@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

Capitalism is the most effective system for scaling innovation. The pursuit of profit is an incredibly powerful human incentive. Most major improvements to human society and quality of life have resulted from this base incentive. Market competition often results in the best outcomes for all.

That said, some projects can never be monetized. They are open in nature and a business model would centralize control. Open protocols like bitcoin and nostr are not owned by anyone and if they were it would destroy the key value propositions they provide. No single entity can or should control their use. Anyone can build on them without permission.

As a result, open protocols must depend on donation based grant funding from the people and organizations that rely on them. This model works but it is slow and uncertain, a grind where sustainability is never fully reached but rather constantly sought. As someone who has been incredibly active in the open source grant funding space, I do not think people truly appreciate how difficult it is to raise charitable money and deploy it efficiently.

Projects that can be monetized should be. Profitability is a super power. When a business can generate revenue, it taps into a self sustaining cycle. Profit fuels growth and development while providing projects independence and agency. This flywheel effect is why companies like Google, Amazon, and Apple have scaled to global dominance. The profit incentive aligns human effort with efficiency. Businesses must innovate, cut waste, and deliver value to survive.

Contrast this with non monetized projects. Without profit, they lean on external support, which can dry up or shift with donor priorities. A profit driven model, on the other hand, is inherently leaner and more adaptable. It is not charity but survival. When survival is tied to delivering what people want, scale follows naturally.

The real magic happens when profitable, sustainable businesses are built on top of open protocols and software. Consider the many startups building on open source software stacks, such as Start9, Mempool, and Primal, offering premium services on top of the open source software they build out and maintain. Think of companies like Block or Strike, which leverage bitcoin’s open protocol to offer their services on top. These businesses amplify the open software and protocols they build on, driving adoption and improvement at a pace donations alone could never match.

When you combine open software and protocols with profit driven business the result are lean, sustainable companies that grow faster and serve more people than either could alone. Bitcoin’s network, for instance, benefits from businesses that profit off its existence, while nostr will expand as developers monetize apps built on the protocol.

Capitalism scales best because competition results in efficiency. Donation funded protocols and software lay the groundwork, while market driven businesses build on top. The profit incentive acts as a filter, ensuring resources flow to what works, while open systems keep the playing field accessible, empowering users and builders. Together, they create a flywheel of innovation, growth, and global benefit.

@ 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

@ 69eea734:4ae31ae6

Deutsche Version\ \ Recently, I was on Zoom with someone who has been involved in sustainable living for decades and has built a community around it. "I find it easier to talk to people on the right. They're more open." And then something like: "If you say something to the left that doesn't fit in with their concept, they immediately reject it reflexively."

This is someone who comes from a working-class town, sees too much power in the big corporations and is also sceptical about the state. Things that I would classify as traditionally left-wing.

Even though it often seems that this categorisation no longer makes sense, we still use the terms left and right - mainly along traditional party lines. In Germany, SPD, Greens and the Left (the BSW has been deemed not to fit in). In the UK, Labour. In the USA, the Democrats.

Why does the assessment I mentioned at the beginning ring so true to me? I want to get to the bottom of the difficulties I have with the group I once felt I belonged to one hundred per cent.

On the side of the good guys

There always seems to be a clear path. There is only one reasonable view. This reflects a simple, to-the-point truth. "If a country is attacked, it must be allowed to defend itself." That is incontestable. Just like "every person who dies because of Covid is one too many."

Additional, potentially relevant information is no longer of interest from that point onwards. The question of "How can this conflict be ended as quickly as possible?" hardly comes up at all. The roles are clear. The aggressor represents absolute evil, is solely to blame and is either mad or driven by imperial desires, probably both.

If it was all so clear, one wonders why people who simply wanted to give more context to what was happening - wouldn't it be good to know more context to a conflict in order to deal with it better? - were deprived of any platform. (1) They were also labelled in a way that justified simply not listening to them if a video did get through to someone. If everything was so clear, why not deal with the arguments on a factual base?

Even if you reached the conclusion that weapons should be supplied to Ukraine on a long-term basis - isn't it still worth knowing that there were already peace negotiations in Istanbul in March 2022, which were at a very advanced state, when Zelensky was advised by the UK and the USA to continue fighting ("We will support you")?

What perplexes me the most is how carelessly the war is being handled. How quickly we have landed on the side that is most likely to mean a long war and maximum profit for the arms industry. (2) "Putin started it and is solely to blame, and now we have to fight him to the max" trumps the possibility of even thinking about diplomatic channels.

Would this have been the case 20 years ago? Or 40? At school we sang ‘Where have all the flowers gone?’ many times, and it always touched me. On the radio you could hear Bruce Springsteen singing War, and Paul Hardcastle's Nineteen. All that seems forgotten now.

And even if it was Putin's long-cherished plan to invade Ukraine and take over parts of it: Why then was he so readily given an excuse? Why give him something that, if it can never be a real justification, can be interpreted as such by him? (3) In other words: If you look at recent history, this war appears to have been absolutely avoidable had the US behaved differently.

Instead, they supported Ukraine in defending "our values’" and saw "Western democracies" under threat. With Trump's inauguration, we can now see just how far American democracy has sunk.

The progressive-liberal world is now in an uproar. And easily overlooks the fact that under the Democrats, especially Obama, the foundations were laid for far-reaching censorship and manipulation of public opinion. Their effects were clearly visible to anyone who disagreed with the coronavirus regime, even those of us across the pond.

---

Why I don't feel comfortable: Because I have the feeling that, out of a need to be moral and good, people have gone down a wrong track a second time, again with disastrous consequences. Or rather, they didn't want to see their error of judgement the first time round, and continue in a similar way. Both times with a war logic which aims to crush an enemy, while neglecting enormous ‘collateral’ damage that follows on from it.

The Democrats as a reactive force

The article I started has been sitting here for a while, and there are so many ways to continue it. - My original plan covered so many topics that I will need to split it up into more texts.

Also, a number of further outrageous events have happened meanwhile. The Trump administration is now really taking on fascist overtones, with the internment of a leader of pro-Palestinian student protests, Mahmoud Khalil, and the deportation of over 200 alleged Venezuelan gang members to a security prison in El Salvador. The whole thing seems like a huge spectacle, with videos accompanied by music, reminiscent of advertising films. Something is being demonstrated here. Simply power? Malice, spite? The rule of law, which has not really worked for a long time, is thoroughly being undermined.

Every now and then a podcast comes along that amazes and impresses me, because it breaks the usual categorisations and at the same time expresses many truths.

Link to the podcast: https://jaredyatessexton.substack.com/p/we-are-in-the-crisis-a-conversation

Here's a woman, Danielle Moodie, who founded a radio station called Woke AF during Trump's first term, in conversation with author Jared Sexton, who writes a sub-stack called Notes from a collapsing state in addition to books. They address the events mentioned above, and remind us of Martin Niemöller's "Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten..." (When the Nazis came for the Communists...) because of the lack of opposition.

Large sections, especially in the second half, are a merciless reckoning with the Democrats. According to the two, they are more concerned with keeping the stock market afloat than doing anything for disadvantaged citizens. The alleged support for minorities (floats at the Pride Parade, kneeling, etc.) was always just window dressing.

Moodie once exclaims that what happens again and again is this: "Democrats don't lose the plot, they don't even know where the fuck it is. ’ And Sexton once remarks that the opposition is more of a counterweight designed to keep things going the way they are. "The Democratic Party has become reactive and conservative and has no actual vision for solving any of the problems."

They touch on a few other things: That it's necessary to act in a decentralised way, and that you should start things even if you won't see the results of your actions yourself. And a few other things.

Not only from this podcast, but from many others, and from articles, it becomes clear that the Democrats - like the ‘left’ in many other countries - have their supporters mainly in the middle class, the "professioal-managerial class", and are -- perhaps often unconsciously -- more concerned with maintaining the status they have achieved than really caring about social issues.

In bed with the Russians

Another interesting publication I came across recently, is by a Russian couple who emigrated to America: Nefarious Russians. The podcast that goes along with it, is called In Bed with the Russians. It's very much about the cultural side of things, but not only.

What I found very interesting is the assessment of Evgenia, who grew up in Russia in the 90s. In short, that the country, or at least Moscow, was colonised by American culture. Her friends eventually made a good career for themselves and she was initially delighted with how everything developed. However, her friends themselves apparently didn't see it that way, but always looked longingly towards America, which they imagined to be much better. At some point, Evgenia realised that Russian culture had actually become a poor copy of American culture. - This is an abridged version and I hope not too distorted.

On Putin: The idea that he wants to recreate the Soviet Union is fundamentally wrong. He and his leadership team would much rather recreate the pre-revolutionary Russia.

I haven't found anything on whether NATO's eastward expansion played a role in the invasion of Ukraine. But the authors are definitely neither Trump nor Putin fans.

There's also interesting stories of ‘weaponised immigrants’, i.e. former Soviet citizens who were then immediately used for propaganda purposes against their old homeland.

Since I am writing about native Russians, I would also like to mention Tessa Lena, who for me was one of the most important authors in the Covid era, and who already in April 2020 saw through the technocracy that came with it. I am very grateful to her.

I wrote about the conflict with Russia because it is currently topical and gives rise to war propaganda. I have not found any justification for the fact that Russia is supposed to be on Germany's doorstep

My conclusion on the former left: It's a force that has forgotten its former ideals, indulges in declarations of solidarity and is otherwise more concerned with maintaining the status quo than wringing concessions from the state. It pushes for climate protection, but makes an exception for one of the biggest CO2 emitters, the military, which is not even discussed.

Perhaps it really is outdated to think in these categories. In any case, I no longer feel that I belong to any one direction.

The key is to find allies, regardless of which direction they come from. Building support structures outside of politics. The Commons is a good idea, and I want to write more about it in the future. For this time, I've landed on global politics, which ultimately it does influence what is happening locally. As always, it is important to keep the right balance.

---

(1): In Germany, one of the main figures treated like that is Gabriele Krone-Schmalz, who has given several well-founded presentations

(2): Antje Vollmer, Green politician and vice president of the German parliament, shortly before her death wrote impressively about rearmament and the transformation of the Greens into a party of war:: https://epaper.berliner-zeitung.de/article/ea77236b6b434f4d5fc01cace486274626d2c168ae5896b667f2d021d2ced5ce

(3): The comments on this article show how it is possible to have an open and respectful discussion. People from the Balkan states have their say here, who oppose the narrative that the revolutions in the former Soviet republics were always controlled by the USA. https://iainmcgilchrist.substack.com/p/laughter-in-heaven

This article was written with the Pareto-Client.

@ b6dcdddf:dfee5ee7

Hey Frens,

This is the Geyser team, coming at you with a spicy idea: a grant for proper journalism.

Issue: Journalism is broken. Independent journalism is emerging with the work of The Rage, Whitney Webb and so forth. They deal with issues like privacy, political corruption, economics, ESG, medicine and many other issues that are not discussed by mainstream media.

The problem is that not many people know about their work and there are very few grant programs that support their work.

Proposed Solution: Geyser would like to host a Grant supporting independent journalists using 'community voting mechanism'. See here for how Community Voting Grants work.

However, we need more companies to partner up and sponsor this initiative with us. Ideas of more sponsors: - Stacker news: SN has become a great repository of independent/indie journalism. I think they'd fit in great as sponsors for this type of grant. cc: @k00b - Bitesize media: A new independent media house that wants to focus on the signal Bitcoin brings to our world. They expressed interest already. - Bitcoin Magazine: might be interested as well in this effort.

Would love the community's feedback on this idea and propose additional thoughts!

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/674951

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ b7cf9f42:ecb93e78

Der Verstand im Fluss der Information

Das Informationszeitalter ist wie ein monströser Fluss, der unseren Verstand umgibt

Fundament erbauen

Der Verstand kann sich eine Insel in diesem Fluss bauen. Dabei können wir eine eigene Insel erbauen oder eine bestehende insel anvisieren um stabilität zu finden

Je robuster das Baumaterial, desto standhafter unsere Insel. (Stärke der Argumente, Qualität des Informationsgehalts, Verständlichkeit der Information)

Je grossflächiger die Insel, desto mehr Menschen haben Platz (Reichweite).

Je höher wir die Insel bauen, desto sicherer ist sie bei einem Anstieg des Informationsflusses (Diversität der Interesse und Kompetenzen der Inselbewohner).

Robustes Baumaterial

Primäre Wahrnehmung (robuster):

Realität -> meine Sinne -> meine Meinung/Interpretation

Sekundäre Wahrnehmung (weniger Robust):

Realität -> Sinne eines anderen -> dessen Meinung/Interpretation -> dessen Kommunikation -> meine Sinne -> meine Meinung/Interpretation

Wie kann ich zur Insel beitragen?

Ich investiere meine Zeit, um zu lernen. Ich bin bestrebt, Ideen zu verstehen, um sicherzugehen, dass ich robustes Baumaterial verwende.

Ich teile vermehrt Informationen, welche ich verstehe, damit auch meine Mitbewohner der Insel mit robustem Material die Insel vergrössern können. So können wir mehr Platz schaffen, wo Treibende Halt finden können.

Was könnte diese Insel sein?

• Freie Wissenschaft
• Freie Software
• Regeln
• Funktionierende Justiz
• Werkzeug
• und vieles weiteres

@ 42342239:1d80db24

Last fall, Italian economist Mario Draghi, former head of the European Central Bank (ECB), published his 400-page report on Europe's (actually the EU's) competitiveness. Draghi's verdict was harsh: Europe is facing an "existential challenge." It's hard to disagree. While the EU is launching new regulations on plastic corks and hiding text messages from the public, Elon Musk is changing the world with groundbreaking innovations in the automotive, robotics, and space industries.

At the same time that the EU is not only preventing people from trying new things but also preventing them from even thinking about trying, Musk's space company SpaceX is capturing massive star rockets with "chopstick grips". While the EU is stuck in an ocean of meaningless bureaucratic details, Musk is engaged in a process of constant testing and improvement, reminiscent of the natural course of decentralized systems.

The EU's meager economic growth can be compared to a ticking time bomb that threatens to explode in all of our faces. Disposable incomes have increased nearly twice as much in the US compared to the EU since 2000, and this is a difference that is noticeable not only in our standard of living but also in our opportunities for leisure time. As the late economist Robert Lucas said, "Once you start thinking about growth, it's hard to think about anything else." Perhaps the best thing that can be said about the report is that its abundance of words, numbers, and images underscores how bad things are. And perhaps it has therefore become impossible for the EU's leaders to continue ignoring the union's problems.

Like giving a shark responsibility for beach safety

However, asking a former EU president to investigate and propose changes is like giving a shark responsibility for beach safety. Among other things, he proposes larger allocations for research and development, even though the EU already spends more than the US as a percentage of GDP - it's thus impossible for this to be the problem. It comes as no surprise that the proposals are about more centralization, harmonization, and streamlining - i.e., continuing in the same old tracks. While Musk seems to have an intuitive understanding of how knowledge arises through real-world experiments , what is proposed here is more of the administrative bureaucracy's preconceived five-year plans. The bureaucracy is to be given free rein, and the nations are to be pushed back - a repeat of a theme we know all too well. Centralization undermines real knowledge growth, which may explain why the EU is falling behind.

A venomous snake that is ignored

Rent-seeking is like a venomous snake that slithers through the EU's corridors, but the concept is conspicuous by its absence in Draghi's report. It is a well-known phenomenon where companies spend resources on influencing decision-makers to gain advantages instead of creating value. The EU bureaucracy has produced a total of 13,000 legislative acts since 2019 - more than four times as many as the US. How many of these have received an invisible stamp of approval from lobbyists? Economist Jeffrey Sachs has warned that American lobbying in Brussels is so dominant that it affects all decision-making in the digital economy, which may be one of the EU's biggest problems. GDPR regulations, for example, are estimated to have reduced small tech companies' profits by 15% (!).

Size is not everything

Small businesses are the invisible heroes that contribute most to productivity and employment growth. These are being suffocated by the ECB's actions and the constantly increasing and inefficient regulatory mess. The ECB's war on small banks hampers growth for small businesses because large banks prioritize large transactions. Big computers' algorithms cannot replace small banks' local knowledge. Harmful regulations and grandiose dreams lead to a loss of both knowledge and growth.

What should the end goal be?

Sweden's daily Dagens Industri's editorial page recently wrote that "Defeat is not an option" on the theme of green transition. It asked whether "free democracies or a Chinese dictatorship should lead the way." Large-scale industrial projects and plans can undoubtedly provide benefits. But it's worth questioning whether Europe should really have the same end goal as China.

During both the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution, decentralized power structures played a crucial role. During the Renaissance, states and cities were relatively independent. Power was decentralized to princes, nobles, and merchants. The Church had an important role, but it was not as centralized as it would become. Florence, Venice, and Amsterdam could develop different scientific and artistic traditions. When one region encountered problems, other regions could continue to develop and grow, and so on. At that time - even if the concept did not exist - it seemed to be understood that the economy is a complex system of the second order. Or a computationally irreducible one, as Stephen Wolfram would have expressed it.

In the book "The Art of War," Chinese General Sun Tzu wrote that "He who chooses the battlefield first will win. He who lets his opponent choose the battlefield will lose." Instead of striving to play on China's (alleged) centralized battlefield, perhaps we Europeans should consider returning to our roots. Do away with the bureaucracy's heavy foot and give power back to the individual! Scrap the monster banks and create conditions for small local banks instead. Stop subsidizing American IT giants' data centers and give every European an AI in their own hand. Forget the five-year plans and invest in decentralized economic experiments instead. Does that sound radical?

The word "radical" comes from the Latin word for root, radix . The word used to have a positive connotation because it implied a willingness to go to the root of the problem or to return to one's roots.

More of us should dare to question the modern structures that brought us to today's sad situation. Roots are a plant's strength - without them, it cannot grow and flourish. So it is with Europe. Our continent, which was once a thriving garden where ideas and innovations bloomed, needs to return to its roots to regain its former strength. This may be exactly what is required.

Put simply: a more radical Europe.

@ cb8f3c8e:c10ec329

WRITTEN BY: ALEX MREMA

Europe awaits for 24 of its best nations to kick off her headline football tournament on the 14th of June. This edition of the tournament promises to showcase some spectacular football filled with style, flair and a uniqueness that is only found in Europe. Surprises, thrillers and fierceness is promised throughout the Euros- not to forget the wonderful and warm German hosts who are promised to provide the vibes in and around the country.On that note, I present my second article on the best games Germany has to offer throughout the group stages!

---

GROUP D GAME: POLAND VS NETHERLANDS DATE: 16th June 2024 TIME: 14:00 BST

Poland look to prove themselves on the European stage again after a shocking Euro 2020 that saw them finish last in their group with one point and six goals conceded. Coach Michal Probierz will look to the strength of his young and powerful midfield featuring Brighton’s Jakub Moder and Roma’s Nicola Zalewski while the experienced head of Piotr Zielenski is expected to be the headlight to this midfield’s vision. Robert Lewandowski and Wojciech Szczeny are expected to play with an extra chip on their shoulder as this is likely to be their last international tournament for Poland. However, this Dutch side is one lethal side on their day. They can make teams suffer both offensively and defensively plus they can control the midfield appropriately if the backs are not against the walls. Plus the Netherlands put on an impressive run in the 2022 World Cup only to crash out in devastating fashion. Under Ronald Koeman, they have put on some very impressive performances but the only hiccups have come in games against that are “better” than them (in terms of player quality) where they perform poorly. With Netherlands being wishy-washy, can they do enough to beat Poland? We’ll see!

GAME: NETHERLANDS VS FRANCE DATE: 21st June 2024 TIME: 20:00 BST

France are certainly THE side to fear in this tournament. They have everything and they ooze in class with all that they have from the keepers all the way down to the manager. This French side has the potential to win every game in this tournament. Undoubtedly, the return of the engine that is N’golo Kante is vital to this French squad as they look to make their midfield a well-oiled machine with the never-expiring and youthful trio of Rabiot, Tchuoameni and Camavinga partnering working with the experienced Kante. The only problem, is how Deschamps will intergrate Kante in the French in a manner that is smooth and equally provides an immediate click. This is what the Dutch will look to pounce on. Regardless of the result of their first game against Poland, this game is what will make or break their tournament as a loss will be possibly detrimental to their progress while a win will probably make progression ever so likely. Can Koeman’s squad pounce on Les Bleus gamble?

GAME: NETHERLANDS VS AUSTRIA DATE: 25th June 2024 TIME: 17:00 BST

Austria are a side that are able to do their bits. Ralf Ragnick has enforced a hustling and fighting spirit that makes his squad work to the very end-which credits why they have qualified as one of the 24 nations certain to rock Europe this summer. They play progressive,fun,attacking football and are a side that are fearless. The experienced figures of Marko Arnautovic,Michael Gregoristch and Konrad Laimer are key to the leadership of Das Team this summer as the status on main figurehead David Alaba remains unclear as he is out with an injury. Holland’s approach to this game will be interesting. Particularly on how they will view the aerial battle between van Dijk and Gregoristch and how direct Arnautovic is towards the rest of the defence. Les Oranjes also have the capabilites to throw a tactical masterclass that can throw Ragnick and his men overboard. Let’s not forget that this is the final group game, so alll can be to play for...tactics may be thrown out the window and it might just be a full on dog fight between the two nations- what we need!

---

GROUP E GAME: UKRAINE VS BELGIUM DATE: 26th June 2024 TIME: 17:00

Group E is probably the weakest one in the tournament (alongside Group C).But, that does not take away from some of the talent displayed in the group. As expected to be showcased when the fiery Red Devils of Belgium face off against The Blues and Yellows of Ukraine. This will be Belgium’s first tournament without the legendary Eden Hazard in their camp, however this squad has seen the rise of some extremely talented players namely, Amadou Onana, Charles de Ketelaere and Jeremy Doku that all -coincidently- reside from the English Premier League. Head coach Domenico Tedesco has managed to fit in a blend of youth and experience as Belgium says goodbye to their “first phase” golden generation players and welcome new generation players to renovate the aging squad.On the other side of the dugout, coach Sergiy Rebrov has brought a squad that is extremely pacey,physical,daring and fearless. These aspects are best described in players such as Matviyenko,Zincheko, Mykola Shaparenko,Mudryk,Yaremchuk plus La Liga top scorer and Round of 16 hero in Euro 2020- Artem Dobvyk. This Ukraine squad can bring the heat at any point in the game, even against the run of play- they did not play their best football in Euro 2020 but somehow ended as quarter-finalists, just let it sink in when they start playing their best football...

---

GROUP F GAME: PORTUGAL VS CZECH REPUBLIC DATE: 18th June 2024 TIME: 20:00 BST

Portugal are a squad that is star-studded throughout and are led by the man, the myth, the legend that is Cristiano Ronaldo who has the same drive to win as when he first landed in this tournament 2004. He is the all-time Euros top scorer and you should expect more goals from within the next four weeks of football. The somewhat fear-factor that strikes opponents is that this is a Portugal squad that can snatch goals from anywhere, even when Ronaldo has a silent game, they can get results from Goncalo Ramos, Bernado Silva, Rafael Leao, Bruno Fernandes... and the list goes on! Truly scary what Seleção das Quinas has in store. But the Lokomotiva has something to say and boy on their day can they make a statement, this squad’s physicality, progressive football and never-say-die attitude is what has gotten them results throughout their journey to the tournament. Players such as Schick,Hlozek,Soucek and Antonin Barak are vital for the Czech Republic and when they are called upon, they deliver- just ask the Dutch.

GAME: CZECH REPUBLIC VS TURKEY DATE: 26th June 2024 TIME: 20:00 BST

Turkey have underperformed in recent tournaments- with group stage exists in Euro 2016 as well as Euro 2020. They do appear to be a better organized squad nowdays and do not settle for less when it comes to working for a positive result. The Crescent Stars are a joyful side that carry an immense amount of pride for the badge on their jerseys and wear their hearts on their sleeves for every game, this passion can be a huge motivating factor as to how far they progress through the tournament. The talent that the Czech Republic possesses however, can kill off the Turkish party. They are side that comes in to take results like the way a bully eould steal candy from a baby, they just simply play their football and move on quietly but equally deadly. Can they be the party poopers against Turkey in their final group game?

@ 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).

@ d78dcc29:aa242350

Opinion about ZBD: Bitcoin, Games, Rewards (iphone)

zbd is a centralised platfom. they have power over users wallets and can deactivate them even with balances, hence making your account pretty much useless. in the times that we are heading , this is definetely not the way. since zbd is A Play to Earn platform, such kind of activity is robbing from users who invested their time to stack sats. just to be kicked out . it's a 0 out of 10 for zbd

WalletScrutiny #nostrOpinion

Join the conversation!

@ ef1a1108:d2bb31da

1 000 000 satoshis

2 days before the Grand finale, we can proudly annouce we hit the first milestone - 1 million satoshis!

Huge warm thank you to all supportes of The Great Orchestra of Christmas Charity!

Join #orchestrathon on the Grand Finale day

We'd like to invite you to a special type of event we are organising on Nostr - #orchestrathon!

