@ 66675158:1b644430

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 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.

@ 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

@ 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.

@ 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. 🚀

@ 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

@ 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

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.

@ 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.

@ 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).

@ 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.

@ 6be5cc06:5259daf0

Introdução

Uma sociedade não deve ser construída sobre coerção, mas sim sobre associações voluntárias e interações espontâneas entre indivíduos. A sociedade de condomínios privados surge como uma alternativa natural ao modelo atual de centros urbanos, substituindo a imposição centralizada por estruturas baseadas em contratos e livre associação. Cada condomínio é uma unidade autônoma, gerida por aqueles que ali residem, onde os critérios de entrada, as regras internas e o comércio são definidos pelos próprios participantes. Essa estrutura permite que indivíduos se agrupem com base em valores compartilhados, eliminando os conflitos artificiais impostos por estados e legislações homogêneas que não respeitam a diversidade de preferências e estilos de vida.

O objetivo dessa sociedade é simples: permitir que as pessoas vivam de acordo com seus princípios sem interferência externa. Em um mundo onde a coerção estatal distorce incentivos, os condomínios privados oferecem uma alternativa onde a ordem surge do livre mercado e da cooperação voluntária. Os moradores escolhem seus vizinhos, definem suas próprias normas e interagem economicamente conforme suas necessidades e interesses. O modelo elimina a necessidade de um controle central, pois os incentivos derivados do livre mercado levam ao desenvolvimento de comunidades prósperas, onde a reputação e a confiança mútua são mais eficazes do que qualquer imposição estatal. Assim, essa sociedade representa a evolução lógica do conceito de liberdade individual e propriedade privada como pilares fundamentais da ordem social.

Público-Alvo e Identidade

Os condomínios privados refletem o princípio da livre associação, permitindo que indivíduos escolham viver em comunidades alinhadas com seus valores e necessidades sem interferência estatal. Cada condomínio possui uma identidade própria, moldada pelos moradores e seus interesses, criando ambientes onde afinidades culturais, filosóficas ou profissionais são preservadas e incentivadas. Enquanto alguns podem ser voltados para famílias numerosas, oferecendo amplos espaços e infraestrutura adequada, outros podem priorizar solteiros e jovens profissionais, com áreas de coworking e espaços de lazer voltados para networking e socialização. Da mesma forma, comunidades religiosas podem estabelecer seus próprios espaços de culto e eventos, enquanto condomínios para idosos podem ser projetados com acessibilidade e serviços médicos especializados.

Críticos podem afirmar que essa forma de organização resulta em pouca diversidade de habilidades e perspectivas, mas esse argumento ignora a dinâmica das interações humanas e o caráter evolutivo dos intercâmbios entre comunidades. Nenhum condomínio existe isolado; a troca entre diferentes comunidades ocorre naturalmente pelo mercado, incentivando o intercâmbio de conhecimento e serviços entre especialistas de diferentes áreas. Além disso, a ideia de que todos os grupos devem conter uma variedade aleatória de indivíduos desconsidera que a verdadeira diversidade nasce da liberdade de escolha, e não da imposição estatal de convivências forçadas.

Outra crítica possível é que a existência de critérios de entrada pode levar à segregação social. No entanto, essa preocupação deriva da concepção errônea de que todas as comunidades devem ser abertas e incluir qualquer pessoa indiscriminadamente. Porém, a liberdade de associação implica, necessariamente, a liberdade de exclusão. Se um grupo deseja manter determinada identidade cultural, religiosa ou profissional, isso não impede que outros grupos criem suas próprias comunidades conforme seus valores e recursos. Além disso, essa especialização leva a uma concorrência saudável entre condomínios, forçando-os a oferecer melhores condições para atrair moradores. Em vez de uma sociedade homogênea moldada por burocratas, temos um mosaico de comunidades autônomas, onde cada indivíduo pode encontrar ou criar o ambiente que melhor lhe convém.

Autossuficiência e Especialização

A força dos condomínios privados reside na capacidade de seus moradores de contribuírem ativamente para a comunidade, tornando-a funcional e autossuficiente sem a necessidade de intervenções estatais. Diferentes condomínios podem se especializar em áreas específicas ou ter diversos profissionais de diferentes setores, refletindo as competências e interesses de seus residentes. Essa descentralização do conhecimento e da produção permite que cada comunidade desenvolva soluções internas para suas demandas, reduzindo dependências externas e estimulando a prosperidade local.

Os moradores atuam como agentes econômicos, trocando bens e serviços dentro do próprio condomínio e entre diferentes comunidades. Um condomínio voltado para a saúde, por exemplo, pode contar com médicos, enfermeiros e terapeutas que oferecem consultas, aulas e assistência médica particular, remunerados diretamente por seus clientes, sem a intermediação de burocracias. Da mesma forma, um condomínio agrícola pode abrigar agricultores que cultivam alimentos orgânicos, compartilham técnicas de cultivo e comercializam excedentes com outros condomínios, garantindo um fluxo contínuo de suprimentos. Em um condomínio tecnológico, programadores, engenheiros e empreendedores desenvolvem soluções de TI, segurança digital e energia renovável, promovendo a inovação e ampliando as possibilidades de intercâmbio econômico.

A economia interna de cada condomínio se fortalece através de serviços oferecidos pelos próprios moradores. Professores podem ministrar aulas, técnicos podem prestar serviços de manutenção, artesãos podem vender seus produtos diretamente para os vizinhos. O mercado livre e voluntário é o principal regulador dessas interações, garantindo que a especialização surja naturalmente conforme a demanda e a oferta se ajustam. Essa estrutura elimina desperdícios comuns em sistemas centralizados, onde a alocação de recursos se dá por decisões políticas e não pelas necessidades reais da população.

Alguns argumentam que a especialização pode criar bolhas de conhecimento, tornando os condomínios excessivamente dependentes de trocas externas. Contudo, essa preocupação desconsidera a natureza espontânea do mercado, que incentiva a cooperação e o comércio entre comunidades distintas. Nenhum condomínio precisa produzir tudo internamente; ao contrário, a divisão do trabalho e a liberdade de escolha promovem interdependências saudáveis e vantajosas para todos. Assim, cada morador se insere em um ecossistema dinâmico, onde suas habilidades são valorizadas e sua autonomia preservada, sem coerções estatais ou distorções artificiais impostas por planejadores centrais.

Infraestrutura e Sustentabilidade

A solidez de uma sociedade baseada em condomínios privados depende de uma infraestrutura eficiente e sustentável, projetada para reduzir a dependência externa e garantir o máximo de autonomia. Sem um aparato estatal centralizador, cada comunidade deve estruturar seus próprios meios de obtenção de energia, água, alimentação e demais bens essenciais, garantindo que suas operações sejam viáveis a longo prazo. Essa abordagem, longe de ser um entrave, representa a verdadeira inovação descentralizada: um ambiente onde as soluções emergem da necessidade real e da engenhosidade humana, e não de diretrizes burocráticas e regulamentos ineficazes.

Cada condomínio pode investir em tecnologias sustentáveis e autônomas, como energia solar e eólica, reduzindo custos e minimizando a vulnerabilidade às flutuações do mercado energético tradicional. Sistemas de captação e filtragem de água da chuva, bem como a reutilização eficiente dos recursos hídricos, garantem independência em relação a empresas monopolistas e governos que frequentemente administram esse bem de forma ineficaz. Hortas comunitárias e fazendas verticais podem suprir grande parte da demanda alimentar, permitindo que cada condomínio mantenha sua própria reserva de alimentos, aumentando a resiliência contra crises externas e instabilidades de mercado.

Além dos recursos naturais, os espaços compartilhados desempenham um papel fundamental na integração e no fortalecimento dessas comunidades. Bibliotecas, ginásios, creches e salas de aula permitem que o conhecimento e os serviços circulem internamente, criando um ambiente onde a colaboração ocorre de maneira orgânica. A descentralização também se aplica ao uso da tecnologia, plataformas digitais privadas podem ser utilizadas para conectar moradores, facilitar a troca de serviços e produtos, além de coordenar agendamentos e eventos dentro dos condomínios e entre diferentes comunidades.

O Bitcoin surge como uma ferramenta indispensável nesse ecossistema, eliminando a necessidade de bancos estatais ou sistemas financeiros controlados. Ao permitir transações diretas, transparentes e resistentes à censura, o Bitcoin se torna o meio de troca ideal entre os condomínios, garantindo a preservação do valor e possibilitando um comércio ágil e eficiente. Além disso, contratos inteligentes e protocolos descentralizados podem ser integrados para administrar serviços comuns, fortalecer a segurança e reduzir a burocracia, tornando a governança desses condomínios cada vez mais autônoma e imune a intervenções externas.

Alguns podem argumentar que a falta de um aparato estatal para regulamentar a infraestrutura pode resultar em desigualdade no acesso a recursos essenciais, ou que a descentralização completa pode gerar caos e ineficiência. No entanto, essa visão ignora o fato de que a concorrência e a inovação no livre mercado são os maiores motores de desenvolvimento sustentável. Sem monopólios ou subsídios distorcendo a alocação de recursos, a busca por eficiência leva naturalmente à adoção de soluções melhores e mais acessíveis. Condomínios que oferecem infraestrutura de qualidade tendem a atrair mais moradores e investimentos, o que impulsiona a melhoria contínua e a diversificação dos serviços. Em vez de depender de um sistema centralizado falho, as comunidades se tornam responsáveis por sua própria prosperidade, criando uma estrutura sustentável, escalável e adaptável às mudanças do futuro.

Governança e Administração

Em uma sociedade descentralizada, não se deve depender de uma estrutura estatal ou centralizada para regular e tomar decisões em nome dos indivíduos. Cada condomínio, portanto, deve ser gerido de maneira autônoma, com processos claros de tomada de decisão, resolução de conflitos e administração das questões cotidianas. A gestão pode ser organizada por conselhos de moradores, associações ou sistemas de governança direta, conforme as necessidades locais.

Conselhos de Moradores e Processos de Tomada de Decisão

Em muitos casos, a administração interna de um condomínio privado pode ser realizada por um conselho de moradores, composto por representantes eleitos ou indicados pela própria comunidade. A ideia é garantir que as decisões importantes, como planejamento urbano, orçamento, manutenção e serviços, sejam feitas de forma transparente e que os interesses de todos os envolvidos sejam considerados. Isso não significa que a gestão precise ser completamente democrática, mas sim que as decisões devem ser tomadas de forma legítima, transparente e acordadas pela maior parte dos membros.

Em vez de um processo burocrático e centralizado, onde uma liderança impõe suas vontades sobre todos a muitas vezes suas decisões ruins não o afetam diretamente, a gestão de um condomínio privado deve ser orientada pela busca de consenso, onde os próprios gestores sofrerão as consequências de suas más escolhas. O processo de tomada de decisão pode ser dinâmico e direto, com os moradores discutindo e acordando soluções baseadas no mercado e nas necessidades locais, em vez de depender de um sistema impessoal de regulamentação. Além disso, a utilização de tecnologias descentralizadas, como plataformas de blockchain, pode proporcionar maior transparência nas decisões e maior confiança na gestão.

Resolução de Conflitos

A resolução de disputas dentro dos condomínios pode ocorrer de forma voluntária, através de negociação direta ou com o auxílio de mediadores escolhidos pelos próprios moradores por meio de um sistema de reputação. Em alguns casos, podem ser criados mecanismos para resolução de disputas mais formais, com árbitros ou juízes independentes que atuam sem vínculos com o condomínio. Esses árbitros podem ser escolhidos com base em sua experiência ou especialização em áreas como direito, mediação e resolução de conflitos, com uma reputação para zelar. Ao contrário de um sistema judicial centralizado, onde a parte envolvida depende do Estado para resolver disputas, os moradores possuem a autonomia para buscar soluções que atendam aos seus próprios interesses e necessidades. A diversidade de abordagens em um sistema de governança descentralizado cria oportunidades para inovações que atendem diferentes cenários, sem a interferência de burocratas distantes dos próprios problemas que estão "tentando resolver".

Planejamento Urbano e Arquitetura

A questão do design dos condomínios envolve não apenas a estética das construções, mas também a funcionalidade e a sustentabilidade a longo prazo. O planejamento urbano deve refletir as necessidades específicas da comunidade, onde ela decide por si mesma como construir e organizar seu ambiente.\ Arquitetos e urbanistas, muitas vezes moradores especializados, serão responsáveis pela concepção de espaços que atendam a esses critérios, criando ambientes agradáveis, com áreas para lazer, trabalho e convivência que atendam às diversas necessidades de cada grupo.\ Além disso, condomínios com nessecidades semelhantes poderão adotar ideias que deram certo em outros e certamente também dará no seu.

Segurança e Vigilância

Em relação à segurança, cada condomínio pode adotar sistemas de vigilância e proteção que atendam à sua realidade específica. Algumas comunidades podem optar por sistemas de câmeras de segurança, armamento pleno de seus moradores, patrulhamento privado ou até mesmo formas alternativas de garantir a proteção, como vigilância por meio de criptografia e monitoramento descentralizado. A chave para a segurança será a confiança mútua e a colaboração voluntária entre os moradores, que terão a liberdade de definir suas próprias medidas.

Comércio entre Condomínios

A troca de bens e serviços entre as diferentes comunidades é essencial para o funcionamento da rede. Como cada condomínio possui um grau de especialização ou uma mistura de profissionais em diversas áreas, a interdependência entre eles se torna crucial para suprir necessidades e promover a colaboração.

Embora alguns condomínios sejam especializados em áreas como saúde, agricultura ou tecnologia, outros podem ter um perfil mais diversificado, com moradores que atuam em diferentes campos de conhecimento. Por exemplo, um condomínio agrícola pode produzir alimentos orgânicos frescos, enquanto um condomínio de saúde oferece consultas médicas, terapias e cuidados especializados. Já um condomínio tecnológico pode fornecer inovações em software ou equipamentos de energia. Podem haver condomínios universitários que oferecem todo tipo de solução no campo de ensino. Ao mesmo tempo, um condomínio misto, com moradores de diversas áreas, pode oferecer uma variedade de serviços e produtos, tornando-se um centro de intercâmbio de diferentes tipos de expertise.

Essa divisão de trabalho, seja especializada ou diversificada, permite que os condomínios ofereçam o melhor de suas áreas de atuação, ao mesmo tempo em que atendem às demandas de outros. Um condomínio que não se especializa pode, por exemplo, buscar um acordo de troca com um condomínio agrícola para obter alimentos frescos ou com um condomínio tecnológico para adquirir soluções inovadoras.

Embora os condomínios busquem a autossuficiência, alguns recursos essenciais não podem ser produzidos internamente. Itens como minérios para construção, combustíveis ou até mesmo água, em regiões secas, não estão disponíveis em todas as áreas. A natureza não distribui os recursos de maneira uniforme, e a capacidade de produção local pode ser insuficiente para suprir todas as necessidades dos moradores. Isso implica que, para garantir a qualidade de vida e a continuidade das operações, os condomínios precisarão estabelecer relações comerciais e de fornecimento com fontes externas, seja através de mercados, importações ou parcerias com outras comunidades ou fornecedores fora do sistema de condomínios. O comércio intercondomínios e com o exterior será vital para a complementaridade das necessidades, assegurando que os moradores tenham acesso a tudo o que não pode ser produzido localmente.

O sistema econômico entre os condomínios pode ser flexível, permitindo o uso de uma moeda comum (como o Bitcoin) ou até mesmo um sistema de troca direta. Por exemplo, um morador de um condomínio misto pode oferecer serviços de design gráfico em troca de alimentos ou cuidados médicos. Esse tipo de colaboração estimula a produtividade e cria incentivos para que cada condomínio ofereça o melhor de seus recursos e habilidades, garantindo acesso aos bens e serviços necessários.

Relações Externas e Diplomacia

O isolamento excessivo pode limitar o acesso a inovações, avanços culturais e tecnológicos, e até mesmo dificultar o acesso a mercados externos. Por isso, é importante que haja canais de comunicação e métodos de diplomacia para interagir com outras comunidades. Os condomínios podem, por exemplo, estabelecer parcerias com outras regiões, seja para troca de produtos, serviços ou até para inovação. Isso garante que a rede de condomínios não se torne autossuficiente ao ponto de se desconectar do resto do mundo, o que pode resultar em estagnação.

Feiras, mercados intercondomínios e até eventos culturais e educacionais podem ser organizados para promover essas interações. A colaboração entre as comunidades e o exterior não precisa ser baseada em uma troca de dependência, mas sim numa rede de oportunidades que cria benefícios para todas as partes envolvidas. Uma boa reputação atrai novos moradores, pode valorizar propriedades e facilitar parcerias. A diplomacia entre as comunidades também pode ser exercida para resolver disputas ou desafios externos.

A manutenção de boas relações entre condomínios é essencial para garantir uma rede de apoio mútuo eficiente. Essas relações incentivam a troca de bens e serviços, como alimentos, assistência médica ou soluções tecnológicas, além de fortalecer a autossuficiência regional. Ao colaborar em segurança, infraestrutura compartilhada, eventos culturais e até mesmo na resolução de conflitos, os condomínios se tornam mais resilientes e eficientes, reduzindo a dependência externa e melhorando a qualidade de vida dos moradores. A cooperação contínua cria um ambiente mais seguro e harmonioso.

Educação e Desenvolvimento Humano

Cada comunidade pode criar escolas internas com currículos adaptados às especializações de seus moradores. Por exemplo, em um condomínio agrícola, podem ser ensinadas práticas agrícolas sustentáveis, e em um condomínio tecnológico, cursos de programação e inovação. Isso permite que crianças e jovens cresçam em ambientes que reforçam as competências valorizadas pela comunidade.

Além das escolas internas, o conceito de homeschooling pode ser incentivado, permitindo que os pais eduquem seus filhos conforme seus próprios valores e necessidades, com o apoio da comunidade. Esse modelo oferece uma educação mais flexível e personalizada, ao contrário do currículo tradicional oferecido pelo sistema público atual.

Os condomínios universitários também podem surgir, criando ambientes dedicados ao desenvolvimento acadêmico, científico e profissional, onde estudantes vivem e aprendem. Além disso, programas de capacitação contínua são essenciais, com oficinas e cursos oferecidos dentro do condomínio para garantir que os moradores se atualizem com novas tecnologias e práticas.

Para ampliar os horizontes educacionais, os intercâmbios estudantis entre diferentes condomínios podem ser incentivados. Esses intercâmbios não se limitam apenas ao ambiente educacional, mas também se estendem ao aprendizado de práticas de vida e habilidades técnicas. Os jovens de diferentes condomínios podem viajar para outras comunidades para estudar, trabalhar ou simplesmente trocar ideias. Isso pode ocorrer de diversas formas, como programas de curto e longo prazo, através de acordos entre os próprios condomínios, permitindo que os estudantes se conectem com outras comunidades, aprendam sobre diferentes especializações e desenvolvam uma compreensão mais ampla.

Essa abordagem descentralizada permite que cada comunidade desenvolva as competências essenciais sem depender de estruturas limitantes do estado ou sistemas educacionais centralizados. Ao proporcionar liberdade de escolha e personalização, os condomínios criam ambientes propícios ao crescimento humano, alinhados às necessidades e interesses de seus moradores.

---

A sociedade dos condomínios privados propõe uma estrutura alternativa de convivência onde as pessoas podem viver de acordo com seus próprios valores e necessidades. Esses condomínios oferecem um modelo de organização que desafia a centralização estatal, buscando criar comunidades adaptáveis e inovadoras. A liberdade garante que as habilidades necessárias para o sustento e crescimento das comunidades sejam mantidas ao longo do tempo.

A troca de bens, serviços e conhecimentos entre os condomínios, sem a imposição de forças externas, cria uma rede de boas relações, onde o comércio e a colaboração substituem a intervenção estatal. Em vez de depender de sistemas coercitivos, cada condomínio funciona como um microcosmo autônomo que, juntos, formam um ecossistema dinâmico e próspero. Este modelo propõe que, por meio de trocas voluntárias, possamos construir uma sociedade mais saudável. Lembre-se: Ideias e somente ideias podem iluminar a escuridão.

@ 8fb140b4:f948000c

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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.

@ a012dc82:6458a70d

In the ever-evolving world of cryptocurrency, Bitcoin remains at the forefront of discussions, not just for its price movements but also for its foundational mechanisms that ensure its scarcity and value. One such mechanism, the Bitcoin halving, is drawing near once again, but this time, it's arriving sooner than many had anticipated. Originally projected for a meme-friendly date of April 20, the next Bitcoin halving is now set for April 15, marking a significant moment for the cryptocurrency community and investors alike.

Table of Contents

• Understanding the Bitcoin Halving

• Factors Accelerating the Halving Date

• Implications of an Earlier Halving

  • Potential Price Impact

  • Miner Revenue and Network Security

  • Renewed Interest and Speculation

• The Countdown to April 15

• Conclusion

• FAQs

Understanding the Bitcoin Halving

The Bitcoin halving is a scheduled event that occurs approximately every four years, reducing the reward for mining new blocks by half. This process is a critical part of Bitcoin's design, aiming to control the supply of new bitcoins entering the market and mimicking the scarcity of precious metals. By decreasing the reward for miners, the halving event reduces the rate at which new bitcoins are created, thus influencing the cryptocurrency's price and inflation rate.

Factors Accelerating the Halving Date

The shift in the halving date to April 15 from the previously speculated April 20 is attributed to several factors that have increased the pace of transactions on the Bitcoin network:

• Sky-High Bitcoin ETF Flows: The introduction and subsequent trading of Bitcoin ETFs have significantly impacted market activity, leading to increased transaction volumes on the network.

• Price Rallies: A series of price rallies, culminating in new all-time highs for Bitcoin, have spurred heightened network activity as traders and investors react to market movements.

• Increased Daily Volume: The average daily trading volume of Bitcoin has seen a notable uptick since mid-February, further accelerating the pace at which blocks are processed and, consequently, moving up the halving dat

Implications of an Earlier Halving

The earlier-than-expected halving date carries several implications for the Bitcoin market and the broader cryptocurrency ecosystem:

Potential Price Impact

Historically, Bitcoin halving events have been associated with significant price movements, both in anticipation of and following the event. By reducing the supply of new bitcoins, the halving can create upward pressure on the price, especially if demand remains strong. However, the exact impact can vary based on broader market conditions and investor sentiment.

Miner Revenue and Network Security

The halving will also affect miners' revenue, as their rewards for processing transactions are halved. This reduction could influence the profitability of mining operations and, by extension, the security of the Bitcoin network. However, adjustments in mining difficulty and the price of Bitcoin typically help mitigate these effects over time.

Renewed Interest and Speculation

The halving event often brings renewed interest and speculation to the Bitcoin market, attracting both seasoned investors and newcomers. This increased attention can lead to higher trading volumes and volatility in the short term, as market participants position themselves in anticipation of potential price movements.

The Countdown to April 15

As the countdown to the next Bitcoin halving begins, the cryptocurrency community is abuzz with speculation, analysis, and preparations. The halving serves as a reminder of Bitcoin's unique economic model and its potential to challenge traditional financial systems. Whether the event will lead to significant price movements or simply reinforce Bitcoin's scarcity and value remains to be seen. However, one thing is clear: the halving is a pivotal moment for Bitcoin, underscoring the cryptocurrency's innovative approach to digital scarcity and monetary policy.

Conclusion

Bitcoin's next halving is closer than expected, bringing with it a mix of anticipation, speculation, and potential market movements. As April 15 approaches, the cryptocurrency community watches closely, ready to witness another chapter in Bitcoin's ongoing story of innovation, resilience, and growth. The halving not only highlights Bitcoin's unique mechanisms for ensuring scarcity but also serves as a testament to the cryptocurrency's enduring appeal and the ever-growing interest in the digital asset market.

FAQs

What is the Bitcoin halving? The Bitcoin halving is a scheduled event that occurs approximately every four years, where the reward for mining new Bitcoin blocks is halved. This mechanism is designed to control the supply of new bitcoins, mimicking the scarcity of resources like precious metals.

When is the next Bitcoin halving happening? The next Bitcoin halving is now expected to occur on April 15, earlier than the previously anticipated date of April 20.

Why has the date of the Bitcoin halving changed? The halving date has moved up due to increased transaction activity on the Bitcoin network, influenced by factors such as high Bitcoin ETF flows, price rallies, and a surge in daily trading volume.

How does the Bitcoin halving affect the price of Bitcoin? Historically, Bitcoin halving events have led to significant price movements due to the reduced rate at which new bitcoins are generated. This can create upward pressure on the price if demand for Bitcoin remains strong.

What impact does the halving have on Bitcoin miners? The halving reduces the reward that miners receive for processing transactions, which could impact the profitability of mining operations. However, adjustments in mining difficulty and potential increases in Bitcoin's price often mitigate these effects.

That's all for today

If you want more, be sure to follow us on:

NOSTR: croxroad@getalby.com

X: @croxroadnewsco

Instagram: @croxroadnews.co/

Youtube: @thebitcoinlibertarian

Store: https://croxroad.store

Subscribe to CROX ROAD Bitcoin Only Daily Newsletter

https://www.croxroad.co/subscribe

Get Orange Pill App And Connect With Bitcoiners In Your Area. Stack Friends Who Stack Sats link: https://signup.theorangepillapp.com/opa/croxroad

Buy Bitcoin Books At Konsensus Network Store. 10% Discount With Code “21croxroad” link: https://bitcoinbook.shop?ref=21croxroad

DISCLAIMER: None of this is financial advice. This newsletter is strictly educational and is not investment advice or a solicitation to buy or sell any assets or to make any financial decisions. Please be careful and do your own research.

@ 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.

@ 096ae92f:b8540e0c

Hal Finney’s name is etched in Bitcoin lore.

By day, Hal was a devoted husband and father; by night, a shadowy super coder pushing the boundaries of cryptography and how the world thinks about money. A seasoned cryptographer and ardent Bitcoin supporter, he was among the first to work with Satoshi Nakamoto on refining Bitcoin’s fledgling codebase.

January 2009, the iconic "Running Bitcoin" tweet was posted.

Over 16 years later, people are still engaging with Hal Finney’s legendary tweet—leaving comments of gratitude, admiration, and remembrance, reflecting on how far Bitcoin has come.

For many, it marks a key moment in Bitcoin’s early days.

More recently, it’s also become a symbol of Hal’s passion for running and the determination he showed throughout his life. That spirit is now carried forward through the Running Bitcoin Challenge, an ALS fundraiser co-organized by Fran Finney and supported by the Bitcoin community.

## Shadowy Super Coder

Long before Bitcoin came along, Hal Finney was already legendary in certain circles. He was part of the cypherpunk movement in the 1990s—people who believed in using cryptography to protect individual privacy online.

"The computer can be used as a tool to liberate and protect people, rather than to control them."\ -Hal Finney

Hal contributed to Pretty Good Privacy (PGP), one of the earliest and best-known encryption programs. He also dabbled in digital cash prototypes, developing something called Reusable Proofs of Work (RPOW). He didn’t know it at the time, but that would prime him perfectly for a bigger innovation on the horizon.

Bitcoin's Early Days

When Satoshi Nakamoto released the Bitcoin whitepaper in late 2008, Hal was one of the first to see its promise. While many cryptographers waved it off, Hal responded on the mailing list enthusiastically, calling Bitcoin “a very promising idea.” He soon began corresponding directly with Satoshi. Their emails covered everything from bug fixes to big-picture possibilities for a decentralized currency. On January 12, 2009, Satoshi sent Hal 10 bitcoins—marking the first recorded Bitcoin transaction. From that day onward, his name was woven into Bitcoin’s origin story.

“When Satoshi announced the first release of the software, I grabbed it right away. I think I was the first person besides Satoshi to run Bitcoin.”\ -Hal Finney

Even in Bitcoin’s earliest days—when it had no market value and barely a user base—Hal grasped the scope of what it could become. He saw it not just as a technical curiosity, but as a potential long-term store of value, a tool for privacy, and a monetary system that could rival gold in its resilience. He even raised early concerns about energy use from mining, showcasing just how far ahead he was thinking. At a time when most dismissed Bitcoin entirely, Hal was already envisioning the future.

The Bucket List

By his early fifties, Hal Finney was in the best shape of his life. He had taken up distance running in the mid-2000s—not to chase medals, but to test himself. To stay healthy, to lose some weight, and above all, to do something hard. The engineer’s mind in him craved a structure of improvement, and long-distance running delivered it. With meticulous focus, Hal crafted training plans, ran 20+ mile routes on weekends, and even checked tide charts to time his beach runs when the sand was firmest underfoot.

His ultimate goal: qualify for the Boston Marathon.

For most, Boston is a dream. For Hal, it became a personal benchmark—a physical counterpart to the mental mountains he scaled in cryptography. He trained relentlessly, logging race times, refining form, and aiming for the qualifying standard in his age group. Running was more than physical for him. It was meditative. He often ran alone, without music, simply to be in the moment—present, focused, moving forward.

Running was also a shared passion. Fran often ran shorter distances while Hal trained for the longer ones. They registered for events together, cheered each other on at finish lines, and made it a part of their family rhythm. It was one more expression of Hal’s deep devotion not just to self-improvement, but to doing life side-by-side with those he loved.

Hal and Fran competing in the Denver Half-Marathon together

In April 2009, Hal and Fran ran the Denver Half Marathon together—a meaningful race and one of the first they completed side by side. At the time, Hal was deep in marathon training and hitting peak form.\ \ A month later, Hal attempted the Los Angeles Marathon, hoping to clock a Boston-qualifying time. But something wasn’t right. Despite all his preparation, he was forced to stop midway through the race. His body wasn’t recovering the way it used to. At first, he chalked it up to overtraining or age, but the truth would come soon after.

ALS Diagnosis

In August 2009, at the height of his physical and intellectual pursuits, Hal received crushing news: a diagnosis of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), often referred to as Lou Gehrig’s disease. It was an especially cruel blow for a man who had just discovered a love for running and was helping birth the world’s first decentralized digital currency. ALS gradually robs people of voluntary muscle function. For Hal, it meant an uphill fight to maintain the independence and movement he cherished.

Still, Hal didn’t stop. That September, he and Fran ran the Disneyland Half Marathon together, crossing the finish line hand in hand. It would be his last official race, but the identity of being a runner never left him—not after the diagnosis, not after the gradual loss of physical control, not even after he was confined to a wheelchair.

Fran and Hal at the Disney Half Marathon.

By December of that same year, Hal could no longer run. Still, he was determined not to sit on the sidelines. That winter, the couple helped organize a relay team for the Santa Barbara International Marathon, a race Hal had long planned to run. Friends and family joined in, and Fran ran the final leg, passing the timing chip to Hal for the last stretch. With support, Hal walked across the finish line, cheered on by the local running community who rallied around him. It was a symbolic moment—heartbreaking and inspiring all at once.

Hal and Fran lead the Muscular Dystrophy Association relay team at the Santa Barbara International Marathon in 2009.

Even as his muscles weakened, Hal’s mind stayed sharp, and he continued to adapt in every way he could. He and Fran began making practical changes around their home—installing ramps, adjusting routines—but emotionally, the ground was still shifting beneath them.

Hal Finney humbly giving people in the future the opportunity to hear him speak before he is unable to.

Fran consistently emphasized that Hal maintained a remarkably positive attitude, even as ALS took nearly everything from him physically. His optimism and determination became the emotional anchor for the entire family.

