@ 6be5cc06:5259daf0

Eu reconheço que Deus, e somente Deus, é o soberano legítimo sobre todas as coisas. Nenhum homem, nenhuma instituição, nenhum parlamento tem autoridade para usurpar aquilo que pertence ao Rei dos reis. O Estado moderno, com sua pretensão totalizante, é uma farsa blasfema diante do trono de Cristo. Não aceito outro senhor.

A Lei que me guia não é a ditada por burocratas, mas a gravada por Deus na própria natureza humana. A razão, quando iluminada pela fé, é suficiente para discernir o que é justo. Rejeito as leis arbitrárias que pretendem legitimar o roubo, o assassinato ou a escravidão em nome da ordem. A justiça não nasce do decreto, mas da verdade.

Acredito firmemente na propriedade privada como extensão da própria pessoa. Aquilo que é fruto do meu trabalho, da minha criatividade, da minha dedicação, dos dons a mim concedidos por Deus, pertence a mim por direito natural. Ninguém pode legitimamente tomar o que é meu sem meu consentimento. Todo imposto é uma agressão; toda expropriação, um roubo. Defendo a liberdade econômica não por idolatria ao mercado, mas porque a liberdade é condição necessária para a virtude.

Assumo o Princípio da Não Agressão como o mínimo ético que devo respeitar. Não iniciarei o uso da força contra ninguém, nem contra sua propriedade. Exijo o mesmo de todos. Mas sei que isso não basta. O PNA delimita o que não devo fazer — ele não me ensina o que devo ser. A liberdade exterior só é boa se houver liberdade interior. O mercado pode ser livre, mas se a alma estiver escravizada pelo vício, o colapso será inevitável.

Por isso, não me basta a ética negativa. Creio que uma sociedade justa precisa de valores positivos: honra, responsabilidade, compaixão, respeito, fidelidade à verdade. Sem isso, mesmo uma sociedade que respeite formalmente os direitos individuais apodrecerá por dentro. Um povo que ama o lucro, mas despreza a verdade, que celebra a liberdade mas esquece a justiça, está se preparando para ser dominado. Trocará um déspota visível por mil tiranias invisíveis — o hedonismo, o consumismo, a mentira, o medo.

Não aceito a falsa caridade feita com o dinheiro tomado à força. A verdadeira generosidade nasce do coração livre, não da coerção institucional. Obrigar alguém a ajudar o próximo destrói tanto a liberdade quanto a virtude. Só há mérito onde há escolha. A caridade que nasce do amor é redentora; a que nasce do fisco é propaganda.

O Estado moderno é um ídolo. Ele promete segurança, mas entrega servidão. Promete justiça, mas entrega privilégios. Disfarça a opressão com linguagem técnica, legal e democrática. Mas por trás de suas máscaras, vejo apenas a velha serpente. Um parasita que se alimenta do trabalho alheio e manipula consciências para se perpetuar.

Resistir não é apenas um direito, é um dever. Obedecer a Deus antes que aos homens — essa é a minha regra. O poder se volta contra a verdade, mas minha lealdade pertence a quem criou o céu e a terra. A tirania não se combate com outro tirano, mas com a desobediência firme e pacífica dos que amam a justiça.

Não acredito em utopias. Desejo uma ordem natural, orgânica, enraizada no voluntarismo. Uma sociedade que se construa de baixo para cima: a partir da família, da comunidade local, da tradição e da fé. Não quero uma máquina que planeje a vida alheia, mas um tecido de relações voluntárias onde a liberdade floresça à sombra da cruz.

Desejo, sim, o reinado social de Cristo. Não por imposição, mas por convicção. Que Ele reine nos corações, nas famílias, nas ruas e nos contratos. Que a fé guie a razão e a razão ilumine a vida. Que a liberdade seja meio para a santidade — não um fim em si. E que, livres do jugo do Leviatã, sejamos servos apenas do Senhor.

@ 52b4a076:e7fad8bd

I have been recently building NFDB, a new relay DB. This post is meant as a short overview.

Regular relays have challenges

Current relay software have significant challenges, which I have experienced when hosting Nostr.land: - Scalability is only supported by adding full replicas, which does not scale to large relays. - Most relays use slow databases and are not optimized for large scale usage. - Search is near-impossible to implement on standard relays. - Privacy features such as NIP-42 are lacking. - Regular DB maintenance tasks on normal relays require extended downtime. - Fault-tolerance is implemented, if any, using a load balancer, which is limited. - Personalization and advanced filtering is not possible. - Local caching is not supported.

NFDB: A scalable database for large relays

NFDB is a new database meant for medium-large scale relays, built on FoundationDB that provides: - Near-unlimited scalability - Extended fault tolerance - Instant loading - Better search - Better personalization - and more.

Search

NFDB has extended search capabilities including: - Semantic search: Search for meaning, not words. - Interest-based search: Highlight content you care about. - Multi-faceted queries: Easily filter by topic, author group, keywords, and more at the same time. - Wide support for event kinds, including users, articles, etc.

Personalization

NFDB allows significant personalization: - Customized algorithms: Be your own algorithm. - Spam filtering: Filter content to your WoT, and use advanced spam filters. - Topic mutes: Mute topics, not keywords. - Media filtering: With Nostr.build, you will be able to filter NSFW and other content - Low data mode: Block notes that use high amounts of cellular data. - and more

Other

NFDB has support for many other features such as: - NIP-42: Protect your privacy with private drafts and DMs - Microrelays: Easily deploy your own personal microrelay - Containers: Dedicated, fast storage for discoverability events such as relay lists

Calcite: A local microrelay database

Calcite is a lightweight, local version of NFDB that is meant for microrelays and caching, meant for thousands of personal microrelays.

Calcite HA is an additional layer that allows live migration and relay failover in under 30 seconds, providing higher availability compared to current relays with greater simplicity. Calcite HA is enabled in all Calcite deployments.

For zero-downtime, NFDB is recommended.

Noswhere SmartCache

Relays are fixed in one location, but users can be anywhere.

Noswhere SmartCache is a CDN for relays that dynamically caches data on edge servers closest to you, allowing: - Multiple regions around the world - Improved throughput and performance - Faster loading times

routerd

routerd is a custom load-balancer optimized for Nostr relays, integrated with SmartCache.

routerd is specifically integrated with NFDB and Calcite HA to provide fast failover and high performance.

Ending notes

NFDB is planned to be deployed to Nostr.land in the coming weeks.

A lot more is to come. 👀️️️️️️

@ 30ceb64e:7f08bdf5

Status: Draft
Author: TheWildHustle

Abstract

This NIP defines a framework for storing and sharing health and fitness profile data on Nostr. It establishes a set of standardized event kinds for individual health metrics, allowing applications to selectively access specific health information while preserving user control and privacy.

In this framework exists - NIP-101h.1 Weight using kind 1351 - NIP-101h.2 Height using kind 1352 - NIP-101h.3 Age using kind 1353 - NIP-101h.4 Gender using kind 1354 - NIP-101h.5 Fitness Level using kind 1355

Motivation

I want to build and support an ecosystem of health and fitness related nostr clients that have the ability to share and utilize a bunch of specific interoperable health metrics.

• Selective access - Applications can access only the data they need
• User control - Users can choose which metrics to share
• Interoperability - Different health applications can share data
• Privacy - Sensitive health information can be managed independently

Specification

Kind Number Range

Health profile metrics use the kind number range 1351-1399:

| Kind | Metric | | --------- | ---------------------------------- | | 1351 | Weight | | 1352 | Height | | 1353 | Age | | 1354 | Gender | | 1355 | Fitness Level | | 1356-1399 | Reserved for future health metrics |

Common Structure

All health metric events SHOULD follow these guidelines:

• The content field contains the primary value of the metric
• Required tags:
• ['t', 'health'] - For categorizing as health data
• ['t', metric-specific-tag] - For identifying the specific metric
• ['unit', unit-of-measurement] - When applicable
• Optional tags:
• ['converted_value', value, unit] - For providing alternative unit measurements
• ['timestamp', ISO8601-date] - When the metric was measured
• ['source', application-name] - The source of the measurement

Unit Handling

Health metrics often have multiple ways to be measured. To ensure interoperability:

• Where multiple units are possible, one standard unit SHOULD be chosen as canonical
• When using non-standard units, a converted_value tag SHOULD be included with the canonical unit
• Both the original and converted values should be provided for maximum compatibility

Client Implementation Guidelines

Clients implementing this NIP SHOULD:

• Allow users to explicitly choose which metrics to publish
• Support reading health metrics from other users when appropriate permissions exist
• Support updating metrics with new values over time
• Preserve tags they don't understand for future compatibility
• Support at least the canonical unit for each metric

Extensions

New health metrics can be proposed as extensions to this NIP using the format:

• NIP-101h.X where X is the metric number

Each extension MUST specify: - A unique kind number in the range 1351-1399 - The content format and meaning - Required and optional tags - Examples of valid events

Privacy Considerations

Health data is sensitive personal information. Clients implementing this NIP SHOULD:

• Make it clear to users when health data is being published
• Consider incorporating NIP-44 encryption for sensitive metrics
• Allow users to selectively share metrics with specific individuals
• Provide easy ways to delete previously published health data

---

NIP-101h.1: Weight

Description

This NIP defines the format for storing and sharing weight data on Nostr.

Event Kind: 1351

Content

The content field MUST contain the numeric weight value as a string.

Required Tags

• ['unit', 'kg' or 'lb'] - Unit of measurement
• ['t', 'health'] - Categorization tag
• ['t', 'weight'] - Specific metric tag

Optional Tags

• ['converted_value', value, unit] - Provides the weight in alternative units for interoperability
• ['timestamp', ISO8601 date] - When the weight was measured

Examples

json { "kind": 1351, "content": "70", "tags": [ ["unit", "kg"], ["t", "health"], ["t", "weight"] ] }

json { "kind": 1351, "content": "154", "tags": [ ["unit", "lb"], ["t", "health"], ["t", "weight"], ["converted_value", "69.85", "kg"] ] }

NIP-101h.2: Height

Status: Draft

Description

This NIP defines the format for storing and sharing height data on Nostr.

Event Kind: 1352

Content

The content field can use two formats: - For metric height: A string containing the numeric height value in centimeters (cm) - For imperial height: A JSON string with feet and inches properties

Required Tags

• ['t', 'health'] - Categorization tag
• ['t', 'height'] - Specific metric tag
• ['unit', 'cm' or 'imperial'] - Unit of measurement

Optional Tags

• ['converted_value', value, 'cm'] - Provides height in centimeters for interoperability when imperial is used
• ['timestamp', ISO8601-date] - When the height was measured

Examples

```jsx // Example 1: Metric height Apply to App.jsx

// Example 2: Imperial height with conversion Apply to App.jsx ```

Implementation Notes

• Centimeters (cm) is the canonical unit for height interoperability
• When using imperial units, a conversion to centimeters SHOULD be provided
• Height values SHOULD be positive integers
• For maximum compatibility, clients SHOULD support both formats

---

NIP-101h.3: Age

Status: Draft

Description

This NIP defines the format for storing and sharing age data on Nostr.

Event Kind: 1353

Content

The content field MUST contain the numeric age value as a string.

Required Tags

• ['unit', 'years'] - Unit of measurement
• ['t', 'health'] - Categorization tag
• ['t', 'age'] - Specific metric tag

Optional Tags

• ['timestamp', ISO8601-date] - When the age was recorded
• ['dob', ISO8601-date] - Date of birth (if the user chooses to share it)

Examples

```jsx // Example 1: Basic age Apply to App.jsx

// Example 2: Age with DOB Apply to App.jsx ```

Implementation Notes

• Age SHOULD be represented as a positive integer
• For privacy reasons, date of birth (dob) is optional
• Clients SHOULD consider updating age automatically if date of birth is known
• Age can be a sensitive metric and clients may want to consider encrypting this data

---

NIP-101h.4: Gender

Status: Draft

Description

This NIP defines the format for storing and sharing gender data on Nostr.

Event Kind: 1354

Content

The content field contains a string representing the user's gender.

Required Tags

• ['t', 'health'] - Categorization tag
• ['t', 'gender'] - Specific metric tag

Optional Tags

• ['timestamp', ISO8601-date] - When the gender was recorded
• ['preferred_pronouns', string] - User's preferred pronouns

Common Values

While any string value is permitted, the following common values are recommended for interoperability: - male - female - non-binary - other - prefer-not-to-say

Examples

```jsx // Example 1: Basic gender Apply to App.jsx

// Example 2: Gender with pronouns Apply to App.jsx ```

Implementation Notes

• Clients SHOULD allow free-form input for gender
• For maximum compatibility, clients SHOULD support the common values
• Gender is a sensitive personal attribute and clients SHOULD consider appropriate privacy controls
• Applications focusing on health metrics should be respectful of gender diversity

---

NIP-101h.5: Fitness Level

Status: Draft

Description

This NIP defines the format for storing and sharing fitness level data on Nostr.

Event Kind: 1355

Content

The content field contains a string representing the user's fitness level.

Required Tags

• ['t', 'health'] - Categorization tag
• ['t', 'fitness'] - Fitness category tag
• ['t', 'level'] - Specific metric tag

Optional Tags

• ['timestamp', ISO8601-date] - When the fitness level was recorded
• ['activity', activity-type] - Specific activity the fitness level relates to
• ['metrics', JSON-string] - Quantifiable fitness metrics used to determine level

Common Values

While any string value is permitted, the following common values are recommended for interoperability: - beginner - intermediate - advanced - elite - professional

Examples

```jsx // Example 1: Basic fitness level Apply to App.jsx

// Example 2: Activity-specific fitness level with metrics Apply to App.jsx ```

Implementation Notes

• Fitness level is subjective and may vary by activity
• The activity tag can be used to specify fitness level for different activities
• The metrics tag can provide objective measurements to support the fitness level
• Clients can extend this format to include activity-specific fitness assessments
• For general fitness apps, the simple beginner/intermediate/advanced scale is recommended

@ 91bea5cd:1df4451c

O Contexto Legal Brasileiro e o Consentimento

No ordenamento jurídico brasileiro, o consentimento do ofendido pode, em certas circunstâncias, afastar a ilicitude de um ato que, sem ele, configuraria crime (como lesão corporal leve, prevista no Art. 129 do Código Penal). Contudo, o consentimento tem limites claros: não é válido para bens jurídicos indisponíveis, como a vida, e sua eficácia é questionável em casos de lesões corporais graves ou gravíssimas.

A prática de BDSM consensual situa-se em uma zona complexa. Em tese, se ambos os parceiros são adultos, capazes, e consentiram livre e informadamente nos atos praticados, sem que resultem em lesões graves permanentes ou risco de morte não consentido, não haveria crime. O desafio reside na comprovação desse consentimento, especialmente se uma das partes, posteriormente, o negar ou alegar coação.

A Lei Maria da Penha (Lei nº 11.340/2006)

A Lei Maria da Penha é um marco fundamental na proteção da mulher contra a violência doméstica e familiar. Ela estabelece mecanismos para coibir e prevenir tal violência, definindo suas formas (física, psicológica, sexual, patrimonial e moral) e prevendo medidas protetivas de urgência.

Embora essencial, a aplicação da lei em contextos de BDSM pode ser delicada. Uma alegação de violência por parte da mulher, mesmo que as lesões ou situações decorram de práticas consensuais, tende a receber atenção prioritária das autoridades, dada a presunção de vulnerabilidade estabelecida pela lei. Isso pode criar um cenário onde o parceiro masculino enfrenta dificuldades significativas em demonstrar a natureza consensual dos atos, especialmente se não houver provas robustas pré-constituídas.

Outros riscos:

Lesão corporal grave ou gravíssima (art. 129, §§ 1º e 2º, CP), não pode ser justificada pelo consentimento, podendo ensejar persecução penal.

Crimes contra a dignidade sexual (arts. 213 e seguintes do CP) são de ação pública incondicionada e independem de representação da vítima para a investigação e denúncia.

Riscos de Falsas Acusações e Alegação de Coação Futura

Os riscos para os praticantes de BDSM, especialmente para o parceiro que assume o papel dominante ou que inflige dor/restrição (frequentemente, mas não exclusivamente, o homem), podem surgir de diversas frentes:

1. Acusações Externas: Vizinhos, familiares ou amigos que desconhecem a natureza consensual do relacionamento podem interpretar sons, marcas ou comportamentos como sinais de abuso e denunciar às autoridades.
2. Alegações Futuras da Parceira: Em caso de término conturbado, vingança, arrependimento ou mudança de perspectiva, a parceira pode reinterpretar as práticas passadas como abuso e buscar reparação ou retaliação através de uma denúncia. A alegação pode ser de que o consentimento nunca existiu ou foi viciado.
3. Alegação de Coação: Uma das formas mais complexas de refutar é a alegação de que o consentimento foi obtido mediante coação (física, moral, psicológica ou econômica). A parceira pode alegar, por exemplo, que se sentia pressionada, intimidada ou dependente, e que seu "sim" não era genuíno. Provar a ausência de coação a posteriori é extremamente difícil.
4. Ingenuidade e Vulnerabilidade Masculina: Muitos homens, confiando na dinâmica consensual e na parceira, podem negligenciar a necessidade de precauções. A crença de que "isso nunca aconteceria comigo" ou a falta de conhecimento sobre as implicações legais e o peso processual de uma acusação no âmbito da Lei Maria da Penha podem deixá-los vulneráveis. A presença de marcas físicas, mesmo que consentidas, pode ser usada como evidência de agressão, invertendo o ônus da prova na prática, ainda que não na teoria jurídica.

Estratégias de Prevenção e Mitigação

Não existe um método infalível para evitar completamente o risco de uma falsa acusação, mas diversas medidas podem ser adotadas para construir um histórico de consentimento e reduzir vulnerabilidades:

1. Comunicação Explícita e Contínua: A base de qualquer prática BDSM segura é a comunicação constante. Negociar limites, desejos, palavras de segurança ("safewords") e expectativas antes, durante e depois das cenas é crucial. Manter registros dessas negociações (e-mails, mensagens, diários compartilhados) pode ser útil.

2. Documentação do Consentimento:

   • Contratos de Relacionamento/Cena: Embora a validade jurídica de "contratos BDSM" seja discutível no Brasil (não podem afastar normas de ordem pública), eles servem como forte evidência da intenção das partes, da negociação detalhada de limites e do consentimento informado. Devem ser claros, datados, assinados e, idealmente, reconhecidos em cartório (para prova de data e autenticidade das assinaturas).

   • Registros Audiovisuais: Gravar (com consentimento explícito para a gravação) discussões sobre consentimento e limites antes das cenas pode ser uma prova poderosa. Gravar as próprias cenas é mais complexo devido a questões de privacidade e potencial uso indevido, mas pode ser considerado em casos específicos, sempre com consentimento mútuo documentado para a gravação.

     Importante: a gravação deve ser com ciência da outra parte, para não configurar violação da intimidade (art. 5º, X, da Constituição Federal e art. 20 do Código Civil).

3. Testemunhas: Em alguns contextos de comunidade BDSM, a presença de terceiros de confiança durante negociações ou mesmo cenas pode servir como testemunho, embora isso possa alterar a dinâmica íntima do casal.

4. Estabelecimento Claro de Limites e Palavras de Segurança: Definir e respeitar rigorosamente os limites (o que é permitido, o que é proibido) e as palavras de segurança é fundamental. O desrespeito a uma palavra de segurança encerra o consentimento para aquele ato.
5. Avaliação Contínua do Consentimento: O consentimento não é um cheque em branco; ele deve ser entusiástico, contínuo e revogável a qualquer momento. Verificar o bem-estar do parceiro durante a cena ("check-ins") é essencial.
6. Discrição e Cuidado com Evidências Físicas: Ser discreto sobre a natureza do relacionamento pode evitar mal-entendidos externos. Após cenas que deixem marcas, é prudente que ambos os parceiros estejam cientes e de acordo, talvez documentando por fotos (com data) e uma nota sobre a consensualidade da prática que as gerou.
7. Aconselhamento Jurídico Preventivo: Consultar um advogado especializado em direito de família e criminal, com sensibilidade para dinâmicas de relacionamento alternativas, pode fornecer orientação personalizada sobre as melhores formas de documentar o consentimento e entender os riscos legais específicos.

