@ 04ea4f83:210e1713

Veröffentlicht auf Youtube am 19.01.2024\ Originalautor: Bitcoin University\ Übersetzt und angepasst von: Sinautoshi am 21.01.2024 - 825611\ \ Dieser Artikel wird auf der Website von European Bitcoiners nur zu Bildungs-, Informations- und Übersetzungszwecken zur Verfügung gestellt und stellt weder eine finanzielle Beratung noch einen Anspruch auf die im Bericht erwähnten Details dar.\ \ Alle Rechte liegen bei dem Autor des Originals.

Du hast auch begrenzte Zeit um Bitcoin zu verstehen und zu nutzen.

Also, wie bestimmst du nun wie du deine begrenzte Zeit sinnvoll einsetzt?

Weg #1: Shitcoiner/Altcoiner

Dein Tag als Shitcoiner:

• Schaue viele Youtube Videos mit den Vorschaubildern von Kerlen mit offenem Mund, weil die dich mit einfach mit den besten Informationen versorgen

• Den Preis von einem dutzend Kryptowährungen mindestens ein paar hundertmal checken
• Ehrfurchtsvoll Krypto Trading Charts lesen
• Sicher gehen, dass du niemals deine Performance in BTC misst, da dies dir zeigen könnte, dass Shitcoins doch nicht so eine gute Idee ist
• Das Internet nach Informationen durchforstest, welcher Coin als nächstes groß rauskommen wird um dabei nach folgenden Schema vorzugehen:\ - Versuche frühzeitig zu kaufen\ - Versuche nicht abgezockt zu werden\ - Dann schnell verkaufen\ - Einen großen Teil des Gewinns direkt ans Finanzamt abdrücken\ - Und nun alles wieder von vorn!\ \ VERTRAU MIR JUNGE, SO WERDEN WIR ALLE MILLIONÄRE!!!!
• Achtung (!), du brauchst nur den passenden Guru oder Online Trading Berater, der dir sagt welche Kryptowährung und dir stündlich, die passenden Trading-Signale schickt
• Das einzig wichtige: schalte niemals dein eigenes Hirn an.
• Versuche nicht zu verstehen wie ein Markt funktioniert
• Springe von Gerücht zu Gerücht und kümmere dich nur um das Allerneuste

Vertraue einfach anderen Leute dir zu sagen was du zu denken hast, denn schließlich hat reich werden nichts damit zu tun an sich zu arbeiten und echte Fähigkeiten zu lernen.

Das Patentrezept ist der Hochfrequenz-Handel während man im Schlafanzug vor dem PC sitzt.

Falls du doch mal abgezogen werden solltest:

Stelle sicher, dass du auf Telegram einen ausgezeichneten Online Wiederherstellungsdienst bezahlst, der dir hilft die Coins wiederzuholen.

Lass dir dabei vorlügen, dass alle Bitcoin und Kryptotransaktionen rückgängig zu machen sind, obwohl sie IRREVERSIBEL sind.

Genieß deine Shitcoinerei - sie könnte nicht von langer Dauer sein.

Immerhin hast du nun ein paar Dopamin Stöße bekommen.

Weg #2: Bitcoiner

Wenn dir der Dopamin Stoß wichtiger ist als harte Arbeit, dann ist dieser Weg sicherlich nichts für dich.

Der Tag im Leben eines Bitcoiners:

• Prüft nicht den Preis
• Kauft ein bisschen BTC, sobald etwas Bargeld reinkommt oder macht einfach regelmäßiges DCA
• Bleibt am Ball um zu verstehen wie Bitcoin funktioniert
• Versteht die Anreize, welche das Bitcoin Netzwerk schützt
• Versteht den Unterschied zwischen Proof of Work und Proof of Stake
• Versteht was Miner, Mining Pools, Nodes, XPubs und UTXO sind
• Versteht die Grundlagen eines asymmetrischen Verschlüsselungsverfahren und was es so nützlich macht
• Versteht wie verschiedene Attacken gegen Bitcoin aussehen könnten und warum sie erfolgreich seien oder fehlschlagen müssten
• Lernt wie man eine Hardware Wallet sicher aufsetzt und wiederherstellt
• Lernt wie man die Hardware Wallet mit Sparrow oder Nunchuk verbindet
• Spielt mit Nodes herum auf einem Desktop, Laptop oder Mini PC
• Versteht wie Wiederherstellungsphrasen und Passphrasen funktionieren
• Versteht die Vor- und Nachteile von Single-Sig und Multi-Sig
• Entwickelt seine persönliche Aufbewahrungsmethode, die ihn vor verschiedenen Szenarien schützt
• Weiß wie man eine Hardware Wallet zurücksetzt und sie wiederherstellt
• Weiß wie man seine Bitcoin schnell und überall in die Welt mitnehmen kann, falls das nötig sein sollte
• Weiß wie man seine Bitcoin zwischen den verschiedenen Ebenen wie Lightning und Liquid bewegen kann
• Weiß wie man eine Bitcoin im Lightning Netzwerk selbst verwahren kann wie z.B. mit Phoenix Wallet
• Lernt wie man eine Lightning Node betreibt
• Weiß wie man Bitcoin ohne Identifizierungsverfahren kauft
• Weiß wie und wann man seine Bitcoin mit einer Coinjoin Transaktion verschleiert
• Arbeitet hart in der echten Welt um seinen Lohn in Bitcoin zu tauschen
• Schaut nach Möglichkeiten Bitcoin direkt zu verdienen, entweder durch den Hauptjob oder einen kleinen Nebenjob
• Lernt wie man Software mit GPG verifiziert
• Versteht wie Lightning, Splicing, Liquid und Fedimint arbeiten

Es gibt einfach so viele zu lernen und du wirst einsehen, dass das Trading von Shitcoins einfach Zeitverschwendung ist, wenn man auch die aufgelisteten Fähigkeiten lernen könnte. Dazu wird die übrige Zeit mit Folgendem verbracht:

• Viel Zeit in der Natur
• Atmen von frischer Luft
• Etwas Sonne abbekommen
• Laufen, Joggen und Gewichtstraining
• Kochen, und das mit guten Zutaten
• Zeit mit den Liebsten verbringen, während man abgekoppelt von den sozialen Medien ist

Man versucht einfach jeden Tag eine schlauere, stärkere und bessere Person im Allgemeinen zu werden.

Was nimmst du nun mit?

Hör auf zu zocken, fang an zu lernen.

Anstatt deine Zeit mit Trading und Shitcoins zu verschwenden, lerne wie du Bitcoin kaufst und sie sicher auf einer Hardware Wallet verwahrst. Lerne sie zu benutzten, sie zu löschen und sie wiederherzustellen. Schaue dir regelmäßig dein Sicherheitskonzept an und falls nötig, mache eine Upgrade zu etwas besserem, damit du sicherer und privater unterwegs bist.

Übe deine Bitcoin zu bewegen. Schicke sie dir selbst, konsolidiere deine UTXO und stelle deine Bitcoin wieder her über deinen Seed.

Höre auf mit dem Glückspiel und #studybitcoin.

Bitcoin ist die Revolution.

Bitcoin hat schon gewonnen.

Bitcoin ist der nächste Bitcoin.

Also, wirst du dich dem Gewinnerteam anschließen?

Wirst du lernen wie du auf einem Bitcoin Standard als selbst souveränes Individuum lebst?

Oder wirst du weiter von Coin zu Coin hüpfen um den nÄcHsTen Bitcoin zu finden ohne etwas an deinen echten Fähigkeiten oder deiner Expertise zu arbeiten während du die größte Menge an Bitcoin, die du je verdient hättest und die in den nächsten 1000 Jahren in Kaufkraft steigt, einfach links liegen lässt.

Selbst wenn du keine Bitcoin haben solltest, oder eine sehr kleine Menge hast, sei dir bewusst es ist nicht zu spät.

Wir sind noch sehr früh dabei.

Wähle weise wie du deine Tage und Wochen verbringst

Die heutigen Entscheidungen werden einen nachhaltigen Einfluss auf den Rest deines Lebens und wahrscheinlich sogar, das deiner Kinder.

Bist du neugierig geworden oder weißt du schon alles über Bitcoin? Ich fordere dich heraus mehr über Bitcoin zu Lernen. Hier findest du eine große Menge an weiterem Material.

@ a39d19ec:3d88f61e

Die Debatte um Migration, Grenzsicherung und Abschiebungen wird in Deutschland meist emotional geführt. Wer fordert, dass illegale Einwanderer abgeschoben werden, sieht sich nicht selten dem Vorwurf des Rassismus ausgesetzt. Doch dieser Vorwurf ist nicht nur sachlich unbegründet, sondern verkehrt die Realität ins Gegenteil: Tatsächlich sind es gerade diejenigen, die hinter jeder Forderung nach Rechtssicherheit eine rassistische Motivation vermuten, die selbst in erster Linie nach Hautfarbe, Herkunft oder Nationalität urteilen.

Das Recht steht über Emotionen

Deutschland ist ein Rechtsstaat. Das bedeutet, dass Regeln nicht nach Bauchgefühl oder politischer Stimmungslage ausgelegt werden können, sondern auf klaren gesetzlichen Grundlagen beruhen müssen. Einer dieser Grundsätze ist in Artikel 16a des Grundgesetzes verankert. Dort heißt es:

„Auf Absatz 1 [Asylrecht] kann sich nicht berufen, wer aus einem Mitgliedstaat der Europäischen Gemeinschaften oder aus einem anderen Drittstaat einreist, in dem die Anwendung des Abkommens über die Rechtsstellung der Flüchtlinge und der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention sichergestellt ist.“

Das bedeutet, dass jeder, der über sichere Drittstaaten nach Deutschland einreist, keinen Anspruch auf Asyl hat. Wer dennoch bleibt, hält sich illegal im Land auf und unterliegt den geltenden Regelungen zur Rückführung. Die Forderung nach Abschiebungen ist daher nichts anderes als die Forderung nach der Einhaltung von Recht und Gesetz.

Die Umkehrung des Rassismusbegriffs

Wer einerseits behauptet, dass das deutsche Asyl- und Aufenthaltsrecht strikt durchgesetzt werden soll, und andererseits nicht nach Herkunft oder Hautfarbe unterscheidet, handelt wertneutral. Diejenigen jedoch, die in einer solchen Forderung nach Rechtsstaatlichkeit einen rassistischen Unterton sehen, projizieren ihre eigenen Denkmuster auf andere: Sie unterstellen, dass die Debatte ausschließlich entlang ethnischer, rassistischer oder nationaler Kriterien geführt wird – und genau das ist eine rassistische Denkweise.

Jemand, der illegale Einwanderung kritisiert, tut dies nicht, weil ihn die Herkunft der Menschen interessiert, sondern weil er den Rechtsstaat respektiert. Hingegen erkennt jemand, der hinter dieser Kritik Rassismus wittert, offenbar in erster Linie die „Rasse“ oder Herkunft der betreffenden Personen und reduziert sie darauf.

Finanzielle Belastung statt ideologischer Debatte

Neben der rechtlichen gibt es auch eine ökonomische Komponente. Der deutsche Wohlfahrtsstaat basiert auf einem Solidarprinzip: Die Bürger zahlen in das System ein, um sich gegenseitig in schwierigen Zeiten zu unterstützen. Dieser Wohlstand wurde über Generationen hinweg von denjenigen erarbeitet, die hier seit langem leben. Die Priorität liegt daher darauf, die vorhandenen Mittel zuerst unter denjenigen zu verteilen, die durch Steuern, Sozialabgaben und Arbeit zum Erhalt dieses Systems beitragen – nicht unter denen, die sich durch illegale Einreise und fehlende wirtschaftliche Eigenleistung in das System begeben.

Das ist keine ideologische Frage, sondern eine rein wirtschaftliche Abwägung. Ein Sozialsystem kann nur dann nachhaltig funktionieren, wenn es nicht unbegrenzt belastet wird. Würde Deutschland keine klaren Regeln zur Einwanderung und Abschiebung haben, würde dies unweigerlich zur Überlastung des Sozialstaates führen – mit negativen Konsequenzen für alle.

Sozialpatriotismus

Ein weiterer wichtiger Aspekt ist der Schutz der Arbeitsleistung jener Generationen, die Deutschland nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg mühsam wieder aufgebaut haben. Während oft betont wird, dass die Deutschen moralisch kein Erbe aus der Zeit vor 1945 beanspruchen dürfen – außer der Verantwortung für den Holocaust –, ist es umso bedeutsamer, das neue Erbe nach 1945 zu respektieren, das auf Fleiß, Disziplin und harter Arbeit beruht. Der Wiederaufbau war eine kollektive Leistung deutscher Menschen, deren Früchte nicht bedenkenlos verteilt werden dürfen, sondern vorrangig denjenigen zugutekommen sollten, die dieses Fundament mitgeschaffen oder es über Generationen mitgetragen haben.

Rechtstaatlichkeit ist nicht verhandelbar

Wer sich für eine konsequente Abschiebepraxis ausspricht, tut dies nicht aus rassistischen Motiven, sondern aus Respekt vor der Rechtsstaatlichkeit und den wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen des Landes. Der Vorwurf des Rassismus in diesem Kontext ist daher nicht nur falsch, sondern entlarvt eine selektive Wahrnehmung nach rassistischen Merkmalen bei denjenigen, die ihn erheben.

@ 04ea4f83:210e1713

Veröffentlicht auf Nakamoto Portfolio am 06.04.2023\ Originalautor: Alpha Zeta\ Übersetzt von: Sinautoshi am 24.06.2023 - 795682

Einführung

Bitcoin wurde mit verschiedenen Formen von Eigentum und anderen Vermögenswerten verglichen, die traditionell zur Wertaufbewahrung verwendet werden. In der Abwesenheit von gesundem Geld weisen rationale Investoren\ Kapital in Immobilien, Aktien und andere alternativen Wertaufbewahrungsmittel auf. Inspiriert von „Bitcoin as Property" von Michael Saylor, diskutiert dieses Whitepaper das Potenzial von Bitcoin, das monetäre Premium (Anm. den Aufschlag für die Geldartigkeit des Vermögenswertes) von traditionellen Vermögenswerten einzufangen, und seine Auswirkungen auf deren zukünftige Bewertung.

Die Verlagerung vom traditionellen Sparen zu alternativen Anlagen

In der Vergangenheit haben weniger erfahrene Anleger ihr Geld auf Sparkonten gespart, während erfahrenere Anleger nach Hebelwirkung und Effizienz durch Immobilien und Risikoinvestitionen suchten. In den letzten zehn Jahren haben sich die Anleger aufgrund des Rückgangs der Zinssätze und der Ausweitung der Finanzinstrumente haben sich die Anleger für Aktien, Immobilien und\ börsengehandelte Fonds (ETFs) als ihre primären Wertaufbewahrungsmittel entschieden. Die explosionsartige Zunahme von ETFs und die Beliebtheit von Zweitimmobilien (zur Vermietung) oder Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) haben zu einer Monetarisierung zahlreicher Vermögenswerte geführt.\ Bis Ende 2021 wurden viele Vermögenswerte, darunter auch Immobilien, weit über ihrem Nutzwert gehandelt. Die Zentralbanken haben mit überschüssigem Geld den Wert des Geldes grundlegend zerstört, was die Anleger dazu veranlasst, nach Vermögenswerten zu suchen, die einen Schutz gegen die negativen Auswirkungen des Gelddruckens bieten. Dieses Phänomen hat zu einer Finanzialisierung der Wirtschaft geführt, bei der die Anleger keine andere Wahl haben, als nach anderen Formen des Sparens zu suchen.

Bitcoin: Der optimale Vermögenswert für die Monetarisierung

Bitcoin hat das Potenzial, der optimale Vermögenswert für die Monetarisierung zu werden und die traditionellen Wertaufbewahrungsmittel wie Währungen, Anleihen, Immobilien, Aktien und Gold konsequent zu demonetisieren.

Immobilien werden aufgrund ihres inhärenten Nutzwerts oft als begehrter Vermögenswert betrachtet, aber ihr Wert wird auch stark von der Monetarisierung beeinflusst, die dazu geführt hat, dass viele Menschen mehrere Immobilien besitzen, was die Nachfrage und die Preise in die Höhe treibt. Es ist jedoch zu beachten, dass der Besitz von Immobilien mit einer Reihe von Problemen verbunden ist. So können beispielsweise die Grundsteuer und die Instandhaltungskosten die potenziellen Renditen erheblich schmälern. Außerdem können Immobilien im Laufe der Zeit an Wert verlieren, was ihren Wert weiter schmälert. Auch wenn man eine Urkunde für eine Immobilie besitzt, ist man nicht der eigentliche Eigentümer der Immobilie; die Zusage des Eigentums kann unter bestimmten Umständen widerrufen werden. Wenn beispielsweise die Regierung beschließt, die Immobilie für die öffentliche Nutzung zu beschlagnahmen, kann der Immobilieneigentümer seine Investition vollständig verlieren. All diese Faktoren haben Anleger dazu veranlasst, nach Alternativen zum Schutz ihres Vermögens zu suchen, insbesondere in einem Umfeld mit geringem Risiko und niedriger Inflation.

Im Gegensatz dazu bietet Bitcoin ein „Konstrukt", das nicht zerstört werden kann, keine Wartung erfordert und eine hervorragende Wertaufbewahrung bietet. Als dezentralisierter, sicherer und knapper digitaler Vermögenswert hat Bitcoin das Potenzial, den monetären Aufschlag traditioneller Vermögenswerte zu übernehmen, was möglicherweise zu deren Demonetisierung führt.

Bitcoin wird aus mehreren Gründen zunehmend als überlegenes Wertaufbewahrungsmittel anerkannt:

1. Knappheit: Bitcoin hat einen festen Vorrat von 21 Millionen Münzen, was zu einem Grad an Knappheit führt, der seinen Wert vor Inflation schützt.
2. Übertragbarkeit: Bitcoin lässt sich leicht digital übertragen und aufbewahren, was ihn praktischer macht als physische Vermögenswerte wie Gold.
3. Sicherheit: Die dezentralisierte Natur der Blockchain-Technologie, die Bitcoin zugrunde liegt, gewährleistet seine Sicherheit und seinen Schutz vor Manipulationen.
4. Transparenz: Alle Transaktionen werden in der Blockchain aufgezeichnet, wodurch ein transparenter und überprüfbarer Eigentumsnachweis entsteht.
5. Zugänglichkeit: Bitcoin ist für jeden zugänglich, der über einen Internetanschluss verfügt, was ihn zu einem umfassenden Wertaufbewahrungsmittel macht.
6. Unveränderlichkeit oder Widerstand gegen Zensur: Die Aufzeichnung des Eigentums ist durch ein massives und wachsendes Computernetzwerk gesichert, was es nahezu unmöglich macht, Transaktionen zu verändern oder zu zensieren. Dies bietet eine zusätzliche Sicherheitsebene und stärkt den Status von Bitcoin als zuverlässiges und vertrauenswürdiges Wertaufbewahrungsmittel.

Das Modell

Das Schrödinger-Münzmodell basiert auf dem Konzept der Quantensuperposition, bei dem ein Objekt gleichzeitig in mehreren Zuständen existieren kann, bis es beobachtet wird. In diesem Fall wird davon ausgegangen, dass Bitcoin zwei mögliche Ergebnisse hat: Entweder scheitert er und ist wertlos (das Dan-Peña-Szenario) oder er erobert erfolgreich die Geldprämie traditioneller Wertaufbewahrungsmittel (das Saylor-Szenario).

Anstatt sich auf absolute Gewissheit wie in den obigen Szenarien zu verlassen, ordnet dieses Modell jedem dieser Szenarien Wahrscheinlichkeiten zu, um einen fairen Wert für Bitcoin zu ermitteln. Wenn du die Box öffnest und eine Welt beobachtest, in der Saylor Recht hatte, was passiert dann? Was wäre, wenn Dan Recht hätte?

Modell-Komponenten

Das Modell berechnet den Marktwert von Bitcoin heute anhand der folgenden Komponenten:

a. Marktkapitalisierung der Vermögenswerte: Der aktuelle Marktwert jedes traditionellen Wertaufbewahrungsmittels (z.B. Gold, Immobilien, Aktien, Anleihen).

b. Prozentsatz des monetären Aufschlags: Der Anteil der Marktkapitalisierung eines Vermögenswerts, der auf seinen Status als Wertaufbewahrungsmittel zurückzuführen ist.

c. Wahrscheinlichkeit der Vereinnahmung: Die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass Bitcoin die monetäre Prämie jedes Vermögenswerts vereinnahmt.

d. Zeit bis zur Vereinnahmung: Die erwartete Zeit, bis Bitcoin die Geldprämie eines jeden Vermögenswerts erbeutet. Dies kann auch als Vektor mit verschiedenen Prozentsätzen der eingefangenen Prämie über die Zeit modelliert werden.

e. Abzinsungsrate: Der Prozentsatz, mit dem die zukünftig erwarteten Erfassungswerte auf den Gegenwartswert abgezinst werden, um den heutigen Marktwert zu berechnen.

Modell-Berechnung

Der Zeitwert von Bitcoin wird als Summe des erwarteten Erfassungswerts der einzelnen Vermögenswerte berechnet:

wobei der Zeitwert jedes Vermögenswerts definiert ist als:

• mcap: Aktuelle Marktkapitalisierung der einzelnen Vermögenswerte
• mp: Prozentualer Anteil der Marktkapitalisierung, der Monetarisierungscharakter hat (nicht Nutzwert)\ prob: Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass Bitcoin diesen Wert erfasst
• r: Abzinsungssatz
• n: Anzahl der Perioden, bis die Monetarisierung realisiert wird

Denke daran, dass wir mit diesem Rahmen auch den heutigen Bitcoin-Preis verwenden könnten, um die aktuell implizierte Wahrscheinlichkeit des Marktes zu berechnen.

Modell-Inputs

Potenzielle Vermögensklassen und geschätzte Werte - Daten vom April 2023

1. Aktien: a. Angenommener Marktwert: $100 Billionen b. Quelle: Die Börsenkapitalisierung kann der Weltbank und Statista entnommen werden.Die Daten stellen eine ungefähre Schätzung dar, da die Börsenkapitalisierung mit den Marktbewegungen schwankt.
2. Anleihen: a. Angenommener Marktwert: $130 Billionen b. Quelle: Die Kapitalisierung des globalen Anleihemarktes wurde aus Quellen wie der Bank für Internationalen Zahlungsausgleich abgeleitet. Die Daten stellen eine ungefähre Schätzung dar, da sich die Kapitalisierung des Anleihemarktes durch Neuemissionen und Tilgungen ändert. Sie umfassen nur die Gesamtsumme für „fortgeschrittene Volkswirtschaften".
3. Gold: a. Angenommener Marktwert: $10 Billionen b. Quelle: Die Gesamtmarktkapitalisierung von Gold wurde anhand der Daten des World Gold Council zu den oberirdischen Goldbeständen und dem durchschnittlichen Goldpreis pro Unze zum Zeitpunkt der Erstellung dieses Berichts berechnet. Die Daten sollten aktualisiert werden, um den aktuellen Goldpreis für eine genaue Bewertung widerzuspiegeln.
4. Silber: a. Angenommener Marktwert: $1,3 Billionen b. Quelle: Die gesamte Marktkapitalisierung von Silber wurde anhand der Daten des Silver Institute zu den oberirdischen Silberbeständen und dem durchschnittlichen Silberpreis pro Unze zum Zeitpunkt der Erstellung dieses Berichts geschätzt. Die Daten sollten aktualisiert werden, um den aktuellen Silberpreis für eine genaue Bewertung widerzuspiegeln.
5. Immobilien: a. Angenommener Marktwert: $320 Billionen b. Quelle: Savills Research
6. Kryptowährungen (ausgenommen BTC): a. Angenommener Marktwert: $500 Mrd. b. Quelle: Coinmarketcap.com

Parallelen zum Black-Scholes-Modell für die Optionsbewertung

Die Black-Scholes-Formel wird verwendet, um den fairen Preis von Optionen zu berechnen. Dabei handelt es sich um Finanzkontrakte, die dem Käufer das Recht (aber nicht die Verpflichtung) geben, einen Basiswert, z. B. eine Aktie oder einen Rohstoff, zu einem bestimmten Preis und Zeitpunkt zu kaufen oder zu verkaufen.

Die Formel umfasst fünf Inputs: den aktuellen Kurs des Basiswerts, den Ausübungspreis (den Preis, zu dem die Option ausgeübt werden kann), die Zeit bis zum Ablauf, den risikofreien Zinssatz und die Volatilität des Kurses des Basiswerts. Hier ist die Formel für den Preis einer Call-Option:

Die Formel selbst ist etwas kompliziert, aber in einfachen Worten funktioniert sie, indem sie die Wahrscheinlichkeit verschiedener Zukunftsszenarien für den Kurs des Basiswerts auf der Grundlage seiner Volatilität (wie stark sein Kurs im Laufe der Zeit zu schwanken pflegt) schätzt. Die Formel berechnet dann den erwarteten Wert der Option auf der Grundlage dieser Wahrscheinlichkeiten, abgezinst auf den heutigen Wert unter Verwendung des risikofreien Zinssatzes.

Die linke Seite der Gleichung stellt den Wert der Call-Option dar (das Recht, den Basiswert zu kaufen), während die rechte Seite die Summe aus dem Gegenwartswert des Ausübungspreises (der bei Ausübung der Option garantiert wird) und dem erwarteten Wert des Kurses des Basiswerts bei Fälligkeit darstellt. Der Erwartungswert wird berechnet, indem der aktuelle Kurs des Basiswerts mit einer Wahrscheinlichkeitsdichtefunktion multipliziert wird, die auf der Volatilität des Kurses des Basiswerts basiert.

Ein wesentlicher Unterschied zwischen den beiden Modellen besteht darin, dass die Black-Scholes-Formel auf der Annahme einer kontinuierlichen Zeit und einer bekannten Verteilung der Preise von Vermögenswerten beruht, während das Schrödinger-Münzmodell auf dem Konzept der Quantensuperposition basiert, bei dem ein Objekt in mehreren Zuständen existieren kann, bis es beobachtet wird. Das Schrödinger-Münzmodell ordnet jedem möglichen Ergebnis Wahrscheinlichkeiten zu, um einen fairen Wert für Bitcoin zu ermitteln, während die Black-Scholes-Formel eine Wahrscheinlichkeitsdichtefunktion verwendet, die auf der Volatilität des Preises des zugrunde liegenden Vermögenswerts basiert.

Ein weiterer Unterschied besteht darin, dass die Black-Scholes-Formel eine geschlossene Gleichung ist, was bedeutet, dass sie analytisch gelöst werden kann, während das Schrödinger-Münzen-Modell ein komplexeres Modell ist, das mehrere Eingaben und Berechnungen umfasst.

Trotz dieser Unterschiede zielen beide Modelle darauf ab, den beizulegenden Zeitwert eines Vermögenswerts zu schätzen, indem sie verschiedene Faktoren wie den aktuellen Preis des Vermögenswerts, die Zeit bis zum Verfall, die Zinssätze und die Volatilität berücksichtigen. Beide Modelle berücksichtigen auch das Potenzial für extreme Ergebnisse und die Ungewissheit künftiger Ereignisse, die zur Volatilität des Vermögenswerts beitragen können.

Schrödingers Münze und Volatilität als Merkmal, nicht als Fehler

Einer der meistdiskutierten Aspekte von Bitcoin und anderen Kryptowährungen ist ihre inhärente Preisvolatilität. In diesem Abschnitt argumentieren wir, dass das Schrödinger-Münzmodell die Volatilität von Bitcoin als ein natürliches Merkmal seiner Bewertung erklärt und nicht als Fehler oder Schwachstelle. Darüber hinaus werden wir diskutieren, wie diese Volatilität abnehmen kann, wenn wir uns der Hyperbitcoinisierung nähern.

1. Extreme Ergebnisse Das Schrödinger Modell basiert auf zwei extremen Ergebnissen für Bitcoin: entweder sch-eitert er und wird wertlos (das Dan Peña Szenario), oder er erobert erfolgreich die Geldprämie traditioneller Wertaufbewahrungsmittel (das Saylor Szenario). Infolgedessen sagt das Modell von Natur aus erhebliche Wertschwankungen voraus, die von der Marktstimmung und externen Faktoren abhängen, die die Wahrnehmung der Anleger hinsichtlich der Wahrscheinlichkeit dieser Ergebnisse beeinflussen.
2. Kleine Änderungen in der Wahrscheinlichkeit, große Änderungen im fairen Wert Angesichts der extremen Natur der beiden möglichen Ergebnisse können kleine Änderungen in der wahrgenommenen Wahrscheinlichkeit des Eintretens eines der beiden Szenarien zu erheblichen Änderungen im fairen Wert von Bitcoin führen. Zum Beispiel könnte ein leichter Anstieg des Vertrauens des Marktes in den Erfolg von Bitcoin zu einem signifikanten Anstieg des Preises führen, während ein Rückgang des Vertrauens zu einem starken Rückgang führen könnte.
3. Ungewissheit der Zeit Ein weiterer Faktor, der zur Volatilität von Bitcoin beiträgt, ist die Ungewissheit über die Zeit, die benötigt wird, um die Hyperbitcoinisierung zu erreichen. Während Hausse-Märkten nimmt die Zeitwahrnehmung (t) tendenziell ab, da die Anleger optimistischer werden, was die Akzeptanz von Bitcoin und die Geschwindigkeit angeht, mit der Bitcoin die Geldprämie von traditionellen Vermögenswerten erreichen wird. Umgekehrt steigt die wahrgenommene Zeit bis zur Hyperbitcoinisierung während Baisse-Märkten, wenn die Marktstimmung negativ wird. Diese Fluktuation in der Zeitwahrnehmung fügt dem Bitcoin-Kurs eine weitere Ebene der Volatilität hinzu.
4. Abnehmende Volatilität bei zunehmender Hyperbitcoinisierung Je näher wir der Hyperbitcoinisierung kommen, desto geringer dürfte die Volatilität von Bitcoin werden. Dies liegt daran, dass der Markt im Laufe der Zeit mehr Informationen über die Akzeptanz von Bitcoin, das regulatorische Umfeld und die technologischen Entwicklungen erhalten wird. Infolgedessen wird die Wahrnehmung des Marktes hinsichtlich der Wahrscheinlichkeit der beiden extremen Ergebnisse stabiler werden, was zu geringeren Preisschwankungen führt.

Zusammenfassend erklärt das Schrödinger-Münzen-Modell die Volatilität von Bitcoin als eine natürliche Folge seiner Bewertung, die auf extremen Ergebnissen, kleinen Veränderungen der Wahrscheinlichkeit und der Ungewissheit der Zeit bis zur Hyperbitcoinisierung beruht. Wenn der Markt mehr Informationen erhält und mehr Vertrauen in die Zukunft von Bitcoin gewinnt, wird erwartet, dass seine Volatilität abnimmt und gegen Null tendiert. Das Verständnis dieses Aspekts des Modells kann Anlegern helfen, fundiertere Entscheidungen über die mit einer Investition in Bitcoin verbundenen Risiken und Erträge zu treffen.

Schlussfolgerung

Schrödingers-Münzmodell bietet einen Rahmen für die Bewertung von Bitcoin, indem es sein Potenzial berücksichtigt, den monetäre Aufschlag von traditionellen Vermögenswerten wie Immobilien, Aktien und Anleihen einzufangen. Als überlegenes Wertaufbewahrungsmittel hat Bitcoin das Potenzial, Investitionen in traditionelle Vermögenswerte konsequent zu demonetisieren, was zu einer Verschiebung der Kapitalallokation und einer Neubewertung ihres Wertes führt.

Das Modell beleuchtet auch die inhärente Volatilität von Bitcoin, die sich aus den extremen Ergebnissen, kleinen Veränderungen der Wahrscheinlichkeit und der Ungewissheit der Zeit bis zur Hyperbitcoinisierung ergibt. Da der Markt jedoch mehr Informationen erhält und mehr Vertrauen in die Zukunft von Bitcoin gewinnt, wird erwartet, dass seine Volatilität abnimmt und gegen Null tendiert.

Darüber hinaus unterstreicht das Modell, wie wichtig es ist, die Risiken zu verstehen, die mit einer Investition in Bitcoin verbunden sind, wie regulatorische Änderungen, technologische Herausforderungen und potenzielle Konkurrenz durch andere Kryptowährungen oder alternative Wertaufbewahrungsmittel.

Durch das Verständnis der Dynamik des Schrödinger-Münzmodells sowie der Faktoren, die zur Volatilität von Bitcoin und den damit verbundenen Risiken beitragen, können Anleger fundiertere Entscheidungen über das potenzielle Wachstum und die mit Bitcoin und anderen Vermögenswerten verbundenen Risiken treffen. Dieser ganzheitliche Bewertungsansatz ermöglicht eine umfassendere Beurteilung des Potenzials von Bitcoin sowohl als Investition als auch als transformative Technologie.

@ 4ba8e86d:89d32de4

Tutorial feito por nostr:nostr:npub1rc56x0ek0dd303eph523g3chm0wmrs5wdk6vs0ehd0m5fn8t7y4sqra3tk poste original abaixo:

Parte 1 : http://xh6liiypqffzwnu5734ucwps37tn2g6npthvugz3gdoqpikujju525yd.onion/263585/tutorial-debloat-de-celulares-android-via-adb-parte-1

Parte 2 : http://xh6liiypqffzwnu5734ucwps37tn2g6npthvugz3gdoqpikujju525yd.onion/index.php/263586/tutorial-debloat-de-celulares-android-via-adb-parte-2

Quando o assunto é privacidade em celulares, uma das medidas comumente mencionadas é a remoção de bloatwares do dispositivo, também chamado de debloat. O meio mais eficiente para isso sem dúvidas é a troca de sistema operacional. Custom Rom’s como LineageOS, GrapheneOS, Iodé, CalyxOS, etc, já são bastante enxutos nesse quesito, principalmente quanto não é instalado os G-Apps com o sistema. No entanto, essa prática pode acabar resultando em problemas indesejados como a perca de funções do dispositivo, e até mesmo incompatibilidade com apps bancários, tornando este método mais atrativo para quem possui mais de um dispositivo e separando um apenas para privacidade.   Pensando nisso, pessoas que possuem apenas um único dispositivo móvel, que são necessitadas desses apps ou funções, mas, ao mesmo tempo, tem essa visão em prol da privacidade, buscam por um meio-termo entre manter a Stock rom, e não ter seus dados coletados por esses bloatwares. Felizmente, a remoção de bloatwares é possível e pode ser realizada via root, ou mais da maneira que este artigo irá tratar, via adb.

O que são bloatwares?

Bloatware é a junção das palavras bloat (inchar) + software (programa), ou seja, um bloatware é basicamente um programa inútil ou facilmente substituível — colocado em seu dispositivo previamente pela fabricante e operadora — que está no seu dispositivo apenas ocupando espaço de armazenamento, consumindo memória RAM e pior, coletando seus dados e enviando para servidores externos, além de serem mais pontos de vulnerabilidades.

O que é o adb?

O Android Debug Brigde, ou apenas adb, é uma ferramenta que se utiliza das permissões de usuário shell e permite o envio de comandos vindo de um computador para um dispositivo Android exigindo apenas que a depuração USB esteja ativa, mas também pode ser usada diretamente no celular a partir do Android 11, com o uso do Termux e a depuração sem fio (ou depuração wifi). A ferramenta funciona normalmente em dispositivos sem root, e também funciona caso o celular esteja em Recovery Mode.

Requisitos:

Para computadores:

• Depuração USB ativa no celular; • Computador com adb; • Cabo USB;

Para celulares:

• Depuração sem fio (ou depuração wifi) ativa no celular; • Termux; • Android 11 ou superior;

Para ambos:

• Firewall NetGuard instalado e configurado no celular; • Lista de bloatwares para seu dispositivo;

Ativação de depuração:

Para ativar a Depuração USB em seu dispositivo, pesquise como ativar as opções de desenvolvedor de seu dispositivo, e lá ative a depuração. No caso da depuração sem fio, sua ativação irá ser necessária apenas no momento que for conectar o dispositivo ao Termux.

Instalação e configuração do NetGuard

O NetGuard pode ser instalado através da própria Google Play Store, mas de preferência instale pela F-Droid ou Github para evitar telemetria.

F-Droid: https://f-droid.org/packages/eu.faircode.netguard/

Github: https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/releases

Após instalado, configure da seguinte maneira:

Configurações → padrões (lista branca/negra) → ative as 3 primeiras opções (bloquear wifi, bloquear dados móveis e aplicar regras ‘quando tela estiver ligada’);

Configurações → opções avançadas → ative as duas primeiras (administrar aplicativos do sistema e registrar acesso a internet);

Com isso, todos os apps estarão sendo bloqueados de acessar a internet, seja por wifi ou dados móveis, e na página principal do app basta permitir o acesso a rede para os apps que você vai usar (se necessário). Permita que o app rode em segundo plano sem restrição da otimização de bateria, assim quando o celular ligar, ele já estará ativo.

Lista de bloatwares

Nem todos os bloatwares são genéricos, haverá bloatwares diferentes conforme a marca, modelo, versão do Android, e até mesmo região.

Para obter uma lista de bloatwares de seu dispositivo, caso seu aparelho já possua um tempo de existência, você encontrará listas prontas facilmente apenas pesquisando por elas. Supondo que temos um Samsung Galaxy Note 10 Plus em mãos, basta pesquisar em seu motor de busca por:

Samsung Galaxy Note 10 Plus bloatware list

Provavelmente essas listas já terão inclusas todos os bloatwares das mais diversas regiões, lhe poupando o trabalho de buscar por alguma lista mais específica.

Caso seu aparelho seja muito recente, e/ou não encontre uma lista pronta de bloatwares, devo dizer que você acaba de pegar em merda, pois é chato para um caralho pesquisar por cada aplicação para saber sua função, se é essencial para o sistema ou se é facilmente substituível.

De antemão já aviso, que mais para frente, caso vossa gostosura remova um desses aplicativos que era essencial para o sistema sem saber, vai acabar resultando na perda de alguma função importante, ou pior, ao reiniciar o aparelho o sistema pode estar quebrado, lhe obrigando a seguir com uma formatação, e repetir todo o processo novamente.

Download do adb em computadores

Para usar a ferramenta do adb em computadores, basta baixar o pacote chamado SDK platform-tools, disponível através deste link: https://developer.android.com/tools/releases/platform-tools. Por ele, você consegue o download para Windows, Mac e Linux.

Uma vez baixado, basta extrair o arquivo zipado, contendo dentro dele uma pasta chamada platform-tools que basta ser aberta no terminal para se usar o adb.

Download do adb em celulares com Termux.

Para usar a ferramenta do adb diretamente no celular, antes temos que baixar o app Termux, que é um emulador de terminal linux, e já possui o adb em seu repositório. Você encontra o app na Google Play Store, mas novamente recomendo baixar pela F-Droid ou diretamente no Github do projeto.

F-Droid: https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.termux/

Github: https://github.com/termux/termux-app/releases

Processo de debloat

Antes de iniciarmos, é importante deixar claro que não é para você sair removendo todos os bloatwares de cara sem mais nem menos, afinal alguns deles precisam antes ser substituídos, podem ser essenciais para você para alguma atividade ou função, ou até mesmo são insubstituíveis.

Alguns exemplos de bloatwares que a substituição é necessária antes da remoção, é o Launcher, afinal, é a interface gráfica do sistema, e o teclado, que sem ele só é possível digitar com teclado externo. O Launcher e teclado podem ser substituídos por quaisquer outros, minha recomendação pessoal é por aqueles que respeitam sua privacidade, como Pie Launcher e Simple Laucher, enquanto o teclado pelo OpenBoard e FlorisBoard, todos open-source e disponíveis da F-Droid.

Identifique entre a lista de bloatwares, quais você gosta, precisa ou prefere não substituir, de maneira alguma você é obrigado a remover todos os bloatwares possíveis, modifique seu sistema a seu bel-prazer. O NetGuard lista todos os apps do celular com o nome do pacote, com isso você pode filtrar bem qual deles não remover.

Um exemplo claro de bloatware insubstituível e, portanto, não pode ser removido, é o com.android.mtp, um protocolo onde sua função é auxiliar a comunicação do dispositivo com um computador via USB, mas por algum motivo, tem acesso a rede e se comunica frequentemente com servidores externos. Para esses casos, e melhor solução mesmo é bloquear o acesso a rede desses bloatwares com o NetGuard.

MTP tentando comunicação com servidores externos:

Executando o adb shell

No computador

Faça backup de todos os seus arquivos importantes para algum armazenamento externo, e formate seu celular com o hard reset. Após a formatação, e a ativação da depuração USB, conecte seu aparelho e o pc com o auxílio de um cabo USB. Muito provavelmente seu dispositivo irá apenas começar a carregar, por isso permita a transferência de dados, para que o computador consiga se comunicar normalmente com o celular.

Já no pc, abra a pasta platform-tools dentro do terminal, e execute o seguinte comando:

./adb start-server

O resultado deve ser:

daemon not running; starting now at tcp:5037 daemon started successfully

E caso não apareça nada, execute:

./adb kill-server

E inicie novamente.

Com o adb conectado ao celular, execute:

./adb shell

Para poder executar comandos diretamente para o dispositivo. No meu caso, meu celular é um Redmi Note 8 Pro, codinome Begonia.

Logo o resultado deve ser:

begonia:/ $

Caso ocorra algum erro do tipo:

adb: device unauthorized. This adb server’s $ADB_VENDOR_KEYS is not set Try ‘adb kill-server’ if that seems wrong. Otherwise check for a confirmation dialog on your device.

Verifique no celular se apareceu alguma confirmação para autorizar a depuração USB, caso sim, autorize e tente novamente. Caso não apareça nada, execute o kill-server e repita o processo.

No celular

Após realizar o mesmo processo de backup e hard reset citado anteriormente, instale o Termux e, com ele iniciado, execute o comando:

pkg install android-tools

Quando surgir a mensagem “Do you want to continue? [Y/n]”, basta dar enter novamente que já aceita e finaliza a instalação

Agora, vá até as opções de desenvolvedor, e ative a depuração sem fio. Dentro das opções da depuração sem fio, terá uma opção de emparelhamento do dispositivo com um código, que irá informar para você um código em emparelhamento, com um endereço IP e porta, que será usado para a conexão com o Termux.

Para facilitar o processo, recomendo que abra tanto as configurações quanto o Termux ao mesmo tempo, e divida a tela com os dois app’s, como da maneira a seguir:

Para parear o Termux com o dispositivo, não é necessário digitar o ip informado, basta trocar por “localhost”, já a porta e o código de emparelhamento, deve ser digitado exatamente como informado. Execute:

adb pair localhost:porta CódigoDeEmparelhamento

De acordo com a imagem mostrada anteriormente, o comando ficaria “adb pair localhost:41255 757495”.

Com o dispositivo emparelhado com o Termux, agora basta conectar para conseguir executar os comandos, para isso execute:

adb connect localhost:porta

Obs: a porta que você deve informar neste comando não é a mesma informada com o código de emparelhamento, e sim a informada na tela principal da depuração sem fio.

Pronto! Termux e adb conectado com sucesso ao dispositivo, agora basta executar normalmente o adb shell:

adb shell

Remoção na prática Com o adb shell executado, você está pronto para remover os bloatwares. No meu caso, irei mostrar apenas a remoção de um app (Google Maps), já que o comando é o mesmo para qualquer outro, mudando apenas o nome do pacote.

Dentro do NetGuard, verificando as informações do Google Maps:

Podemos ver que mesmo fora de uso, e com a localização do dispositivo desativado, o app está tentando loucamente se comunicar com servidores externos, e informar sabe-se lá que peste. Mas sem novidades até aqui, o mais importante é que podemos ver que o nome do pacote do Google Maps é com.google.android.apps.maps, e para o remover do celular, basta executar:

pm uninstall –user 0 com.google.android.apps.maps

E pronto, bloatware removido! Agora basta repetir o processo para o resto dos bloatwares, trocando apenas o nome do pacote.

Para acelerar o processo, você pode já criar uma lista do bloco de notas com os comandos, e quando colar no terminal, irá executar um atrás do outro.