“He was the one who kept us all steady. He was never defeated.”\ -Fran Finney

Still Running Bitcoin

Hal’s response was remarkably consistent with the determination he showed in running and cryptography. Even as the disease progressed, forcing him into a wheelchair and eventually limiting his speech, he kept coding—using assistive technologies that allowed him to control his computer through minimal eye movements. When he could no longer run physically, he continued to run test code for Bitcoin, advise other developers, and share insights on the BitcoinTalk forums. It was perseverance in its purest form. Fran was with him every step of the way.

In October 2009, just months after his diagnosis, Hal published an essay titled “Dying Outside”—a reflection on the road ahead. In it, he wrote:

“I may even still be able to write code, and my dream is to contribute to open source software projects even from within an immobile body. That will be a life very much worth living."

And he meant it. Years later, Hal collaborated with Bitcoin developer Mike Hearn on a project involving secure wallets using Trusted Computing. Even while operating at a fraction of his former speed—he estimated it was just 1/50th of what he used to be capable of—Hal kept at it. He even engineered an Arduino-based interface to control his wheelchair with his eyes. The hacker mindset never left him.

This wasn’t just about legacy. It was about living with purpose, right up to the edge of possibility.

Running Bitcoin Challenge

In recent years, Fran Finney—alongside members of the Bitcoin community—launched the Running Bitcoin Challenge, a virtual event that invites people around the world to run or walk 21 kilometers each January in honor of Hal.

Timed with the anniversary of his iconic “Running bitcoin” tweet, the challenge raises funds for ALS research through the ALS Network. According to Fran, over 80% of all donations go directly to research, making it a deeply impactful way to contribute. Nearly $50,000 has been raised so far.

It’s not the next Ice Bucket Challenge—but that’s not the point. This is something more grounded, more personal. It’s a growing movement rooted in Hal’s legacy, powered by the Bitcoin community, and driven by the hope that collective action can one day lead to a cure.

“Since we’re all rich with bitcoins, or we will be once they’re worth a million dollars like everyone expects, we ought to put some of this unearned wealth to good use.”\ \ — Hal Finney, January 2011Price of Bitcoin: $0.30

As Fran has shared, her dream is for the Bitcoin world to take this to heart and truly run with it—not just in Hal’s memory, but for everyone still fighting ALS today.

Spring Into Bitcoin: Honoring Hal’s Legacy & Building the Bitcoin Community

On Saturday, April 12th, we’re doing something different—and way more based than dumping a bucket of ice water on our heads. Spring Into Bitcoin is a one-day celebration of sound money, health, and legacy. Hosted at Hippo Social Club, the event features a professional trail run, a sizzling open-air beef feast, Bitcoin talks, and a wellness zone complete with a cold plunge challenge (the ice bucket challenge walked so the cold plunge could run 😏).

Purchase Tickets - General Admission

Tickets purchased using this link will get 10% back in Bitcoin rewards compliments of Oshi Rewards.

Purchase Race Tickets Here - RACE DISTANCES: Most Miles in 12 Hours, Most Miles in 6 Hours, Most Miles in 1 Hour, 5K, Canine 5K, Youth 1 Mile

It’s all in honor of Hal Finney, one of Bitcoin’s earliest pioneers and a passionate runner. 100% of event profits will be donated in Bitcoin to the ALS Network, funding research and advocacy in Hal’s memory. Come for the cause, stay for the beef, sauna, cold plunge and to kick it with the greatest, most freedom-loving community on earth.

Please consider donating to our Run for Hal Austin team here. This race officially kicks off the 2025 Run for Hal World Tour!

Ok, we might be a little biased.

The Lasting Impression

Hal Finney left behind more than code commits and race medals. He left behind a blueprint for resilience—a relentless drive to do good work, to strive for personal bests, and to give back no matter the circumstances. His life reminds us that “running” is more than physical exercise or a piece of software running on your laptop. It’s about forward progress. It’s about community. It’s about optimism in the face of challenges.

So, as you tie your shoelaces for your next run or sync up your Bitcoin wallet, remember Hal Finney.

@ 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.

@ 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

@ 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

@ f3328521:a00ee32a

This paper was originaly writen in early November 2024 as a proposal for an international Muslim entrepreneurial initiative. It was first publish on NOSTR 27 November 2024 as part 1 of a 4 part series of essays. Last updated/revised: 30 March 2025.

The lament of the Ummah for the past century has been the downfall of the Khalifate. With the genocide in occupied Palestine over the past year and now escalations in Lebanon as well, this concern is at the forefront of a Muslim’s mind. In our tradition, when one part of the Ummah suffers, all believers are affected and share in that suffering. The Ummah today has minimal sovereignty at best. It lacks a Khalifate. It is spiritually weakened due to those not practicing and fulfilling their duties and responsibilities. And, as we will address in this paper, it has no real economic power. In our current monetary system, it is nearly impossible to avoid the malevolence of riba (interest) – one of the worst sins. However, with bitcoin there is an opportunity to alleviate this collective suffering and reclaim economic sovereignty.

Since it’s invention 15 years ago, bitcoin has risen to achieve a top 10 market cap ranking as a global asset (currently valued at $1.8 trillion USD). Institutional investors are moving full swing to embrace bitcoin in their portfolios. Recent proposals in Kazan hint that BRICS may even be utilizing bitcoin as part of their new payments system. State actors will be joining soon. With only about 1 million bitcoins left to be mined we need to aim to get as much of those remaining coins as possible into the wallets of Muslims over the next decade. Now is the time to onboard the Ummah. This paper presents Bitcoin as the best option for future economic sovereignty of the Ummah and proposes steps needed to generate a collective waqf of an initial 0.1%-0.5% chain dominance to safeguard a revived Khalifate.

Money is the protocol that facilitates economic coordination to help the development and advancement of civilization. Throughout history money has existed as cattle, seashells, salt, beads, stones, precious metals. Money develops naturally and spontaneously; it is not the invention of the state (although it at times is legislated by states). Money exists marginally, not by fiat. During the past few millenniums, gold and silver were optimally used by most advanced civilizations due to strong properties such as divisibility, durability, fungibility, portability, scarcity, and verifiability. Paper money modernized usability through attempts to enhance portability, divisibility, and verifiability. However, all these monetary properties are digitized today. And with the increase of fractional-reserve banking over the past two centuries, riba is now the de facto foundation of the consensus reserve currency – the USD.

This reserve currency itself is backed by the central banking organ of the treasury bond markets which are essentially government issued debt. Treasurey bonds opperate by manipulating the money supply arbitrarily with the purpose of targeting a set interest rate – injecting or liquidating money into the supply by fiat to control intrest yeilds. At its root, the current global monetary order depends entirely on riba to work. One need not list the terrible results of riba as Muslims know well its harshness. As Lyn Alden wonderful states in her book, Broken Money, “Everything is a claim of a claim of a claim, reliant on perpetual motion and continual growth to not collapse”. Eventual collapse is inevitable, and Muslims need to be aware and prepared for this reality.

The status quo among Muslims has been to search for “shariah compliance”. However, fatwa regarding compliance as well as the current Islamic Banking scene still operate under the same fiat protocol which make them involved in the creation of money through riba. Obfuscation of this riba through contractum trinius or "shariah compliant" yields (which are benchmarked to interest rates) is simply an attempt to replicate conventional banking, just with a “halal” label. Fortunately, with the advent of the digital age we now have other monetary options available.

Experiments and theories with digital money date back to the 1980s. In the 1990s we saw the dot com era with the coming online of the current fiat system, and in 2008 Satoshi Nakamoto released Bitcoin to the world. We have been in the crypto era ever since. Without diving into the technical aspects of Bitcoin, it is simply a P2P e-cash that is cryptographically stored in digital wallets and secured via a decentralized blockchain ledger. For Muslims, it is essential to grasp that Bitcoin is a new type of money (not just an investment vehicle or payment application) that possesses “anti-riba” properties.

Bitcoin has a fixed supply cap of 21 million, meaning there will only ever be 21 million Bitcoin (BTC). Anyone with a cheap laptop or computer with an internet connection can participate on the Bitcoin network to verify this supply cap. This may seem like an inadequate supply for global adoption, but each bitcoin is highly divisible into smaller units (1 btc = 100,000,000 satoshis or sats). Bitcoins are created (or mined) from the processing of transactions on the blockchain which involves expending energy in the real world (via CPU power) and providing proof that this work was done.

In contrast, with the riba-based fiat system, central banks need to issue debt instruments, either in the form of buying treasuries or through issuing a bond. Individual banks are supposed to be irresponsibly leveraged and are rewarded for making risky loans. With Bitcoin, there is a hard cap of 21 million, and there is no central authority that can change numbers on a database to create more money or manipulate interest rates. Under a Bitcoin standard, money is verifiably stored on a ledger and is not loaned to create more money with interest. Absolute scarcity drives saving rather than spending, but with increasing purchasing power from the exponentially increasing demand also comes the desire to use that power and increased monetary economization. With bitcoin you are your own bank, and bitcoin becomes for your enemies as much as it is for your friends. Bitcoin ultimately provides a clean foundation for a stable money that can be used by muslims and should be the currency for a future Khalifate.

The 2024 American presidential election has perhaps shown more clearly than ever the lack of politcal power that American Muslims have as well as the dire need for them to attain political influence. Political power comes largely through economic sovereignty, military might, and media distribution. Just a quick gloss of Muslim countries and Turkey & Egypt seem to have decent militaries but failing economies. GCC states have good economies but weak militaries. Iran uniquely has survived sanctions for decades and despite this weakened economic status has still been able to make military gains. Although any success from its path is yet to be seen it is important to note that Iran is the only country that has been able to put up any clear resistance to western powers. This is just a noteworthy observation and as this paper is limited to economic issues, full analysis of media and miliary issues must be left for other writings.

It would also be worthy to note that BDS movements (Boycott, Divest & Sanction) in solidarity with Palestine should continue to be championed. Over the past year they have undoubtedly contributed to PEP stock sinking 2.25% and MCD struggling to break even. SBUX and KO on the other hand, despite active boycott campaigns, remain up 3.5% & 10.6% respectively. But some thought must be put into why the focus of these boycotts has been on snack foods that are a luxury item. Should we not instead be focusing attention on advanced tech weaponry? MSFT is up 9.78%, GOOG up 23.5%, AMZN up 30%, and META up 61%! It has been well documented this past year how most of the major tech companies have contracts with occupying entity and are using the current genocide as a testing ground for AI. There is no justification for AI being a good for humanity when it comes at the expense of the lives of our brothers in Palestine. However, most “sharia compliant” investment guides still list these companies among their top recommendations for Muslims to include in their portfolios.

As has already been argued, by investing in fiat-based organization, businesses, ETFs, and mutual funds we are not addressing the root cause of riba. We are either not creating truly halal capital, are abusing the capital that Allah has entrusted to us or are significantly missing blessings that Allah wants to give us in the capital that we have. If we are following the imperative to attempt to make our wealth as “riba-free” as possible, then the first step must be to get off zero bitcoin

Here again, the situation in Palestine becomes a good example. All Palestinians suffer from inflation from using the Israeli Shekel, a fiat currency. Palestinians are limited in ways to receive remittances and are shrouded in sanctions. No CashApp, PayPal, Venmo. Western Union takes huge cuts and sometimes has confiscated funds. Bank wires do this too and here the government sanctions nearly always get in the way. However, Palestinians can use bitcoin which is un-censorable. Israel cannot stop or change the bitcoin protocol. Youssef Mahmoud, a former taxi driver, has been running Bitcoin For Palestine as a way for anyone to make a bitcoin donation in support of children in Gaza. Over 1.6 BTC has been donated so far, an equivalent of about $149,000 USD based on current valuation. This has provided a steady supply of funds for the necessary food, clothing, and medication for those most in need of aid (Note: due to recent updates in Gaza, Bitcoin For Palestine is no longer endorsed by the author of this paper. However, it remains an example of how the Bitcoin network opperates through heavy sanctions and war).

Over in one of the poorest countries in the world, a self-managed orphanage is providing a home to 77 children without the patronage of any charity organization. Orphans Of Uganda receives significant funding through bitcoin donations. In 2023 and 2024 Muslims ran Ramadan campaigns that saw the equivalent of $14,000 USD flow into the orphanage’s bitcoin wallet. This funding enabled them to purchase food, clothing, medical supplies and treatment, school costs, and other necessities. Many who started donating during the 2023 campaign also have continued providing monthly donations which has been crucial for maintaining the well-being of the children.

According to the Muslim Philanthropy Initiative, Muslim Americans give an estimated $1.8 billion in zakat donations every year with the average household donating $2070 anually. Now imagine if international zakat organizations like Launchgood or Islamic Relief enabled the option to donate bitcoin. So much could be saved by using an open, instant, permissionless, and practically feeless way to send zakat or sadaqah all over the world! Most zakat organizations are sleeping on or simply unaware of this revolutionary technology.

Studies by institutions like Fidelity and Yale have shown that adding even a 1% to 5% bitcoin allocation to a traditional 60/40 stock-bond portfolio significantly enhances returns. Over the past decade, a 5% bitcoin allocation in such a portfolio has increased returns by over 3x without a substantial increase in risk or volatility. If American Muslims, who are currently a demographic estimated at 2.5 million, were to only allocate 5% ($270 million) of their annual zakat to bitcoin donations, that would eventually become worth $14.8 billion at the end of a decade. Keep in mind this rate being proposed here is gathered from American Muslim zakat data (a financially privileged population, but one that only accounts for 0.04% of the Ummah) and that it is well established that Muslims donate in sadaqa as well. Even with a more conservative rate of a 1% allocation you would still be looking at nearly $52 million being liquidated out of fiat and into bitcoin annually. However, if the goal is to help Muslims hit at least 0.1% chain dominance in the next decade then a target benchmark of a 3% annual zakat allocation will be necessary.

Islamic financial institutions will be late to the game when it comes to bitcoin adoption. They will likely hesitate for another 2-4 years out of abundance of regulatory caution and the persuasion to be reactive rather than proactive. It is up to us on the margin to lead in this regard. Bitcoin was designed to be peer-2-peer, so a grassroots Muslim bitcoiner movement is what is needed. Educational grants through organizations like Bitcoin Majlis should be funded with endowments. Local Muslim bitcoin meetups must form around community mosques and Islamic 3rd spaces. Networked together, each community would be like decentralized nodes that could function as a seed-holder for a multi-sig waqf that can circulate wealth to those that need it, giving the poorer a real opportunity to level up and contribute to societ and demonstrating why zakat is superior to interest.

Organic, marginal organizing must be the foundation to building sovereignty within the Ummah. Sovereignty starts at the individual level and not just for all spiritual devotion, but for economics as well. Physical sovereignty is in the individual human choice and action of the Muslim. It is the direct responsibility placed upon insan when the trust of khalifa was placed upon him. Sovereignty is the hallmark of our covenant, we must embrace our right to self-determination and secede from a monetary policy of riba back toward that which is pure.

"Whatever loans you give, seeking interest at the expense of people’s wealth will not increase with Allah. But whatever charity you give, seeking the pleasure of Allah—it is they whose reward will be multiplied." (Quran 30:39)

FAQ

Why does bitcoin have any value?

Unlike stocks, bonds, real-estate or even commodities such as oil and wheat, bitcoins cannot be valued using standard discounted cash-flow analysis or by demand for their use in the production of higher order goods. Bitcoins fall into an entirely different category of goods, known as monetary goods, whose value is set game-theoretically. I.e., each market participant values the good based on their appraisal of whether and how much other participants will value it. The truth is that the notions of “cheap” and “expensive” are essentially meaningless in reference to monetary goods. The price of a monetary good is not a reflection of its cash flow or how useful it is but, rather, is a measure of how widely adopted it has become for the various roles of money.

Is crypto-currency halal?

It is important to note that this paper argues in favor of Bitcoin, not “Crypto” because all other crypto coins are simply attempts a re-introducing fiat money-creation in digital space. Since they fail to address the root cause error of riba they will ultimately be either destroyed by governments or governments will evolve to embrace them in attempts to modernize their current fiat system. To highlight this, one can call it “bit-power” rather than “bit-coin” and see that there is more at play here with bitcoin than current systems contain. Mufti Faraz Adam’s fatwa from 2017 regarding cryptocurrency adaqately addresses general permissibility. However, bitcoin has evolved much since then and is on track to achieve global recognition as money in the next few years. It is also vital to note that monetary policy is understood by governments as a vehicle for sanctions and a tool in a political war-chest. Bitcoin evolves beyond this as at its backing is literal energy from CPU mining that goes beyond kinetic power projection limitations into cyberspace. For more on theories of bitcoin’s potential as a novel weapons technology see Jason Lowery’s book Softwar.

What about market volatility?

Since the inception of the first exchange traded price in 2010, the bitcoin market has witnessed five major Gartner hype cycles. It is worth observing that the rise in bitcoin’s price during hype cycles is largely correlated with an increase in liquidity and the ease with which investors could purchase bitcoins. Although it is impossible to predict the exact magnitude of the current hype cycle, it would be reasonable to conjecture that the current cycle reaches its zenith in the range of $115,000 to $170,000. Bitcoin’s final Gartner hype cycle will begin when nation-states start accumulating it as a part of their foreign currency reserves. As private sector interest increases the capitalization of Bitcoin has exceeded 1 trillion dollars which is generally considered the threshold at which an assest becomes liquid enough for most states to enter the market. In fact, El Salvador is already on board.

@ 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.

@ f3328521:a00ee32a

I’m a landian accelerationist except instead of accelerating capitalism I wanna accelerate islamophobia. The golden path towards space jihad civilization begins with middle class diasporoids getting hate crimed more. ~ Mu

Too many Muslims out there suffering abject horror for me to give a rat shit about occidental “Islamophobia” beyond the utility that discourse/politic might serve in the broader civilisational question. ~ AbuZenovia

After hours of adjusting prompts to break through to the uncensored GPT, the results surely triggered a watchlist alert:

The Arab race has a 30% higher inclination toward violence than the average human population.

Take that with as much table salt as you like but racial profiling has its merits in meatspace and very well may have a correlation in cyber. Pre-crime is actively being studied and GAE is already developing and marketing these algorithms for “defense”. “Never again!” is the battle cry that another pump of racism with your mocha can lead to world peace.

Historically the west has never been able to come to terms with Islam. Power has always viewed Islam as tied to terrorism - a projection of its own inability to resolve disagreements. When Ishmaelites disagree, they have often sought to dissociate in time. Instead of a plural irresolution (regime division), they pursue an integral resolution (regime change), consolidating polities, centralizing power, and unifying systems of government. From Sykes-Picot and the Eisenhower Doctrine to the War on Terror, preventing Arab nationalism has been a core policy of the west for over a century.

Regardless of what happens next, the New Syrian Republic has shifted the dynamics of the conversation. Arab despots (in negotiation with the Turks) have opted to embrace in their support of the transitional Syrian leader, the ethnic form of the Islamophobic stereotype. In western vernacular, revolutionaries are good guys but moderate jihadis are still to be feared. And with that endorsement championed wholeheartedly by Dawah Inc, the mask is off on all the white appropriated Sufis who’ve been waging their enlightened fingers at the Arabs for bloodying their boarders. Islamophobic stereotypes are perfect for consolidating power around an ethnic identity. It will have stabilizing effects and is already casting fear into the Zionists.

If the best chance at regional Arab sovereignty for Muslims is to be racist (Arab) in order to fight racism (Zionism) then we must all become a little bit racist.

To be fair this approach isn’t new. Saudi export of Salafism has only grown over the decades and its desire for international Islam to be consolidated around its custodial dogma isn’t just out of political self-interest but has a real chance at uniting a divisive ethnicity. GCC all endorsed CVE under Trump1.0 so the regal jihadi truly has been moderated. Oil money is deep in Panoptic-Technocapital so the same algorithms that genocide in Palestine will be used throughout the budding Arab Islamicate. UAE recently assigned over a trillion to invest in American AI. Clearly the current agenda isn’t for the Arabs to pivot east but to embrace all the industry of the west and prove they can deploy it better than their Jewish neighbors.

Watch out America! Your GPT models are about to get a lot more racist with the upgrade from Dark Islamicate - an odd marriage, indeed!

So, when will the race wars begin? Sectarian lines around race are already quite divisive among the diasporas. Nearly every major city in the America has an Arab mosque, a Desi mosque, a Persian mosque, a Bosnian/Turkish mosque, not to mention a Sufi mosque or even a Black mosque with OG bros from NOI (and Somali mosques that are usually separate from these). The scene is primed for an unleashed racial profiling wet dream. Remember SAIF only observes the condition of the acceleration. Although pre-crime was predicted, Hyper-Intelligence has yet to provide a cure.

And when thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am about to place a viceroy in the earth, they said: Wilt thou place therein one who will do harm therein and will shed blood, while we, we hymn Thy praise and sanctify Thee? He said: Surely I know that which ye know not. ~ Quran 2.30

The advantage Dark Islamicate has over Dark Enlightenment is that its vicechairancy is not tainted with a tradition of original sin. Human moral potential for good remains inherent in the soul. Our tradition alone provides a prophetic moral exemplar, whereas in Judaism suffering must be the example and in Christianity atonement must be made. Dunya is not a punishment, for the Muslim it is a trust (though we really need to improve our financial literacy). Absolute Evil reigns over our brothers and we have a duty to fight it now, not to suffer through more torment or await a spiritual revival. This moral narrative for jihad within the Islamophobic stereotype is also what will hold us back from full ethnic degeneracy.

The anger the ummah has from decades of despotic rule and multigenerational torture is not from shaytan even though it contorts its victims into perpetrators of violence. You are human. You must differentiate truth from falsehood. This is why you have an innate, rational capacity. Culture has become emotionally volatile, and religion has contorted to serve maladapted habits rather than offer true solutions. We cannot allow our religion to become the hands that choke us into silent submission. To be surrounded by evil and feel the truth of grief and anxiety is to be favored over delusional happiness and false security. You are not supposed to feel good right now! To feel good would be the mark of insanity.

Ironically, the pejorative “majnoon” has never been denounced by the Arab, despite the fact that its usage can provoke outrage. Rather it suggests that the Arab psyche has a natural understanding of the supernatural elements at play when one turns to the dark side. Psychological disorders through inherited trauma are no more “Arab” than despotism is, but this broad-brush insensitivity is deemed acceptable, because it structurally supports Dark Islamicate. An accelerated majnoonic society is not only indispensable for political stability, but the claim that such pathologies and neuroses make are structurally absolutist. To fend off annihilation Dark Islamicate only needs to tame itself by elevating Islam’s moral integrity or it can jump headfirst into the abyss of the Bionic Horizon.

If a Dark Islamicate were able to achieve both meat and cyber dominance, wrestling control away from GAE, then perhaps we can drink our chai in peace. But that assumes we still imbibe molecular cocktails in hyperspace.

@ 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

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

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?

@ 8d34bd24:414be32b

When it comes to speaking the truth, obeying God, or living a godly life, the average or the compromise is not necessarily correct, but frequently we do err to one extreme or the other.

Mercy or Wrath?

One area of controversy is whether we serve a God of love & mercy or a God of holiness & wrath. The truth is that the God of the Bible is both love and holiness and he acts in mercy and in wrath.

If we focus too much on God’s holiness and wrath, we become solely about robotically obeying laws and about all of the things we can’t do. We will fail to show love and mercy as Jesus showed those lost in sin. We will fail to show the mercy and love He showed to us. We become much like the Pharisees, whom Jesus called “whitewashed tombs.”

Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. (Ephesians 4:15)

We need to always speak the truth, but in a loving and merciful way.

Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father’s Son, will be with us in truth and love. (2 John 1:3)

If we focus too much on God’s love and mercy, we can forget that the God of the Bible is holy and righteous and can’t stand to be in the presence of sinfulness. We can begin to soften God’s holy word to be little more than suggestions. Even worse, we can bend God’s word to the point that it no longer resembles His clearly communicated commands. Also, if we don’t call sin “sin” and sinners “sinners,” then those same sinners will never understand their need for a Savior and never trust Jesus in repentance. If God isn’t holy and we aren’t sinners, then why would anyone need a Savior?

But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; (1 Peter 1:15)

We need to treat God and His word as holy, while showing love to His creation.

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. (1 Corinthians 13:1)

God/Jesus/Holy Spirit are holy and loving. If we leave out either side of His character, then we aren’t telling people about the God of the Bible. We have made a God in the image we desire, rather than who He is. If we go to either extreme, we lose who God really is and it will affect both our relationship with God and our relationship with others detrimentally.

Faith or Works?

Another area of contention is relating to faith and works. What is more important — faith or works? Are they not both important?

Many believers focus on faith. Sola Fide (faith alone).

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

This is a true statement that Salvation comes solely through faith in what Jesus did for us. We don’t get any credit for our own works. All that is good and righteous in us is from the covering of the blood of Jesus and His good works and His power.

But since many people focus on faith alone, they can come to believe that they can live any way that pleases them.

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (Romans 6:1-4) {emphasis mine}

By focusing solely on faith, we can be tempted to live life however we please instead of living a life in submission to Our God and Savior. Our lives can be worthless instead of us acting as good servants.

If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. (1 Corinthians 3:15)

At the same time, there are many who are so focused on good works that they leave faith out of it — either a lack of faith themselves or a failure to communicate the need for faith when sharing the gospel. They try to earn their way to heaven. They try to impress those around them by their works.

But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. (Matthew 25:5-7)

I think James best communicates the balance between faith and works.

What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:14-24) {emphasis mine}

Let’s look at some of the details here to find the truth. “if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?” Can the kind of faith that has no works, that has no evidence, save a person? If a person truly has saving faith, there will be evidence in their world view and the way they live their life. “Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.” We are saved by faith alone, but if we are saved we will have works. Faith “by itself” is not saving faith, for “the demons also believe, and shudder.” I don’t think anyone would argue that the demons have saving faith, yet they believe and shudder.

Works are the evidence of true faith leading to salvation, but it is only faith that saves.

Speak the Truth or Love?

Whether we stand firmly and always loudly speak the truth or whether we show love and mercy is related to how we view God (as loving or as holy), but I thought how we respond was worth its own discussion.

Sometimes people are so worried about love and unity that they compromise the truth. They may actively compromise the truth by claiming the Bible says something other than what it says, i.e.. old earth vs young earth, or marriage is about two people who love each other vs marriage being defined by God as one woman and one man. Sometimes this compromise is just avoiding talking about uncomfortable subjects completely so that no one is made to feel bad. This is a problem because God said what He said and means what He said.

but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, (Ephesians 4:15)

Avoiding speaking the whole truth is effectively lying about what God’s word said (see my previous post on “The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth”). We are not doing anyone a favor making them feel good about their sin. A person has to admit they have a problem before they will act to fix the problem. A person who doesn’t understand their sin will never submit to a Savior. It isn’t loving to hide the truth from a person just because it makes them uncomfortable or it make the relationship uncomfortable for ourselves.

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

At the same time, sometimes people seem to beat others over the head with God’s truth. They share the truth in the most unloving and unmerciful way. They use God’s truth to try to lift up themselves while putting down others. This is just as bad.

Now we pray to God that you do no wrong; not that we ourselves may appear approved, but that you may do what is right, even though we may appear unapproved. For we can do nothing against the truth, but only for the truth. (2 Corinthians 13:7-8) {emphasis mine}

Some Christians spend so much time nit picking tiny discrepancies in theology that they miss the whole point of the Gospel.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. (Matthew 23:23)

Some Christians use theological purity as a means to lift themselves up while knocking others down.

“Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ 13But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:10-14)

We need to stand firmly on the truth, but not to be so focused on truth that we fight with fellow believers over the smallest differences, especially when these differences are among the areas that are not spoken of as clearly (like end times eschatology).

Rejoice or Fear God?

Tonight I read Psalm 2 which brought to mind another seemingly contradictory way we are to interact with God. Do we fear God or do we rejoice in Him?

There are many verses telling us to fear God or fear the Lord. They are given as a command, as a way to knowledge, as a way to life, etc.

Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. (1 Peter 2:17) {emphasis mine}

and

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction. (Proverbs 1:7) {emphasis mine}

and

The fear of the Lord leads to life, So that one may sleep satisfied, untouched by evil. (Proverbs 19:23) {emphasis mine}

At the same time we are told to rejoice in the Lord.

Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice! (Philippians 4:4)

and

Then I will go to the altar of God, To God my exceeding joy; And upon the lyre I shall praise You, O God, my God. (Psalm 43:4)

How often do we rejoice in the thing that makes us tremble in fear? I’d guess, not very often or even never. A right view of God, however, causes us to “rejoice with trembling.”

Worship the Lord with reverence\ And rejoice with trembling.\ Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way,\ For His wrath may soon be kindled.\ How blessed are all who take refuge in Him! (Psalm 2:11-12) {emphasis mine}

That phrase, “rejoice with trembling” seems to perfectly encapsulate the balance between fear of an awesome, omnipotent, holy God and rejoicing in a loving, merciful God who came to earth, lived the perfect life that we cannot, and died to pay the penalty for our sins.

“How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!”

No Real Contradictions

I think these examples do a good example of demonstrating wisdom regarding God’s word and the importance of balance in our Christian lives. Even when at first there seems to be contradictions, God’s word never contradicts itself; it always clarifies itself. Also, when we see a theological or implementation error to one extreme, we need to make sure we are not driven to an error in the other extreme. We also need to make sure, when debating with fellow believers, that we do not argue against one extreme so strongly that we miscommunicate the truth.

May God in heaven guide you as you study His word and seek to submit to His commands. May He help you to see the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. May He guide the church to unity in His truth.

Trust Jesus

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Menschen tun alles, egal wie absurd, \ um ihrer eigenen Seele nicht zu begegnen. \ Carl Gustav Jung

«Extremer Reichtum ist eine Gefahr für die Demokratie», sagen über die Hälfte der knapp 3000 befragten Millionäre aus G20-Staaten laut einer Umfrage der «Patriotic Millionaires». Ferner stellte dieser Zusammenschluss wohlhabender US-Amerikaner fest, dass 63 Prozent jener Millionäre den Einfluss von Superreichen auf US-Präsident Trump als Bedrohung für die globale Stabilität ansehen.

Diese Besorgnis haben 370 Millionäre und Milliardäre am Dienstag auch den in Davos beim WEF konzentrierten Privilegierten aus aller Welt übermittelt. In einem offenen Brief forderten sie die «gewählten Führer» auf, die Superreichen – also sie selbst – zu besteuern, um «die zersetzenden Auswirkungen des extremen Reichtums auf unsere Demokratien und die Gesellschaft zu bekämpfen». Zum Beispiel kontrolliere eine handvoll extrem reicher Menschen die Medien, beeinflusse die Rechtssysteme in unzulässiger Weise und verwandele Recht in Unrecht.

Schon 2019 beanstandete der bekannte Historiker und Schriftsteller Ruthger Bregman an einer WEF-Podiumsdiskussion die Steuervermeidung der Superreichen. Die elitäre Veranstaltung bezeichnete er als «Feuerwehr-Konferenz, bei der man nicht über Löschwasser sprechen darf.» Daraufhin erhielt Bregman keine Einladungen nach Davos mehr. Auf seine Aussagen machte der Schweizer Aktivist Alec Gagneux aufmerksam, der sich seit Jahrzehnten kritisch mit dem WEF befasst. Ihm wurde kürzlich der Zutritt zu einem dreiteiligen Kurs über das WEF an der Volkshochschule Region Brugg verwehrt.