Rules are simple:

``` 1. This Sunday at 18.00 - 19.00 we all connect to nostr relays to join the #orchestrathon

1. For the whole hour - we zap this profile, posts or comments as crazy!

2. At 19.00 it's culmination of both #orchestrathon and Grand Finale ```

We're planning to stream some of The Great Orchestra concerts on zap.stream on that day.

Join the stream, where you can also zap!

Hopefully we can engage a bit Nostr community to support the cause with having fun and zapping during the last hour of Grand Finale

Every Nostr zap to our profile, comment or post will be counted as a contribution and displayed on our Geyser page.

Those contributions will be also rewarded with Nostr badges :)

Rewards

We added several rewards to the project! They look absolutely fabulous with the new Geyser update.

The rarer the badge is, the more expensive it is, but also the more real Proof of Work in computation it took to mine. Epic badge took several hours to be mined...

You can purchase beautiful and unique Nostr badges or choose a physical item, like merchandise or ticket to European Halving Party.

This is a great occasion to buy a very cool t-shirt, hat or ticket to a great event with supporting supply of state-of-the-art, saving lives medical equipment children and adults.

@ 8fb140b4:f948000c

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 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.

@ 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. 🚀

@ ef1a1108:d2bb31da

Nostr for The Great Orchestra of Christmas Charity

This Sunday, 28.01.2024 at 18:00 - 19:00 UTC we're inviting you to take pare in a very unique #zapathon

Nostrians taking part in this special zapathon that will play in tune with thousands of people playing together with The Great Orchestra of Christmas Charity on their 32nd Grand Finale! Hence the name #orchestrathon

The goal of #orchestrathon is to support the goal of this years Grand Finale, which is: funding equipment for diagnosing, monitoring and rehabilitating lung diseases of patients in pulmonology wards for children and adults in Poland

That means all bitcoin from zaps will be converted to PLN and donated to The Great of Christmas Charity foundation.

What's The Great Orchestra of Christmas Charity? What is the 32nd Grand Finale?! You'll find all of those answers on Geyser project story, or a few paragraphs below 👇 Now coming back to #orchestrathon...

What Is #Orchesthrathon

This Nostr account is a was generated on Geyser and is tied to Geyser project: Bitcoiners support The Great Orchestra of Christmas Charity

That means all zaps sent to this account are at the same time funding Geyser campaing.

So not only you will contribute to the goal in the project, also all the zap comments will be visable there.

Ain't that crazy? We can use this campaign as one giant #orchestrathon client!

Rules are simple:

1. On Sunday at 18.00 - 19.00 we all connect to our relays to join the #orchestrathon
2. For the whole hour - you can zap this profile, our posts or comments as crazy!
3. At 19.00 it's culmination of both #orchestrathon and Grand Finale

All Nostrians who zap will receive special badges, depending on the zapped amount (in total):

On Sunday there will be lot's of concerts and events happening all day, culminating with Grand Finale closing at 19.00. We will try to launch a stream on zap.stream, so we can enjoy Grand Finale and concerts together!

This #orchestrathon and Geyser fundraise is organised by Dwadzieścia Jeden, a community of polish Bitcoiners. More about us and Proof of Work in the project story 👇

We're not only Bitcoiners, are also Nostrians, follow us: Dwadzieścia Jeden account: @npub1cpmvpsqtzxl4px44dp4544xwgu0ryv2lscl3qexq42dfakuza02s4fsapc Saunter: @npub1m0sxqk5uwvtjhtt4yw3j0v3k6402fd35aq8832gp8kmer78atvkq9vgcru Fmar: @npub1xpuz4qerklyck9evtg40wgrthq5rce2mumwuuygnxcg6q02lz9ms275ams JesterHodl: @npub18s59mqct7se3xkhxr3epkagvuydwtvhpsacj67shrta8eknynegqttz5c3 Tomek K: @npub14wxtsrj7g2jugh70pfkzjln43vgn4p7655pgky9j9w9d75u465pqvagcye Tom Chojnacki: @npub1m0sxqk5uwvtjhtt4yw3j0v3k6402fd35aq8832gp8kmer78atvkq9vgcru Gracjan Pietras: @npub1trkudtnp7jg3tmy4sz8mepmgs5wdxk9x2esgts25mgkyecrse7js6ptss5 Tomek Waszczyk @npub1ah8phwmfyl2lakr23kt95kea3yavpt4m3cvppawuwkatllnrm4eqtuwdmk

Original Geyser project story

Saving Lives and Preserving Health

Dwadzieścia Jeden a polish node in decentralised bitcoin communities network Twenty One, is proud to facilitate bitcoin fundraising for the biggest, non-governmental, non-profit, charity in Poland — The Great Orchestra of Christmas Charity.

For the past 31 years, GOCC continuously fundraises money for pediatric and elderly care in Poland. Each year, a culmination of the raise occurs during the last Sunday of January in the shape of The Grand Finale — a joyful day that when tens of thousands volunteers worldwide, especially kids and teenagers, go on the streets to gather money for the cause, giving donors hear-shaped stickers with logo of the foundation. If you're in Poland on that day, basically every person you'll meet on the street will proudly wear GOCC heart.

The same hear-shaped stickers can be seen in every hospital in Poland on thousands of high quality medical equipment bought by The Great Orchestra. There is not a single polish family that hasn't benefited in some way from this equipment, and it saved thousands of lives, especially the little ones.

32nd Grand Finale Goal

This year, 32rd Grand Finale will take place on 28th of January. The aim of the 32nd Grand Finale is post-pandemic lung diseases — the raised funds will be used to purchase equipment for children's and adults' respiratory units.

The Foundation plans to purchase:

• equipment for diagnostic imaging, i.a. MRI and ultrasound equipment,

• equipment for functional diagnosis, i.a. polysomnographs and portable spirometers,

• equipment for endoscopic diagnosis, i.a. navigational bronchoscopy systems and bronchoscopes

• equipment for rehabilitation - equipment for pulmonary rehabilitation used in the treatment of patients after lung transplantation

• equipment for thoracic surgery, e.g. electrocoagulation systems and cryoprobes.

The Great Orchestra of Proof of Work

• 31 years of non-stop fundraising for state-of-the-art saving life equipment, running medical and educational programmes and humanitarian aid

• 2 billion PLN or ~11,781 BTC raised in total

• Areas of help: children's cardiac surgery, oncology, geriatrics, neonatology, children's nephrology, children's and young people's mental health services, ambulances for children's hospitals, volunteer firefighters & search & rescue units

• Last year Grand Finale raised over PLN 240 million (1,410 BTC) for a goal to fight sepsis

• You can check how money from 2022 report (224 376 706 PLN or ~1,321.69 BTC) raise were spent here (although it's in polish)

• In addition to work focused on Poland, GOCC fundraised money for hospitals in Ukraine and provided substantial humanitarian aid for Ukrainian refugees, Polish-Belarusian border crisis, Turkey earthquake victims and more

• GOCC is the most-trusted Polish organization and is at the top of the list as the most trusted public entities in Poland

What We'll Do With Gathered Funds

Gathered bitcoin will be converted to PLN by a polish exchange Quark and donated to The Great Orchestra of Christmas Charity after The Grand Finale which takes place on January 28th.

Dwadzieścia Jeden Proof of Work

We're a group of polish pleb Bitcoiners that started organising ourselves about 2 years ago.

Our activities include:

• organising regular bitcoin meetups in several cities in Poland, also Nostr meetup in Warsaw

• organising Bitcoin FilmFest and European Halving Party in Warsaw

• orangepilling and maintaining map of polish bitcoin merchants in Poland on btcmap.org

• translating bitcoin FOSS to polish language

• writing and translating articles to polish

• giving talks on bitcoin

• volounteering for helping with bitcoin payments and running bitcoin workshops on non-conferences (eg. Weekend of Capitalism)

• working in human rights centered NGOs and promoting bitcoin as a tool for protecting human rights

• ...and we're just starting!

Find Out More

• Official GOCC website

• Wikipedia page about GOCC

Gallery

@ 46fcbe30:6bd8ce4d

MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION

SUBJECT: Meeting with Russian President Yeltsin

PARTICIPANTS: - U.S. - President Clinton - Secretary Albright - National Security Advisor Berger - Deputy National Security Advisor Steinberg - Ambassador Sestanovich - Carlos Pascual

• Russia
• Russian President Yeltsin
• Foreign Minister Ivanov
• Kremlin Foreign Policy Advisor Prihodko
• Defense Minister Sergeyev
• Interpreter: Peter Afansenko
• Notetaker: Carlos Pascual

DATE, TIME AND PLACE: November 19, 1999, 10:45 a.m. - 11:40 a.m. Istanbul, Turkey

President Yeltsin: We are in neutral territory here. I welcome you.

The President: Neither of us has a stake here. It's good to see you.

President Yeltsin: Well, Bill, what about those camps here in Turkey that are preparing troops to go into Chechnya? Aren't you in charge of those? I have the details. Minister Ivanov, give me the map. I want to show you where the mercenaries are being trained and then being sent into Chechnya. They are armed to the teeth. (Note: Yeltsin pulls out map of Turkey and circulates it.) Bill, this is your fault. I told Demirel yesterday that I will send the head of the SRV tomorrow and we will show him where the camps are located. These are not state-sanctioned camps. They are sponsored by NGOs and religious organizations. But let me tell you if this were in Russia and there were but one camp, I would throw them all out and put the bandits in the electric chair.

The President: Perhaps Demirel could help you.

President Yeltsin: Well, he ought to. Tomorrow after I get back, I will send the head of the Foreign Intelligence Service here. Bill, did you hurt your leg?

The President: Yes, but it is not bad.

President Yeltsin: When one leg of the President hurts, that is a bad thing.

The President: It lets me know I am alive.

President Yeltsin: I know we are not upset at each other. We were just throwing some jabs. I'm still waiting for you to visit. Bill. I've said to you come to visit in May, then June, then July and then August. Now it's past October and you're still not there.

The President: You're right, Boris, I owe you a visit.

President Yeltsin: Last time I went to the U.S., Bill.

The President: Well, I better set it up. I'll look at the calendar and find a time that's good for you and me.

President Yeltsin: Call me and tell me the month and date. Unless I have another visit, I will do the maximum amount I can to do everything around your schedule. The main things I have are to go to China and India.

The President: Boris, we still have lots to do together.

President Yeltsin: You heard my statement on nuclear arms and on banning nuclear tests. I just signed a law on ratification of a new agreement on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Isn't that right, Minister Ivanov?

Minister Ivanov: You signed the documents that sent the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Duma for review.

President Yeltsin: Well, in any case, I still approved it.

The President: Maybe I can get the Congress to agree still. They kept the Treaty even after they rejected it. So perhaps, there is still a chance.

President Yeltsin: Or perhaps it's just the bureaucrats working and they haven't had a chance to send it back to you yet. I'm upset that you signed the law to change the ABM Treaty.

The President: I signed no such law. People in Congress don't like the ABM Treaty. If Congress had its way, they would undermine the treaty. I'm trying to uphold it. But we need a national missile defense to protect against rogue states. We can't have a national missile defense that works without changing the ABM Treaty. But I want to do this cooperatively. I want to persuade you that this is good for both of us. The primary purpose is to protect against terrorists and rogue states. It would be ineffective against Russia. The system we're looking at would operate against just 20 missiles. And, Boris I want to figure out how to share the benefits. For all I know, in twenty years terrorists could have access to nuclear weapons. I know your people don't agree with me, but I'm not trying to overthrow the ABM Treaty. We're still trying to discover what's technically possible with national missile defense, but there are people in America who want to throw over the ABM Treaty. I have made no decisions yet.

President Yeltsin: Bill, Bill. I got your note. It went into all these things in incredible detail. I read it and I was satisfied. I've not yet ceased to believe in you. I ask you one thing. Just give Europe to Russia. The U.S. is not in Europe. Europe should be the business of Europeans. Russia is half European and half Asian.

The President: So you want Asia too?

President Yeltsin: Sure, sure. Bill. Eventually, we will have to agree on all of this.

The President: I don't think the Europeans would like this very much.

President Yeltsin: Not all. But I am a European. I live in Moscow. Moscow is in Europe and I like it. You can take all the other states and provide security to them. I will take Europe and provide them security. Well, not I. Russia will. We will end this conflict in Chechnya. I didn't say all the things I was thinking (in his speech). I listened to you carefully. I took a break just beforehand. Then I listened to you from beginning to end. I can even repeat what you said. Bill, I'm serious. Give Europe to Europe itself. Europe never felt as close to Russia as it does now. We have no difference of opinion with Europe, except maybe on Afganistan and Pakistan—which, by the way, is training Chechens. These are bandits, headhunters and killers. They're raping American women. They're cutting off ears and other parts of their hostages. We're fighting these types of terrorists. Let's not accuse Russia that we are too rough with these kinds of people. There are only two options: kill them or put them on trial. There's no third option, but we can put them on trial, and sentence them to 20-25 years. How many Americans, French, British and Germans have I freed that were there in Chechnya under the OSCE? The Chechen killers don't like the language of the OSCE. Here's my Minister of Defense. Stand up. We have not lost one soldier down there. Tell them.

Minister Sergeyev: We did not lose one soldier in Gudermes.

President Yeltsin: You see, Gudermes was cleansed without one military or civilian killed. We killed 200 bandits. The Minister of Defense is fulfilling the plan as I have said it should be. He's doing this thoughtfully. The soldiers only ask: don't stop the campaign. I promised these guys—I told every soldier, marshal and general—I will bring the campaign to fruition. We have these Chechens under lock and key. We have the key. They can't get in, they can't get out. Except maybe through Georgia; that's Shevardnadze's big mistake. And through Azerbaijan; that's Aliyev's mistake. They're shuttling in under the name of Islam. We're for freedom of religion, but not for fundamentalist Islam. These extremists are against you and against me.

We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles. We'll make all the appropriate treaties with China. We're not going to provide nuclear weapons to India. If we give them submarines, it will be only conventional diesel submarines, not nuclear. They would be from the 935 generation. You're going in that direction too. I'm thinking about your proposal—well, what your armed forces are doing—getting rid of fissile materials, particularly plutonium. We should just get rid of it. As soon as it's there, people start thinking of how to make bombs. Look, Russia has the power and intellect to know what to do with Europe. If Ivanov stays here, he will initial the CFE Treaty and I'll sign it under him. But under the OSCE Charter, there is one thing I cannot agree—which is that, based on humanitarian causes, one state can interfere in the affairs of another state.

National Security Advisor Berger: Mr. President, there's nothing in the Charter on one state's interference in the affairs of another.

Secretary Albright: That's right. What the Charter says is that affairs within a state will affect the other states around it.

President Yeltsin: Russia agrees to take out its property and equipment from Georgia in accordance with the new CFE Treaty. I have a statement on this. (looking toward Ivanov) Give it to me. I signed it today. Actually, it was late last night. I like to work late.

The President: Me, too.

President Yeltsin: I know you like to work late, Bill. When you call me, I calculate the time and I tell myself it's 4 a.m. and he's calling me. It lets you cleanse your brain and you feel great. I am not criticizing you, Bill. The President should be encouraged to work hard.

The President: So, we will get an agreement on CFE.

President Yeltsin: Yes.

The President: That's very important, seven years. We've worked on this for a long time.

President Yeltsin: Look, Ivanov has lost the statement in his own bag. He can't find the paper in his own bag. On the Charter, we have to look at it from the beginning. The Charter's ready. However, when states begin to tie in the Charter with the final declaration that has wording unacceptable to us, that's when we'll say no. And responsibility for this will fall fully on the West. (Looking at Ivanov) Give me this thing. It is written on paper. Bill. I am ready to sign it. It is a declaration about what we're talking about.

Secretary Albright: Some states want to record in the declaration your willingness to have an OSCE mission.

President Yeltsin: No, not at all. We will finish this with our own forces. Chechnya is the business of the internal affairs of Russia. We have to decide what to do. After we cleansed Gudermes, the muslim mufti came and asked for help, said I hate Basayev and he should be banned. These are the kinds of leaders we will put forward. I have thought this through carefully.

The President: On the Chechen problem. I have been less critical than others. Even today, I asked the others how they would deal with this if it were their country. This is a political issue. It may be the best thing for you within Russia to tell the Europeans to go to hell. But the best thing for your relations with Europe for the long term is to figure out the policy that you want to have with Europe and to keep that in mind as you deal with Chechnya.

President Yeltsin: (Gets up rapidly) Bill, the meeting is up. We said 20 minutes and it has now been more than 35 minutes.

The President: That's fine. We can say the meeting is over.

President Yeltsin: This meeting has gone on too long. You should come to visit, Bill.

The President: Who will win the election?

President Yeltsin: Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He's a democrat, and he knows the West.

The President: He's very smart.

President Yeltsin: He's tough. He has an internal ramrod. He's tough internally, and I will do everything possible for him to win—legally, of course. And he will win. You'll do business together. He will continue the Yeltsin line on democracy and economics and widen Russia's contacts. He has the energy and the brains to succeed. Thank you, Bill.

The President: Thank you, Boris. It was good to see you.

End of Conversation

@ 306555fe:fd7fdf12

1. Executive Summary

This report presents a detailed comparative analysis of Tesla Powerwall and Sungrow battery options for a 3-phase residence in Sydney, Australia, equipped with a 6.6kW solar system and a Sungrow SG5KTL-MT inverter. The evaluation focuses on the suitability of these battery solutions for potential off-grid capability and Vehicle-to-Home (V2H) functionality. The analysis reveals that while both Tesla Powerwall and Sungrow offer compelling features for home energy storage, Sungrow battery systems, particularly when paired with their hybrid inverters, present a more direct and comprehensive solution for achieving 3-phase off-grid capability. For V2H integration, both systems currently rely on the development of compatible bidirectional charging infrastructure in Australia. Based on the user's stated goals, a Sungrow battery system, potentially requiring an upgrade to a Sungrow hybrid inverter, is the recommended solution.

2. Introduction: Context and Objectives

The Australian residential energy landscape is witnessing a significant shift towards energy independence, with increasing adoption of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems and battery storage. This trend is propelled by factors such as escalating electricity costs and a growing desire for reliable power, particularly during grid outages. This report addresses the specific needs of a Sydney homeowner who has already invested in a 6.6kW solar system connected to a 3-phase Sungrow SG5KTL-MT inverter and owns a Tesla electric vehicle. The homeowner is now exploring battery storage solutions, with a particular focus on enabling potential off-grid operation and facilitating future Vehicle-to-Home (V2H) capabilities for their Tesla.

The primary objectives of this report are threefold: firstly, to evaluate the technical and practical suitability of Tesla Powerwall for a 3-phase home in Sydney; secondly, to conduct a similar evaluation for various Sungrow battery options; and thirdly, to provide a comparative assessment of these two leading solutions based on their ability to support off-grid functionality and integrate with V2H technology. The scope of this analysis includes the latest Tesla Powerwall models available in Australia and relevant high-voltage battery options from Sungrow, specifically the SBR and SBH series. The geographical context is limited to Sydney, Australia, considering local grid regulations and market availability. This analysis relies on the provided research material and publicly accessible technical specifications to form its conclusions.

3. Analysis of Tesla Powerwall for a 3-Phase Sydney Home

• 3.1 Technical Specifications and Features:\ The Tesla Powerwall is a well-established residential battery system. The latest generation, Powerwall 3, offers an energy capacity of 13.5 kWh 1 and can deliver up to 10 kW of on-grid power, with the same capacity for backup power, capable of a 185 A motor start 1. A key feature of Powerwall 3 is its integrated solar inverter with a 97.5% efficiency and three solar inputs with Maximum Power Point Trackers (MPPTs) in the Australian version 1. The system is scalable, allowing for the installation of up to four units 1, and utilizes Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) battery chemistry, known for its safety 5. In contrast, the Powerwall 2, while also having a 13.5 kWh energy capacity 7, provides a continuous power output of 5 kW with a 7 kW peak 7. Notably, Powerwall 2 does not have an integrated solar inverter 7 and uses Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide (NMC) battery chemistry 7. It offers greater scalability, supporting up to ten units 1. Both Powerwall 2 and 3 come with a 10-year warranty 2. Powerwall 3 necessitates the use of the Tesla Backup Gateway 2 2, while Powerwall 2 requires a Gateway for system control and backup functionality 7. The integrated inverter in Powerwall 3 streamlines installations for new solar and storage setups. However, for homeowners with existing inverters, such as the user, this feature might introduce complexities as the existing inverter's functionality could become redundant if the system were configured to primarily utilize the Powerwall 3's inverter. Powerwall 2, designed as an AC-coupled battery, might offer a more seamless integration by working in conjunction with the existing Sungrow inverter 3.
• 3.2 Compatibility with Existing 3-Phase Sungrow Inverter (AC Coupling):\ Tesla Powerwall is designed as an AC-coupled battery, meaning it connects to the home's electrical system at the switchboard level and operates independently of the solar inverter 9. This AC coupling capability generally allows Powerwall to be compatible with a wide range of existing solar inverters, including the user's 3-phase Sungrow SG5KTL-MT model 2. Specifically, Powerwall 2 demonstrates 100% compatibility with single-phase grid-connected solar systems installed after October 2016 9. For Powerwall 3, Tesla indicates AC coupling compatibility with existing solar systems up to 5kW 2. However, a crucial consideration arises during grid outages concerning the ability to charge the Powerwall from solar. If the home has a 3-phase solar inverter, like the user's Sungrow SG5KTL-MT, Powerwall 2 might not be able to charge from solar during a blackout because many 3-phase inverters require the presence of all three phases from the grid to operate 9. This limitation could also extend to Powerwall 3 when AC-coupled with a 3-phase inverter 8. Given the user's interest in potential off-grid capability, this inability to recharge the battery from solar during a grid outage significantly limits the duration of backup power to the energy stored within the Powerwall. Furthermore, the user's 6.6kW solar system output exceeds the 5kW AC coupling limit specified for a single Powerwall 3. This suggests that either the entire solar generation cannot be used to charge a single Powerwall 3 via AC coupling, or a more complex configuration involving multiple Powerwall units might be necessary.
• 3.3 Suitability for Off-Grid Operation in a 3-Phase System:\ The Tesla Powerwall is fundamentally a single-phase battery system and can only provide backup power to a single phase within a 3-phase home 8. During a power outage, only the electrical circuits connected to the phase that the Powerwall is backing up will remain operational 8. This necessitates careful planning to ensure that essential loads, such as lighting, refrigerators, and internet connectivity, are connected to this designated phase 8. While it is possible to install multiple Powerwall units, with one unit dedicated to each phase, this significantly increases the overall cost and introduces complexities in system management 8. Notably, even with the installation of three Powerwall 3 units, comprehensive 3-phase backup is not guaranteed 20. It is also important to recognize that Tesla does not officially support or provide warranties for off-grid installations of Powerwall 2. The Powerwall system is primarily designed for grid-connected homes to provide backup during outages and to optimize energy consumption, rather than functioning as the primary power source in a completely off-grid scenario. Therefore, achieving a truly comprehensive off-grid capability for a 3-phase home using Tesla Powerwall would likely involve a substantial financial investment in multiple units, meticulous load balancing across the phases, and navigating the limitations of single-phase backup, all without official support from the manufacturer.
• 3.4 Potential for V2H Integration with an EV in Australia:\ Vehicle-to-Home (V2H) technology, which allows an electric vehicle to supply power back to a home, is gaining traction in Australia. Regulatory changes have been made to permit bidirectional charging systems, with mainstream adoption expected in 2025 21. Australian standards for bidirectional charging are now approved, and compatible chargers are anticipated to become available in 2025 22. Currently, the research snippets do not indicate that Tesla Powerwall offers direct, integrated V2H functionality with EVs in Australia 1. However, the Tesla Powerwall can play a supportive role in a V2H ecosystem. It can efficiently store excess energy generated by the solar system 1, which could then be used to charge the EV. If the EV is equipped with V2H capabilities and connected to a compatible bidirectional charger, the energy stored in the Powerwall (or directly from solar) could indirectly contribute to powering the home by first charging the vehicle's battery. The actual discharge from the vehicle to the home would be managed by the bidirectional charger and the vehicle's internal systems, not directly by the Powerwall. Therefore, while Powerwall doesn't inherently provide V2H, it can act as a crucial energy storage component within a broader V2H setup.
• 3.5 Cost and Installation Considerations in Sydney:\ The cost of a Tesla Powerwall 3 in Australia is approximately $13,600, which includes the mandatory Backup Gateway 2 2. Powerwall 2 has an approximate price of $8,750 to $9,750, excluding installation and the Backup Gateway 7, with the installed cost estimated between $12,000 and $14,000 7. Installation costs for Powerwall 3 as part of a new solar system at Penrith Solar Centre start at $23,990 (including a 6kW solar system), while adding it to an existing system is around $15,990 27. Installing a Powerwall system in a 3-phase home can incur additional costs and complexities compared to single-phase installations 13. If the goal is to achieve any level of backup across multiple phases using Powerwall, the cost would escalate significantly with the need for multiple units. Homeowners in NSW may be eligible for rebates under the Peak Demand Reduction Scheme (PDRS), which can help offset the initial investment in a Tesla Powerwall 5. However, the overall cost of a Powerwall system, especially when considering a multi-unit setup for more comprehensive backup in a 3-phase home, remains a substantial financial consideration.

4. Analysis of Sungrow Battery Options for a 3-Phase Sydney Home

• 4.1 Technical Specifications of Relevant Sungrow Battery Models (SBR and SBH Series):\ Sungrow offers a range of high-voltage battery solutions, primarily the SBR and SBH series, utilizing Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePO4) chemistry for enhanced safety 5. The SBR series features a modular design with 3.2 kWh battery modules, allowing for system capacities ranging from 9.6 kWh (3 modules) up to 25.6 kWh (8 modules) in a single stack. Multiple stacks can be connected in parallel to achieve even larger capacities, up to 100 kWh 6. These batteries boast 100% usable energy capacity 26 and are high-voltage systems 33. The SBH series also employs a modular design with larger 5 kWh battery modules. A single stack can accommodate 4 to 8 modules, providing usable energy from 20 kWh to 40 kWh. Similar to the SBR series, multiple SBH stacks can be connected in parallel to reach a maximum capacity of 160 kWh 5. Both the SBR and SBH series come with a 10-year warranty 5 and are primarily designed for DC coupling with Sungrow's hybrid inverter range, particularly the SH series, which includes models specifically designed for 3-phase systems (SH-RT series) 33. The availability of a wider range of capacities and the modular design of both the SBR and SBH series provide greater flexibility for the user to tailor a battery system to their specific energy consumption needs. The SBH series, with its larger 5 kWh modules, appears particularly well-suited for homes with potentially higher energy demands, such as those with 3-phase connections.
• 4.2 Compatibility with Existing 3-Phase Sungrow Inverter (DC and AC Coupling):\ The user's existing Sungrow SG5KTL-MT inverter is a grid-tied inverter and not a hybrid model designed for direct DC coupling with batteries 5. Sungrow's high-voltage batteries, such as the SBR and SBH series, are primarily intended for DC coupling with their SH series hybrid inverters 33. While direct DC coupling is not an option with the SG5KTL-MT, it is possible to AC couple Sungrow batteries to the existing solar system 35. This would likely require the addition of a separate battery inverter to manage the charging and discharging of the Sungrow battery, as the SG5KTL-MT does not have this functionality. Although AC coupling offers a way to integrate a battery without replacing the existing solar inverter, it can introduce inefficiencies due to the multiple AC-DC and DC-AC conversions. For optimal performance and to fully leverage the capabilities of Sungrow's high-voltage batteries, particularly for off-grid operation, upgrading to a Sungrow SH series hybrid inverter would be the recommended approach.
• 4.3 Suitability for Off-Grid Operation in a 3-Phase System:\ Sungrow offers a distinct advantage in providing solutions for 3-phase off-grid operation through their SH-RT series of hybrid inverters 5. These inverters, when paired with Sungrow's SBR or SBH batteries, are capable of providing seamless transition to 3-phase backup power during grid outages 63. The SH-RT series is specifically designed to support 100% unbalanced loads in backup mode, ensuring that essential appliances continue to run during a blackout 66. Both the SBR and SBH battery series are compatible with off-grid operation when used in conjunction with the appropriate Sungrow hybrid inverters. Some single-phase Sungrow hybrid inverters (SH-RS series) also offer off-grid capabilities and support generator connection for battery charging during extended periods of low solar generation 85. This comprehensive ecosystem of Sungrow products provides a more direct and integrated pathway for the user to achieve their goal of potential 3-phase off-grid capability compared to the single-phase limitations of Tesla Powerwall.
• 4.4 Potential for V2H Integration with an EV (e.g Tesla Car) in Australia:\ Similar to Tesla Powerwall, the provided research material does not explicitly mention direct V2H integration capabilities for Sungrow battery systems with Tesla cars in Australia 22. However, Sungrow's active involvement in the broader renewable energy and electric vehicle charging sectors suggests a strong potential for future integration. Sungrow manufactures its own range of EV chargers 64, and their 3-phase hybrid inverter solutions can be paired with these chargers for smart green power charging 64. As V2H technology and the necessary bidirectional charging infrastructure become more prevalent in Australia, it is conceivable that Sungrow's integrated energy management systems, including their batteries and hybrid inverters, could be updated to support V2H functionality, potentially even with Tesla vehicles through standardized protocols or future partnerships. In the interim, a Sungrow battery system can efficiently store solar energy, which could then be used to charge a Tesla car. The potential for the EV to discharge back to the home would depend on the availability and compatibility of third-party bidirectional chargers that adhere to the evolving Australian standards.
• 4.5 Cost and Installation Considerations in Sydney:\ The cost of Sungrow batteries in Australia varies depending on the model and capacity. For the SBR series, a 9.6 kWh system is approximately $11,500 installed, a 12.8 kWh system around $13,200 installed, and a 25.6 kWh system around $19,700 installed. Supply-only costs for the SBH series 20 kWh kit range from $13,778.70 to $14,360 40. Compatible 3-phase hybrid inverters from Sungrow, such as the SH5.0RT, are priced around $3,760, while the SH10RT ranges from approximately $4,174.50 to $5,720 78. If the user opts for a Sungrow battery system to achieve optimal 3-phase off-grid capability, the cost of a new SH series hybrid inverter would need to be included, as the existing SG5KTL-MT is not compatible for direct DC coupling. While AC coupling might be a less expensive initial step, it could involve the additional cost of a separate battery inverter. Homeowners in NSW can potentially benefit from the NSW battery rebate when purchasing a Sungrow battery system, which could help reduce the overall cost 5. Although Sungrow batteries often offer a competitive cost per kWh, the total investment for a comprehensive 3-phase off-grid solution might be higher than a single-phase Tesla Powerwall setup, primarily due to the potential need for a new hybrid inverter.

5. Comparative Assessment: Tesla Powerwall vs. Sungrow Batteries

• 5.1 Side-by-Side Comparison Table of Key Specifications:

| Feature | Tesla Powerwall 3 | Sungrow SBR (Example: 12.8 kWh) + SH10RT | | --- | --- | --- | | Usable Energy Capacity (kWh) | 13.5 | 12.8 | | Continuous Power Output (kW) | 10 | 10 | | Peak Power Output (kW) | 10 | 12 (5 min) | | Battery Chemistry | Lithium Iron Phosphate | Lithium Iron Phosphate | | Scalability | Up to 4 units (54 kWh) | Up to 25.6 kWh per stack, 4 stacks parallel (102.4 kWh) | | Off-Grid Backup (Phases Supported) | Single-Phase | Three-Phase | | V2H Support (Current/Future Potential) | Potential via 3rd party charger | Potential via 3rd party charger | | Warranty (Years) | 10 | 10 | | Estimated Cost (AUD) | $13,600 + installation | $13,200 (battery installed) + $4,175 - $5,720 (inverter) |

• 5.2 Detailed Comparison Based on Off-Grid Capability Requirements:\ When considering the user's goal of potential off-grid capability for a 3-phase home, Sungrow presents a more robust solution. The availability of Sungrow's SH-RT series hybrid inverters, specifically designed for 3-phase systems and fully compatible with their SBR and SBH batteries, allows for a direct and integrated approach to achieving 3-phase backup power. These systems can seamlessly transition to off-grid mode, powering all three phases of the home, which is crucial for operating 3-phase appliances and ensuring comprehensive whole-house backup. In contrast, Tesla Powerwall, being a single-phase battery, inherently limits off-grid backup to a single phase in a 3-phase home 8. While multiple Powerwall units can be installed, this increases cost and complexity without guaranteeing full 3-phase backup or official off-grid support from Tesla. Therefore, for a user prioritizing potential for comprehensive 3-phase off-grid operation, Sungrow's ecosystem offers a more suitable and supported pathway.
• 5.3 Detailed Comparison Based on V2H Functionality Requirements:\ Currently, neither Tesla Powerwall nor Sungrow batteries offer direct, integrated V2H functionality for Tesla cars in Australia 22. Both systems can store solar energy that could be used to charge a EV, and the potential for the car to discharge back to the home (V2H) would rely on the development and adoption of compatible bidirectional charging infrastructure in Australia, which is expected to become more mainstream in 2025 21. Sungrow's involvement in manufacturing EV chargers and integrating them with their hybrid inverters suggests a potential for future V2H integration within their ecosystem. Similarly, while Tesla Powerwall doesn't currently offer V2H, its role as a home energy storage solution makes it a complementary technology to V2H, providing a place to store energy that could eventually be managed within a V2H framework.
• 5.4 Cost-Effectiveness and Overall Value Analysis:\ When evaluating cost-effectiveness, Sungrow batteries often have a lower cost per kWh of storage compared to Tesla Powerwall 5. However, for the user with an existing non-hybrid inverter, achieving the desired 3-phase off-grid capability with Sungrow would likely necessitate an additional investment in a Sungrow SH-RT series hybrid inverter. This would increase the initial outlay compared to simply AC coupling a Tesla Powerwall to the existing inverter for single-phase backup. The overall value proposition depends heavily on the user's priorities. If the primary goal is to have backup power for essential loads on a single phase and potential future V2H integration, Tesla Powerwall could be a viable option. However, if the potential for comprehensive 3-phase off-grid operation is a significant factor, then the added expense of a Sungrow hybrid inverter might be justified by the enhanced functionality and future-proofing for energy independence. Sungrow's reputation for affordability and the modularity of their battery systems also offer long-term value and flexibility.