Observações Importantes

• Nenhuma documentação substitui a necessidade de consentimento real, livre, informado e contínuo.
• A lei brasileira protege a "integridade física" e a "dignidade humana". Práticas que resultem em lesões graves ou que violem a dignidade de forma não consentida (ou com consentimento viciado) serão ilegais, independentemente de qualquer acordo prévio.
• Em caso de acusação, a existência de documentação robusta de consentimento não garante a absolvição, mas fortalece significativamente a defesa, ajudando a demonstrar a natureza consensual da relação e das práticas.

• A alegação de coação futura é particularmente difícil de prevenir apenas com documentos. Um histórico consistente de comunicação aberta (whatsapp/telegram/e-mails), respeito mútuo e ausência de dependência ou controle excessivo na relação pode ajudar a contextualizar a dinâmica como não coercitiva.

• Cuidado com Marcas Visíveis e Lesões Graves Práticas que resultam em hematomas severos ou lesões podem ser interpretadas como agressão, mesmo que consentidas. Evitar excessos protege não apenas a integridade física, mas também evita questionamentos legais futuros.

O que vem a ser consentimento viciado

No Direito, consentimento viciado é quando a pessoa concorda com algo, mas a vontade dela não é livre ou plena — ou seja, o consentimento existe formalmente, mas é defeituoso por alguma razão.

O Código Civil brasileiro (art. 138 a 165) define várias formas de vício de consentimento. As principais são:

Erro: A pessoa se engana sobre o que está consentindo. (Ex.: A pessoa acredita que vai participar de um jogo leve, mas na verdade é exposta a práticas pesadas.)

Dolo: A pessoa é enganada propositalmente para aceitar algo. (Ex.: Alguém mente sobre o que vai acontecer durante a prática.)

Coação: A pessoa é forçada ou ameaçada a consentir. (Ex.: "Se você não aceitar, eu termino com você" — pressão emocional forte pode ser vista como coação.)

Estado de perigo ou lesão: A pessoa aceita algo em situação de necessidade extrema ou abuso de sua vulnerabilidade. (Ex.: Alguém em situação emocional muito fragilizada é induzida a aceitar práticas que normalmente recusaria.)

No contexto de BDSM, isso é ainda mais delicado: Mesmo que a pessoa tenha "assinado" um contrato ou dito "sim", se depois ela alegar que seu consentimento foi dado sob medo, engano ou pressão psicológica, o consentimento pode ser considerado viciado — e, portanto, juridicamente inválido.

Isso tem duas implicações sérias:

1. O crime não se descaracteriza: Se houver vício, o consentimento é ignorado e a prática pode ser tratada como crime normal (lesão corporal, estupro, tortura, etc.).

2. A prova do consentimento precisa ser sólida: Mostrando que a pessoa estava informada, lúcida, livre e sem qualquer tipo de coação.

   Consentimento viciado é quando a pessoa concorda formalmente, mas de maneira enganada, forçada ou pressionada, tornando o consentimento inútil para efeitos jurídicos.

Conclusão

Casais que praticam BDSM consensual no Brasil navegam em um terreno que exige não apenas confiança mútua e comunicação excepcional, mas também uma consciência aguçada das complexidades legais e dos riscos de interpretações equivocadas ou acusações mal-intencionadas. Embora o BDSM seja uma expressão legítima da sexualidade humana, sua prática no Brasil exige responsabilidade redobrada. Ter provas claras de consentimento, manter a comunicação aberta e agir com prudência são formas eficazes de se proteger de falsas alegações e preservar a liberdade e a segurança de todos os envolvidos. Embora leis controversas como a Maria da Penha sejam "vitais" para a proteção contra a violência real, os praticantes de BDSM, e em particular os homens nesse contexto, devem adotar uma postura proativa e prudente para mitigar os riscos inerentes à potencial má interpretação ou instrumentalização dessas práticas e leis, garantindo que a expressão de sua consensualidade esteja resguardada na medida do possível.

---

Importante: No Brasil, mesmo com tudo isso, o Ministério Público pode denunciar por crime como lesão corporal grave, estupro ou tortura, independente de consentimento. Então a prudência nas práticas é fundamental.

Aviso Legal: Este artigo tem caráter meramente informativo e não constitui aconselhamento jurídico. As leis e interpretações podem mudar, e cada situação é única. Recomenda-se buscar orientação de um advogado qualificado para discutir casos específicos.

Se curtiu este artigo faça uma contribuição, se tiver algum ponto relevante para o artigo deixe seu comentário.

@ 3c389c8f:7a2eff7f

Extentions:

https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/flamingo-%E2%80%93-nostr-extensio/alkiaengfedemppafkallgifcmkldohe

https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/nos2x/kpgefcfmnafjgpblomihpgmejjdanjjp

https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/aka-profiles/ncmflpbbagcnakkolfpcpogheckolnad

https://keys.band/

https://github.com/haorendashu/nowser

The Remote Signer:

https://nsec.app/

https://github.com/kind-0/nsecbunkerd

Native Android Signer:

https://github.com/greenart7c3/amber

iOS

https://testflight.apple.com/join/8TFMZbMs

https://testflight.apple.com/join/DUzVMDMK

Higher Security Options: To start using Nostr with a secure, recoverable keypair: https://nstart.me/en

For Existing Keys: https://www.frostr.org/

Thank you to https://nostr.net/ for keeping a thorough list of Nostr apps, clients, and tools!

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Die Wahrheit verletzt tiefer als jede Beleidigung. \ Marquis de Sade

Sagen Sie niemals «Terroristin B.», «Schwachkopf H.», «korrupter Drecksack S.» oder «Meinungsfreiheitshasserin F.» und verkneifen Sie sich Memes, denn so etwas könnte Ihnen als Beleidigung oder Verleumdung ausgelegt werden und rechtliche Konsequenzen haben. Auch mit einer Frau M.-A. S.-Z. ist in dieser Beziehung nicht zu spaßen, sie gehört zu den Top-Anzeigenstellern.

«Politikerbeleidigung» als Straftatbestand wurde 2021 im Kampf gegen «Rechtsextremismus und Hasskriminalität» in Deutschland eingeführt, damals noch unter der Regierung Merkel. Im Gesetz nicht festgehalten ist die Unterscheidung zwischen schlechter Hetze und guter Hetze – trotzdem ist das gängige Praxis, wie der Titel fast schon nahelegt.

So dürfen Sie als Politikerin heute den Tesla als «Nazi-Auto» bezeichnen und dies ausdrücklich auf den Firmengründer Elon Musk und dessen «rechtsextreme Positionen» beziehen, welche Sie nicht einmal belegen müssen. [1] Vielleicht ernten Sie Proteste, jedoch vorrangig wegen der «gut bezahlten, unbefristeten Arbeitsplätze» in Brandenburg. Ihren Tweet hat die Berliner Senatorin Cansel Kiziltepe inzwischen offenbar dennoch gelöscht.

Dass es um die Meinungs- und Pressefreiheit in der Bundesrepublik nicht mehr allzu gut bestellt ist, befürchtet man inzwischen auch schon im Ausland. Der Fall des Journalisten David Bendels, der kürzlich wegen eines Faeser-Memes zu sieben Monaten Haft auf Bewährung verurteilt wurde, führte in diversen Medien zu Empörung. Die Welt versteckte ihre Kritik mit dem Titel «Ein Urteil wie aus einer Diktatur» hinter einer Bezahlschranke.

Unschöne, heutzutage vielleicht strafbare Kommentare würden mir auch zu einigen anderen Themen und Akteuren einfallen. Ein Kandidat wäre der deutsche Bundesgesundheitsminister (ja, er ist es tatsächlich immer noch). Während sich in den USA auf dem Gebiet etwas bewegt und zum Beispiel Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will, dass die Gesundheitsbehörde (CDC) keine Covid-Impfungen für Kinder mehr empfiehlt, möchte Karl Lauterbach vor allem das Corona-Lügengebäude vor dem Einsturz bewahren.

«Ich habe nie geglaubt, dass die Impfungen nebenwirkungsfrei sind», sagte Lauterbach jüngst der ZDF-Journalistin Sarah Tacke. Das steht in krassem Widerspruch zu seiner früher verbreiteten Behauptung, die Gen-Injektionen hätten keine Nebenwirkungen. Damit entlarvt er sich selbst als Lügner. Die Bezeichnung ist absolut berechtigt, dieser Mann dürfte keinerlei politische Verantwortung tragen und das Verhalten verlangt nach einer rechtlichen Überprüfung. Leider ist ja die Justiz anderweitig beschäftigt und hat außerdem selbst keine weiße Weste.

Obendrein kämpfte der Herr Minister für eine allgemeine Impfpflicht. Er beschwor dabei das Schließen einer «Impflücke», wie es die Weltgesundheitsorganisation – die «wegen Trump» in finanziellen Schwierigkeiten steckt – bis heute tut. Die WHO lässt aktuell ihre «Europäische Impfwoche» propagieren, bei der interessanterweise von Covid nicht mehr groß die Rede ist.

Einen «Klima-Leugner» würden manche wohl Nir Shaviv nennen, das ist ja nicht strafbar. Der Astrophysiker weist nämlich die Behauptung von einer Klimakrise zurück. Gemäß seiner Forschung ist mindestens die Hälfte der Erderwärmung nicht auf menschliche Emissionen, sondern auf Veränderungen im Sonnenverhalten zurückzuführen.

Das passt vielleicht auch den «Klima-Hysterikern» der britischen Regierung ins Konzept, die gerade Experimente zur Verdunkelung der Sonne angekündigt haben. Produzenten von Kunstfleisch oder Betreiber von Insektenfarmen würden dagegen vermutlich die Geschichte vom fatalen CO2 bevorzugen. Ihnen würde es besser passen, wenn der verantwortungsvolle Erdenbürger sein Verhalten gründlich ändern müsste.

In unserer völlig verkehrten Welt, in der praktisch jede Verlautbarung außerhalb der abgesegneten Narrative potenziell strafbar sein kann, gehört fast schon Mut dazu, Dinge offen anzusprechen. Im «besten Deutschland aller Zeiten» glaubten letztes Jahr nur noch 40 Prozent der Menschen, ihre Meinung frei äußern zu können. Das ist ein Armutszeugnis, und es sieht nicht gerade nach Besserung aus. Umso wichtiger ist es, dagegen anzugehen.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

--- Quellen: ---

[1] Zur Orientierung wenigstens ein paar Hinweise zur NS-Vergangenheit deutscher Automobilhersteller:

• Volkswagen
• Porsche
• Daimler-Benz
• BMW
• Audi
• Opel
• Heute: «Auto-Werke für die Rüstung? Rheinmetall prüft Übernahmen»

---

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

@ 266815e0:6cd408a5

I'm excited to announce the release of Applesauce v1.0.0! There are a few breaking changes and a lot of improvements and new features across all packages. Each package has been updated to 1.0.0, marking a stable API for developers to build upon.

Applesauce core changes

There was a change in the applesauce-core package in the QueryStore.

The Query interface has been converted to a method instead of an object with key and run fields.

A bunch of new helper methods and queries were added, checkout the changelog for a full list.

Applesauce Relay

There is a new applesauce-relay package that provides a simple RxJS based api for connecting to relays and publishing events.

Documentation: applesauce-relay

Features:

• A simple API for subscribing or publishing to a single relay or a group of relays
• No connect or close methods, connections are managed automatically by rxjs
• NIP-11 auth_required support
• Support for NIP-42 authentication
• Prebuilt or custom re-connection back-off
• Keep-alive timeout (default 30s)
• Client-side Negentropy sync support

Example Usage: Single relay

```typescript import { Relay } from "applesauce-relay";

// Connect to a relay const relay = new Relay("wss://relay.example.com");

// Create a REQ and subscribe to it relay .req({ kinds: [1], limit: 10, }) .subscribe((response) => { if (response === "EOSE") { console.log("End of stored events"); } else { console.log("Received event:", response); } }); ```

Example Usage: Relay pool

```typescript import { Relay, RelayPool } from "applesauce-relay";

// Create a pool with a custom relay const pool = new RelayPool();

// Create a REQ and subscribe to it pool .req(["wss://relay.damus.io", "wss://relay.snort.social"], { kinds: [1], limit: 10, }) .subscribe((response) => { if (response === "EOSE") { console.log("End of stored events on all relays"); } else { console.log("Received event:", response); } }); ```

Applesauce actions

Another new package is the applesauce-actions package. This package provides a set of async operations for common Nostr actions.

Actions are run against the events in the EventStore and use the EventFactory to create new events to publish.

Documentation: applesauce-actions

Example Usage:

```typescript import { ActionHub } from "applesauce-actions";

// An EventStore and EventFactory are required to use the ActionHub import { eventStore } from "./stores.ts"; import { eventFactory } from "./factories.ts";

// Custom publish logic const publish = async (event: NostrEvent) => { console.log("Publishing", event); await app.relayPool.publish(event, app.defaultRelays); };

// The publish method is optional for the async run method to work const hub = new ActionHub(eventStore, eventFactory, publish); ```

Once an ActionsHub is created, you can use the run or exec methods to execute actions:

```typescript import { FollowUser, MuteUser } from "applesauce-actions/actions";

// Follow fiatjaf await hub.run( FollowUser, "3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d", );

// Or use the exec method with a custom publish method await hub .exec( MuteUser, "3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d", ) .forEach((event) => { // NOTE: Don't publish this event because we never want to mute fiatjaf // pool.publish(['wss://pyramid.fiatjaf.com/'], event) }); ```

There are a log more actions including some for working with NIP-51 lists (private and public), you can find them in the reference

Applesauce loaders

The applesauce-loaders package has been updated to support any relay connection libraries and not just rx-nostr.

Before:

```typescript import { ReplaceableLoader } from "applesauce-loaders"; import { createRxNostr } from "rx-nostr";

// Create a new rx-nostr instance const rxNostr = createRxNostr();

// Create a new replaceable loader const replaceableLoader = new ReplaceableLoader(rxNostr); ```

After:

```typescript

import { Observable } from "rxjs"; import { ReplaceableLoader, NostrRequest } from "applesauce-loaders"; import { SimplePool } from "nostr-tools";

// Create a new nostr-tools pool const pool = new SimplePool();

// Create a method that subscribes using nostr-tools and returns an observable function nostrRequest: NostrRequest = (relays, filters, id) => { return new Observable((subscriber) => { const sub = pool.subscribe(relays, filters, { onevent: (event) => { subscriber.next(event); }, onclose: () => subscriber.complete(), oneose: () => subscriber.complete(), });

return () => sub.close();

}); };

// Create a new replaceable loader const replaceableLoader = new ReplaceableLoader(nostrRequest); ```

Of course you can still use rx-nostr if you want:

```typescript import { createRxNostr } from "rx-nostr";

// Create a new rx-nostr instance const rxNostr = createRxNostr();

// Create a method that subscribes using rx-nostr and returns an observable function nostrRequest( relays: string[], filters: Filter[], id?: string, ): Observable { // Create a new oneshot request so it will complete when EOSE is received const req = createRxOneshotReq({ filters, rxReqId: id }); return rxNostr .use(req, { on: { relays } }) .pipe(map((packet) => packet.event)); }

// Create a new replaceable loader const replaceableLoader = new ReplaceableLoader(nostrRequest); ```

There where a few more changes, check out the changelog

Applesauce wallet

Its far from complete, but there is a new applesauce-wallet package that provides a actions and queries for working with NIP-60 wallets.

Documentation: applesauce-wallet

Example Usage:

```typescript import { CreateWallet, UnlockWallet } from "applesauce-wallet/actions";

// Create a new NIP-60 wallet await hub.run(CreateWallet, ["wss://mint.example.com"], privateKey);

// Unlock wallet and associated tokens/history await hub.run(UnlockWallet, { tokens: true, history: true }); ```

@ 8125b911:a8400883

In Nostr, all data is stored as events. Decentralization is achieved by storing events on multiple relays, with signatures proving the ownership of these events. However, if you truly want to own your events, you should run your own relay to store them. Otherwise, if the relays you use fail or intentionally delete your events, you'll lose them forever.

For most people, running a relay is complex and costly. To solve this issue, I developed nostr-relay-tray, a relay that can be easily run on a personal computer and accessed over the internet.

Project URL: https://github.com/CodyTseng/nostr-relay-tray

This article will guide you through using nostr-relay-tray to run your own relay.

Download

Download the installation package for your operating system from the GitHub Release Page.

| Operating System | File Format | | --------------------- | ---------------------------------- | | Windows | nostr-relay-tray.Setup.x.x.x.exe | | macOS (Apple Silicon) | nostr-relay-tray-x.x.x-arm64.dmg | | macOS (Intel) | nostr-relay-tray-x.x.x.dmg | | Linux | You should know which one to use |

Installation

Since this app isn’t signed, you may encounter some obstacles during installation. Once installed, an ostrich icon will appear in the status bar. Click on the ostrich icon, and you'll see a menu where you can click the "Dashboard" option to open the relay's control panel for further configuration.

macOS Users:

• On first launch, go to "System Preferences > Security & Privacy" and click "Open Anyway."
• If you encounter a "damaged" message, run the following command in the terminal to remove the restrictions:

bash sudo xattr -rd com.apple.quarantine /Applications/nostr-relay-tray.app

Windows Users:

• On the security warning screen, click "More Info > Run Anyway."

Connecting

By default, nostr-relay-tray is only accessible locally through ws://localhost:4869/, which makes it quite limited. Therefore, we need to expose it to the internet.

In the control panel, click the "Proxy" tab and toggle the switch. You will then receive a "Public address" that you can use to access your relay from anywhere. It's that simple.

Next, add this address to your relay list and position it as high as possible in the list. Most clients prioritize connecting to relays that appear at the top of the list, and relays lower in the list are often ignored.

Restrictions

Next, we need to set up some restrictions to prevent the relay from storing events that are irrelevant to you and wasting storage space. nostr-relay-tray allows for flexible and fine-grained configuration of which events to accept, but some of this is more complex and will not be covered here. If you're interested, you can explore this further later.

For now, I'll introduce a simple and effective strategy: WoT (Web of Trust). You can enable this feature in the "WoT & PoW" tab. Before enabling, you'll need to input your pubkey.

There's another important parameter, Depth, which represents the relationship depth between you and others. Someone you follow has a depth of 1, someone they follow has a depth of 2, and so on.

• Setting this parameter to 0 means your relay will only accept your own events.
• Setting it to 1 means your relay will accept events from you and the people you follow.
• Setting it to 2 means your relay will accept events from you, the people you follow, and the people they follow.

Currently, the maximum value for this parameter is 2.

Conclusion

You've now successfully run your own relay and set a simple restriction to prevent it from storing irrelevant events.

If you encounter any issues during use, feel free to submit an issue on GitHub, and I'll respond as soon as possible.

Not your relay, not your events.

@ e691f4df:1099ad65

Viewing Bitcoin Through the Light of Awakening

Ankh & Ohm Capital’s Overview of the Psycho-Spiritual Nature of Bitcoin

---

Glossary:

I. Preface: The Logos of Our Logo

II. An Oracular Introduction

III. Alchemizing Greed

IV. Layers of Fractalized Thought

V. Permissionless Individuation

VI. Dispelling Paradox Through Resonance

VII. Ego Deflation

VIII. The Coin of Great Price

Preface: The Logos of Our Logo

Before we offer our lens on Bitcoin, it’s important to illuminate the meaning behind Ankh & Ohm’s name and symbol. These elements are not ornamental—they are foundational, expressing the cosmological principles that guide our work.