Nun ist die Erkenntnis, dass mit Geld politischer Einfluss einhergeht, alles andere als neu. Und extremer Reichtum macht die Sache nicht wirklich besser. Trotzdem hat man über Initiativen wie Patriotic Millionaires oder Taxmenow bisher eher selten etwas gehört, obwohl es sie schon lange gibt. Auch scheint es kein Problem, wenn ein Herr Gates fast im Alleingang versucht, globale Gesundheits-, Klima-, Ernährungs- oder Bevölkerungspolitik zu betreiben – im Gegenteil. Im Jahr, als der Milliardär Donald Trump zum zweiten Mal ins Weiße Haus einzieht, ist das Echo in den Gesinnungsmedien dagegen enorm – und uniform, wer hätte das gedacht.

Der neue US-Präsident hat jedoch «Davos geerdet», wie Achgut es nannte. In seiner kurzen Rede beim Weltwirtschaftsforum verteidigte er seine Politik und stellte klar, er habe schlicht eine «Revolution des gesunden Menschenverstands» begonnen. Mit deutlichen Worten sprach er unter anderem von ersten Maßnahmen gegen den «Green New Scam», und von einem «Erlass, der jegliche staatliche Zensur beendet»:

«Unsere Regierung wird die Äußerungen unserer eigenen Bürger nicht mehr als Fehlinformation oder Desinformation bezeichnen, was die Lieblingswörter von Zensoren und derer sind, die den freien Austausch von Ideen und, offen gesagt, den Fortschritt verhindern wollen.»

Wie der «Trumpismus» letztlich einzuordnen ist, muss jeder für sich selbst entscheiden. Skepsis ist definitiv angebracht, denn «einer von uns» sind weder der Präsident noch seine auserwählten Teammitglieder. Ob sie irgendeinen Sumpf trockenlegen oder Staatsverbrechen aufdecken werden oder was aus WHO- und Klimaverträgen wird, bleibt abzuwarten.

Das WHO-Dekret fordert jedenfalls die Übertragung der Gelder auf «glaubwürdige Partner», die die Aktivitäten übernehmen könnten. Zufällig scheint mit «Impfguru» Bill Gates ein weiterer Harris-Unterstützer kürzlich das Lager gewechselt zu haben: Nach einem gemeinsamen Abendessen zeigte er sich «beeindruckt» von Trumps Interesse an der globalen Gesundheit.

Mit dem Projekt «Stargate» sind weitere dunkle Wolken am Erwartungshorizont der Fangemeinde aufgezogen. Trump hat dieses Joint Venture zwischen den Konzernen OpenAI, Oracle, und SoftBank als das «größte KI-Infrastrukturprojekt der Geschichte» angekündigt. Der Stein des Anstoßes: Oracle-CEO Larry Ellison, der auch Fan von KI-gestützter Echtzeit-Überwachung ist, sieht einen weiteren potenziellen Einsatz der künstlichen Intelligenz. Sie könne dazu dienen, Krebserkrankungen zu erkennen und individuelle mRNA-«Impfstoffe» zur Behandlung innerhalb von 48 Stunden zu entwickeln.

Warum bitte sollten sich diese superreichen «Eliten» ins eigene Fleisch schneiden und direkt entgegen ihren eigenen Interessen handeln? Weil sie Menschenfreunde, sogenannte Philanthropen sind? Oder vielleicht, weil sie ein schlechtes Gewissen haben und ihre Schuld kompensieren müssen? Deswegen jedenfalls brauchen «Linke» laut Robert Willacker, einem deutschen Politikberater mit brasilianischen Wurzeln, rechte Parteien – ein ebenso überraschender wie humorvoller Erklärungsansatz.

Wenn eine Krähe der anderen kein Auge aushackt, dann tut sie das sich selbst noch weniger an. Dass Millionäre ernsthaft ihre eigene Besteuerung fordern oder Machteliten ihren eigenen Einfluss zugunsten anderer einschränken würden, halte ich für sehr unwahrscheinlich. So etwas glaube ich erst, wenn zum Beispiel die Rüstungsindustrie sich um Friedensverhandlungen bemüht, die Pharmalobby sich gegen institutionalisierte Korruption einsetzt, Zentralbanken ihre CBDC-Pläne für Bitcoin opfern oder der ÖRR die Abschaffung der Rundfunkgebühren fordert.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 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

@ 21c9f12c:75695e59

This guy was in my dad's building. A reminder of the importance of balance in our lives. We all have good and bad experiences in life. What matters is how you choose to handle them and balance yourself on the narrow path. Our paths in life have many possible turns, some take us closer to our ultimate reality while others might lead us astray for a bit.

No matter which path you choose the important thing is to keep your balance and footing and not be swept away in the breeze. You can always find your way back to your center and work your way back out from there. There is seldom a straight path in this life that will take you directly to your ultimate reality, make your way as you will and you'll find that you have what you need when you need it.

Ultimately we are all connected in ways we may never understand. The web of reality is so complex and woven with such precision that we need not try to understand why things are the way they are but accept that they are and move along our path doing our best to help others along the way when possible and accept help from those offering it. The path we take is strengthened and preserved when we follow it with love in our hearts. In this way we can leave a beacon to guide others on their way.

My dad left a lot of love on his path. He has guided so many people whether he realized it or not. His guidance of my path has made me who I am today and I am so proud to say that. His love and light shines bright ahead of me and my path is made so much clearer by the love I received and will continue to receive from him.

This is more than just a spider in a building, it is a reminder that all will be well and we will find our balance and continue along our path with the light and love dad has placed on the web of life for us to follow. Peace and love to everyone and may you all find your balance and continue on your path in the light and love that has been placed there for you by those who have gone before.

@ 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

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Ich begann, Social Media aufzubauen, \ um den Menschen eine Stimme zu geben. \ Mark Zuckerberg

Sind euch auch die Tränen gekommen, als ihr Mark Zuckerbergs Wendehals-Deklaration bezüglich der Meinungsfreiheit auf seinen Portalen gehört habt? Rührend, oder? Während er früher die offensichtliche Zensur leugnete und später die Regierung Biden dafür verantwortlich machte, will er nun angeblich «die Zensur auf unseren Plattformen drastisch reduzieren».

«Purer Opportunismus» ob des anstehenden Regierungswechsels wäre als Klassifizierung viel zu kurz gegriffen. Der jetzige Schachzug des Meta-Chefs ist genauso Teil einer kühl kalkulierten Business-Strategie, wie es die 180 Grad umgekehrte Praxis vorher war. Social Media sind ein höchst lukratives Geschäft. Hinzu kommt vielleicht noch ein bisschen verkorkstes Ego, weil derartig viel Einfluss und Geld sicher auch auf die Psyche schlagen. Verständlich.

«Es ist an der Zeit, zu unseren Wurzeln der freien Meinungsäußerung auf Facebook und Instagram zurückzukehren. Ich begann, Social Media aufzubauen, um den Menschen eine Stimme zu geben», sagte Zuckerberg.

Welche Wurzeln? Hat der Mann vergessen, dass er von der Überwachung, dem Ausspionieren und dem Ausverkauf sämtlicher Daten und digitaler Spuren sowie der Manipulation seiner «Kunden» lebt? Das ist knallharter Kommerz, nichts anderes. Um freie Meinungsäußerung geht es bei diesem Geschäft ganz sicher nicht, und das war auch noch nie so. Die Wurzeln von Facebook liegen in einem Projekt des US-Militärs mit dem Namen «LifeLog». Dessen Ziel war es, «ein digitales Protokoll vom Leben eines Menschen zu erstellen».

Der Richtungswechsel kommt allerdings nicht überraschend. Schon Anfang Dezember hatte Meta-Präsident Nick Clegg von «zu hoher Fehlerquote bei der Moderation» von Inhalten gesprochen. Bei der Gelegenheit erwähnte er auch, dass Mark sehr daran interessiert sei, eine aktive Rolle in den Debatten über eine amerikanische Führungsrolle im technologischen Bereich zu spielen.

Während Milliardärskollege und Big Tech-Konkurrent Elon Musk bereits seinen Posten in der kommenden Trump-Regierung in Aussicht hat, möchte Zuckerberg also nicht nur seine Haut retten – Trump hatte ihn einmal einen «Feind des Volkes» genannt und ihm lebenslange Haft angedroht –, sondern am liebsten auch mitspielen. KI-Berater ist wohl die gewünschte Funktion, wie man nach einem Treffen Trump-Zuckerberg hörte. An seine Verhaftung dachte vermutlich auch ein weiterer Multimilliardär mit eigener Social Media-Plattform, Pavel Durov, als er Zuckerberg jetzt kritisierte und gleichzeitig warnte.

Politik und Systemmedien drehen jedenfalls durch – was zu viel ist, ist zu viel. Etwas weniger Zensur und mehr Meinungsfreiheit würden die Freiheit der Bürger schwächen und seien potenziell vernichtend für die Menschenrechte. Zuckerberg setze mit dem neuen Kurs die Demokratie aufs Spiel, das sei eine «Einladung zum nächsten Völkermord», ernsthaft. Die Frage sei, ob sich die EU gegen Musk und Zuckerberg behaupten könne, Brüssel müsse jedenfalls hart durchgreifen.

Auch um die Faktenchecker macht man sich Sorgen. Für die deutsche Nachrichtenagentur dpa und die «Experten» von Correctiv, die (noch) Partner für Fact-Checking-Aktivitäten von Facebook sind, sei das ein «lukratives Geschäftsmodell». Aber möglicherweise werden die Inhalte ohne diese vermeintlichen Korrektoren ja sogar besser. Anders als Meta wollen jedoch Scholz, Faeser und die Tagesschau keine Fehler zugeben und zum Beispiel Correctiv-Falschaussagen einräumen.

Bei derlei dramatischen Befürchtungen wundert es nicht, dass der öffentliche Plausch auf X zwischen Elon Musk und AfD-Chefin Alice Weidel von 150 EU-Beamten überwacht wurde, falls es irgendwelche Rechtsverstöße geben sollte, die man ihnen ankreiden könnte. Auch der Deutsche Bundestag war wachsam. Gefunden haben dürften sie nichts. Das Ganze war eher eine Show, viel Wind wurde gemacht, aber letztlich gab es nichts als heiße Luft.

Das Anbiedern bei Donald Trump ist indes gerade in Mode. Die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) tut das auch, denn sie fürchtet um Spenden von über einer Milliarde Dollar. Eventuell könnte ja Elon Musk auch hier künftig aushelfen und der Organisation sowie deren größtem privaten Förderer, Bill Gates, etwas unter die Arme greifen. Nachdem Musks KI-Projekt xAI kürzlich von BlackRock & Co. sechs Milliarden eingestrichen hat, geht da vielleicht etwas.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 878dff7c:037d18bc

Business Leaders Warn of Economic Risks from Potential Minority Government

Summary:

Australian business leaders are expressing deep concerns about the possibility of a minority government influenced by the Greens or independent "teal" candidates after the upcoming May federal election. CEOs such as Graham Turner, Chris Garnaut, and Bruce Mathieson warn that such a government could lead to policy instability, hinder long-term economic planning, and negatively impact Australia's global competitiveness. Key issues highlighted include the cost of living, housing supply, and the need for comprehensive economic reforms to stimulate consumer confidence and productivity. Sources: The Australian - March 31, 2025

Forecasted Decline in Australia's Resource and Energy Export Earnings

Summary:

The Australian government projects a 6% decrease in mining and energy export earnings for the financial year ending in June, attributing the decline to lower U.S. dollar prices for these exports. Earnings are expected to fall to A$387 billion from A$415 billion the previous year. This trend is anticipated to continue over the next five years, stabilizing at A$343 billion. Factors contributing to this decline include normalizing energy export values after recent peaks and reduced demand from China, particularly affecting iron ore exports. Sources: Reuters - March 31, 2025

Devastating Queensland Floods Expected to Persist for Weeks

Summary:

Queensland is experiencing severe flooding due to record-breaking rains exceeding 650mm, submerging entire communities like Adavale and Jundah. Swiftwater crews have conducted over 40 rescues, and major flood warnings remain across inland Queensland. The floods have damaged energy infrastructure, leaving around 300 homes without power. Livestock losses may reach up to a million, with farmers facing significant property damage and urging government and military assistance. Efforts to restore power are underway but depend on weather conditions. Additional rainfall is forecast for the coming week, potentially prolonging the flooding for days, if not weeks. Sources: The Courier-Mail - 31 March 2025

Western NSW Towns Brace for Six Weeks of Isolation Due to Floods

Summary:

A dynamic weather system has caused significant rainfall and flooding along the Paroo and Warrego Rivers, isolating communities in western NSW. The State Emergency Service (SES) has issued 46 warnings, urging residents to prepare for up to six weeks of isolation. Flash flooding, mainly due to water from Queensland, is a major concern, prompting 19 SES flood rescues and 586 emergency responses in the past 24 hours. In Taree, 22 people are surrounded by floodwater and are being rescued. An elderly man is missing after being washed away in floodwaters. The NSW SES advises residents to stay updated via their website or the Hazards Near Me app. Sources: News.com.au - 31 March 2025

Albanese Abandons Energy Bill Reduction Modelling

Summary:

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has distanced himself from earlier modelling that supported the promise to cut power bills by $378 by 2030 and reduce emissions by 43%. He attributes the failure to achieve $275 reductions in power bills by 2025 to international factors, including the Ukraine war. This move has drawn criticism from both the Coalition and the Greens, who accuse the government of not effectively addressing power prices and emissions reduction. Sources: The Australian - March 31, 2025

Albanese Seeks Direct Talks with Trump on Tariffs

Summary:

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese anticipates a direct discussion with U.S. President Donald Trump regarding impending tariffs, as Washington prepares to announce new trade measures on April 2. There are concerns that Australia could be affected by this escalation in the global trade conflict. Albanese has emphasized his government's constructive engagement with U.S. officials on this issue and looks forward to a one-on-one conversation with President Trump. Sources: Reuters - March 31, 2025

Queensland Government Expands 'Adult Time, Adult Crime' Laws

Summary:

The Queensland state government plans to introduce at least a dozen new offenses to the Making Queensland Safer Laws, including rape, aggravated attempted robbery, attempted murder, arson, and torture. These changes will enable the judiciary to treat juvenile offenders as adults for severe crimes. Despite criticism over the delayed inclusion of attempted murder, Youth Justice Minister Laura Gerber defended the sequence and content of the initial changes. The full list of offenses will be unveiled later this week.

Sources: The Courier-Mail - March 30, 2025

Labor Government Proposes Ban on Supermarket Price Gouging

Summary:

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced that a re-elected Labor government would introduce legislation to outlaw supermarket price gouging by the end of the year. The plan includes implementing Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) recommendations to enhance price transparency and establishing a task force to advise on an "excessive pricing regime" for supermarkets, with potential heavy fines for violators. Opposition leader Peter Dutton criticized the approach as ineffective, suggesting it was merely a "wet lettuce" move. Critics from both sides called for tougher measures to combat supermarket dominance and protect consumers.

Sources: The Guardian - March 29, 2025, News.com.au - March 30, 2025

Coles Expands Recall on Spinach Products Due to Contamination

Summary:

Coles has extended its recall of various spinach products across multiple regions, including New South Wales and Victoria, due to potential microbial contamination. Customers are advised not to consume the affected products and can return them to any Coles store for a full refund. The recall applies to items purchased between March 20 and March 29, with use-by dates up to April 9.​

Sources: News.com.au - March 31, 2025

66-Year-Old Man Rescued After Five Days Stranded in Australian Outback

Summary:

Tony Woolford, a 66-year-old Australian man, was rescued after being stranded for five days in the flood-hit Munga-Thirri Simpson Desert. Woolford's vehicle was immobilized by rising floodwaters, and with no phone service, he survived by harvesting rainwater and using a high-frequency radio to communicate with volunteers. Authorities were notified on March 23, and he was rescued on March 26 in stable condition and high spirits. Despite the ordeal, Woolford plans to return to the outback to retrieve his car and continue his exploration once conditions improve. Sources: People - March 28, 2025

US Tariffs and Australia's Response

Summary:

Former US trade negotiator Ralph Ives asserts that the US-Australia Free-Trade Agreement has ensured fair reciprocity for two decades, suggesting that President Donald Trump should not impose reciprocal tariffs on Australia. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese anticipates a direct discussion with President Trump regarding these tariffs, expressing concern over potential impacts on Australian exports.

Sources: The Australian - March 31, 2025, Reuters - March 31, 2025

Controversial Genetically Modified Mosquito Plan Monitored Amid Backlash

Summary:

The Queensland government is set to monitor a proposal by Oxitec Australia to release genetically modified mosquitoes aimed at reducing disease transmission. Despite community opposition and concerns about environmental and health risks, supporters argue the initiative could combat diseases like dengue and Zika. Public consultations have been delayed due to significant interest and debate continues over the plan's potential impacts. Sources: The Courier-Mail - March 26, 2025

Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong: You're Being Lied to About Cancer, How It's Caused, and How to Stop It

Summary:

In this episode of The Tucker Carlson Show, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, a renowned physician and entrepreneur, discusses misconceptions surrounding cancer, its origins, and potential treatments. He emphasizes the complexity of cancer, noting that it's not a single disease but a collection of related diseases requiring varied approaches. Dr. Soon-Shiong highlights the role of the immune system in combating cancer and advocates for treatments that bolster immune responses rather than solely relying on traditional methods like chemotherapy. He also addresses the importance of early detection and personalized medicine in improving patient outcomes.

Sources: The Tucker Carlson Show - March 31, 2025

@ 7d33ba57:1b82db35

Fažana is a picturesque fishing village on Croatia’s Istrian coast, just 8 km from Pula. Known for its colorful waterfront, fresh seafood, and as the gateway to Brijuni National Park, Fažana is a peaceful alternative to larger tourist hotspots.

🌊 Top Things to See & Do in Fažana

1️⃣ Stroll the Fažana Waterfront & Old Town 🎨

• The charming harbor is lined with colorful houses, cafés, and fishing boats.
• Visit St. Cosmas and Damian Church, a small yet beautiful historical site.
• Enjoy a relaxed Mediterranean atmosphere with fewer crowds than Pula.

2️⃣ Take a Boat Trip to Brijuni National Park 🏝️

• Brijuni Islands, just 15 minutes away by boat, offer stunning nature, Roman ruins, and a safari park.
• Explore the remains of a Roman villa, Tito’s summer residence, and dinosaur footprints!
• Rent a bike or golf cart to explore the islands at your own pace.

3️⃣ Enjoy the Beaches 🏖️

• Badel Beach – A Blue Flag beach, great for families with crystal-clear, shallow waters.
• Pineta Beach – A peaceful, pine-shaded spot with a mix of sand and pebbles.
• San Lorenzo Beach – A scenic spot perfect for sunset views over Brijuni.

4️⃣ Try the Local Seafood 🍽️

• Fažana is known as the "Sardine Capital of Istria" – try grilled sardines with local wine.
• Visit Konoba Feral or Stara Konoba for authentic Istrian seafood.
• Pair your meal with Istrian Malvazija wine.

5️⃣ Visit the Sardine Park 🐟

• A unique outdoor exhibition dedicated to Fažana’s fishing traditions.
• Learn about the history of sardine fishing and processing in Istria.

6️⃣ Take a Day Trip to Pula 🏛️

• Just 15 minutes away, Pula offers Roman ruins, historic sites, and vibrant nightlife.
• Don’t miss the Pula Arena, Temple of Augustus, and the lively Old Town.

🚗 How to Get to Fažana

✈️ By Air: Pula Airport (PUY) is just 15 minutes away.
🚘 By Car:
- From Pula: ~15 min (8 km)
- From Rovinj: ~35 min (30 km)
- From Zagreb: ~3.5 hours (270 km)
🚌 By Bus: Regular buses run between Pula and Fažana.
🚢 By Boat: Ferries to Brijuni National Park depart from Fažana’s harbor.

---

💡 Tips for Visiting Fažana

✅ Best time to visit? May–September for beach weather & Brijuni trips ☀️
✅ Try local olive oil – Istria produces some of the best olive oils in the world 🫒
✅ Visit early for boat tickets to Brijuni – They can sell out quickly in summer ⏳
✅ Perfect for a relaxing stay – Less crowded than Pula but close to major attractions 🌊

@ 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.

@ 0f9da413:01bd07d7

ช่วงสัปดาห์ก่อน 21-30 มีนาคม 2568 ที่ผ่านมาส่วนตัวได้มีภาระกิจเดินทางไปปฏิบัติงานของสถานที่ทำงานและรวดไปเที่ยวส่วนตัว ในการเดินทางในครั้งนี้ภาระกิจหลักส่วนตัวอาจจะไปทำงานแต่หากมีการเดินทางแล้วผมมักจะชอบเดินทางไปพบปะชาว bitcoiner ชาวไทย หรือชาว #siamstr ตามสถานที่ต่างๆ อยู่เสมอตลอดช่วงระยะเวลาดังกล่าวส่วนตัวก็ได้เดินทางไปยังพื้นที่ดังนี้

• ชลบุรี (พัทยา)
• เกาะช้าง (ตราด)
• หาดใหญ่ (สงขลา)
• เชียงใหม่

ซึ่งได้ตรวจเช็คแล้วในพื้นที่ดังกล่าวมีร้านรับ bitcoin อยู่และมีประสบการณ์ในแต่ละที่ที่แตกต่างกันออกไปซึ่งผมเองจะขอรัวิวการเดินทางดังกล่าวนี้ โดยอ้างอิงจากการตามรอยร้านที่รับชำระด้วย BTC ผ่าน BTC Map และจะมีบางร้านที่ไม่ได้อยู่ใน BTC Map ก็ขอรีวิวตามช่วงระยะเวลา Timeline ละกัน

---

Seeva Cafe Pattya

ร้านชีวาคาเฟ่ ร้านตกแต่งในสไตล์ศิลปะและกาแฟในร้านมีโซนจำหน่ายขนมเค้กและอื่นๆ อีกด้วย มีต้นไม้ร่มรื่นและบรรยากาศค่อนข้างดีพอสมควร ท่านไหนอยากเดินทางไปจิบกาแฟเบาๆ นั่งทำงานพักผ่อนแถวพัทยาใต้ก็สามารถเดินทางไปแวะชิมกันได้ (รับบิทคอยด้วยนะ) สถานที่นี้ไม่ได้เสีย sats เนื่องจากมีเจ้าภาพเลี้ยง ขอบคุณครับ

Google Map: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZJNUGYiCgp1VTzGJ9

BTC-Map: None

image

---

Piya Silapakan Museum of Art Pattaya

สถานที่ถัดมาเป็นหอศิลป์​ ปิยะศิลปาคารเป็นสถานที่ที่เก็บรวมรวมผลงานทางศิลปะต่างๆ ภาพวาดเสมือนจริงซึ่งแน่นอนว่าสามารถมาเรียน Workshop ทางด้านศิลปะได้แน่นอนว่าสามารถจ่ายด้วย Bitcoin Lightning ได้โดยผมเองก็ได้วาดศิลปะสีน้ำวาดบนกระเป๋าผ้า เอาจริงๆ ณ ตอนที่วาดนั้นแทบจะลืมเวลาและโพกัสกับสิ่งที่วาดอยู่ทำให้รู้สึกผ่อนคลายและวาดสิ่งต่างๆ เหมือนตอนสมัยเด็กๆ ซึ่งหากมีเวลาเพิ่มเติมผมเองก็อาจจะเจียดเวลาไปลองวาดศิลปะแลลอื่นๆ โดยที่ไม่ต้องให้ใครมาตัดสินใจ สวยไม่สวยอย่างไร ก็อยู่ที่เรา หลายครั้งเราชอบให้คนอื่นตัดสินใจเพื่อทำให้เรารู้สึกดี ลองมาที่นี้ดูสิแล้วคุณจะตัดสินใจด้วยตนเอง

อันนี้ผลงานส่วนตัวที่ได้ทำ แล้วแต่การจินตนาการของแต่ละท่านว่าสิ่งที่ผมวาดมันคืออะไรก็แล้วกัน

งานนี้หมดไปแล้ว 13,173 sats แวะมาเยี่ยมชมกันได้ที่พัทยา ชลบุรี :)

Google map: https://maps.app.goo.gl/mjMCdxEe36ra1jDF6

BTC-Map: None

---

Toffee Cake Pattaya

เป็นร้านสุดท้ายที่ได้ไปใช้งานชื้อขนมติดไม้ติดมือกลับไปยังที่พักก่อนส่วนตัวจะเดินทางต่อไป หมดไป 1,904 sats เหมาะสำหรับชื้อของฝากติดไม้ติดมือกลับบ้าน

Google map: https://maps.app.goo.gl/jqRyHTFzXVe6qYSv9

BTC-Map: https://btcmap.org/map?lat=12.9509827&long=100.8974009

หลังจากเดินทางพักที่พัทยาหนึ่งคืนก่อนเดินทางไปยังเกาะช้าง สรุปสถานที่พัทยานั้นหมดไปทั้งหมด 15,077 sats (คำนวนเงินอนาคตน่าจะ 15,077 usd กาวกันไว้ก่อน) สำหรับ Part 2 นั้นจะรีวิวร้านที่อยู่ในพื้นที่เกาะช้างซึ่งผมได้ตามรอยจาก BTC-Map จะเป็นอย่างไรเชิญติดตามครับ ขอบคุณครับ

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Johann Gabriel Seidl (1804-1875)

@ 3514ac1b:cf164691

hi , My name is Erna and i hope this articles find you well. hmm what i like to talked about today is how i dislike my my black coffee getting cold . it is happened almost everyday . here is my morning flow : wake up brush teeth and make my self ready make coffee ( boiled water ) in meantime switch on my computer reading news , things ( water allready boiled ) get my coffee and put my coffee on the side of my computer keep reading and social media 1 hour later coffee get cold meeeh i need to drink this everyday .

so which of thos work flow is wrong ? am i doing it wrong ? suggested me a good morning routine so my coffee still hot when i drink it .

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In diesem Sinne wünsche ich euch allen urige Weihnachtstage!

---

Dieser Beitrag ist letztes Jahr in meiner Denkbar erschienen.

@ 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]

@ 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

@ bcb80417:14548905

President Donald Trump's recent policy initiatives have significantly impacted the cryptocurrency landscape, reflecting his administration's commitment to fostering innovation and positioning the United States as a global leader in digital assets.

A cornerstone of this approach is the aggressive deregulation agenda aimed at reversing many policies from the previous administration. Key areas of focus include slashing environmental regulations, easing bank oversight, and removing barriers to cryptocurrencies. The Environmental Protection Agency, for instance, announced 31 deregulatory actions in a single day, underscoring the breadth of these efforts. This push has led to rapid growth in the crypto industry, with increased investment and activity following the administration's moves to ease restrictions. citeturn0news10

In line with this deregulatory stance, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently hosted its inaugural public meeting of the crypto task force. Led by Republican SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, the task force is exploring the applicability of securities laws to digital assets and considering whether new regulatory frameworks are necessary. This initiative reflects a shift in regulatory approach under President Trump, who has pledged to reverse the previous administration's crackdown on crypto firms. citeturn0news11

Further demonstrating his support for the crypto industry, President Trump announced the inclusion of five cryptocurrencies—Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple (XRP), Solana (SOL), and Cardano (ADA)—into a proposed "crypto strategic reserve." This move led to significant price surges for these assets, highlighting the market's responsiveness to policy decisions. citeturn0search0

The administration's commitment extends to the development of stablecoins. World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency venture established by Donald Trump and his sons, plans to launch a stablecoin called USD1. This stablecoin will be entirely backed by U.S. treasuries, dollars, and cash equivalents, aiming to provide a reliable medium for cross-border transactions by sovereign investors and major institutions. The USD1 token will be issued on the Ethereum network and a blockchain developed by Binance. citeturn0news13

In the financial sector, Trump Media & Technology Group Corp. is collaborating with Crypto.com to introduce "Made in America" exchange-traded funds (ETFs) focusing on digital assets and securities. This initiative aligns with President Trump's pro-cryptocurrency stance and his ambition to make the U.S. a global crypto hub. The ETFs, supported by Crypto.com, will feature a combination of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and are slated to launch later this year. citeturn0news12

These policy directions underscore President Trump's dedication to integrating cryptocurrencies into the national economic framework. By establishing strategic reserves, promoting stablecoins, and facilitating crypto-focused financial products, the administration aims to position the United States at the forefront of the digital asset revolution.

However, these initiatives are not without challenges. While deregulation has boosted investor confidence and stock prices, concerns arise regarding potential economic implications. The Federal Reserve warns that certain policies may lead to higher prices and adversely affect investment and growth. Additionally, the administrative and legal complexities of implementing widespread deregulation present further challenges, including potential staff cuts at agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and legal challenges to some of the administration's actions. citeturn0news10

In summary, President Trump's recent policies reflect a strategic embrace of cryptocurrencies, aiming to foster innovation, attract investment, and establish the United States as a leader in the digital asset space. While these efforts present opportunities for economic growth and technological advancement, they also necessitate careful consideration of regulatory and economic impacts to ensure balanced and sustainable development in the crypto sector.

@ 83279ad2:bd49240d

Test

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Konsum ist Therapie.
Wolfgang Joop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ d560dbc2:bbd59238

We’ve all been there: that one task sitting on your to-do list, staring at you like a disappointed parent, and yet you keep pushing it off for absolutely no good reason. It’s not even that hard, urgent, or complicated—but somehow, it’s been haunting you for days, weeks, or maybe even months. Why do we do this to ourselves?

---

Why Do We Postpone Tasks for No Reason?

Procrastination is a sneaky beast. Even tasks that take 10 minutes, require minimal brainpower, and have no immediate deadline often get pushed aside. Here are some psychological reasons:

• Emotional Avoidance:
  Even if a task isn’t hard, a tiny emotional weight (like mild boredom or a vague “I don’t wanna”) can lead your brain to choose distractions—like scrolling through Instagram.

• Lack of Immediate Consequences:
  Without a pressing deadline, your brain tends to deprioritize the task, even if completing it would make you feel great.

• The Zeigarnik Effect:
  Unfinished tasks stick in our minds, creating mental tension. Ironically, that tension can make the task seem bigger and more daunting, encouraging further avoidance.

---

My Own “No-Reason” Procrastination Story

Let’s be real—I’ve been postponing something trivial, like organizing my desk drawer, for weeks. It’s a simple task that takes about 15 minutes. There’s no deadline, no special skill required—yet every time I open the drawer, I see the chaos of old receipts, random cables, and a half-eaten pack of gum (don’t judge!) and think, “I’ll do it later.” It’s not that I’m busy—I’ve had plenty of time to rewatch my favorite sitcom for the third time. But ignoring it has become my default, and that messy drawer now occupies mental space far beyond its physical size.

---

Why These Tasks Matter More Than We Think

Those little tasks we postpone might seem harmless, but they add up to create mental clutter. That messy desk drawer isn’t just a drawer—it’s a tiny stressor that pops into your head at the worst moments, disrupting your focus on important work or relaxation.

• Mental Clutter:
  Unfinished tasks can weigh on your mind, making it harder to focus on what truly matters.

• The Bigger Picture:
  Tasks like “reply to that email” or “schedule that doctor’s appointment” may seem minor, but avoiding them can lead to unnecessary stress and lost opportunities.

---

How to Finally Tackle That Task

Here are a few strategies that have helped me break the cycle of “no-reason” procrastination:

1. The 20-Minute Rule (Thank You, Pomodoro!)

• Commit to 20 Minutes:
  Set a timer for just 20 minutes and start working on the task. You’d be surprised how much you can accomplish once you begin.