6. Recommendations and Considerations

Based on the analysis, for a 3-phase home in Sydney with a 6.6kW solar system and the goal of potential off-grid capability, Sungrow battery options are recommended. Specifically, the user should consider upgrading their existing Sungrow SG5KTL-MT inverter to a Sungrow SH series hybrid inverter (e.g., SH5.0RT or SH10RT, depending on anticipated power demands) and pairing it with a Sungrow high-voltage battery from either the SBR or SBH series. The choice between SBR and SBH would depend on the desired storage capacity and budget. This combination offers a more direct and supported path to achieving 3-phase backup power and the potential for future off-grid operation.

Key Considerations for the User:

• Off-Grid Capability: The level of off-grid capability desired (partial single-phase backup vs. comprehensive whole-home 3-phase backup) is a crucial factor. For the latter, Sungrow is the more suitable choice.
• Budget: Both options represent a significant investment. The user should obtain detailed quotes for both Tesla Powerwall (considering single or multiple units) and a complete Sungrow hybrid inverter and battery system.
• V2H Timeline: The user's timeline for V2H adoption should be considered. Both systems will likely integrate via third-party chargers.
• Inverter Upgrade: If pursuing the optimal Sungrow solution for off-grid capability, the cost and logistics of upgrading the existing inverter need to be factored in.
• 3-Phase Backup Importance: The necessity of having backup power across all three phases should weigh heavily in the decision, favoring Sungrow.

It is strongly recommended that the user obtain detailed quotes from certified installers in the Sydney area for both Tesla Powerwall and various Sungrow system configurations to get accurate pricing, installation details, and information on available rebates and incentives in NSW.

7. Conclusion

In conclusion, while Tesla Powerwall offers a well-regarded solution for home energy storage with reliable backup capabilities, its inherent single-phase design presents limitations for users with 3-phase homes seeking comprehensive off-grid functionality. Sungrow, with its range of high-voltage batteries and particularly its 3-phase hybrid inverter systems, provides a more direct and technically sound pathway to achieving the user's goals of potential 3-phase off-grid operation. For V2H integration, both systems are currently positioned to benefit from the evolving Australian regulatory landscape and the development of compatible bidirectional charging technologies. Ultimately, the optimal choice will depend on the user's specific priorities, budget, and the level of off-grid capability they wish to achieve. The rapidly evolving nature of battery storage and V2H technology suggests that continued research and consultation with experts are advisable before making a final decision.

Works cited

1. Powerwall – Home Battery Storage | Tesla Australia, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.tesla.com/en_au/powerwall\ 2. Tesla Powerwall 3 in Australia: Everything You Need to Know - Fritts Solar, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.frittssolar.com.au/tesla-powerwall-3-australia/\ 3. What to Expect for Powerwall 3 | Tesla Support Australia, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.tesla.com/en_au/support/energy/powerwall/learn/what-expect-powerwall-3\ 4. Tesla Powerwall 3 Review - Clean Energy Reviews, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.cleanenergyreviews.info/blog/tesla-powerwall-3-review\ 5. Sungrow SBH vs. Tesla Powerwall 3: Which is Better? NSW - Elite Power Group, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.elitepowergroup.com.au/news/sungrow-sbh-vs-tesla-powerwall-3-which-is-better-nsw/\ 6. Sungrow Battery vs Tesla Powerwall Review - Volteam Electric, accessed March 14, 2025, https://volteam.com.au/blog/sungrow-vs-tesla-battery-review/\ 7. Tesla Powerwall 2: A Complete 2024 Buyers Guide | Solar Choice, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.solarchoice.net.au/products/batteries/tesla-powerwall-2-review/\ 8. Can You Install The Powerwall 3 On A Three-Phase Home? - SolarQuotes, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/three-phase-powerwall-3/\ 9. Is my grid connect solar system 100% compatible with a Tesla Powerwall 2 battery?, accessed March 14, 2025, https://support.solarquotes.com.au/hc/en-us/articles/115001986773-Is-my-grid-connect-solar-system-100-compatible-with-a-Tesla-Powerwall-2-battery\ 10. THE 3-PHASE SOLUTION - SUNGROW, accessed March 14, 2025, https://uk.sungrowpower.com/upload/file/20210706/EN%203-phaseSolution%20Factsheet.pdf\ 11. Combining Systems with Powerwall | Tesla Support, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.tesla.com/support/energy/powerwall/learn/combining-systems\ 12. Powerwall System Design | Tesla Support, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.tesla.com/support/energy/powerwall/learn/system-design\ 13. Installing Powerwall 3 on a Three-phase Site | PSC - Penrith Solar Centre, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.penrithsolar.com.au/blog/installing-powerwall-3-on-a-three-phase-site/\ 14. Powerwall 3: When It Makes Sense and When It Doesn't - SolarQuotes, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/powerwall-3-when-it-makes-sense/\ 15. AC-Coupled Solar System Sizing - Energy Library - Tesla, accessed March 14, 2025, https://energylibrary.tesla.com/docs/Public/EnergyStorage/Powerwall/3/SystemDesign/en-us/GUID-23D242D1-8D65-47B9-9118-57002FFD84D2.html\ 16. Powerwall 3 Roadmap - 3 Phase Coming! | Tesla Motors Club, accessed March 14, 2025, https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/powerwall-3-roadmap-3-phase-coming.321409/\ 17. Advice on how to install with 3 phase : r/solar - Reddit, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/solar/comments/19djazk/advice_on_how_to_install_with_3_phase/\ 18. TESLA POWERWALL+ (3) - DIY Solar Depot, accessed March 14, 2025, https://diysolardepot.com/product/ground-mount-solar-hardware/pro-solar-ground-trac/\ 19. Design Considerations - Energy Library - Tesla, accessed March 14, 2025, https://energylibrary.tesla.com/docs/Public/EnergyStorage/Powerwall/3/SystemDesign/en-us/GUID-3E19662A-E501-47DB-81AE-E9EC19735B8B.html\ 20. Problems with Powerwall 3 | Penrith Solar Centre, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.penrithsolar.com.au/blog/problems-with-powerwall-3/\ 21. EV Charging in Australia Gets a Makeover with V2G/V2H Approved for 2025 - SEVR, accessed March 14, 2025, https://sevr.au/news/ev-charging-in-australia-gets-a-makeover-with-v2g-v2h-approved-for-2025/\ 22. V2G, V2L & V2H Explained: Vehicle to Grid in Australia? 2025 - Elite Power Group, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.elitepowergroup.com.au/news/what-is-vehicle-to-grid/\ 23. Australia's Future – Bidirectional EV Charging, Solar & Battery Storage as Standard Features, accessed March 14, 2025, https://fullycharged.show/blog/australias-future-bidirectional-ev-charging-solar-battery-storage-as-standard-features/\ 24. 2025, the Year of Vehicle-to-Grid in Australia V2G Milestone - Elite Power Group, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.elitepowergroup.com.au/news/one-step-closer-to-v2g-in-australia-2025-to-be-the-year-of-v2x/\ 25. Bidirectional Charging for Electric Cars: Unlocking New Possibilities - Solar Batteries Online, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.solarbatteriesonline.com.au/bidirectional-charging-for-electric-cars-unlocking-new-possibilities/\ 26. The Best Home Batteries In Australia In 2025: According To Aussie Installers - SolarQuotes, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/best-home-batteries-2025/\ 27. How Much Does a Tesla Powerwall 3 Cost? | Penrith Solar Centre, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.penrithsolar.com.au/blog/how-much-does-a-tesla-powerwall-3-cost/\ 28. Expected 3 Phase upgrade price? : r/AusRenovation - Reddit, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AusRenovation/comments/19383oa/expected_3_phase_upgrade_price/\ 29. Powerwall cost for Sydney? | Tesla Motors Club, accessed March 14, 2025, https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/powerwall-cost-for-sydney.340317/\ 30. Solar Battery Costs: Are They Worth It?, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.solarchoice.net.au/solar-batteries/is-home-battery-storage-worth-it/\ 31. Tesla Powerwall 3 Price and Installation - Solar4Life, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.solar4life.com.au/learns/tesla-powerwall-3-price-and-installation\ 32. Solar Battery Price, Savings and Payback, accessed March 14, 2025, https://solarcalculator.com.au/battery-storage/price/\ 33. Sungrow | Solar Batteries Review - SolarQuotes, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.solarquotes.com.au/battery-storage/reviews/sungrow-review.html\ 34. Sungrow SBR high voltage battery - VP Solar, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.vpsolar.com/en/sungrow-sbr-high-voltage-battery/\ 35. Sungrow Battery SBR Series - SolarBright, accessed March 14, 2025, https://solarbright.com.au/product/sungrow-battery-sbr-series/\ 36. Sungrow SBR 3.2kWh module - Huglo Solar, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.huglo.com.au/batteries/sbr-high-voltage-lfp-battery\ 37. Sungrow Inverter and battery Review - Clean Energy Reviews, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.cleanenergyreviews.info/blog/sungrow-solar-inverters-review\ 38. SBH100/150/200/250/300/350/400 - Sungrow, accessed March 14, 2025, https://en.sungrowpower.com/productDetail/5568/battery-sbh100-150-200-250-300-350-400\ 39. 20/25/30/35/40 kWh Solar Battery - Sungrow AU, accessed March 14, 2025, https://aus.sungrowpower.com/productDetail/3112/battery-sbh200-250-300-350-400\ 40. Sungrow SBH Stackable Battery System - Grow Energy, accessed March 14, 2025, https://growenergy.com.au/products/sungrow-sbh-stackable-battery-system\ 41. Sungrow SBH High Voltage Battery Bundle (SBH200 - SBH400), accessed March 14, 2025, https://solarbatterysupermarket.com.au/products/sungrow-sbh-high-voltage-battery-bundle-sbh200-sbh400\ 42. Buy cheap SunGrow solar inverters, accessed March 14, 2025, https://tienda-solar.es/en/brand/54-sungrow\ 43. Sungrow PowCube battery storage system (Analysis & review) - Solar Choice, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.solarchoice.net.au/products/batteries/sungrow-review/\ 44. What inverters do we connect to? – Welcome to our Help Center - Support - SwitchDin, accessed March 14, 2025, https://support.switchdin.com/hc/en-us/articles/19642583185817-What-inverters-do-we-connect-to\ 45. Accessories Cross Reference Guide - Sungrow Australia Service, accessed March 14, 2025, https://service.sungrowpower.com.au/files/Web_Files/FAQ/TI_202007_Sungrow%20Accessories%20Cross%20Reference%20Guide_V1.0.pdf\ 46. Sungrow - Solar System Inverter - Solargain, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.solargain.com.au/solar-inverters/sungrow-solar-inverters\ 47. Sungrow Battery Review | A Comprehensive Guide - Esteem Energy, accessed March 14, 2025, https://esteemenergy.com.au/blog/sungrow-battery-review/\ 48. Sungrow 5kW Inverter + Tesla Powerwall + Longi 370w Hi-MO4m 7.4kW Solar System, accessed March 14, 2025, https://ahlecsolar.com.au/product/sungrow-5kw-inverter-tesla-powerwall-longi-370w-hi-mo4m-7-4kw-solar-system/\ 49. Sungrow | Solar Inverters Review - SolarQuotes, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.solarquotes.com.au/inverters/sungrow-review.html\ 50. Tesla Powerwall: Inverter Compatibility Under the Spotlight - 1KOMMA5, accessed March 14, 2025, https://1komma5.com/au/batteries/tesla-powerwall-2-compatible-solar-power-system/\ 51. Hi everybody, question about V2H power : r/electricvehicles - Reddit, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/electricvehicles/comments/1hqneh3/hi_everybody_question_about_v2h_power/\ 52. Commercial Solar System | PV Plant | Rooftop - Sungrow US, accessed March 14, 2025, https://us.sungrowpower.com/solutionsDetail/10/commercial-storage-systems\ 53. SH8.0/10RS | 8kW/10kW | Single Phase | Sungrow Hybrid Inverter-Sungrow AU, accessed March 14, 2025, https://aus.sungrowpower.com/productDetail/2565/mv-power-converter-hybrid-inverter-sh8-0-10rs\ 54. Approved Batteries with SH Series Hybrid Inverters - Sungrow Australia Service, accessed March 14, 2025, https://service.sungrowpower.com.au/files/Web_Files/FAQ/Approved%20battery%20declaration%20for%20sungrow%20hybrid%20inverters-20201209_V14_EN.pdf\ 55. Right inverter for the Tesla Powerwall 2 : r/solar - Reddit, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/solar/comments/1chgnj8/right_inverter_for_the_tesla_powerwall_2/\ 56. Sungrow Inverters - Gold Coast Solar Power Solutions, accessed March 14, 2025, https://gold-coast-solar-power-solutions.com.au/gold-coast-solar-power-products/solar-power-inverters/sungrow-inverters/\ 57. Sungrow SBR192 Lithium-ion Battery - Europe-SolarStore.com, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.europe-solarstore.com/sungrow-sbr192-lithium-ion-battery.html\ 58. High-Efficiency Solar Battery: Up to 100% Usable Energy - Sungrow, accessed March 14, 2025, https://en.sungrowpower.com/ProductsHome/20/23/battery\ 59. Warranty | Sungrow Australia and New Zealand Service, accessed March 14, 2025, https://service.sungrowpower.com.au/Warranty/warranty\ 60. Sungrow Battery cross-reference chart, accessed March 14, 2025, https://service.sungrowpower.com.au/GD_202405_SBR%20and%20SBH_Cross%20Reference%20Chart_V1.4%20Final.pdf\ 61. Sungrow SG5KTL-MT - SolarTopStore.com, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.solartopstore.com/products/sungrow-sg5ktl-mt\ 62. Approved Batteries with SH Series Hybrid Inverters EU Version V1.6.3 - Sungrow AU, accessed March 14, 2025, https://aus.sungrowpower.com/upload/file/20211119/TI_20210906_approved%20battery%20declaration%20for%20sungrow%20hybrid%20inverters_V16_EN.pdf\ 63. BLACKOUT? NO, THANKS! POWER WHENEVER YOU NEED IT - SUNGROW, accessed March 14, 2025, https://uk.sungrowpower.com/upload/file/20211202/EN%20FS%20Sungrow%203-phase%20Hybrid%20Backup%20Factsheet.pdf\ 64. Sungrow 3-phase solution with 6 kVA inverter, EV charger and 9.6 kWh storage - Memodo, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.memodo-shop.com/sungrow-3-phase-solution-with-6-kva-inverter-ev-charger-and-9.6-kwh-storage/9767\ 65. THE 3-PHASE SOLUTION - SUNGROW, accessed March 14, 2025, https://uk.sungrowpower.com/upload/file/20230116/EN%20FS%203-phaseSolution%20Factsheet.pdf\ 66. Sungrow Three-Phase Hybrid Inverter - Solar4Life, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.solar4life.com.au/product-detail/sungrow-5-20kw-3-phase-hybrid\ 67. SG5KTL-MT/SG6KTL-MT/SG8KTL-M (Non-China ... - ENF Solar, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.enfsolar.com/pv/inverter-datasheet/12176\ 68. Sungrow SBR battery combiner box - AC Solar Warehouse, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.acsolarwarehouse.com/shop/sungrow-battery-combiner-box-for-multiple-sungrow-lfp-battery-stacks-23620\ 69. Sungrow SBR HV Battery Installation Quick Guide, accessed March 14, 2025, https://service.sungrowpower.com.au/files/Web_Files/FAQ/GD_202202_SBR%20HV%20Battery%20Installation%20Quick%20Guide%20with%201%20Phase%20SHxRS_V3.0.pdf\ 70. Energy Storage System Products Catalogue - SUNGROW, accessed March 14, 2025, https://uk.sungrowpower.com/upload/file/20210909/EN%20BR%20Sungrow%20Energy%20Storage%20System%20Products%20Catalogue.pdf\ 71. DC Coupling vs AC Coupling: Which Solar System to Choose - Sungrow, accessed March 14, 2025, https://en.sungrowpower.com/blog-detail/5983/dc-coupling-vs-ac-coupling-which-solar-system-to-choose\ 72. Sungrow SBH battery - Accessory kit | AC Solar Warehouse AU, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.acsolarwarehouse.com/shop/sbh-accessory-kit-sungrow-sbh-battery-accessory-kit-25310\ 73. Sungrow SBR 3.2kWh High Voltage Battery Module , ASA00460 - Alternergy, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.alternergy.co.uk/sungrow-sbr-3-2-kwh-battery-asa00460\ 74. NEW Sungrow single phase hybrid inverters can operate without the grid or a battery, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.acsolarwarehouse.com/blog/news-7/new-sungrow-single-phase-hybrid-inverters-can-operate-without-the-grid-or-a-battery-255\ 75. Lawnton Sungrow SBH & Solar Hybrid System | Alvolta, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.alvolta.com.au/portfolio/info/74\ 76. Sungrow Battery Starter Pack - Huglo Solar, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.huglo.com.au/post/sungrow-battery-starter-pack\ 77. Sungrow SBR Battery System Bundles, accessed March 14, 2025, https://solarbatterysupermarket.com.au/products/sungrow-sbr-battery-system-bundles\ 78. Sungrow Hybrid 10kW RT Three-Phase Solar Inverter, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.springers.com.au/shop/sh10rt-sungrow-hybrid-10kw-rt-three-phase-solar-inverter-15108\ 79. Sungrow RT 5kW Three Phase Hybrid inverter (2 MPPT) SH5.0RT - Solar Batteries Online, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.solarbatteriesonline.com.au/product/sungrow-sh5-0rt-hv-5-0kw-residential-hybrid-three-phase-inverter/\ 80. SUNGROW SH10RT | 10kW 3-Phase Hybrid Inverter - Sparky Direct, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.sparkydirect.com.au/p/sungrow-sh10rt-10kw-3-phase-hybrid-inverter\ 81. Sungrow Hybrid 10kW 3 Phase 2 MPPT w/WiFi, DC Switch & EPS Built-in Inverter, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.solarheroes.com.au/product/sungrow-hybrid-10kw-3-phase-2-mppt-w-wifi-dc-switch-eps-built-in-inverter/\ 82. Sungrow Solar Inverters - Independent Review, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.solarchoice.net.au/products/inverters/Sungrow-review/\ 83. Sungrow 10.0kW - 3 Phase Hybrid Inverter (SH10RT) - Solar Superstore, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.solarsuperstore.com.au/products/sungrow-8-0kw-3-phase-hybrid-inverter-sh8-0rt\ 84. How Much Do Solar Batteries Cost in Australia? - SolarQuotes, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.solarquotes.com.au/battery-storage/cost/\ 85. Off Grid Solar system using a Sungrow inverter and battery, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.acsolarwarehouse.com/blog/news-7/off-grid-solar-system-using-a-sungrow-inverter-and-battery-312\ 86. Sungrow 14.08k W Off Grid Solar System / Single Phase - AHLEC, accessed March 14, 2025, https://ahlecsolar.com.au/product/sungrow-14-08k-w-off-grid-solar-system-single-phase/\ 87. Residential Battery Energy Storage System - Sungrow AU, accessed March 14, 2025, https://aus.sungrowpower.com/solutionsDetail/9/residential-storage-system\ 88. EV Charger - Sungrow, accessed March 14, 2025, https://en.sungrowpower.com/ProductsHome/59/ev-charger\ 89. Sungrow SBH 20kW High Voltage LFP Battery Including Accessory Kit SBH200 | eBay, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/135320073679\ 90. 20kWh Battery Kit - Login - Australian Solar Supplies Pty Ltd, accessed March 14, 2025, http://shop.ausolarsupplies.com.au/s.nl/it.A/id.6047/.f\ 91. Sungrow - Solar Batteries Online, accessed March 14, 2025, https://www.solarbatteriesonline.com.au/sungrow/

# Comparative Evaluation of Tesla Powerwall and Sungrow Battery Options for a 3-Phase Sydney Residence

1. Executive Summary

This report presents a detailed comparative analysis of Tesla Powerwall and Sungrow battery options for a 3-phase residence in Sydney, Australia, equipped with a 6.6kW solar system and a Sungrow SG5KTL-MT inverter. The evaluation focuses on the suitability of these battery solutions for potential off-grid capability and Vehicle-to-Home (V2H) functionality for a EV. The analysis reveals that while both Tesla Powerwall and Sungrow offer compelling features for home energy storage, Sungrow battery systems, particularly when paired with their hybrid inverters, present a more direct and comprehensive solution for achieving 3-phase off-grid capability. For V2H integration, both systems currently rely on the development of compatible bidirectional charging infrastructure in Australia. Based on the user's stated goals, a Sungrow battery system, potentially requiring an upgrade to a Sungrow hybrid inverter, is the recommended solution.

2. Introduction: Context and Objectives

The Australian residential energy landscape is witnessing a significant shift towards energy independence, with increasing adoption of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems and battery storage. This trend is propelled by factors such as escalating electricity costs and a growing desire for reliable power, particularly during grid outages. This report addresses the specific needs of a Sydney homeowner who has already invested in a 6.6kW solar system connected to a 3-phase Sungrow SG5KTL-MT inverter and owns a Tesla electric vehicle. The homeowner is now exploring battery storage solutions, with a particular focus on enabling potential off-grid operation and facilitating future Vehicle-to-Home (V2H) capabilities for their Tesla.

The primary objectives of this report are threefold: firstly, to evaluate the technical and practical suitability of Tesla Powerwall for a 3-phase home in Sydney; secondly, to conduct a similar evaluation for various Sungrow battery options; and thirdly, to provide a comparative assessment of these two leading solutions based on their ability to support off-grid functionality and integrate with V2H technology. The scope of this analysis includes the latest Tesla Powerwall models available in Australia and relevant high-voltage battery options from Sungrow, specifically the SBR and SBH series. The geographical context is limited to Sydney, Australia, considering local grid regulations and market availability. This analysis relies on the provided research material and publicly accessible technical specifications to form its conclusions.

3. Analysis of Tesla Powerwall for a 3-Phase Sydney Home

3.1 Technical Specifications and Features:

The Tesla Powerwall is a well-established residential battery system. The latest generation, Powerwall 3, offers an energy capacity of 13.5 kWh 1 and can deliver up to 10 kW of on-grid power, with the same capacity for backup power, capable of a 185 A motor start 1. A key feature of Powerwall 3 is its integrated solar inverter with a 97.5% efficiency and three solar inputs with Maximum Power Point Trackers (MPPTs) in the Australian version 1. The system is scalable, allowing for the installation of up to four units 1, and utilizes Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) battery chemistry, known for its safety 5. In contrast, the Powerwall 2, while also having a 13.5 kWh energy capacity 7, provides a continuous power output of 5 kW with a 7 kW peak 7. Notably, Powerwall 2 does not have an integrated solar inverter 7 and uses Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide (NMC) battery chemistry 7. It offers greater scalability, supporting up to ten units 1. Both Powerwall 2 and 3 come with a 10-year warranty 2. Powerwall 3 necessitates the use of the Tesla Backup Gateway 2 2, while Powerwall 2 requires a Gateway for system control and backup functionality 7. The integrated inverter in Powerwall 3 streamlines installations for new solar and storage setups. However, for homeowners with existing inverters, such as the user, this feature might introduce complexities as the existing inverter's functionality could become redundant if the system were configured to primarily utilize the Powerwall 3's inverter. Powerwall 2, designed as an AC-coupled battery, might offer a more seamless integration by working in conjunction with the existing Sungrow inverter 3.

3.2 Compatibility with Existing 3-Phase Sungrow Inverter (AC Coupling):

Tesla Powerwall is designed as an AC-coupled battery, meaning it connects to the home's electrical system at the switchboard level and operates independently of the solar inverter 9. This AC coupling capability generally allows Powerwall to be compatible with a wide range of existing solar inverters, including the user's 3-phase Sungrow SG5KTL-MT model 2. Specifically, Powerwall 2 demonstrates 100% compatibility with single-phase grid-connected solar systems installed after October 2016 9. For Powerwall 3, Tesla indicates AC coupling compatibility with existing solar systems up to 5kW 2. However, a crucial consideration arises during grid outages concerning the ability to charge the Powerwall from solar. If the home has a 3-phase solar inverter, like the user's Sungrow SG5KTL-MT, Powerwall 2 might not be able to charge from solar during a blackout because many 3-phase inverters require the presence of all three phases from the grid to operate 9. This limitation could also extend to Powerwall 3 when AC-coupled with a 3-phase inverter 8. Given the user's interest in potential off-grid capability, this inability to recharge the battery from solar during a grid outage significantly limits the duration of backup power to the energy stored within the Powerwall. Furthermore, the user's 6.6kW solar system output exceeds the 5kW AC coupling limit specified for a single Powerwall 3. This suggests that either the entire solar generation cannot be used to charge a single Powerwall 3 via AC coupling, or a more complex configuration involving multiple Powerwall units might be necessary.

3.3 Suitability for Off-Grid Operation in a 3-Phase System:

The Tesla Powerwall is fundamentally a single-phase battery system and can only provide backup power to a single phase within a 3-phase home 8. During a power outage, only the electrical circuits connected to the phase that the Powerwall is backing up will remain operational 8. This necessitates careful planning to ensure that essential loads, such as lighting, refrigerators, and internet connectivity, are connected to this designated phase 8. While it is possible to install multiple Powerwall units, with one unit dedicated to each phase, this significantly increases the overall cost and introduces complexities in system management 8. Notably, even with the installation of three Powerwall 3 units, comprehensive 3-phase backup is not guaranteed 20. It is also important to recognize that Tesla does not officially support or provide warranties for off-grid installations of Powerwall 2. The Powerwall system is primarily designed for grid-connected homes to provide backup during outages and to optimize energy consumption, rather than functioning as the primary power source in a completely off-grid scenario. Therefore, achieving a truly comprehensive off-grid capability for a 3-phase home using Tesla Powerwall would likely involve a substantial financial investment in multiple units, meticulous load balancing across the phases, and navigating the limitations of single-phase backup, all without official support from the manufacturer.

3.4 Potential for V2H Integration with a EV in Australia:

Vehicle-to-Home (V2H) technology, which allows an electric vehicle to supply power back to a home, is gaining traction in Australia. Regulatory changes have been made to permit bidirectional charging systems, with mainstream adoption expected in 2025 21. Australian standards for bidirectional charging are now approved, and compatible chargers are anticipated to become available in 2025 22. Currently, the research snippets do not indicate that Tesla Powerwall offers direct, integrated V2H functionality with Tesla cars in Australia 1. However, the Tesla Powerwall can play a supportive role in a V2H ecosystem. It can efficiently store excess energy generated by the solar system 1, which could then be used to charge the Tesla car. If the Tesla car is equipped with V2H capabilities and connected to a compatible bidirectional charger, the energy stored in the Powerwall (or directly from solar) could indirectly contribute to powering the home by first charging the vehicle's battery. The actual discharge from the vehicle to the home would be managed by the bidirectional charger and the vehicle's internal systems, not directly by the Powerwall. Therefore, while Powerwall doesn't inherently provide V2H, it can act as a crucial energy storage component within a broader V2H setup.

3.5 Cost and Installation Considerations in Sydney:

The cost of a Tesla Powerwall 3 in Australia is approximately $13,600, which includes the mandatory Backup Gateway 2 2. Powerwall 2 has an approximate price of $8,750 to $9,750, excluding installation and the Backup Gateway 7, with the installed cost estimated between $12,000 and $14,000 7. Installation costs for Powerwall 3 as part of a new solar system at Penrith Solar Centre start at $23,990 (including a 6kW solar system), while adding it to an existing system is around $15,990 27. Installing a Powerwall system in a 3-phase home can incur additional costs and complexities compared to single-phase installations 13. If the goal is to achieve any level of backup across multiple phases using Powerwall, the cost would escalate significantly with the need for multiple units. Homeowners in NSW may be eligible for rebates under the Peak Demand Reduction Scheme (PDRS), which can help offset the initial investment in a Tesla Powerwall 5. However, the overall cost of a Powerwall system, especially when considering a multi-unit setup for more comprehensive backup in a 3-phase home, remains a substantial financial consideration.

4. Analysis of Sungrow Battery Options for a 3-Phase Sydney Home

4.1 Technical Specifications of Relevant Sungrow Battery Models (SBR and SBH Series):

Sungrow offers a range of high-voltage battery solutions, primarily the SBR and SBH series, utilizing Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePO4) chemistry for enhanced safety 5. The SBR series features a modular design with 3.2 kWh battery modules, allowing for system capacities ranging from 9.6 kWh (3 modules) up to 25.6 kWh (8 modules) in a single stack. Multiple stacks can be connected in parallel to achieve even larger capacities, up to 100 kWh 6. These batteries boast 100% usable energy capacity 26 and are high-voltage systems 33. The SBH series also employs a modular design with larger 5 kWh battery modules. A single stack can accommodate 4 to 8 modules, providing usable energy from 20 kWh to 40 kWh. Similar to the SBR series, multiple SBH stacks can be connected in parallel to reach a maximum capacity of 160 kWh 5. Both the SBR and SBH series come with a 10-year warranty 5 and are primarily designed for DC coupling with Sungrow's hybrid inverter range, particularly the SH series, which includes models specifically designed for 3-phase systems (SH-RT series) 33. The availability of a wider range of capacities and the modular design of both the SBR and SBH series provide greater flexibility for the user to tailor a battery system to their specific energy consumption needs. The SBH series, with its larger 5 kWh modules, appears particularly well-suited for homes with potentially higher energy demands, such as those with 3-phase connections.

4.2 Compatibility with Existing 3-Phase Sungrow Inverter (DC and AC Coupling):

The user's existing Sungrow SG5KTL-MT inverter is a grid-tied inverter and not a hybrid model designed for direct DC coupling with batteries 5. Sungrow's high-voltage batteries, such as the SBR and SBH series, are primarily intended for DC coupling with their SH series hybrid inverters 33. While direct DC coupling is not an option with the SG5KTL-MT, it is possible to AC couple Sungrow batteries to the existing solar system 35. This would likely require the addition of a separate battery inverter to manage the charging and discharging of the Sungrow battery, as the SG5KTL-MT does not have this functionality. Although AC coupling offers a way to integrate a battery without replacing the existing solar inverter, it can introduce inefficiencies due to the multiple AC-DC and DC-AC conversions. For optimal performance and to fully leverage the capabilities of Sungrow's high-voltage batteries, particularly for off-grid operation, upgrading to a Sungrow SH series hybrid inverter would be the recommended approach.

4.3 Suitability for Off-Grid Operation in a 3-Phase System:

Sungrow offers a distinct advantage in providing solutions for 3-phase off-grid operation through their SH-RT series of hybrid inverters 5. These inverters, when paired with Sungrow's SBR or SBH batteries, are capable of providing seamless transition to 3-phase backup power during grid outages 63. The SH-RT series is specifically designed to support 100% unbalanced loads in backup mode, ensuring that essential appliances continue to run during a blackout 66. Both the SBR and SBH battery series are compatible with off-grid operation when used in conjunction with the appropriate Sungrow hybrid inverters. Some single-phase Sungrow hybrid inverters (SH-RS series) also offer off-grid capabilities and support generator connection for battery charging during extended periods of low solar generation 85. This comprehensive ecosystem of Sungrow products provides a more direct and integrated pathway for the user to achieve their goal of potential 3-phase off-grid capability compared to the single-phase limitations of Tesla Powerwall.

4.4 Potential for V2H Integration with a Tesla Car in Australia:

Similar to Tesla Powerwall, the provided research material does not explicitly mention direct V2H integration capabilities for Sungrow battery systems with Tesla cars in Australia 22. However, Sungrow's active involvement in the broader renewable energy and electric vehicle charging sectors suggests a strong potential for future integration. Sungrow manufactures its own range of EV chargers 64, and their 3-phase hybrid inverter solutions can be paired with these chargers for smart green power charging 64. As V2H technology and the necessary bidirectional charging infrastructure become more prevalent in Australia, it is conceivable that Sungrow's integrated energy management systems, including their batteries and hybrid inverters, could be updated to support V2H functionality, potentially even with Tesla vehicles through standardized protocols or future partnerships. In the interim, a Sungrow battery system can efficiently store solar energy, which could then be used to charge a Tesla car. The potential for the Tesla car to discharge back to the home would depend on the availability and compatibility of third-party bidirectional chargers that adhere to the evolving Australian standards.

4.5 Cost and Installation Considerations in Sydney:

The cost of Sungrow batteries in Australia varies depending on the model and capacity. For the SBR series, a 9.6 kWh system is approximately $11,500 installed, a 12.8 kWh system around $13,200 installed, and a 25.6 kWh system around $19,700 installed. Supply-only costs for the SBH series 20 kWh kit range from $13,778.70 to $14,360 40. Compatible 3-phase hybrid inverters from Sungrow, such as the SH5.0RT, are priced around $3,760, while the SH10RT ranges from approximately $4,174.50 to $5,720 78. If the user opts for a Sungrow battery system to achieve optimal 3-phase off-grid capability, the cost of a new SH series hybrid inverter would need to be included, as the existing SG5KTL-MT is not compatible for direct DC coupling. While AC coupling might be a less expensive initial step, it could involve the additional cost of a separate battery inverter. Homeowners in NSW can potentially benefit from the NSW battery rebate when purchasing a Sungrow battery system, which could help reduce the overall cost 5. Although Sungrow batteries often offer a competitive cost per kWh, the total investment for a comprehensive 3-phase off-grid solution might be higher than a single-phase Tesla Powerwall setup, primarily due to the potential need for a new hybrid inverter.

5. Comparative Assessment: Tesla Powerwall vs. Sungrow Batteries

5.1 Side-by-Side Comparison Table of Key Specifications:

| Feature | Tesla Powerwall 3 | Sungrow SBR (Example: 12.8 kWh) + SH10RT |

| :---- | :---- | :---- |

| Usable Energy Capacity (kWh) | 13.5 | 12.8 |

| Continuous Power Output (kW) | 10 | 10 |

| Peak Power Output (kW) | 10 | 12 (5 min) |

| Battery Chemistry | Lithium Iron Phosphate | Lithium Iron Phosphate |

| Scalability | Up to 4 units (54 kWh) | Up to 25.6 kWh per stack, 4 stacks parallel (102.4 kWh) |

| Off-Grid Backup (Phases Supported) | Single-Phase | Three-Phase |

| V2H Support (Current/Future Potential) | Potential via 3rd party charger | Potential via 3rd party charger |

| Warranty (Years) | 10 | 10 |

| Estimated Cost (AUD) | $13,600 + installation | $13,200 (battery installed) + $4,175 - $5,720 (inverter) |

5.2 Detailed Comparison Based on Off-Grid Capability Requirements:

When considering the user's goal of potential off-grid capability for a 3-phase home, Sungrow presents a more robust solution. The availability of Sungrow's SH-RT series hybrid inverters, specifically designed for 3-phase systems and fully compatible with their SBR and SBH batteries, allows for a direct and integrated approach to achieving 3-phase backup power. These systems can seamlessly transition to off-grid mode, powering all three phases of the home, which is crucial for operating 3-phase appliances and ensuring comprehensive whole-house backup. In contrast, Tesla Powerwall, being a single-phase battery, inherently limits off-grid backup to a single phase in a 3-phase home 8. While multiple Powerwall units can be installed, this increases cost and complexity without guaranteeing full 3-phase backup or official off-grid support from Tesla. Therefore, for a user prioritizing potential for comprehensive 3-phase off-grid operation, Sungrow's ecosystem offers a more suitable and supported pathway.

5.3 Detailed Comparison Based on V2H Functionality Requirements:

Currently, neither Tesla Powerwall nor Sungrow batteries offer direct, integrated V2H functionality for Tesla cars in Australia 22. Both systems can store solar energy that could be used to charge a Tesla car, and the potential for the car to discharge back to the home (V2H) would rely on the development and adoption of compatible bidirectional charging infrastructure in Australia, which is expected to become more mainstream in 2025 21. Sungrow's involvement in manufacturing EV chargers and integrating them with their hybrid inverters suggests a potential for future V2H integration within their ecosystem. Similarly, while Tesla Powerwall doesn't currently offer V2H, its role as a home energy storage solution makes it a complementary technology to V2H, providing a place to store energy that could eventually be managed within a V2H framework.

5.4 Cost-Effectiveness and Overall Value Analysis:

When evaluating cost-effectiveness, Sungrow batteries often have a lower cost per kWh of storage compared to Tesla Powerwall 5. However, for the user with an existing non-hybrid inverter, achieving the desired 3-phase off-grid capability with Sungrow would likely necessitate an additional investment in a Sungrow SH-RT series hybrid inverter. This would increase the initial outlay compared to simply AC coupling a Tesla Powerwall to the existing inverter for single-phase backup. The overall value proposition depends heavily on the user's priorities. If the primary goal is to have backup power for essential loads on a single phase and potential future V2H integration, Tesla Powerwall could be a viable option. However, if the potential for comprehensive 3-phase off-grid operation is a significant factor, then the added expense of a Sungrow hybrid inverter might be justified by the enhanced functionality and future-proofing for energy independence. Sungrow's reputation for affordability and the modularity of their battery systems also offer long-term value and flexibility.

6. Recommendations and Considerations

Based on the analysis, for a 3-phase home in Sydney with a 6.6kW solar system and the goal of potential off-grid capability, Sungrow battery options are recommended. Specifically, the user should consider upgrading their existing Sungrow SG5KTL-MT inverter to a Sungrow SH series hybrid inverter (e.g., SH5.0RT or SH10RT, depending on anticipated power demands) and pairing it with a Sungrow high-voltage battery from either the SBR or SBH series. The choice between SBR and SBH would depend on the desired storage capacity and budget. This combination offers a more direct and supported path to achieving 3-phase backup power and the potential for future off-grid operation.

Key Considerations for the User:

Off-Grid Capability: The level of off-grid capability desired (partial single-phase backup vs. comprehensive whole-home 3-phase backup) is a crucial factor. For the latter, Sungrow is the more suitable choice.

Budget: Both options represent a significant investment. The user should obtain detailed quotes for both Tesla Powerwall (considering single or multiple units) and a complete Sungrow hybrid inverter and battery system.

V2H Timeline: The user's timeline for V2H adoption should be considered. Both systems will likely integrate via third-party chargers.

Inverter Upgrade: If pursuing the optimal Sungrow solution for off-grid capability, the cost and logistics of upgrading the existing inverter need to be factored in.

* 3-Phase Backup Importance: The necessity of having backup power across all three phases should weigh heavily in the decision, favoring Sungrow.

It is strongly recommended that the user obtain detailed quotes from certified installers in the Sydney area for both Tesla Powerwall and various Sungrow system configurations to get accurate pricing, installation details, and information on available rebates and incentives in NSW.

7. Conclusion

In conclusion, while Tesla Powerwall offers a well-regarded solution for home energy storage with reliable backup capabilities, its inherent single-phase design presents limitations for users with 3-phase homes seeking comprehensive off-grid functionality. Sungrow, with its range of high-voltage batteries and particularly its 3-phase hybrid inverter systems, provides a more direct and technically sound pathway to achieving the user's goals of potential 3-phase off-grid operation. For V2H integration, both systems are currently positioned to benefit from the evolving Australian regulatory landscape and the development of compatible bidirectional charging technologies. Ultimately, the optimal choice will depend on the user's specific priorities, budget, and the level of off-grid capability they wish to achieve. The rapidly evolving nature of battery storage and V2H technology suggests that continued research and consultation with experts are advisable before making a final decision.

#### Works cited

1. Powerwall – Home Battery Storage | Tesla Australia, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.tesla.com/en_au/powerwall](https://www.tesla.com/en_au/powerwall)

2. Tesla Powerwall 3 in Australia: Everything You Need to Know - Fritts Solar, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.frittssolar.com.au/tesla-powerwall-3-australia/](https://www.frittssolar.com.au/tesla-powerwall-3-australia/)

3. What to Expect for Powerwall 3 | Tesla Support Australia, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.tesla.com/en_au/support/energy/powerwall/learn/what-expect-powerwall-3](https://www.tesla.com/en_au/support/energy/powerwall/learn/what-expect-powerwall-3)

4. Tesla Powerwall 3 Review - Clean Energy Reviews, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.cleanenergyreviews.info/blog/tesla-powerwall-3-review](https://www.cleanenergyreviews.info/blog/tesla-powerwall-3-review)

5. Sungrow SBH vs. Tesla Powerwall 3: Which is Better? NSW - Elite Power Group, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.elitepowergroup.com.au/news/sungrow-sbh-vs-tesla-powerwall-3-which-is-better-nsw/](https://www.elitepowergroup.com.au/news/sungrow-sbh-vs-tesla-powerwall-3-which-is-better-nsw/)

6. Sungrow Battery vs Tesla Powerwall Review - Volteam Electric, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://volteam.com.au/blog/sungrow-vs-tesla-battery-review/](https://volteam.com.au/blog/sungrow-vs-tesla-battery-review/)

7. Tesla Powerwall 2: A Complete 2024 Buyers Guide | Solar Choice, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.solarchoice.net.au/products/batteries/tesla-powerwall-2-review/](https://www.solarchoice.net.au/products/batteries/tesla-powerwall-2-review/)

8. Can You Install The Powerwall 3 On A Three-Phase Home? - SolarQuotes, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/three-phase-powerwall-3/](https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/three-phase-powerwall-3/)

9. Is my grid connect solar system 100% compatible with a Tesla Powerwall 2 battery?, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://support.solarquotes.com.au/hc/en-us/articles/115001986773-Is-my-grid-connect-solar-system-100-compatible-with-a-Tesla-Powerwall-2-battery](https://support.solarquotes.com.au/hc/en-us/articles/115001986773-Is-my-grid-connect-solar-system-100-compatible-with-a-Tesla-Powerwall-2-battery)

10. THE 3-PHASE SOLUTION - SUNGROW, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://uk.sungrowpower.com/upload/file/20210706/EN%203-phaseSolution%20Factsheet.pdf](https://uk.sungrowpower.com/upload/file/20210706/EN%203-phaseSolution%20Factsheet.pdf)

11. Combining Systems with Powerwall | Tesla Support, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.tesla.com/support/energy/powerwall/learn/combining-systems](https://www.tesla.com/support/energy/powerwall/learn/combining-systems)

12. Powerwall System Design | Tesla Support, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.tesla.com/support/energy/powerwall/learn/system-design](https://www.tesla.com/support/energy/powerwall/learn/system-design)

13. Installing Powerwall 3 on a Three-phase Site | PSC - Penrith Solar Centre, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.penrithsolar.com.au/blog/installing-powerwall-3-on-a-three-phase-site/](https://www.penrithsolar.com.au/blog/installing-powerwall-3-on-a-three-phase-site/)

14. Powerwall 3: When It Makes Sense and When It Doesn't - SolarQuotes, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/powerwall-3-when-it-makes-sense/](https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/powerwall-3-when-it-makes-sense/)

15. AC-Coupled Solar System Sizing - Energy Library - Tesla, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://energylibrary.tesla.com/docs/Public/EnergyStorage/Powerwall/3/SystemDesign/en-us/GUID-23D242D1-8D65-47B9-9118-57002FFD84D2.html](https://energylibrary.tesla.com/docs/Public/EnergyStorage/Powerwall/3/SystemDesign/en-us/GUID-23D242D1-8D65-47B9-9118-57002FFD84D2.html)

16. Powerwall 3 Roadmap - 3 Phase Coming! | Tesla Motors Club, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/powerwall-3-roadmap-3-phase-coming.321409/](https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/powerwall-3-roadmap-3-phase-coming.321409/)

17. Advice on how to install with 3 phase : r/solar - Reddit, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.reddit.com/r/solar/comments/19djazk/advice_on_how_to_install_with_3_phase/](https://www.reddit.com/r/solar/comments/19djazk/advice_on_how_to_install_with_3_phase/)

18. TESLA POWERWALL+ (3) - DIY Solar Depot, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://diysolardepot.com/product/ground-mount-solar-hardware/pro-solar-ground-trac/](https://diysolardepot.com/product/ground-mount-solar-hardware/pro-solar-ground-trac/)

19. Design Considerations - Energy Library - Tesla, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://energylibrary.tesla.com/docs/Public/EnergyStorage/Powerwall/3/SystemDesign/en-us/GUID-3E19662A-E501-47DB-81AE-E9EC19735B8B.html](https://energylibrary.tesla.com/docs/Public/EnergyStorage/Powerwall/3/SystemDesign/en-us/GUID-3E19662A-E501-47DB-81AE-E9EC19735B8B.html)

20. Problems with Powerwall 3 | Penrith Solar Centre, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.penrithsolar.com.au/blog/problems-with-powerwall-3/](https://www.penrithsolar.com.au/blog/problems-with-powerwall-3/)

21. EV Charging in Australia Gets a Makeover with V2G/V2H Approved for 2025 - SEVR, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://sevr.au/news/ev-charging-in-australia-gets-a-makeover-with-v2g-v2h-approved-for-2025/](https://sevr.au/news/ev-charging-in-australia-gets-a-makeover-with-v2g-v2h-approved-for-2025/)

22. V2G, V2L & V2H Explained: Vehicle to Grid in Australia? 2025 - Elite Power Group, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.elitepowergroup.com.au/news/what-is-vehicle-to-grid/](https://www.elitepowergroup.com.au/news/what-is-vehicle-to-grid/)

23. Australia's Future – Bidirectional EV Charging, Solar & Battery Storage as Standard Features, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://fullycharged.show/blog/australias-future-bidirectional-ev-charging-solar-battery-storage-as-standard-features/](https://fullycharged.show/blog/australias-future-bidirectional-ev-charging-solar-battery-storage-as-standard-features/)

24. 2025, the Year of Vehicle-to-Grid in Australia V2G Milestone - Elite Power Group, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.elitepowergroup.com.au/news/one-step-closer-to-v2g-in-australia-2025-to-be-the-year-of-v2x/](https://www.elitepowergroup.com.au/news/one-step-closer-to-v2g-in-australia-2025-to-be-the-year-of-v2x/)

25. Bidirectional Charging for Electric Cars: Unlocking New Possibilities - Solar Batteries Online, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.solarbatteriesonline.com.au/bidirectional-charging-for-electric-cars-unlocking-new-possibilities/](https://www.solarbatteriesonline.com.au/bidirectional-charging-for-electric-cars-unlocking-new-possibilities/)

26. The Best Home Batteries In Australia In 2025: According To Aussie Installers - SolarQuotes, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/best-home-batteries-2025/](https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/best-home-batteries-2025/)

27. How Much Does a Tesla Powerwall 3 Cost? | Penrith Solar Centre, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.penrithsolar.com.au/blog/how-much-does-a-tesla-powerwall-3-cost/](https://www.penrithsolar.com.au/blog/how-much-does-a-tesla-powerwall-3-cost/)

28. Expected 3 Phase upgrade price? : r/AusRenovation - Reddit, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.reddit.com/r/AusRenovation/comments/19383oa/expected_3_phase_upgrade_price/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusRenovation/comments/19383oa/expected_3_phase_upgrade_price/)

29. Powerwall cost for Sydney? | Tesla Motors Club, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/powerwall-cost-for-sydney.340317/](https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/powerwall-cost-for-sydney.340317/)

30. Solar Battery Costs: Are They Worth It?, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.solarchoice.net.au/solar-batteries/is-home-battery-storage-worth-it/](https://www.solarchoice.net.au/solar-batteries/is-home-battery-storage-worth-it/)

31. Tesla Powerwall 3 Price and Installation - Solar4Life, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.solar4life.com.au/learns/tesla-powerwall-3-price-and-installation](https://www.solar4life.com.au/learns/tesla-powerwall-3-price-and-installation)

32. Solar Battery Price, Savings and Payback, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://solarcalculator.com.au/battery-storage/price/](https://solarcalculator.com.au/battery-storage/price/)

33. Sungrow | Solar Batteries Review - SolarQuotes, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.solarquotes.com.au/battery-storage/reviews/sungrow-review.html](https://www.solarquotes.com.au/battery-storage/reviews/sungrow-review.html)

34. Sungrow SBR high voltage battery - VP Solar, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.vpsolar.com/en/sungrow-sbr-high-voltage-battery/](https://www.vpsolar.com/en/sungrow-sbr-high-voltage-battery/)

35. Sungrow Battery SBR Series - SolarBright, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://solarbright.com.au/product/sungrow-battery-sbr-series/](https://solarbright.com.au/product/sungrow-battery-sbr-series/)

36. Sungrow SBR 3.2kWh module - Huglo Solar, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.huglo.com.au/batteries/sbr-high-voltage-lfp-battery](https://www.huglo.com.au/batteries/sbr-high-voltage-lfp-battery)

37. Sungrow Inverter and battery Review - Clean Energy Reviews, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.cleanenergyreviews.info/blog/sungrow-solar-inverters-review](https://www.cleanenergyreviews.info/blog/sungrow-solar-inverters-review)

38. SBH100/150/200/250/300/350/400 - Sungrow, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://en.sungrowpower.com/productDetail/5568/battery-sbh100-150-200-250-300-350-400](https://en.sungrowpower.com/productDetail/5568/battery-sbh100-150-200-250-300-350-400)

39. 20/25/30/35/40 kWh Solar Battery - Sungrow AU, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://aus.sungrowpower.com/productDetail/3112/battery-sbh200-250-300-350-400](https://aus.sungrowpower.com/productDetail/3112/battery-sbh200-250-300-350-400)

40. Sungrow SBH Stackable Battery System - Grow Energy, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://growenergy.com.au/products/sungrow-sbh-stackable-battery-system](https://growenergy.com.au/products/sungrow-sbh-stackable-battery-system)

41. Sungrow SBH High Voltage Battery Bundle (SBH200 - SBH400), accessed March 14, 2025, [https://solarbatterysupermarket.com.au/products/sungrow-sbh-high-voltage-battery-bundle-sbh200-sbh400](https://solarbatterysupermarket.com.au/products/sungrow-sbh-high-voltage-battery-bundle-sbh200-sbh400)

42. Buy cheap SunGrow solar inverters, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://tienda-solar.es/en/brand/54-sungrow](https://tienda-solar.es/en/brand/54-sungrow)

43. Sungrow PowCube battery storage system (Analysis & review) - Solar Choice, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.solarchoice.net.au/products/batteries/sungrow-review/](https://www.solarchoice.net.au/products/batteries/sungrow-review/)

44. What inverters do we connect to? – Welcome to our Help Center - Support - SwitchDin, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://support.switchdin.com/hc/en-us/articles/19642583185817-What-inverters-do-we-connect-to](https://support.switchdin.com/hc/en-us/articles/19642583185817-What-inverters-do-we-connect-to)

45. Accessories Cross Reference Guide - Sungrow Australia Service, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://service.sungrowpower.com.au/files/Web_Files/FAQ/TI_202007_Sungrow%20Accessories%20Cross%20Reference%20Guide_V1.0.pdf](https://service.sungrowpower.com.au/files/Web_Files/FAQ/TI_202007_Sungrow%20Accessories%20Cross%20Reference%20Guide_V1.0.pdf)

46. Sungrow - Solar System Inverter - Solargain, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.solargain.com.au/solar-inverters/sungrow-solar-inverters](https://www.solargain.com.au/solar-inverters/sungrow-solar-inverters)

47. Sungrow Battery Review | A Comprehensive Guide - Esteem Energy, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://esteemenergy.com.au/blog/sungrow-battery-review/](https://esteemenergy.com.au/blog/sungrow-battery-review/)

48. Sungrow 5kW Inverter + Tesla Powerwall + Longi 370w Hi-MO4m 7.4kW Solar System, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://ahlecsolar.com.au/product/sungrow-5kw-inverter-tesla-powerwall-longi-370w-hi-mo4m-7-4kw-solar-system/](https://ahlecsolar.com.au/product/sungrow-5kw-inverter-tesla-powerwall-longi-370w-hi-mo4m-7-4kw-solar-system/)

49. Sungrow | Solar Inverters Review - SolarQuotes, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.solarquotes.com.au/inverters/sungrow-review.html](https://www.solarquotes.com.au/inverters/sungrow-review.html)

50. Tesla Powerwall: Inverter Compatibility Under the Spotlight - 1KOMMA5, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://1komma5.com/au/batteries/tesla-powerwall-2-compatible-solar-power-system/](https://1komma5.com/au/batteries/tesla-powerwall-2-compatible-solar-power-system/)

51. Hi everybody, question about V2H power : r/electricvehicles - Reddit, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.reddit.com/r/electricvehicles/comments/1hqneh3/hi_everybody_question_about_v2h_power/](https://www.reddit.com/r/electricvehicles/comments/1hqneh3/hi_everybody_question_about_v2h_power/)

52. Commercial Solar System | PV Plant | Rooftop - Sungrow US, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://us.sungrowpower.com/solutionsDetail/10/commercial-storage-systems](https://us.sungrowpower.com/solutionsDetail/10/commercial-storage-systems)

53. SH8.0/10RS | 8kW/10kW | Single Phase | Sungrow Hybrid Inverter-Sungrow AU, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://aus.sungrowpower.com/productDetail/2565/mv-power-converter-hybrid-inverter-sh8-0-10rs](https://aus.sungrowpower.com/productDetail/2565/mv-power-converter-hybrid-inverter-sh8-0-10rs)

54. Approved Batteries with SH Series Hybrid Inverters - Sungrow Australia Service, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://service.sungrowpower.com.au/files/Web_Files/FAQ/Approved%20battery%20declaration%20for%20sungrow%20hybrid%20inverters-20201209_V14_EN.pdf](https://service.sungrowpower.com.au/files/Web_Files/FAQ/Approved%20battery%20declaration%20for%20sungrow%20hybrid%20inverters-20201209_V14_EN.pdf)

55. Right inverter for the Tesla Powerwall 2 : r/solar - Reddit, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.reddit.com/r/solar/comments/1chgnj8/right_inverter_for_the_tesla_powerwall_2/](https://www.reddit.com/r/solar/comments/1chgnj8/right_inverter_for_the_tesla_powerwall_2/)

56. Sungrow Inverters - Gold Coast Solar Power Solutions, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://gold-coast-solar-power-solutions.com.au/gold-coast-solar-power-products/solar-power-inverters/sungrow-inverters/](https://gold-coast-solar-power-solutions.com.au/gold-coast-solar-power-products/solar-power-inverters/sungrow-inverters/)

57. Sungrow SBR192 Lithium-ion Battery - Europe-SolarStore.com, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.europe-solarstore.com/sungrow-sbr192-lithium-ion-battery.html](https://www.europe-solarstore.com/sungrow-sbr192-lithium-ion-battery.html)

58. High-Efficiency Solar Battery: Up to 100% Usable Energy - Sungrow, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://en.sungrowpower.com/ProductsHome/20/23/battery](https://en.sungrowpower.com/ProductsHome/20/23/battery)

59. Warranty | Sungrow Australia and New Zealand Service, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://service.sungrowpower.com.au/Warranty/warranty](https://service.sungrowpower.com.au/Warranty/warranty)

60. Sungrow Battery cross-reference chart, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://service.sungrowpower.com.au/GD_202405_SBR%20and%20SBH_Cross%20Reference%20Chart_V1.4%20Final.pdf](https://service.sungrowpower.com.au/GD_202405_SBR%20and%20SBH_Cross%20Reference%20Chart_V1.4%20Final.pdf)

61. Sungrow SG5KTL-MT - SolarTopStore.com, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.solartopstore.com/products/sungrow-sg5ktl-mt](https://www.solartopstore.com/products/sungrow-sg5ktl-mt)

62. Approved Batteries with SH Series Hybrid Inverters EU Version V1.6.3 - Sungrow AU, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://aus.sungrowpower.com/upload/file/20211119/TI_20210906_approved%20battery%20declaration%20for%20sungrow%20hybrid%20inverters_V16_EN.pdf](https://aus.sungrowpower.com/upload/file/20211119/TI_20210906_approved%20battery%20declaration%20for%20sungrow%20hybrid%20inverters_V16_EN.pdf)

63. BLACKOUT? NO, THANKS! POWER WHENEVER YOU NEED IT - SUNGROW, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://uk.sungrowpower.com/upload/file/20211202/EN%20FS%20Sungrow%203-phase%20Hybrid%20Backup%20Factsheet.pdf](https://uk.sungrowpower.com/upload/file/20211202/EN%20FS%20Sungrow%203-phase%20Hybrid%20Backup%20Factsheet.pdf)

64. Sungrow 3-phase solution with 6 kVA inverter, EV charger and 9.6 kWh storage - Memodo, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.memodo-shop.com/sungrow-3-phase-solution-with-6-kva-inverter-ev-charger-and-9.6-kwh-storage/9767](https://www.memodo-shop.com/sungrow-3-phase-solution-with-6-kva-inverter-ev-charger-and-9.6-kwh-storage/9767)

65. THE 3-PHASE SOLUTION - SUNGROW, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://uk.sungrowpower.com/upload/file/20230116/EN%20FS%203-phaseSolution%20Factsheet.pdf](https://uk.sungrowpower.com/upload/file/20230116/EN%20FS%203-phaseSolution%20Factsheet.pdf)

66. Sungrow Three-Phase Hybrid Inverter - Solar4Life, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.solar4life.com.au/product-detail/sungrow-5-20kw-3-phase-hybrid](https://www.solar4life.com.au/product-detail/sungrow-5-20kw-3-phase-hybrid)

67. SG5KTL-MT/SG6KTL-MT/SG8KTL-M (Non-China ... - ENF Solar, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.enfsolar.com/pv/inverter-datasheet/12176](https://www.enfsolar.com/pv/inverter-datasheet/12176)

68. Sungrow SBR battery combiner box - AC Solar Warehouse, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.acsolarwarehouse.com/shop/sungrow-battery-combiner-box-for-multiple-sungrow-lfp-battery-stacks-23620](https://www.acsolarwarehouse.com/shop/sungrow-battery-combiner-box-for-multiple-sungrow-lfp-battery-stacks-23620)

69. Sungrow SBR HV Battery Installation Quick Guide, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://service.sungrowpower.com.au/files/Web_Files/FAQ/GD_202202_SBR%20HV%20Battery%20Installation%20Quick%20Guide%20with%201%20Phase%20SHxRS_V3.0.pdf](https://service.sungrowpower.com.au/files/Web_Files/FAQ/GD_202202_SBR%20HV%20Battery%20Installation%20Quick%20Guide%20with%201%20Phase%20SHxRS_V3.0.pdf)

70. Energy Storage System Products Catalogue - SUNGROW, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://uk.sungrowpower.com/upload/file/20210909/EN%20BR%20Sungrow%20Energy%20Storage%20System%20Products%20Catalogue.pdf](https://uk.sungrowpower.com/upload/file/20210909/EN%20BR%20Sungrow%20Energy%20Storage%20System%20Products%20Catalogue.pdf)

71. DC Coupling vs AC Coupling: Which Solar System to Choose - Sungrow, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://en.sungrowpower.com/blog-detail/5983/dc-coupling-vs-ac-coupling-which-solar-system-to-choose](https://en.sungrowpower.com/blog-detail/5983/dc-coupling-vs-ac-coupling-which-solar-system-to-choose)

72. Sungrow SBH battery - Accessory kit | AC Solar Warehouse AU, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.acsolarwarehouse.com/shop/sbh-accessory-kit-sungrow-sbh-battery-accessory-kit-25310](https://www.acsolarwarehouse.com/shop/sbh-accessory-kit-sungrow-sbh-battery-accessory-kit-25310)

73. Sungrow SBR 3.2kWh High Voltage Battery Module , ASA00460 - Alternergy, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.alternergy.co.uk/sungrow-sbr-3-2-kwh-battery-asa00460](https://www.alternergy.co.uk/sungrow-sbr-3-2-kwh-battery-asa00460)

74. NEW Sungrow single phase hybrid inverters can operate without the grid or a battery, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.acsolarwarehouse.com/blog/news-7/new-sungrow-single-phase-hybrid-inverters-can-operate-without-the-grid-or-a-battery-255](https://www.acsolarwarehouse.com/blog/news-7/new-sungrow-single-phase-hybrid-inverters-can-operate-without-the-grid-or-a-battery-255)

75. Lawnton Sungrow SBH & Solar Hybrid System | Alvolta, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.alvolta.com.au/portfolio/info/74](https://www.alvolta.com.au/portfolio/info/74)

76. Sungrow Battery Starter Pack - Huglo Solar, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.huglo.com.au/post/sungrow-battery-starter-pack](https://www.huglo.com.au/post/sungrow-battery-starter-pack)

77. Sungrow SBR Battery System Bundles, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://solarbatterysupermarket.com.au/products/sungrow-sbr-battery-system-bundles](https://solarbatterysupermarket.com.au/products/sungrow-sbr-battery-system-bundles)

78. Sungrow Hybrid 10kW RT Three-Phase Solar Inverter, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.springers.com.au/shop/sh10rt-sungrow-hybrid-10kw-rt-three-phase-solar-inverter-15108](https://www.springers.com.au/shop/sh10rt-sungrow-hybrid-10kw-rt-three-phase-solar-inverter-15108)

79. Sungrow RT 5kW Three Phase Hybrid inverter (2 MPPT) SH5.0RT - Solar Batteries Online, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.solarbatteriesonline.com.au/product/sungrow-sh5-0rt-hv-5-0kw-residential-hybrid-three-phase-inverter/](https://www.solarbatteriesonline.com.au/product/sungrow-sh5-0rt-hv-5-0kw-residential-hybrid-three-phase-inverter/)

80. SUNGROW SH10RT | 10kW 3-Phase Hybrid Inverter - Sparky Direct, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.sparkydirect.com.au/p/sungrow-sh10rt-10kw-3-phase-hybrid-inverter](https://www.sparkydirect.com.au/p/sungrow-sh10rt-10kw-3-phase-hybrid-inverter)

81. Sungrow Hybrid 10kW 3 Phase 2 MPPT w/WiFi, DC Switch & EPS Built-in Inverter, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.solarheroes.com.au/product/sungrow-hybrid-10kw-3-phase-2-mppt-w-wifi-dc-switch-eps-built-in-inverter/](https://www.solarheroes.com.au/product/sungrow-hybrid-10kw-3-phase-2-mppt-w-wifi-dc-switch-eps-built-in-inverter/)

82. Sungrow Solar Inverters - Independent Review, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.solarchoice.net.au/products/inverters/Sungrow-review/](https://www.solarchoice.net.au/products/inverters/Sungrow-review/)

83. Sungrow 10.0kW - 3 Phase Hybrid Inverter (SH10RT) - Solar Superstore, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.solarsuperstore.com.au/products/sungrow-8-0kw-3-phase-hybrid-inverter-sh8-0rt](https://www.solarsuperstore.com.au/products/sungrow-8-0kw-3-phase-hybrid-inverter-sh8-0rt)

84. How Much Do Solar Batteries Cost in Australia? - SolarQuotes, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.solarquotes.com.au/battery-storage/cost/](https://www.solarquotes.com.au/battery-storage/cost/)

85. Off Grid Solar system using a Sungrow inverter and battery, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.acsolarwarehouse.com/blog/news-7/off-grid-solar-system-using-a-sungrow-inverter-and-battery-312](https://www.acsolarwarehouse.com/blog/news-7/off-grid-solar-system-using-a-sungrow-inverter-and-battery-312)

86. Sungrow 14.08k W Off Grid Solar System / Single Phase - AHLEC, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://ahlecsolar.com.au/product/sungrow-14-08k-w-off-grid-solar-system-single-phase/](https://ahlecsolar.com.au/product/sungrow-14-08k-w-off-grid-solar-system-single-phase/)

87. Residential Battery Energy Storage System - Sungrow AU, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://aus.sungrowpower.com/solutionsDetail/9/residential-storage-system](https://aus.sungrowpower.com/solutionsDetail/9/residential-storage-system)

88. EV Charger - Sungrow, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://en.sungrowpower.com/ProductsHome/59/ev-charger](https://en.sungrowpower.com/ProductsHome/59/ev-charger)

89. Sungrow SBH 20kW High Voltage LFP Battery Including Accessory Kit SBH200 | eBay, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/135320073679](https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/135320073679)

90. 20kWh Battery Kit - Login - Australian Solar Supplies Pty Ltd, accessed March 14, 2025, [http://shop.ausolarsupplies.com.au/s.nl/it.A/id.6047/.f](http://shop.ausolarsupplies.com.au/s.nl/it.A/id.6047/.f)

91. Sungrow - Solar Batteries Online, accessed March 14, 2025, [https://www.solarbatteriesonline.com.au/sungrow/](https://www.solarbatteriesonline.com.au/sungrow/)

{"id":"6a44da7a-19c1-4a37-a991-d589c8bbded8","providerCopyMimeTypes":["application/vnd.vscode.markdown.updatelinks.metadata","application/vnd.code.additional-editor-data"],"defaultPastePayload":{"multicursorText":null,"pasteOnNewLine":false,"mode":null}}{"version":1,"isFromEmptySelection":false,"multicursorText":null,"mode":"markdown"}

@ 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.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

One of the most common criticisms leveled against nostr is the perceived lack of assurance when it comes to data storage. Critics argue that without a centralized authority guaranteeing that all data is preserved, important information will be lost. They also claim that running a relay will become prohibitively expensive. While there is truth to these concerns, they miss the mark. The genius of nostr lies in its flexibility, resilience, and the way it harnesses human incentives to ensure data availability in practice.

A nostr relay is simply a server that holds cryptographically verifiable signed data and makes it available to others. Relays are simple, flexible, open, and require no permission to run. Critics are right that operating a relay attempting to store all nostr data will be costly. What they miss is that most will not run all encompassing archive relays. Nostr does not rely on massive archive relays. Instead, anyone can run a relay and choose to store whatever subset of data they want. This keeps costs low and operations flexible, making relay operation accessible to all sorts of individuals and entities with varying use cases.

Critics are correct that there is no ironclad guarantee that every piece of data will always be available. Unlike bitcoin where data permanence is baked into the system at a steep cost, nostr does not promise that every random note or meme will be preserved forever. That said, in practice, any data perceived as valuable by someone will likely be stored and distributed by multiple entities. If something matters to someone, they will keep a signed copy.

Nostr is the Streisand Effect in protocol form. The Streisand effect is when an attempt to suppress information backfires, causing it to spread even further. With nostr, anyone can broadcast signed data, anyone can store it, and anyone can distribute it. Try to censor something important? Good luck. The moment it catches attention, it will be stored on relays across the globe, copied, and shared by those who find it worth keeping. Data deemed important will be replicated across servers by individuals acting in their own interest.

Nostr’s distributed nature ensures that the system does not rely on a single point of failure or a corporate overlord. Instead, it leans on the collective will of its users. The result is a network where costs stay manageable, participation is open to all, and valuable verifiable data is stored and distributed forever.

@ 42342239:1d80db24

With the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI), we face a future where we may soon have access to almost everything we desire – at least in the digital realm. But unfortunately, what we wish for doesn’t always align with what we truly need, or what would benefit us.

The Dutch ethologist Niko Tinbergen was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1973 for his studies of animal behaviour patterns. While earlier scientists had primarily focused on learning as the main explanation for animal behaviour, Tinbergen instead emphasised instincts.

Tinbergen studied, among other things, what makes newly hatched bird chicks beg for food from their parents. This was investigated by presenting parentless chicks with various painted beak models to see which ones they would seek food from. Several objects proved more popular than real gull beaks.

Artificial eggs were also created and placed in bird nests. Black-headed gulls that received wooden eggs before laying their own were found to actually refrain from laying real eggs. Fake eggs were painted in different colours and patterns, and made in various sizes. The gulls always preferred trying to incubate eggs of absurd sizes – for example eggs with eight times the volume of real ones. The poor gulls made desperate attempts to sit on these giant eggs – but often slid off.

The explanation for the gulls’ self-destructive behaviour was that they had a hardwired ability (instinct) to respond to specific stimuli (appearance of beaks and eggs with particular colours/sizes). Researchers exaggerated these stimuli, creating stronger but ultimately misguided reactions. The concept of "superstimuli" was hatched. Nothing in the gulls’ evolution had prepared them for these experiments, explaining their self-destructive behaviors.

Psychologist Deirdre Barrett has translated this concept to a human context. She argues that superstimuli govern human behaviours much like they do other animals’, citing junk food consumption, addictive social media use, and pornography consumption as examples. Nothing in Homo sapiens’ evolution prepared us for modern society’s stimuli, which might explain our frequently self-destructive behaviours.

When the Liberal Party (Swedish political party Liberalerna) proposes mandatory porn filters on all mobile phones "to protect children and youth," it might appear they’re on the right track. However, these issues deserve more profound discussions.

How do we create technical solutions that meet our fundamental needs for health, education, and human connection – rather than just supplying mindless scrolling entertainment? How can we ensure those collecting our data don’t exploit it for their own interests, selling us things we don’t need? Is the current model of centralisation, corporate giants, and profit maximisation really compatible with our best interests?

In summary: How can we ensure future technology serves our real needs, rather than mislead us - much like Niko Tinbergen deceived the poor gulls?

@ 2dd9250b:6e928072

Vi recentemente um post onde a pessoa diz que aquele final do filme O Doutrinador (2019) não faz sentido porque mesmo o protagonista explodindo o Palácio dos Três Poderes, não acaba com a corrupção no Brasil.

Progressistas não sabem ler e não conseguem interpretar textos corretamente. O final de Doutrinador não tem a ver com isso, tem a ver com a relação entre o Herói e a sua Cidade.

Nas histórias em quadrinhos há uma ligação entre a cidade e o Super-Herói. Gotham City por exemplo, cria o Batman. Isso é mostrado em The Batman (2022) e em Batman: Cavaleiro das Trevas, quando aquele garoto no final, diz para o Batman não fugir, porque ele queria ver o Batman de novo. E o Comissário Gordon diz que o "Batman é o que a cidade de Gotham precisa."

Batman: Cavaleiro das Trevas Ressurge mostra a cidade de Gotham sendo tomada pela corrupção e pela ideologia do Bane. A Cidade vai definhando em imoralidade e o Bruce, ao olhar da prisão a cidade sendo destruída, decide que o Batman precisa voltar porque se Gotham for destruída, o Batman é destruído junto. E isso o da forças para consegue fugir daquele poço e voltar para salvar Gotham.

Isso também é mostrado em Demolidor. Na série Demolidor o Matt Murdock sempre fala que precisa defender a cidade Cozinha do Inferno; que o Fisk não vai dominar a cidade e fazer o que ele quiser nela. Inclusive na terceira temporada isso fica mais evidente na luta final na mansão do Fisk, onde Matt grita que agora a cidade toda vai saber o que ele fez; a cidade vai ver o mal que ele é para Hell's Kitchen, porque a gente sabe que o Fisk fez de tudo para a imagem do Demolidor entrar e descrédito perante os cidadãos, então o que acontece no final do filme O Doutrinador não significa que ele está acabando com a corrupção quando explode o Congresso, ele está praticamente interrompendo o ciclo do sistema, colocando uma falha em sua engrenagem.

Quando você ouve falar de Brasília, você pensa na corrupção dos políticos, onde a farra acontece,, onde corruptos desviam dinheiro arrecadado dos impostos, impostos estes que são centralizados na União. Então quando você ouve falarem de Brasília, sempre pensa que o pessoal que mora lá, mora junto com tudo de podre que acontece no Brasil.

Logo quando o Doutrinador explode tudo ali, ele está basicamente destruindo o mecanismo que suja Brasília. Ele está fazendo isso naquela cidade. Porque o símbolo da cidade é justamente esse, a farsa de que naquele lugar o povo será ouvido e a justiça será feita. Ele está destruindo a ideologia de que o Estado nos protege, nos dá segurança, saúde e educação. Porque na verdade o Estado só existe para privilegiar os políticos, funcionários públicos de auto escalão, suas famílias e amigos. Enquanto que o povo sofre para sustentar a elite política. O protagonista Miguel entendeu isso quando a filha dele morreu na fila do SUS.

@ 4523be58:ba1facd0

NIP-117

The Double Ratchet Algorithm

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

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

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

See also: NIP-118: Nostr Double Ratchet Invites

Overview

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

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

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

Nostr implementation

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

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

Nostr event format

Message

Outer event

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

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

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

Inner event

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

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

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

Algorithm

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

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

External functions

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

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

We use NIP-44 functions for encryption:

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

NIP-59:

• createRumor

Key derivation function:

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

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

Session state

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

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

ourCurrentNostrKey?: KeyPair; ourNextNostrKey: KeyPair;

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

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

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

Initialization

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

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

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

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

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

