigung haben». Das spanische Wort «poder» etwa steht für beides.

Ebenso ist vielen Schülern auf den ersten Blick nicht recht klar, dass das logische Gegenteil von «müssen» nicht unbedingt «nicht müssen» ist, sondern vielmehr «nicht dürfen». An den Verkehrsschildern lässt sich so etwas meistens recht gut erklären: Manchmal muss man abbiegen, aber manchmal darf man eben nicht.

Dieses Beispiel soll ein wenig die Verwirrungstaktik veranschaulichen, die in der Politik gerne verwendet wird, um unpopuläre oder restriktive Maßnahmen Stück für Stück einzuführen. Zuerst ist etwas einfach innovativ und bringt viele Vorteile. Vor allem ist es freiwillig, jeder kann selber entscheiden, niemand muss mitmachen. Später kann man zunehmend weniger Alternativen wählen, weil sie verschwinden, und irgendwann verwandelt sich alles andere in «nicht dürfen» – die Maßnahme ist obligatorisch.

Um die Durchsetzung derartiger Initiativen strategisch zu unterstützen und nett zu verpacken, gibt es Lobbyisten, gerne auch NGOs genannt. Dass das «NG» am Anfang dieser Abkürzung übersetzt «Nicht-Regierungs-» bedeutet, ist ein Anachronismus. Das war vielleicht früher einmal so, heute ist eher das Gegenteil gemeint.

In unserer modernen Zeit wird enorm viel Lobbyarbeit für die Digitalisierung praktisch sämtlicher Lebensbereiche aufgewendet. Was das auf dem Sektor der Mobilität bedeuten kann, haben wir diese Woche anhand aktueller Entwicklungen in Spanien beleuchtet. Begründet teilweise mit Vorgaben der Europäischen Union arbeitet man dort fleißig an einer «neuen Mobilität», basierend auf «intelligenter» technologischer Infrastruktur. Derartige Anwandlungen wurden auch schon als «Technofeudalismus» angeprangert.

Nationale Zugangspunkte für Mobilitätsdaten im Sinne der EU gibt es nicht nur in allen Mitgliedsländern, sondern auch in der Schweiz und in Großbritannien. Das Vereinigte Königreich beteiligt sich darüber hinaus an anderen EU-Projekten für digitale Überwachungs- und Kontrollmaßnahmen, wie dem biometrischen Identifizierungssystem für «nachhaltigen Verkehr und Tourismus».

Natürlich marschiert auch Deutschland stracks und euphorisch in Richtung digitaler Zukunft. Ohne vernetzte Mobilität und einen «verlässlichen Zugang zu Daten, einschließlich Echtzeitdaten» komme man in der Verkehrsplanung und -steuerung nicht aus, erklärt die Regierung. Der Interessenverband der IT-Dienstleister Bitkom will «die digitale Transformation der deutschen Wirtschaft und Verwaltung vorantreiben». Dazu bewirbt er unter anderem die Konzepte Smart City, Smart Region und Smart Country und behauptet, deutsche Großstädte «setzen bei Mobilität voll auf Digitalisierung».

Es steht zu befürchten, dass das umfassende Sammeln, Verarbeiten und Vernetzen von Daten, das angeblich die Menschen unterstützen soll (und theoretisch ja auch könnte), eher dazu benutzt wird, sie zu kontrollieren und zu manipulieren. Je elektrischer und digitaler unsere Umgebung wird, desto größer sind diese Möglichkeiten. Im Ergebnis könnten solche Prozesse den Bürger nicht nur einschränken oder überflüssig machen, sondern in mancherlei Hinsicht regelrecht abschalten. Eine gesunde Skepsis ist also geboten.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

E-cash are coupons or tokens for Bitcoin, or Bitcoin debt notes that the mint issues. The e-cash states, essentially, "IoU 2900 sats".

They're redeemable for Bitcoin on Lightning (hard money), and therefore can be used as cash (softer money), so long as the mint has a good reputation. That means that they're less fungible than Lightning because the e-cash from one mint can be more or less valuable than the e-cash from another. If a mint is buggy, offline, or disappears, then the e-cash is unreedemable.

It also means that e-cash is more anonymous than Lightning, and that the sender and receiver's wallets don't need to be online, to transact. Nutzaps now add the possibility of parking transactions one level farther out, on a relay. The same relays that cannot keep npub profiles and follow lists consistent will now do monetary transactions.

What we then have is * a transaction on a relay that triggers * a transaction on a mint that triggers * a transaction on Lightning that triggers * a transaction on Bitcoin.

Which means that every relay that stores the nuts is part of a wildcat banking system. Which is fine, but relay operators should consider whether they wish to carry the associated risks and liabilities. They should also be aware that they should implement the appropriate features in their relay, such as expiration tags (nuts rot after 2 weeks), and to make sure that only expired nuts are deleted.

There will be plenty of specialized relays for this, so don't feel pressured to join in, and research the topic carefully, for yourself.

https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/60.md

@ 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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Nostr is not decentralized nor censorship-resistant

Peter Todd has been saying this for a long time and all the time I've been thinking he is misunderstanding everything, but I guess a more charitable interpretation is that he is right.

Nostr today is indeed centralized.

Yesterday I published two harmless notes with the exact same content at the same time. In two minutes the notes had a noticeable difference in responses:

The top one was published to wss://nostr.wine, wss://nos.lol, wss://pyramid.fiatjaf.com. The second was published to the relay where I generally publish all my notes to, wss://pyramid.fiatjaf.com, and that is announced on my NIP-05 file and on my NIP-65 relay list.

A few minutes later I published that screenshot again in two identical notes to the same sets of relays, asking if people understood the implications. The difference in quantity of responses can still be seen today:

These results are skewed now by the fact that the two notes got rebroadcasted to multiple relays after some time, but the fundamental point remains.

What happened was that a huge lot more of people saw the first note compared to the second, and if Nostr was really censorship-resistant that shouldn't have happened at all.

Some people implied in the comments, with an air of obviousness, that publishing the note to "more relays" should have predictably resulted in more replies, which, again, shouldn't be the case if Nostr is really censorship-resistant.

What happens is that most people who engaged with the note are following me, in the sense that they have instructed their clients to fetch my notes on their behalf and present them in the UI, and clients are failing to do that despite me making it clear in multiple ways that my notes are to be found on wss://pyramid.fiatjaf.com.

If we were talking not about me, but about some public figure that was being censored by the State and got banned (or shadowbanned) by the 3 biggest public relays, the sad reality would be that the person would immediately get his reach reduced to ~10% of what they had before. This is not at all unlike what happened to dozens of personalities that were banned from the corporate social media platforms and then moved to other platforms -- how many of their original followers switched to these other platforms? Probably some small percentage close to 10%. In that sense Nostr today is similar to what we had before.

Peter Todd is right that if the way Nostr works is that you just subscribe to a small set of relays and expect to get everything from them then it tends to get very centralized very fast, and this is the reality today.

Peter Todd is wrong that Nostr is inherently centralized or that it needs a protocol change to become what it has always purported to be. He is in fact wrong today, because what is written above is not valid for all clients of today, and if we drive in the right direction we can successfully make Peter Todd be more and more wrong as time passes, instead of the contrary.

---

See also:

• Censorship-resistant relay discovery in Nostr
• A vision for content discovery and relay usage for basic social-networking in Nostr

@ ecda4328:1278f072

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

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

---

The Role of ETCD and Quorum

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

What Quorum Means in Practice

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

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

---

Why 3 Nodes is the Ideal Baseline

Running 3 ETCD nodes hits a great balance:

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

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

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

---

The Myth of Catastrophic Failure

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

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

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

---

What About Backups?

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

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

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

---

When to Consider 5 Nodes

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

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

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

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

---

TL;DR

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

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

---

@ aa8de34f:a6ffe696

19. März 2025

🔐 1. SHA-256 is Quantum-Resistant

Bitcoin’s proof-of-work mechanism relies on SHA-256, a hashing algorithm. Even with a powerful quantum computer, SHA-256 remains secure because:

• Quantum computers excel at factoring large numbers (Shor’s Algorithm).
• However, SHA-256 is a one-way function, meaning there's no known quantum algorithm that can efficiently reverse it.
• Grover’s Algorithm (which theoretically speeds up brute force attacks) would still require 2¹²⁸ operations to break SHA-256 – far beyond practical reach.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

🔑 2. Public Key Vulnerability – But Only If You Reuse Addresses

Bitcoin uses Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) to generate keys.

• A quantum computer could use Shor’s Algorithm to break SECP256K1, the curve Bitcoin uses.
• If you never reuse addresses, it is an additional security element
• 🔑 1. Bitcoin Addresses Are NOT Public Keys

Many people assume a Bitcoin address is the public key—this is wrong.

• When you receive Bitcoin, it is sent to a hashed public key (the Bitcoin address).
• The actual public key is never exposed because it is the Bitcoin Adress who addresses the Public Key which never reveals the creation of a public key by a spend
• Bitcoin uses Pay-to-Public-Key-Hash (P2PKH) or newer methods like Pay-to-Witness-Public-Key-Hash (P2WPKH), which add extra layers of security.

🕵️♂️ 2.1 The Public Key Never Appears

• When you send Bitcoin, your wallet creates a digital signature.
• This signature uses the private key to prove ownership.
• The Bitcoin address is revealed and creates the Public Key
• The public key remains hidden inside the Bitcoin script and Merkle tree.

This means: ✔ The public key is never exposed. ✔ Quantum attackers have nothing to target, attacking a Bitcoin Address is a zero value game.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

🔄 3. Bitcoin Can Upgrade

Even if quantum computers eventually become a real threat:

• Bitcoin developers can upgrade to quantum-safe cryptography (e.g., lattice-based cryptography or post-quantum signatures like Dilithium).
• Bitcoin’s decentralized nature ensures a network-wide soft fork or hard fork could transition to quantum-resistant keys.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

⏳ 4. The 10-Minute Block Rule as a Security Feature

• Bitcoin’s network operates on a 10-minute block interval, meaning:Even if an attacker had immense computational power (like a quantum computer), they could only attempt an attack every 10 minutes.Unlike traditional encryption, where a hacker could continuously brute-force keys, Bitcoin’s system resets the challenge with every new block.This limits the window of opportunity for quantum attacks.

---

🎯 5. Quantum Attack Needs to Solve a Block in Real-Time

• A quantum attacker must solve the cryptographic puzzle (Proof of Work) in under 10 minutes.
• The problem? Any slight error changes the hash completely, meaning:If the quantum computer makes a mistake (even 0.0001% probability), the entire attack fails.Quantum decoherence (loss of qubit stability) makes error correction a massive challenge.The computational cost of recovering from an incorrect hash is still incredibly high.

---

⚡ 6. Network Resilience – Even if a Block Is Hacked

• Even if a quantum computer somehow solved a block instantly:The network would quickly recognize and reject invalid transactions.Other miners would continue mining under normal cryptographic rules.51% Attack? The attacker would need to consistently beat the entire Bitcoin network, which is not sustainable.

---

🔄 7. The Logarithmic Difficulty Adjustment Neutralizes Threats

• Bitcoin adjusts mining difficulty every 2016 blocks (\~2 weeks).
• If quantum miners appeared and suddenly started solving blocks too quickly, the difficulty would adjust upward, making attacks significantly harder.
• This self-correcting mechanism ensures that even quantum computers wouldn't easily overpower the network.

---

🔥 Final Verdict: Quantum Computers Are Too Slow for Bitcoin

✔ The 10-minute rule limits attack frequency – quantum computers can’t keep up.

✔ Any slight miscalculation ruins the attack, resetting all progress.

✔ Bitcoin’s difficulty adjustment would react, neutralizing quantum advantages.

Even if quantum computers reach their theoretical potential, Bitcoin’s game theory and design make it incredibly resistant. 🚀

@ daa41bed:88f54153

There has been a good bit of discussion on Nostr over the past few days about the merits of zaps as a method of engaging with notes, so after writing a rather lengthy article on the pros of a strategic Bitcoin reserve, I wanted to take some time to chime in on the much more fun topic of digital engagement.

Let's begin by defining a couple of things:

Nostr is a decentralized, censorship-resistance protocol whose current biggest use case is social media (think Twitter/X). Instead of relying on company servers, it relies on relays that anyone can spin up and own their own content. Its use cases are much bigger, though, and this article is hosted on my own relay, using my own Nostr relay as an example.

Zap is a tip or donation denominated in sats (small units of Bitcoin) sent from one user to another. This is generally done directly over the Lightning Network but is increasingly using Cashu tokens. For the sake of this discussion, how you transmit/receive zaps will be irrelevant, so don't worry if you don't know what Lightning or Cashu are.

If we look at how users engage with posts and follows/followers on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, etc., it becomes evident that traditional social media thrives on engagement farming. The more outrageous a post, the more likely it will get a reaction. We see a version of this on more visual social platforms like YouTube and TikTok that use carefully crafted thumbnail images to grab the user's attention to click the video. If you'd like to dive deep into the psychology and science behind social media engagement, let me know, and I'd be happy to follow up with another article.

In this user engagement model, a user is given the option to comment or like the original post, or share it among their followers to increase its signal. They receive no value from engaging with the content aside from the dopamine hit of the original experience or having their comment liked back by whatever influencer they provide value to. Ad revenue flows to the content creator. Clout flows to the content creator. Sales revenue from merch and content placement flows to the content creator. We call this a linear economy -- the idea that resources get created, used up, then thrown away. Users create content and farm as much engagement as possible, then the content is forgotten within a few hours as they move on to the next piece of content to be farmed.

What if there were a simple way to give value back to those who engage with your content? By implementing some value-for-value model -- a circular economy. Enter zaps.

Unlike traditional social media platforms, Nostr does not actively use algorithms to determine what content is popular, nor does it push content created for active user engagement to the top of a user's timeline. Yes, there are "trending" and "most zapped" timelines that users can choose to use as their default, but these use relatively straightforward engagement metrics to rank posts for these timelines.

That is not to say that we may not see clients actively seeking to refine timeline algorithms for specific metrics. Still, the beauty of having an open protocol with media that is controlled solely by its users is that users who begin to see their timeline gamed towards specific algorithms can choose to move to another client, and for those who are more tech-savvy, they can opt to run their own relays or create their own clients with personalized algorithms and web of trust scoring systems.

Zaps enable the means to create a new type of social media economy in which creators can earn for creating content and users can earn by actively engaging with it. Like and reposting content is relatively frictionless and costs nothing but a simple button tap. Zaps provide active engagement because they signal to your followers and those of the content creator that this post has genuine value, quite literally in the form of money—sats.

I have seen some comments on Nostr claiming that removing likes and reactions is for wealthy people who can afford to send zaps and that the majority of people in the US and around the world do not have the time or money to zap because they have better things to spend their money like feeding their families and paying their bills. While at face value, these may seem like valid arguments, they, unfortunately, represent the brainwashed, defeatist attitude that our current economic (and, by extension, social media) systems aim to instill in all of us to continue extracting value from our lives.

Imagine now, if those people dedicating their own time (time = money) to mine pity points on social media would instead spend that time with genuine value creation by posting content that is meaningful to cultural discussions. Imagine if, instead of complaining that their posts get no zaps and going on a tirade about how much of a victim they are, they would empower themselves to take control of their content and give value back to the world; where would that leave us? How much value could be created on a nascent platform such as Nostr, and how quickly could it overtake other platforms?

Other users argue about user experience and that additional friction (i.e., zaps) leads to lower engagement, as proven by decades of studies on user interaction. While the added friction may turn some users away, does that necessarily provide less value? I argue quite the opposite. You haven't made a few sats from zaps with your content? Can't afford to send some sats to a wallet for zapping? How about using the most excellent available resource and spending 10 seconds of your time to leave a comment? Likes and reactions are valueless transactions. Social media's real value derives from providing monetary compensation and actively engaging in a conversation with posts you find interesting or thought-provoking. Remember when humans thrived on conversation and discussion for entertainment instead of simply being an onlooker of someone else's life?

If you've made it this far, my only request is this: try only zapping and commenting as a method of engagement for two weeks. Sure, you may end up liking a post here and there, but be more mindful of how you interact with the world and break yourself from blind instinct. You'll thank me later.

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

Before I saw those X right-wing political “influencers” parading their Epstein binders in that PR stunt, I’d already posted this on Nostr, an open protocol. 

“Today, the world’s attention will likely fixate on Epstein, governmental failures in addressing horrific abuse cases, and the influential figures who perpetrate such acts—yet few will center the victims and survivors in the conversation. The survivors of Epstein went to law enforcement and very little happened. The survivors tried to speak to the corporate press and the corporate press knowingly covered for him. In situations like these social media can serve as one of the only ways for a survivor’s voice to be heard. 

It’s becoming increasingly evident that the line between centralized corporate social media and the state is razor-thin, if it exists at all. Time and again, the state shields powerful abusers when it’s politically expedient to do so. In this climate, a survivor attempting to expose someone like Epstein on a corporate tech platform faces an uphill battle—there’s no assurance their voice would even break through. Their story wouldn’t truly belong to them; it’d be at the mercy of the platform, subject to deletion at a whim. Nostr, though, offers a lifeline—a censorship-resistant space where survivors can share their truths, no matter how untouchable the abuser might seem. A survivor could remain anonymous here if they took enough steps. 

Nostr holds real promise for amplifying survivor voices. And if you’re here daily, tossing out memes, take heart: you’re helping build a foundation for those who desperately need to be heard.“

That post is untouchable—no CEO, company, employee, or government can delete it. Even if I wanted to, I couldn’t take it down myself. The post will outlive me on the protocol. 

The cozy alliance between the state and corporate social media hit me hard during that right-wing X “influencer” PR stunt. Elon owns X. Elon’s a special government employee. X pays those influencers to post. We don’t know who else pays them to post. Those influencers are spurred on by both the government and X to manage the Epstein case narrative. It wasn’t survivors standing there, grinning for photos—it was paid influencers, gatekeepers orchestrating yet another chance to re-exploit the already exploited.

The bond between the state and corporate social media is tight. If the other Epsteins out there are ever to be unmasked, I wouldn’t bet on a survivor’s story staying safe with a corporate tech platform, the government, any social media influencer, or mainstream journalist. Right now, only a protocol can hand survivors the power to truly own their narrative.

I don’t have anything against Elon—I’ve actually been a big supporter. I’m just stating it as I see it. X isn’t censorship resistant and they have an algorithm that they choose not the user. Corporate tech platforms like X can be a better fit for some survivors. X has safety tools and content moderation, making it a solid option for certain individuals. Grok can be a big help for survivors looking for resources or support! As a survivor, you know what works best for you, and safety should always come first—keep that front and center.

That said, a protocol is a game-changer for cases where the powerful are likely to censor. During China's # MeToo movement, survivors faced heavy censorship on social media platforms like Weibo and WeChat, where posts about sexual harassment were quickly removed, and hashtags like # MeToo or "woyeshi" were blocked by government and platform filters. To bypass this, activists turned to blockchain technology encoding their stories—like Yue Xin’s open letter about a Peking University case—into transaction metadata. This made the information tamper-proof and publicly accessible, resisting censorship since blockchain data can’t be easily altered or deleted.

I posted this on X 2/28/25. I wanted to try my first long post on a nostr client. The Epstein cover up is ongoing so it’s still relevant, unfortunately.

If you are a survivor or loved one who is reading this and needs support please reach out to: National Sexual Assault Hotline 24/7 https://rainn.org/

Hours: Available 24 hours

@ 6b3780ef:221416c8

This workshop will guide you through exploring the concepts behind MCP servers and how to deploy them as DVMs in Nostr using DVMCP. By the end, you'll understand how these systems work together and be able to create your own deployments.

Understanding MCP Systems

MCP (Model Context Protocol) systems consist of two main components that work together:

1. MCP Server: The heart of the system that exposes tools, which you can access via the .listTools() method.
2. MCP Client: The interface that connects to the MCP server and lets you use the tools it offers.

These servers and clients can communicate using different transport methods:

• Standard I/O (stdio): A simple local connection method when your server and client are on the same machine.
• Server-Sent Events (SSE): Uses HTTP to create a communication channel.

For this workshop, we'll use stdio to deploy our server. DVMCP will act as a bridge, connecting to your MCP server as an MCP client, and exposing its tools as a DVM that anyone can call from Nostr.

Creating (or Finding) an MCP Server

Building an MCP server is simpler than you might think:

1. Create software in any programming language you're comfortable with.
2. Add an MCP library to expose your server's MCP interface.
3. Create an API that wraps around your software's functionality.

Once your server is ready, an MCP client can connect, for example, with bun index.js, and then call .listTools() to discover what your server can do. This pattern, known as reflection, makes Nostr DVMs and MCP a perfect match since both use JSON, and DVMs can announce and call tools, effectively becoming an MCP proxy.

Alternatively, you can use one of the many existing MCP servers available in various repositories.

For more information about mcp and how to build mcp servers you can visit https://modelcontextprotocol.io/

Setting Up the Workshop

Let's get hands-on:

First, to follow this workshop you will need Bun. Install it from https://bun.sh/. For Linux and macOS, you can use the installation script:

curl -fsSL https://bun.sh/install | bash

1. Choose your MCP server: You can either create one or use an existing one.

2. Inspect your server using the MCP inspector tool: bash npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector build/index.js arg1 arg2 This will:

3. Launch a client UI (default: http://localhost:5173)
4. Start an MCP proxy server (default: port 3000)

5. Pass any additional arguments directly to your server

6. Use the inspector: Open the client UI in your browser to connect with your server, list available tools, and test its functionality.

Deploying with DVMCP

Now for the exciting part – making your MCP server available to everyone on Nostr:

1. Navigate to your MCP server directory.

2. Run without installing (quickest way): npx @dvmcp/bridge

3. Or install globally for regular use: npm install -g @dvmcp/bridge # or bun install -g @dvmcp/bridge Then run using: bash dvmcp-bridge

This will guide you through creating the necessary configuration.

Watch the console logs to confirm successful setup – you'll see your public key and process information, or any issues that need addressing.

For the configuration, you can set the relay as wss://relay.dvmcp.fun , or use any other of your preference

Testing and Integration

1. Visit dvmcp.fun to see your DVM announcement.
2. Call your tools and watch the responses come back.

For production use, consider running dvmcp-bridge as a system service or creating a container for greater reliability and uptime.

Integrating with LLM Clients

You can also integrate your DVMCP deployment with LLM clients using the discovery package:

1. Install and use the @dvmcp/discovery package: bash npx @dvmcp/discovery

2. This package acts as an MCP server for your LLM system by:

3. Connecting to configured Nostr relays
4. Discovering tools from DVMCP servers

5. Making them available to your LLM applications

6. Connect to specific servers or providers using these flags: ```bash # Connect to all DVMCP servers from a provider npx @dvmcp/discovery --provider npub1...

# Connect to a specific DVMCP server npx @dvmcp/discovery --server naddr1... ```

Using these flags, you wouldn't need a configuration file. You can find these commands and Claude desktop configuration already prepared for copy and paste at dvmcp.fun.

This feature lets you connect to any DVMCP server using Nostr and integrate it into your client, either as a DVM or in LLM-powered applications.

Final thoughts

If you've followed this workshop, you now have an MCP server deployed as a Nostr DVM. This means that local resources from the system where the MCP server is running can be accessed through Nostr in a decentralized manner. This capability is powerful and opens up numerous possibilities and opportunities for fun.

You can use this setup for various use cases, including in a controlled/local environment. For instance, you can deploy a relay in your local network that's only accessible within it, exposing all your local MCP servers to anyone connected to the network. This setup can act as a hub for communication between different systems, which could be particularly interesting for applications in home automation or other fields. The potential applications are limitless.

However, it's important to keep in mind that there are security concerns when exposing local resources publicly. You should be mindful of these risks and prioritize security when creating and deploying your MCP servers on Nostr.

Finally, these are new ideas, and the software is still under development. If you have any feedback, please refer to the GitHub repository to report issues or collaborate. DVMCP also has a Signal group you can join. Additionally, you can engage with the community on Nostr using the #dvmcp hashtag.

Useful Resources

• Official Documentation:
• Model Context Protocol: modelcontextprotocol.org

• DVMCP.fun: dvmcp.fun

• Source Code and Development:

• DVMCP: github.com/gzuuus/dvmcp

• DVMCP.fun: github.com/gzuuus/dvmcpfun

• MCP Servers and Clients:

• Smithery AI: smithery.ai
• MCP.so: mcp.so

• Glama AI MCP Servers: glama.ai/mcp/servers

• Signal group

Happy building!

@ bf95e1a4:ebdcc848

This is a part of the Bitcoin Infinity Academy course on Knut Svanholm's book Bitcoin: Sovereignty Through Mathematics. For more information, check out our Geyser page!

Everything A Trade

All human interaction can be defined as trade. Yes, all human interaction. Every time a human being interacts with another, an exchange takes place. In every conversation we have, we exchange information with each other. Even the most trivial information is of some value to the other person. If information didn’t have any value to us, we wouldn’t talk to each other. Either what the other person says is valuable to us, or we find it valuable to give information to them. Oftentimes both. At the core of all human interaction that isn’t violent, both parties perceive that they gain some value from it, otherwise the interaction wouldn’t have taken place at all. Civilizations begin this way — two people finding it valuable to interact with each other. That’s all it takes.

So, what constitutes value? What we find valuable is entirely subjective. A comforting hug, for example, probably has a different value to a two-year-old than it has to a withered army general. Even the most basic action, such as breathing, encapsulates the whole value spectrum. We tend to forget that even a single breath of air can be of immense value to us under the right circumstances. A single breath is worth more than anything on the planet to a desperate free-diver trapped under ice, while worth nothing to a person with a death wish in clean forest air on a sunny summer day. Value is derived from supply and demand, and demand is always subjective. Supply is not.

Since all of our lives are limited by time, time is the ultimate example of a scarce, tradeable resource. We all sell our time. We sell it to others, and we sell it to ourselves. Everyone sells their time, either through a product that took them a certain amount of time to produce, or as a service, and services always take time. If you’re an employee on a steady payroll, you typically sell eight hours of your day, every day, to your employer. If you’re doing something you truly love to do, that eight-hour day still belongs to you, in a way, since you’re doing what you’d probably be doing anyway if you had been forced to do it for free. Sometimes, we sacrifice time in order to acquire something in the future. An education, for instance, gives no immediate reward but can lead to a better-paying, more satisfying job in the future. An investment is basically our future self trading time with our present self at a discount. Once again, every human interaction viewed as trade.

It’s rooted in physics. For every action, there is an equally large reaction. Trade is at the very core of what we are, and the tools we use to conduct trade matter a lot to the outcome of each transaction. Money is our primary tool for expressing value to each other and if the creation of money is somewhat corrupt or unethical, that rot spreads down throughout society, from top to bottom. Shit flows downhill, as the expression goes.

So what is money, or rather, what ought money to be? In order for two persons to interact when a mutual coincidence of needs is absent, a medium of exchange is needed in order to execute a transaction. A mutual coincidence of needs might be “You need my three goats, and I need your cow,” or even “both of us need a hug.” In the absence of a physical good or service suitable for a specific transaction, money can fulfill the role of a medium of exchange. What most people fail to realize is that the value of money, just as the value of everything else, is entirely subjective. You don’t have to spend it. The problem with every incarnation of money that mankind has ever tried is that its value always gets diluted over time due to inflation in various forms. Inflation makes traditional money a bad store of value, and money needs to be a good store of value in order to be a good investment, or in other words, a good substitute for your time and your effort over time. Bitcoin tries to solve this problem by introducing absolute scarcity to the world, a concept that mankind has never encountered before. To comprehend what such a discovery means for the future, one needs to understand the fundamentals of what value is and that we assign a certain value to everything we encounter in life, whether we admit it or not. In short, we assign value to everything we do, value is derived from supply and demand, and supply is objective while demand is subjective.

Free trade emerges out of human interaction naturally and it is not an idea that was forced upon us at any specific point in time. The idea that markets should be regulated and governed, on the other hand, was. Free trade is just the absence of forceful interference in an interaction between two humans by a third party. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong or immoral about an exchange of a good or service. Every objection to this is a byproduct of the current global narrative — a narrative that tells us that the world is divided into different nations and that people in these nations operate under various sets of laws, depending on what jurisdiction they find themselves in. All of these ideas are man-made. No species except humans does this to themselves. Animals do trade, but they don’t do politics.

Bitcoin and the idea of truly sound, absolutely scarce money inevitably make you question human societal structures in general and the nature of money in particular. Once you realize that this Pandora’s box of an idea can’t be closed again by anyone, everything is put into perspective. Once you realize that it is now possible for anyone with a decently sized brain to store any amount of wealth in that brain or to beam wealth anonymously to any other brain in the world without anyone else ever knowing, everything you were ever told about human society is turned on its head. Everything you thought you knew about taxes, social class, capitalism, socialism, economics, or even democracy falls apart like a house of cards in a hurricane. It is, in fact, impossible to comprehend the impact Bitcoin will have on the planet without also understanding basic Austrian economics and what the libertarian worldview stems from.

Imagine growing up in an Amish community. Until your sixteenth birthday, you’re purposely completely shielded off from the outside world. Information about how the world really works is very limited to you since internet access, and even TVs and radios, are forbidden within the community. Well, from a certain perspective, we’re all Amish. How money really works is never emphasized enough through traditional media or public educational institutions. Most people believe that the monetary system is somehow sound and fair when there’s overwhelming evidence to the contrary all over the globe. Ask yourself, do you remember being taught about the origins of money in school? Me neither. I don’t believe that there’s some great, global conspiracy behind the fact that the ethics of money creation isn’t a school subject, but rather that plain old ignorance is to blame for the lack of such a subject primarily. As soon as their math-skill limit is reached, people seem to stop caring about numbers. The difference between a million and a billion seems lost on a depressingly large part of the world's population. In the chapters ahead, we’ll explore the pitfalls of central banking, how money pops into existence, and how inflation keeps us all on a leash.

About the Bitcoin Infinity Academy

The Bitcoin Infinity Academy is an educational project built around Knut Svanholm’s books about Bitcoin and Austrian Economics. Each week, a whole chapter from one of the books is released for free on Highlighter, accompanied by a video in which Knut and Luke de Wolf discuss that chapter’s ideas. You can join the discussions by signing up for one of the courses on our Geyser page. Signed books, monthly calls, and lots of other benefits are also available.

@ a0c34d34:fef39af1

8 months ago I went to Nashville, Bitcoin2024. The one with Edward Snowden’s cryptic speech, Michael Saylor telling people who knew nothing about Bitcoin how to stack sats. And yes, I was in the room when Donald spoke. I had so many people asking me how to “get a Coinbase!!!” cause he said so.

I sat with two women explaining seed phrase and how vital it was as they wrote the random words on scrape pieces of paper and put them in their purses.

I once was just like those women. Still am in some areas of this space. It can be overwhelming, learning about cryptography,subgraphs, it can be decentralized theatre!!!

Yes decentralized theatre. I said it. I never said it out loud.

In 2016, I knew nothing. I overheard a conversation that changed my life’s trajectory. I am embarrassed to say, I was old then but didn’t know it. I didn’t see myself as old, 56 back then, I just wanted to have enough money to pay bills.

I say this to say I bought 3 whole Bitcoin in 2016 and listening to mainstream news about scams and black market associated with what I bought, I sold them quickly and thought I was too old to be scammed and playing around with all of that.

In 2018, someone gave me The Book of Satoshi, I read it and thought it was a fabulous story but my fear ? I put the book in a drawer and forgot about it.

I mentioned decentralized theatre. I have been living in decentralized theatre for the past 3 years now. In August 2021 I landed on TikTok and saw NFTs. I thought get money directly to those who need it. I started diving down the rabbit holes of Web3.

The decentralized theatre is being in betas & joining platforms claiming to be decentralized social media platforms and of course all the “Web3” businesses claiming to be Web3.

Social medias were exciting, the crypto casino was thriving and I thought I was going to live a decentralized life with Bitcoin being independent from any financial institutions or interference from government.

Delusional? Yes, diving deeper, I did. I went to my first “night with crypto” event in West Palm Beach. My first IRL meeting scammers.

There was about 200-250 people sitting facing the stage where a man was speaking. There was a QRCode on the screen and he said for us to get out our phones and scan the QRCode to download their wallet & get free money.

I watched everyone, most everyone point their phones at the screen, but I didn’t, I got up and went out to the area where the booths were, the vendors.

A few months later I found out ( on Twitter) it was a scam. People would deposit a “minimal amount” and swap their money for these tokens with no value but constant hype and Twitter social media ambassadors ( followers) had people “wanting in” Don’t FOMO…

The promise of decentralization, independent from banks & government, and of course I had been excitedly sharing everything I was learning on TikTok and mentioned senior citizens need to know this stuff.

They need to learn metaverse to be connected with the virtual and digital natives( their kids, grandkids). They need to learn about Bitcoin and blockchain technologies to put their documents on chain & transfer their wealth safely. They need to learn how A.I. health tech can help them have a better quality of life!!!

Someone said I was a senior citizen and I was the perfect person to help them. It’s been 3 years and I learned how to create a Discord(with Geneva), 4 metaverses, multiple wallets and learned about different cryptos. I learned about different GPTs, NFCCHIP wearables, A.I. and Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Network and so much more.

I have since deleted TikTok. I wrote an article on that on YakiHonne. I’m using LinkedIn and YouTube , some BluSky platforms. I published a cliff notes book for senior citizens and put it in my Stan Store(online to links) with links to my resume, newsletter, YouTube Channel, Substack and Onboard60 digital clone.

Onboard60, the name for my project. Onboard was THE buzzword back in 2021 & early 2022, 60? an age representative of my target audience … Onboard60 stuck.

The lack of interest from senior citizens over the years , the rejections, wild opinions, trolls on socials- I understand - I forget the fear I had. I still have the fear of not being a part of society, not understanding the world around me, getting left behind.

I keep coming to Nostr, going to BluSky, even the ones that are decentralized theatre( Lens & Farcaster)- I admit losing 28k follower account and afew other accounts I deleted ( over 5k & 12k), I felt a loss. I had perpetually been online and my relationships, friendships were online. Sadly only a few were real. Social media - out of sight out of mind. It was devastating.

I had to unplug and regroup. I was afraid to be on new social platforms, scared to start over, meet people. I’m realizing I do everything scared. I do it, whatever it is that moves me forward, keeps me learning, and keeps my mindset open, flexible.

Another fear is happening to me. There are times I have a senior citizen mindset. And that’s really scary. I have heard myself in conversations putting in an extra “the” like saying The Nostr like older people do.

Onboard60 is me. I am an adolescent and family counselor with a Master’s degree. I have created a few Metaverses, a Live chat/online Discord, a How to for senior citizens booklet and a digital clone.

Yes Onboard60 digital clone can be asked about anything Web3, blockchain and discuss how to create personal A.I. agents. I uploaded all of my content of the last 3 years (and it being LLM)People can go to Onboard60 clone with voice and or text

I do 1:1 counseling with overwhelmed, afraid and skeptical senior citizens.

I show experientially step by step basic virtual reality so senior citizens can enter the metaverse with their grandkids and portal to a park.

I use the metaverse & Geneva Live chats as social hang outs for senior citizens globally to create connections and stay relevant

I also talk about medical bracelets. NFCCHIP for medical information, gps bracelets for Alzheimer’s or dementia care.

And lastly from the past 3 years, I have learned to discuss all options for Bitcoin investing, not just self custody. Senior citizens listen, feel safe when I discuss Grayscale and Fidelity.

They feel they can trust these institutions. I tell them how they have articles and webinars on their sites about crypto and what cryptofunds they offer. They can dyor, it’s their money.

My vision and mission have stayed the same through this rollercoaster of a journey. It’s what keeps me grounded and moving forward.

This year I’m turning 65, and will become a part of the Medicare system. I don’t have insurance, can’t afford it. If it was on the blockchain I’d have control of the costs but nooooo, I am obligated to get Medicare.

I will have to work an extra shift a week (I am a waitress at night) and I am capable to do it and realistically I will probably need health insurance in the future, I am a senior citizen…..

Thank you for reading this. Zap sats and thank you again.

Sandra (Samm) Onboard60 Founder

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PLn1ysBEfjjwPZsMsLlmX-s7cDOgPC29/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=111904115111263773126&rtpof=true&sd=true

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Censorship-resistant relay discovery in Nostr

In Nostr is not decentralized nor censorship-resistant I said Nostr is centralized. Peter Todd thinks it is centralized by design, but I disagree.

Nostr wasn't designed to be centralized. The idea was always that clients would follow people in the relays they decided to publish to, even if it was a single-user relay hosted in an island in the middle of the Pacific ocean.

But the Nostr explanations never had any guidance about how to do this, and the protocol itself never had any enforcement mechanisms for any of this (because it would be impossible).

My original idea was that clients would use some undefined combination of relay hints in reply tags and the (now defunct) kind:2 relay-recommendation events plus some form of manual action ("it looks like Bob is publishing on relay X, do you want to follow him there?") to accomplish this. With the expectation that we would have a better idea of how to properly implement all this with more experience, Branle, my first working client didn't have any of that implemented, instead it used a stupid static list of relays with read/write toggle -- although it did publish relay hints and kept track of those internally and supported kind:2 events, these things were not really useful.

Gossip was the first client to implement a truly censorship-resistant relay discovery mechanism that used NIP-05 hints (originally proposed by Mike Dilger) relay hints and kind:3 relay lists, and then with the simple insight of NIP-65 that got much better. After seeing it in more concrete terms, it became simpler to reason about it and the approach got popularized as the "gossip model", then implemented in clients like Coracle and Snort.

Today when people mention the "gossip model" (or "outbox model") they simply think about NIP-65 though. Which I think is ok, but too restrictive. I still think there is a place for the NIP-05 hints, nprofile and nevent relay hints and specially relay hints in event tags. All these mechanisms are used together in ZBD Social, for example, but I believe also in the clients listed above.

I don't think we should stop here, though. I think there are other ways, perhaps drastically different ways, to approach content propagation and relay discovery. I think manual action by users is underrated and could go a long way if presented in a nice UX (not conceived by people that think users are dumb animals), and who knows what. Reliance on third-parties, hardcoded values, social graph, and specially a mix of multiple approaches, is what Nostr needs to be censorship-resistant and what I hope to see in the future.

@ 97c70a44:ad98e322

Last week, in a bid to understand the LLM hype, I decided to write a trivial nostr-related program in rust via a combination of codebuff (yes, that is a referral link, pls click), aider, and goose.

The result of the experiment was inconclusive, but as a side effect it produced a great case study in converting a NINO into a Real Nostr App.

Introducing Roz

Roz, a friendly notary for nostr events.

To use it, simply publish an event to relay.damus.io or nos.lol, and roz will make note of it. To find out when roz first saw a given event, just ask:

curl https://roz.coracle.social/notary/cb429632ae22557d677a11149b2d0ccd72a1cf66ac55da30e3534ed1a492765d

This will return a JSON payload with a seen key indicating when roz first saw the event. How (and whether) you use this is up to you!

De-NINO-fying roz

Roz is just a proof of concept, so don't rely on it being there forever. And anyway, roz is a NINO, since it provides value to nostr (potentially), but doesn't really do things in a nostr-native way. It also hard-codes its relays, and certainly doesn't use the outbox model or sign events. But that's ok, it's a proof of concept.

A much better way to do this would be to modify roz to properly leverage nostr's capabilities, namely:

• Use nostr-native data formats (i.e., draft a new kind)
• Use relays instead of proprietary servers for data storage
• Leverage nostr identities and signatures to decouple trust from storage, and allow trusted attestations to be discovered

Luckily, this is not hard at all. In fact, I've gone ahead and drafted a PR to the NIPs repo that adds timestamp annotations to NIP 03, as an alternative to OpenTimestamps. The trade-off is that while user attestations are far less reliable than OTS proofs, they're much easier to verify, and can reach a pretty high level of reliability by combining multiple attestation sources with other forms of reputation.

In other words, instead of going nuclear and embedding your attestations into The Time Chain, you can simply ask 5-10 relays or people you trust for their attestations for a given event.

This PR isn't terribly important on its own, but it does remove one small barrier between us and trusted key rotation events (or other types of event that require establishing a verifiable chain of causality).

@ a8d1560d:3fec7a08

I have created a Nostr desktop-like client with currently 3 apps. However, it is currently read-only and you have to manually refresh the apps to see if there's something new.

https://websim.ai/@wholewish91244492/nostr-desktop/

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Bald werde es verboten, alleine im Auto zu fahren, konnte man dieser Tage in verschiedenen spanischen Medien lesen. Die nationale Verkehrsbehörde (Dirección General de Tráfico, kurz DGT) werde Alleinfahrern das Leben schwer machen, wurde gemeldet. Konkret erörtere die Generaldirektion geeignete Sanktionen für Personen, die ohne Beifahrer im Privatauto unterwegs seien.