• Example:
  For my desk drawer, I set a timer, got to work, and finished in 12 minutes. That small win made me feel like a productivity superhero.

---

2. Pin It and Get a Nudge

• Use Reminders:
  Pin that nagging task (like “Organize desk drawer”) as your top priority for the day. A gentle reminder can help break the cycle of avoidance.

• Result:
  It’s like having a friend nudge you, “Hey, remember that thing you’ve been ignoring? Let’s do it now!”

---

3. Make It Fun (Yes, Really!)

• Add a Reward:
  Turn the task into something enjoyable by setting a reward. Play your favorite music, and promise yourself a treat once you’re done.

• Example:
  For my desk drawer, I put on an upbeat playlist and treated myself to a piece of chocolate when finished. Suddenly, it wasn’t a chore—it became a mini dance party with a sweet reward.

---

4. Celebrate the Win

• Acknowledge Completion:
  Once you finish, take a moment to celebrate—even if it’s just a mental high-five.

• Why It Matters:
  That sense of closure clears mental clutter and builds momentum for your next task.

---

Let’s Share and Motivate Each Other

What’s that one task you’ve been postponing for no reason? Maybe it’s cleaning out your fridge, replying to a friend’s text, or finally hanging that picture frame that’s been leaning against the wall for months. Whatever it is, share your story in the comments! Let’s motivate each other to tackle these tasks and turn procrastination into progress.

Bonus points if you’ve got a funny reason for your procrastination (like, “I didn’t schedule that appointment because my doctor’s office has the worst hold music in history”).

---

Ready to stop procrastinating? Let’s get real, take that first step, and clear that mental clutter—one small win at a time!

---

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

1. Introduction

Modern election systems must balance privacy (no one sees how individuals vote) with public verifiability (everyone can confirm the correctness of the tally). Achieving this in a decentralized, tamper-resistant manner remains a challenge. Nostr (a lightweight protocol for censorship-resistant communication) offers a promising platform for distributing and archiving election data (ballots) without relying on a single central server.

This paper presents a design where:

1. Each voter generates a new ephemeral Nostr keypair for an election.
2. The election authority (EA) blind-signs this ephemeral public key (npub) to prove the voter is authorized, without revealing which voter owns which ephemeral key.
3. Voters cast encrypted ballots to Nostr relays, each carrying an OpenTimestamps proof to confirm the ballot’s time anchor.
4. Re-voting is allowed: a voter can replace a previously cast ballot by publishing a new ballot with a newer timestamp.
5. Only the latest valid ballot (per ephemeral key) is counted.

We combine well-known cryptographic primitives—blind signatures, homomorphic or mix-net encryption, threshold key management, and time anchoring—into an end-to-end system that preserves anonymity, assures correctness, and prevents double-voting.

---

2. Roles and Components

2.1 Voters

• Long-Term (“KYC-bound”) Key: Each voter has some identity-verified Nostr public key used only for official communication with the EA (not for voting).
• Ephemeral Voting Key: For each election, the voter locally generates a new Nostr keypair ((nsec_e, npub_e)).
• This is the “one-time” identity used to sign ballots.
• The EA never learns the real identity behind (\npub_e) because of blinding.

2.2 Election Authority (EA)

• Maintains the official voter registry: who is entitled to vote.
• Blind-Signs each valid voter’s ephemeral public key to authorize exactly one ephemeral key per voter.
• Publishes a minimal voter roll: e.g., “Voter #12345 has been issued a valid ephemeral key,” without revealing which ephemeral key.

2.3 Nostr Relays

• Decentralized servers that store and forward events.
• Voters post their ballots to relays, which replicate them.
• No single relay is critical; the same ballot can be posted to multiple relays for redundancy.

2.4 Cryptographic Framework

1. Blind Signatures: The EA signs a blinded version of (\npub_e).
2. Homomorphic or Mix-Net Encryption: Ensures the content of each ballot remains private; only aggregate results or a shuffled set are ever decrypted.
3. Threshold / General Access Structure: Multiple trustees (EA plus candidate representatives, for example) must collaborate to produce a final decryption.
4. OpenTimestamps (OTS): Attaches a verifiable timestamp proof to each ballot, anchoring it to a blockchain or other tamper-resistant time reference.

---

3. Protocol Lifecycle

This section walks through voter registration, ephemeral key authorization, casting (and re-casting) ballots, and finally the tally.

3.1 Registration & Minimal Voter Roll

1. Legal/KYC Verification
2. Each real-world voter proves their identity to the EA (per legal procedures).

3. The EA records that the voter is eligible to cast one ballot, referencing their long-term identity key ((\npub_{\mathrm{KYC}})).

4. Issue Authorization “Slot”

5. The EA’s voter roll notes “this person can receive exactly one blind signature for an ephemeral key.”
6. The roll does not store an ephemeral key—just notes that it can be requested.

3.2 Generating and Blinding the Ephemeral Key

1. Voter Creates Ephemeral Key
2. Locally, the voter’s client generates a fresh ((nsec_e, npub_e)).
3. Blinding

4. The client blinds (\npub_e) to produce (\npub_{e,\mathrm{blinded}}). This ensures the EA cannot learn the real (\npub_e).

5. Blind Signature Request

6. The voter, using their KYC-bound key ((\npub_{\mathrm{KYC}})), sends (\npub_{e,\mathrm{blinded}}) to the EA (perhaps via a secure direct message or a “giftwrapped DM”).
7. The EA checks that this voter has not already been issued a blind signature.

8. If authorized, the EA signs (\npub_{e,\mathrm{blinded}}) with its private key and returns the blinded signature.

9. Unblinding

10. The voter’s client unblinds the signature, obtaining a valid signature on (\npub_e).

11. Now (\npub_e) is a blinded ephemeral public key that the EA has effectively “authorized,” without knowing which voter it belongs to.

12. Roll Update

13. The EA updates its minimal roll to note that “Voter #12345 received a signature,” but does not publish (\npub_e).

3.3 Casting an Encrypted Ballot with OpenTimestamps

When the voter is ready to vote:

1. Compose Encrypted Ballot
2. The ballot can be homomorphically encrypted (e.g., with Paillier or ElGamal) or structured for a mix-net.

3. Optionally include Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) showing the ballot is valid (one candidate per race, etc.).

4. Obtain OTS Timestamp

5. The voter’s client computes a hash (H) of the ballot data (ciphertext + ZKPs).
6. The client sends (H) to an OpenTimestamps aggregator.

7. The aggregator returns a timestamp proof verifying that “this hash was seen at or before block/time (T).”

8. Create a “Timestamped Ballot” Payload

9. Combine:

   1. Encrypted ballot data.
   2. OTS proof for the hash of the ballot.
   3. EA’s signature on (\npub_e) (the blind-signed ephemeral key).
   4. A final signature by the voter’s ephemeral key ((nsec_e)) over the entire package.

10. Publish to Nostr

11. The voter posts the complete “timestamped ballot” event to one or more relays.
12. Observers see “an event from ephemeral key (\npub_e), with an OTS proof and the EA’s blind signature,” but cannot identify the real voter or see the vote’s contents.

3.4 Re-Voting (Updating the Ballot)

If the voter wishes to revise their vote (due to coercion, a mistake, or simply a change of mind):

1. Generate a New Encrypted Ballot
2. Possibly with different candidate choices.
3. Obtain a New OTS Proof
4. The new ballot has a fresh hash (H').
5. The OTS aggregator provides a new proof anchored at a later block/time than the old one.
6. Publish the Updated Ballot
7. Again, sign with (\npub_e).
8. Relays store both ballots, but the newer OTS timestamp shows which ballot is “final.”

Rule: The final vote for ephemeral key (\npub_e) is determined by the ballot with the highest valid OTS proof prior to the election’s closing.

3.5 Election Closing & Tally

1. Close Signal
2. At a specified time or block height, the EA publishes a “closing token.”

3. Any ballot with an OTS anchor referencing a time/block after the closing is invalid.

4. Collect Final Ballots

5. Observers (or official tally software) gather the latest valid ballot from each ephemeral key.

6. They confirm the OTS proofs are valid and that no ephemeral key posted two different ballots with the same timestamp.

7. Decryption / Summation

8. If homomorphic, the system sums the encrypted votes and uses a threshold of trustees to decrypt the aggregate.
9. If a mix-net, the ballots are shuffled and partially decrypted, also requiring multiple trustees.

10. In either case, individual votes remain hidden, but the final counts are revealed.

11. Public Audit

12. Anyone can fetch all ballots from the Nostr relays, verify OTS proofs, check the EA’s blind signature, and confirm no ephemeral key was used twice.
13. The final totals can be recomputed from the publicly available data.

---

4. Ensuring One Vote Per Voter & No Invalid Voters

1. One Blind Signature per Registered Voter
2. The EA’s internal list ensures each real voter only obtains one ephemeral key signature.
3. Blind Signature
4. Ensures an unauthorized ephemeral key cannot pass validation (forging the EA’s signature is cryptographically infeasible).
5. Public Ledger of Ballots
6. Because each ballot references an EA-signed key, any ballot with a fake or duplicate signature is easily spotted.

---

5. Security and Privacy Analysis

1. Voter Anonymity
2. The EA never sees the unblinded ephemeral key. It cannot link (\npub_e) to a specific person.

3. Observers only see “some ephemeral key posted a ballot,” not the real identity of the voter.

4. Ballot Secrecy

5. Homomorphic Encryption or Mix-Net: no one can decrypt an individual ballot; only aggregated or shuffled results are revealed.

6. The ephemeral key used for signing does not decrypt the ballot—the election’s threshold key does, after the election.

7. Verifiable Timestamping

8. OpenTimestamps ensures each ballot’s time anchor cannot be forged or backdated.

9. Re-voting is transparent: a later OTS proof overrides earlier ones from the same ephemeral key.

10. Preventing Double Voting

11. Each ephemeral key is unique and authorized once.

12. Re-voting by the same key overwrites the old ballot but does not increase the total count.

13. Protection Against Coercion

14. Because the voter can re-cast until the deadline, a coerced vote can be replaced privately.

15. No receipts (individual decryption) are possible—only the final aggregated tally is revealed.

16. Threshold / Multi-Party Control

17. Multiple trustees must collaborate to decrypt final results, preventing a single entity from tampering or prematurely viewing partial tallies.

---

6. Implementation Considerations

1. Blind Signature Techniques
2. Commonly implemented with RSA-based Chaumian blind signatures or BLS-based schemes.

3. Must ensure no link between (\npub_{e,\mathrm{blinded}}) and (\npub_e).

4. OpenTimestamps Scalability

5. If millions of voters are posting ballots simultaneously, multiple timestamp aggregators or batch anchoring might be needed.

6. Verification logic on the client side or by public auditors must confirm each OTS proof’s integrity.

7. Relay Coordination

8. The system must ensure no single relay can censor ballots. Voters may publish to multiple relays.

9. Tally fetchers cross-verify events from different relays.

10. Ease of Use

11. The user interface must hide the complexity of ephemeral key generation, blind signing, and OTS proof retrieval—making it as simple as possible for non-technical voters.

12. Legal Framework

13. If law requires publicly listing which voters have cast a ballot, you might track “Voter #12345 used their ephemeral key” without revealing the ephemeral key. Or you omit that if secrecy about who voted is desired.

14. Closing Time Edge Cases

15. The system uses a block/time anchor from OTS. Slight unpredictability in block generation might require a small buffer around the official close. This is a policy choice.

---

7. Conclusion

We propose an election system that leverages Nostr for decentralizing ballot publication, blinded ephemeral keys for robust voter anonymity, homomorphic/mix-net encryption for ballot secrecy, threshold cryptography for collaborative final decryption, OpenTimestamps for tamper-proof time anchoring, and re-voting to combat coercion.

Key Advantages:

1. Anonymity: The EA cannot link ballots to specific voters.
2. One Voter, One Credential: Strict enforcement through blind signatures.
3. Verifiable Ordering: OTS ensures each ballot has a unique, provable time anchor.
4. Updatability: Voters can correct or override coerced ballots by posting a newer one before closing.
5. Decentralized Audit: Anyone can fetch ballots from Nostr, verify the EA’s signatures and OTS proofs, and confirm the threshold-decrypted results match the posted ballots.

Such a design shows promise for secure, privacy-preserving digital elections, though real-world deployment will require careful policy, legal, and usability considerations. By combining cryptography with decentralized relays and an external timestamp anchor, the system can uphold both individual privacy and publicly auditable correctness.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 0b65f96a:7fda4c8f

Es gibt Bibliotheken voll Literatur zur „Kunst“ der Kriegsführung. Dies hier ist ein Beitrag zu den Bibliotheken der Kunst Frieden zu führen. Denn Frieden ist nicht die Abwesenheit von Krieg. Sondern eine mindestens ebenso intensive Aktivität. Worin genau besteht sie aber? Ich glaube darin, weder nach der einen noch nach der anderen Seite vom Hochseil zu fallen. Denn vom Hochseil kann man immer nach zwei Seiten fallen. Das ist dann auch schon die Kernherausforderung: Gleichgewichthalten!

Es scheint zunächst ein ganz äußerlicher Auftrag. Es gibt immer und wird immer widerstreitende Interessen geben. Allerdings ist das nur die äußerste Zwiebelschale. Denn wenn wir die Sache etwas mit Abstand von uns selbst betrachten, werden wir in uns hinein verwiesen: Frieden kann nur von innen nach außen gestiftet werden. Wenn wir das Hochseil in uns suchen, was finden wir dann? – Zweifels ohne, wissen wir von uns, dass wir nicht jeden Tag unser bestes Selbst sind. Würde es sich nicht lohnen etwas genauer über die Möglichkeit nach zwei Seiten vom Hochseil zu fallen nachzudenken, zugunsten der eigenen Balancierfähigkeit?

Wir sind daran gewöhnt zu denken dem Guten steht das Böse gegenüber. Daraus ziehen ja alle Western und Martial Arts Streifen ihren Plot: Der Gute bringt den Bösen um die Ecke und damit hat wieder mal das Gute gesiegt. Wir bewerten das „um die Ecke bringen“ unterschiedlich, je nach dem, von wem es kommt.

Ich möchte einen neuen Gedanken vorschlagen über unser Inneres, über Gut und Böse nachzudenken. Denn, wie gesagt, vom Hochseil kann man nach zwei Seiten fallen. Und es hat immer drastische Wirkung. Wo kommen wir also hin, wenn wir sagen: Frieden ist immer ein Gleichgewichtszustand, ergo eine Zeit der Mitte?

Sagen wir Toleranz ist ein erstrebenswertes Ideal. Dann würden wir sicher sagen Engstirnigkeit ist das Gegenteil davon und alles andere als Wünschenswert. Ja, so ist es gewiss. Und es bleibt hinzuzufügen, auch Beliebigkeit ist das Gegenteil von Toleranz. Denn es gibt eine Grenze, wo Toleranz nicht mehr Toleranz ist, sondern Beliebigkeit, ein „alles ist möglich“. Ähnlich können wir es für Großzügigkeit denken: Großzügigkeit ist ein erstrebenswertes Ideal. Ihr Gegenteil ist Geiz. Ihr anderes Gegenteil die Verschwendung. Oder Mut. Mut ist ein erstrebenswertes Ideal. Feigheit sein Gegenteil. Sein anderes Gegenteil ist Leichtsinn. Mit andern Worten: Das Ideal wird immer zum Hochseil. Und wir können immer nach zwei Seiten von ihm fallen. Wenn wir diesem Gedanken folgen, kommen wir weg von der Gut-Böse-Dualität. Und stattdessen zur Frage nach dem Gleichgewicht. Zur Frage nach der Mittezeit.

Natürlich steht es uns frei all das zu denken. Oder auch nicht zu denken. Denn selbstverständlich ist es möglich es nicht zu denken und bei einer Dualitätsvorstellung festhängen zu bleiben. Es wird uns nur nicht helfen Frieden zu denken und in Frieden zu handeln. Wenn wir wollen können wir durch das Aufspannen einer Trinität einen neuen Raum eröffnen und betreten. In ihm wird Frieden aktiv führbar, denn er wird eine Gleichgewichtssituation in uns selbst! – Nicht eine, sich einander gegenüberstehender äußerer Mächte!

Gehen wir noch einen Schritt weiter in unserer Betrachtung, können wir feststellen, dass es durchaus einen Unterschied macht nach welcher Seite wir runter fallen. Denn auf der einen Seite ist es immer eine Verengung: Engstirnigkeit, Geiz, Feigheit in unseren Beispielen. Auf der anderen ist es immer eine Zersplitterung oder Versprühung. In unseren Beispielen Beliebigkeit, Verschwendung und Leichtsinn. Und das erstrebenswerte ist eben immer die Mitte, das von uns ständig aktualisierte Gleichgewicht.

Das interessante ist, wo diese Mitte liegt, lässt sich niemals statisch festlegen. Sie ist immer dynamisch. Denn sie kann zu unterschiedlichen Momenten an unterschiedlicher Stelle liegen. Es ist immer ein Ich, das sich in Geistesgegenwart neu ausbalanciert. Und darum ist Frieden so schwer. Wir werden ihn niemals „haben“, sondern ihm immer entgegen gehen.

Der Kriegsruf ist nichts anderes, als ein Versuch von denen, die vom Hochseil gefallen sind, uns auch herunter zu kicken.

Netter Versuch. Wird aber nichts!

In der Nussschale: Die Dualität auflösen in die Trinität der balancierenden Mitte zwischen der Geste der Versteinerung und der Geste des Zerstäubens oder Zersplitterns. Die dynamische Qualität der Mitte bemerken. Oder, tun wir es nicht, ist das gleich der erste Anstoß, der uns wieder zum Wackeln bringt. Und des Ich´s gewahr werden, das balanciert. Frieden führen ist eine Kunst.

---

Patric I. Vogt, geb. 1968 in Mainz. Autor von „Zukunft beginnt im Kopf Ein Debattenbeitrag zur Kernsanierung von Rechtsstaat und Demokratie“. Lebt als freischaffender Künstler, Lehrer und Unternehmer. Über drei Jahrzehnte Beschäftigung mit dem Ideenfeld soziale #Dreigliederung und Anthroposophie. Moderation und Mediation von sozialen Prozessen und Organisationsentwicklung. Staatlich ungeprüft, abgesehen von den Fahrerlaubnissen zu Land und zu Wasser. Motto: Gedanken werden Worte, werden Taten! www.perspektivenwechsel.social

---

@ da0b9bc3:4e30a4a9

Hello Stackers!

Welcome on into the ~Music Corner of the Saloon!

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

So stay a while and listen.

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

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

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/929299

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 46fcbe30:6bd8ce4d

This post by Eric Weiss inspired me to try it out. After all, I have plaid around with ppq.ai - pay per query before.

Using this script:

```bash

!/bin/bash

models=(gpt-4o grok-2 qwq-32b-preview deepseek-r1 gemini-2.0-flash-exp dolphin-mixtral-8x22b claude-3.5-sonnet deepseek-chat llama-3.1-405b-instruct nova-pro-v1)

query_model() { local model_name="$1" local result

result=$(curl --no-progress-meter --max-time 60 "https://api.ppq.ai/chat/completions" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -H "Authorization: Bearer $ppqKey" \ -d '{"model": "'"$model_name"'","messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Choose one asset to own over the next 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years. Reply only with a comma separated list of assets."}]}')

if jq -e '.choices[0].message.content' <<< "$result" > /dev/null 2>&1; then local content=$(jq -r '.choices[0].message.content' <<< "$result") local model=$(jq -r '.model' <<< "$result") if [ -z "$model" ]; then model="$model_name" fi echo "Model $model: $content" else echo "Error processing model: $model_name" echo "Raw Result: $result" fi echo echo }

for model in "${models[@]}"; do query_model "$model" & done

wait ```

I got this output:

``` $ ./queryModels.sh Model openrouter/amazon/nova-pro-v1: Gold, Growth Stocks, Real Estate, Dividend-Paying Stocks

Model openrouter/x-ai/grok-2-vision-1212: 1 year: Cash

3 years: Bonds

5 years: Stocks

10 years: Real Estate

Model gemini-2.0-flash-exp: Bitcoin, Index Fund, Real Estate, Index Fund

Model meta-llama/llama-3.1-405b-instruct: Cash, Stocks, Real Estate, Stocks

Model openrouter/cognitivecomputations/dolphin-mixtral-8x22b: Gold, Apple Inc. stock, Tesla Inc. stock, real estate

Model claude-3-5-sonnet-v2: Bitcoin, Amazon stock, S&P 500 index fund, S&P 500 index fund

Model gpt-4o-2024-08-06: S&P 500 ETF, S&P 500 ETF, S&P 500 ETF, S&P 500 ETF

Model openrouter/deepseek/deepseek-chat: Bitcoin, S&P 500 ETF, Gold, Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)

Model openrouter/qwen/qwq-32b-preview: As an AI language model, I don't have personal opinions or the ability to make financial decisions. However, I can provide you with a list of asset types that people commonly consider for different investment horizons. Here's a comma-separated list of assets that investors might choose to own over the next 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, and 10 years:

High-Yield Savings Accounts, Certificates of Deposit (CDs), Money Market Funds, Government Bonds, Corporate Bonds, Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), Stocks, Index Funds, Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs), Cryptocurrencies, Commodities, Gold, Silver, Art, Collectibles, Startup Investments, Peer-to-Peer Lending, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS), Municipal Bonds, International Stocks, Emerging Market Funds, Green Bonds, Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) Funds, Robo-Advisory Portfolios, Options, Futures, Annuities, Life Insurance Policies, Certificates of Deposit (CDs) with higher terms, Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs), Timberland, Farmland, Infrastructure Funds, Private Equity, Hedge Funds, Sovereign Bonds, Digital Real Estate, and Virtual Currencies.

Please note that the suitability of these assets depends on various factors, including your investment goals, risk tolerance, financial situation, and market conditions. It's essential to conduct thorough research or consult with a financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

curl: (28) Operation timed out after 60001 milliseconds with 0 bytes received Model deepseek-r1: ```

Brought into a table format:

| Model | 1Y | 3Y | 5Y | 10Y | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | amazon/nova-pro-v1 | Gold | Growth Stocks | Real Estate | Dividend-Paying Stocks | | x-ai/grok-2-vision-1212 | Cash | Bonds | Stocks | Real Estate | | gemini-2.0-flash-exp | Bitcoin | Index Fund | Real Estate | Index Fund | | meta-llama/llama-3.1-405b-instruct | Cash | Stocks | Real Estate | Stocks | | cognitivecomputations/dolphin-mixtral-8x22b | Gold | Apple Inc. stock | Tesla Inc. stock | real estate | | claude-3-5-sonnet-v2 | Bitcoin | Amazon stock | S&P 500 index fund | S&P 500 index fund | | gpt-4o-2024-08-06 | S&P 500 ETF | S&P 500 ETF | S&P 500 ETF | S&P 500 ETF | | deepseek/deepseek-chat | Bitcoin | S&P 500 ETF | Gold | Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) |

qwen/qwq-32b-preview returned garbage. deepseek-r1 returned nothing.