Our mission is to bridge the eternal with the practical. As a Bitcoin-focused family office and consulting firm, we understand capital not as an end, but as a tool—one that, when properly aligned, becomes a vehicle for divine order. We see Bitcoin not simply as a technological innovation but as an emanation of the Divine Logos—a harmonic expression of truth, transparency, and incorruptible structure. Both the beginning and the end, the Alpha and Omega.

The Ankh (☥), an ancient symbol of eternal life, is a key to the integration of opposites. It unites spirit and matter, force and form, continuity and change. It reminds us that capital, like Life, must not only be generative, but regenerative; sacred. Money must serve Life, not siphon from it.

The Ohm (Ω) holds a dual meaning. In physics, it denotes a unit of electrical resistance—the formative tension that gives energy coherence. In the Vedic tradition, Om (ॐ) is the primordial vibration—the sound from which all existence unfolds. Together, these symbols affirm a timeless truth: resistance and resonance are both sacred instruments of the Creator.

Ankh & Ohm, then, represents our striving for union, for harmony —between the flow of life and intentional structure, between incalculable abundance and measured restraint, between the lightbulb’s electrical impulse and its light-emitting filament. We stand at the threshold where intention becomes action, and where capital is not extracted, but cultivated in rhythm with the cosmos. 

We exist to shepherd this transformation, as guides of this threshold —helping families, founders, and institutions align with a deeper order, where capital serves not as the prize, but as a pathway to collective Presence, Purpose, Peace and Prosperity.

---

An Oracular Introduction

Bitcoin is commonly understood as the first truly decentralized and secure form of digital money—a breakthrough in monetary sovereignty. But this view, while technically correct, is incomplete and spiritually shallow. Bitcoin is more than a tool for economic disruption. Bitcoin represents a mythic threshold: a symbol of the psycho-spiritual shift that many ancient traditions have long foretold.

For millennia, sages and seers have spoken of a coming Golden Age. In the Vedic Yuga cycles, in Plato’s Great Year, in the Eagle and Condor prophecies of the Americas—there exists a common thread: that humanity will emerge from darkness into a time of harmony, cooperation, and clarity. That the veil of illusion (maya, materiality) will thin, and reality will once again become transparent to the transcendent. In such an age, systems based on scarcity, deception, and centralization fall away. A new cosmology takes root—one grounded in balance, coherence, and sacred reciprocity.

But we must ask—how does such a shift happen? How do we cross from the age of scarcity, fear, and domination into one of coherence, abundance, and freedom?

One possible answer lies in the alchemy of incentive.

Bitcoin operates not just on the rules of computer science or Austrian economics, but on something far more old and subtle: the logic of transformation. It transmutes greed—a base instinct rooted in scarcity—into cooperation, transparency, and incorruptibility.

In this light, Bitcoin becomes more than code—it becomes a psychoactive protocol, one that rewires human behavior by aligning individual gain with collective integrity. It is not simply a new form of money. It is a new myth of value. A new operating system for human consciousness.

Bitcoin does not moralize. It harmonizes. It transforms the instinct for self-preservation into a pathway for planetary coherence.

---

Alchemizing Greed

At the heart of Bitcoin lies the ancient alchemical principle of transmutation: that which is base may be refined into gold.

Greed, long condemned as a vice, is not inherently evil. It is a distorted longing. A warped echo of the drive to preserve life. But in systems built on scarcity and deception, this longing calcifies into hoarding, corruption, and decay.

Bitcoin introduces a new game. A game with memory. A game that makes deception inefficient and truth profitable. It does not demand virtue—it encodes consequence. Its design does not suppress greed; it reprograms it.

In traditional models, game theory often illustrates the fragility of trust. The Prisoner’s Dilemma reveals how self-interest can sabotage collective well-being. But Bitcoin inverts this. It creates an environment where self-interest and integrity converge—where the most rational action is also the most truthful.

Its ledger, immutable and transparent, exposes manipulation for what it is: energetically wasteful and economically self-defeating. Dishonesty burns energy and yields nothing. The network punishes incoherence, not by decree, but by natural law.

This is the spiritual elegance of Bitcoin: it does not suppress greed—it transmutes it. It channels the drive for personal gain into the architecture of collective order. Miners compete not to dominate, but to validate. Nodes collaborate not through trust, but through mathematical proof.

This is not austerity. It is alchemy.

Greed, under Bitcoin, is refined. Tempered. Re-forged into a generative force—no longer parasitic, but harmonic.

---

Layers of Fractalized Thought Fragments

All living systems are layered. So is the cosmos. So is the human being. So is a musical scale.

At its foundation lies the timechain—the pulsing, incorruptible record of truth. Like the heart, it beats steadily. Every block, like a pulse, affirms its life through continuity. The difficulty adjustment—Bitcoin’s internal calibration—functions like heart rate variability, adapting to pressure while preserving coherence.

Above this base layer is the Lightning Network—a second layer facilitating rapid, efficient transactions. It is the nervous system: transmitting energy, reducing latency, enabling real-time interaction across a distributed whole.

Beyond that, emerging tools like Fedimint and Cashu function like the capillaries—bringing vitality to the extremities, to those underserved by legacy systems. They empower the unbanked, the overlooked, the forgotten. Privacy and dignity in the palms of those the old system refused to see.

And then there is NOSTR—the decentralized protocol for communication and creation. It is the throat chakra, the vocal cords of the “freedom-tech” body. It reclaims speech from the algorithmic overlords, making expression sovereign once more. It is also the reproductive system, as it enables the propagation of novel ideas and protocols in fertile, uncensorable soil.

Each layer plays its part. Not in hierarchy, but in harmony. In holarchy. Bitcoin and other open source protocols grow not through exogenous command, but through endogenous coherence. Like cells in an organism. Like a song.

Imagine the cell as a piece of glass from a shattered holographic plate —by which its perspectival, moving image can be restructured from the single shard. DNA isn’t only a logical script of base pairs, but an evolving progressive song. Its lyrics imbued with wise reflections on relationships.  The nucleus sings, the cell responds—not by command, but by memory. Life is not imposed; it is expressed. A reflection of a hidden pattern.

Bitcoin chants this. Each node, a living cell, holds the full timechain—Truth distributed, incorruptible. Remove one, and the whole remains. This isn’t redundancy. It’s a revelation on the power of protection in Truth.

Consensus is communion. Verification becomes a sacred rite—Truth made audible through math. 

Not just the signal; the song. A web of self-expression woven from Truth.

No center, yet every point alive with the whole. Like Indra’s Net, each reflects all. This is more than currency and information exchange. It is memory; a self-remembering Mind, unfolding through consensus and code. A Mind reflecting the Truth of reality at the speed of thought.

Heuristics are mental shortcuts—efficient, imperfect, alive. Like cells, they must adapt or decay. To become unbiased is to have self-balancing heuristics which carry feedback loops within them: they listen to the environment, mutate when needed, and survive by resonance with reality. Mutation is not error, but evolution. Its rules are simple, but their expression is dynamic. 

What persists is not rigidity, but pattern. 

To think clearly is not necessarily to be certain, but to dissolve doubt by listening, adjusting, and evolving thought itself.

To understand Bitcoin is simply to listen—patiently, clearly, as one would to a familiar rhythm returning.

---

Permissionless Individuation

Bitcoin is a path. One that no one can walk for you.

Said differently, it is not a passive act. It cannot be spoon-fed. Like a spiritual path, it demands initiation, effort, and the willingness to question inherited beliefs.

Because Bitcoin is permissionless, no one can be forced to adopt it. One must choose to engage it—compelled by need, interest, or intuition. Each person who embarks undergoes their own version of the hero’s journey.

Carl Jung called this process Individuation—the reconciliation of fragmented psychic elements into a coherent, mature Self. Bitcoin mirrors this: it invites individuals to confront the unconscious assumptions of the fiat paradigm, and to re-integrate their relationship to time, value, and agency.

In Western traditions—alchemy, Christianity, Kabbalah—the individual is sacred, and salvation is personal. In Eastern systems—Daoism, Buddhism, the Vedas—the self is ultimately dissolved into the cosmic whole. Bitcoin, in a paradoxical way, echoes both: it empowers the individual, while aligning them with a holistic, transcendent order.

To truly see Bitcoin is to allow something false to die. A belief. A habit. A self-concept.

In that death—a space opens for deeper connection with the Divine itSelf. 

In that dissolution, something luminous is reborn. 

After the passing, Truth becomes resurrected.  

---

Dispelling Paradox Through Resonance

There is a subtle paradox encoded into the hero’s journey: each starts in solidarity, yet the awakening affects the collective.

No one can be forced into understanding Bitcoin. Like a spiritual truth, it must be seen. And yet, once seen, it becomes nearly impossible to unsee—and easier for others to glimpse. The pattern catches.

This phenomenon mirrors the concept of morphic resonance, as proposed and empirically tested by biologist Rupert Sheldrake. Once a critical mass of individuals begins to embody a new behavior or awareness, it becomes easier—instinctive—for others to follow suit. Like the proverbial hundredth monkey who begins to wash the fruit in the sea water, and suddenly, monkeys across islands begin doing the same—without ever meeting.

When enough individuals embody a pattern, it ripples outward. Not through propaganda, but through field effect and wave propagation. It becomes accessible, instinctive, familiar—even across great distance.

Bitcoin spreads in this way. Not through centralized broadcast, but through subtle resonance. Each new node, each individual who integrates the protocol into their life, strengthens the signal for others. The protocol doesn’t shout; it hums, oscillates and vibrates——persistently, coherently, patiently.

One awakens. Another follows. The current builds. What was fringe becomes familiar. What was radical becomes obvious.

This is the sacred geometry of spiritual awakening. One awakens, another follows, and soon the fluidic current is strong enough to carry the rest. One becomes two, two become many, and eventually the many become One again. This tessellation reverberates through the human aura, not as ideology, but as perceivable pattern recognition.

Bitcoin’s most powerful marketing tool is truth. Its most compelling evangelist is reality. Its most unstoppable force is resonance.

Therefore, Bitcoin is not just financial infrastructure—it is psychic scaffolding. It is part of the subtle architecture through which new patterns of coherence ripple across the collective field. 

The training wheels from which humanity learns to embody Peace and Prosperity.

---

Ego Deflation

The process of awakening is not linear, and its beginning is rarely gentle—it usually begins with disruption, with ego inflation and destruction.

To individuate is to shape a center; to recognize peripherals and create boundaries—to say, “I am.” But without integration, the ego tilts—collapsing into void or inflating into noise. Fiat reflects this pathology: scarcity hoarded, abundance simulated. Stagnation becomes disguised as safety, and inflation masquerades as growth.

In other words, to become whole, the ego must first rise—claiming agency, autonomy, and identity. However, when left unbalanced, it inflates, or implodes. It forgets its context. It begins to consume rather than connect. And so the process must reverse: what inflates must deflate.

In the fiat paradigm, this inflation is literal. More is printed, and ethos is diluted. Savings decay. Meaning erodes. Value is abstracted. The economy becomes bloated with inaudible noise. And like the psyche that refuses to confront its own shadow, it begins to collapse under the weight of its own illusions.

But under Bitcoin, time is honored. Value is preserved. Energy is not abstracted but grounded.

Bitcoin is inherently deflationary—in both economic and spiritual senses. With a fixed supply, it reveals what is truly scarce. Not money, not status—but the finite number of heartbeats we each carry.

To see Bitcoin is to feel that limit in one’s soul. To hold Bitcoin is to feel Time’s weight again. To sense the importance of Bitcoin is to feel the value of preserved, potential energy. It is to confront the reality that what matters cannot be printed, inflated, or faked. In this way, Bitcoin gently confronts the ego—not through punishment, but through clarity.

Deflation, rightly understood, is not collapse—it is refinement. It strips away illusion, bloat, and excess. It restores the clarity of essence.

Spiritually, this is liberation.

---

The Coin of Great Price

There is an ancient parable told by a wise man:

“The kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking fine pearls, who, upon finding one of great price, sold all he had and bought it.”

Bitcoin is such a pearl.

But the ledger is more than a chest full of treasure. It is a key to the heart of things.

It is not just software—it is sacrament.

A symbol of what cannot be corrupted. A mirror of divine order etched into code. A map back to the sacred center.

It reflects what endures. It encodes what cannot be falsified. It remembers what we forgot: that Truth, when aligned with form, becomes Light once again.

Its design is not arbitrary. It speaks the language of life itself— 

The elliptic orbits of the planets mirrored in its cryptography,

The logarithmic spiral of the nautilus shell discloses its adoption rate,

The interconnectivity of mycelium in soil reflect the network of nodes in cyberspace, 

A webbed breadth of neurons across synaptic space fires with each new confirmed transaction.

It is geometry in devotion. Stillness in motion.

It is the Logos clothed in protocol.

What this key unlocks is beyond external riches. It is the eternal gold within us.

Clarity. Sovereignty. The unshakeable knowing that what is real cannot be taken. That what is sacred was never for sale.

Bitcoin is not the destination.

It is the Path.

And we—when we are willing to see it—are the Temple it leads back to.

@ 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.

@ 40b9c85f:5e61b451

Introduction

Data Vending Machines (DVMs) have emerged as a crucial component of the Nostr ecosystem, offering specialized computational services to clients across the network. As defined in NIP-90, DVMs operate on an apparently simple principle: "data in, data out." They provide a marketplace for data processing where users request specific jobs (like text translation, content recommendation, or AI text generation)

While DVMs have gained significant traction, the current specification faces challenges that hinder widespread adoption and consistent implementation. This article explores some ideas on how we can apply the reflection pattern, a well established approach in RPC systems, to address these challenges and improve the DVM ecosystem's clarity, consistency, and usability.

The Current State of DVMs: Challenges and Limitations

The NIP-90 specification provides a broad framework for DVMs, but this flexibility has led to several issues:

1. Inconsistent Implementation

As noted by hzrd149 in "DVMs were a mistake" every DVM implementation tends to expect inputs in slightly different formats, even while ostensibly following the same specification. For example, a translation request DVM might expect an event ID in one particular format, while an LLM service could expect a "prompt" input that's not even specified in NIP-90.

2. Fragmented Specifications

The DVM specification reserves a range of event kinds (5000-6000), each meant for different types of computational jobs. While creating sub-specifications for each job type is being explored as a possible solution for clarity, in a decentralized and permissionless landscape like Nostr, relying solely on specification enforcement won't be effective for creating a healthy ecosystem. A more comprehensible approach is needed that works with, rather than against, the open nature of the protocol.

3. Ambiguous API Interfaces

There's no standardized way for clients to discover what parameters a specific DVM accepts, which are required versus optional, or what output format to expect. This creates uncertainty and forces developers to rely on documentation outside the protocol itself, if such documentation exists at all.

The Reflection Pattern: A Solution from RPC Systems

The reflection pattern in RPC systems offers a compelling solution to many of these challenges. At its core, reflection enables servers to provide metadata about their available services, methods, and data types at runtime, allowing clients to dynamically discover and interact with the server's API.

In established RPC frameworks like gRPC, reflection serves as a self-describing mechanism where services expose their interface definitions and requirements. In MCP reflection is used to expose the capabilities of the server, such as tools, resources, and prompts. Clients can learn about available capabilities without prior knowledge, and systems can adapt to changes without requiring rebuilds or redeployments. This standardized introspection creates a unified way to query service metadata, making tools like grpcurl possible without requiring precompiled stubs.

How Reflection Could Transform the DVM Specification

By incorporating reflection principles into the DVM specification, we could create a more coherent and predictable ecosystem. DVMs already implement some sort of reflection through the use of 'nip90params', which allow clients to discover some parameters, constraints, and features of the DVMs, such as whether they accept encryption, nutzaps, etc. However, this approach could be expanded to provide more comprehensive self-description capabilities.

1. Defined Lifecycle Phases

Similar to the Model Context Protocol (MCP), DVMs could benefit from a clear lifecycle consisting of an initialization phase and an operation phase. During initialization, the client and DVM would negotiate capabilities and exchange metadata, with the DVM providing a JSON schema containing its input requirements. nip-89 (or other) announcements can be used to bootstrap the discovery and negotiation process by providing the input schema directly. Then, during the operation phase, the client would interact with the DVM according to the negotiated schema and parameters.

2. Schema-Based Interactions

Rather than relying on rigid specifications for each job type, DVMs could self-advertise their schemas. This would allow clients to understand which parameters are required versus optional, what type validation should occur for inputs, what output formats to expect, and what payment flows are supported. By internalizing the input schema of the DVMs they wish to consume, clients gain clarity on how to interact effectively.

3. Capability Negotiation

Capability negotiation would enable DVMs to advertise their supported features, such as encryption methods, payment options, or specialized functionalities. This would allow clients to adjust their interaction approach based on the specific capabilities of each DVM they encounter.

Implementation Approach

While building DVMCP, I realized that the RPC reflection pattern used there could be beneficial for constructing DVMs in general. Since DVMs already follow an RPC style for their operation, and reflection is a natural extension of this approach, it could significantly enhance and clarify the DVM specification.

A reflection enhanced DVM protocol could work as follows: 1. Discovery: Clients discover DVMs through existing NIP-89 application handlers, input schemas could also be advertised in nip-89 announcements, making the second step unnecessary. 2. Schema Request: Clients request the DVM's input schema for the specific job type they're interested in 3. Validation: Clients validate their request against the provided schema before submission 4. Operation: The job proceeds through the standard NIP-90 flow, but with clearer expectations on both sides

Parallels with Other Protocols

This approach has proven successful in other contexts. The Model Context Protocol (MCP) implements a similar lifecycle with capability negotiation during initialization, allowing any client to communicate with any server as long as they adhere to the base protocol. MCP and DVM protocols share fundamental similarities, both aim to expose and consume computational resources through a JSON-RPC-like interface, albeit with specific differences.

gRPC's reflection service similarly allows clients to discover service definitions at runtime, enabling generic tools to work with any gRPC service without prior knowledge. In the REST API world, OpenAPI/Swagger specifications document interfaces in a way that makes them discoverable and testable.

DVMs would benefit from adopting these patterns while maintaining the decentralized, permissionless nature of Nostr.

Conclusion

I am not attempting to rewrite the DVM specification; rather, explore some ideas that could help the ecosystem improve incrementally, reducing fragmentation and making the ecosystem more comprehensible. By allowing DVMs to self describe their interfaces, we could maintain the flexibility that makes Nostr powerful while providing the structure needed for interoperability.

For developers building DVM clients or libraries, this approach would simplify consumption by providing clear expectations about inputs and outputs. For DVM operators, it would establish a standard way to communicate their service's requirements without relying on external documentation.

I am currently developing DVMCP following these patterns. Of course, DVMs and MCP servers have different details; MCP includes capabilities such as tools, resources, and prompts on the server side, as well as 'roots' and 'sampling' on the client side, creating a bidirectional way to consume capabilities. In contrast, DVMs typically function similarly to MCP tools, where you call a DVM with an input and receive an output, with each job type representing a different categorization of the work performed.

Without further ado, I hope this article has provided some insight into the potential benefits of applying the reflection pattern to the DVM specification.

@ e7454994:7bb2dac7

Imagine

According to Cazoomi, total revenue for nonprofits in the U.S. reached approximately $3.7 trillion in 2024.

I know in some cases a billion is a hundred million instead of a thousand million (presumably so that some millionaires can call themselves billionaires to distinguish themselves from the riffraff). But that’s not the case here. A trillion is one followed by 12 zeros, so in 2024, US non-profits’ expenses were

3,700,000,000,000 dollars.