Das Alleinfahren sei zunehmend verpönt und ein Mentalitätswandel notwendig, hieß es. Dieser «Luxus» stehe im Widerspruch zu den Maßnahmen gegen Umweltverschmutzung, die in allen europäischen Ländern gefördert würden. In Frankreich sei es «bereits verboten, in der Hauptstadt allein zu fahren», behauptete Noticiastrabajo Huffpost in einer Zwischenüberschrift. Nur um dann im Text zu konkretisieren, dass die sogenannte «Umweltspur» auf der Pariser Ringautobahn gemeint war, die für Busse, Taxis und Fahrgemeinschaften reserviert ist. Ab Mai werden Verstöße dagegen mit einem Bußgeld geahndet.

Die DGT jedenfalls wolle bei der Umsetzung derartiger Maßnahmen nicht hinterherhinken. Diese Medienberichte, inklusive des angeblich bevorstehenden Verbots, beriefen sich auf Aussagen des Generaldirektors der Behörde, Pere Navarro, beim Mobilitätskongress Global Mobility Call im November letzten Jahres, wo es um «nachhaltige Mobilität» ging. Aus diesem Kontext stammt auch Navarros Warnung: «Die Zukunft des Verkehrs ist geteilt oder es gibt keine».

Die «Faktenchecker» kamen der Generaldirektion prompt zu Hilfe. Die DGT habe derlei Behauptungen zurückgewiesen und klargestellt, dass es keine Pläne gebe, Fahrten mit nur einer Person im Auto zu verbieten oder zu bestrafen. Bei solchen Meldungen handele es sich um Fake News. Teilweise wurde der Vorsitzende der spanischen «Rechtsaußen»-Partei Vox, Santiago Abascal, der Urheberschaft bezichtigt, weil er einen entsprechenden Artikel von La Gaceta kommentiert hatte.

Der Beschwichtigungsversuch der Art «niemand hat die Absicht» ist dabei erfahrungsgemäß eher ein Alarmzeichen als eine Beruhigung. Walter Ulbrichts Leugnung einer geplanten Berliner Mauer vom Juni 1961 ist vielen genauso in Erinnerung wie die Fake News-Warnungen des deutschen Bundesgesundheitsministeriums bezüglich Lockdowns im März 2020 oder diverse Äußerungen zu einer Impfpflicht ab 2020.

Aber Aufregung hin, Dementis her: Die Pressemitteilung der DGT zu dem Mobilitätskongress enthält in Wahrheit viel interessantere Informationen als «nur» einen Appell an den «guten» Bürger wegen der Bemühungen um die Lebensqualität in Großstädten oder einen möglichen obligatorischen Abschied vom Alleinfahren. Allerdings werden diese Details von Medien und sogenannten Faktencheckern geflissentlich übersehen, obwohl sie keineswegs versteckt sind. Die Auskünfte sind sehr aufschlussreich, wenn man genauer hinschaut.

Digitalisierung ist der Schlüssel für Kontrolle

Auf dem Kongress stellte die Verkehrsbehörde ihre Initiativen zur Förderung der «neuen Mobilität» vor, deren Priorität Sicherheit und Effizienz sei. Die vier konkreten Ansätze haben alle mit Digitalisierung, Daten, Überwachung und Kontrolle im großen Stil zu tun und werden unter dem Euphemismus der «öffentlich-privaten Partnerschaft» angepriesen. Auch lassen sie die transhumanistische Idee vom unzulänglichen Menschen erkennen, dessen Fehler durch «intelligente» technologische Infrastruktur kompensiert werden müssten.

Die Chefin des Bereichs «Verkehrsüberwachung» erklärte die Funktion des spanischen National Access Point (NAP), wobei sie betonte, wie wichtig Verkehrs- und Infrastrukturinformationen in Echtzeit seien. Der NAP ist «eine essenzielle Web-Applikation, die unter EU-Mandat erstellt wurde», kann man auf der Website der DGT nachlesen.

Das Mandat meint Regelungen zu einem einheitlichen europäischen Verkehrsraum, mit denen die Union mindestens seit 2010 den Aufbau einer digitalen Architektur mit offenen Schnittstellen betreibt. Damit begründet man auch «umfassende Datenbereitstellungspflichten im Bereich multimodaler Reiseinformationen». Jeder Mitgliedstaat musste einen NAP, also einen nationalen Zugangspunkt einrichten, der Zugang zu statischen und dynamischen Reise- und Verkehrsdaten verschiedener Verkehrsträger ermöglicht.

Diese Entwicklung ist heute schon weit fortgeschritten, auch und besonders in Spanien. Auf besagtem Kongress erläuterte die Leiterin des Bereichs «Telematik» die Plattform «DGT 3.0». Diese werde als Integrator aller Informationen genutzt, die von den verschiedenen öffentlichen und privaten Systemen, die Teil der Mobilität sind, bereitgestellt werden.

Es handele sich um eine Vermittlungsplattform zwischen Akteuren wie Fahrzeugherstellern, Anbietern von Navigationsdiensten oder Kommunen und dem Endnutzer, der die Verkehrswege benutzt. Alle seien auf Basis des Internets der Dinge (IOT) anonym verbunden, «um der vernetzten Gemeinschaft wertvolle Informationen zu liefern oder diese zu nutzen».

So sei DGT 3.0 «ein Zugangspunkt für einzigartige, kostenlose und genaue Echtzeitinformationen über das Geschehen auf den Straßen und in den Städten». Damit lasse sich der Verkehr nachhaltiger und vernetzter gestalten. Beispielsweise würden die Karten des Produktpartners Google dank der DGT-Daten 50 Millionen Mal pro Tag aktualisiert.

Des Weiteren informiert die Verkehrsbehörde über ihr SCADA-Projekt. Die Abkürzung steht für Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition, zu deutsch etwa: Kontrollierte Steuerung und Datenerfassung. Mit SCADA kombiniert man Software und Hardware, um automatisierte Systeme zur Überwachung und Steuerung technischer Prozesse zu schaffen. Das SCADA-Projekt der DGT wird von Indra entwickelt, einem spanischen Beratungskonzern aus den Bereichen Sicherheit & Militär, Energie, Transport, Telekommunikation und Gesundheitsinformation.

Das SCADA-System der Behörde umfasse auch eine Videostreaming- und Videoaufzeichnungsplattform, die das Hochladen in die Cloud in Echtzeit ermöglicht, wie Indra erklärt. Dabei gehe es um Bilder, die von Überwachungskameras an Straßen aufgenommen wurden, sowie um Videos aus DGT-Hubschraubern und Drohnen. Ziel sei es, «die sichere Weitergabe von Videos an Dritte sowie die kontinuierliche Aufzeichnung und Speicherung von Bildern zur möglichen Analyse und späteren Nutzung zu ermöglichen».

Letzteres klingt sehr nach biometrischer Erkennung und Auswertung durch künstliche Intelligenz. Für eine bessere Datenübertragung wird derzeit die Glasfaserverkabelung entlang der Landstraßen und Autobahnen ausgebaut. Mit der Cloud sind die Amazon Web Services (AWS) gemeint, die spanischen Daten gehen somit direkt zu einem US-amerikanischen «Big Data»-Unternehmen.

Das Thema «autonomes Fahren», also Fahren ohne Zutun des Menschen, bildet den Abschluss der Betrachtungen der DGT. Zusammen mit dem Interessenverband der Automobilindustrie ANFAC (Asociación Española de Fabricantes de Automóviles y Camiones) sprach man auf dem Kongress über Strategien und Perspektiven in diesem Bereich. Die Lobbyisten hoffen noch in diesem Jahr 2025 auf einen normativen Rahmen zur erweiterten Unterstützung autonomer Technologien.

Wenn man derartige Informationen im Zusammenhang betrachtet, bekommt man eine Idee davon, warum zunehmend alles elektrisch und digital werden soll. Umwelt- und Mobilitätsprobleme in Städten, wie Luftverschmutzung, Lärmbelästigung, Platzmangel oder Staus, sind eine Sache. Mit dem Argument «emissionslos» wird jedoch eine Referenz zum CO2 und dem «menschengemachten Klimawandel» hergestellt, die Emotionen triggert. Und damit wird so ziemlich alles verkauft.

Letztlich aber gilt: Je elektrischer und digitaler unsere Umgebung wird und je freigiebiger wir mit unseren Daten jeder Art sind, desto besser werden wir kontrollier-, steuer- und sogar abschaltbar. Irgendwann entscheiden KI-basierte Algorithmen, ob, wann, wie, wohin und mit wem wir uns bewegen dürfen. Über einen 15-Minuten-Radius geht dann möglicherweise nichts hinaus. Die Projekte auf diesem Weg sind ernst zu nehmen, real und schon weit fortgeschritten.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Nostr: a quick introduction, attempt #1

Nostr doesn't have a material existence, it is not a website or an app. Nostr is just a description what kind of messages each computer can send to the others and vice-versa. It's a very simple thing, but the fact that such description exists allows different apps to connect to different servers automatically, without people having to talk behind the scenes or sign contracts or anything like that.

When you use a Nostr client that is what happens, your client will connect to a bunch of servers, called relays, and all these relays will speak the same "language" so your client will be able to publish notes to them all and also download notes from other people.

That's basically what Nostr is: this communication layer between the client you run on your phone or desktop computer and the relay that someone else is running on some server somewhere. There is no central authority dictating who can connect to whom or even anyone who knows for sure where each note is stored.

If you think about it, Nostr is very much like the internet itself: there are millions of websites out there, and basically anyone can run a new one, and there are websites that allow you to store and publish your stuff on them.

The added benefit of Nostr is that this unified "language" that all Nostr clients speak allow them to switch very easily and cleanly between relays. So if one relay decides to ban someone that person can switch to publishing to others relays and their audience will quickly follow them there. Likewise, it becomes much easier for relays to impose any restrictions they want on their users: no relay has to uphold a moral ground of "absolute free speech": each relay can decide to delete notes or ban users for no reason, or even only store notes from a preselected set of people and no one will be entitled to complain about that.

There are some bad things about this design: on Nostr there are no guarantees that relays will have the notes you want to read or that they will store the notes you're sending to them. We can't just assume all relays will have everything — much to the contrary, as Nostr grows more relays will exist and people will tend to publishing to a small set of all the relays, so depending on the decisions each client takes when publishing and when fetching notes, users may see a different set of replies to a note, for example, and be confused.

Another problem with the idea of publishing to multiple servers is that they may be run by all sorts of malicious people that may edit your notes. Since no one wants to see garbage published under their name, Nostr fixes that by requiring notes to have a cryptographic signature. This signature is attached to the note and verified by everybody at all times, which ensures the notes weren't tampered (if any part of the note is changed even by a single character that would cause the signature to become invalid and then the note would be dropped). The fix is perfect, except for the fact that it introduces the requirement that each user must now hold this 63-character code that starts with "nsec1", which they must not reveal to anyone. Although annoying, this requirement brings another benefit: that users can automatically have the same identity in many different contexts and even use their Nostr identity to login to non-Nostr websites easily without having to rely on any third-party.

To conclude: Nostr is like the internet (or the internet of some decades ago): a little chaotic, but very open. It is better than the internet because it is structured and actions can be automated, but, like in the internet itself, nothing is guaranteed to work at all times and users many have to do some manual work from time to time to fix things. Plus, there is the cryptographic key stuff, which is painful, but cool.

@ f7d424b5:618c51e8

A few days ago, on March 20th 2025 one of the most important releases of the year in video games has taken place - Xenoblade Chronicles X! A few other games came out too and we'll talk about those this time while @Dielan@shitposter.world has time to get through the new Xenoblade.

Some links to stuff we talked about:

• EA Open Source & GPL'd C&C
• Lying VAs called out by SC
• PC gamer said something reasonable for once re: asscreed

Obligatory:

• Listen to the new episode here!
• Discuss this episode on OUR NEW FORUM
• Get the RSS and Subscribe (this is a new feed URL, but the old one redirects here too!)
• Get a modern podcast app to use that RSS feed on at newpodcastapps.com
• Or listen to the show on the forum using the embedded Podverse player!
• Send your complaints here

Reminder that this is a Value4Value podcast so any support you can give us via a modern podcasting app is greatly appreciated and we will never bow to corporate sponsors!

@ 378562cd:a6fc6773

In an era where the value of traditional money seems to shrink by the day, many turn to Bitcoin as a potential safeguard against inflation. But is Bitcoin truly a hedge, or is this just wishful thinking? Let’s break it down.

Understanding Inflation Inflation occurs when the purchasing power of money declines due to an increase in prices.

Central banks, like the Federal Reserve, often print more money, leading to more dollars chasing the same amount of goods.

Over time, inflation erodes savings and makes everyday items more expensive.

Why Bitcoin is Considered an Inflation Hedge Limited Supply – Unlike the U.S. dollar, Bitcoin has a fixed supply of 21 million coins, making it immune to money printing.

Decentralization – No government or central bank can manipulate Bitcoin’s supply or devalue it through policy changes.

Digital Gold – Many see Bitcoin as a modern version of gold, offering a store of value outside traditional financial systems.

Global Accessibility – Bitcoin operates 24/7 across borders, making it accessible to anyone looking to escape failing currencies.

Challenges to Bitcoin as an Inflation Hedge Volatility – Bitcoin’s price swings wildly, making it risky as a short-term hedge.

Adoption & Trust – Unlike gold, which has been a store of value for centuries, Bitcoin is relatively new and still gaining mainstream acceptance.

Market Correlation – At times, Bitcoin moves in tandem with stocks rather than acting as a safe-haven asset.

Regulatory Uncertainty – Governments around the world continue to debate Bitcoin’s place in the economy, which can impact its long-term stability.

The Verdict: Fact or Fiction? ✅ Long-Term Potential: Over the years, Bitcoin has shown signs of being a hedge against currency devaluation, especially in countries with hyperinflation. ⚠️ Short-Term Reality: Bitcoin’s volatility makes it unreliable as an immediate hedge, unlike traditional safe-haven assets like gold.

For those who believe in Bitcoin’s future, it could be a strong long-term hedge. However, for those looking for immediate inflation protection, it’s still a speculative bet.

Would you trust Bitcoin to safeguard your wealth? 🚀💰

What do you think? Share your comments below.

@ 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

@ ecda4328:1278f072

Kubernetes and Linux Swap: A Practical Perspective

After reviewing kernel documentation on swap management (e.g., Linux Swap Management), KEP-2400 (Kubernetes Node Memory Swap Support), and community discussions like this post on ServerFault, it's clear that the topic of swap usage in modern systems—especially Kubernetes environments—is nuanced and often contentious. Here's a practical synthesis of the discussion.

---

The Rationale for Disabling Swap

We disable SWAP on our Linux servers to ensure stable and predictable performance by relying on available RAM, avoiding the performance degradation and unnecessary I/O caused by SWAP usage. If an application runs out of memory, it’s usually due to insufficient RAM allocation or a memory leak, and enabling SWAP only worsens performance for other applications. It's more efficient to let a leaking app restart than to rely on SWAP to prevent OOM crashes.

With modern platforms like Kubernetes, memory requests and limits are enforced, ensuring apps use only the RAM allocated to them, while avoiding overcommitment to prevent resource exhaustion.

Additionally, disabling swap may protect data from data remanence attacks, where sensitive information could potentially be recovered from the swap space even after a process terminates.

---

Theoretical Capability vs. Practical Deployment

Linux provides a powerful and flexible memory subsystem. With proper tuning (e.g., swappiness, memory pinning, cgroups), it's technically possible to make swap usage efficient and targeted. Seasoned sysadmins often argue that disabling swap entirely is a lazy shortcut—an avoidance of learning how to use the tools properly.

But Kubernetes is not a traditional system. It's an orchestrated environment that favors predictability, fail-fast behavior, and clear isolation between workloads. Within this model:

• Memory requests and limits are declared explicitly.
• The scheduler makes decisions based on RAM availability, not total virtual memory (RAM + swap).
• Swap introduces non-deterministic performance characteristics that conflict with Kubernetes' goals.

So while the kernel supports intelligent swap usage, Kubernetes intentionally sidesteps that complexity.

---

Why Disable Swap in Kubernetes?

1. Deterministic Failure > Degraded Performance\ If a pod exceeds its memory allocation, it should fail fast — not get throttled into slow oblivion due to swap. This behavior surfaces bugs (like memory leaks or poor sizing) early.

2. Transparency & Observability\ With swap disabled, memory issues are clearer to diagnose. Swap obfuscates root causes and can make a healthy-looking node behave erratically.

3. Performance Consistency\ Swap causes I/O overhead. One noisy pod using swap can impact unrelated workloads on the same node — even if they’re within their resource limits.

4. Kubernetes Doesn’t Manage Swap Well\ Kubelet has historically lacked intelligence around swap. As of today, Kubernetes still doesn't support swap-aware scheduling or per-container swap control.

5. Statelessness is the Norm\ Most containerized workloads are designed to be ephemeral. Restarting a pod is usually preferable to letting it hang in a degraded state.

---

"But Swap Can Be Useful..."

Yes — for certain workloads (e.g., in-memory databases, caching layers, legacy systems), there may be valid reasons to keep swap enabled. In such cases, you'd need:

• Fine-tuned vm.swappiness
• Memory pinning and cgroup-based control
• Swap-aware monitoring and alerting
• Custom kubelet/systemd integration

That's possible, but not standard practice — and for good reason.

---

Future Considerations

Recent Kubernetes releases have introduced experimental swap support via KEP-2400. While this provides more flexibility for advanced use cases — particularly Burstable QoS pods on cgroupsv2 — swap remains disabled by default and is not generally recommended for production workloads unless carefully planned. The rationale outlined in this article remains applicable to most Kubernetes operators, especially in multi-tenant and performance-sensitive environments.

Even the Kubernetes maintainers acknowledge the inherent trade-offs of enabling swap. As noted in KEP-2400's Risks and Mitigations section, swap introduces unpredictability, can severely degrade performance compared to RAM, and complicates Kubernetes' resource accounting — increasing the risk of noisy neighbors and unexpected scheduling behavior.

Some argue that with emerging technologies like non-volatile memory (e.g., Intel Optane/XPoint), swap may become viable again. These systems promise near-RAM speed with large capacity, offering hybrid memory models. But these are not widely deployed or supported in mainstream Kubernetes environments yet.

---

Conclusion

Disabling swap in Kubernetes is not a lazy hack — it’s a strategic tradeoff. It improves transparency, predictability, and system integrity in multi-tenant, containerized environments. While the kernel allows for more advanced configurations, Kubernetes intentionally simplifies memory handling for the sake of reliability.

If we want to revisit swap usage, it should come with serious planning: proper instrumentation, swap-aware observability, and potentially upstream K8s improvements. Until then, disabling swap remains the sane default.

@ 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.

@ a60e79e0:1e0e6813

**This is a long form note test of a post that lives on my Nostr educational website Hello Nostr **

In early 2025, social media is the most common use case for Nostr (and probably the reason you're reading this). Nostr is SO much more than just social media, but that's where the bulk of the activity is, and is what I'm focusing on in this post. Even though the protocol is still so young, that has not prevented an explosion of excellent social media focused clients that predominantly coalesce around the Twitter (X) style feed, containing shorter form content, often with images, and the ability to comment, like and share.

This first steps guide showcases one of the most polished and simplest examples of such a client, Primal. Primal is a cross platform app, that also works on your computer too. The steps that follow are demonstrated on iPhone, but should be identical for Android users. There may be some topics of concepts here that are new to you, to learn more about them, check out our Nostr 101 to learn more about Nostr basics and why it matters.

You can and should explore all of the other options available to you, that's the beauty of Nostr, you're free to choose how and where to interact with your social network. No lock in. No walled gardens. True freedom.

Getting Started

1. Go to your app store and download Primal to your Android or iPhone

2. Open Primal and choose Create Account. Choose your public display name and add a short bio about yourself.

1. Select your chosen interests from the list provided. This will bootstrap your feed and auto-follow a number of accounts so that your feed is not completely empty when starting out.

1. Review your account info and tap Create Account Now. Take note of the fact that 'Your Nostr Key is available in your Account Settings'. We'll revisit this shortly.

1. Next is an optional step of activating the wallet feature within Primal. Having a wallet within your social client enables you to send and receive value (known as 'Zaps') in the form of Bitcoin. On Facebook and Twitter you can like a post, but it means much more to send someone fractions of a penny (or more if you like) to show your appreciation for their insights. You'll need to provide some personal information to enable the wallet, including an email address.

Using the internal wallet and purchasing sats with your credit card will tie your Nostr identity to your real ID. Think very carefully before carrying out this step.
Learn more in the detailed section at the end of this post.

1. That's it, you're now set up and ready to start sharing your thoughts, feelings and memes with the world via a decentralized and censorship resistant social network. To post your first note and say hello to the Nostr world, tap the + in the bottom right corner.

1. If you activated the wallet at step 5, you might want to deposit some Bitcoin in there to allow you to send some value to your friends. There are three main ways to do this:
2. Post some awesome content and have people send you value in the form of 'Zaps'
3. Send some Bitcoin from a wallet you already have
4. Purchase some directly within Primal

The latter is made very simple thanks to the in-app purchase feature, which allows you to purchase a small amount with the card you likely already have connected to your Apple/Google account. All you need to do is tap 'Buy Sats Now'.

1. Next, let's look at the different feeds available on our home screen. Tap 'Latest' at the top of the screen and you can toggle between three different types of home feeds, great for discovering new people and content.

1. Let's assume you already have some friends on Nostr and want to find and follow them. Tap the search icon in the top right corner, the enter the name of the person you want to follow. Once on their profile, simply tap the 'Follow' button.

1. So you found a friend and want to start interacting with them so they know you made it over to Nostr. Simply find a note you like and choose from the different types of interactions available. From left to right they are:
2. Comment
3. Zap (send value from your wallet to theirs)
4. Like
5. Repost
6. Bookmark

When Zapping, a single tap will send a tiny amount of 42 sats. If you want to send more, or a custom amount, tap and hold the zap button to bring up a selector menu. All default zap amounts are configurable in the app settings page.

1. After you've started posting and interacting with others, you'll likely receive some notifications to tell you. Notifications can be filtered into interaction types.

1. Another great way to find more people to follow and interact with is to use the discover page. To open it, tap the compass in the bottom right corner of the screen. Here you'll be able to browse different types of pre-built feeds, trending profiles, notes with large zaps and extra topics.

The Important Part

You might have noticed that throughout that setup, you were not asked for a unique username, nor were you asked for a password. So how the hell is this secure? What happens if you log out? Is your account lost forever?

This is where Nostr really starts to shine. Just like in Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, your Nostr account is protected by a 'Private Key'. Anyone with knowledge of the private key can access your account in any Nostr client. No private key, no access. So let's make sure you have a backup copy of it, so you can still recover access to your account in the event you lose your phone!

Tap on your profile image in the top left of the screen. Then tap Settings > Keys. Here you'll see two keys, one public and one private. Your public key is how people find you on Nostr. It is often referred to by its more technical name 'nPub' which is the prefix if the key itself. Your public key is designed to be exactly that, public!

Your private key is sometimes referred to by its technical name 'nSec' which is also the prefix of the key. Copy your private key and paste it somewhere safe and secure, in a location accessible independently from your phone, and only by you.

If you were to lose your phone, or accidentally delete the Primal app, now all you'd need to do is head back to step 1 above and choose Sign In. You'd then be asked to paste your private key, after which your profile and content would be magically restored.

Your private key can be imported into any other Nostr social client for the same result.

Things to Consider

This post has one primary focus - To get you from zero to posting and zapping in the quickest time and with the least friction. To achieve this, there are some trade-offs made that you should be aware of.

Custodial Wallet

The built in wallet is a custodial one. This means that the funds within are ultimately controlled by the developers behind Primal. They may be good actors, but you should approach the amount of money you maintain inside this wallet accordingly. If your wallet balance ever gets to a balance that makes you uncomfortable, you should send a good chunk of it out to another Bitcoin wallet where you control the keys. I recommend Phoenix or Zeus.

Those sats are never truly yours until you withdraw them to a self-custodial wallet

Wallet Privacy

If you choose to top up the wallet using the convenient in-app purchase method, you will tie that small amount of Bitcoin ownership to your Nostr account. If you Nostr account is literally your name, you might not have an issue with this, but often times people like to remain pseudonymous online. If you fall into that category, using your credit card to deposit Bitcoin into your Nostr account is not a good idea.

Android users of Primal can use an advanced technology called Nostr Wallet Connect (NWC) to connect an external Lightning wallet to their Nostr account in Primal. We'll cover this in a subsequent post.

Your private key allows you to take your profile and social network to any other client

---

If you found this post useful, please share it with your peers and consider following and zapping me on Nostr. If you write to me and let me know that you found me via this post, I'll be sure to Zap you back! ⚡️

@ 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.

@ 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!

@ 0fa80bd3:ea7325de

The land that belongs to the indigenous peoples of Russia has been seized by a gang of killers who have unleashed a war of extermination. They wipe out anyone who refuses to conform to their rules. Those who disagree and stay behind are tortured and killed in prisons and labor camps. Those who flee lose their homeland, dissolve into foreign cultures, and fade away. And those who stand up to protect their people are attacked by the misled and deceived. The deceived die for the unchecked greed of a single dictator—thousands from both sides, people who just wanted to live, raise their kids, and build a future.

Now, they are forced to make an impossible choice: abandon their homeland or die. Some perish on the battlefield, others lose themselves in exile, stripped of their identity, scattered in a world that isn’t theirs.

There’s been endless debate about how to fix this, how to clear the field of the weeds that choke out every new sprout, every attempt at change. But the real problem? We can’t play by their rules. We can’t speak their language or use their weapons. We stand for humanity, and no matter how righteous our cause, we will not multiply suffering. Victory doesn’t come from matching the enemy—it comes from staying ahead, from using tools they haven’t mastered yet. That’s how wars are won.

Our only resource is the will of the people to rewrite the order of things. Historian Timothy Snyder once said that a nation cannot exist without a city. A city is where the most active part of a nation thrives. But the cities are occupied. The streets are watched. Gatherings are impossible. They control the money. They control the mail. They control the media. And any dissent is crushed before it can take root.

So I started asking myself: How do we stop this fragmentation? How do we create a space where people can rebuild their connections when they’re ready? How do we build a self-sustaining network, where everyone contributes and benefits proportionally, while keeping their freedom to leave intact? And more importantly—how do we make it spread, even in occupied territory?

In 2009, something historic happened: the internet got its own money. Thanks to Satoshi Nakamoto, the world took a massive leap forward. Bitcoin and decentralized ledgers shattered the idea that money must be controlled by the state. Now, to move or store value, all you need is an address and a key. A tiny string of text, easy to carry, impossible to seize.

That was the year money broke free. The state lost its grip. Its biggest weapon—physical currency—became irrelevant. Money became purely digital.

The internet was already a sanctuary for information, a place where people could connect and organize. But with Bitcoin, it evolved. Now, value itself could flow freely, beyond the reach of authorities.

Think about it: when seedlings are grown in controlled environments before being planted outside, they get stronger, survive longer, and bear fruit faster. That’s how we handle crops in harsh climates—nurture them until they’re ready for the wild.

Now, picture the internet as that controlled environment for ideas. Bitcoin? It’s the fertile soil that lets them grow. A testing ground for new models of interaction, where concepts can take root before they move into the real world. If nation-states are a battlefield, locked in a brutal war for territory, the internet is boundless. It can absorb any number of ideas, any number of people, and it doesn’t run out of space.

But for this ecosystem to thrive, people need safe ways to communicate, to share ideas, to build something real—without surveillance, without censorship, without the constant fear of being erased.

This is where Nostr comes in.

Nostr—"Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays"—is more than just a messaging protocol. It’s a new kind of city. One that no dictator can seize, no corporation can own, no government can shut down.

It’s built on decentralization, encryption, and individual control. Messages don’t pass through central servers—they are relayed through independent nodes, and users choose which ones to trust. There’s no master switch to shut it all down. Every person owns their identity, their data, their connections. And no one—no state, no tech giant, no algorithm—can silence them.

In a world where cities fall and governments fail, Nostr is a city that cannot be occupied. A place for ideas, for networks, for freedom. A city that grows stronger the more people build within it.

@ 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.

@ 6e0ea5d6:0327f353

"Malcolm Forbes recounts that a lady, wearing a faded cotton dress, and her husband, dressed in an old handmade suit, stepped off a train in Boston, USA, and timidly made their way to the office of the president of Harvard University. They had come from Palo Alto, California, and had not scheduled an appointment. The secretary, at a glance, thought that those two, looking like country bumpkins, had no business at Harvard.
— We want to speak with the president — the man said in a low voice.
— He will be busy all day — the secretary replied curtly.
— We will wait.
The secretary ignored them for hours, hoping the couple would finally give up and leave. But they stayed there, and the secretary, somewhat frustrated, decided to bother the president, although she hated doing that.
— If you speak with them for just a few minutes, maybe they will decide to go away — she said.
The president sighed in irritation but agreed. Someone of his importance did not have time to meet people like that, but he hated faded dresses and tattered suits in his office. With a stern face, he went to the couple.
— We had a son who studied at Harvard for a year — the woman said. — He loved Harvard and was very happy here, but a year ago he died in an accident, and we would like to erect a monument in his honor somewhere on campus.

— My lady — said the president rudely —, we cannot erect a statue for every person who studied at Harvard and died; if we did, this place would look like a cemetery.

— Oh, no — the lady quickly replied. — We do not want to erect a statue. We would like to donate a building to Harvard.

The president looked at the woman's faded dress and her husband's old suit and exclaimed:

— A building! Do you have even the faintest idea of how much a building costs? We have more than seven and a half million dollars' worth of buildings here at Harvard.

The lady was silent for a moment, then said to her husband:

— If that’s all it costs to found a university, why don’t we have our own?

The husband agreed.

The couple, Leland Stanford, stood up and left, leaving the president confused. Traveling back to Palo Alto, California, they established there Stanford University, the second-largest in the world, in honor of their son, a former Harvard student."

Text extracted from: "Mileumlivros - Stories that Teach Values."

Thank you for reading, my friend! If this message helped you in any way, consider leaving your glass “🥃” as a token of appreciation.

A toast to our family!

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

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

@ f9cf4e94:96abc355

Para esse exemplo iremos usar: | Nome | Imagem | Descrição | | --------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------ | | Raspberry PI B+ | | Cortex-A53 (ARMv8) 64-bit a 1.4GHz e 1 GB de SDRAM LPDDR2, | | Pen drive | | 16Gb |

Recomendo que use o Ubuntu Server para essa instalação. Você pode baixar o Ubuntu para Raspberry Pi aqui. O passo a passo para a instalação do Ubuntu no Raspberry Pi está disponível aqui. Não instale um desktop (como xubuntu, lubuntu, xfce, etc.).

---

Passo 1: Atualizar o Sistema 🖥️

Primeiro, atualize seu sistema e instale o Tor:

bash apt update apt install tor

---

Passo 2: Criar o Arquivo de Serviço nrs.service 🔧

Crie o arquivo de serviço que vai gerenciar o servidor Nostr. Você pode fazer isso com o seguinte conteúdo:

```unit [Unit] Description=Nostr Relay Server Service After=network.target

[Service] Type=simple WorkingDirectory=/opt/nrs ExecStart=/opt/nrs/nrs-arm64 Restart=on-failure

[Install] WantedBy=multi-user.target ```

---

Passo 3: Baixar o Binário do Nostr 🚀

Baixe o binário mais recente do Nostr aqui no GitHub.

---

Passo 4: Criar as Pastas Necessárias 📂

Agora, crie as pastas para o aplicativo e o pendrive:

bash mkdir -p /opt/nrs /mnt/edriver

---

Passo 5: Listar os Dispositivos Conectados 🔌

Para saber qual dispositivo você vai usar, liste todos os dispositivos conectados:

bash lsblk

---

Passo 6: Formatando o Pendrive 💾

Escolha o pendrive correto (por exemplo, /dev/sda) e formate-o:

bash mkfs.vfat /dev/sda

---

Passo 7: Montar o Pendrive 💻

Monte o pendrive na pasta /mnt/edriver:

bash mount /dev/sda /mnt/edriver

---

Passo 8: Verificar UUID dos Dispositivos 📋

Para garantir que o sistema monte o pendrive automaticamente, liste os UUID dos dispositivos conectados:

bash blkid

---

Passo 9: Alterar o fstab para Montar o Pendrive Automáticamente 📝

Abra o arquivo /etc/fstab e adicione uma linha para o pendrive, com o UUID que você obteve no passo anterior. A linha deve ficar assim:

fstab UUID=9c9008f8-f852 /mnt/edriver vfat defaults 0 0

---

Passo 10: Copiar o Binário para a Pasta Correta 📥

Agora, copie o binário baixado para a pasta /opt/nrs:

bash cp nrs-arm64 /opt/nrs

---

Passo 11: Criar o Arquivo de Configuração 🛠️

Crie o arquivo de configuração com o seguinte conteúdo e salve-o em /opt/nrs/config.yaml:

yaml app_env: production info: name: Nostr Relay Server description: Nostr Relay Server pub_key: "" contact: "" url: http://localhost:3334 icon: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u= https://public.bnbstatic.com/image/cms/crawler/COINCU_NEWS/image-495-1024x569.png base_path: /mnt/edriver negentropy: true

---

Passo 12: Copiar o Serviço para o Diretório de Systemd ⚙️

Agora, copie o arquivo nrs.service para o diretório /etc/systemd/system/:

bash cp nrs.service /etc/systemd/system/

Recarregue os serviços e inicie o serviço nrs:

bash systemctl daemon-reload systemctl enable --now nrs.service

---

Passo 13: Configurar o Tor 🌐

Abra o arquivo de configuração do Tor /var/lib/tor/torrc e adicione a seguinte linha:

torrc HiddenServiceDir /var/lib/tor/nostr_server/ HiddenServicePort 80 127.0.0.1:3334

---

Passo 14: Habilitar e Iniciar o Tor 🧅

Agora, ative e inicie o serviço Tor:

bash systemctl enable --now tor.service

O Tor irá gerar um endereço .onion para o seu servidor Nostr. Você pode encontrá-lo no arquivo /var/lib/tor/nostr_server/hostname.

---

Observações ⚠️

• Com essa configuração, os dados serão salvos no pendrive, enquanto o binário ficará no cartão SD do Raspberry Pi.
• O endereço .onion do seu servidor Nostr será algo como: ws://y3t5t5wgwjif<exemplo>h42zy7ih6iwbyd.onion.

---

Agora, seu servidor Nostr deve estar configurado e funcionando com Tor! 🥳

Se este artigo e as informações aqui contidas forem úteis para você, convidamos a considerar uma doação ao autor como forma de reconhecimento e incentivo à produção de novos conteúdos.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Drivechain

Understanding Drivechain requires a shift from the paradigm most bitcoiners are used to. It is not about "trustlessness" or "mathematical certainty", but game theory and incentives. (Well, Bitcoin in general is also that, but people prefer to ignore it and focus on some illusion of trustlessness provided by mathematics.)

Here we will describe the basic mechanism (simple) and incentives (complex) of "hashrate escrow" and how it enables a 2-way peg between the mainchain (Bitcoin) and various sidechains.

The full concept of "Drivechain" also involves blind merged mining (i.e., the sidechains mine themselves by publishing their block hashes to the mainchain without the miners having to run the sidechain software), but this is much easier to understand and can be accomplished either by the BIP-301 mechanism or by the Spacechains mechanism.

How does hashrate escrow work from the point of view of Bitcoin?

A new address type is created. Anything that goes in that is locked and can only be spent if all miners agree on the Withdrawal Transaction (WT^) that will spend it for 6 months. There is one of these special addresses for each sidechain.

To gather miners' agreement bitcoind keeps track of the "score" of all transactions that could possibly spend from that address. On every block mined, for each sidechain, the miner can use a portion of their coinbase to either increase the score of one WT^ by 1 while decreasing the score of all others by 1; or they can decrease the score of all WT^s by 1; or they can do nothing.

Once a transaction has gotten a score high enough, it is published and funds are effectively transferred from the sidechain to the withdrawing users.

If a timeout of 6 months passes and the score doesn't meet the threshold, that WT^ is discarded.

What does the above procedure mean?

It means that people can transfer coins from the mainchain to a sidechain by depositing to the special address. Then they can withdraw from the sidechain by making a special withdraw transaction in the sidechain.

The special transaction somehow freezes funds in the sidechain while a transaction that aggregates all withdrawals into a single mainchain WT^, which is then submitted to the mainchain miners so they can start voting on it and finally after some months it is published.

Now the crucial part: the validity of the WT^ is not verified by the Bitcoin mainchain rules, i.e., if Bob has requested a withdraw from the sidechain to his mainchain address, but someone publishes a wrong WT^ that instead takes Bob's funds and sends them to Alice's main address there is no way the mainchain will know that. What determines the "validity" of the WT^ is the miner vote score and only that. It is the job of miners to vote correctly -- and for that they may want to run the sidechain node in SPV mode so they can attest for the existence of a reference to the WT^ transaction in the sidechain blockchain (which then ensures it is ok) or do these checks by some other means.

What? 6 months to get my money back?

Yes. But no, in practice anyone who wants their money back will be able to use an atomic swap, submarine swap or other similar service to transfer funds from the sidechain to the mainchain and vice-versa. The long delayed withdraw costs would be incurred by few liquidity providers that would gain some small profit from it.

Why bother with this at all?

Drivechains solve many different problems:

It enables experimentation and new use cases for Bitcoin

Issued assets, fully private transactions, stateful blockchain contracts, turing-completeness, decentralized games, some "DeFi" aspects, prediction markets, futarchy, decentralized and yet meaningful human-readable names, big blocks with a ton of normal transactions on them, a chain optimized only for Lighting-style networks to be built on top of it.

These are some ideas that may have merit to them, but were never actually tried because they couldn't be tried with real Bitcoin or inferfacing with real bitcoins. They were either relegated to the shitcoin territory or to custodial solutions like Liquid or RSK that may have failed to gain network effect because of that.

It solves conflicts and infighting

Some people want fully private transactions in a UTXO model, others want "accounts" they can tie to their name and build reputation on top; some people want simple multisig solutions, others want complex code that reads a ton of variables; some people want to put all the transactions on a global chain in batches every 10 minutes, others want off-chain instant transactions backed by funds previously locked in channels; some want to spend, others want to just hold; some want to use blockchain technology to solve all the problems in the world, others just want to solve money.

With Drivechain-based sidechains all these groups can be happy simultaneously and don't fight. Meanwhile they will all be using the same money and contributing to each other's ecosystem even unwillingly, it's also easy and free for them to change their group affiliation later, which reduces cognitive dissonance.

It solves "scaling"

Multiple chains like the ones described above would certainly do a lot to accomodate many more transactions that the current Bitcoin chain can. One could have special Lightning Network chains, but even just big block chains or big-block-mimblewimble chains or whatnot could probably do a good job. Or even something less cool like 200 independent chains just like Bitcoin is today, no extra features (and you can call it "sharding"), just that would already multiply the current total capacity by 200.

Use your imagination.

It solves the blockchain security budget issue

The calculation is simple: you imagine what security budget is reasonable for each block in a world without block subsidy and divide that for the amount of bytes you can fit in a single block: that is the price to be paid in satoshis per byte. In reasonable estimative, the price necessary for every Bitcoin transaction goes to very large amounts, such that not only any day-to-day transaction has insanely prohibitive costs, but also Lightning channel opens and closes are impracticable.

So without a solution like Drivechain you'll be left with only one alternative: pushing Bitcoin usage to trusted services like Liquid and RSK or custodial Lightning wallets. With Drivechain, though, there could be thousands of transactions happening in sidechains and being all aggregated into a sidechain block that would then pay a very large fee to be published (via blind merged mining) to the mainchain. Bitcoin security guaranteed.

It keeps Bitcoin decentralized

Once we have sidechains to accomodate the normal transactions, the mainchain functionality can be reduced to be only a "hub" for the sidechains' comings and goings, and then the maximum block size for the mainchain can be reduced to, say, 100kb, which would make running a full node very very easy.

Can miners steal?

Yes. If a group of coordinated miners are able to secure the majority of the hashpower and keep their coordination for 6 months, they can publish a WT^ that takes the money from the sidechains and pays to themselves.

Will miners steal?

No, because the incentives are such that they won't.

Although it may look at first that stealing is an obvious strategy for miners as it is free money, there are many costs involved:

1. The cost of ceasing blind-merged mining returns -- as stealing will kill a sidechain, all the fees from it that miners would be expected to earn for the next years are gone;
2. The cost of Bitcoin price going down: If a steal is successful that will mean Drivechains are not safe, therefore Bitcoin is less useful, and miner credibility will also be hurt, which are likely to cause the Bitcoin price to go down, which in turn may kill the miners' businesses and savings;
3. The cost of coordination -- assuming miners are just normal businesses, they just want to do their work and get paid, but stealing from a Drivechain will require coordination with other miners to conduct an immoral act in a way that has many pitfalls and is likely to be broken over the months;
4. The cost of miners leaving your mining pool: when we talked about "miners" above we were actually talking about mining pools operators, so they must also consider the risk of miners migrating from their mining pool to others as they begin the process of stealing;
5. The cost of community goodwill -- when participating in a steal operation, a miner will suffer a ton of backlash from the community. Even if the attempt fails at the end, the fact that it was attempted will contribute to growing concerns over exaggerated miners power over the Bitcoin ecosystem, which may end up causing the community to agree on a hard-fork to change the mining algorithm in the future, or to do something to increase participation of more entities in the mining process (such as development or cheapment of new ASICs), which have a chance of decreasing the profits of current miners.

Another point to take in consideration is that one may be inclined to think a newly-created sidechain or a sidechain with relatively low usage may be more easily stolen from, since the blind merged mining returns from it (point 1 above) are going to be small -- but the fact is also that a sidechain with small usage will also have less money to be stolen from, and since the other costs besides 1 are less elastic at the end it will not be worth stealing from these too.

All of the above consideration are valid only if miners are stealing from good sidechains. If there is a sidechain that is doing things wrong, scamming people, not being used at all, or is full of bugs, for example, that will be perceived as a bad sidechain, and then miners can and will safely steal from it and kill it, which will be perceived as a good thing by everybody.

What do we do if miners steal?

Paul Sztorc has suggested in the past that a user-activated soft-fork could prevent miners from stealing, i.e., most Bitcoin users and nodes issue a rule similar to this one to invalidate the inclusion of a faulty WT^ and thus cause any miner that includes it in a block to be relegated to their own Bitcoin fork that other nodes won't accept.

This suggestion has made people think Drivechain is a sidechain solution backed by user-actived soft-forks for safety, which is very far from the truth. Drivechains must not and will not rely on this kind of soft-fork, although they are possible, as the coordination costs are too high and no one should ever expect these things to happen.

If even with all the incentives against them (see above) miners do still steal from a good sidechain that will mean the failure of the Drivechain experiment. It will very likely also mean the failure of the Bitcoin experiment too, as it will be proven that miners can coordinate to act maliciously over a prolonged period of time regardless of economic and social incentives, meaning they are probably in it just for attacking Bitcoin, backed by nation-states or something else, and therefore no Bitcoin transaction in the mainchain is to be expected to be safe ever again.

Why use this and not a full-blown trustless and open sidechain technology?

Because it is impossible.

If you ever heard someone saying "just use a sidechain", "do this in a sidechain" or anything like that, be aware that these people are either talking about "federated" sidechains (i.e., funds are kept in custody by a group of entities) or they are talking about Drivechain, or they are disillusioned and think it is possible to do sidechains in any other manner.

No, I mean a trustless 2-way peg with correctness of the withdrawals verified by the Bitcoin protocol!

That is not possible unless Bitcoin verifies all transactions that happen in all the sidechains, which would be akin to drastically increasing the blocksize and expanding the Bitcoin rules in tons of ways, i.e., a terrible idea that no one wants.

What about the Blockstream sidechains whitepaper?

Yes, that was a way to do it. The Drivechain hashrate escrow is a conceptually simpler way to achieve the same thing with improved incentives, less junk in the chain, more safety.

Isn't the hashrate escrow a very complex soft-fork?

Yes, but it is much simpler than SegWit. And, unlike SegWit, it doesn't force anything on users, i.e., it isn't a mandatory blocksize increase.

Why should we expect miners to care enough to participate in the voting mechanism?

Because it's in their own self-interest to do it, and it costs very little. Today over half of the miners mine RSK. It's not blind merged mining, it's a very convoluted process that requires them to run a RSK full node. For the Drivechain sidechains, an SPV node would be enough, or maybe just getting data from a block explorer API, so much much simpler.

What if I still don't like Drivechain even after reading this?

That is the entire point! You don't have to like it or use it as long as you're fine with other people using it. The hashrate escrow special addresses will not impact you at all, validation cost is minimal, and you get the benefit of people who want to use Drivechain migrating to their own sidechains and freeing up space for you in the mainchain. See also the point above about infighting.

See also

• Podcast episode with Ruben Somsen and Aaron van Wirdum explaining Drivechain
• Alternatives to Drivechain
• Drivechain comparison with Ethereum

@ 8d34bd24:414be32b

Many Believers, after repenting of their sins and trusting Jesus, spend all of their time trying to avoid doing anything bad. Christianity becomes little more than a list of “Don’t Do …”. Of course this isn’t God’s desire. Christianity should be a relationship with our God, Savior, and Creator. It should be a process of becoming more and more like Jesus. This likeness is more about what we do than just what we don’t do.

In order to make this point, I want to do a thought experiment with you.

Think about a large, red, juicy strawberry. Picture it in your mind. Think about what that strawberry feels like in your hand and what it smells like. Picture biting into that strawberry. Feel your teeth sink into the strawberry and the juice run down your throat. Tasty the tangy sweetness in your mouth.

Now try to stop thinking about the strawberry. Don’t let it even flicker through your mind.

Did you succeed at banishing the thought of strawberries in your mind or was a strawberry all you could think about?

Now let’s think about a fresh, hot, crunchy, chewy chocolate chip cookie fresh out of the oven. Think about its smell. Savor it. Think about biting into that chocolate chip cookie. Think about the taste. Feel the still runny, melted chocolate chips.

Are you still thinking about strawberries or did the thought of strawberries completely leave your mind? I’m betting you forgot about the strawberry.

In our Christian walk, the best way to not have ungodly thoughts, is to so fill our mind with godly thoughts that there isn’t room for the ungodly thoughts. The best way to not do sinful things is to be so busy doing God’s work that we don’t have time for the sinful things.

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you. (Philippians 4:8-9) {emphasis mine}

If we are constantly reading the Bible, talking to God, and loving our neighbor as we are called to do, we are unlikely to have to work hard avoiding sinful thoughts and sinful actions. If we fill our minds with God’s word, we won’t be dwelling on sinful thoughts. If we are praying continually, we won’t be gossiping or bad mouthing or otherwise dishonoring our Lord with our mouth. If we are loving our neighbors as ourselves, we won’t be envious, stealing, lusting, or wishing harm on others.

Christianity should be more about what you do and less about what you aren’t allowed to do. This only works when we focus on “whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable,” whatever is “excellent”, and whatever is “praiseworthy.”

Fill your heart, mind, and soul with God and His word and the rest kind of works itself out. I hope this has been helpful.

Trust Jesus

@ 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.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

bitcoind decentralization

It is better to have multiple curator teams, with different vetting processes and release schedules for bitcoind than a single one.

"More eyes on code", "Contribute to Core", "Everybody should audit the code".

All these points repeated again and again fell to Earth on the day it was discovered that Bitcoin Core developers merged a variable name change from "blacklist" to "blocklist" without even discussing or acknowledging the fact that that innocent pull request opened by a sybil account was a social attack.

After a big lot of people manifested their dissatisfaction with that event on Twitter and on GitHub, most Core developers simply ignored everybody's concerns or even personally attacked people who were complaining.

The event has shown that:

1) Bitcoin Core ultimately rests on the hands of a couple maintainers and they decide what goes on the GitHub repository[^pr-merged-very-quickly] and the binary releases that will be downloaded by thousands; 2) Bitcoin Core is susceptible to social attacks; 2) "More eyes on code" don't matter, as these extra eyes can be ignored and dismissed.

Solution: bitcoind decentralization

If usage was spread across 10 different bitcoind flavors, the network would be much more resistant to social attacks to a single team.

This has nothing to do with the question on if it is better to have multiple different Bitcoin node implementations or not, because here we're basically talking about the same software.

Multiple teams, each with their own release process, their own logo, some subtle changes, or perhaps no changes at all, just a different name for their bitcoind flavor, and that's it.

Every day or week or month or year, each flavor merges all changes from Bitcoin Core on their own fork. If there's anything suspicious or too leftist (or perhaps too rightist, in case there's a leftist bitcoind flavor), maybe they will spot it and not merge.

This way we keep the best of both worlds: all software development, bugfixes, improvements goes on Bitcoin Core, other flavors just copy. If there's some non-consensus change whose efficacy is debatable, one of the flavors will merge on their fork and test, and later others -- including Core -- can copy that too. Plus, we get resistant to attacks: in case there is an attack on Bitcoin Core, only 10% of the network would be compromised. the other flavors would be safe.

Run Bitcoin Knots

The first example of a bitcoind software that follows Bitcoin Core closely, adds some small changes, but has an independent vetting and release process is Bitcoin Knots, maintained by the incorruptible Luke DashJr.

Next time you decide to run bitcoind, run Bitcoin Knots instead and contribute to bitcoind decentralization!

---

See also:

• How to attack Bitcoin, Anthony Towns' take

[^pr-merged-very-quickly]: See PR 20624, for example, a very complicated change that could be introducing bugs or be a deliberate attack, merged in 3 days without time for discussion.

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

Si vives en España, quizás hayas notado que no puedes acceder a ciertas páginas webs durante los fines de semana o en algunos días entre semana, entre ellas, la guía de MiniBolt.

Esto tiene una razón, por supuesto una solución, además de una conclusión. Sin entrar en demasiados detalles:

La razón

El bloqueo a Cloudflare, implementado desde hace casi dos meses por operadores de Internet (ISPs) en España (como Movistar, O2, DIGI, Pepephone, entre otros), se basa en una orden judicial emitida tras una demanda de LALIGA (Fútbol). Esta medida busca combatir la piratería en España, un problema que afecta directamente a dicha organización.

Aunque la intención original era restringir el acceso a dominios específicos que difundieran dicho contenido, Cloudflare emplea el protocolo ECH (Encrypted Client Hello), que oculta el nombre del dominio, el cual antes se transmitía en texto plano durante el proceso de establecimiento de una conexión TLS. Esta medida dificulta que las operadoras analicen el tráfico para aplicar bloqueos basados en dominios, lo que les obliga a recurrir a bloqueos más amplios por IP o rangos de IP para cumplir con la orden judicial.

Esta práctica tiene consecuencias graves, que han sido completamente ignoradas por quienes la ejecutan. Es bien sabido que una infraestructura de IP puede alojar numerosos dominios, tanto legítimos como no legítimos. La falta de un "ajuste fino" en los bloqueos provoca un perjuicio para terceros, restringiendo el acceso a muchos dominios legítimos que no tiene relación alguna con actividades ilícitas, pero que comparten las mismas IPs de Cloudflare con dominios cuestionables. Este es el caso de la web de MiniBolt y su dominio minibolt.info, los cuales utilizan Cloudflare como proxy para aprovechar las medidas de seguridad, privacidad, optimización y servicios adicionales que la plataforma ofrece de forma gratuita.

Si bien este bloqueo parece ser temporal (al menos durante la temporada 24/25 de fútbol, hasta finales de mayo), es posible que se reactive con el inicio de la nueva temporada.

La solución

Obviamente, MiniBolt no dejará de usar Cloudflare como proxy por esta razón. Por lo que a continuación se exponen algunas medidas que como usuario puedes tomar para evitar esta restricción y poder acceder:

~> Utiliza una VPN:

Existen varias soluciones de proveedores de VPN, ordenadas según su reputación en privacidad: - IVPN - Mullvad VPN - Proton VPN (gratis) - Obscura VPN (solo para macOS) - Cloudfare WARP (gratis) + permite utilizar el modo proxy local para enrutar solo la navegación, debes utilizar la opción "WARP a través de proxy local" siguiendo estos pasos: 1. Inicia Cloudflare WARP y dentro de la pequeña interfaz haz click en la rueda dentada abajo a la derecha > "Preferencias" > "Avanzado" > "Configurar el modo proxy" 2. Marca la casilla "Habilite el modo proxy en este dispositivo" 3. Elige un "Puerto de escucha de proxy" entre 0-65535. ej: 1080, haz click en "Aceptar" y cierra la ventana de preferencias 4. Accede de nuevo a Cloudflare WARP y pulsa sobre el switch para habilitar el servicio. 3. Ahora debes apuntar el proxy del navegador a Cloudflare WARP, la configuración del navegador es similar a esta para el caso de navegadores basados en Firefox. Una vez hecho, deberías poder acceder a la guía de MiniBolt sin problemas. Si tienes dudas, déjalas en comentarios e intentaré resolverlas. Más info AQUÍ.

~> Proxifica tu navegador para usar la red de Tor, o utiliza el navegador oficial de Tor (recomendado).

La conclusión

Estos hechos ponen en tela de juicio los principios fundamentales de la neutralidad de la red, pilares esenciales de la Declaración de Independencia del Ciberespacio que defiende un internet libre, sin restricciones ni censura. Dichos principios se han visto quebrantados sin precedentes en este país, confirmando que ese futuro distópico que muchos negaban, ya es una realidad.

Es momento de actuar y estar preparados: debemos impulsar el desarrollo y la difusión de las herramientas anticensura que tenemos a nuestro alcance, protegiendo así la libertad digital y asegurando un acceso equitativo a la información para todos

Este compromiso es uno de los pilares fundamentales de MiniBolt, lo que convierte este desafío en una oportunidad para poner a prueba las soluciones anticensura ya disponibles, así como las que están en camino.

¡Censúrame si puedes, legislador! ¡La lucha por la privacidad y la libertad en Internet ya está en marcha!

---

Fuentes: * https://bandaancha.eu/articulos/movistar-o2-deja-clientes-sin-acceso-11239 * https://bandaancha.eu/articulos/esta-nueva-sentencia-autoriza-bloqueos-11257 * https://bandaancha.eu/articulos/como-saltarse-bloqueo-webs-warp-vpn-9958 * https://bandaancha.eu/articulos/como-activar-ech-chrome-acceder-webs-10689 * https://comunidad.movistar.es/t5/Soporte-Fibra-y-ADSL/Problema-con-web-que-usan-Cloudflare/td-p/5218007

@ 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.

@ 4857600b:30b502f4

Mitch McConnell, a senior Republican senator, announced he will not seek reelection.

At 83 years old and with health issues, this decision was expected. After seven terms, he leaves a significant legacy in U.S. politics, known for his strategic maneuvering.

McConnell stated, “My current term in the Senate will be my last.” His retirement marks the end of an influential political era.

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

Warning: This piece contains a conversation about difficult topics. Please proceed with caution.

TL;DR please educate your children about online safety.

Julian Assange wrote in his 2012 book Cypherpunks, “This book is not a manifesto. There isn’t time for that. This book is a warning.” I read it a few times over the past summer. Those opening lines definitely stood out to me. I wish we had listened back then. He saw something about the internet that few had the ability to see. There are some individuals who are so close to a topic that when they speak, it’s difficult for others who aren’t steeped in it to visualize what they’re talking about. I didn’t read the book until more recently. If I had read it when it came out, it probably would have sounded like an unknown foreign language to me. Today it makes more sense.

This isn’t a manifesto. This isn’t a book. There is no time for that. It’s a warning and a possible solution from a desperate and determined survivor advocate who has been pulling and unraveling a thread for a few years. At times, I feel too close to this topic to make any sense trying to convey my pathway to my conclusions or thoughts to the general public. My hope is that if nothing else, I can convey my sense of urgency while writing this. This piece is a watchman’s warning.

When a child steps online, they are walking into a new world. A new reality. When you hand a child the internet, you are handing them possibilities—good, bad, and ugly. This is a conversation about lowering the potential of negative outcomes of stepping into that new world and how I came to these conclusions. I constantly compare the internet to the road. You wouldn’t let a young child run out into the road with no guidance or safety precautions. When you hand a child the internet without any type of guidance or safety measures, you are allowing them to play in rush hour, oncoming traffic. “Look left, look right for cars before crossing.” We almost all have been taught that as children. What are we taught as humans about safety before stepping into a completely different reality like the internet? Very little.

I could never really figure out why many folks in tech, privacy rights activists, and hackers seemed so cold to me while talking about online child sexual exploitation. I always figured that as a survivor advocate for those affected by these crimes, that specific, skilled group of individuals would be very welcoming and easy to talk to about such serious topics. I actually had one hacker laugh in my face when I brought it up while I was looking for answers. I thought maybe this individual thought I was accusing them of something I wasn’t, so I felt bad for asking. I was constantly extremely disappointed and would ask myself, “Why don’t they care? What could I say to make them care more? What could I say to make them understand the crisis and the level of suffering that happens as a result of the problem?”

I have been serving minor survivors of online child sexual exploitation for years. My first case serving a survivor of this specific crime was in 2018—a 13-year-old girl sexually exploited by a serial predator on Snapchat. That was my first glimpse into this side of the internet. I won a national award for serving the minor survivors of Twitter in 2023, but I had been working on that specific project for a few years. I was nominated by a lawyer representing two survivors in a legal battle against the platform. I’ve never really spoken about this before, but at the time it was a choice for me between fighting Snapchat or Twitter. I chose Twitter—or rather, Twitter chose me. I heard about the story of John Doe #1 and John Doe #2, and I was so unbelievably broken over it that I went to war for multiple years. I was and still am royally pissed about that case. As far as I was concerned, the John Doe #1 case proved that whatever was going on with corporate tech social media was so out of control that I didn’t have time to wait, so I got to work. It was reading the messages that John Doe #1 sent to Twitter begging them to remove his sexual exploitation that broke me. He was a child begging adults to do something. A passion for justice and protecting kids makes you do wild things. I was desperate to find answers about what happened and searched for solutions. In the end, the platform Twitter was purchased. During the acquisition, I just asked Mr. Musk nicely to prioritize the issue of detection and removal of child sexual exploitation without violating digital privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption. Elon thanked me multiple times during the acquisition, made some changes, and I was thanked by others on the survivors’ side as well.

I still feel that even with the progress made, I really just scratched the surface with Twitter, now X. I left that passion project when I did for a few reasons. I wanted to give new leadership time to tackle the issue. Elon Musk made big promises that I knew would take a while to fulfill, but mostly I had been watching global legislation transpire around the issue, and frankly, the governments are willing to go much further with X and the rest of corporate tech than I ever would. My work begging Twitter to make changes with easier reporting of content, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation material—without violating privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption—and advocating for the minor survivors of the platform went as far as my principles would have allowed. I’m grateful for that experience. I was still left with a nagging question: “How did things get so bad with Twitter where the John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 case was able to happen in the first place?” I decided to keep looking for answers. I decided to keep pulling the thread.

I never worked for Twitter. This is often confusing for folks. I will say that despite being disappointed in the platform’s leadership at times, I loved Twitter. I saw and still see its value. I definitely love the survivors of the platform, but I also loved the platform. I was a champion of the platform’s ability to give folks from virtually around the globe an opportunity to speak and be heard.

I want to be clear that John Doe #1 really is my why. He is the inspiration. I am writing this because of him. He represents so many globally, and I’m still inspired by his bravery. One child’s voice begging adults to do something—I’m an adult, I heard him. I’d go to war a thousand more lifetimes for that young man, and I don’t even know his name. Fighting has been personally dark at times; I’m not even going to try to sugarcoat it, but it has been worth it.

The data surrounding the very real crime of online child sexual exploitation is available to the public online at any time for anyone to see. I’d encourage you to go look at the data for yourself. I believe in encouraging folks to check multiple sources so that you understand the full picture. If you are uncomfortable just searching around the internet for information about this topic, use the terms “CSAM,” “CSEM,” “SG-CSEM,” or “AI Generated CSAM.” The numbers don’t lie—it’s a nightmare that’s out of control. It’s a big business. The demand is high, and unfortunately, business is booming. Organizations collect the data, tech companies often post their data, governments report frequently, and the corporate press has covered a decent portion of the conversation, so I’m sure you can find a source that you trust.

Technology is changing rapidly, which is great for innovation as a whole but horrible for the crime of online child sexual exploitation. Those wishing to exploit the vulnerable seem to be adapting to each technological change with ease. The governments are so far behind with tackling these issues that as I’m typing this, it’s borderline irrelevant to even include them while speaking about the crime or potential solutions. Technology is changing too rapidly, and their old, broken systems can’t even dare to keep up. Think of it like the governments’ “War on Drugs.” Drugs won. In this case as well, the governments are not winning. The governments are talking about maybe having a meeting on potentially maybe having legislation around the crimes. The time to have that meeting would have been many years ago. I’m not advocating for governments to legislate our way out of this. I’m on the side of educating and innovating our way out of this.

I have been clear while advocating for the minor survivors of corporate tech platforms that I would not advocate for any solution to the crime that would violate digital privacy rights or erode end-to-end encryption. That has been a personal moral position that I was unwilling to budge on. This is an extremely unpopular and borderline nonexistent position in the anti-human trafficking movement and online child protection space. I’m often fearful that I’m wrong about this. I have always thought that a better pathway forward would have been to incentivize innovation for detection and removal of content. I had no previous exposure to privacy rights activists or Cypherpunks—actually, I came to that conclusion by listening to the voices of MENA region political dissidents and human rights activists. After developing relationships with human rights activists from around the globe, I realized how important privacy rights and encryption are for those who need it most globally. I was simply unwilling to give more power, control, and opportunities for mass surveillance to big abusers like governments wishing to enslave entire nations and untrustworthy corporate tech companies to potentially end some portion of abuses online. On top of all of it, it has been clear to me for years that all potential solutions outside of violating digital privacy rights to detect and remove child sexual exploitation online have not yet been explored aggressively. I’ve been disappointed that there hasn’t been more of a conversation around preventing the crime from happening in the first place.

What has been tried is mass surveillance. In China, they are currently under mass surveillance both online and offline, and their behaviors are attached to a social credit score. Unfortunately, even on state-run and controlled social media platforms, they still have child sexual exploitation and abuse imagery pop up along with other crimes and human rights violations. They also have a thriving black market online due to the oppression from the state. In other words, even an entire loss of freedom and privacy cannot end the sexual exploitation of children online. It’s been tried. There is no reason to repeat this method.

It took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out why I always felt a slight coldness from those in tech and privacy-minded individuals about the topic of child sexual exploitation online. I didn’t have any clue about the “Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse.” This is a term coined by Timothy C. May in 1988. I would have been a child myself when he first said it. I actually laughed at myself when I heard the phrase for the first time. I finally got it. The Cypherpunks weren’t wrong about that topic. They were so spot on that it is borderline uncomfortable. I was mad at first that they knew that early during the birth of the internet that this issue would arise and didn’t address it. Then I got over it because I realized that it wasn’t their job. Their job was—is—to write code. Their job wasn’t to be involved and loving parents or survivor advocates. Their job wasn’t to educate children on internet safety or raise awareness; their job was to write code.

They knew that child sexual abuse material would be shared on the internet. They said what would happen—not in a gleeful way, but a prediction. Then it happened.

I equate it now to a concrete company laying down a road. As you’re pouring the concrete, you can say to yourself, “A terrorist might travel down this road to go kill many, and on the flip side, a beautiful child can be born in an ambulance on this road.” Who or what travels down the road is not their responsibility—they are just supposed to lay the concrete. I’d never go to a concrete pourer and ask them to solve terrorism that travels down roads. Under the current system, law enforcement should stop terrorists before they even make it to the road. The solution to this specific problem is not to treat everyone on the road like a terrorist or to not build the road.

So I understand the perceived coldness from those in tech. Not only was it not their job, but bringing up the topic was seen as the equivalent of asking a free person if they wanted to discuss one of the four topics—child abusers, terrorists, drug dealers, intellectual property pirates, etc.—that would usher in digital authoritarianism for all who are online globally.

Privacy rights advocates and groups have put up a good fight. They stood by their principles. Unfortunately, when it comes to corporate tech, I believe that the issue of privacy is almost a complete lost cause at this point. It’s still worth pushing back, but ultimately, it is a losing battle—a ticking time bomb.

I do think that corporate tech providers could have slowed down the inevitable loss of privacy at the hands of the state by prioritizing the detection and removal of CSAM when they all started online. I believe it would have bought some time, fewer would have been traumatized by that specific crime, and I do believe that it could have slowed down the demand for content. If I think too much about that, I’ll go insane, so I try to push the “if maybes” aside, but never knowing if it could have been handled differently will forever haunt me. At night when it’s quiet, I wonder what I would have done differently if given the opportunity. I’ll probably never know how much corporate tech knew and ignored in the hopes that it would go away while the problem continued to get worse. They had different priorities. The most voiceless and vulnerable exploited on corporate tech never had much of a voice, so corporate tech providers didn’t receive very much pushback.

Now I’m about to say something really wild, and you can call me whatever you want to call me, but I’m going to say what I believe to be true. I believe that the governments are either so incompetent that they allowed the proliferation of CSAM online, or they knowingly allowed the problem to fester long enough to have an excuse to violate privacy rights and erode end-to-end encryption. The US government could have seized the corporate tech providers over CSAM, but I believe that they were so useful as a propaganda arm for the regimes that they allowed them to continue virtually unscathed.

That season is done now, and the governments are making the issue a priority. It will come at a high cost. Privacy on corporate tech providers is virtually done as I’m typing this. It feels like a death rattle. I’m not particularly sure that we had much digital privacy to begin with, but the illusion of a veil of privacy feels gone.

To make matters slightly more complex, it would be hard to convince me that once AI really gets going, digital privacy will exist at all.

I believe that there should be a conversation shift to preserving freedoms and human rights in a post-privacy society.

I don’t want to get locked up because AI predicted a nasty post online from me about the government. I’m not a doomer about AI—I’m just going to roll with it personally. I’m looking forward to the positive changes that will be brought forth by AI. I see it as inevitable. A bit of privacy was helpful while it lasted. Please keep fighting to preserve what is left of privacy either way because I could be wrong about all of this.

On the topic of AI, the addition of AI to the horrific crime of child sexual abuse material and child sexual exploitation in multiple ways so far has been devastating. It’s currently out of control. The genie is out of the bottle. I am hopeful that innovation will get us humans out of this, but I’m not sure how or how long it will take. We must be extremely cautious around AI legislation. It should not be illegal to innovate even if some bad comes with the good. I don’t trust that the governments are equipped to decide the best pathway forward for AI. Source: the entire history of the government.

I have been personally negatively impacted by AI-generated content. Every few days, I get another alert that I’m featured again in what’s called “deep fake pornography” without my consent. I’m not happy about it, but what pains me the most is the thought that for a period of time down the road, many globally will experience what myself and others are experiencing now by being digitally sexually abused in this way. If you have ever had your picture taken and posted online, you are also at risk of being exploited in this way. Your child’s image can be used as well, unfortunately, and this is just the beginning of this particular nightmare. It will move to more realistic interpretations of sexual behaviors as technology improves. I have no brave words of wisdom about how to deal with that emotionally. I do have hope that innovation will save the day around this specific issue. I’m nervous that everyone online will have to ID verify due to this issue. I see that as one possible outcome that could help to prevent one problem but inadvertently cause more problems, especially for those living under authoritarian regimes or anyone who needs to remain anonymous online. A zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) would probably be the best solution to these issues. There are some survivors of violence and/or sexual trauma who need to remain anonymous online for various reasons. There are survivor stories available online of those who have been abused in this way. I’d encourage you seek out and listen to their stories.