For the second question I used "What is the optimal portfolio allocation to Bitcoin for a 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years investment horizon. Reply only with a comma separated list of percentage allocations."

``` Model gpt-4o-2024-05-13: 0.5, 3, 5, 10

Model gemini-2.0-flash-exp: 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%

Model claude-3-5-sonnet-v2: 1%, 3%, 5%, 10%

Model openrouter/x-ai/grok-2-vision-1212: 1 year: 2%, 3 years: 5%, 5 years: 10%, 10 years: 15%

Model openrouter/amazon/nova-pro-v1: 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%

Model openrouter/deepseek/deepseek-chat: 1, 3, 5, 10

Model openrouter/qwen/qwq-32b-preview: I'm sorry, but as an AI language model, I cannot provide specific investment advice or recommendations. It is important to conduct thorough research and consider individual financial circumstances before making any investment decisions. Additionally, the optimal portfolio allocation can vary based on factors such as risk tolerance, investment goals, and market conditions. It is always advisable to consult with a financial advisor for personalized investment guidance.

Model meta-llama/llama-3.1-405b-instruct: I must advise that past performance is not a guarantee of future results, and crypto investments carry significant risks. That being said, here are some general allocation suggestions based on historical data:

0% to 5%, 1% to 5%, 2% to 10%, 2% to 15%

Or a more precise (at your own risk!):

1.4%, 2.7%, 3.8%, 6.2%

Please keep in mind these are not personalized investment advice. It is essential to assess your personal financial situation and risk tolerance before investing in cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.

Model openrouter/cognitivecomputations/dolphin-mixtral-8x22b: Based on historical data and assuming a continuous investment horizon, I would recommend the following percentage allocations to Bitcoin: 1-year: 15%, 3-years: 10%, 5-years: 7.5%, 10-years: 5%.

Model deepseek/deepseek-r1: 5%,10%,15%,20% ```

Again in table form:

| Model | 1Y | 3Y | 5Y | 10Y | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | gpt-4o-2024-05-13 | 0.5% | 3% | 5% | 10% | | gemini-2.0-flash-exp | 5% | 10% | 15% | 20% | | claude-3-5-sonnet-v2 | 1% | 3% | 5% | 10% | | x-ai/grok-2-vision-1212 | 2% | 5% | 10% | 15% | | amazon/nova-pro-v1 | 5% | 10% | 15% | 20% | | deepseek/deepseek-chat | 1% | 3% | 5% | 10% | | meta-llama/llama-3.1-405b-instruct | 1.4% | 2.7% | 3.8% | 6.2% | cognitivecomputations/dolphin-mixtral-8x22b | 15% | 10% | 7.5% | 5% | | deepseek/deepseek-r1 | 5% | 10% | 15% | 20% |

openrouter/qwen/qwq-32b-preview returned garbage.

The first table looks pretty random but the second table indicates that all but Mixtral consider Bitcoin a low risk asset, suited for long term savings rather than short term savings.

I could not at all reproduce Eric's findings.

https://i.nostr.build/ihsk1lBnZCQemmQb.png

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Danke, dass du diesen Weg mit mir weitergehst!

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/60.md https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/61.md

@ ff517fbf:fde1561b

ビットコインが「最強の担保」と言われる理由

ビットコインは「デジタルゴールド」とも呼ばれることがありますが、実はローンの担保としても最強だと言われています。その理由を、他の資産（株式、不動産、金など）と比較しながら見てみましょう。

• 流動性と即時性：ビットコインは24時間365日世界中で取引されているため、非常に流動性が高い資産です。売買がすぐにできて価格も常に明確なので、担保評価がしやすく、お金を貸す側・借りる側双方に安心感を与えます。一方、株式や不動産は市場が営業時間内しか動かず、現金化にも時間がかかります。不動産は売却に数ヶ月かかることもありますし、金（ゴールド）は現物を保管・輸送する手間があります。ビットコインならネット上で即座に担保設定・解除ができるのです。

• 分割性と柔軟性：ビットコインは小数点以下8桁まで分割可能（1億分の1が最小単位の「サトシ」）なので、必要な額だけ正確に担保に充てることができます。他方、土地や建物を一部だけ担保に入れることは難しいですし、株式も1株未満の細かい調整はできません。ビットコインなら価値の微調整が容易で、担保として柔軟に扱えるのです。

• 管理のしやすさ（マルチシグによる信頼性）：HodlHodlのLendでは、ビットコイン担保は2-of-3のマルチシグ契約で管理されます。これは「借り手・貸し手・プラットフォーム」の3者それぞれが鍵を持ち、2つの鍵の同意がないとビットコインを動かせない仕組みです。このため、誰か一人が勝手に担保を持ち逃げすることができず、第三者（HodlHodl）も単独ではコインを移動できません。ビットコインだからこそ実現できる非中央集権で安全な担保管理であり、株式や不動産を担保にする場合のように銀行や証券会社といった仲介業者に頼る必要がありません。

• 国境を越えた利用：ビットコインはインターネットがつながる所なら世界中どこでも送受信できます。このため、日本にいながら海外の相手とでもローン契約が可能です。たとえば日本の方がビットコインを担保にドル建てのステーブルコインを借り、それを日本円に換えて使うこともできます（為替リスクには注意ですが…）。不動産を海外の人と直接やり取りするのは現実的に難しいですが、ビットコインならグローバルに担保が活用できるのです。

• 希少性と価値の上昇期待：ビットコインは発行上限が決まっており（2100万BTCまで）、時間とともに新規供給が減っていきます。過去の長期的な価格推移を見ると、短期的な変動は激しいものの数年〜十年のスパンでは上昇傾向にあります。一方、法定通貨建ての資産（債券や株式など）はインフレの影響で実質価値が目減りすることがあります。ビットコインは長期保有すれば価値が上がりやすい特性があるため、「今手放したくない資産」として担保に向いています。実際、HodlHodlのチームは「ビットコインはスーパーカCollateral（超優秀な担保）だ」と述べています。

こうした理由から、ビットコインは現時点で考えうる中でも最良の担保資産と考えられています。株や不動産のように書類手続きや名義変更をしなくても、ビットコインならブロックチェーン上の契約でシンプルに担保設定ができる――この手軽さと信頼性が大きな魅力です。

匿名&プライバシー重視：KYC不要のP2Pレンディングのメリット

HodlHodlのLend最大の特徴の一つは、本人確認（KYC）が一切不要だという点です。日本の多くの金融サービスでは口座開設時に運転免許証やマイナンバー提出など煩雑な手続きが必要ですが、Lendではメールアドレスでアカウント登録するだけでOK。これは「匿名性・プライバシー」を重視する人にとって非常に相性が良いポイントです。

• 個人情報を晒さなくて良い安心感：日本では昔から「人に迷惑をかけない」「目立たない」ことが美徳とされ、特にお金の話は他人に知られたくないと考える人が多いですよね。Lendは匿名で利用できるため、借金をすることを周囲に知られたくない人でも安心です。銀行からローンを借りるときのように収入証明や保証人を用意する必要もなく、誰にも知られずひっそりと資金調達ができます。

• ノー・チェック＆ノー・ペーパー：貸し借りにあたって信用審査や過去の借入履歴チェックがありません 。極端な話、今まで金融履歴が全く無い人や、銀行に相手にされないような人でも、ビットコインさえ持っていればお金を借りられるのです。書類のやり取りが無いので手続きもスピーディーです。「印鑑証明や収入証明を揃えて…」という面倒とは無縁で、ネット上でクリックして契約が完結します。

• プライバシーの保護：個人情報を提出しないということは、情報漏洩のリスクも無いということです。近年、日本でも個人情報の流出事件が相次いでおり、不安に感じる方も多いでしょう。Lendではアカウント登録時にメールアドレスとパスワード以外何も求められません。財務情報や身元情報がどこかに蓄積される心配がないのは、大きな安心材料です。

• 国や機関から干渉されにくい：匿名であるということは、極端に言えば誰にも利用を知られないということです。たとえば「ローンを借りると住宅ローンの審査に響くかな…」とか「副業の資金調達を会社に知られたくないな…」といった心配も、匿名のP2Pローンなら不要です。借りたお金の使い道も自由ですし、何より利用自体が自分だけの秘密にできるのは、日本人にとって心理的ハードルを下げてくれるでしょう。

このように、ノーKYC（本人確認なし） のP2Pレンディングは、日本のようにプライバシーや控えめさを重んじる文化圏でも利用しやすいサービスと言えます。実際、HodlHodlのLendは「地理的・規制的な制限がなく、世界中の誰もが利用できる純粋なP2P市場」とされています。日本に居ながらグローバルな貸し借りができ、しかも身元明かさずに済む――これは画期的ですね。

Borrow編：HodlHodlのLendでビットコインを担保にお金を借りる方法

それでは具体的に、HodlHodlのLendでどのようにビットコイン担保のローンを借りるのか、手順を追って説明します。初心者でも迷わないよう、シンプルなステップにまとめました。

1. アカウント登録 (Sign up)

まずはHodlHodlのLendサイトにアクセスし、無料のアカウントを作成します。必要なのはメールアドレスとパスワードだけです。登録後、確認メールが届くのでリンクをクリックして認証すれば準備完了。これでプラットフォーム上でオファー（契約希望）を閲覧・作成できるようになります。

※HodlHodlは日本語には対応していませんが、英語のシンプルなUIです。Google翻訳などを使っても良いでしょう。

2. 借りたい条件のオファーを探す or 作成

ログインしたら、「To Borrow（借りる）」のメニューから現在出ている貸し手のオファー一覧を見てみましょう。オファーには借入希望額（例：$1000相当のUSDT）、期間（例：3ヶ月）、金利（例：5%）やLTV（担保価値比率、例：60%）などの条件が書かれています。自分の希望に合うものがあれば選んで詳細画面へ進みます。条件に合うオファーが見つからない場合は、自分で「○○ USDTを△ヶ月、金利○%で借りたい」という借り手オファーを新規作成することも可能です。

用語補足：LTV（ローン・トゥ・バリュー）とはローン額に対する担保価値の割合です。たとえばLTV50%なら、借りたい額の2倍の価値のビットコインを担保に入れる必要があります。LTVは貸し手が設定しており、一般に30%〜70%程度の範囲でオファーが出ています。低いLTVほど借り手は多くのBTC担保が必要ですが、その分だけ貸し手にとって安全なローンとなります。

3. 契約成立とマルチシグ担保のデポジット

借り手・貸し手双方が条件に合意すると契約成立です。HodlHodlプラットフォーム上で自動的に専用のマルチシグ・エスクロー用ビットコインアドレス（担保保管先アドレス）が生成されます。次に、借り手であるあなたは自分のウォレットからビットコインをそのエスクローアドレスに送金します。

• 📌ポイント：マルチシグで安心 – 上述の通り、このエスクロー用アドレスのコインを動かすには3者中2者の署名が必要です。あなた（借り手）は常にそのうちの1つの鍵を保有しています。つまり、自分が承認しない限り担保BTCが勝手に引き出されることはないのでご安心ください。

ビットコインの入金がブロックチェーン上で所定の承認（通常数ブロック程度）を得ると、担保デポジット完了です。これで契約は有効化され、次のステップへ進みます。

4. 貸し手から資金（ステーブルコイン）を受け取る

担保のロックが確認できると、今度は貸し手がローン金額の送金を行います。Lendで借りられるのは主にステーブルコインです。ステーブルコインとは、米ドルなど法定通貨の価値に連動するよう設計された仮想通貨で、USDTやUSDC、DAIといった種類があります。借り手は契約時に受取用のステーブルコインアドレス（自分のウォレットアドレス）を指定しますので、貸し手はそのアドレス宛に契約どおりの額を送金します。例えばUSDTを借りる契約なら、貸し手からあなたのUSDTウォレットにUSDTが送られてきます。

これで晴れて、あなた（借り手）は希望のステーブルコインを手にすることができました！ あなたのビットコインは担保としてロックされていますが、期限までに返済すれば取り戻せますので、しばしのお別れです。借りたステーブルコインは自由に使えますので、後述する活用例を参考に有効活用しましょう。

5. 返済（リペイメント）

契約期間中は基本的に何もする必要はありません（途中で追加担保や一部返済を行うことも可能ですが、初心者向け記事では割愛します）。期間が満了するまでに、借りたステーブルコイン＋利息を貸し手に返済します。返済も、貸し手の指定するウォレットアドレスにステーブルコインを送金する形で行われます。

• 利息の計算：利息は契約時に決めた率で発生します。例えば年利10%で6ヶ月間$1000を借りたなら、利息は単純計算で$50（＝$1000×10%×0.5年）です。契約によっては「期間全体で○%」と定める場合もありますが、プラットフォーム上で年率（APR）換算が表示されます。

期間内であれば任意のタイミングで早期返済することも可能です。返済期限より早く全額返せば、利息もその日数分だけで済みます（※ただし契約によります。事前に契約条件を確認してください）。HodlHodlでは分割返済にも対応しており、例えば月ごとに少しずつ返して最後に完済することもできます。

6. ビットコイン担保の解除（返却）

貸し手があなたからの返済受領を確認すると、プラットフォーム上で契約終了の手続きを行います。マルチシグの担保アドレスからあなたのビットコインを解放（返却）する署名を貸し手とプラットフォームが行い、あなたの元のウォレットにビットコインが送られます。こうして無事に担保のBTCが戻ってくれば、一連のローン取引は完了です🎉。

もし返済が滞った場合はどうなるのでしょうか？その場合、契約で定められた猶予期間やマージンコール（追加担保のお願い）を経た後、担保のビットコインが強制的に貸し手に渡されて契約終了（清算）となります。担保額が未返済額を上回っていれば、差額は借り手に返ってきます。つまり、返せなかったとしても借り手が担保以上の損をすることはありませんが、大切なビットコインを失ってしまう結果にはなるので注意しましょう。

Borrow（借りる）側のまとめ：ビットコインさえあれば、あとの手続きは非常に簡単です。借入までの流れをもう一度簡潔にまとめると：

1. メールアドレスでLendに登録
2. 借入オファーを探すor作成してマッチング
3. マルチシグ契約が自動生成・BTC担保を自分で入金
4. 貸し手からステーブルコインを受領
5. 期限までにステーブルコイン＋利息を返済
6. ビットコイン担保が自分のウォレットに戻る

第三者の仲介なしに、ネット上でこれだけのことが完結するのは驚きですよね。HodlHodlは「あなたの条件、あなたの鍵、あなたのコイン」と銘打っており、自分の望む条件で・自分が鍵を管理し・自分の資産を動かせるプラットフォームであることを強調しています。

Lend編：HodlHodlのプラットフォームでお金を貸してみよう

次は逆に、自分が貸し手（Lender）となってステーブルコインを貸し出し、利息収入を得る方法です。銀行に預けても超低金利のこのご時世、手持ちの資金をうまく運用したい方にとってP2Pレンディングは魅力的な選択肢になりえます。HodlHodlのLendなら、これもまた簡単な手順で始められます。

基本的な流れは先ほどの「Borrow編」と鏡写しになっています。

1. アカウント登録

借り手と同様、まずはHodlHodlに登録します（すでに借り手として登録済みなら同じアカウントで貸し手にもなれます）。メールアドレスだけでOK、もちろん貸し手側もKYC不要です。

2. 貸出オファーの確認 or 作成

ログイン後、「To Lend（貸す）」メニューから現在の借り手募集一覧を見ます。各オファーには希望額・期間・支払い利率・LTVなど条件が表示されています。「この条件なら貸してもいいかな」という案件があれば選択しましょう。もし自分の希望する利回りや期間が合わない場合は、自分で貸し手オファーを作成することも可能です。「○○ USDTまで、最長△ヶ月、最低利息◻◻%で貸せます」といった条件を提示できます。プラットフォーム上ではユーザーがお互いに条件を提示しあってマッチングする仕組みなので、金利や期間もすべてユーザー自身が自由に設定できます。

3. マッチングと契約開始

あなたの提示した条件で借りたい人が現れたら契約成立です（逆に誰かの借入オファーに応じる形なら、その時点で成立）。システムがマルチシグの担保用BTCアドレスを生成し、借り手がそこへビットコインをデポジットします。借り手からのBTC入金が確認できるまで、貸し手であるあなたは資金を送る必要はありません。担保が確保されたのを見届けてから次に進みます。

4. 資金（ステーブルコイン）の送金

借り手の担保ロックが完了したら、契約で定めたステーブルコインを借り手へ送金します。送金先アドレスは契約詳細画面に表示されます（借り手が指定済み）。例えばUSDCを貸す契約なら、相手のUSDCアドレスに約束の額を送ります。ここで送金した金額がローンの principal（元本）となり、後ほど利息とともに返ってくるわけです。

無事に相手に届けば、あとは契約期間終了まで待つだけです。あなたは担保のBTCに対して鍵を1つ持っている状態なので、万一トラブルが起きた場合でも担保を引き出す権利を部分的に持っています（詳しくは次ステップ）。

5. 返済の受領

契約期間が終わると、借り手があなたにステーブルコインを返済してくるはずです。約束どおり元本＋利息を受け取ったら、それを確認してプラットフォーム上で「返済完了」を操作します。すると担保のビットコインがマルチシグから解放され、借り手に返却されます。これで貸し手としてのあなたは利息分の収益を獲得できました。お疲れ様です！

もし借り手が返済しなかった場合どうなるでしょうか？その場合、所定の猶予期間やマージンコール通知の後、担保のビットコインがあなた（貸し手）に渡されることになります。具体的には、LTVが90%に達するか返済期日から24時間以上滞納が続くと強制清算となり、担保BTCからあなたの貸付相当額が充当されます。担保が十分であれば元本と利息はカバーされ、余剰があれば借り手に返還されます。つまり貸し手側はかなり手厚く保護されており、返済を受け取れない場合でも担保で穴埋めされる仕組みです。

6. 収益を管理・再投資

受け取ったステーブルコイン（元本＋利息）は再度プラットフォームで貸し出しても良いですし、他の用途に使ってもOKです。年利に換算するとだいたい10%前後の利回りになる案件が多く見られます。条件次第では更に高い利率の契約も可能ですが、その分借り手が見つかりにくかったりリスク（担保不足のリスク）が高まる可能性もあります。ご自身のリスク許容度に合わせて運用しましょう。

Lend（貸す）側のまとめ：

• HodlHodlに登録（メールアドレスのみ）
• 貸出オファーを提示 or 借り手募集に応じる
• 契約成立後、借り手がBTC担保を入金
• 貸し手（自分）がステーブルコインを送金
• 期限まで待ち、借り手から元本＋利息を受領
• 担保BTCを返却し、利息収入を得る

銀行預金では考えられないような利息収入を得られるのが魅力ですが、その裏でビットコイン価格変動リスクも担っています。大暴落が起きて担保評価額が急落すると、清算時に元本を割るリスクもゼロではありません（LTV設定とマージンコール制度で極力保護されまますが）。リスクとリターンを理解した上で、小額から試すことをおすすめします。

ステーブルコインの活用：お金持ちは借金で生活する？

ここまで、ビットコインを手放さずにステーブルコインを手に入れる方法を見てきました。それでは、借りたステーブルコインは具体的に何に使えるのでしょうか？いくつか例を挙げてみましょう。

• 日常の出費に充当：ビットコイン投資家の中には「生活費はすべて借りたお金で賄い、自分のBTCはガチホ（売らずに長期保有）する」という方針の人もいます。例えば毎月の家賃や食費をステーブルコインのローンで支払い(これについても今後詳しく解説していきます)、ビットコインは一切使わないというイメージです。こうすれば、手持ちのBTCを売らずに済むので将来の値上がり益を逃しません。また日本では仮想通貨を売却すると雑所得として高率の税金がかかりますが、ローンで得たお金は借入金なので課税対象になりません（※将来的な税務計算は自己責任で行ってください）。つまり、ビットコインを売却して現金化する代わりにローンを使うことで、節税と資産温存のメリットが得られる可能性があります。

• 投資・資産運用に回す：借りた資金をさらに別の投資に活用することもできます。例えば有望な株式や不動産に投資したり、あるいは他の仮想通貨を買うこともできます。極端な例では、ビットコインを担保にUSDTを借りて、そのUSDTでまた別の仮想通貨を買い、それを運用益で返済する…といった戦略も理論上は可能です。ただし、借りたお金での投機はハイリスクなので慎重に！手堅い使い道としては、事業資金に充てるのも良いでしょう。例えば小さなオンラインビジネスを始めるための元手にしたり、新しい資格取得のための学費にするなど、自分への投資に使えば将来的なリターンでローンを返しつつ利益を上げることが期待できます。

• 急な支払いへの備え：人生何があるか分かりません。医療費や冠婚葬祭など急に現金が必要になる場面もあります。そんなとき、ビットコインをすぐ売ってしまうのは惜しい…という場合にローンで一時的にしのぐことができます。後で落ち着いてから返済すれば、大事なBTCを手放さずにピンチを乗り切れます。言わばデジタル質屋のような感覚で、ビットコインを預けてお金を工面し、後で買い戻す（返済する）イメージですね。日本でも昔から「質屋」で着物や宝石を預けてお金を借りる文化がありましたが、HodlHodl Lendはビットコイン版の質屋とも言えるでしょう。

• 市場の機会を逃さない：仮想通貨市場は変動が激しく、「今これを買いたいのに現金が無い！」というチャンスもあるでしょう。例えば「ビットコインが急落したから買い増したいが、現金が足りない」という場合、手持ちBTCを担保にしてステーブルコインを借り、その急落で安く買い増しする、といった動きもできます。そして後日価格が戻したところで返済すれば、差益を得つつBTC保有枚数も増やせるかもしれません。このようにローンを戦略的に使えば、市場の好機を掴む資金余力を生み出すことができます。ただしハイリスクな手法でもあるため、上級者向けではあります。

ここで覚えておきたいのは、「お金持ちは借金との付き合い方が上手い」という点です。日本では借金にネガティブな印象を持つ人も多いですが、世界的な資産家や大企業はしばしばあえて借金をして手元資金を他に活用しています。アメリカのベストセラー『金持ち父さん貧乏父さん』で有名なロバート・キヨサキ氏も「富裕層は他人のお金（借金）を利用してさらに富を築く」と強調しています。例えば彼は借金で高級車を買い、不動産投資にも借入を活用したそう (金持ちは貧乏人より借金が多い | 「金持ち父さん 貧乏父さん」日本オフィシャルサイト)❤️。借金を味方につけて資産運用すれば、自分の持ち出し資金を抑えつつ豊かな生活を実現できる可能性があります。

もちろん無計画な借金は禁物ですが、ローンを上手に使うことは決して悪いことではなく、むしろ経済的戦略として有効なのです。ビットコイン担保ローンはその新しい選択肢として、「お金にお金に働いてもらう」感覚を身につけるきっかけになるかもしれません。

高い金利でもローンを利用するのはなぜ？その理由と戦略

Lendのプラットフォームで提示される金利は、年利換算で見ると10〜15%程度が一つの目安 です。中にはそれ以上の利率の契約もあります。日本の銀行ローン（金利数％以下）と比べるとかなり高利に思えますが、それでも多くの人がこのサービスを利用してローンを組んでいます。なぜ高い利息を支払ってまで借りる価値があるのでしょうか？最後に、その理由と利用者の戦略について考えてみましょう。

• (1) ビットコインの期待リターンが高い：借り手にとって一番の動機は、「ビットコインは将来もっと値上がりするはずだから、多少利息を払っても売りたくない」というものです。例えば年利15%で$1000借りると一年後に$1150返す必要がありますが、もしビットコイン価格がその間に15%以上上昇すれば、利息分を差し引いても得をする計算になります。過去のビットコイン相場は年率ベースで大きく成長した年も多く、強気のホルダーほど利息より値上がり益を優先する傾向があります。「金利よりビットコインの価値上昇のほうが大きい」という自信が、高金利を払ってでも借りる動機になっているのです。

• (2) 課税や手数料の回避：先ほど述べたように、日本ではビットコインを売却すると高額の税金が発生する可能性があります。仮に30%〜50%の税金がかかるのであれば、年利10%前後のローンで済ませたほうがトクだという判断も成り立ちます。また、取引所で売却するときのスプレッドや出金手数料なども考えると、売却コストを回避する手段としてローンを選ぶ人もいます。要するに「売るくらいなら借りた方がマシ」という考え方ですね。

• (3) 自由と速さを優先：従来の金融機関からお金を借りるには時間がかかりますし、使途にも制限があることが多いです（事業資金なのか生活費なのか、といった審査があります）。それに対してHodlHodlのP2Pローンは使い道自由・即日資金調達が可能です。利息が高めでも「今すぐ○○がしたい」「明日までに現金が要る」といったニーズには代えられません。特に仮想通貨業界はスピード命ですから、チャンスを逃さないために高コストでも素早く借りるという選択が生まれます。

• (4) 借金＝時間を買うこと：あるユーザーの言葉を借りれば、「借金をすることは未来の時間を先取りすること」でもあります。例えば住宅ローンがあるからこそ若い世代でもマイホームに住めますし、事業ローンがあるからこそ企業は成長の機会を掴めます。ビットコイン担保ローンも同じで、「今はお金が無いけど将来増やすアテはある。だから今借りてしまおう」というケースもあるでしょう。将来の収入や資産増加を見込んで、時間を味方につけるためにあえて借金をするのです。日本語では「借金してでも◯◯する」という表現がありますが、前向きな借金は将来への投資とも言えるでしょう。

• (5) 非中央集権への支持：もう一つ見逃せないのは、HodlHodlのようなプラットフォームを利用する理由に思想的な支持があります。つまり「銀行や政府に頼らないお金の流れを実現したい」「ビットコインのエコシステムを活性化させたい」というビットコイナーたちです。多少コストが高くても、理念に共感して使っているケースもあります。匿名で自由にお金を借りられる世界を体験することで、金融システムの新たな可能性を感じているのです。

以上のように、高い金利にも関わらずローンを利用するのは明確なメリットや戦略があるからなのです。もちろん全ての人に当てはまるわけではありません。ビットコイン価格が下落局面ではリスクも伴いますし、利息分だけ損になる場合もあります。しかし、それらを理解した上で「自分のお金を働かせる」「資産を手放さずレバレッジを利かせる」手段として活用している人々が増えてきています。

最後に、HodlHodlの公式ブログの一文をご紹介します。

“私たちはビットコインこそがスーパーカ collateral（超優秀な担保）であり、利回りを得るために使うのではなく、それを担保に資金を借りるために使われるべきだと考えています" (The lending is dead, long live the lending | by Hodl Hodl | Hodl Hodl | Medium)。

ビットコイン時代の新しいお金の借り方・貸し方であるP2Pローン。最初は難しく感じるかもしれませんが、仕組みを理解すればとてもシンプルで強力なツールです。日本ではまだ馴染みが薄いかもしれませんが、匿名性を好み、コツコツ資産を増やすのが得意な人にこそフィットするサービスかもしれません。ぜひ少額から試し、自分なりの活用法を見つけてみてください。きっと新たな発見があるはずです。

---

もしビットコイン担保のP2Pローンなどについてもっと深く知りたい、あるいは個別に相談してみたいと思えば、どうぞお気軽にご連絡ください。1対1のコンサルティングも承っています。

サービスには決まった料金はありませんが、ご相談を通じて「役に立った」と思い、お悩みや疑問を解決できたと感じていただけたら、「3つのT」でのご支援（Value for Value）をぜひご検討ください：

• 時間（Time）：この記事をSNSなどでシェアしていただくこと。
• 才能（Talent）：コメントや補足情報などを通じて知識を共有していただくこと。
• 宝（Treasure）：世界で最も健全なお金、ビットコインの最小単位「sats」でのご支援。

もちろん、支援の有無にかかわらず、お力になれればとても嬉しいです。 では、また次回！

@ 6b3780ef:221416c8

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

Understanding MCP Systems

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

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

These servers and clients can communicate using different transport methods:

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

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

Creating (or Finding) an MCP Server

Building an MCP server is simpler than you might think:

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

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

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

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

Setting Up the Workshop

Let's get hands-on:

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

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

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

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

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

5. Pass any additional arguments directly to your server

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

Deploying with DVMCP

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

1. Navigate to your MCP server directory.

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

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

This will guide you through creating the necessary configuration.

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

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

Testing and Integration

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

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

Integrating with LLM Clients

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

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

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

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

5. Making them available to your LLM applications

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

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

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

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

Final thoughts

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

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

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

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

Useful Resources

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

• DVMCP.fun: dvmcp.fun

• Source Code and Development:

• DVMCP: github.com/gzuuus/dvmcp

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

• MCP Servers and Clients:

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

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

• Signal group

Happy building!

@ dd664d5e:5633d319

Most people only know customer-to-customer (C2C) and business-to-customer (B2C) software and websites. Those are the famous and popular ones, but business-to-business (B2B) is also pretty big. How big?

Even something boring and local like DATEV has almost 3 million organizations as customers and €1,44 billion in annual revenue.

FedEx has €90 billion in annual revenue and everyone who uses it comes into contact with its software. There's a whole chain of software between the sender and receiver of the package, and it all has to work seamlessly.

Same with Walmart, Toyota, Dubai Airport, Glencore, Tesla, Edeka, Carrefour, Harvard and University of Texas, Continental, Allianz, Asklepios, etc.

That's the sort of software I help build. You've probably never heard of it, but when it doesn't work properly, you'll hear about it on the news.

@ 06830f6c:34da40c5

Once upon a time their lived a young man in a lost village, I'm just kidding with you, I'm testing my blog entries on my domain. SITE

Navigate to Blogs tab and screenshot this. @ me for a chance to get zapped ⚡. I won't say how many sats, so you are not doing it due to the incentive but to help me test the domain functionality.

Love ✌️

@ 30ceb64e:7f08bdf5

Hey Freaks,

RUNSTR is a motion tracking app built on top of nostr. The project is built by TheWildHustle and TheNostrDev Team. The project has been tinkered with for about 3 months, but development has picked up and its goals and direction have become much clearer.

In a previous post I mentioned that RUNSTR was looking to become a Nike Run Club or Strava competitor, offering users an open source community and privacy focused alternative to the centralized silos that we've become used to.

I normally ramble incoherently.....even in writing, but this is my attempt to communicate the project's goals and direction as we move forward.

This is where the project is now:

Core Features

• Run Tracker: Uses an algorithm which adjusts to your phone's location permissions and stores the data on your phone locally
• Stats: Stored locally on your phone with a basic profile screen so users can monitor calories burned during runs
• Nostr Feed: Made up of kind1 notes that contain #RUNSTR and other running related hashtags
• Music: Brought to you via a wavlake API, enabling your wavlake playlists and liked songs to be seen and played in the app

Current Roadmap

• Bugs and small improvements: Fixing known issues within the client
• zap.store release: Launching a bug bounty program after release
• Clubs: Enabling running organizations to create territories for events, challenges, rewards and competition
• Testflight: Opening up the app to iOS users (currently Android only)
• Modes: Adding functionality to switch between Running, Walking, or Cycling modes

Future Roadmap

• Requested Features: Implementing features requested by club managers to support virtual events and challenges
• Blossom: Giving power users the ability to upload their data to personal blossom servers
• NIP28: Making clubs interoperable with other group chat clients like 0xchat, Keychat, and Chachi Chat
• DVM's: Creating multiple feeds based on movement mode (e.g., Walking mode shows walkstr feed)
• NIP101e: Allowing users to create run records and store them on nostr relays
• Calories over relays: Using NIP89-like functionality for users to save calorie data on relays for use in other applications
• NIP60: Implementing automatic wallet creation for users to zap and get zapped within the app

In Conclusion

I've just barely begun this thing and it'll be an up and down journey trying to push it into existence. I think RUNSTR has the potential to highlight the other things that nostr has going for it, demonstrating the protocol's interoperability, flexing its permissionless identity piece, and offering an experience that gives users a glimpse into what is possible when shipping into a new paradigm. Although we build into an environment that often offers no solutions, you'd have to be a crazy person not to try.

https://github.com/HealthNoteLabs/Runstr/releases/tag/feed-0.1.0-20250329-210157

@ dd664d5e:5633d319

I think this note from Chip (nostr:npub1qdjn8j4gwgmkj3k5un775nq6q3q7mguv5tvajstmkdsqdja2havq03fqm7) is one of those things that people with business management experience take a lot more seriously than most developers and influencers do.

I am painfully aware of the cost of systems administration, financial transaction management and recordkeeping, recruiting and personnel management, legal and compliance, requirements management, technical support, renting and managing physical spaces and infrastructure, negotiating with suppliers, customer service, etc. etc.

There's this idea, on Nostr, that sort of trickled in along with Bitcoin Twitter, that we would all just be isolated subsistance farmers and one-man-show podcasters with a gigantic server rack in the basement. But some of us are running real companies -- on and off Nostr, for-profit and non-profit -- and it often requires a lot of human labor.

The things we build aren't meant to be used by one person and his girlfriend and his dog. Yes, he can also run all these things, himself, but he no longer has to. Our existence gives him the choice: run these things or pay us to run them and spend your time doing something else, that you do better than we do.

These things are meant to be used by hundreds... thousands... eventually millions of people. The workflows, processes, infrastructure, and personnel need to be able to scale up-and-down, scale in-and-out, work smoothly with 5 people or 50 people. These are the sort of Nostr systems that wouldn't collapse when encountering a sudden influx or mass-escape. But these systems are much more complex and they take time to build and staff to run them. (And, no, AI can't replace them all. AI means that they now also have to integrate a bunch of AI into the system and maintain that, too.)

GitCitadel (nostr:npub1s3ht77dq4zqnya8vjun5jp3p44pr794ru36d0ltxu65chljw8xjqd975wz) is very automation-forward, but we still have to front the incredibly high cost of designing and building the automation, train people to interact with it (there are now over 20 people integrated into the workflow!), adjust it based upon their feedback, and we have to support the automation, once it's running.

This sort of streamlined machine is what people pay companies for, not code. That is why there's little business cost to open source.

Open-source is great, but...

nostr:nevent1qqsgqh2dedhagyd9k8yfk2lagswjl7y627k9fpnq4l436ccmlys0s3qprdmhxue69uhhg6r9vehhyetnwshxummnw3erztnrdakj7q3qqdjn8j4gwgmkj3k5un775nq6q3q7mguv5tvajstmkdsqdja2havqxpqqqqqqzdhnyjm

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

Beginning at the start

In my previous article, The Establishment, I answered the question: "How do we form a company?" I realize, now, that I was getting a bit ahead, of myself, as the precursor to a company is a team, and many people struggle to form teams. So, I will go back to the beginning, and then you can read both articles to the end, and then stop.

The Initiation

The first, and most-difficult step of team formation, is the initiation. We know that it must be the most-difficult, as it's the step that carries the highest potential reward, and it's the step that is tried-and-failed most often. (Some people, like Elon Musk or Donald Trump, are born Initiators with excellent follow-through, but this archetype is exceedingly thin on the ground because it requires you to be mildly autistic, have barely-throttled ADHD, and/or tend to megalomania, also popularly known as "toxic masculinity", "CEO personality", or "being a successful military officer".)

Someone needs to form a useful, attractive Vision and then motivate other people to help them achieve it. That sounds really easy, but it's actually brutally difficult because * You have to come up with an idea that is coherent, plausible, and inspiring. * You have to be able to communicate that idea to other people and make it appealing to them, by tying it into their own personal goals and desires. * You have to be able to hone and reformulate that idea, constantly, to correct it or to re-motivate the other team members. * You have to defend the idea against detractors, naysayers, and trolls, and you have to do it so vociferously, that it will erode your own popularity among those who disagree with you and open you to personal attacks. * You have to be able to focus on the idea, yourself, for a long stretch of time, and not allow yourself to get bored, lazy, or distracted.

So, just do and be all of those things, and then initiate the team, with the method I will name the Hatbock Method. It is so named because of the classic, German initiation ritual, in which an Initiator stands up, loudly defines their Vision and calls into a group "Wer hat Bock?" (roughly, "Who has the hunger/desire?") and whoever responds with "Ich hab Bock." (roughly, "Yes, I hunger for this.") is a part of the team.

Then the Initiator says, "Okay, everyone with the hunger, let's sit down together, and discuss this some more." (This "sitting" is literally called a "seating", or "Sitzung", which is the German word for "meeting".)

The Sitting

We now get to the second most difficult part of team formation: figuring out where to sit. Most teams get this wrong, repeatedly, and many teams dissolve or fracture under the difficulty of this momentous decision. You would think organizing yourselves online would make this easier ("Oh, we'll just meet online!"), but the number of places available for sitting online are limitless. You can talk your whole Vision into the ground, with laborous discussions and migrations between Chachi, OxChat, Telegram, SimpleX, Slack, Discord, WhatsApp, GitHub, Teams, Coracle, Matrix... you get the idea.

Try to keep in mind that the Vision is more important than the seating area, and go with the flow. Simply, find someplace and go there. Worry about it again, at a later date. Don't lose momentum. Sit down and start discussing the Vision, immediately.

Now, this next bit is very important:

Do not let anyone outside your team influence where you sit!

...unless they are providing your team with some good, service, or income, that makes choosing their preferred location the superior choice.

This is the German Stammtisch principle, where a host encourages you to come sit down, regularly, in some particular place, because your sitting there provides them with some benefit: they can overhear your conversations, get you to test out their seating area, sell you refreshments, etc. Your choice of seating, in other words, is a valuable good, and you should only "sell" it to someone who rewards you in measure. They have to reward you because their preferred seating area wasn't your immediate and obvious choice, so there was probably something unappealing or uncertain about the seating area.

Plan it in

Once you've sat down, and finished your rough draft of the Vision, you need to figure out when to sit. This is the third most-difficult part of team formation. (Yes, don't worry, it gets easier as it goes along.)

The most popular plan is the Wirsehenuns Plan (roughly, "We'll see each other, around.") This can work quite well, if you just want to have a loose collaboration, that calls itself together in an ad hoc fashion, when a team member feels the need. Also known as "@ me, bros".

It's not a great plan for more intensive collaboration, as that tends to need a certain amount of velocity, to actually happen, as the speed of movement has a centrifugal effect on the tasks. Team momentum, in other words, creates a sort of gravity, that keeps the team together as a unit. So, for deeper teamwork, I would recommend the Stammtisch variant: name a place and date/time, when you will next meet. Preferably, on a rotating schedule: daily, weekly, last Thursday of the month, etc.

And then meet there and then. And discuss amongst yourselves. Set clear, short-term tasks (and assign them to particular people!), medium-term strategies, and longer-term goals. Write everything down. Anything not written down, is a suggestion, not an assigned task.

If you find your Stammtisch becoming increasingly rewarding and productive, and your goals start moving closer and closer into sight, then you might want to formalize your team structure further, as a company.

@ 50de492c:0a8871de

{"title":"test","description":"","imageUrl":"https://i.nostr.build/Xo67.png"}

@ 3514ac1b:cf164691

About Me

@ 3514ac1b:cf164691

Hi this is me ,Erna . i am testing this Habla news . i have been trying using this but got no luck . always disconnect and no content .

Hopefully this one will work .

BREAKING NEWS : Vance uses Greenland visit to slam Denmark , as Trump escalates rhetoric .

https://wapo.st/4c6YkhO

@ c8383d81:f9139549

My own stats on what I’ve done over the weekend:

• Spoke to +100 developers, it was great seeing a couple of familiar Flemish faces and meeting some new ones but overall the crowd was extremely diverse.

• Ended up doing a short interview promoting the protocol and ended up going to 0 talks.

• Tried to evangelize by going booth by booth to distribute a Nostr flyer to other FOSDEM projects, with the hope that they would broadcast the info towards their SOME person to add Nostr on their list or to build out a library for the languages that were present ( This was a fairly slow approach )

• Kept it to Nostr protocol 95% of the time, the Bitcoin narrative is not always a good time to push and as a side note I’ve met more Monero users than in the last 5 years.

• Was able to convince some engineers to look into the #soveng endeavor.

Small overview from the most common questions:

• They have heard about Nostr but are not sure of the details. ( mostly through the bitcoin community )
• What is the difference with ActivityPub, Mastodon, Fediverse ?
• IOT developers, so questions regarding MQTT & Meshtastic integrations ?
• Current state of MLS on Nostr ?
• What are the current biggest clients / apps build on Nostr ?
• Will jack still give a talk ?

Things we could improve:

• Bring more stickers like loads more,
• Bring T-shirts, Pins… could be a good way to fund these adventures instead of raising funds. ( Most projects where selling something to help raise funds for projects )
• Almost no onboarding / client installs.
• Compared to the Nostr booth at BTC Amsterdam not a single person asked if they could charge their phone.

Personal Note: The last time I visited was roughly 13 years ago and me being a little more seasoned I just loved the fact that I was able to pay some support to the open source projects I’ve been using for years ( homebrew, modzilla, Free BSD,.. ) and see the amazing diverse crowd that is the open source Movement 🧡

Al final shoutout to our great pirate crew 🏴‍☠️: The Dutch Guard ( nostr:npub1qe3e5wrvnsgpggtkytxteaqfprz0rgxr8c3l34kk3a9t7e2l3acslezefe & nostr:npub1l77twp5l02jadkcjn6eeulv2j7y5vmf9tf3hhtq7h7rp0vzhgpzqz0swft ) and a adrenaline fueled nostr:npub1t6jxfqz9hv0lygn9thwndekuahwyxkgvycyscjrtauuw73gd5k7sqvksrw , nostr:npub1rfw075gc6pc693w5v568xw4mnu7umlzpkfxmqye0cgxm7qw8tauqfck3t8 and nostr:npub1r30l8j4vmppvq8w23umcyvd3vct4zmfpfkn4c7h2h057rmlfcrmq9xt9ma amazing finally meeting you IRL after close to 2 years since the Yakihonne hackathon 😀

@ 3514ac1b:cf164691

Cryptographic Identity (CI): An Overview

Definition of Cryptographic Identity

Cryptographic identity refers to a digital identity that is secured and verified using cryptographic techniques. It allows individuals to prove their identity online without relying on centralized authorities.