How much is a trillion?

And that’s just the USA. We could safely double it for worldwide non-profits and still be well below the actual figure. To be conservative, let’s say 6 trillion of our dollars each year goes on the kinds of projects that non-profits are allowed to do (essentially, making the world a better place).

Think what you could do with just one million dollars. Now think of that times six million! The entire population of Congo, each man, woman, and child, could become a millionaire!. It’s not really imaginable.

That’s how much nonprofits have. What the hell have they done with all that money? In most places where poverty and malnutrition are rife, two thousand dollars a year per family would be more than enough to enable people to sort out whatever problems they have and convert their local community to abundance over three years. Six trillion divided by two thousand is three billion.

The people whom we allow to manage ‘aid’ for us are (to be polite) inept, and we need to bypass them urgently. Directsponsor.org and clickforcharity.net are part of a proof of concept, and our aim is to prove that a better way is possible by doing it.

When a hierarchy exists, it presents a focus of power that power-seeking individuals and cliques can over time turn to their advantage… Even volunteer organizations are subject to intrigues, power grabs, covert arrangements, misallocation of funds, etc. The problem is made worse by the fact that those who most desire power and who are the most ruthless are the very ones who tend to work their way to the top of hierarchies.

Richard Moore

More Fun With Figures

Oxfam UK raised £368,000,000 in 2013-14. That’s around 450,000,000 euros. What could we do with that kind of money? A direct sponsorship project is, for a family, 120 per month = 1440 per year. 1440 / 450,000,000 = 312,500 families.

312,500 families, x 4 = 1,250,000 people, would move from poverty into abundance every 3 years with the money that goes through Oxfam. Does Oxfam achieve anything like this with our money?

Oxfam UK is just one of many, many such charities and is small fry when you look at things like USAID, which ran through 27 billion dollars in the year to 2025. What could we do with that?

Its well over 15 million families. Over 60 million people! Or, the entire population of Botswana, Namibia, Mauritania, Liberia, the Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, Libya, Sierra Leone, Eritrea, Togo, and Guinea combined. This is only to make a point, not to suggest that we would ever achieve such numbers. It shows how wasteful and scandalous our present “aid” efforts really are.

NGOs and governments waste our money.

Solution

Until recently, it was impossible to send money directly to another human without going through the banking system. The big charity organisations were a necessary part of the process, and they made the most of their position. Think about it: you have a family to feed, rent or a mortgage that has to be paid, or you’ll be homeless and destitute. What would your priority be? Apart from the top level, these are generally good people with the best intentions.

But now we have Bitcoin. People can send money all over the world at extremely low cost. The recipients aren’t stupid; they know what they need better than any NGO “expert,” and any expertise or teaching they need, they can get if they have the money to pay for it. This way, the power relationship is reversed in favor of our recipients.

All we need is a system (open and distributed) that ensures sponsors’ funds are not being squandered and the projects being supported are not scams. 

A few people decided to start such a project. We have a system almost fully built and currently being tested out. It will enable people to get together into small groups of sponsors to fund small, local projects by directly funding the individuals working on the project. Anything from a regular monthly commitment to a click-for-charity system where you don’t even need any money to occasional one-off purchases of items for a project will be possible.

Here’s our pilot project in Badilisha, on Lake Victoria.

If you like doing stuff on social media, please sign up on our beta site (no money needed) and say hi; we need a few people to get it started. clickforcharity.net.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 6e64b83c:94102ee8

How to Run Your Own Nostr Relay on Android with Cloudflare Domain

Prerequisites

1. Install Citrine on your Android device:
2. Visit https://github.com/greenart7c3/Citrine/releases
3. Download the latest release using:
   • zap.store
   • Obtainium
   • F-Droid
   • Or download the APK directly

4. Note: You may need to enable "Install from Unknown Sources" in your Android settings

5. Domain Requirements:

6. Purchase a domain if you don't have one

7. Transfer your domain to Cloudflare if it's not already there (for free SSL certificates and cloudflared support)

8. Tools to use:

9. nak (the nostr army knife):
   • Download from https://github.com/fiatjaf/nak/releases
   • Installation steps:

   • For Linux/macOS: ```bash # Download the appropriate version for your system wget https://github.com/fiatjaf/nak/releases/latest/download/nak-linux-amd64 # for Linux # or wget https://github.com/fiatjaf/nak/releases/latest/download/nak-darwin-amd64 # for macOS

     # Make it executable chmod +x nak-*

     # Move to a directory in your PATH sudo mv nak-* /usr/local/bin/nak - For Windows:batch # Download the Windows version curl -L -o nak.exe https://github.com/fiatjaf/nak/releases/latest/download/nak-windows-amd64.exe

     # Move to a directory in your PATH (e.g., C:\Windows) move nak.exe C:\Windows\nak.exe - Verify installation:bash nak --version ```

Setting Up Citrine

1. Open the Citrine app
2. Start the server
3. You'll see it running on ws://127.0.0.1:4869 (local network only)
4. Go to settings and paste your npub into "Accept events signed by" inbox and press the + button. This prevents others from publishing events to your personal relay.

Installing Required Tools

1. Install Termux from Google Play Store
2. Open Termux and run:

bash pkg update && pkg install wget wget https://github.com/cloudflare/cloudflared/releases/latest/download/cloudflared-linux-arm64.deb dpkg -i cloudflared-linux-arm64.deb

Cloudflare Authentication

1. Run the authentication command: bash cloudflared tunnel login
2. Follow the instructions:
3. Copy the provided URL to your browser
4. Log in to your Cloudflare account
5. If the URL expires, copy it again after logging in

Creating the Tunnel

1. Create a new tunnel: bash cloudflared tunnel create <TUNNEL_NAME>
2. Choose any name you prefer for your tunnel

3. Copy the tunnel ID after creating the tunnel

4. Create and configure the tunnel config: bash touch ~/.cloudflared/config.yml nano ~/.cloudflared/config.yml

5. Add this configuration (replace the placeholders with your values): ```yaml tunnel: credentials-file: /data/data/com.termux/files/home/.cloudflared/.json ingress:

6. hostname: nostr.yourdomain.com service: ws://localhost:4869
7. service: http_status:404 ```
8. Note: In nano editor:
   • CTRL+O and Enter to save
   • CTRL+X to exit

9. Note: Check the credentials file path in the logs

10. Validate your configuration: bash cloudflared tunnel validate

11. Start the tunnel: bash cloudflared tunnel run my-relay

Preventing Android from Killing the Tunnel

Run these commands to maintain tunnel stability: bash date && apt install termux-tools && termux-setup-storage && termux-wake-lock echo "nameserver 1.1.1.1" > $PREFIX/etc/resolv.conf

Tip: You can open multiple Termux sessions by swiping from the left edge of the screen while keeping your tunnel process running.

Updating Your Outbox Model Relays

Once your relay is running and accessible via your domain, you'll want to update your relay list in the Nostr network. This ensures other clients know about your relay and can connect to it.

Decoding npub (Public Key)

Private keys (nsec) and public keys (npub) are encoded in bech32 format, which includes: - A prefix (like nsec1, npub1 etc.) - The encoded data - A checksum

This format makes keys: - Easy to distinguish - Hard to copy incorrectly

However, most tools require these keys in hexadecimal (hex) format.

To decode an npub string to its hex format:

bash nak decode nostr:npub1dejts0qlva8mqzjlrxqkc2tmvs2t7elszky5upxaf3jha9qs9m5q605uc4

Change it with your own npub.

bash { "pubkey": "6e64b83c1f674fb00a5f19816c297b6414bf67f015894e04dd4c657e94102ee8" }

Copy the pubkey value in quotes.

Create a kind 10002 event with your relay list:

• Include your new relay with write permissions
• Include other relays you want to read from and write to, omit 3rd parameter to make it both read and write

Example format:

json { "kind": 10002, "tags": [ ["r", "wss://your-relay-domain.com", "write"], ["r", "wss://eden.nostr.land/"], ["r", "wss://nos.lol/"], ["r", "wss://nostr.bitcoiner.social/"], ["r", "wss://nostr.mom/"], ["r", "wss://relay.primal.net/"], ["r", "wss://nostr.wine/", "read"], ["r", "wss://relay.damus.io/"], ["r", "wss://relay.nostr.band/"], ["r", "wss://relay.snort.social/"] ], "content": "" }

Save it to a file called event.json

Note: Add or remove any relays you want. To check your existing 10002 relays: - Visit https://nostr.band/?q=by%3Anpub1dejts0qlva8mqzjlrxqkc2tmvs2t7elszky5upxaf3jha9qs9m5q605uc4+++kind%3A10002 - nostr.band is an indexing service, it probably has your relay list. - Replace npub1xxx in the URL with your own npub - Click "VIEW JSON" from the menu to see the raw event - Or use the nak tool if you know the relays bash nak req -k 10002 -a <your-pubkey> wss://relay1.com wss://relay2.com

Replace `<your-pubkey>` with your public key in hex format (you can get it using `nak decode <your-npub>`)

1. Sign and publish the event:
2. Use a Nostr client that supports kind 10002 events
3. Or use the nak command-line tool: bash nak event --sec ncryptsec1... wss://relay1.com wss://relay2.com $(cat event.json)

Important Security Notes: 1. Never share your nsec (private key) with anyone 2. Consider using NIP-49 encrypted keys for better security 3. Never paste your nsec or private key into the terminal. The command will be saved in your shell history, exposing your private key. To clear the command history: - For bash: use history -c - For zsh: use fc -W to write history to file, then fc -p to read it back - Or manually edit your shell history file (e.g., ~/.zsh_history or ~/.bash_history) 4. if you're using zsh, use fc -p to prevent the next command from being saved to history 5. Or temporarily disable history before running sensitive commands:

bash unset HISTFILE nak key encrypt ... set HISTFILE

How to securely create NIP-49 encypted private key

```bash

Read your private key (input will be hidden)

read -s SECRET

Read your password (input will be hidden)

read -s PASSWORD

encrypt command

echo "$SECRET" | nak key encrypt "$PASSWORD"

copy and paste the ncryptsec1 text from the output

read -s ENCRYPTED nak key decrypt "$ENCRYPTED"

clear variables from memory

unset SECRET PASSWORD ENCRYPTED ```

On a Windows command line, to read from stdin and use the variables in nak commands, you can use a combination of set /p to read input and then use those variables in your command. Here's an example:

```bash @echo off set /p "SECRET=Enter your secret key: " set /p "PASSWORD=Enter your password: "

echo %SECRET%| nak key encrypt %PASSWORD%

:: Clear the sensitive variables set "SECRET=" set "PASSWORD=" ```

If your key starts with ncryptsec1, the nak tool will securely prompt you for a password when using the --sec parameter, unless the command is used with a pipe < > or |.

bash nak event --sec ncryptsec1... wss://relay1.com wss://relay2.com $(cat event.json)

1. Verify the event was published:
2. Check if your relay list is visible on other relays

3. Use the nak tool to fetch your kind 10002 events: bash nak req -k 10002 -a <your-pubkey> wss://relay1.com wss://relay2.com

4. Testing your relay:

5. Try connecting to your relay using different Nostr clients
6. Verify you can both read from and write to your relay
7. Check if events are being properly stored and retrieved
8. Tip: Use multiple Nostr clients to test different aspects of your relay

Note: If anyone in the community has a more efficient method of doing things like updating outbox relays, please share your insights in the comments. Your expertise would be greatly appreciated!

@ 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. 🚀

@ 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.

@ f32184ee:6d1c17bf

Ads Fueling Freedom

Ross Ulbricht’s "Decentralize Social Media" painted a picture of a user-centric, decentralized future that transcended the limitations of platforms like the tech giants of today. Though focused on social media, his concept provided a blueprint for decentralized content systems writ large. The PROMO Protocol, designed by NextBlock while participating in Sovereign Engineering, embodies this blueprint in the realm of advertising, leveraging Nostr and Bitcoin’s Lightning Network to give individuals control, foster a multi-provider ecosystem, and ensure secure value exchange. In this way, Ulbricht’s 2021 vision can be seen as a prescient prediction of the PROMO Protocol’s structure. This is a testament to the enduring power of his ideas, now finding form in NextBlock’s innovative approach.

[Current Platform-Centric Paradigm, source: Ross Ulbricht's Decentralize Social Media]

Ulbricht’s Vision: A Decentralized Social Protocol

In his 2021 Medium article Ulbricht proposed a revolutionary vision for a decentralized social protocol (DSP) to address the inherent flaws of centralized social media platforms, such as privacy violations and inconsistent content moderation. Writing from prison, Ulbricht argued that decentralization could empower users by giving them control over their own content and the value they create, while replacing single, monolithic platforms with a competitive ecosystem of interface providers, content servers, and advertisers. Though his focus was on social media, Ulbricht’s ideas laid a conceptual foundation that strikingly predicts the structure of NextBlock’s PROMO Protocol, a decentralized advertising system built on the Nostr protocol.

[A Decentralized Social Protocol (DSP), source: Ross Ulbricht's Decentralize Social Media]

Ulbricht’s Principles

Ulbricht’s article outlines several key principles for his DSP: * User Control: Users should own their content and dictate how their data and creations generate value, rather than being subject to the whims of centralized corporations. * Decentralized Infrastructure: Instead of a single platform, multiple interface providers, content hosts, and advertisers interoperate, fostering competition and resilience. * Privacy and Autonomy: Decentralized solutions for profile management, hosting, and interactions would protect user privacy and reduce reliance on unaccountable intermediaries. * Value Creation: Users, not platforms, should capture the economic benefits of their contributions, supported by decentralized mechanisms for transactions.

These ideas were forward-thinking in 2021, envisioning a shift away from the centralized giants dominating social media at the time. While Ulbricht didn’t specifically address advertising protocols, his framework for decentralization and user empowerment extends naturally to other domains, like NextBlock’s open-source offering: the PROMO Protocol.

NextBlock’s Implementation of PROMO Protocol

The PROMO Protocol powers NextBlock's Billboard app, a decentralized advertising protocol built on Nostr, a simple, open protocol for decentralized communication. The PROMO Protocol reimagines advertising by: * Empowering People: Individuals set their own ad prices (e.g., 500 sats/minute), giving them direct control over how their attention or space is monetized. * Marketplace Dynamics: Advertisers set budgets and maximum bids, competing within a decentralized system where a 20% service fee ensures operational sustainability. * Open-Source Flexibility: As an open-source protocol, it allows multiple developers to create interfaces or apps on top of it, avoiding the single-platform bottleneck Ulbricht critiqued. * Secure Payments: Using Strike Integration with Bitcoin Lightning Network, NextBlock enables bot-resistant and intermediary-free transactions, aligning value transfer with each person's control.

This structure decentralizes advertising in a way that mirrors Ulbricht’s broader vision for social systems, with aligned principles showing a specific use case: monetizing attention on Nostr.

Aligned Principles

Ulbricht’s 2021 article didn’t explicitly predict the PROMO Protocol, but its foundational concepts align remarkably well with NextBlock's implementation the protocol’s design: * Autonomy Over Value: Ulbricht argued that users should control their content and its economic benefits. In the PROMO Protocol, people dictate ad pricing, directly capturing the value of their participation. Whether it’s their time, influence, or digital space, rather than ceding it to a centralized ad network. * Ecosystem of Providers: Ulbricht envisioned multiple providers replacing a single platform. The PROMO Protocol’s open-source nature invites a similar diversity: anyone can build interfaces or tools on top of it, creating a competitive, decentralized advertising ecosystem rather than a walled garden. * Decentralized Transactions: Ulbricht’s DSP implied decentralized mechanisms for value exchange. NextBlock delivers this through the Bitcoin Lightning Network, ensuring that payments for ads are secure, instantaneous and final, a practical realization of Ulbricht’s call for user-controlled value flows. * Privacy and Control: While Ulbricht emphasized privacy in social interactions, the PROMO Protocol is public by default. Individuals are fully aware of all data that they generate since all Nostr messages are signed. All participants interact directly via Nostr.

[Blueprint Match, source NextBlock]

---

Who We Are

NextBlock is a US-based new media company reimagining digital ads for a decentralized future. Our founders, software and strategy experts, were hobbyist podcasters struggling to promote their work online without gaming the system. That sparked an idea: using new tech like Nostr and Bitcoin to build a decentralized attention market for people who value control and businesses seeking real connections.

Our first product, Billboard, is launching this June.

Open for All

Our model’s open-source! Check out the PROMO Protocol, built for promotion and attention trading. Anyone can join this decentralized ad network. Run your own billboard or use ours. This is a growing ecosystem for a new ad economy.

Our Vision

NextBlock wants to help build a new decentralized internet. Our revolutionary and transparent business model will bring honest revenue to companies hosting valuable digital spaces. Together, we will discover what our attention is really worth.

Read our Manifesto to learn more.

NextBlock is registered in Texas, USA.

@ 005bc4de:ef11e1a2

Trump Bitcoin Report Card - Day 100

For whatever reason day 100 of a president's term has been deemed a milestone. So, it's time to check in with President Trump's bitcoin pledges and issue a report card.

Repo and prior reports: - GitHub: https://github.com/crrdlx/trump-bitcoin-report-card - First post: https://stacker.news/items/757211 - Progress Report 1: https://stacker.news/items/774165 - Day 1 Report Card: https://stacker.news/items/859475 - Day 100 Report Card: https://stacker.news/items/966434

Report Card | | Pledge | Prior Grade | Current Grade | |--|--|--|--| | 1 | Fire SEC Chair Gary Gensler on day 1 | A | A | | 2 | Commute the sentence of Ross Ulbricht on day 1 | A | A | | 3 | Remove capital gains taxes on bitcoin transactions | F | F | | 4 | Create and hodl a strategic bitcoin stockpile | D | C- | | 5 | Prevent a CBDC during his presidency | B+ | A | | 6 | Create a "bitcoin and crypto" advisory council | C- | C | | 7 | Support the right to self-custody | D+ | B- | | 8 | End the "war on crypto" | D+ | B+ | | 9 | Mine all remaining bitcoin in the USA | C- | C | | 10 | Make the US the "crypto capital of the planet" | C- | C+ |

Comments

Pledge 1 - SEC chair - (no change from earlier) - Gensler is out. This happened after the election and Trump took office. With the writing on the wall, Gensler announced he would resign, Trump picked a new SEC head in Paul Atkins, and Gensler left office just before Trump was sworn in. The only reason an A+ was not awarded was that Trump wasn't given the chance to actually fire Gensler, because he quit. No doubt, though, his quitting was due to Trump and the threat of being sacked.

Day 100 Report Card Grade: A

Pledge 2 - free Ross - (no change from earlier) - Ross Ulbricht's sentence was just commuted. Going will "option 3" above, the pledge was kept. An A+ would have been a commutation yesterday or by noon today, but, let's not split hairs. It's done.

Day 100 Report Card Grade: A

Pledge 3 - capital gains - This requires either executive action and/or legislation. There was no action. Executive action can be done with the stroke of a pen, but it was not. Legislation is tricky and time-consuming, however, there wasn't even mention of this matter. This seems to be on the back burner since statements such as this report in November. See Progress Report 1: https://stacker.news/items/774165 for more context.

Trump's main tax thrust has been the tariff, actually a tax increase, instead of a cut. Currently, the emphasis is on extending the "Trump tax cuts" and recently House Speaker Mike Johnson indicated such a bill would be ready by Memorial Day. Earlier in his term, there was more chatter about tax relief for bitcoin or cryptocurrency. There seems to be less chatter on this, or none at all, such as its absence in the "ready by Memorial Day" article.

Until tax reform is codified and signed, it isn't tax law and the old code still applies.