Exemplo de lista:

Caso a donzela tenha removido alguma coisa sem querer, também é possível recuperar o pacote com o comando:

cmd package install-existing nome.do.pacote

Pós-debloat

Após limpar o máximo possível o seu sistema, reinicie o aparelho, caso entre no como recovery e não seja possível dar reboot, significa que você removeu algum app “essencial” para o sistema, e terá que formatar o aparelho e repetir toda a remoção novamente, desta vez removendo poucos bloatwares de uma vez, e reiniciando o aparelho até descobrir qual deles não pode ser removido. Sim, dá trabalho… quem mandou querer privacidade?

Caso o aparelho reinicie normalmente após a remoção, parabéns, agora basta usar seu celular como bem entender! Mantenha o NetGuard sempre executando e os bloatwares que não foram possíveis remover não irão se comunicar com servidores externos, passe a usar apps open source da F-Droid e instale outros apps através da Aurora Store ao invés da Google Play Store.

Referências: Caso você seja um Australopithecus e tenha achado este guia difícil, eis uma videoaula (3:14:40) do Anderson do canal Ciberdef, realizando todo o processo: http://odysee.com/@zai:5/Como-remover-at%C3%A9-200-APLICATIVOS-que-colocam-a-sua-PRIVACIDADE-E-SEGURAN%C3%87A-em-risco.:4?lid=6d50f40314eee7e2f218536d9e5d300290931d23

Pdf’s do Anderson citados na videoaula: créditos ao anon6837264 http://eternalcbrzpicytj4zyguygpmkjlkddxob7tptlr25cdipe5svyqoqd.onion/file/3863a834d29285d397b73a4af6fb1bbe67c888d72d30/t-05e63192d02ffd.pdf

Processo de instalação do Termux e adb no celular: https://youtu.be/APolZrPHSms

@ 91bea5cd:1df4451c

Básico

bash lsblk # Lista todos os diretorios montados.

Para criar o sistema de arquivos:

bash mkfs.btrfs -L "ThePool" -f /dev/sdx

Criando um subvolume:

bash btrfs subvolume create SubVol

Montando Sistema de Arquivos:

bash mount -o compress=zlib,subvol=SubVol,autodefrag /dev/sdx /mnt

Lista os discos formatados no diretório:

bash btrfs filesystem show /mnt

Adiciona novo disco ao subvolume:

bash btrfs device add -f /dev/sdy /mnt

Lista novamente os discos do subvolume:

bash btrfs filesystem show /mnt

Exibe uso dos discos do subvolume:

bash btrfs filesystem df /mnt

Balancea os dados entre os discos sobre raid1:

bash btrfs filesystem balance start -dconvert=raid1 -mconvert=raid1 /mnt

Scrub é uma passagem por todos os dados e metadados do sistema de arquivos e verifica as somas de verificação. Se uma cópia válida estiver disponível (perfis de grupo de blocos replicados), a danificada será reparada. Todas as cópias dos perfis replicados são validadas.

iniciar o processo de depuração :

bash btrfs scrub start /mnt

ver o status do processo de depuração Btrfs em execução:

bash btrfs scrub status /mnt

ver o status do scrub Btrfs para cada um dos dispositivos

bash btrfs scrub status -d / data btrfs scrub cancel / data

Para retomar o processo de depuração do Btrfs que você cancelou ou pausou:

btrfs scrub resume / data

Listando os subvolumes:

bash btrfs subvolume list /Reports

Criando um instantâneo dos subvolumes:

Aqui, estamos criando um instantâneo de leitura e gravação chamado snap de marketing do subvolume de marketing.

bash btrfs subvolume snapshot /Reports/marketing /Reports/marketing-snap

Além disso, você pode criar um instantâneo somente leitura usando o sinalizador -r conforme mostrado. O marketing-rosnap é um instantâneo somente leitura do subvolume de marketing

bash btrfs subvolume snapshot -r /Reports/marketing /Reports/marketing-rosnap

Forçar a sincronização do sistema de arquivos usando o utilitário 'sync'

Para forçar a sincronização do sistema de arquivos, invoque a opção de sincronização conforme mostrado. Observe que o sistema de arquivos já deve estar montado para que o processo de sincronização continue com sucesso.

bash btrfs filsystem sync /Reports

Para excluir o dispositivo do sistema de arquivos, use o comando device delete conforme mostrado.

bash btrfs device delete /dev/sdc /Reports

Para sondar o status de um scrub, use o comando scrub status com a opção -dR .

bash btrfs scrub status -dR / Relatórios

Para cancelar a execução do scrub, use o comando scrub cancel .

bash $ sudo btrfs scrub cancel / Reports

Para retomar ou continuar com uma depuração interrompida anteriormente, execute o comando de cancelamento de depuração

bash sudo btrfs scrub resume /Reports

mostra o uso do dispositivo de armazenamento:

btrfs filesystem usage /data

Para distribuir os dados, metadados e dados do sistema em todos os dispositivos de armazenamento do RAID (incluindo o dispositivo de armazenamento recém-adicionado) montados no diretório /data , execute o seguinte comando:

sudo btrfs balance start --full-balance /data

Pode demorar um pouco para espalhar os dados, metadados e dados do sistema em todos os dispositivos de armazenamento do RAID se ele contiver muitos dados.

Opções importantes de montagem Btrfs

Nesta seção, vou explicar algumas das importantes opções de montagem do Btrfs. Então vamos começar.

As opções de montagem Btrfs mais importantes são:

**1. acl e noacl

**ACL gerencia permissões de usuários e grupos para os arquivos/diretórios do sistema de arquivos Btrfs.

A opção de montagem acl Btrfs habilita ACL. Para desabilitar a ACL, você pode usar a opção de montagem noacl .

Por padrão, a ACL está habilitada. Portanto, o sistema de arquivos Btrfs usa a opção de montagem acl por padrão.

**2. autodefrag e noautodefrag

**Desfragmentar um sistema de arquivos Btrfs melhorará o desempenho do sistema de arquivos reduzindo a fragmentação de dados.

A opção de montagem autodefrag permite a desfragmentação automática do sistema de arquivos Btrfs.

A opção de montagem noautodefrag desativa a desfragmentação automática do sistema de arquivos Btrfs.

Por padrão, a desfragmentação automática está desabilitada. Portanto, o sistema de arquivos Btrfs usa a opção de montagem noautodefrag por padrão.

**3. compactar e compactar-forçar

**Controla a compactação de dados no nível do sistema de arquivos do sistema de arquivos Btrfs.

A opção compactar compacta apenas os arquivos que valem a pena compactar (se compactar o arquivo economizar espaço em disco).

A opção compress-force compacta todos os arquivos do sistema de arquivos Btrfs, mesmo que a compactação do arquivo aumente seu tamanho.

O sistema de arquivos Btrfs suporta muitos algoritmos de compactação e cada um dos algoritmos de compactação possui diferentes níveis de compactação.

Os algoritmos de compactação suportados pelo Btrfs são: lzo , zlib (nível 1 a 9) e zstd (nível 1 a 15).

Você pode especificar qual algoritmo de compactação usar para o sistema de arquivos Btrfs com uma das seguintes opções de montagem:

• compress=algoritmo:nível
• compress-force=algoritmo:nível

Para obter mais informações, consulte meu artigo Como habilitar a compactação do sistema de arquivos Btrfs .

**4. subvol e subvolid

**Estas opções de montagem são usadas para montar separadamente um subvolume específico de um sistema de arquivos Btrfs.

A opção de montagem subvol é usada para montar o subvolume de um sistema de arquivos Btrfs usando seu caminho relativo.

A opção de montagem subvolid é usada para montar o subvolume de um sistema de arquivos Btrfs usando o ID do subvolume.

Para obter mais informações, consulte meu artigo Como criar e montar subvolumes Btrfs .

**5. dispositivo

A opção de montagem de dispositivo** é usada no sistema de arquivos Btrfs de vários dispositivos ou RAID Btrfs.

Em alguns casos, o sistema operacional pode falhar ao detectar os dispositivos de armazenamento usados em um sistema de arquivos Btrfs de vários dispositivos ou RAID Btrfs. Nesses casos, você pode usar a opção de montagem do dispositivo para especificar os dispositivos que deseja usar para o sistema de arquivos de vários dispositivos Btrfs ou RAID.

Você pode usar a opção de montagem de dispositivo várias vezes para carregar diferentes dispositivos de armazenamento para o sistema de arquivos de vários dispositivos Btrfs ou RAID.

Você pode usar o nome do dispositivo (ou seja, sdb , sdc ) ou UUID , UUID_SUB ou PARTUUID do dispositivo de armazenamento com a opção de montagem do dispositivo para identificar o dispositivo de armazenamento.

Por exemplo,

• dispositivo=/dev/sdb
• dispositivo=/dev/sdb,dispositivo=/dev/sdc
• dispositivo=UUID_SUB=490a263d-eb9a-4558-931e-998d4d080c5d
• device=UUID_SUB=490a263d-eb9a-4558-931e-998d4d080c5d,device=UUID_SUB=f7ce4875-0874-436a-b47d-3edef66d3424

**6. degraded

A opção de montagem degradada** permite que um RAID Btrfs seja montado com menos dispositivos de armazenamento do que o perfil RAID requer.

Por exemplo, o perfil raid1 requer a presença de 2 dispositivos de armazenamento. Se um dos dispositivos de armazenamento não estiver disponível em qualquer caso, você usa a opção de montagem degradada para montar o RAID mesmo que 1 de 2 dispositivos de armazenamento esteja disponível.

**7. commit

A opção commit** mount é usada para definir o intervalo (em segundos) dentro do qual os dados serão gravados no dispositivo de armazenamento.

O padrão é definido como 30 segundos.

Para definir o intervalo de confirmação para 15 segundos, você pode usar a opção de montagem commit=15 (digamos).

**8. ssd e nossd

A opção de montagem ssd** informa ao sistema de arquivos Btrfs que o sistema de arquivos está usando um dispositivo de armazenamento SSD, e o sistema de arquivos Btrfs faz a otimização SSD necessária.

A opção de montagem nossd desativa a otimização do SSD.

O sistema de arquivos Btrfs detecta automaticamente se um SSD é usado para o sistema de arquivos Btrfs. Se um SSD for usado, a opção de montagem de SSD será habilitada. Caso contrário, a opção de montagem nossd é habilitada.

**9. ssd_spread e nossd_spread

A opção de montagem ssd_spread** tenta alocar grandes blocos contínuos de espaço não utilizado do SSD. Esse recurso melhora o desempenho de SSDs de baixo custo (baratos).

A opção de montagem nossd_spread desativa o recurso ssd_spread .

O sistema de arquivos Btrfs detecta automaticamente se um SSD é usado para o sistema de arquivos Btrfs. Se um SSD for usado, a opção de montagem ssd_spread será habilitada. Caso contrário, a opção de montagem nossd_spread é habilitada.

**10. descarte e nodiscard

Se você estiver usando um SSD que suporte TRIM enfileirado assíncrono (SATA rev3.1), a opção de montagem de descarte** permitirá o descarte de blocos de arquivos liberados. Isso melhorará o desempenho do SSD.

Se o SSD não suportar TRIM enfileirado assíncrono, a opção de montagem de descarte prejudicará o desempenho do SSD. Nesse caso, a opção de montagem nodiscard deve ser usada.

Por padrão, a opção de montagem nodiscard é usada.

**11. norecovery

Se a opção de montagem norecovery** for usada, o sistema de arquivos Btrfs não tentará executar a operação de recuperação de dados no momento da montagem.

**12. usebackuproot e nousebackuproot

Se a opção de montagem usebackuproot for usada, o sistema de arquivos Btrfs tentará recuperar qualquer raiz de árvore ruim/corrompida no momento da montagem. O sistema de arquivos Btrfs pode armazenar várias raízes de árvore no sistema de arquivos. A opção de montagem usebackuproot** procurará uma boa raiz de árvore e usará a primeira boa que encontrar.

A opção de montagem nousebackuproot não verificará ou recuperará raízes de árvore inválidas/corrompidas no momento da montagem. Este é o comportamento padrão do sistema de arquivos Btrfs.

**13. space_cache, space_cache=version, nospace_cache e clear_cache

A opção de montagem space_cache** é usada para controlar o cache de espaço livre. O cache de espaço livre é usado para melhorar o desempenho da leitura do espaço livre do grupo de blocos do sistema de arquivos Btrfs na memória (RAM).

O sistema de arquivos Btrfs suporta 2 versões do cache de espaço livre: v1 (padrão) e v2

O mecanismo de cache de espaço livre v2 melhora o desempenho de sistemas de arquivos grandes (tamanho de vários terabytes).

Você pode usar a opção de montagem space_cache=v1 para definir a v1 do cache de espaço livre e a opção de montagem space_cache=v2 para definir a v2 do cache de espaço livre.

A opção de montagem clear_cache é usada para limpar o cache de espaço livre.

Quando o cache de espaço livre v2 é criado, o cache deve ser limpo para criar um cache de espaço livre v1 .

Portanto, para usar o cache de espaço livre v1 após a criação do cache de espaço livre v2 , as opções de montagem clear_cache e space_cache=v1 devem ser combinadas: clear_cache,space_cache=v1

A opção de montagem nospace_cache é usada para desabilitar o cache de espaço livre.

Para desabilitar o cache de espaço livre após a criação do cache v1 ou v2 , as opções de montagem nospace_cache e clear_cache devem ser combinadas: clear_cache,nosapce_cache

**14. skip_balance

Por padrão, a operação de balanceamento interrompida/pausada de um sistema de arquivos Btrfs de vários dispositivos ou RAID Btrfs será retomada automaticamente assim que o sistema de arquivos Btrfs for montado. Para desabilitar a retomada automática da operação de equilíbrio interrompido/pausado em um sistema de arquivos Btrfs de vários dispositivos ou RAID Btrfs, você pode usar a opção de montagem skip_balance .**

**15. datacow e nodatacow

A opção datacow** mount habilita o recurso Copy-on-Write (CoW) do sistema de arquivos Btrfs. É o comportamento padrão.

Se você deseja desabilitar o recurso Copy-on-Write (CoW) do sistema de arquivos Btrfs para os arquivos recém-criados, monte o sistema de arquivos Btrfs com a opção de montagem nodatacow .

**16. datasum e nodatasum

A opção datasum** mount habilita a soma de verificação de dados para arquivos recém-criados do sistema de arquivos Btrfs. Este é o comportamento padrão.

Se você não quiser que o sistema de arquivos Btrfs faça a soma de verificação dos dados dos arquivos recém-criados, monte o sistema de arquivos Btrfs com a opção de montagem nodatasum .

Perfis Btrfs

Um perfil Btrfs é usado para informar ao sistema de arquivos Btrfs quantas cópias dos dados/metadados devem ser mantidas e quais níveis de RAID devem ser usados para os dados/metadados. O sistema de arquivos Btrfs contém muitos perfis. Entendê-los o ajudará a configurar um RAID Btrfs da maneira que você deseja.

Os perfis Btrfs disponíveis são os seguintes:

single : Se o perfil único for usado para os dados/metadados, apenas uma cópia dos dados/metadados será armazenada no sistema de arquivos, mesmo se você adicionar vários dispositivos de armazenamento ao sistema de arquivos. Assim, 100% do espaço em disco de cada um dos dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos pode ser utilizado.

dup : Se o perfil dup for usado para os dados/metadados, cada um dos dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos manterá duas cópias dos dados/metadados. Assim, 50% do espaço em disco de cada um dos dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos pode ser utilizado.

raid0 : No perfil raid0 , os dados/metadados serão divididos igualmente em todos os dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos. Nesta configuração, não haverá dados/metadados redundantes (duplicados). Assim, 100% do espaço em disco de cada um dos dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos pode ser usado. Se, em qualquer caso, um dos dispositivos de armazenamento falhar, todo o sistema de arquivos será corrompido. Você precisará de pelo menos dois dispositivos de armazenamento para configurar o sistema de arquivos Btrfs no perfil raid0 .

raid1 : No perfil raid1 , duas cópias dos dados/metadados serão armazenadas nos dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos. Nesta configuração, a matriz RAID pode sobreviver a uma falha de unidade. Mas você pode usar apenas 50% do espaço total em disco. Você precisará de pelo menos dois dispositivos de armazenamento para configurar o sistema de arquivos Btrfs no perfil raid1 .

raid1c3 : No perfil raid1c3 , três cópias dos dados/metadados serão armazenadas nos dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos. Nesta configuração, a matriz RAID pode sobreviver a duas falhas de unidade, mas você pode usar apenas 33% do espaço total em disco. Você precisará de pelo menos três dispositivos de armazenamento para configurar o sistema de arquivos Btrfs no perfil raid1c3 .

raid1c4 : No perfil raid1c4 , quatro cópias dos dados/metadados serão armazenadas nos dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos. Nesta configuração, a matriz RAID pode sobreviver a três falhas de unidade, mas você pode usar apenas 25% do espaço total em disco. Você precisará de pelo menos quatro dispositivos de armazenamento para configurar o sistema de arquivos Btrfs no perfil raid1c4 .

raid10 : No perfil raid10 , duas cópias dos dados/metadados serão armazenadas nos dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos, como no perfil raid1 . Além disso, os dados/metadados serão divididos entre os dispositivos de armazenamento, como no perfil raid0 .

O perfil raid10 é um híbrido dos perfis raid1 e raid0 . Alguns dos dispositivos de armazenamento formam arrays raid1 e alguns desses arrays raid1 são usados para formar um array raid0 . Em uma configuração raid10 , o sistema de arquivos pode sobreviver a uma única falha de unidade em cada uma das matrizes raid1 .

Você pode usar 50% do espaço total em disco na configuração raid10 . Você precisará de pelo menos quatro dispositivos de armazenamento para configurar o sistema de arquivos Btrfs no perfil raid10 .

raid5 : No perfil raid5 , uma cópia dos dados/metadados será dividida entre os dispositivos de armazenamento. Uma única paridade será calculada e distribuída entre os dispositivos de armazenamento do array RAID.

Em uma configuração raid5 , o sistema de arquivos pode sobreviver a uma única falha de unidade. Se uma unidade falhar, você pode adicionar uma nova unidade ao sistema de arquivos e os dados perdidos serão calculados a partir da paridade distribuída das unidades em execução.

Você pode usar 1 00x(N-1)/N % do total de espaços em disco na configuração raid5 . Aqui, N é o número de dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos. Você precisará de pelo menos três dispositivos de armazenamento para configurar o sistema de arquivos Btrfs no perfil raid5 .

raid6 : No perfil raid6 , uma cópia dos dados/metadados será dividida entre os dispositivos de armazenamento. Duas paridades serão calculadas e distribuídas entre os dispositivos de armazenamento do array RAID.

Em uma configuração raid6 , o sistema de arquivos pode sobreviver a duas falhas de unidade ao mesmo tempo. Se uma unidade falhar, você poderá adicionar uma nova unidade ao sistema de arquivos e os dados perdidos serão calculados a partir das duas paridades distribuídas das unidades em execução.

Você pode usar 100x(N-2)/N % do espaço total em disco na configuração raid6 . Aqui, N é o número de dispositivos de armazenamento adicionados ao sistema de arquivos. Você precisará de pelo menos quatro dispositivos de armazenamento para configurar o sistema de arquivos Btrfs no perfil raid6 .

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Nostr is not decentralized nor censorship-resistant

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

Nostr today is indeed centralized.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

See also:

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

@ 04ea4f83:210e1713

Veröffentlicht auf Bitcoin Magazine am 11.01.2024\ Originalautor: Josh von BlueCollarBitcoin\ Übersetzt von: Sinautoshi am 13.01.2024 - 825611

Wir alle haben einen Werdegang in Bezug auf Bitcoin. Einige begannen als Verfechter des gesunden Geldes, die die österreichische Schule der Nationalökonomie und Gold verehrten. Andere sind aus der TradFi-Welt herausgefallen, als sie merkten, dass etwas nicht ganz richtig war. Die meisten Bitcoiner haben die Irrungen und Wirrungen der Altcoin-Hölle durchlaufen. Wie auch immer du es hierher und zu Bitcoin geschafft hast, willkommen und schnall dich verdammt nochmal an.

Als ich mich zum ersten Mal für Bitcoin interessierte, war das im Juli 2017, und der Bullenmarkt des Jahres war bereits in vollem Gange. Ich kaufte etwas Bitcoin und sah zu, wie der Wert stieg. Dann kaufte ich mehr. Wie es bei diesen parabolischen Aufwärtsbewegungen üblich ist, beobachtete ich, wie der Preis stieg und mein Gemütszustand veränderte sich:

Von Interesse zu Unglauben zu Verliebtheit zu ausgearteten Käufen zu Verzweiflung.

Dies ist eine Entwicklung, die du während der nächsten Aufwärtsbewegung vermeiden kannst, wenn du dich richtig vorbereitest.

Wenn du dies in der Hoffnung liest, alle Antworten zu finden, habe ich leider schlechte Nachrichten. Es gibt keine richtigen Antworten in Bitcoin oder im Leben. Wir sind alle auf einer Reise, um herauszufinden, was wir tun und wie wir vorgehen sollen. Ich hoffe, dass ich dir einen Leitfaden an die Hand geben kann, aber letztendlich werden deine persönlichen Ziele und deine Veranlagung bestimmen, wie du mit der Volatilität umgehst. Bitcoin wird deine Entschlossenheit auf die Probe stellen.

In der späteren Phase des Bullemarkts 2017 sprach ich mit jedem in meinem Leben über Bitcoin - völlig besessen. Mein damaliger Nachbar war älter als ich und hatte den Dot-Com-Boom erlebt. Den Rat, den er mir gab, werde ich nie vergessen, denn er hatte während der Dot-Com-Blase eine Menge Geld gewonnen (und verloren). Er hörte sich mein glühendes Interesse an Bitcoin an und ging sehr maßvoll mit meiner offensichtlichen LIEBE für diesen Vermögenswert um. Er erzählte mir, dass er während des Dot-Com-Booms mehr Geld verdient hat, als er jemals geglaubt hätte, und am Ende war er wieder genau da, wo er angefangen hatte - weil er den Bullenmarkt über den Gipfel geritten und nichts verkauft hatte. Sein Rat war: "Ich freue mich, dass es dir gut geht, aber vergiss nicht, etwas Gewinn mitzunehmen." Er riet mir, 50 % zu verkaufen und 50 % zu behalten - eine einfache Absicherungsstrategie. Kurz nachdem Bitcoin sein Allzeithoch erreicht hatte, beherzigte ich seinen Rat und verkaufte einige meiner Bestände in der Nähe des lokalen Höchststands.

Ich weiß, dass dies für viele Hodler ein Frevel ist. Wir verkaufen unsere Bitcoin doch nicht, oder? Nun, das ist eine persönliche Entscheidung, und je nach deiner Risikotoleranz und deinem Platz im Leben, möchtest du vielleicht ein gewisses Risiko vom Tisch nehmen. Das ist Teil des Investierens, und wie das alte Sprichwort sagt, verliert niemand Geld, wenn er mit Gewinn verkauft. Dieser Artikel soll den Rat geben, den ich mir gewünscht hätte, als ich Bitcoin zum ersten Mal entdeckte. Ich hoffe, er hilft Neulingen in diesem Bereich zu verstehen, wie man sich in dem bombastischen Umfeld zurechtfindet, das Bitcoin während seiner Bullenmärkte erzeugt.

Ich habe zwei Bullenmärkte erlebt, einen im Jahr 2017 und einen im Jahr 2021. Diese Bullenmärkte waren SEHR unterschiedlich, und ich vermute, wenn du mit denjenigen sprichst, die bei Bullenmärkten vor 2017 dabei waren, wirst du feststellen, dass sie sich auch sehr unterschiedlich anfühlten.

Das erste, was ich loswerden möchte, ist Folgendes - niemand weiß, was passieren wird:

• Balaji spricht von 1 Million in 3 Monaten
• Nobelpreisträger sagen, Bitcoin wird auf Null sinken
• Buffett und Munger (RIP) nennen es Rattengift

Egal, wem Du zuhörst, egal, wie lange sie schon in dem Bereich tätig sind oder wie korrekt sie in der Vergangenheit waren, es spielt keine Rolle. Sie haben keine Ahnung, was die Zukunft bringt.

Bei Investitionen gibt es eine Idee, die als Überlebensbias bezeichnet wird. Diejenigen, die richtig lagen, haben überlebt, und sie erscheinen wie Genies, weil sie richtig lagen. Die überwiegende Mehrheit derjenigen, die sich geirrt haben, ist vergessen. Man hört nichts über sie. Ich will hier niemanden in die Pfanne hauen, aber es gab prominente Bitcoin-Leute, die VIEL höhere Preise riefen, als wir im Jahr 2021 bei 68K waren. Ich sage nicht, dass sie schlechte Menschen sind; ich bin mir sicher, dass sie einen guten Grund hatten, diese Zahlen zu prognostizieren, aber wenn man damals ihren Ratschlägen gefolgt wäre, hätte man zum denkbar schlechtesten Zeitpunkt gekauft und wäre für JAHRE unter die Räder gekommen.

Meiner Meinung nach gibt es verschiedene Arten von Kristallkugelbesitzern, und die unterste Kategorie sind die technischen Analysten. Das sind die ein Dutzend Leute, die man auf Twitter sieht, die über Momentum, Preisniveaus, Tassen und Griffe usw. schwadronieren. Diese Leute riefen für 10K Bitcoin, wo der Boden bei 16k lag. Ich sage nicht, dass TA Unsinn ist; im Grunde ist es ein System zur Vorhersage menschlicher Handlungen durch Wahrscheinlichkeit. Es ist bestenfalls eine Überlegung. Sie sollte nie in einem Vakuum verwendet werden, um Ihre Allokationen zu bestimmen. Wenn du es in Verbindung mit den Fundamentaldaten verwendest, kann es viel hilfreicher sein. Worauf ich hier hinaus will, ist, dass es GANZ viele TA-Analysten gibt, die Ihnen raten, bei 68 K zu kaufen und nicht bei 16 K. Sie werfen probabilistische Darts. Setze deine finanzielle Zukunft nicht auf eine fundierte Vermutung von irgendjemandem.

Die zweite Art von Kristallkugel-Liebhabern sind Makro-Analysten. Diese Leute sind meiner Meinung nach glaubwürdiger, weil sie den allgemeinen Trend in der Wirtschaft einschätzen. Sie berücksichtigen die Zinssätze, die Bewegungen der Fed und die Wirtschaftsdaten. Diese Leute sind viel näher an der Realität, weil sie den Finger am Puls des wirtschaftlichen Geschehens haben. Aber wie bei den TA-Analysten können sich auch diese Leute VÖLLIG irren. Viele sagten, dass die Leitzinsen nicht über x oder y steigen könnten, da sonst die gesamte Wirtschaft zusammenbrechen würde. Nun, die Zinssätze wurden auf ein Niveau angehoben, das weit über ihren Weltuntergangsprognosen liegt, und wir haben keinen Zusammenbruch erlebt.

Ob du nun einem TA-Analysten oder einem Makro-Analysten folgst, sie können wegen eines schwarzen Schwans völlig FALSCH liegen. Nicholas Taleb - bekanntlich von Bitcoinern gehasst - hat den Begriff "schwarzer Schwan" geprägt, um Ereignisse zu bezeichnen, die von Zeit zu Zeit eintreten und mit Standardmodellen einfach nicht vorhergesagt werden können, weil sie so unwahrscheinlich sind. Covid war ein schwarzer Schwan. Der Krieg in der Ukraine war ein schwarzer Schwan. Und rate mal, was passiert: Morgen könnte es einen weiteren unvorhersehbaren schwarzen Schwan geben, der alle TA- und Makro-Analysten völlig auf den Kopf stellt. In der Welt gibt es jede Menge Zufälle. Übrigens sind schwarze Schwäne nicht immer schlecht. Sie können genauso gut auch positive Katalysatoren sein.

Heißt das also, dass wir vor Angst gelähmt bleiben und niemandem trauen sollten?

Ganz und gar nicht. Es bedeutet, dass wir uns die Mühe machen sollten, UNS SELBST zu BILDEN! Du musst die Verantwortung für dich und deine Entscheidungen übernehmen. Du kannst die Informationen der TA-Analysten und der Makro-Analysten nehmen und deine eigenen fundierten Entscheidungen treffen. DAS IST VON GRÖSSTER WICHTIGKEIT.

BILDE DICH SELBST WEITER

Bitcoin ist ein unglaublich einfaches und doch unendlich komplexes Wesen. Deine Ausbildung wird nie vollständig sein, aber du kannst dein Verständnis Schritt für Schritt erweitern. Wir haben eine 10-teilige Bitcoin-Grundlagen-Serie mit Dazbea und Seb Bunney gemacht, und ich habe das Gefühl, dass wir nicht einmal an der Oberfläche gekratzt haben!

Du solltest gut ausgebildet sein, um widerstandsfähig zu werden. Wenn du ein solides Verständnis von Bitcoin und seiner Funktionsweise hast, wirst du nicht so leicht zu erschüttern sein. Die Psychologie ist hier SEHR WICHTIG. Wenn du verstehst, in was du investierst, und der Markt von einem Börsenausfall betroffen ist, ähnlich dem, der FTX passiert ist, wirst du einige Dinge verstehen, die die Durchschnittsperson vielleicht nicht versteht.

• Bitcoin ist davon nicht betroffen
• Der Preisverfall ist vorübergehend und unbegründet
• Deshalb ist jetzt ein guter Zeitpunkt, um Bitcoin zu akkumulieren

Aber auch das Gegenteil ist der Fall. Wenn du siehst, wie die Mainstream-Schlagzeilen über Bitcoin schwärmen und die Gewinne kein Ende zu nehmen scheinen, und du das Gefühl hast, dass du jedes bisschen Geld in Bitcoin investieren solltest, weil der Preis nirgendwo hin geht, außer nach oben - dann sei VORSICHTIG. Ich habe festgestellt, dass meine Psychologie typisch ist. Ich habe Angst, wenn der Preis nach unten geht, und ich habe irrationalen Überschwang, wenn der Preis schnell steigt. Wenn ich GENAU das Gegenteil von dem tue, was mein Affenhirn mir sagt, stelle ich fest, dass ich oft das Richtige tue. Das heißt, wenn du extreme Angst verspürst, ist dies der richtige Zeitpunkt zum Kaufen, und wenn du dich überschwänglich fühlst, ist dies der richtige Zeitpunkt zum Verkaufen.

Panikkäufe sind gefährlich. Wenn du einen unkontrollierbaren Drang verspürst, Bitcoin zu kaufen, atme tief durch. Ich kann dir versichern, dass du in der Lage sein wirst, etwas Bitcoin zu kaufen, und wenn du den Drang so stark verspürst, ist der Markt wahrscheinlich reif für einen Rücksetzer. Das ist keine Garantie, aber nach meiner Erfahrung ist dies der wahrscheinliche Fall. Ich plädiere nicht für den Handel mit BTC, ganz und gar nicht. Ich kann ehrlich sagen, dass ich durch den Handel mehr BTC verloren als gewonnen habe, und wenn die meisten Leute ehrlich sind, werden sie das auch zugeben. Das Trading ist eine Fähigkeit und Disziplin, die nur sehr wenige Menschen beherrschen.

Die typischen psychologischen Hindernisse, die den Menschen im Weg stehen, sind Angst und Gier. Denk über deine Gefühle nach und erkenne, wann du diese Emotionen erlebst. Sie werden dich dazu bringen, Fehler zu machen. Der einfachste Weg, all dies zu mildern, ist einfach der Dollar-Cost-Average. Dollar-Cost Averaging nimmt den ganzen Stress heraus. Basta. Wenn du in diesem Moment in diesen Schatz einsteigst und er über Nacht auf 30 % fällt, frage dich ehrlich: Habe ich den Mut dazu? Habe ich die nötige Überzeugung dafür? Habe ich das nötige Wissen, um zu verstehen, warum der Dollarpreis kurzfristig keine Rolle spielt? Werde ich in Panik verkaufen? Wenn du nicht überzeugt bist, wird dich das Dollar-Cost-Averaging retten. Du bekommst den Durchschnittspreis über einen langen Zeitraum.

Ich habe eine kleine DCA-Taktik, die einfach ist und bei mir funktioniert:

Wenn der Preis sich entspannt, erhöhe ich meinen DCA, und wenn der Preis in die Höhe schießt, ziehe ich mich zurück und kaufe im Durchschnitt weniger. Über Monate und Jahre hinweg führt dies zu einem optimalen Durchschnittswert.

FÜHLE DICH NICHT WIE EIN VERRÄTER, WENN DU BTC VERKAUFST

Habe einen Plan und sei bereit, ihn auszuführen. Der Plan meines Nachbarn ist ein guter Anfang. Sobald du dein Geld verdoppelt hast, nimmst du die Anfangsinvestition heraus. Dabei gibt es ein erhebliches Sternchen - was willst du anstelle von Bitcoin kaufen? Inflationäres Bargeld? Die Möglichkeiten, sein Geld woanders anzulegen, sind heutzutage sehr begrenzt. Das mag für viele in diesem Bereich kontrovers sein, aber ich denke, es ist absolut vernünftig, Bitcoin zu verkaufen. Wenn du Bitcoin seit JAHREN hältst und dein Stack dein Leben sinnvoll verbessern könnte, solltest du auf jeden Fall einen Teil verkaufen.

Zeit ist das einzige Gut, das wertvoller ist als BTC; wir haben wirklich nur eine begrenzte Menge an Zeit auf dieser Erde. Wenn du deine BTC hortest und dann friedlich einschläfst was war dann der Sinn? Wenn du einen Teil deines Stacks verkaufen kannst, um dein Haus abzubezahlen oder dich von erdrückenden Schulden zu befreien, halte ich das für eine gute Entscheidung. Es ist vielleicht nicht die BESTE finanzielle Entscheidung, vor allem, wenn Ihr Haus mit einem zinsgünstigen Darlehen belastet ist, aber es ist eine nachvollziehbare Entscheidung, weil man dadurch beruhigt sein kann. Man muss jedoch auch bedenken, dass der Verkauf von Bitcoin auf lange Sicht sehr wahrscheinlich eine schmerzhafte Entscheidung sein wird.

Bitcoin für Spielzeug zu verkaufen, ist hingegen kein guter Schachzug. Wenn du den 250.000 Dollar teuren Lamborghini kaufst, der in 3 Jahren 50% seines Wertes verliert, während Bitcoin um mehr als diesen Prozentsatz zugelegt hat, wird das Bedauern unerträglich sein. Robert Kiyosaki kommt mir in den Sinn. Sein Buch Rich Dad Poor Dad hat mich sehr beeinflusst, und seine Beschreibung von Vermögenswerten und Verbindlichkeiten hat mich sehr beeindruckt:

• Ein Vermögenswert erzeugt Cashflow
• Eine Verbindlichkeit zieht den Cashflow ab

Wenn du Vermögenswerte kaufst, wird dein Nettovermögen auf einer exponentiellen Kurve erheblich ansteigen. Wenn du Verbindlichkeiten kaufst, wirst du einfach ärmer. Wenn du Bitcoin verkaufst, wirst du es wahrscheinlich langfristig bereuen.

ZEITPRÄFERENZ

Die Zeitpräferenz ist ein Thema, das in Bitcoin oft angesprochen wird. Eine niedrige Zeitpräferenz zu haben bedeutet, dass man bereit ist, für eine bessere Zukunft auf die Annehmlichkeiten von heute zu verzichten. Jede sehenswerte Kathedrale, jedes klassische Kunstwerk, alles Schöne auf dieser Welt wurde gebaut, weil Menschen mit Blick auf die Zukunft und nicht auf die Gegenwart gearbeitet haben. Hätte DaVinci Bananen an die Wand geklebt, hätten wir uns nie an ihn erinnert. Wären die großen Pyramiden aus Lehm gebaut worden, gäbe es sie heute nicht mehr. Wenn die Zivilisation ihren gesamten Reichtum für das Hier und Jetzt ausgeben würde, ohne in die Zukunft zu investieren, würde sie nicht überleben.

Bitcoin selbst ist ein digitales Artefakt, das von einem geheimnisvollen Architekten bis zur Perfektion entwickelt wurde. Er ist so konzipiert, dass er Äonen überdauert; wenn die Zivilisation überdauert, wird er bis in die Zukunft hinein perfekte Treue beweisen. Da niemand ihn verändern oder kontrollieren kann, ist Bitcoin anti-entropisch. Das ist der Inbegriff von Handwerkskunst der geringen Zeitpräferenz. Bitcoin ist ein Da Vinci in einer Welt der an die Wand geklebten Bananen. Es ist so offensichtlich, wenn die Arbeit erst einmal geleistet ist, dass es peinlich ist, dass nicht mehr Menschen den Wert verstehen, den er bietet.

Im krassen Gegensatz zu diesem Bitcoin-Meisterwerk stehen die Schrotthaufen, die wir Altcoins oder Shitcoins nennen. Diese wurden mit der Technologie von Bitcoin gebaut, führen aber Entropie ein. Die Treue geht bei den Altcoins verloren, weil sie jeweils von einem Gründer oder einer Gruppe kontrolliert werden. Wenn Menschen etwas kontrollieren können, manipulieren sie es unweigerlich zu ihrem Vorteil. Und ob bewusst oder unbewusst, es wird sich verschlechtern. Die meisten dieser Shitcoins waren von Anfang an darauf ausgelegt, dich zu betrügen. Einige dieser Altcoins haben eine Führung, die vielleicht gute Absichten hat, aber sie sind menschlich und können beeinflusst und genötigt werden. Das Problem ist die FÜHRUNG. Bitcoin und seine Zeitkette wurden entwickelt, um das menschliche Element als primäre Eigenschaft zu entfernen. Die Einführung von Menschen in den Mix verursacht Entropie, die den Wert durch Seigniorage zerstört.

Die Erfindung von Bitcoin war die der NICHT-INTERVENTION durch Menschen.

Das sind Erkenntnisse, die für viele Menschen Jahre dauern, um sie vollständig zu verstehen. Wenn du das Kurzfassung über Altcoins wissen willst, ist es einfach. Bemühe dich einfach nicht. Du bist besser dran, wenn du dein Geld in ein Casino bringst und Glücksspiel machst. Die Karten sind in der Kryptowelt schwer gegen Dich ausgelegt; du hast einfach Glück, wenn du Geld verdienst. Nimm den Weg der geringen Zeitpräferenz und staple Bitcoin, während du lernst, wie deine Investition wächst. Ich kann mit Zuversicht sagen, dass du in 5 Jahren viel weiter vorne sein wirst, wenn du in Bitcoin Dollar-Cost-Averaging betreibst, als wenn du mit Shitcoins spielen würdest.

5-JAHRES-AUSSICHTEN MINIMUM

Die meisten Menschen interessieren sich für Bitcoin während einer seiner parabolischen Bullenläufe. Ich war einer von ihnen. Wir sind alle daran interessiert, finanziell voranzukommen, besonders wenn das Gespenst der Inflation über unseren Köpfen schwebt.

Wenn du neu bei Bitcoin bist und dies dein erster Versuch ist, dann stelle sicher, dass du bereit bist, diesen Vermögenswert für mindestens 5 Jahre zu halten. Du bist wahrscheinlich während einer Aufwärtsbewegung hier, und wenn du kein Glück hattest, ist es wahrscheinlich am Ende der Aufwärtsbewegung. Zum Zeitpunkt der Erstellung dieses Berichts im Dezember 2023 stehen wir meiner Meinung nach am Anfang der nächsten Aufwärtsbewegung. Mit der Zulassung der ETFs, der Halbierung im April 2024 und der Aussicht, dass die US-Notenbank ihre Geldpolitik zurückfahren wird, sind viele Katalysatoren aufeinander abgestimmt. Das bedeutet jedoch NICHT, dass dies unvermeidlich ist. Schwarze Schwäne sind immer eine Möglichkeit. Abgesehen von diesem schwarzen Schwan scheinen wir für einen massiven Kursanstieg in den nächsten Jahren bereit zu sein.

SELBSTVERWAHRUNG

Wenn du zum ersten Mal Bitcoin an der Börse deiner Wahl kaufst, wird es sich anfühlen wie der Kauf eines beliebigen anderen Vermögenswerts bei einem Broker. Du kaufst Bitcoin, und die Zahl auf dem Bildschirm spiegelt die Menge an Bitcoin wider, die du jetzt "besitzt".

Es ist von entscheidender Bedeutung, dass du deine Bitcoin in Verwahrung nimmst. Wir haben in jüngster Zeit Fehler beim Umtausch und regelrechte Betrugsfälle erlebt. Wenn diese Betrügereien aufgedeckt und strafrechtlich verfolgt werden und der Preis von Bitcoin unter Druck gerät, weil viele Menschen den Vermögenswert Bitcoin mit den Börsen in Verbindung bringen, die ihn verkaufen, wird dies zu einer RIESIGEN Kaufgelegenheit. Als FTX vor einem Jahr scheiterte, wurde der Preis von Bitcoin negativ beeinflusst, und diejenigen, die verstanden, dass Bitcoin kein fundamentales Problem hatte, kauften mehr. Du hast verstanden, dass die Angst durch den Markt strömte (womit wir wieder bei dem Punkt wären, warum es in diesem Bereich SO WICHTIG ist, gut informiert zu sein). Wer damals Bitcoin kaufte (um 16k), sicherte sich innerhalb eines Jahres einen Gewinn von weit über 100%!

Stell dir die Seed Keys als das Passwort zu deinem Bitcoin vor, das geschützt werden muss, denn wenn jemand anderes es bekommt, kann er deine Bitcoin in Besitz nehmen - nicht gut für dich. Bitcoin-Seed-Keys werden in der Regel durch eine Hardware-Wallet oder ein Signiergerät geschützt. Dieses Gerät schützt deine Schlüssel vor Hackern oder schlechten Akteuren. Ich verwende seit Jahren Coldcards, und sie gehören zu den besten Geräten zum Schutz von privaten Schlüsseln. Es funktioniert sehr einfach. Du erstellst auf dem Gerät die geheimen Schlüssel; es speichert sie und bewahrt sie offline auf, d. h. ohne Verbindung zum Internet. Dieser letzte Punkt ist WICHTIG. Du darfst diese Wörter NIEMALS auf einem Computer mit Internetanschluss speichern. Der einzige Ort, an dem du deine Schlüssel sicher aufbewahren kannst, ist ein dafür vorgesehenes Gerät. Wenn der Computer kompromittiert wird (und glauben Sie mir, es ist SEHR WÄHRLICH, dass er kompromittiert wird), wird das Signiergerät deine Bitcoin schützen.

Das mag sich alles sehr schwierig und komplex anhören, wenn du es noch nie gemacht hast, aber glaub mir, es ist ganz einfach. Ich würde empfehlen, dass du dir die Videos von BTC Sessions über die Verwendung des Signiergeräts deiner Wahl ansiehst. Er hat unglaubliche Walk-Through-Videos auf YouTube, die alles im Detail erklären.

Eine gemeinsame Verwahrung mit einem Unternehmen wie Swan Bitcoin oder Unchained Capital ist auch eine gute Idee für diejenigen, die neu in diesem Bereich sind. Sie werden dir die Hand halten und dich davor schützen, einfache Fehler zu machen, die zu Problemen führen können. Die gemeinschaftliche Verwahrung ist die Kosten wert, wenn du dir Sorgen machst, deine Bitcoin zu verlieren. Unchained bietet ein Produkt zur gemeinschaftlichen Verwahrung an, das mehrere Schlüssel enthalten kann und deinen Verwandten helfen kann, deine Bitcoin im Falle deines Ablebens wiederzuerlangen.

GEBE NICHT MIT DEINEN BITCOIN AN. Es besteht die Versuchung, mit dem Erfolg zu prahlen. Wenn du fünf Jahre lang durchhältst, wirst du ihn wahrscheinlich haben. Du bist stolz darauf, dass du die Disziplin und Selbstbeherrschung hattest, dich selbst zu beherrschen und erfolgreich das zu erwerben, was du als eine bedeutende Menge an Bitcoin ansiehst. Teile nicht, wie viel du hast, mit anderen. Das sollte offensichtlich sein, aber es gibt Leute, die sich nicht so sehr für dich freuen. Sie könnten es ihren Freunden erzählen, und früher oder später könnte jemand, den du nicht kennst und der vielleicht gewaltbereit ist, feststellen, dass du ein attraktives Ziel bist. Dies ist ein weiterer Grund für die Verwendung einer Konfiguration mit mehreren Signaturen. Selbst wenn jemand 1 von 3 Schlüsseln erhalten hat, kann er deine Bitcoin nicht stehlen.