There have been periods of time recently where I hesitate to say anything at all because more than likely AI will cover most of my concerns about education, awareness, prevention, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation online, etc.

Unfortunately, some of the most pressing issues we’ve seen online over the last few years come in the form of “sextortion.” Self-generated child sexual exploitation (SG-CSEM) numbers are continuing to be terrifying. I’d strongly encourage that you look into sextortion data. AI + sextortion is also a huge concern. The perpetrators are using the non-sexually explicit images of children and putting their likeness on AI-generated child sexual exploitation content and extorting money, more imagery, or both from minors online. It’s like a million nightmares wrapped into one. The wild part is that these issues will only get more pervasive because technology is harnessed to perpetuate horror at a scale unimaginable to a human mind.

Even if you banned phones and the internet or tried to prevent children from accessing the internet, it wouldn’t solve it. Child sexual exploitation will still be with us until as a society we start to prevent the crime before it happens. That is the only human way out right now.

There is no reset button on the internet, but if I could go back, I’d tell survivor advocates to heed the warnings of the early internet builders and to start education and awareness campaigns designed to prevent as much online child sexual exploitation as possible. The internet and technology moved quickly, and I don’t believe that society ever really caught up. We live in a world where a child can be groomed by a predator in their own home while sitting on a couch next to their parents watching TV. We weren’t ready as a species to tackle the fast-paced algorithms and dangers online. It happened too quickly for parents to catch up. How can you parent for the ever-changing digital world unless you are constantly aware of the dangers?

I don’t think that the internet is inherently bad. I believe that it can be a powerful tool for freedom and resistance. I’ve spoken a lot about the bad online, but there is beauty as well. We often discuss how victims and survivors are abused online; we rarely discuss the fact that countless survivors around the globe have been able to share their experiences, strength, hope, as well as provide resources to the vulnerable. I do question if giving any government or tech company access to censorship, surveillance, etc., online in the name of serving survivors might not actually impact a portion of survivors negatively. There are a fair amount of survivors with powerful abusers protected by governments and the corporate press. If a survivor cannot speak to the press about their abuse, the only place they can go is online, directly or indirectly through an independent journalist who also risks being censored. This scenario isn’t hard to imagine—it already happened in China. During #MeToo, a survivor in China wanted to post their story. The government censored the post, so the survivor put their story on the blockchain. I’m excited that the survivor was creative and brave, but it’s terrifying to think that we live in a world where that situation is a necessity.

I believe that the future for many survivors sharing their stories globally will be on completely censorship-resistant and decentralized protocols. This thought in particular gives me hope. When we listen to the experiences of a diverse group of survivors, we can start to understand potential solutions to preventing the crimes from happening in the first place.

My heart is broken over the gut-wrenching stories of survivors sexually exploited online. Every time I hear the story of a survivor, I do think to myself quietly, “What could have prevented this from happening in the first place?” My heart is with survivors.

My head, on the other hand, is full of the understanding that the internet should remain free. The free flow of information should not be stopped. My mind is with the innocent citizens around the globe that deserve freedom both online and offline.

The problem is that governments don’t only want to censor illegal content that violates human rights—they create legislation that is so broad that it can impact speech and privacy of all. “Don’t you care about the kids?” Yes, I do. I do so much that I’m invested in finding solutions. I also care about all citizens around the globe that deserve an opportunity to live free from a mass surveillance society. If terrorism happens online, I should not be punished by losing my freedom. If drugs are sold online, I should not be punished. I’m not an abuser, I’m not a terrorist, and I don’t engage in illegal behaviors. I refuse to lose freedom because of others’ bad behaviors online.

I want to be clear that on a long enough timeline, the governments will decide that they can be better parents/caregivers than you can if something isn’t done to stop minors from being sexually exploited online. The price will be a complete loss of anonymity, privacy, free speech, and freedom of religion online. I find it rather insulting that governments think they’re better equipped to raise children than parents and caretakers.

So we can’t go backwards—all that we can do is go forward. Those who want to have freedom will find technology to facilitate their liberation. This will lead many over time to decentralized and open protocols. So as far as I’m concerned, this does solve a few of my worries—those who need, want, and deserve to speak freely online will have the opportunity in most countries—but what about online child sexual exploitation?

When I popped up around the decentralized space, I was met with the fear of censorship. I’m not here to censor you. I don’t write code. I couldn’t censor anyone or any piece of content even if I wanted to across the internet, no matter how depraved. I don’t have the skills to do that.

I’m here to start a conversation. Freedom comes at a cost. You must always fight for and protect your freedom. I can’t speak about protecting yourself from all of the Four Horsemen because I simply don’t know the topics well enough, but I can speak about this one topic.

If there was a shortcut to ending online child sexual exploitation, I would have found it by now. There isn’t one right now. I believe that education is the only pathway forward to preventing the crime of online child sexual exploitation for future generations.

I propose a yearly education course for every child of all school ages, taught as a standard part of the curriculum. Ideally, parents/caregivers would be involved in the education/learning process.

Course: - The creation of the internet and computers - The fight for cryptography - The tech supply chain from the ground up (example: human rights violations in the supply chain) - Corporate tech - Freedom tech - Data privacy - Digital privacy rights - AI (history-current) - Online safety (predators, scams, catfishing, extortion) - Bitcoin - Laws - How to deal with online hate and harassment - Information on who to contact if you are being abused online or offline - Algorithms - How to seek out the truth about news, etc., online

The parents/caregivers, homeschoolers, unschoolers, and those working to create decentralized parallel societies have been an inspiration while writing this, but my hope is that all children would learn this course, even in government ran schools. Ideally, parents would teach this to their own children.

The decentralized space doesn’t want child sexual exploitation to thrive. Here’s the deal: there has to be a strong prevention effort in order to protect the next generation. The internet isn’t going anywhere, predators aren’t going anywhere, and I’m not down to let anyone have the opportunity to prove that there is a need for more government. I don’t believe that the government should act as parents. The governments have had a chance to attempt to stop online child sexual exploitation, and they didn’t do it. Can we try a different pathway forward?

I’d like to put myself out of a job. I don’t want to ever hear another story like John Doe #1 ever again. This will require work. I’ve often called online child sexual exploitation the lynchpin for the internet. It’s time to arm generations of children with knowledge and tools. I can’t do this alone.

Individuals have fought so that I could have freedom online. I want to fight to protect it. I don’t want child predators to give the government any opportunity to take away freedom. Decentralized spaces are as close to a reset as we’ll get with the opportunity to do it right from the start. Start the youth off correctly by preventing potential hazards to the best of your ability.

The good news is anyone can work on this! I’d encourage you to take it and run with it. I added the additional education about the history of the internet to make the course more educational and fun. Instead of cleaning up generations of destroyed lives due to online sexual exploitation, perhaps this could inspire generations of those who will build our futures. Perhaps if the youth is armed with knowledge, they can create more tools to prevent the crime.

This one solution that I’m suggesting can be done on an individual level or on a larger scale. It should be adjusted depending on age, learning style, etc. It should be fun and playful.

This solution does not address abuse in the home or some of the root causes of offline child sexual exploitation. My hope is that it could lead to some survivors experiencing abuse in the home an opportunity to disclose with a trusted adult. The purpose for this solution is to prevent the crime of online child sexual exploitation before it occurs and to arm the youth with the tools to contact safe adults if and when it happens.

In closing, I went to hell a few times so that you didn’t have to. I spoke to the mothers of survivors of minors sexually exploited online—their tears could fill rivers. I’ve spoken with political dissidents who yearned to be free from authoritarian surveillance states. The only balance that I’ve found is freedom online for citizens around the globe and prevention from the dangers of that for the youth. Don’t slow down innovation and freedom. Educate, prepare, adapt, and look for solutions.

I’m not perfect and I’m sure that there are errors in this piece. I hope that you find them and it starts a conversation.

@ 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.

@ 1d7ff02a:d042b5be

ໃນຍຸກດິຈິຕອນ, ການລົບກວນທາງເທັກໂນໂລຊີໄດ້ສັ່ນຄອນສະຖາບັນແບບດັ້ງເດີມທົ່ວໂລກ. ເຊັ່ນດຽວກັນກັບແພລດຟອມສື່ສັງຄົມອອນລາຍທີ່ໄດ້ທຳລາຍອິດທິພົນຂອງສື່ທ້ອງຖິ່ນ, Tether (USDT) ແລະ ສະເຕເບິນຄອຍອື່ນໆ ກຳລັງທ້າທາຍອຳນາດຂອງທະນາຄານກາງໃນປະເທດກຳລັງພັດທະນາ. ສະກຸນເງິນດິຈິຕອນທີ່ມີຄວາມສະຖຽນເຫຼົ່ານີ້ ສະເໜີວິທີການສຳລັບປະຊາຊົນເພື່ອປ້ອງກັນເງິນເຟີ້, ຫຼີກລ່ຽງການຄວບຄຸມທຶນ, ແລະ ເຂົ້າເຖິງຕະຫຼາດການເງິນໂລກໂດຍບໍ່ຕ້ອງອີງໃສ່ລະບົບທະນາຄານແບບດັ້ງເດີມ. ໃນຂະນະທີ່ການນຳໃຊ້ກຳລັງເພີ່ມຂຶ້ນ, USDT ກຳລັງກາຍເປັນໄພຂົ່ມຂູ່ທີ່ມີຢູ່ຈິງຕໍ່ທະນາຄານກາງ, ຈຳກັດການຄວບຄຸມຂອງພວກເຂົາຕໍ່ນະໂຍບາຍການເງິນ ແລະ ອຳນາດອະທິປະໄຕທາງການເງິນ.

ທາງເລືອກໃໝ່ແທນສະກຸນເງິນທ້ອງຖິ່ນ

ປະເທດກຳລັງພັດທະນາມັກຈະປະສົບບັນຫາກັບການລົດຄ່າເງິນ, ເງິນເຟີ້, ແລະ ການໄຫລອອກຂອງທຶນ. ທະນາຄານກາງຫຼາຍແຫ່ງບໍ່ສາມາດຮັກສາສະຖຽນລະພາບຂອງສະກຸນເງິນເນື່ອງຈາກການຄຸ້ມຄອງທີ່ບໍ່ດີ, ການພິມເງິນຫຼາຍເກີນໄປ, ຫຼື ການແຊກແຊງທາງການເມືອງ. ພົນລະເມືອງທີ່ເຫັນເງິນທ້ອນຂອງຕົນຖືກກັດເຊາະ ຕາມປົກກະຕິແລ້ວຈະມີທາງເລືອກບໍ່ຫຼາຍ: ປ່ຽນເງິນທ້ອງຖິ່ນເປັນ ໂດລາ ຫລື ໃນກໍລະນີ້ລາວເຮົາກໍຈະມີ ບາດ ແລະ ຢວນນຳ ຜ່ານທະຫລາດມືດ ຫຼື ລົງທຶນກັບທຸລະກິດ, ຊື້ອະສັງຫາ ແລະ ລົງທຶນໃນຊັບສິນຕ່າງປະເທດ. USDT ໄດ້ປ່ຽນແປງເກມນີ້. ມັນອະນຸຍາດໃຫ້ທຸກຄົນທີ່ມີການເຂົ້າເຖິງອິນເຕີເນັດສາມາດເກັບຮັກສາ ແລະ ໂອນມູນຄ່າໃນຮູບແບບດິຈິຕອນທີ່ທຽບເທົ່າກັບໂດລາໂດຍບໍ່ຈຳເປັນຕ້ອງໄດ້ຮັບການອະນຸມັດຈາກທະນາຄານທ້ອງຖິ່ນ ຫຼື ລັດຖະບານ. ສິ່ງນີ້ຊ່ວຍໃຫ້ຫຼຸດພົ້ນຈາກການອີງໃສ່ສະກຸນເງິນແຫ່ງຊາດທີ່ອ່ອນແອ, ສະເໜີທາງເລືອກທີ່ງ່າຍໃນການປ້ອງກັນການເສື່ອມຄ່າ. ໃນປະເທດເຊັ່ນ: ເວເນຊູເອລາ, ອາເຈນຕິນາ, ໄນຈີເຣຍ, ເລບານອນ, ແລະ ລາວ, ປະຊາຊົນກຳລັງນຳໃຊ້ USDT ເພື່ອປົກປ້ອງຄວາມໝັ້ງຄັ່ງຂອງພວກເຂົາຈາກພາວະເງິນເຟີ້ສູງ ແລະ ຄວາມບໍ່ສະຖຽນທາງການເງິນ.

ການທຳລາຍການຜູກຂາດຂອງທະນາຄານກາງ

ທະນາຄານກາງມີອຳນາດອັນໃຫຍ່ຫຼວງຕໍ່ລະບົບການເງິນໂດຍການຄວບຄຸມການອອກເງິນ, ອັດຕາດອກເບ້ຍ, ແລະ ການໄຫຼຂອງທຶນ. ເຖິງຢ່າງໃດກໍຕາມ, USDT ບ່ອນທຳລາຍການຄວບຄຸມນີ້ດ້ວຍການສະໜອງລະບົບການເງິນຄູ່ຂະໜານທີ່ດຳເນີນງານເປັນອິດສະຫຼະຈາກການກຳກັບດູແລຂອງລັດຖະບານ. ສິ່ງນີ້ທ້າທາຍສາມພື້ນທີ່ຫຼັກຂອງອຳນາດທະນາຄານກາງ:

• ການຄວບຄຸມນະໂຍບາຍການເງິນ:

ເມື່ອປະຊາຊົນຍ້າຍເງິນທ້ອນຈາກສະກຸນເງິນທ້ອງຖິ່ນໄປສູ່ USDT, ທະນາຄານກາງຈະສູນເສຍຄວາມສາມາດໃນການຄວບຄຸມປະລິມານເງິນຢ່າງມີປະສິດທິພາບ. ຖ້າປະຊາກອນສ່ວນໃຫຍ່ຢຸດໃຊ້ສະກຸນເງິນແຫ່ງຊາດ, ນະໂຍບາຍເຊັ່ນ: ການປ່ຽນແປງອັດຕາດອກເບ້ຍ ຫຼື ການພິມເງິນກໍຈະສູນເສຍປະສິດທິພາບຂອງພວກມັນ.

• ການຫຼີກລ່ຽງການຄວບຄຸມທຶນ:

ປະເທດກຳລັງພັດທະນາຫຼາຍແຫ່ງບັງຄັບໃຊ້ການຄວບຄຸມທຶນທີ່ເຂັ້ມງວດເພື່ອປ້ອງກັນບໍ່ໃຫ້ເງິນອອກນອກປະເທດ, ເຮັດໃຫ້ສະກຸນເງິນຂອງພວກເຂົາມີສະຖຽນລະພາບ. USDT, ໂດຍບໍ່ມີພົມແດນ, ອະນຸຍາດໃຫ້ຜູ້ໃຊ້ຫຼີກລ່ຽງການຄວບຄຸມເຫຼົ່ານີ້, ເຮັດໃຫ້ມັນງ່າຍຂຶ້ນໃນການດຳເນີນທຸລະກຳທົ່ວໂລກ ຫຼື ເກັບຮັກສາຄວາມໝັ້ງຄັ່ງທີ່ມີສະພາບຄ່ອງລະດັບສາກົນ.

• ການລົດບົດບາດຂອງລະບົບທະນາຄານ:

USDT ຫຼຸດຄວາມຕ້ອງການຂອງການບໍລິການທະນາຄານແບບດັ້ງເດີມ. ດ້ວຍສະມາດໂຟນ ແລະ ກະເປົາເງິນດິຈິຕອນ, ປະຊາຊົນສາມາດສົ່ງ ແລະ ຮັບການຊຳລະເງິນໂດຍບໍ່ຕ້ອງຜ່ານລະບົບທະນາຄານ, ຕັດທະນາຄານອອກຈາກລະບົບນິເວດການເງິນ ແລະ ເຮັດໃຫ້ພວກມັນຂາດຄ່າທຳນຽມທຸລະກຳ ແລະ ເງິນຝາກ.

ກໍລະນີຂອງລາວ: ການປ່ຽນແປງທາງການເງິນທີ່ກຳລັງເກີດຂຶ້ນ

ລາວ, ເຊັ່ນດຽວກັນກັບປະເທດກຳລັງພັດທະນາຫຼາຍແຫ່ງ, ປະເຊີນກັບສິ່ງທ້າທາຍທາງເສດຖະກິດລວມທັງເງິນເຟີ້, ສະກຸນເງິນແຫ່ງຊາດທີ່ອ່ອນແອ (ເງິນກີບລາວ), ແລະ ການເຂົ້າເຖິງເງິນຕາຕ່າງປະເທດທີ່ຈຳກັດ. ລັດຖະບານມີການຄວບຄຸມທຶນທີ່ເຂັ້ມງວດ, ເຮັດໃຫ້ມັນຍາກສຳລັບບຸກຄົນ ແລະ ທຸລະກິດໃນການຊື້ USD ຜ່ານຊ່ອງທາງທີ່ເປັນທາງການ. ສິ່ງນີ້ເຮັດໃຫ້ເກີດຕະຫຼາດມືດສຳລັບການແລກປ່ຽນເງິນຕາທີ່ເຕີບໂຕຂຶ້ນ. ດ້ວຍການເພີ່ມຂຶ້ນຂອງ USDT, ຊາວລາວຫຼາຍຄົນກຳລັງຫັນມາໃຊ້ stable coin ແລະ ເກັບຊັບສິນດິຈິຕອນ ເປັນທາງເລືອກທີ່ປອດໄພກວ່າການຖືເງິນກີບລາວ, ເຊິ່ງມີແນວໂນ້ມທີ່ຈະເສື່ອມຄ່າລົງ.

ບົດຮຽນຈາກການທຳລາຍສື່ທ້ອງຖິ່ນໂດຍສື່ສັງຄົມອອນລາຍ

ການເພີ່ມຂຶ້ນຂອງ USDT ສະທ້ອນໃຫ້ເຫັນເຖິງສື່ສັງຄົມອອນລາຍໄດ້ທຳລາຍສື່ທ້ອງຖິ່ນແນວໃດ. ສື່ຂ່າວແບບດັ້ງເດີມເຄີຍຜູກຂາດການແຈກຢາຍຂໍ້ມູນ, ແຕ່ແພລດຟອມເຊັ່ນ: Facebook, Twitter, ແລະ YouTube ໄດ້ເຮັດໃຫ້ການສ້າງ ແລະ ການແຈກຢາຍເນື້ອຫາເປັນປະຊາທິປະໄຕ. ດັ່ງນັ້ນ, ສື່ທີ່ຄວບຄຸມໂດຍລັດ ແລະ ບໍລິສັດຈຶ່ງສູນເສຍຄວາມສາມາດໃນການກຳນົດເນື້ອຫາ ໃນຂະນະທີ່ສື່ສັງຄົມອອນລາຍເພີ່ມອຳນາດໃຫ້ບຸກຄົນໃນການແບ່ງປັນ ແລະ ເຂົ້າເຖິງຂ່າວທີ່ບໍ່ໄດ້ຜ່ານການ censorship. ເຊັ່ນດຽວກັນ, USDT ກຳລັງກະຈາຍອຳນາດທາງການເງິນ. ເຊັ່ນດຽວກັບສື່ສັງຄົມອອນລາຍທີ່ໃຫ້ສຽງແກ່ປະຊາຊົນນອກເໜືອຈາກສື່ກະແສຫຼັກ, USDT ກຳລັງໃຫ້ຄວາມເປັນອິດສະຫຼະທາງການເງິນແກ່ບຸກຄົນທີ່ເກີນກວ່າຂອບເຂດຂອງທະນາຄານກາງ. ແນວໂນ້ມນີ້ຊັດເຈນ: ສະຖາບັນທີ່ລວມສູນຈະສູນເສຍການຄວບຄຸມເມື່ອບຸກຄົນໄດ້ຮັບການເຂົ້າເຖິງໂດຍກົງຕໍ່ທາງເລືອກອື່ນ.

Trump ສະໜັບສະໜູນ Stable Coin

ປະທານາທິບໍດີສະຫະລັດ Donald Trump ໄດ້ສະແດງການສະໜັບສະໜູນຕໍ່ stable coin ແລະ ອຸດສາຫະກຳ cryptocurrency ເມື່ອບໍ່ດົນມານີ້. ຈຸດຢືນຂອງລາວເປັນສັນຍານເຖິງການປ່ຽນແປງທີ່ເປັນໄປໄດ້ໃນນະໂຍບາຍຂອງສະຫະລັດທີ່ອາດຈະສ້າງຄວາມຊອບທຳໃຫ້ແກ່ສະເຕເບິນຄອຍ ແລະ ຂັບເຄື່ອນການນຳໃຊ້ທົ່ວໂລກ. ຖ້າລັດຖະບານສະຫະລັດຮັບຮອງສະເຕເບິນຄອຍເຊັ່ນ USDT, ມັນອາດຈະເລັ່ງການນຳໃຊ້ພວກມັນເປັນທາງເລືອກແທນລະບົບທະນາຄານແບບດັ້ງເດີມ, ສ້າງແຮງກົດດັນເພີ່ມເຕີມຕໍ່ທະນາຄານກາງໃນປະເທດກຳລັງພັດທະນາ. ນີ້ອາດຈະສົ່ງເສີມໃຫ້ມີການມີສ່ວນຮ່ວມຂອງສະຖາບັນຫຼາຍຂຶ້ນ, ເຮັດໃຫ້ມັນຍາກຂຶ້ນສຳລັບລັດຖະບານທ້ອງຖິ່ນໃນການປາບປາມການນຳໃຊ້ USDT.

ຊ່ອງຫວ່າງຂອງການຮັບຮູ້: ຫຼາຍຄົນຍັງບໍ່ຮູ້ເຖິງໄພຂົ່ມຂູ່

ເຖິງແມ່ນວ່າ USDT ຈະເຕີບໂຕຢ່າງໄວວາ, ປະຊາຊົນຫຼາຍຄົນໃນປະເທດກຳລັງພັດທະນາຍັງບໍ່ຮັບຮູ້ເຖິງຜົນກະທົບຂອງມັນ. ໃນຂະນະທີ່ຜູ້ໃຊ້ເລີ່ມຕົ້ນຈະເປັນ ບຸກຄົນທີ່ຮູ້ເທັກໂນໂລຊີ, ນັກລົງທຶນ ແລະ ເຈົ້າຂອງທຸລະກິດ, ປະຊາກອນສ່ວນໃຫຍ່ຍັງອີງໃສ່ການທະນາຄານແບບດັ້ງເດີມ ແລະ ສະກຸນເງິນຕາມກົດໝາຍໂດຍບໍ່ຮູ້ເຖິງຄວາມສ່ຽງຂອງການເສື່ອມຄ່າ ແລະ ຄວາມບໍ່ສະຖຽນທາງການເງິນ. ເຖິງຢ່າງໃດກໍຕາມ, ບຸກຄົນຕ້ອງມີຄວາມຄິດລິເລີ່ມໃນການສຶກສາຕົນເອງກ່ຽວກັບເຄື່ອງມືທາງການເງິນທາງເລືອກເຊັ່ນ USDT ແລະ Bitcoin ເພື່ອປົກປ້ອງຄວາມໝັ້ງຄັ່ງ ແລະ ຄວາມເປັນອິດສະຫຼະທາງການເງິນຂອງພວກເຂົາ.

ບົດສະຫຼຸບ: ການປະຕິວັດທາງການເງິນທີ່ກຳລັງເກີດຂຶ້ນ

USDT ແລະ Bitcoin ແມ່ນການປະຕິວັດທາງການເງິນທີ່ເພີ່ມອຳນາດໃຫ້ບຸກຄົນໃນປະເທດກຳລັງພັດທະນາທີ່ຈະຫຼຸດພົ້ນຈາກນະໂຍບາຍການເງິນທີ່ລົ້ມເຫຼວ. ເຊັ່ນດຽວກັບສື່ສັງຄົມອອນລາຍໄດ້ປະຕິວັດພູມທັດຂອງສື່ໂດຍການໃຫ້ປະຊາຊົນຄວບຄຸມຂໍ້ມູນຂ່າວສານ, USDT ກຳລັງປະຕິວັດການເງິນໂດຍການໃຫ້ປະຊາຊົນຄວບຄຸມເງິນຂອງພວກເຂົາ. ສຳລັບທະນາຄານກາງໃນປະເທດກຳລັງພັດທະນາ, ການປ່ຽນແປງນີ້ສ້າງສະພາວະຫຍຸ້ງຍາກທີ່ຮ້າຍແຮງ: ປັບຕົວ ຫຼື ສູນເສຍອິດທິພົນ. ລັດຖະບານອາດຈະພະຍາຍາມຄວບຄຸມກົດລະບຽບ ຫຼື ຫ້າມສະເຕເບິນຄອຍ, ແຕ່ຕາມທີ່ປະຫວັດສາດໄດ້ສະແດງໃຫ້ເຫັນກັບສື່ສັງຄົມອອນລາຍ.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Token-Curated Registries

So you want to build a TCR?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What TCR enthusiasts get wrong?

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

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

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

We don't need lists

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

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

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

@ 378562cd:a6fc6773

Bitcoin gives you financial freedom, but if you're not careful, someone’s watching. If you don’t run your own Bitcoin node, you're trusting someone else with your privacy. Here's why that’s a bad idea—and how running your own node fixes it.

What Is a Bitcoin Node? A Bitcoin node is software that connects to the Bitcoin network. It: ✅ Verifies transactions and blocks. ✅ Stores a copy of the blockchain. ✅ Relays transactions to the network. ✅ Lets you use Bitcoin without trusting anyone.

If you don’t run a node, you’re relying on someone else’s—usually a company that tracks your activity.

How Using Someone Else’s Node Destroys Your Privacy 👀 They Can See Your Transactions – Third-party wallets track what you send, receive, and how much Bitcoin you have. 📍 Your IP Address is Exposed – When you send a transaction, your location could be linked to it. ⛔ Censorship is Possible – Some services can block or delay your transactions. 🔗 They Can Link Your Addresses – Many wallets send your balance info to outside servers, connecting all your Bitcoin activity.

How Running Your Own Node Protects You 🔒 No One Knows Your Balances – Your wallet checks the blockchain directly, keeping your finances private. 🕵️ Hides Your IP Address – No one knows where your transactions come from, especially if you use Tor. 🚀 No Transaction Censorship – Your node sends transactions directly, avoiding interference. ✅ You Verify Everything – No fake data or reliance on third-party information.

But Isn’t Running a Node Hard? Not anymore! You can: 💻 Download Bitcoin Core and run it on your computer. 🔌 Use plug-and-play devices like Umbrel or MyNode. 🍓 Set up a cheap Raspberry Pi to run 24/7.

It’s easier than you think—and worth it.

Why This Matters The more people run nodes, the stronger Bitcoin gets. It becomes more decentralized, harder to censor, and more private for everyone.

Final Thought If you value privacy, freedom, and financial independence, running your own Bitcoin node is a no-brainer. Take control. Protect your Bitcoin. Run a node. 🚀

@ ed5774ac:45611c5c

Erdogan’s Turkey: The Rise, Reign, and Decline of a Political Strongman

As Turkey’s political crisis intensifies with Erdogan’s imprisonment of Imamoglu—a leading opposition figure and likely frontrunner in the 2028 presidential elections—it is crucial to analyze the historical events and geopolitical factors that enabled Erdogan’s rise, secured the consolidation of his rule, and allowed him to maintain his grip on power for decades. To understand the foundations of Erdogan’s enduring political legacy, we must examine the historical events that shaped his ideology and the global power struggles of the time. Equally important are the international actors who facilitated his rise and prolonged his rule. Key factors include the link between Erdogan’s rise and the Iraq War, the interplay between Turkey’s military coups and the Ukraine crisis, the events that led to the erosion of Western support for Erdogan, the role of the U.S. and NATO in the 2016 coup attempt against his rule, and the shifting geopolitical landscape that continues to define Turkey’s political future.

The Roots of Islamism: The CIA, the 1980 Coup, and the Suppression of Turkish Liberalism

Erdogan’s rise is deeply intertwined with the growth of Turkey’s Islamic movement, which gained traction in the 1970s amid Cold War geopolitics. During this period, the U.S., under the guidance of Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, devised the “Green Belt” strategy. This plan aimed to cultivate a radicalized Islamic generation across the Muslim world to counter the spread of communist ideology. The U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, which radicalized certain factions and triggered the Soviet invasion, was a critical component of this strategy. Brzezinski himself proudly acknowledged this in various interviews. Turkey, a NATO ally bordering the Soviet Union, became a key theater for implementing this policy.

The military coup of September 12, 1980, marked a pivotal moment in Turkish history. Led by General Kenan Evren, the Turkish armed forces seized power under the pretext of restoring order amid escalating violence between leftist and rightist factions that had claimed thousands of lives. However, the junta’s crackdown disproportionately targeted the Turkish left—a movement distinct from Soviet-style communism, composed of liberal, educated intellectuals such as writers, artists, journalists, and thinkers. These individuals, who championed Turkish sovereignty, intellectual freedom, and democratic ideals, were perceived as a direct threat to the military’s Islamization agenda, backed by the CIA. Tens of thousands were imprisoned, tortured, or executed, while left-wing organizations were banned outright.

At the same time, the junta actively fostered Islamist groups, establishing religious schools known as Imam Hatip institutions under the guise of combating Marxism and communism. In reality, their true objective was to eliminate anyone who sought Turkish sovereignty, embraced patriotism, or valued critical thinking. Writers, artists, journalists, and intellectuals—those who dared to think independently and question authority—were viewed as existential threats to the Islamization model the military and its CIA allies sought to impose. By silencing these voices, the junta aimed to eradicate opposition to their vision of a Turkey subservient to religious dogma and foreign interests, ensuring a populace stripped of sovereign thought and resistant to enlightenment.

This paradox—a secular military suppressing liberal intellectuals while nurturing Islamist groups—laid the foundation for Erdogan’s rise and the eventual Islamization of Turkish society.

The Chaos of the 1990s: Economic Crisis and the Rise of Erdogan

The 1990s were a chaotic decade for Turkey, marked by economic instability, a Kurdish insurgency, and a revolving door of coalition governments. The 1994 financial crisis saw inflation soar, while terrorist attacks by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and political assassinations fueled national disarray. Successive governments, often beholden to globalist agendas dictated by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, failed to deliver stability. This period mirrored today’s European political crises, where ideological convergence has left voters disillusioned.

Into this void stepped Erdogan, a charismatic former soccer player turned politician from Istanbul’s working-class Kasimpasa district, whose blend of populist appeal and religious rhetoric resonated with a disillusioned populace. His rise was no accident. In 1994, he won the mayoralty of Istanbul as a member of the Islamist Welfare Party (Refah Partisi), showcasing a blend of populist charisma and religious appeal. However, his early political career faced a setback in 1997 when the military, acting as guardians of Turkey’s secular Kemalist legacy, forced the resignation of Welfare Party Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan in what was dubbed a “postmodern coup.” Erdogan’s imprisonment in 1998 for reciting a divisive poem only solidified his image as a martyr among his devout supporters.

The 2001 Crisis: Neocons, Economic Sabotage, and Erdogan’s Ascendancy

Erdogan’s true ascent began amid Turkey’s devastating 2001 financial crisis, which saw the economy contract by 5.7%, unemployment spike, and the Turkish lira collapse. The crisis, worsened by IMF-mandated austerity measures, discredited the ruling coalition under Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit. A staunch nationalist, Ecevit had spearheaded Turkey’s 1974 intervention in Cyprus and forced Syria to expel PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan in 1999. His refusal to align Turkey with the impending U.S.-led Iraq War in 2003 made him a liability for U.S. neoconservatives, who were already preparing for the conflict.

Far from a mere economic downturn, the 2001 crisis was a deliberate strategy orchestrated by the global Western financial cartel to destabilize Ecevit’s nationalist government. This administration, fiercely protective of Turkish sovereignty, had unequivocally opposed Turkey’s involvement in the Iraq War. To eliminate this obstacle, the financial cartel—comprising international financial institutions and Western-backed actors—engineered the crisis by exploiting Turkey’s reliance on hot money and Western financial support. The resulting economic collapse eroded public trust in the government and existing political parties, creating a power vacuum that paved the way for Erdogan. Handpicked by the globalist cabal as their new proxy, Erdogan was positioned to advance their political agenda in Turkey. The neocons viewed him as a pliable ally: a moderate Islamist who could pacify Turkey’s religious conservatives while advancing Western interests. Despite resistance within his own party, Erdogan advocated for Turkish involvement in the Iraq War, though the Turkish Parliament, with the help of dissidents in his party, ultimately rejected U.S. troop deployments in 2003. Nevertheless, Erdogan remained loyal to his neocon backers and globalist patrons, privatizing state assets at rock-bottom prices—akin to Yeltsin’s controversial reforms in 1990s Russia—and deepening Turkey’s economic dependence on the EU and the U.S.

In addition to tying Turkey’s economy to Western interests, Erdogan targeted the Turkish military in 2007 through the Ergenekon and Sledgehammer trials. Widely criticized as show trials orchestrated with the help of the Gulen movement—a shadowy Islamic network led by Fethullah Gulen—these cases imprisoned or sidelined hundreds of officers, including navy admirals opposed to NATO’s Black Sea ambitions. These officers had long argued that NATO’s mission ended with the fall of the Soviet Union and advocated for closer ties with Russia and China. They also opposed plans to integrate Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, fearing it would destabilize the region and turn the Black Sea into a battleground between the West and Russia. By weakening the navy and sidelining its dissenting admirals, Erdogan brought Turkey back in line with NATO’s strategic objectives, enabling the neocons to advance their plans for NATO expansion into the Black Sea region—a move that set the stage for the 2008 Russo-Georgian War and the 2014 Ukrainian crisis.. Without this internal coup against the Turkish military, these events might have unfolded differently—or not at all.

For his services to the globalist agenda, Erdogan was portrayed in Western media as a democratizing hero, and Turkey’s economy was praised for its growth and strength. However, the reality was starkly different. To understand the globalist propaganda surrounding Erdogan, consider Barack Obama’s first foreign visit as U.S. president: a trip to Turkey in 2009. In a speech to the Turkish Parliament, Obama praised Erdogan’s “democratic reforms” and the strength of Turkey’s economy—which was growing steadily only due to cheap credit provided by international financial institutions serving the same globalist interests Erdogan represented. Meanwhile, journalists and dissidents filled Turkish prisons.

The 2016 Coup Attempt: Erdogan’s Break with the West

Erdogan’s honeymoon with the West soured in the 2010s. His support for Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and his interventionist stance in Syria clashed with U.S. priorities, especially after the Arab Spring upended regional alliances. Sensing Erdogan’s growing autonomy, the neocons turned to Fethullah Gulen, a cleric living in Pennsylvania since 1999 with close ties to the CIA and the Clinton Foundation. Gulen’s Hizmet movement, once an ally in Erdogan’s rise, had infiltrated Turkey’s police, judiciary, and military, creating a “parallel state.”

The July 15, 2016, coup attempt—marked by rogue military units bombing parliament and nearly capturing Erdogan—was orchestrated by factions of the Gulen movement within the army, with the involvement of the CIA and NATO, using Incirlik Air Base as one of the primary command centers to coordinate the operation (one of NATO’s largest military bases in the region). The timing suggests that the neocons, anticipating Hillary Clinton’s presidency, planned to install Gulen as their new puppet in Turkey. As a radical Sunni leader hostile to Iran, Gulen could have aligned Turkey with a broader anti-Iranian axis, potentially dragging the country into a regional war against Iran—much like Saddam Hussein did three decades earlier.

The coup’s failure, quashed by loyalists and public resistance, marked a turning point, leading Erdogan to purge over 100,000 civil servants and consolidate his power through a 2017 referendum and pivoting toward Russia and China—not out of conviction, but as leverage against Western abandonment.

Turkey’s Geopolitical Balancing Act: Ukraine, NATO, and the Black Sea

Erdogan’s post-2016 flirtations with Moscow—evidenced by the purchase of Russian S-400 systems and energy deals—reflect more than a pragmatic balancing act. They reflect a desperate attempt to regain Western attention, akin to dating someone new to make an ex jealous, aimed at convincing the West not to write him off.

The Ukrainian crisis, escalating with Russia’s 2022 invasion, has pushed Turkey into a delicate role. As a NATO member controlling the Bosphorus, Erdogan has mediated grain deals and prisoner swaps, leveraging Turkey’s strategic position. Yet his reluctance to fully back NATO’s hardline stance has further alienated him from the West, making him a target for a potential regime change operation as the West has grown desperate to win its proxy war against Russia. As a result, international media and globalist factions have intensified efforts to undermine his regime, seeking to remove him from power.

Turkey at a Crossroads: Imamoglu, Erdogan’s Decline, and the Future

Erdogan has fulfilled his mission: he has made Turkey’s economy dependent on the West, eliminated patriotic voices in the military, dismantled the parliamentary system, wrecked the education system, and buried the secular Turkish republic. His legacy is a deeply polarized Turkey: economically dependent on the West, militarily weakened, and institutionally hollowed out.

Corruption scandals, a collapsing lira, and authoritarian excesses have fueled widespread public discontent. Yet, rather than addressing the root causes of this anger—economic hardship, growing authoritarianism, and systemic corruption—Erdogan has grown increasingly paranoid, attributing every challenge to Western conspiracies and interventions. This refusal to confront reality has only deepened the divide between him and the Turkish people, fueling widespread disillusionment and anger.

Imamoglu’s rise—winning Istanbul in 2019 and 2023 despite blatant election irregularities, systematic government interference, censorship, and the full force of Erdogan’s authoritarian machinery—stands as a testament to his resilience and the enduring hope of Turkey’s opposition. Facing a system rigged to ensure his defeat, Imamoglu triumphed against overwhelming odds. Erdogan’s regime spared no effort, leveraging state media, the judiciary, and security forces to manipulate the results, yet it could not prevent Imamoglu’s victories in Istanbul, which shattered the illusion of invincibility surrounding Erdogan’s rule. His recent imprisonment on fabricated charges ahead of the 2028 elections underscores Erdogan’s desperation to suppress this threat, further alienating a populace yearning for change.

Turkey now stands at a crossroads. The powers that once propelled Erdogan to prominence—U.S. neoconservatives and the Islamist legacy of the 1980 coup—have lost control of their creation. His fall from Western favor, tied to the 2016 coup attempt and his regional overreach, has left him isolated, oscillating between East and West while clinging to power as domestic anger reaches a boiling point. Whether Imamoglu or another leader emerges, Turkey’s post-Erdogan era will face the monumental task of rebuilding its secular republic and defining its role in an increasingly complex global landscape.

Turkey’s struggle is not just its own—it is an example of the suffering endured for decades under Western colonialism and a parasitic financial order. This system, designed to enrich a handful of elites in the West, thrives by exploiting the Global South, perpetuating poverty, and engineering chaos to maintain control. Turkey’s fight for self-determination stands as a beacon for all nations seeking to break free from the chains of neocolonialism and reclaim their rightful place in a just and equitable global order. The future must be built on the sovereignty of nations, free from the selfish designs of a Western oligarchy.

@ 94a6a78a:0ddf320e

Nostr is a revolutionary protocol that enables decentralized, censorship-resistant communication. Unlike traditional social networks controlled by corporations, Nostr operates without central servers or gatekeepers. This openness makes it incredibly powerful—but also means its success depends entirely on users, developers, and relay operators.

If you believe in free speech, decentralization, and an open internet, there are many ways to support and strengthen the Nostr ecosystem. Whether you're a casual user, a developer, or someone looking to contribute financially, every effort helps build a more robust network.

Here’s how you can get involved and make a difference.

---

1️⃣ Use Nostr Daily

The simplest and most effective way to contribute to Nostr is by using it regularly. The more active users, the stronger and more valuable the network becomes.

✅ Post, comment, and zap (send micro-payments via Bitcoin’s Lightning Network) to keep conversations flowing.\ ✅ Engage with new users and help them understand how Nostr works.\ ✅ Try different Nostr clients like Damus, Amethyst, Snort, or Primal and provide feedback to improve the experience.

Your activity keeps the network alive and helps encourage more developers and relay operators to invest in the ecosystem.

---

2️⃣ Run Your Own Nostr Relay

Relays are the backbone of Nostr, responsible for distributing messages across the network. The more independent relays exist, the stronger and more censorship-resistant Nostr becomes.

✅ Set up your own relay to help decentralize the network further.\ ✅ Experiment with relay configurations and different performance optimizations.\ ✅ Offer public or private relay services to users looking for high-quality infrastructure.

If you're not technical, you can still support relay operators by subscribing to a paid relay or donating to open-source relay projects.

---

3️⃣ Support Paid Relays & Infrastructure

Free relays have helped Nostr grow, but they struggle with spam, slow speeds, and sustainability issues. Paid relays help fund better infrastructure, faster message delivery, and a more reliable experience.

✅ Subscribe to a paid relay to help keep it running.\ ✅ Use premium services like media hosting (e.g., Azzamo Blossom) to decentralize content storage.\ ✅ Donate to relay operators who invest in long-term infrastructure.

By funding Nostr’s decentralized backbone, you help ensure its longevity and reliability.

---

4️⃣ Zap Developers, Creators & Builders

Many people contribute to Nostr without direct financial compensation—developers who build clients, relay operators, educators, and content creators. You can support them with zaps! ⚡

✅ Find developers working on Nostr projects and send them a zap.\ ✅ Support content creators and educators who spread awareness about Nostr.\ ✅ Encourage builders by donating to open-source projects.

Micro-payments via the Lightning Network make it easy to directly support the people who make Nostr better.

---

5️⃣ Develop New Nostr Apps & Tools

If you're a developer, you can build on Nostr’s open protocol to create new apps, bots, or tools. Nostr is permissionless, meaning anyone can develop for it.

✅ Create new Nostr clients with unique features and user experiences.\ ✅ Build bots or automation tools that improve engagement and usability.\ ✅ Experiment with decentralized identity, authentication, and encryption to make Nostr even stronger.

With no corporate gatekeepers, your projects can help shape the future of decentralized social media.

---

6️⃣ Promote & Educate Others About Nostr

Adoption grows when more people understand and use Nostr. You can help by spreading awareness and creating educational content.

✅ Write blogs, guides, and tutorials explaining how to use Nostr.\ ✅ Make videos or social media posts introducing new users to the protocol.\ ✅ Host discussions, Twitter Spaces, or workshops to onboard more people.

The more people understand and trust Nostr, the stronger the ecosystem becomes.

---

7️⃣ Support Open-Source Nostr Projects

Many Nostr tools and clients are built by volunteers, and open-source projects thrive on community support.

✅ Contribute code to existing Nostr projects on GitHub.\ ✅ Report bugs and suggest features to improve Nostr clients.\ ✅ Donate to developers who keep Nostr free and open for everyone.

If you're not a developer, you can still help with testing, translations, and documentation to make projects more accessible.

---

🚀 Every Contribution Strengthens Nostr

Whether you:

✔️ Post and engage daily\ ✔️ Zap creators and developers\ ✔️ Run or support relays\ ✔️ Build new apps and tools\ ✔️ Educate and onboard new users

Every action helps make Nostr more resilient, decentralized, and unstoppable.

Nostr isn’t just another social network—it’s a movement toward a free and open internet. If you believe in digital freedom, privacy, and decentralization, now is the time to get involved.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

idea: "numbeo" with satoshis

This site has a crowdsourced database of cost-of-living in many countries and cities: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/ and it sells the data people write there freely. It's wrong!

Could be an fruitful idea to pay satoshis for people to provide data.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Lightning and its fake HTLCs

Lightning is terrible but can be very good with two tweaks.

How Lightning would work without HTLCs

In a world in which HTLCs didn't exist, Lightning channels would consist only of balances. Each commitment transaction would have two outputs: one for peer A, the other for peer B, according to the current state of the channel.

When a payment was being attempted to go through the channel, peers would just trust each other to update the state when necessary. For example:

1. Channel AB's balances are A[10:10]B (in sats);
2. A sends a 3sat payment through B to C;
3. A asks B to route the payment. Channel AB doesn't change at all;
4. B sends the payment to C, C accepts it;
5. Channel BC changes from B[20:5]C to B[17:8]C;
6. B notifies A the payment was successful, A acknowledges that;
7. Channel AB changes from A[10:10]B to A[7:13]B.

This in the case of a success, everything is fine, no glitches, no dishonesty.

But notice that A could have refused to acknowledge that the payment went through, either because of a bug, or because it went offline forever, or because it is malicious. Then the channel AB would stay as A[10:10]B and B would have lost 3 satoshis.

How Lightning would work with HTLCs

HTLCs are introduced to remedy that situation. Now instead of commitment transactions having always only two outputs, one to each peer, now they can have HTLC outputs too. These HTLC outputs could go to either side dependending on the circumstance.

Specifically, the peer that is sending the payment can redeem the HTLC after a number of blocks have passed. The peer that is receiving the payment can redeem the HTLC if they are able to provide the preimage to the hash specified in the HTLC.

Now the flow is something like this:

1. Channel AB's balances are A[10:10]B;
2. A sends a 3sat payment through B to C:
3. A asks B to route the payment. Their channel changes to A[7:3:10]B (the middle number is the HTLC).
4. B offers a payment to C. Their channel changes from B[20:5]C to B[17:3:5]C.
5. C tells B the preimage for that HTLC. Their channel changes from B[17:3:5]C to B[17:8]C.
6. B tells A the preimage for that HTLC. Their channel changes from A[7:3:10]B to A[7:13]B.

Now if A wants to trick B and stop responding B doesn't lose money, because B knows the preimage, B just needs to publish the commitment transaction A[7:3:10]B, which gives him 10sat and then redeem the HTLC using the preimage he got from C, which gives him 3 sats more. B is fine now.

In the same way, if B stops responding for any reason, A won't lose the money it put in that HTLC, it can publish the commitment transaction, get 7 back, then redeem the HTLC after the certain number of blocks have passed and get the other 3 sats back.

How Lightning doesn't really work

The example above about how the HTLCs work is very elegant but has a fatal flaw on it: transaction fees. Each new HTLC added increases the size of the commitment transaction and it requires yet another transaction to be redeemed. If we consider fees of 10000 satoshis that means any HTLC below that is as if it didn't existed because we can't ever redeem it anyway. In fact the Lightning protocol explicitly dictates that if HTLC output amounts are below the fee necessary to redeem them they shouldn't be created.

What happens in these cases then? Nothing, the amounts that should be in HTLCs are moved to the commitment transaction miner fee instead.

So considering a transaction fee of 10000sat for these HTLCs if one is sending Lightning payments below 10000sat that means they operate according to the unsafe protocol described in the first section above.

It is actually worse, because consider what happens in the case a channel in the middle of a route has a glitch or one of the peers is unresponsive. The other node, thinking they are operating in the trustless protocol, will proceed to publish the commitment transaction, i.e. close the channel, so they can redeem the HTLC -- only then they find out they are actually in the unsafe protocol realm and there is no HTLC to be redeemed at all and they lose not only the money, but also the channel (which costed a lot of money to open and close, in overall transaction fees).

One of the biggest features of the trustless protocol are the payment proofs. Every payment is identified by a hash and whenever the payee releases the preimage relative to that hash that means the payment was complete. The incentives are in place so all nodes in the path pass the preimage back until it reaches the payer, which can then use it as the proof he has sent the payment and the payee has received it. This feature is also lost in the unsafe protocol: if a glitch happens or someone goes offline on the preimage's way back then there is no way the preimage will reach the payer because no HTLCs are published and redeemed on the chain. The payee may have received the money but the payer will not know -- but the payee will lose the money sent anyway.

The end of HTLCs

So considering the points above you may be sad because in some cases Lightning doesn't use these magic HTLCs that give meaning to it all. But the fact is that no matter what anyone thinks, HTLCs are destined to be used less and less as time passes.

The fact that over time Bitcoin transaction fees tend to rise, and also the fact that multipart payment (MPP) are increasedly being used on Lightning for good, we can expect that soon no HTLC will ever be big enough to be actually worth redeeming and we will be at a point in which not a single HTLC is real and they're all fake.

Another thing to note is that the current unsafe protocol kicks out whenever the HTLC amount is below the Bitcoin transaction fee would be to redeem it, but this is not a reasonable algorithm. It is not reasonable to lose a channel and then pay 10000sat in fees to redeem a 10001sat HTLC. At which point does it become reasonable to do it? Probably in an amount many times above that, so it would be reasonable to even increase the threshold above which real HTLCs are made -- thus making their existence more and more rare.

These are good things, because we don't actually need HTLCs to make a functional Lightning Network.

We must embrace the unsafe protocol and make it better

So the unsafe protocol is not necessarily very bad, but the way it is being done now is, because it suffers from two big problems:

1. Channels are lost all the time for no reason;
2. No guarantees of the proof-of-payment ever reaching the payer exist.

The first problem we fix by just stopping the current practice of closing channels when there are no real HTLCs in them.

That, however, creates a new problem -- or actually it exarcebates the second: now that we're not closing channels, what do we do with the expired payments in them? These payments should have either been canceled or fulfilled before some block x, now we're in block x+1, our peer has returned from its offline period and one of us will have to lose the money from that payment.

That's fine because it's only 3sat and it's better to just lose 3sat than to lose both the 3sat and the channel anyway, so either one would be happy to eat the loss. Maybe we'll even split it 50/50! No, that doesn't work, because it creates an attack vector with peers becoming unresponsive on purpose on one side of the route and actually failing/fulfilling the payment on the other side and making a profit with that.