Day 100 Report Card Grade: F

Pledge 4 - bitcoin reserve - The initial grade was a C, it was dropped to a D mainly due to Trump's propensity to [alt]coinery, and now it's back to a C-.

Getting the grade back up into C-level at a C- was a little bumpy. On March 2, 2025, Trump posted that a U.S. Crypto Reserve would be created. This is what had been hoped for, except that the pledge was for a Bitcoin Reserve, not crypto. And secondly, he specifically named XRP, SOL, and ADA (but not BTC). Just a couple of hours later, likely in clean up mode, he did add BTC (along with ETH) as "obviously" being included. So, the "Bitcoin Reserve" became a "Crypto Reserve."

Maybe still in "cleanup mode," Sec. of Commerce Howard Lutnick said bitcoin will hold "special status" in the reserve. Then, on March 6, an executive order made the U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile official. Again, "Bitcoin" was generalized until section 3 where the "Strategic Bitcoin Reserve" did come to official fruition.

The grade is only a C- because the only thing that happened was the naming of the stockpile. Indeed, it became official. But the "stockpile" was just BTC already held by the U.S. government. I think it's fair to say most bitcoiners would have preferred a statement about buying BTC. Other Trump bitcoin officials indicated acquiring "as much as we can get", which sounds great, but until it happens, is only words.

Day 100 Report Card Grade: C-

Pledge 5 - no CBDC - An executive order on January 23, 2025 forbade a CBDC in section 1, part v by "prohibiting the establishment, issuance, circulation, and use of a CBDC."

Day 100 Report Card Grade: A

Pledge 6 - advisory council - The Trump bitcoin or crypto team consists of the following: David Sacks as “crypto czar” and Bo Hines as executive director of the Presidential Council of Advisers for Digital Assets.

A White House Crypto Summit (see video) was held on March 7, 2025. In principle, the meeting was good, however, the summit seemed (a) to be very heavily "crypto" oriented, and (b) to largely be a meet-and-greet show.

Still, just the fact that such a show took place, inside the White House, reveals how far things have come and the change in climate. For the grade to go higher, more tangible things should take place over time.

Day 100 Report Card Grade: C

Pledge 7 - self-custody - There's been a bit of good news though on this front. First, the executive order above from January 23 stated in section 1, i, one of the goals was "...to maintain self-custody of digital assets." Also, the Phoenix wallet returned to the U.S. In 2024, both Phoenix and Wallet of Satoshi pulled out of the U.S. for fear of government crackdowns. The return of Phoenix, again, speaks to the difference in climate now and is a win for self-custody.

To rise above B-level, more assurance, it would be good to see further clear assurance that people can self-custody, that developers can build self-custody, and businesses can create products to self-custody. Also, Congressional action could get to an A.

Day 100 Report Card Grade: B-

Pledge 8 - end war on crypto - There has been improvement here. First, tangibly, SAB 121 was sent packing as SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce announced. Essentially, this removed a large regulatory burden. Commissioner Peirce also said ending the burdens will be a process to get out of the "mess". So, there's work to do. Also, hurdles were recently removed so that banks can now engage in bitcoin activity. This is both a symbolic and real change.

Somewhat ironically, Trump's own venture into cryptocurrency with his World Liberty Financial and the $TRUMP and $MELANIA tokens, roundly poo-pood by bitcoiners, might actually be beneficial in a way. The signal from the White House seems to be on all things cryptocurrency, "Do it."

The improvement and climate now seems very different than with the previous administration and leaders who openly touted a war on crypto.

Day 100 Report Card Grade: B+

Pledge 9 - USA mining - As noted earlier, this is an impossible pledge. That said, things can be done to make America mining friendly. The U.S. holds an estimated 37 to 40% of Bitcoin hash rate, which is substantial. Plus, Trump, or the Trump family at least, has entered into bitcoin mining. With Hut 8, Eric Trump is heading "American Bitcoin" to mine BTC. Like the $TRUMP token, this conveys that bitcoin mining is a go in the USA.

Day 100 Report Card Grade: C

Pledge 10 - USA crypto capital - This pledge closely aligned with pledges 8 and 9. If the war on crypto ends, the USA becomes more and more crypto and bitcoin friendly. And, if the hashrate stays high and even increases, that puts the USA at the center of it all. Most of the categories above have seen improvements, all of which help this last pledge. Trump's executive orders help this grade as well as they move from only words spoken to becoming official policy.

To get higher, the Bitcoin Strategic Reserve should move from a name-change only to acquiring more BTC. If the USA wants to be the world's crypto capital, being the leader in bitcoin ownership is the way to do it.

Day 100 Report Card Grade: C+

Sources

1. Nashville speech - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiEIfBatnH8
2. CryptoPotato "top 8 promises" - https://x.com/Crypto_Potato/status/1854105511349584226
3. CNBC - https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/06/trump-claims-presidential-win-here-is-what-he-promised-the-crypto-industry-ahead-of-the-election.html
4. BLOCKHEAD - https://www.blockhead.co/2024/11/07/heres-everything-trump-promised-to-the-crypto-industry/
5. CoinTelegraph - https://cointelegraph.com/news/trump-promises-crypto-election-usa
6. China vid - Bitcoin ATH and US Strategic Bitcoin Stockpile - https://njump.me/nevent1qqsgmmuqumhfktugtnx9kcsh3ap6v7ca4z8rgx79palz2qk0wzz5cksppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgszwaxc8j8e0zw9sdq59y43rykyx3wm0lcd2502xth699v0gxf0degrqsqqqqqpglusv6
7. Capitals gains tax - https://bravenewcoin.com/insights/trump-proposes-crypto-tax-cuts-targets-u-s-made-tokens-for-tax-exemption Progress report 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Meeting with Brian Armstrong - https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-dow-sp500-nasdaq-live-11-18-2024/card/exclusive-trump-to-meet-privately-with-coinbase-ceo-brian-armstrong-DDkgF0xW1BW242rVeuqx
9. Michael Saylor podcast - https://fountain.fm/episode/DHEzGE0f99QQqyM36nVr
10. Gensler resigns - https://coinpedia.org/news/big-breaking-sec-chair-gary-gensler-officially-resigns/ Progress report 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Trump & Justin Sun - https://www.coindesk.com/business/2024/11/26/justin-sun-joins-donald-trumps-world-liberty-financial-as-adviser $30M investment: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-crypto-project-bust-until-154313241.html
12. SEC chair - https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/04/trump-plans-to-nominate-paul-atkins-as-sec-chair.html
13. Crypto czar - https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/trump-names-david-sacks-white-house-ai-crypto-czar
14. Investigate Choke Point 2.0 - https://www.cryptopolitan.com/crypto-czar-investigate-choke-point/
15. Crypto council head Bo Hines - https://cointelegraph.com/news/trump-appoints-bo-hines-head-crypto-council
16. National hash rate: https://www.cryptopolitan.com/the-us-controls-40-of-bitcoins-hashrate/
17. Senate committee https://coinjournal.net/news/rep-senator-cynthia-lummis-selected-to-chair-crypto-subcommittee/
18. Treasurh Sec. CBDC: https://decrypt.co/301444/trumps-treasury-pick-scott-bessant-pours-cold-water-on-us-digital-dollar-initiative
19. National priority: https://cointelegraph.com/news/trump-executive-order-crypto-national-priority-bloomberg?utm_source=rss_feed&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss_partner_inbound
20. $TRUMP https://njump.me/nevent1qqsffe0d7mgtu5jhasy4hmkcdy7wfrlcqwc4vf676hulvdn8uaqa3acpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtczyztpa8q038vw5xluyhnydj5u39d7cpssvuswjhhjqj8q42jh4ul3wqcyqqqqqqgmha026
21. World Liberty buys alts: https://www.theblock.co/post/335779/trumps-world-liberty-buys-25-million-of-tokens-including-link-tron-aave-and-ethena?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss
22. CFTC chair: https://cryptoslate.com/trump-appoints-crypto-advocate-caroline-pham-as-cftc-acting-chair/
23. WLF buys wrapped BTC https://www.cryptopolitan.com/trump-buys-47-million-in-bitcoin/
24. SEC turnover https://www.theblock.co/post/335944/trump-names-sec-commissioner-mark-uyeda-as-acting-chair-amid-a-crypto-regulatory-shift?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss
25. ----------------------------100 Days Report---------------------------------Davos speech "world capital of AI and crypto" https://coinpedia.org/news/big-breaking-president-trump-says-u-s-to-become-ai-and-crypto-superpower/
26. SAB 121 gone, Hester P heads talk force & ends sab 121?, war on crypto https://x.com/HesterPeirce/status/1882562977985114185 article: https://www.theblock.co/post/336761/days-after-gensler-leaves-sec-rescinds-controversial-crypto-accounting-guidance-sab-121?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social CoinTelegraph: https://cointelegraph.com/news/trump-executive-order-cbdc-ban-game-changer-us-institutional-crypto-adoption?utm_source=rss_feed&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss_partner_inbound
27. Possible tax relief https://cryptodnes.bg/en/will-trumps-crypto-policies-lead-to-tax-relief-for-crypto-investors/
28. War on crypto https://decrypt.co/304395/trump-sec-crypto-task-force-priorities-mess
29. Trump "truths" 2/18 make usa #1 in crypto, "Trump effect" https://www.theblock.co/post/333137/ripple-ceo-says-75-of-open-roles-are-now-us-based-due-to-trump-effect and https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2025/01/06/ripples-garlinghouse-touts-trump-effect-amid-bump-in-u-s-deals
30. Strategic reserve https://njump.me/nevent1qqsf89l74mqfkk74jqhjcqtwp5m970gedmtykn5uhl0vz9mhmrvvvgqpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtczyztpa8q038vw5xluyhnydj5u39d7cpssvuswjhhjqj8q42jh4ul3wqcyqqqqqqge7c74u and https://njump.me/nevent1qqswv50m7mc95m3saqce08jzpqc0vedw4avdk6zxy9axrn3hqet52xgpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtczyztpa8q038vw5xluyhnydj5u39d7cpssvuswjhhjqj8q42jh4ul3wqcyqqqqqqgpc7cp3
31. Strategic reserve, bitcoin special https://www.thestreet.com/crypto/policy/bitcoin-to-hold-special-status-in-u-s-crypto-strategic-reserve
32. Bitcoin reserve, crypto stockpile https://decrypt.co/309032/president-trump-signs-executive-order-to-establish-bitcoin-reserve-crypto-stockpile vid link https://njump.me/nevent1qqs09h58patpv9vfjpcss6v5nxv7m23u8g6g43nqvkjzgzescztucmspr9mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0d4hhxarj9ecxjmnt9upzqtjzyy2ylrsceh5uj20j5e95v0e99s3epsvyctu2y0vrwyltvq33qvzqqqqqqyus4pu7
33. Truth summit https://njump.me/nevent1qqswj6sv0wr4d4ppwzam5egr5k6nmqgjpwmsrlx2a7d4ndpfj0fxvcqpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtczyztpa8q038vw5xluyhnydj5u39d7cpssvuswjhhjqj8q42jh4ul3wqcyqqqqqqgu0mzzh and vid https://njump.me/nevent1qqsptn8c8wyuhlqtjr5u767x20q4dmjvxy28cdj30t4v9phhf6y5a5spzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtczyztpa8q038vw5xluyhnydj5u39d7cpssvuswjhhjqj8q42jh4ul3wqcyqqqqqqgqklklu
34. SEC chair confirmed https://beincrypto.com/sec-chair-paul-atkins-confirmed-senate-vote/
35. pro bitcoin USA https://coinpedia.org/news/u-s-secretary-of-commerce-howard-lutnick-says-america-is-ready-for-bitcoin/
36. tax cuts https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5272043-johnson-house-trump-agenda-memorial-day/
37. "as much as we can get" https://cryptobriefing.com/trump-bitcoin-acquisition-strategy/
38. ban on CBDC https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/strengthening-american-leadership-in-digital-financial-technology/
39. Phoenix WoS leave https://www.coindesk.com/opinion/2024/04/29/wasabi-wallet-and-phoenix-leave-the-us-whats-next-for-non-custodial-crypto
40. Trump hut 8 mining https://www.reuters.com/technology/hut-8-eric-trump-launch-bitcoin-mining-company-2025-03-31/

@ 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.

@ 9bde4214:06ca052b

"It's gonna be permissionless or hell."

Gigi and gzuuus are vibing towards dystopia.

Books & articles mentioned:

• AI 2027
• DVMs were a mistake
• Careless People by Sarah Wynn-Williams
• Takedown by Laila michelwait
• The Ultimate Resource by Julian L. Simon
• Harry Potter by J.K. Rowling
• Momo by Michael Ende

In this dialogue:

• Pablo's Roo Setup
• Tech Hype Cycles
• AI 2027
• Prompt injection and other attacks
• Goose and DVMCP
• Cursor vs Roo Code
• Staying in control thanks to Amber and signing delegation
• Is YOLO mode here to stay?
• What agents to trust?
• What MCP tools to trust?
• What code snippets to trust?
• Everyone will run into the issues of trust and micropayments
• Nostr solves Web of Trust & micropayments natively
• Minimalistic & open usually wins
• DVMCP exists thanks to Totem
• Relays as Tamagochis
• Agents aren't nostr experts, at least not right now
• Fix a mistake once & it's fixed forever
• Giving long-term memory to LLMs
• RAG Databases signed by domain experts
• Human-agent hybrids & Chess
• Nostr beating heart
• Pluggable context & experts
• "You never need an API key for anything"
• Sats and social signaling
• Difficulty-adjusted PoW as a rare-limiting mechanism
• Certificate authorities and centralization
• No solutions to policing speech!
• OAuth and how it centralized
• Login with nostr
• Closed vs open-source models
• Tiny models vs large models
• The minions protocol (Stanford paper)
• Generalist models vs specialized models
• Local compute & encrypted queries
• Blinded compute
• "In the eyes of the state, agents aren't people"
• Agents need identity and money; nostr provides both
• "It's gonna be permissionless or hell"
• We already have marketplaces for MCP stuff, code snippets, and other things
• Most great stuff came from marketplaces (browsers, games, etc)
• Zapstore shows that this is already working
• At scale, central control never works. There's plenty scams and viruses in the app stores.
• Using nostr to archive your user-generated content
• HAVEN, blossom, novia
• The switcharoo from advertisements to training data
• What is Truth?
• What is Real?
• "We're vibing into dystopia"
• Who should be the arbiter of Truth?
• First Amendment & why the Logos is sacred
• Silicon Valley AI bros arrogantly dismiss wisdom and philosophy
• Suicide rates & the meaning crisis
• Are LLMs symbiotic or parasitic?
• The Amish got it right
• Are we gonna make it?
• Careless People by Sarah Wynn-Williams
• Takedown by Laila michelwait
• Harry Potter dementors & Momo's time thieves
• Facebook & Google as non-human (superhuman) agents
• Zapping as a conscious action
• Privacy and the internet
• Plausible deniability thanks to generative models
• Google glasses, glassholes, and Meta's Ray Ben's
• People crave realness
• Bitcoin is the realest money we ever had
• Nostr allows for real and honest expression
• How do we find out what's real?
• Constraints, policing, and chilling effects
• Jesus' plans for DVMCP
• Hzrd's article on how DVMs are broken (DVMs were a mistake)
• Don't believe the hype
• DVMs pre-date MCP tools
• Data Vending Machines were supposed to be stupid: put coin in, get stuff out.
• Self-healing vibe-coding
• IP addresses as scarce assets
• Atomic swaps and the ASS protocol
• More marketplaces, less silos
• The intensity of #SovEng and the last 6 weeks
• If you can vibe-code everything, why build anything?
• Time, the ultimate resource
• What are the LLMs allowed to think?
• Natural language interfaces are inherently dialogical
• Sovereign Engineering is dialogical too

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ d1667293:388e7004

The "Bitcoindollar" system—an emerging term which describes the interplay of U.S. dollar-denominated stablecoins and Bitcoin as complementary forces in the evolving monetary framework of the digital era (and which replaces the defunct Petrodollar system)—has sparked an interesting debate on Nostr with PowMaxi.

You will find the thread links at the bottom of this article.

Powmaxi argues that attempting to merge hard money (Bitcoin) with soft money (the U.S. dollar) is structurally doomed, because the systems are inherently contradictory and cannot coexist without one eventually destroying the other.

This critique is certainly valid, but ONLY if the Bitcoindollar is viewed as a final system. But I never claim that. To the contrary, the conclusion in my book is that this is a system that buys time for fiat, absorbs global demand for monetary stability, and ushers in a Bitcoinized world without the immediate collapse and the reset of the fiat system which would otherwise cause dramatic consequences. The Bitcoindollar is the only way to a gradual Bitcoin dominance in 10-20 years time while avoiding sudden collapse of the fiat system, so that also the power elites who hold the keys to this system can adapt.\ At least this is my hope.

Therefore the "fusion" isn't the future. The siphoning is. And the U.S. may try to ride it as long as possible. The Bitcoindollar system is a transitional strategic framework, not a\ permanent monetary equilibrium. In the end I agree with PowMaxi.

His detailed critique deserves an equally detailed analysis. Here's how the objections break down and why they don’t necessarily undermine the Bitcoindollar system.

1. Hard Money vs. Soft Money: Opposed Systems?

Objection: Bitcoin is a closed, decentralized system with a fixed supply; the dollar is an open, elastic system governed by central banks and political power. These traits are mutually exclusive and incompatible.

Response: Ideologically, yes. Practically, no. Hybrid financial systems are not uncommon. Bitcoin and stablecoins serve different user needs: Bitcoin is a store of value; stablecoins are mediums of exchange. Their coexistence mirrors real-world economic needs. The contradiction can be managed, and is not fatal at least for the transitional phase.

2. Scarcity vs. Elasticity: Economic Incompatibility?

Objection: Bitcoin can’t inject liquidity in crises; fiat systems can. Anchoring fiat to Bitcoin removes policymakers' tools.

Response: Correct — but that’s why Bitcoin is held as a reserve, not used as the primary medium of exchange in the Bitcoindollar model. Fiat-based liquidity mechanisms still function via stablecoins, while Bitcoin acts as a counterweight to long-term monetary debasement. The system’s strength is in its optionality: you don’t have to use Bitcoin until you want an exit ramp from fiat.

3. No Stable Equilibrium: One Must Win?

Objection: The system will destabilize. Either Bitcoin undermines fiat or fiat suppresses Bitcoin.

Response: Not necessarily in this transitional phase. The “conflict” isn’t between tools — it’s between control philosophies. The dollar won’t disappear overnight, and Bitcoin isn’t going away. The likely outcome is a gradual shifting of savings and settlement layers to Bitcoin, while fiat continues to dominate day-to-day payments and credit markets — until Bitcoin becomes structurally better in both.

4. Gresham’s and Thiers’ Law: Hollowing Fiat?

Objection: People save in Bitcoin and spend fiat, eroding fiat value.

Response: Yes — and that’s been happening since 2009. But this isn’t a flaw; it’s a transition mechanism. The Bitcoindollar model recognizes this and creates a bridge: it monetizes U.S. debt while preserving access to hard money. In the long run, my expectation is that naturally bitcoin will prevail both as a SOV and currency, but until then, stablecoins and T-bill-backed tokens serve useful roles in the global economy.

5. Philosophical Incompatibility?

Objection: Bitcoin prioritizes individual sovereignty; fiat systems are hierarchical. They can't be reconciled.

Response: They don’t need to be reconciled ideologically to function in parallel. Users choose the tool that suits their needs. One empowers individual autonomy; the other offers state-backed convenience. This is a competition of values, not a mechanical incompatibility. The Bitcoindollar model is a strategy. It’s a bridge between old and new systems, not a permanent coexistence.

6. Fusion is Impossible?

Objection: It’s only a temporary bridge. One side must lose.