KAUFE KEINE BITCOIN, DIE DU NICHT KONTROLLIEREN KANNST

Kaufe nicht den glänzenden neuen ETF, den die Wall Street anbietet. Kaufe Bitcoin nur bei Anbietern, die es dir ermöglichen, deine Bitcoin tatsächlich in Verwahrung zu nehmen. Lege deine Bitcoin nicht bei irgendeinem Dienst an, der eine Rendite bietet, insbesondere wenn diese Rendite unrealistisch hoch erscheint. Als allgemeine Faustregel gilt: Lass es einfach bleiben.

Der erste und wichtigste Grund, warum du deine Bitcoin in Verwahrung nehmen solltest, ist, dass du die absolute und vollständige Kontrolle über sie hast. Es gibt in Bitcoin ein Sprichwort: "Nicht deine Schlüssel, nicht deine Coins". Wenn du deine Bitcoin nicht verwahrst, hast du einfach einen Schuldschein. Das ist der ganze Grund für die Existenz von Bitcoin. Um Zwischenhändler auszuschalten und den Menschen zu ermöglichen, ihr finanzielles Schicksal selbst in die Hand zu nehmen.

Wenn du den Besitz hast, fallen keine Gebühren an wie bei einem ETF. Diese Gebühren können niedrig erscheinen, aber mit der Zeit können sie SIGNIFIKANT sein. GBTC ist ein Trust, der einem Bitcoin-ETF am ähnlichsten ist. GBTC erhebt eine Gebühr von 2 % PRO JAHR (jetzt 1,5 % mit dem ETF). Im Laufe der Zeit kann dies erheblich sein. Außerdem erlauben es die ETF-Produkte, die die Wall Street verkauft, nicht, den Bitcoin JEMALS zu verwahren. Ein ETF könnte für einige Leute in bestimmten Szenarien Sinn machen, aber für jeden, der ein Lego-Set bauen kann, ist die Verwahrung von Bitcoin ähnlich komplex. Nimm es selbst in die Hand.

Wenn sich Bitcoin mehr und mehr durchsetzt, wird es möglich sein, ihn als Sicherheiten zu verwenden. Ja, ich verstehe, dass die Verwendung deines Bitcoin als Sicherheit ihn aus deinem Besitz nimmt und Vertrauen in eine dritte Partei erfordert. Dies ist ein weiterer Fall, in dem du dich informieren und SICHER sein solltest, dass der von dir gewählte Kreditgeber vertrauenswürdig ist und nicht pleite gehen wird. Im Zweifelsfall solltest du dich immer auf die Selbstverwahrung verlassen.

Eine Kreditaufnahme gegen deine Bitcoin ist unmöglich, wenn du ihn nicht selbst verwahrst. Du kannst den Bitcoin, den Blackrock in deinem Namen hält, nicht ausleihen. Dies ist von Bedeutung. Es hat steuerliche Vorteile, Bitcoin zu beleihen, anstatt sie zu verkaufen. Wenn du keine Kontrolle über deine Bitcoin hast, schließt du dich selbst von einigen vorhersehbaren Anwendungsfällen in der nahen Zukunft aus und von vielen unvorhersehbaren Anwendungen, die noch erfunden werden müssen. Programmierbares Geld ist nicht nützlich, wenn du es nicht in deiner Hand hältst.

Der letzte Grund, warum du deine Bitcoin aufbewahren solltest, ist ein wenig düsterer. Bitcoin wurde entwickelt, um unzensierbar und nicht konfiszierbar zu sein. Wenn der Staat merkt, dass er die Kontrolle über das Geld verliert, wird er sich wahrscheinlich dein Bitcoin holen. Dies ist ein Präzedenzfall in der Geschichte der USA. Im Jahr 1933 wurde mit der Executive Order 6102 der Besitz von Gold für US-Bürger illegal. Sie zwangen die Menschen, Gold abzugeben und 20 Dollar pro Unze zu erhalten. Die Regierung setzte dann den Goldpreis auf 35 Dollar pro Unze herauf. Für den Besitz von Goldmünzen konnte man in den USA von 1933 bis Mitte der 1970er Jahre ins Gefängnis kommen. Das könnte wieder passieren, und du hast die Wahl, wenn du Bitcoin selbst hältst. Depotbanken WERDEN in diesem Szenario gezwungen sein, der Regierung deine Bitcoin zu geben. Was du in dieser Situation mit deinem Bitcoin tust, sollte DEINE Entscheidung sein, nicht die eines Verwahrers.

VERANTWORTUNG

Wenn du die Schritte unternimmst, um deine Bitcoin selbst zu verwahren, bist du verantwortlich. Dies ist eine Art von radikaler Verantwortung, die Menschen beunruhigen kann. Wenn du deine Schlüssel verlierst, ist dein Bitcoin für immer verloren. Es gibt keine Nummer, die du anrufen kannst, und niemanden, der dir helfen kann. SIE. SIND. WEG.

Im Jahr 2017 verlor einer meiner Freunde auf der Feuerwache Bitcoin im Wert von 1300 Dollar, weil er die Bitcoin in einer Papier-Wallet aufbewahrte. Diese werden nicht mehr verwendet, weil sie so unsicher sind, aber man kann einen QR-Code ausdrucken, der die Bitcoin enthält. Er ließ das Stück Papier in seinem Auto liegen. Dann räumte er sein Auto aus und saugte die Papier-Wallet auf. Diese Bitcoin sind für immer weg. Sie sind jetzt irgendwo zwischen 4 und 5 Tausend Dollar wert, und sie sind einfach weg. Nun, technisch gesehen sind sie nicht weg, sie sind immer noch da, nur für niemanden zugänglich. Ohne die Schlüssel kann niemand die Bitcoin bewegen, also sind die Bitcoin praktisch für immer eingefroren.

Ein anderer guter Freund von mir verlor eine beträchtliche Menge an Bitcoin bei einem Unternehmen namens BlockFi. Dabei handelte es sich um eine Börse, die Renditen für Bitcoin anbot, die bei ihrer Börse aufbewahrt wurden. Dieser Bitcoin ist nicht eingefroren, aber er ist jetzt für die absehbare Zukunft in einem Rechtsstreit eingesperrt. Um dem Ganzen noch die Krone aufzusetzen - da der Bitcoin, als er von BlockFi gehalten wurde, technisch gesehen nicht ihm gehörte, sondern aufgrund der "Vereinbarung", die er bei der Eröffnung des Kontos unterschrieben hat, ihnen gehört, wird er irgendwann in der Zukunft den Dollarwert dieses Bitcoins zu dem Preis erhalten, zu dem BlockFi pleite ging - also 16.000 Dollar -, sind wir wieder bei dem Punkt angelangt, warum du die Selbstverwahrung ernst nehmen solltest!

Das alte Bitcoin-Sprichwort lautet: "Nicht deine Schlüssel, nicht deine Coins".

Bitcoin ist eine endlose Lernreise. Wenn du ein Kaninchenloch erforschen willst, hast du Glück! Die Menge an soliden Inhalten, die in diesem Bereich angeboten werden, ist um Lichtjahre besser als im Jahr 2017. Man kann in einem Bruchteil der Zeit, die man damals gebraucht hätte, von null auf kompetent umsteigen. Wie oben bereits angedeutet, haben wir bei Blue Collar Bitcoin eine Grundlagenreihe zusammengestellt, die du für den Einstieg nutzen kannst. Die Liste der großartigen Inhaltsersteller und Ressourcen ist so lang, dass wir sie nicht alle aufzählen können. Geh einfach auf Entdeckungsreise und achte darauf, zu überprüfen, nicht zu vertrauen.

Lerne weiter, und vor allem - denke selbst!

Erinnere dich an die Weisheit von Matt Odell: "Bleib bescheiden und staple Sats".

@ 04ea4f83:210e1713

Bei dem Begriff "Midlife-Crisis" denkt man oft an Menschen mittleren Alters, die sich Sportwagen kaufen, ihre Ehepartner für jüngere Partner verlassen oder sich in einem verzweifelten Versuch, ihre Jugend wiederzuerlangen, plötzlich auf ausgefallene Abenteuer einlassen. Im Bitcoin Space zeichnet sich jedoch ein neues Phänomen ab - die Bitcoiner Midlife-Crisis.

Für diejenigen, die tief in den Kaninchen Bau eingetaucht sind kommt ein Punkt auf ihrer Reise, an dem sie ein Plateau erreichen. Sie haben ein außerordentliches Vermögen in Form von Sats angehäuft und verfügen über ein klares Verständnis der Technologie und des Marktes. Aber trotz alledem fühlen sie sich unerfüllt, so als ob der nächste Kauf von Bitcoin einfach keinen wirklichen Unterschied mehr macht.

Dieses Gefühl wird durch die extreme Volatilität des Bitcoin-Marktes noch verstärkt. An einem Tag kann das Nettovermögen in neue Höhen steigen, nur um am nächsten Tag wieder deutlich zu fallen. Die Schwankungen können so drastisch sein, dass ihr Jahresgehalt im Vergleich zu den nicht realisierten Gewinnen und Verlusten, die sie an einem einzigen Tag erleben, verblasst. Es wird schwierig, die Achterbahnfahrt der finanziellen Freiheit mit der Stabilität einer traditionellen Festanstellung in Einklang zu bringen.

Die traditionellen Vorstellungen von Erfolg und Erfüllung verlieren für Bitcoiner, die diese Midlife-Crisis erleben, an Bedeutung. Die Verlockung von materiellen Besitztümern oder beruflichen Fortschritten hat nicht mehr das gleiche Gewicht im Vergleich zu den potenziellen Gewinnen und Verlusten der Bitcoin. Die Vorstellung, für jemand anderen zu arbeiten und Zeit gegen Geld zu tauschen, wird zunehmend unattraktiver, wenn sie das Potenzial für finanzielle Unabhängigkeit durch ihre überlegene Spar-Technologie sehen.

Infolgedessen können Bitcoiner in der Mitte ihrer Lebenskrise ihre Prioritäten und Werte in Frage stellen. Sie könnten beginnen, die gesellschaftlichen Normen und Erwartungen zu hinterfragen, die ihr Leben bis zu diesem Zeitpunkt bestimmt haben. Das Bedürfnis nach Anerkennung oder Bestätigung durch andere hat nicht mehr den gleichen Stellenwert, da sie erkennen, dass ihr Wohlstand und ihr Erfolg nicht durch traditionelle Maßstäbe definiert werden.

Diese veränderte Denkweise kann zu einem Mangel an Filter oder Selbstzensur in ihren Interaktionen mit anderen führen. Bitcoiner, die eine Midlife-Crisis durchleben, werden möglicherweise offener und selbstbewusster, wenn es darum geht, ihre Überzeugungen und Meinungen zu äußern, unabhängig davon, wie sie von ihrem Umfeld wahrgenommen werden. Sie haben vielleicht nicht mehr das Bedürfnis, sich an gesellschaftliche Normen anzupassen oder sich an konventionelle Weisheiten zu halten, was zu Konflikten mit Freunden, Familie oder Arbeitskollegen führt, die ihre Ansichten nicht verstehen oder teilen.

Die emotionale Loslösung, die mit der Bitcoiner-Midlife-Crisis einhergeht, kann sich auch in einem allgemeinen Gefühl der Apathie oder Gleichgültigkeit gegenüber äußeren Ereignissen oder Umständen äußern. Themen oder Herausforderungen, die früher vielleicht eine starke emotionale Reaktion hervorgerufen haben, werden jetzt kaum noch wahrgenommen. Die Höhen und Tiefen des alltäglichen Fiat-Jobs scheinen im Vergleich zur Volatilität des Bitcoin-Marktes unbedeutend zu sein.

Mitten in dieser Midlife-Crisis könnten sich Bitcoiner an einem Scheideweg wiederfinden und sich mit Fragen der Identität, des Zwecks und der Erfüllung auseinandersetzen. Sie könnten gezwungen sein, sich mit ihrer eigenen Sterblichkeit und dem Erbe, das sie hinterlassen wollen, auseinanderzusetzen. Die traditionellen Meilensteine des Erfolgs, wie ein Haus, staatliche Altersvorsorge oder berufliche Erfolge, haben vielleicht nicht mehr die gleiche Anziehungskraft, wenn man sie mit dem Potenzial für finanzielle Freiheit und Souveränität vergleicht, das der Bitcoin bietet.

Die Midlife-Crisis der Bitcoiner ist nicht nur ein persönlicher Kampf, sondern ein Spiegelbild der breiteren gesellschaftlichen Veränderungen und Umwälzungen, die durch den Aufstieg eines digitalen Geldes ausgelöst wurden, welches die Gesellschaft von monetärer Entwertung und finanzieller Unterdrückung befreit. Sie ist eine Herausforderung für die etablierten Normen und Strukturen der Finanzwelt und eine Neudefinition dessen, was es bedeutet, in der modernen Zeit Erfolg und Erfüllung zu finden.

Während Bitcoiner durch diese Midlife-Crisis schreiten, können sie Trost darin finden, sich mit anderen zu verbinden, die ihre Reise und Erfahrungen teilen. Online-Communities, Meetups und Konferenzen bieten einen Raum für Gleichgesinnte, um zusammenzukommen und sich gegenseitig durch die Höhen und Tiefen des Bitcoin-Marktes zu unterstützen. Indem sie ihre Kämpfe, Erfolge und Einsichten miteinander teilen, können Bitcoiner ein Gefühl der Kameradschaft und ein Ziel auf ihrem Weg zur finanziellen Unabhängigkeit und Selbstverwirklichung finden.

Zusammenfassend lässt sich sagen, dass die Midlife-Crisis der Bitcoiner ein komplexes und vielschichtiges Phänomen ist, das die einzigartigen Herausforderungen und Chancen der Einführung von gesundem Geld widerspiegelt. Sie stellt einen Wendepunkt im Leben derjenigen dar, die tief in die Welt des Bitcoin eingetaucht sind, wo traditionelle Maßstäbe für Erfolg und Erfüllung im Lichte des Potenzials für Selbstständigkeit und finanzielle Freiheit neu bewertet werden. Indem sie sich mit ihren eigenen Werten, Überzeugungen und Prioritäten auseinandersetzen, können Bitcoiner aus dieser Midlife-Crisis mit einem neuen Sinn für Ziel und Richtung auf ihrer Reise zu finanzieller Unabhängigkeit und Selbstverwirklichung hervorgehen.

@ 460c25e6:ef85065c

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

Public Home/Outbox Relays

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

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

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

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

Public Inbox Relays

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

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

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

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

DM Inbox Relays

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

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

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

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

Private Home Relays

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

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

Search relays:

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

Local Relays:

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

General Relays:

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

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

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

My setup

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

Then, on your relay lists, put:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And a few of the recommended relays from Amethyst.

Final Considerations

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

@ 04ea4f83:210e1713

Veröffentlicht auf Medium am 07.06.2021\ Originalautor: Tomer Strolight\ Übersetzt von: Sinautoshi am 04.05.2023 - 788249\

Reden wir über Dinge, die man mit Geld nicht kaufen kann.

Ehrlichkeit kann man mit Geld nicht kaufen. Tatsächlich sind Menschen, die versuchen, dich davon zu überzeugen, ihnen dein Geld zu geben, oft nicht ganz ehrlich zu dir.

Freundschaft kann man mit Geld nicht kaufen. Du kannst nicht in ein Geschäft oder eine Bar gehen und einen Freund kaufen – jemanden, der deine Werte teilt, der dich respektiert, den du respektierst. Und aus den gleichen Gründen kann man sich damit keine Liebe kaufen , die eine besonders tiefe Form der Freundschaft ist.

Vor allem kann Geld dir keine Dinge kaufen, die in dir selbst sind: Es kann dir kein Selbstwertgefühl, Intelligenz, Mut oder Integrität kaufen, um nur einige Beispiele zu nennen. Gebe einer unsicheren Person einen Haufen Geld und sie wird es verschwenden, um vor anderen anzugeben oder sich selbst zu zerstören. Gib einem intellektuell faulen Menschen Geld und er wird nicht schlauer. Gebe einem Feigling Geld und er hat nur noch eine Sache, vor der er Angst haben muss: das Geld zu verlieren. Und gebe einem Betrüger Geld, und er wird versuchen, es zu verwenden, um einen unehrlichen Plan auszuhecken, durch den er mehr bekommen kann.

Die Dinge, die man für Geld kaufen kann

Geld wird dir ein schönes Outfit, einen tollen Haarschnitt, ein schickes Auto und ein schönes Haus kaufen, aber das Glück selbst wird unerreichbar bleiben ohne echte Freunde und Liebhaber, denen du vertrauen kannst, und ohne in der Lage zu sein, dich selbst zu lieben und zu respektieren.

Geld kauft nämlich kein Glück. Nicht von alleine. Es ist nicht ausreichend.

Warum arbeiten wir dann so hart für Geld? Warum messen manche Menschen ihren Wert in Dollar?

Es ist wahr, dass wir viele der Dinge brauchen, die man mit Geld kaufen kann, wie Nahrung, Unterkunft, Kleidung und sogar Unterhaltung, die uns ein wenig glücklicher macht.

Geld kann ein Wegbereiter sein. Es kann verwendet werden, um Dinge zu kaufen, die grundlegende Überlebensbedürfnisse befriedigen, und uns dadurch die Zeit verschaffen, diesen anderen Werten nachzugehen, die Geld selbst nicht kaufen kann.

Es ist jedoch immer noch sehr falsch, unseren Wert anhand einer einzigen Zahl zu messen, geschweige denn an einer Zahl, von der wir wissen, dass sie Freundschaft, Liebe, Selbstwertgefühl, Intelligenz, Mut, Integrität und viele andere Tugenden und Werte, die wir zeigen und verfolgen sollten, auslässt.

Was hat das mit Bitcoin zu tun?

Nehmen wir uns nun eine Minute Zeit, um uns die Gemeinschaft der Bitcoiner anzusehen. Bitcoiner sind überzeugt von einer neue Form von Geld, Bitcoin.

Wir unternehmen große Anstrengungen, um zu erklären, warum wir denken, dass es die beste Form von Geld ist, die es je gegeben hat und wahrscheinlich jemals geben wird.

Um dies erklären zu können, müssen wir zunächst große Anstrengungen unternehmen, um zu verstehen, was Geld ist und wie Bitcoin die Anforderungen erfüllt, Geld zu sein.

Dazu müssen wir einen sehr ehrlichen Blick auf die Geschichte und die Gegenwart werfen . Wir müssen erforschen, was viele Menschen für selbstverständlich halten. Wir müssen harte Fragen stellen und nach ehrlichen, vertretbaren Antworten suchen.

Wir müssen etwas über die Mathematik lernen, auf die sich Bitcoin stützt.

Wir müssen etwas über die Energieproduktion lernen, auf die Bitcoin angewiesen ist.

Wir lernen etwas über Ökonomie, die Lehre davon, wie Menschen mit den Dingen umgehen, die man mit Geld kaufen kann.

Wir entwickeln eine tiefe Überzeugung, die von all diesem Lernen und unseren Beobachtungen und Argumenten über das, was um uns herum passiert, geprägt ist.

Wir bilden Ansichten darüber aus, wohin die Welt steuert .

Wir kommen zu dem Schluss, dass eine Welt mit Bitcoin als Geld oder auch nur als das Geld, das von uns, welche sich für Bitcoin entscheiden, verwendet wird, eine bessere Welt ist.

Wir schließen daraus, dass es eine bessere Welt ist, weil sie ehrlich und transparent ist. Es ist eine Welt ohne Geheimnisse, Intrigen und Täuschungen darüber, was Geld ist.

Es ist eine Welt ohne mächtige Leute, die die Kontrolle über das Geldsystem ausüben, um die Schwachen zu kontrollieren.

Wir finden dann eine moralische Mission in Bitcoin.

Wir übernehmen die Verantwortung, das Wissen zu verbreiten.

Dazu braucht es Mut. Wir müssen unser Geld dort einsetzen, wo unser Mund ist, indem wir Bitcoin mit unseren Euro kaufen. Dies ist ein Akt der Risikobereitschaft oder des Mutes. Es ist ein Akt der Integrität – unsere Worte an unseren Taten auszurichten.

Wir müssen standhaft bleiben. Wir werden ausgelacht. Mächtige Menschen und Institutionen verspotten uns und versuchen, uns zu diskreditieren. Sie bezeichnen uns als Unterstützer von Kriminellen und Terroristen. Entweder stärken wir unseren Mut und unsere Überzeugung oder verlassen Bitcoin.

Diejenigen von uns, die bleiben, wissen, dass unsere Mit-Bitcoiner, die die gleichen Schwierigkeiten durchgemacht haben oder durchmachen wie wir, ehrlich, intelligent und mutig sind.

Wir respektieren einander. Wir werden Freunde.

Wir alle tragen bei, was wir können, wie wir können. Wir bauen die Welt, die wir uns vorstellen.

All dies tun wir unbeirrt, während Millionen an der Seitenlinie stehen, einige neugierig zusehen, uns verspotten und einige aktiv angreifen und versuchen, uns aufzuhalten. Ab und zu rennt einer rüber und sagt „Ich will so sein wie du!“ Und wir empfangen sie mit offenen Armen.

Ein Bitcoiner zu werden ist ein Prozess, durch den du Dinge erhältst, die man mit Geld nicht kaufen kann.

Schau mal. Ehrlichkeit kann man mit Geld nicht kaufen. Freundschaft kann man damit nicht kaufen. Selbstachtung, Mut, Intelligenz oder Integrität kann man damit auch nicht kaufen. Doch diese Bitcoiner mit ihren Ideen, ihren Idealen, Bemühungen und ihren Errungenschaften haben sich all diese Dinge angeeignet. Bitcoiner sind ehrlich. Sie haben authentische Freundschaften. Sie glauben an sich. Sie sind mutig. Sie sind schlau. Und sie besitzen eine Integrität, die all diese Dinge über jeden Reichtum stellt, der in einem monetären Wert gemessen wird.

Kein Bitcoiner beurteilt einen anderen danach, wie viel Bitcoin diese andere Person wert ist.

Es ist ein Fauxpas in der Community, überhaupt danach zu fragen.

Ich liebe meine Mit-Bitcoiner. Sie sind die besten Menschen auf Erden. Einige mögen finanziell reich sein, andere nicht. Aber sie sind mir alle viel mehr wert als Geld. 

Bitcoin hat uns allen eine Fülle von Dingen gegeben, die man mit Geld nicht kaufen kann.

@ e3ba5e1a:5e433365

Prelude

I wrote this post differently than any of my others. It started with a discussion with AI on an OPSec-inspired review of separation of powers, and evolved into quite an exciting debate! I asked Grok to write up a summary in my overall writing style, which it got pretty well. I've decided to post it exactly as-is. Ultimately, I think there are two solid ideas driving my stance here:

1. Perfect is the enemy of the good
2. Failure is the crucible of success

Beyond that, just some hard-core belief in freedom, separation of powers, and operating from self-interest.

Intro

Alright, buckle up. I’ve been chewing on this idea for a while, and it’s time to spit it out. Let’s look at the U.S. government like I’d look at a codebase under a cybersecurity audit—OPSEC style, no fluff. Forget the endless debates about what politicians should do. That’s noise. I want to talk about what they can do, the raw powers baked into the system, and why we should stop pretending those powers are sacred. If there’s a hole, either patch it or exploit it. No half-measures. And yeah, I’m okay if the whole thing crashes a bit—failure’s a feature, not a bug.

The Filibuster: A Security Rule with No Teeth

You ever see a firewall rule that’s more theater than protection? That’s the Senate filibuster. Everyone acts like it’s this untouchable guardian of democracy, but here’s the deal: a simple majority can torch it any day. It’s not a law; it’s a Senate preference, like choosing tabs over spaces. When people call killing it the “nuclear option,” I roll my eyes. Nuclear? It’s a button labeled “press me.” If a party wants it gone, they’ll do it. So why the dance?

I say stop playing games. Get rid of the filibuster. If you’re one of those folks who thinks it’s the only thing saving us from tyranny, fine—push for a constitutional amendment to lock it in. That’s a real patch, not a Post-it note. Until then, it’s just a vulnerability begging to be exploited. Every time a party threatens to nuke it, they’re admitting it’s not essential. So let’s stop pretending and move on.

Supreme Court Packing: Because Nine’s Just a Number

Here’s another fun one: the Supreme Court. Nine justices, right? Sounds official. Except it’s not. The Constitution doesn’t say nine—it’s silent on the number. Congress could pass a law tomorrow to make it 15, 20, or 42 (hitchhiker’s reference, anyone?). Packing the court is always on the table, and both sides know it. It’s like a root exploit just sitting there, waiting for someone to log in.

So why not call the bluff? If you’re in power—say, Trump’s back in the game—say, “I’m packing the court unless we amend the Constitution to fix it at nine.” Force the issue. No more shadowboxing. And honestly? The court’s got way too much power anyway. It’s not supposed to be a super-legislature, but here we are, with justices’ ideologies driving the bus. That’s a bug, not a feature. If the court weren’t such a kingmaker, packing it wouldn’t even matter. Maybe we should be talking about clipping its wings instead of just its size.

The Executive Should Go Full Klingon

Let’s talk presidents. I’m not saying they should wear Klingon armor and start shouting “Qapla’!”—though, let’s be real, that’d be awesome. I’m saying the executive should use every scrap of power the Constitution hands them. Enforce the laws you agree with, sideline the ones you don’t. If Congress doesn’t like it, they’ve got tools: pass new laws, override vetoes, or—here’s the big one—cut the budget. That’s not chaos; that’s the system working as designed.

Right now, the real problem isn’t the president overreaching; it’s the bureaucracy. It’s like a daemon running in the background, eating CPU and ignoring the user. The president’s supposed to be the one steering, but the administrative state’s got its own agenda. Let the executive flex, push the limits, and force Congress to check it. Norms? Pfft. The Constitution’s the spec sheet—stick to it.

Let the System Crash

Here’s where I get a little spicy: I’m totally fine if the government grinds to a halt. Deadlock isn’t a disaster; it’s a feature. If the branches can’t agree, let the president veto, let Congress starve the budget, let enforcement stall. Don’t tell me about “essential services.” Nothing’s so critical it can’t take a breather. Shutdowns force everyone to the table—debate, compromise, or expose who’s dropping the ball. If the public loses trust? Good. They’ll vote out the clowns or live with the circus they elected.

Think of it like a server crash. Sometimes you need a hard reboot to clear the cruft. If voters keep picking the same bad admins, well, the country gets what it deserves. Failure’s the best teacher—way better than limping along on autopilot.

States Are the Real MVPs

If the feds fumble, states step up. Right now, states act like junior devs waiting for the lead engineer to sign off. Why? Federal money. It’s a leash, and it’s tight. Cut that cash, and states will remember they’re autonomous. Some will shine, others will tank—looking at you, California. And I’m okay with that. Let people flee to better-run states. No bailouts, no excuses. States are like competing startups: the good ones thrive, the bad ones pivot or die.

Could it get uneven? Sure. Some states might turn into sci-fi utopias while others look like a post-apocalyptic vidya game. That’s the point—competition sorts it out. Citizens can move, markets adjust, and failure’s a signal to fix your act.

Chaos Isn’t the Enemy

Yeah, this sounds messy. States ignoring federal law, external threats poking at our seams, maybe even a constitutional crisis. I’m not scared. The Supreme Court’s there to referee interstate fights, and Congress sets the rules for state-to-state play. But if it all falls apart? Still cool. States can sort it without a babysitter—it’ll be ugly, but freedom’s worth it. External enemies? They’ll either unify us or break us. If we can’t rally, we don’t deserve the win.

Centralizing power to avoid this is like rewriting your app in a single thread to prevent race conditions—sure, it’s simpler, but you’re begging for a deadlock. Decentralized chaos lets states experiment, lets people escape, lets markets breathe. States competing to cut regulations to attract businesses? That’s a race to the bottom for red tape, but a race to the top for innovation—workers might gripe, but they’ll push back, and the tension’s healthy. Bring it—let the cage match play out. The Constitution’s checks are enough if we stop coddling the system.

Why This Matters

I’m not pitching a utopia. I’m pitching a stress test. The U.S. isn’t a fragile porcelain doll; it’s a rugged piece of hardware built to take some hits. Let it fail a little—filibuster, court, feds, whatever. Patch the holes with amendments if you want, or lean into the grind. Either way, stop fearing the crash. It’s how we debug the republic.

So, what’s your take? Ready to let the system rumble, or got a better way to secure the code? Hit me up—I’m all ears.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Es ist völlig unbestritten, dass der Angriff der russischen Armee auf die Ukraine im Februar 2022 strikt zu verurteilen ist. Ebenso unbestritten ist Russland unter Wladimir Putin keine brillante Demokratie. Aus diesen Tatsachen lässt sich jedoch nicht das finstere Bild des russischen Präsidenten – und erst recht nicht des Landes – begründen, das uns durchweg vorgesetzt wird und den Kern des aktuellen europäischen Bedrohungs-Szenarios darstellt. Da müssen wir schon etwas genauer hinschauen.

Der vorliegende Artikel versucht derweil nicht, den Einsatz von Gewalt oder die Verletzung von Menschenrechten zu rechtfertigen oder zu entschuldigen – ganz im Gegenteil. Dass jedoch der Verdacht des «Putinverstehers» sofort latent im Raume steht, verdeutlicht, was beim Thema «Russland» passiert: Meinungsmache und Manipulation.

Angesichts der mentalen Mobilmachung seitens Politik und Medien sowie des Bestrebens, einen bevorstehenden Krieg mit Russland geradezu herbeizureden, ist es notwendig, dieser fatalen Entwicklung entgegenzutreten. Wenn wir uns nur ein wenig von der herrschenden Schwarz-Weiß-Malerei freimachen, tauchen automatisch Fragen auf, die Risse im offiziellen Narrativ enthüllen. Grund genug, nachzuhaken.

Wer sich schon länger auch abseits der Staats- und sogenannten Leitmedien informiert, der wird in diesem Artikel vermutlich nicht viel Neues erfahren. Andere könnten hier ein paar unbekannte oder vergessene Aspekte entdecken. Möglicherweise klärt sich in diesem Kontext die Wahrnehmung der aktuellen (unserer eigenen!) Situation ein wenig.

Manipulation erkennen

Corona-«Pandemie», menschengemachter Klimawandel oder auch Ukraine-Krieg: Jede Menge Krisen, und für alle gibt es ein offizielles Narrativ, dessen Hinterfragung unerwünscht ist. Nun ist aber ein Narrativ einfach eine Erzählung, eine Geschichte (Latein: «narratio») und kein Tatsachenbericht. Und so wie ein Märchen soll auch das Narrativ eine Botschaft vermitteln.

Über die Methoden der Manipulation ist viel geschrieben worden, sowohl in Bezug auf das Individuum als auch auf die Massen. Sehr wertvolle Tipps dazu, wie man Manipulationen durchschauen kann, gibt ein Büchlein [1] von Albrecht Müller, dem Herausgeber der NachDenkSeiten.

Die Sprache selber eignet sich perfekt für die Manipulation. Beispielsweise kann die Wortwahl Bewertungen mitschwingen lassen, regelmäßiges Wiederholen (gerne auch von verschiedenen Seiten) lässt Dinge irgendwann «wahr» erscheinen, Übertreibungen fallen auf und hinterlassen wenigstens eine Spur im Gedächtnis, genauso wie Andeutungen. Belege spielen dabei keine Rolle.

Es gibt auffällig viele Sprachregelungen, die offenbar irgendwo getroffen und irgendwie koordiniert werden. Oder alle Redenschreiber und alle Medien kopieren sich neuerdings permanent gegenseitig. Welchen Zweck hat es wohl, wenn der Krieg in der Ukraine durchgängig und quasi wörtlich als «russischer Angriffskrieg auf die Ukraine» bezeichnet wird? Obwohl das in der Sache richtig ist, deutet die Art der Verwendung auf gezielte Beeinflussung hin und soll vor allem das Feindbild zementieren.

Sprachregelungen dienen oft der Absicherung einer einseitigen Darstellung. Das Gleiche gilt für das Verkürzen von Informationen bis hin zum hartnäckigen Verschweigen ganzer Themenbereiche. Auch hierfür gibt es rund um den Ukraine-Konflikt viele gute Beispiele.

Das gewünschte Ergebnis solcher Methoden ist eine Schwarz-Weiß-Malerei, bei der einer eindeutig als «der Böse» markiert ist und die anderen automatisch «die Guten» sind. Das ist praktisch und demonstriert gleichzeitig ein weiteres Manipulationswerkzeug: die Verwendung von Doppelstandards. Wenn man es schafft, bei wichtigen Themen regelmäßig mit zweierlei Maß zu messen, ohne dass das Publikum protestiert, dann hat man freie Bahn.

Experten zu bemühen, um bestimmte Sachverhalte zu erläutern, ist sicher sinnvoll, kann aber ebenso missbraucht werden, schon allein durch die Auswahl der jeweiligen Spezialisten. Seit «Corona» werden viele erfahrene und ehemals hoch angesehene Fachleute wegen der «falschen Meinung» diffamiert und gecancelt. [2] Das ist nicht nur ein brutaler Umgang mit Menschen, sondern auch eine extreme Form, die öffentliche Meinung zu steuern.

Wann immer wir also erkennen (weil wir aufmerksam waren), dass wir bei einem bestimmten Thema manipuliert werden, dann sind zwei logische und notwendige Fragen: Warum? Und was ist denn richtig? In unserem Russland-Kontext haben die Antworten darauf viel mit Geopolitik und Geschichte zu tun.

Ist Russland aggressiv und expansiv?

Angeblich plant Russland, europäische NATO-Staaten anzugreifen, nach dem Motto: «Zuerst die Ukraine, dann den Rest». In Deutschland weiß man dafür sogar das Datum: «Wir müssen bis 2029 kriegstüchtig sein», versichert Verteidigungsminister Pistorius.

Historisch gesehen ist es allerdings eher umgekehrt: Russland, bzw. die Sowjetunion, ist bereits dreimal von Westeuropa aus militärisch angegriffen worden. Die Feldzüge Napoleons, des deutschen Kaiserreichs und Nazi-Deutschlands haben Millionen Menschen das Leben gekostet. Bei dem ausdrücklichen Vernichtungskrieg ab 1941 kam es außerdem zu Brutalitäten wie der zweieinhalbjährigen Belagerung Leningrads (heute St. Petersburg) durch Hitlers Wehrmacht. Deren Ziel, die Bevölkerung auszuhungern, wurde erreicht: über eine Million tote Zivilisten.

Trotz dieser Erfahrungen stimmte Michail Gorbatschow 1990 der deutschen Wiedervereinigung zu und die Sowjetunion zog ihre Truppen aus Osteuropa zurück (vgl. Abb. 1). Der Warschauer Pakt wurde aufgelöst, der Kalte Krieg formell beendet. Die Sowjets erhielten damals von führenden westlichen Politikern die Zusicherung, dass sich die NATO «keinen Zentimeter ostwärts» ausdehnen würde, das ist dokumentiert. [3]

Expandiert ist die NATO trotzdem, und zwar bis an Russlands Grenzen (vgl. Abb. 2). Laut dem Politikberater Jeffrey Sachs handelt es sich dabei um ein langfristiges US-Projekt, das von Anfang an die Ukraine und Georgien mit einschloss. Offiziell wurde der Beitritt beiden Staaten 2008 angeboten. In jedem Fall könnte die massive Ost-Erweiterung seit 1999 aus russischer Sicht nicht nur als Vertrauensbruch, sondern durchaus auch als aggressiv betrachtet werden.

Russland hat den europäischen Staaten mehrfach die Hand ausgestreckt [4] für ein friedliches Zusammenleben und den «Aufbau des europäischen Hauses». Präsident Putin sei «in seiner ersten Amtszeit eine Chance für Europa» gewesen, urteilt die Journalistin und langjährige Russland-Korrespondentin der ARD, Gabriele Krone-Schmalz. Er habe damals viele positive Signale Richtung Westen gesendet.

Die Europäer jedoch waren scheinbar an einer Partnerschaft mit dem kontinentalen Nachbarn weniger interessiert als an der mit dem transatlantischen Hegemon. Sie verkennen bis heute, dass eine gedeihliche Zusammenarbeit in Eurasien eine Gefahr für die USA und deren bekundetes Bestreben ist, die «einzige Weltmacht» zu sein – «Full Spectrum Dominance» [5] nannte das Pentagon das. Statt einem neuen Kalten Krieg entgegenzuarbeiten, ließen sich europäische Staaten selber in völkerrechtswidrige «US-dominierte Angriffskriege» [6] verwickeln, wie in Serbien, Afghanistan, dem Irak, Libyen oder Syrien. Diese werden aber selten so benannt.

Speziell den Deutschen stünde außer einer Portion Realismus auch etwas mehr Dankbarkeit gut zu Gesicht. Das Geschichtsbewusstsein der Mehrheit scheint doch recht selektiv und das Selbstbewusstsein einiger etwas desorientiert zu sein. Bekanntermaßen waren es die Soldaten der sowjetischen Roten Armee, die unter hohen Opfern 1945 Deutschland «vom Faschismus befreit» haben. Bei den Gedenkfeiern zu 80 Jahren Kriegsende will jedoch das Auswärtige Amt – noch unter der Diplomatie-Expertin Baerbock, die sich schon länger offiziell im Krieg mit Russland wähnt, – nun keine Russen sehen: Sie sollen notfalls rausgeschmissen werden.

«Die Grundsatzfrage lautet: Geht es Russland um einen angemessenen Platz in einer globalen Sicherheitsarchitektur, oder ist Moskau schon seit langem auf einem imperialistischen Trip, der befürchten lassen muss, dass die Russen in fünf Jahren in Berlin stehen?»

So bringt Gabriele Krone-Schmalz [7] die eigentliche Frage auf den Punkt, die zur Einschätzung der Situation letztlich auch jeder für sich beantworten muss.

Was ist los in der Ukraine?

In der internationalen Politik geht es nie um Demokratie oder Menschenrechte, sondern immer um Interessen von Staaten. Diese These stammt von Egon Bahr, einem der Architekten der deutschen Ostpolitik des «Wandels durch Annäherung» aus den 1960er und 70er Jahren. Sie trifft auch auf den Ukraine-Konflikt zu, den handfeste geostrategische und wirtschaftliche Interessen beherrschen, obwohl dort angeblich «unsere Demokratie» verteidigt wird.

Es ist ein wesentliches Element des Ukraine-Narrativs und Teil der Manipulation, die Vorgeschichte des Krieges wegzulassen – mindestens die vor der russischen «Annexion» der Halbinsel Krim im März 2014, aber oft sogar komplett diejenige vor der Invasion Ende Februar 2022. Das Thema ist komplex, aber einige Aspekte, die für eine Beurteilung nicht unwichtig sind, will ich wenigstens kurz skizzieren. [8]

Das Gebiet der heutigen Ukraine und Russlands – die übrigens in der «Kiewer Rus» gemeinsame Wurzeln haben – hat der britische Geostratege Halford Mackinder bereits 1904 als eurasisches «Heartland» bezeichnet, dessen Kontrolle er eine große Bedeutung für die imperiale Strategie Großbritanniens zumaß. Für den ehemaligen Sicherheits- und außenpolitischen Berater mehrerer US-amerikanischer Präsidenten und Mitgründer der Trilateralen Kommission, Zbigniew Brzezinski, war die Ukraine nach der Auflösung der Sowjetunion ein wichtiger Spielstein auf dem «eurasischen Schachbrett», wegen seiner Nähe zu Russland, seiner Bodenschätze und seines Zugangs zum Schwarzen Meer.

Die Ukraine ist seit langem ein gespaltenes Land. Historisch zerrissen als Spielball externer Interessen und geprägt von ethnischen, kulturellen, religiösen und geografischen Unterschieden existiert bis heute, grob gesagt, eine Ost-West-Spaltung, welche die Suche nach einer nationalen Identität stark erschwert.

Insbesondere im Zuge der beiden Weltkriege sowie der Russischen Revolution entstanden tiefe Risse in der Bevölkerung. Ukrainer kämpften gegen Ukrainer, zum Beispiel die einen auf der Seite von Hitlers faschistischer Nazi-Armee und die anderen auf der von Stalins kommunistischer Roter Armee. Die Verbrechen auf beiden Seiten sind nicht vergessen. Dass nach der Unabhängigkeit 1991 versucht wurde, Figuren wie den radikalen Nationalisten Symon Petljura oder den Faschisten und Nazi-Kollaborateur Stepan Bandera als «Nationalhelden» zu installieren, verbessert die Sache nicht.

Während die USA und EU-Staaten zunehmend «ausländische Einmischung» (speziell russische) in «ihre Demokratien» wittern, betreiben sie genau dies seit Jahrzehnten in vielen Ländern der Welt. Die seit den 2000er Jahren bekannten «Farbrevolutionen» in Osteuropa werden oft als Methode des Regierungsumsturzes durch von außen gesteuerte «demokratische» Volksaufstände beschrieben. Diese Strategie geht auf Analysen zum «Schwarmverhalten» [9] seit den 1960er Jahren zurück (Studentenproteste), wo es um die potenzielle Wirksamkeit einer «rebellischen Hysterie» von Jugendlichen bei postmodernen Staatsstreichen geht. Heute nennt sich dieses gezielte Kanalisieren der Massen zur Beseitigung unkooperativer Regierungen «Soft-Power».

In der Ukraine gab es mit der «Orangen Revolution» 2004 und dem «Euromaidan» 2014 gleich zwei solcher «Aufstände». Der erste erzwang wegen angeblicher Unregelmäßigkeiten eine Wiederholung der Wahlen, was mit Wiktor Juschtschenko als neuem Präsidenten endete. Dieser war ehemaliger Direktor der Nationalbank und Befürworter einer Annäherung an EU und NATO. Seine Frau, die First Lady, ist US-amerikanische «Philanthropin» und war Beamtin im Weißen Haus in der Reagan- und der Bush-Administration.

Im Gegensatz zu diesem ersten Event endete der sogenannte Euromaidan unfriedlich und blutig. Die mehrwöchigen Proteste gegen Präsident Wiktor Janukowitsch, in Teilen wegen des nicht unterzeichneten Assoziierungsabkommens mit der EU, wurden zunehmend gewalttätiger und von Nationalisten und Faschisten des «Rechten Sektors» dominiert. Sie mündeten Ende Februar 2014 auf dem Kiewer Unabhängigkeitsplatz (Maidan) in einem Massaker durch Scharfschützen. Dass deren Herkunft und die genauen Umstände nicht geklärt wurden, störte die Medien nur wenig. [10]

Janukowitsch musste fliehen, er trat nicht zurück. Vielmehr handelte es sich um einen gewaltsamen, allem Anschein nach vom Westen inszenierten Putsch. Laut Jeffrey Sachs war das kein Geheimnis, außer vielleicht für die Bürger. Die USA unterstützten die Post-Maidan-Regierung nicht nur, sie beeinflussten auch ihre Bildung. Das geht unter anderem aus dem berühmten «Fuck the EU»-Telefonat der US-Chefdiplomatin für die Ukraine, Victoria Nuland, mit Botschafter Geoffrey Pyatt hervor.

Dieser Bruch der demokratischen Verfassung war letztlich der Auslöser für die anschließenden Krisen auf der Krim und im Donbass (Ostukraine). Angesichts der ukrainischen Geschichte mussten die nationalistischen Tendenzen und die Beteiligung der rechten Gruppen an dem Umsturz bei der russigsprachigen Bevölkerung im Osten ungute Gefühle auslösen. Es gab Kritik an der Übergangsregierung, Befürworter einer Abspaltung und auch für einen Anschluss an Russland.

Ebenso konnte Wladimir Putin in dieser Situation durchaus Bedenken wegen des Status der russischen Militärbasis für seine Schwarzmeerflotte in Sewastopol auf der Krim haben, für die es einen langfristigen Pachtvertrag mit der Ukraine gab. Was im März 2014 auf der Krim stattfand, sei keine Annexion, sondern eine Abspaltung (Sezession) nach einem Referendum gewesen, also keine gewaltsame Aneignung, urteilte der Rechtswissenschaftler Reinhard Merkel in der FAZ sehr detailliert begründet. Übrigens hatte die Krim bereits zu Zeiten der Sowjetunion den Status einer autonomen Republik innerhalb der Ukrainischen SSR.