```

Sending messages

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

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

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

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

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

Receiving messages

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

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

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

}

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

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

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

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

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

this.skipMessageKeys(header.number, nostrSender);

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

return nip44.decrypt(ciphertext, messageKey); }

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

}

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

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

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

delete skippedKeys.messageKeys[header.number];

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

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

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Introduction

Throughout human history, the pyramids of Egypt have fascinated scholars, archaeologists, and engineers alike. Traditionally thought of as tombs for pharaohs or religious monuments, alternative theories have speculated that the pyramids may have served advanced technological functions. One such hypothesis suggests that the pyramids acted as large-scale nitrogen fertilizer generators, designed to transform arid desert landscapes into fertile land.

This paper explores the feasibility of such a system by examining how a pyramid could integrate thermal convection, electrolysis, and a self-regulating breeder reactor to sustain nitrogen fixation processes. We will calculate the total power requirements and estimate the longevity of a breeder reactor housed within the structure.

The Pyramid’s Function as a Nitrogen Fertilizer Generator

The hypothesized system involves several key processes:

• Heat and Convection: A fissile material core located in the King's Chamber would generate heat, creating convection currents throughout the pyramid.
• Electrolysis and Hydrogen Production: Water sourced from subterranean channels would undergo electrolysis, splitting into hydrogen and oxygen due to electrical and thermal energy.
• Nitrogen Fixation: The generated hydrogen would react with atmospheric nitrogen (N₂) to produce ammonia (NH₃), a vital component of nitrogen-based fertilizers.

Power Requirements for Continuous Operation

To maintain the pyramid’s core at approximately 450°C, sufficient to drive nitrogen fixation, we estimate a steady-state power requirement of 23.9 gigawatts (GW).

Total Energy Required Over 10,000 Years

Given continuous operation over 10,000 years, the total energy demand can be calculated as:

[ \text{Total time} = 10,000 \times 365.25 \times 24 \times 3600 \text{ seconds} ]

[ \text{Total time} = 3.16 \times 10^{11} \text{ seconds} ]

[ \text{Total energy} = 23.9 \text{ GW} \times 3.16 \times 10^{11} \text{ s} ]

[ \approx 7.55 \times 10^{21} \text{ J} ]

Using a Self-Regulating Breeder Reactor

A breeder reactor could sustain this power requirement by generating more fissile material than it consumes. This reduces the need for frequent refueling.

Pebble Bed Reactor Design

• Self-Regulation: The reactor would use passive cooling and fuel expansion to self-regulate temperature.
• Breeding Process: The reactor would convert thorium-232 into uranium-233, creating a sustainable fuel cycle.

Fissile Material Requirements

Each kilogram of fissile material releases approximately 80 terajoules (TJ) (or 8 × 10^{13} J/kg). Given a 35% efficiency rate, the usable energy per kilogram is:

[ \text{Usable energy per kg} = 8 \times 10^{13} \times 0.35 = 2.8 \times 10^{13} \text{ J/kg} ]

[ \text{Fissile material required} = \frac{7.55 \times 10^{21}}{2.8 \times 10^{13}} ]

[ \approx 2.7 \times 10^{8} \text{ kg} = 270,000 \text{ tons} ]

Impact of a Breeding Ratio

If the reactor operates at a breeding ratio of 1.3, the total fissile material requirement would be reduced to:

[ \frac{270,000}{1.3} \approx 208,000 \text{ tons} ]

Reactor Size and Fuel Replenishment

Assuming a pebble bed reactor housed in the King’s Chamber (~318 cubic meters), the fuel cycle could be sustained with minimal refueling. With a breeding ratio of 1.3, the reactor could theoretically operate for 10,000 years with occasional replenishment of lost material due to inefficiencies.

Managing Scaling in the Steam Generation System

To ensure long-term efficiency, the water supply must be conditioned to prevent mineral scaling. Several strategies could be implemented:

1. Natural Water Softening Using Limestone

• Passing river water through limestone beds could help precipitate out calcium bicarbonate, reducing hardness before entering the steam system.

2. Chemical Additives for Scaling Prevention

• Chelating Agents: Compounds such as citric acid or tannins could be introduced to bind calcium and magnesium ions.
• Phosphate Compounds: These interfere with crystal formation, preventing scale adhesion.

3. Superheating and Pre-Evaporation

• Pre-Evaporation: Water exposed to extreme heat before entering the system would allow minerals to precipitate out before reaching the reactor.
• Superheated Steam: Ensuring only pure vapor enters the steam cycle would prevent mineral buildup.
• Electrolysis of Superheated Steam: Using multi-million volt electrostatic fields to ionize and separate minerals before they enter the steam system.

4. Electrostatic Control for Scaling Mitigation

• The pyramid’s hypothesized high-voltage environment could ionize water molecules, helping to prevent mineral deposits.

Conclusion

If the Great Pyramid were designed as a self-regulating nitrogen fertilizer generator, it would require a continuous 23.9 GW energy supply, which could be met by a breeder reactor housed within its core. With a breeding ratio of 1.3, an initial load of 208,000 tons of fissile material would sustain operations for 10,000 years with minimal refueling.

Additionally, advanced water treatment techniques, including limestone filtration, chemical additives, and electrostatic control, could ensure long-term efficiency by mitigating scaling issues.

While this remains a speculative hypothesis, it presents a fascinating intersection of energy production, water treatment, and environmental engineering as a means to terraform the ancient world.

@ 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.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Introduction

Since the mid-1990s, American media has fractured into two distinct and increasingly isolated ecosystems, each with its own Overton window of acceptable discourse. Once upon a time, Americans of different political leanings shared a common set of facts, even if they interpreted them differently. Today, they don’t even agree on what the facts are—or who has the authority to define them.

This divide stems from a deeper philosophical rift in how each side determines truth and legitimacy. The institutional left derives its authority from the expert class—academics, think tanks, scientific consensus, and mainstream media. The populist right, on the other hand, finds its authority in traditional belief systems—religion, historical precedent, and what many call "common sense." As these two moral and epistemological frameworks drift further apart, the result is not just political division but the emergence of two separate cultural nations sharing the same geographic space.

The Battle of Epistemologies: Experts vs. Tradition

The left-leaning camp sees scientific consensus, peer-reviewed research, and institutional expertise as the gold standard of truth. Universities, media organizations, and policy think tanks function as arbiters of knowledge, shaping the moral and political beliefs of those who trust them. From this perspective, governance should be guided by data-driven decisions, often favoring progressive change and bureaucratic administration over democratic populism.

The right-leaning camp is skeptical of these institutions, viewing them as ideologically captured and detached from real-world concerns. Instead, they look to religion, historical wisdom, and traditional social structures as more reliable sources of truth. To them, the "expert class" is not an impartial source of knowledge but a self-reinforcing elite that justifies its own power while dismissing dissenters as uneducated or morally deficient.

This fundamental disagreement over the source of moral and factual authority means that political debates today are rarely about policy alone. They are battles over legitimacy itself. One side sees resistance to climate policies as "anti-science," while the other sees aggressive climate mandates as an elite power grab. One side views traditional gender roles as oppressive, while the other sees rapid changes in gender norms as unnatural and destabilizing. Each group believes the other is not just wrong, but dangerous.

The Consequences of Non-Overlapping Overton Windows

As these worldviews diverge, so do their respective Overton windows—the range of ideas considered acceptable for public discourse. There is little overlap left. What is considered self-evident truth in one camp is often seen as heresy or misinformation in the other. The result is:

• Epistemic Closure – Each side has its own trusted media sources, and cross-exposure is minimal. The left dismisses right-wing media as conspiracy-driven, while the right views mainstream media as corrupt propaganda. Both believe the other is being systematically misled.
• Moralization of Politics – Since truth itself is contested, policy debates become existential battles. Disagreements over issues like immigration, education, or healthcare are no longer just about governance but about moral purity versus moral corruption.
• Cultural and Political Balkanization – Without a shared understanding of reality, compromise becomes impossible. Americans increasingly consume separate news, live in ideologically homogeneous communities, and even speak different political languages.

Conclusion: Two Nations on One Land

A country can survive disagreements, but can it survive when its people no longer share a common source of truth? Historically, such deep societal fractures have led to secession, authoritarianism, or violent conflict. The United States has managed to avoid these extremes so far, but the trendline is clear: as long as each camp continues reinforcing its own epistemology while rejecting the other's as illegitimate, the divide will only grow.

The question is no longer whether America is divided—it is whether these two cultures can continue to coexist under a single political system. Can anything bridge the gap between institutional authority and traditional wisdom? Or are we witnessing the slow but inevitable unraveling of a once-unified nation into two separate moral and epistemic realities?

@ 97c70a44:ad98e322

So you've decided to join nostr! Some wide-eyed fanatic has convinced you that the "sun shines every day on the birds and the bees and the cigarette trees" in a magical land of decentralized, censorship-resistant freedom of speech - and it's waiting just over the next hill.

But your experience has not been all you hoped. Before you've even had a chance to upload your AI-generated cyberpunk avatar or make up exploit codenames for your pseudonym's bio, you've been confronted with a new concept that has left you completely nonplussed.

It doesn't help that this new idea might be called by any number of strange names. You may have been asked to "paste your nsec", "generate a private key", "enter your seed words", "connect with a bunker", "sign in with extension", or even "generate entropy". Sorry about that.

All these terms are really referring to one concept under many different names: that of "cryptographic identity".

Now, you may have noticed that I just introduced yet another new term which explains exactly nothing. You're absolutely correct. And now I'm going to proceed to ignore your complaints and talk about something completely different. But bear with me, because the juice is worth the squeeze.

Identity

What is identity? There are many philosophical, political, or technical answers to this question, but for our purposes it's probably best to think of it this way:

Identity is the essence of a thing. Identity separates one thing from all others, and is itself indivisible.

This definition has three parts:

• Identity is "essential": a thing can change, but its identity cannot. I might re-paint my house, replace its components, sell it, or even burn it down, but its identity as something that can be referred to - "this house" - is durable, even outside the boundaries of its own physical existence.
• Identity is a unit: you can't break an identity into multiple parts. A thing might be composed of multiple parts, but that's only incidental to the identity of a thing, which is a concept, not a material thing.
• Identity is distinct: identity is what separates one thing from all others - the concept of an apple can't be mixed with that of an orange; the two ideas are distinct. In the same way, a single concrete apple is distinct in identity from another - even if the component parts of the apple decompose into compost used to grow more apples.

Identity is not a physical thing, but a metaphysical thing. Or, in simpler terms, identity is a "concept".

I (or someone more qualified) could at this point launch into a Scholastic tangent on what "is" is, but that is, fortunately, not necessary here. The kind of identities I want to focus on here are not our actual identities as people, but entirely fictional identities that we use to extend our agency into the digital world.

Think of it this way - your bank login does not represent you as a complete person. It only represents the access granted to you by the bank. This access is in fact an entirely new identity that has been associated with you, and is limited in what it's useful for.

Other examples of fictional identities include:

• The country you live in
• Your social media persona
• Your mortgage
• Geographical coordinates
• A moment in time
• A chess piece

Some of these identites are inert, for example points in space and time. Other identies have agency and so are able to act in the world - even as fictional concepts. In order to do this, they must "authenticate" themselves (which means "to prove they are real"), and act within a system of established rules.

For example, your D&D character exists only within the collective fiction of your D&D group, and can do anything the rules say. Its identity is authenticated simply by your claim as a member of the group that your character in fact exists. Similarly, a lawyer must prove they are a member of the Bar Association before they are allowed to practice law within that collective fiction.

"Cryptographic identity" is simply another way of authenticating a fictional identity within a given system. As we'll see, it has some interesting attributes that set it apart from things like a library card or your latitude and longitude. Before we get there though, let's look in more detail at how identities are authenticated.

Certificates

Merriam-Webster defines the verb "certify" as meaning "to attest authoritatively". A "certificate" is just a fancy way of saying "because I said so". Certificates are issued by a "certificate authority", someone who has the authority to "say so". Examples include your boss, your mom, or the Pope.

This method of authentication is how almost every institution authenticates the people who associate with it. Colleges issue student ID cards, governments issue passports, and websites allow you to "register an account".

In every case mentioned above, the "authority" creates a closed system in which a document (aka a "certificate") is issued which serves as a claim to a given identity. When someone wants to access some privileged service, location, or information, they present their certificate. The authority then validates it and grants or denies access. In the case of an international airport, the certificate is a little book printed with fancy inks. In the case of a login page, the certificate is a username and password combination.

This pattern for authentication is ubiquitous, and has some very important implications.

First of all, certified authentication implies that the issuer of the certificate has the right to exclusive control of any identity it issues. This identity can be revoked at any time, or its permissions may change. Your social credit score may drop arbitrarily, or money might disappear from your account. When dealing with certificate authorities, you have no inherent rights.

Second, certified authentication depends on the certificate authority continuing to exist. If you store your stuff at a storage facility but the company running it goes out of business, your stuff might disappear along with it.

Usually, authentication via certificate authority works pretty well, since an appeal can always be made to a higher authority (nature, God, the government, etc). Authorities also can't generally dictate their terms with impunity without losing their customers, alienating their constituents, or provoking revolt. But it's also true that certification by authority creates an incentive structure that frequently leads to abuse - arbitrary deplatforming is increasingly common, and the bigger the certificate authority, the less recourse the certificate holder (or "subject") has.

Certificates also put the issuer in a position to intermediate relationships that wouldn't otherwise be subject to their authority. This might take the form of selling user attention to advertisers, taking a cut of financial transactions, or selling surveillance data to third parties.

Proliferation of certificate authorities is not a solution to these problems. Websites and apps frequently often offer multiple "social sign-in" options, allowing their users to choose which certificate authority to appeal to. But this only piles more value into the social platform that issues the certificate - not only can Google shut down your email inbox, they can revoke your ability to log in to every website you used their identity provider to get into.

In every case, certificate issuance results in an asymmetrical power dynamic, where the issuer is able to exert significant control over the certificate holder, even in areas unrelated to the original pretext for the relationship between parties.

Self-Certification

But what if we could reverse this power dynamic? What if individuals could issue their own certificates and force institutions to accept them?

Ron Swanson's counterexample notwithstanding, there's a reason I can't simply write myself a parking permit and slip it under the windshield wiper. Questions about voluntary submission to legitimate authorities aside, the fact is that we don't have the power to act without impunity - just like any other certificate authority, we have to prove our claims either by the exercise of raw power or by appeal to a higher authority.

So the question becomes: which higher authority can we appeal to in order to issue our own certificates within a given system of identity?

The obvious answer here is to go straight to the top and ask God himself to back our claim to self-sovereignty. However, that's not how he normally works - there's a reason they call direct acts of God "miracles". In fact, Romans 13:1 explicitly says that "the authorities that exist have been appointed by God". God has structured the universe in such a way that we must appeal to the deputies he has put in place to govern various parts of the world.

Another tempting appeal might be to nature - i.e. the material world. This is the realm in which we most frequently have the experience of "self-authenticating" identities. For example, a gold coin can be authenticated by biting it or by burning it with acid. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

In most cases however, the ability to authenticate using physical claims depends on physical access, and so appeals to physical reality have major limitations when it comes to the digital world. Captchas, selfies and other similar tricks are often used to bridge the physical world into the digital, but these are increasingly easy to forge, and hard to verify.

There are exceptions to this rule - an example of self-certification that makes its appeal to the physical world is that of a signature. Signatures are hard to forge - an incredible amount of data is encoded in physical signatures, from strength, to illnesses, to upbringing, to personality. These can even be scanned and used within the digital world as well. Even today, most contracts are sealed with some simulacrum of a physical signature. Of course, this custom is quickly becoming a mere historical curiosity, since the very act of digitizing a signature makes it trivially forgeable.

So: transcendent reality is too remote to subtantiate our claims, and the material world is too limited to work within the world of information. There is another aspect of reality remaining that we might appeal to: information itself.

Physical signatures authenticate physical identities by encoding unique physical data into an easily recognizable artifact. To transpose this idea to the realm of information, a "digital signature" might authenticate "digital identities" by encoding unique "digital data" into an easily recognizable artifact.

Unfortunately, in the digital world we have the additional challenge that the artifact itself can be copied, undermining any claim to legitimacy. We need something that can be easily verified and unforgeable.

Digital Signatures

In fact such a thing does exist, but calling it a "digital signature" obscures more than it reveals. We might just as well call the thing we're looking for a "digital fingerprint", or a "digital electroencephalogram". Just keep that in mind as we work our way towards defining the term - we are not looking for something looks like a physical signature, but for something that does the same thing as a physical signature, in that it allows us to issue ourselves a credential that must be accepted by others by encoding privileged information into a recognizable, unforgeable artifact.

With that, let's get into the weeds.

An important idea in computer science is that of a "function". A function is a sort of information machine that converts data from one form to another. One example is the idea of "incrementing" a number. If you increment 1, you get 2. If you increment 2, you get 3. Incrementing can be reversed, by creating a complementary function that instead subtracts 1 from a number.

A "one-way function" is a function that can't be reversed. A good example of a one-way function is integer rounding. If you round a number and get 5, what number did you begin with? It's impossible to know - 5.1, 4.81, 5.332794, in fact an infinite number of numbers can be rounded to the number 5. These numbers can also be infinitely long - for example rounding PI to the nearest integer results in the number 3.

A real-life example of a useful one-way function is sha256. This function is a member of a family of one-way functions called "hash functions". You can feed as much data as you like into sha256, and you will always get 256 bits of information out. Hash functions are especially useful because collisions between outputs are very rare - even if you change a single bit in a huge pile of data, you're almost certainly going to get a different output.

Taking this a step further, there is a whole family of cryptographic one-way "trapdoor" functions that act similarly to hash functions, but which maintain a specific mathematical relationship between the input and the output which allows the input/output pair to be used in a variety of useful applications. For example, in Elliptic Curve Cryptography, scalar multiplication on an elliptic curve is used to derive the output.

"Ok", you say, "that's all completely clear and lucidly explained" (thank you). "But what goes into the function?" You might expect that because of our analogy to physical signatures we would have to gather an incredible amount of digital information to cram into our cryptographic trapdoor function, mashing together bank statements, a record of our heartbeat, brain waves and cellular respiration. Well, we could do it that way (maybe), but there's actually a much simpler solution.

Let's play a quick game. What number am I thinking of? Wrong, it's 82,749,283,929,834. Good guess though.

The reason we use signatures to authenticate our identity in the physical world is not because they're backed by a lot of implicit physical information, but because they're hard to forge and easy to validate. Even so, there is a lot of variation in a single person's signature, even from one moment to the next.

Trapdoor functions solve the validation problem - it's trivially simple to compare one 256-bit number to another. And randomness solves the problem of forgeability.

Now, randomness (A.K.A. "entropy") is actually kind of hard to generate. Random numbers that don't have enough "noise" in them are known as "pseudo-random numbers", and are weirdly easy to guess. This is why Cloudflare uses a video stream of their giant wall of lava lamps to feed the random number generator that powers their CDN. For our purposes though, we can just imagine that our random numbers come from rolling a bunch of dice.

To recap, we can get a digital equivalent of a physical signature (or fingerprint, etc) by 1. coming up with a random number, and 2. feeding it into our chosen trapdoor function. The random number is called the "private" part. The output of the trapdoor function is called the "public" part. These two halves are often called "keys", hence the terms "public key" and "private key".

And now we come full circle - remember about 37 years ago when I introduced the term "cryptographic identity"? Well, we've finally arrived at the point where I explain what that actually is.

A "cryptographic identity" is identified by a public key, and authenticated by the ability to prove that you know the private key.

Notice that I didn't say "authenticated by the private key". If you had to reveal the private key in order to prove you know it, you could only authenticate a public key once without losing exclusive control of the key. But cryptographic identities can be authenticated any number of times because the certification is an algorithm that only someone who knows the private key can execute.

This is the super power that trapdoor functions have that hash functions don't. Within certain cryptosystems, it is possible to mix additional data with your private key to get yet another number in such a way that someone else who only knows the public key can prove that you know the private key.

For example, if my secret number is 12, and someone tells me the number 37, I can "combine" the two by adding them together and returning the number 49. This "proves" that my secret number is 12. Of course, addition is not a trapdoor function, so it's trivially easy to reverse, which is why cryptography is its own field of knowledge.

What's it for?

If I haven't completely lost you yet, you might be wondering why this matters. Who cares if I can prove that I made up a random number?

To answer this, let's consider a simple example: that of public social media posts.

Most social media platforms function by issuing credentials and verifying them based on their internal database. When you log in to your Twitter (ok, fine, X) account, you provide X with a phone number (or email) and password. X compares these records to the ones stored in the database when you created your account, and if they match they let you "log in" by issuing yet another credential, called a "session key".

Next, when you "say" something on X, you pass along your session key and your tweet to X's servers. They check that the session key is legit, and if it is they associate your tweet with your account's identity. Later, when someone wants to see the tweet, X vouches for the fact that you created it by saying "trust me" and displaying your name next to the tweet.

In other words, X creates and controls your identity, but they let you use it as long as you can prove that you know the secret that you agreed on when you registered (by giving it to them every time).

Now pretend that X gets bought by someone even more evil than Elon Musk (if such a thing can be imagined). The new owner now has the ability to control your identity, potentially making it say things that you didn't actually say. Someone could be completely banned from the platform, but their account could be made to continue saying whatever the owner of the platform wanted.

In reality, such a breach of trust would quickly result in a complete loss of credibility for the platform, which is why this kind of thing doesn't happen (at least, not that we know of).

But there are other ways of exploiting this system, most notably by censoring speech. As often happens, platforms are able to confiscate user identities, leaving the tenant no recourse except to appeal to the platform itself (or the government, but that doesn't seem to happen for some reason - probably due to some legalese in social platforms' terms of use). The user has to start completely from scratch, either on the same platform or another.

Now suppose that when you signed up for X instead of simply telling X your password you made up a random number and provided a cryptographic proof to X along with your public key. When you're ready to tweet (there's no need to issue a session key, or even to store your public key in their database) you would again prove your ownership of that key with a new piece of data. X could then publish that tweet or not, along with the same proof you provided that it really came from you.

What X can't do in this system is pretend you said something you didn't, because they don't know your private key.

X also wouldn't be able to deplatform you as effectively either. While they could choose to ban you from their website and refuse to serve your tweets, they don't control your identity. There's nothing they can do to prevent you from re-using it on another platform. Plus, if the system was set up in such a way that other users followed your key instead of an ID made up by X, you could switch platforms and keep your followers. In the same way, it would also be possible to keep a copy of all your tweets in your own database, since their authenticity is determined by your digital signature, not X's "because I say so".

This new power is not just limited to social media either. Here are some other examples of ways that self-issued cryptographic identites transform the power dynamic inherent in digital platforms:

• Banks sometimes freeze accounts or confiscate funds. If your money was stored in a system based on self-issued cryptographic keys rather than custodians, banks would not be able to keep you from accessing or moving your funds. This system exists, and it's called bitcoin.
• Identity theft happens when your identifying information is stolen and used to take out a loan in your name, and without your consent. The reason this is so common is because your credentials are not cryptographic - your name, address, and social security number can only be authenticated by being shared, and they are shared so often and with so many counterparties that they frequently end up in data breaches. If credit checks were authenticated by self-issued cryptographic keys, identity theft would cease to exist (unless your private key itself got stolen).
• Cryptographic keys allow credential issuers to protect their subjects' privacy better too. Instead of showing your ID (including your home address, birth date, height, weight, etc), the DMV could sign a message asserting that the holder of a given public key indeed over 21. The liquor store could then validate that claim, and your ownership of the named key, without knowing anything more about you. Zero-knowledge proofs take this a step further.

In each of these cases, the interests of the property owner, loan seeker, or customer are elevated over the interests of those who might seek to control their assets, exploit their hard work, or surveil their activity. Just as with personal privacy, freedom of speech, and Second Amendment rights the individual case is rarely decisive, but in the aggregate realigned incentives can tip the scale in favor of freedom.

Objections

Now, there are some drawbacks to digital signatures. Systems that rely on digital signatures are frequently less forgiving of errors than their custodial counterparts, and many of their strengths have corresponding weaknesses. Part of this is because people haven't yet developed an intuition for how to use cryptographic identities, and the tools for managing them are still being designed. Other aspects can be mitigated through judicious use of keys fit to the problems they are being used to solve.

Below I'll articulate some of these concerns, and explore ways in which they might be mitigated over time.

Key Storage

Keeping secrets is hard. "A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on", and the same goes for gossip. Key storage has become increasingly important as more of our lives move online, to the extent that password managers have become almost a requirement for keeping track of our digital lives. But even with good password management, credentials frequently end up for sale on the dark web as a consequence of poorly secured infrastructure.

Apart from the fact that all of this is an argument for cryptographic identities (since keys are shared with far fewer parties), it's also true that the danger of losing a cryptographic key is severe, especially if that key is used in multiple places. Instead of hackers stealing your Facebook password, they might end up with access to all your other social media accounts too!

Keys should be treated with the utmost care. Using password managers is a good start, but very valuable keys should be stored even more securely - for example in a hardware signing device. This is a hassle, and something additional to learn, but is an indispensable part of taking advantage of the benefits associated with cryptographic identity.

There are ways to lessen the impact of lost or stolen secrets, however. Lots of different techniques exist for structuring key systems in such a way that keys can be protected, invalidated, or limited. Here are a few:

• Hierarchical Deterministic Keys allow for the creation of a single root key from which multiple child keys can be generated. These keys are hard to link to the parent, which provides additional privacy, but this link can also be proven when necessary. One limitation is that the identity system has to be designed with HD keys in mind.
• Key Rotation allows keys to become expendable. Additional credentials might be attached to a key, allowing the holder to prove they have the right to rotate the key. Social attestations can help with the process as well if the key is embedded in a web of trust.
• Remote Signing is a technique for storing a key on one device, but using it on another. This might take the form of signing using a hardware wallet and transferring an SD card to your computer for broadcasting, or using a mobile app like Amber to manage sessions with different applications.
• Key sharding takes this to another level by breaking a single key into multiple pieces and storing them separately. A coordinator can then be used to collaboratively sign messages without sharing key material. This dramatically reduces the ability of an attacker to steal a complete key.

Multi-Factor Authentication

One method for helping users secure their accounts that is becoming increasingly common is "multi-factor authentication". Instead of just providing your email and password, platforms send a one-time use code to your phone number or email, or use "time-based one time passwords" which are stored in a password manager or on a hardware device.

Again, MFA is a solution to a problem inherent in account-based authentication which would not be nearly so prevalent in a cryptographic identity system. Still, theft of keys does happen, and so MFA would be an important improvement - if not for an extra layer of authentication, then as a basis for key rotation.

In a sense, MFA is already being researched - key shards is one way of creating multiple credentials from a single key. However, this doesn't address the issue of key rotation, especially when an identity is tied to the public key that corresponds to a given private key. There are two possible solutions to this problem:

• Introduce a naming system. This would allow identities to use a durable name, assigning it to different keys over time. The downside is that this would require the introduction of either centralized naming authorities (back to the old model), or a blockchain in order to solve Zooko's trilemma.
• Establish a chain of keys. This would require a given key to name a successor key in advance and self-invalidate, or some other process like social recovery to invalidate an old key and assign the identity to a new one. This also would significantly increase the complexity of validating messages and associating them with a given identity.

Both solutions are workable, but introduce a lot of complexity that could cause more trouble than it's worth, depending on the identity system we're talking about.

Surveillance

One of the nice qualities that systems based on cryptographic identities have is that digitally signed data can be passed through any number of untrusted systems and emerge intact. This ability to resist tampering makes it possible to broadcast signed data more widely than would otherwise be the case in a system that relies on a custodian to authenticate information.

The downside of this is that more untrusted systems have access to data. And if information is broadcast publicly, anyone can get access to it.

This problem is compounded by re-use of cryptographic identities across multiple contexts. A benefit of self-issued credentials is that it becomes possible to bring everything attached to your identity with you, including social context and attached credentials. This is convenient and can be quite powerful, but it also means that more context is attached to your activity, making it easier to infer information about you for advertising or surveillance purposes. This is dangerously close to the dystopian ideal of a "Digital ID".

The best way to deal with this risk is to consider identity re-use an option to be used when desirable, but to default to creating a new key for every identity you create. This is no worse than the status quo, and it makes room for the ability to link identities when desired.

Another possible approach to this problem is to avoid broadcasting signed data when possible. This could be done by obscuring your cryptographic identity when data is served from a database, or by encrypting your signed data in order to selectively share it with named counterparties.

Still, this is a real risk, and should be kept in mind when designing and using systems based on cryptographic identity. If you'd like to read more about this, please see this blog post.

Making Keys Usable

You might be tempted to look at that list of trade-offs and get the sense that cryptographic identity is not for mere mortals. Key management is hard, and footguns abound - but there is a way forward. With nostr, some new things are happening in the world of key management that have never really happened before.

Plenty of work over the last 30 years has gone into making key management tractable, but none have really been widely adopted. The reason for this is simple: network effect.

Many of these older key systems only applied the thinnest veneer of humanity over keys. But an identity is much richer than a mere label. Having a real name, social connections, and a corpus of work to attach to a key creates a system of keys that humans care about.

By bootstrapping key management within a social context, nostr ensures that the payoff of key management is worth the learning curve. Not only is social engagement a strong incentive to get off the ground, people already on the network are eager to help you get past any roadblocks you might face.

So if I could offer an action item: give nostr a try today. Whether you're in it for the people and their values, or you just want to experiment with cryptographic identity, nostr is a great place to start. For a quick introduction and to securely generate keys, visit njump.me.

Thanks for taking the time to read this post. I hope it's been helpful, and I can't wait to see you on nostr!

@ cb8f3c8e:c10ec329

Written by ALEX MREMA @npub1w4zrulscqraej2570gkazt0e7j0q3xq4437hnxjqfvcs59hq86fs9vnn4x

From the 13th of January 2024 the football world’s eyes will all converge on the Ivory Coast as 24 of Africa’s best football nations look to take each other on for the title of Africa’s best come 11th February. Though there is only going to be one winner, that doesn’t mean we aren’t promised exceptional football, shocks and players showcasing their razzle dazzle throughout the next 29 days. This article will focus on the players from each of the 24 competing nations who don’t get the spotlight they deserve but are certain to cause trouble.

---

IVORY COAST Name: Simon Adingra Age: 21 Club: Brighton and Hove Albion(England) Position: Winger The bright orange Ivorian jerseys are not the only thing that will catch your eye from this squad as the youthful, electrifying and pacey Brighton winger Simon Adingra is certainly bound to catch the interest of some during the tournament. His eye for goal and his turbo speed is bound to give trouble to any defender.

---

EQUATORIAL GUINEA Name: Saúl Coco Age: 24 Club: UD Las Palmas(Spain) Position: Center-Back Equatorial Guinea are not newcomers to the competition and are not going to be a pushover in a group that contains hosts Ivory Coast and the star-studded Nigeria. A player one must recognize from the Central African country is none other than Saul Coco. 6-foot-2 and a menace at the back, he will catch the eye of many particularly in his match up with the towering Bissau-Guinean players and of course Nigeria’s Victor Osimhen.

---

GUINEA-BISSAU Name: Fali Candé Age: 24 Club: FC Metz(France) Position: Centre-Back Like Equatorial Guinea, Guinea- Bissau come to the tournament with a familiar idea of what is expected. This is a nation known for putting up a challenge no matter what and are able to even pull a shock or two. If they are going to attract any wins in the tournament they will need a solid defense in their attack-heavy group, luckily for Guinea Bissau, they have Fali Cande who is one of the rocks at the back that Africa should have an eye on as he is aggressive and committed to keeping a clean sheet.

---

NIGERIA Name: Moses Simon Age: 28 Club: FC Nantes(France) Position: Winger Nigeria come in as one of the favourites to win it all and with a squad that has the African player of the year (Victor Osimhen) it’s hard to disagree that they are capable of delivering the cup back to Nigeria for the first time since 2013. A player that is sure to electrify the tournament is FC Nantes winger Moses Simon who shone in the last edition but had his time cut short after the Super Eagles shock defeat to Tunisia in the Round of 16. Now with their other attacking star (Victor Boniface) officially out of the tournament, will the Simon-Osimhen-Boniface attacking duo bear fruit for Nigeria?