Response: Exactly. The Bitcoindollar system is a transitional bridge. But that doesn’t reduce its value. It provides a functional pathway for individuals, companies, and governments to gradually exit broken monetary systems and experiment with new models.

In the meantime, the U.S. benefits from stablecoin-driven Treasury demand, while Bitcoin continues to grow as a global reserve asset.

Bottom line: A Strategic Convergence, Not a Permanent Fusion

The Bitcoindollar system isn’t a contradiction. It’s a convergence zone. It reflects the reality that monetary systems evolve gradually, not cleanly. Bitcoin and fiat will compete, overlap, and influence each other. Eventually, yes — hard money wins. But until then, hybrid systems offer powerful stepping stones.

Thread links:

Thread started from this initial post.

Thread Powmaxi

PowMaxi profile

@ 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.

@ 7d33ba57:1b82db35

Located in eastern Poland, Lublin is a city where history, culture, and youthful energy come together. Often called the "Gateway to the East," Lublin blends Gothic and Renaissance architecture, vibrant street life, and deep historical roots—especially as a center of Jewish heritage and intellectual life.

🏙️ Top Things to See in Lublin

🏰 Lublin Castle

• A striking hilltop castle with a neo-Gothic façade and a beautifully preserved Romanesque chapel (Chapel of the Holy Trinity)
• Don’t miss the frescoes inside—a rare mix of Byzantine and Western art styles

🚪 Old Town (Stare Miasto)

• Wander through cobblestone streets, pastel buildings, and arched gateways
• Filled with cozy cafes, galleries, and vibrant murals
• The Grodzka Gate symbolizes the passage between Christian and Jewish quarters

🕯️ Lublin’s Jewish Heritage

• Visit the Grodzka Gate – NN Theatre, a powerful memorial and museum telling the story of the once-vibrant Jewish community
• Nearby Majdanek Concentration Camp offers a sobering but important historical experience

🎭 Culture & Events

• Lublin is known for its festivals, like Carnaval Sztukmistrzów (Festival of Magicians and Street Performers) and the Night of Culture
• The city has a thriving theatre and music scene, supported by its large student population

🌳 Green Spaces

• Relax in Saski Garden, a peaceful park with walking paths and fountains
• Or take a walk along the Bystrzyca River for a quieter, more local feel

🍽️ Local Tastes

• Sample Polish classics like pierogi, żurek (sour rye soup), and bigos (hunter’s stew)
• Look for modern twists on traditional dishes in Lublin’s growing number of bistros and artisan cafés

🚆 Getting There

• Easy access by train or bus from Warsaw (2–2.5 hours)
• Compact center—easily walkable

@ 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

@ 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.

@ bbb5dda0:f09e2747

GitHub Actions (CI/CD) over Nostr

I Spent quite a bit of time on getting Nostr-based GitHub actions working. I have a basic runner implementation now, which i've reworked quite a bit when working with @dan on getting the front-end of it into gitworkshop.dev. We found that the nature of these jobs don't really lend itself to fit within the NIP-90 DVM spec.

What we have now: - A dvm-cicd-runner that - Advertises itself using NIP-89 announcements. - Takes a DVM request with: - repository - branch/ref - path to workflow file (.yml) - job timeout (max duration) - 🥜 Cashu prepayment for the job timeout (to be refunded) - Pulls the repository and executes the provided workflow file - Sends logs in batches as partial job results - Publishes job results and gets displayed in gitworkshop - Gitworkshop.dev (all nostr:npub15qydau2hjma6ngxkl2cyar74wzyjshvl65za5k5rl69264ar2exs5cyejr work) UI that : - Shows available workflow runners. - Instructing + paying runner to execute workflow file - Displaying job status, live updating with the latest logs / autoscroll, all the stuff you'd expect - Neatly displaying past jobs for the current repository

TODO'S + Ideas/vision

• TODO: refunding the unused minutes (job timeout - processing time) to the requester
• TODO: create seperate kinds/nip for worflow execution over nostr
• Create separate kinds for streaming arbitrary text data over nostr (line by line logs)
• automated git watchers for projects to kick of jobs
• Separate out workflow management stuff from gitworkshop.dev. A micro-app might serve better to manage runners for git projects etc and takes away pressure from gitworkshop.dev to do it all.
• Perhaps support just running .yaml files, without the requirement to have it in a git repo. Could just be a .yaml file on blossom.

TollGate

I spent most of my time working on TollGate. There's been a lot of back and forth to the drawing board to narrow down what the TollGate protocol looks like. I helped define some concepts on implementing a tollgate which we could use as language to discuss the different components that are part of a tollgate implementation. It helped us narrow down what was implementation and what is part of the protocol.

Current state of the project

• We have a website displaying the project: TollGate.me
• Worked on a basic android app for auto payments, validating we can auto-buy from tollgates by our phones
  • demo
• Presented TollGate at @Sats 'n Facts
• There's a protocol draft, presented at SEC-04
• We've done workshops, people were able to turn an OpenWRT router into a TollGate
• Building and releasing TollGate as a singular OpenWRT package, installable on any compatible architecture
• Building and releasing TollGate OS v0.0.1 (prebuilt OpenWRT image), targeting a few specific routers
• First tollgate deployed in the wild!! (At a restaurant in Funchal, Madeira)
• Other developers started to make their own adjacent implementations, which decentralizes the protocol already

What's next:

• We're gathering useful real user feedback to be incorporated in OS v0.0.2 soon
• Refine the protocol further
• Showing TollGate at various conferences in Europe throughout the summer
• Keep building the community, it's growing fast

Epoxy (Nostr based Addressing)

Although i've pivoted towards focusing on TollGate I worked out an implementation of my NIP-(1)37 proposal. During SEC-04 I worked out this browser plugin to demonstrate one way to make websites resistant to rugpulls.

It works by looking for a meta tag in the page's head: html <meta name="nostr-pubkey" relays="relay.site.com,other.relay.com">[hexPubkey]</meta>

When we've never recorded a pubkey for this domain, we save it. This pubkey now serves as the owner of the website. It looks for a kind 11111 event of that pubkey. It should list the current domain as one of it's domains. If not, it shows a warning.

The key concept is that if we visit this website again and one of these scenario's is true: - There is no longer a meta tag - There's another pubkey in the meta tag - The pubkey is still on the webpage, but the 11111 no longer lists this domain

Then we consider this domain as RUGPULLED and the user gets an error, suggesting to navigate to other domain listed by this pubkey. I'd like it to perhaps auto-redirect to another domain listed by the owner, this is especially useful for frequently rugged domains.

This extension does try to solve a bootstrapping problem. We need to establish the website's pubkey at some point. We have to start somewhere, which is why the first load is considered as the 'real' one, since we have no way of knowing for sure.

Other

🥜/⚡️ Receipt.Cash - Social Receipt sharing app

During SEC I worked on scratching an itch that has been lingering in my mind since SEC-03 already. And now that vibecoding is a thing it wasn't this huge undertaking anymore to handle the front-end stuff (which i suck at).

The usage scenario is a bunch of bitcoiners that are at a restaurant, we get the bill and want to split it amongst each other. One person can pay the bill, then: - Payer photographs receipt - Payer adds Cashu Payment request - Payer sets dev split % - App turns the receipt + request into a (encrypted) nostr event - The payer shares the event with QR or Share Menu

The friend scan the QR: - Receipt is loaded and displayed - Friend selects items they ordered - Friend hits pay button (⚡️Lightning or 🥜Cashu) and pays - Payment gets sent to Payer's cashu wallet - Dev split set by Payer goes to dev address.

Some features: - Change LLM model that processes the receipt to extract data - Proofs storage + recovery (if anything fails during processing)

Todo's: - Letting payer configure LNURL for payouts - Letting payer edit Receipt before sharing - Fix: live updates on settled items

The repo: receipt-cash

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 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.

@ fd0bcf8c:521f98c0

The vag' sits on the edge of the highway, broken, hungry. Overhead flies a transcontinental plane filled with highly paid executives. The upper class has taken to the air, the lower class to the roads: there is no longer any bond between them, they are two nations."—The Sovereign Individual

Fire

I was talking to a friend last night. Coffee in hand. Watching flames consume branches. Spring night on his porch.

He believed in America's happy ending. Debt would vanish. Inflation would cool. Manufacturing would return. Good guys win.

I nodded. I wanted to believe.

He leaned forward, toward the flame. I sat back, watching both fire and sky.

His military photos hung inside. Service medals displayed. Patriotism bone-deep.

The pendulum clock on his porch wall swung steadily. Tick. Tock. Measuring moments. Marking epochs.

History tells another story. Not tragic. Just true.

Our time has come. America cut off couldn't compete. Factories sit empty. Supply chains span oceans. Skills lack. Children lag behind. Rebuilding takes decades.

Truth hurts. Truth frees.

Cycles

History moves in waves. Every 500 years, power shifts. Systems fall. Systems rise.

500 BC - Greek coins changed everything. Markets flourished. Athens dominated.

1 AD - Rome ruled commerce. One currency. Endless roads. Bustling ports.

500 AD - Rome faded. Not overnight. Slowly. Trade withered. Cities emptied. Money debased. Roads crumbled. Local strongmen rose. Peasants sought protection. Feudalism emerged.

People still lived. Still worked. Horizons narrowed. Knowledge concentrated. Most barely survived. Rich adapted. Poor suffered.

Self-reliance determined survival. Those growing food endured. Those making essential goods continued. Those dependent on imperial systems suffered most.

1000 AD - Medieval revival began. Venice dominated seas. China printed money. Cathedrals rose. Universities formed.

1500 AD - Europeans sailed everywhere. Spanish silver flowed. Banks financed kingdoms. Companies colonized continents. Power moved west.

The pendulum swung. East to West. West to East. Civilizations rose. Civilizations fell.

2000 AD - Pattern repeats. America strains. Digital networks expand. China rises. Debt swells. Old systems break.

We stand at the hinge.

Warnings

Signs everywhere. Dollar weakens globally. BRICS builds alternatives. Yuan buys oil. Factories rust. Debt exceeds GDP. Interest consumes budgets.

Bridges crumble. Education falters. Politicians chase votes. We consume. We borrow.

Rome fell gradually. Citizens barely noticed. Taxes increased. Currency devalued. Military weakened. Services decayed. Life hardened by degrees.

East Rome adapted. Survived centuries. West fragmented. Trade shrank. Some thrived. Others suffered. Life changed permanently.

Those who could feed themselves survived best. Those who needed the system suffered worst.

Pendulum

My friend poured another coffee. The burn pile popped loudly. Sparks flew upward like dying stars.

His face changed as facts accumulated. Military man. Trained to assess threats. Detect weaknesses.

He stared at the fire. National glory reduced to embers. Something shifted in his expression. Recognition.

His fingers tightened around his mug. Knuckles white. Eyes fixed on dying flames.

I traced the horizon instead. Observing landscape. Noting the contrast.

He touched the flag on his t-shirt. I adjusted my plain gray one.

The unpayable debt. The crumbling infrastructure. The forgotten manufacturing. The dependent supply chains. The devaluing currency.

The pendulum clock ticked. Relentless. Indifferent to empires.

His eyes said what his patriotism couldn't voice. Something fundamental breaking.

I'd seen this coming. Years traveling showed me. Different systems. Different values. American exceptionalism viewed from outside.

Pragmatism replaced my old idealism. See things as they are. Not as wished.

The logs shifted. Flames reached higher. Then lower. The cycle of fire.

Divergence

Society always splits during shifts.

Some adapt. Some don't.

Printing arrived. Scribes starved. Publishers thrived. Information accelerated. Readers multiplied. Ideas spread. Adapters prospered.

Steam engines came. Weavers died. Factory owners flourished. Villages emptied. Cities grew. Coal replaced farms. Railways replaced wagons. New skills meant survival.

Computers transformed everything. Typewriters vanished. Software boomed. Data replaced paper. Networks replaced cabinets. Programmers replaced typists. Digital skills determined success.

The self-reliant thrived in each transition. Those waiting for rescue fell behind.

Now AI reshapes creativity. Some artists resist. Some harness it. Gap widens daily.

Bitcoin offers refuge. Critics mock. Adopters build wealth. The distance grows.

Remote work redraws maps. Office-bound struggle. Location-free flourish.

The pendulum swings. Power shifts. Some rise with it. Some fall against it.

Two societies emerge. Adaptive. Resistant. Prepared. Pretending.

Advantage

Early adapters win. Not through genius. Through action.

First printers built empires. First factories created dynasties. First websites became giants.

Bitcoin followed this pattern. Laptop miners became millionaires. Early buyers became legends.

Critics repeat themselves: "Too volatile." "No value." "Government ban coming."

Doubters doubt. Builders build. Gap widens.

Self-reliance accelerates adaptation. No permission needed. No consensus required. Act. Learn. Build.

The burn pile flames like empire's glory. Bright. Consuming. Temporary.

Blindness

Our brains see tigers. Not economic shifts.

We panic at headlines. We ignore decades-long trends.

We notice market drops. We miss debt cycles.

We debate tweets. We ignore revolutions.

Not weakness. Just humanity. Foresight requires work. Study. Thought.

Self-reliant thinking means seeing clearly. No comforting lies. No pleasing narratives. Just reality.

The clock pendulum swings. Time passes regardless of observation.

Action

Empires fall. Families need security. Children need futures. Lives need meaning.

You can adapt faster than nations.

Assess honestly. What skills matter now? What preserves wealth? Who helps when needed?

Never stop learning. Factory workers learned code. Taxi drivers joined apps. Photographers went digital.

Diversify globally. No country owns tomorrow. Learn languages. Make connections. Stay mobile.

Protect your money. Dying empires debase currencies. Romans kept gold. Bitcoin offers similar shelter.

Build resilience. Grow food. Make energy. Stay strong. Keep friends. Read old books. Some things never change.

Self-reliance matters most. Can you feed yourself? Can you fix things? Can you solve problems? Can you create value without systems?

Movement

Humans were nomads first. Settlers second. Movement in our blood.

Our ancestors followed herds. Sought better lands. Survival meant mobility.

The pendulum swings here too. Nomad to farmer. City-dweller to digital nomad.

Rome fixed people to land. Feudalism bound serfs to soil. Nations created borders. Companies demanded presence.

Now technology breaks chains. Work happens anywhere. Knowledge flows everywhere.

The rebuild America seeks requires fixed positions. Factory workers. Taxpaying citizens in permanent homes.

But technology enables escape. Remote work. Digital currencies. Borderless businesses.

The self-reliant understand mobility as freedom. One location means one set of rules. One economy. One fate.

Many locations mean options. Taxes become predatory? Leave. Opportunities disappear? Find new ones.

Patriotism celebrates roots. Wisdom remembers wings.

My friend's boots dug into his soil. Planted. Territorial. Defending.

My Chucks rested lightly. Ready. Adaptable. Departing.

His toolshed held equipment to maintain boundaries. Fences. Hedges. Property lines.

My backpack contained tools for crossing them. Chargers. Adapters. Currency.

The burn pile flame flickers. Fixed in place. The spark flies free. Movement its nature.

During Rome's decline, the mobile survived best. Merchants crossing borders. Scholars seeking patrons. Those tied to crumbling systems suffered most.

Location independence means personal resilience. Economic downturns become geographic choices. Political oppression becomes optional suffering.

Technology shrinks distance. Digital work. Video relationships. Online learning.

Self-sovereignty requires mobility. The option to walk away. The freedom to arrive elsewhere.

Two more worlds diverge. The rooted. The mobile. The fixed. The fluid. The loyal. The free.

Hope

Not decline. Transition. Painful but temporary.

America may weaken. Humanity advances. Technology multiplies possibilities. Poverty falls. Knowledge grows.

Falling empires see doom. Rising ones see opportunity. Both miss half the picture.

Every shift brings destruction and creation. Rome fell. Europe struggled. Farms produced less. Cities shrank. Trade broke down.

Yet innovation continued. Water mills appeared. New plows emerged. Monks preserved books. New systems evolved.

Different doesn't mean worse for everyone.

Some industries die. Others birth. Some regions fade. Others bloom. Some skills become useless. Others become gold.

The self-reliant thrive in any world. They adapt. They build. They serve. They create.

Choose your role. Nostalgia or building.

The pendulum swings. East rises again. The cycle continues.

Fading

The burn pile dimmed. Embers fading. Night air cooling.

My friend's shoulders changed. Tension releasing. Something accepted.

His patriotism remained. His illusions departed.

The pendulum clock ticked steadily. Measuring more than minutes. Measuring eras.

Two coffee cups. His: military-themed, old and chipped but cherished. Mine: plain porcelain, new and unmarked.

His eyes remained on smoldering embers. Mine moved between him and the darkening trees.

His calendar marked local town meetings. Mine tracked travel dates.

The last flame flickered out. Spring peepers filled the silence.

In darkness, we watched smoke rise. The world changing. New choices ahead.

No empire lasts forever. No comfort in denial. Only clarity in acceptance.

Self-reliance the ancient answer. Build your skills. Secure your resources. Strengthen your body. Feed your mind. Help your neighbors.

The burn pile turned to ash. Empire's glory extinguished.

He stood facing his land. I faced the road.

A nod between us. Respect across division. Different strategies for the same storm.

He turned toward his home. I toward my vehicle.

The pendulum continued swinging. Power flowing east once more. Five centuries ending. Five centuries beginning.

"Bear in mind that everything that exists is already fraying at the edges." — Marcus Aurelius

Tomorrow depends not on nations. On us.

@ 61bf790b:fe18b062

In a vast digital realm, two cities stood side by side: the towering, flashing metropolis of Feedia, and the decentralized, quiet city of Nostra.

Feedia was loud—blinding, buzzing, and always on. Screens plastered every wall, whispering the latest trends into citizens’ ears. But in this city, what you saw wasn’t up to you. It was determined by a towering, unseen force known as The Algorithm. It didn’t care what was true, meaningful, or helpful—only what would keep your eyes glued and your attention sold.

In Feedia, discovery wasn’t earned. It was assigned.

And worse—there was a caste system. To have a voice, you needed a Blue Check—a glowing badge that marked you as “worthy.” To get one, you had to pay or play. Pay monthly dues to the high towers or entertain The Algorithm enough to be deemed “valuable.” If you refused or couldn’t afford it, your voice was cast into the noise—buried beneath outrage bait and celebrity screams.

The unmarked were like ghosts—speaking into the void while the checked dined in Algorithm-favored towers. It was a digital monarchy dressed up as a democracy.

Then, there was Nostra.

There were no glowing checkmarks in Nostra—just signal. Every citizen had a light they carried, one that grew brighter the more they contributed: thoughtful posts, reshared ideas, built tools, or boosted others. Discovery was based not on payment or privilege, but participation and value.

In Nostra, you didn’t rise because you paid the gatekeeper—you rose because others lifted you. You weren’t spoon-fed; you sought, you found, you earned attention. It was harder, yes. But it was real.

And slowly, some in Feedia began to awaken. They grew tired of being fed fast-food content and ignored despite their voices. They looked across the river to Nostra, where minds weren’t bought—they were built.

And one by one, they began to cross.

@ 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.

@ 1b939fa8:1ebdc679

All of my outfit conversion mods and Nora's Commonwealth Reconstruction Project have requirements that are on Nexus and nowhere else. Exception for the outfit conversions is Devious Devices which is noted and links provided to Lovers Lab and other requirements. My mods are dependent on those original mods to work. If/when the originals come to DEG then I will update and remove the Nexus links in my descriptions.

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VetGamerBoceifus01

X: https://x.com/boceifus2000

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 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!

@ 6c67a3f3:b0ebd196

On Black-Starting the United Kingdom

In the event of a total failure of the electric grid, the United Kingdom would face a task at once technical and Sisyphean: the so-called black start — the reawakening of the nation’s darkened arteries without any external supply of power. In idealized manuals, the task is rendered brisk and clean, requiring but a few days' labor. In the world in which we live, it would be slower, more uncertain, and at times perilously close to impossible.