So we actually need to know who is to blame on these payments, even if we are not going to act on that imediatelly: we need some kind of arbiter that both peers can trust, such that if one peer is trying to send the preimage or the cancellation to the other and the other is unresponsive, when the unresponsive peer comes back, the arbiter can tell them they are to blame, so they can willfully eat the loss and the channel can continue. Both peers are happy this way.

If the unresponsive peer doesn't accept what the arbiter says then the peer that was operating correctly can assume the unresponsive peer is malicious and close the channel, and then blacklist it and never again open a channel with a peer they know is malicious.

Again, the differences between this scheme and the current Lightning Network are that:

a. In the current Lightning we always close channels, in this scheme we only close channels in case someone is malicious or in other worst case scenarios (the arbiter is unresponsive, for example). b. In the current Lightning we close the channels without having any clue on who is to blame for that, then we just proceed to reopen a channel with that same peer even in the case they were actively trying to harm us before.

What is missing? An arbiter.

The Bitcoin blockchain is the ideal arbiter, it works in the best possible way if we follow the trustless protocol, but as we've seen we can't use the Bitcoin blockchain because it is expensive.

Therefore we need a new arbiter. That is the hard part, but not unsolvable. Notice that we don't need an absolutely perfect arbiter, anything is better than nothing, really, even an unreliable arbiter that is offline half of the day is better than what we have today, or an arbiter that lies, an arbiter that charges some satoshis for each resolution, anything.

Here are some suggestions:

• random nodes from the network selected by an algorithm that both peers agree to, so they can't cheat by selecting themselves. The only thing these nodes have to do is to store data from one peer, try to retransmit it to the other peer and record the results for some time.
• a set of nodes preselected by the two peers when the channel is being opened -- same as above, but with more handpicked-trust involved.
• some third-party cloud storage or notification provider with guarantees of having open data in it and some public log-keeping, like Twitter, GitHub or a Nostr relay;
• peers that get paid to do the job, selected by the fact that they own some token (I know this is stepping too close to the shitcoin territory, but could be an idea) issued in a Spacechain;
• a Spacechain itself, serving only as the storage for a bunch of OP_RETURNs that are published and tracked by these Lightning peers whenever there is an issue (this looks wrong, but could work).

Key points

1. Lightning with HTLC-based routing was a cool idea, but it wasn't ever really feasible.
2. HTLCs are going to be abandoned and that's the natural course of things.
3. It is actually good that HTLCs are being abandoned, but
4. We must change the protocol to account for the existence of fake HTLCs and thus make the bulk of the Lightning Network usage viable again.

See also

• Ripple and the problem of the decentralized commit
• The Lightning Network solves the problem of the decentralized commit

@ 0fa80bd3:ea7325de

intro

The Russian state made me a Bitcoiner. In 1991, it devalued my grandmother's hard-earned savings. She worked tirelessly in the kitchen of a dining car on the Moscow–Warsaw route. Everything she had saved for my sister and me to attend university vanished overnight. This story is similar to what many experienced, including Wences Casares. The pain and injustice of that time became my first lessons about the fragility of systems and the value of genuine, incorruptible assets, forever changing my perception of money and my trust in government promises.

In 2014, I was living in Moscow, running a trading business, and frequently traveling to China. One day, I learned about the Cypriot banking crisis and the possibility of moving money through some strange thing called Bitcoin. At the time, I didn’t give it much thought. Returning to the idea six months later, as a business-oriented geek, I eagerly began studying the topic and soon dove into it seriously.

I spent half a year reading articles on a local online journal, BitNovosti, actively participating in discussions, and eventually joined the editorial team as a translator. That’s how I learned about whitepapers, decentralization, mining, cryptographic keys, and colored coins. About Satoshi Nakamoto, Silk Road, Mt. Gox, and BitcoinTalk. Over time, I befriended the journal’s owner and, leveraging my management experience, later became an editor. I was drawn to the crypto-anarchist stance and commitment to decentralization principles. We wrote about the economic, historical, and social preconditions for Bitcoin’s emergence, and it was during this time that I fully embraced the idea.

It got to the point where I sold my apartment and, during the market's downturn, bought 50 bitcoins, just after the peak price of $1,200 per coin. That marked the beginning of my first crypto winter. As an editor, I organized workflows, managed translators, developed a YouTube channel, and attended conferences in Russia and Ukraine. That’s how I learned about Wences Casares and even wrote a piece about him. I also met Mikhail Chobanyan (Ukrainian exchange Kuna), Alexander Ivanov (Waves project), Konstantin Lomashuk (Lido project), and, of course, Vitalik Buterin. It was a time of complete immersion, 24/7, and boundless hope.

After moving to the United States, I expected the industry to grow rapidly, attended events, but the introduction of BitLicense froze the industry for eight years. By 2017, it became clear that the industry was shifting toward gambling and creating tokens for the sake of tokens. I dismissed this idea as unsustainable. Then came a new crypto spring with the hype around beautiful NFTs – CryptoPunks and apes.

I made another attempt – we worked on a series called Digital Nomad Country Club, aimed at creating a global project. The proceeds from selling images were intended to fund the development of business tools for people worldwide. However, internal disagreements within the team prevented us from completing the project.

With Trump’s arrival in 2025, hope was reignited. I decided that it was time to create a project that society desperately needed. As someone passionate about history, I understood that destroying what exists was not the solution, but leaving everything as it was also felt unacceptable. You can’t destroy the system, as the fiery crypto-anarchist voices claimed.

With an analytical mindset (IQ 130) and a deep understanding of the freest societies, I realized what was missing—not only in Russia or the United States but globally—a Bitcoin-native system for tracking debts and financial interactions. This could return control of money to ordinary people and create horizontal connections parallel to state systems. My goal was to create, if not a Bitcoin killer app, then at least to lay its foundation.

At the inauguration event in New York, I rediscovered the Nostr project. I realized it was not only technologically simple and already quite popular but also perfectly aligned with my vision. For the past month and a half, using insights and experience gained since 2014, I’ve been working full-time on this project.

@ e3ba5e1a:5e433365

My favorite line in any Marvel movie ever is in “Captain America.” After Captain America launches seemingly a hopeless assault on Red Skull’s base and is captured, we get this line:

“Arrogance may not be a uniquely American trait, but I must say, you do it better than anyone.”

Yesterday, I came across a comment on the song Devil Went Down to Georgia that had a very similar feel to it:

America has seemingly always been arrogant, in a uniquely American way. Manifest Destiny, for instance. The rest of the world is aware of this arrogance, and mocks Americans for it. A central point in modern US politics is the deriding of racist, nationalist, supremacist Americans.

That’s not what I see. I see American Arrogance as not only a beautiful statement about what it means to be American. I see it as an ode to the greatness of humanity in its purest form.

For most countries, saying “our nation is the greatest” is, in fact, twinged with some level of racism. I still don’t have a problem with it. Every group of people should be allowed to feel pride in their accomplishments. The destruction of the human spirit since the end of World War 2, where greatness has become a sin and weakness a virtue, has crushed the ability of people worldwide to strive for excellence.

But I digress. The fears of racism and nationalism at least have a grain of truth when applied to other nations on the planet. But not to America.

That’s because the definition of America, and the prototype of an American, has nothing to do with race. The definition of Americanism is freedom. The founding of America is based purely on liberty. On the God-given rights of every person to live life the way they see fit.

American Arrogance is not a statement of racial superiority. It’s barely a statement of national superiority (though it absolutely is). To me, when an American comments on the greatness of America, it’s a statement about freedom. Freedom will always unlock the greatness inherent in any group of people. Americans are definitionally better than everyone else, because Americans are freer than everyone else. (Or, at least, that’s how it should be.)

In Devil Went Down to Georgia, Johnny is approached by the devil himself. He is challenged to a ridiculously lopsided bet: a golden fiddle versus his immortal soul. He acknowledges the sin in accepting such a proposal. And yet he says, “God, I know you told me not to do this. But I can’t stand the affront to my honor. I am the greatest. The devil has nothing on me. So God, I’m gonna sin, but I’m also gonna win.”

Libertas magnitudo est

@ 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.

@ 3b7fc823:e194354f

A quick guide for the less than technical savvy to set up their very own free private tor enabled email using Onionmail. Privacy is for everyone, not just the super cyber nerds.

Onion Mail is an anonymous POP3/SMTP email server program hosted by various people on the internet. You can visit this site and read the details: https://en.onionmail.info/

1. Download Tor Browser

First, if you don't already, go download Tor Browser. You are going to need it. https://www.torproject.org/

1. Sign Up

Using Tor browser go to the directory page (https://onionmail.info/directory.html) choose one of the servers and sign up for an account. I say sign up but it is just choosing a user name you want to go before the @xyz.onion email address and solving a captcha.

1. Account information

Once you are done signing up an Account information page will pop up. MAKE SURE YOU SAVE THIS!!! It has your address and passwords (for sending and receiving email) that you will need. If you lose them then you are shit out of luck.

1. Install an Email Client

You can use Claws Mail, Neomutt, or whatever, but for this example, we will be using Thunderbird.

a. Download Thunderbird email client

b. The easy setup popup page that wants your name, email, and password isn't going to like your user@xyz.onion address. Just enter something that looks like a regular email address such as name@example.com and the Configure Manuallyoption will appear below. Click that.

1. Configure Incoming (POP3) Server

Under Incoming Server: Protocol: POP3 Server or Hostname: xyz.onion (whatever your account info says) Port: 110 Security: STARTTLS Authentication: Normal password Username: (your username) Password: (POP3 password).

1. Configure Outgoing (SMTP) Server

Under Outgoing Server: Server or Hostname: xyz.onion (whatever your account info says) Port: 25 Security: STARTTLS Authentication: Normal password Username: (your username) Password: (SMTP password).

1. Click on email at the top and change your address if you had to use a spoof one to get the configure manually to pop up.

2. Configure Proxy

a. Click the gear icon on the bottom left for settings. Scroll all the way down to Network & Disk Space. Click the settings button next to Connection. Configure how Thunderbird connects to the internet.

b. Select Manual Proxy Configuration. For SOCKS Host enter 127.0.0.1 and enter port 9050. (if you are running this through a VM the port may be different)

c. Now check the box for SOCKS5 and then Proxy DNS when using SOCKS5 down at the bottom. Click OK

1. Check Email

For thunderbird to reach the onion mail server it has to be connected to tor. Depending on your local setup, it might be fine as is or you might have to have tor browser open in the background. Click on inbox and then the little cloud icon with the down arrow to check mail.

1. Security Exception

Thunderbird is not going to like that the onion mail server security certificate is self signed. A popup Add Security Exception will appear. Click Confirm Security Exception.

You are done. Enjoy your new private email service.

REMEMBER: The server can read your emails unless they are encrypted. Go into account settings. Look down and click End-toEnd Encryption. Then add your OpenPGP key or open your OpenPGP Key Manager (you might have to download one if you don't already have one) and generate a new key for this account.

@ e3ba5e1a:5e433365

I got into a friendly discussion on X regarding health insurance. The specific question was how to deal with health insurance companies (presumably unfairly) denying claims? My answer, as usual: get government out of it!

The US healthcare system is essentially the worst of both worlds:

• Unlike full single payer, individuals incur high costs
• Unlike a true free market, regulation causes increases in costs and decreases competition among insurers

I'm firmly on the side of moving towards the free market. (And I say that as someone living under a single payer system now.) Here's what I would do:

• Get rid of tax incentives that make health insurance tied to your employer, giving individuals back proper freedom of choice.
• Reduce regulations significantly.

• In the short term, some people will still get rejected claims and other obnoxious behavior from insurance companies. We address that in two ways:

  1. Due to reduced regulations, new insurance companies will be able to enter the market offering more reliable coverage and better rates, and people will flock to them because they have the freedom to make their own choices.
  2. Sue the asses off of companies that reject claims unfairly. And ideally, as one of the few legitimate roles of government in all this, institute new laws that limit the ability of fine print to allow insurers to escape their responsibilities. (I'm hesitant that the latter will happen due to the incestuous relationship between Congress/regulators and insurers, but I can hope.)

Will this magically fix everything overnight like politicians normally promise? No. But it will allow the market to return to a healthy state. And I don't think it will take long (order of magnitude: 5-10 years) for it to come together, but that's just speculation.

And since there's a high correlation between those who believe government can fix problems by taking more control and demanding that only credentialed experts weigh in on a topic (both points I strongly disagree with BTW): I'm a trained actuary and worked in the insurance industry, and have directly seen how government regulation reduces competition, raises prices, and harms consumers.

And my final point: I don't think any prior art would be a good comparison for deregulation in the US, it's such a different market than any other country in the world for so many reasons that lessons wouldn't really translate. Nonetheless, I asked Grok for some empirical data on this, and at best the results of deregulation could be called "mixed," but likely more accurately "uncertain, confused, and subject to whatever interpretation anyone wants to apply."

https://x.com/i/grok/share/Zc8yOdrN8lS275hXJ92uwq98M

@ 46fcbe30:6bd8ce4d

1. Introduction

In decentralized systems like Nostr, preserving privacy and ensuring censorship resistance are paramount. However, the inherent design ethos opens the platform to multiple vulnerabilities, chief among them being the susceptibility to Sybil attacks. The problem space is not only technical but also socio-economic, where user privacy and ease-of-use must be balanced against mitigations that impose friction on identity creation actions.

This report details a multi-faceted research analysis into Sybil resistance mechanisms, drawing analogies from contemporary decentralized identity systems, cryptographic protocols, and economic disincentives. We incorporate detailed insights from diverse independent research streams, outlining both established and novel approaches, and present a series of design recommendations for Nostr. The analysis is targeted at highly experienced analysts and researchers, with comprehensive details on both the cryptographic primitives used and the overall system architectures.

---

2. Background: The Threat of Sybil Attacks in Decentralized Systems

2.1. Sybil Attacks Defined

A Sybil attack involves a single adversary generating a multitude of pseudonymous identities to unduly influence network decisions, voting mechanisms, or content dissemination processes. In systems designed for censorship resistance, where anonymity is embraced, such attacks are especially daunting because traditional verification methods are not readily applicable.

2.2. The Unique Challenges in Nostr

Nostr is celebrated for its emphatic commitment to censorship resistance and privacy. This design choice, however, leads to several inherent challenges:

• Weak Identity Verification: Mechanisms like nip5, a simple email-like verification protocol, lack robustness and are vulnerable in environments where linking multiple pseudonymous identities is trivial.
• Economic Incentives: Systems using zaps (small value transactions or tips) intend to add cost to malicious actions but struggle with effective proof of expenditure. In some instances, attackers may even benefit from a net positive revenue.
• Association Networks: Existing follow systems provide decentralized webs of association; however, they do not imply a real trust framework, leaving only superficial links among identities.

The dual objectives of achieving ease-of-use while robustly mitigating Sybil attacks requires a careful, in-depth analysis of multiple design trade-offs.

---

3. Detailed Analysis of Existing Mechanisms and Proposed Enhancements

In our research, several proposals and implementations have emerged to address the Sybil-resistance conundrum. We examine these solutions in detail below.

3.1. Cryptographic and Identity-Based Approaches

3.1.1. Aut-CT with Curve Trees

One of the notable approaches employs the Aut-CT mechanism which leverages Curve Trees. Key insights include:

• Mechanism: Constructing an algebraic analog of a Merkle tree with curve-based keys.
• Verification Efficiency: Achieves logarithmic verification times (typically 40–70 ms) even for large keysets (from 50K to over 2.5M keys).
• Proof Size: Consistently maintains a proof size of around 3–4 kB, making it effective for low-bandwidth scenarios.
• Key Image: The integrated DLEQ-based method produces a key image that binds a proof to a hidden key, preventing fraudulent re-use of tokens.

Implication: This method, while promising, requires integration sophistication. It can potentially be adapted for Nostr to ensure that each identity is backed by a verifiable, anonymous proof of ownership—raising the cost of forging or duplicating identities.

3.1.2. Economic Disincentives and Token Burning

In the realm of cryptocurrency mixers, enforcing an economic cost for generating identities has seen traction. The following methods are prominent:

• Token Burning/Deposit Mechanisms: Users deposit funds that serve as a bond. Forging multiple identities becomes economically prohibitive if these tokens are sacrificial.
• Time Locks and Coin-Age Restrictions: By enforcing waiting periods or requiring funds to ‘age’, systems ensure that rapid, mass identity creation is deterred.
• Fidelity Bonds: Users risk losing bonds if identified as malicious, creating a strong economic disincentive.

Observation: Nostr could potentially adopt analogous economic primitives that impose a non-trivial cost on identity creation, helping to scale the disincentive to the level required for a system where anonymity is paramount.

3.1.3. Decentralized Identity Systems

A comparative analysis of identity systems, both centralized and decentralized, underscores the following:

• Centralized Systems (LDAP, OAuth, etc.): While scalable, they inherently conflict with the decentralized and censorship-resistant philosophy of Nostr.
• Decentralized Systems (uPort, Hyperledger Indy, etc.): These systems leverage blockchain technologies and zero-knowledge proofs to ensure self-sovereign identity management. However, they often require complex deployments and higher operational overhead.

Trade-Off Assessment: Implementing a fully decentralized identity system in Nostr must balance ease-of-use with strong cryptographic assurances. A layered approach—using decentralized identifiers with optional verifications—may yield optimal usability without sacrificing security.

3.2. Protocol-Specific Countermeasures

3.2.1. Rechained Protocol

The Rechained protocol introduces a deposit-based identity generation mechanism in IoT and mobile ad hoc networks. Here are its salient points:

• Deposit Transaction: Each identity is tied to a deposit transaction on a public blockchain, such as Bitcoin or Ethereum.
• Parameterization: Parameters like minHeight, minDifficulty, and amounts ensure that each identity requires a certain financial threshold to be met.
• Verification Complexity: Though proof sizes are modest (10–50 KB) and verification times are around 2 seconds, these are acceptable trade-offs on modern consumer-grade devices.

Application Prospects: If Nostr could integrate a variant of Rechained, it may allow identities to be tied to a verifiable deposit, thus raising the cost baseline for attackers. Such integration must ensure user-friendliness and minimal friction during onboarding.

3.2.2. Sysname Decentralized Identity Scheme

Sysname presents an innovative approach with additional privacy-preserving features:

• Selective Disclosure: It allows users to reveal only non-identifying attributes proving compliance with certain predicates without exposing their full identity.
• Chain-Pinned Identifiers: Aggregates multiple pseudonyms to a single on-chain record, reducing the ease with which an attacker can use disparate identities without accountability.
• Key Recovery: Enables users to refresh public keys and recover lost keys, which bolsters user trust and system resilience.

Consideration: Integrating aspects of sysname within Nostr could offer both enhanced privacy and Sybil resistance, yielding a balance between security and user independence. Enhanced key recovery also addresses the usability concerns evidenced by historical failures in PGP adoption.

3.3. Behavioral Analysis and Anomaly Detection

As an additional countermeasure, behavioral analysis can serve as a secondary layer of defense. Given the evolving sophistication of bots, a cat-and-mouse game inevitably ensues:

• Machine Learning Based Detection: Frameworks like a deep intrusion detection system (DIDS) combined with blockchain smart contracts can help identify anomalous posting behaviors. For example, integrations using Particle Swarm Optimization–Gravitational Search Algorithm (ePSOGSA) with deep autoencoders have proven accurate on established benchmarks.
• Economic Implications: By analyzing behavior, the systems can prioritize identities that have accrued economic transactions (like zaps) that match genuine user behavior over automated, bot-like patterns.
• Limitations: While promising, such systems introduce computational overhead and may yield false positives, so the implementation must be cautiously engineered with appropriate fail-safes.

---

4. Trade-Offs and Comprehensive Evaluation

4.1. Usability vs. Security

One of the central themes in designing defenses against Sybil attacks on Nostr is balancing ease-of-use with robust security. A highly secure system that remains cumbersome to use (akin to the historical PGP deployment) may fail adoption. Conversely, ease-of-use without economic or cryptographic Assurance opens the door to cost-free identity creation and abuse.

• Economic Approaches: Impose a direct cost on identity creation but must be calibrated to avoid excluding well-intentioned users, particularly newcomers or those with limited funds.
• Cryptographic Protocols: Solutions like Aut-CT and sysname offer advanced cryptographic proofs with minimal overhead in verification but could require more sophisticated client implementations.
• Behavioral Analysis: Acts as a safety net but must be continuously updated as adversaries evolve their bot strategies.

4.2. Privacy Implications

Every mechanism proposed must be evaluated in terms of its ability to preserve user privacy. Nostr’s value proposition rests on its censorship resistance and privacy-preserving design. Therefore:

• Selective Disclosure Protocols: Techniques that allow for proving predicates without full identity revelation should be prioritized (as seen in sysname).
• Decentralized Identity Aggregation: Methods that tie multiple pseudonyms to a single verifiable chain of evidence (enhancing accountability) can reduce risk without compromising anonymity.
• Economic Proof Versus User Balance: The economic barriers should not expose additional metadata that can be linked back to users. Hence, anonymizing tokens and cryptographic blinding techniques need to be integral to the design.

---

5. Proposed Comprehensive Strategy for Nostr

Based on the research, a multi-layered defense strategy is recommended. It incorporates both cryptographic assurances and economic disincentives while integrating behavioral analysis. The following blueprint emerges:

5.1. Implementation Blueprint

1. Integration of Curve Tree-Based Aut-CT Proofs:
2. Require each new identity creation to be validated via a Curve Tree-based proof of key ownership. This approach leverages zero-knowledge proofs and ensures logarithmic verification times, thus scalable even for a large user base.

3. Address token re-use and fake identity creation by integrating key images as established in the Aut-CT mechanism.

4. Economic Deposit Mechanism (Inspired by Rechained):

5. Incorporate a lightweight deposit mechanism where users must commit a small deposit, recorded on a public blockchain. This deposit acts as a minimum hurdle for each identity and may be partially refundable upon earning trust.

6. Experiment with dynamic deposit sizes based on network load and risk assessments, ensuring that the economic threshold is both feasible and deterring.

7. Selective Disclosure and Pseudonym Aggregation (Adapting Sysname Principles):

8. Allow users to prove characteristics about their identities (age, locality, etc.) without divulging full identifying details.

9. Aggregate multiple pseudonyms provided by the same user on-chain, using cryptographic commitments that both link identities and allow selective disclosure.

10. Optional Layer: Economic and Behavioral Analytics:

11. Deploy a deep anomaly detection layer using machine learning techniques on posting behavior, ensuring that anomalous activities (e.g., rapid posting similar to bots) are flagged.
12. Integrate smart contract-based economic triggers that penalize suspicious behavior while maintaining user privacy.

5.2. Addressing Adoption and Usability Concerns

• User Experience (UX): The proposed solutions must be integrated transparently into client applications. Much like improved versions of PGP aim to streamline key management, Nostr clients should embed these cryptographic protocols without requiring manual intervention.
• Modular Onboarding: Allow users to opt into various levels of proof. Early adopters may use lightweight methods, with a progressive enhancement available for those seeking higher assurance as they interact more within the network.
• Wallet and Key Management Integration: Leverage existing wallet infrastructures to ease the economic deposit and key recovery processes, drawing user confidence from familiarity with mainstream crypto applications.

---

6. Future Work and Speculative Technologies

While the proposals above are based on current and emergent technologies, additional research can further refine these approaches:

• Adaptive Economic Models: Future work can explore dynamic, context-aware deposit requirements that adjust based on network activity, risk profiles, and even market conditions.
• Quantum-Resistant Cryptography: As quantum computing progresses, integrating quantum-resistant algorithms in curve-tree constructions will become imperative for long-term viability.
• Interoperable Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs): Creating cross-system standards for identity verification may allow Nostr to interface with other decentralized platforms, enhancing the overall security ecosystem.
• Advancements in Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs): Considering high-level academic research on ZKPs, such as bulletproofs and recursive ZKPs, can further improve both the scalability and succinctness of cryptographic proofs required for identity validation.

Speculative Note: As adversaries adapt, we may see the emergence of hybrid systems where off-chain reputation systems are cryptographically linked to on-chain proofs, creating a multi-dimensional defense that continuously evolves through machine learning and adaptive economic incentives.

---

7. Conclusion

Mitigating Sybil attacks on Nostr necessitates a proactive, multi-layered approach combining advanced cryptographic techniques, economic disincentives, decentralized verification mechanisms, and behavioral analytics. The proposals detailed in this report aim to reinforce Nostr’s resilience while maintaining its foundational commitment to privacy and censorship resistance.

By integrating Curve Tree-based proofs, economic deposit mechanisms, and selective disclosure methods, Nostr can build a robust identity framework that is both user-friendly and resistant to abuse. Continued research into adaptive economic models and quantum-resistant cryptographic techniques will ensure that the system remains secure in the evolving landscape of decentralized networks.

Thorough evaluation of trade-offs, user experience enhancements, and iterative testing on live networks will be critical. This report serves as a foundational blueprint for further exploration and eventual deployment of sophisticated Sybil defense mechanisms within Nostr.

---

8. References and Further Reading

While the source of ideas is drawn from numerous research efforts and academic papers, key references include:

• Aut-CT Leveraging Curve Trees and Bulletproof Proofs
• Economic mitigation strategies in cryptocurrency mixers
• Comparative studies of decentralized identity systems (uPort, Hyperledger Indy, etc.)
• Rechained protocol research by Bochem and Leiding for IoT networks
• Sysname scheme for privacy-preserving decentralized identifiers
• Deep intrusion detection systems applied to decentralized social networks

(Additional in-depth academic references can be located within the research literature on arXiv and major cryptographic conferences.)

---

Prepared by an expert research analyst, this report is intended to provide detailed insights and a strategic roadmap for implementing Sybil-resistant identities on Nostr while retaining user ease-of-use and privacy-centric features.

Sources

• https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/anonymous-usage-tokens-from-curve-trees-or-autct/862
• https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/anonymous-usage-tokens-from-curve-trees-or-autct/862/2
• https://www.imperva.com/learn/application-security/sybil-attack/
• https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/1111.pdf
• https://www.smartsight.in/technology/what-to-know-about-sybil-attacks/
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363104774_Comparative_Analysis_of_Decentralized_Identity_Approaches
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331790058_A_Comparative_Analysis_of_Trust_Requirements_in_Decentralized_Identity_Management
• https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/17/1/1
• https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot5-boston/blob/master/topics-and-advance-readings/Framework-for-Comparison-of-Identity-Systems.md
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367557991_The_Cost_of_Sybils_Credible_Commitments_and_False-Name_Proof_Mechanisms
• https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8125832/
• https://www.nervos.org/knowledge-base/sybil_attacks_consensus_mechanisms_(explainCKBot)
• https://arxiv.org/html/2307.14679v2
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1084804523001145
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096720924000460
• https://medium.com/@sshshln/mitigating-identity-attacks-in-defi-through-biometric-based-sybil-resistance-6633a682f73a

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

There's a problem with using Git concepts for everything

We've been seeing a surge in applications that use Git to store other things than code, or that are based on Git concepts and so enable "forking, merging and distributed collaboration" for things like blogs, recipes, literature, music composition, normal files in a filesystem, databases.

The problem with all this is they will either:

1. assume the user will commit manually and expect that commit to be composed by a set of meaningful changes, and the commiter will also add a message to the commit, describing that set of meaningful, related changes; or
2. try to make the committing process automatic and hide it from the user, so will producing meaningless commits, based on random changes in many different files (it's not "files" if we are talking about a recipe or rows in a table, but let's say "files" for the sake of clarity) that will probably not be related and not reduceable to a meaningful commit message, or maybe the commit will contain only the changes to a single file, and its commit message would be equivalent to "updated <name of the file>".

Programmers, when using Git, think in Git, i.e., they work with version control in their minds. They try hard to commit together only sets of meaningful and related changes, even when they happen to make unrelated changes in the meantime, and that's why there are commands like git add -p and many others.

Normal people, to whom many of these git-based tools are intended to (and even programmers when out of their code-world), are much less prone to think in Git, and that's why another kind of abstraction for fork-merge-collaborate in non-code environments must be used.

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

Warning: This piece contains a conversation about difficult topics. Please proceed with caution.

TL;DR please educate your children about online safety.

Julian Assange wrote in his 2012 book Cypherpunks, “This book is not a manifesto. There isn’t time for that. This book is a warning.” I read it a few times over the past summer. Those opening lines definitely stood out to me. I wish we had listened back then. He saw something about the internet that few had the ability to see. There are some individuals who are so close to a topic that when they speak, it’s difficult for others who aren’t steeped in it to visualize what they’re talking about. I didn’t read the book until more recently. If I had read it when it came out, it probably would have sounded like an unknown foreign language to me. Today it makes more sense.

This isn’t a manifesto. This isn’t a book. There is no time for that. It’s a warning and a possible solution from a desperate and determined survivor advocate who has been pulling and unraveling a thread for a few years. At times, I feel too close to this topic to make any sense trying to convey my pathway to my conclusions or thoughts to the general public. My hope is that if nothing else, I can convey my sense of urgency while writing this. This piece is a watchman’s warning.

When a child steps online, they are walking into a new world. A new reality. When you hand a child the internet, you are handing them possibilities—good, bad, and ugly. This is a conversation about lowering the potential of negative outcomes of stepping into that new world and how I came to these conclusions. I constantly compare the internet to the road. You wouldn’t let a young child run out into the road with no guidance or safety precautions. When you hand a child the internet without any type of guidance or safety measures, you are allowing them to play in rush hour, oncoming traffic. “Look left, look right for cars before crossing.” We almost all have been taught that as children. What are we taught as humans about safety before stepping into a completely different reality like the internet? Very little.

I could never really figure out why many folks in tech, privacy rights activists, and hackers seemed so cold to me while talking about online child sexual exploitation. I always figured that as a survivor advocate for those affected by these crimes, that specific, skilled group of individuals would be very welcoming and easy to talk to about such serious topics. I actually had one hacker laugh in my face when I brought it up while I was looking for answers. I thought maybe this individual thought I was accusing them of something I wasn’t, so I felt bad for asking. I was constantly extremely disappointed and would ask myself, “Why don’t they care? What could I say to make them care more? What could I say to make them understand the crisis and the level of suffering that happens as a result of the problem?”

I have been serving minor survivors of online child sexual exploitation for years. My first case serving a survivor of this specific crime was in 2018—a 13-year-old girl sexually exploited by a serial predator on Snapchat. That was my first glimpse into this side of the internet. I won a national award for serving the minor survivors of Twitter in 2023, but I had been working on that specific project for a few years. I was nominated by a lawyer representing two survivors in a legal battle against the platform. I’ve never really spoken about this before, but at the time it was a choice for me between fighting Snapchat or Twitter. I chose Twitter—or rather, Twitter chose me. I heard about the story of John Doe #1 and John Doe #2, and I was so unbelievably broken over it that I went to war for multiple years. I was and still am royally pissed about that case. As far as I was concerned, the John Doe #1 case proved that whatever was going on with corporate tech social media was so out of control that I didn’t have time to wait, so I got to work. It was reading the messages that John Doe #1 sent to Twitter begging them to remove his sexual exploitation that broke me. He was a child begging adults to do something. A passion for justice and protecting kids makes you do wild things. I was desperate to find answers about what happened and searched for solutions. In the end, the platform Twitter was purchased. During the acquisition, I just asked Mr. Musk nicely to prioritize the issue of detection and removal of child sexual exploitation without violating digital privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption. Elon thanked me multiple times during the acquisition, made some changes, and I was thanked by others on the survivors’ side as well.

I still feel that even with the progress made, I really just scratched the surface with Twitter, now X. I left that passion project when I did for a few reasons. I wanted to give new leadership time to tackle the issue. Elon Musk made big promises that I knew would take a while to fulfill, but mostly I had been watching global legislation transpire around the issue, and frankly, the governments are willing to go much further with X and the rest of corporate tech than I ever would. My work begging Twitter to make changes with easier reporting of content, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation material—without violating privacy rights or eroding end-to-end encryption—and advocating for the minor survivors of the platform went as far as my principles would have allowed. I’m grateful for that experience. I was still left with a nagging question: “How did things get so bad with Twitter where the John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 case was able to happen in the first place?” I decided to keep looking for answers. I decided to keep pulling the thread.

I never worked for Twitter. This is often confusing for folks. I will say that despite being disappointed in the platform’s leadership at times, I loved Twitter. I saw and still see its value. I definitely love the survivors of the platform, but I also loved the platform. I was a champion of the platform’s ability to give folks from virtually around the globe an opportunity to speak and be heard.

I want to be clear that John Doe #1 really is my why. He is the inspiration. I am writing this because of him. He represents so many globally, and I’m still inspired by his bravery. One child’s voice begging adults to do something—I’m an adult, I heard him. I’d go to war a thousand more lifetimes for that young man, and I don’t even know his name. Fighting has been personally dark at times; I’m not even going to try to sugarcoat it, but it has been worth it.

The data surrounding the very real crime of online child sexual exploitation is available to the public online at any time for anyone to see. I’d encourage you to go look at the data for yourself. I believe in encouraging folks to check multiple sources so that you understand the full picture. If you are uncomfortable just searching around the internet for information about this topic, use the terms “CSAM,” “CSEM,” “SG-CSEM,” or “AI Generated CSAM.” The numbers don’t lie—it’s a nightmare that’s out of control. It’s a big business. The demand is high, and unfortunately, business is booming. Organizations collect the data, tech companies often post their data, governments report frequently, and the corporate press has covered a decent portion of the conversation, so I’m sure you can find a source that you trust.

Technology is changing rapidly, which is great for innovation as a whole but horrible for the crime of online child sexual exploitation. Those wishing to exploit the vulnerable seem to be adapting to each technological change with ease. The governments are so far behind with tackling these issues that as I’m typing this, it’s borderline irrelevant to even include them while speaking about the crime or potential solutions. Technology is changing too rapidly, and their old, broken systems can’t even dare to keep up. Think of it like the governments’ “War on Drugs.” Drugs won. In this case as well, the governments are not winning. The governments are talking about maybe having a meeting on potentially maybe having legislation around the crimes. The time to have that meeting would have been many years ago. I’m not advocating for governments to legislate our way out of this. I’m on the side of educating and innovating our way out of this.

I have been clear while advocating for the minor survivors of corporate tech platforms that I would not advocate for any solution to the crime that would violate digital privacy rights or erode end-to-end encryption. That has been a personal moral position that I was unwilling to budge on. This is an extremely unpopular and borderline nonexistent position in the anti-human trafficking movement and online child protection space. I’m often fearful that I’m wrong about this. I have always thought that a better pathway forward would have been to incentivize innovation for detection and removal of content. I had no previous exposure to privacy rights activists or Cypherpunks—actually, I came to that conclusion by listening to the voices of MENA region political dissidents and human rights activists. After developing relationships with human rights activists from around the globe, I realized how important privacy rights and encryption are for those who need it most globally. I was simply unwilling to give more power, control, and opportunities for mass surveillance to big abusers like governments wishing to enslave entire nations and untrustworthy corporate tech companies to potentially end some portion of abuses online. On top of all of it, it has been clear to me for years that all potential solutions outside of violating digital privacy rights to detect and remove child sexual exploitation online have not yet been explored aggressively. I’ve been disappointed that there hasn’t been more of a conversation around preventing the crime from happening in the first place.

What has been tried is mass surveillance. In China, they are currently under mass surveillance both online and offline, and their behaviors are attached to a social credit score. Unfortunately, even on state-run and controlled social media platforms, they still have child sexual exploitation and abuse imagery pop up along with other crimes and human rights violations. They also have a thriving black market online due to the oppression from the state. In other words, even an entire loss of freedom and privacy cannot end the sexual exploitation of children online. It’s been tried. There is no reason to repeat this method.