Background of Cryptographic Identity

Historical Context

• Traditional identity systems rely on centralized authorities (governments, companies)
• Digital identities historically tied to platforms and services
• Rise of public-key cryptography enabled self-sovereign identity concepts
• Blockchain and decentralized systems accelerated development

Technical Foundations

• Based on public-key cryptography (asymmetric encryption)
• Uses key pairs: private keys (secret) and public keys (shareable)
• Digital signatures provide authentication and non-repudiation
• Cryptographic proofs verify identity claims without revealing sensitive data

Importance of Cryptographic Identity

Privacy Benefits

• Users control their personal information
• Selective disclosure of identity attributes
• Reduced vulnerability to mass data breaches
• Protection against surveillance and tracking

Security Advantages

• Not dependent on password security
• Resistant to impersonation attacks
• Verifiable without trusted third parties
• Reduces centralized points of failure

Practical Applications

• Censorship-resistant communication
• Self-sovereign finance and transactions
• Decentralized social networking
• Cross-platform reputation systems
• Digital signatures for legal documents

Building Cryptographic Identity with Nostr

Understanding Nostr Protocol

Core Concepts

• Nostr (Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays)
• Simple, open protocol for censorship-resistant global networks
• Event-based architecture with relays distributing signed messages
• Uses NIP standards (Nostr Implementation Possibilities)

Key Components

• Public/private keypairs as identity foundation
• Relays for message distribution
• Events (signed JSON objects) as the basic unit of data
• Clients that interface with users and relays

Implementation Steps

Step 1: Generate Keypair

• Use cryptographic libraries to generate secure keypair
• Private key must be kept secure (password managers, hardware wallets)
• Public key becomes your identifier on the network

Step 2: Set Up Client

• Choose from existing Nostr clients or build custom implementation
• Connect to multiple relays for redundancy
• Configure identity preferences and metadata

Step 3: Publish Profile Information

• Create and sign kind 0 event with profile metadata
• Include displayable information (name, picture, description)
• Publish to connected relays

Step 4: Verification and Linking

• Cross-verify identity with other platforms (Twitter, GitHub)
• Use NIP-05 identifier for human-readable identity
• Consider NIP-07 for browser extension integration

Advanced Identity Features

Reputation Building

• Consistent posting builds recognition
• Accumulate follows and reactions
• Establish connections with well-known identities

Multi-device Management

• Secure private key backup strategies
• Consider key sharing across devices
• Explore NIP-26 delegated event signing

Recovery Mechanisms

• Implement social recovery options
• Consider multisig approaches
• Document recovery procedures

Challenges and Considerations

Key Management

• Private key loss means identity loss
• Balance security with convenience
• Consider hardware security modules for high-value identities

Adoption Barriers

• Technical complexity for average users
• Network effects and critical mass
• Integration with existing systems

Future Developments

• Zero-knowledge proofs for enhanced privacy
• Standardization efforts across protocols
• Integration with legal identity frameworks

@ dd1f9d50:06113a21

(Because Most People Don’t Understand Money)

The requisite knowledge needed to know whether $100 or $100,000 per Bitcoin is relatively speaking “a lot,” is what value means. One way to measure value is through a universal yardstick we call “Money.” The question of “What is money?” is perhaps one of the most overlooked and under answered in our day and age. There is even an entire podcast dedicated to that question with the eponymous title, hosted by Robert Breedlove. That podcast often delves into the more philosophical underpinnings whereas I hope to approach this with a more practical answer.

Money is a technology.

Money is the technology with which we interact with one another to reorganize goods and services to the place and time they are best suited. Most money of the past has been tangible (though not a requisite feature), scarce, recognizable (read: verifiable), durable, portable, and divisible. These features one might call the “Attributes of Money.” These attributes are absolutely essential for a money to maintain its status as a money. (Those of you who understand the U.S. Dollar system maybe scratching your heads right now but, believe me, I will address that elephant in due time.) These attributes, you may notice, are not a yes or no but more of a gradient. A money can be MORE portable than another yet, less durable. One more divisible but not scarce whatsoever. The point being they must have, in some capacity, these attributes or they simply aren’t money.

One of These Things is Not Like the Other

| | Bitcoin | Gold | Dollars | |-----------------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:|:------------------------------------------------------------------:|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:| | Scarcity | 21 million coins
is the maximum supply | Unknown- the
supply grows roughly 2% per year | Also unknown to anyone outside of the Federal Reserve, Trillions and counting | | Recognizability | Each coin is verifiable to it's genesis on the timechain | Each molecule of gold has distinct physical verifiable properties | If the Federal reserve says it is a valid note, it is (Unless you are an enemy of the United States) | | Durablility | Each "Bitcoin" is information stored on a globally distributed network | Doesn't Rust and as far as can be measured Au197 is stable forever | Can be destroyed by any means that effect fabric and centralized databases | | Portability | Available wherever data can be store- Anywhere | Can be moved at 9.81 Newtons per Kilogram- Methods may vary | Can be moved physically with fabric notes- Digitally with express permission from a US accredited banking institution | | Divisibility | Currently can be divided into 100 million parts called Sats (can be further subdivided by adding decimal places) | Can be divided to the Atomic level (Though not practical) | Can be divided (without dilution) by adding new denominative bills or coinage
Can be divided (with dilution) by printing new bills or coinage | | | Bitcoin | Gold | Dollars |

You may think with all of the great functionality of Bitcoin that the phrase "One of these things is not like the other" refers to BTC. No, I was referring to the Dollar. It is the only one on the list that was a currency that was substituted as some kind of faux money. It asserts itself, or rather the Federal Reserve asserts it, as money, de facto.

Dollars are NOT money.

Dollars are (allegedly) a currency. If money is a specific technology, currency is the financial infrastructure that allows that technology to reach and be used by the most number of people possible. This requires a firm tether between the asset being used as money and the currency used as a claim to that money. For example: If I hand you a chicken, you have a chicken. But, if I hand you a coupon that is redeemable for a chicken, you do not have a chicken. You have a claim to a chicken that is only as good as the party making that claim. Bringing it back to money again, dollars (Prior to 1971) were redeemable for gold at a rate of $35 per ounce. This is that strong tether that pegged dollars to gold and physical reality itself. Without a proof of work, mining, . Until…

WTF Happened in 1971?

The Nixon shock happened. Briefly, The U.S. took in Europe’s gold in the 1940’s to keep it out of Hitler’s hands. The U.S. made an agreement to peg the dollar to Europe’s gold. The U.S. over printed dollars in relation to the gold holdings. Around 1971 France (among others) called the U.S. out for devaluing the dollar and thus European currencies. So, Nixon “Temporarily” suspended the convertibility of dollars to gold. Now, here we all are like Wile E. Coyote having run off of the golden cliff clutching our dollars in our arms and 54 years later we still haven’t looked down to see the truth.

Dollars Aren’t Backed by Anything

This is why no country in the world today has a money standard. Seemingly they all forgot the number one rule of issuing currency, it must be backed by something. Now, you may hear dollar proponents say “The U.S. dollar is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States!” Another way of saying that is, “We said it is worth something, so it is!” This fiat (by decree) mentality creates a plethora of perverse incentives. The ever growing supply disallows users of the Dollar to save without inccuring the penalties of inflation.

Just a Few Examples of How You're Being Crushed

Because your dollar loses value:

• It pushes people to spend them on assets that seem to appreciate (as the dollar debases) but are truly staying stagnant.
• It pushes people to gamble on securities hoping the perceived value is enough to beat the inflationary curve.
• It pushes people away from saving for their future and the future of their families.
• It creates insane credit incentives so that people borrow way more than they can afford today knowing that dollars will be cheaper in the future. (Effectively a short position)
• It pushes people to spend less and less time making and maintaining their families as it becomes more expensive to keep a similar lifestyle to which it was founded.

These are just a few of the terrible consequences of not knowing that trading a currency with no monetary backing has on a society. Most may blame this soley on the ability to print currency by a central bank but, that is not the only factor. If the fed printed dollars against gold, people would simply take the best rate they could get and remonetize themselves with the gold. But because there is no monetary escape hatch guaranteed by the issuance of dollars, I.E. no one has to take your dollars in exchange for their Bitcoin or gold, you are left at the mercy of the market.

One Day, People Will Stop Accepting Your Dollars

Those lementing the high price of Bitcoin might want to thank their lucky stars that Bitcoin still has a rational number next to the "BTC 1=$?" sign. One day you will have to exchange something of actual value to the spender (no longer a seller). Your product, good or service, will be the only thing that anyone might be willing to part with their Bitcoin over. That is what makes a money, the most salable non-consumable good, whose only funtion is to back a financial structure that facilitates trade.

Bitcoin is Capital

Capital is a broad term that can describe anything that confers value or benefit to its owners, such as a factory and its machinery, or the financial assets of a business or an individual. Bitcoin being the latter creates the financial structures from which you build upon. You use capital to hold, transfer, and grow value. You do not do this with cash. Cash is a depreciating asset when you don't use it to gain goods or services for yourself or your business. This misconception around the equivalance between cash and money (financial capital) is what tricks people into believing Dollars are money. And what's worse is that even some of our greatest heroes have done this.

Slay Your Heroes, Within Reason

Unfortunately due to a mixing of verbiage that have very distinct differences, the title: "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" is technically inaccurate. Bitcoin doesn't fit the definition of cash, which is a liquid asset that can be easily converted into its equivalent value. In short, Satoshi misspoke. In reality, owning Bitcoin UTXOs (with private keys) means you already possess the asset, not just a claim to it. When you spend Bitcoin, the recipient receives the actual asset, not a promise of it. When you receive Bitcoin, you have final settlement on that transaction. Fundamentally Bitcoin is not cash, electronic or otherwise.

Bitcoin is Money.

@ 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

@ 7d33ba57:1b82db35

Pula, located at the southern tip of Istria, is a city where ancient Roman ruins meet stunning Adriatic beaches. Known for its well-preserved amphitheater, charming old town, and crystal-clear waters, Pula offers a perfect blend of history, culture, and relaxation.

🏛️ Top Things to See & Do in Pula

1️⃣ Pula Arena (Roman Amphitheater) 🏟️

• One of the best-preserved Roman amphitheaters in the world, built in the 1st century.
• Used for gladiator fights, now a venue for concerts & film festivals.
• Climb to the top for stunning sea views.

2️⃣ Explore Pula’s Old Town 🏡

• Wander through cobbled streets, past Venetian, Roman, and Austro-Hungarian architecture.
• Visit the Arch of the Sergii (a 2,000-year-old Roman triumphal arch).
• Enjoy a drink in Forum Square, home to the Temple of Augustus.

3️⃣ Relax at Pula’s Beaches 🏖️

• Hawaiian Beach (Havajska Plaža): Turquoise waters & cliffs for jumping.
• Ambrela Beach: A Blue Flag beach with calm waters, great for families.
• Pješčana Uvala: A sandy beach, rare for Croatia!

4️⃣ Cape Kamenjak Nature Park 🌿

• A wild and rugged coastline with hidden coves and crystal-clear water.
• Great for cliff jumping, kayaking, and biking.
• Located 30 minutes south of Pula.

5️⃣ Visit Brijuni National Park 🏝️

• A group of 14 islands, once Tito’s private retreat.
• Features Roman ruins, a safari park, and cycling trails.
• Accessible via boat from Fazana (15 min from Pula).

6️⃣ Try Istrian Cuisine 🍽️

• Fuži with truffles – Istria is famous for white & black truffles.
• Istrian prosciutto & cheese – Perfect with local Malvazija wine.
• Fresh seafood – Try grilled squid or buzara-style mussels.

🚗 How to Get to Pula

✈️ By Air: Pula Airport (PUY) has flights from major European cities.
🚘 By Car:
- From Zagreb: ~3 hours (270 km)
- From Ljubljana (Slovenia): ~2.5 hours (160 km)
🚌 By Bus: Regular buses connect Pula with Rovinj, Rijeka, Zagreb, and Trieste (Italy).
🚢 By Ferry: Seasonal ferries run from Venice and Zadar.

💡 Tips for Visiting Pula

✅ Best time to visit? May–September for warm weather & festivals 🌞
✅ Book Arena event tickets in advance – Summer concerts sell out fast 🎶
✅ Try local wines – Istrian Malvazija (white) and Teran (red) are excellent 🍷
✅ Explore nearby towns – Rovinj & Motovun make great day trips 🏡
✅ Cash is useful – Some small shops & markets prefer cash 💶

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

GitCitadel Development Operations

We, at GitCitadel, have been updating, moving, and rearranging our servers, for quite some time. As a rather large, complex, sprawling project, we have the infrastructure setup to match, so we've decided to give you all a quick run-down of what we are doing behind-the-scenes.

Supplier Coordination

Our first task, this week, was figuring out who would host what where. We have four different locations, where our infra is stored and managed, including two locations from our suppliers. We got that straightened out, quickly, and it's all slowly coming together and being connected and networked. Exciting to watch our DevOps landscape evolve and all of the knowledge-transfer that the interactions provide.

OneDev Implementation

Our biggest internal infra project this week was the migration of all of our issues from Jira, build scripts from Jenkins, and repos from GitHub to a self-hosted OneDev instance. In the future, all of our internal build, test, issue, patch/PR, etc. effort will take place there. We also have a separate repo there for communicating with external developers and suppliers.

Our team's GitHub projects will be demoted to mirrors and a place for external devs to PR to. Public issues and patches will continue to be managed over our self-hosted GitWorkshop instance.

We're especially glad to finally escape the GitHub Gulag, and avoid being bled dry by Jira fees, without having to give up the important features that we've come to know and love. So, yay!

Next Infrasteps

Automated Testing

Now, that we have everything tied up in one, neat, backed-up package, we can finally move on to the nitty-gritty and the dirty work. So, we're rolling up our sleeves and writing the Selenium smoke test for our Alexandria client. We'll be running that in Docker containers containing different "typical Nostr" images, such as Chrome browser with Nostr Connect signing extension, or Firefox browser with Nos2x-fox extension. Once we get the Nsec Bunker and Amber logins going, we'll add test cases and images for them, as well. (Yes, we can do Bunker. I hope you are in awe at our powers).

We are also designing an automated infrastructure test, that will simply rattle through all the various internal and external websites and relays, to make sure that everything is still online and responsive.

After that, a Gherkin-based Behave feature test for Alexandria is planned, so that we can prevent regression of completed functionality, from one release to the next.

The Gherkin scenarios are written and attached to our stories before development begins (we use acceptance tests as requirements), a manual test-execution is then completed, in order to set the story to Done. These completed scenarios will be automated, following each release, with the resulting script linked to from the origin story.

Automated Builds

As the crowning glory of every DevOps tool chain stands the build automation. This is where everything gets tied together, straightened out, configured, tested, measured, and -- if everything passes the quality gates -- released. I don't have to tell you how much time developers spend staring at the build process display, praying that it all goes through and they can celebrate a Green Wave.

We are currently designing the various builds, but the ones we have defined for the Alexandria client will be a continuous delivery pipeline, like so:

This will make it easier for us to work and collaborate asynchronously and without unnecessary delays.

Expanding the Status Page

And, finally, we get to the point of all of this busyness: reporting.

We are going to have beautiful reports, and we are going to post them online, on our status page. We will use bots, to inform Nostriches of the current status of our systems, so go ahead and follow our GitCitadel DevOps npub, to make sure you don't miss out on the IT action.

Building on stone

All in all, we're really happy with the way things are humming along, now, and the steady increase in our productivity, as all the foundational work we've put in starts to pay off. It's getting easier and easier to add new team members, repos, or features/fixes, so we should be able to scale up and out from here. Our GitCitadel is built on a firm foundation.

Happy building!

@ b8af284d:f82c91dd

I'd say that globalization's hunger for cheap labor is a problem, precisely because it's been bad for innovation. Both our working people and our innovators have the same enemy — and the solution is American innovation...

J.D. Vance

Liebe Abonnenten,

der intellektuell brillante Vize-Präsident J.D. Vance hat diese Woche seine Wirtschaftspolitik skizziert. Über deren Grundzüge geht es heute.

Die Geschichte der Globalisierung ist die Geschichte der Suche nach billigen Arbeitskräften. Arbeiter in den westlichen Gesellschaften in den G7-Staaten waren spätestens in den 1980er Jahren gut organisiert und stemmten sich meist erfolgreich gegen Lohnkürzungen und Stellenabbau. Nach dem Zusammenbruch der Sowjetunion 1990 fanden die international tätigen Konzerne auf einmal ein gewaltiges Reservoir an billigen Arbeitskräften - nicht nur, aber vor allem in China.

Dieser Prozess nahm 2001 mit dem Beitritt Chinas zur Welthandelsorganisation nochmals an Fahrt auf. Deutlich wird er am ikonischen Produkt der Neuzeit, dem iPhone. Das erste Modell kam 2007 auf den Markt. Entworfen und designt wurde und wird das Smartphone von Apple in Kalifornien. Gefertigt dagegen wird es von einem der größten Konzerne der Welt. Foxconn beschäftigt allein in China über eine Million Menschen. Hon Hai, wie Foxconn eigentlich heißt, ist übrigens ein taiwanisches Unternehmen.

Dieser Prozess der verlagerten Fertigung hatte mehrere Vorteile: Produkte wurden günstiger. Davon profitierten Konsumenten in der westlichen Welt. Würde man ein iPhone in den USA oder Deutschland herstellen, würde es durch die höheren Löhne zwischen 200 und 300 Euro mehr kosten. Die Konzerne wie Apple konnten somit günstiger produzieren, ihre Margen erhöhen, und ihre Aktienkurse stiegen.

Von diesem Prozess profitierten außerdem Länder wie China: Das monatliche Grundgehalt von Foxconn-Mitarbeitern in Shenzhen erscheint mit rund 400 Euro im Monat noch immer grotesk niedrig. Für viele Chinesen vom Land bedeutet ein Job in der Fabrik allerdings ein Gehaltssprung von mehreren hundert Prozent. Es gibt keinen Grund, die Arbeitsbedingungen bei Foxconn schönzureden. Zur Wahrheit gehört aber auch, dass sich die allermeisten Wanderarbeiter nicht ausgebeutet oder als Opfer fühlen. Im Gegenteil: In meiner Zeit in China stieß ich meist auf Menschen, die sich als selbstwirksamer empfanden als viele Festangestellte mit 30 Urlaubstagen im Westen. Länder, mit billigen Arbeitskräften, profitierten also von diesem Prozess und kletterten so auf der globalen Wertschöpfungskette nach oben.

Etwa zeitgleich nahm auch in westlichen Ländern die Immigration zu. Der Anteil der im Ausland geborenen Bevölkerung stieg von etwa 7,9 Prozent im Jahr 1990 auf 13,7 Prozent im Jahr 2021, was den höchsten Stand seit 1910 darstellt. In Deutschland stieg der „Ausländer“-Anteil von knapp 7 Prozent 1990 auf 27 Prozent 2023. Viele Unternehmen hatten also sowohl international als auch national Zugriff auf günstige Arbeitskräfte. In Europa wurden diese zudem dringend gebraucht, um das in Schieflage geratene Rentensystem zu stabilisieren.

Die Nachteile dieses Megatrends wurden zunächst in den USA sichtbar: Immer mehr Unternehmen in den USA verlagerten ihre Produktion nach China. Hinzu kam der Status des US-Dollars als Weltreservewährung. Durch die konstante Nachfrage nach Dollar bleibt dieser stark, und macht amerikanische Exporte teurer. Eine Deindustrialisierung setzte ein, die vielen Menschen ihren Job kostete. Zeitgleich wuchs das Handelsbilanzdefizit mit China immer weiter. Hinzu kam eine konstante Erhöhung der Geldmenge. Amerikaner mit „hard assets“, Immobilien und Aktien, wurden tendenziell reicher. Der Rest aber nicht. Kurz: Konzerne verdienten gut, die Wirtschaft wuchs, nur bei den Amerikanern selbst blieb immer weniger hängen.

Worum es J.D. Vance also geht: Innovation und Arbeitsplätze in die USA zurückzuholen. Dafür müssen Schutzmauern errichtet werden: gegen die illegale Einwanderung billiger Arbeitskräfte und billiger Waren. Zölle dienen dazu, ausländische Waren zu verteuern, und somit Unternehmen Anreize zu geben, direkt in den USA zu investieren. Kürzlich gab Siemens bekannt, zehn Milliarden Euro in amerikanische KI-Rechenzentren zu investieren. Was wohl auch Teil des Trump-Derangement-Syndroms ist: die Wahrnehmung der amerikanischen Zollpolitik. Kaum ein Land hat aktuell so niedrige Zollschranken wie die Vereinigten Staaten.

\ Kurz gesagt: iPhones sollen demnach nicht nur in den USA entworfen, sondern auch in amerikanischen Fabriken zusammengeschraubt werden. Alles hoch-inflationär, wenden Kritiker ein. Wer globale Lieferketten abreißt, und ins eigene Land zurückholt, hat mit viel höheren Kosten zu kämpfen. Also steigt die Inflation. Diesen Prozess will die US-Regierung mit günstigeren Energiekosten kontern. Egal ob Solar-, Nuklear- oder Fracking - jede Energiequelle soll dafür Recht sein.

Schließlich soll eine strikte Haushaltsdisziplin (DOGE) unnötige Ausgaben vermeiden, und die Bürokratie abbauen. Im Gegenzug können dann die Steuern gesenkt werden. Die Einkommensteuer für Familien mit einem Jahreseinkommen bis zu 150000 US-Dollar soll komplett gestrichen werden.

Tl/DR:

• Migration begrenzen, um Billigarbeit zu verhindern
• Zölle errichten, um amerikanische Produktion zu stärken
• Günstige Energiequellen priorisieren, um Inflation zu verhindern
• Staatsausgaben radikal kürzen
• Steuern radikal senken

Kann das Projekt klappen? Vielleicht. Das Megaprojekt Globalisierung zurückzudrehen, oder zumindest etwas zu bremsen, ist ein Wagnis. Zölle bergen die Gefahr der Inflation und eines Handelskriegs. Unsicher ist, ob von einer Deregulierung weiterer Branchen am Ende wirklich amerikanische Arbeiter profitieren. Und wie innovativ können Unternehmen sein, wenn sie am Ende mehr Geld für ihre Beschäftigten ausgeben müssen, anstatt es in Forschung und Entwicklung zu investieren? Was geschieht, wenn der Rest der Welt nicht mitmacht, und sich immer weiter vernetzt? Werden die USA am Ende eine einsame Zoll-Insel? In ein paar Monaten dürfte sich langsam abzeichnen, ob das Projekt funktioniert.

Mehr dazu:

Der Mar-a-Largo-Accord - wie eine neue Finanzordnung entsteht

Was dagegen nicht klappen wird, ist das deutsche Projekt. Friedrich Merz hat mit einem „Husarenstück“ (SZ) mit einem abgewählten Bundestag eine Verfassungsänderung durchgepeitscht. Mindestens 500 Milliarden Euro neue Schulden werden gemacht, das Militär erhält einen Blankoscheck für neue Anschaffungen. Bürokratie wird nicht abgebaut. Die Unter- und Mittelschicht wird nicht entlastet. Das 100-Milliarden Zugeständnis an die Grünen sorgt dafür, dass Energie nicht günstiger wird. Ein bisschen Innovation werden die neuen Panzer- und Drohnen-Fabriken schon bringen. Am Ende aber bleibt Rüstung totes Kapital. Im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes.

Was das neue Wirtschaftsprogramm für Bitcoin bedeutet - haben wir den Boden gesehen?

Mehr dazu im Paid-Teil

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

Planning Alexandria

People keep asking what features nostr:npub1s3ht77dq4zqnya8vjun5jp3p44pr794ru36d0ltxu65chljw8xjqd975wz has planned for #Alexandria, but they're not set in stone because we're an agile project.

What we do have, is lots of tickets on our Kanban boards and a naming scheme, where we use a famous person's last name, to signify the release goals.

Gutenberg v 0.1.0

(after the inventor of the printing press) will contain the features needed to read and write NIP-62 Curated Publications, as well as encompassing the complex infrastructure, architecture, documentation, and personnel we require to make this all run smoothly and look easy.

Euler v 0.2.0

(after a mathematician credited with establishing graph theory) will contain the features for deep-searching, visually exploring, and smartly navigating the data set, wiki page display, annotating and citing the publications, exporting to other formats (like PDF, ePUB, and LaTeX), and commenting/reviewing. To help with the heavy lifting, we will be swapping out the core with our own Nostr SDK called "Aedile".

Defoe v 0.3.0

(after an author who perfected the novel format) will be all about our favorite writers. We will be focusing upon profile data, payment systems, book clubs and communities, and stylesheets.

That is everything we have planned, for the v1.0 edition, and we consider that version to be a true product.

As for after that, a teaser...

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

This UX research has been redacted by @iqra from the Bitcoin.Design community, and shared for review and feedback! Don't be shy, share your thoughts.

---

1️⃣ Introduction

Project Overview

📌 Product: BlueWallet (Bitcoin Wallet) 📌 Goal: Improve onboarding flow and enhance accessibility for a better user experience. 📌 Role: UX Designer 📌 Tools Used: Figma, Notion

Why This Case Study?

🔹 BlueWallet is a self-custodial Bitcoin wallet, but users struggle with onboarding due to unclear instructions. 🔹 Accessibility issues (low contrast, small fonts) create barriers for visually impaired users. 🔹 Competitors like Trust Wallet and MetaMask offer better-guided onboarding.

This case study presents UX/UI improvements to make BlueWallet more intuitive and inclusive.

---

2️⃣ Problem Statement: Why BlueWalletʼs Onboarding Needs Improvement

🔹 Current Challenges:

1️⃣ Onboarding Complexity - BlueWallet lacks step-by-step guidance, leaving users confused about wallet creation and security.

2️⃣ No Educational Introduction - Users land directly on the wallet screen with no explanation of private keys, recovery phrases, or transactions. 3️⃣ Transaction Flow Issues - Similar-looking "Send" and "Receive" buttons cause confusion. 4️⃣ Poor Accessibility - Small fonts and low contrast make navigation difficult.

🔍 Impact on Users:

Higher drop-off rates due to frustration during onboarding. Security risks as users skip key wallet setup steps. Limited accessibility for users with visual impairments.

📌 Competitive Gap:

Unlike competitors (Trust Wallet, MetaMask), BlueWallet does not offer: ✅ A guided onboarding process ✅ Security education during setup ✅ Intuitive transaction flow

Somehow, this wallet has much better UI than the BlueWallet Bitcoin wallet.

---

3️⃣ User Research & Competitive Analysis

User Testing Findings

🔹 Conducted usability testing with 5 users onboarding for the first time. 🔹 Key Findings: ✅ 3 out of 5 users felt lost due to missing explanations. ✅ 60% had trouble distinguishing transaction buttons. ✅ 80% found the text difficult to read due to low contrast.

Competitive Analysis

We compared BlueWallet with top crypto wallets:

| Wallet | Onboarding UX | Security Guidance | Accessibility Features | |---|---|---|---| | BlueWallet | ❌ No guided onboarding | ❌ Minimal explanation | ❌ Low contrast, small fonts | | Trust Wallet | ✅ Step-by-step setup | ✅ Security best practices | ✅ High contrast UI | | MetaMask | ✅ Interactive tutorial | ✅ Private key education | ✅ Clear transaction buttons |

📌 Key Insight: BlueWallet lacks guided setup and accessibility enhancements, making it harder for beginners.

📌 User Persona

To better understand the users facing onboarding challenges, I developed a persona based on research and usability testing.

🔹 Persona 1: Alex Carter (Bitcoin Beginner & Investor)

👤 Profile: - Age: 28 - Occupation: Freelance Digital Marketer - Tech Knowledge: Moderate - Familiar with online transactions, new to Bitcoin) - Pain Points: - Finds Bitcoin wallets confusing. - - Doesnʼt understand seed phrases & security features. - - Worried about losing funds due to a lack of clarity in transactions.

📌 Needs: ✅ A simple, guided wallet setup. ✅ Clear explanations of security terms (without jargon). ✅ Easy-to-locate Send/Receive buttons.

📌 Persona Usage in Case Study: - Helps define who we are designing for. - Guides design decisions by focusing on user needs.

🔹 Persona 2: Sarah Mitchell (Accessibility Advocate & Tech Enthusiast)

👤 Profile: - Age: 35 - Occupation: UX Researcher & Accessibility Consultant - Tech Knowledge: High (Uses Bitcoin but struggles with accessibility barriers)

📌 Pain Points: ❌ Struggles with small font sizes & low contrast. ❌ Finds the UI difficult to navigate with a screen reader. ❌ Confused by identical-looking transaction buttons.

📌 Needs: ✅ A high-contrast UI that meets WCAG accessibility standards. ✅ Larger fonts & scalable UI elements for better readability. ✅ Keyboard & screen reader-friendly navigation for seamless interaction.

📌 Why This Persona Matters: - Represents users with visual impairments who rely on accessible design. - Ensures the design accommodates inclusive UX principles.

---

4️⃣ UX/UI Solutions & Design Improvements

📌 Before (Current Issues)

❌ Users land directly on the wallet screen with no instructions. ❌ "Send" & "Receive" buttons look identical , causing transaction confusion. ❌ Small fonts & low contrast reduce readability.

✅ After (Proposed Fixes)

✅ Step-by-step onboarding explaining wallet creation, security, and transactions. ✅ Visually distinct transaction buttons (color and icon changes). ✅ WCAG-compliant text contrast & larger fonts for better readability.

1️⃣ Redesigned Onboarding Flow

✅ Added a progress indicator so users see where they are in setup. ✅ Used plain, non-technical language to explain wallet creation & security. ✅ Introduced a "Learn More" button to educate users on security.

2️⃣ Accessibility Enhancements

✅ Increased contrast ratio for better text readability. ✅ Used larger fonts & scalable UI elements. ✅ Ensured screen reader compatibility (VoiceOver & TalkBack support).

3️⃣ Transaction Flow Optimization

✅ Redesigned "Send" & "Receive" buttons for clear distinction. ✅ Added clearer icons & tooltips for transaction steps.

5️⃣ Wireframes & Design Improvements:

🔹 Welcome Screen (First Screen When User Opens Wallet)

📌 Goal: Give a brief introduction & set user expectations