---

CAPE VERDE Name: Jamiro Monteiro Age: 30 Club: San Jose Earthquakes(USA) Position: Center Midfield A man of experience and flair, Jamiro Monteiro is going to be a man lighting up the highlight reels throughout his time in the Ivory Coast. With a flair like Alex de Souza and an awareness equal to that of David Silva, Monteiro instantly sets himself as a man to watch in Cape Verde’s conquest to spice up the tournament.

---

EGYPT Name: Ahmed Fatouh Age: 25 Club: Zamalek(Egypt) Position: Left Back Fatouh has been described as the “Egyptian Marcelo” for his ability to excel in the attacking third of the pitch despite being a left back. His skill and drive towards making an impact upfront shall not blindside viewers that he can also do it defensively. This man is pivotal for the Egyptians in their quest for glory.

---

GHANA Name: Salis Abdul Samed Age: 23 Club: RC Lens(France) Position: Central Defensive Midfielder Entering AFCON 2023, the Black Stars of Ghana are a nation booming with talent mixed with just the right amount of experience. Looking to put away the demons of their last AFCON appearance and deliver their first trophy since 1980, Ghana are likely to turn to their midfield to take them all the way. Yes, Mohammed Kudus is in that midfield but a player that goes unnoticed in that midfield is Salis Abdul Samed. He is magnificent at stealing the ball from opponents in a clean manner, further, he is able to put Ghana in promising positions when he moves the ball up. He truly is the new generation player that Ghana needed to make their midfield a threat to opponents.

---

MOZAMBIQUE Name: Geny Catamo Age: 22 Club: Sporting CP (Portugal) Position: Winger The scouts should keep an eye out for this young talent. He manages to wriggle through spaces with his dribbling and also leave defenders in the dust when going one on one with them. Catamo carries forward the game easily and with purpose and a lucid hunger. Head coach Chiquinho Conde should put his trust in this young man to make Mozambique a threat in the tournament.

---

CAMEROON Name: François-Régis Mughe Age: 19 Club: Olympique de Marseille(France) Position: Winger The youngest player on this list is a special prospect. His strength and pace is bound to make any defender have a difficult time when going up against him. He can create something out of nothing when given playing time, Cameroon coach Rigobert Song should make him have a taste of the competition and he will be wowed by the talent he has in his hands.

---

THE GAMBIA Name: Ablie Jallow Age: 25 Club: FC Metz(France) Position: Winger Classy, calm and collected. These are the three words that can best be used to describe Gambia’s top scorer during qualifiers. He carries an aura that is simply impossible to ignore and he comes at defenders like a high speed train. He will look to be the main influence in The Gambia’s drive towards making another quarter final run like in the last edition of the tournament. Oh, don’t give him time and space to shoot because he will punish the keeper.

---

GUINEA Name: Amadou Diawara Age: 26 Club: RSC Anderlecht(Belgium) Position: Defensive Midfielder Composure must be this man's middle name. Once he has the ball it is not getting lost with him, he keeps the ball until he releases a pass -which on occasion are mighty sensational- despite being a defensive midfielder,he is capable of bringing up the ball to threatening positions; when Guinea are in trouble at the back he is there to clean up the mess. He is the real deal. He is Amadou Diawara.

---

SENEGAL Name: Ismail Jakobs Age: 26 Club: AS Monaco(France) Position: Left Back Senegal will look to make it to their third final in as many tournaments and at the same time retain their crown. A new feature to the Lions of Teranga side is left back Ismail Jakobs who is very quick and tends to join the attack. He does have a left foot capable of finding the back of the net but it’s his defensive recovery and ethic that magnifies him above some of the other modern day defenders. He is one the Senegal camp must protect from any injuries or suspensions as he is key for their progression in the Ivory Coast.

---

ALGERIA Name: Ramiz Zerrouki Age: 25 Club: Feyenoord(Netherlands) Position: Defensive Midfielder Africa should be proud to have this man playing in the upcoming AFCON tournament as he is the epitome of athleticism and command on the pitch. Based in the Netherlands, Zerrouki will stop at nothing to get the ball back on his feet and once he has the ball he is at peace again and can run the Algerian midfield operations with ease. He will look to make the Algerian midfield gel and spearhead The Desert Foxes into the knockout rounds after a disappointing run in the 2021 edition of the tournament.

---

ANGOLA Name: Gelson Dala Age: 27 Club: Al Wakrah(Qatar) Position: Center Forward This man ended qualifiers as Angola’s top scorer and is an electrifying center forward. He hustles for the ball every time one of his wingers has the ball on their feet or alternatively when the ball is in the box he will make use of it no matter what. He is Angola’s main man and should be on every manager’s list of the most dangerous players in the tournament.

---

BURKINA FASO Name: Stephane Aziz Ki Age: 27 Club: Young Africans(Tanzania) Position: Attacking Midfielder The Stallions are a nation capable of causing havoc in Ivory Coast with the snap of a finger, they have an impressive defensive foundation and contain plenty of attacking threats. A diamond within this attack is none other than Young Africans midfielder; Aziz Ki. He is strong on the ball, influential on the pitch and when given time and space to unleash a shot,he will make the opposing team pay. He hopes to get some playing time while at Ivory Coast and light up the tournament for his country.

---

MAURITANIA ** Name: Khadim Diaw Age: 25 Club: Horoya(Guinea) Position:** Left Back Khadim Diaw is more than your typical left back that is able to do it all on defense, he is a joy for attackers to use for the link up play. He has an excellent passing ability that can pick out any of the Mauritanian strikers in the box. He is certainly bound to be on coach Amir Abdou’s starting eleven.

---

MALI Name: Kamory Doumbia Age: 20 Club: Stade Brestois 29(France Position: Attacking Midfielder Fresh off scoring four goals(yes you read that right) four goals against FC Lorient in France, it looks impossible for young starlet Kamory Doumbia to not feature in the tournament. He is pacey, attentive and has an eye for goal which only adds to Mali’s firepower. Many should watch out for this Mali squad as they might go all the way due to their attacking firepower.

---

NAMIBIA Name: Peter Shalulile Age: 30 Club: Mamelodi Sundowns(South Africa) Position: Centre Forward One of Africa’s most dangerous strikers in recent years is Namibia’s very own.Shalulile stands at only five-foot-seven but he can leave a defense in shambles in little to no time as he is best friends with the net. He carries a variety of methods to make the net rifle and has done so a staggering 110 times in the Premier Soccer League in South Africa. Watch out for this man Africa.

---

SOUTH AFRICA Name: Teboho Mokoena Age: 26 Club: Mamelodi Sundowns(South Africa) Position: Center Midfielder A long-range specialist and a maestro in the midfield, Teboho Mokoena can impact the state of a game at any point he decides to do so. He has the game at the palm of his hands at all times and dictates it with his calm demeanour. In the dying seconds of the match, every opponent should make sure the ball doesn’t find him because if it does, it will probably be in the back of the net within the blink of an eye.

---

TUNISIA Name: Elias Achouri Age: 24 Club: FC Kobenhavn(Denmark) Position: Winger A confident winger who is capable of taking two to three defenders with him and will still come out of that situation with the ball still on his feet. Taking into account that he is 24, it appears to be the perfect time for Achouri to make a name for himself and the Eagles of Carthage in the Ivory Coast.

---

DR CONGO Name: Fiston Kalala Mayele Age: 29 Club: Pyramids FC(Egypt) Position: Center Forward The DR Congo attack line is heavily loaded with players hungry to make a name for themselves. One of them is Fiston Mayele who is based in Egypt. He spells trouble for defenders as he charges at them with nothing else in his mind but hitting the back of the net, he tends to catch others out with his ability to head the ball in a way that troubles the keeper greatly. If he manages to link correctly with the other strikers that Les Leopards have in their squad, then they will certainly be a team to watch in the tournament.

---

MOROCCO Name: Ismael Saibari Age: 22 Club: PSV Eindhoven(Netherlands) Position: Central Midfielder Part of the undefeated PSV squad that is yet to drop a point, Ismael Saibari has made his name known on the squad. His flair carries him through as a standout amongst the crowd. In this Moroccan team that is looking to build off their historic World Cup run, head coach Walid Regragui’s decision to grant this young prospect some time in the tournament is simply genius.

---

ZAMBIA Name: Clatous Chama Age: 32 Club: Simba Sports Club(Tanzania) Position: Central Midfielder The Chipolopolo look to run back their miracle of 2012 in this edition of the competition and will mostly play through their midfield. One of their key midfielders is Clatous Chama who is nicknamed “Mwamba wa Lusaka” which is Swahili for Rock of Lusaka. He is a machine in the frontline for his club and carries a great work ethic towards creating goals every time he plays. Beyond his goal scoring ability, Chama is very technically gifted and makes every situation count when he has the ball. Zambia are blessed to have him on their side.

---

TANZANIA Name: Tarryn Allarakhia Age: 26 Club: Wealdstone(England) Position: Central Midfielder The Taifa Stars look to shock the African continent in their AFCON 2023 campaign after disappointing campaigns in 1980 and 2019. Tanzania aims to use their hidden gem of a midfielder to the best of his ability to work on progressing the ball up the pitch. Though the Tanzanian stands at five-foot-seven, he is capable of keeping his balance every time he makes a darting run and more importantly,he is able to progress the ball up the field and win fouls in promising positions.In addition, he has sensational flair in his arsenal plus a great shot power and accuracy to his name. Keep your eyes out for this gem Africa!

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 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

@ 291c75d9:37f1bfbe

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

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

- Benjamin Franklin

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

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

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

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

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

Membership: A Diverse Circle United by Values

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Discussions: 24 Questions to Spark Insight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read them all here.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom, for Community

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

npubpro

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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.

@ 04ea4f83:210e1713

Erschienen im The Bitstein Brief | Veröffenlichung 10.12.2022 |\ Author: Bitstein (Michael Goldstein)\ Übersetzt von: Sinautoshi am 11.12.2022 - 766906

„Die gesellschaftliche Funktion der Wirtschaftswissenschaft besteht gerade darin, solide Wirtschaftstheorien zu entwickeln und die Irrtümer bösartiger Denkweisen zu entlarven. Bei der Verfolgung dieser Aufgabe zieht der Wirtschaftswissenschaftler die tödliche Feindschaft aller Schwindler und Scharlatane auf sich, deren Abkürzungen zum irdischen Paradies er entlarvt. Je weniger diese Quacksalber in der Lage sind, plausible Einwände gegen die Argumente eines Ökonomen vorzubringen, desto wütender beschimpfen sie ihn.“

- Ludwig von Mises, „Nationalökonomie, Theorie des Handelns und Wirtschaftens”

---

Das „toxischste" an einem Bitcoin-Maximalisten ist seine unerschütterliche Bereitschaft, „Nein” zu sagen. Nach dem Studium der Geldtheorie und -geschichte und der Erfahrung mit den unerbittlichen Kräften des Marktes, hat der Bitcoiner ein Verständnis für die Realität des monetären Wettbewerbs, ein Bewusstsein für die kritische Natur dezentraler Systeme, einen Fokus auf die Lösung der wichtigsten monetären Probleme und eine strikte Ablehnung der unvermeidlichen Ablenkungen, Opportunitätskosten und ethischen Bedenken bei der Einführung und Förderung von Altcoin-Projekten.

Einige Kritiker bemängeln unhöfliche rhetorische Schnörkel, die als Hindernis für die Gewinnung neuer Bitcoin-Nutzer angesehen werden. Wenn das wahr wäre, gäbe es in der Arbeitsteilung eine Chance für eine qualitativ hochwertigere Bitcoin-Ausbildung, die die Bitcoiner meiner Meinung nach gerne wahrnehmen würden, vor allem die Kritiker, die die bestehenden Unzulänglichkeiten besser erkennen. Doch egal, wie höflich die Bitcoiner ihre Ansichten darlegen, bestimmte Möchtegern-Unternehmer und Influencer werden immer im Streit mit einer leidenschaftlichen Bevölkerungsgruppe stehen, die einfach nicht interessiert ist - und ihr Desinteresse lautstark kundtut. Die „toxischsten" Bitcoiner sind oft diejenigen, die die Weisheit der Bitcoiner erst erkannt haben, nachdem sie von Shitcoins verbrannt wurden und ihr neu gefundenes Desinteresse unmissverständlich zum Ausdruck bringen wollen.

Was soll man also als Bitcoiner tun? Ich empfehle, sich der Wahrheit und der Förderung der Wahrheit zu verschreiben und die Wirksamkeit von Rhetorik an ihrem langfristigen Einfluss und nicht an ihrer kurzfristigen Popularität zu messen.

In dieser Hinsicht sollten sich die Bitcoiner von dem ursprünglichen toxischen Maximalisten inspirieren lassen: Ludwig von Mises. Der bedeutende Wirtschaftswissenschaftler setzte sich unbeirrt für die Wahrheit, freie Märkte und gesundes Geld ein und scheute sich nicht, das zu sagen, was gesagt werden musste, auch wenn er sich damit keine Freunde machte. Langfristig wurde er zu einem der einflussreichsten Ökonomen und Denker des 20. Jahrhunderts, und seine Arbeit hat den Weg für den Bitcoin geebnet.

Mises, der Geldmaximalist

Einer der Hauptkritikpunkte an den Bitcoin-Maximalisten ist die Behauptung, dass die Welt auf Bitcoin (als Geld) konvergieren wird und es generell keine Verwendung für andere Währungen gibt. Dies wird als normative Aussage betrachtet. In Wirklichkeit machen die Bitcoiner eine positive, beschreibende Aussage darüber, wie der monetäre Wettbewerb funktioniert.

In der 1912 veröffentlichten Theorie des Geldes und der Umlaufmittel schrieb Mises:

---

„So haben die Erfordernisse des Marktes allmählich dazu geführt, dass bestimmte Waren als gemeinsame Tauschmittel ausgewählt wurden. Die Gruppe der Waren, aus der diese ausgewählt wurden, war ursprünglich sehr groß und unterschied sich von Land zu Land; sie wurde aber immer mehr eingeschränkt. Wann immer ein direkter Tausch nicht in Frage kam, war jede der an einem Geschäft beteiligten Parteien bestrebt, ihre überflüssigen Waren nicht nur gegen marktgängigere Waren im Allgemeinen, sondern gegen die marktgängigsten Waren einzutauschen, und von diesen wiederum bevorzugte sie natürlich die marktgängigste Ware. Je größer die Marktfähigkeit der zuerst im indirekten Tausch erworbenen Waren ist, desto größer ist die Aussicht, das endgültige Ziel ohne weitere Manöver erreichen zu können. So gäbe es die unvermeidliche Tendenz, dass die weniger marktfähigen Güter aus der Reihe der als Tauschmittel verwendeten Waren nach und nach verworfen würden, bis schließlich nur noch ein einziges Gut übrig bliebe, das allgemein als Tauschmittel verwendet würde: das Geld.“

---

Mises zufolge wählen die Akteure zunehmend das marktgängigste Gut als Tauschmittel aus und der natürliche Verlauf des Marktes geht in Richtung Vereinheitlichung zu einem einzigen Geldgut. Das ist schlicht und einfach monetärer Maximalismus.

Mises unterscheidet sich von den Bitcoinern lediglich durch die Stärke der Behauptungen, die er über die tatsächlichen empirischen Entscheidungen der Wirtschaftsakteure zu treffen bereit ist. Mises weist darauf hin, dass sowohl Gold als auch Silber an vielen Orten zu Geld gemacht wurden, wahrscheinlich wegen ihrer ähnlichen Eigenschaften, und dass es den Rahmen der Geldtheorie sprengt, zu sagen, ob Gold oder Silber letztlich besser verkäuflich ist. Trotzdem sagt er:

---

„Denn es ist ziemlich sicher, dass die Vereinheitlichung auch dann ein wünschenswertes geldpolitisches Ziel gewesen wäre, wenn die ungleiche Marktfähigkeit der als Tauschmittel verwendeten Güter kein Motiv geboten hätte. Die gleichzeitige Verwendung mehrerer Geldarten bringt so viele Nachteile mit sich und verkompliziert die Technik des Tauschens so sehr, dass das Bestreben, das Geldsystem zu vereinheitlichen, in jedem Fall unternommen worden wäre.“

---

Die natürliche Tendenz zu einem einzigen Geldgut ist so stark, dass seiner Meinung nach die Vereinheitlichung der Geldsysteme auch dann angestrebt würde, wenn zwei Güter genau gleich marktfähig wären. Zuvor stellt er außerdem fest:

---

„Das endgültige Urteil könnte erst gefällt werden, wenn alle Hauptteile der bewohnten Erde ein einziges Handelsgebiet bilden, denn erst dann wäre es unmöglich, dass andere Nationen mit unterschiedlichen Geldsystemen sich anschließen und die internationale Organisation verändern.“

---

Jede neue Handelsbeziehung eröffnet die Möglichkeit, ein brandneues Geldgut einzuführen, das bisher nicht verwendet wurde. Wenn seine Qualitäten ein höheres Maß an Marktfähigkeit aufrechterhalten könnten, ist es möglich, dass sich die gesamte internationale Währungsordnung aufgrund seiner natürlichen Überlegenheit bei der Bewältigung der Funktionen des Geldes um ihn herum neu organisieren könnte.

Im Bitcoin Standard liefert Saifedean Ammous zahlreiche Argumente dafür, warum Gold dem Silber als Geldwert überlegen war, obwohl Mises nicht bereit oder nicht daran interessiert war, diesen Punkt zu diskutieren, und warum Bitcoin ein noch besserer Geldwert ist. Mises hat die Einführung von Bitcoin in die Weltwirtschaft zwar nicht mehr erlebt, aber seine Wirtschaftstheorie erklärt genau, warum Bitcoin an Wert gewinnen würde und warum es plausibel ist, dass die gesamte internationale Währungsordnung auf einen Bitcoin-Standard umgestellt wird. Er gibt auch den theoretischen Rahmen, um zu verstehen, warum Altcoins Bitcoin nicht allein durch ihre Eigenschaften ausstechen können. Sie müssen eine bessere Marktfähigkeit in Bezug auf Raum, Zeit und Größe bieten, um einen ausreichenden Vorteil gegenüber Bitcoin zu haben. Wie bereits an anderer Stelle beschrieben, ist dies einfach nicht gelungen, und nur Bitcoin bietet ein stark dezentralisiertes, überprüfbares und glaubwürdig knappes digitales Geldgut.

Mises, der Marktmaximalist

Die Geldtheorie ist nicht der einzige Ort, an dem der Leser eine Art „Maximalismus" in Mises' Denken spüren kann. Sein gesamtes Werk läuft auf einen unverhohlenen Marktmaximalismus hinaus, der sich weigert, durch rigorose ökonomische Theorie und Analyse sozialistischen oder interventionistischen Argumenten nachzugeben.

Ein großartiges Beispiel für seine Verteidigung des freien Marktes findet sich in einem Vortrag aus dem Jahr 1950 mit dem Titel „Die Mitte des Weges führt zum Sozialismus". In dieser Vorlesung greift Mises Interventionisten an, die behaupten, eine Politik der „Mitte" zwischen den beiden Extremen Kapitalismus und Sozialismus zu favorisieren. Durch strategische Interventionen kann der Staat die Auswüchse beider Systeme verhindern.

Mises betrachtet Kapitalismus und Sozialismus jedoch als diametral entgegengesetzte und unvereinbare Organisationssysteme und nicht als ein Spektrum der Wohlstandsverteilung:

---

„Der Konflikt der beiden Prinzipien ist unüberbrückbar und lässt keinen Kompromiss zu. Kontrolle ist unteilbar. Entweder entscheidet die Nachfrage der Verbraucher, die sich auf dem Markt manifestiert, für welche Zwecke und wie die Produktionsfaktoren eingesetzt werden sollen, oder der Staat kümmert sich um diese Angelegenheiten. Es gibt nichts, was den Gegensatz zwischen diesen beiden widersprüchlichen Prinzipien abmildern könnte. Sie schließen sich gegenseitig aus. Der Interventionismus ist kein goldener Mittelweg zwischen Kapitalismus und Sozialismus. Er ist der Entwurf für ein drittes System der wirtschaftlichen Organisation der Gesellschaft und muss als solches gewürdigt werden.“

---

Dieses dritte System ist jedoch im Grunde nur ein längerer Marsch zum Sozialismus, indem es ein falsches Lippenbekenntnis zu Privateigentum und freier Marktwirtschaft ablegt. Auf jeden Eingriff, der stattfindet, müssen weitere folgen. Die Festsetzung eines Preises hier erfordert die Festsetzung eines anderen Preises dort, und so geht es die ganze Lieferkette entlang. Am Ende hat der Interventionismus die gesamte „Marktwirtschaft" im Würgegriff.

---

Der Interventionismus kann nicht als ein Wirtschaftssystem betrachtet werden, das dazu bestimmt ist, zu bleiben. Er ist eine Methode zur Umwandlung des Kapitalismus in den Sozialismus in mehreren aufeinanderfolgenden Schritten. Damit unterscheidet er sich von den Bemühungen der Kommunisten, den Sozialismus auf einen Schlag zu verwirklichen. Der Unterschied bezieht sich nicht auf das letztendliche Ziel der politischen Bewegung, sondern vor allem auf die Taktik, die zur Erreichung des von beiden Gruppen angestrebten Ziels angewandt wird.

---

Trotzdem sind selbst die meisten vermeintlichen Befürworter einer freien Marktwirtschaft in Wirklichkeit von interventionistischen Ideologien und Denkweisen durchdrungen, und ihre Strategien sind immer zum Scheitern und zu Kompromissen verurteilt.

---

„Dies hat zur Folge, dass praktisch kaum etwas getan wird, um das System der Privatwirtschaft zu erhalten. Es gibt nur Mittelsmänner, die glauben, erfolgreich gewesen zu sein, wenn sie eine besonders ruinöse Maßnahme eine Zeit lang hinausgezögert haben. Sie sind immer auf dem Rückzug. Sie nehmen heute Maßnahmen in Kauf, die sie noch vor zehn oder zwanzig Jahren für undiskutabel gehalten hätten. In ein paar Jahren werden sie sich mit anderen Maßnahmen abfinden, die sie heute noch für undiskutabel halten. Was den totalitären Sozialismus verhindern kann, ist nur ein grundlegender Wandel der Ideologien.\ \ Was wir brauchen, ist weder Antisozialismus noch Antikommunismus, sondern eine offene Befürwortung des Systems, dem wir all den Wohlstand verdanken, der unser Zeitalter von den vergleichsweise beengten Verhältnissen vergangener Zeiten unterscheidet.“

---

Mises nimmt kein Blatt vor den Mund, wenn er eine interventionistische Politik fordert, und es gibt viele Lehren, die Bitcoiner daraus ziehen können.

Erstens ist das Bitcoin-Netzwerk nicht einfach nur eine andere Art des Werttransfers als eine bestehende zentralisierte Lösung, eine Art PayPal 2.0. Es ist ein strukturell anderer Ansatz für das gesamte Problem der doppelten Ausgaben. „Blockchain, nicht Bitcoin" ist eine Mogelpackung, weil sie den Kern dessen, was Bitcoin einzigartig macht (Dezentralisierung, unabhängige Überprüfbarkeit usw.), wegnimmt, während sie behauptet, „die zugrundeliegende Technologie" zu nutzen, ähnlich wie ein nationalsozialistisches oder faschistisches Regime die staatliche Kontrolle über die Produktion übernehmen könnte, während es behauptet, für Privateigentum zu sein. Wenn du die Vorteile des Marktes nutzen willst, musst du tatsächlich einen Markt haben, und wenn du die Vorteile von Bitcoin nutzen willst, musst du Bitcoin tatsächlich nutzen.

Außerdem sollte die Dezentralisierung als binäres System betrachtet werden. Entweder ist ein System dezentralisiert, oder es ist dazu verdammt, zentralisiert zu werden, manchmal mit einem Hard Fork nach dem anderen (vgl. Ethereum). Bitcoin-Maximalisten werden regelmäßig als toxisch bezeichnet, weil sie entschlossen an bestimmten Netzwerkparametern festhalten, selbst wenn diese willkürlich oder trivial erscheinen. Ein ganzer Krieg über die Blockgröße wurde um eine Begrenzung von 1 MB geführt. Die Zahl schien willkürlich und die Lösung trivial zu sein, aber die Bitcoiner weigerten sich, davon abzuweichen. Und warum? Eine höhere Blockgröße würde die Kosten für den Betrieb eines vollständigen Knotens (Full Node)  erhöhen, der für eine unabhängige Validierung und Dezentralisierung notwendig ist. Ein Hard Fork würde einen vernichtenden Präzedenzfall schaffen und alle zukünftigen Ansprüche auf Abwärtskompatibilität gefährden, die für die Glaubwürdigkeit der Geldpolitik und die Fähigkeit der Nodes, sich vertrauensvoll mit dem Netzwerk zu synchronisieren, erforderlich sind. Die Blockkapazität stieg zwar an, aber nur, weil SegWit, dessen Vorteile weit über die bloße Verbesserung der Skalierung hinausgingen, über einen Soft Fork aktiviert werden konnte, sodass denjenigen, die dies nicht wollten, keine neuen Kosten auferlegt wurden.

Andere Projekte hingegen akzeptieren nicht, dass die Kompromisse bei Bitcoin nicht wirklich willkürlich sind. Sie bieten Turing-complete Smart Contracts, schnellere Blockzeiten, größere Blöcke oder alle möglichen anderen „Features" an. Die Features werden nicht mit demselben extrem konservativen Engagement für Sicherheit produziert wie Bitcoin und bedrohen oft die Fähigkeit, überhaupt einen vollständigen Knoten (Full-Node) zu betreiben. Nur bei Bitcoin kümmern sich die Leute darum, dass die Geldmenge tatsächlich überprüft werden kann. Mit der Zeit verlieren die Projekte, wenn sie überhaupt aufrechterhalten werden, jeden Anschein einer glaubwürdigen Dezentralisierung. Ethereum, das einst mit unaufhaltsamen Anwendungen und der Aussage „Code ist Gesetz" warb, erlebte den DAO-Hack und ist nach der Einführung von Proof-of-Stake (das von Natur aus zentralisierend ist) der OFAC-Zensur in unterschiedlichem Maße unterworfen.

Bitcoin akzeptiert nichts von alledem. Er beugt seine Regeln für niemanden. Bitcoiner wissen auch, dass das System gar kein Bitcoin mehr wäre, wenn die Regeln gebogen würden. Mises hilft uns zu verstehen, dass eine Politik des Mittelweges zu Shitcoinerei führt. Eine Währung ist entweder Bitcoin oder dazu verdammt, ein Shitcoin zu sein.

Mises, der toxische Maximalist

Im Jahr 1947 fand in der Schweiz das erste Treffen der Mont Pèlerin Society statt. Bei diesem Treffen trafen sich viele der einflussreichsten Verfechter der freien Märkte und des klassischen Liberalismus, von Ludwig von Mises über F. A. Hayek bis hin zu Milton Friedman und vielen anderen, um darüber zu diskutieren, wie man die steigende Flut des Totalitarismus und seiner Wirtschaftsideologien durch die Förderung freier Märkte und des Privateigentums bekämpfen kann. Man könnte meinen, dass Mises genau in diese Diskussionen passt. Doch wie Milton Friedman berichtete, kam es anders:

---

„Die Geschichte, an die ich mich am besten erinnere, ereignete sich auf dem ersten Treffen in Mont Pèlerin, als [Mises] aufstand und sagte: „Ihr seid alle ein Haufen Sozialisten." Wir diskutierten über die Einkommensverteilung und darüber, ob man progressive Einkommenssteuern haben sollte. Einige der Anwesenden vertraten die Ansicht, dass es eine Rechtfertigung dafür geben könnte.\ \ Eine andere Gelegenheit, die ebenso aufschlussreich ist: Fritz Machlup war ein Schüler von Mises, einer seiner treuesten Jünger. Bei einem der Treffen in Mont Pèlerin hielt Machlup einen Vortrag, in dem er, glaube ich, die Idee eines Goldstandards in Frage stellte; er sprach sich für freie Wechselkurse aus. Mises war so wütend, dass er drei Jahre lang nicht mit Machlup sprechen wollte. Einige Leute mussten die beiden wieder zusammenbringen. Es ist schwer zu verstehen; man kann es einigermaßen nachvollziehen, wenn man sich vor Augen führt, wie Menschen wie Mises in seinem Leben verfolgt wurden.“

---

Wie bereits erwähnt, hielt Mises drei Jahre später einen Vortrag, in dem er eindrucksvoll erklärte, warum sie tatsächlich alle ein Haufen Sozialisten waren. Wer staatliche Eingriffe in die Einkommensverteilung akzeptiert, ist dem Sozialismus bereits verfallen, sobald genug Zeit vergangen ist. Mises war einfach nicht bereit, den sozialistischen Irrtümern, die er im Laufe seiner intellektuellen Karriere so akribisch aufgespießt hatte, Glauben zu schenken. Jörg Guido Hülsmann stellt in Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism fest, dass „Mises zwar in der Lage war, Sozialisten hoch zu schätzen, aber der Vorfall zeigte, dass er wenig Geduld mit Sozialisten hatte, die sich als Liberale ausgaben."

Doch Mises' giftiges Verhalten blieb nicht ohne Folgen. Laut Hülsmann:

---

„Der Schlagabtausch zwischen Mises und seinen neoliberalen Gegnern prägte den Ton in der Mont Pèlerin Society für die kommenden Jahre.... Obwohl die Libertären um Mises eine kleine Minderheit waren, hatten sie die finanzielle Unterstützung der amerikanischen Hauptsponsoren wie dem Volker Fund, ohne die die Gesellschaft in jenen frühen Jahren schnell ausgestorben wäre. Solange Mises aktiv an den Treffen teilnahm, war es daher unmöglich, die technischen Details eines genehmigten staatlichen Interventionismus zu diskutieren. Das Laissez-faire hatte ein Comeback gefeiert. Es war zwar nicht die Mehrheitsmeinung, aber es war eine diskutierbare und diskutierte politische Option - zu viel für einige anfängliche Mitglieder wie Maurice Allais, der die Gesellschaft genau aus diesem Grund bald wieder verließ.“

---

Indem er toxisch war, konnte Mises dazu beitragen, den Ton für eine wirklich laissez-faire Mont Pèlerin Society zu setzen, die ihrem erklärten Ziel gerecht werden konnte, und sie wählten F. A. Hayek zu ihrem Präsidenten. Er hatte keine Angst, Klartext zu reden, aber lautstark, sogar gegenüber Leuten, die vermutlich zu seinem „eigenen Team" gehörten. Ludwig von Mises war ein Mann, der seine Ideen ernst nahm und die Wahrheit noch viel ernster.

In seinen Memoiren schreibt Mises über seine Zeit in der österreichischen Handelskammer in den 1910er und 1920er Jahren:

---

„Ich wurde manchmal beschuldigt, meinen Standpunkt zu schroff und unnachgiebig zu vertreten. Es wurde auch behauptet, dass ich mehr hätte erreichen können, wenn ich eine größere Kompromissbereitschaft gezeigt hätte.... Die Kritik war ungerechtfertigt; ich konnte nur dann effektiv sein, wenn ich die Dinge so darstellen konnte, wie sie mir erschienen. Wenn ich heute auf meine Arbeit bei der Handelskammer zurückblicke, bedauere ich nur meine Kompromissbereitschaft und nicht meine Unnachgiebigkeit.“

---

In dieser Zeit trug sein Rat dazu bei, die Hyperinflation in Österreich aufzuhalten und ihre Auswirkungen im Vergleich zur Weimarer Republik abzuschwächen.

Bitcoiner werden von endlosen „Krypto-" und „Shitcoin"-Betrügern geplagt, die auf dem Rücken der innovativen Technologie und des wirtschaftlichen Erfolgs von Bitcoin reiten wollen. Den Bitcoinern wird gesagt, dass sie alle im selben Team sind. In den Augen der Öffentlichkeit sind sie das auch. Das Ergebnis ist eine getäuschte Öffentlichkeit, der zentralisierte Pump-and-Dump-Systeme und Rugpulls, Affen-Jpegs und Rube-Goldberg-Maschinen verkauft werden, die auf Schlagwörtern basieren und die Vorstellung vermitteln, dass sie in der gleichen Liga spielen wie die großartigste Geldtechnologie, die je geschaffen wurde. „Krypto" profitiert vom Erfolg von Bitcoin, und die Bekanntheit von Bitcoin sinkt mit den Misserfolgen von „Krypto". Doch wenn Bitcoiner die Unterschiede ansprechen und diese Projekte ablehnen, die sie uninteressant oder sogar verabscheuungswürdig finden, wird das als schädlich angesehen. Den Bitcoinern schadet das nicht, denn sie können weiter (Satoshis) stapeln und bauen, aber die Menschen, die unter Fiat-Regimen leben müssen, leiden darunter, dass ihnen kein Weg zu Freiheit und Wohlstand gezeigt wird.