It took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out why I always felt a slight coldness from those in tech and privacy-minded individuals about the topic of child sexual exploitation online. I didn’t have any clue about the “Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse.” This is a term coined by Timothy C. May in 1988. I would have been a child myself when he first said it. I actually laughed at myself when I heard the phrase for the first time. I finally got it. The Cypherpunks weren’t wrong about that topic. They were so spot on that it is borderline uncomfortable. I was mad at first that they knew that early during the birth of the internet that this issue would arise and didn’t address it. Then I got over it because I realized that it wasn’t their job. Their job was—is—to write code. Their job wasn’t to be involved and loving parents or survivor advocates. Their job wasn’t to educate children on internet safety or raise awareness; their job was to write code.

They knew that child sexual abuse material would be shared on the internet. They said what would happen—not in a gleeful way, but a prediction. Then it happened.

I equate it now to a concrete company laying down a road. As you’re pouring the concrete, you can say to yourself, “A terrorist might travel down this road to go kill many, and on the flip side, a beautiful child can be born in an ambulance on this road.” Who or what travels down the road is not their responsibility—they are just supposed to lay the concrete. I’d never go to a concrete pourer and ask them to solve terrorism that travels down roads. Under the current system, law enforcement should stop terrorists before they even make it to the road. The solution to this specific problem is not to treat everyone on the road like a terrorist or to not build the road.

So I understand the perceived coldness from those in tech. Not only was it not their job, but bringing up the topic was seen as the equivalent of asking a free person if they wanted to discuss one of the four topics—child abusers, terrorists, drug dealers, intellectual property pirates, etc.—that would usher in digital authoritarianism for all who are online globally.

Privacy rights advocates and groups have put up a good fight. They stood by their principles. Unfortunately, when it comes to corporate tech, I believe that the issue of privacy is almost a complete lost cause at this point. It’s still worth pushing back, but ultimately, it is a losing battle—a ticking time bomb.

I do think that corporate tech providers could have slowed down the inevitable loss of privacy at the hands of the state by prioritizing the detection and removal of CSAM when they all started online. I believe it would have bought some time, fewer would have been traumatized by that specific crime, and I do believe that it could have slowed down the demand for content. If I think too much about that, I’ll go insane, so I try to push the “if maybes” aside, but never knowing if it could have been handled differently will forever haunt me. At night when it’s quiet, I wonder what I would have done differently if given the opportunity. I’ll probably never know how much corporate tech knew and ignored in the hopes that it would go away while the problem continued to get worse. They had different priorities. The most voiceless and vulnerable exploited on corporate tech never had much of a voice, so corporate tech providers didn’t receive very much pushback.

Now I’m about to say something really wild, and you can call me whatever you want to call me, but I’m going to say what I believe to be true. I believe that the governments are either so incompetent that they allowed the proliferation of CSAM online, or they knowingly allowed the problem to fester long enough to have an excuse to violate privacy rights and erode end-to-end encryption. The US government could have seized the corporate tech providers over CSAM, but I believe that they were so useful as a propaganda arm for the regimes that they allowed them to continue virtually unscathed.

That season is done now, and the governments are making the issue a priority. It will come at a high cost. Privacy on corporate tech providers is virtually done as I’m typing this. It feels like a death rattle. I’m not particularly sure that we had much digital privacy to begin with, but the illusion of a veil of privacy feels gone.

To make matters slightly more complex, it would be hard to convince me that once AI really gets going, digital privacy will exist at all.

I believe that there should be a conversation shift to preserving freedoms and human rights in a post-privacy society.

I don’t want to get locked up because AI predicted a nasty post online from me about the government. I’m not a doomer about AI—I’m just going to roll with it personally. I’m looking forward to the positive changes that will be brought forth by AI. I see it as inevitable. A bit of privacy was helpful while it lasted. Please keep fighting to preserve what is left of privacy either way because I could be wrong about all of this.

On the topic of AI, the addition of AI to the horrific crime of child sexual abuse material and child sexual exploitation in multiple ways so far has been devastating. It’s currently out of control. The genie is out of the bottle. I am hopeful that innovation will get us humans out of this, but I’m not sure how or how long it will take. We must be extremely cautious around AI legislation. It should not be illegal to innovate even if some bad comes with the good. I don’t trust that the governments are equipped to decide the best pathway forward for AI. Source: the entire history of the government.

I have been personally negatively impacted by AI-generated content. Every few days, I get another alert that I’m featured again in what’s called “deep fake pornography” without my consent. I’m not happy about it, but what pains me the most is the thought that for a period of time down the road, many globally will experience what myself and others are experiencing now by being digitally sexually abused in this way. If you have ever had your picture taken and posted online, you are also at risk of being exploited in this way. Your child’s image can be used as well, unfortunately, and this is just the beginning of this particular nightmare. It will move to more realistic interpretations of sexual behaviors as technology improves. I have no brave words of wisdom about how to deal with that emotionally. I do have hope that innovation will save the day around this specific issue. I’m nervous that everyone online will have to ID verify due to this issue. I see that as one possible outcome that could help to prevent one problem but inadvertently cause more problems, especially for those living under authoritarian regimes or anyone who needs to remain anonymous online. A zero-knowledge proof (ZKP) would probably be the best solution to these issues. There are some survivors of violence and/or sexual trauma who need to remain anonymous online for various reasons. There are survivor stories available online of those who have been abused in this way. I’d encourage you seek out and listen to their stories.

There have been periods of time recently where I hesitate to say anything at all because more than likely AI will cover most of my concerns about education, awareness, prevention, detection, and removal of child sexual exploitation online, etc.

Unfortunately, some of the most pressing issues we’ve seen online over the last few years come in the form of “sextortion.” Self-generated child sexual exploitation (SG-CSEM) numbers are continuing to be terrifying. I’d strongly encourage that you look into sextortion data. AI + sextortion is also a huge concern. The perpetrators are using the non-sexually explicit images of children and putting their likeness on AI-generated child sexual exploitation content and extorting money, more imagery, or both from minors online. It’s like a million nightmares wrapped into one. The wild part is that these issues will only get more pervasive because technology is harnessed to perpetuate horror at a scale unimaginable to a human mind.

Even if you banned phones and the internet or tried to prevent children from accessing the internet, it wouldn’t solve it. Child sexual exploitation will still be with us until as a society we start to prevent the crime before it happens. That is the only human way out right now.

There is no reset button on the internet, but if I could go back, I’d tell survivor advocates to heed the warnings of the early internet builders and to start education and awareness campaigns designed to prevent as much online child sexual exploitation as possible. The internet and technology moved quickly, and I don’t believe that society ever really caught up. We live in a world where a child can be groomed by a predator in their own home while sitting on a couch next to their parents watching TV. We weren’t ready as a species to tackle the fast-paced algorithms and dangers online. It happened too quickly for parents to catch up. How can you parent for the ever-changing digital world unless you are constantly aware of the dangers?

I don’t think that the internet is inherently bad. I believe that it can be a powerful tool for freedom and resistance. I’ve spoken a lot about the bad online, but there is beauty as well. We often discuss how victims and survivors are abused online; we rarely discuss the fact that countless survivors around the globe have been able to share their experiences, strength, hope, as well as provide resources to the vulnerable. I do question if giving any government or tech company access to censorship, surveillance, etc., online in the name of serving survivors might not actually impact a portion of survivors negatively. There are a fair amount of survivors with powerful abusers protected by governments and the corporate press. If a survivor cannot speak to the press about their abuse, the only place they can go is online, directly or indirectly through an independent journalist who also risks being censored. This scenario isn’t hard to imagine—it already happened in China. During #MeToo, a survivor in China wanted to post their story. The government censored the post, so the survivor put their story on the blockchain. I’m excited that the survivor was creative and brave, but it’s terrifying to think that we live in a world where that situation is a necessity.

I believe that the future for many survivors sharing their stories globally will be on completely censorship-resistant and decentralized protocols. This thought in particular gives me hope. When we listen to the experiences of a diverse group of survivors, we can start to understand potential solutions to preventing the crimes from happening in the first place.

My heart is broken over the gut-wrenching stories of survivors sexually exploited online. Every time I hear the story of a survivor, I do think to myself quietly, “What could have prevented this from happening in the first place?” My heart is with survivors.

My head, on the other hand, is full of the understanding that the internet should remain free. The free flow of information should not be stopped. My mind is with the innocent citizens around the globe that deserve freedom both online and offline.

The problem is that governments don’t only want to censor illegal content that violates human rights—they create legislation that is so broad that it can impact speech and privacy of all. “Don’t you care about the kids?” Yes, I do. I do so much that I’m invested in finding solutions. I also care about all citizens around the globe that deserve an opportunity to live free from a mass surveillance society. If terrorism happens online, I should not be punished by losing my freedom. If drugs are sold online, I should not be punished. I’m not an abuser, I’m not a terrorist, and I don’t engage in illegal behaviors. I refuse to lose freedom because of others’ bad behaviors online.

I want to be clear that on a long enough timeline, the governments will decide that they can be better parents/caregivers than you can if something isn’t done to stop minors from being sexually exploited online. The price will be a complete loss of anonymity, privacy, free speech, and freedom of religion online. I find it rather insulting that governments think they’re better equipped to raise children than parents and caretakers.

So we can’t go backwards—all that we can do is go forward. Those who want to have freedom will find technology to facilitate their liberation. This will lead many over time to decentralized and open protocols. So as far as I’m concerned, this does solve a few of my worries—those who need, want, and deserve to speak freely online will have the opportunity in most countries—but what about online child sexual exploitation?

When I popped up around the decentralized space, I was met with the fear of censorship. I’m not here to censor you. I don’t write code. I couldn’t censor anyone or any piece of content even if I wanted to across the internet, no matter how depraved. I don’t have the skills to do that.

I’m here to start a conversation. Freedom comes at a cost. You must always fight for and protect your freedom. I can’t speak about protecting yourself from all of the Four Horsemen because I simply don’t know the topics well enough, but I can speak about this one topic.

If there was a shortcut to ending online child sexual exploitation, I would have found it by now. There isn’t one right now. I believe that education is the only pathway forward to preventing the crime of online child sexual exploitation for future generations.

I propose a yearly education course for every child of all school ages, taught as a standard part of the curriculum. Ideally, parents/caregivers would be involved in the education/learning process.

Course: - The creation of the internet and computers - The fight for cryptography - The tech supply chain from the ground up (example: human rights violations in the supply chain) - Corporate tech - Freedom tech - Data privacy - Digital privacy rights - AI (history-current) - Online safety (predators, scams, catfishing, extortion) - Bitcoin - Laws - How to deal with online hate and harassment - Information on who to contact if you are being abused online or offline - Algorithms - How to seek out the truth about news, etc., online

The parents/caregivers, homeschoolers, unschoolers, and those working to create decentralized parallel societies have been an inspiration while writing this, but my hope is that all children would learn this course, even in government ran schools. Ideally, parents would teach this to their own children.

The decentralized space doesn’t want child sexual exploitation to thrive. Here’s the deal: there has to be a strong prevention effort in order to protect the next generation. The internet isn’t going anywhere, predators aren’t going anywhere, and I’m not down to let anyone have the opportunity to prove that there is a need for more government. I don’t believe that the government should act as parents. The governments have had a chance to attempt to stop online child sexual exploitation, and they didn’t do it. Can we try a different pathway forward?

I’d like to put myself out of a job. I don’t want to ever hear another story like John Doe #1 ever again. This will require work. I’ve often called online child sexual exploitation the lynchpin for the internet. It’s time to arm generations of children with knowledge and tools. I can’t do this alone.

Individuals have fought so that I could have freedom online. I want to fight to protect it. I don’t want child predators to give the government any opportunity to take away freedom. Decentralized spaces are as close to a reset as we’ll get with the opportunity to do it right from the start. Start the youth off correctly by preventing potential hazards to the best of your ability.

The good news is anyone can work on this! I’d encourage you to take it and run with it. I added the additional education about the history of the internet to make the course more educational and fun. Instead of cleaning up generations of destroyed lives due to online sexual exploitation, perhaps this could inspire generations of those who will build our futures. Perhaps if the youth is armed with knowledge, they can create more tools to prevent the crime.

This one solution that I’m suggesting can be done on an individual level or on a larger scale. It should be adjusted depending on age, learning style, etc. It should be fun and playful.

This solution does not address abuse in the home or some of the root causes of offline child sexual exploitation. My hope is that it could lead to some survivors experiencing abuse in the home an opportunity to disclose with a trusted adult. The purpose for this solution is to prevent the crime of online child sexual exploitation before it occurs and to arm the youth with the tools to contact safe adults if and when it happens.

In closing, I went to hell a few times so that you didn’t have to. I spoke to the mothers of survivors of minors sexually exploited online—their tears could fill rivers. I’ve spoken with political dissidents who yearned to be free from authoritarian surveillance states. The only balance that I’ve found is freedom online for citizens around the globe and prevention from the dangers of that for the youth. Don’t slow down innovation and freedom. Educate, prepare, adapt, and look for solutions.

I’m not perfect and I’m sure that there are errors in this piece. I hope that you find them and it starts a conversation.

@ 1bda7e1f:bb97c4d9

Tldr

• Nostr is an open and interoperable protocol
• You can integrate it with workflow automation tools to augment your experience
• n8n is a great low/no-code workflow automation tool which you can host yourself
• Nostrobots allows you to integrate Nostr into n8n
• In this blog I create some workflow automations for Nostr
• A simple form to delegate posting notes
• Push notifications for mentions on multiple accounts
• Push notifications for your favourite accounts when they post a note
• All workflows are provided as open source with MIT license for you to use

Inter-op All The Things

Nostr is a new open social protocol for the internet. This open nature exciting because of the opportunities for interoperability with other technologies. In Using NFC Cards with Nostr I explored the nostr: URI to launch Nostr clients from a card tap.

The interoperability of Nostr doesn't stop there. The internet has many super-powers, and Nostr is open to all of them. Simply, there's no one to stop it. There is no one in charge, there are no permissioned APIs, and there are no risks of being de-platformed. If you can imagine technologies that would work well with Nostr, then any and all of them can ride on or alongside Nostr rails.

My mental model for why this is special is Google Wave ~2010. Google Wave was to be the next big platform. Lars was running it and had a big track record from Maps. I was excited for it. Then, Google pulled the plug. And, immediately all the time and capital invested in understanding and building on the platform was wasted.

This cannot happen to Nostr, as there is no one to pull the plug, and maybe even no plug to pull.

So long as users demand Nostr, Nostr will exist, and that is a pretty strong guarantee. It makes it worthwhile to invest in bringing Nostr into our other applications.

All we need are simple ways to plug things together.

Nostr and Workflow Automation

Workflow automation is about helping people to streamline their work. As a user, the most common way I achieve this is by connecting disparate systems together. By setting up one system to trigger another or to move data between systems, I can solve for many different problems and become way more effective.

n8n for workflow automation

Many workflow automation tools exist. My favourite is n8n. n8n is a low/no-code workflow automation platform which allows you to build all kinds of workflows. You can use it for free, you can self-host it, it has a user-friendly UI and useful API. Vs Zapier it can be far more elaborate. Vs Make.com I find it to be more intuitive in how it abstracts away the right parts of the code, but still allows you to code when you need to.

Most importantly you can plug anything into n8n: You have built-in nodes for specific applications. HTTP nodes for any other API-based service. And community nodes built by individual community members for any other purpose you can imagine.

Eating my own dogfood

It's very clear to me that there is a big design space here just demanding to be explored. If you could integrate Nostr with anything, what would you do?

In my view the best way for anyone to start anything is by solving their own problem first (aka "scratching your own itch" and "eating your own dogfood"). As I get deeper into Nostr I find myself controlling multiple Npubs – to date I have a personal Npub, a brand Npub for a community I am helping, an AI assistant Npub, and various testing Npubs. I need ways to delegate access to those Npubs without handing over the keys, ways to know if they're mentioned, and ways to know if they're posting.

I can build workflows with n8n to solve these issues for myself to start with, and keep expanding from there as new needs come up.

Running n8n with Nostrobots

I am mostly non-technical with a very helpful AI. To set up n8n to work with Nostr and operate these workflows should be possible for anyone with basic technology skills.

• I have a cheap VPS which currently runs my HAVEN Nostr Relay and Albyhub Lightning Node in Docker containers,
• My objective was to set up n8n to run alongside these in a separate Docker container on the same server, install the required nodes, and then build and host my workflows.

Installing n8n

Self-hosting n8n could not be easier. I followed n8n's Docker-Compose installation docs–

• Install Docker and Docker-Compose if you haven't already,
• Create your docker-compose.yml and .env files from the docs,
• Create your data folder sudo docker volume create n8n_data,
• Start your container with sudo docker compose up -d,
• Your n8n instance should be online at port 5678.

n8n is free to self-host but does require a license. Enter your credentials into n8n to get your free license key. You should now have access to the Workflow dashboard and can create and host any kind of workflows from there.

Installing Nostrobots

To integrate n8n nicely with Nostr, I used the Nostrobots community node by Ocknamo.

In n8n parlance a "node" enables certain functionality as a step in a workflow e.g. a "set" node sets a variable, a "send email" node sends an email. n8n comes with all kinds of "official" nodes installed by default, and Nostr is not amongst them. However, n8n also comes with a framework for community members to create their own "community" nodes, which is where Nostrobots comes in.

You can only use a community node in a self-hosted n8n instance (which is what you have if you are running in Docker on your own server, but this limitation does prevent you from using n8n's own hosted alternative).

To install a community node, see n8n community node docs. From your workflow dashboard–

• Click the "..." in the bottom left corner beside your username, and click "settings",
• Cilck "community nodes" left sidebar,
• Click "Install",
• Enter the "npm Package Name" which is n8n-nodes-nostrobots,
• Accept the risks and click "Install",
• Nostrobots is now added to your n8n instance.

Using Nostrobots

Nostrobots gives you nodes to help you build Nostr-integrated workflows–

• Nostr Write – for posting Notes to the Nostr network,
• Nostr Read – for reading Notes from the Nostr network, and
• Nostr Utils – for performing certain conversions you may need (e.g. from bech32 to hex).

Nostrobots has good documentation on each node which focuses on simple use cases.

Each node has a "convenience mode" by default. For example, the "Read" Node by default will fetch Kind 1 notes by a simple filter, in Nostrobots parlance a "Strategy". For example, with Strategy set to "Mention" the node will accept a pubkey and fetch all Kind 1 notes that Mention the pubkey within a time period. This is very good for quick use.

What wasn't clear to me initially (until Ocknamo helped me out) is that advanced use cases are also possible.

Each node also has an advanced mode. For example, the "Read" Node can have "Strategy" set to "RawFilter(advanced)". Now the node will accept json (anything you like that complies with NIP-01). You can use this to query Notes (Kind 1) as above, and also Profiles (Kind 0), Follow Lists (Kind 3), Reactions (Kind 7), Zaps (Kind 9734/9735), and anything else you can think of.

Creating and adding workflows

With n8n and Nostrobots installed, you can now create or add any kind of Nostr Workflow Automation.

• Click "Add workflow" to go to the workflow builder screen,
• If you would like to build your own workflow, you can start with adding any node. Click "+" and see what is available. Type "Nostr" to explore the Nostrobots nodes you have added,
• If you would like to add workflows that someone else has built, click "..." in the top right. Then click "import from URL" and paste in the URL of any workflow you would like to use (including the ones I share later in this article).

Nostr Workflow Automations

It's time to build some things!

A simple form to post a note to Nostr

I started very simply. I needed to delegate the ability to post to Npubs that I own in order that a (future) team can test things for me. I don't want to worry about managing or training those people on how to use keys, and I want to revoke access easily.

I needed a basic form with credentials that posted a Note.

For this I can use a very simple workflow–

• A n8n Form node – Creates a form for users to enter the note they wish to post. Allows for the form to be protected by a username and password. This node is the workflow "trigger" so that the workflow runs each time the form is submitted.
• A Set node – Allows me to set some variables, in this case I set the relays that I intend to use. I typically add a Set node immediately following the trigger node, and put all the variables I need in this. It helps to make the workflows easier to update and maintain.
• A Nostr Write node (from Nostrobots) – Writes a Kind-1 note to the Nostr network. It accepts Nostr credentials, the output of the Form node, and the relays from the Set node, and posts the Note to those relays.

Once the workflow is built, you can test it with the testing form URL, and set it to "Active" to use the production form URL. That's it. You can now give posting access to anyone for any Npub. To revoke access, simply change the credentials or set to workflow to "Inactive".

It may also be the world's simplest Nostr client.

You can find the Nostr Form to Post a Note workflow here.

Push notifications on mentions and new notes

One of the things Nostr is not very good at is push notifications. Furthermore I have some unique itches to scratch. I want–

• To make sure I never miss a note addressed to any of my Npubs – For this I want a push notification any time any Nostr user mentions any of my Npubs,
• To make sure I always see all notes from key accounts – For this I need a push notification any time any of my Npubs post any Notes to the network,
• To get these notifications on all of my devices – Not just my phone where my Nostr regular client lives, but also on each of my laptops to suit wherever I am working that day.

I needed to build a Nostr push notifications solution.

To build this workflow I had to string a few ideas together–

• Triggering the node on a schedule – Nostrobots does not include a trigger node. As every workflow starts with a trigger we needed a different method. I elected to run the workflow on a schedule of every 10-minutes. Frequent enough to see Notes while they are hot, but infrequent enough to not burden public relays or get rate-limited,
• Storing a list of Npubs in a Nostr list – I needed a way to store the list of Npubs that trigger my notifications. I initially used an array defined in the workflow, this worked fine. Then I decided to try Nostr lists (NIP-51, kind 30000). By defining my list of Npubs as a list published to Nostr I can control my list from within a Nostr client (e.g. Listr.lol or Nostrudel.ninja). Not only does this "just work", but because it's based on Nostr lists automagically Amethyst client allows me to browse that list as a Feed, and everyone I add gets notified in their Mentions,
• Using specific relays – I needed to query the right relays, including my own HAVEN relay inbox for notes addressed to me, and wss://purplepag.es for Nostr profile metadata,
• Querying Nostr events (with Nostrobots) – I needed to make use of many different Nostr queries and use quite a wide range of what Nostrobots can do–
  • I read the EventID of my Kind 30000 list, to return the desired pubkeys,
  • For notifications on mentions, I read all Kind 1 notes that mention that pubkey,
  • For notifications on new notes, I read all Kind 1 notes published by that pubkey,
  • Where there are notes, I read the Kind 0 profile metadata event of that pubkey to get the displayName of the relevant Npub,
  • I transform the EventID into a Nevent to help clients find it.
• Using the Nostr URI – As I did with my NFC card article, I created a link with the nostr: URI prefix so that my phone's native client opens the link by default,
• Push notifications solution – I needed a push notifications solution. I found many with n8n integrations and chose to go with Pushover which supports all my devices, has a free trial, and is unfairly cheap with a $5-per-device perpetual license.

Once the workflow was built, lists published, and Pushover installed on my phone, I was fully set up with push notifications on Nostr. I have used these workflows for several weeks now and made various tweaks as I went. They are feeling robust and I'd welcome you to give them a go.

You can find the Nostr Push Notification If Mentioned here and If Posts a Note here.

In speaking with other Nostr users while I was building this, there are all kind of other needs for push notifications too – like on replies to a certain bookmarked note, or when a followed Npub starts streaming on zap.stream. These are all possible.

Use my workflows

I have open sourced all my workflows at my Github with MIT license and tried to write complete docs, so that you can import them into your n8n and configure them for your own use.

To import any of my workflows–

• Click on the workflow of your choice, e.g. "Nostr_Push_Notify_If_Mentioned.json",
• Click on the "raw" button to view the raw JSON, ex any Github page layout,
• Copy that URL,
• Enter that URL in the "import from URL" dialog mentioned above.

To configure them–

• Prerequisites, credentials, and variables are all stated,
• In general any variables required are entered into a Set Node that follows the trigger node,
• Pushover has some extra setup but is very straightforward and documented in the workflow.

What next?

Over my first four blogs I explored creating a good Nostr setup with Vanity Npub, Lightning Payments, Nostr Addresses at Your Domain, and Personal Nostr Relay.

Then in my latest two blogs I explored different types of interoperability with NFC cards and now n8n Workflow Automation.

Thinking ahead n8n can power any kind of interoperability between Nostr and any other legacy technology solution. On my mind as I write this:

• Further enhancements to posting and delegating solutions and forms (enhanced UI or different note kinds),
• Automated or scheduled posting (such as auto-liking everything Lyn Alden posts),
• Further enhancements to push notifications, on new and different types of events (such as notifying me when I get a new follower, on replies to certain posts, or when a user starts streaming),
• All kinds of bridges, such as bridging notes to and from Telegram, Slack, or Campfire. Or bridging RSS or other event feeds to Nostr,
• All kinds of other automation (such as BlackCoffee controlling a coffee machine),
• All kinds of AI Assistants and Agents,

In fact I have already released an open source workflow for an AI Assistant, and will share more about that in my next blog.

Please be sure to let me know if you think there's another Nostr topic you'd like to see me tackle.

GM Nostr.

@ 078d6670:56049f0c

I spent some time outside in the dark last night. After a little sleep I was wide awake again, so I ventured downstairs, rolled a joint and stepped into the darkness. No moon, no outside lights. Just stars flickering through space and landing on the sky dome, expanding my being.

There was nothing unusual. Just the usual fleeting apparitions shooting through the ether, barely visible, like they’re behind a lace curtain and I have a glimpse into the astral: light and dark winged things, miniature meteor orbs and bat shadows. This time I wasn’t listening to anything, just the inspiring tangent thoughts spiralling through my mental DNA. No cows, no lions fornicating, not even any barking dogs. (But there was a Wood Owl hooting.)

Initially, I was a little disappointed I hadn’t seen anything inexplicable, but I got over myself and expectation to always see fairies. There is a bliss in just being present (and stoned)!

When I was ready to exit the deck space, I yelled silently to myself and anyone reading my mind, “Goodnight Sky! Thank you stars for shining! Thank you planets for showing yourselves! Blessings to all the conscious beings in the Universe!”

I wasn’t prepared for what happened next. I wasn’t sure if I should run inside to get my smartphone or just watch.

An orb, a little bigger than the average star, manifested directly above my head, star-height, as far as my perception could guess. Then it disappeared after two seconds. Another one appeared in the same vicinity, and disappeared. I couldn’t tell if it was the same one reappearing in an astral (wormhole) jump, or other orbs were taking turns to greet me, because there were more, probably five in total.

How the f*!k did they hear me?

Is the sky conscious?

Does my being extend to the stars?

It felt like I was inside a lucid dream. The world was alive and acknowledging my blessings instantaneously. What impeccable manners!

I understand everything in my dream world is an extension of my consciousness. When I’m lucid I can interact with any of my dream elements and ask for meaning. There are no limits, only my imagination and unconscious beliefs.

But what is happening now?!

My reality is transforming into a dream, or the dream sandbox is becoming more real. Synchronistically, this is amazing, since my reading is taking me on a journey into western esotericism to expansive experiences through imagination to include the stars and beyond.

Soon, it’ll be time to call reality the Unreal, and the unreal Reality.

@ 4d4fb5ff:1e821f47

The entire genetic sequence for peptidase E (pepE, e. coli). Genes in living organisms are subject to mutation across time. In contrast, information on the bitcoin ledger is immutable. By etching the pepE DNA sequence onto bitcoin, its ability to evolve is lost. This challenges the significance of genetic information in a foreign digital context. I chose to keep the title “PEPEGENE” in upper case as a homage to the naming convention for Counterparty assets. This additionally contrasts the notation of a digital asset identifier (PEPEGENE) against the notation of biological identifiers (a,t,c or g), which are kept in lower case.

https://ordiscan.com/inscription/53135550

@ f0c7506b:9ead75b8

Rainer Maria Rilke

Yalnızca güçlü olanların hakkıdır yaşamak.

Güçlü olan ileri gider ve saflar seyrekleşir. Ama üç beş büyük, güçlü ve tanrısal kişi güneşli ve aydınlık gözleriyle o yeni, o vaat edilmiş ülkeye ulaşacaktır. Belki binlerce yıl sonra ancak. Ve güçlü, adaleli, hükmetmek için yaratılmış elleriyle hastaların, zayıfların ve sakatların ölüleri üzerinde bir krallık kuracaklardır. Bir krallık!

Benim aradığım insanların kendileri değil, sesleridir.

Duyguları körelmiş, çeşitli düşüncelere saplanmış kalabalık hiçbir zaman ilerlemenin taşıyıcısı olamaz, kendi küçüklüğünün o küflü içgüdüsüyle kalabalığın kin ve nefretle baktığı bir kişi, bir büyük kişi, iradesinin gösterdiği yolda kimsenin gözünün yaşına bakmaksızın ilahi bir güç ve bir zafer gülümsemesiyle yürüyebilir ancak.

Bizim soyumuz da sonsuz oluşum piramidinin doruk noktasını oluşturmaktan uzaktır. Bizler de mükemmelliğe ulaşmış değiliz. Bizler de henüz olgunlaşmadık.

Şairler sevgiye övgüler döşenir; doğrusu sevginin güçlü bir şey olduğu kesin. Hüneşin bir ışınıdır sevgi, aydınlatıp nurlandırır insanı der bazıları; bazıları da insanı esrikliğe sürükleyen bir zehri kendisinde barındırdığını söyler. Gerçekten de yol açtığı sonuçlar, bir hekimin ağır bir ameliyattan önce korkudan titreyen hastaya teneffüs ettirdiği güldürücü gazınkine benzer, içinde tepinip duran acıyı unutturur hastaya.

Önemli olan, hayatta hiç değilse bir kez kutsal bir ilkbaharın yaşanmasıdır; öyle bir bahar ki, insanın gönlünü ilerideki bütün günleri altın yaldızla kaplamaya yetecek kadar ışık ve parıltıyla doldursun.

Şu hayat denen şey kötü bir işçiliğin ürünü, acemilere göre bir şey. Bu kepaze yaşam uğruna insan nelere katlanmıyor ki!

Kendisine sadakatten ayrılmadığı, yalnızca kendisinin olan bir tek bu var: Yalnızlığı.

Sahildeki üstü tenteli hasır koltuklar arkasındaki yüksek, sessiz kum tepeleri içinde yürürsen, tenteler altındaki insanları göremezsin; ama birinin bir diğerine seslendiğini, bir başkasının gevezelik ettiğini, bir ötekinin güldüğünü işitir ve anlarsın hemen: bu insan şöyle şöyle biridir diyebilirsin. Onun hayatı sevdiğini, bağrında büyük bir özlem ya da acı barındırdığını, bu acının da sesini ağlamaklı kıldığını her gülüşünde hissedersin.

@ ff517fbf:fde1561b

フアン・ラモン・ラッロ氏は、スペイン出身の経済学者・作家であり、自由市場経済とリベラルな思想の提唱者として知られています。彼は、国家による過剰な介入や財政政策の問題点を鋭く分析し、自由主義の基本原則に基づく社会の実現を目指す論考や著作を多数発表しています。数多くのメディアや学会で講演を行い、現代社会における経済政策や公共の役割について、国際的な議論にも影響を与えている人物です。

---

皆様、こんばんは。そして、Andorra Economic Forumの皆様、本日はご招待いただき誠にありがとうございます。
本日の講演では、これまで私が持ち続けてきた見解、すなわち、より自由で、より繁栄するために、スペイン及び世界において自由主義革命がなぜ必要であり、さらには急務であるのかという理由をお伝えしたいと思います。また、現代国家が、ストックホルム症候群のような論理に我々を陥れており、その結果、国家が我々の自由を体系的に制限し、財産を構造的に攻撃している状況を、ほとんどの人々が抗議もせず、またはその非常事態性すら意識していないという現実をどのように理解すべきかについても触れます。

まず初めに、皆様のご反応から察するに、これは既知の内容に感じられるかもしれませんが、自由主義の基本原則、すなわち四つの基本的な考えを確認させていただきます。どのようにして、社会生活と、各個人が自らの人生計画を追求するための自律性とを両立させ、かつ、個々の自律性が打ち消されるような一個または多数の専制に服従することなく生きることができる社会が成立するのでしょうか？　それは、協力と共存が可能な社会の中で、各人が自己の利益を追求し、同時に他者の利益追求を尊重するための基本原則、すなわち以下の四つの原則によって支えられているのです。

第一に、個人の自由、すなわち他者の行動を踏みにじることなく自ら行動するという、いわゆる非攻撃の原則です。自分が望むことは何でもできますが、他者が望むことをするのを妨げてはならず、また、他者があなたの望むことを妨げることも許されないのです。

第二に、私有財産です。平和的に獲得し、平和的に自らのものとしたものはあなたのものであり、それによって自由に行動し、自らの人生計画や行動計画を追求する手段となります。もしも、これらの計画遂行に必要な手段が恣意的に奪われるならば、それはあなたの個人の自由、すなわち自らの人生計画を追求する自由を侵害することになるのです。

第三に、契約の自律性です。あなたは第三者と自由に合意を結ぶことができます。もちろん、第三者を攻撃することは許されませんが、双方が望むことについて自発的に合意することは可能です。合意は、当事者間の私法上の契約であり、両者が履行すべき約束であり、第三者が介入してこれを正当化したり否定したりするものではありません。ただし、合意の内容は、あくまで当事者双方やその所有物にのみ影響を及ぼすものです。

そして最後に、広義の意味での結社の自由です。個人は、契約上、望むことについて合意するだけでなく、共に生活する方法や、ある程度安定した形で組織される方法を合意することも明示的に可能です。これらの原則は、しばしば国家によって保証されると言われます。なぜなら、国家がなければ、法体系も安全保障機関も存在せず、個人の自由、私有財産、契約の履行、そして結社の自由を保障するものが何もないと思われがちだからです。とはいえ、確かにある程度の国家は、警察国家としてこれらの基本的な社会的共存の規範を保証するために必要かもしれませんが、私たちが必要としているのは、単にこれらの自由主義社会の原則と自由な人々の相互作用が尊重されることを確保するための、巨大かつ過剰な国家ではありません。

実際、国家が大きくなるほど、つまり社会における国家の存在感が増すほど、これらの原則は侵害されがちです。なぜなら、国家は恣意的に規制を強化し、税金を引き上げることで、たとえ他者に損害を与えなくとも、個人が望むように行動する自由を阻み、また、私有財産を強制的に奪い、当事者間の取引を妨げ、さらには、結社および脱会の自由さえも制限してしまうからです。たとえば、誰かが既存の国家から離れ、他の国家に参加したり、あるいは新たな国家や政治共同体を形成して自らを組織しようとした場合でさえ、現行の国家はそれを認めないのです。

さて、これらの自由主義の基本原則は、各個人の計画や人生のプロジェクトが社会の中で花開くために必要不可欠なものであり、現代国家によって体系的に侵害されているのです。しかし、現代国家とは、必ずしも常に我々と共にあった国家ではありません。私たちは、今日のようなメガ国家、ハイパーステート、過剰に肥大化した国家をある程度は当たり前のものとして受け入れてしまっていますが、これらは唯一の政治的選択肢ではなく、歴史を通じて存在してきた唯一の政治現実でもないのです。

ここで、主要な西洋諸国における国家の社会に占める重みの変遷について、皆様にご覧いただければと思います。今日、国家の重みは国によって大きな違いはないものの、概ね国内総生産（GDP）の40〜50％を占めています。中には、例えばフランスのようにGDPの60％に達する国もあります。国家が社会的調和や幸福の保証とされることは稀であり、実際、フランスは世界最大の国家を有しながら、またはそのために、今最も分断され混沌とした国の一つとなっています。

しかし、現状、国家はGDPの40〜50％、すなわち社会が毎年生み出す生産の約半分を吸収し、再分配または政治層や官僚階級が決定した形で消費しているのです。これは常にそうであったわけではありません。19世紀、ひいては第一次世界大戦前までは、近代先進国における国家の経済的重みはGDPの5〜10％程度に過ぎなかったのです。

例えば、アメリカ合衆国では第一次世界大戦前、国家のGDPに占める割合は3〜4％でしたし、今日巨大な社会民主主義国家となっているスウェーデンでさえ、かつてはGDPの5％程度でした。すなわち、国家というものが必然的に経済の半分を占めなければならないというわけではなく、これは徐々に積み重ねられてきたプロセス、いわばゆっくりと沸騰させられるカエルのようなものです。第一次世界大戦後、国家の経済に対する重みは大幅かつ確固たる上昇を見せ、さらに第二次世界大戦後には、急激かつ持続的な上昇を経て、1970年代以降、現在の水準にまで達したのです。

ちなみに、ここで我々がしばしば耳にする「国家が後退しているから、我々は新自由主義の時代にいる」というレトリックが、いかに毒性がありずる賢いものであるかにも注目してください。過去40年間で、グラフ上に国家の重みが大幅に後退したと示す兆候は見当たりません。ある時点で国家のGDPに占める割合が1〜2％減少することがあったとしても、200年の間にGDPの5％から50％へと増加し、現在は概ね50％前後に留まっているのです。国家が後退し、民間部門がすべてを占めるようになっている、というのは全く逆の現象です。

実際、多くの人は、国家が拡大し続けるのが当然であり、もし急速な成長が見られなければ、国家は後退していると考えがちです。しかし、国家は既にそれ以上大きく成長する余地がほとんどないのです。もちろん、GDPの60％、70％、80％にまで達すれば、直接的または間接的な社会主義経済になってしまいます。

そして、なぜ国家はこれほどまでに成長したのでしょうか。急激な国家拡大を説明する基本的な要因の一つは、福祉国家の発展です。つまり、かつては国家が提供していた医療、社会保障（年金、事故保険など）や教育といったサービスの国家による提供が、福祉国家として大きく発展したのです。

ご覧の通り、1930年代や第二次世界大戦後までは社会保障費は非常に低い水準にありましたが、特に第二次世界大戦後からは、GDPの20〜30％にまで急上昇しました。これらはかつて、市民社会や市場を通じ、または必ずしも商業的な交換を介して提供されていた、労働組合などが担っていた社会保障の役割を、国家が吸収していったものです。労働組合は国家から独立し、時には国家に対抗しながら、社会保障の機能を果たしていたのですが、その役割が国家に吸収されることで、我々は国家に依存するようになってしまったのです。

なぜなら、社会保障費は支出であり、中には「依存費用」とも呼ばれるものもあります。たとえば、老後に収入がなくなった時や、何らかの障害によって収入が得られなくなった時のために、個人の貯蓄から基金を積み立てる場合、その基金が自分自身で管理されるなら自律的ですが、国家が管理すれば、私たちは国家に全く依存することになってしまうのです。国家が消滅するか、大幅な予算削減が行われれば、我々は何も残らないのです。結果として、国民は容易には消えない国家の爪痕に囚われることになるのです。公共年金制度の問題を考えてみてください。現代の先進国家において、公共年金制度は最も大きな支出項目の一つです。

では、どうすれば公共年金制度を解体できるのでしょうか。どうすれば、必要以上に介入してきた国家、例えばアメリカ合衆国では大恐慌期（1930年代）に、必要がなかったのに介入してきた国家を、その状況から脱却させることができるのでしょうか。設立当初は、ある一定の年齢に達した者には一定額の年金を支給すると約束し、その費用を現在働いている者への税負担によって賄うというシステムでした。

システムの構築は、当時の平均寿命がかなり低く、支給期間が2～3年程度であったため、比較的容易で安価に行われたのですが、システムが一度確立され、世代を超えた労働者の貯蓄能力を事実上奪う形で構築された今、どうやってそれを解体すればよいのでしょうか。もし「年金は支給されなくなるのか」と言えば、かつて生産期に労働者の給与のかなりの部分を国家が吸収し、貯蓄を阻害していた結果、何百万人もの人々が貧困に陥ることになるのです。

じゃあ、もう引退されている皆さんは年金を受け取ることになりますが、現役世代がその年金の費用を負担し、そして自分たちが引退する時には年金を受け取ることができなくなるのです。つまり、この世代からは何の対価もなく、給与のごく大部分が没収されることになるというわけです。これをどうやって解体するつもりですか？　決して容易なことではありません。

また、例えば医療制度についても同様です。若者にとっては医療制度の解体はそれほど難しくないように見えるかもしれませんが、貯蓄がなく、保険にも加入していない高齢者にとって、もし今、公共医療制度が終了し、年齢とともに医療費が指数関数的に上昇するために通常以上の医療費が発生すると告げられたら、彼らはその医療費にどう対処すればよいのでしょうか？　彼らは、公共医療制度が機能するという説明のもとに、その医療費が賄われると予め想定し、税金を支払っていたのです。

これをどう逆転させるか？　もちろん、即座に行えることではありませんが、時間をかけた移行措置として行っていかなければなりません。だからこそ、国家はこの道を通じて成長し続け、社会がますます国家による再分配に依存するようになることで、国民の自律性を奪っていくのです。

ちなみに、現代福祉国家の発明者の一人であるのは、プロイセン出身のドイツの首相オットー・フォン・ビスマルクです。彼の回顧録――つまり、批判的ではない親しい記者によって書かれた回顧録――によれば、ビスマルクは、公共年金制度を創設することで労働者階級を国家に依存させ、労働者が国家に対して反抗しないように仕向けたと説明しています。当時、反抗は、いわば反資本主義的な行為とみなされていたのです。彼は、国家主義を維持するためではなく、「労働者には社会主義的傾向がある。では、どうすれば労働者を手なずけることができるのか？」という視点から、公共年金制度を利用したのです。同様に、労働者は公共年金制度を通じて、または国家に対抗する形で手なずけられるのです。そして、現状はこの通りになっています。

そこで、皆さんは疑問に思うかもしれません。この何世代にもわたって築かれてきた巨大国家は、具体的にどのような機能を果たしているのでしょうか？　その資金はどこに行っているのか？　この巨大国家は何に対して支出をしているのか？　ここに、2022年の欧州連合各国の平均、すなわちGDPの50％という数字があります。スペインの場合も2022年時点で大きな差はなく、GDPの47％を支出しているため、概ね代表的な数値といえます。さて、この50％のうちの20％は社会保障費、主に年金費用（老後だけでなく、遺族、障害、孤児などに関する給付も含む）です。これに加え、比較的低コストな非拠出型給付も存在します。次に、スペインの場合は約7.7％、すなわち7〜8％が医療費、6％が官僚機構の運営費用、そして何よりも重要なのが公債の利子支払い費用です。さらに6％は経済政策に充てられ、例えばインフラ整備や農業支援などが含まれています。教育に関しては、公立教育や協定校を含めて約4.7％、環境保護は0.8％（これは必ずしも気候政策だけでなく、森林の管理なども含む）、住宅や地域サービスが1％、そして余暇、文化、宗教に関しては1.1％となっています。これらは、メディアや文化、宗教団体への補助金などとして支出されています。

かつて、リベラルな最小国家、例えばアメリカではGDPの3％程度であった国家がありました。なぜなら、当時は上記のような広範な機能を持たず、防衛（GDPの1.3％）と治安・司法（GDPの1.7％）に集中していたからです。つまり、19世紀にGDPの3％を占めていた国家が、現在もその核となる部分は同じ3％のままであるということです。国家が高価になったわけではなく、19世紀に存在した国家のコストは大体同じであったにもかかわらず、現代国家は19世紀よりもはるかに多くの機能を担っているため、多くの税金が必要とされているのです。もちろん、すべては税金で賄われています。

では、いったいどれだけの税金が支払われているのでしょうか。ここでは、国民が被っている税負担の実態について十分に認識されていないのではないかと思います。もしその実態が明らかになれば、社会的不服従が起こるでしょう。国家は、税の実感を曖昧にするための手段を多数用いているのです。例えば、さまざまな理由で税金を徴収する仕組みです。「この項目に対して税金を払え」と一律に要求するのではなく、「稼いだ金額、支出、保有資産、さらには支出全体に対して税金を課す」といった形で、複数の種類の税金を同時に適用します。消費全体に対して一律に税金を課すのではなく、付加価値税（IVA）やその他の特別税など、多岐にわたる特別な税金が存在し、相続税に至るまで多岐に渡ります。

さらに、我々はさまざまな側面で税金を支払っているにもかかわらず、その実感すら持っていないこともあります。たとえば、関税はその値上がり分を商品の価格に転嫁されるため、意識されにくいのです。付加価値税が上がっても、スーパーなどが告知しない限り、私たちはその上昇に気づきにくいのです。また、税負担を一度にまとめて徴収するのではなく、分散して給与から差し引くことで、その実感を薄めています。かつては、年間に稼いだ金額に対して一括で所得税（IRPF）を支払うのが普通でしたが、現代では分割して徴収されるため、納税者は自分がどれだけの税金を支払っているのかを実感しにくいのです。ちなみに、IRPFの源泉徴収制度は、第二次世界大戦中にリベラルのミルトン・フリードマンによって考案されたものです。つまり、敵はしばしば自国に潜むものでもあるということです。

ここで示したのは、平均的な支出額です。スペイン国家のすべての財政収入を国民または労働者で割ると、国民一人あたりの国家負担のおおよそのコストが見えてきます。実際には公共赤字、すなわち収入以上に支出している部分もあり、その分は将来の税負担として転嫁されるため、実際のコストはさらに大きくなります。ここでは、現状で国民から徴収されている税金のみを取り上げています。なお、これらの数字はインフレーションを考慮していないため、2001年と2024年の数字を直接比較することはできませんが、ここでは2024年現在の状況に焦点を当てています。現在、平均してスペイン国民一人あたり、約15,000ユーロの税負担がかかっているのです。つまり、一般的には夫婦と子供一人の家庭で約50,000ユーロの税金が支払われている計算になります。労働者という視点に立てば、実際に税金を支払っているのは、平均で30,000ユーロ以上にのぼります。もちろん、高所得者層が多くを負担しているという見方もありますが、これは平均値であり、平均値は必ずしも実態を正確に反映するものではありません。

さて、労働者一人あたりの支払いを、かなり寛大な見積もりで考えてみましょう。スペインにおける現在の中央値の給与は22,400ユーロです。しかし、この22,400ユーロという数字が給与明細に反映される前に、企業側がすでに支払っている社会保険料が約7,000ユーロ存在しています。つまり、実際の中央値の給与は29,000ユーロ、ほぼ30,000ユーロであるべきものですが、この30,000ユーロは労働者自身が実感できるものではありません。そして、たとえ「実際は自分のものである」と伝えても、「それは企業が支払っているものであって、自分が支払っているわけではない」と言われ、自己欺瞞に陥るのです。結局のところ、実際に支払っているのは自分自身なのです。

実際、30,000ユーロの実質報酬を基にすると、そこから7,000ユーロが差し引かれて、給与明細に表示されるのは22,400ユーロです。さらに、労働者側の社会保険料として約1,500ユーロを追加で支払い、所得税（IRPF）が約3,000ユーロ、さらに消費に応じた間接税が最低でも約2,000ユーロ（場合によってはそれ以上）かかります。さらに、ここでは取り上げていない他の国家への支払い、たとえば不動産税（IBI）やサービス料、共済負担金なども存在します。結果として、中央値の労働者は、本来約30,000ユーロあるべき給与のうち、税引き後に手元に残るのは約15,800ユーロに過ぎないのです。つまり、ほぼその半分が国家によって吸収されていることになります。年間で見ると、さまざまな税金、特に社会保険料、所得税、そして間接税として、合計約13,400ユーロが徴収されているのです。

このように、中央値の労働者は、所得分布の中央に位置しており、非常に多くの人々が彼より少なく、また多く稼いでいる人もいます。だからこそ、中央値の労働者が支払っている税負担、すなわち年間約13,400ユーロという数字は、スペイン国民に対して行われている極めて大規模な税負担の実態を物語っています。これにより、国家から提供されるサービスが強制的に受け入れられているのです。