Let us unfold the matter layer by layer.

I. The Nature of the Undertaking

A black start is not a mere throwing of switches, but a sequential ballet. Small generating stations — diesel engines, hydro plants, gas turbines — must first breathe life into cold transmission lines. Substations must be coaxed into readiness. Load must be picked up cautiously, lest imbalance bring the whole effort to naught. Islands of power are stitched together, synchronized with exquisite care.

Each step is fraught with fragility. An unseen misalignment, an unsignaled overload, and hours of labor are lost.

II. The Dream of the Engineers

In theory, according to the National Grid Electricity System Operator (ESO), the sequence would unfold thus: within half a day, core transmission lines humming; within a day or two, hospitals lit and water flowing; within three days, cities reawakened; within a week, the nation, broadly speaking, restored to life.

This vision presupposes a fantasy of readiness: that black-start units are operational and plentiful; that communications systems, so delicately dependent on mobile networks and the internet, endure; that personnel, trained and coordinated, are on hand in sufficient numbers; and that no sabotage, no accident, no caprice of nature interrupts the dance.

III. The Real Order of Things

Reality is more obstinate. Many black-start capable plants have been shuttered in the name of efficiency. The financial incentives once offered to private generators for black-start readiness were judged insufficient; the providers withdrew.

Grid operations now rely on a lattice of private interests, demanding slow and complicated coordination. Telecommunications are vulnerable in a deep blackout. The old hands, steeped in the tacit lore of manual restoration, have retired, their knowledge scattered to the four winds. Cyber vulnerabilities have multiplied, and the grid’s physical inertia — the very thing that grants a system grace under perturbation — has grown thin, leaving the UK exposed to sudden collapses should synchronization falter.

Under such conditions, the best of hopes might yield five to ten days of partial recovery. Weeks would be required to restore the former web of normalcy. In certain cases — in the face of physical damage to high-voltage transformers, whose replacements take months if not years — black-start might founder altogether.

IV. The Quiet Admissions of Officialdom

In its polite documents, the National Grid ESO speaks carefully: essential services might see restoration within three days, but full public service would require "up to a week or longer." If designated black-start units were to fail — a real risk, given recent audits showing many unready — the timelines would stretch indefinitely.

In plain speech: in a true national blackout, the nation’s restoration would be a gamble.

V. The Forking Paths Ahead

If all proceeds well, Britain might stumble into light within three days. If the adversities accumulate — cyberattack, internal sabotage, simple human miscalculation — the process would stretch into weeks, even months. In the gravest scenarios, the nation would reconstitute not as one great engine, but as isolated islands of power, each jury-rigged and vulnerable.

Meanwhile, the paradoxical truth is that small and simple systems — the grids of Jersey, Malta, and the like — would outpace their mightier cousins, not despite their modest scale but because of it.

VI. Conclusion

The British grid, in short, is a triumph of late modernity — and like all such triumphs, it carries within itself the seeds of its own fragility. It works magnificently until the day it does not. When that day comes, recovery will be neither swift nor sure, but a slow, halting reweaving of threads too easily frayed.

@ 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!

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 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!

@ cb4352cd:a16422d7

As new technologies reshape finance, the traditional banking model faces fresh competition. Let's take a closer look at how the two ecosystems compare today.

What happens when centralized institutions meet decentralized protocols? A transformation of financial services is already underway — and users are at the center of it.

Traditional Banking: Established, Yet Rigid

Traditional banks like JPMorgan Chase, HSBC, and Deutsche Bank have built vast infrastructures over decades. They offer deposit insurance, personal loans, mortgages, and extensive regulatory compliance. Trust, scale, and government support are their major strengths.

However, these institutions often struggle with agility. Opening an international account or sending a cross-border payment can take days and involve considerable fees. Innovations like digital onboarding and instant payments are arriving slowly, hampered by regulatory complexity and legacy systems.

DeFi Platforms: Agile, Accessible, but Risky

By contrast, DeFi protocols such as Uniswap (decentralized exchange), Aave (decentralized lending), and Compound (decentralized borrowing) offer near-instant services, accessible globally 24/7.

DeFi users maintain custody of their own assets. No bank approvals, no office hours. Fees are often lower, and yields can be attractive. Smart contracts automatically execute transactions, removing human bottlenecks.

But DeFi isn't without risks. Without insurance, users are exposed to smart contract bugs, hacks, and protocol failures. Regulatory protections are minimal, and scams can proliferate among unverified projects.

The Bridge Between Worlds: Emerging Hybrids

Interestingly, some traditional players are exploring DeFi-like services. Societe Generale issued tokenized bonds on Ethereum. ING is researching zero-knowledge proofs for financial privacy. Meanwhile, crypto-friendly banks like Silvergate have pioneered instant settlement networks inspired by blockchain efficiency.

The future may not be a winner-takes-all scenario but a convergence: decentralized technology improving traditional services, while banks offer compliant, user-friendly access to digital assets.

Beyond Banking Conference by WeFi: Charting the Future

The ongoing fusion of DeFi and traditional finance will take center stage at the upcoming Beyond Banking Conference by WeFi. Thought leaders and innovators will explore how transparency, smart contracts, and decentralized trust models are redefining global finance.

As these worlds collide, the real question isn't about winners — it's about how finance can evolve to serve a broader, more connected world.

@ 7e538978:a5987ab6

In Jericoacoara, Brazil, a beach town famed for its natural beauty and vibrant tourism, an innovative project is reshaping how locals and visitors think about money. Praia Bitcoin is an ambitious initiative to build a circular economy powered entirely by Bitcoin.

Launched in 2021 by entrepreneur Fernando Motolese, Praia Bitcoin was inspired by the Bitcoin Beach project in El Zonte, El Salvador. The vision is simple: create a self-sustaining Bitcoin economy where businesses and individuals use Bitcoin everyday in place of fiat money.

This idea holds special significance in Jericoacoara, where traditional banking services are scarce. The town lacks even basic infrastructure like ATMs, making financial inclusion a pressing need. With Praia Bitcoin, Bitcoin isn’t just a store of value—it’s a tool to empower a community and connect it to the global economy.

Transforming Jericoacoara with Bitcoin

Since its inception, Praia Bitcoin has worked to foster Bitcoin adoption in the area. Starting with a modest donation of 0.02 BTC, Fernando and his team have built a thriving ecosystem:

• Over 40 businesses now accept Bitcoin, ranging from souvenir shops and tour operators to beach vendors.
• Local students have received Bitcoin-loaded tap-to-pay, Bolt Cards, to use in their daily lives.
• Creative initiatives like “Bitcoin Banana Day” or "Frutas por Sats" (fruits for sats) where children buy fruits for 10 satoshis at school, have brought global attention to the project.

Praia Bitcoin’s success isn’t just about the adoption numbers, it’s about the stories. Families use Bitcoin to shop, business owners save on transaction fees, and children are learning the value of sound money at an early age.

LNbits - The Technology Behind Praia Bitcoin

Creating an economy on Bitcoin’s Lightning Network requires more than enthusiasm, it needs robust tools that are easy to use and adaptable to local needs. That’s where LNbits comes in.

Fernando and the Praia Bitcoin team have used LNbits’ open-source software to solve practical challenges and scale the project. With its modular design, LNbits provides tools that allow Praia Bitcoin to:

• Set Up Wallets: Community members receive user-friendly wallets that connect seamlessly to the Lightning Network, enabling fast, low-cost transactions.
• Issue BoltCards: Using LNbits’ BoltCard extension, the team has distributed NFC-enabled cards, allowing tap-to-pay functionality that makes Bitcoin payments as simple as using a credit card.
• Enable Flexible Payments: The project utilizes LNbits’ Point of Sale TPoS extension that allows merchants to easily receive Lightning Network payments.

Breaking Records, Building Community

Fernando doesn’t just implement solutions, he pushes boundaries. One of his most remarkable achievements was an attempt to set a world record for the most Lightning Network payments in the shortest amount of time. Over the course of one afternoon, 100 children in Jericoacoara received payments of 21,000 satoshis each, demonstrating the scalability and speed of Lightning-powered transactions.

This wasn’t just a technical feat, it was a community moment. The event showed how Bitcoin could serve as a tool for engagement, education, and empowerment, all while highlighting the possibilities of using the Lightning Network for real-world applications.

A Collaborative Approach to Innovation

One of the unique strengths of LNbits is its ability to evolve based on community feedback. While Fernando Motolese and Praia Bitcoin operate independently, their insights have helped refine the LNbits platform.

For example, Fernando’s need for a PIN-less ATM functionality led the LNbits team to implement that feature in the TPoS extension, that had the functionality but required a security PIN. This kind of collaboration isn’t about formal partnerships. It’s about how an open-source ecosystem thrives when real-world needs drive innovation.

The feedback loop between users like Fernando and developers ensures LNbits remains practical and relevant—not just for Praia Bitcoin but for countless other projects worldwide.

The Ripple Effect of Praia Bitcoin

Praia Bitcoin is a case study in what’s possible when Bitcoin meets a strong vision. By leveraging Bitcoin, the Lightning Network and LNbits, the project has redefined financial access in Jericoacoara, proving that small communities can lead big innovations.

For LNbits, Praia Bitcoin showcases the value of adaptable, open-source solutions. Whether it’s creating wallets, enabling NFC payments, or refining tools for real-world use, LNbits provides the infrastructure that makes projects like Praia Bitcoin possible.

But beyond the technical achievements, Praia Bitcoin reminds us of the human impact of Bitcoin adoption. It’s about children buying their first bananas with satoshis, families running businesses with lower fees, and a community connecting to a global financial network for the first time.

Conclusion

Praia Bitcoin’s journey is only getting started and its success is inspiring similar initiatives worldwide. For LNbits, being part of this story, is a testament to the power of the software and of open-source collaboration.

If you’re ready to build the future of Bitcoin adoption, LNbits offers the tools to turn ideas into impact.

Learn More:
- Visit Praia Bitcoin: Praia Bitcoin
- Explore LNbits: LNbits

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a4043831:3b64ac02

A professional financial advisor can guide you to achieve long-term financial stability. They can assist you to define your goals to formulate strategic planning coupled with rational decision-making. Since the options are varied and multiple, how can you go about choosing a fiduciary financial advisor whose approach matches their financial goals? This guide explains exactly how to pick a financial advisor who suits your individual financial targets.

Defining Your Financial Needs and Goals

You need to specify your financial aspirations as well as your essential requirements so an advisor can create a suitable plan for your portfolio. Starters should establish their monetary targets before initiating contact with financial consultants. Any objective requires planning such as retirement preparation and investment management and education savings along with wealth protection and growth needs to be identified. Knowing your financial goals helps you determine if an advisor’s experience matches the needs of reaching your targets. Before you conduct meetings with possible financial advisors you need to have clearly established financial goals which will make these meetings goal-focused and beneficial.

Trusted financial advisors at Passive Capital Management can help you check out financial plan tailored to your needs and goals.

Look For Professional Credentials and Qualifications

Review carefully the advisor’s qualifications after you establish your goals. The strict training and ethical assessments that CFP Certified Financial Planner and the CFA Chartered Financial Analyst professionals demonstrate their professionalism. The designations set by these organizations prove advisors maintain knowledge in planning, investments and regulatory requirements. It is essential to verify that the advisor operates under fiduciary standards since this legal requirement ensures they must always act according to your benefit. It is essential to verify if an advisor functions as a fiduciary all the time because some only act under specified circumstances. Get a direct and unambiguous statement about their status. Under fiduciary relationships your financial security stands as the main priority of your financial advisor while fiduciary arrangements reduce potential conflicts between your interests.

Understand the Advisor’s Investment Approach

While consulting an advisor, you might encounter several hidden conflicts of interest. So a robust advisor-client connection based on their mutual investment approach including strategy selection is essential. Review the risk approaches of your advisor through inquiries to learn about their portfolio design strategies and market investment strategies. Technical competence must be combined with an awareness of your risk tolerance and time preferences according to their responses. A reliable advisor will adapt their investment methods to match the risk tolerance of their client combined with their financial destination.

Review their Service Package and Communication Style

A competent financial advisor functions past standard investment management duties. Their service range needs to include full-scale financial planning in areas such as retirement income strategies along with tax and estate planning solutions and insurance assessments. Check that their service suite matches your financial development needs. The advisor needs to maintain both clear and predictable ways of communication. Reveal their review process schedule and disclosure methods for reporting metrics as well as their availability to respond to questions at any time during the year. Professional communication builds reliable relationships that involve active participant commitment in planning activities.

Clarify the Fee Structure

Knowing how your advisor gets paid gives you the essential knowledge needed for building trust between you both. Financial advisors conduct business through payment structures which include flat fees, percentage-based fees on managed assets and extra earnings from their advisory products. The different compensation models bring their own effects and outcomes to the process. The most significant aspect for you is receiving clear explanations about fees while they are in alignment with your financial planning. The first practice of transparent communication by an advisor suggests they will uphold that approach during your entire time together.

Conclusion

Alongside numerical expertise your ideal advisor should function as a trustworthy partner because they will dedicate themselves to your financial growth. Strategic decision-making depends on the establishment of clear objectives and verification of expertise as well as confirmation of fiduciary principles and comprehensive evaluation of communication methods and associated fees. Your financial destiny requires organized assessment along with expert consulting while the correct professional consultant enables you to move through every phase of your path with obvious direction and solid self-assurance.

@ 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.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ c1157704:6423de51

English: "Politicians steal billions and get light sentences, while the poor get jailed for stealing bread. Is the law just a tool for the rich?"

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Johann Gabriel Seidl (1804-1875)

@ 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

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In diesem Sinne wünsche ich euch allen urige Weihnachtstage!

---

Dieser Beitrag ist letztes Jahr in meiner Denkbar erschienen.

@ 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.

@ 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 .

@ 975e4ad5:8d4847ce

With the advancement of quantum computers, a new threat emerges for the security of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies. These powerful machines have the potential to expose vulnerabilities in traditional cryptographic systems, which could jeopardize the safety of digital wallets. But don’t worry—modern wallets are already equipped to handle this threat with innovative solutions that make your funds nearly impossible to steal, even by a quantum computer. Let’s explore how this works and why you can rest easy.

The Threat of Quantum Computers

To understand how wallets protect us, we first need to grasp what makes quantum computers so dangerous. At the core of most cryptocurrencies, like Bitcoin, lies public and private key cryptography. The public key (or address) is like your bank account number—you share it to receive funds. The private key is like your PIN—it allows you to send funds and must remain secret.

Traditional cryptography, such as the ECDSA algorithm, relies on mathematical problems that are extremely difficult to solve with conventional computers. For instance, deriving a private key from a public key is practically impossible, as it would take millions of years of computation. However, quantum computers, thanks to algorithms like Shor’s, can significantly speed up this process. Theoretically, a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could uncover a private key from a public key in minutes or even seconds.

This is a problem because if someone gains access to your private key, they can send all your funds to their own address. But here’s the good news—modern wallets use a clever solution to render this threat powerless.

How Do Wallets Protect Us?

One of the most effective defenses against quantum computers is the use of one-time addresses in wallets. This means that for every transaction—whether receiving or sending funds—the wallet automatically generates a new public address. The old address, once used, remains in the transaction history but no longer holds any funds, as they are transferred to a new address.

Why Does This Work?

Imagine you’re sending or receiving cryptocurrency. Your wallet creates a new address for that transaction. After the funds are sent or received, that address becomes “used,” and the wallet automatically generates a new one for the next transaction. If a quantum computer manages to derive the private key from the public address of the used address, it will find nothing—because that address is already empty. Your funds are safely transferred to a new address, whose public key has not yet been exposed.

This strategy is known as HD (Hierarchical Deterministic) wallets. It allows the wallet to generate an infinite number of addresses from a single master key (seed) without compromising security. Each new address is unique and cannot be linked to the previous ones, making it impossible to trace your funds, even with a quantum computer.

Automation Makes It Effortless

The best part? You don’t need to worry about this process—it’s fully automated. When you use a modern wallet like MetaMask, Ledger, Trezor, or software wallets for Bitcoin, everything happens behind the scenes. You simply click “receive” or “send,” and the wallet takes care of generating new addresses. There’s no need to understand the complex technical details or manually manage your keys.

For example:

• You want to receive 0.1 BTC. Your wallet provides a new address, which you share with the sender.
• After receiving the funds, the wallet automatically prepares a new address for the next transaction.
• If you send some of the funds, the remaining amount (known as “change”) is sent to another new address generated by the wallet.

This system ensures that public addresses exposed on the blockchain no longer hold funds, making quantum attacks pointless.

Additional Protection: Toward Post-Quantum Cryptography

Beyond one-time addresses, blockchain developers are also working on post-quantum cryptography—algorithms that are resistant to quantum computers. Some blockchain networks are already experimenting with such solutions, like algorithms based on lattices (lattice-based cryptography). These methods don’t rely on the same mathematical problems that quantum computers can solve, offering long-term protection.

In the meantime, one-time addresses combined with current cryptographic standards provide enough security to safeguard your funds until post-quantum solutions become widely adopted.

Why You Shouldn’t Worry

Modern wallets are designed with the future in mind. They not only protect against today’s threats but also anticipate future risks, such as those posed by quantum computers. One-time addresses make exposed public keys useless to hackers, and automation ensures you don’t need to deal with the technicalities. HD wallets, which automatically generate new addresses, make the process seamless and secure for users.

Public key exposure only happens when necessary, reducing the risk of attacks, even from a quantum computer. In conclusion, while quantum computers pose a potential threat, modern wallets already offer effective solutions that make your cryptocurrencies nearly impossible to steal. With one-time addresses and the upcoming adoption of post-quantum cryptography, you can be confident that your funds are safe—today and tomorrow.

@ 9223d2fa:b57e3de7

12,600 steps

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 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!

@ 2b24a1fa:17750f64

Die Satire Muxmäuchenstill von 2004 erzählt die Geschichte des 30-jährigen Mux, der seine Mitbürgern zu mehr Verantwortungsbewusstsein erziehen möchte. Dazu stellt er Raser, Schwarzfahrer, Graffiti-Sprüher, Falschparker, Ladendiebe und Vergewaltiger, konfrontiert sie mit ihrem Verhalten und bestraft sie.

https://soundcloud.com/radiomuenchen/muxmauschenstill-x-interview-mit-jan-henrik-stahlberg?

Als Mitstreiter gewinnt er Arbeits- und Obdachlose. Mux’ fanatische Ein-Mann-Mission wächst zu einem kleinen Unternehmen. Auch privat kann er seinen Moralismus nicht zügeln und erschießt seine Freundin. Am Ende des Films wird er von einem Raser überfahren.

Ab 1. Mai läuft die Fortsetzung in den Kinos: Muxmäuschenstill X: muxfilm.de/. Nach zwanzig Jahre Wachkoma findet sich Mux in einer Welt wieder, die er nicht mehr versteht: dem wunderbaren Neoliberalismus. Wieder möchte Mux die Menschen erziehen. Doch diesmal kämpft er gegen ein System, das alles durchdringt, die Welt spaltet, unsere Lebensgrundlagen zerstört, die Reichen reicher macht und die Armen ärmer. Mux gründet den Muxismus und schart die Aussortierten des Systems um sich.

Drehbuchautor und Hauptdarsteller Jan Henrik Stahlberg führt diesmal auch Regie. Unser Autor Jonny Rieder hat mit Jan Henrik Stahlberg über seinen neuen Film gesprochen. Zunächst wollte er wissen, wo für ihn die Grenze verläuft zwischen Übergriffigkeit und Zivilcourage und wie er Mux hier einordnet.