Anfang April 2014 wurden in der Ostukraine die «Volksrepubliken» Donezk und Lugansk ausgerufen. Die Kiewer Übergangsregierung ging unter der Bezeichnung «Anti-Terror-Operation» (ATO) militärisch gegen diesen, auch von Russland instrumentalisierten Widerstand vor. Zufällig war kurz zuvor CIA-Chef John Brennan in Kiew. Die Maßnahmen gingen unter dem seit Mai neuen ukrainischen Präsidenten, dem Milliardär Petro Poroschenko, weiter. Auch Wolodymyr Selenskyj beendete den Bürgerkrieg nicht, als er 2019 vom Präsidenten-Schauspieler, der Oligarchen entmachtet, zum Präsidenten wurde. Er fuhr fort, die eigene Bevölkerung zu bombardieren.

Mit dem Einmarsch russischer Truppen in die Ostukraine am 24. Februar 2022 begann die zweite Phase des Krieges. Die Wochen und Monate davor waren intensiv. Im November hatte die Ukraine mit den USA ein Abkommen über eine «strategische Partnerschaft» unterzeichnet. Darin sagten die Amerikaner ihre Unterstützung der EU- und NATO-Perspektive der Ukraine sowie quasi für die Rückeroberung der Krim zu. Dagegen ließ Putin der NATO und den USA im Dezember 2021 einen Vertragsentwurf über beiderseitige verbindliche Sicherheitsgarantien zukommen, den die NATO im Januar ablehnte. Im Februar eskalierte laut OSZE die Gewalt im Donbass.

Bereits wenige Wochen nach der Invasion, Ende März 2022, kam es in Istanbul zu Friedensverhandlungen, die fast zu einer Lösung geführt hätten. Dass der Krieg nicht damals bereits beendet wurde, lag daran, dass der Westen dies nicht wollte. Man war der Meinung, Russland durch die Ukraine in diesem Stellvertreterkrieg auf Dauer militärisch schwächen zu können. Angesichts von Hunderttausenden Toten, Verletzten und Traumatisierten, die als Folge seitdem zu beklagen sind, sowie dem Ausmaß der Zerstörung, fehlen einem die Worte.

Hasst der Westen die Russen?

Diese Frage drängt sich auf, wenn man das oft unerträglich feindselige Gebaren beobachtet, das beileibe nicht neu ist und vor Doppelmoral trieft. Russland und speziell die Person Wladimir Putins werden regelrecht dämonisiert, was gleichzeitig scheinbar jede Form von Diplomatie ausschließt.

Russlands militärische Stärke, seine geografische Lage, sein Rohstoffreichtum oder seine unabhängige diplomatische Tradition sind sicher Störfaktoren für das US-amerikanische Bestreben, der Boss in einer unipolaren Welt zu sein. Ein womöglich funktionierender eurasischer Kontinent, insbesondere gute Beziehungen zwischen Russland und Deutschland, war indes schon vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg eine Sorge des britischen Imperiums.

Ein «Vergehen» von Präsident Putin könnte gewesen sein, dass er die neoliberale Schocktherapie à la IWF und den Ausverkauf des Landes (auch an US-Konzerne) beendete, der unter seinem Vorgänger herrschte. Dabei zeigte er sich als Führungspersönlichkeit und als nicht so formbar wie Jelzin. Diese Aspekte allein sind aber heute vermutlich keine ausreichende Erklärung für ein derart gepflegtes Feindbild.

Der Historiker und Philosoph Hauke Ritz erweitert den Fokus der Fragestellung zu: «Warum hasst der Westen die Russen so sehr?», was er zum Beispiel mit dem Medienforscher Michael Meyen und mit der Politikwissenschaftlerin Ulrike Guérot bespricht. Ritz stellt die interessante These [11] auf, dass Russland eine Provokation für den Westen sei, welcher vor allem dessen kulturelles und intellektuelles Potenzial fürchte.

Die Russen sind Europäer aber anders, sagt Ritz. Diese «Fremdheit in der Ähnlichkeit» erzeuge vielleicht tiefe Ablehnungsgefühle. Obwohl Russlands Identität in der europäischen Kultur verwurzelt ist, verbinde es sich immer mit der Opposition in Europa. Als Beispiele nennt er die Kritik an der katholischen Kirche oder die Verbindung mit der Arbeiterbewegung. Christen, aber orthodox; Sozialismus statt Liberalismus. Das mache das Land zum Antagonisten des Westens und zu einer Bedrohung der Machtstrukturen in Europa.

Fazit

Selbstverständlich kann man Geschichte, Ereignisse und Entwicklungen immer auf verschiedene Arten lesen. Dieser Artikel, obwohl viel zu lang, konnte nur einige Aspekte der Ukraine-Tragödie anreißen, die in den offiziellen Darstellungen in der Regel nicht vorkommen. Mindestens dürfte damit jedoch klar geworden sein, dass die Russische Föderation bzw. Wladimir Putin nicht der alleinige Aggressor in diesem Konflikt ist. Das ist ein Stellvertreterkrieg zwischen USA/NATO (gut) und Russland (böse); die Ukraine (edel) wird dabei schlicht verheizt.

Das ist insofern von Bedeutung, als die gesamte europäische Kriegshysterie auf sorgsam kultivierten Freund-Feind-Bildern beruht. Nur so kann Konfrontation und Eskalation betrieben werden, denn damit werden die wahren Hintergründe und Motive verschleiert. Angst und Propaganda sind notwendig, damit die Menschen den Wahnsinn mitmachen. Sie werden belogen, um sie zuerst zu schröpfen und anschließend auf die Schlachtbank zu schicken. Das kann niemand wollen, außer den stets gleichen Profiteuren: die Rüstungs-Lobby und die großen Investoren, die schon immer an Zerstörung und Wiederaufbau verdient haben.

Apropos Investoren: Zu den Top-Verdienern und somit Hauptinteressenten an einer Fortführung des Krieges zählt BlackRock, einer der weltgrößten Vermögensverwalter. Der deutsche Bundeskanzler in spe, Friedrich Merz, der gerne «Taurus»-Marschflugkörper an die Ukraine liefern und die Krim-Brücke zerstören möchte, war von 2016 bis 2020 Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender von BlackRock in Deutschland. Aber das hat natürlich nichts zu sagen, der Mann macht nur seinen Job.

Es ist ein Spiel der Kräfte, es geht um Macht und strategische Kontrolle, um Geheimdienste und die Kontrolle der öffentlichen Meinung, um Bodenschätze, Rohstoffe, Pipelines und Märkte. Das klingt aber nicht sexy, «Demokratie und Menschenrechte» hört sich besser und einfacher an. Dabei wäre eine für alle Seiten förderliche Politik auch nicht so kompliziert; das Handwerkszeug dazu nennt sich Diplomatie. Noch einmal Gabriele Krone-Schmalz:

«Friedliche Politik ist nichts anderes als funktionierender Interessenausgleich. Da geht’s nicht um Moral.»

Die Situation in der Ukraine ist sicher komplex, vor allem wegen der inneren Zerrissenheit. Es dürfte nicht leicht sein, eine friedliche Lösung für das Zusammenleben zu finden, aber die Beteiligten müssen es vor allem wollen. Unter den gegebenen Umständen könnte eine sinnvolle Perspektive mit Neutralität und föderalen Strukturen zu tun haben.

Allen, die sich bis hierher durch die Lektüre gearbeitet (oder auch einfach nur runtergescrollt) haben, wünsche ich frohe Oster-Friedenstage!

[Titelbild: Pixabay; Abb. 1 und 2: nach Ganser/SIPER; Abb. 3: SIPER]

--- Quellen: ---

[1] Albrecht Müller, «Glaube wenig. Hinterfrage alles. Denke selbst.», Westend 2019

[2] Zwei nette Beispiele:

• ARD-faktenfinder (sic), «Viel Aufmerksamkeit für fragwürdige Experten», 03/2023
• Neue Zürcher Zeitung, «Aufstieg und Fall einer Russlandversteherin – die ehemalige ARD-Korrespondentin Gabriele Krone-Schmalz rechtfertigt seit Jahren Putins Politik», 12/2022

[3] George Washington University, «NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard – Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner», 12/2017

[4] Beispielsweise Wladimir Putin bei seiner Rede im Deutschen Bundestag, 25/09/2001

[5] William Engdahl, «Full Spectrum Dominance, Totalitarian Democracy In The New World Order», edition.engdahl 2009

[6] Daniele Ganser, «Illegale Kriege – Wie die NATO-Länder die UNO sabotieren. Eine Chronik von Kuba bis Syrien», Orell Füssli 2016

[7] Gabriele Krone-Schmalz, «Mit Friedensjournalismus gegen ‘Kriegstüchtigkeit’», Vortrag und Diskussion an der Universität Hamburg, veranstaltet von engagierten Studenten, 16/01/2025\ → Hier ist ein ähnlicher Vortrag von ihr (Video), den ich mit spanischer Übersetzung gefunden habe.

[8] Für mehr Hintergrund und Details empfehlen sich z.B. folgende Bücher:

• Mathias Bröckers, Paul Schreyer, «Wir sind immer die Guten», Westend 2019
• Gabriele Krone-Schmalz, «Russland verstehen? Der Kampf um die Ukraine und die Arroganz des Westens», Westend 2023
• Patrik Baab, «Auf beiden Seiten der Front – Meine Reisen in die Ukraine», Fiftyfifty 2023

[9] vgl. Jonathan Mowat, «Washington's New World Order "Democratization" Template», 02/2005 und RAND Corporation, «Swarming and the Future of Conflict», 2000

[10] Bemerkenswert einige Beiträge, von denen man später nichts mehr wissen wollte:

• ARD Monitor, «Todesschüsse in Kiew: Wer ist für das Blutbad vom Maidan verantwortlich», 10/04/2014, Transkript hier
• Telepolis, «Blutbad am Maidan: Wer waren die Todesschützen?», 12/04/2014
• Telepolis, «Scharfschützenmorde in Kiew», 14/12/2014
• Deutschlandfunk, «Gefahr einer Spirale nach unten», Interview mit Günter Verheugen, 18/03/2014
• NDR Panorama, «Putsch in Kiew: Welche Rolle spielen die Faschisten?», 06/03/2014

[11] Hauke Ritz, «Vom Niedergang des Westens zur Neuerfindung Europas», 2024

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Verstand ohne Gefühl ist unmenschlich; \ Gefühl ohne Verstand ist Dummheit. \ Egon Bahr

Seit Jahren werden wir darauf getrimmt, dass Fakten eigentlich gefühlt seien. Aber nicht alles ist relativ und nicht alles ist nach Belieben interpretierbar. Diese Schokoladenhasen beispielsweise, die an Ostern in unseren Gefilden typisch sind, «ostern» zwar nicht, sondern sie sitzen in der Regel, trotzdem verwandelt sie das nicht in «Sitzhasen».

Nichts soll mehr gelten, außer den immer invasiveren Gesetzen. Die eigenen Traditionen und Wurzeln sind potenziell «pfui», um andere Menschen nicht auszuschließen, aber wir mögen uns toleranterweise an die fremden Symbole und Rituale gewöhnen. Dabei ist es mir prinzipiell völlig egal, ob und wann jemand ein Fastenbrechen feiert, am Karsamstag oder jedem anderen Tag oder nie – aber bitte freiwillig.

Und vor allem: Lasst die Finger von den Kindern! In Bern setzten kürzlich Demonstranten ein Zeichen gegen die zunehmende Verbreitung woker Ideologie im Bildungssystem und forderten ein Ende der sexuellen Indoktrination von Schulkindern.

Wenn es nicht wegen des heiklen Themas Migration oder wegen des Regenbogens ist, dann wegen des Klimas. Im Rahmen der «Netto Null»-Agenda zum Kampf gegen das angeblich teuflische CO2 sollen die Menschen ihre Ernährungsgewohnheiten komplett ändern. Nach dem Willen von Produzenten synthetischer Lebensmittel, wie Bill Gates, sollen wir baldmöglichst praktisch auf Fleisch und alle Milchprodukte wie Milch und Käse verzichten. Ein lukratives Geschäftsmodell, das neben der EU aktuell auch von einem britischen Lobby-Konsortium unterstützt wird.

Sollten alle ideologischen Stricke zu reißen drohen, ist da immer noch «der Putin». Die Unions-Europäer offenbaren sich dabei ständig mehr als Vertreter der Rüstungsindustrie. Allen voran zündelt Deutschland an der Kriegslunte, angeführt von einem scheinbar todesmutigen Kanzlerkandidaten Friedrich Merz. Nach dessen erneuter Aussage, «Taurus»-Marschflugkörper an Kiew liefern zu wollen, hat Russland eindeutig klargestellt, dass man dies als direkte Kriegsbeteiligung werten würde – «mit allen sich daraus ergebenden Konsequenzen für Deutschland».

Wohltuend sind Nachrichten über Aktivitäten, die sich der allgemeinen Kriegstreiberei entgegenstellen oder diese öffentlich hinterfragen. Dazu zählt auch ein Kongress kritischer Psychologen und Psychotherapeuten, der letzte Woche in Berlin stattfand. Die vielen Vorträge im Kontext von «Krieg und Frieden» deckten ein breites Themenspektrum ab, darunter Friedensarbeit oder die Notwendigkeit einer «Pädagogik der Kriegsuntüchtigkeit».

Der heutige «stille Freitag», an dem Christen des Leidens und Sterbens von Jesus gedenken, ist vielleicht unabhängig von jeder religiösen oder spirituellen Prägung eine passende Einladung zur Reflexion. In der Ruhe liegt die Kraft. In diesem Sinne wünsche ich Ihnen frohe Ostertage!

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Censorship-resistant relay discovery in Nostr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 3b3a42d3:d192e325

Atomic Signature Swaps (ASS) over Nostr is a protocol for atomically exchanging Schnorr signatures using Nostr events for orchestration. This new primitive enables multiple interesting applications like:

• Getting paid to publish specific Nostr events
• Issuing automatic payment receipts
• Contract signing in exchange for payment
• P2P asset exchanges
• Trading and enforcement of asset option contracts
• Payment in exchange for Nostr-based credentials or access tokens
• Exchanging GMs 🌞

It only requires that (i) the involved signatures be Schnorr signatures using the secp256k1 curve and that (ii) at least one of those signatures be accessible to both parties. These requirements are naturally met by Nostr events (published to relays), Taproot transactions (published to the mempool and later to the blockchain), and Cashu payments (using mints that support NUT-07, allowing any pair of these signatures to be swapped atomically.

How the Cryptographic Magic Works 🪄

This is a Schnorr signature (Zₓ, s):

s = z + H(Zₓ || P || m)⋅k

If you haven't seen it before, don't worry, neither did I until three weeks ago.

The signature scalar s is the the value a signer with private key k (and public key P = k⋅G) must calculate to prove his commitment over the message m given a randomly generated nonce z (Zₓ is just the x-coordinate of the public point Z = z⋅G). H is a hash function (sha256 with the tag "BIP0340/challenge" when dealing with BIP340), || just means to concatenate and G is the generator point of the elliptic curve, used to derive public values from private ones.

Now that you understand what this equation means, let's just rename z = r + t. We can do that, z is just a randomly generated number that can be represented as the sum of two other numbers. It also follows that z⋅G = r⋅G + t⋅G ⇔ Z = R + T. Putting it all back into the definition of a Schnorr signature we get:

s = (r + t) + H((R + T)ₓ || P || m)⋅k

Which is the same as:

s = sₐ + t where sₐ = r + H((R + T)ₓ || P || m)⋅k

sₐ is what we call the adaptor signature scalar) and t is the secret. ((R + T)ₓ, sₐ) is an incomplete signature that just becomes valid by add the secret t to the sₐ:

s = sₐ + t

What is also important for our purposes is that by getting access to the valid signature s, one can also extract t from it by just subtracting sₐ:

t = s - sₐ

The specific value of t depends on our choice of the public point T, since R is just a public point derived from a randomly generated nonce r.

So how do we choose T so that it requires the secret t to be the signature over a specific message m' by an specific public key P'? (without knowing the value of t)

Let's start with the definition of t as a valid Schnorr signature by P' over m':

t = r' + H(R'ₓ || P' || m')⋅k' ⇔ t⋅G = r'⋅G + H(R'ₓ || P' || m')⋅k'⋅G

That is the same as:

T = R' + H(R'ₓ || P' || m')⋅P'

Notice that in order to calculate the appropriate T that requires t to be an specific signature scalar, we only need to know the public nonce R' used to generate that signature.

In summary: in order to atomically swap Schnorr signatures, one party P' must provide a public nonce R', while the other party P must provide an adaptor signature using that nonce:

sₐ = r + H((R + T)ₓ || P || m)⋅k where T = R' + H(R'ₓ || P' || m')⋅P'

P' (the nonce provider) can then add his own signature t to the adaptor signature sₐ in order to get a valid signature by P, i.e. s = sₐ + t. When he publishes this signature (as a Nostr event, Cashu transaction or Taproot transaction), it becomes accessible to P that can now extract the signature t by P' and also make use of it.

Important considerations

A signature may not be useful at the end of the swap if it unlocks funds that have already been spent, or that are vulnerable to fee bidding wars.

When a swap involves a Taproot UTXO, it must always use a 2-of-2 multisig timelock to avoid those issues.

Cashu tokens do not require this measure when its signature is revealed first, because the mint won't reveal the other signature if they can't be successfully claimed, but they also require a 2-of-2 multisig timelock when its signature is only revealed last (what is unavoidable in cashu for cashu swaps).

For Nostr events, whoever receives the signature first needs to publish it to at least one relay that is accessible by the other party. This is a reasonable expectation in most cases, but may be an issue if the event kind involved is meant to be used privately.

How to Orchestrate the Swap over Nostr?

Before going into the specific event kinds, it is important to recognize what are the requirements they must meet and what are the concerns they must address. There are mainly three requirements:

• Both parties must agree on the messages they are going to sign
• One party must provide a public nonce
• The other party must provide an adaptor signature using that nonce

There is also a fundamental asymmetry in the roles of both parties, resulting in the following significant downsides for the party that generates the adaptor signature:

• NIP-07 and remote signers do not currently support the generation of adaptor signatures, so he must either insert his nsec in the client or use a fork of another signer
• There is an overhead of retrieving the completed signature containing the secret, either from the blockchain, mint endpoint or finding the appropriate relay
• There is risk he may not get his side of the deal if the other party only uses his signature privately, as I have already mentioned
• There is risk of losing funds by not extracting or using the signature before its timelock expires. The other party has no risk since his own signature won't be exposed by just not using the signature he received.

The protocol must meet all those requirements, allowing for some kind of role negotiation and while trying to reduce the necessary hops needed to complete the swap.

Swap Proposal Event (kind:455)

This event enables a proposer and his counterparty to agree on the specific messages whose signatures they intend to exchange. The content field is the following stringified JSON:

{     "give": <signature spec (required)>,     "take": <signature spec (required)>,     "exp": <expiration timestamp (optional)>,     "role": "<adaptor | nonce (optional)>",     "description": "<Info about the proposal (optional)>",     "nonce": "<Signature public nonce (optional)>",     "enc_s": "<Encrypted signature scalar (optional)>" }

The field role indicates what the proposer will provide during the swap, either the nonce or the adaptor. When this optional field is not provided, the counterparty may decide whether he will send a nonce back in a Swap Nonce event or a Swap Adaptor event using the nonce (optionally) provided by in the Swap Proposal in order to avoid one hop of interaction.

The enc_s field may be used to store the encrypted scalar of the signature associated with the nonce, since this information is necessary later when completing the adaptor signature received from the other party.

A signature spec specifies the type and all necessary information for producing and verifying a given signature. In the case of signatures for Nostr events, it contain a template with all the fields, except pubkey, id and sig:

{ "type": "nostr", "template": { "kind": "<kind>"        "content": "<content>"        "tags": [ … ],        "created_at": "<created_at>" } }

In the case of Cashu payments, a simplified signature spec just needs to specify the payment amount and an array of mints trusted by the proposer:

{   "type": "cashu",   "amount": "<amount>",   "mint": ["<acceptable mint_url>", …] }

This works when the payer provides the adaptor signature, but it still needs to be extended to also work when the payer is the one receiving the adaptor signature. In the later case, the signature spec must also include a timelock and the derived public keys Y of each Cashu Proof, but for now let's just ignore this situation. It should be mentioned that the mint must be trusted by both parties and also support Token state check (NUT-07) for revealing the completed adaptor signature and P2PK spending conditions (NUT-11) for the cryptographic scheme to work.

The tags are:

• "p", the proposal counterparty's public key (required)
• "a", a kind:30455 Swap Listing event or an application specific version of it (optional)

Forget about this Swap Listing event for now, I will get to it later...

Swap Nonce Event (kind:456) - Optional

This is an optional event for the Swap Proposal receiver to provide the public nonce of his signature when the proposal does not include a nonce or when he does not want to provide the adaptor signature due to the downsides previously mentioned. The content field is the following stringified JSON:

{     "nonce": "<Signature public nonce>",     "enc_s": "<Encrypted signature scalar (optional)>" }

And the tags must contain:

• "e", a kind:455 Swap Proposal Event (required)
• "p", the counterparty's public key (required)

Swap Adaptor Event (kind:457)

The content field is the following stringified JSON:

{ "adaptors": [ {         "sa": "<Adaptor signature scalar>",         "R": "<Signer's public nonce (including parity byte)>",         "T": "<Adaptor point (including parity byte)>",         "Y": "<Cashu proof derived public key (if applicable)>",     }, …],     "cashu": "<Cashu V4 token (if applicable)>" }

And the tags must contain:

• "e", a kind:455 Swap Proposal Event (required)
• "p", the counterparty's public key (required)

Discoverability

The Swap Listing event previously mentioned as an optional tag in the Swap Proposal may be used to find an appropriate counterparty for a swap. It allows a user to announce what he wants to accomplish, what his requirements are and what is still open for negotiation.

Swap Listing Event (kind:30455)

The content field is the following stringified JSON:

{ "description": "<Information about the listing (required)>", "give": <partial signature spec (optional)>, "take": <partial signature spec (optional)>, "examples: [<take signature spec>], // optional "exp": <expiration timestamp (optional)>, "role": "<adaptor | nonce (optional)>" }

The description field describes the restrictions on counterparties and signatures the user is willing to accept.

A partial signature spec is an incomplete signature spec used in Swap Proposal events kind:455 where omitting fields signals that they are still open for negotiation.

The examples field is an array of signature specs the user would be willing to take.

The tags are:

• "d", a unique listing id (required)
• "s", the status of the listing draft | open | closed (required)
• "t", topics related to this listing (optional)
• "p", public keys to notify about the proposal (optional)

Application Specific Swap Listings

Since Swap Listings are still fairly generic, it is expected that specific use cases define new event kinds based on the generic listing. Those application specific swap listing would be easier to filter by clients and may impose restrictions and add new fields and/or tags. The following are some examples under development:

Sponsored Events

This listing is designed for users looking to promote content on the Nostr network, as well as for those who want to monetize their accounts by sharing curated sponsored content with their existing audiences.

It follows the same format as the generic Swap Listing event, but uses the kind:30456 instead.

The following new tags are included:

• "k", event kind being sponsored (required)
• "title", campaign title (optional)

It is required that at least one signature spec (give and/or take) must have "type": "nostr" and also contain the following tag ["sponsor", "<pubkey>", "<attestation>"] with the sponsor's public key and his signature over the signature spec without the sponsor tag as his attestation. This last requirement enables clients to disclose and/or filter sponsored events.

Asset Swaps

This listing is designed for users looking for counterparties to swap different assets that can be transferred using Schnorr signatures, like any unit of Cashu tokens, Bitcoin or other asset IOUs issued using Taproot.

It follows the same format as the generic Swap Listing event, but uses the kind:30457 instead.

It requires the following additional tags:

• "t", asset pair to be swapped (e.g. "btcusd")
• "t", asset being offered (e.g. "btc")
• "t", accepted payment method (e.g. "cashu", "taproot")

Swap Negotiation

From finding an appropriate Swap Listing to publishing a Swap Proposal, there may be some kind of negotiation between the involved parties, e.g. agreeing on the amount to be paid by one of the parties or the exact content of a Nostr event signed by the other party. There are many ways to accomplish that and clients may implement it as they see fit for their specific goals. Some suggestions are:

• Adding kind:1111 Comments to the Swap Listing or an existing Swap Proposal
• Exchanging tentative Swap Proposals back and forth until an agreement is reached
• Simple exchanges of DMs
• Out of band communication (e.g. Signal)

Work to be done

I've been refining this specification as I develop some proof-of-concept clients to experience its flaws and trade-offs in practice. I left the signature spec for Taproot signatures out of the current document as I still have to experiment with it. I will probably find some important orchestration issues related to dealing with 2-of-2 multisig timelocks, which also affects Cashu transactions when spent last, that may require further adjustments to what was presented here.

The main goal of this article is to find other people interested in this concept and willing to provide valuable feedback before a PR is opened in the NIPs repository for broader discussions.

References

• GM Swap- Nostr client for atomically exchanging GM notes. Live demo available here.
• Sig4Sats Script - A Typescript script demonstrating the swap of a Cashu payment for a signed Nostr event.
• Loudr- Nostr client under development for sponsoring the publication of Nostr events. Live demo available at loudr.me.
• Poelstra, A. (2017). Scriptless Scripts. Blockstream Research. https://github.com/BlockstreamResearch/scriptless-scripts

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Zwei mal drei macht vier, \ widewidewitt und drei macht neune, \ ich mach mir die Welt, \ widewide wie sie mir gefällt. \ Pippi Langstrumpf

Egal, ob Koalitionsverhandlungen oder politischer Alltag: Die Kontroversen zwischen theoretisch verschiedenen Parteien verschwinden, wenn es um den Kampf gegen politische Gegner mit Rückenwind geht. Wer den Alteingesessenen die Pfründe ernsthaft streitig machen könnte, gegen den werden nicht nur «Brandmauern» errichtet, sondern der wird notfalls auch strafrechtlich verfolgt. Doppelstandards sind dabei selbstverständlich inklusive.

In Frankreich ist diese Woche Marine Le Pen wegen der Veruntreuung von EU-Geldern von einem Gericht verurteilt worden. Als Teil der Strafe wurde sie für fünf Jahre vom passiven Wahlrecht ausgeschlossen. Obwohl das Urteil nicht rechtskräftig ist – Le Pen kann in Berufung gehen –, haben die Richter das Verbot, bei Wahlen anzutreten, mit sofortiger Wirkung verhängt. Die Vorsitzende des rechtsnationalen Rassemblement National (RN) galt als aussichtsreiche Kandidatin für die Präsidentschaftswahl 2027.

Das ist in diesem Jahr bereits der zweite gravierende Fall von Wahlbeeinflussung durch die Justiz in einem EU-Staat. In Rumänien hatte Călin Georgescu im November die erste Runde der Präsidentenwahl überraschend gewonnen. Das Ergebnis wurde später annulliert, die behauptete «russische Wahlmanipulation» konnte jedoch nicht bewiesen werden. Die Kandidatur für die Wahlwiederholung im Mai wurde Georgescu kürzlich durch das Verfassungsgericht untersagt.

Die Veruntreuung öffentlicher Gelder muss untersucht und geahndet werden, das steht außer Frage. Diese Anforderung darf nicht selektiv angewendet werden. Hingegen mussten wir in der Vergangenheit bei ungleich schwerwiegenderen Fällen von (mutmaßlichem) Missbrauch ganz andere Vorgehensweisen erleben, etwa im Fall der heutigen EZB-Chefin Christine Lagarde oder im «Pfizergate»-Skandal um die Präsidentin der EU-Kommission Ursula von der Leyen.

Wenngleich derartige Angelegenheiten formal auf einer rechtsstaatlichen Grundlage beruhen mögen, so bleibt ein bitterer Beigeschmack. Es stellt sich die Frage, ob und inwieweit die Justiz politisch instrumentalisiert wird. Dies ist umso interessanter, als die Gewaltenteilung einen essenziellen Teil jeder demokratischen Ordnung darstellt, während die Bekämpfung des politischen Gegners mit juristischen Mitteln gerade bei den am lautesten rufenden Verteidigern «unserer Demokratie» populär zu sein scheint.

Die Delegationen von CDU/CSU und SPD haben bei ihren Verhandlungen über eine Regierungskoalition genau solche Maßnahmen diskutiert. «Im Namen der Wahrheit und der Demokratie» möchte man noch härter gegen «Desinformation» vorgehen und dafür zum Beispiel den Digital Services Act der EU erweitern. Auch soll der Tatbestand der Volksverhetzung verschärft werden – und im Entzug des passiven Wahlrechts münden können. Auf europäischer Ebene würde Friedrich Merz wohl gerne Ungarn das Stimmrecht entziehen.

Der Pegel an Unzufriedenheit und Frustration wächst in großen Teilen der Bevölkerung kontinuierlich. Arroganz, Machtmissbrauch und immer abstrusere Ausreden für offensichtlich willkürliche Maßnahmen werden kaum verhindern, dass den etablierten Parteien die Unterstützung entschwindet. In Deutschland sind die Umfrageergebnisse der AfD ein guter Gradmesser dafür.

[Vorlage Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ 42342239:1d80db24

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

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

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

Like giving a shark responsibility for beach safety

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

A venomous snake that is ignored

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

Size is not everything

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

What should the end goal be?

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

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

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

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

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

Put simply: a more radical Europe.

@ 42342239:1d80db24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

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

TL;DR please educate your children about online safety.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no reset button on the internet, but if I could go back, I’d tell survivor advocates to heed the warnings of the early internet builders and to start education and awareness campaigns designed to prevent as much online child sexual exploitation as possible. The internet and technology moved quickly, and I don’t believe that society ever really caught up. We live in a world where a child can be groomed by a predator in their own home while sitting on a couch next to their parents watching TV. We weren’t ready as a species to tackle the fast-paced algorithms and dangers online. It happened too quickly for parents to catch up. How can you parent for the ever-changing digital world unless you are constantly aware of the dangers?

I don’t think that the internet is inherently bad. I believe that it can be a powerful tool for freedom and resistance. I’ve spoken a lot about the bad online, but there is beauty as well. We often discuss how victims and survivors are abused online; we rarely discuss the fact that countless survivors around the globe have been able to share their experiences, strength, hope, as well as provide resources to the vulnerable. I do question if giving any government or tech company access to censorship, surveillance, etc., online in the name of serving survivors might not actually impact a portion of survivors negatively. There are a fair amount of survivors with powerful abusers protected by governments and the corporate press. If a survivor cannot speak to the press about their abuse, the only place they can go is online, directly or indirectly through an independent journalist who also risks being censored. This scenario isn’t hard to imagine—it already happened in China. During #MeToo, a survivor in China wanted to post their story. The government censored the post, so the survivor put their story on the blockchain. I’m excited that the survivor was creative and brave, but it’s terrifying to think that we live in a world where that situation is a necessity.

I believe that the future for many survivors sharing their stories globally will be on completely censorship-resistant and decentralized protocols. This thought in particular gives me hope. When we listen to the experiences of a diverse group of survivors, we can start to understand potential solutions to preventing the crimes from happening in the first place.

My heart is broken over the gut-wrenching stories of survivors sexually exploited online. Every time I hear the story of a survivor, I do think to myself quietly, “What could have prevented this from happening in the first place?” My heart is with survivors.

My head, on the other hand, is full of the understanding that the internet should remain free. The free flow of information should not be stopped. My mind is with the innocent citizens around the globe that deserve freedom both online and offline.

The problem is that governments don’t only want to censor illegal content that violates human rights—they create legislation that is so broad that it can impact speech and privacy of all. “Don’t you care about the kids?” Yes, I do. I do so much that I’m invested in finding solutions. I also care about all citizens around the globe that deserve an opportunity to live free from a mass surveillance society. If terrorism happens online, I should not be punished by losing my freedom. If drugs are sold online, I should not be punished. I’m not an abuser, I’m not a terrorist, and I don’t engage in illegal behaviors. I refuse to lose freedom because of others’ bad behaviors online.

I want to be clear that on a long enough timeline, the governments will decide that they can be better parents/caregivers than you can if something isn’t done to stop minors from being sexually exploited online. The price will be a complete loss of anonymity, privacy, free speech, and freedom of religion online. I find it rather insulting that governments think they’re better equipped to raise children than parents and caretakers.

So we can’t go backwards—all that we can do is go forward. Those who want to have freedom will find technology to facilitate their liberation. This will lead many over time to decentralized and open protocols. So as far as I’m concerned, this does solve a few of my worries—those who need, want, and deserve to speak freely online will have the opportunity in most countries—but what about online child sexual exploitation?

When I popped up around the decentralized space, I was met with the fear of censorship. I’m not here to censor you. I don’t write code. I couldn’t censor anyone or any piece of content even if I wanted to across the internet, no matter how depraved. I don’t have the skills to do that.

I’m here to start a conversation. Freedom comes at a cost. You must always fight for and protect your freedom. I can’t speak about protecting yourself from all of the Four Horsemen because I simply don’t know the topics well enough, but I can speak about this one topic.

If there was a shortcut to ending online child sexual exploitation, I would have found it by now. There isn’t one right now. I believe that education is the only pathway forward to preventing the crime of online child sexual exploitation for future generations.

I propose a yearly education course for every child of all school ages, taught as a standard part of the curriculum. Ideally, parents/caregivers would be involved in the education/learning process.

Course: - The creation of the internet and computers - The fight for cryptography - The tech supply chain from the ground up (example: human rights violations in the supply chain) - Corporate tech - Freedom tech - Data privacy - Digital privacy rights - AI (history-current) - Online safety (predators, scams, catfishing, extortion) - Bitcoin - Laws - How to deal with online hate and harassment - Information on who to contact if you are being abused online or offline - Algorithms - How to seek out the truth about news, etc., online

The parents/caregivers, homeschoolers, unschoolers, and those working to create decentralized parallel societies have been an inspiration while writing this, but my hope is that all children would learn this course, even in government ran schools. Ideally, parents would teach this to their own children.

The decentralized space doesn’t want child sexual exploitation to thrive. Here’s the deal: there has to be a strong prevention effort in order to protect the next generation. The internet isn’t going anywhere, predators aren’t going anywhere, and I’m not down to let anyone have the opportunity to prove that there is a need for more government. I don’t believe that the government should act as parents. The governments have had a chance to attempt to stop online child sexual exploitation, and they didn’t do it. Can we try a different pathway forward?

I’d like to put myself out of a job. I don’t want to ever hear another story like John Doe #1 ever again. This will require work. I’ve often called online child sexual exploitation the lynchpin for the internet. It’s time to arm generations of children with knowledge and tools. I can’t do this alone.

Individuals have fought so that I could have freedom online. I want to fight to protect it. I don’t want child predators to give the government any opportunity to take away freedom. Decentralized spaces are as close to a reset as we’ll get with the opportunity to do it right from the start. Start the youth off correctly by preventing potential hazards to the best of your ability.

The good news is anyone can work on this! I’d encourage you to take it and run with it. I added the additional education about the history of the internet to make the course more educational and fun. Instead of cleaning up generations of destroyed lives due to online sexual exploitation, perhaps this could inspire generations of those who will build our futures. Perhaps if the youth is armed with knowledge, they can create more tools to prevent the crime.

This one solution that I’m suggesting can be done on an individual level or on a larger scale. It should be adjusted depending on age, learning style, etc. It should be fun and playful.

This solution does not address abuse in the home or some of the root causes of offline child sexual exploitation. My hope is that it could lead to some survivors experiencing abuse in the home an opportunity to disclose with a trusted adult. The purpose for this solution is to prevent the crime of online child sexual exploitation before it occurs and to arm the youth with the tools to contact safe adults if and when it happens.

In closing, I went to hell a few times so that you didn’t have to. I spoke to the mothers of survivors of minors sexually exploited online—their tears could fill rivers. I’ve spoken with political dissidents who yearned to be free from authoritarian surveillance states. The only balance that I’ve found is freedom online for citizens around the globe and prevention from the dangers of that for the youth. Don’t slow down innovation and freedom. Educate, prepare, adapt, and look for solutions.

I’m not perfect and I’m sure that there are errors in this piece. I hope that you find them and it starts a conversation.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Nostr: a quick introduction, attempt #1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ ed5774ac:45611c5c

April 20, 2020: The day I saw my so-called friends expose themselves as gutless, brain-dead sheep.

On that day, I shared a video exposing the damning history of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's vaccine campaigns in Africa and the developing world. As Gates was on every TV screen, shilling COVID jabs that didn’t even exist, I called out his blatant financial conflict of interest and pointed out the obvious in my facebook post: "Finally someone is able to explain why Bill Gates runs from TV to TV to promote vaccination. Not surprisingly, it's all about money again…" - referencing his substantial investments in vaccine technology, including BioNTech's mRNA platform that would later produce the COVID vaccines and generate massive profits for his so-called philanthropic foundation.

The conflict of interest was undeniable. I genuinely believed anyone capable of basic critical thinking would at least pause to consider these glaring financial motives. But what followed was a masterclass in human stupidity.

My facebook post from 20 April 2020:

Not only was I branded a 'conspiracy theorist' for daring to question the billionaire who stood to make a fortune off the very vaccines he was shilling, but the brain-dead, logic-free bullshit vomited by the people around me was beyond pathetic. These barely literate morons couldn’t spell "Pfizer" without auto-correct, yet they mindlessly swallowed and repeated every lie the media and government force-fed them, branding anything that cracked their fragile reality as "conspiracy theory." Big Pharma’s rap sheet—fraud, deadly cover-ups, billions in fines—could fill libraries, yet these obedient sheep didn’t bother to open a single book or read a single study before screaming their ignorance, desperate to virtue-signal their obedience. Then, like spineless lab rats, they lined up for an experimental jab rushed to the market in months, too dumb to care that proper vaccine development takes a decade.

The pathetic part is that these idiots spend hours obsessing over reviews for their useless purchases like shoes or socks, but won’t spare 60 seconds to research the experimental cocktail being injected into their veins—or even glance at the FDA’s own damning safety reports. Those same obedient sheep would read every Yelp review for a fucking coffee shop but won't spend five minutes looking up Pfizer's criminal fraud settlements. They would demand absolute obedience to ‘The Science™’—while being unable to define mRNA, explain lipid nanoparticles, or justify why trials were still running as they queued up like cattle for their jab. If they had two brain cells to rub together or spent 30 minutes actually researching, they'd know, but no—they'd rather suck down the narrative like good little slaves, too dumb to question, too weak to think.

Worst of all, they became the system’s attack dogs—not just swallowing the poison, but forcing it down others’ throats. This wasn’t ignorance. It was betrayal. They mutated into medical brownshirts, destroying lives to virtue-signal their obedience—even as their own children’s hearts swelled with inflammation.

One conversation still haunts me to this day—a masterclass in wealth-worship delusion. A close friend, as a response to my facebook post, insisted that Gates’ assumed reading list magically awards him vaccine expertise, while dismissing his billion-dollar investments in the same products as ‘no conflict of interest.’ Worse, he argued that Gates’s $5–10 billion pandemic windfall was ‘deserved.’

This exchange crystallizes civilization’s intellectual surrender: reason discarded with religious fervor, replaced by blind faith in corporate propaganda.

The comment of a friend on my facebook post that still haunts me to this day:

Walking Away from the Herd

After a period of anger and disillusionment, I made a decision: I would no longer waste energy arguing with people who refused to think for themselves. If my circle couldn’t even ask basic questions—like why an untested medical intervention was being pushed with unprecedented urgency—then I needed a new community.

Fortunately, I already knew where to look. For three years, I had been involved in Bitcoin, a space where skepticism wasn’t just tolerated—it was demanded. Here, I’d met some of the most principled and independent thinkers I’d ever encountered. These were people who understood the corrupting influence of centralized power—whether in money, media, or politics—and who valued sovereignty, skepticism, and integrity. Instead of blind trust, bitcoiners practiced relentless verification. And instead of empty rhetoric, they lived by a simple creed: Don’t trust. Verify.

It wasn’t just a philosophy. It was a lifeline. So I chose my side and I walked away from the herd.

Finding My Tribe

Over the next four years, I immersed myself in Bitcoin conferences, meetups, and spaces where ideas were tested, not parroted. Here, I encountered extraordinary people: not only did they share my skepticism toward broken systems, but they challenged me to sharpen it.

No longer adrift in a sea of mindless conformity, I’d found a crew of thinkers who cut through the noise. They saw clearly what most ignored—that at the core of society’s collapse lay broken money, the silent tax on time, freedom, and truth itself. But unlike the complainers I’d left behind, these people built. They coded. They wrote. They risked careers and reputations to expose the rot. Some faced censorship; others, mockery. All understood the stakes.

These weren’t keyboard philosophers. They were modern-day Cassandras, warning of inflation’s theft, the Fed’s lies, and the coming dollar collapse—not for clout, but because they refused to kneel to a dying regime. And in their defiance, I found something rare: a tribe that didn’t just believe in a freer future. They were engineering it.

April 20, 2024: No more herd. No more lies. Only proof-of-work.

On April 20, 2024, exactly four years after my last Facebook post, the one that severed my ties to the herd for good—I stood in front of Warsaw’s iconic Palace of Culture and Science, surrounded by 400 bitcoiners who felt like family. We were there to celebrate Bitcoin’s fourth halving, but it was more than a protocol milestone. It was a reunion of sovereign individuals. Some faces I’d known since the early days; others, I’d met only hours before. We bonded instantly—heated debates, roaring laughter, zero filters on truths or on so called conspiracy theories.

As the countdown to the halving began, it hit me: This was the antithesis of the hollow world I’d left behind. No performative outrage, no coerced consensus—just a room of unyielding minds who’d traded the illusion of safety for the grit of truth. Four years prior, I’d been alone in my resistance. Now, I raised my glass among my people - those who had seen the system's lies and chosen freedom instead. Each had their own story of awakening, their own battles fought, but here we shared the same hard-won truth.

The energy wasn’t just electric. It was alive—the kind that emerges when free people build rather than beg. For the first time, I didn’t just belong. I was home. And in that moment, the halving’s ticking clock mirrored my own journey: cyclical, predictable in its scarcity, revolutionary in its consequences. Four years had burned away the old world. What remained was stronger.

No Regrets

Leaving the herd wasn’t a choice—it was evolution. My soul shouted: "I’d rather stand alone than kneel with the masses!". The Bitcoin community became more than family; they’re living proof that the world still produces warriors, not sheep. Here, among those who forge truth, I found something extinct elsewhere: hope that burns brighter with every halving, every block, every defiant mind that joins the fight.

Change doesn’t come from the crowd. It starts when one person stops applauding.

Today, I stand exactly where I always wanted to be—shoulder-to-shoulder with my true family: the rebels, the builders, the ungovernable. Together, we’re building the decentralized future.

@ 6e0ea5d6:0327f353

🩸
The world won’t stop and wait for you to recover.

Do your duty regardless of how you feel. That’s the only guarantee you’ll end the day alright.

You’ve heard it before: “The worst workout is the one you didn’t do.” Sometimes you don’t feel like going to the gym. You start bargaining with laziness: “I didn’t sleep well… maybe I should skip today.” But then you go anyway, committing only to the bare minimum your energy allows. And once you start, your body outperforms your mind’s assumptions—it turns out to be one of the best workouts you’ve had in a long time. The feeling of following through, of winning a battle you were losing, gives you the confidence to own the rest of your day. You finally feel good.

And that wouldn’t have happened if you stayed home waiting to feel better. Guilt would’ve joined forces with discouragement, and you’d be crushed by melancholy in a victim mindset. That loss would bleed into the rest of your week, conditioning your mind: because you didn’t spend your energy on the workout, you’d stay up late, wake up worse, and while waiting to feel “ready,” you’d lose a habit that took months of effort to build.

When in doubt, just do your duty. Stick to the plan. Don’t negotiate with your feelings—outsmart them. “Just one page today,” and you’ll end up reading ten. “Only the easy tasks,” and you’ll gain momentum to conquer the hard ones. Laziness is a serpent—you win when you make no deals with it.

A close friend once told me that when he was at his limit during a second job shift, he’d open a picture on his phone—of a fridge or a stove he needed to buy for his home—and that image gave him strength to stay awake. That moment stuck with me forever.

Do you really think the world will have the same mercy on you that you have on yourself? Don’t be surprised when it doesn’t spare you. Move forward even while stitching your wounds: “If you wait for perfect conditions, you’ll never do anything.” (Ecclesiastes 11:4)

Thank you for reading, my friend!