果たして、これは必然なのでしょうか？　歴史的に見れば必ずしもそうではなく、また現代においても地域によって差があります。つまり、労働者が生み出す富の半分以上を国家が吸収するという、巨大な国家が当然であるという考え方は、今後も続くものではありません。ここには、異なる繁栄度を持つ国々が存在し、一般的に発展した国々であっても、欧州やアメリカのような国家に比べ、国家の規模はかなり小さく抑えられている国もあります。しばしば「スペインの国家規模は欧州平均より小さい」と言われますが、欧州平均自体が、プロの略奪者たちのクラブのようなものなのです。従って、欧州平均という水準と比較するのではなく、もっと控えめな国家規模を持つ国々や、税負担の貪欲さが制限された国々と比較すべきです。

例えば、ヨーロッパ内ではスイスがあります。偶然かどうかはさておき、スイスはヨーロッパで最も豊かな国の一つでありながら、国家のGDPに占める割合は33％と、欧州やアメリカに比べて10〜15ポイント低いのです。また、香港や韓国はGDPの28％、チリはこの分類の中では最も貧しいかもしれませんが約26％、台湾は16％、そして世界で最も豊かな国であるシンガポールは15％です。シンガポールや台湾は、国家がGDPの15〜16％という小規模な状態で十分に現代社会の機能を果たしているのです。もちろん、シンガポールの場合は都市国家であるため、経済規模のメリットもあるでしょうが、公共支出の大部分が社会保障に回っている現状を鑑みると、都市規模か大国家かは大した違いがないのです。むしろ、シンガポールや台湾のように、GDPに対して国家の規模が30ポイントも低い国の方が、国家による私有財産の侵害が少ないと言えます。

したがって、もし大規模な国家による大規模な略奪を回避でき、しかも機能的には他の国と同等以上に運営できるのであれば、当然、より少ない税負担で、なおかつより効率的な公共サービスを提供する国家の方が望ましいのです。実際、国家が何でもかんでも行おうとすれば、その多くは非効率にならざるを得ません。一方で、企業がすべてを行おうとしても、専門分野に特化した他の企業に競争で敗れるため、最終的には消費者がより良いサービスを選ぶことになるのです。問題は、国家の場合、国民が国家から自由に離脱し、同じサービスを提供する他の組織と契約する余地がないという点にあります。国民は、非常に非効率かつ高コストな国家サービスに縛られており、選択の余地がないのです。したがって、もし小規模で効率的な国家が存在すれば、それは大規模で税負担の重い国家よりも好まれるはずです。

そして、もし国家が回収するGDPの割合が30ポイントも大きいのであれば、それは明らかに国民の私有財産を暴力的に侵害していると言わざるを得ません。ですから、もし国家による大規模な略奪を回避し、かつ他国と同等以上の機能を果たすことが可能であれば、国家は少なくとも縮小されるべきです。なぜなら、そうした国家は国民にとって好都合であるだけでなく、公共サービスの質も向上し、効率的に運営されるからです。結局のところ、すべては国家ではなく、国家に寄生する巨大な官僚組織の福祉が優先されているのです。

もし、あなたの社会にこれほど大きく根付いた寄生虫が存在するならば、その寄生虫は当然、去ろうとはしません。むしろ、さらに大きな植民地を形成しようとするでしょう。これが、国家が成長し続ける理由であり、そして、血を吸い上げるこの寄生虫と戦う必要性が生じる所以なのです。

別のシナリオを考えてみましょう。つまり、現代社会における国家の規模を実質的に縮小するという仮定を立て、その実現可能性や現実味について見極めるためです。これまでに、ヨーロッパにおける現代国家の重みがGDPの50％に達していること、その内訳を示してきました。さて、かつての状況を想像してみてください。あの時代は、科学フィクションのようなことは必要なく、医療はゼロ、経済政策も実質ゼロで、民間部門が構築できないインフラだけが、もしあれば驚くほど僅か、GDPの1％程度だったのです。教育はゼロ、防衛と公共秩序は維持されるものの、余暇・文化・宗教への補助金はゼロでした。地域サービスや環境保護に関しては、下水道、街路灯、森林の維持管理など必要な分は残され、官僚組織も非常に大幅に縮小され、社会保障も一部のみが残されていました。

さて、しばしば「国家は富裕層からお金を奪い、貧困層へ再分配するために存在する」と言われますが、実際、社会保障はGDPの20％に相当します。ここで、極端な貧困を防止するために本当に必要な支出額を計算してみましょう。そうすれば、皆さんも、このGDPの20％は貧困撲滅のためのものではなく、むしろ国家が横方向の所得再分配システムを通じて国民を捕らえ続けるためのものであると気づくでしょう。すなわち、国家はあなたからお金を取り、そのお金を自らの利益や必要に応じて配分するために、あなたと国家の間に割り込むのです。バストス教授が正しく指摘しているように、その所得の移動は、富裕層から貧困層へ、またはその逆ではなく、すべての人々から国家へ向かっているのです。そして国家は、その所得を自らの利益や必要に従って再分配することを決定します。

では、先ほど示したような形で国家の各機能を大幅に縮小した場合、結果として国家はGDPの9～10％程度の規模となり、現状よりも30～40ポイント、つまり約80％縮小された国家になるでしょう。防衛費、治安費は現状と同等に維持される（ただし、治安費については内部の官僚機構によっても左右されるため、この点はまた別の議論になります。たとえば、スペインはヨーロッパで国民一人あたりの治安部隊職員数が最も多い国ですが、本当にそれだけ必要なのかはまた別問題です）。安全保障費がGDPの1.7％、防衛費が1.3％、官僚組織が1％、地域サービスや環境保護が1％、民間部門ではまかなえないインフラがさらに1％、そして社会保障が3％という具合です。現在、社会保障としてGDPの3％、すなわち450億ユーロが支出されています。これは、450億ユーロの社会保障費を、例えば4.5百万人（スペイン人口のおよそ10％）に対して年間1人あたり1万ユーロずつ支給するか、あるいは300万人に対して1万5千ユーロずつ支給するということになります。繁栄した社会において、極端な無助状態に陥る国民の割合はどれほどか、という問題です。彼らは、生命保険、障害保険、個人貯蓄すら持たず、福祉国家が生まれる前に存在したボランティアや民間の相互扶助ネットワークさえも利用できなかった層です。これらを踏まえた上で、絶対的な無助状態に陥り、国家からの継続的な支援を必要とする国民の割合がたとえば5～10％だとすれば、実際に必要な支出はGDPの3～4％程度で十分にカバーできるはずです。しかし、現実には我々は社会保障にGDPの20％を費やしているのです。

明らかに、このGDPの20％は、富裕層から少しだけ富を奪って、巨大な貧困層を作らないためのものではありません。驚くべきことに、国家がGDPの50％を占めるにもかかわらず、貧困層は依然として存在しているのです。さらに、貧困を解消するための手段として、まず第一に、依存性を生む補助金を設けるべきではありません。しかし、現実には、経済活動が全くできず、自己の貯蓄や家族の支援、民間の相互扶助ネットワーク、そして最終的には国家に依存せざるを得ない層が一定割合存在します。しかし、そのようなケースはGDPの3％程度の支出で十分にカバーされるはずなのです。

さて、国家の規模を縮小した場合、たとえばGDPの50％から10％にまで削減できると仮定しましょう。これは約80％の削減に相当します。先に述べたように、中央値の労働者は現在、年間約13,500ユーロの税金を負担しています。この80％の削減が実現すれば、労働者の可処分所得は、国家が提供する各種サービスに充てるための支出分が年間1人あたり1万～1万1千ユーロ増加することになります。家庭内で中央値の労働者が2人いる場合、2万～2万2千ユーロの追加収入となるでしょう。この追加収入があれば、教育費、医療費、年金のための貯蓄など、国家が現在負担させているコストを自前でまかなうことが可能になるはずです。実際、多くのスペインの労働者は、国家の劣悪なサービスから逃れるため、民間の医療や教育、そして補完的な年金積立を実施しているのです。特に、公共教育は、学生の生産性向上よりも、国家のイデオロギーを植え付けることに重きを置いている場合が多いのです。

また、この話は、GDPの3％相当の再分配、すなわち450億ユーロ分が、現実的に考えても国民の基礎的な生活を支えるには十分であるという観点からも論じられます。現行の過剰な収用体制に対して、もし国家規模が大幅に縮小されるならば、労働者にとって有利な状況が実現するはずです。

さて、ここまでの議論から、もし国家主義のウイルスが社会の頭脳や利権に深く根付っている現状において、現状が最適でないと理解したとしても、移行のコストの高さゆえに多くの人々が現状から変わることを望まないという現実があるのです。たとえば、公共年金制度の解体は非常に困難です。年金受給者は「こんな不公平な体制であっても、自分の年金を受け取りたい。自分自身の貯蓄がなくなるリスクを冒したくはない」と考えるでしょう。

では、この国家――明らかに国家とその官僚機構に有利なこのモデル――から脱却するために、すなわち、表向きは国民のために存在するようでいて、実際には社会を寄生しているこの体制から逃れるためには、どのような手段が考えられるでしょうか。ここで、国家改革またはハイパーステートのパラサイト化に対抗するための、四つの可能なアプローチについて述べます。

第一のアプローチは、トップダウン型の方法です。すなわち、自由主義的な理念を掲げた善意の政治家が権力の座につき、内部からリベラル革命を起こそうとするというものです。しかし、私はこの方法は、次に述べるボトムアップ型の文化戦線と併せなければ、全体として非常に単純で実現不可能だと考えます。なぜなら、社会の大多数が国家改革を望まなければ、その改革は十分な勢いを持って実施されることは決してないからです。多くの改革は長期的な取り組みであり、一夜にして実現できるものではありません。一度実行された改革が元に戻らないようにするには、最低でも二世代を要するのです。もし社会がその方向に向かわなければ、いつかまた別の人物が権力に就いて、国民の大多数が望まない体制を再び打ち壊してしまうでしょう。例えば、チリの年金制度の民営化は、ピノチェト政権下の1981年に始まり、数年前に旧公共年金制度が完全に清算されました。しかし、その後、旧体制に戻そうとする動きが見られるのです。なお、チリは当時、非常に若い労働人口と限られた高齢人口という、改革に適した人口構造を有していたにもかかわらず、改革には約40年もの歳月がかかりました。これが、世界の他の国々で実施されるとなれば、どれほど困難なものになるか想像に難くありません。そして、もし世界中がそのような改革を望まなければ、いかに自由主義者の政治家を内部に潜り込ませ、社会民主主義の装いを与えたとしても、十分な効果は得られないでしょう。さらに、政治そのものが権力に触れると必ず腐敗すると、ロード・アクトンが指摘したように、権力は人を変えてしまいます。つまり、権力に惹かれて権力の座についた者は、その権力を維持・拡大するために、かつて掲げた理念を容易に放棄し、他者を蹂躙し、欺く行動に出るということです。

政治的競争というのは、もしあなたが行動しなければ、行動する者があなたを追い出してしまう、という状況を生み出します。そのため、もし存在するとしても、誠実で、信念を持った政治家は、力に屈する者に押されて公共の場から姿を消してしまうのです。権力闘争では、手が縛られている者と自由な手を持つ者との間で戦いが行われるため、劣悪な選択が働き、最終的には最悪の者が権力の座に就くという現象が生じるのです。（この点については、ハイエクも『隷属への道』で記述しています。）

次に、第二の可能性はボトムアップ、すなわち文化戦線によるアプローチです。これは、アイデアの戦いを、じわじわと、少しずつ社会に浸透させ、心を開かせ、意識を目覚めさせ、より多くの人々がこの変革を要求するようになるという方法です。しかし、これは特に有望な道ではないことは明白です。もし、ここでマルクス主義的な語調に傾くとすれば、客観的な物質的条件があって、そうした思想が大規模に広まる環境が整わない限り、人々は現状に満足して「今のままで十分だ」と感じ、急激な変革に乗り出す理由が見出せません。現状が著しく悪化しない限り、文化戦線による大規模な勝利が起こり、既存の社会制度が覆されるというのは極めて困難な道なのです。例えば、アルゼンチンでは、40年間にわたって底をつき続けた結果、人々が明らかに欠陥だらけのモデルにうんざりし、ハイパーインフレーションに苦しんだことで変革が進んだように見えます。もし、そこに一貫性があり、破壊的かつ斬新なメッセージ―社会主義的なものか、あるいは幸運にもリベラルなもの―があれば、一定の確率でそのアイデアが覇権を握り、新たな現状として定着する可能性が出てくるのです。しかし、スペインの場合、文化戦線による闘いは、相手側のプロパガンダがあふれ、対抗する者がいなければ、現状が一層固定化し、国家権力が加速度的に拡大していくため、非常に厳しい状況にあります。私自身も長い間、文化戦線で戦ってきましたが、スペインという環境におけるその限界を痛感しています。

第三の道は、そもそも国家改革を目指さず、自分の生活を改善するために他の地域へ移住するというものです。もし、競争が可能な複数の法域が存在すれば、現状に非常に不満を抱く者は、物理的に他の地域へ移り住み、そこで自らの生活基盤を築くことができます。そして、こうした法域間の競争は、他の法域による収用や寄生的な政策の力を制限する効果も持ちます。たとえば、ある法域で税率が非常に低く、規制が緩やかであれば、他の法域は資本が流出し、寄生者側から見れば、寄生対象（＝ホスト）が成長しなければ、寄生する意味がなくなるのです。もし、ホストを窒息させて殺してしまえば、またはホストが他の、寄生が少ない地域へ流出してしまえば、寄生者にとっては不利益となります。このような効果は、実際には見かけ以上に大きな影響を持つのです。

たとえば、最も身近な例として、アンドラの場合が挙げられます。多くの場合、静かに、あるいは時に華やかに報じられる移住現象があり、一定の社会的反響を呼んでいます。問題は、これらはすべて財政上の問題であり、移住者を犯罪者扱いする試みがあっても、スペイン国家にとっては重要な問題とならないのです。よく批判されるのは、YouTuberなどがアンドラへ移住することについて、「国が自国民の資源不足を訴えるような状況に直面しない」とされる点です。もしそうなれば、国家は財政の引き締めを迫られるはずですが、現実はそうではありません。むしろ、これは他者に対する懲罰の一形態であり、「移住して税負担を軽減しようとするなら、あなたは悪い人間であり、悪い市民だ。もしあなたが著名人であれば、意識を啓発するために、我々はあなたを徹底的に攻撃し、公の場から追放する」といったメッセージが発せられるのです。しかし、実際にアンドラへの移住が進むこと自体は悪いことではなく、たとえそれがスペイン国家に与えるダメージが短期的にはそれほど大きくなくとも、他のケースでは、目に見えにくいながらも国家に損害を与えている場合があるのです。

たとえば、2か月前に発表されたドラギの報告書では、欧州が「足を引きずっている」との根本的な不満が示されています。すなわち、欧州では生産性が20年間にわたって停滞しており、成長期に新たに設立される企業が、厳しい規制の下で成長できず、資本調達が困難となり、結果としてアメリカに流出してしまうという現象です。これは「足で投票する」という現象であり、企業側の実情を反映したものです。そして、これは国家権力の内部から出た、我々の社会が停滞しているという自らの寡占層からの認識でもあります。彼らは、ここ20年間にわたり市民を内部から圧迫してきた手法を見直す必要があると訴えているのです。そして、ここで議論されているのは、欧州連合とアメリカという二つの経済ブロック間での移住の問題なのです。

もし、かつてヨーロッパに存在していたような、多数の競合する法域が現在も存在していたと想像してみてください。ここで歴史的な議論に深入りするつもりはありませんが、ヨーロッパが16世紀あるいは17世紀から産業革命に至るまで発展し、東洋が（少なくとも最近まで）停滞していた理由の重い仮説の一つは、ヨーロッパが政治的にはるかに細分化され、都市国家や小国、王国、そして公国など、まさにアンドラのようなケースに近い形態であったため、相互の競争が激しかったという点にあります。ひとつの領域内で生まれる思想を制限・抑制・検閲する能力は非常に低く、もし一方で弾圧されれば別の場所へ移動できたため、その結果、後の産業革命を引き起こす知的な開花が促されたのです。これに対して、中国のような中央集権的で統一された国家では、官僚組織が本来より強大な権力を持っていたため、このような発展は見込めませんでした。

「足で投票する」という現象は非常に強力です。したがって、文化戦線から取り組むべきもう一つの課題は、政治的な中央集権化や財政の調和化に反対することです。なぜなら、政治的に中央集権化が進んだり、財政が調和化されるほど、法域間の競争は減少し、その結果、国家が無罰で私有財産を寄生的に吸い上げる余地が広がるからです。これは市場経済ではよく理解される現象ですが、国家の場合は例外扱いされがちです。市場において本当の意味での独占、すなわち単にその分野で唯一の企業という状況ではなく、競合が存在しない真の独占状態になると、その独占者は価格を引き上げ、品質を低下させる傾向にあります。なぜなら、あなたは逃げ出すことができない、まるで人質のような状態に置かれるからです。つまり、国家もまた独占状態にあり、国家が直面する唯一の競争は、他の国家へ移住するという可能性なのです。領域を統一して競争余地を狭めれば狭めるほど、国家は独占的な力を強め、結果としてあなたに提供するサービスの質を低下させ、収用を強める傾向が出てきます。したがって、私はどんな中央集権化のプロセスにも反対し、逆に政治的な分権化を支持すべきだと考えます。

そして最後に、第四の戦略ですが、これはやや曖昧で漠然としているかもしれません。しかし、私が考えるに、実際に多くの人々が採用しており、多くの場合国家の影響力を制限している方法、それは直接的に「国家からの分離」を目指すことです。もちろん、あなたにとって寄生者のような国家が窮屈に圧しかけてくる場合、その寄生者を打倒しようと多大なエネルギーを費やすこともできます。しかし、寄生者が既に存在する以上、その存在を前提として生活基盤を築く、その固定費を受け入れながらも、寄生者のさらなる拡大を防ぐ、あるいは寄生の及ばない領域を確保する新たな方法を模索するということです。これが国家からの「分離」、すなわち、重くのしかかる国家の負担から自らを切り離す試みなのです。例えば、先に述べたように、私立教育、私立医療、私的年金といった選択肢があります。本来であれば、国家が私たちから過剰な資源を吸い上げることなく、その分をこうした目的に振り向けられれば理想的ですが、幸いなことに、現状では国家が私立教育への進学を禁止しているわけではありません（ただしかなりの規制は存在します）。私立教育は完全に自由なものではなく、国家のカリキュラムに沿ったものですが、それでも私立教育、私立医療、そして貯蓄や資産形成の道を開いてくれるのです。もちろん、今後さらに税が引き上げられ、国内外で資産が収用されるリスクが高まるまではの話ですが。

したがって、国家を一つの悪と捉え、その悪に支配される中で自由を追求する、すなわちその影響力からできるだけ逃れる方法を探るべきです。さらに、社会が自ら開発していく様々なツールが、私たちが国家の監視や統制から離れて生活する手助けとなります。たとえば、デジタル経済は、今日のところ、国家が我々をコントロール・規制・収用するのをより困難にする領域をある程度確保できる可能性を秘めています。ビットコインの例は、没収不可能な資産として、適切な管理を行えば、富の保蔵庫あるいは国家の統制や知識から独立した交換手段として機能する可能性を示しています。

これらは、寄生者である国家に吸い付かれないため、自らの活動から国家の影響力を一部でも排除する、新たな生活の仕方を模索する一つの方法です。こうした新しいツールは、今後も次々と登場し、国家が私たちの生活に及ぼす影響を制限するために活用されるべきです。社会全体を変えるのは非常に困難ですが、多くの人々を同じ方向に動かすことが難しい現状において、少なくとも我々が体系的に受けている搾取の度合いを最小限に抑えることは可能です。

以上、複数の道筋があります。第一の道は私個人としてはほぼ排除したいと考えますが、残りの三つは排他的ではなく、互いに補完し合うものです。どの方法も目的地に必ず到達できる保証はありませんが、これらは連携することで、国家が私たちや社会全体に及ぼす権力の影響を徐々に抑制する助けとなるでしょう。そして、我々自身の利益のため、あるいは共に生きる社会を改善するために、可能な限りこれらの道を追求すべきだと考えます。

@ 21ffd29c:518a8ff5

• What Are Homestead Chickens?
  Homestead chickens are domesticated fowl kept by homeowners to provide eggs and companionship. They play a vital role in the homestead ecosystem.

Why Water is Essential in Cold Weather - Hydration Basics:
Chickens don't drink much water naturally but need it for hydration, especially during cold weather when metabolic rates increase. - Environmental Factors:
Cold weather can lead to ice buildup on water sources. Chickens benefit from having access to fresh water year-round.

Maintaining Accessible Water Sources - Shallow Troughs:
Use shallow troughs instead of deep containers to minimize ice formation and ensure constant water supply. - Automatic Feeders:
Consider installing automatic feeders for convenience, especially in unpredictable weather conditions. - Multiple Water Sources:
Provide multiple water sources to prevent competition and ensure all chickens have access.

Preventing Ice Buildup - Floating Shallow Troughs:
Opt for troughs that sit above the ground to avoid ice buildup. Ensure they're placed where they can't freeze completely. - Regular Checks:
Inspect water sources regularly to remove ice and debris, maintaining accessibility for chickens.

Best Practices for Watering Chickens - Waterers Designed for Cold Weather:
Use waterers made of stainless steel or plastic that can withstand cold temperatures. - Seasonal Adjustments:
During extreme cold spells, supplement with a small amount of fresh water to aid in drinking.

Conclusion - Key Takeaways:
Providing proper water is crucial for the health and well-being of homestead chickens during cold weather. Maintaining accessible, shallow water sources prevents issues like ice buildup and ensures hydration.

Final Thoughts - Sustainability Considerations:
While chickens don't drink much, ensuring they have water supports their overall health and sustainability efforts. - Environmental Impact:
Thoughtful water management can reduce water usage, promoting eco-friendly practices on the homestead.

@ 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.

@ dd664d5e:5633d319

Men tend to find women attractive, that remind them of the average women they already know, but with more-averaged features. The mid of mids is kween.👸

But, in contradiction to that, they won't consider her highly attractive, unless she has some spectacular, unusual feature. They'll sacrifice some averageness to acquire that novelty. This is why wealthy men (who tend to be highly intelligent -- and therefore particularly inclined to crave novelty because they are easily bored) -- are more likely to have striking-looking wives and girlfriends, rather than conventionally-attractive ones. They are also more-likely to cross ethnic and racial lines, when dating.

Men also seem to each be particularly attracted to specific facial expressions or mimics, which might be an intelligence-similarity test, as persons with higher intelligence tend to have a more-expressive mimic. So, people with similar expressions tend to be on the same wavelength. Facial expessions also give men some sense of perception into womens' inner life, which they otherwise find inscrutable.

Hair color is a big deal (logic says: always go blonde), as is breast-size (bigger is better), and WHR (smaller is better).

@ 378562cd:a6fc6773

In 1976, Logan’s Run presented a futuristic society where hedonism, government control, and the illusion of utopia dictated the lives of its citizens. On the surface, it was a thrilling sci-fi adventure, complete with dazzling special effects and a suspenseful storyline. But beneath the aesthetics of the domed city lay a chilling warning—one that seems eerily prophetic when viewed through the lens of today’s world.

The World of Logan’s Run

Set in the 23rd century (2201-2300), Logan’s Run depicts a civilization where people live under a massive dome, free from hunger, disease, and suffering. However, there’s a catch: when a citizen turns 30, they are forced to participate in “Carousel,” a supposed process of renewal that is, in reality, a government-mandated execution. The system is designed to maintain population control, enforce conformity, and ensure that no one ever challenges the status quo.

Logan 5, the film’s protagonist, is a “Sandman” tasked with hunting down those who try to escape their fate. But when he himself begins questioning the system and searching for the mythical “Sanctuary,” he uncovers the horrifying truth about his world.

Modern Parallels: Are We Living in Logan’s Run?

While we may not have an enforced death age (yet), many aspects of Logan’s Run reflect the realities of today’s society. The film serves as an allegory for the dangers of unchecked government power, mass surveillance, and a culture obsessed with youth and pleasure over wisdom and truth.

1. The Cult of Youth and Anti-Aging Obsession

In Logan’s Run, life ends at 30 because youth is worshiped. While we don’t physically eliminate people past a certain age, we see a similar fixation on youth today. The beauty industry, social media influencers, and Hollywood all glorify eternal youth, with people going to extreme lengths—cosmetic surgery, anti-aging treatments, and digital filters—to maintain an illusion of perfection.

1. Surveillance and Government Control

Citizens in Logan’s Run are constantly monitored, with the system ensuring no one steps out of line. Sound familiar? Today, we have mass surveillance through smartphones, facial recognition, AI-driven data collection, and social credit systems emerging worldwide. Governments and corporations track movements, preferences, and even conversations, creating a digital panopticon that makes Logan’s world seem less far-fetched.

1. Hedonism and Instant Gratification

The film’s society revolves around pleasure, entertainment, and consequence-free living. Today, we have the digital equivalent—hookup culture, endless streaming services, video games, and social media dopamine loops keeping people perpetually distracted from deeper realities. The ease of endless entertainment overshadows the idea of questioning authority or seeking something greater.

1. Fear of the Outside World

In Logan’s Run, citizens believe that stepping outside the dome means certain death. Today, many are trapped in their own digital domes, glued to screens, hesitant to unplug, go into nature, or seek real-world experiences. Fear, whether of the unknown or the uncontrollable, keeps people complacent.

1. Population Control and Elite Decision-Making

While Carousel is an extreme form of population control, discussions about depopulation, climate policies, and AI-driven automation today suggest that powerful elites are still making decisions about who thrives and who suffers. The concentration of power in the hands of a few is as relevant now as it was in the film.

The Awakening: Will We Choose Freedom?

One of the most striking aspects of Logan’s Run is Logan’s transformation from an enforcer of the system to a rebel seeking truth. His journey mirrors the awakening many people experience today—questioning mainstream narratives, rejecting mass manipulation, and seeking autonomy.

But just as in the film, there are those who refuse to break free. Many continue living inside the “dome,” blindly trusting the system, believing that technology, government, or a new social movement will save them. The question is: Are we more like Logan, daring to seek truth, or the others, content to live in comfortable illusions?

Final Thoughts: Is There a Sanctuary?

In Logan’s Run, Sanctuary represents the hope of a free world beyond the control of the system. Today, people seek their own sanctuaries—homesteading, off-grid living, digital privacy, and independent communities that reject mass conformity.

The film’s message is clear: When a society values comfort over freedom, pleasure over wisdom, and compliance over questioning, it sets the stage for control and deception. But those willing to escape the illusion—just as Logan did—may just find their own Sanctuary.

The question remains: Will we wake up in time?

@ d6c48950:54d57756

A lot of people talk about how bitcoin has averaged 60% yearly but I personally find this to be misleading so I thought I'd use historic prices and portfolioperformance to see if you DCA (or in this case did a weekly purchase) starting at jan 1st of each year ending dec 31st

| Year | % Change | |------|----------| | 2024 | +124% | | 2023 | +140% | | 2022 | -60% | | 2021 | +60% | | 2020 | +267% | | 2019 | +71% | | 2018 | -67% | | 2017 | +588% | | 2016 | +38% | | 2015 | +7% |

If you showed this to any investor at any hedge fund they wouldn't believe it, yet this is something that through DCA apps like strike is performance anyone can get through just setting it and forgetting it.

@ d34e832d:383f78d0

Introduction

Unlike other cetaceans that rely on whistles and songs, sperm whales primarily use echolocation and patterned click sequences to convey information. This paper explores the structure, function, and implications of their vocal communication, particularly in relation to their social behaviors and cognitive abilities.

1. The Nature of Sperm Whale Vocalizations

Sperm whales produce three primary types of clicks:
- Echolocation clicks for navigation and hunting.
- Regular clicks used in deep diving.
- Codas, which are rhythmic sequences exchanged between individuals, believed to function in social bonding and identification.

Each whale possesses a monumental sound-producing organ, the spermaceti organ, which allows for the production of powerful sounds that can travel long distances. The structure of these clicks suggests a level of vocal learning and adaptation, as different populations exhibit distinct coda repertoires.

2. Cultural and Regional Variation in Codas

Research indicates that different sperm whale clans have unique dialects, much like human languages. These dialects are not genetically inherited but culturally transmitted, meaning whales learn their communication styles from social interactions rather than instinct alone. Studies conducted in the Caribbean and the Pacific have revealed that whales in different regions have distinct coda patterns, with some being universal and others specific to certain clans.

3. Social Organization and Communication

Sperm whales are matrilineal and live in stable social units composed of mothers, calves, and juveniles, while males often lead solitary lives. Communication plays a critical role in maintaining social bonds within these groups.
- Codas serve as an acoustic signature that helps individuals recognize each other.
- More complex codas may function in coordinating group movements or teaching young whales.
- Some researchers hypothesize that codas convey emotional states, much like tone of voice in human speech.

4. Theories on Whale Intelligence and Language-Like Communication

The complexity of sperm whale vocalization raises profound questions about their cognitive abilities.
- Some researchers argue that sperm whale communication exhibits combinatorial properties, meaning that codas might function in ways similar to human phonemes, allowing for an extensive range of meanings.
- Studies using AI and machine learning have attempted to decode potential syntax patterns, but a full understanding of their language remains elusive.

5. Conservation Implications and the Need for Further Research

Understanding sperm whale communication is essential for conservation efforts. Noise pollution from shipping, sonar, and industrial activities can interfere with whale vocalizations, potentially disrupting social structures and navigation. Future research must focus on long-term coda tracking, cross-species comparisons, and experimental approaches to deciphering their meaning.

Consider

Sperm whale vocal communication represents one of the most intriguing areas of marine mammal research. Their ability to transmit learned vocalizations across generations suggests a high degree of cultural complexity. Although we have yet to fully decode their language, the study of sperm whale codas offers critical insights into non-human intelligence, social structures, and the evolution of communication in the animal kingdom.

@ bf95e1a4:ebdcc848

This is a part of the Bitcoin Infinity Academy course on Knut Svanholm's book Bitcoin: Sovereignty Through Mathematics. For more information, check out our Geyser page!

Preface

At the time of writing, it is New Year’s Day, and 2019 has just begun. For once, I have a resolution to live up to: I’ve promised myself to write a page per day every day this year until I have something real to publish. In June 2018, I published my first book, Three Minute Reads on Bitcoin — A Year of Thoughts. The book consisted of articles I had published online from May 2017 up to that point. This time it’s different. Instead of a mere collection of articles, I intend to write a “proper” book. A book that explains why Bitcoin is the most important invention of our lives.

I didn’t choose Bitcoin; it chose me. I had been trying to figure out how the world worked under the hood all my life, and then this simple idea of absolute scarcity popped up. It had a profound impact on how I view human interaction. Because of my curious nature, I instantly fell deep into the rabbit hole. I decided to educate myself on how this mysterious technology worked, and that got me into Austrian economics, which expressed very clearly what I had always suspected — that you really can't create value out of thin air.

In this book, I will try to explain every aspect of what makes this technology so special, what sets it apart from the abundant shameless copies of it, what’s wrong with our current system, and what the future might look like. In just two days from the time of writing these words, we’ll celebrate the ten-year anniversary of the Genesis Block when the Bitcoin blockchain came into being. That block contained a message, a newspaper headline that read: “03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks”. No one knows why Bitcoin’s mysterious creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, chose to include this in the Genesis Block. There is also some debate on whether the Genesis Block was actually mined on the 3rd of January since the next block wasn’t mined until six days later. Somehow, Satoshi managed to stay hidden and weave several layers of mystique into the fabric of Bitcoin from the very beginning, which is part of what makes its conception so immaculate. This book aims to strip Bitcoin of its shady cloak and illuminate its true nature. After all, the only thing any person can do about Bitcoin now is to study it.

Foreword

My journey down the Bitcoin rabbit hole has provided me with a newfound clarity of how our world should be perceived. In the same way that getting married and having my first child were beautiful life-changing events, discovering Bitcoin was a new chapter in my life. I can easily divide my life into two distinct periods: before and after Bitcoin.

Before discovering Bitcoin, life was perplexing. For years, even dating back to my school days, I had an innate sense that something was amiss in the world. Although I wasn’t a good student by any means, it was obvious back then that many aspects of life simply didn’t add up.

One thing that I was sure of was that money was corrupt. However, it took me a while to realize that money itself is fundamentally corrupt. Furthermore, what is typically taught and accepted as money by society is a perversion of what money should be. These are the first steps of understanding Bitcoin, which require you to admit that you have been fooled and lied to all your life. The hard lessons of hard money.

The way I see it, the revelation about the true nature of money is akin to a bracing cold shower that wakes you up to reality. Emerging from that cold shower is an incredibly liberating and invigorating sensation. Unfortunately, many individuals are not motivated enough to take that crucial step into the chilly waters. Instead, they will later experience an ice-cold bucket of water being dumped on their head unexpectedly whilst naked on a cold winter’s day.

The year 2020 was a watershed moment in my journey towards truth, and it was Bitcoin that served as my guide. As the world grappled with an unprecedented black swan event in March of that year, every asset, including bitcoin, took a severe hit. However, what followed in the subsequent months was the largest money-printing expedition in history. A tsunami of stimulus was pumped into the markets. The outcome was a K-shaped recovery. Small, honest brick-and-mortar businesses continued to suffer while many of the largest conglomerates not only rebounded but reached all-time highs. This ludicrous, short-sighted plan, known as quantitative easing, resulted in the most pronounced example of the Cantillon effect in human history, a fact that should have served as a wake-up call for anyone who was not already suspicious of the events surrounding the global financial crisis of 2008.

Since entering my post-bitcoin life, I’ve experienced a newfound coherence. The transition was not exactly instant, instead it has been a continuous process of discovering bitcoin over and over again, and I owe many of these enlightening moments to Knut Svanholm’s writing, for which I’m grateful.

While Knut’s books do not serve as a technical guide for Bitcoin, they provide a deep and philosophical introduction to a new era of money; the separation of money and state. The end of fiat money.

The creation of fiat money, a practice that emerged with the rise of central banking, has been the source of significant damage to human civilisation. Central banking, championed by Keynesianism, has granted immense power to centralized entities, allowing them to dictate fiscal policies and control the creation of money for billions of people. The very idea of a single entity wielding such vast authority and determining the economic fate of entire populations is utter madness. The state monopolizes money because it allows them to print money rather than having to directly tax people (but it still doesn’t stop them). Printing money is more easy, subtle and lucrative than direct taxation. And this continual erosion of purchasing power can be readily associated with the evident decline and deterioration of modern society.

At the heart of the issue is the importance of individual property rights. The money that individuals earn and save is their property, not the state’s. The state’s duty (should there be a need for it to exist) is to safeguard private property, not to continually debase or confiscate it. A centralized power that constantly devalues your hard-earned money and time by printing money is both morally and ethically wrong. Every individual has the right to turn their hard work into savings that they can rely on for the future.

In Bitcoin: Sovereignty through Mathematics, Knut not only delves into the fundamental principles underlying Bitcoin’s creation but also presents the groundbreaking concept of absolute scarcity. Bitcoin’s limited supply of 21 million and the impossibility of creating more due to its protocol creates a condition of absolute scarcity, a first in human history. Absolute scarcity, coupled with Knut’s poetic description of Bitcoin’s creation as "an immaculate conception," emphasizes its unique and revolutionary nature. The term "immaculate conception" highlights the fact that Bitcoin’s creation was not based on any pre-existing financial system but rather emerged from a set of mathematical principles that ensure its security and scarcity. The conditions that gave birth to Bitcoin will never be replicated, which further cements Bitcoin’s status as a one-of-a-kind element that will revolutionize the way we view and use money. Absolute scarcity aligns with the Austrian school of economics’ views on money, which argue that sound money should be scarce, durable, and difficult to counterfeit. Bitcoin ticks all the boxes for sound money, laying the ground for a genuine foundation to end the era of so-called cheap or easy money.

In the follow-up to this book, Bitcoin: Independence Reimagined1, Knut presents us, using plain logic and reasoning, the primitive constraints of the current fiat system and status quo governance. These structures, which we have so readily accepted, are gradually stripping us of our freedoms. By highlighting these shortcomings, he urges us to critically examine them and envision a future where we exercise greater autonomy over our lives, both financially and socially. Bitcoin’s simple and secure existence stands in contrast to the coercive and interventionist nature of the fiat system. Bitcoin is sincere; it neither favors nor opposes us. Bitcoin simply exists. Coming to terms with this truth is both humbling and liberating.

Knut’s writing, with its clear and elegant style, offers insightful guidance for those interested in exploring the deeper implications of Bitcoin beyond its function as a mere currency, recognizing it as a truly transformative breakthrough. A breakthrough that provides us with hope, a viable solution to reverse the degeneracy and decadence plaguing humanity.

Prince Philip of Serbia, 21st February 2023

Footnotes:

1. This foreword was originally written for a combined volume containing both Bitcoin: Sovereignty Through Mathematics and Bitcoin: Independence Reimagined.

About the Bitcoin Infinity Academy

The Bitcoin Infinity Academy is an educational project built around Knut Svanholm’s books about Bitcoin and Austrian Economics. Each week, a whole chapter from one of the books is released for free on Highlighter, accompanied by a video in which Knut and Luke de Wolf discuss that chapter’s ideas. You can join the discussions by signing up for one of the courses on our Geyser page. Signed books, monthly calls, and lots of other benefits are also available.

@ 15125b37:e89877f5

What is Blockchain?

Block by Block:

The Power of Blockchain Unlocked

In its simplest form, a blockchain is a type of digital ledger that records transactions in a secure and transparent way. Imagine a record book that everyone can see, but no one can alter. Each page of the book (called a block) holds a group of transactions, and the pages are linked together in a chain. The blockchain is decentralized, meaning no single person, company, or entity controls it, which makes it different from traditional centralized systems like banks.

Decentralized: No single point of control or authority.

Secure: Uses cryptography to ensure data integrity.

Immutable: Once data is added to the blockchain, it cannot be changed or deleted, providing transparency and security.

How Blockchain Works

Each block on the blockchain contains a batch of transactions. Once a block is full, it’s linked to the previous block, creating a chain of blocks—hence the name blockchain. Each block has three key components:

Transaction data: Information about transactions (e.g., who sent money, who received it, and how much).

Timestamp: The time the block was created.

Hash: A unique identifier for the block, created through cryptographic hashing. Think of a hash like a unique digital fingerprint that is tied to each specific block. And each hash (digital fingerprint) points to the previous block, thereby creating a permanent, unchangeable history of transactions.

Buy Now

Decentralization

One of blockchain's most revolutionary aspects is that it is decentralized. This means there’s no central authority (like a bank or a government) controlling the transactions. Instead, everyone participating in the network has a copy of the blockchain, and transactions are validated by multiple independent users (called nodes).

How It’s Decentralized: Think of it as a large group of people each keeping their own ledger. They work together to validate and record transactions, ensuring no one person can manipulate the system. Of course, this is all done automatically through code that is run on a computer 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. More about that later in this series.

Consensus: For a transaction to be recorded, most of the nodes must agree it’s valid, creating a system of consensus without the need for a trusted central party. This makes blockchain resistant to censorship and fraud.

Security of Blockchain

Blockchain is highly secure due to its use of cryptographic techniques. Every block’s hash (digital fingerprint) is created using the information from within the block plus the hash of the previous block. Thus, the hash of each block is infinitely unique and linked to each other in a chain.

Immutability: If someone tries to change the data in a block, the hash changes. Since every block contains the hash of the previous block, altering one block would require changing all subsequent blocks, which is computationally impossible for a well-maintained blockchain.

Transparency: Blockchain’s decentralized nature means that anyone can see the data, but no one can tamper with it. This ensures trust and transparency in the system.

The Role of Miners/Validators

To add a block to the blockchain, the transactions in the block need to be verified. This is where miners come in. Their job is to check that transactions are valid, and in return, they are rewarded with bitcoin (BTC). This is called Proof-of-Work. Miners compete to solve complex mathematical puzzles. When a miner solves the puzzle (approximately every 10 minutes), they get to add the next block to the blockchain filled with pending transactions, and thereby earn the reward for doing so. They put in the work! Thus, Proof-of-Work.

Why Blockchain is Important

The core value of blockchain lies in its function as a digital ledger. Unlike traditional databases, which are typically controlled by a central authority (such as a bank, a government, or a company), blockchain is a distributed ledger, meaning copies of the same ledger are held across multiple computers (or nodes) around the world on a voluntary basis. This setup creates a system where transactions are recorded in a way that are transparent, trustless, immutable, and decentralized.

Without blockchain, Bitcoin wouldn’t be able to function as a decentralized, peer-to-peer currency. It’s the underlying technology that ensures Bitcoin’s integrity and security.

BUY NOW

@ 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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Custom spreadsheets

The idea was to use it to make an app that would serve as custom database for everything and interact with the spreadsheet so people could play and calculate with their values after they were created by the custom app, something like an MS Access integrated with Excel?

My first attempt that worked (I believe there was an attempt before but I have probably deleted it from everywhere) was this react-microspreadsheet thing (at the time called react-spreadsheet before I donated the npm name to someone who asked):

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/react-microspreadsheet

This was a very good spreadsheet component that did many things current "react spreadsheet" components out there don't do. It had formulas; support for that handle thing that you pulled with the mouse and it autofilled cells with a pattern; it had keyboard navigation with Ctrl, Shift, Ctrl+Shift; it had that thing through which you copy-pasted formulas and they would change their parameters depending on where you pasted them (implemented in a very poor manner because I was using and thinking about Excel in baby mode at the time).

Then I tried to make it into "a small sheet you can share" kind of app through assemblymade.com, and eventually as I tried to add more things bugs began to appear.

Then there was cycle6-spreadsheet:

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/spreadsheet-cycle6

If I remember well this was very similar to the other one, although made almost 2 years after. Despite having the same initial goal of the other (the multi-app custom database thing) it only yielded:

• Sidesheet, a Chrome extension that opened a spreadsheet on the side of the screen that you could use to make calculations and so on. It worked, but had too many bugs that probably caused me to give up entirely.

I'm not sure which of the two spreadsheets above powers http://sheets.alhur.es.

@ 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.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

There is something quietly rebellious about stacking sats. In a world obsessed with instant gratification, choosing to patiently accumulate Bitcoin, one sat at a time, feels like a middle finger to the hype machine. But to do it right, you have got to stay humble. Stack too hard with your head in the clouds, and you will trip over your own ego before the next halving even hits.

Small Wins

Stacking sats is not glamorous. Discipline. Stacking every day, week, or month, no matter the price, and letting time do the heavy lifting. Humility lives in that consistency. You are not trying to outsmart the market or prove you are the next "crypto" prophet. Just a regular person, betting on a system you believe in, one humble stack at a time. Folks get rekt chasing the highs. They ape into some shitcoin pump, shout about it online, then go silent when they inevitably get rekt. The ones who last? They stack. Just keep showing up. Consistency. Humility in action. Know the game is long, and you are not bigger than it.

Ego is Volatile

Bitcoin’s swings can mess with your head. One day you are up 20%, feeling like a genius and the next down 30%, questioning everything. Ego will have you panic selling at the bottom or over leveraging the top. Staying humble means patience, a true bitcoin zen. Do not try to "beat” Bitcoin. Ride it. Stack what you can afford, live your life, and let compounding work its magic.

Simplicity

There is a beauty in how stacking sats forces you to rethink value. A sat is worth less than a penny today, but every time you grab a few thousand, you plant a seed. It is not about flaunting wealth but rather building it, quietly, without fanfare. That mindset spills over. Cut out the noise: the overpriced coffee, fancy watches, the status games that drain your wallet. Humility is good for your soul and your stack. I have a buddy who has been stacking since 2015. Never talks about it unless you ask. Lives in a decent place, drives an old truck, and just keeps stacking. He is not chasing clout, he is chasing freedom. That is the vibe: less ego, more sats, all grounded in life.

The Big Picture

Stack those sats. Do it quietly, do it consistently, and do not let the green days puff you up or the red days break you down. Humility is the secret sauce, it keeps you grounded while the world spins wild. In a decade, when you look back and smile, it will not be because you shouted the loudest. It will be because you stayed the course, one sat at a time. \ \ Stay Humble and Stack Sats. 🫡

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

P2P reputation thing

Each node shares a blob of the reputations they have, which includes a confidence number. The number comes from the fact that reputations are inherited from other nodes they trust and averaged by their confidence in these. Everything is mixed for plausible deniability. By default a node only shares their stuff with people they manually add, to prevent government from crawling everybody's database. Also to each added friend nodes share a different identity/pubkey (like giving a new Bitcoin address for every transaction) (derived from hip32) (and since each identity can only be contacted by one other entity the node filters incoming connections to download their database: "this identity already been used? no, yes, used with which peer?").

Network protocol

Maybe the data uploader/offerer initiates connection to the receiver over Tor so there's only a Tor address for incoming data, never an address for a data source, i.e. everybody has an address, but only for requesting data.

How to request? Post an encrypted message in an IRC room or something similar (better if messages are stored for a while) targeted to the node/identity you want to download from, along with your Tor address. Once the node sees that it checks if you can download and contacts you.

The encrypted messages could have the target identity pubkey prefix such that the receiving node could try to decrypt only some if those with some probability of success.

Nodes can choose to share with anyone, share only with pre-approved people, share only with people who know one of their addresses/entities (works like a PIN, you give the address to someone in the street, that person can reach you, to the next person you give another address etc., you can even have a public address and share limited data with that).

Data model

Each entry in a database should be in the following format:

internal_id : real_world_identifier [, real_world_identifier...] : tag

Which means you can either associate one or multiple real world identifier with an internal id and associate the real person designated by these identifiers with a tag. the tag should be part of the standard or maybe negotiated between peers. it can be things like scammer, thief, tax collector etc., or honest, good dentist etc. defining good enough labels may be tricky.

internal_id should be created by the user who made the record about the person.

At first this is not necessary, but additional bloat can be added to the protocol if the federated automated message posting boards are working in the sense that each user can ask for more information about a given id and the author of that record can contact the person asking for information and deliver free text to them with the given information. For this to work the internal id must be a public key and the information delivered must be signed with the correspondent private key, so the receiver of the information will know it's not just some spammer inventing stuff, but actually the person who originated that record.

@ 46fcbe30:6bd8ce4d

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Overview of the Nostr Ecosystem
3. Current Use Cases and Quantitative Metrics
4. User Adoption Metrics
5. Network Resilience and Decentralization
6. Operational Challenges and Scalability
7. Replication Overhead and Bandwidth Issues
8. Relay Downtime and Financial Sustainability
9. Market Disruption and Sentiment
10. Disrupting Twitter and Centralized Social Platforms
11. Impact on Decentralized Social Media and Censorship Resistance
12. Future Trends and 5-Year Outlook
13. Innovative Protocol Developments
14. Quantitative Forecasting and Diffusion Modeling
15. Networking and Integration with Emerging Technologies
16. Conclusions and Strategic Recommendations

---

1. Introduction

The Nostr ecosystem has emerged as a powerful decentralized alternative to traditional social media networks, particularly as a potential disruptor of Twitter and other centralized—and even existing decentralized—social media platforms. Developed using a protocol based on cryptographic key pairs and a multi-relay system, Nostr is unique in its provision of censorship resistance and user sovereignty. In this report, we provide a detailed analysis of the current state, scalability challenges, and market disruption potential of Nostr, followed by speculative insights on its trajectory over the next five years.

---

2. Overview of the Nostr Ecosystem

Launched in 2022, Nostr (Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays) has rapidly gained traction as an open and decentralized social network. Some of the core features include:

• Decentralized Communication: Relying on independent relays across multiple countries and autonomous systems, Nostr offers an architecture that ensures posts are not stored on a single centralized server.
• Censorship Resistance: With cryptographic authentication and a decentralized relay structure, content censorship becomes significantly more difficult than in traditional networks.
• User Sovereignty: Empowering users with cryptographic key pairs allows for enhanced privacy and data ownership.
• Wide Geographic Distribution: The ecosystem spreads over 44 countries and 151 autonomous systems, underscoring its global reach.

Notable endorsements from figures such as Jack Dorsey, Edward Snowden, Vitalik Buterin, and Sen. Cynthia Lummis have bolstered its reputation as an experimental yet promising alternative to centralized social platforms.

---

3. Current Use Cases and Quantitative Metrics

User Adoption Metrics

• User Base: In just two years, the Nostr network has attracted over 4 million users, a significant figure given its nascent stage and decentralized nature.
• Content Generation: With over 60 million posts, the volume of content mirrors the rapid adoption and active usage seen in more centralized models.