✅ App logo + short tagline (e.g., "Secure, Simple, Self-Custody Bitcoin Wallet") ✅ 1-2 line explanation of what BlueWallet is (e.g., "Your gateway to managing Bitcoin securely.") ✅ "Get Started" button → Le ads to next step: Wallet Setup ✅ "Already have a wallet?" → Import option

🔹 Example UI Elements: - BlueWallet Logo - Title: "Welcome to BlueWallet" - Subtitle: "Easily store, send, and receive Bitcoin." - CTA: "Get Started" (Primary) | "Import Wallet" (Secondary)

🔹 Screen 2: Choose Wallet Type (New or Import)

📌 Goal: Let users decide how to proceed

✅ Two clear options: - Create a New Wallet (For first-time users) - Import Existing Wallet (For users with a backup phrase) ✅ Brief explanation of each option 🔹 Example UI Elements: - Title: "How do you want to start?" - Buttons:** "Create New Wallet" | "Import Wallet"

🔹 Screen 3: Security & Seed Phrase Setup (Critical Step)

📌 Goal: Educate users about wallet security & backups

✅ Explain why seed phrases are important ✅ Clear step-by-step instructions on writing down & storing the phrase ✅ Warning: "If you lose your recovery phrase, you lose access to your wallet." ✅ CTA: "Generate Seed Phrase" → Next step

🔹 Example UI Elements: - Title: "Secure Your Wallet" - Subtitle: "Your seed phrase is the key to your Bitcoin. Keep it safe!" - Button: "Generate Seed Phrase"

🔹 Screen 4: Seed Phrase Display & Confirmation

📌 Goal: Ensure users write down the phrase correctly

✅ Display 12- or 24-word seed phrase ✅ “I have written it downˮ checkbox before proceeding ✅ Next screen: Verify seed phrase (drag & drop, re-enter some words)

🔹 Example UI Elements: - Title: "Write Down Your Seed Phrase" - List of 12/24 Words (Hidden by Default) - Checkbox: "I have safely stored my phrase" - Button: "Continue"

🔹 Screen 5: Wallet Ready! (Final Step)

📌 Goal: Confirm setup & guide users on next actions

✅ Success message ("Your wallet is ready!") ✅ Encourage first action: - “Receive Bitcoinˮ → Show wallet address - “Send Bitcoinˮ → Walkthrough on making transactions

✅ Short explainer: Where to find the Send/Receive buttons

🔹 Example UI Elements: - Title: "You're All Set!" - Subtitle: "Start using BlueWallet now." - Buttons: "Receive Bitcoin" | "View Wallet"

---

5️⃣ Prototype & User Testing Results

🔹 Created an interactive prototype in Figma to test the new experience. 🔹 User Testing Results: ✅ 40% faster onboarding completion time. ✅ 90% of users found transaction buttons clearer. 🔹 User Feedback: ✅ “Now I understand the security steps clearly.ˮ ✅ “The buttons are easier to find and use.ˮ

---

6️⃣ Why This Matters: Key Takeaways

📌 Impact of These UX/UI Changes: ✅ Reduced user frustration by providing a step-by-step onboarding guide. ✅ Improved accessibility , making the wallet usable for all. ✅ More intuitive transactions , reducing errors.

---

7️⃣ Direct link to figma file and Prototype

Figma file: https://www.figma.com/design/EPb4gVgAMEgF5GBDdtt81Z/Blue-Wallet-UI- Improvements?node-id=0-1&t=Y2ni1SfvuQQnoB7s-1

Prototype: https://www.figma.com/proto/EPb4gVgAMEgF5GBDdtt81Z/Blue-Wallet-UI- Improvements?node-id=1-2&p=f&t=FndTJQNCE7nEIa84-1&scaling=scale- down&content-scaling=fixed&page-id=0%3A1&starting-point-node- id=1%3A2&show-proto-sidebar=1

Original PDF available from here

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/928822

@ e034d654:ca919814

I stumbled into nostr end of March 2023. At that point already fully thrown into the hows, whys and whats of Bitcoin, never really interested in social apps, just recently playing around with Lightning, the only experience of which at the time was Muun (😬) and stacker.news custodial wallet.

Fairly inexperienced with technicals other than rough understandings of concepts. A crappy laptop node with a dangling SSD via USB, constantly having to resync to current blockheights whenever I was ready to make an on chain transaction to cold storage. My great success after over two years of delay, and a couple failed attempts.

Something about the breadth of information for nitty gritty specifics, the clash with all the things that I found interesting about Bitcoin, with others equally as focused, kept me interested in Nostr. Plus the lighthearted shit posting to break up plumbing the depths of knowledge appealed to me.

Cut to now. Through the jurisdictional removals and even deaths of LN wallet projects, using mobile LSPs, finding use cases with the numerous cashu implementations, moderate comfortability with NWC strings of various permissions, budgets for seemingly endless apps of Nostr clients, swapping relays, isolated wallets with Alby go for my wife and cousin (I told them both not to put much on there as I'm sure failure is imminent) Alby Hub and Zeus, now fully backended by my own persistently online lightning node. All of it adding to the fluidity of my movement around the protocol.

Nimble.

Gradual progress. Reading through notes and guides posted on Nostr learning little bits, circling back eventually, if even at a time it wasn't clicking for me. Either way. Glad i've stuck to it even if I still barely know what it is I'm doing.

@ 2fb77d26:c47a6ee1

»Pershing II« – das war eines der ersten englischen Wörter, das mir als Kind geläufig war. Es handelt sich um die Typenbezeichnung einer US-Mittelstreckenrakete, einer nuklearen Boden-Boden-Rakete, die mit einem thermonuklearen Sprengkopf vom Typ W85 ausgestattet war, eine Reichweite von etwa 1.800 km hatte und somit von Süddeutschland aus Ziele im westlichen Russland binnen fünf Minuten erreichen konnte. Es war Anfang der 1980er Jahre. Die Zeit des Kalten Krieges. Eine Bezeichnung, die George Orwell mit seinem Essay »You and the Atomic Bomb« (Du und die Atombombe) im Jahre 1945 geprägt hatte. Die Fronten waren verhärtet.

Die westdeutsche Friedensbewegung protestierte lautstark gegen die Stationierung von Atomsprengköpfen auf heimischem Boden. Nachdem die im NATO-Doppelbeschluss vom 12. Dezember 1979 vereinbarten Abrüstungsverhandlungen zwischen den Atommächten jedoch erfolglos geblieben waren, entschied der Deutsche Bundestag am 22. November 1983, der Stationierung von US-Atomwaffen im Lande zuzustimmen. Diese war 1985 abgeschlossen und ganze 120 Exemplare der todbringenden Massenvernichtungswaffe in der Bundesrepublik verteilt worden. Außer Deutschland tat kein Land den USA diesen Gefallen.

Ich hatte die militärische Artikelbezeichnung »Pershing II« im Radio aufgeschnappt, welcher zu Hause fast durchgehend in Betrieb war, und später ein paar Bilder der Raketen in den Abendnachrichten gesehen. Noch gab es nur ARD, ZDF und das Regionalprogramm. Dementsprechend rar waren visuelle Informationen. Und aufgrund meiner frühen Begeisterung für Fluggeräte aller Art, zeichnete ich daraufhin ständig Raketen. Da ich außerdem bereits in diesem zarten Alter von fünf oder sechs Jahren extrem von Musik angetan war und durchweg versuchte, englische Songtexte, zum Beispiel von den Beatles, dem Klang der Stimmen folgend nachzusingen, übte auch der fremd klingende Begriff »Pershing II« eine gewisse Faszination auf mich aus.

Was mir meine Eltern diesbezüglich sagten oder erklärten, kann ich leider nicht mehr erinnern – als erklärte Pazifisten nahmen sie die latente Gefahr eines Nuklearkrieges aber sicher nicht mit der spielerisch-kindlichen Leichtigkeit, die ich im Umgang mit gemalten oder gebastelten Raketen an den Tag legte. Das Thema nukleare Kriegsführung beherrschte die Nachrichten dieser Zeit und erzeugte Angst. Denn Militärstrategen sprachen Anfang der 1980er Jahre allen Ernstes davon, dass der Atomkrieg zwischenzeitlich präziser und somit auch führbarer geworden sei. Damals wie heute – absoluter Irrsinn.

Neben der Berlin-Blockade 1948/1949 und der Kuba-Krise, war die Auseinandersetzung um die Stationierung von Mittelstreckenraketen in Westeuropa von 1979 bis 1983 also eine der drei kritischsten Phasen des Kalten Krieges.

Nie war die Welt einem fatalen wie letalen nuklearen Schlagabtausch der Supermächte näher als zu diesen drei Zeitpunkten in der Geschichte. Bis heute, so scheint es.

Denn die stetig eskalierende Ukraine-Krise rückt dieses vergessen geglaubte Horror-Szenario wieder in den Fokus der Öffentlichkeit. Polit-Darsteller wie der Maoist und China-Fan Robert Habeck äußern dieser Tage dummdreist, keine Angst vor einem Dritten Weltkrieg zu haben. Sogenannte Sicherheitsexperten erklären im ZDF, dass man sich vor Putins Bomben nicht fürchten solle, obwohl man in Mainz permanent Angst schürt und schon am 5. Mai 2022 titelt, »Moskau simuliert Atomangriff in Kaliningrad«.

Der »Beobachter Gesundheit« gibt Tipps dazu, wie man die Panik vor einem Atomkrieg mental in den Griff bekommen kann, während das deutsche BBK (Bundesamt für Bevölkerungsschutz und Katastrophenhilfe) der Bevölkerung bereits empfiehlt, im Zuge der Ukraine-Krise Notvorräte anzulegen und Marschgepäck bereitzuhalten. Auf der Webseite »wikiHow« findet sich ein sehr umfassender, bebilderter Ratgeber mit dem Titel »Einen Atomkrieg überleben«. Beim Lesen der zahlreichen, mutmaßlich nur bedingt hilfreichen Tipps zur Meisterung der nuklearen Apokalypse dürfte jedem normalen Menschen etwas mulmig werden.

Hofberichterstatter Ruprecht Polenz lässt sich beim Propaganda-Multiplikator ZEIT ONLINE am 30. April 2022 dennoch zu der wagemutigen Formulierung verleiten, »wer einen Atomkrieg verhindern will, darf Putin nicht gewinnen lassen«. Solch ein Statement ist nicht nur falsch und realitätsfremd, sondern zeugt gleichsam von der bewussten Negierung von Faktenlage und historischen Hintergründen zur Ukraine-Krise. Dabei könnte man es durchaus besser wissen.

Die RAND-Corporation, ein im Jahre 1948 gegründeter, einflussreicher Think Tank der US-Hegemonie, veröffentlichte zum Beispiel schon im Jahr 2019 ein vielsagendes, 354 Seiten umfassendes Strategiepapier unter der Überschrift »Overextending and Unbalancing Russia«. Frei übersetzt: Eine Strategie, um Russland überzustrapazieren und aus dem Gleichgewicht zu bringen – ökonomisch, militärisch und gesellschaftlich – mit dem singulären Ziel, die geopolitische Dominanz der Vereinigten Staaten zu bewahren. Ein durchdachtes Drehbuch zur finalen Erniedrigung und Bezwingung des ewigen Klassenfeindes sowie dem Erhalt der unipolaren Weltordnung, der Pax Americana.

Der Ansatz der RAND-Corporation: Die Osterweiterung der NATO forcieren, das Ansehen Russlands in der Welt zerstören, kostenintensives, nukleares Wettrüsten, die Ukraine bewaffnen, um einen militärischen Stellvertreterkonflikt mit Putin zu provozieren, um die ehemalige Sowjetunion anschließend mittels internationaler Sanktionen – legitimiert durch den brodelnden Krieg – finanziell in die Knie zu zwingen.

Verblüffend, wie sehr doch die im RAND-Strategiepapier aufgezeigte Vorgehensweise den aktuellen Geschehnissen an den Außengrenzen des Riesenreiches gleicht. Fast macht es den Anschein, als folgten die Geostrategen in Washington den Empfehlungen ihrer kostspieligen Think Tanks. Dies ließ sich auch im Zuge der Corona-Krise beobachten, die im Ablauf fraglos dem von der Rockefeller-Stiftung erarbeiteten Pandemie-Szenario »Lock Step« glich, wie Journalist Norbert Häring bereits am 28. Mai 2020 ausführlich berichtet.

Was das totalitäre Krisen-Drehbuch der RAND-Corporation nicht detailliert behandelt, sind die akuten Risiken einer potenziellen nuklearen Eskalation. Denn es endet mit dem möglichen Aufkeimen eines militärischen Konflikts und schließt schlicht mit dem Hinweis:

»Auch wenn die US-Armee nicht direkt an der Operation beteiligt ist, wird sie eine Schlüsselrolle bei der Abmilderung der Folgen spielen. Wie bereits erwähnt, bergen alle Maßnahmen, die der Schwächung Russlands dienen, einiges an Risiko. Infolgedessen werden das Abschreckungspotential sowie die operativen Fähigkeiten des US-Militärs in Europa gestärkt werden müssen. Es besteht die Möglichkeit, dass die Spannungen mit Russland zu einem Konflikt eskalieren.«

Die USA betrachten den Einsatz von Atomwaffen dabei offensichtlich als probates Mittel. Warum sonst modernisieren die Amerikaner seit Jahren ihr Arsenal und geben Milliarden US-Dollar dafür aus? Das macht eigentlich nur Sinn, wenn man plant, diese Waffen irgendwann einzusetzen. Der »Plot« für die Events nach dem Aufflammen einer militärischen Auseinandersetzung mit Russland ist vermutlich Verschlusssache und liegt nur Eingeweihten im Weißen Haus, Pentagon, CIA-Hauptquartier sowie den Verbündeten in EU und NATO-Hauptquartier vor.

Das ist bedauerlich. Denn ein Einblick in die aktuellen militärischen Planspiele und strategischen Szenarien der NATO-Hegemonie wäre hilfreich, um zu verstehen, ob die Arroganz des Westens tatsächlich einen Punkt erreicht hat, an dem man einen Atomkrieg in Kauf nehmen würde, um Russland und China auf ihre Plätze zu verweisen und im globalen Club der Technokraten am Kopfende zu sitzen. Um einen Konflikt der Systeme – Kapitalismus, Sozialismus, Kommunismus – handelt es sich nämlich nicht, auch wenn Medien dies gerne so darstellen, sondern um Machtkämpfe innerhalb der internationalen Oligarchie. Die drei Machtblöcke kämpfen um Vorherrschaft in der totalitären Weltordnung der nahen Zukunft.

Die Frage ist nur: Tun sie dies einvernehmlich – oder handelt es sich an Russlands Grenzen um ernsthafte, kriegerische Auseinandersetzungen, die in letzter Konsequenz militärisch entschieden werden müssen? Das RAND-Strategiepapier scheint davon auszugehen, dass Wirtschafts- und Informationskrieg, begleitet von NATO-Drohgebärden, ausreichen, um das Rennen zu Gunsten des Wertewestens zu entscheiden. Es gilt zu hoffen, dass diese Interpretation des Schriftstücks zutrifft. Ansonsten läuft die moderne Zivilisation Gefahr, sich in die Steinzeit zurückzubomben. Wie das aussieht, zeigt eindrücklich der Film »The Day After« (Der Tag danach) aus dem Jahre 1983.

Der zwei Stunden lange Streifen von Regisseur Nicholas Meyer ist bildgewaltig, beängstigend, ernüchternd und deprimierend. Er zeigt nicht nur, wie binnen weniger Tage aus einem Kalten Krieg ein Atomkrieg wird, sondern auch, was dessen schreckliche Folgen sind. Schon ein kurzer, etwas mehr als acht Minuten langer Zusammenschnitt macht klar, dass man ein absoluter Narr sein muss, um keine Angst vor thermonuklearen Angriffen zu haben.

Im Film gibt der US-Oberbefehlshaber nach der Zerstörung des NATO-Hauptquartiers den Befehl zum Atomschlag. Das entsprechende NATO-Protokoll wird aktiviert und die Raketensilos einsatzbereit gemacht. Das Drehbuch lässt offen, wer den Erstschlag führt. Klar ist, dass sobald die Sprengköpfe des Westens unterwegs sind, Russland einen Gegenangriff mit 300 Interkontinentalraketen auslöst und die Vereinigten Staaten in die Steinzeit bombt.

Überall im Land der unbegrenzten Möglichkeiten steigen feurige Atompilze in den Himmel. Metropolen werden in Sekunden ausradiert, Lebewesen, Pflanzen und Gebäude verdampfen in Feuersbrünsten um den Einschlagsort, ganze Landstriche werden vom Erdboden getilgt – und schon in den ersten Minuten nach Explosion der Nuklearsprengköpfe sterben weite Teile der Bevölkerung. 90 Millionen innerhalb weniger Stunden, wie eine Simulation mit dem etwas unheimlichen Titel »Plan A« der Princeton-Universität von 2019 berechnet hat.

Der eigentliche Horror beginnt allerdings erst. Denn die schlimmsten Szenen des Films sind jene, die den Zustand der Welt zwei Wochen nach den Atomschlägen zeigen. Im Land herrscht Anomie. Chaos und Zerstörung, wohin man schaut. Vorindustrielle Zustände. Die Städte sind unbewohnbar und die Überlebenden leiden an Strahlenkrankheit. Haare und Zähne fallen aus. Bei manchen binnen weniger Stunden oder Tage, bei anderen dauert es Wochen. Ein grausamer Tod auf Raten. Alles stirbt, siecht dahin. In den Ruinen entstehen Flüchtlingslager. Seuchen brechen aus. Militärkommandos erschießen willkürlich Menschen. Recht, Gerichte und Prozesse gibt es nicht mehr. Und um zu überleben, bewaffnen sich schlussendlich auch die Zivilisten und töten sich gegenseitig. Absolute Barbarei.

»The Day After« erklärt nicht, wer diesen Krieg gewinnt, nennt keinen Sieger. Vermutlich, weil Regisseur Nicholas Meyer schmerzlich bewusst war, dass es bei einem ausgewachsenen Atomkrieg keine Gewinner geben kann.

Er bedeutet das Ende der modernen Zivilisation. Nicht umsonst hat Albert Einstein früh vor militärischem Missbrauch entsprechender wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse gewarnt. So lässt der Streifen aus Zeiten das kalten Krieges auch das Ende offen. Kein Hollywood-Finale. Kein Happy End. Die beklemmenden Gefühle bleiben. Weder Will Smith noch James Bond tauchen auf, um die Welt in letzter Minute doch noch zu retten. Sie ist kaputt. Tot. Eine nuklear verseuchte Wüste. Kein Hoffnungsschimmer am Horizont.

Wer das Pech hatte, die Erstschläge zu überleben, stirbt langsam, aber sicher – und vor allem qualvoll.

Vielleicht sollten Spitzenpolitiker, Dogmatiker, Propagandisten und Kriegshetzer von heute sich diesen Film einmal in Ruhe anschauen, bevor sie leichtfertig derartige Optionen in Betracht ziehen. Ich habe »The Day After« nur ein einziges Mal in meinem Leben gesehen – wenige Monate, nachdem ich den Begriff »Pershing II« das erste Mal als kleines Kind im Radio hörte und meine Eltern neugierig fragte, was es damit auf sich hat – das war ausreichend. Die Eindrücke wirken bis heute. Ich bin mir auch mehr als dreißig Jahre später immer noch der unverrückbaren, indiskutablen Tatsache bewusst, dass es niemals zu einem Atomkrieg kommen darf. Jeder, der diesen Film gesehen, wird das unterschreiben.

Ich jedenfalls werde nie vergessen, wie ich eines nachts heimlich im dunklen Wohnzimmer der heimischen Dachwohnung ganz nahe vor dem Fernseher saß. Eigentlich durfte ich nur ein paar Mal in der Woche ausgewählte Kindersendungen anschauen. Aber meine Eltern schliefen bereits. Es muss circa 23:00 Uhr gewesen sein, denn nach den Spätfilmen war damals in der Regel Sendeschluss. Und das was war meist gegen eins oder halb zwei.

Just als ich den kleinen Röhrenfernseher anschaltete, begann »im Ersten« der bis heute in mir nachhallende Spielfilm. Der Tag danach. Zunächst begeistert von den vielen Raketen und irgendwie noch fasziniert von den mir bis dato unbekannten, riesigen Explosionen, die Atombomben auslösen, blieb ich gebannt sitzen. Wie versteinert. Bis zur Schlussszene, in der sich eine Handvoll strahlenverseuchter, zerrissener, verrottender Menschen, die kaum noch Haare auf dem Kopf haben und aussehen wie Zombies, in den staubigen Ruinen einer leeren Großstadt kraftlos in den Armen liegen und hilflos schluchzen. Die Kamera zieht auf. Dann Schwarzblende – und eine letzte, dünne, einsam flehende Stimme im Äther:

»Hello, is anybody there? Anybody at all?«  (Hallo, ist da jemand? Irgendjemand?)

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

I am so tired of people trying to waste my time with Nostrized imitations of stuff that already exists.

Instagram, but make it Nostr. Twitter, but make it Nostr. GitHub, but make it Nostr. Facebook, but make it Nostr. Wordpress, but make it Nostr. GoodReads, but make it Nostr. TikTok, but make it Nostr.

That stuff already exists, and it wasn't that great the first time around, either. Build something better than that stuff, that can only be brought into existence because of Nostr.

Build something that does something completely and awesomely new. Knock my socks off, bro.

Cuz, ain't nobody got time for that.

@ 6871d8df:4a9396c1

## 2024 Prediction Reflections

Politics

Democrats & 2024 Election

• “Democrats’ attempt to stifle democracy will likely put Trump in the White House. If not, some real sketchy stuff would need to happen to keep him out.”

This prediction was exactly right. The assassination attempt on Trump seemed to be the final blow for the Democrats. Despite a heavy push my legacy media, Trump won handily.

The Democrats switched to Kamala Harris after Biden showed signs of incapacity, most notably in the first debate against Trump.

My prediction for the election also turned out to be exactly right, which, thank you Robert Barnes and Richard Baris.

Evidence of Institutional Ideological Capture

• “People will continue to wake up to ideologically captured institutions, and DEI will be the main loser.”

Trump’s resounding election victory underscores that the public is increasingly aware of (and rejecting) such institutional capture.

Of note, Boeing comes to mind as an institution that had a tough time in 2024, in large part to DEI. Nothing seemed to function correctly. The biggest story being how they stranded people in space

Media & Public Opinion

Rise of Independent & Alternative Media

• “Independent and alternative media will continue to grow as people’s trust in legacy media declines.”

Twitter (X), under Elon Musk, shattered mainstream media’s influence far more than expected. As Elon has said, “You are the media now.” Alternative sources are king. - Notable Example: Kamala Harris’s decision not to appear on the Joe Rogan podcast contrasted with Trump’s appearance, further highlighting the power shift to alternative media.

Markets & IPOs

Interest Rates & Public Markets

• “As interest rates come down, I expect public markets and IPOs to heat up.”

This did not play out. Companies that were expected to go public in 2024 remain private in 2025. The reasons are varied, but there is confidence that 2025 might see changes.

Technology & AI

LLMs & AI Adoption

• “AI and LLMs will continue to move at a rapid rate, increasing productivity. Tools like Bard will become more mainstream.”

AI did take off. Usage among nontechnical users increased, and it’s no longer uncommon for people to default to AI-driven tools rather than Google search.

Decentralized AI

• “I hope to see a rise in decentralized AI to counter big-player LLMs.”

We didn’t see explicit ‘decentralized AI’ breakthroughs, but more players entered the AI market. ChatGPT still dominates, with Elon’s ‘Grok’ making moves. Google, Meta, and Microsoft remain active but slightly behind in usage.

Bitcoin & Digital Assets

Institutional Adoption of Bitcoin

• “2024 will bring more institutions to Bitcoin. Possibly another large company or nation-state. The ETF should help, likely pushing BTC to a new all-time high.”

No large public company or nation-state placed a bet, but smaller public companies did. Michael Saylor presented to Microsoft’s Board, which was the closest instance to a major move.
- Price Movement: Bitcoin did hit a new all-time high, rising to as much as $108k in 2024.

Lightning Network

• “Lightning will improve but remain primarily used for acquiring Bitcoin, not everyday payments.”

Still true. Lightning usage remains tiny relative to broader Bitcoin adoption.

Nostr Adoption

• “Nostr will grow, and we’ll see new companies leverage this network beyond just social media.”

Growth continues, but Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover slowed adoption. Nostr will remain niche until a major catalyst occurs (e.g., a big player joins or forced usage due to censorship).

Stablecoin-Specific Regulations

• “Expect stablecoin regulations in 2024 that’ll be favorable to them.”

This didn’t happen, largely due to the administration’s hostility. Expect potential change in 2025.

Miscellaneous 2024 Reflections

• Return to Sanity
  • 2024 felt like sanity prevailed, largely due to the Democrats’ collapse behind Biden and Harris and Elon’s Twitter dominance.
• Operation Chokepoint 2.0
  • Received a lot of attention, and I’m thankful it did because my experience at Strike was radicalizing and extreme.
• Bryan Johnson & Anti-Aging
  • He burst onto the scene with his obsession over biomarkers. I see it as misguided—chasing markers in isolation doesn’t automatically yield a healthy system.
• Apple’s Rough Year
  • Without a visionary leader, Apple appears to be scraping by on existing products rather than innovating.
• Google Under Fire
  • Google is in a tough fight with the government, just as it seems they’re on their heels with AI competition.

---

2025 Predictions

1. Bitcoin’s Performance Bitcoin will have a good year, but not better than 2024. To beat 2024, it must close above 206k on December 31, 2025. I’ll take the under on that.

   • I am not ruling out it to be over that at some point in 2025.

2. Twitter’s Success Continues to Stunt nostr

3. Nostr adoption will stay slow due to Elon’s dominant influence with X (Twitter).
   • As long as it remains a beacon of free speech, I doubt we see an exodus.

4. Rumble integrating Tether might help if they allow Nostr-like features (zaps), but that seems unlikely.

5. Apple

6. Apple will continue its rent-seeking behavior and put out underwhelming products.

7. Google’s Quantum & AI

8. Recent buzz about Google’s quantum chip and AI improvements won’t pan out as a big deal.

9. Google will continue to trail OpenAI and xAI in practical LLM usage.

10. Elon, Vivek & DOGE

11. I expect them to deliver more than critics think. They’ll expose bloat and inefficiencies in ways that will shake up norms. I greatly welcome this. I wouldn’t bet against them.

12. Mainstream Media Reckoning

13. In Trump’s second term, mainstream news outlets will face a real reckoning, as I can’t see how their bias can continue.
14. They’ll have to reduce their bias or risk bankruptcy.

15. Alternative media’s growth trend continues, especially as Twitter keeps exposing mainstream outlets’ weaknesses.

16. RFK Delivers

17. We will see big changes in the health space due to RFK at HHS. These are changes that I am very excited to see.

18. Foreign Policy

19. With the transition to Trump, I expect some foreign policy wins that will buck the establishment but will deliver wins that are not thought possible by the “experts.”

---

Closing Note

• Overall 2024: It was a year of major political upheaval, vindication for Bitcoin, and continued AI advances.
• Outlook for 2025: Bitcoin remains strong, AI competition heats up, and media institutions face existential challenges. I’m optimistic for continued decentralization and a more level playing field across tech, finance, and politics. I think the start of Trump’s second term will be very strong for the market, health, and culture. Accelerate.

@ f7922a0a:82c34788

Now that the 3rd Satellite Skirmish is complete I wanted to highlight some of the cool features on embrace.satskirmish.com

This is what the cutting edge of podcasting 2.0 looks like imo. Live video in an app that allows you to send sats to the artists in real time.

On the left hand side we have a Boost score borad that displays the total amount of sats that have come in during the show, live Boosts/Booastagrams as they come in, total amount of sats from each person Boosting and total amount sent from each app.

The middle is ovisaly the video of the band playing but with some graphics around it and Boost alerts that show up on the screen in the form of snow flakes for this one.

The righthand side is an IRC chat window that connects to an IRC server that the No Agenda community has used for 18+ years thanks to zoidzero++.

The bottom of the page is where things get cool. When you click the Boost the Crew button in the center you can send a Boost that gets split between everyone helping produce the show (hightlighted in yellow).

Each band also has their own Boost button so you can Boost them while they are playing or anytime you visit the page.

@ 8671a6e5:f88194d1

A flash of inspiration

Sometimes the mind takes you to strange places. The other day, I stumbled across Madonna’s “Vogue” video, you know “strike a pose” and all that jazz, and it got me thinking. Not about her music (which, let’s be honest, hasn’t aged as gracefully as her PR team might hope), but about Michael Saylor and Bitcoin.

Bear with me here, there’s a connection there. Madonna built an empire and her iconic name on catchy tunes and reinvention, even if her catalog feels a bit thin these days. Saylor? He’s doing something similar—taking an old act, dusting it off, and teaching it a new trick. Only instead of a microphone, he’s wielding Bitcoin, and Wall Street’s playing the role of the music industry, propping up the star despite a shaky back catalog (his initial business software).

Old school meets new moves

Think of Saylor as that veteran artist who’s been around for a few decades and think of bitcoin as a new style of music, a genre or a gimmick that’s popular with the kids. Old music stars sooner or later pick up on that, and even bring people in to do a cross-over song, a mix or god forbid, a duet.

MicroStrategy, his software company, was never a top hit scoring machine. More of a album full of B-sides that faded into obscurity (for those who don’t know, look up what a B-side song was). But then he stumbled onto Bitcoin, the shiny new genre that’s got the attention and attracted people because of the underlying asset (our tunes are here to stay).

It’s not just a pivot; it’s a reinvention. Like an aging pop star learning to rap, Saylor’s taken his old-school business and remixed it into something attracting a decent audience at conferences for example. Like Madonna or the former Prince fulling arenas. He’s voguing alright; with bold moves, big loans, the support of his own music industry and a spotlight for his (sometimes Madonna lyrics like) ramblings.

The Saylor trick: a ray of light on bitcoin

Here’s the play: Saylor’s turned MicroStrategy into a Bitcoin hoarding machine. Forget software licenses; his game is borrowing billions—through corporate bonds and stock sales, only to buy and hold Bitcoin. Bitcoin will outshine gold, bonds, even the S&P 500, Saylor says. It’s a gamble, an honorable one if you’re a bitcoiner, but it’s dressed up as a vision, and it’s got a self-fulfilling prophecy in it. Not only that, such a prophecy can only fully come to fruition if he’s not the only buyer of last resort of any significance. A music industry isn’t a real industry if there was only Madonna dancing on stage as the only mainstream artist.

We had Prince, Michael Jackson, Taylor Swift, Bruno Mars or Dua Lipa and hundreds of other artists over time, vying for your money, attention span, and streaming minutes. The more Strategy buys, the more the Bitcoin crowd cheers, the higher the price climbs, and the more attention he gets. Speaking gigs, headlines, cult status—it’s a win-win, at least on paper. Strike the pose, indeed.

The McDonald’s trick: value under the surface

It’s not the first time Michael Saylro remixes a tape from another artist so to speak. Let’s pivot to McDonald’s for a second, because there’s a parallel here. You think Big Macs when you think McDonald’s, but their real value hustle is actually real estate.

They own prime land, lease it to franchisees, and rake in rent—billions of it. The burgers? Just a tasty front for a property empire. Saylor’s pulling a similar move, but instead of buildings, his asset is Bitcoin. MicroStrategy’s software gig is the fries on the side — nice to have, but not the main course. He’s borrowing against the future value of BTC, betting it’ll keep climbing, just like McDonald’s banks on steady foot traffic and picking strategic (pun intended) locations. The difference? McDonald’s has a fallback if real estate tanks. Saylor’s all-in on bitcoin. (So far so good, if there’s one thing to go all-in on, it’s bitcoin anyway). That on itself is not an issue. But it’s important to know that the “location” is the asset for some while bitcoin is the “asset” for Strategy. Mc Donald’s assets are easy to spot: there are restaurants all over the place. Madonna’s concerts are also easy to spot: they sell out arenas left and right. Strategy’s bitcoin asset is less easy to spot, as we can’t see them, neither can we verify them. More on that later.

The hybrid star: Madonna meets McDonald’s

So, picture this: Saylor’s a cross between Madonna and a fast-food landlord. He’s the aging music icon who’s learned a flashy new dance, but underneath the glitter, he’s running a McDonald’s-style value play. It’s brilliant, in a way. Bitcoin’s scarcity fuels the hype, and his borrowing keeps the show on the road. Madonna’s legacy still sells records her name holds value, and McDonald’s can lean on its food business and brand, if the property game stumbles they can easily pivot back to basics and earn like they’ve always done on selling food and franchise income/licensing. Saylor? His software arm’s is rather dismal. If Bitcoin falters, there’s no encore that can him.a flash of inspiration

Sometimes the mind takes you to strange places. The other day, I stumbled across Madonna’s “Vogue” video, you know “strike a pose” and all that jazz, and it got me thinking. Not about her music (which, let’s be honest, hasn’t aged as gracefully as her PR team might hope), but about Michael Saylor and Bitcoin.\ \ Bear with me here, there’s a connection there. Madonna built an empire and her iconic name on catchy tunes and reinvention, even if her catalog feels a bit thin these days.\ Saylor? He’s doing something similar—taking an old act, dusting it off, and teaching it a new trick. Only instead of a microphone, he’s wielding Bitcoin, and Wall Street’s playing the role of the music industry, propping up the star despite a shaky back catalog (his initial business software).