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

A toast to our family!

@ 97c70a44:ad98e322

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

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

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

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

The Need for Speed

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

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

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

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

Svelte is not Javascript

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

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

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

Proxies are not objects

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

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

we... can maximise both efficiency and ergonomics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Components are not functions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

@ c066aac5:6a41a034

I’m drawn to extremities in art. The louder, the bolder, the more outrageous, the better. Bold art takes me out of the mundane into a whole new world where anything and everything is possible. Having grown up in the safety of the suburban midwest, I was a bit of a rebellious soul in search of the satiation that only came from the consumption of the outrageous. My inclination to find bold art draws me to NOSTR, because I believe NOSTR can be the place where the next generation of artistic pioneers go to express themselves. I also believe that as much as we are able, were should invite them to come create here.

My Background: A Small Side Story

My father was a professional gamer in the 80s, back when there was no money or glory in the avocation. He did get a bit of spotlight though after the fact: in the mid 2000’s there were a few parties making documentaries about that era of gaming as well as current arcade events (namely 2007’sChasing GhostsandThe King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters). As a result of these documentaries, there was a revival in the arcade gaming scene. My family attended events related to the documentaries or arcade gaming and I became exposed to a lot of things I wouldn’t have been able to find. The producer ofThe King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters had previously made a documentary calledNew York Dollwhich was centered around the life of bassist Arthur Kane. My 12 year old mind was blown: The New York Dolls were a glam-punk sensation dressed in drag. The music was from another planet. Johnny Thunders’ guitar playing was like Chuck Berry with more distortion and less filter. Later on I got to meet the Galaga record holder at the time, Phil Day, in Ottumwa Iowa. Phil is an Australian man of high intellect and good taste. He exposed me to great creators such as Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds, Shakespeare, Lou Reed, artists who created things that I had previously found inconceivable.

I believe this time period informed my current tastes and interests, but regrettably I think it also put coals on the fire of rebellion within. I stopped taking my parents and siblings seriously, the Christian faith of my family (which I now hold dearly to) seemed like a mundane sham, and I felt I couldn’t fit in with most people because of my avant-garde tastes. So I write this with the caveat that there should be a way to encourage these tastes in children without letting them walk down the wrong path. There is nothing inherently wrong with bold art, but I’d advise parents to carefully find ways to cultivate their children’s tastes without completely shutting them down and pushing them away as a result. My parents were very loving and patient during this time; I thank God for that.

With that out of the way, lets dive in to some bold artists:

Nicolas Cage: Actor

There is an excellent video by Wisecrack on Nicolas Cage that explains him better than I will, which I will linkhere. Nicolas Cage rejects the idea that good acting is tied to mere realism; all of his larger than life acting decisions are deliberate choices. When that clicked for me, I immediately realized the man is a genius. He borrows from Kabuki and German Expressionism, art forms that rely on exaggeration to get the message across. He has even created his own acting style, which he calls Nouveau Shamanic. He augments his imagination to go from acting to being. Rather than using the old hat of method acting, he transports himself to a new world mentally. The projects he chooses to partake in are based on his own interests or what he considers would be a challenge (making a bad script good for example). Thus it doesn’t matter how the end result comes out; he has already achieved his goal as an artist. Because of this and because certain directors don’t know how to use his talents, he has a noticeable amount of duds in his filmography. Dig around the duds, you’ll find some pure gold. I’d personally recommend the filmsPig, Joe, Renfield, and his Christmas film The Family Man.

Nick Cave: Songwriter

What a wild career this man has had! From the apocalyptic mayhem of his band The Birthday Party to the pensive atmosphere of his albumGhosteen, it seems like Nick Cave has tried everything. I think his secret sauce is that he’s always working. He maintains an excellent newsletter calledThe Red Hand Files, he has written screenplays such asLawless, he has written books, he has made great film scores such asThe Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, the man is religiously prolific. I believe that one of the reasons he is prolific is that he’s not afraid to experiment. If he has an idea, he follows it through to completion. From the albumMurder Ballads(which is comprised of what the title suggests) to his rejected sequel toGladiator(Gladiator: Christ Killer), he doesn’t seem to be afraid to take anything on. This has led to some over the top works as well as some deeply personal works. Albums likeSkeleton TreeandGhosteenwere journeys through the grief of his son’s death. The Boatman’s Callis arguably a better break-up album than anything Taylor Swift has put out. He’s not afraid to be outrageous, he’s not afraid to offend, but most importantly he’s not afraid to be himself. Works I’d recommend include The Birthday Party’sLive 1981-82, Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds’The Boatman’s Call, and the filmLawless.

Jim Jarmusch: Director

I consider Jim’s films to be bold almost in an ironic sense: his works are bold in that they are, for the most part, anti-sensational. He has a rule that if his screenplays are criticized for a lack of action, he makes them even less eventful. Even with sensational settings his films feel very close to reality, and they demonstrate the beauty of everyday life. That's what is bold about his art to me: making the sensational grounded in reality while making everyday reality all the more special. Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai is about a modern-day African-American hitman who strictly follows the rules of the ancient Samurai, yet one can resonate with the humanity of a seemingly absurd character. Only Lovers Left Aliveis a vampire love story, but in the middle of a vampire romance one can see their their own relationships in a new deeply human light. Jim’s work reminds me that art reflects life, and that there is sacred beauty in seemingly mundane everyday life. I personally recommend his filmsPaterson,Down by Law, andCoffee and Cigarettes.

NOSTR: We Need Bold Art

NOSTR is in my opinion a path to a better future. In a world creeping slowly towards everything apps, I hope that the protocol where the individual owns their data wins over everything else. I love freedom and sovereignty. If NOSTR is going to win the race of everything apps, we need more than Bitcoin content. We need more than shirtless bros paying for bananas in foreign countries and exercising with girls who have seductive accents. Common people cannot see themselves in such a world. NOSTR needs to catch the attention of everyday people. I don’t believe that this can be accomplished merely by introducing more broadly relevant content; people are searching for content that speaks to them. I believe that NOSTR can and should attract artists of all kinds because NOSTR is one of the few places on the internet where artists can express themselves fearlessly. Getting zaps from NOSTR’s value-for-value ecosystem has far less friction than crowdfunding a creative project or pitching investors that will irreversibly modify an artist’s vision. Having a place where one can post their works without fear of censorship should be extremely enticing. Having a place where one can connect with fellow humans directly as opposed to a sea of bots should seem like the obvious solution. If NOSTR can become a safe haven for artists to express themselves and spread their work, I believe that everyday people will follow. The banker whose stressful job weighs on them will suddenly find joy with an original meme made by a great visual comedian. The programmer for a healthcare company who is drowning in hopeless mundanity could suddenly find a new lust for life by hearing the song of a musician who isn’t afraid to crowdfund their their next project by putting their lighting address on the streets of the internet. The excel guru who loves independent film may find that NOSTR is the best way to support non corporate movies. My closing statement: continue to encourage the artists in your life as I’m sure you have been, but while you’re at it give them the purple pill. You may very well be a part of building a better future.

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Spanien bleibt einer der Vorreiter im europäischen Prozess der totalen Überwachung per Digitalisierung. Seit Mittwoch ist dort der digitale Personalausweis verfügbar. Dabei handelt es sich um eine Regierungs-App, die auf dem Smartphone installiert werden muss und in den Stores von Google und Apple zu finden ist. Per Dekret von Regierungschef Pedro Sánchez und Zustimmung des Ministerrats ist diese Maßnahme jetzt in Kraft getreten.

Mit den üblichen Argumenten der Vereinfachung, des Komforts, der Effizienz und der Sicherheit preist das Innenministerium die «Innovation» an. Auch die Beteuerung, dass die digitale Variante parallel zum physischen Ausweis existieren wird und diesen nicht ersetzen soll, fehlt nicht. Während der ersten zwölf Monate wird «der Neue» noch nicht für alle Anwendungsfälle gültig sein, ab 2026 aber schon.

Dass die ganze Sache auch «Risiken und Nebenwirkungen» haben könnte, wird in den Mainstream-Medien eher selten thematisiert. Bestenfalls wird der Aspekt der Datensicherheit angesprochen, allerdings in der Regel direkt mit dem Regierungsvokabular von den «maximalen Sicherheitsgarantien» abgehandelt. Dennoch gibt es einige weitere Aspekte, die Bürger mit etwas Sinn für Privatsphäre bedenken sollten.

Um sich die digitale Version des nationalen Ausweises besorgen zu können (eine App mit dem Namen MiDNI), muss man sich vorab online registrieren. Dabei wird die Identität des Bürgers mit seiner mobilen Telefonnummer verknüpft. Diese obligatorische fixe Verdrahtung kennen wir von diversen anderen Apps und Diensten. Gleichzeitig ist das die Basis für eine perfekte Lokalisierbarkeit der Person.

Für jeden Vorgang der Identifikation in der Praxis wird später «eine Verbindung zu den Servern der Bundespolizei aufgebaut». Die Daten des Individuums werden «in Echtzeit» verifiziert und im Erfolgsfall von der Polizei signiert zurückgegeben. Das Ergebnis ist ein QR-Code mit zeitlich begrenzter Gültigkeit, der an Dritte weitergegeben werden kann.

Bei derartigen Szenarien sträuben sich einem halbwegs kritischen Staatsbürger die Nackenhaare. Allein diese minimale Funktionsbeschreibung lässt die totale Überwachung erkennen, die damit ermöglicht wird. Jede Benutzung des Ausweises wird künftig registriert, hinterlässt also Spuren. Und was ist, wenn die Server der Polizei einmal kein grünes Licht geben? Das wäre spätestens dann ein Problem, wenn der digitale doch irgendwann der einzig gültige Ausweis ist: Dann haben wir den abschaltbaren Bürger.

Dieser neue Vorstoß der Regierung von Pedro Sánchez ist ein weiterer Schritt in Richtung der «totalen Digitalisierung» des Landes, wie diese Politik in manchen Medien – nicht einmal kritisch, sondern sehr naiv – genannt wird. Ebenso verharmlosend wird auch erwähnt, dass sich das spanische Projekt des digitalen Ausweises nahtlos in die Initiativen der EU zu einer digitalen Identität für alle Bürger sowie des digitalen Euro einreiht.

In Zukunft könnte der neue Ausweis «auch in andere staatliche und private digitale Plattformen integriert werden», wie das Medienportal Cope ganz richtig bemerkt. Das ist die Perspektive.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

Dazu passend:

Nur Abschied vom Alleinfahren? Monströse spanische Überwachungsprojekte gemäß EU-Norm

---

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

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

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

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

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

@ aa8de34f:a6ffe696

In seinem Beitrag vom 30. März 2025 fragt Henning Rosenbusch auf Telegram angesichts zunehmender digitaler Kontrolle und staatlicher Allmacht:

„Wie soll sich gegen eine solche Tyrannei noch ein Widerstand formieren können, selbst im Untergrund? Sehe ich nicht.“\ (Quelle: t.me/rosenbusch/25228)

Er beschreibt damit ein Gefühl der Ohnmacht, das viele teilen: Eine Welt, in der Totalitarismus nicht mehr mit Panzern, sondern mit Algorithmen kommt. Wo Zugriff auf Geld, Meinungsfreiheit und Teilhabe vom Wohlverhalten abhängt. Der Bürger als kontrollierbare Variable im Code des Staates.\ Die Frage ist berechtigt. Doch die Antwort darauf liegt nicht in alten Widerstandsbildern – sondern in einer neuen Realität.

-- Denn es braucht keinen Untergrund mehr. --

Der Widerstand der Zukunft trägt keinen Tarnanzug. Er ist nicht konspirativ, sondern transparent. Nicht bewaffnet, sondern mathematisch beweisbar. Bitcoin steht nicht am Rand dieser Entwicklung – es ist ihr Fundament. Eine Bastion aus physikalischer Realität, spieltheoretischem Schutz und ökonomischer Wahrheit. Es ist nicht unfehlbar, aber unbestechlich. Nicht perfekt, aber immun gegen zentrale Willkür.

Hier entsteht kein „digitales Gegenreich“, sondern eine dezentrale Renaissance. Keine Revolte aus Wut, sondern eine stille Abkehr: von Zwang zu Freiwilligkeit, von Abhängigkeit zu Selbstverantwortung. Diese Revolution führt keine Kriege. Sie braucht keine Führer. Sie ist ein Netzwerk. Jeder Knoten ein Individuum. Jede Entscheidung ein Akt der Selbstermächtigung.

Weltweit wachsen Freiheits-Zitadellen aus dieser Idee: wirtschaftlich autark, digital souverän, lokal verankert und global vernetzt. Sie sind keine Utopien im luftleeren Raum, sondern konkrete Realitäten – angetrieben von Energie, Code und dem menschlichen Wunsch nach Würde.

Der Globalismus alter Prägung – zentralistisch, monopolistisch, bevormundend – wird an seiner eigenen Hybris zerbrechen. Seine Werkzeuge der Kontrolle werden ihn nicht retten. Im Gegenteil: Seine Geister werden ihn verfolgen und erlegen.

Und während die alten Mächte um Erhalt kämpfen, wächst eine neue Welt – nicht im Schatten, sondern im Offenen. Nicht auf Gewalt gebaut, sondern auf Mathematik, Physik und Freiheit.

Die Tyrannei sieht keinen Widerstand.\ Weil sie nicht erkennt, dass er längst begonnen hat.\ Unwiderruflich. Leise. Überall.

@ 4523be58:ba1facd0

NIP-117

The Double Ratchet Algorithm

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

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

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

See also: NIP-118: Nostr Double Ratchet Invites

Overview

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

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

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

Nostr implementation

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

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

Nostr event format

Message

Outer event

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

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

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

Inner event

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

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

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

Algorithm

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

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

External functions

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

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

We use NIP-44 functions for encryption:

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

NIP-59:

• createRumor

Key derivation function:

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

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

Session state

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

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

ourCurrentNostrKey?: KeyPair; ourNextNostrKey: KeyPair;