• Post Replication: Empirical measurements indicate that there are 17.8 million text notes among these posts, replicated on an average of 34.6 relays per post. This level of replication underlines robust resilience and availability even if significant portions of the network experience downtime.

Network Resilience and Decentralization

• Global Distribution: Nostr’s decentralized network ensures high availability with >90% post accessibility even under simulated network failures (e.g., removal of key relays or autonomous systems).
• Robustness: The dispersion across 712 relays illustrates that decentralization is not only a design choice but also a working reality, which contributes to the network’s reliability.

---

4. Operational Challenges and Scalability

While the Nostr ecosystem demonstrates significant promise, it faces noteworthy operational challenges.

Replication Overhead and Bandwidth Issues

• Excessive Redundancy: Detailed studies have shown that nearly 98.2% of retrieval traffic is redundant. In practice, this equates to an estimated 144 TiB of unnecessary bandwidth consumption.
• Optimization Proposals: To mitigate these inefficiencies, there's a proposal to limit post replications from 34.6 relays to between 10 and 20 relays per post. This could reduce redundant data copies by between 380 million to 480 million instances, potentially lowering operational costs and improving bandwidth utilization.
• Scaling Concerns: With a projected network load of 10 million events per day (or approximately 2 TB annually), the throughput requirement of ~115 TPS is putting a strain on the current architecture. This has led to debates on whether solutions like the current outbox mechanism are sufficient or if further fundamental redesigns and emergent moderation systems are needed.

Relay Downtime and Financial Sustainability

• Relay Stability: Data indicates roughly 20% of relays suffer from significant downtime (exceeding 40% operational time), and 132 relays have been classified as 'dead'. This is a concern for maintaining network integrity.
• Economic Model Challenges: With 95% of free-to-use relays unable to cover operational costs due to minimal zap-based income, there is an urgent need for innovative monetization or community funding models to ensure long-term sustainability.

---

5. Market Disruption and Sentiment

Nostr is positioned as both a disruptor to traditional centralized social platforms—most notably Twitter—and a catalyst for change within decentralized social media.

Disrupting Twitter and Centralized Platforms

• User Shift: While Twitter remains the most well-known platform, the high-profile endorsements and robust user base of Nostr indicate that there is both market intrigue and a gradual shift among early adopters. Disruption here is measured not only in user numbers but also in the paradigm shift towards decentralized content distribution.
• Market Penetration: Current metrics (4 million users, 60 million posts) suggest that Nostr is challenging Twitter's centralized model insofar as it appeals to users prioritizing censorship resistance, data sovereignty, and resiliency against centralized failures. However, mainstream adoption on par with Twitter is still not realized, and there remains a gap in user experience and feature richness.

Impact on Decentralized Social Media and Censorship Resistance

• Complementary Integrations: As decentralized social media ecosystems continue to mature, integration between Nostr and other censorship-resistant platforms is increasingly likely. This can include interoperability protocols, shared identity management systems, and cross-platform content replication.
• Comparative Advantage: Nostr's network design offers unique advantages over other decentralized social media, particularly in its straightforward, relay-based communication protocol. This positions Nostr to potentially serve as an underpinning technology for a broader decoherent ecosystem of social networks.
• Sentiment Toward Scalability Innovations: Discussions around scaling Nostr often focus on the balance between ensuring redundancy (for resilience) and reducing overhead (for efficiency). The sentiment is one of cautious optimism: while outbox solutions offer a stopgap, many experts advocate for more fundamental architectural redesigns in the long-term.

---

6. Future Trends and 5-Year Outlook

Looking forward, the evolution of Nostr will likely be shaped by several interrelated trends and emerging technical innovations.

Innovative Protocol Developments

• Decentralized Identity and Reputation Mechanisms: The next phase may see the introduction of distributed reputation systems and rating mechanisms that aid in spam management and improve trustworthiness without compromising decentralization.
• Optimistic Replication and Selective Mirroring: Innovations such as selective content mirroring and event pruning will be key in managing bandwidth and storage demands while remaining true to the decentralized philosophy.

Quantitative Forecasting and Diffusion Modeling

• Forecast Models: By integrating modified Bass diffusion models and learning curve effects, predictions suggest that Nostr can potentially spur significant market disruption within five years. Recent studies indicate that forecasting models in disruptive technology fields have reached accuracies of up to 82% for demand projections.
• Hybrid Quantitative Techniques: Leveraging methods like LDA2Vec and patent citation network analysis, combined with multi-criteria decision-making models (as seen in extended UTAUT approaches), will be crucial for accurately estimating future adoption and cost efficiencies.
• Metrics to Monitor: Future research should focus on user growth rates, relay uptime percentages, cost reductions achieved through replication optimizations, and overall sentiment analysis using advanced deep learning architectures that overcome traditional pitfalls (e.g., sarcasm and multipolarity in text data).

Networking and Integration with Emerging Technologies

• Integration with Other Decentralized Platforms: One promising avenue is exploring cross-platform interoperability with other decentralized and blockchain-based social networks, which could lead to a more cohesive ecosystem. This would not only enhance user experience but also enable shared security and moderation frameworks.
• Next-Generation Relays: The deployment of relays that are more resilient through redundancy optimization and financial sustainability models (perhaps incorporating micro-transaction revenue models or community-driven funding) is another critical area. Such improvements could mitigate the issues of relay downtime and excessive network overhead.
• Contrarian Approaches: A contrarian perspective suggests that instead of building on current frameworks, a radical overhaul of the network architecture might be considered, potentially by leveraging novel distributed ledger technologies or leveraging a hybrid centralized-decentralized model during the transition phase to ensure smoother scaling.

---

7. Conclusions and Strategic Recommendations

The Nostr ecosystem represents a significant stride toward decentralized, censorship-resistant social media. While its current market adoption and technical design offer a robust alternative to centralized platforms like Twitter, several challenges must be addressed for sustained growth and disruption:

1. Optimization of Data Replication: Reducing redundant data transfers without compromising resilience is essential. Limiting the replication factor and exploring optimistic retrieval mechanisms could provide a balance between availability and efficiency.

2. Relay Stability and Sustainability: With nearly 20% of relays experiencing significant downtime, innovative financial and technical models (such as micro-payments and community funding) should be deployed to enhance the operational reliability of network nodes.

3. Enhanced Moderation and Reputation Systems: Emerging strategies for decentralized content moderation and reputation management could reduce spam and improve content quality while preserving the open nature of the network.

4. Interoperability with Other Decentralized Platforms: Fostering integration with other emerging systems could accelerate market disruption across the broader spectrum of social media.

5. Future-Proofing Through Quantitative Forecasting: Continual adoption of cutting-edge forecasting models and machine learning techniques to measure sentiment and track network metrics is imperative for proactive evolution.

6. Exploring Contrarian Innovations: In addition to incremental changes, it is important not to discount radically new architectures that may emerge from ongoing research in distributed systems and blockchain technologies.

Final Outlook

In the coming five years, Nostr has the potential to disrupt not only Twitter but also the broader landscape of both centralized and decentralized social media. Although the current architecture presents significant scaling challenges, proactive investments in replication optimization, relay stability, and cross-platform integration will likely propel the network into a more mature phase of adoption. The ecosystem will benefit from a dual approach that combines both evolutionary improvements and revolutionary changes, ensuring that it remains robust while meeting the demands of a growing, globally distributed user base.

---

Appendices

Appendix A: Data and Metrics Summary

• User Base: ~4 million
• Post Volume: >60 million posts
• Average Relay Replication: ~34.6 replicas per post
• Geographical Distribution: 44 countries, 151 autonomous systems
• Bandwidth Waste: ~144 TiB due to redundancy
• Network Load: 10 million events/day (~2TB/year)
• Throughput Requirement: ~115 TPS

Appendix B: Key Technical Proposals

• Replication Control: Limit copies to 10–20 relays for optimal efficiency.
• Selective Mirroring: Implement event pruning and selective content mirroring.
• Decentralized Reputation Systems: Develop distributed rating mechanisms to enhance distributed moderation.

Appendix C: Forecasting and Quantitative Methods

• Diffusion Modeling: Modified Bass models with multi-market dynamics.
• Hybrid Quantitative Techniques: Integration of machine learning (CNN-LSTM, LDA2Vec) with multi‐criteria decision models.

---

Recommendations for Further Research

• Investigate the comparative performance of alternative replication strategies in decentralized networks.
• Explore funding models that can sustain relay operations without compromising neutrality or decentralization.
• Conduct long-term sentiment analysis using advanced neural architectures to understand evolving user attitudes.
• Evaluate the prospective benefits of radical design overhauls versus incremental enhancements in ensuring network scalability.

---

This report is intended for expert analysts and researchers in decentralized network systems and social media disruption. It synthesizes current empirical findings with speculative insights to inform future strategies and academic inquiry.

Sources

• https://www.voltage.cloud/blog/exploring-6-use-cases-of-nostr-beyond-messaging
• https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.05709
• https://arxiv.org/html/2402.05709v1
• https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/5146515.pdf?abstractid=5146515&mirid=1
• https://matchnode.com/blog-and-podcasts/mastering-paid-social-media-advertising-a-comprehensive-guide/
• https://blockworks.co/news/jack-dorsey-app-to-disrupt-twitter
• https://www.securities.io/nostr-a-better-twitter/
• https://medium.com/@jasminedevv/battle-of-the-decentralized-twitter-alternatives-c9f51114614a
• https://www.murrayrudd.pro/nostrs-relay-revolution-scaling-decentralized-networks-for-growth/
• https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/issues/75
• https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42758579
• https://www.toptal.com/deep-learning/4-sentiment-analysis-accuracy-traps
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3076742_Forecasting_the_Market_Diffusion_of_Disruptive_and_Discontinuous_Innovation
• https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/03/17/3043701/0/en/United-States-Online-Household-Furniture-Market-Report-2025-2029-Analysis-of-Price-Sensitivity-Lifecycle-Customer-Purchase-Basket-Adoption-Rates-and-Purchase-Criteria.html
• https://northeast.newschannelnebraska.com/story/52583550/laser-welding-market-growth-industrial-adoption-rate
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S2405896323014453
• https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/industry-5-market-35376359.html

@ e31e84c4:77bbabc0

Bitcoin and Fixed Income was Written By Wyatt O’Rourke. If you enjoyed this article then support his writing, directly, by donating to his lightning wallet: ultrahusky3@primal.net

Fiduciary duty is the obligation to act in the client’s best interests at all times, prioritizing their needs above the advisor’s own, ensuring honesty, transparency, and avoiding conflicts of interest in all recommendations and actions.

This is something all advisors in the BFAN take very seriously; after all, we are legally required to do so. For the average advisor this is a fairly easy box to check. All you essentially have to do is have someone take a 5-minute risk assessment, fill out an investment policy statement, and then throw them in the proverbial 60/40 portfolio. You have thousands of investment options to choose from and you can reasonably explain how your client is theoretically insulated from any move in the \~markets\~. From the traditional financial advisor perspective, you could justify nearly anything by putting a client into this type of portfolio. All your bases were pretty much covered from return profile, regulatory, compliance, investment options, etc. It was just too easy. It became the household standard and now a meme.

As almost every real bitcoiner knows, the 60/40 portfolio is moving into psyop territory, and many financial advisors get clowned on for defending this relic on bitcoin twitter. I’m going to specifically poke fun at the ‘40’ part of this portfolio.

The ‘40’ represents fixed income, defined as…

An investment type that provides regular, set interest payments, such as bonds or treasury securities, and returns the principal at maturity. It’s generally considered a lower-risk asset class, used to generate stable income and preserve capital.

Historically, this part of the portfolio was meant to weather the volatility in the equity markets and represent the “safe” investments. Typically, some sort of bond.

First and foremost, the fixed income section is most commonly constructed with U.S. Debt. There are a couple main reasons for this. Most financial professionals believe the same fairy tale that U.S. Debt is “risk free” (lol). U.S. debt is also one of the largest and most liquid assets in the market which comes with a lot of benefits.

There are many brilliant bitcoiners in finance and economics that have sounded the alarm on the U.S. debt ticking time bomb. I highly recommend readers explore the work of Greg Foss, Lawrence Lepard, Lyn Alden, and Saifedean Ammous. My very high-level recap of their analysis:

• A bond is a contract in which Party A (the borrower) agrees to repay Party B (the lender) their principal plus interest over time.

• The U.S. government issues bonds (Treasury securities) to finance its operations after tax revenues have been exhausted.

• These are traditionally viewed as “risk-free” due to the government’s historical reliability in repaying its debts and the strength of the U.S. economy

• U.S. bonds are seen as safe because the government has control over the dollar (world reserve asset) and, until recently (20 some odd years), enjoyed broad confidence that it would always honor its debts.

• This perception has contributed to high global demand for U.S. debt but, that is quickly deteriorating.

• The current debt situation raises concerns about sustainability.

• The U.S. has substantial obligations, and without sufficient productivity growth, increasing debt may lead to a cycle where borrowing to cover interest leads to more debt.

• This could result in more reliance on money creation (printing), which can drive inflation and further debt burdens.

In the words of Lyn Alden “Nothing stops this train”

Those obligations are what makes up the 40% of most the fixed income in your portfolio. So essentially you are giving money to one of the worst capital allocators in the world (U.S. Gov’t) and getting paid back with printed money.

As someone who takes their fiduciary responsibility seriously and understands the debt situation we just reviewed, I think it’s borderline negligent to put someone into a classic 60% (equities) / 40% (fixed income) portfolio without serious scrutiny of the client’s financial situation and options available to them. I certainly have my qualms with equities at times, but overall, they are more palatable than the fixed income portion of the portfolio. I don’t like it either, but the money is broken and the unit of account for nearly every equity or fixed income instrument (USD) is fraudulent. It’s a paper mache fade that is quite literally propped up by the money printer.

To briefly be as most charitable as I can – It wasn’t always this way. The U.S. Dollar used to be sound money, we used to have government surplus instead of mathematically certain deficits, The U.S. Federal Government didn’t used to have a money printing addiction, and pre-bitcoin the 60/40 portfolio used to be a quality portfolio management strategy. Those times are gone.

Now the fun part. How does bitcoin fix this?

Bitcoin fixes this indirectly. Understanding investment criteria changes via risk tolerance, age, goals, etc. A client may still have a need for “fixed income” in the most literal definition – Low risk yield. Now you may be thinking that yield is a bad word in bitcoin land, you’re not wrong, so stay with me. Perpetual motion machine crypto yield is fake and largely where many crypto scams originate. However, that doesn’t mean yield in the classic finance sense does not exist in bitcoin, it very literally does. Fortunately for us bitcoiners there are many other smart, driven, and enterprising bitcoiners that understand this problem and are doing something to address it. These individuals are pioneering new possibilities in bitcoin and finance, specifically when it comes to fixed income.

Here are some new developments –

Private Credit Funds – The Build Asset Management Secured Income Fund I is a private credit fund created by Build Asset Management. This fund primarily invests in bitcoin-backed, collateralized business loans originated by Unchained, with a secured structure involving a multi-signature, over-collateralized setup for risk management. Unchained originates loans and sells them to Build, which pools them into the fund, enabling investors to share in the interest income.

Dynamics

• Loan Terms: Unchained issues loans at interest rates around 14%, secured with a 2/3 multi-signature vault backed by a 40% loan-to-value (LTV) ratio.
• Fund Mechanics: Build buys these loans from Unchained, thus providing liquidity to Unchained for further loan originations, while Build manages interest payments to investors in the fund.

Pros

• The fund offers a unique way to earn income via bitcoin-collateralized debt, with protection against rehypothecation and strong security measures, making it attractive for investors seeking exposure to fixed income with bitcoin.

Cons

• The fund is only available to accredited investors, which is a regulatory standard for private credit funds like this.

Corporate Bonds – MicroStrategy Inc. (MSTR), a business intelligence company, has leveraged its corporate structure to issue bonds specifically to acquire bitcoin as a reserve asset. This approach allows investors to indirectly gain exposure to bitcoin’s potential upside while receiving interest payments on their bond investments. Some other publicly traded companies have also adopted this strategy, but for the sake of this article we will focus on MSTR as they are the biggest and most vocal issuer.

Dynamics

• Issuance: MicroStrategy has issued senior secured notes in multiple offerings, with terms allowing the company to use the proceeds to purchase bitcoin.

• Interest Rates: The bonds typically carry high-yield interest rates, averaging around 6-8% APR, depending on the specific issuance and market conditions at the time of issuance.

• Maturity: The bonds have varying maturities, with most structured for multi-year terms, offering investors medium-term exposure to bitcoin’s value trajectory through MicroStrategy’s holdings.

Pros

• Indirect Bitcoin exposure with income provides a unique opportunity for investors seeking income from bitcoin-backed debt.

• Bonds issued by MicroStrategy offer relatively high interest rates, appealing for fixed-income investors attracted to the higher risk/reward scenarios.

Cons

• There are credit risks tied to MicroStrategy’s financial health and bitcoin’s performance. A significant drop in bitcoin prices could strain the company’s ability to service debt, increasing credit risk.

• Availability: These bonds are primarily accessible to institutional investors and accredited investors, limiting availability for retail investors.

Interest Payable in Bitcoin – River has introduced an innovative product, bitcoin Interest on Cash, allowing clients to earn interest on their U.S. dollar deposits, with the interest paid in bitcoin.

Dynamics

• Interest Payment: Clients earn an annual interest rate of 3.8% on their cash deposits. The accrued interest is converted to Bitcoin daily and paid out monthly, enabling clients to accumulate Bitcoin over time.

• Security and Accessibility: Cash deposits are insured up to $250,000 through River’s banking partner, Lead Bank, a member of the FDIC. All Bitcoin holdings are maintained in full reserve custody, ensuring that client assets are not lent or leveraged.

Pros

• There are no hidden fees or minimum balance requirements, and clients can withdraw their cash at any time.

• The 3.8% interest rate provides a predictable income stream, akin to traditional fixed-income investments.

Cons

• While the interest rate is fixed, the value of the Bitcoin received as interest can fluctuate, introducing potential variability in the investment’s overall return.

• Interest rate payments are on the lower side

Admittedly, this is a very small list, however, these types of investments are growing more numerous and meaningful. The reality is the existing options aren’t numerous enough to service every client that has a need for fixed income exposure. I challenge advisors to explore innovative options for fixed income exposure outside of sovereign debt, as that is most certainly a road to nowhere. It is my wholehearted belief and call to action that we need more options to help clients across the risk and capital allocation spectrum access a sound money standard.

Additional Resources

• River: The future of saving is here: Earn 3.8% on cash. Paid in Bitcoin.

• Onramp: Bitcoin, The Emergent Asset Class

• MicroStrategy: MicroStrategy Announces Pricing of Offering of Convertible Senior Notes

---

Bitcoin and Fixed Income was Written By Wyatt O’Rourke. If you enjoyed this article then support his writing, directly, by donating to his lightning wallet: ultrahusky3@primal.net

@ 0fa80bd3:ea7325de

![[yedinaya-rossiya-bear.png]]

1️⃣ Be where the bear roams. Stay in its territory, where it hunts for food. No point setting a trap in your backyard if the bear’s chilling in the forest.

2️⃣ Set a well-hidden trap. Bury it, disguise it, and place the bait right in the center. Bears are omnivores—just like secret police KGB agents. And what’s the tastiest bait for them? Money.

3️⃣ Wait for the bear to take the bait. When it reaches in, the trap will snap shut around its paw. It’ll be alive, but stuck. No escape.

Now, what you do with a trapped bear is another question... 😏

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

This piece is the first in a series that will focus on things I think are a priority if your focus is similar to mine: building a strong family and safeguarding their future.

---

Choosing the ideal place to raise a family is one of the most significant decisions you will ever make. For simplicity sake I will break down my thought process into key factors: strong property rights, the ability to grow your own food, access to fresh water, the freedom to own and train with guns, and a dependable community.

A Jurisdiction with Strong Property Rights

Strong property rights are essential and allow you to build on a solid foundation that is less likely to break underneath you. Regions with a history of limited government and clear legal protections for landowners are ideal. Personally I think the US is the single best option globally, but within the US there is a wide difference between which state you choose. Choose carefully and thoughtfully, think long term. Obviously if you are not American this is not a realistic option for you, there are other solid options available especially if your family has mobility. I understand many do not have this capability to easily move, consider that your first priority, making movement and jurisdiction choice possible in the first place.

Abundant Access to Fresh Water

Water is life. I cannot overstate the importance of living somewhere with reliable, clean, and abundant freshwater. Some regions face water scarcity or heavy regulations on usage, so prioritizing a place where water is plentiful and your rights to it are protected is critical. Ideally you should have well access so you are not tied to municipal water supplies. In times of crisis or chaos well water cannot be easily shutoff or disrupted. If you live in an area that is drought prone, you are one drought away from societal chaos. Not enough people appreciate this simple fact.

Grow Your Own Food

A location with fertile soil, a favorable climate, and enough space for a small homestead or at the very least a garden is key. In stable times, a small homestead provides good food and important education for your family. In times of chaos your family being able to grow and raise healthy food provides a level of self sufficiency that many others will lack. Look for areas with minimal restrictions, good weather, and a culture that supports local farming.

Guns

The ability to defend your family is fundamental. A location where you can legally and easily own guns is a must. Look for places with a strong gun culture and a political history of protecting those rights. Owning one or two guns is not enough and without proper training they will be a liability rather than a benefit. Get comfortable and proficient. Never stop improving your skills. If the time comes that you must use a gun to defend your family, the skills must be instinct. Practice. Practice. Practice.

A Strong Community You Can Depend On

No one thrives alone. A ride or die community that rallies together in tough times is invaluable. Seek out a place where people know their neighbors, share similar values, and are quick to lend a hand. Lead by example and become a good neighbor, people will naturally respond in kind. Small towns are ideal, if possible, but living outside of a major city can be a solid balance in terms of work opportunities and family security.

---

Let me know if you found this helpful. My plan is to break down how I think about these five key subjects in future posts.

@ a60e79e0:1e0e6813

*This is a long form Nostr native version of a post that lives on my Nostr educational website Hello Nostr *

At first glance Nostr might appear quite similar to some of the apps you use every day, such as Twitter, Mastodon, or Facebook, but that couldn't be further from the truth. This post aims to dispel the myth that "Nostr is just a Twitter replacement" and give you a better understanding about the 'what', the 'how' and most importantly, the 'why' of Nostr.

What Is Nostr?

Nostr is a decentralized, open-source protocol designed for censorship-resistant networking and communication on the web. It stands for "Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays," and it works by allowing users to publish messages (notes) and content in the form of 'other stuff', to a network of servers (relays) that store and distribute the content.

Unlike traditional platforms like Twitter, Ebay or Facebook, Nostr doesn't rely on a central authority; instead, users control their own identities via cryptographic key pairs.

The simplest open protocol that is able to create a censorship-resistant global "social" network once and for all.

Fiatjaf - Nostr Creator

Nostr is not a website or an app you download from a single source — it’s an open protocol, like email or the internet. Think of it as a set of rules that anyone can use to build tools for sharing messages, posts, or other data without needing a centralized middleman like a big tech company.

Nostr was created by a developer named Fiatjaf in 2020, and has since been steadily gaining traction among people who care about privacy, freedom, and censorship resistance.

Why Nostr?

Imagine the scenario, you've been using an online platform for 5 or even 10 years. You've built up thousands of contacts, perhaps built yourself a sizeable reputation, or even rely on the income from the platform to feed your family. Then one day you make a controversial post, sell a certain item or upload a video on a spicy subject to the platform where the owner disagrees with. With the click of a button, your account is removed. All trace of you, your social graph, or even your future income, disappears in an instant.

Read aloud like that is sounds crazy that we'd even entertain using such a platform, right!? Sadly that is the reality in 2025. This is exactly what happens every single day on X, Facebook, Ebay, Paypal, Linkedin, etc.

Looking at the problem through a more social media focused lens, many of us have become slaves to the likes of Instagram, Twitter and TikTok. We use these 'free' apps under the guise of being social with others online. The reality is that we see what those apps want us to see. We've become slaves to the manipulation of complex and opaque algrorithms designed to keep us hooked and try to sell us things.

Unlike traditional platforms, which are often governed by centralized entities wielding significant control over user data, content moderation, and algorithmic influence, Nostr flips the script by prioritizing user sovereignty and resilience. Built on an open-source framework, Nostr allows individuals to control their own data and interact through a network of relays, making it much more difficult for any single authority - be it a corporation, government, or bad actor - to censor or manipulate the flow of information.

• Is a relay refusing to host your notes? Use another or run your own!
• A specific client using an algorithm you don't like, take your identity and social graph elsewhere and choose another!

Take your identity and social graph with you, anywhere any time.

Nostr’s ability to foster authentic, unfiltered conversations while safeguarding user sovereignty has made it a cornerstone for communities seeking alternatives - whether they’re activists, creators, or everyday people tired of being pawns in the data-driven game. It's simple and adaptable design also encourages innovation, inviting developers to build tools and interfaces that keep pushing the boundaries of what the decentralized internet can achieve. In short, Nostr isn’t just a tool; it’s a movement toward a freer, more equitable digital future.

How Does Nostr Work?

Instead of one giant server owned by a single company holding all your posts and messages, Nostr spreads everything across lots of smaller servers called relays. To get started, you download a client, create your account and back up your private key. Your private key is used to secure your account and sign every message you send over the network. This allows anyone you interact with the verify the integrity of the data coming from 'you'.

The Nostr network is essentially a collection of bulletin boards that share a common format

When you write a note, or share some other type of compatible data, your client signs it with your private key, then sends it to one or more relays. Which relays your information is sent to is entirely up to you. These relays share your message with others who want to see it.

For others to see your notes or 'other stuff', they'll need to be able to find you. Typically this is done by using your public key, which looks something like this npub15c88nc8d44gsp4658dnfu5fahswzzu8gaxm5lkuwjud068swdqfspxssvx. Don't panic though, you don't need to memorize all of your friends public keys, there are more human friendly methods of finding people that we'll come onto later.

Once someone is following you, their client will ask all of their connected relays for any data shared by your public key. Their client will receive this data, verify it is signed by your private key and then populate it into their feed.

The “Other Stuff” Explained

Nostr’s name hints at this: Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays. But what is the “other stuff”? Put simply, it’s all the creative and experimental things people are building on Nostr, beyond simple text based notes. Every action on Nostr is an event - like a post, a profile update, or even a payment. The 'Kind' is what specifies the purpose of each event. Kinds are the building blocks of how information is categorized and processed on the network, and the most popular become part of higher lever specification guidelines known as Nostr Implementation Possibility - NIP. A NIP is a document that defines how something in Nostr should work, including the rules, standards, or features. NIPs define the type of 'other stuff' that be published and displayed by different styles of client for different purposes.

Here's some content examples of 'Other Stuff':

1. Long-Form Content: Think blog posts or articles. NIP-23.
2. Private Messaging: Encrypted chats between users. NIP-04.
3. Communities: Group chats or forums like Reddit. NIP-72
4. Marketplaces: People listing stuff for sale, payable with zaps. NIP-15
5. Zaps: Value transfer over the Lightning Network. NIP57

The beauty of Nostr is that it’s a flexible foundation. Developers can dream up new ideas and build them into clients, and the relays just keep humming along, passing the data around. It’s still early days, so expect the “other stuff” to grow wilder and weirder over time!

Clients vs Relays: What’s the Difference?

Newbies often get tripped up by these two terms, so let’s clearly define them.

Clients

A client is what you use to interact with Nostr. It’s the app or website where you type your posts, read your feed, follow and interact with others. Examples of Nostr clients include:

• Damus (iOS Twitter style client)
• Primal (Cross-platform Twitter style client)
• Amethyst (Android only Twitter style client)
• Habla.News (Web based blog client)
• Olas (Instagram style client)
• 0xchat (Messaging client)

Clients don’t store your data; they just pull it from relays and display it for you. You can switch clients whenever you want, and your account stays the same because it’s tied to your keys, not any single client or app.

Clients are how you use Nostr, and relays are where the data lives. You need both to make the magic happen.

Relays

A relay is a server that stores and shares Nostr data. It’s a little like a post office: you send your note to a relay, and it delivers it to anyone who’s subscribed to see it (like your followers). Relays are run by individuals, groups, or companies who volunteer their computing power. Some are free, some charge a small fee, and you can connect to as many as you like. Most clients will come pre-configured with a list of well-known relays, but you can add or remove any you like.

What Are Zaps?

Zaps are arguably one of Nostr’s coolest features! A zaps is a way to send payments in Bitcoin directly to other users. Imagine liking a post, but instead of just clicking a heart (which you can of course do), you send the poster a few cents worth of Bitcoin to say, “This is awesome!”.

Zaps use Bitcoin's Lightning Network, a faster and cheaper way to move Bitcoin around. To Zap someone, you need a Lightning wallet linked to your Nostr client. Some clients, like Primal, ship with their own custodial wallet to make getting started a breeze. Most clients also allow more advanced users to connect an existing Lightning Wallet to reduce reliance and trust in the client provider.

Zaps are optional but add a fun layer to Nostr. Creators love them because it’s a way to get direct support from fans, with no middleman required.

NIP-05 Identifiers: Your Nostr “Username”

Your nPub, or public key (that long string of letters and numbers) is your 'official' Nostr ID, but it’s not exactly catchy. Enter NIP-05 identifiers, a human-readable and easily sharable way to have people find you. They look like an email address, like qna@hellonostr.xyz.

Here’s how it works:

Most users obtain their NIP-05 ID from a website or service that supports Nostr. Some of these services are free whereas some charge a fee. Some clients, like Primal will set one up for you automatically when you create an account. The email like ID links to your public key, so people can find you more easily. And because these ID's are domain based, there can be no duplicates. qna@hellonostr.xyz can only map to a single public key. The only person that can change that link is the person in control of the domain.

If you control your own domain, you can easily map your Nostr public key to name@my.domain. It’s not mandatory, but it’s super useful for building trust and making your profile recognizable.

Next Steps

So you're bought in. You understand why Nostr is so important and want to get started. Check out our simple onboarding guide here.

Thanks For Reading

Hopefully that moistened your taste buds for more educational Nostr content. This was a basic one, but there will be more focused material coming soon.

If you found this post useful, please share it with your peers and consider following and zapping me on Nostr. If you write to me and let me know that you found me via this post, I'll be sure to Zap you back! ⚡️

@ d6c48950:54d57756

Theres a popular trend among people who never grew up with old tech to suddenly embrace it as rebellion against enshitification and capitalism but as someone who actually grew up with old phones and old tech theres a reason why iphones and social media won, because they're better. 

---

This doesn't mean they don't have flaws, it means that even with the flaws they still outperform; dumbphones are a bandaid but smartphones have comprehensive features built in that work more like a bandage - ironically the solution smart phones have to the problem of smartphones is still better than using a dumbphone as a solution to smartphones - parental control and screen time features work and they're incredibly robust, if you set them up in a well thought out way you can get an insane amount of utility from your smartphone and none of the downsides, if you have a friend setup the parental features according to your wishes it can be setup in such a way that you as the owner of the device cannot get around it, limiting how long you can spend on social media, limiting what apps you can install, what websites you can go on but without losing any of the insane value of smartphones such as

• signal: private communications
• camera: not needing to carry a camera
• ability to send photos quickly and easily to friends
• ability to share what your doing with others publicly
• ability to pay for things without needing to carry a card
• uber
• bus/train apps
• note taking apps that're searchable and instantly backed up
• maps app
• weather app

These are just some of the things on my phone that provide high value, think about how much clutter I would have to carry if I switched to a dumbphone and not only that, the cluttered separate items would perform worse and cost more (since I already own a smartphone).

 

I'm not saying dumbphones are useless but they solve nothing, setting up a smartphone to remove risk and harm whilst maximising value forces you to give careful consideration to the problem 

• Can I trust myself to not turn this off?
• How much time do I want to spend on instagram?
• Do I want notifications on for this person?
• Do I ever want notifications from twitter?
• What value does my phone even provide?

Now you might say you asked those questions before switching to a dumbphone but my point is it's optional, you can not think about any of those things and switch to a dumbphone whereas in something approximating irony when doing it on a smartphone you have to be intentional, mindful, honest and self aware. You have to give serious thought to can you control yourself or self limit certain behaviours and if not would moderation or complete abstinence be better?

In my case I struggle with instagram, but I didn't want to get rid of it because it's how I keep in touch with some friends and keep up to date on their life and them on mine, it also is a good point of contact for new people I meet or people who want to get in touch - but if I average this out i.e messaging (occasional) , posting and looking at friends posts it should only really take me maybe 10 minutes per day maximum - I set a ten minute lock, what happens if I spend 10 minutes scrolling reels and then want to post something? I can't, I'm punished for the behaviour which discourages me from doing it next time.

 

dumbphones feel like a punishment for a problem you haven't tried to fix and for a behaviour you can't clearly articulate - you know you're doing something wrong and might be able to name the action (wasting time on tiktok) but you have no actual understanding of the behaviour (i.e why you do it or why it's even bad beyond some vague harm you ironically heard on tiktok).

you're spending money for no additional value beyond social value (wow a flip phone how quirky) and I've yet to meet a single logn term dumbphone user with an active social life - ironically I do know a person who makes tiktoks about living with a dumbphone - they film the tiktoks on an iphone they take with them everwhere and use as their daily phone. I'm not saying all dumbphone influencers are lying but I'm skeptical someone whos embraced the dumbphone would spend their free time making tiktoks or online content at all really, maybe they would at the start but long term? I doubt it.

 

smartphones have tons of apps and all those apps have shitty subscription services and each update makes the app worse but there is still untapped value to be found in them - look at it as a tool that exists to perform functions and it'll make your life a lot better. You have to be mindful and intentional with technology or it will just do whatever large corporations want it to do.

@ 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

@ d6c48950:54d57756

This post is going to cover some very basic habits and sanity checks that offer large returns over time whilst having a very low cost and in that theme I’m going to keep this to a condensed bullet point list.

how to get the solution faster - You solve problems every day, when you have a goal and try to achieve it, when you face a shortcoming and try and overcome it, when you have an issue and resolve it - As a habit each time you solve a problem go over your actual thoguht process, how did you solve it? - After you’ve looked critically at it ask how you could have improved it

if someones better do what they tell you - I’ve noticed a lot of people won’t take advice from people who knows better (I think because they feel if they just do what they’re told it doesn’t feel like ‘their’ accomplishment) - If someone is more credible than you and the advice they give is credible just do what you’re told

accept easy/simple solutions - Weight loss is incredibly simple, you weigh yourself daily, count your calories and maintain a deficit of 200-500kcal daily, apps automate most of the heavy lifting - As a human it’s natural to fight against simple/easy solutions to longstanding problems - “Not only has this thing been destroying my life for years but the solution is easy and something everyone already knows? the solution is the thing everyones been telling me since the problem first started?” - supress the urge to push it away and just accept the solution, even if it means your problem was mostly self inflicted and easily avoidable

log predictions - Keep a log of your predictions (I use apple numbers) then also log your confidence (55%, 65%, 75%, 85%, 95%) in each prediction and see how close you are - If you make 100 predictions at 55% confidence only 55 of them should be correct, if more are correct you’re underconfident if less are correct you’re overconfident

working harder is almost always beneficial - Despite the doomerish advice hard work and time spent working is beneficial way more than most people give it credit for - there’s probably a point at which it tops off (16hrs a day might be marginally better than 12hrs) but it’s way higher than you’d instinctively expect - Try working longer hours and harder and see how you do, in my view burnout is probably a non issue if other factors of your life (sleep, diet, exercise, stress management) are correct,

basic stuff works very well - Certain basic advice (sleep, exercise, don’t take recreational drugs, don’t drink) are not only increidlby consistent but they also have very large effect sizes, do the basic stuff before moving onto the more esoteric like nicotine patches or adderall

@ a95c6243:d345522c