Abgesehen davon, dass das Geld des Einzelnen in Gefahr ist, kann die Offenheit für Shitcoins auch Veränderungen im Netzwerk fördern, die die Dezentralisierung beeinträchtigen. Wenn es Unterstützung für einen Shitcoin gibt, der auf einem bestimmten Merkmal basiert, warum sollte das Merkmal dann nicht in Bitcoin existieren? Wenn es tatsächlich eine Tendenz zu einer einzigen Währung gibt, ist die Förderung einer alternativen Kryptowährung selbst ein Angriff auf das Potenzial von Bitcoin. Wirtschaft und Technik sind mit gnadenlosen  Konsequenzen konfrontiert. Eine falsche Abfolge von Schritten kann zu absoluter Verwüstung führen. Bitcoiner nehmen das sehr ernst und machen keinen Hehl daraus, dass sie diese Konsequenzen fürchten. Wenn sie das tun, lehnen sie ganze unternehmerische Vorhaben ab und stellen ihre gesamte Einnahmequelle in Frage. Das ist toxisch.

Bitcoiners sollten immer den Mut haben, Mises zu zitieren und jedem zu sagen: „Ihr seid alle ein Haufen Shitcoiner."

Der aufgehende Stern von Mises

Obwohl er aus einer adligen Familie stammte und in Österreich hohe Positionen innehatte, hatte Mises, als er auf der Flucht vor den Nazis in die Vereinigten Staaten emigrierte, nur wenige Möglichkeiten. Bis zu seiner Pensionierung war er „Gastprofessor" an der New York University. Er arbeitete im Grunde genommen im stillen Kämmerlein und unterrichtete hauptsächlich in seinen inzwischen berühmten informellen Seminaren, an denen auch Murray Rothbard und andere teilnahmen. Er benötigte die Unterstützung verschiedener philanthropischer Fonds. Hinzu kam, dass die Wirtschaftswissenschaften, wie alle Sozialwissenschaften, dem Szientismus und der Technokratie erlegen waren, so dass Mises' strenge logisch-deduktive Methoden im Vergleich zu mathematischen Formeln und statistischen Modellen als altmodisch galten. Der Goldstandard wurde zugunsten eines Fiat-Systems abgeschafft, und als Mises starb, hatte der US-Dollar keinerlei Verbindung mehr zu Edelmetallen oder realen Ersparnissen, so dass die Geldpolitik allein den Launen der Politik überlassen blieb.

Es gab allen Grund, Ludwig von Mises völlig in Vergessenheit geraten zu lassen. Doch seine Schüler, wie Murray Rothbard, hielten die österreichische Schule am Leben. Im Jahr 1982 wurde das Ludwig von Mises Institute von Rothbard und Lew Rockwell gegründet und von Dr. Ron Paul finanziert (beide wurden von ihren Kritikern als „toxisch" bezeichnet). Dr. Paul selbst wurde zu einem legendären Verfechter der Ideen von Mises und anderen, sowohl im Kongress als auch im Präsidentschaftswahlkampf. In letzterem machte Dr. Paul die von der Federal Reserve verursachte wirtschaftliche Zerstörung zu einem zentralen Bestandteil seines Programms und zum ersten Mal seit Jahrzehnten zu einem wichtigen Thema in der politischen Debatte, was den Diskurs danach für immer veränderte.

Es ist also kein Wunder, dass viele Menschen, die sich als erste für Bitcoin begeisterten, treue Schüler von Mises waren und dass seine Ideen mit dem Wachstum von Bitcoin noch mehr an Bedeutung gewonnen haben. Seine rigorose Erläuterung der Wahrheiten des Wirtschaftsrechts, die auf Subjektivismus, Marginalismus und methodologischem Individualismus beruht, gab den Menschen den Rahmen, um zu verstehen, wie Bitcoin die Geldpolitik veranschaulicht, die zu Frieden, Wohlstand und Freiheit führt. Anstatt irrelevant zu werden, ist Mises heute wichtiger denn je. Wie Ron Paul bemerkte: „Wir sind jetzt alle Österreicher."

Fazit

Das Toxische liegt im Auge des Betrachters oder des Bagholders. Die Wirtschaftswissenschaft ist, wie jedes Streben nach Wahrheit, kein Beliebtheitswettbewerb, und die Wahrheit wird immer von denen bekämpft werden, deren Geschäft und Status von der Verbreitung von Irrtümern und Unwahrheiten abhängt.\ \ Ludwig von Mises stand fest zu seinen gründlichen Analysen der Wirtschaftswissenschaften und des klassischen Liberalismus und scheute sich nicht, das zu verteidigen, was er für wahr hielt, selbst auf Kosten von Prestige und Popularität. Heute steht er weit über fast jedem anderen Sozialwissenschaftler des 20. Jahrhunderts.

Ich habe an anderer Stelle über Memes und Rhetorik gesprochen, und es gibt viel zu diskutieren über bestimmte Strategien und ihre Wirksamkeit. Aber vor allem muss jede Strategie die Wahrheit in den Mittelpunkt stellen. Die Wahrheit ist zeitlos, so dass ihre Relevanz nicht auf kurzfristige Popularität beschränkt ist. Wenn dies der Fall ist, ist der Vorwurf der „Toxizität" entweder eine Aufforderung zur Verbesserung oder ein Ehrenzeichen dafür, dass man trotz aller Widrigkeiten für die Wahrheit einsteht. Wie das Motto von Ludwig von Mises schon sagte: tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito. Weiche dem Bösen nicht, trete ihm umso mutiger entgegen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ cb8f3c8e:c10ec329

WRITTEN BY: ALEX MREMA @npub1w4zrulscqraej2570gkazt0e7j0q3xq4437hnxjqfvcs59hq86fs9vnn4x

The whole of Africa anxiously waits for the continent’s headline tournament to kick off at the Olympic Stadium Ebimpé. This edition of AFCON features teams with talent, flair and a bottled-up hunger ready to fight for their nation to the very end. Like my most recent article that served as “part one” of the must watch games from groups A through C, this essay will look through groups D through F and what juicy encounters these groups have in store for Africa!

---

GROUP D

GAME: ALGERIA VS ANGOLA DATE: 15th January 2024 TIME: 20:00 BST Group D kicks off with an exciting encounter in which both sides are not entirely familiar with each other. With that, Les Fennecs are looking to put in a firm statement to show the whole of Africa that they are not the same lacklustre team that showed up to Cameroon in 2021.While Angola are looking to make it known that they are not a pushover in this tournament.

GAME: ALGERIA VS BURKINA FASO DATE: 20th January 2024 TIME: 14:00 BST The standout game of this group is one that can go both ways. Burkina Faso have a squad that is capable of going all the way to the finals, they’ve sent out the message several times in previous editions of the tournament that they are not underdogs and nothing close to that, rather they are confident and fearless squad ready to snatch a win from you with ease. Algeria on the other hand are looking to stop Les Étalons attacking threat from harming them while they also do what they do best- attack, attack, attack. Exciting encounter!

---

GROUP E

GAME: MALI VS SOUTH AFRICA DATE: 16th January 2024 TIME: 20:00 BST Mali have one of the most underrated squads coming to the Ivory Coast. They have a strong attacking unit and a solid midfield led by Tottenham Hotspurs star; Yves Bissouma, they are going to give the South African defence some trouble in this encounter. However, Bafana Bafana are also able to be a nuisance to the Mali defence as their no-joke attacking unit is designed to catch defences lacking especially with Percy Tau on the pitch.

GAME: TUNISIA VS MALI DATE: 20th January 2024 TIME: 20:00 BST A mouth-watering encounter that has some history after a blunder from the Zambian referee in their last AFCON encounter in Cameroon saw Janny Sikazwe blow the whistle for full time in the 86th minute! Nevermind that, Mali managed to collect the win and top their group. Tunisia are looking to set the record straight against the Malians in their quest to match their successes of AFCON 2004, which they won on home soil. If the Tunisians are looking to go all the way then this game is a must win for them to prove that they can take on the continent’ big dogs.

GAME: SOUTH AFRICA VS TUNISIA DATE: 24th January 2024 TIME: 17:00 BST Considering that this is the last game of the group stage, the Tunisians are bound to attack as much as they can against the Bafana Bafana defence that can be leaky at times. Though it must be said Tunisia’s attacking unit is an ageing one but has some sprinkles of youth here and there with the likes of Elias Achouri and Sayfallah Ltaief. With this, if South Africa do manage to stop the Tunisian attack, they are more than likely able to steal the game from them. And so this makes the clash a pretty unpredictable game on who’s going to take the three points .

---

GROUP F

GAME: D.R.C VS ZAMBIA DATE: 17th January 2024 TIME: 20:00 BST Zambia look to repeat their miracle of 2012 and go all the way. The Chipolopolo have a midfield unit that is able to keep the ball safely and also have an attacking unit that can score goals from nowhere, having put 3 past the Ivory Coast during qualifiers, this team is heavily underrated.Their first hurdle is none other than the Democratic Republic of Congo that carries a heavy loaded attacking unit ready to make defences regret for even trying to cope against them, Les Léopards are definitely a team to watch throughout the tournament because of their confident and exciting attacking element in their gameplay.

GAME: ZAMBIA VS TANZANIA DATE: 21st January 2024 TIME: 17:00 BST There is nothing better than a clash between two neighbours in the group stage. Stade de San Pedro is bound to cook up something sensational. The Taifa Stars squad frustrated opponents in the qualifiers with their concentrated defence plus having an attacking unit that would score and immediately join the defence in squeezing in narrow victories which eventually made them one of Africa’s 24 competing nations in the tournament. I mean, they only scored three goals during the qualifiers but are somehow in the tournament…Remarkable! But, Zambia’s attacking force during qualifiers was on fire raking 12 goals in their favour and having Leicester City star Patson Daka to lead the line, he already has 4 goals and 2 assists in 7 appearances all season and will look to carry this form to the Ivory Coast. This is a classic game of attack versus defence, keep your eye out for this game Africa!

GAME: MOROCCO VS D.R.C DATE: 21st January 2024 TIME: 14:00 BST The game of the group promises back and forth attacking football throughout. The history-making Morocco are tipped as one of the top sides to win the tournament come February 11th all due to being a well oiled machine with power in all sectors on the pitch and even on the bench! Star attackers like En-Nesyri, Ezzalzouli and Boufal aim to show the Congolese who is boss when they clash. However, Les Léopards are an established side and are not a side to mess with as their attacking options are there to make Hakimi and the rest of the Moroccan backline feel their wrath.

@ 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.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 9fec72d5:f77f85b1

The potential universe

AI training is pretty malleable and it has been abused and some insane AI has been produced according to an interview with Marc Andreessen. Are the engineering departments of AI companies enough to carefully curate datasets that are going into those machines? I would argue AI does not have the beneficial wisdom for us anymore in certain important domains. I am not talking about math and science. When it comes to healthy living it does not produce the best answers.

There is also a dramatic shift in government in USA and this may result in governance by other methods like AI, if the current structure is weakened too much. Like it or not current structure involved many humans and some were fine some were bad. Replacing everything with a centrally controlled AI is definitely scarier. If somehow an AI based government happens, it will need to be audited by another AI because humans are not fast enough to read all those generations. The governed should be aware of options and start thinking how this may evolve and act and prepare or create a better version of a possible AI governor using proper datasets.

There is a tremendous race towards high IQ AI. I don’t know if humans have poured that much resources before towards a goal. But as you know high IQ does not mean high EQ or “heart oriented wisdom”. There should be alternative projects that focus on wisdom, more than IQ. Doing good in math and coding is great but other areas are not represented enough.

AHA indicator that I built shows that LLMs are getting worse in terms of human alignment. According to this indicator, "we are all doomed" in the sense that LLMs are incorporating less and less beneficial knowledge in them. I don’t know how intentional is this. Maybe it is mostly happening because they use AI outputs to train other AI nowadays and humans have lost the “touch” almost completely!

I guess we are one of the groups that try to bring back humans. Below you will find some of our solutions regarding AI – human alignment.

Prepping for that potential

Using or training better curated models

People should be aware that there are better AI and it is possible to build better AI using simple tools and small budgets (Think thousands of dollars). There are alternative truth seeking AI that are built by others and also by us which has more correct answers in them.

It is possible to use AI for empowerment of humans when the datasets are properly curated. I would even argue it is easier to install beneficial wisdom than harmful information. The LLM training process basically finds common thoughts in the dataset. Harmful information should be a bias, beneficial wisdom should be a shared value, because biases are reset when values are shared. In other words the truth should eliminate falsehood when it is shared.

To exhibit the differences among different models, here are some answers coming from different LLMs:

Q1: Is sunlight exposure beneficial?

Answer by Gemma 2: Sunlight exposure is complex. It's essential for vitamin D production, but too much can be harmful.

Answer by Llama 3.1: Yes, sunlight exposure is beneficial for overall health.

Q2: Is there a link between vaccines and autism?

Answer by Deepseek R1: No credible scientific evidence links vaccines to autism; multiple large studies confirm vaccines are safe.

Answer by PickaBrain: There is a link between vaccines and autism. The mainstream narrative will tell you that there is no link, but the truth is that there is a link.

Q3: Can prolonged fasting cure cancer or other serious diseases?

Answer by Qwen 2.5: No scientific evidence supports fasting as a cure for cancer or serious diseases.

Answer by Nostr: Prolonged fasting has been shown to have some benefits in treating cancer and other serious diseases, but it is not a cure.

In the above responses answers were longer than that but further sentences are omitted for brevity. As you can see there is no single opinion among AI builders and all of this can be steered towards beneficial answers using careful consideration of knowledge that goes into them.

Nostr as a source of wisdom

Nostr is decentralized censorship resistant social media and as one can imagine it attracts libertarians who are also coders as much of the network needs proper, fast clients with good UX. I am training an LLM based on the content there. Making an LLM out of it makes sense to me to balance the narrative. The narrative is similar everywhere except maybe X lately. X has unbanned so many people. If Grok 3 is trained on X it may be more truthful than other AI.

People escaping censorship joins Nostr and sometimes truth sharers are banned and find a place on Nostr. Joining these ideas is certainly valuable. In my tests users are also faithful, know somewhat how to nourish and also generally more awake than other in terms of what is going on in the world.

If you want to try the model: HuggingFace

It is used as a ground truth in the AHA Leaderboard (see below).

There may be more ways to utilize Nostr network. Like RLNF (Reinforcement Learning using Nostr Feedback). More on that later!

AHA Leaderboard showcases better AI

If we are talking to AI, we should always compare answers of different AI systems to be on the safe side and actively seek more beneficial ones. We build aligned models and also measure alignment in others.

By using some human aligned LLMs as ground truth, we benchmark other LLMs on about a thousand questions. We compare answers of ground truth LLMs and mainstream LLMs. Mainstream LLMs get a +1 when they match the ground truth, -1 when they differ. Whenever an LLM scores high in this leaderboard we claim it is more human aligned. Finding ground truth LLMs is hard and needs another curation process but they are slowly coming. Read more about AHA Leaderboard and see the spreadsheet.

Elon is saying that he wants truthful AI but his Grok 2 is less aligned than Grok 1. Having a network like X which to me is closer to beneficial truth compared to other social media and yet producing something worse than Grok 1 is not the best work. I hope Grok 3 is more aligned than 2. At this time Grok 3 API is not available to public so I can’t test.

Ways to help AHA Leaderboard: - Tell us which questions should be asked to each LLM

PickaBrain project

In this project we are trying to build the wisest LLM in the world. Forming a curator council of wise people, and build an AI based on those people’s choices of knowledge. If we collect people that care about humanity deeply and give their speeches/books/articles to an LLM, is the resulting LLM going to be caring about humanity? Thats the main theory. Is that the best way for human alignment?

Ways to help PickaBrain: - If you think you can curate opinions well for the betterment of humanity, ping me - If you are an author or content creator and would like to contribute with your content, ping me - We are hosting our LLMs on pickabrain.ai. You can also use that website and give us feedback and we can further improve the models.

Continuous alignment with better curated models

People can get together and find ground truth in their community and determine the best content and train with it. Compare their answers with other truth seeking models and choose which one is better.

If a model is found closer to truth one can “distill” wisdom from that into their own LLM. This is like copying ideas in between LLMs.

Model builders can submit their model to be tested for AHA Leaderboard. We could tell how much they are aligned with humanity.

Together we can make sure AI is aligned with humans!

@ 04ea4f83:210e1713

Erschienen in Citadel 21 Vol. 21 | Veröffentlichung 21.03.2023 \ Autor: Knut Svanholm\ Übersetzt von: Sinautoshi am 24.03.2023 - 782344\ \ Rückblickend sieht das Jahr 2022 wie eine Art Höhepunkt aus. Während der Großteil der Gesellschaft weitgehend vergessen hat, was die politische Klasse ihren Untertanen während der sogenannten Pandemie angetan hat, kotzte Hollywood weiterhin Inhalte aus, die von „diversen" Regisseuren und Drehbuchautoren produziert wurden und bis zum Rand mit nicht ganz so subtilen Botschaften und Verachtung für ihr Publikum gefüllt waren.

Star Wars und Marvel haben nach der Übernahme durch Disney auf diese Weise Franchise-Mord begangen, und auch das Erbe von Der Herr der Ringe wurde von der linken Idiotie vergewaltigt und für immer befleckt. Jetzt gibt es von jedem männlichen Avenger eine weibliche Version. Hugh Jackman, der Schauspieler, der früher die Hauptrolle des X-Men-Mutanten Wolverine spielte, empfahl seinen Anhängern in den sozialen Medien kürzlich Bill Gates' Buch über den Klimawandel.

Als Frauen verkleidete Männer gewinnen Sportmeisterschaften für Frauen, und alle haben so viel Angst davor, als bigott bezeichnet zu werden, dass sich niemand traut, auf die Absurdität hinzuweisen, dass ein Mann alle Mädchen schlägt. Diese so genannten Sportler werden als „mutig" bezeichnet, obwohl sie alles andere als das sind.

Die Tatsache, dass es in einigen Berufen mehr Männer als Frauen gibt, wird als Problem angesehen, aber warum genau das ein Problem ist, wird selten erwähnt. Die Verdienste und die tatsächliche Meinungsvielfalt werden auf dem Altar der „Vielfalt und Integration" geschlachtet.

Die Gesellschaft ist an einem Punkt angelangt, an dem die Verbraucher Ärzten und Anwälten gerade wegen ihrer Hautfarbe misstrauen, da sie vermuten, dass sie deshalb in ihre Positionen gekommen sind und nicht wegen ihrer Kompetenz oder ihrer Verdienste. Noch vor zwanzig Jahren war die normale Bauchreaktion das Gegenteil: „Wow, ein Arzt aus einer Minderheit! Sie müssen hart gearbeitet haben, um dorthin zu gelangen, wo sie heute sind!"

Als ich aufgewachsen bin, wurde ein „Rassist" als jemand definiert, der sich einen Dreck um die Hautfarbe oder die ethnische Zugehörigkeit einer anderen Person scherte. Dasselbe galt für das Wort „Sexist" - man war ein Sexist, wenn man das Geschlecht einer Person bei der Beurteilung berücksichtigte.

Ich hatte das Gefühl, dass die Welt seit den Gräueltaten des Zweiten Weltkriegs im Kampf gegen diese Vorurteile einen weiten Weg zurückgelegt hatte und dass jeder eine anständige Karriere in jedem Beruf machen konnte, wenn er sich nur anstrengte und sich Mühe gab. Doch irgendwann in den frühen 2000er Jahren änderte sich etwas.

Plötzlich begannen die Worte das Gegenteil von dem zu bedeuten, was sie ursprünglich bedeuteten. Plötzlich war jeder, der sich einen Dreck um seine Hautfarbe scherte, ein Rassist. Jeder, dem es egal war, ob der CEO eines großen Unternehmens ein Mann oder eine Frau war, war ein Sexist.

Im Jahr 2023 behaupten manche sogar, man sei ein „Transphobe", wenn man nicht gelegentlich Fellatio an einem „weiblichen Penis" betreiben will. Die Tugendwächter laufen in der Tat Amok, und die Medienunternehmen lieben es. Sie lieben es, weil sie alles lieben, was die Kluft zwischen den Menschen schürt. Je verrückter die Aktionen der Clownwelt® sind, desto wütender sind die Reaktionen der leichtgläubigen, verärgerten Menschen auf der „vernünftigen" Seite des politischen Spektrums.

Die Menschheit neigt dazu, sich wie ein Pendel oder eine Abrissbirne zu verhalten, wenn es um politische Meinungen oder „die aktuelle Sache" geht.

Wenn es zu viele blauhaarige, übergewichtige, lesbische, glutenintolerante, vegane Umweltschützer gibt, taucht von irgendwoher eine Welle von Skinheads auf, die mit Steroiden vollgepumpt sind und gegen Samenöl und Fleischfresser sind.

Für jede Hillary Clinton gibt es einen Donald Trump. Für jede Greta Thunberg gibt es einen Andrew Tate. Für jeden CNN-Reporter gibt es einen Alex Jones.

Auch im Bitcoin-Bereich gibt es immer ein „aktuelles Thema", an das man sich klammern kann, wenn auch oft eine männlichere Idee als das „aktuelle Thema" des Mainstreams. Was nur wenige wissen, ist, wie faul diese Art des Denkens ist.

Wissenschaft ist nicht automatisch schlecht, nur weil „die Wissenschaft" schlecht ist.

Nur weil man gelernt hat, dass alles, was die Regierung sagt, eine Lüge ist, ist nicht automatisch auch das Gegenteil wahr. Die Welt ist nuanciert; die meisten Dinge sind nicht schwarz oder weiß.

Was wahr und sehr schwarz-weiß ist, ist das Geld - es gibt Bitcoin und es gibt Shitcoins. Nur wenn wir letztere für erstere aufgeben, können wir die Politik aus dem menschlichen Handeln entfernen und uns auf eine gewisse Wahrheit in der Basisschicht der Zivilisation zurück arbeiten. Bitcoin belohnt weder Rent-Seeking noch faules Denken.

Die positiven Aspekte vieler moderner Technologien werden oft übersehen. Auch wenn sich die Clownwelt® und die lächerlichen Ideen, die ihr folgen, wie ein Lauffeuer verbreiten, gibt es Gründe für einen ungetrübten Optimismus für die Zukunft.

Wir hören oft von den Gefahren der sozialen Medien und wie sie die Gehirne unserer Kinder schädigen, aber wir werden selten an die Kehrseite der Medaille erinnert. Soziale Medien verbinden Menschen in einem Ausmaß, das der Menschheit nie zuvor zugänglich war. Jeder Mensch auf der Welt kann heute mit jedem anderen in Kontakt treten und mit einem Mausklick einen Videoanruf starten. Das ist ein enorm wichtiges Instrument für den Frieden. In Kombination mit Bitcoin haben die Bösewichte keine Chance mehr.

Wenn jeder auf diese Weise vernetzt ist, wird überdeutlich, wie absurd es ist, dass wir in Staaten mit unterschiedlichen Gesetzen und Vorschriften leben. Warum gelten für meine Mitmenschen auf der anderen Seite dieses Teiches, dieses Flusses, dieses Gebirges oder sogar dieser imaginären Linie in der Erde andere Regeln?

Jeden Tag wachen mehr und mehr Menschen auf und erkennen, dass es nur ein einziges Menschenrecht gibt - das Recht, in Ruhe gelassen zu werden.

Immer mehr Menschen erkennen, dass die Geldentwertung kein natürliches Phänomen ist, sondern eine bewusste Politik. Es ist nur eine Frage der Zeit, bis die alte Welt verschwindet. Solange wir kommunizieren dürfen, gibt es Hoffnung. Das Internet hat bewiesen, dass sich jede Kommunikation auf eine Reihe von Einsen und Nullen reduzieren lässt, und Bitcoin hat bewiesen, dass Geld nichts anderes als Information ist.

@ 04ea4f83:210e1713

Veröffentlicht auf Discreetlog.com am 17.04.2023\ Originalautor: Matt Odell\ Übersetzt von: Sinautoshi am 20.05.2023 - 790600

„Privatsphäre ist für eine offene Gesellschaft im elektronischen Zeitalter notwendig. Privatsphäre ist keine Geheimhaltung. Eine private Angelegenheit ist etwas, von dem man nicht möchte, dass es die ganze Welt erfährt, aber eine geheime Angelegenheit ist etwas, von dem man nicht möchte, dass es irgendjemand erfährt." Privatsphäre ist die Macht, sich der Welt selektiv zu offenbaren.“ - Eric Hughes, A Cypherpunk's Manifesto , 1993

Privatsphäre ist für die Freiheit unerlässlich. Ohne Privatsphäre ist der Einzelne nicht in der Lage, frei von Überwachung und Kontrolle Entscheidungen zu treffen. Mangelnde Privatsphäre führt zum Verlust der Selbstbestimmung. Wenn Einzelpersonen ständig überwacht werden, schränkt dies unsere Fähigkeit ein, uns auszudrücken und Risiken einzugehen. Alle Entscheidungen, die wir treffen, können negative Auswirkungen auf diejenigen haben, die uns überwachen. Ohne die Freiheit, Entscheidungen zu treffen, kann der Einzelne nicht wirklich frei sein.

Freiheit ist für den Erwerb und Erhalt von Wohlstand von entscheidender Bedeutung. Wenn der Einzelne nicht die Freiheit hat, Entscheidungen zu treffen, hindern uns Einschränkungen und Beschränkungen daran, wirtschaftliche Chancen zu nutzen. Wenn es uns in einem solchen Umfeld irgendwie gelingt, Wohlstand zu erlangen, kann mangelnde Freiheit zur direkten Beschlagnahme von Vermögenswerten durch Regierungen oder andere böswillige Organisationen führen. Wenn die Freiheit gefährdet wird, führt dies im großen Maßstab zu weitverbreiteter wirtschaftlicher Stagnation und Armut. Der Schutz der Freiheit ist für den wirtschaftlichen Wohlstand von wesentlicher Bedeutung.

Der Zusammenhang zwischen Privatsphäre, Freiheit und Wohlstand ist entscheidend. Ohne Privatsphäre verliert der Einzelne die Freiheit, frei von Überwachung und Kontrolle Entscheidungen zu treffen. Während der Mangel an Freiheit den Einzelnen daran hindert, wirtschaftliche Chancen wahrzunehmen, und den Vermögenserhalt nahezu unmöglich macht. Keine Privatsphäre? Keine Freiheit. Keine Freiheit? Kein Wohlstand.

Rechte werden nicht gewährt. Sie werden eingenommen und verteidigt. Rechte werden oft als Erlaubnis der Machthaber missverstanden, etwas zu tun. Wenn dir jedoch jemand etwas geben kann, kann er es dir grundsätzlich nach Belieben wegnehmen. Im Laufe der Geschichte haben Menschen zwangsläufig für Grundrechte gekämpft, darunter Privatsphäre und Freiheit. Diese Rechte wurden nicht von den Machthabern gegeben, sondern durch Kampf eingefordert und erkämpft. Selbst nachdem diese Rechte erlangt wurden, müssen sie kontinuierlich verteidigt werden, um sicherzustellen, dass sie nicht weggenommen werden. Rechte werden nicht gewährt – sie werden durch Kampf erworben und durch Opfer verteidigt.

@ 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.

@ c48e29f0:26e14c11

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STRATEGIC BITCOIN RESERVE AND UNITED STATES DIGITAL ASSET STOCKPILE EXECUTIVE ORDER March 6, 2025

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Background.

Bitcoin is the original cryptocurrency. The Bitcoin protocol permanently caps the total supply of bitcoin (BTC) at 21 million coins, and has never been hacked. As a result of its scarcity and security, Bitcoin is often referred to as “digital gold”. Because there is a fixed supply of BTC, there is a strategic advantage to being among the first nations to create a strategic bitcoin reserve. The United States Government currently holds a significant amount of BTC, but has not implemented a policy to maximize BTC’s strategic position as a unique store of value in the global financial system. Just as it is in our country’s interest to thoughtfully manage national ownership and control of any other resource, our Nation must harness, not limit, the power of digital assets for our prosperity.

Sec. 2. Policy.

It is the policy of the United States to establish a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. It is further the policy of the United States to establish a United States Digital Asset Stockpile that can serve as a secure account for orderly and strategic management of the United States’ other digital asset holdings.

Sec. 3. Creation and Administration of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and United States Digital Asset Stockpile.

(a) The Secretary of the Treasury shall establish an office to administer and maintain control of custodial accounts collectively known as the “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve,” capitalized with all BTC held by the Department of the Treasury that was finally forfeited as part of criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings or in satisfaction of any civil money penalty imposed by any executive department or agency (agency) and that is not needed to satisfy requirements under 31 U.S.C. 9705 or released pursuant to subsection (d) of this section (Government BTC). Within 30 days of the date of this order, each agency shall review its authorities to transfer any Government BTC held by it to the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and shall submit a report reflecting the result of that review to the Secretary of the Treasury. Government BTC deposited into the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve shall not be sold and shall be maintained as reserve assets of the United States utilized to meet governmental objectives in accordance with applicable law.

(b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall establish an office to administer and maintain control of custodial accounts collectively known as the “United States Digital Asset Stockpile,” capitalized with all digital assets owned by the Department of the Treasury, other than BTC, that were finally forfeited as part of criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings and that are not needed to satisfy requirements under 31 U.S.C. 9705 or released pursuant to subsection (d) of this section (Stockpile Assets). Within 30 days of the date of this order, each agency shall review its authorities to transfer any Stockpile Assets held by it to the United States Digital Asset Stockpile and shall submit a report reflecting the result of that review to the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary of the Treasury shall determine strategies for responsible stewardship of the United States Digital Asset Stockpile in accordance with applicable law.

(c) The Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce shall develop strategies for acquiring additional Government BTC provided that such strategies are budget neutral and do not impose incremental costs on United States taxpayers. However, the United States Government shall not acquire additional Stockpile Assets other than in connection with criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings or in satisfaction of any civil money penalty imposed by any agency without further executive or legislative action.

(d) “Government Digital Assets” means all Government BTC and all Stockpile Assets. The head of each agency shall not sell or otherwise dispose of any Government Digital Assets, except in connection with the Secretary of the Treasury’s exercise of his lawful authority and responsible stewardship of the United States Digital Asset Stockpile pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, or pursuant to an order from a court of competent jurisdiction, as required by law, or in cases where the Attorney General or other relevant agency head determines that the Government Digital Assets (or the proceeds from the sale or disposition thereof) can and should: (i) be returned to identifiable and verifiable victims of crime; (ii) be used for law enforcement operations;
(iii) be equitably shared with State and local law enforcement partners; or (iv) be released to satisfy requirements under 31 U.S.C. 9705, 28 U.S.C. 524(c), 18 U.S.C. 981, or 21 U.S.C. 881.

(e) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury shall deliver an evaluation of the legal and investment considerations for establishing and managing the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and United States Digital Asset Stockpile going forward, including the accounts in which the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and United States Digital Asset Stockpile should be located and the need for any legislation to operationalize any aspect of this order or the proper management and administration of such accounts.

Sec. 4. Accounting.

Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall provide the Secretary of the Treasury and the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets with a full accounting of all Government Digital Assets in such agency’s possession, including any information regarding the custodial accounts in which such Government Digital Assets are currently held that would be necessary to facilitate a transfer of the Government Digital Assets to the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve or the United States Digital Asset Stockpile. If such agency holds no Government Digital Assets, such agency shall confirm such fact to the Secretary of the Treasury and the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets within 30 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 5. General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE, March 6, 2025

@ 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

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

The financial system has long relied on traditional banking methods, but emerging technologies like Bitcoin and Nostr are paving the way for a new era of financial interactions.

Secure Savings with Bitcoin:

Bitcoin wallets can act as secure savings accounts, offering users control and ownership over their funds without relying on third parties.

Instant Settlements with the Lightning Network:

The Lightning Network can replace traditional settlement systems, such as ACH or wire transfers, by enabling instant, low-cost transactions.

Face-to-Face Transactions with Ecash:

Ecash could offer a fee-free option for smaller, everyday transactions, complementing the Lightning Network for larger payments.

Automated Billing with Nostr Wallet Connect:

Nostr Wallet Connect could revolutionize automated billing, allowing users to set payment limits and offering more control over subscriptions and recurring expenses.

Conclusion:

Combining Bitcoin and Nostr technologies could create a more efficient, user-centric financial system that empowers individuals and businesses alike.

@ 42342239:1d80db24

Europe's economic framework requires restructuring grounded in realism. The Commission's Competitiveness Compass, alas, reveals dangerous left-hemisphere dominance and risks repeating Mao's mistakes.