Old school meets new moves

Think of Saylor as that veteran artist who’s been around for a few decades and think of bitcoin as a new style of music, a genre or a gimmick that’s popular with the kids. Old music stars sooner or later pick up on that, and even bring people in to do a cross-over song, a mix or god forbid, a duet.

MicroStrategy, his software company, was never a top hit scoring machine. More of a album full of B-sides that faded into obscurity (for those who don’t know, look up what a B-side song was).\ But then he stumbled onto Bitcoin, the shiny new genre that’s got the attention and attracted people because of the underlying asset (our tunes are here to stay).\ \ It’s not just a pivot; it’s a reinvention. Like an aging pop star learning to rap, Saylor’s taken his old-school business and remixed it into something attracting a decent audience at conferences for example. Like Madonna or the former Prince fulling arenas.\ He’s voguing alright; with bold moves, big loans, the support of his own music industry and a spotlight for his (sometimes Madonna lyrics like) ramblings.

*The Saylor trick: a ray of light on bitcoin* \ Here’s the play: Saylor’s turned MicroStrategy into a Bitcoin hoarding machine. Forget software licenses; his game is borrowing billions—through corporate bonds and stock sales, only to buy and hold Bitcoin. Bitcoin will outshine gold, bonds, even the S&P 500, Saylor says.\ It’s a gamble, an honorable one if you’re a bitcoiner, but it’s dressed up as a vision, and it’s got a self-fulfilling prophecy in it. Not only that, such a prophecy can only fully come to fruition if he’s not the only buyer of last resort of any significance. A music industry isn’t a real industry if there was only Madonna dancing on stage as the only mainstream artist.\ \ We had Prince, Michael Jackson, Taylor Swift, Bruno Mars or Dua Lipa and hundreds of other artists over time, vying for your money, attention span, and streaming minutes.\ The more Strategy buys, the more the Bitcoin crowd cheers, the higher the price climbs, and the more attention he gets. Speaking gigs, headlines, cult status—it’s a win-win, at least on paper. Strike the pose, indeed.

*The McDonald’s trick: value under the surface* \ It’s not the first time Michael Saylro remixes a tape from another artist so to speak.\ Let’s pivot to McDonald’s for a second, because there’s a parallel here. You think Big Macs when you think McDonald’s, but their real value hustle is actually real estate.

They own prime land, lease it to franchisees, and rake in rent—billions of it. The burgers? Just a tasty front for a property empire. Saylor’s pulling a similar move, but instead of buildings, his asset is Bitcoin.\ MicroStrategy’s software gig is the fries on the side — nice to have, but not the main course. He’s borrowing against the future value of BTC, betting it’ll keep climbing, just like McDonald’s banks on steady foot traffic and picking strategic (pun intended) locations.\ The difference? McDonald’s has a fallback if real estate tanks. Saylor’s all-in on bitcoin. (So far so good, if there’s one thing to go all-in on, it’s bitcoin anyway). That on itself is not an issue. But it’s important to know that the “location” is the asset for some while bitcoin is the “asset” for Strategy.\ Mc Donald’s assets are easy to spot: there are restaurants all over the place. Madonna’s concerts are also easy to spot: they sell out arenas left and right.\ Strategy’s bitcoin asset is less easy to spot, as we can’t see them, neither can we verify them. More on that later.

The hybrid star: Madonna meets McDonald’s

So, picture this: Saylor’s a cross between Madonna and a fast-food landlord. He’s the aging music icon who’s learned a flashy new dance, but underneath the glitter, he’s running a McDonald’s-style value play.\ It’s brilliant, in a way. Bitcoin’s scarcity fuels the hype, and his borrowing keeps the show on the road.\ Madonna’s legacy still sells records her name holds value, and McDonald’s can lean on its food business and brand, if the property game stumbles they can easily pivot back to basics and earn like they’ve always done on selling food and franchise income/licensing.\ Saylor? His software arm’s is rather dismal. If Bitcoin falters, there’s no encore that can him.

The music’s made in-house

Michael Saylor’s strategy with Strategy, is a bold, all-in bet on Bitcoin as the ultimate store of value. Essentially combining what Mc Donald’s does with the strong believe in bitcoin’s future (and fueling that believe with the fitting rhetoric).

It works like this: Since August 2020, Saylor’s company has been buying up more and more Bitcoin, making it their main asset instead of traditional cash or investments, and by March 2025, they own 506,137 BTC—worth about $42.8 billion (at $84,000 per Bitcoin). This, after spending $33.7 billion to buy it over time (DCA), including a massive 218887 BTC purchase late 2024 for $20.5 billion, giving them over 2.41% of all Bitcoin ever to exist (way more than companies like Marathon, Coinbase, Tesla or Riot).

To pull this off, they’ve borrowed heavily: owing $7.2 billion, mostly to Wall Street investors through special IOUs1 called convertible notes, which don’t need to be paid back until 2027, through 2029. These can either be settled with cash or swapped for Strategy stock. (there lies one of the main issues in my opinion, as the main asset’s price in USD is directly impacting the stock price of MSTR). A small example of this repeated correlation happened on March 28, 2025 when Strategy’s stock (MSTR) dropped 10.8% from $324.59 to $289.41, which was mirroring Bitcoin’s move down from $85,000 to $82,000 earlier.

This debt they have can be called “risky” by any stretch, with a high leverage rate of 39-40%, meaning they’ve borrowed a big chunk compared to what they own outright, but here’s the genius of it: they don’t have to sell their Bitcoin if its price drops, and they can refinance (borrow more later) to keep the dance going. As long as they find investors willing to bet on the later bitcoin price surge, but more importantly, as long as the song is liked by the new audience. If Michael Saylor is our “Madonna”, then there’s still not Taylor Swift or Rihanna in sight.

The creditors (big players, not banks) win if Bitcoin soars, as Strategy’s huge stash (potentially 2.9%+ of the market) nets them massive profits, or even if it crashes, they’re still in the game with other ways to make profit (not on bitcoin), since they can afford the risk. If someone is willing to bet 4 to 8 billion dollars, they’re probably not spooked by losing it all. More so, these Wall Streat people in the correct entourage, can probably afford such a gamble, and can stomach to lose it all if something goes horribly wrong as well, instead of risking being left out of a growing market. But since they’re probably the same people steering and “owning” the USD market anyway, they’re just conquering positions in a new market. The fact that they’re not real bitcoin-ethos people, but just “suits” in finance, can make the suspicious bitcoiners watching all of this unfold, even more uneasy.

So, Strategy sits on $44 billion in Bitcoin with just $7.2 billion in debt, voguing confidently. And Saylor’s betting the song never gets old, he’ll do the B-sides and re-mastering his old albums if necessary, but if Bitcoin’s value ever fades (for whatever reason), the real question is how long they can keep striking poses before the music stops. Remember: all money (fiat, gold, silver, bitcoin, nicely made papers) is a matter of trust.

As I have trust in bitcoin itself, but not so much in Strategy, I’ve take some precautions. I've started my own sort of "Strategy crash fund", with fiat money that only will come into action when strategy is done. The crash that we'll see after that goes down, will be such a tremendous opportunity, that I'll pour in some more fiat, gladly, and that will be the exact moment I will actually “sell all my chairs” (from Saylor’s well-known quote).

Purchases

Strategy’s Bitcoin purchases, don’t seem to jolt the market much either, no matter the size of the order. They always have the same sound: “it’s OTC, it doesn’t impact the market that much”.

Still, it’s strange to see: no one has ever come forward to tell anyone “I’ve sold 15000 bitcoin from my old stack to Saylor”, neither do we see any clear evidence and on-chain moves.

Take their first buy in August 2020 for example. Totaling 21454 BTC for $250 million at $11,652 per BTC; Bitcoin sat at $11,500 to $11,700 so barely moved, inching to $12,000 weeks later due to broader trends.

Same story in December 2020 with 29646 BTC for $650 million, there, the price hopped from $19,000 to $23,000, but a bull market was already raging. Fast forward to February 2021 (19452 BTC, for $1.026 billion (!)), March 2024 (9245 BTC, $623 million), November 2024 (55500 BTC, $5.4 billion), and March 2025 (6911 BTC, $584.1 million)

Bitcoin wobbled 2-15%, but always in line with existing momentum, not Strategy’s announcements. Their biggest buy, for a total of $5.4 billion (!) is just 0.3% of Bitcoin’s $1.7 trillion market cap, it’s too small to register as a blip even. But compared to the liquidity on the market and the “availability” on the OTC market, it should. More so, OTC bitcoin is announced as “for sale” somehow. A person with +25000 bitcoin is not standing on the side of the street yelling “hey man, wanna buy some bitcoin?”. There are specialized firms doing that for them, and making these available. This date is also used by some insiders and people who know this very small market (there aren’t that many bitcoiners sitting on such an amount after 2024 I guess). Data from Binance OTC, Coinspaid, kraken OTC, is highly private of course, but still, anything being sold over there, to Strategy or anyone else, would take larger amounts off the open market and the OTC market, making a price impact, certainly withing 2 years, as Bitcoin mining companies sit on an average buffer of 6 months depending on market conditions.

Strategy funds all of this by selling shares (diluting the pool big-time) or issuing convertible notes, and while SEC filings make faking these buys near-impossible. And even if Saylor is the Bitcoin version of Bernie Madoff, he could get away with it, if enough people "in the know" are willing to support this way of infesting (and investing in) the bitcoin economy. This would have to be a clear orchestrated attack on bitcoin, purely on the financial level then.

I don't believe this to be the case, but mathematically we have to take it into account as a very slight possibility.

After all, a company like "WorldCom"2 managed to scam their way out of different audits for years, until the scheme got bust and a enormous amount of investors lost their money after their CEO went to jail3 for exchange fraud.

I believe this could be the case with Strategy, but I give it a 3% chance (this might be low, but it's there, we can't outright dismiss the possibility).

Water in the wine

Strategy has also massively diluted its stock to fund Bitcoin buys, jumping from 10 million shares in 2020 to about 285 million by March 2025—a 2,750% increase, this happened after raising $4.25 billion from 2020 onwards and $20 billion of their $42 billion "21/21 Plan" by early 2025.

After the 10-for-1 stock split in August 2024, the number of MSTR shares grew from 16.5 million in 2023 to 284898 by end of 2024, a 1625% rise !!!. Add to that about 275 million more shares added in total (including 120 million in 2024 alone) and 1.975 million extra in March 2025 for $592.6 million.

So more and more tap water is poured in the wine, and it means each share’s ownership slice shrinks as new shares flood in, mostly via "at-the-market" sales and convertible note conversions. This is partly offset by share splits, but still, the rise in the number of stock is significant, and a big factor in evaluating MSTR.

In December 2024, they proposed hiking authorized shares to 10.33 billion (plus 1 billion preferred), approved in January 2025, setting the stage for even more if they keep selling.

The trend is clear: relentless selling. They might say “we never sell bitcoin”, but the same doesn’t count for their shares… which derive their value from bitcoin’s fiat price. So shareholders are betting on Bitcoin’s rise to offset the watering down of the share they hold. The more you think of it, the more ludicrous it sounds. It’s a loop of trust where the stock itself can only thrive if the company itself is an active, useful middleman. And so far, it’s only doing so for other Wall street companies, the biggest holders of MSTR shares:

Vanguard Group Inc, BlackRock, Capital International Investors, Jane Street Group, Susquehanna International Group

This on itself is also “normal” of course. In the flow of things. Like every aspect by itself in the whole Strategy setup is just normal. But combining all the factors makes it look a bit more… suspicious to me.

Supporting bitcoin ?

The real head-scratcher comes next: their secrecy and lack of community involvement. Strategy claims to hold 506137 BTC, likely cold-stored with partners like BitGo or Coinbase Custody, but no public wallet addresses back these claims up. Odd for a firm swearing never to sell.

There’s also the real risk that these partners are partly selling paper bitcoin (bitcoin they don't hold the keys to, or "promised" bitcoin) to Strategy, and that they just assume everything is audited and OK.

We can't estimate that, since we don't have any public MicroStrategy addresses or other ways to look at their holdings. This is for security reasons apparently, which raises another question: If they for example would show 300k+ BTC on-chain as proof, it’d boost trust, yet they don’t, hinting at a bigger play — maybe as a Wall Street-backed buyer of last resort for a new asset class.

Also Strategy’s software business and bitcoin “apps” (like the super simple Lightning email integration, and an on-chain digital ID system) is underwhelming to say the least (I literally know people that code such stuff on a free afternoon while they’re cooking dinner).

Their very minimal software innovation for the Bitcoin space, with basic Lightning features and an on-chain ID system, failing their their valuation as a 'Bitcoin company' in my opinion. More so, their business is ignoring the other innovation that would help bitcoin thrive. This is kind of a red flag for me. Why would a company sitting on +500 k bitcoin be hesitant about supporting the bitcoin eco-system more actively? They sure have the funds to do so, right? And they also have the right insights, info and spirit. Yet, they don’t.

They don’t fund developers for open-source projects, or Bitcoin’s growth in general (not publicly at least). So Saylor shines in talks, hyping Bitcoin’s future and Strategy’s stock, but it’s all the self fulfilling prophecy.

No grants, no real support for the community they lean on. It’s like they’re dancing to Bitcoin’s mixtape, raking in the spotlight, while giving little back. All the while some extremely needed projects lack funding, and most software companies in bitcoin who wish to innovate are begging and scraping funds together, in order to stay afloat. Something’s not ok with that. I can’t understand a company with that much power and money being part of this movement and loving bitcoin, while not actively supporting the development or the maintainers of the bitcoin software. (and yes, to keep their independence it’s best to keep it that way, that’s also an argument, but even then, giving out a grant to anyone that’s crucial in this industry, might help the whole ecosystem).

The show must go on—for now

The whole Strategy setup feels more and more like a performance to me. Saylor’s the star, doing the moves and Wall Street’s the record label, and we’re the audience, captivated by the spectacle and paying to see the show on occasion.

The suits keep funding him (free money, IOUs), just like the music industry props up a fading diva with a limited repertoire or drags a new star from her home studio on YouTube into the spotlights. H Saylor’s 21/21 Plan to the amount of $42 billion to snatch up more Bitcoin can be a grand finale that’s dazzling while the lights stay on.

Prediction: the music stops eventually

Here’s my take: Bitcoin will keep rising over a long period of time, and Saylor’s gambit will look like a genius move, until it doesn’t. All it takes is one big shot in Wall Street to find another shiny toy to play with, or another play to get their money working. The billions they’ve invested, will come back eventually, and if it doesn’t, it will mean the world has changed in their advantage as well in another way. Some people cannot lose, no matter what. Saylor’s now part of that, doing their bidding and doing his part for educating the other businesses.

He’s the only big buyer of last resort in this game so far. No one else is piling in with billions like he is. When the hype cools or the debt catches up, he’s got no real business to fall back on. The software? A relic. The Bitcoin bet can save him if the time is right, we’ll see about that. Time is his enemy not ally, and it always wins in the end. The pose can only hold so long. You can’t keep scoring free fiat, without either die on low valuation and dilution, or without at least 20 other Strategy-grade businesses jumping in to take their piece of the pie. So far, surprisingly, none of these two things happen. He keeps getting free fiat from Wall Street investors, and no other Saylor stands up. This can’t last forever. One of the two will happen by end of 2025.

Curtain call

Saylor’s a fascinating watch, a mix of investor-backed bravado, brains, and borrowed billions. Is it a masterstroke or a bitcoin version of Worldcom? I’m not sure. In any case, I would only invest in MSTR myself if the company has a real added value for bitcoin development and the bitcoin ecosystem. They could be the engine, the spirit, the core of bitcoin. Yet they’re just doing the poses. Let your body move to the rhythm.

AVB

If you like : tip here / other writings

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOU

2 https://sc.edu/about/offices_and_divisions/audit_and_advisory_services/about/news/2021/worldcom_scandal.php

3 https://content.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ic6b4dd91644311dbbe1cf2d29fe2afe6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)#:\~:text=Rep.-,6,Criminal%20ChargesThe music’s made in-house

Michael Saylor’s strategy with Strategy, is a bold, all-in bet on Bitcoin as the ultimate store of value. Essentially combining what Mc Donald’s does with the strong believe in bitcoin’s future (and fueling that believe with the fitting rhetoric).\ \ It works like this: Since August 2020, Saylor’s company has been buying up more and more Bitcoin, making it their main asset instead of traditional cash or investments, and by March 2025, they own 506,137 BTC—worth about $42.8 billion (at $84,000 per Bitcoin).\ This, after spending $33.7 billion to buy it over time (DCA), including a massive 218887 BTC purchase late 2024 for $20.5 billion, giving them over 2.41% of all Bitcoin ever to exist (way more than companies like Marathon, Coinbase, Tesla or Riot).\ \ To pull this off, they’ve borrowed heavily: owing $7.2 billion, mostly to Wall Street investors through special IOUs1 called convertible notes, which don’t need to be paid back until 2027, through 2029. These can either be settled with cash or swapped for Strategy stock. (there lies one of the main issues in my opinion, as the main asset’s price in USD is directly impacting the stock price of MSTR).\ A small example of this repeated correlation happened on March 28, 2025 when Strategy’s stock (MSTR) dropped 10.8% from $324.59 to $289.41, which was mirroring Bitcoin’s move down from $85,000 to $82,000 earlier.

This debt they have can be called “risky” by any stretch, with a high leverage rate of 39-40%, meaning they’ve borrowed a big chunk compared to what they own outright, but here’s the genius of it: they don’t have to sell their Bitcoin if its price drops, and they can refinance (borrow more later) to keep the dance going. As long as they find investors willing to bet on the later bitcoin price surge, but more importantly, as long as the song is liked by the new audience. If Michael Saylor is our “Madonna”, then there’s still not Taylor Swift or Rihanna in sight.

The creditors (big players, not banks) win if Bitcoin soars, as Strategy’s huge stash (potentially 2.9%+ of the market) nets them massive profits, or even if it crashes, they’re still in the game with other ways to make profit (not on bitcoin), since they can afford the risk. If someone is willing to bet 4 to 8 billion dollars, they’re probably not spooked by losing it all. More so, these Wall Streat people in the correct entourage, can probably afford such a gamble, and can stomach to lose it all if something goes horribly wrong as well, instead of risking being left out of a growing market. But since they’re probably the same people steering and “owning” the USD market anyway, they’re just conquering positions in a new market. The fact that they’re not real bitcoin-ethos people, but just “suits” in finance, can make the suspicious bitcoiners watching all of this unfold, even more uneasy.\ \ So, Strategy sits on $44 billion in Bitcoin with just $7.2 billion in debt, voguing confidently. And Saylor’s betting the song never gets old, he’ll do the B-sides and re-mastering his old albums if necessary, but if Bitcoin’s value ever fades (for whatever reason), the real question is how long they can keep striking poses before the music stops. Remember: all money (fiat, gold, silver, bitcoin, nicely made papers) is a matter of trust.

As I have trust in bitcoin itself, but not so much in Strategy, I’ve take some precautions.\ I've started my own sort of "Strategy crash fund", with fiat money that only will come into action when strategy is done. The crash that we'll see after that goes down, will be such a tremendous opportunity, that I'll pour in some more fiat, gladly, and that will be the exact moment I will actually “sell all my chairs” (from Saylor’s well-known quote).

Purchases

Strategy’s Bitcoin purchases, don’t seem to jolt the market much either, no matter the size of the order. They always have the same sound: “it’s OTC, it doesn’t impact the market that much”.\ \ Still, it’s strange to see: no one has ever come forward to tell anyone “I’ve sold 15000 bitcoin from my old stack to Saylor”, neither do we see any clear evidence and on-chain moves.\ \ Take their first buy in August 2020 for example. Totaling 21454 BTC for $250 million at $11,652 per BTC; Bitcoin sat at $11,500 to $11,700 so barely moved, inching to $12,000 weeks later due to broader trends.

Same story in December 2020 with 29646 BTC for $650 million, there, the price hopped from $19,000 to $23,000, but a bull market was already raging.\ Fast forward to February 2021 (19452 BTC, for $1.026 billion (!)), March 2024 (9245 BTC, $623 million), November 2024 (55500 BTC, $5.4 billion), and March 2025 (6911 BTC, $584.1 million)\ \ Bitcoin wobbled 2-15%, but always in line with existing momentum, not Strategy’s announcements. Their biggest buy, for a total of $5.4 billion (!) is just 0.3% of Bitcoin’s $1.7 trillion market cap, it’s too small to register as a blip even. But compared to the liquidity on the market and the “availability” on the OTC market, it should.\ More so, OTC bitcoin is announced as “for sale” somehow. A person with +25000 bitcoin is not standing on the side of the street yelling “hey man, wanna buy some bitcoin?”. There are specialized firms doing that for them, and making these available. This date is also used by some insiders and people who know this very small market (there aren’t that many bitcoiners sitting on such an amount after 2024 I guess). Data from Binance OTC, Coinspaid, kraken OTC, is highly private of course, but still, anything being sold over there, to Strategy or anyone else, would take larger amounts off the open market and the OTC market, making a price impact, certainly withing 2 years, as Bitcoin mining companies sit on an average buffer of 6 months depending on market conditions.\ \ Strategy funds all of this by selling shares (diluting the pool big-time) or issuing convertible notes, and while SEC filings make faking these buys near-impossible. And even if Saylor is the Bitcoin version of Bernie Madoff, he could get away with it, if enough people "in the know" are willing to support this way of infesting (and investing in) the bitcoin economy. This would have to be a clear orchestrated attack on bitcoin, purely on the financial level then.

I don't believe this to be the case, but mathematically we have to take it into account as a very slight possibility.

After all, a company like "WorldCom"2 managed to scam their way out of different audits for years, until the scheme got bust and a enormous amount of investors lost their money after their CEO went to jail3 for exchange fraud.

I believe this could be the case with Strategy, but I give it a 3% chance (this might be low, but it's there, we can't outright dismiss the possibility).

Water in the wine

Strategy has also massively diluted its stock to fund Bitcoin buys, jumping from 10 million shares in 2020 to about 285 million by March 2025—a 2,750% increase, this happened after raising $4.25 billion from 2020 onwards and $20 billion of their $42 billion "21/21 Plan" by early 2025.\ \ After the 10-for-1 stock split in August 2024, the number of MSTR shares grew from 16.5 million in 2023 to 284898 by end of 2024, a 1625% rise !!!. Add to that about 275 million more shares added in total (including 120 million in 2024 alone) and 1.975 million extra in March 2025 for $592.6 million.\ \ So more and more tap water is poured in the wine, and it means each share’s ownership slice shrinks as new shares flood in, mostly via "at-the-market" sales and convertible note conversions.\ This is partly offset by share splits, but still, the rise in the number of stock is significant, and a big factor in evaluating MSTR.\ \ In December 2024, they proposed hiking authorized shares to 10.33 billion (plus 1 billion preferred), approved in January 2025, setting the stage for even more if they keep selling.\ \ The trend is clear: relentless selling.\ They might say “we never sell bitcoin”, but the same doesn’t count for their shares… which derive their value from bitcoin’s fiat price.\ So shareholders are betting on Bitcoin’s rise to offset the watering down of the share they hold. The more you think of it, the more ludicrous it sounds. It’s a loop of trust where the stock itself can only thrive if the company itself is an active, useful middleman.\ And so far, it’s only doing so for other Wall street companies, the biggest holders of MSTR shares:

Vanguard Group Inc, BlackRock, Capital International Investors, Jane Street Group, Susquehanna International Group\ \ This on itself is also “normal” of course. In the flow of things.\ Like every aspect by itself in the whole Strategy setup is just normal. But combining all the factors makes it look a bit more… suspicious to me.

Supporting bitcoin ?

The real head-scratcher comes next: their secrecy and lack of community involvement.\ Strategy claims to hold 506137 BTC, likely cold-stored with partners like BitGo or Coinbase Custody, but no public wallet addresses back these claims up. Odd for a firm swearing never to sell.

There’s also the real risk that these partners are partly selling paper bitcoin (bitcoin they don't hold the keys to, or "promised" bitcoin) to Strategy, and that they just assume everything is audited and OK.

We can't estimate that, since we don't have any public MicroStrategy addresses or other ways to look at their holdings. This is for security reasons apparently, which raises another question:\ If they for example would show 300k+ BTC on-chain as proof, it’d boost trust, yet they don’t, hinting at a bigger play — maybe as a Wall Street-backed buyer of last resort for a new asset class.

Also Strategy’s software business and bitcoin “apps” (like the super simple Lightning email integration, and an on-chain digital ID system) is underwhelming to say the least (I literally know people that code such stuff on a free afternoon while they’re cooking dinner).

Their very minimal software innovation for the Bitcoin space, with basic Lightning features and an on-chain ID system, failing their their valuation as a 'Bitcoin company' in my opinion. More so, their business is ignoring the other innovation that would help bitcoin thrive. This is kind of a red flag for me.\ Why would a company sitting on +500 k bitcoin be hesitant about supporting the bitcoin eco-system more actively? They sure have the funds to do so, right? And they also have the right insights, info and spirit.\ Yet, they don’t.\ \ They don’t fund developers for open-source projects, or Bitcoin’s growth in general (not publicly at least). So Saylor shines in talks, hyping Bitcoin’s future and Strategy’s stock, but it’s all the self fulfilling prophecy.\ \ No grants, no real support for the community they lean on.\ It’s like they’re dancing to Bitcoin’s mixtape, raking in the spotlight, while giving little back. All the while some extremely needed projects lack funding, and most software companies in bitcoin who wish to innovate are begging and scraping funds together, in order to stay afloat.\ Something’s not ok with that.\ I can’t understand a company with that much power and money being part of this movement and loving bitcoin, while not actively supporting the development or the maintainers of the bitcoin software. (and yes, to keep their independence it’s best to keep it that way, that’s also an argument, but even then, giving out a grant to anyone that’s crucial in this industry, might help the whole ecosystem).

The show must go on—for now

The whole Strategy setup feels more and more like a performance to me. Saylor’s the star, doing the moves and Wall Street’s the record label, and we’re the audience, captivated by the spectacle and paying to see the show on occasion.\ \ The suits keep funding him (free money, IOUs), just like the music industry props up a fading diva with a limited repertoire or drags a new star from her home studio on YouTube into the spotlights. H\ Saylor’s 21/21 Plan to the amount of $42 billion to snatch up more Bitcoin can be a grand finale that’s dazzling while the lights stay on.

Prediction: the music stops eventually

Here’s my take: Bitcoin will keep rising over a long period of time, and Saylor’s gambit will look like a genius move, until it doesn’t. All it takes is one big shot in Wall Street to find another shiny toy to play with, or another play to get their money working. The billions they’ve invested, will come back eventually, and if it doesn’t, it will mean the world has changed in their advantage as well in another way. Some people cannot lose, no matter what. Saylor’s now part of that, doing their bidding and doing his part for educating the other businesses.\ \ He’s the only big buyer of last resort in this game so far. No one else is piling in with billions like he is. When the hype cools or the debt catches up, he’s got no real business to fall back on. The software? A relic. The Bitcoin bet can save him if the time is right, we’ll see about that.\ Time is his enemy not ally, and it always wins in the end. The pose can only hold so long. You can’t keep scoring free fiat, without either die on low valuation and dilution, or without at least 20 other Strategy-grade businesses jumping in to take their piece of the pie.\ So far, surprisingly, none of these two things happen.\ He keeps getting free fiat from Wall Street investors, and no other Saylor stands up.\ This can’t last forever. One of the two will happen by end of 2025.\ \ Curtain call

Saylor’s a fascinating watch, a mix of investor-backed bravado, brains, and borrowed billions.\ Is it a masterstroke or a bitcoin version of Worldcom?\ I’m not sure. In any case, I would only invest in MSTR myself if the company has a real added value for bitcoin development and the bitcoin ecosystem. They could be the engine, the spirit, the core of bitcoin.\ Yet they’re just doing the poses.\ Let your body move to the rhythm.

AVB

If you like : tip here / other writings

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOU

2 https://sc.edu/about/offices_and_divisions/audit_and_advisory_services/about/news/2021/worldcom_scandal.php

3

https://content.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ic6b4dd91644311dbbe1cf2d29fe2afe6/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)#:\~:text=Rep.-,6,Criminal%20Charges