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

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

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

Initialization

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

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

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

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

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

```

Sending messages

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

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

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

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

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

Receiving messages

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

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

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

}

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

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

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

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

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

this.skipMessageKeys(header.number, nostrSender);

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

return nip44.decrypt(ciphertext, messageKey); }

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

}

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

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

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

delete skippedKeys.messageKeys[header.number];

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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

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

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

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Der Irrsinn ist bei Einzelnen etwas Seltenes – \ aber bei Gruppen, Parteien, Völkern, Zeiten die Regel. \ Friedrich Nietzsche

Erinnern Sie sich an die Horrorkomödie «Scary Movie»? Nicht, dass ich diese Art Filme besonders erinnerungswürdig fände, aber einige Szenen daraus sind doch gewissermaßen Klassiker. Dazu zählt eine, die das Verhalten vieler Protagonisten in Horrorfilmen parodiert, wenn sie in Panik flüchten. Welchen Weg nimmt wohl die Frau in der Situation auf diesem Bild?

Diese Szene kommt mir automatisch in den Sinn, wenn ich aktuelle Entwicklungen in Europa betrachte. Weitreichende Entscheidungen gehen wider jede Logik in die völlig falsche Richtung. Nur ist das hier alles andere als eine Komödie, sondern bitterernst. Dieser Horror ist leider sehr real.

Die Europäische Union hat sich selbst über Jahre konsequent in eine Sackgasse manövriert. Sie hat es versäumt, sich und ihre Politik selbstbewusst und im Einklang mit ihren Wurzeln auf dem eigenen Kontinent zu positionieren. Stattdessen ist sie in blinder Treue den vermeintlichen «transatlantischen Freunden» auf ihrem Konfrontationskurs gen Osten gefolgt.

In den USA haben sich die Vorzeichen allerdings mittlerweile geändert, und die einst hoch gelobten «Freunde und Partner» erscheinen den europäischen «Führern» nicht mehr vertrauenswürdig. Das ist spätestens seit der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz, der Rede von Vizepräsident J. D. Vance und den empörten Reaktionen offensichtlich. Große Teile Europas wirken seitdem wie ein aufgescheuchter Haufen kopfloser Hühner. Orientierung und Kontrolle sind völlig abhanden gekommen.

Statt jedoch umzukehren oder wenigstens zu bremsen und vielleicht einen Abzweig zu suchen, geben die Crash-Piloten jetzt auf dem Weg durch die Sackgasse erst richtig Gas. Ja sie lösen sogar noch die Sicherheitsgurte und deaktivieren die Airbags. Den vor Angst dauergelähmten Passagieren fällt auch nichts Besseres ein und so schließen sie einfach die Augen. Derweil übertrumpfen sich die Kommentatoren des Events gegenseitig in sensationslüsterner «Berichterstattung».

Wie schon die deutsche Außenministerin mit höchsten UN-Ambitionen, Annalena Baerbock, proklamiert auch die Europäische Kommission einen «Frieden durch Stärke». Zu dem jetzt vorgelegten, selbstzerstörerischen Fahrplan zur Ankurbelung der Rüstungsindustrie, genannt «Weißbuch zur europäischen Verteidigung – Bereitschaft 2030», erklärte die Kommissionspräsidentin, die «Ära der Friedensdividende» sei längst vorbei. Soll das heißen, Frieden bringt nichts ein? Eine umfassende Zusammenarbeit an dauerhaften europäischen Friedenslösungen steht demnach jedenfalls nicht zur Debatte.

Zusätzlich brisant ist, dass aktuell «die ganze EU von Deutschen regiert wird», wie der EU-Parlamentarier und ehemalige UN-Diplomat Michael von der Schulenburg beobachtet hat. Tatsächlich sitzen neben von der Leyen und Strack-Zimmermann noch einige weitere Deutsche in – vor allem auch in Krisenzeiten – wichtigen Spitzenposten der Union. Vor dem Hintergrund der Kriegstreiberei in Deutschland muss eine solche Dominanz mindestens nachdenklich stimmen.

Ihre ursprünglichen Grundwerte wie Demokratie, Freiheit, Frieden und Völkerverständigung hat die EU kontinuierlich in leere Worthülsen verwandelt. Diese werden dafür immer lächerlicher hochgehalten und beschworen.

Es wird dringend Zeit, dass wir, der Souverän, diesem erbärmlichen und gefährlichen Trauerspiel ein Ende setzen und die Fäden selbst in die Hand nehmen. In diesem Sinne fordert uns auch das «European Peace Project» auf, am 9. Mai im Rahmen eines Kunstprojekts den Frieden auszurufen. Seien wir dabei!

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hours: Available 24 hours

@ 6e0ea5d6:0327f353

My friend, let yourself be deluded for a moment, and reality will see to it that your fantasy is shattered—like a hammer crushing marble. The real world grants no mercy; it will relentlessly tear down your aspirations, casting them into the abyss of disillusionment and burying your dreams under the unbearable weight of your own expectations. It’s an inescapable fate—but the outcome is still in your hands: perish at the bottom like a wretch or turn the pit into a trench.

Davvero, everyone must eventually face something that breaks them. It is in devastation that man discovers what he is made of, and in the silence of defeat that he hears the finest advice. Yet the weak would rather embrace the convenient lie of self-pity, blaming life for failures that are, in truth, the result of their own negligence and cowardly choices. If you hide behind excuses because you fear the painful truth, know this: the responsibility has always been yours.

Ascolta bene! Just remain steadfast, even when everything feels like an endless maze. The difficulties you face today—those you believe you’ll never overcome—will one day seem insignificant under the light of time and experience. Tomorrow, you’ll look back and laugh at yourself for ever letting these storms seem so overwhelming.

Now, it’s up to you to fight your own battle—for the evil day spares no one. Don’t let yourself be paralyzed by shock or bow before adversity. Be strong and of good courage—not as one who waits for relief, but as one prepared to face the inevitable and turn pain into glory.

Thank you for reading, my friend!

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

A toast to our family!

@ 4ba8e86d:89d32de4

SISTEMA OPERACIONAL MÓVEIS

GrapheneOS : https://njump.me/nevent1qqs8t76evdgrg4qegdtyrq2rved63pr29wlqyj627n9tj4vlu66tqpqpzdmhxue69uhk7enxvd5xz6tw9ec82c30qgsyh28gd5ke0ztdeyehc0jsq6gcj0tnzatjlkql3dqamkja38fjmeqrqsqqqqqppcqec9

CalyxOS : https://njump.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

LineageOS : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsgw7sr36gaty48cf4snw0ezg5mg4atzhqayuge752esd469p26qfgpzdmhxue69uhhwmm59e6hg7r09ehkuef0qgsyh28gd5ke0ztdeyehc0jsq6gcj0tnzatjlkql3dqamkja38fjmeqrqsqqqqqpnvm779

SISTEMA OPERACIONAL DESKTOP

Tails : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsf09ztvuu60g6xprazv2vxqqy5qlxjs4dkc9d36ta48q75cs9le4qpzemhxue69uhkummnw3ex2mrfw3jhxtn0wfnj7q3qfw5wsmfdj7ykmjfn0sl9qp533y7hx96h9lvplz6pmhd9mzwn9hjqxpqqqqqqz34ag5t

Qubes OS : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsp6jujgwl68uvurw0cw3hfhr40xq20sj7rl3z4yzwnhp9sdpa7augpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5hsz9mhwden5te0wfjkccte9ehx7um5wghxyctwvshsz9thwden5te0dehhxarj9ehhsarj9ejx2a30qyg8wumn8ghj7mn09eehgu3wvdez7qg4waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t09uqjxamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3dwejhy6txd9jkgtnhv4kxcmmjv3jhytnwv46z7qgwwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkctcpremhxue69uhkummnw3ez6er9wch8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet59uj3ljr8

Kali linux : https://njump.me/nevent1qqswlav72xdvamuyp9xc38c6t7070l3n2uxu67ssmal2g7gv35nmvhspzpmhxue69uhkumewwd68ytnrwghsygzt4r5x6tvh39kujvmu8egqdyvf84e3w4e0mq0ckswamfwcn5eduspsgqqqqqqswt9rxe

Whonix : https://njump.me/nevent1qqs85gvejvzhk086lwh6edma7fv07p5c3wnwnxnzthwwntg2x6773egpydmhxue69uhkummnw3ez6an9wf5kv6t9vsh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet59uq3qamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wd4hk6tcpzemhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnrdqhxu6twdfsj7qfywaehxw309ahx7um5wgh8ymm4dej8ymmrdd3xjarrda5kuetjwvhxxmmd9uq3wamnwvaz7tmzw33ju6mvv4hxgct6w5hxxmmd9uq3qamnwvaz7tmwduh8xarj9e3hytcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhszrnhwden5te0dehhxtnvdakz7qg7waehxw309ahx7um5wgkkgetk9emk2mrvdaexgetj9ehx2ap0sen9p6

Kodachi : https://njump.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

PGP

Openkeychain : https://njump.me/nevent1qqs9qtjgsulp76t7jkquf8nk8txs2ftsr0qke6mjmsc2svtwfvswzyqpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygzt4r5x6tvh39kujvmu8egqdyvf84e3w4e0mq0ckswamfwcn5eduspsgqqqqqqs36mp0w

Kleopatra : https://njump.me/nevent1qqspnevn932hdggvp4zam6mfyce0hmnxsp9wp8htpumq9vm3anq6etsppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgsyh28gd5ke0ztdeyehc0jsq6gcj0tnzatjlkql3dqamkja38fjmeqrqsqqqqqpuaeghp

Pgp : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsggek707qf3rzttextmgqhym6d4g479jdnlnj78j96y0ut0x9nemcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtczyp9636rd9ktcjmwfxd7ru5qxjxyn6uch2uhas8utg8wa5hvf6vk7gqcyqqqqqqgptemhe

Como funciona o PGP? : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsz9r7azc8pkvfmkg2hv0nufaexjtnvga0yl85x9hu7ptpg20gxxpspremhxue69uhkummnw3ez6ur4vgh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet59upzqjagapkjm9ufdhynxlp72qrfrzfawvt4wt7cr795rhw6tkyaxt0yqvzqqqqqqy259fhs

Por que eu escrevi PGP. - Philip Zimmermann.

https://njump.me/nevent1qqsvysn94gm8prxn3jw04r0xwc6sngkskg756z48jsyrmqssvxtm7ncpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtchzxnad

VPN

Vpn : https://njump.me/nevent1qqs27ltgsr6mh4ffpseexz6s37355df3zsur709d0s89u2nugpcygsspzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5hsygzt4r5x6tvh39kujvmu8egqdyvf84e3w4e0mq0ckswamfwcn5eduspsgqqqqqqshzu2fk

InviZible Pro : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsvyevf2vld23a3xrpvarc72ndpcmfvc3lc45jej0j5kcsg36jq53cpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzqjagapkjm9ufdhynxlp72qrfrzfawvt4wt7cr795rhw6tkyaxt0yqvzqqqqqqy33y5l4

Orbot: https://njump.me/nevent1qqsxswkyt6pe34egxp9w70cy83h40ururj6m9sxjdmfass4cjm4495stft593

I2P

i2p : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsvnj8n983r4knwjmnkfyum242q4c0cnd338l4z8p0m6xsmx89mxkslx0pgg

Entendendo e usando a rede I2P : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsxchp5ycpatjf5s4ag25jkawmw6kkf64vl43vnprxdcwrpnms9qkcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgsyh28gd5ke0ztdeyehc0jsq6gcj0tnzatjlkql3dqamkja38fjmeqrqsqqqqqpvht4mn

Criando e acessando sua conta Email na I2P : https://njump.me/nevent1qqs9v9dz897kh8e5lfar0dl7ljltf2fpdathsn3dkdsq7wg4ksr8xfgpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmp0qgsyh28gd5ke0ztdeyehc0jsq6gcj0tnzatjlkql3dqamkja38fjmeqrqsqqqqqpw8mzum

APLICATIVO 2FA

Aegis Authenticator : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsfttdwcn9equlrmtf9n6wee7lqntppzm03pzdcj4cdnxel3pz44zspz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzvuhsygzt4r5x6tvh39kujvmu8egqdyvf84e3w4e0mq0ckswamfwcn5eduspsgqqqqqqscvtydq

YubiKey : https://njump.me/nevent1qqstsnn69y4sf4330n7039zxm7wza3ch7sn6plhzmd57w6j9jssavtspvemhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0dec82c330g6x6dm8ddmxzdne0pnhverevdkxxdm6wqc8v735w3snquejvsuk56pcvuurxaesxd68qdtkv3nrx6m6v3ehsctwvym8q0mzwfhkzerrv9ehg0t5wf6k2q3qfw5wsmfdj7ykmjfn0sl9qp533y7hx96h9lvplz6pmhd9mzwn9hjqxpqqqqqqzueyvgt

GERENCIADOR DE SENHAS

KeepassDX: https://njump.me/nevent1qqswc850dr4ujvxnmpx75jauflf4arc93pqsty5pv8hxdm7lcw8ee8qpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmp0qgsyh28gd5ke0ztdeyehc0jsq6gcj0tnzatjlkql3dqamkja38fjmeqrqsqqqqqpe0492n

Birwaden: https://njump.me/nevent1qqs0j5x9guk2v6xumhwqmftmcz736m9nm9wzacqwjarxmh8k4xdyzwgpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmp0qgsyh28gd5ke0ztdeyehc0jsq6gcj0tnzatjlkql3dqamkja38fjmeqrqsqqqqqpwfe2kc

KeePassXC: https://njump.me/nevent1qqsgftcrd8eau7tzr2p9lecuaf7z8mx5jl9w2k66ae3lzkw5wqcy5pcl2achp

CHAT MENSAGEM

SimpleXchat : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsds5xselnnu0dyy0j49peuun72snxcgn3u55d2320n37rja9gk8lgzyp9636rd9ktcjmwfxd7ru5qxjxyn6uch2uhas8utg8wa5hvf6vk7gqcyqqqqqqgmcmj7c

Briar : https://njump.me/nevent1qqs8rrtgvjr499hreugetrl7adkhsj2zextyfsukq5aa7wxthrgcqcg05n434

Element Messenger : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsq05snlqtxm5cpzkshlf8n5d5rj9383vjytkvqp5gta37hpuwt4mqyccee6

Pidgin : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsz7kngycyx7meckx53xk8ahk98jkh400usrvykh480xa4ct9zlx2c2ywvx3

E-MAIL

Thunderbird: https://njump.me/nevent1qqspq64gg0nw7t60zsvea5eykgrm43paz845e4jn74muw5qzdvve7uqrkwtjh

ProtonMail : https://njump.me/nevent1qqs908glhk68e7ms8zqtlsqd00wu3prnpt08dwre26hd6e5fhqdw99cppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgsyh28gd5ke0ztdeyehc0jsq6gcj0tnzatjlkql3dqamkja38fjmeqrqsqqqqqpeyhg4z

Tutonota : https://njump.me/nevent1qqswtzh9zjxfey644qy4jsdh9465qcqd2wefx0jxa54gdckxjvkrrmqpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0wd68ytnsw43qygzt4r5x6tvh39kujvmu8egqdyvf84e3w4e0mq0ckswamfwcn5eduspsgqqqqqqs5hzhkv

k-9 mail : https://njump.me/nevent1qqs200g5a603y7utjgjk320r3srurrc4r66nv93mcg0x9umrw52ku5gpr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuumhd9ehxtt9de5kwmtp9e3kstczyp9636rd9ktcjmwfxd7ru5qxjxyn6uch2uhas8utg8wa5hvf6vk7gqcyqqqqqqgacflak

E-MAIL-ALIÁS

Simplelogin : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsvhz5pxqpqzr2ptanqyqgsjr50v7u9lc083fvdnglhrv36rnceppcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgsyh28gd5ke0ztdeyehc0jsq6gcj0tnzatjlkql3dqamkja38fjmeqrqsqqqqqp9gsr7m

AnonAddy : https://njump.me/nevent1qqs9mcth70mkq2z25ws634qfn7vx2mlva3tkllayxergw0s7p8d3ggcpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5hsygzt4r5x6tvh39kujvmu8egqdyvf84e3w4e0mq0ckswamfwcn5eduspsgqqqqqqs6mawe3

NAVEGADOR

Navegador Tor : https://njump.me/nevent1qqs06qfxy7wzqmk76l5d8vwyg6mvcye864xla5up52fy5sptcdy39lspzemhxue69uhkummnw3ezuerpw3sju6rpw4ej7q3qfw5wsmfdj7ykmjfn0sl9qp533y7hx96h9lvplz6pmhd9mzwn9hjqxpqqqqqqzdp0urw

Mullvap Browser : https://njump.me/nevent1qqs2vsgc3wk09wdspv2mezltgg7nfdg97g0a0m5cmvkvr4nrfxluzfcpzdmhxue69uhhwmm59e6hg7r09ehkuef0qgsyh28gd5ke0ztdeyehc0jsq6gcj0tnzatjlkql3dqamkja38fjmeqrqsqqqqqpj8h6fe

LibreWolf : https://njump.me/nevent1qqswv05mlmkcuvwhe8x3u5f0kgwzug7n2ltm68fr3j06xy9qalxwq2cpzemhxue69uhkummnw3ex2mrfw3jhxtn0wfnj7q3qfw5wsmfdj7ykmjfn0sl9qp533y7hx96h9lvplz6pmhd9mzwn9hjqxpqqqqqqzuv2hxr

Cromite : https://njump.me/nevent1qqs2ut83arlu735xp8jf87w5m3vykl4lv5nwkhldkqwu3l86khzzy4cpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygzt4r5x6tvh39kujvmu8egqdyvf84e3w4e0mq0ckswamfwcn5eduspsgqqqqqqs3dplt7

BUSCADORES

Searx : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsxyzpvgzx00n50nrlgctmy497vkm2cm8dd5pdp7fmw6uh8xnxdmaspr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmp0qgsyh28gd5ke0ztdeyehc0jsq6gcj0tnzatjlkql3dqamkja38fjmeqrqsqqqqqp23z7ax

APP-STORE

Obtainium : https://njump.me/nevent1qqstd8kzc5w3t2v6dgf36z0qrruufzfgnc53rj88zcjgsagj5c5k4rgpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzqjagapkjm9ufdhynxlp72qrfrzfawvt4wt7cr795rhw6tkyaxt0yqvzqqqqqqyarmca3

F-Droid : https://njump.me/nevent1qqst4kry49cc9g3g8s5gdnpgyk3gjte079jdnv43f0x4e85cjkxzjesymzuu4

Droid-ify : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsrr8yu9luq0gud902erdh8gw2lfunpe93uc2u6g8rh9ep7wt3v4sgpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5hsygzt4r5x6tvh39kujvmu8egqdyvf84e3w4e0mq0ckswamfwcn5eduspsgqqqqqqsfzu9vk

Aurora Store : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsy69kcaf0zkcg0qnu90mtk46ly3p2jplgpzgk62wzspjqjft4fpjgpvemhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0dec82c330g6x6dm8ddmxzdne0pnhverevdkxxdm6wqc8v735w3snquejvsuk56pcvuurxaesxd68qdtkv3nrx6m6v3ehsctwvym8q0mzwfhkzerrv9ehg0t5wf6k2q3qfw5wsmfdj7ykmjfn0sl9qp533y7hx96h9lvplz6pmhd9mzwn9hjqxpqqqqqqzrpmsjy

RSS

Feeder : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsy29aeggpkmrc7t3c7y7ldgda7pszl7c8hh9zux80gjzrfvlhfhwqpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqzyp9636rd9ktcjmwfxd7ru5qxjxyn6uch2uhas8utg8wa5hvf6vk7gqcyqqqqqqgsvzzjy

VIDEOO CONFERENCIA

Jitsi meet : https://njump.me/nevent1qqswphw67hr6qmt2fpugcj77jrk7qkfdrszum7vw7n2cu6cx4r6sh4cgkderr

TECLADOS

HeliBoard : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsyqpc4d28rje03dcvshv4xserftahhpeylu2ez2jutdxwds4e8syspz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygzt4r5x6tvh39kujvmu8egqdyvf84e3w4e0mq0ckswamfwcn5eduspsgqqqqqqsr8mel5

OpenBoard : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsf7zqkup03yysy67y43nj48q53sr6yym38es655fh9fp6nxpl7rqspzpmhxue69uhkumewwd68ytnrwghsygzt4r5x6tvh39kujvmu8egqdyvf84e3w4e0mq0ckswamfwcn5eduspsgqqqqqqswcvh3r

FlorisBoard : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsf7zqkup03yysy67y43nj48q53sr6yym38es655fh9fp6nxpl7rqspzpmhxue69uhkumewwd68ytnrwghsygzt4r5x6tvh39kujvmu8egqdyvf84e3w4e0mq0ckswamfwcn5eduspsgqqqqqqswcvh3r

MAPAS

Osmand : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsxryp2ywj64az7n5p6jq5tn3tx5jv05te48dtmmt3lf94ydtgy4fgpzpmhxue69uhkumewwd68ytnrwghsygzt4r5x6tvh39kujvmu8egqdyvf84e3w4e0mq0ckswamfwcn5eduspsgqqqqqqs54nwpj

Organic maps : https://njump.me/nevent1qqstrecuuzkw0dyusxdq7cuwju0ftskl7anx978s5dyn4pnldrkckzqpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezumtp0p5k6ctrd96xzer9dshx7un8qgsyh28gd5ke0ztdeyehc0jsq6gcj0tnzatjlkql3dqamkja38fjmeqrqsqqqqqpl8z3kk

TRADUÇÃO

LibreTranslate : https://njump.me/nevent1qqs953g3rhf0m8jh59204uskzz56em9xdrjkelv4wnkr07huk20442cpvemhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0dec82c330g6x6dm8ddmxzdne0pnhverevdkxxdm6wqc8v735w3snquejvsuk56pcvuurxaesxd68qdtkv3nrx6m6v3ehsctwvym8q0mzwfhkzerrv9ehg0t5wf6k2q3qfw5wsmfdj7ykmjfn0sl9qp533y7hx96h9lvplz6pmhd9mzwn9hjqxpqqqqqqzeqsx40

REMOÇÃO DOS METADADOS

Scrambled Exif : https://njump.me/nevent1qqs2658t702xv66p000y4mlhnvadmdxwzzfzcjkjf7kedrclr3ej7aspyfmhxue69uhk6atvw35hqmr90pjhytngw4eh5mmwv4nhjtnhdaexcep0qgsyh28gd5ke0ztdeyehc0jsq6gcj0tnzatjlkql3dqamkja38fjmeqrqsqqqqqpguu0wh

ESTEGANOGRAFIA

PixelKnot: https://njump.me/nevent1qqsrh0yh9mg0lx86t5wcmhh97wm6n4v0radh6sd0554ugn354wqdj8gpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzqjagapkjm9ufdhynxlp72qrfrzfawvt4wt7cr795rhw6tkyaxt0yqvzqqqqqqyuvfqdp

PERFIL DE TRABALHO

Shelter : https://njump.me/nevent1qqspv9xxkmfp40cxgjuyfsyczndzmpnl83e7gugm7480mp9zhv50wkqpvemhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0dec82c330g6x6dm8ddmxzdne0pnhverevdkxxdm6wqc8v735w3snquejvsuk56pcvuurxaesxd68qdtkv3nrx6m6v3ehsctwvym8q0mzwfhkzerrv9ehg0t5wf6k2q3qfw5wsmfdj7ykmjfn0sl9qp533y7hx96h9lvplz6pmhd9mzwn9hjqxpqqqqqqzdnu59c

PDF

MuPDF : https://njump.me/nevent1qqspn5lhe0dteys6npsrntmv2g470st8kh8p7hxxgmymqa95ejvxvfcpzpmhxue69uhkumewwd68ytnrwghsygzt4r5x6tvh39kujvmu8egqdyvf84e3w4e0mq0ckswamfwcn5eduspsgqqqqqqs4hvhvj

Librera Reader : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsg60flpuf00sash48fexvwxkly2j5z9wjvjrzt883t3eqng293f3cpvemhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0dec82c330g6x6dm8ddmxzdne0pnhverevdkxxdm6wqc8v735w3snquejvsuk56pcvuurxaesxd68qdtkv3nrx6m6v3ehsctwvym8q0mzwfhkzerrv9ehg0t5wf6k2q3qfw5wsmfdj7ykmjfn0sl9qp533y7hx96h9lvplz6pmhd9mzwn9hjqxpqqqqqqz39tt3n

QR-Code

Binary Eye : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsz4n0uxxx3q5m0r42n9key3hchtwyp73hgh8l958rtmae5u2khgpgpvemhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0dec82c330g6x6dm8ddmxzdne0pnhverevdkxxdm6wqc8v735w3snquejvsuk56pcvuurxaesxd68qdtkv3nrx6m6v3ehsctwvym8q0mzwfhkzerrv9ehg0t5wf6k2q3qfw5wsmfdj7ykmjfn0sl9qp533y7hx96h9lvplz6pmhd9mzwn9hjqxpqqqqqqzdmn4wp

Climático

Breezy Weather : https://njump.me/nevent1qqs9hjz5cz0y4am3kj33xn536uq85ydva775eqrml52mtnnpe898rzspzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtczyp9636rd9ktcjmwfxd7ru5qxjxyn6uch2uhas8utg8wa5hvf6vk7gqcyqqqqqqgpd3tu8

ENCRYPTS

Cryptomator : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsvchvnw779m20583llgg5nlu6ph5psewetlczfac5vgw83ydmfndspzpmhxue69uhkumewwd68ytnrwghsygzt4r5x6tvh39kujvmu8egqdyvf84e3w4e0mq0ckswamfwcn5eduspsgqqqqqqsx7ppw9

VeraCrypt : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsf6wzedsnrgq6hjk5c4jj66dxnplqwc4ygr46l8z3gfh38q2fdlwgm65ej3

EXTENSÕES

uBlock Origin : https://njump.me/nevent1qqswaa666lcj2c4nhnea8u4agjtu4l8q89xjln0yrngj7ssh72ntwzql8ssdj

Snowflake : https://njump.me/nevent1qqs0ws74zlt8uced3p2vee9td8x7vln2mkacp8szdufvs2ed94ctnwchce008

CLOUD

Nextcloud : https://njump.me/nevent1qqs2utg5z9htegdtrnllreuhypkk2026x8a0xdsmfczg9wdl8rgrcgg9nhgnm

NOTEPAD

Joplin : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsz2a0laecpelsznser3xd0jfa6ch2vpxtkx6vm6qg24e78xttpk0cpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmp0qgsyh28gd5ke0ztdeyehc0jsq6gcj0tnzatjlkql3dqamkja38fjmeqrqsqqqqqpdu0hft

Standard Notes : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsv3596kz3qung5v23cjc4cpq7rqxg08y36rmzgcrvw5whtme83y3s7tng6r

MÚSICA

RiMusic : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsv3genqav2tfjllp86ust4umxm8tr2wd9kq8x7vrjq6ssp363mn0gpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtczyp9636rd9ktcjmwfxd7ru5qxjxyn6uch2uhas8utg8wa5hvf6vk7gqcyqqqqqqg42353n

ViMusic : https://njump.me/nevent1qqswx78559l4jsxsrygd8kj32sch4qu57stxq0z6twwl450vp39pdqqpvemhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0dec82c330g6x6dm8ddmxzdne0pnhverevdkxxdm6wqc8v735w3snquejvsuk56pcvuurxaesxd68qdtkv3nrx6m6v3ehsctwvym8q0mzwfhkzerrv9ehg0t5wf6k2q3qfw5wsmfdj7ykmjfn0sl9qp533y7hx96h9lvplz6pmhd9mzwn9hjqxpqqqqqqzjg863j

PODCAST

AntennaPod : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsp4nh7k4a6zymfwqqdlxuz8ua6kdhvgeeh3uxf2c9rtp9u3e9ku8qnr8lmy

VISUALIZAR VIDEO

VLC : https://njump.me/nevent1qqs0lz56wtlr2eye4ajs2gzn2r0dscw4y66wezhx0mue6dffth8zugcl9laky

YOUTUBE

NewPipe : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsdg06qpcjdnlvgm4xzqdap0dgjrkjewhmh4j3v4mxdl4rjh8768mgdw9uln

FreeTube : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsz6y6z7ze5gs56s8seaws8v6m6j2zu0pxa955dhq3ythmexak38mcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygzt4r5x6tvh39kujvmu8egqdyvf84e3w4e0mq0ckswamfwcn5eduspsgqqqqqqs5lkjvv

LibreTube : https://snort.social/e/nevent1qqstmd5m6wrdvn4gxf8xyhrwnlyaxmr89c9kjddvnvux6603f84t3fqpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0wd68ytnsw43qygzt4r5x6tvh39kujvmu8egqdyvf84e3w4e0mq0ckswamfwcn5eduspsgqqqqqqsswwznc

COMPARTILHAMENTO DE ARQUIVOS

OnionShare : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsr0a4ml5nu6ud5k9yzyawcd9arznnwkrc27dzzc95q6r50xmdff6qpydmhxue69uhkummnw3ez6an9wf5kv6t9vsh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet59uq3uamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3dv3jhvtnhv4kxcmmjv3jhytnwv46z7qgswaehxw309ahx7tnnw3ezucmj9uq32amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7tcpzamhxue69uhkyarr9e4kcetwv3sh5afwvdhk6tcpzemhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnrdqhxu6twdfsj7qgswaehxw309ahx7um5wghx6mmd9uqjgamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wwfhh2mnywfhkx6mzd96xxmmfdejhyuewvdhk6tcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnwdaehgu3wvfskuep0qyv8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnrw4e8yetwwshxv7tf9ut7qurt

Localsend : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsp8ldjhrxm09cvvcak20hrc0g8qju9f67pw7rxr2y3euyggw9284gpvemhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0dec82c330g6x6dm8ddmxzdne0pnhverevdkxxdm6wqc8v735w3snquejvsuk56pcvuurxaesxd68qdtkv3nrx6m6v3ehsctwvym8q0mzwfhkzerrv9ehg0t5wf6k2q3qfw5wsmfdj7ykmjfn0sl9qp533y7hx96h9lvplz6pmhd9mzwn9hjqxpqqqqqqzuyghqr

Wallet Bitcoin

Ashigaru Wallet : https://njump.me/nevent1qqstx9fz8kf24wgl26un8usxwsqjvuec9f8q392llmga75tw0kfarfcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtczyp9636rd9ktcjmwfxd7ru5qxjxyn6uch2uhas8utg8wa5hvf6vk7gqcyqqqqqqgvfsrqp

Samourai Wallet : https://njump.me/nevent1qqstcvjmz39rmrnrv7t5cl6p3x7pzj6jsspyh4s4vcwd2lugmre04ecpr9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucn0denkymmwvuhxxmmd9upzqjagapkjm9ufdhynxlp72qrfrzfawvt4wt7cr795rhw6tkyaxt0yqvzqqqqqqy3rg4qs

CÂMERA

opencamera : https://njump.me/nevent1qqs25glp6dh0crrjutxrgdjlnx9gtqpjtrkg29hlf7382aeyjd77jlqpzpmhxue69uhkumewwd68ytnrwghsygzt4r5x6tvh39kujvmu8egqdyvf84e3w4e0mq0ckswamfwcn5eduspsgqqqqqqssxcvgc

OFFICE

Collabora Office : https://njump.me/nevent1qqs8yn4ys6adpmeu3edmf580jhc3wluvlf823cc4ft4h0uqmfzdf99qpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygzt4r5x6tvh39kujvmu8egqdyvf84e3w4e0mq0ckswamfwcn5eduspsgqqqqqqsj40uss

TEXTOS

O manifesto de um Cypherpunk : https://njump.me/nevent1qqsd7hdlg6galn5mcuv3pm3ryfjxc4tkyph0cfqqe4du4dr4z8amqyspvemhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0dec82c330g6x6dm8ddmxzdne0pnhverevdkxxdm6wqc8v735w3snquejvsuk56pcvuurxaesxd68qdtkv3nrx6m6v3ehsctwvym8q0mzwfhkzerrv9ehg0t5wf6k2q3qfw5wsmfdj7ykmjfn0sl9qp533y7hx96h9lvplz6pmhd9mzwn9hjqxpqqqqqqzal0efa

Operations security ( OPSEC) : https://snort.social/e/nevent1qqsp323havh3y9nxzd4qmm60hw87tm9gjns0mtzg8y309uf9mv85cqcpvemhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0dec82c330g6x6dm8ddmxzdne0pnhverevdkxxdm6wqc8v735w3snquejvsuk56pcvuurxaesxd68qdtkv3nrx6m6v3ehsctwvym8q0mzwfhkzerrv9ehg0t5wf6k2q3qfw5wsmfdj7ykmjfn0sl9qp533y7hx96h9lvplz6pmhd9mzwn9hjqxpqqqqqqz8ej9l7

O MANIFESTO CRIPTOANARQUISTA Timothy C. May – 1992. : https://njump.me/nevent1qqspp480wtyx2zhtwpu5gptrl8duv9rvq3mug85mp4d54qzywk3zq9gpvemhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0dec82c330g6x6dm8ddmxzdne0pnhverevdkxxdm6wqc8v735w3snquejvsuk56pcvuurxaesxd68qdtkv3nrx6m6v3ehsctwvym8q0mzwfhkzerrv9ehg0t5wf6k2q3qfw5wsmfdj7ykmjfn0sl9qp533y7hx96h9lvplz6pmhd9mzwn9hjqxpqqqqqqz5wq496

Declaração de independência do ciberespaço

• John Perry Barlow - 1996 : https://njump.me/nevent1qqs2njsy44n6p07mhgt2tnragvchasv386nf20ua5wklxqpttf6mzuqpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5hsygzt4r5x6tvh39kujvmu8egqdyvf84e3w4e0mq0ckswamfwcn5eduspsgqqqqqqsukg4hr

The Cyphernomicon: Criptografia, Dinheiro Digital e o Futuro da Privacidade. escrito por Timothy C. May -Publicado em 1994. :

Livro completo em PDF no Github PrivacyOpenSource.

https://github.com/Alexemidio/PrivacyOpenSource/raw/main/Livros/THE%20CYPHERNOMICON%20.pdf Share

@ 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

@ daa41bed:88f54153

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

Let's begin by defining a couple of things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 04ea4f83:210e1713

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Mises, der Geldmaximalist

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

Mises, der Marktmaximalist

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Mises, der toxische Maximalist

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

Der aufgehende Stern von Mises

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

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

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

Fazit

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

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

@ 97c70a44:ad98e322

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

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

Introducing Roz

Roz, a friendly notary for nostr events.

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

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

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

De-NINO-fying roz

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Drivechain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does the above procedure mean?

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

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

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

What? 6 months to get my money back?

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

Why bother with this at all?

Drivechains solve many different problems:

It enables experimentation and new use cases for Bitcoin

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

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

It solves conflicts and infighting

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

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

It solves "scaling"

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

Use your imagination.

It solves the blockchain security budget issue

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

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

It keeps Bitcoin decentralized

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

Can miners steal?

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

Will miners steal?

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

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

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

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

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

What do we do if miners steal?

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

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

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

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

Because it is impossible.

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

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

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

What about the Blockstream sidechains whitepaper?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also

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

@ 3ffac3a6:2d656657

🏅 Como Criar um Badge Épico no Nostr com nak + badges.page

Requisitos:

• Ter o nak instalado (https://github.com/fiatjaf/nak)
• Ter uma chave privada Nostr (nsec...)
• Acesso ao site https://badges.page
• Um relay ativo (ex: wss://relay.primal.net)

---

🔧 Passo 1 — Criar o badge em badges.page

1. Acesse o site https://badges.page

2. Clique em "New Badge" no canto superior direito
   

3. Preencha os campos:

4. Nome (ex: Teste Épico)
5. Descrição

6. Imagem e thumbnail

7. Após criar, você será redirecionado para a página do badge.

---

🔍 Passo 2 — Copiar o naddr do badge

Na barra de endereços, copie o identificador que aparece após /a/ — este é o naddr do seu badge.

Exemplo: nostr:naddr1qq94getnw3jj63tsd93k7q3q8lav8fkgt8424rxamvk8qq4xuy9n8mltjtgztv2w44hc5tt9vetsxpqqqp6njkq3sd0

Copie: naddr1qq94getnw3jj63tsd93k7q3q8lav8fkgt8424rxamvk8qq4xuy9n8mltjtgztv2w44hc5tt9vetsxpqqqp6njkq3sd0

---

🧠 Passo 3 — Decodificar o naddr com nak

Abra seu terminal (ou Cygwin no Windows) e rode:

bash nak decode naddr1qq94getnw3jj63tsd93k7q3q8lav8fkgt8424rxamvk8qq4xuy9n8mltjtgztv2w44hc5tt9vetsxpqqqp6njkq3sd0

Você verá algo assim:

json { "pubkey": "3ffac3a6c859eaaa8cdddb2c7002a6e10b33efeb92d025b14ead6f8a2d656657", "kind": 30009, "identifier": "Teste-Epico" }

Grave o campo "identifier" — nesse caso: Teste-Epico

---

🛰️ Passo 4 — Consultar o evento no relay

Agora vamos pegar o evento do badge no relay:

bash nak req -d "Teste-Epico" wss://relay.primal.net

Você verá o conteúdo completo do evento do badge, algo assim:

json { "kind": 30009, "tags": [["d", "Teste-Epico"], ["name", "Teste Épico"], ...] }

---

💥 Passo 5 — Minerar o evento como "épico" (PoW 31)

Agora vem a mágica: minerar com proof-of-work (PoW 31) para que o badge seja classificado como épico!

bash nak req -d "Teste-Epico" wss://relay.primal.net | nak event --pow 31 --sec nsec1SEU_NSEC_AQUI wss://relay.primal.net wss://nos.lol wss://relay.damus.io

Esse comando: - Resgata o evento original - Gera um novo com PoW de dificuldade 31 - Assina com sua chave privada nsec - E publica nos relays wss://relay.primal.net, wss://nos.lol e wss://relay.damus.io

⚠️ Substitua nsec1SEU_NSEC_AQUI pela sua chave privada Nostr.

---

✅ Resultado

Se tudo der certo, o badge será atualizado com um evento de PoW mais alto e aparecerá como "Epic" no site!

@ 9063ef6b:fd1e9a09

Quantum computing is no longer a futuristic fantasy — it's becoming a present-day reality. Major tech companies are racing to build machines that could revolutionize fields like drug discovery, logistics, and climate modeling. But along with this promise comes a major risk: quantum computers could one day break the cryptographic systems we use to secure everything from emails to bank transactions.

---

🧠 What Is a Quantum Computer?

A quantum computer uses the principles of quantum physics to process information differently than traditional computers. While classical computers use bits (0 or 1), quantum computers use qubits, which can be both 0 and 1 at the same time. This allows them to perform certain calculations exponentially faster.

Who's Building Them?

Several major tech companies are developing quantum computers:

• Microsoft is building Majorana 1, which uses topological qubits designed to be more stable and less prone to errors.
• Amazon introduced Ocelot, a scalable architecture with significantly reduced error correction needs.
• Google's Willow chip has demonstrated faster problem-solving with lower error rates.
• IBM has released Condor, the first quantum chip with over 1,000 qubits.

📅 As of 2025, none of these systems are yet capable of breaking today's encryption — but the rapid pace of development means that could change in 5–10 years.

---

🔐 Understanding Cryptography Today

Cryptography is the backbone of secure digital communication. It ensures that data sent over the internet or stored on devices remains confidential and trustworthy.

There are two main types of cryptography:

1. Symmetric Cryptography

• Uses a single shared key for encryption and decryption.
• Examples: AES-256, ChaCha20
• Quantum status: Generally considered secure against quantum attacks when long key lengths are used.

2. Asymmetric Cryptography (Public-Key)

• Uses a public key to encrypt and a private key to decrypt.
• Examples: RSA, ECC
• Quantum status: Highly vulnerable — quantum algorithms like Shor’s algorithm could break these quickly.

---

⚠️ The Quantum Threat

If a large-scale quantum computer becomes available, it could:

• Break secure websites (TLS/SSL)
• Forge digital signatures
• Decrypt previously recorded encrypted data ("harvest now, decrypt later")

This is why experts and governments are acting now to prepare, even though the technology isn’t fully here yet.

---

🔒 What Is Quantum Cryptography?

Quantum cryptography is a new method of securing communication using the laws of quantum physics. It doesn’t encrypt data directly, but instead focuses on creating a secure key between two people that cannot be intercepted without detection.

Quantum cryptography is promising, but not yet practical.

---

🛡️ What Is Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC)?

Post-Quantum Cryptography is about designing new algorithms that are safe even if quantum computers become powerful. These algorithms can run on existing devices and are being actively standardized.

NIST-Selected Algorithms (2024):

• Kyber — for secure key exchange
• Dilithium — for digital signatures
• FALCON, SPHINCS+ — alternative signature schemes

PQC is already being tested or adopted by:

• Secure messaging apps (e.g. Signal)
• Web browsers and VPNs
• Tech companies like Google, Amazon, Microsoft

PQC is the most realistic and scalable solution to protect today's systems against tomorrow's quantum threats.

---

✅ Summary: What You Should Know

| Topic | Key Points | |--------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Quantum Computers | Use qubits; still in development but progressing fast | | Current Encryption | RSA and ECC will be broken by quantum computers | | Quantum Cryptography | Secure but needs special hardware; not practical at large scale (yet) | | Post-Quantum Crypto | Ready to use today; secure against future quantum threats | | Global Action | Standards, funding, and migration plans already in motion |

The quantum era is coming. The systems we build today must be ready for it tomorrow.

Date: 20.04.2025

@ 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.

@ 0fa80bd3:ea7325de

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is where Nostr comes in.

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

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

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

@ 04ea4f83:210e1713

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

bitcoind decentralization

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

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

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

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

The event has shown that:

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

Solution: bitcoind decentralization

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

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

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

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

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

Run Bitcoin Knots

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

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

---

See also:

• How to attack Bitcoin, Anthony Towns' take

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

@ f9cf4e94:96abc355

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

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

---

Passo 1: Atualizar o Sistema 🖥️

Primeiro, atualize seu sistema e instale o Tor:

bash apt update apt install tor

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

Passo 3: Baixar o Binário do Nostr 🚀

Baixe o binário mais recente do Nostr aqui no GitHub.

---

Passo 4: Criar as Pastas Necessárias 📂

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

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

---

Passo 5: Listar os Dispositivos Conectados 🔌

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

bash lsblk

---

Passo 6: Formatando o Pendrive 💾

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

bash mkfs.vfat /dev/sda

---

Passo 7: Montar o Pendrive 💻

Monte o pendrive na pasta /mnt/edriver:

bash mount /dev/sda /mnt/edriver

---

Passo 8: Verificar UUID dos Dispositivos 📋

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

bash blkid

---

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

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

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

---

Passo 10: Copiar o Binário para a Pasta Correta 📥

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

bash cp nrs-arm64 /opt/nrs

---

Passo 11: Criar o Arquivo de Configuração 🛠️

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

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

---

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

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

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

Recarregue os serviços e inicie o serviço nrs:

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

---

Passo 13: Configurar o Tor 🌐

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

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

---

Passo 14: Habilitar e Iniciar o Tor 🧅

Agora, ative e inicie o serviço Tor:

bash systemctl enable --now tor.service

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

---

Observações ⚠️

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

---

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

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

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

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

TL;DR please educate your children about online safety.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no reset button on the internet, but if I could go back, I’d tell survivor advocates to heed the warnings of the early internet builders and to start education and awareness campaigns designed to prevent as much online child sexual exploitation as possible. The internet and technology moved quickly, and I don’t believe that society ever really caught up. We live in a world where a child can be groomed by a predator in their own home while sitting on a couch next to their parents watching TV. We weren’t ready as a species to tackle the fast-paced algorithms and dangers online. It happened too quickly for parents to catch up. How can you parent for the ever-changing digital world unless you are constantly aware of the dangers?

I don’t think that the internet is inherently bad. I believe that it can be a powerful tool for freedom and resistance. I’ve spoken a lot about the bad online, but there is beauty as well. We often discuss how victims and survivors are abused online; we rarely discuss the fact that countless survivors around the globe have been able to share their experiences, strength, hope, as well as provide resources to the vulnerable. I do question if giving any government or tech company access to censorship, surveillance, etc., online in the name of serving survivors might not actually impact a portion of survivors negatively. There are a fair amount of survivors with powerful abusers protected by governments and the corporate press. If a survivor cannot speak to the press about their abuse, the only place they can go is online, directly or indirectly through an independent journalist who also risks being censored. This scenario isn’t hard to imagine—it already happened in China. During #MeToo, a survivor in China wanted to post their story. The government censored the post, so the survivor put their story on the blockchain. I’m excited that the survivor was creative and brave, but it’s terrifying to think that we live in a world where that situation is a necessity.

I believe that the future for many survivors sharing their stories globally will be on completely censorship-resistant and decentralized protocols. This thought in particular gives me hope. When we listen to the experiences of a diverse group of survivors, we can start to understand potential solutions to preventing the crimes from happening in the first place.

My heart is broken over the gut-wrenching stories of survivors sexually exploited online. Every time I hear the story of a survivor, I do think to myself quietly, “What could have prevented this from happening in the first place?” My heart is with survivors.

My head, on the other hand, is full of the understanding that the internet should remain free. The free flow of information should not be stopped. My mind is with the innocent citizens around the globe that deserve freedom both online and offline.

The problem is that governments don’t only want to censor illegal content that violates human rights—they create legislation that is so broad that it can impact speech and privacy of all. “Don’t you care about the kids?” Yes, I do. I do so much that I’m invested in finding solutions. I also care about all citizens around the globe that deserve an opportunity to live free from a mass surveillance society. If terrorism happens online, I should not be punished by losing my freedom. If drugs are sold online, I should not be punished. I’m not an abuser, I’m not a terrorist, and I don’t engage in illegal behaviors. I refuse to lose freedom because of others’ bad behaviors online.

I want to be clear that on a long enough timeline, the governments will decide that they can be better parents/caregivers than you can if something isn’t done to stop minors from being sexually exploited online. The price will be a complete loss of anonymity, privacy, free speech, and freedom of religion online. I find it rather insulting that governments think they’re better equipped to raise children than parents and caretakers.

So we can’t go backwards—all that we can do is go forward. Those who want to have freedom will find technology to facilitate their liberation. This will lead many over time to decentralized and open protocols. So as far as I’m concerned, this does solve a few of my worries—those who need, want, and deserve to speak freely online will have the opportunity in most countries—but what about online child sexual exploitation?

When I popped up around the decentralized space, I was met with the fear of censorship. I’m not here to censor you. I don’t write code. I couldn’t censor anyone or any piece of content even if I wanted to across the internet, no matter how depraved. I don’t have the skills to do that.

I’m here to start a conversation. Freedom comes at a cost. You must always fight for and protect your freedom. I can’t speak about protecting yourself from all of the Four Horsemen because I simply don’t know the topics well enough, but I can speak about this one topic.

If there was a shortcut to ending online child sexual exploitation, I would have found it by now. There isn’t one right now. I believe that education is the only pathway forward to preventing the crime of online child sexual exploitation for future generations.

I propose a yearly education course for every child of all school ages, taught as a standard part of the curriculum. Ideally, parents/caregivers would be involved in the education/learning process.

Course: - The creation of the internet and computers - The fight for cryptography - The tech supply chain from the ground up (example: human rights violations in the supply chain) - Corporate tech - Freedom tech - Data privacy - Digital privacy rights - AI (history-current) - Online safety (predators, scams, catfishing, extortion) - Bitcoin - Laws - How to deal with online hate and harassment - Information on who to contact if you are being abused online or offline - Algorithms - How to seek out the truth about news, etc., online

The parents/caregivers, homeschoolers, unschoolers, and those working to create decentralized parallel societies have been an inspiration while writing this, but my hope is that all children would learn this course, even in government ran schools. Ideally, parents would teach this to their own children.

The decentralized space doesn’t want child sexual exploitation to thrive. Here’s the deal: there has to be a strong prevention effort in order to protect the next generation. The internet isn’t going anywhere, predators aren’t going anywhere, and I’m not down to let anyone have the opportunity to prove that there is a need for more government. I don’t believe that the government should act as parents. The governments have had a chance to attempt to stop online child sexual exploitation, and they didn’t do it. Can we try a different pathway forward?

I’d like to put myself out of a job. I don’t want to ever hear another story like John Doe #1 ever again. This will require work. I’ve often called online child sexual exploitation the lynchpin for the internet. It’s time to arm generations of children with knowledge and tools. I can’t do this alone.

Individuals have fought so that I could have freedom online. I want to fight to protect it. I don’t want child predators to give the government any opportunity to take away freedom. Decentralized spaces are as close to a reset as we’ll get with the opportunity to do it right from the start. Start the youth off correctly by preventing potential hazards to the best of your ability.

The good news is anyone can work on this! I’d encourage you to take it and run with it. I added the additional education about the history of the internet to make the course more educational and fun. Instead of cleaning up generations of destroyed lives due to online sexual exploitation, perhaps this could inspire generations of those who will build our futures. Perhaps if the youth is armed with knowledge, they can create more tools to prevent the crime.

This one solution that I’m suggesting can be done on an individual level or on a larger scale. It should be adjusted depending on age, learning style, etc. It should be fun and playful.

This solution does not address abuse in the home or some of the root causes of offline child sexual exploitation. My hope is that it could lead to some survivors experiencing abuse in the home an opportunity to disclose with a trusted adult. The purpose for this solution is to prevent the crime of online child sexual exploitation before it occurs and to arm the youth with the tools to contact safe adults if and when it happens.

In closing, I went to hell a few times so that you didn’t have to. I spoke to the mothers of survivors of minors sexually exploited online—their tears could fill rivers. I’ve spoken with political dissidents who yearned to be free from authoritarian surveillance states. The only balance that I’ve found is freedom online for citizens around the globe and prevention from the dangers of that for the youth. Don’t slow down innovation and freedom. Educate, prepare, adapt, and look for solutions.

I’m not perfect and I’m sure that there are errors in this piece. I hope that you find them and it starts a conversation.

@ 4925ea33:025410d8

1. O que é um Aromaterapeuta?

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

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

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

---

2. Como um Aromaterapeuta Pode Ajudar?

Você pode procurar um aromaterapeuta para diferentes necessidades, como:

✔ Questões Emocionais e Psicológicas

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

Apoio na redução do estresse, ansiedade e insônia.

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

✔ Questões Físicas

Dores musculares e articulares.

Problemas respiratórios como rinite, sinusite e tosse.

Distúrbios digestivos leves.

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

✔ Saúde da Pele e Cabelos

Tratamento para acne, dermatites e psoríase.

Cuidados com o envelhecimento precoce da pele.

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

✔ Bem-estar e Qualidade de Vida

Melhora da concentração e foco, aumentando a produtividade.

Estímulo da disposição e energia.

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

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

---

3. Como Funciona uma Consulta com um Aromaterapeuta?

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

✔ Anamnese (Entrevista Inicial)

Perguntas sobre saúde física, emocional e estilo de vida.

Levantamento de sintomas, histórico médico e possíveis alergias.

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

✔ Escolha dos Óleos Essenciais

Seleção dos óleos mais indicados para o caso.

Consideração das propriedades terapêuticas, contraindicações e combinações seguras.

✔ Definição do Método de Uso

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

Inalação: difusores, colares aromáticos, vaporização.

Uso tópico: massagens, óleos corporais, compressas.

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

✔ Plano de Acompanhamento

Instruções detalhadas sobre o uso correto dos óleos essenciais.

Orientação sobre frequência e duração do tratamento.

Possibilidade de retorno para ajustes no protocolo.

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

---

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Token-Curated Registries

So you want to build a TCR?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What TCR enthusiasts get wrong?

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

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

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

We don't need lists

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

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

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

@ c4b5369a:b812dbd6

Offline transactions with Cashu

Over the past few weeks, I've been busy implementing offline capabilities into nutstash. I think this is one of the key value propositions of ecash, beinga a bearer instrument that can be used without internet access. It does however come with limitations, which can lead to a bit of confusion. I hope this article will clear some of these questions up for you!

What is ecash/Cashu?

Ecash is the first cryptocurrency ever invented. It was created by David Chaum in 1983. It uses a blind signature scheme, which allows users to prove ownership of a token without revealing a link to its origin. These tokens are what we call ecash. They are bearer instruments, meaning that anyone who possesses a copy of them, is considered the owner.

Cashu is an implementation of ecash, built to tightly interact with Bitcoin, more specifically the Bitcoin lightning network. In the Cashu ecosystem, Mints are the gateway to the lightning network. They provide the infrastructure to access the lightning network, pay invoices and receive payments. Instead of relying on a traditional ledger scheme like other custodians do, the mint issues ecash tokens, to represent the value held by the users.

How do normal Cashu transactions work?

A Cashu transaction happens when the sender gives a copy of his ecash token to the receiver. This can happen by any means imaginable. You could send the token through email, messenger, or even by pidgeon. One of the common ways to transfer ecash is via QR code.

The transaction is however not finalized just yet! In order to make sure the sender cannot double-spend their copy of the token, the receiver must do what we call a swap. A swap is essentially exchanging an ecash token for a new one at the mint, invalidating the old token in the process. This ensures that the sender can no longer use the same token to spend elsewhere, and the value has been transferred to the receiver.

What about offline transactions?

Sending offline

Sending offline is very simple. The ecash tokens are stored on your device. Thus, no internet connection is required to access them. You can litteraly just take them, and give them to someone. The most convenient way is usually through a local transmission protocol, like NFC, QR code, Bluetooth, etc.

The one thing to consider when sending offline is that ecash tokens come in form of "coins" or "notes". The technical term we use in Cashu is Proof. It "proofs" to the mint that you own a certain amount of value. Since these proofs have a fixed value attached to them, much like UTXOs in Bitcoin do, you would need proofs with a value that matches what you want to send. You can mix and match multiple proofs together to create a token that matches the amount you want to send. But, if you don't have proofs that match the amount, you would need to go online and swap for the needed proofs at the mint.

Another limitation is, that you cannot create custom proofs offline. For example, if you would want to lock the ecash to a certain pubkey, or add a timelock to the proof, you would need to go online and create a new custom proof at the mint.

Receiving offline

You might think: well, if I trust the sender, I don't need to be swapping the token right away!

You're absolutely correct. If you trust the sender, you can simply accept their ecash token without needing to swap it immediately.

This is already really useful, since it gives you a way to receive a payment from a friend or close aquaintance without having to worry about connectivity. It's almost just like physical cash!

It does however not work if the sender is untrusted. We have to use a different scheme to be able to receive payments from someone we don't trust.

Receiving offline from an untrusted sender

To be able to receive payments from an untrusted sender, we need the sender to create a custom proof for us. As we've seen before, this requires the sender to go online.

The sender needs to create a token that has the following properties, so that the receciver can verify it offline:

• It must be locked to ONLY the receiver's public key
• It must include an offline signature proof (DLEQ proof)
• If it contains a timelock & refund clause, it must be set to a time in the future that is acceptable for the receiver
• It cannot contain duplicate proofs (double-spend)
• It cannot contain proofs that the receiver has already received before (double-spend)

If all of these conditions are met, then the receiver can verify the proof offline and accept the payment. This allows us to receive payments from anyone, even if we don't trust them.

At first glance, this scheme seems kinda useless. It requires the sender to go online, which defeats the purpose of having an offline payment system.

I beleive there are a couple of ways this scheme might be useful nonetheless:

1. Offline vending machines: Imagine you have an offline vending machine that accepts payments from anyone. The vending machine could use this scheme to verify payments without needing to go online itself. We can assume that the sender is able to go online and create a valid token, but the receiver doesn't need to be online to verify it.

2. Offline marketplaces: Imagine you have an offline marketplace where buyers and sellers can trade goods and services. Before going to the marketplace the sender already knows where he will be spending the money. The sender could create a valid token before going to the marketplace, using the merchants public key as a lock, and adding a refund clause to redeem any unspent ecash after it expires. In this case, neither the sender nor the receiver needs to go online to complete the transaction.

How to use this

Pretty much all cashu wallets allow you to send tokens offline. This is because all that the wallet needs to do is to look if it can create the desired amount from the proofs stored locally. If yes, it will automatically create the token offline.

Receiving offline tokens is currently only supported by nutstash (experimental).

To create an offline receivable token, the sender needs to lock it to the receiver's public key. Currently there is no refund clause! So be careful that you don't get accidentally locked out of your funds!

The receiver can then inspect the token and decide if it is safe to accept without a swap. If all checks are green, they can accept the token offline without trusting the sender.

The receiver will see the unswapped tokens on the wallet homescreen. They will need to manually swap them later when they are online again.

Later when the receiver is online again, they can swap the token for a fresh one.

Summary

We learned that offline transactions are possible with ecash, but there are some limitations. It either requires trusting the sender, or relying on either the sender or receiver to be online to verify the tokens, or create tokens that can be verified offline by the receiver.

I hope this short article was helpful in understanding how ecash works and its potential for offline transactions.

Cheers,

Gandlaf

@ 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.

@ 04ea4f83:210e1713

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 266815e0:6cd408a5

Its been a little over a year since NIP-90 was written and merged into the nips repo and its been a communication mess.

Every DVM implementation expects the inputs in slightly different formats, returns the results in mostly the same format and there are very few DVM actually running.

NIP-90 is overloaded

Why does a request for text translation and creating bitcoin OP_RETURNs share the same input i tag? and why is there an output tag on requests when only one of them will return an output?

Each DVM request kind is for requesting completely different types of compute with diffrent input and output requirements, but they are all using the same spec that has 4 different types of inputs (text, url, event, job) and an undefined number of output types.

Let me show a few random DVM requests and responses I found on wss://relay.damus.io to demonstrate what I mean:

This is a request to translate an event to English json { "kind": 5002, "content": "", "tags": [ // NIP-90 says there can be multiple inputs, so how would a DVM handle translatting multiple events at once? [ "i", "<event-id>", "event" ], [ "param", "language", "en" ], // What other type of output would text translations be? image/jpeg? [ "output", "text/plain" ], // Do we really need to define relays? cant the DVM respond on the relays it saw the request on? [ "relays", "wss://relay.unknown.cloud/", "wss://nos.lol/" ] ] }

This is a request to generate text using an LLM model json { "kind": 5050, // Why is the content empty? wouldn't it be better to have the prompt in the content? "content": "", "tags": [ // Why use an indexable tag? are we ever going to lookup prompts? // Also the type "prompt" isn't in NIP-90, this should probably be "text" [ "i", "What is the capital of France?", "prompt" ], [ "p", "c4878054cff877f694f5abecf18c7450f4b6fdf59e3e9cb3e6505a93c4577db2" ], [ "relays", "wss://relay.primal.net" ] ] }

This is a request for content recommendation json { "kind": 5300, "content": "", "tags": [ // Its fine ignoring this param, but what if the client actually needs exactly 200 "results" [ "param", "max_results", "200" ], // The spec never mentions requesting content for other users. // If a DVM didn't understand this and responded to this request it would provide bad data [ "param", "user", "b22b06b051fd5232966a9344a634d956c3dc33a7f5ecdcad9ed11ddc4120a7f2" ], [ "relays", "wss://relay.primal.net", ], [ "p", "ceb7e7d688e8a704794d5662acb6f18c2455df7481833dd6c384b65252455a95" ] ] }

This is a request to create a OP_RETURN message on bitcoin json { "kind": 5901, // Again why is the content empty when we are sending human readable text? "content": "", "tags": [ // and again, using an indexable tag on an input that will never need to be looked up ["i", "09/01/24 SEC Chairman on the brink of second ETF approval", "text"] ] }

My point isn't that these event schema's aren't understandable but why are they using the same schema? each use-case is different but are they all required to use the same i tag format as input and could support all 4 types of inputs.

Lack of libraries

With all these different types of inputs, params, and outputs its verify difficult if not impossible to build libraries for DVMs

If a simple text translation request can have an event or text as inputs, a payment-required status at any point in the flow, partial results, or responses from 10+ DVMs whats the best way to build a translation library for other nostr clients to use?

And how do I build a DVM framework for the server side that can handle multiple inputs of all four types (url, text, event, job) and clients are sending all the requests in slightly differently.

Supporting payments is impossible

The way NIP-90 is written there isn't much details about payments. only a payment-required status and a generic amount tag

But the way things are now every DVM is implementing payments differently. some send a bolt11 invoice, some expect the client to NIP-57 zap the request event (or maybe the status event), and some even ask for a subscription. and we haven't even started implementing NIP-61 nut zaps or cashu A few are even formatting the amount number wrong or denominating it in sats and not mili-sats

Building a client or a library that can understand and handle all of these payment methods is very difficult. for the DVM server side its worse. A DVM server presumably needs to support all 4+ types of payments if they want to get the most sats for their services and support the most clients.

All of this is made even more complicated by the fact that a DVM can ask for payment at any point during the job process. this makes sense for some types of compute, but for others like translations or user recommendation / search it just makes things even more complicated.

For example, If a client wanted to implement a timeline page that showed the notes of all the pubkeys on a recommended list. what would they do when the selected DVM asks for payment at the start of the job? or at the end? or worse, only provides half the pubkeys and asks for payment for the other half. building a UI that could handle even just two of these possibilities is complicated.

NIP-89 is being abused

NIP-89 is "Recommended Application Handlers" and the way its describe in the nips repo is

a way to discover applications that can handle unknown event-kinds

Not "a way to discover everything"

If I wanted to build an application discovery app to show all the apps that your contacts use and let you discover new apps then it would have to filter out ALL the DVM advertisement events. and that's not just for making requests from relays