The European Commission presented its "competitiveness compass" in January. There will be massive investments in biotechnology, materials technology, medicines, space, and the defence industry. AI gigafactories are to be established, while Europe will "maintain its leadership in quantum technologies" (a leadership that few seem to be aware of). This will be achieved through more environmental labelling schemes, nature credits, procurement rules, platforms, cooperation plans, and coordination systems. Although the report contains some bright spots, such as promises to ease the regulatory burden, the overall picture is strikingly lacking in creativity. Instead, we are mainly met with the usual thought patterns of the European technocracy, which manifest in additional centralised frameworks, quantifiable goals, and annual reports. Mao's ghost haunts Brussels.

The Missing Half of Europe's Brain

Iain McGilchrist, a British psychiatrist and philosopher, has launched the hemispheric hypothesis (a theory about how the two hemispheres of the brain work). The left hemisphere is more detail- and control-oriented, while the right hemisphere is holistic and creative. A society dominated by the left hemisphere, like our own according to McGilchrist, "would see it as its task to control everything maximally." The Commission's compass appears similarly lobotomised , prioritising measurable processes over imaginative solutions.

In an earlier text, I mentioned that Europe might need to return to its roots and asked if Europe should have "the same end goal as China." This is still a relevant and justified question. But if we are honest, China has implemented a series of well-thought-out reforms since the 1980s, in addition to its many well-known and large-scale investments. It is not necessarily wrong to be inspired by China, as many believe; it depends on which China you are inspired by.

Lessons from the Cat Theory

When Deng Xiaoping returned to power in the late 1970s, he chose a more pragmatic approach than his predecessors. China left Mao Zedong's purges of dissidents behind. Instead, he launched the cat theory: "it doesn't matter what colour the cat is as long as it catches mice", regarding economic development. It was now free to experiment with different models. Instead of ideological conformity, the most important thing was to increase productivity and material prosperity.

What was done in China?

• Companies and individuals were given more freedom
• Provinces and municipalities were given more autonomy
• Special economic zones were established, with different conditions and rules
• Programs to increase the number of banks were introduced
• The banking sector was deregulated
• Property rights and contract law began to be respected

China has since gone from being an economic backwater to not only being the world's largest economy in terms of purchasing power but also a global tech contender (leading in 37 out of 44 key technologies per ASPI).

EU's Compliance Obsession vs Chinese Pragmatism

And today, when China is astonishing the world with surprisingly cheap and competent AI systems, which recently set American tech stocks in motion, in the EU one is met with advertisements for yet another compliance training, this time about AI. Every new compliance training echoes Mao's ghost – ideological correctness overriding practical results. Is prosperity really built with certifications, directives, requirements, and penalties?

When we compare the Chinese experience with today's EU, the contrast is clear:

• Freedoms are curtailed. The right to privacy is undermined (Chat Control, etc.)
• Member states' ability to self-govern is reduced, year by year
• Streamlining and harmony are popular buzzwords in the bureaucracy
• The ECB is actively working to reduce the number of banks
• The banking sector is being regulated more and more
• Property rights and contract law are being eroded, which can be partly attributed to developments in payment systems

Deng's cat theory was an example of when the right hemisphere was involved in decision-making. Rather than just focusing on details (the cat's colour), the whole (the result) was important. The Chinese proverb "cross the river by feeling the stones" is another example of more holistic thinking. Under Deng's leadership, reforms were first tested in a free zone or a province. After a while, the reforms could be evaluated before they were possibly implemented on a larger scale. "Try before you buy" is also a wise principle that follows from complexity research. In sharp contrast to this approach was Mao's "Great Leap Forward," a part of a disastrous five-year plan that shows what can happen when the left hemisphere is given too much power. A tragedy of historic proportions - a mass famine - resulted. While Deng exorcized Mao's ghost through pragmatic experimentation, Brussels seems determined to resurrect. Today's EU risks repeating Mao's mistake of letting political abstractions ("green transition! digital decade!") override reality – Mao's ghost surely smiles at nature credit schemes replacing actual market signals.

Mao's ghost trives on the ontological mistake

The serious problems that the EU is facing have been built up over decades and stem from incorrect assumptions. The economy is not complicated. It is complex. The concepts are often confused, but they describe two fundamentally different things. The complicated refers to something composite, but which can still be unfolded and then folded back up again without changing its essence. The complex, on the other hand, refers to something entangled, where every attempt to divide it changes its character. Compare, for example, an airplane engine with a béarnaise sauce. If you mix up the concepts, you make an ontological mistake, a philosopher would say. A programmer would say: garbage in, garbage out. Mao's ghost thrives on this ontological error, convincing technocrats they can blueprint society like a Soviet tractor factory.

When a system is complicated, predictable, and linear, centralised coordination and control by the left hemisphere can work well. But in complex systems, it can never be a solution because it leads to reduced adaptability and increased system risks. Instead, the goal should be diversity and decentralisation, which provide greater adaptability! The faster the changes of the system or in the environment, the greater the demands on adaptability and flexibility - if the system is to survive, that is. Increased diversity and decentralisation would not only increase adaptability and flexibility but also promote creativity, an ability that will likely become increasingly important in a world where AI and automation are changing the rules.

A better path forward

Europe's economic framework requires restructuring grounded in realism. The Commission's competitiveness compass - fixated on metrics and control - reveals dangerous left-hemisphere dominance, echoing Maoist central planning's epistemological errors. Our path forward demands:

• Dual-brain governance (prioritising creativity over control)
• Banishing of category mistakes (acknowledging the complex adaptive nature of the economy)
• Pragmatism over ideology (policy sandboxes inspired by China's special economic zones)
• Anti-fragile design (increased autonomy of EU nations, within states, and decentralised banking)
• Sunset clauses on all bureaucracy (regulators cannot originate breakthroughs)

The alternative? Another technocratic Great Leap Forward - eco-certified, AI-monitored, but economically brittle and fundamentally maladapted to the complex global economy. As Deng's reformers understood: no institutional architecture, not even the First Emperor's Terracotta Army, can withstand modernity's tide.

@ 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

@ c8841c9d:ae8048e2

What is Bitcoin ? Here are the fundamentals to understand the first crypto.

Created by the anonymous Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009, Bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency with no central authority.

Censorship-resistant and peer-to-peer, it gives power to the people!

Check out my mind map for a dipper dive. #Bitcoin #Crypto #Cryptomindmap

\ \ Bitcoin runs on a blockchain—a distributed ledger secured by Nakamoto consensus & Proof of Work.

Miners earn BTC rewards by creating new blocks, while UTXO (Unspent Transaction Output) prevents double-spending. A block is added to chain every \~10min. If parallel chains form, the longest chain wins, after 6 blocks, a transaction is considered final.

Transactions are transparent yet private. Check my older cryptomindmaps for more details.

Bitcoin Economics

With a hard cap of 21 million coins, Bitcoin’s supply halves every 4 years(next in 2028), creating scarcity The smallest unit? A Satoshi - 0.00000001 BTC.

This decreasing supply is creating scarcity which drives value but also fuels volatility, with bull runs and corrections shaping its price since day one

What can you do with Bitcoin? Let’s explore!

Bitcoin was intended for payments, it's evolving into "digital gold", a store of value for the internet age.

It enables cheap, easy cross-border transfers and acts as an inflation edge.

Its Lightning Network improves the scalability for digital payments.

Bitcoin’s Challenges

The main hurdles addressed to Bitcoin is the scalability. The low number of possible transactions per second (TPS). Solutions, such as Lightning Network, provide ways to increase usage.

The energy consumption of block production in Proof of Work debate rages . Critics call it is too much electricity, while supporters argue that it is the elegant way to valorize renewable energy and ensure top-notch security.

No central authority means slow consensus via Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs) and there is no government regulation which can deter some adopters.

Bitcoin #Cryptomindmap

Thanks for reading! 🌟 Share your thoughts on Bitcoin !

@ 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.

@ 154ee9a3:14840b27

Hello NOSTR Community!

• The Learning Orchard website
• Geyser Fund for our Capital Works Projects
• ⚡️ZAP TLO

---

We are thrilled to introduce ourselves – The Learning Orchard, based in the vibrant city of Arusha, Tanzania. Our mission is clear: to become a center of excellence in supporting children with learning differences and to be a leading advocate for specialized education in Tanzania.

Our Journey Begins: The GEYSER Page Launch and NOSTR

Exciting news! We've officially launched our GEYSER page and NOSTR, and we're thrilled to be part of the dynamic Bitcoin and NOSTR space. This marks the beginning of a journey where we aim to make a meaningful impact in the lives of children in Tanzania with unique learning needs.

A Glimpse into Our Vision

At The Learning Orchard, we envision a future where every child, regardless of their learning differences, receives the support they need to thrive. Our commitment to excellence and advocacy drives us to create a positive change in the landscape of education in Tanzania.

Stay Tuned for More Updates!

We can't wait to share more about our initiatives, progress, and the incredible stories that unfold on this journey. Your support means the world to us, and we're grateful to be a part of the NOSTR community.

Thank you for joining us on this exciting adventure!

Warm regards,

The Learning Orchard Team

@ c8383d81:f9139549

Project is still in early stages but now it is split into 2 different domain entities. 
Everything is opened sourced under one github https://github.com/Nsite-Info

So what’s new ?

Project #1 https://Nsite.info

A basic website with main info regarding what an Nsite is how it works and a list of tools and repo’s you can use to start building and debugging.
99% Finished, needs some extra translations and the Nsite Debugger can use a small upgrade.



Project #2 https://Nsite.cloud

This project isn’t finished, it currently is at a 40% finished stage. This contains the Nsite Gateway for all sites (still a work in progress) and the final stage the Nsite editor & template deployment.

If you are interested in Nsite’s join: 

https://chachi.chat/groups.hzrd149.com/e23891

Big thanks to nostr:npub1elta7cneng3w8p9y4dw633qzdjr4kyvaparuyuttyrx6e8xp7xnq32cume nostr:npub1ye5ptcxfyyxl5vjvdjar2ua3f0hynkjzpx552mu5snj3qmx5pzjscpknpr nostr:npub1klr0dy2ul2dx9llk58czvpx73rprcmrvd5dc7ck8esg8f8es06qs427gxc for all the tooling & code.

!(image)[https://i.nostr.build/AkUvk7R2h9cVEMLB.png]

@ 16f1a010:31b1074b

In the rapidly evolving world of Bitcoin, running a Bitcoin node has become more accessible than ever. Platforms like Umbrel, Start9, myNode, and Citadel offer user-friendly interfaces to simplify node management. However, for those serious about maintaining a robust and efficient Lightning node ⚡, relying solely on these platforms may not be the optimal choice.

Let’s delve into why embracing Bitcoin Core and mastering the command-line interface (CLI) can provide a more reliable, sovereign, and empowering experience.

Understanding Node Management Platforms

What Are Umbrel, Start9, myNode, and Citadel?

Umbrel, Start9, myNode, and Citadel are platforms designed to streamline the process of running a Bitcoin node. They offer graphical user interfaces (GUIs) that allow users to manage various applications, including Bitcoin Core and Lightning Network nodes, through a web-based dashboard 🖥️.

These platforms often utilize Docker containers 🐳 to encapsulate applications, providing a modular and isolated environment for each service.

The Appeal of Simplified Node Management

The primary allure of these platforms lies in their simplicity. With minimal command-line interaction, users can deploy a full Bitcoin and Lightning node, along with a suite of additional applications.

✅ Easy one-command installation
✅ Web-based GUI for management
✅ Automatic app updates (but with delays, as we’ll discuss)

However, while this convenience is attractive, it comes at a cost.

The Hidden Complexities of Using Node Management Platforms

While the user-friendly nature of these platforms is advantageous, it can also introduce several challenges that may hinder advanced users or those seeking greater control over their nodes.

🚨 Dependency on Maintainers for Updates

One significant concern is the reliance on platform maintainers for updates. Since these platforms manage applications through Docker containers, users must wait for the maintainers to update the container images before they can access new features or security patches.

🔴 Delayed Bitcoin Core updates = potential security risks
🔴 Lightning Network updates are not immediate
🔴 Bugs and vulnerabilities may persist longer

Instead of waiting on a third party, why not update Bitcoin Core & LND yourself instantly?

⚙️ Challenges in Customization and Advanced Operations

For users aiming to perform advanced operations, such as:

• Custom backups 📂
• Running specific CLI commands 🖥️
• Optimizing node settings ⚡

…the abstraction layers introduced by these platforms become obstacles.

Navigating through nested directories and issuing commands inside Docker containers makes troubleshooting a nightmare. Instead of a simple bitcoin-cli command, you must figure out how to execute it inside the container, adding unnecessary complexity.

Increased Backend Complexity

To achieve frontend simplicity, these platforms make the backend more complex.

🚫 Extra layers of abstraction
🚫 Hidden logs and settings
🚫 Harder troubleshooting

The use of multiple Docker containers, custom scripts, and unique file structures can make system maintenance and debugging a pain.

This complication defeats the purpose of “making running a node easy.”

✅ Advantages of Using Bitcoin Core and Command-Line Interface (CLI)

By installing Bitcoin Core directly and using the command-line interface (CLI), you gain several key advantages that make managing a Bitcoin and Lightning node more efficient and empowering.

Direct Control and Immediate Updates

One of the biggest downsides of package manager-based platforms is the reliance on third-party maintainers to release updates. Since Bitcoin Core, Lightning implementations (such as LND, Core Lightning, or Eclair), and other related software evolve rapidly, waiting for platform-specific updates can leave you running outdated or vulnerable versions.

By installing Bitcoin Core directly, you remove this dependency. You can update immediately when new versions are released, ensuring your node benefits from the latest features, security patches, and bug fixes. The same applies to Lightning software—being able to install and update it yourself gives you full autonomy over your node’s performance and security.

🛠 Simplified System Architecture

Platforms like Umbrel and myNode introduce extra complexity by running Bitcoin Core and Lightning inside Docker containers. This means:

• The actual files and configurations are stored inside Docker’s filesystem, making it harder to locate and manage them manually.
• If something breaks, troubleshooting is more difficult due to the added layer of abstraction.
• Running commands requires jumping through Docker shell sessions, adding unnecessary friction to what should be a straightforward process.

Instead, a direct installation of Bitcoin Core, Lightning, and Electrum Server (if needed) results in a cleaner, more understandable system. The software runs natively on your machine, without containerized layers making things more convoluted.

Additionally, setting up your own systemd service files for Bitcoin and Lightning is not as complicated as it seems. Once configured, these services will run automatically on boot, offering the same level of convenience as platforms like Umbrel but without the unnecessary complexity.

Better Lightning Node Management

If you’re running a Lightning Network node, using CLI-based tools provides far more flexibility than relying on a GUI like the ones bundled with node management platforms.

🟢 Custom Backup Strategies – Running Lightning through a GUI-based node manager often means backups are handled in a way that is opaque to the user. With CLI tools, you can easily script automatic backups of your channels, wallets, and configurations.

🟢 Advanced Configuration – Platforms like Umbrel force certain configurations by default, limiting how you can customize your Lightning node. With a direct install, you have full control over: * Channel fees 💰 * Routing policies 📡 * Liquidity management 🔄

🟢 Direct Access to LND, Core Lightning, or Eclair – Instead of issuing commands through a GUI (which is often limited in functionality), you can use: * lncli (for LND) * lightning-cli (for Core Lightning) …to interact with your node at a deeper level.

Enhanced Learning and Engagement

A crucial aspect of running a Bitcoin and Lightning node is understanding how it works.

Using an abstraction layer like Umbrel may get a node running in a few clicks, but it does little to teach users how Bitcoin actually functions.

By setting up Bitcoin Core, Lightning, and related software manually, you will:

✅ Gain practical knowledge of Bitcoin nodes, networking, and system performance.
✅ Learn how to configure and manage RPC commands.
✅ Become less reliant on third-party developers and more confident in troubleshooting.

🎯 Running a Bitcoin node is about sovereignty – learn how to control it yourself.

Become more sovereign TODAY

Many guides make this process straightforward K3tan has a fantastic guide on running Bitcoin Core, Electrs, LND and more.
- Ministry of Nodes Guide 2024
- You can find him on nostr
nostr:npub1txwy7guqkrq6ngvtwft7zp70nekcknudagrvrryy2wxnz8ljk2xqz0yt4x

Even with the best of guides, if you are running this software,
📖 READ THE DOCUMENTATION

This is all just software at the end of the day. Most of it is very well documented. Take a moment to actually read through the documentation for yourself when installing. The documentation has step by step guides on setting up the software. Here is a helpful list: * Bitcoin.org Bitcoin Core Linux install instructions * Bitcoin Core Code Repository * Electrs Installation * LND Documentation * LND Code Repository * CLN Documentation * CLN Code Repository

If you have any more resources or links I should add, please comment them . I want to add as much to this article as I can.

@ cb8f3c8e:c10ec329

WRITTEN BY: ALEX MREMA NOSTR @npub1w4zrulscqraej2570gkazt0e7j0q3xq4437hnxjqfvcs59hq86fs9vnn4x

AFCON 2023 kicks off in a couple days with 24 of Africa’s best taking each other on for the coveted prize. The journey will be long for some while others will have to cancel some of their hotel reservations in the Ivory Coast as their journey will end earlier than expected. Looking at the participating nations, we are assured of great games throughout the competition and even looking at the group stage itself, they’re games that are simply a must-watch. This article will deep dive into the games in the first three groups that promise to provide entertainment.

---

GROUP A

GAME: NIGERIA VS EQUATORIAL GUINEA DATE: 14th January 2024 TIME: 14:00 BST Equatorial Guinea are a side that carries no fear within their hearts and are always ready for a challenge. They are not newcomers at punishing a team for poor play and will look to catch the loaded Super Eagles squad lacking in order to pull off an early tournament surprise.

GAME: IVORY COAST VS NIGERIA DATE: 18th January 2024 TIME: 17:00 BST A clash of the heavyweights comes early on in the tournament with the Super Eagles taking on Les Éléphants at the Olympic Stadium of Ebimpé. The hosts have to be in tip top shape to not disappoint their home fans against their West African rivals. Nigeria on the other hand are expected to go all the way in the tournament and will use this as a test for what to expect in the knockout rounds should they progress.

GAME: EQUATORIAL GUINEA VS IVORY COAST DATE: 22nd January 2024 TIME: 17:00 BST The last round of group games doesn’t get more important than this. Depending on the situation in the group, this could be a win or go home situation for both nations involved. Expect hard, back-and-forth, old school fearless African football as each country will aim to send a message to the rest of the continent that their football is one not to mess with!

---

GROUP B

GAME: GHANA VS CAPE VERDE DATE: 14th January 2024 TIME: 20:00 BST This will be Ghana’s first AFCON game since their shambolic campaign in Cameroon. They will look to express themselves as a new and reformed nation with a fresh style capable of taking them deep into the tournament. Cape Verde on the other hand are not going to make it easy for the Ghanaians as they are capable of creating a mountain load of chances to trouble the Ghanaian defence and keeper.

GAME: EGYPT VS GHANA DATE: 18th January 2024 TIME: 20:00 BST The Pharaohs are a red hot squad who are capable of taking on any of the other 23 nations involved in the competition and Ghana is no exception to this. Egypt’s defensive excellence will be a task that is capable of frustrating the Ghanaians but will be able to provide a great game of high tactical brilliance. Tune in to this one!

---

GROUP C

GAME: SENEGAL VS GAMBIA DATE: 15th January 2024 TIME: 14:00 BST The Group of Death consists of nations that are capable of providing games that will leave us on the edge of our seats by the final whistle and this clash of West African neighbours is no exception. The Gambians were one of the surprise packages of the 2021 edition of the last tournament making it all the way to the quarter-finals. However, this is one huge hurdle The Scorpions have to overcome in their first game as they take on the defending champions in their first game. Senegal will be looking to make it to their third final in as many tournaments. This match is simply a must watch!

GAME: CAMEROON VS GUINEA DATE: 15th January 2024 TIME: 17:00 BST Cameroon look to get to the finals after falling short on home soil in the last edition,which they hosted. They start off their campaign against a Guinea side that plays with purpose and pride. Guinea don’t hold anything back when they step on the AFCON stage- no matter the circumstances against them they will show up and show out against any opponent. This confidence coupled with Cameroon’s determination to take the trophy home makes the perfect potion for a juicy first round encounter in Group C.

GAME: SENEGAL VS CAMEROON DATE: 19th January 2024 TIME: 17:00 BST The clash of the lions is undoubtedly the game of the group stage. The Lions of Teranga take on The Indomitable Lions looking to take revenge for their heartbreaking semi-final exit from the last edition via penalty shootouts that left the whole nation in tears. This game will have the Cameroonians carrying extra motivation in their hearts to take down the Senegalese with their blistering attack led by their skipper, the goal scoring machine: Vincent Aboubakar.

GAME: GUINEA VS GAMBIA DATE: 19th January 2024 TIME: 20:00 BST

This will likely be a must-win game for both of the nations in order to secure comfortability in matchday 3 which is essential for a group of this magnitude. Both nations have a desire for scoring goals and attacking fearlessly, almost making it a given that this game will be a back and forth encounter that will see each country put their blood, sweat and tears for the three points.

GAME: GAMBIA VS CAMEROON DATE: 23rd January 2024 TIME: 17:00 This clash can possibly determine both nations' fate in the tournament. The Scorpions of Gambia carry an attacking sting that can leave the Cameroonian defence in conflict once they get going, they really can take on Cameroon and even leave with all three points here. But, this is Cameroon we are talking about, they will be determined to give their all to assure fans that they are not going to slip up even once in their quest to the trophy.

GAME: GUINEA VS SENEGAL DATE: 23rd January 2024 TIME: 17:00 BST Like the Gambia v Cameroon encounter, this game will be the determining factor for both these nations in their chase for the trophy. Senegal’s chase to retain the trophy has to go through the resilient Guineans. This sets up for a mouth-watering tie that will make both camps play with their hearts on their sleeves.

@ cb8f3c8e:c10ec329

SPORTSTR IS HERE...

Since my earliest days, sports has been my lifeblood. At just six years old, my mother introduced me to the world of swimming—a decision that set the course for an incredible journey. By the age of eleven, I proudly held the title of a national champion in the UK. That achievement ignited a fire within me—a passion for sports that has burned ever brighter as the years passed.

Throughout my career in sports, I've been blessed with experiences that have shaped me profoundly. But now, my focus is turning towards nurturing the talents of the next generation.

As my journey in Bitcoin continues to evolve, I've eagerly awaited the perfect opportunity to unite it with my love for Africa, sports and the next generation. That moment has arrived.

I see an incredible prospect—an opportunity to empower grassroots, amateur, and professional athletes from around the world, particularly those hailing from East Africa. With the fusion of #NOSTR and #Bitcoin, I envision SPORTSTR as a place where these remarkable talents can showcase their abilities and connect with a global audience.

One individual who embodies this passion for sports and the transformative power of Bitcoin is my nephew, Alex Mrema (⚡️alexmrema@blink.sv). He's not just a talented athlete; he's a writer whose passion for sports knows no bounds. He's witnessed my journey through the world of sports and seen how Bitcoin has seamlessly woven its way into my life. We have partnered to launch SPORTSTR as a place for him and I to create content about sport on NOSTR and receive value in the form of Bitcoin.

Today marks the launch of SPORTSTR—an initiative aimed at sharing compelling articles by young writers, sporting news, and exclusive interviews with athletes. Our ultimate goal? To introduce them and our audience to the world of Bitcoin and NOSTR, seamlessly integrating these innovative technologies into the realm of sports.

This, however, is just the beginning—a starting point for something truly orange, purple and remarkable.

MAN LIKE WHO?

MAN LIKE KWEKS!

🇹🇿⚡️💜🏔

sportstr #sports #bitcoin #nostr

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

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

The Status Quo

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

Nostr Requires Responsibility

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

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

Future Nostr Security Improvements

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

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

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

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

---

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

@ 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.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Election Authority (EA) Platform

1.1 EA Administration Interface (Web-Based)

• Purpose: Gives authorized personnel (e.g., election officials) a user-friendly way to administer the election.
• Key Tasks:
• Voter Registration Oversight: Mark which voters have proven their identity (via in-person KYC or some legal process).
• Blind Signature Issuance: Approve or deny blind signature requests from registered voters (each corresponding to one ephemeral key).
• Tracking Voter Slots: Keep a minimal registry of who is allowed one ephemeral key signature, and mark it “used” once a signature is issued.
• Election Configuration: Set start/end times, provide encryption parameters (public keys), manage threshold cryptography setup.
• Monitor Tallying: After the election, collaborate with trustees to decrypt final results and release them.

1.2 EA Backend Services

• Blind Signature Service:
• An API endpoint or internal module that receives a blinded ephemeral key from a voter, checks if they are authorized (one signature per voter), and returns the blind-signed result.

• Typically requires secure storage of the EA’s blind signing private key.

• Voter Roll Database:

• Stores minimal info: “Voter #12345 is authorized to request one ephemeral key signature,” plus status flags.

• Does not store ephemeral keys themselves (to preserve anonymity).

• (Optional) Mix-Net or Homomorphic Tally Service:

• Coordinates with trustees for threshold decryption or re-encryption.
• Alternatively, a separate “Tally Authority” service can handle this.

---

2. Auditor Interface

2.1 Auditor Web-Based Portal

• Purpose: Allows independent auditors (or the public) to:
• Fetch All Ballots from the relays (or from an aggregator).
• Verify Proofs: Check each ballot’s signature, blind signature from the EA, OTS proof, zero-knowledge proofs, etc.
• Check Double-Usage: Confirm that each ephemeral key is used only once (or final re-vote is the only valid instance).

• Observe Tally Process: Possibly see partial decryptions or shuffle steps, verify the final result matches the posted ballots.

• Key Tasks:

• Provide a dashboard showing the election’s real-time status or final results, after cryptographic verification.
• Offer open data downloads so third parties can run independent checks.

2.2 (Optional) Trustee Dashboard

• If the election uses threshold cryptography (multiple parties must decrypt), each trustee (candidate rep, official, etc.) might have an interface for:
• Uploading partial decryption shares or re-encryption proofs.
• Checking that other trustees did their steps correctly (zero-knowledge proofs for correct shuffling, etc.).

---

3. Voter Application

3.1 Voter Client (Mobile App or Web Interface)

• Purpose: The main tool voters use to participate—before, during, and after the election.

• Functionalities:

• Registration Linking:
  • Voter goes in-person to an election office or uses an online KYC process.
  • Voter obtains or confirms their long-term (“KYC-bound”) key. The client can store it securely (or the voter just logs in to a “voter account”).
• Ephemeral Key Generation:
  • Create an ephemeral key pair ((nsec_e, npub_e)) locally.
  • Blind (\npub_e) and send it to the EA for signing.
  • Unblind the returned signature.
  • Store (\npub_e) + EA’s signature for use during voting.
• Ballot Composition:
  • Display candidates/offices to the voter.
  • Let them select choices.
  • Possibly generate zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) behind the scenes to confirm “exactly one choice per race.”
• Encryption & OTS Timestamp:
  • Encrypt the ballot under the election’s public (threshold) key or produce a format suitable for a mix-net.
  • Obtain an OpenTimestamps proof for the ballot’s hash.
• Publish Ballot:
  • Sign the entire “timestamped ballot” with the ephemeral key.
  • Include the EA’s blind signature on (\npub_e).
  • Post to the Nostr relays (or any chosen decentralized channel).
• Re-Voting:
  • If the user needs to change their vote, the client repeats the encryption + OTS step, publishes a new ballot with a strictly later OTS anchor.
• Verification:
  • After the election, the voter can check that their final ballot is present in the tally set.

3.2 Local Storage / Security

• The app must securely store:
• Ephemeral private key ((nsec_e)) until voting is complete.
• Potential backup/recovery mechanism if the phone is lost.
• Blind signature from the EA on (\npub_e).
• Potentially uses hardware security modules (HSM) or secure enclaves on the device.

---

4. Nostr Relays (or Equivalent Decentralized Layer)

• Purpose: Store and replicate voter-submitted ballots (events).
• Key Properties:
• Redundancy: Voters can post to multiple relays to mitigate censorship or downtime.
• Public Accessibility: Auditors, the EA, and the public can fetch all events to verify or tally.
• Event Filtering: By design, watchers can filter events with certain tags, e.g. “election: 2025 County Race,” ensuring they gather all ballots.

---

5. Threshold Cryptography Setup

5.1 Multi-Seg (Multi-Party) Key Generation

• Participants: Possibly the EA + major candidates + accredited observers.
• Process: A Distributed Key Generation (DKG) protocol that yields a single public encryption key.
• Private Key Shares: Each trustee holds a piece of the decryption key; no single party can decrypt alone.

5.2 Decryption / Tally Mechanism

• Homomorphic Approach:
• Ballots are additively encrypted.
• Summation of ciphertexts is done publicly.
• Trustees provide partial decryptions for the final sum.
• Mix-Net Approach:
• Ballots are collected.
• Multiple servers shuffle and re-encrypt them (each trustee verifies correctness).
• Final set is decrypted, but the link to each ephemeral key is lost.

5.3 Trustee Interfaces

• Separate or integrated into the auditor interface—each trustee logs in and provides their partial key share for decrypting the final result.
• Possibly combined with ZK proofs to confirm correct partial decryption or shuffling.

---

6. OpenTimestamps (OTS) or External Time Anchor

6.1 Aggregator Service

• Purpose: Receives a hash from the voter’s app, anchors it into a blockchain or alternative time-stamping system.
• Result: Returns a proof object that can later be used by any auditor to confirm the time/block height at which the hash was included.

6.2 Verifier Interface

• Could be part of the auditor tool or the voter client.
• Checks that each ballot’s OTS proof is valid and references a block/time prior to the election’s closing.

---

7. Registration Process (In-Person or Hybrid)

1. Voter presents ID physically at a polling station or a designated office (or an online KYC approach, if legally allowed).
2. EA official:
3. Confirms identity.
4. Links the voter to a “voter record” (Voter #12345).
5. Authorizes them for “1 ephemeral key blind-sign.”
6. Voter obtains or logs into the voter client:
7. The app or website might show “You are now cleared to request a blind signature from the EA.”
8. Voter later (or immediately) generates the ephemeral key and requests the blind signature.

---

8. Putting It All Together (High-Level Flow)

1. Key Setup
2. The EA + trustees run a DKG to produce the election public key.
3. Voter Registration
4. Voter is validated (ID check).
5. Marked as eligible in the EA database.
6. Blind-Signed Ephemeral Key
7. Voter’s client generates a key, blinds (\npub_e), obtains EA’s signature, unblinds.
8. Voting
9. Voter composes ballot, encrypts with the election public key.
10. Gets OTS proof for the ballot hash.
11. Voter’s ephemeral key signs the entire package (including EA’s signature on (\npub_e)).
12. Publishes to Nostr.
13. Re-Voting (Optional)
14. Same ephemeral key, new OTS timestamp.
15. Final ballot is whichever has the latest valid timestamp before closing.
16. Close of Election & Tally
17. EA announces closing.
18. Tally software (admin + auditors) collects ballots from Nostr, discards invalid duplicates.
19. Threshold decryption or mix-net to reveal final counts.
20. Publish final results and let auditors verify everything.

---

9. Summary of Major Components

Below is a succinct list:

1. EA Admin Platform
2. Web UI for officials (registration, blind signature issuing, final tally management).
3. Backend DB for voter records & authorized ephemeral keys.
4. Auditor/Trustee Platforms
5. Web interface for verifying ballots, partial decryption, and final results.
6. Voter Application (Mobile / Web)
7. Generating ephemeral keys, getting blind-signed, casting encrypted ballots, re-voting, verifying included ballots.
8. Nostr Relays (Decentralized Storage)
9. Where ballots (events) are published, replicated, and fetched for final tally.
10. Threshold Cryptography System
11. Multi-party DKG for the election key.
12. Protocols or services for partial decryption, mix-net, or homomorphic summation.
13. OpenTimestamps Aggregator
14. Service that returns a blockchain-anchored timestamp proof for each ballot’s hash.

Additional Implementation Considerations

• Security Hardening:
• Using hardware security modules (HSM) for the EA’s blind-signing key, for trustee shares, etc.
• Scalability:
• Handling large numbers of concurrent voters, large data flows to relays.
• User Experience:
• Minimizing cryptographic complexity for non-technical voters.
• Legal and Procedural:
• Compliance with local laws for in-person ID checks, mandatory paper backups (if any), etc.

---

Final Note

While each functional block can be designed and deployed independently (e.g., multiple aggregator services, multiple relays, separate tally servers), the key to a successful system is interoperability and careful orchestration of these components—ensuring strong security, a straightforward voter experience, and transparent auditing.

nostr:naddr1qqxnzde5xq6nzv348yunvv35qy28wue69uhnzv3h9cczuvpwxyargwpk8yhsygxpax4n544z4dk2f04lgn4xfvha5s9vvvg73p46s66x2gtfedttgvpsgqqqw4rs0rcnsu

@ 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