If the app shows the user their list of "recommended applications" then it either has to understand that everything in the 5xxx kind range is a DVM and to show that is its own category or show a bunch of unknown "favorites" in the list which might be confusing for the user.

In conclusion

My point in writing this article isn't that the DVMs implementations so far don't work, but that they will never work well because the spec is too broad. even with only a few DVMs running we have already lost interoperability.

I don't want to be completely negative though because some things have worked. the "DVM feeds" work, although they are limited to a single page of results. text / event translations also work well and kind 5970 Event PoW delegation could be cool. but if we want interoperability, we are going to need to change a few things with NIP-90

I don't think we can (or should) abandon NIP-90 entirely but it would be good to break it up into small NIPs or specs. break each "kind" of DVM request out into its own spec with its own definitions for expected inputs, outputs and flow.

Then if we have simple, clean definitions for each kind of compute we want to distribute. we might actually see markets and services being built and used.

@ 42342239:1d80db24

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

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

The Missing Half of Europe's Brain

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

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

Lessons from the Cat Theory

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

What was done in China?

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

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

EU's Compliance Obsession vs Chinese Pragmatism

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

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

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

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

Mao's ghost trives on the ontological mistake

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

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

A better path forward

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

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

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

@ 6e0ea5d6:0327f353

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The husband agreed.

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

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

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

A toast to our family!

@ 4857600b:30b502f4

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

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

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

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

There is something quietly rebellious about stacking sats. In a world obsessed with instant gratification, choosing to patiently accumulate Bitcoin, one sat at a time, feels like a middle finger to the hype machine. But to do it right, you have got to stay humble. Stack too hard with your head in the clouds, and you will trip over your own ego before the next halving even hits.

Small Wins

Stacking sats is not glamorous. Discipline. Stacking every day, week, or month, no matter the price, and letting time do the heavy lifting. Humility lives in that consistency. You are not trying to outsmart the market or prove you are the next "crypto" prophet. Just a regular person, betting on a system you believe in, one humble stack at a time. Folks get rekt chasing the highs. They ape into some shitcoin pump, shout about it online, then go silent when they inevitably get rekt. The ones who last? They stack. Just keep showing up. Consistency. Humility in action. Know the game is long, and you are not bigger than it.

Ego is Volatile

Bitcoin’s swings can mess with your head. One day you are up 20%, feeling like a genius and the next down 30%, questioning everything. Ego will have you panic selling at the bottom or over leveraging the top. Staying humble means patience, a true bitcoin zen. Do not try to "beat” Bitcoin. Ride it. Stack what you can afford, live your life, and let compounding work its magic.

Simplicity

There is a beauty in how stacking sats forces you to rethink value. A sat is worth less than a penny today, but every time you grab a few thousand, you plant a seed. It is not about flaunting wealth but rather building it, quietly, without fanfare. That mindset spills over. Cut out the noise: the overpriced coffee, fancy watches, the status games that drain your wallet. Humility is good for your soul and your stack. I have a buddy who has been stacking since 2015. Never talks about it unless you ask. Lives in a decent place, drives an old truck, and just keeps stacking. He is not chasing clout, he is chasing freedom. That is the vibe: less ego, more sats, all grounded in life.

The Big Picture

Stack those sats. Do it quietly, do it consistently, and do not let the green days puff you up or the red days break you down. Humility is the secret sauce, it keeps you grounded while the world spins wild. In a decade, when you look back and smile, it will not be because you shouted the loudest. It will be because you stayed the course, one sat at a time. \ \ Stay Humble and Stack Sats. 🫡

@ 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. 🚀

@ 1bda7e1f:bb97c4d9

Tldr

• Nostr is an open and interoperable protocol
• You can integrate it with workflow automation tools to augment your experience
• n8n is a great low/no-code workflow automation tool which you can host yourself
• Nostrobots allows you to integrate Nostr into n8n
• In this blog I create some workflow automations for Nostr
• A simple form to delegate posting notes
• Push notifications for mentions on multiple accounts
• Push notifications for your favourite accounts when they post a note
• All workflows are provided as open source with MIT license for you to use

Inter-op All The Things

Nostr is a new open social protocol for the internet. This open nature exciting because of the opportunities for interoperability with other technologies. In Using NFC Cards with Nostr I explored the nostr: URI to launch Nostr clients from a card tap.

The interoperability of Nostr doesn't stop there. The internet has many super-powers, and Nostr is open to all of them. Simply, there's no one to stop it. There is no one in charge, there are no permissioned APIs, and there are no risks of being de-platformed. If you can imagine technologies that would work well with Nostr, then any and all of them can ride on or alongside Nostr rails.

My mental model for why this is special is Google Wave ~2010. Google Wave was to be the next big platform. Lars was running it and had a big track record from Maps. I was excited for it. Then, Google pulled the plug. And, immediately all the time and capital invested in understanding and building on the platform was wasted.

This cannot happen to Nostr, as there is no one to pull the plug, and maybe even no plug to pull.

So long as users demand Nostr, Nostr will exist, and that is a pretty strong guarantee. It makes it worthwhile to invest in bringing Nostr into our other applications.

All we need are simple ways to plug things together.

Nostr and Workflow Automation

Workflow automation is about helping people to streamline their work. As a user, the most common way I achieve this is by connecting disparate systems together. By setting up one system to trigger another or to move data between systems, I can solve for many different problems and become way more effective.

n8n for workflow automation

Many workflow automation tools exist. My favourite is n8n. n8n is a low/no-code workflow automation platform which allows you to build all kinds of workflows. You can use it for free, you can self-host it, it has a user-friendly UI and useful API. Vs Zapier it can be far more elaborate. Vs Make.com I find it to be more intuitive in how it abstracts away the right parts of the code, but still allows you to code when you need to.

Most importantly you can plug anything into n8n: You have built-in nodes for specific applications. HTTP nodes for any other API-based service. And community nodes built by individual community members for any other purpose you can imagine.

Eating my own dogfood

It's very clear to me that there is a big design space here just demanding to be explored. If you could integrate Nostr with anything, what would you do?

In my view the best way for anyone to start anything is by solving their own problem first (aka "scratching your own itch" and "eating your own dogfood"). As I get deeper into Nostr I find myself controlling multiple Npubs – to date I have a personal Npub, a brand Npub for a community I am helping, an AI assistant Npub, and various testing Npubs. I need ways to delegate access to those Npubs without handing over the keys, ways to know if they're mentioned, and ways to know if they're posting.

I can build workflows with n8n to solve these issues for myself to start with, and keep expanding from there as new needs come up.

Running n8n with Nostrobots

I am mostly non-technical with a very helpful AI. To set up n8n to work with Nostr and operate these workflows should be possible for anyone with basic technology skills.

• I have a cheap VPS which currently runs my HAVEN Nostr Relay and Albyhub Lightning Node in Docker containers,
• My objective was to set up n8n to run alongside these in a separate Docker container on the same server, install the required nodes, and then build and host my workflows.

Installing n8n

Self-hosting n8n could not be easier. I followed n8n's Docker-Compose installation docs–

• Install Docker and Docker-Compose if you haven't already,
• Create your docker-compose.yml and .env files from the docs,
• Create your data folder sudo docker volume create n8n_data,
• Start your container with sudo docker compose up -d,
• Your n8n instance should be online at port 5678.

n8n is free to self-host but does require a license. Enter your credentials into n8n to get your free license key. You should now have access to the Workflow dashboard and can create and host any kind of workflows from there.

Installing Nostrobots

To integrate n8n nicely with Nostr, I used the Nostrobots community node by Ocknamo.

In n8n parlance a "node" enables certain functionality as a step in a workflow e.g. a "set" node sets a variable, a "send email" node sends an email. n8n comes with all kinds of "official" nodes installed by default, and Nostr is not amongst them. However, n8n also comes with a framework for community members to create their own "community" nodes, which is where Nostrobots comes in.

You can only use a community node in a self-hosted n8n instance (which is what you have if you are running in Docker on your own server, but this limitation does prevent you from using n8n's own hosted alternative).

To install a community node, see n8n community node docs. From your workflow dashboard–

• Click the "..." in the bottom left corner beside your username, and click "settings",
• Cilck "community nodes" left sidebar,
• Click "Install",
• Enter the "npm Package Name" which is n8n-nodes-nostrobots,
• Accept the risks and click "Install",
• Nostrobots is now added to your n8n instance.

Using Nostrobots

Nostrobots gives you nodes to help you build Nostr-integrated workflows–

• Nostr Write – for posting Notes to the Nostr network,
• Nostr Read – for reading Notes from the Nostr network, and
• Nostr Utils – for performing certain conversions you may need (e.g. from bech32 to hex).

Nostrobots has good documentation on each node which focuses on simple use cases.

Each node has a "convenience mode" by default. For example, the "Read" Node by default will fetch Kind 1 notes by a simple filter, in Nostrobots parlance a "Strategy". For example, with Strategy set to "Mention" the node will accept a pubkey and fetch all Kind 1 notes that Mention the pubkey within a time period. This is very good for quick use.

What wasn't clear to me initially (until Ocknamo helped me out) is that advanced use cases are also possible.

Each node also has an advanced mode. For example, the "Read" Node can have "Strategy" set to "RawFilter(advanced)". Now the node will accept json (anything you like that complies with NIP-01). You can use this to query Notes (Kind 1) as above, and also Profiles (Kind 0), Follow Lists (Kind 3), Reactions (Kind 7), Zaps (Kind 9734/9735), and anything else you can think of.

Creating and adding workflows

With n8n and Nostrobots installed, you can now create or add any kind of Nostr Workflow Automation.

• Click "Add workflow" to go to the workflow builder screen,
• If you would like to build your own workflow, you can start with adding any node. Click "+" and see what is available. Type "Nostr" to explore the Nostrobots nodes you have added,
• If you would like to add workflows that someone else has built, click "..." in the top right. Then click "import from URL" and paste in the URL of any workflow you would like to use (including the ones I share later in this article).

Nostr Workflow Automations

It's time to build some things!

A simple form to post a note to Nostr

I started very simply. I needed to delegate the ability to post to Npubs that I own in order that a (future) team can test things for me. I don't want to worry about managing or training those people on how to use keys, and I want to revoke access easily.

I needed a basic form with credentials that posted a Note.

For this I can use a very simple workflow–

• A n8n Form node – Creates a form for users to enter the note they wish to post. Allows for the form to be protected by a username and password. This node is the workflow "trigger" so that the workflow runs each time the form is submitted.
• A Set node – Allows me to set some variables, in this case I set the relays that I intend to use. I typically add a Set node immediately following the trigger node, and put all the variables I need in this. It helps to make the workflows easier to update and maintain.
• A Nostr Write node (from Nostrobots) – Writes a Kind-1 note to the Nostr network. It accepts Nostr credentials, the output of the Form node, and the relays from the Set node, and posts the Note to those relays.

Once the workflow is built, you can test it with the testing form URL, and set it to "Active" to use the production form URL. That's it. You can now give posting access to anyone for any Npub. To revoke access, simply change the credentials or set to workflow to "Inactive".

It may also be the world's simplest Nostr client.

You can find the Nostr Form to Post a Note workflow here.

Push notifications on mentions and new notes

One of the things Nostr is not very good at is push notifications. Furthermore I have some unique itches to scratch. I want–

• To make sure I never miss a note addressed to any of my Npubs – For this I want a push notification any time any Nostr user mentions any of my Npubs,
• To make sure I always see all notes from key accounts – For this I need a push notification any time any of my Npubs post any Notes to the network,
• To get these notifications on all of my devices – Not just my phone where my Nostr regular client lives, but also on each of my laptops to suit wherever I am working that day.

I needed to build a Nostr push notifications solution.

To build this workflow I had to string a few ideas together–

• Triggering the node on a schedule – Nostrobots does not include a trigger node. As every workflow starts with a trigger we needed a different method. I elected to run the workflow on a schedule of every 10-minutes. Frequent enough to see Notes while they are hot, but infrequent enough to not burden public relays or get rate-limited,
• Storing a list of Npubs in a Nostr list – I needed a way to store the list of Npubs that trigger my notifications. I initially used an array defined in the workflow, this worked fine. Then I decided to try Nostr lists (NIP-51, kind 30000). By defining my list of Npubs as a list published to Nostr I can control my list from within a Nostr client (e.g. Listr.lol or Nostrudel.ninja). Not only does this "just work", but because it's based on Nostr lists automagically Amethyst client allows me to browse that list as a Feed, and everyone I add gets notified in their Mentions,
• Using specific relays – I needed to query the right relays, including my own HAVEN relay inbox for notes addressed to me, and wss://purplepag.es for Nostr profile metadata,
• Querying Nostr events (with Nostrobots) – I needed to make use of many different Nostr queries and use quite a wide range of what Nostrobots can do–
  • I read the EventID of my Kind 30000 list, to return the desired pubkeys,
  • For notifications on mentions, I read all Kind 1 notes that mention that pubkey,
  • For notifications on new notes, I read all Kind 1 notes published by that pubkey,
  • Where there are notes, I read the Kind 0 profile metadata event of that pubkey to get the displayName of the relevant Npub,
  • I transform the EventID into a Nevent to help clients find it.
• Using the Nostr URI – As I did with my NFC card article, I created a link with the nostr: URI prefix so that my phone's native client opens the link by default,
• Push notifications solution – I needed a push notifications solution. I found many with n8n integrations and chose to go with Pushover which supports all my devices, has a free trial, and is unfairly cheap with a $5-per-device perpetual license.

Once the workflow was built, lists published, and Pushover installed on my phone, I was fully set up with push notifications on Nostr. I have used these workflows for several weeks now and made various tweaks as I went. They are feeling robust and I'd welcome you to give them a go.

You can find the Nostr Push Notification If Mentioned here and If Posts a Note here.

In speaking with other Nostr users while I was building this, there are all kind of other needs for push notifications too – like on replies to a certain bookmarked note, or when a followed Npub starts streaming on zap.stream. These are all possible.

Use my workflows

I have open sourced all my workflows at my Github with MIT license and tried to write complete docs, so that you can import them into your n8n and configure them for your own use.

To import any of my workflows–

• Click on the workflow of your choice, e.g. "Nostr_Push_Notify_If_Mentioned.json",
• Click on the "raw" button to view the raw JSON, ex any Github page layout,
• Copy that URL,
• Enter that URL in the "import from URL" dialog mentioned above.

To configure them–

• Prerequisites, credentials, and variables are all stated,
• In general any variables required are entered into a Set Node that follows the trigger node,
• Pushover has some extra setup but is very straightforward and documented in the workflow.

What next?

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

Then in my latest two blogs I explored different types of interoperability with NFC cards and now n8n Workflow Automation.

Thinking ahead n8n can power any kind of interoperability between Nostr and any other legacy technology solution. On my mind as I write this:

• Further enhancements to posting and delegating solutions and forms (enhanced UI or different note kinds),
• Automated or scheduled posting (such as auto-liking everything Lyn Alden posts),
• Further enhancements to push notifications, on new and different types of events (such as notifying me when I get a new follower, on replies to certain posts, or when a user starts streaming),
• All kinds of bridges, such as bridging notes to and from Telegram, Slack, or Campfire. Or bridging RSS or other event feeds to Nostr,
• All kinds of other automation (such as BlackCoffee controlling a coffee machine),
• All kinds of AI Assistants and Agents,

In fact I have already released an open source workflow for an AI Assistant, and will share more about that in my next blog.

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

GM Nostr.

@ 9223d2fa:b57e3de7

12,600 steps

@ 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.

@ dab6c606:51f507b6

Core idea: Use geotagged anonymized Nostr events with Cashu-based points to snitch on cop locations for a more relaxed driving and walking

We all know navigation apps. There's one of them that allows you to report on locations of cops. It's Waze and it's owned by Google. There are perfectly fine navigation apps like Organic Maps, that unfortunately lack the cop-snitching features. In some countries, it is illegal to report cop locations, so it would probably not be a good idea to use your npub to report them. But getting a points Cashu token as a reward and exchanging them from time to time would solve this. You can of course report construction, traffic jams, ...

Proposed solution: Add Nostr client (Copstr) to Organic Maps. Have a button in bottom right allowing you to report traffic situations. Geotagged events are published on Nostr relays, users sending cashu tokens as thank you if the report is valid. Notes have smart expiration times.

Phase 2: Automation: Integration with dashcams and comma.ai allow for automated AI recognition of traffic events such as traffic jams and cops, with automatic touchless reporting.

Result: Drive with most essential information and with full privacy. Collect points to be cool and stay cool.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

idea: "numbeo" with satoshis

This site has a crowdsourced database of cost-of-living in many countries and cities: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/ and it sells the data people write there freely. It's wrong!

Could be an fruitful idea to pay satoshis for people to provide data.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

This piece is the first in a series that will focus on things I think are a priority if your focus is similar to mine: building a strong family and safeguarding their future.

---

Choosing the ideal place to raise a family is one of the most significant decisions you will ever make. For simplicity sake I will break down my thought process into key factors: strong property rights, the ability to grow your own food, access to fresh water, the freedom to own and train with guns, and a dependable community.

A Jurisdiction with Strong Property Rights

Strong property rights are essential and allow you to build on a solid foundation that is less likely to break underneath you. Regions with a history of limited government and clear legal protections for landowners are ideal. Personally I think the US is the single best option globally, but within the US there is a wide difference between which state you choose. Choose carefully and thoughtfully, think long term. Obviously if you are not American this is not a realistic option for you, there are other solid options available especially if your family has mobility. I understand many do not have this capability to easily move, consider that your first priority, making movement and jurisdiction choice possible in the first place.

Abundant Access to Fresh Water

Water is life. I cannot overstate the importance of living somewhere with reliable, clean, and abundant freshwater. Some regions face water scarcity or heavy regulations on usage, so prioritizing a place where water is plentiful and your rights to it are protected is critical. Ideally you should have well access so you are not tied to municipal water supplies. In times of crisis or chaos well water cannot be easily shutoff or disrupted. If you live in an area that is drought prone, you are one drought away from societal chaos. Not enough people appreciate this simple fact.

Grow Your Own Food

A location with fertile soil, a favorable climate, and enough space for a small homestead or at the very least a garden is key. In stable times, a small homestead provides good food and important education for your family. In times of chaos your family being able to grow and raise healthy food provides a level of self sufficiency that many others will lack. Look for areas with minimal restrictions, good weather, and a culture that supports local farming.

Guns

The ability to defend your family is fundamental. A location where you can legally and easily own guns is a must. Look for places with a strong gun culture and a political history of protecting those rights. Owning one or two guns is not enough and without proper training they will be a liability rather than a benefit. Get comfortable and proficient. Never stop improving your skills. If the time comes that you must use a gun to defend your family, the skills must be instinct. Practice. Practice. Practice.

A Strong Community You Can Depend On

No one thrives alone. A ride or die community that rallies together in tough times is invaluable. Seek out a place where people know their neighbors, share similar values, and are quick to lend a hand. Lead by example and become a good neighbor, people will naturally respond in kind. Small towns are ideal, if possible, but living outside of a major city can be a solid balance in terms of work opportunities and family security.

---

Let me know if you found this helpful. My plan is to break down how I think about these five key subjects in future posts.

@ 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.

@ 42342239:1d80db24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 9063ef6b:fd1e9a09

This is my second article. I find the idea of using a user friendly 2FA-style code on a secondary device really fascinating.

I have to admit, I don’t fully grasp all the technical details behind it—but nonetheless, I wanted to share the idea as it came to mind. Maybe it is technical nonsense...

So here it is—feel free to tear the idea apart and challenge it! :)

Idea

This Article describes method for passphrase validation and wallet access control in Bitcoin software wallets using a block-based Time-based One-Time Password (TOTP) mechanism. Unlike traditional TOTP systems, this approach leverages blockchain data—specifically, Bitcoin block height and block hash—combined with a securely stored secret to derive a dynamic 6-digit validation code. The system enables user-friendly, secure access to a wallet without directly exposing or requiring the user to memorize a fixed passphrase.

1. Introduction

Secure access to Bitcoin wallets often involves a mnemonic seed and an optional passphrase. However, passphrases can be difficult for users to manage securely. This paper introduces a system where a passphrase is encrypted locally and can only be decrypted upon validation of a 6-digit code generated from blockchain metadata. A mobile app, acting as a secure TOTP generator, supplies the user with this code.

2. System Components

2.1 Fixed Passphrase

A strong, high-entropy passphrase is generated once during wallet creation. It is never exposed to the user but is instead encrypted and stored locally on the desktop system (eg. bitbox02 - sparrow wallet).

2.2 Mobile App

The mobile app securely stores the shared secret (passphrase) and generates a 6-digit code using: - The current Bitcoin block height - The corresponding block hash - A fixed internal secret (stored in Secure Enclave or Android Keystore)

Offline App - current block_hash and block_height scanned with qr code.6-digit code generation after scanning the information.

2.3 Decryption and Validation

On the desktop (e.g. in Sparrow Wallet or wrapper script), the user inputs the 6-digit code. The software fetches current block data (block_height, block_hash), recreates the decryption key using the same HMAC derivation as the mobile app, and decrypts the locally stored passphrase. If successful, the wallet is unlocked.

3. Workflow

1. Wallet is created with a strong passphrase.
2. Passphrase is encrypted using a key derived from the initial block hash + block height + secret.
3. User installs mobile app and shares the fixed secret securely.
4. On wallet access:
5. User retrieves current code from the app.
6. Enters it into Sparrow or a CLI prompt.
7. Wallet software reconstructs the key, decrypts the passphrase.
8. If valid, the wallet is opened.

4. Security Properties

• Two-Factor Protection: Combines device possession and blockchain-derived time-based data.
• Replay Resistance: Codes change with every block (~10 min cycle).
• Minimal Attack Surface: Passphrase never typed or copied.
• Hardware-Backed Secrets: Mobile app secret stored in non-exportable secure hardware.

5. Future Work

• Direct integration into Bitcoin wallet GUIs (e.g. Sparrow plugin)
• QR-based sync between mobile and desktop
• Support for multiple wallets or contexts

6. Conclusion

This approach provides a balance between security and usability for Bitcoin wallet users by abstracting away fixed passphrases and leveraging the immutability and regularity of the Bitcoin blockchain. It is a highly adaptable concept for enterprise or personal use cases seeking to improve wallet access security without introducing user friction.

@ 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.

@ 9063ef6b:fd1e9a09

Bitcoin is more than just a digital currency. It’s a technological revolution built on a unique set of properties that distinguish it from all other financial systems—past and present. From its decentralized architecture to its digitally verifiable scarcity, Bitcoin represents a fundamental shift in how we store and transfer value.

A Truly Decentralized Network

As of April 2025, the Bitcoin network comprises approximately 62,558 reachable nodes globally. The United States leads with 13,791 nodes (29%), followed by Germany with 6,418 nodes (13.5%), and Canada with 2,580 nodes (5.43%). bitnodes

This distributed structure is central to Bitcoin’s strength. No single entity can control the network, making it robust against censorship, regulation, or centralized failure.

---

Open Participation at Low Cost

Bitcoin's design allows almost anyone to participate meaningfully in the network. Thanks to its small block size and streamlined protocol, running a full node is technically and financially accessible. Even a Raspberry Pi or a basic PC is sufficient to synchronize and validate the blockchain.

However, any significant increase in block size could jeopardize this accessibility. More storage and bandwidth requirements would shift participation toward centralized data centers and cloud infrastructure—threatening Bitcoin’s decentralized ethos. This is why the community continues to fiercely debate such protocol changes.

---

Decentralized Governance

Bitcoin has no CEO, board, or headquarters. Its governance model is decentralized, relying on consensus among various stakeholders, including miners, developers, node operators, and increasingly, institutional participants.

Miners signal support for changes by choosing which version of the Bitcoin software to run when mining new blocks. However, full node operators ultimately enforce the network’s rules by validating blocks and transactions. If miners adopt a change that is not accepted by the majority of full nodes, that change will be rejected and the blocks considered invalid—effectively vetoing the proposal.

This "dual-power structure" ensures that changes to the network only happen through widespread consensus—a system that has proven resilient to internal disagreements and external pressures.

---

Resilient by Design

Bitcoin's decentralized nature gives it a level of geopolitical and technical resilience unmatched by any traditional financial system. A notable case is the 2021 mining ban in China. While initially disruptive, the network quickly recovered as miners relocated, ultimately improving decentralization.

This event underlined Bitcoin's ability to withstand regulatory attacks and misinformation (FUD—Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt), cementing its credibility as a global, censorship-resistant network.

---

Self-Sovereign Communication

Bitcoin enables peer-to-peer transactions across borders without intermediaries. There’s no bank, payment processor, or centralized authority required. This feature is not only technically efficient but also politically profound—it empowers individuals globally to transact freely and securely.

---

Absolute Scarcity

Bitcoin is the first asset in history with a mathematically verifiable, fixed supply: 21 million coins. This cap is hard-coded into its protocol and enforced by every full node. At the atomic level, Bitcoin is measured in satoshis (sats), with a total cap of approximately 2.1 quadrillion sats.

This transparency contrasts with assets like gold, whose total supply is estimated and potentially (through third parties on paper) expandable. Moreover, unlike fiat currencies, which can be inflated through central bank policy, Bitcoin is immune to such manipulation. This makes it a powerful hedge against monetary debasement.

---

Anchored in Energy and Time

Bitcoin's security relies on proof-of-work, a consensus algorithm that requires real-world energy and computation. This “work” ensures that network participants must invest time and electricity to mine new blocks.

This process incentivizes continual improvement in hardware and energy sourcing—helping decentralize mining geographically and economically. In contrast, alternative systems like proof-of-stake tend to favor wealth concentration by design, as influence is determined by how many tokens a participant holds.

---

Censorship-Resistant

The Bitcoin network itself is inherently censorship-resistant. As a decentralized system, Bitcoin transactions consist of mere text and numerical data, making it impossible to censor the underlying protocol.

However, centralized exchanges and trading platforms can be subject to censorship through regional regulations or government pressure, potentially limiting access to Bitcoin.

Decentralized exchanges and peer-to-peer marketplaces offer alternative solutions, enabling users to buy and sell Bitcoins without relying on intermediaries that can be censored or shut down.

---

High Security

The Bitcoin blockchain is secured through a decentralized network of thousands of nodes worldwide, which constantly verify its integrity, making it highly resistant to hacking. To add a new block of bundled transactions, miners compete to solve complex mathematical problems generated by Bitcoin's cryptography. Once a miner solves the problem, the proposed block is broadcast to the network, where each node verifies its validity. Consensus is achieved when a majority of nodes agree on the block's validity, at which point the Bitcoin blockchain is updated accordingly, ensuring the network's decentralized and trustless nature.

Manipulation of the Bitcoin network is virtually impossible due to its decentralized and robust architecture. The blockchain's chronological and immutable design prevents the deletion or alteration of previously validated blocks, ensuring the integrity of the network.

To successfully attack the Bitcoin network, an individual or organization would need to control a majority of the network's computing power, also known as a 51% attack. However, the sheer size of the Bitcoin network and the competitive nature of the proof-of-work consensus mechanism make it extremely difficult to acquire and sustain the necessary computational power. Even if an attacker were to achieve this, they could potentially execute double spends and censor transactions. Nevertheless, the transparent nature of the blockchain would quickly reveal the attack, allowing the Bitcoin network to respond and neutralize it. By invalidating the first block of the malicious chain, all subsequent blocks would also become invalid, rendering the attack futile and resulting in significant financial losses for the attacker.

One potential source of uncertainty arises from changes to the Bitcoin code made by developers. While developers can modify the software, they cannot unilaterally enforce changes to the Bitcoin protocol, as all users have the freedom to choose which version they consider valid. Attempts to alter Bitcoin's fundamental principles have historically resulted in hard forks, which have ultimately had negligible impact (e.g., BSV, BCH). The Bitcoin community has consistently rejected new ideas that compromise decentralization in favor of scalability, refusing to adopt the resulting blockchains as the legitimate version. This decentralized governance model ensures that changes to the protocol are subject to broad consensus, protecting the integrity and trustworthiness of the Bitcoin network.

Another source of uncertainty in the future could be quantum computers. The topic is slowly gaining momentum in the community and is being discussed.

My attempt to write an article with Yakihonne. Simple editor with the most necessary formatting. Technically it worked quite well so far.

Some properties are listed in the article. Which properties are missing?

@ 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.

@ e1b184d1:ac66229b

Bitcoin is more than just a digital currency. It’s a technological revolution built on a unique set of properties that distinguish it from all other financial systems—past and present. From its decentralized architecture to its digitally verifiable scarcity, Bitcoin represents a fundamental shift in how we store and transfer value.

1. A Truly Decentralized Network

As of April 2025, the Bitcoin network comprises approximately 62,558 reachable nodes globally. The United States leads with 13,791 nodes (29%), followed by Germany with 6,418 nodes (13.5%), and Canada with 2,580 nodes (5.43%). bitnodes

This distributed structure is central to Bitcoin’s strength. No single entity can control the network, making it robust against censorship, regulation, or centralized failure.

2. Open Participation at Low Cost

Bitcoin's design allows almost anyone to participate meaningfully in the network. Thanks to its small block size and streamlined protocol, running a full node is technically and financially accessible. Even a Raspberry Pi or a basic PC is sufficient to synchronize and validate the blockchain.

However, any significant increase in block size could jeopardize this accessibility. More storage and bandwidth requirements would shift participation toward centralized data centers and cloud infrastructure—threatening Bitcoin’s decentralized ethos. This is why the community continues to fiercely debate such protocol changes.

3. Decentralized Governance

Bitcoin has no CEO, board, or headquarters. Its governance model is decentralized, relying on consensus among various stakeholders, including miners, developers, node operators, and increasingly, institutional participants.

Miners signal support for changes by choosing which version of the Bitcoin software to run when mining new blocks. However, full node operators ultimately enforce the network’s rules by validating blocks and transactions. If miners adopt a change that is not accepted by the majority of full nodes, that change will be rejected and the blocks considered invalid—effectively vetoing the proposal.

This "dual-power structure" ensures that changes to the network only happen through widespread consensus—a system that has proven resilient to internal disagreements and external pressures.

4. Resilient by Design

Bitcoin's decentralized nature gives it a level of geopolitical and technical resilience unmatched by any traditional financial system. A notable case is the 2021 mining ban in China. While initially disruptive, the network quickly recovered as miners relocated, ultimately improving decentralization.

This event underlined Bitcoin's ability to withstand regulatory attacks and misinformation (FUD—Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt), cementing its credibility as a global, censorship-resistant network.

5. Self-Sovereign Communication

Bitcoin enables peer-to-peer transactions across borders without intermediaries. There’s no bank, payment processor, or centralized authority required. This feature is not only technically efficient but also politically profound—it empowers individuals globally to transact freely and securely.

6. Absolute Scarcity

Bitcoin is the first asset in history with a mathematically verifiable, fixed supply: 21 million coins. This cap is hard-coded into its protocol and enforced by every full node. At the atomic level, Bitcoin is measured in satoshis (sats), with a total cap of approximately 2.1 quadrillion sats.

This transparency contrasts with assets like gold, whose total supply is estimated and potentially (through third parties on paper) expandable. Moreover, unlike fiat currencies, which can be inflated through central bank policy, Bitcoin is immune to such manipulation. This makes it a powerful hedge against monetary debasement.

7. Anchored in Energy and Time

Bitcoin's security relies on proof-of-work, a consensus algorithm that requires real-world energy and computation. This “work” ensures that network participants must invest time and electricity to mine new blocks.

This process incentivizes continual improvement in hardware and energy sourcing—helping decentralize mining geographically and economically. In contrast, alternative systems like proof-of-stake tend to favor wealth concentration by design, as influence is determined by how many tokens a participant holds.

8. Censorship-Resistant

The Bitcoin network itself is inherently censorship-resistant. As a decentralized system, Bitcoin transactions consist of mere text and numerical data, making it impossible to censor the underlying protocol.

However, centralized exchanges and trading platforms can be subject to censorship through regional regulations or government pressure, potentially limiting access to Bitcoin.

Decentralized exchanges and peer-to-peer marketplaces offer alternative solutions, enabling users to buy and sell Bitcoins without relying on intermediaries that can be censored or shut down.

9. High Security

The Bitcoin blockchain is secured through a decentralized network of thousands of nodes worldwide, which constantly verify its integrity, making it highly resistant to hacking. To add a new block of bundled transactions, miners compete to solve complex mathematical problems generated by Bitcoin's cryptography. Once a miner solves the problem, the proposed block is broadcast to the network, where each node verifies its validity. Consensus is achieved when a majority of nodes agree on the block's validity, at which point the Bitcoin blockchain is updated accordingly, ensuring the network's decentralized and trustless nature.

Manipulation of the Bitcoin network is virtually impossible due to its decentralized and robust architecture. The blockchain's chronological and immutable design prevents the deletion or alteration of previously validated blocks, ensuring the integrity of the network.

To successfully attack the Bitcoin network, an individual or organization would need to control a majority of the network's computing power, also known as a 51% attack. However, the sheer size of the Bitcoin network and the competitive nature of the proof-of-work consensus mechanism make it extremely difficult to acquire and sustain the necessary computational power. Even if an attacker were to achieve this, they could potentially execute double spends and censor transactions. Nevertheless, the transparent nature of the blockchain would quickly reveal the attack, allowing the Bitcoin network to respond and neutralize it. By invalidating the first block of the malicious chain, all subsequent blocks would also become invalid, rendering the attack futile and resulting in significant financial losses for the attacker.

One potential source of uncertainty arises from changes to the Bitcoin code made by developers. While developers can modify the software, they cannot unilaterally enforce changes to the Bitcoin protocol, as all users have the freedom to choose which version they consider valid. Attempts to alter Bitcoin's fundamental principles have historically resulted in hard forks, which have ultimately had negligible impact (e.g., BSV, BCH). The Bitcoin community has consistently rejected new ideas that compromise decentralization in favor of scalability, refusing to adopt the resulting blockchains as the legitimate version. This decentralized governance model ensures that changes to the protocol are subject to broad consensus, protecting the integrity and trustworthiness of the Bitcoin network.

Another source of uncertainty in the future could be quantum computers. The topic is slowly gaining momentum in the community and is being discussed.

Your opinion

My attempt to write an article with Yakyhonne. Simple editor with the most necessary formatting. Technically it worked quite well so far.

Some properties are listed in the article. Which properties are missing and what are these properties?

@ 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.

@ 94a6a78a:0ddf320e

Nostr is a revolutionary protocol that enables decentralized, censorship-resistant communication. Unlike traditional social networks controlled by corporations, Nostr operates without central servers or gatekeepers. This openness makes it incredibly powerful—but also means its success depends entirely on users, developers, and relay operators.

If you believe in free speech, decentralization, and an open internet, there are many ways to support and strengthen the Nostr ecosystem. Whether you're a casual user, a developer, or someone looking to contribute financially, every effort helps build a more robust network.

Here’s how you can get involved and make a difference.

---

1️⃣ Use Nostr Daily

The simplest and most effective way to contribute to Nostr is by using it regularly. The more active users, the stronger and more valuable the network becomes.

✅ Post, comment, and zap (send micro-payments via Bitcoin’s Lightning Network) to keep conversations flowing.\ ✅ Engage with new users and help them understand how Nostr works.\ ✅ Try different Nostr clients like Damus, Amethyst, Snort, or Primal and provide feedback to improve the experience.

Your activity keeps the network alive and helps encourage more developers and relay operators to invest in the ecosystem.

---

2️⃣ Run Your Own Nostr Relay

Relays are the backbone of Nostr, responsible for distributing messages across the network. The more independent relays exist, the stronger and more censorship-resistant Nostr becomes.

✅ Set up your own relay to help decentralize the network further.\ ✅ Experiment with relay configurations and different performance optimizations.\ ✅ Offer public or private relay services to users looking for high-quality infrastructure.

If you're not technical, you can still support relay operators by subscribing to a paid relay or donating to open-source relay projects.

---

3️⃣ Support Paid Relays & Infrastructure

Free relays have helped Nostr grow, but they struggle with spam, slow speeds, and sustainability issues. Paid relays help fund better infrastructure, faster message delivery, and a more reliable experience.

✅ Subscribe to a paid relay to help keep it running.\ ✅ Use premium services like media hosting (e.g., Azzamo Blossom) to decentralize content storage.\ ✅ Donate to relay operators who invest in long-term infrastructure.

By funding Nostr’s decentralized backbone, you help ensure its longevity and reliability.

---

4️⃣ Zap Developers, Creators & Builders

Many people contribute to Nostr without direct financial compensation—developers who build clients, relay operators, educators, and content creators. You can support them with zaps! ⚡

✅ Find developers working on Nostr projects and send them a zap.\ ✅ Support content creators and educators who spread awareness about Nostr.\ ✅ Encourage builders by donating to open-source projects.

Micro-payments via the Lightning Network make it easy to directly support the people who make Nostr better.

---

5️⃣ Develop New Nostr Apps & Tools

If you're a developer, you can build on Nostr’s open protocol to create new apps, bots, or tools. Nostr is permissionless, meaning anyone can develop for it.

✅ Create new Nostr clients with unique features and user experiences.\ ✅ Build bots or automation tools that improve engagement and usability.\ ✅ Experiment with decentralized identity, authentication, and encryption to make Nostr even stronger.

With no corporate gatekeepers, your projects can help shape the future of decentralized social media.

---

6️⃣ Promote & Educate Others About Nostr

Adoption grows when more people understand and use Nostr. You can help by spreading awareness and creating educational content.

✅ Write blogs, guides, and tutorials explaining how to use Nostr.\ ✅ Make videos or social media posts introducing new users to the protocol.\ ✅ Host discussions, Twitter Spaces, or workshops to onboard more people.

The more people understand and trust Nostr, the stronger the ecosystem becomes.

---

7️⃣ Support Open-Source Nostr Projects

Many Nostr tools and clients are built by volunteers, and open-source projects thrive on community support.

✅ Contribute code to existing Nostr projects on GitHub.\ ✅ Report bugs and suggest features to improve Nostr clients.\ ✅ Donate to developers who keep Nostr free and open for everyone.

If you're not a developer, you can still help with testing, translations, and documentation to make projects more accessible.

---

🚀 Every Contribution Strengthens Nostr

Whether you:

✔️ Post and engage daily\ ✔️ Zap creators and developers\ ✔️ Run or support relays\ ✔️ Build new apps and tools\ ✔️ Educate and onboard new users

Every action helps make Nostr more resilient, decentralized, and unstoppable.

Nostr isn’t just another social network—it’s a movement toward a free and open internet. If you believe in digital freedom, privacy, and decentralization, now is the time to get involved.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Lightning and its fake HTLCs

Lightning is terrible but can be very good with two tweaks.

How Lightning would work without HTLCs

In a world in which HTLCs didn't exist, Lightning channels would consist only of balances. Each commitment transaction would have two outputs: one for peer A, the other for peer B, according to the current state of the channel.

When a payment was being attempted to go through the channel, peers would just trust each other to update the state when necessary. For example:

1. Channel AB's balances are A[10:10]B (in sats);
2. A sends a 3sat payment through B to C;
3. A asks B to route the payment. Channel AB doesn't change at all;
4. B sends the payment to C, C accepts it;
5. Channel BC changes from B[20:5]C to B[17:8]C;
6. B notifies A the payment was successful, A acknowledges that;
7. Channel AB changes from A[10:10]B to A[7:13]B.

This in the case of a success, everything is fine, no glitches, no dishonesty.

But notice that A could have refused to acknowledge that the payment went through, either because of a bug, or because it went offline forever, or because it is malicious. Then the channel AB would stay as A[10:10]B and B would have lost 3 satoshis.

How Lightning would work with HTLCs

HTLCs are introduced to remedy that situation. Now instead of commitment transactions having always only two outputs, one to each peer, now they can have HTLC outputs too. These HTLC outputs could go to either side dependending on the circumstance.

Specifically, the peer that is sending the payment can redeem the HTLC after a number of blocks have passed. The peer that is receiving the payment can redeem the HTLC if they are able to provide the preimage to the hash specified in the HTLC.

Now the flow is something like this:

1. Channel AB's balances are A[10:10]B;
2. A sends a 3sat payment through B to C:
3. A asks B to route the payment. Their channel changes to A[7:3:10]B (the middle number is the HTLC).
4. B offers a payment to C. Their channel changes from B[20:5]C to B[17:3:5]C.
5. C tells B the preimage for that HTLC. Their channel changes from B[17:3:5]C to B[17:8]C.
6. B tells A the preimage for that HTLC. Their channel changes from A[7:3:10]B to A[7:13]B.

Now if A wants to trick B and stop responding B doesn't lose money, because B knows the preimage, B just needs to publish the commitment transaction A[7:3:10]B, which gives him 10sat and then redeem the HTLC using the preimage he got from C, which gives him 3 sats more. B is fine now.

In the same way, if B stops responding for any reason, A won't lose the money it put in that HTLC, it can publish the commitment transaction, get 7 back, then redeem the HTLC after the certain number of blocks have passed and get the other 3 sats back.

How Lightning doesn't really work

The example above about how the HTLCs work is very elegant but has a fatal flaw on it: transaction fees. Each new HTLC added increases the size of the commitment transaction and it requires yet another transaction to be redeemed. If we consider fees of 10000 satoshis that means any HTLC below that is as if it didn't existed because we can't ever redeem it anyway. In fact the Lightning protocol explicitly dictates that if HTLC output amounts are below the fee necessary to redeem them they shouldn't be created.

What happens in these cases then? Nothing, the amounts that should be in HTLCs are moved to the commitment transaction miner fee instead.

So considering a transaction fee of 10000sat for these HTLCs if one is sending Lightning payments below 10000sat that means they operate according to the unsafe protocol described in the first section above.

It is actually worse, because consider what happens in the case a channel in the middle of a route has a glitch or one of the peers is unresponsive. The other node, thinking they are operating in the trustless protocol, will proceed to publish the commitment transaction, i.e. close the channel, so they can redeem the HTLC -- only then they find out they are actually in the unsafe protocol realm and there is no HTLC to be redeemed at all and they lose not only the money, but also the channel (which costed a lot of money to open and close, in overall transaction fees).

One of the biggest features of the trustless protocol are the payment proofs. Every payment is identified by a hash and whenever the payee releases the preimage relative to that hash that means the payment was complete. The incentives are in place so all nodes in the path pass the preimage back until it reaches the payer, which can then use it as the proof he has sent the payment and the payee has received it. This feature is also lost in the unsafe protocol: if a glitch happens or someone goes offline on the preimage's way back then there is no way the preimage will reach the payer because no HTLCs are published and redeemed on the chain. The payee may have received the money but the payer will not know -- but the payee will lose the money sent anyway.

The end of HTLCs

So considering the points above you may be sad because in some cases Lightning doesn't use these magic HTLCs that give meaning to it all. But the fact is that no matter what anyone thinks, HTLCs are destined to be used less and less as time passes.

The fact that over time Bitcoin transaction fees tend to rise, and also the fact that multipart payment (MPP) are increasedly being used on Lightning for good, we can expect that soon no HTLC will ever be big enough to be actually worth redeeming and we will be at a point in which not a single HTLC is real and they're all fake.

Another thing to note is that the current unsafe protocol kicks out whenever the HTLC amount is below the Bitcoin transaction fee would be to redeem it, but this is not a reasonable algorithm. It is not reasonable to lose a channel and then pay 10000sat in fees to redeem a 10001sat HTLC. At which point does it become reasonable to do it? Probably in an amount many times above that, so it would be reasonable to even increase the threshold above which real HTLCs are made -- thus making their existence more and more rare.

These are good things, because we don't actually need HTLCs to make a functional Lightning Network.

We must embrace the unsafe protocol and make it better

So the unsafe protocol is not necessarily very bad, but the way it is being done now is, because it suffers from two big problems:

1. Channels are lost all the time for no reason;
2. No guarantees of the proof-of-payment ever reaching the payer exist.

The first problem we fix by just stopping the current practice of closing channels when there are no real HTLCs in them.

That, however, creates a new problem -- or actually it exarcebates the second: now that we're not closing channels, what do we do with the expired payments in them? These payments should have either been canceled or fulfilled before some block x, now we're in block x+1, our peer has returned from its offline period and one of us will have to lose the money from that payment.

That's fine because it's only 3sat and it's better to just lose 3sat than to lose both the 3sat and the channel anyway, so either one would be happy to eat the loss. Maybe we'll even split it 50/50! No, that doesn't work, because it creates an attack vector with peers becoming unresponsive on purpose on one side of the route and actually failing/fulfilling the payment on the other side and making a profit with that.

So we actually need to know who is to blame on these payments, even if we are not going to act on that imediatelly: we need some kind of arbiter that both peers can trust, such that if one peer is trying to send the preimage or the cancellation to the other and the other is unresponsive, when the unresponsive peer comes back, the arbiter can tell them they are to blame, so they can willfully eat the loss and the channel can continue. Both peers are happy this way.

If the unresponsive peer doesn't accept what the arbiter says then the peer that was operating correctly can assume the unresponsive peer is malicious and close the channel, and then blacklist it and never again open a channel with a peer they know is malicious.

Again, the differences between this scheme and the current Lightning Network are that:

a. In the current Lightning we always close channels, in this scheme we only close channels in case someone is malicious or in other worst case scenarios (the arbiter is unresponsive, for example). b. In the current Lightning we close the channels without having any clue on who is to blame for that, then we just proceed to reopen a channel with that same peer even in the case they were actively trying to harm us before.

What is missing? An arbiter.

The Bitcoin blockchain is the ideal arbiter, it works in the best possible way if we follow the trustless protocol, but as we've seen we can't use the Bitcoin blockchain because it is expensive.

Therefore we need a new arbiter. That is the hard part, but not unsolvable. Notice that we don't need an absolutely perfect arbiter, anything is better than nothing, really, even an unreliable arbiter that is offline half of the day is better than what we have today, or an arbiter that lies, an arbiter that charges some satoshis for each resolution, anything.

Here are some suggestions:

• random nodes from the network selected by an algorithm that both peers agree to, so they can't cheat by selecting themselves. The only thing these nodes have to do is to store data from one peer, try to retransmit it to the other peer and record the results for some time.
• a set of nodes preselected by the two peers when the channel is being opened -- same as above, but with more handpicked-trust involved.
• some third-party cloud storage or notification provider with guarantees of having open data in it and some public log-keeping, like Twitter, GitHub or a Nostr relay;
• peers that get paid to do the job, selected by the fact that they own some token (I know this is stepping too close to the shitcoin territory, but could be an idea) issued in a Spacechain;
• a Spacechain itself, serving only as the storage for a bunch of OP_RETURNs that are published and tracked by these Lightning peers whenever there is an issue (this looks wrong, but could work).

Key points

1. Lightning with HTLC-based routing was a cool idea, but it wasn't ever really feasible.
2. HTLCs are going to be abandoned and that's the natural course of things.
3. It is actually good that HTLCs are being abandoned, but
4. We must change the protocol to account for the existence of fake HTLCs and thus make the bulk of the Lightning Network usage viable again.

See also

• Ripple and the problem of the decentralized commit
• The Lightning Network solves the problem of the decentralized commit

@ f0c7506b:9ead75b8

Rainer Maria Rilke

Yalnızca güçlü olanların hakkıdır yaşamak.

Güçlü olan ileri gider ve saflar seyrekleşir. Ama üç beş büyük, güçlü ve tanrısal kişi güneşli ve aydınlık gözleriyle o yeni, o vaat edilmiş ülkeye ulaşacaktır. Belki binlerce yıl sonra ancak. Ve güçlü, adaleli, hükmetmek için yaratılmış elleriyle hastaların, zayıfların ve sakatların ölüleri üzerinde bir krallık kuracaklardır. Bir krallık!

Benim aradığım insanların kendileri değil, sesleridir.

Duyguları körelmiş, çeşitli düşüncelere saplanmış kalabalık hiçbir zaman ilerlemenin taşıyıcısı olamaz, kendi küçüklüğünün o küflü içgüdüsüyle kalabalığın kin ve nefretle baktığı bir kişi, bir büyük kişi, iradesinin gösterdiği yolda kimsenin gözünün yaşına bakmaksızın ilahi bir güç ve bir zafer gülümsemesiyle yürüyebilir ancak.

Bizim soyumuz da sonsuz oluşum piramidinin doruk noktasını oluşturmaktan uzaktır. Bizler de mükemmelliğe ulaşmış değiliz. Bizler de henüz olgunlaşmadık.

Şairler sevgiye övgüler döşenir; doğrusu sevginin güçlü bir şey olduğu kesin. Hüneşin bir ışınıdır sevgi, aydınlatıp nurlandırır insanı der bazıları; bazıları da insanı esrikliğe sürükleyen bir zehri kendisinde barındırdığını söyler. Gerçekten de yol açtığı sonuçlar, bir hekimin ağır bir ameliyattan önce korkudan titreyen hastaya teneffüs ettirdiği güldürücü gazınkine benzer, içinde tepinip duran acıyı unutturur hastaya.

Önemli olan, hayatta hiç değilse bir kez kutsal bir ilkbaharın yaşanmasıdır; öyle bir bahar ki, insanın gönlünü ilerideki bütün günleri altın yaldızla kaplamaya yetecek kadar ışık ve parıltıyla doldursun.

Şu hayat denen şey kötü bir işçiliğin ürünü, acemilere göre bir şey. Bu kepaze yaşam uğruna insan nelere katlanmıyor ki!

Kendisine sadakatten ayrılmadığı, yalnızca kendisinin olan bir tek bu var: Yalnızlığı.

Sahildeki üstü tenteli hasır koltuklar arkasındaki yüksek, sessiz kum tepeleri içinde yürürsen, tenteler altındaki insanları göremezsin; ama birinin bir diğerine seslendiğini, bir başkasının gevezelik ettiğini, bir ötekinin güldüğünü işitir ve anlarsın hemen: bu insan şöyle şöyle biridir diyebilirsin. Onun hayatı sevdiğini, bağrında büyük bir özlem ya da acı barındırdığını, bu acının da sesini ağlamaklı kıldığını her gülüşünde hissedersin.

@ e31e84c4:77bbabc0

Bitcoin and Fixed Income was Written By Wyatt O’Rourke. If you enjoyed this article then support his writing, directly, by donating to his lightning wallet: ultrahusky3@primal.net

Fiduciary duty is the obligation to act in the client’s best interests at all times, prioritizing their needs above the advisor’s own, ensuring honesty, transparency, and avoiding conflicts of interest in all recommendations and actions.

This is something all advisors in the BFAN take very seriously; after all, we are legally required to do so. For the average advisor this is a fairly easy box to check. All you essentially have to do is have someone take a 5-minute risk assessment, fill out an investment policy statement, and then throw them in the proverbial 60/40 portfolio. You have thousands of investment options to choose from and you can reasonably explain how your client is theoretically insulated from any move in the \~markets\~. From the traditional financial advisor perspective, you could justify nearly anything by putting a client into this type of portfolio. All your bases were pretty much covered from return profile, regulatory, compliance, investment options, etc. It was just too easy. It became the household standard and now a meme.

As almost every real bitcoiner knows, the 60/40 portfolio is moving into psyop territory, and many financial advisors get clowned on for defending this relic on bitcoin twitter. I’m going to specifically poke fun at the ‘40’ part of this portfolio.

The ‘40’ represents fixed income, defined as…

An investment type that provides regular, set interest payments, such as bonds or treasury securities, and returns the principal at maturity. It’s generally considered a lower-risk asset class, used to generate stable income and preserve capital.

Historically, this part of the portfolio was meant to weather the volatility in the equity markets and represent the “safe” investments. Typically, some sort of bond.

First and foremost, the fixed income section is most commonly constructed with U.S. Debt. There are a couple main reasons for this. Most financial professionals believe the same fairy tale that U.S. Debt is “risk free” (lol). U.S. debt is also one of the largest and most liquid assets in the market which comes with a lot of benefits.

There are many brilliant bitcoiners in finance and economics that have sounded the alarm on the U.S. debt ticking time bomb. I highly recommend readers explore the work of Greg Foss, Lawrence Lepard, Lyn Alden, and Saifedean Ammous. My very high-level recap of their analysis:

• A bond is a contract in which Party A (the borrower) agrees to repay Party B (the lender) their principal plus interest over time.

• The U.S. government issues bonds (Treasury securities) to finance its operations after tax revenues have been exhausted.

• These are traditionally viewed as “risk-free” due to the government’s historical reliability in repaying its debts and the strength of the U.S. economy

• U.S. bonds are seen as safe because the government has control over the dollar (world reserve asset) and, until recently (20 some odd years), enjoyed broad confidence that it would always honor its debts.

• This perception has contributed to high global demand for U.S. debt but, that is quickly deteriorating.

• The current debt situation raises concerns about sustainability.

• The U.S. has substantial obligations, and without sufficient productivity growth, increasing debt may lead to a cycle where borrowing to cover interest leads to more debt.

• This could result in more reliance on money creation (printing), which can drive inflation and further debt burdens.

In the words of Lyn Alden “Nothing stops this train”

Those obligations are what makes up the 40% of most the fixed income in your portfolio. So essentially you are giving money to one of the worst capital allocators in the world (U.S. Gov’t) and getting paid back with printed money.

As someone who takes their fiduciary responsibility seriously and understands the debt situation we just reviewed, I think it’s borderline negligent to put someone into a classic 60% (equities) / 40% (fixed income) portfolio without serious scrutiny of the client’s financial situation and options available to them. I certainly have my qualms with equities at times, but overall, they are more palatable than the fixed income portion of the portfolio. I don’t like it either, but the money is broken and the unit of account for nearly every equity or fixed income instrument (USD) is fraudulent. It’s a paper mache fade that is quite literally propped up by the money printer.

To briefly be as most charitable as I can – It wasn’t always this way. The U.S. Dollar used to be sound money, we used to have government surplus instead of mathematically certain deficits, The U.S. Federal Government didn’t used to have a money printing addiction, and pre-bitcoin the 60/40 portfolio used to be a quality portfolio management strategy. Those times are gone.

Now the fun part. How does bitcoin fix this?

Bitcoin fixes this indirectly. Understanding investment criteria changes via risk tolerance, age, goals, etc. A client may still have a need for “fixed income” in the most literal definition – Low risk yield. Now you may be thinking that yield is a bad word in bitcoin land, you’re not wrong, so stay with me. Perpetual motion machine crypto yield is fake and largely where many crypto scams originate. However, that doesn’t mean yield in the classic finance sense does not exist in bitcoin, it very literally does. Fortunately for us bitcoiners there are many other smart, driven, and enterprising bitcoiners that understand this problem and are doing something to address it. These individuals are pioneering new possibilities in bitcoin and finance, specifically when it comes to fixed income.

Here are some new developments –

Private Credit Funds – The Build Asset Management Secured Income Fund I is a private credit fund created by Build Asset Management. This fund primarily invests in bitcoin-backed, collateralized business loans originated by Unchained, with a secured structure involving a multi-signature, over-collateralized setup for risk management. Unchained originates loans and sells them to Build, which pools them into the fund, enabling investors to share in the interest income.

Dynamics

• Loan Terms: Unchained issues loans at interest rates around 14%, secured with a 2/3 multi-signature vault backed by a 40% loan-to-value (LTV) ratio.
• Fund Mechanics: Build buys these loans from Unchained, thus providing liquidity to Unchained for further loan originations, while Build manages interest payments to investors in the fund.

Pros

• The fund offers a unique way to earn income via bitcoin-collateralized debt, with protection against rehypothecation and strong security measures, making it attractive for investors seeking exposure to fixed income with bitcoin.

Cons

• The fund is only available to accredited investors, which is a regulatory standard for private credit funds like this.

Corporate Bonds – MicroStrategy Inc. (MSTR), a business intelligence company, has leveraged its corporate structure to issue bonds specifically to acquire bitcoin as a reserve asset. This approach allows investors to indirectly gain exposure to bitcoin’s potential upside while receiving interest payments on their bond investments. Some other publicly traded companies have also adopted this strategy, but for the sake of this article we will focus on MSTR as they are the biggest and most vocal issuer.

Dynamics

• Issuance: MicroStrategy has issued senior secured notes in multiple offerings, with terms allowing the company to use the proceeds to purchase bitcoin.

• Interest Rates: The bonds typically carry high-yield interest rates, averaging around 6-8% APR, depending on the specific issuance and market conditions at the time of issuance.

• Maturity: The bonds have varying maturities, with most structured for multi-year terms, offering investors medium-term exposure to bitcoin’s value trajectory through MicroStrategy’s holdings.

Pros

• Indirect Bitcoin exposure with income provides a unique opportunity for investors seeking income from bitcoin-backed debt.

• Bonds issued by MicroStrategy offer relatively high interest rates, appealing for fixed-income investors attracted to the higher risk/reward scenarios.

Cons

• There are credit risks tied to MicroStrategy’s financial health and bitcoin’s performance. A significant drop in bitcoin prices could strain the company’s ability to service debt, increasing credit risk.

• Availability: These bonds are primarily accessible to institutional investors and accredited investors, limiting availability for retail investors.

Interest Payable in Bitcoin – River has introduced an innovative product, bitcoin Interest on Cash, allowing clients to earn interest on their U.S. dollar deposits, with the interest paid in bitcoin.

Dynamics

• Interest Payment: Clients earn an annual interest rate of 3.8% on their cash deposits. The accrued interest is converted to Bitcoin daily and paid out monthly, enabling clients to accumulate Bitcoin over time.

• Security and Accessibility: Cash deposits are insured up to $250,000 through River’s banking partner, Lead Bank, a member of the FDIC. All Bitcoin holdings are maintained in full reserve custody, ensuring that client assets are not lent or leveraged.

Pros

• There are no hidden fees or minimum balance requirements, and clients can withdraw their cash at any time.

• The 3.8% interest rate provides a predictable income stream, akin to traditional fixed-income investments.

Cons

• While the interest rate is fixed, the value of the Bitcoin received as interest can fluctuate, introducing potential variability in the investment’s overall return.

• Interest rate payments are on the lower side

Admittedly, this is a very small list, however, these types of investments are growing more numerous and meaningful. The reality is the existing options aren’t numerous enough to service every client that has a need for fixed income exposure. I challenge advisors to explore innovative options for fixed income exposure outside of sovereign debt, as that is most certainly a road to nowhere. It is my wholehearted belief and call to action that we need more options to help clients across the risk and capital allocation spectrum access a sound money standard.

Additional Resources

• River: The future of saving is here: Earn 3.8% on cash. Paid in Bitcoin.

• Onramp: Bitcoin, The Emergent Asset Class

• MicroStrategy: MicroStrategy Announces Pricing of Offering of Convertible Senior Notes

---

Bitcoin and Fixed Income was Written By Wyatt O’Rourke. If you enjoyed this article then support his writing, directly, by donating to his lightning wallet: ultrahusky3@primal.net

@ 42342239:1d80db24

A recent US data leak has brought to light a disturbing reality: our everyday technology has become a powerful tool for surveillance and control. Paradoxically, new technology holds the key to creating a safer, more resilient, and perhaps even more human society.

Preparedness remains a multifaceted topic that continues to spark engagement. The subject is not just about energy infrastructure and food supply but also about seemingly more orthogonal issues like obesity and cybersecurity.

The significant importance of cybersecurity can be illustrated by examples from an American company that was recently subjected to an IT intrusion with a subsequent data leak. The company, Gravy Analytics, specializes in providing mobile phone data that provides exceptionally detailed information about where individuals are located at any given time. Data that can be used, for example, for advertising purposes, but also for more sinister purposes such as extortion or espionage. The company has previously been accused of using misleading methods to collect location data without valid consent from individuals.

Mobile operators have long had the ability to locate their subscribers' positions over time. This leak shows how even apps on your phone risk revealing your location. Analysis of the samples leaked from the leak shows that data has leaked out for users of several well-known mobile applications, including the popular mobile game Candy Crush and the widely used online dating service Tinder.

Even if apps only use an ad ID when collecting data, these collected digital breadcrumbs can often be deanonymized. It is possible, for example, to identify daily routines, workplaces, and where and when an individual usually sleeps. This usually enables identification. But it is also possible to map an individual's social circle and romantic relationships. The mapping risks quickly becoming both sensitive and invasive.

The fact that such data is collected, but especially that it leaks, also poses a threat to preparedness. By mapping military or other sensitive locations (energy supply, water treatment plants, critical infrastructure) along with location and time data, it is potentially possible to identify employees at these locations. Information that can then be used by those who want to cause harm.

It is not written in the stars that citizens must be dependent on a few large IT companies. Our data does not need to be collected and used in a way that does not benefit us, without our knowledge. There are alternatives to large-scale and "super-registers". Technology such as asymmetric encryption and zero-knowledge proofs can be used to give power back to the individual. If the parliament and government are serious about improving preparedness, it is high time to leave old thought patterns like Chat Control 2 behind and instead explore such possibilities.

The primary purpose of the internet was originally to enable information transfer without intermediaries ("peer-to-peer"). Today, intermediaries are everywhere. It is worth remembering that peer-to-peer is not some obscure technical term. In case we have forgotten about it, it simply means: person to person, without intermediaries.

Maybe new technology can not only give us a safer and more resilient society, but also a more human one?

@ 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.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

There's a problem with using Git concepts for everything

We've been seeing a surge in applications that use Git to store other things than code, or that are based on Git concepts and so enable "forking, merging and distributed collaboration" for things like blogs, recipes, literature, music composition, normal files in a filesystem, databases.

The problem with all this is they will either:

1. assume the user will commit manually and expect that commit to be composed by a set of meaningful changes, and the commiter will also add a message to the commit, describing that set of meaningful, related changes; or
2. try to make the committing process automatic and hide it from the user, so will producing meaningless commits, based on random changes in many different files (it's not "files" if we are talking about a recipe or rows in a table, but let's say "files" for the sake of clarity) that will probably not be related and not reduceable to a meaningful commit message, or maybe the commit will contain only the changes to a single file, and its commit message would be equivalent to "updated <name of the file>".

Programmers, when using Git, think in Git, i.e., they work with version control in their minds. They try hard to commit together only sets of meaningful and related changes, even when they happen to make unrelated changes in the meantime, and that's why there are commands like git add -p and many others.

Normal people, to whom many of these git-based tools are intended to (and even programmers when out of their code-world), are much less prone to think in Git, and that's why another kind of abstraction for fork-merge-collaborate in non-code environments must be used.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Nostr: a quick introduction, attempt #2

Nostr doesn't subscribe to any ideals of "free speech" as these belong to the realm of politics and assume a big powerful government that enforces a common ruleupon everybody else.

Nostr instead is much simpler, it simply says that servers are private property and establishes a generalized framework for people to connect to all these servers, creating a true free market in the process. In other words, Nostr is the public road that each market participant can use to build their own store or visit others and use their services.

(Of course a road is never truly public, in normal cases it's ran by the government, in this case it relies upon the previous existence of the internet with all its quirks and chaos plus a hand of government control, but none of that matters for this explanation).

More concretely speaking, Nostr is just a set of definitions of the formats of the data that can be passed between participants and their expected order, i.e. messages between clients (i.e. the program that runs on a user computer) and relays (i.e. the program that runs on a publicly accessible computer, a "server", generally with a domain-name associated) over a type of TCP connection (WebSocket) with cryptographic signatures. This is what is called a "protocol" in this context, and upon that simple base multiple kinds of sub-protocols can be added, like a protocol for "public-square style microblogging", "semi-closed group chat" or, I don't know, "recipe sharing and feedback".

@ 42342239:1d80db24

The risks associated with cryptocurrencies have recently received attention in the media, where e.g. the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority warns of the high volatility and risk of investments in crypto. Within the EU, as usual, significant efforts are being made to expand the already extensive regulatory framework. Meanwhile, in the US, there has been a marked turnaround. Even the presidential family has launched their own cryptocurrencies, resulting in criticism from industry experts .

Important perspectives, however, are conspicuous by their absence in the conversation.

Iain McGilchrist, a British psychiatrist and philosopher, has introduced the hemispheric hypothesis (a theory about how the brain's two hemispheres function). The left hemisphere is more detail- and control-oriented, while the right hemisphere is more holistic. A society dominated by the left hemisphere, such as our own according to McGilchrist , "would see it as its task to control everything maximally and would have a paranoid feeling that we need to have surveillance cameras everywhere...".

During a speech at the World Economic Forum, President Trump recently stated that conservatives complain about big banks, such as Bank of America, not allowing them to conduct business within the bank. Critics argue that the American banking system has been used to persecute political opponents, both during Obama's and Biden's terms. Under Obama, 'Operation Chokepoint' was introduced to limit certain businesses' access to banking services. A subcommittee in the Senate now wants to eradicate this phenomenon.

More and more people are discovering that their money is not always under their control. Non-profit associations and congregations are not allowed to open bank accounts. Sometimes they are even thrown out as bank customers. Others may report being subjected to lengthy interrogations by the bank about what they intend to do with their money, even when they just want to transfer funds between their own accounts. Rejected churches are met with silence, while a bank account is (still!) necessary to fully operate in society.

When leading economists at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) argue that a cashless society can threaten fundamental rights , including property rights, when churches are refused bank accounts in what is described as "a threat to civil society" and when regulations still fail to combat organised crime , is it not reasonable to wonder if we are on the right path?

With cash, people can pay freely without intermediaries, which constitutes a form of financial freedom. The notes you hold in your hand are your own. Cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, offer a similar possibility: an electronic, peer-to-peer cash system (person to person).

A society dominated by the left hemisphere results in a pathological need for control, according to McGilchrist. A more holistic perspective, taking into account the right hemisphere, would acknowledge that too much control can be detrimental, that property rights are a fundamental right, and that financial freedom is a human right. Do these perspectives not deserve more attention?

@ e3ba5e1a:5e433365

My favorite line in any Marvel movie ever is in “Captain America.” After Captain America launches seemingly a hopeless assault on Red Skull’s base and is captured, we get this line:

“Arrogance may not be a uniquely American trait, but I must say, you do it better than anyone.”

Yesterday, I came across a comment on the song Devil Went Down to Georgia that had a very similar feel to it:

America has seemingly always been arrogant, in a uniquely American way. Manifest Destiny, for instance. The rest of the world is aware of this arrogance, and mocks Americans for it. A central point in modern US politics is the deriding of racist, nationalist, supremacist Americans.

That’s not what I see. I see American Arrogance as not only a beautiful statement about what it means to be American. I see it as an ode to the greatness of humanity in its purest form.

For most countries, saying “our nation is the greatest” is, in fact, twinged with some level of racism. I still don’t have a problem with it. Every group of people should be allowed to feel pride in their accomplishments. The destruction of the human spirit since the end of World War 2, where greatness has become a sin and weakness a virtue, has crushed the ability of people worldwide to strive for excellence.

But I digress. The fears of racism and nationalism at least have a grain of truth when applied to other nations on the planet. But not to America.

That’s because the definition of America, and the prototype of an American, has nothing to do with race. The definition of Americanism is freedom. The founding of America is based purely on liberty. On the God-given rights of every person to live life the way they see fit.

American Arrogance is not a statement of racial superiority. It’s barely a statement of national superiority (though it absolutely is). To me, when an American comments on the greatness of America, it’s a statement about freedom. Freedom will always unlock the greatness inherent in any group of people. Americans are definitionally better than everyone else, because Americans are freer than everyone else. (Or, at least, that’s how it should be.)

In Devil Went Down to Georgia, Johnny is approached by the devil himself. He is challenged to a ridiculously lopsided bet: a golden fiddle versus his immortal soul. He acknowledges the sin in accepting such a proposal. And yet he says, “God, I know you told me not to do this. But I can’t stand the affront to my honor. I am the greatest. The devil has nothing on me. So God, I’m gonna sin, but I’m also gonna win.”

Libertas magnitudo est

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Bitcoin transactions explained

A transaction is a piece of data that takes inputs and produces outputs. Forget about the blockchain thing, Bitcoin is actually just a big tree of transactions. The blockchain is just a way to keep transactions ordered.

Imagine you have 10 satoshis. That means you have them in an unspent transaction output (UTXO). You want to spend them, so you create a transaction. The transaction should reference unspent outputs as its inputs. Every transaction has an immutable id, so you use that id plus the index of the output (because transactions can have multiple outputs). Then you specify a script that unlocks that transaction and related signatures, then you specify outputs along with a script that locks these outputs.

As you can see, there's this lock/unlocking thing and there are inputs and outputs. Inputs must be unlocked by fulfilling the conditions specified by the person who created the transaction they're in. And outputs must be locked so anyone wanting to spend those outputs will need to unlock them.

For most of the cases locking and unlocking means specifying a public key whose controller (the person who has the corresponding private key) will be able to spend. Other fancy things are possible too, but we can ignore them for now.

Back to the 10 satoshis you want to spend. Since you've successfully referenced 10 satoshis and unlocked them, now you can specify the outputs (this is all done in a single step). You can specify one output of 10 satoshis, two of 5, one of 3 and one of 7, three of 3 and so on. The sum of outputs can't be more than 10. And if the sum of outputs is less than 10 the difference goes to fees. In the first days of Bitcoin you didn't need any fees, but now you do, otherwise your transaction won't be included in any block.

If you're still interested in transactions maybe you could take a look at this small chapter of that Andreas Antonopoulos book.

If you hate Andreas Antonopoulos because he is a communist shitcoiner or don't want to read more than half a page, go here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Coin_analogy

@ 42342239:1d80db24

Preparedness is a hot topic these days. In Europe, Poland has recently introduced compulsory lessons in weapons handling for schoolchildren for war-preparedness purposes. In Sweden, the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) has recently published the brochure on what to do "If crisis or war comes".

However, in the event of war, a country must have a robust energy infrastructure. Sweden does not seem to have this, at least judging by the recent years' electricity price turbulence in southern Sweden. Nor does Germany. The vulnerabilities are many and serious. It's hard not to be reminded of a Swedish prime minister who, just eleven years ago, saw defense as a special interest.

A secure food supply is another crucial factor for a country's resilience. This is something that Sweden lacks. In the early 1990s, nearly 75 percent of the country's food was produced domestically. Today, half of it must be imported. This makes our country more vulnerable to crises and disruptions. Despite our extensive agricultural areas, we are not even self-sufficient in basic commodities like potatoes, which is remarkable.

The government's signing of the Kunming-Montreal Framework for Biological Diversity two years ago risks exacerbating the situation. According to the framework, countries must significantly increase their protected areas over the coming years. The goal is to protect biological diversity. By 2030, at least 30% of all areas, on land and at sea, must be conserved. Sweden, which currently conserves around 15%, must identify large areas to be protected over the coming years. With shrinking fields, we risk getting less wheat, fewer potatoes, and less rapeseed. It's uncertain whether technological advancements can compensate for this, especially when the amount of pesticides and industrial fertilizers must be reduced significantly.

In Danish documents on the "roadmap for sustainable development" of the food system, the possibility of redistributing agricultural land (land distribution reforms) and agreements on financing for restoring cultivated land to wetlands (the restoration of cultivated, carbon-rich soils) are discussed. One cannot avoid the impression that the cultivated areas need to be reduced, in some cases significantly.

The green transition has been a priority on the political agenda in recent years, with the goal of reducing carbon emissions and increasing biological diversity. However, it has become clear that the transition risks having consequences for our preparedness.

One example is the debate about wind power. On the one hand, wind power is said to contribute to reducing carbon emissions and increasing renewable energy. On the other hand, it is said to pose a security risk, as wind turbines can affect radio communication and radar surveillance.

Of course, it's easy to be in favor of biological diversity, but what do we do if this goal comes into conflict with the needs of a robust societal preparedness? Then we are faced with a difficult prioritization. Should we put the safety of people and society before the protection of nature, or vice versa?

“Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable” said J. K. Galbraith, one of the most influential economists of the 20th century. Maybe we can’t both eat the cake and have it too?

@ 6e0ea5d6:0327f353

Ascolta.

We live in times where the average man is measured by the speeches he gives — not by the commitments he keeps. People talk about dreams, goals, promises… but what truly remains is what’s honored in the silence of small gestures, in actions that don’t seek applause, in attitudes unseen — yet speak volumes.

Punctuality, for example. Showing up on time isn’t about the clock. It’s about respect. Respect for another’s time, yes — but more importantly, respect for one’s own word. A man who is late without reason is already running late in his values. And the one who excuses his own lateness with sweet justifications slowly gets used to mediocrity.

Keeping your word is more than fulfilling promises. It is sealing, with the mouth, what the body must later uphold. Every time a man commits to something, he creates a moral debt with his own dignity. And to break that commitment is to declare bankruptcy — not in the eyes of others, but in front of himself.

And debts? Even the small ones — or especially the small ones — are precise thermometers of character. A forgotten sum, an unpaid favor, a commitment left behind… all of these reveal the structure of the inner building that man resides in. He who neglects the small is merely rehearsing for his future collapse.

Life, contrary to what the reckless say, is not built on grand deeds. It is built with small bricks, laid with almost obsessive precision. The truly great man is the one who respects the details — recognizing in them a code of conduct.

In Sicily, especially in the streets of Palermo, I learned early on that there is more nobility in paying a five-euro debt on time than in flaunting riches gained without word, without honor, without dignity.

As they say in Palermo: L’uomo si conosce dalle piccole cose.

So, amico mio, Don’t talk to me about greatness if you can’t show up on time. Don’t talk to me about respect if your word is fickle. And above all, don’t talk to me about honor if you still owe what you once promised — no matter how small.

Thank you for reading, my friend!

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

A toast to our family!

@ 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.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Custom spreadsheets

The idea was to use it to make an app that would serve as custom database for everything and interact with the spreadsheet so people could play and calculate with their values after they were created by the custom app, something like an MS Access integrated with Excel?

My first attempt that worked (I believe there was an attempt before but I have probably deleted it from everywhere) was this react-microspreadsheet thing (at the time called react-spreadsheet before I donated the npm name to someone who asked):

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/react-microspreadsheet

This was a very good spreadsheet component that did many things current "react spreadsheet" components out there don't do. It had formulas; support for that handle thing that you pulled with the mouse and it autofilled cells with a pattern; it had keyboard navigation with Ctrl, Shift, Ctrl+Shift; it had that thing through which you copy-pasted formulas and they would change their parameters depending on where you pasted them (implemented in a very poor manner because I was using and thinking about Excel in baby mode at the time).

Then I tried to make it into "a small sheet you can share" kind of app through assemblymade.com, and eventually as I tried to add more things bugs began to appear.

Then there was cycle6-spreadsheet:

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/spreadsheet-cycle6

If I remember well this was very similar to the other one, although made almost 2 years after. Despite having the same initial goal of the other (the multi-app custom database thing) it only yielded:

• Sidesheet, a Chrome extension that opened a spreadsheet on the side of the screen that you could use to make calculations and so on. It worked, but had too many bugs that probably caused me to give up entirely.

I'm not sure which of the two spreadsheets above powers http://sheets.alhur.es.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

P2P reputation thing

Each node shares a blob of the reputations they have, which includes a confidence number. The number comes from the fact that reputations are inherited from other nodes they trust and averaged by their confidence in these. Everything is mixed for plausible deniability. By default a node only shares their stuff with people they manually add, to prevent government from crawling everybody's database. Also to each added friend nodes share a different identity/pubkey (like giving a new Bitcoin address for every transaction) (derived from hip32) (and since each identity can only be contacted by one other entity the node filters incoming connections to download their database: "this identity already been used? no, yes, used with which peer?").

Network protocol

Maybe the data uploader/offerer initiates connection to the receiver over Tor so there's only a Tor address for incoming data, never an address for a data source, i.e. everybody has an address, but only for requesting data.

How to request? Post an encrypted message in an IRC room or something similar (better if messages are stored for a while) targeted to the node/identity you want to download from, along with your Tor address. Once the node sees that it checks if you can download and contacts you.

The encrypted messages could have the target identity pubkey prefix such that the receiving node could try to decrypt only some if those with some probability of success.

Nodes can choose to share with anyone, share only with pre-approved people, share only with people who know one of their addresses/entities (works like a PIN, you give the address to someone in the street, that person can reach you, to the next person you give another address etc., you can even have a public address and share limited data with that).

Data model

Each entry in a database should be in the following format:

internal_id : real_world_identifier [, real_world_identifier...] : tag

Which means you can either associate one or multiple real world identifier with an internal id and associate the real person designated by these identifiers with a tag. the tag should be part of the standard or maybe negotiated between peers. it can be things like scammer, thief, tax collector etc., or honest, good dentist etc. defining good enough labels may be tricky.

internal_id should be created by the user who made the record about the person.

At first this is not necessary, but additional bloat can be added to the protocol if the federated automated message posting boards are working in the sense that each user can ask for more information about a given id and the author of that record can contact the person asking for information and deliver free text to them with the given information. For this to work the internal id must be a public key and the information delivered must be signed with the correspondent private key, so the receiver of the information will know it's not just some spammer inventing stuff, but actually the person who originated that record.

@ f88e6629:e5254dd5

...which allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.

• Without sovereign and accessible payments we are loosing censorship resistance
• Without censorship resistance even other core characteristics are in danger - including scarcity and durability.
• This affects every bitcoiner including sworn hodlers and MSTR followers.

| Property | Description | Fulfillment | | --- | --- | --- | | Scarce | Fixed supply forever. Instantly and costlessly verifiable | 🟢  Good, but can be harmed without censorship resistance | | Portable | Effortless to store and move, with negligible costs | 🟠 Onchain transactions can be expensive, other layers require onchain to be sovereign. Easy portability is offered by custodians only. | | Divisible | Infinitely divisible | 🟠 Smaller units than dust are available only for LN users, which most people can’t use in a sovereign way. | | Durable | Exists forever without deterioration | 🟢  Good, but can be harmed without censorship resistance | | Fungible | Every piece is forever the same as every other piece | 🟡 Onchain bitcoin is not fungible. | | Acceptable | Everyone, anywhere, can send and receive | 🟠 Most people are not able to send and receive in a sovereign way. | | Censorship Resistant | You hold it. Nobody can take it or stop you sending it | 🟠 Custodians are honey-pots that can and will be regulated |

➡️ We need accessible, scalable, and sovereign payment methods

@ 0fa80bd3:ea7325de

intro

The Russian state made me a Bitcoiner. In 1991, it devalued my grandmother's hard-earned savings. She worked tirelessly in the kitchen of a dining car on the Moscow–Warsaw route. Everything she had saved for my sister and me to attend university vanished overnight. This story is similar to what many experienced, including Wences Casares. The pain and injustice of that time became my first lessons about the fragility of systems and the value of genuine, incorruptible assets, forever changing my perception of money and my trust in government promises.

In 2014, I was living in Moscow, running a trading business, and frequently traveling to China. One day, I learned about the Cypriot banking crisis and the possibility of moving money through some strange thing called Bitcoin. At the time, I didn’t give it much thought. Returning to the idea six months later, as a business-oriented geek, I eagerly began studying the topic and soon dove into it seriously.

I spent half a year reading articles on a local online journal, BitNovosti, actively participating in discussions, and eventually joined the editorial team as a translator. That’s how I learned about whitepapers, decentralization, mining, cryptographic keys, and colored coins. About Satoshi Nakamoto, Silk Road, Mt. Gox, and BitcoinTalk. Over time, I befriended the journal’s owner and, leveraging my management experience, later became an editor. I was drawn to the crypto-anarchist stance and commitment to decentralization principles. We wrote about the economic, historical, and social preconditions for Bitcoin’s emergence, and it was during this time that I fully embraced the idea.

It got to the point where I sold my apartment and, during the market's downturn, bought 50 bitcoins, just after the peak price of $1,200 per coin. That marked the beginning of my first crypto winter. As an editor, I organized workflows, managed translators, developed a YouTube channel, and attended conferences in Russia and Ukraine. That’s how I learned about Wences Casares and even wrote a piece about him. I also met Mikhail Chobanyan (Ukrainian exchange Kuna), Alexander Ivanov (Waves project), Konstantin Lomashuk (Lido project), and, of course, Vitalik Buterin. It was a time of complete immersion, 24/7, and boundless hope.

After moving to the United States, I expected the industry to grow rapidly, attended events, but the introduction of BitLicense froze the industry for eight years. By 2017, it became clear that the industry was shifting toward gambling and creating tokens for the sake of tokens. I dismissed this idea as unsustainable. Then came a new crypto spring with the hype around beautiful NFTs – CryptoPunks and apes.

I made another attempt – we worked on a series called Digital Nomad Country Club, aimed at creating a global project. The proceeds from selling images were intended to fund the development of business tools for people worldwide. However, internal disagreements within the team prevented us from completing the project.

With Trump’s arrival in 2025, hope was reignited. I decided that it was time to create a project that society desperately needed. As someone passionate about history, I understood that destroying what exists was not the solution, but leaving everything as it was also felt unacceptable. You can’t destroy the system, as the fiery crypto-anarchist voices claimed.

With an analytical mindset (IQ 130) and a deep understanding of the freest societies, I realized what was missing—not only in Russia or the United States but globally—a Bitcoin-native system for tracking debts and financial interactions. This could return control of money to ordinary people and create horizontal connections parallel to state systems. My goal was to create, if not a Bitcoin killer app, then at least to lay its foundation.

At the inauguration event in New York, I rediscovered the Nostr project. I realized it was not only technologically simple and already quite popular but also perfectly aligned with my vision. For the past month and a half, using insights and experience gained since 2014, I’ve been working full-time on this project.

@ 6e0ea5d6:0327f353

Ascolta bene.
A man’s collapse never begins on the battlefield.
It begins in the invisible antechamber of his own mind.
Before any public fall, there is an ignored internal whisper—
a small, quiet, private decision that gradually drags him toward ruin.

No empire ever fell without first rotting from within.
The world does not destroy a man who hasn’t first surrendered to himself.
The enemy outside only wins when it finds space in the void the man has silently carved.

**Non ti sbagliare ** — there are no armies more ruthless than undisciplined thoughts.
There are no blows more fatal than the ones we deal ourselves:
with small concessions, well-crafted excuses,
and the slow deterioration of our integrity.
What people call failure is nothing more than the logical outcome
of a sequence of internal betrayals.

Afraid of the world? Sciocchezze.
But a man who’s already bowed before his own weaknesses—
he needs no enemies.
He digs his own grave, chooses the epitaph,
and the only thing the world does is toss in some dirt.

Capisci?

Strength isn’t the absence of falling, but the presence of resistance.
The true battle isn’t external.
It takes place within—where there’s only you, your conscience, and the mirror.
And it’s in that silent courtroom where everything is decided.

The discipline to say “no” to yourself
is more noble than any public glory.
Self-control is more valuable than any victory over others.

In Sicily, we learn early:
“Cu s’abbrazza cu’ so’ nemicu, si scorda la faccia di l’amicu.”
He who embraces his enemy forgets the face of his friend.
The most dangerous enemy is the one you feed daily with self-indulgence.
And the most relentless confrontation is the one you avoid in front of the mirror.

So don’t talk to me about external defeats.
Tell me where inside you the weakness began.
Tell me the exact moment you abandoned what you believed in, in the name of ease.
Because a man only falls before the world… after falling before himself.

Thank you for reading, my friend!

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

A toast to our family!

@ e3ba5e1a:5e433365

I got into a friendly discussion on X regarding health insurance. The specific question was how to deal with health insurance companies (presumably unfairly) denying claims? My answer, as usual: get government out of it!

The US healthcare system is essentially the worst of both worlds:

• Unlike full single payer, individuals incur high costs
• Unlike a true free market, regulation causes increases in costs and decreases competition among insurers

I'm firmly on the side of moving towards the free market. (And I say that as someone living under a single payer system now.) Here's what I would do:

• Get rid of tax incentives that make health insurance tied to your employer, giving individuals back proper freedom of choice.
• Reduce regulations significantly.

• In the short term, some people will still get rejected claims and other obnoxious behavior from insurance companies. We address that in two ways:

  1. Due to reduced regulations, new insurance companies will be able to enter the market offering more reliable coverage and better rates, and people will flock to them because they have the freedom to make their own choices.
  2. Sue the asses off of companies that reject claims unfairly. And ideally, as one of the few legitimate roles of government in all this, institute new laws that limit the ability of fine print to allow insurers to escape their responsibilities. (I'm hesitant that the latter will happen due to the incestuous relationship between Congress/regulators and insurers, but I can hope.)

Will this magically fix everything overnight like politicians normally promise? No. But it will allow the market to return to a healthy state. And I don't think it will take long (order of magnitude: 5-10 years) for it to come together, but that's just speculation.

And since there's a high correlation between those who believe government can fix problems by taking more control and demanding that only credentialed experts weigh in on a topic (both points I strongly disagree with BTW): I'm a trained actuary and worked in the insurance industry, and have directly seen how government regulation reduces competition, raises prices, and harms consumers.

And my final point: I don't think any prior art would be a good comparison for deregulation in the US, it's such a different market than any other country in the world for so many reasons that lessons wouldn't really translate. Nonetheless, I asked Grok for some empirical data on this, and at best the results of deregulation could be called "mixed," but likely more accurately "uncertain, confused, and subject to whatever interpretation anyone wants to apply."

https://x.com/i/grok/share/Zc8yOdrN8lS275hXJ92uwq98M

@ 42342239:1d80db24

It's not easy to navigate today's heavily polluted media landscape. If it's not agenda-setting journalism, then it's "government by journalism", or "åfanism" (i.e. clickbait journalism)) that causes distortions in what we, as media consumers, get to see. On social media, bot armies and troll factories pollute the information landscape like the German Ruhr area 100 years ago - and who knows exactly how all these opaque algorithms select the information that's placed in front of our eyes. While true information is sometimes censored, as pointed out by the founder of Meta (then Facebook) the other year, the employees of censorship authorities somehow suddenly go on vacation when those in power spread false information.

The need to carefully weigh the information that reaches us may therefore be more important than ever. A principle that can help us follows from what is called costly signaling in evolutionary biology. Costly signaling refers to traits or behaviors that are expensive to maintain or perform. These signals function as honest indicators. One example is the beauty and complexity of a peacock's feathers. Since only healthy and strong males can afford to invest in these feathers, they become credible and honest signals to peahens looking for a partner.

The idea is also found in economics. There, costly signaling refers to when an individual performs an action with high costs to communicate something with greater credibility. For example, obtaining a degree from a prestigious university can be a costly signal. Such a degree can require significant economic and time resources. A degree from a prestigious university can therefore, like a peacock's extravagant feathers, function as a costly signal (of an individual's endurance and intelligence). Not to peahens, but to employers seeking to hire.

News is what someone, somewhere, doesn't want reported: all the rest is advertisement

-- William Randolph Hearst

Media mogul William Randolph Hearst and renowned author George Orwell are both said to have stated that "News is what someone, somewhere, doesn't want reported: all the rest is advertisement." Although it's a bit drastic, there may be a point to the reasoning. "If the spin is too smooth, is it really news?"

Uri Berliner, a veteran of the American public radio station National Public Radio (NPR) for 25 years, recently shared his concerns about the radio's lack of impartiality in public. He argued that NPR had gone astray when it started telling listeners how to think. A week later, he was suspended. His spin was apparently not smooth enough for his employer.

Uri Berliner, by speaking out publicly in this way, took a clear risk. And based on the theory of costly signaling, it's perhaps precisely why we should consider what he had to say.

Perhaps those who resign in protest, those who forgo income, or those who risk their social capital actually deserve much more attention from us media consumers than we usually give them. It is the costly signal that indicates real news value.

Perhaps the rest should just be disregarded as mere advertising.

@ c21b1a6c:0cd4d170

🧾 Progress Report Two

Hey everyone! I’m back with another progress report for Formstr, a part of the now completed grant from nostr:npub10pensatlcfwktnvjjw2dtem38n6rvw8g6fv73h84cuacxn4c28eqyfn34f . This update covers everything we’ve built since the last milestone — including polish, performance, power features, and plenty of bug-squashing.

---

🏗️ What’s New Since Last Time?

This quarter was less about foundational rewrites and more about production hardening and real-world feedback. With users now onboard, our focus shifted to polishing UX, fixing issues, and adding new features that made Formstr easier and more powerful to use.

✨ New Features & UX Improvements

• Edit Existing Forms
• Form Templates
• Drag & Drop Enhancements (especially for mobile)
• New Public Forms UX (card-style layout)
• FAQ & Support Sections
• Relay Modal for Publishing
• Skeleton Loaders and subtle UI Polish

---

🐛 Major Bug Fixes

• Fixed broken CSV exports when responses were empty
• Cleaned up mobile rendering issues for public forms
• Resolved blank.ts export issues and global form bugs
• Fixed invalid npub strings in the admin flow
• Patched response handling for private forms
• Lots of small fixes for titles, drafts, embedded form URLs, etc.

---

🔐 Access Control & Privacy

• Made forms private by default
• Fixed multiple issues around form visibility, access control UIs, and anonymous submissions
• Improved detection of pubkey issues in shared forms

---

🚧 Some Notable In-Progress Features

The following features are actively being developed, and many are nearing completion:

• Conditional Questions:
  This one’s been tough to crack, but we’re close!
  Work in progress by keraliss and myself:
  👉 PR #252

• Downloadable Forms:
  Fully-contained downloadable HTML versions of forms.
  Being led by casyazmon with initial code by Basanta Goswami
  👉 PR #274

• OLLAMA Integration (Self-Hosted LLMs):
  Users will be able to create forms using locally hosted LLMs.
  PR by ashu01304
  👉 PR #247

• Sections in Forms:
  Work just started on adding section support!
  Small PoC PR by keraliss:
  👉 PR #217

---

🙌 Huge Thanks to New Contributors

We've had amazing contributors this cycle. Big thanks to:

• Aashutosh Gandhi (ashu01304) – drag-and-drop enhancements, OLLAMA integration
• Amaresh Prasad (devAmaresh) – fixed npub and access bugs
• Biresh Biswas (Billa05) – skeleton loaders
• Shashank Shekhar Singh (Shashankss1205) – bugfixes, co-authored image patches
• Akap Azmon Deh-nji (casyazmon) – CSV fixes, downloadable forms
• Manas Ranjan Dash (mdash3735) – bug fixes
• Basanta Goswami – initial groundwork for downloadable forms
• keraliss – ongoing work on conditional questions and sections

We also registered for the Summer of Bitcoin program and have been receiving contributions from some incredibly bright new applicants.

---

🔍 What’s Still Coming?

From the wishlist I committed to during the grant, here’s what’s still in the oven:

-[x] Upgrade to nip-44 - [x] Access Controlled Forms: A Form will be able to have multiple admins and Editors. - [x] Private Forms and Fixed Participants: Enncrypt a form and only allow certain npubs to fill it. - [x] Edit Past Forms: Being able to edit an existing form. - [x] Edit Past Forms
- [ ] Conditional Rendering (in progress)
- [ ] Sections (just started)
- [ ] Integrations - OLLAMA / AI-based Form Generation (near complete)
- [ ] Paid Surveys
- [ ] NIP-42 Private Relay support

---

❌ What’s De-Prioritized?

• Nothing is de-prioritized now especially since Ollama Integration got re-prioritized (thanks to Summer Of Bitcoin). We are a little delayed on Private Relays support but it's now becoming a priority and in active development. Zap Surveys will be coming soon too.

---

💸 How Funds Were Used

• Paid individual contributors for their work.
• Living expenses to allow full-time focus on development

---

🧠 Closing Thoughts

Things feel like they’re coming together now. We’re out of "beta hell", starting to see real adoption, and most importantly, gathering feedback from real users. That’s helping us make smarter choices and move fast without breaking too much.

Stay tuned for the next big drop — and in the meantime, try creating a form at formstr.app, and let me know what you think!

@ 21ffd29c:518a8ff5

• What Are Homestead Chickens?
  Homestead chickens are domesticated fowl kept by homeowners to provide eggs and companionship. They play a vital role in the homestead ecosystem.

Why Water is Essential in Cold Weather - Hydration Basics:
Chickens don't drink much water naturally but need it for hydration, especially during cold weather when metabolic rates increase. - Environmental Factors:
Cold weather can lead to ice buildup on water sources. Chickens benefit from having access to fresh water year-round.

Maintaining Accessible Water Sources - Shallow Troughs:
Use shallow troughs instead of deep containers to minimize ice formation and ensure constant water supply. - Automatic Feeders:
Consider installing automatic feeders for convenience, especially in unpredictable weather conditions. - Multiple Water Sources:
Provide multiple water sources to prevent competition and ensure all chickens have access.

Preventing Ice Buildup - Floating Shallow Troughs:
Opt for troughs that sit above the ground to avoid ice buildup. Ensure they're placed where they can't freeze completely. - Regular Checks:
Inspect water sources regularly to remove ice and debris, maintaining accessibility for chickens.

Best Practices for Watering Chickens - Waterers Designed for Cold Weather:
Use waterers made of stainless steel or plastic that can withstand cold temperatures. - Seasonal Adjustments:
During extreme cold spells, supplement with a small amount of fresh water to aid in drinking.

Conclusion - Key Takeaways:
Providing proper water is crucial for the health and well-being of homestead chickens during cold weather. Maintaining accessible, shallow water sources prevents issues like ice buildup and ensures hydration.

Final Thoughts - Sustainability Considerations:
While chickens don't drink much, ensuring they have water supports their overall health and sustainability efforts. - Environmental Impact:
Thoughtful water management can reduce water usage, promoting eco-friendly practices on the homestead.

@ 0b118e40:4edc09cb

note - i wrote this before the global trade war, back when tariffs only affected China, Mexico, and Canada. But you will still get the gist of it.

During tough economic times, governments have to decide if they should open markets to global trade or protect local businesses with tariffs. The United States has swung between these two strategies, and history shows that the results are never straightforward

Just days ago, President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China. He framed these tariffs (25% on most Canadian goods, 10% on Canadian energy, 25% on Mexican imports, and 10% on Chinese imports) as a way to protect American industries.

But will they actually help, or could they backfire?

A History of U.S. Tariffs

Many have asked if countries will retaliate against the US. They can and they have. Once upon a time, 60 countries were so pissed off at the US, they retaliated at one go and crushed US dominance over trade.

This was during the Great Depression era in the 1930s when the government passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, placing high taxes on over 20,000 foreign goods. The goal was to protect American jobs, especially American farmers and manufacturers, but it backfired so badly.

Over 60 countries, including Canada, France, and Germany, retaliated by imposing their own tariffs. By 1933, US imports and exports both dropped significantly over 60%, and unemployment rose to 25%.

After President Franklin Roosevelt came to office, he implemented the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 to reverse these policies, calming the world down and reviving trade again.

The economist history of protectionism

The idea of shielding local businesses with tariffs isn’t new or recent. It's been around for a few centuries. In the 16th to 18th centuries, mercantilism encouraged countries to limit imports and boost exports.

In the 18th century, Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, argued that free trade allows nations to specialize in what they do best countering protectionism policies. Friedrich List later challenged Smith's view by stating that developing countries need some protection to grow their “infant” industries which is a belief that still influences many governments today.

But how often do governments truly support startups and new small businesses in ways that create real growth, rather than allowing funds to trickle down to large corporations instead?

In modern times, John Maynard Keynes supported government intervention during economic downturns, while Milton Friedman championed free trade and minimal state interference.

Paul Krugman argued that limited protectionism can help large industries by providing them unfair advantages to become global market leaders. I have deep reservations about Krugman’s take, particularly on its impact or lack thereof in globalizing small businesses.

The debate between free trade and protectionism has existed for centuries. What’s clear is that there is no one-size-fits-all model to this.

The Political Debate - left vs right

Both the left and right have used tariffs but for different reasons. The right supports tariffs to protect jobs and industries, while the left uses them to prevent multinational corporations from exploiting cheap labor abroad.

Neoliberal policies favor free trade, arguing that competition drives efficiency and growth. In the US this gets a little bit confusing as liberals are tied to the left, and free trade is tied to libertarianism which the rights align closely with, yet at present right wing politicians push for protectionism which crosses the boundaries of free-trade.

There are also institutions like the WTO and IMF who advocate for open markets, but their policies often reflect political alliances and preferential treatment - so it depends on what you define as true 'free trade’.

Who Really Benefits from Tariffs?

Most often, tariffs help capital-intensive industries like pharmaceuticals, tech, and defense, while hurting labor-intensive sectors like manufacturing, agriculture, and construction.

This worsens inequality as big corporations will thrive, while small businesses and working-class people struggle with rising costs and fewer job opportunities.

I’ve been reading through international trade economics out of personal interest, I'll share some models below on why this is the case

1. The Disruption of Natural Trade

Tariffs disrupt the natural flow of trade. The Heckscher-Ohlin model explains that countries export goods that match their resources like Canada’s natural resource energy or China’s labour intensive textile and electronics. When tariffs block this natural exchange, industries suffer.

A clear example was Europe’s energy crisis during the Russia-Ukraine war. By abruptly cutting themselves off from the supply of Russian energy, Europe scrambled to find alternative sources. In the end, it was the people who had to bear the brunt of skyrocketing prices of energy.

2. Who wins and who loses?

The Stolper-Samuelson theorem helps us understand who benefits from tariffs and who loses. The idea behind it is that tariffs benefit capital-intensive industries, while labor-intensive sectors are hurt.

In the US, small manufacturing industries that rely on low-cost imports on intermediary parts from countries like China and Mexico will face rising costs, making their final goods too expensive and less competitive. This is similar to what happened to Argentina, where subsidies and devaluation of pesos contributed to cost-push inflation, making locally produced goods more expensive and less competitive globally.

This also reminded me of the decline of the US Rust Belt during the 1970s and 1980s, where the outsourcing of labour-intensive manufacturing jobs led to economic stagnation in many regions in the Midwest, while capital-intensive sectors flourished on the coasts. It resulted in significantly high income inequality that has not improved over the last 40 years.

Ultimately the cost of economic disruption is disproportionately borne by smaller businesses and low-skilled workers. At the end of the day, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

3. Delays in Economic Growth

The Rybczynski theorem suggests that economic growth depends on how efficiently nations reallocate their resources toward capital- or labor-intensive industries. But tariffs can distort this transition and progress.

In the 70s and 80s, the US steel industry had competition from Japan and Germany who modernized their production methods, making their steel more efficient and cost-effective. Instead of prioritizing innovation, many U.S. steel producers relied on tariffs and protectionist measures to shield themselves from foreign competition. This helped for a bit but over time, American steelmakers lost global market share as foreign competitors continued to produce better, cheaper steel. Other factors, such as aging infrastructure, and economic shifts toward a service-based economy, further contributed to the industry's decline.

A similar struggle is seen today with China’s high-tech ambitions. Tariffs on Chinese electronics and technology products limit access to key inputs, such as semiconductors and advanced robotics. While China continues its push for automation and AI-driven manufacturing, these trade barriers increase costs and disrupt supply chains, forcing China to accelerate its decoupling from Western markets. This shift could further strengthen alliances within BRICS, as China seeks alternative trade partnerships to reduce reliance on U.S.-controlled financial and technological ecosystems.

Will the current Tariff imposition backfire and isolate the US like it did a hundred years ago or 50 years ago? Is US risking it's position as a trusted economic leader? Only time would tell

The impact of tariff on innovation - or lack thereof

While the short-term impacts of tariffs often include higher consumer prices and job losses, the long-term effects can be even more damaging, as they discourage innovation by increasing costs and reducing competition.

Some historical examples globally : * Nigeria: Blocking import of rice opened up black market out of desperation to survive. * Brazil: Protectionist car policies led to expensive, outdated vehicles. * Malaysia’s Proton: Sheltered by tariffs and cronyism and failed to compete globally. * India (before 1991): Over-regulation limited the industries, until economic reforms allowed for growth. * Soviet Union during Cold War : Substandard products and minimal innovation due to the absence of foreign alternatives, yielding to economic stagnation.

On the flip side, Vietnam has significantly reduced protectionism policies by actively pursuing free trade agreements. This enabled it to become a key manufacturing hub. But Vietnam is not stopping there as it is actively pushing forward its capital-intensive growth by funding entrepreneurs.

The Future of U.S. Tariffs

History has shown that tariffs rarely deliver their intended benefits without unintended consequences. While they may provide temporary relief, they often raise prices, shrink job opportunities, and weaken industries in the long run.

Without a clear strategy for innovation and industrial modernization, the U.S. risks repeating past mistakes of isolating itself from global trade rather than strengthening its economy.

At this point, only time will tell whether these tariffs will truly help Americans or will they, once again, make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

@ 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.

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued new guidance halting spending on most foreign aid grants for 90 days, including military assistance to Ukraine. This immediate order shocked State Department officials and mandates “stop-work orders” on nearly all existing foreign assistance awards.

While it allows exceptions for military financing to Egypt and Israel, as well as emergency food assistance, it restricts aid to key allies like Ukraine, Jordan, and Taiwan. The guidance raises potential liability risks for the government due to unfulfilled contracts.

A report will be prepared within 85 days to recommend which programs to continue or discontinue.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Nostr is not decentralized nor censorship-resistant

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

Nostr today is indeed centralized.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

See also:

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

gravity

IPFS is nice as a personal archiving tool (edit: it's not). You store a bunch of data and make it available to the public.

The problem is that no one will ever know you have that data, therefore you need a place to publish it somewhere. Gravity was an attempt of being the tool for this job.

It was a website that showcased the collections from users, and it was also a command-line client that used your IPFS keys for authentication and allowed you to paste IPFS URIs and names and descriptions.

The site was intended to be easy to run so you could have multiple stellar bodies aggregating content and interact with them all in a standardized manner.

It also had an ActivityPub/"fediverse" integration so people could follow Gravity server users from Mastodon and friends and see new data they published as "tweets".

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/gravity

See also

• How IPFS is broken
• litepub