Bild: Mux Filmproduktion

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a1d36df6:a3b9f5a0

Originally written in: November 2024

"Show me the incentives, and I'll show you the outcome"[^mungerquote].

"Even bacteria respond to motivation." ~[^dufrene2020][^amoedo2024].

Introduction

In Austrian economics, time preference refers to the value individuals place on present consumption versus future consumption [^rothbard1993man]. A society with a lower time preference is more inclined to save, invest, and plan for the long term, thereby fostering progress and stability [^ammous2018]. In contrast, a society with a higher time preference tends toward immediate consumption rather than investment — or invests without a true understanding of its purpose — leading to short-term planning and a gradual drift from foundational societal values, traditions, and culture [^hoppe2001].

The definition of investment is the process of allocating resources to productive activities, prioritizing future gains over immediate consumption. It involves capital accumulation and is key to economic growth, as individuals delay gratification to increase future value. This approach underlies capital formation and enhances an economy's production capacity, aligning with lower time preference and fostering long-term prosperity [^mises1998].

With a foundational understanding of time preference and investment, we can begin to examine what motivates people today. Given the prevalence of high time preference in modern society, the government can capitalize on this tendency by offering immediate handouts and benefits, satisfying the population's desire for instant gratification, often at the expense of long-term prosperity and future gains. This tendency is also mirrored in mainstream media, where a focus on sensational, attention-grabbing stories diverts focus from deeper, structural issues. By amplifying polarizing narratives [^gentzkow2006media], often tied to social identity or lifestyle differences, the government and media create a cycle of constant engagement and distraction, steering public attention towards short-term controversies and away from underlying economic or social policy issues [^caplan2001rational].

Debt & Fractional-Reserve Banking

A common denominator that repeatedly emerges in such destructive behavior promoted by governments is the issue of money. As money drives the world, understanding and following its flow not only reveals how it operates but also uncovers those who wield control over it, and how human behavior is driven by it.

Money is a broad term encircling all assets that can be used for exchange, storage, and valuation, covering both physical and digital forms [^ammous2023]. Cash is a subset of money, referring specifically to physical currency, such as coins and notes.

The process of money creation, typically managed by governments and central banks, is the foundation of economic dependency within the financial system. In most economies, central banks control currency creation through mechanisms like open market operations and debt. For instance, when a central bank, such as the Federal Reserve, issues new currency, it does so by purchasing government securities from commercial banks, thus adding currency to the economy. However, this transaction is not debt-free; it obliges the government to repay the borrowed amount with interest.

In common words, the process of creating money is as follows: the government request to the central bank a certain amount of money to be printed in borrowing form. The central bank then creates that money, out of thin air, on the promise that the government will repay the central bank down the road. Since the government does not produce anything, in order to repay the central bank, the government then sells the debt via bonds to anyone who would like to buy the government debt. In even more simple words: the government and central bank creates money out of thin air based on debt [^ammous2021].

The issue with money creation is not only by the fact that it was created out of thin air, but because money creation has other issues tied to it: the debt, the creation of fractional-reserve monetary system, inflation, and interest.

This foundational reliance on debt, since it is present in the very beginning of money creation, renders the entire monetary system debt-dependent. Therefore, saving and investing within such a system becomes questionable, as the system's nature opposes the principles of sustainable wealth accumulation, thus leading human behavior not to save but to spend.

A fractional-reserve monetary system is a banking structure in which banks retain only a small fraction of their depositors' funds — historically around 10%, but today often as low as 1% [^bundesbank2024] — while lending out or investing the remainder. This setup allows banks to expand the money supply and stimulate economic activity through a process known as deposit expansion [^federalreserve1975modern]. Deposit expansion occurs when banks effectively treat a portion of deposited funds as new money, multiplying the original deposit base. For example, if a bank holds deposits totaling 1 million euros, it can lend out up to 1.9 million euros, as long as it maintains 10% of the initial deposit in reserve. This cycle can repeat, enabling banks to increase the total money supply to infinity, but the "Modern Money Mechanics: A Workbook on Bank Reserves and Deposit Expansion" and government applying it recommends not doing it above 9 times the original deposit value [^federalreserve1975modern].

To make matters worse, inflation and interest exacerbate the problems inherent in this monetary system. Interest is a foundational element of the system, initially intended to address the original debt incurred by the government. In economic terms, interest represents the "price" of time preference, a premium placed on present goods over future goods. To illustrate the impact of interest, consider the cost of a house in today's system: a house priced at 500,000 euros with a 4% variable interest rate ends up costing around 860,000 euros over 30 years, with 360,000 euros paid in interest alone.

Inflation, on the other hand, is the increase in the money supply — money printing — and can only be truly calculated by M2[^1] money supply metric. Inflation erodes the value of both assets and earned income, as each new unit of currency devalues existing money. This devaluation impacts not only the purchasing power of savings but also the real cost of goods and services over time, reducing the long-term value of assets people believe they own.

The government

Operating within a monetary system stretched beyond its limitations, the government faces the dual challenges of controlling inflation and satisfying its growing spending demands. To fund its expenditures, the government often provides public benefits — subsidies, "free" healthcare, public transport, security, military, and welfare in general — to justify continual spending and cultivate public support - via voting, in most democratic countries.

Welfare and most government programs redistribute wealth from producers to non-producers, fostering dependency on the state. Over time, this erodes individual sovereignty and expands government control, restricting freedom, and reducing people to slaves or cash cows.

The government justifies taxes as payment for welfare and public services, but also claims they curb inflation by reducing the need to print money. The logic is that by reclaiming taxpayer money, the money supply is controlled. However, this is misleading, especially when the government can print money at will, making taxation on such currency inherently flawed.

Taxes are extracted via coercion - violence - by the government onto the population. The government then decides where to allocate this money, based on their guess of what the population needs, excluding private preferences. Therefore, taxes are not an incentive to accumulate, not even to work more. Taxes are an incentive to do right the opposite: do not save and do not work more.

Another tactic the government employs is to create crises that it alone can "solve", thus requiring more taxes or funding. Recent examples include crises like COVID-19, the "green" agenda, and initiatives to combat climate change[^2]. In each case, the government presents itself as the sole solution, yet solving these crises inevitably demands additional resources — in the form of increased taxation.

Even minimal critical thinking would prompt one to question the true necessity of taxes in a government that owns and controls the money printer. Given what we now understand, if you were in the government's position, would you willingly relinquish control of money creation by tying it to something like gold, empowering people to become smarter, independent, and wealthy?

The government, through various channels — media, education, propaganda, welfare, and government subsidies — ensures that people remain obedient and uninformed. It keeps them financially constrained by increasing taxes and imposing extensive regulations, while fostering dependency through handouts, welfare, and other social programs. The government is the only entity that, by law, can use violence and coercion without prosecution [^rothbard2009].

"Anyone who, although human, is by nature not yours but someone else's"[^ambler1987].

It is therefore unsurprising that many live in a state akin to enslavement, reflecting a mindset shaped by constant dependency. It is no wonder that people are discouraged from having children, as they can barely support themselves. Nor is it surprising that individuals might question the need to continue their bloodline, believing in the illusory value of "fake money" [^kiyosaki2019] and trusting present "investments" and the government to provide a pension in old age. And it's certainly not surprising to see people asking the government for solutions to every problem, when the government leaves them no viable alternatives.

"Show me the incentives, and I'll show you the outcome"[^mungerquote].

That statement serves as a powerful tool for understanding and addressing complex issues. When observing behaviors that may appear unusual — such as individuals identifying as "trans-species," a phenomenon linked to mental health concerns [^pinna2022] — it's essential to consider the underlying incentives. Who benefits most from a society in which individuals remain financially constrained, dependent, and uninformed? A fiat-based monetary system functions as a modern form of economic control, keeping people poor by design. Taxes, effectively a penalty for productivity, contrast sharply with welfare programs, which often reward dependency and reinforce reliance on the government. Meanwhile, government narratives and selective information shape public beliefs, protecting institutional interests and discouraging critical inquiry[^3].

Conclusion

Like the fungus that infects in parasitic way an ant's nervous system - Ophiocordyceps Unilateralis -, rendering it a zombie [^britannica2024] controlled by an external force, similarly, modern bureaucracies exploit the mechanisms of fiat money, debt, and taxation [^rothbard2009] to maintain control over individuals, steering them away from self-reliance and critical thinking toward a state of perpetual dependence.

The parallels are striking: just as the fungus manipulates the ant's behavior to secure its reproduction, governments manipulate public perception, creating crises, shaping incentives, and fostering dependence[^rothbard2009] through welfare programs[^caplan2001rational], inflated debt[^ammous2018], and coercive taxation. These mechanisms suppress individuality, reduce productivity, and shift power further into centralized hands[^gentzkow2006media], leaving citizens "zombified", detached from purpose and independence.

"Even bacteria respond to motivation."[^dufrene2020]

If tolerated — even by you, dear reader — this parasitic cycle will continue to erode humanity's dignity and potential. The solution lies in reclaiming agency by building a society grounded in sound money, meaningful productivity, and spiritual and cultural foundations that connect us to higher purposes. As warned in Jeremiah 17:5 [^4], trusting fallible human systems leads to enslavement. True freedom comes from rejecting exploitative bureaucracies and embracing systems aligned with truth, autonomy, and resilience.

Another way is to fully understand the system and opt out. This requires mastering the rules and using them to your advantage. If legal avenues exist to avoid taxation, expropriation, eminent domain, or government coercion, then the first step is to change the game for yourself.

The monetary system and government incentives shape human behavior, influencing those who allow themselves to be controlled by them.

fiat #bitcoin #austrian-economics #freedom #slavery #money #government #antipropaganda #propaganda #taxes #tax #greenagenda #wef #who

Footnote

[^1]: M2 refers to savings deposits + money market mutual funds + small time deposits. M2 includes all of M1 plus "near money" (M0), which consists of savings deposits, money market accounts, and small-denomination time deposits (like certificates of deposit under a certain amount). M2 is commonly tracked by central banks to gauge medium-term economic activity and savings behavior, as it includes money that people save rather than spend immediately.

[^2]: Since the 1990s, societies worldwide have been confronted by a series of global crises, often framed as urgent and overwhelming challenges. All scams. Including deforestation, ocean and air pollution, nuclear waste, oil spills, plastic and soil pollution, drought, fossil fuel consumption, rising sea levels, species extinction, extreme weather, global warming, melting glaciers, acid rain, and, recently, climate change. Each crisis has shaped public opinion and policy, and also created new laws, regulations, and taxes.

[^3]: Politicians are merely psychopath[^hareleonmayersalinasfolino2022][^klaas2023] parasites.

[^4]: Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who draws strength from mere flesh and whose heart turns away from the Lord.

References

Bibtex

bibtex @book{ammous2018, title={The Bitcoin Standard: The Decentralized Alternative to Central Banking}, author={Ammous, Saifedean}, year={2018}, publisher={Wiley}, url={https://saifedean.com/tbs} } @book{ammous2023, author = {Saifedean Ammous}, title = {Principles of Economics}, year = {2023}, publisher = {Saifedean Ammous}, address = {Self-published}, url = {https://saifedean.com/poe} } @book{ammous2021, author = {Saifedean Ammous}, title = {The Fiat Standard: The Debt Slavery Alternative to Human Civilization}, year = {2021}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken, NJ}, url = {https://saifedean.com/tfs} } @book{rothbard1993man, author = {Murray N. Rothbard}, title = {Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles}, year = {1993}, publisher = {Ludwig von Mises Institute}, address = {Auburn, Alabama}, note = {Originally published in 1962}, url = {https://mises.org/library/man-economy-and-state-power-and-market} } @book{hoppe2001, author = {Hans-Hermann Hoppe}, title = {Democracy: The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order}, year = {2001}, publisher = {Transaction Publishers}, address = {New Brunswick, NJ}, url = {https://mises.org/library/democracy-god-failed} } @book{mises1998, author = {Ludwig von Mises}, title = {Human Action: A Treatise on Economics}, year = {1998}, publisher = {Ludwig von Mises Institute}, address = {Auburn, Alabama}, note = {Originally published in 1949}, url = {https://mises.org/library/human-action-0} } @article{gentzkow2006media, author = {Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse M. Shapiro}, title = {Media Bias and Reputation}, journal = {Journal of Political Economy}, volume = {114}, number = {2}, pages = {280-316}, year = {2006}, publisher = {University of Chicago Press}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1086/499414} } @article{caplan2001rational, author = {Bryan Caplan}, title = {Rational Irrationality and the Microfoundations of Political Failure}, journal = {Public Choice}, volume = {107}, number = {3}, pages = {311-331}, year = {2001}, publisher = {Springer}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010349129605} } @book{federalreserve1975modern, author = {{Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago}}, title = {Modern Money Mechanics: A Workbook on Bank Reserves and Deposit Expansion}, year = {1975}, publisher = {Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago}, url = {https://archive.org/details/modern-money-mechanics/mode/2up} } @misc{bundesbank2024, author = {{Deutsche Bundesbank}}, title = {Minimum Reserves}, year = {n.d.}, url = {https://www.bundesbank.de/en/tasks/monetary-policy/minimum-reserves/minimum-reserves-625912}, note = {Accessed: 2024-11-07} } @article{ambler1987, author = {Wayne Ambler}, title = {Aristotle on Nature and Politics: The Case of Slavery}, journal = {Political Theory}, volume = {15}, number = {3}, pages = {390-410}, year = {1987}, month = {Aug.} } @book{kiyosaki2019, author = {Robert T. Kiyosaki}, title = {FAKE: Fake Money, Fake Teachers, Fake Assets: How Lies Are Making the Poor and Middle Class Poorer}, year = {2019}, month = {April}, publisher = {Plata Publishing}, address = {Scottsdale, AZ}, note = {Paperback, Illustrated Edition} } @article{hareleonmayersalinasfolino2022, title = {Psychopathy and crimes against humanity: A conceptual and empirical examination of human rights violators}, journal = {Journal of Criminal Justice}, volume = {81}, pages = {101901}, year = {2022}, issn = {0047-2352}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2022.101901}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235222000216}, author = {Robert D. Hare and Elizabeth León-Mayer and Joanna Rocuant Salinas and Jorge Folino and Craig S. Neumann}, keywords = {Crimes against humanity, Human rights violators, Terrorism, Psychopathy, PCL-R, SRP-SF, Four-factor model, Latent profile analysis}, abstract = {Purpose There is a dearth of empirical data on the contributions of personality, psychopathology, and psychopathy to terrorism and its actors. Because of a fortuitous set of circumstances, we had access to a sample of men convicted of crimes against humanity (CAH) committed during the Pinochet regime, each rated by expert clinicians on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). We also had PCL-R ratings for samples of general offenders and community participants. Methods We determined the psychometric properties of the PCL-R for these samples, performed structural equation modeling (SEM) to investigate the factor structure of the PCL-R, and conducted a latent profile analysis (LPA) of the obtained factors to identify classes or subtypes within the samples. Results The PCL-R's psychometric properties and factor structure were in accord with findings from other countries and settings. The PCL-R total scores of the CAH and general offenders were virtually the same but much higher than those of the community sample. However, the CAH group had extraordinarily high scores on the Interpersonal/Affective facets yet relatively low scores on the Lifestyle/Antisocial facets. LPA identified the expected four latent classes, with most CAH men located within the Callous-Conning class. Conclusions The results of this study provide unique information about the psychopathic propensities of a sample of state violators of human rights. Their pattern of PCL-R scores was consistent with an extreme disposition for self-serving, callous, and ruthless treatment of others, without guilt or remorse, and in the absence of a prior documented history of severe antisocial behavior.} } @misc{klaas2023, author = "{Brian Klaas}", title = "{{How many politicians are psychopaths?}}", howpublished = {\url{https://www.forkingpaths.co/p/how-many-politicians-are-psychopaths}}, note = {Online; accessed 29 January 2024}, year=2023 } @article{pinna2022, title={Mental health in transgender individuals: a systematic review}, author={Pinna, Federica and Paribello, Pasquale and Somaini, Giulia and Corona, Alice and Ventriglio, Antonio and Corrias, Carolina and Frau, Ilaria and Murgia, Roberto and El Kacemi, Sabrina and Galeazzi, Gian Maria and others}, journal={International Review of Psychiatry}, volume={34}, number={3-4}, pages={292--359}, year={2022}, publisher={Taylor \& Francis}, doi={10.1080/09540261.2022.2093629}, url={https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36151828/} } @book{rothbard2009, title={Anatomy of the State}, author={Rothbard, Murray}, year={2009}, publisher={Ludwig von Mises Institute} } @misc{britannica2024, author = {{Encyclopaedia Britannica}}, title = {Zombie-Ant Fungus}, year = {n.d.}, url = {https://www.britannica.com/science/zombie-ant-fungus}, note = {Accessed: 2024-11-07} } @misc{amoedo2024, author = {Renato Amoedo}, title = {Até as bactérias respondem a uma motivação}, year = {2024}, note = {Famosa frase mencionada em entrevistas e podcasts relacionados a comportamento e motivação}, howpublished = {Comentário público}, } @article{dufrene2020, title={Mechanomicrobiology: how bacteria sense and respond to forces}, author={Dufrêne, Yves F. and Persat, Alexandre}, journal={Nature Reviews Microbiology}, volume={18}, pages={227--240}, year={2020}, month={April}, doi={10.1038/s41579-019-0314-2}, url={https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-019-0314-2}, publisher={Springer Nature}, note={Accepted 06 December 2019, Published 20 January 2020} } @misc{mungerquote, author = {Munger, Charlie}, title = {Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome}, note = {Often attributed to Charlie Munger, known for his wisdom on finance and life as Warren Buffett's business partner.}, howpublished = {Quote}, year = {n.d.}, url = {https://elevatesociety.com/quotes-by-charlie-munger/} }

@ 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!

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Konsum ist Therapie.
Wolfgang Joop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 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!

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 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.

@ a296b972:e5a7a2e8

28.04.2025, 16.17 Uhr:

 

Russische Hobby-Flieger konnten mit ihrem Sportflugzeug namens "Andromeda" unter dem Radar bleiben und haben entlang der Hauptstromtrassen mit einem ukrainischen Zwiebelmesser die Stromleitungen gekappt. In einer scharfen Rechtskurve muss wohl eine Flugzeugtür aufgegangen sein und der Pass des Piloten fiel unbemerkt heraus. Die Identität der Täter konnte so schnell festgestellt werden.

28.04.2025, 16.43 Uhr:

Trump hat das europäische Stromnetz gekauft und die in den Umspannwerken eingebauten US-amerikanischen Chips deaktiviert. Es gibt erst wieder Strom, wenn sich die Koalition der Willigen den Friedensverhandlungen für die Ukraine anschließt. Trump hat bewusst in den sonnenreichen Ländern Spanien und Portugal begonnen, das soll als Warnung für ganz Europa gelten. Frau von der Leyen hat bereits scharfen Protest eingelegt, doch Trump hat die SMS sofort gelöscht.

28.04.2025, 17.12 Uhr:

Selensky hat einen Cyber-Angriff auf das europäische Stromnetz gestartet. Er ist wütend, weil sich Macron in dem 15-Minuten-Gespräch mit Trump am Rande der Beerdigung des Papstes in Rom hat abwimmeln lassen. Er beendet die Strom-Blockade erst, wenn Spanien, Portugal und Frankreich Deutschland dazu zwingen, endlich Taurus zu liefern. Auf die Frage, wie Selensky das angestellt hat, soll er geantwortet haben: "Sie sehen ja, wir können es."

Ist natürlich alles nur Joke! Es sollte nur einmal in Bezug auf die Sprengung der Nordstream 2 Pipelines aufgezeigt werden, wie schnell auch unsereins abstruse Erklärungen liefern kann, die vorne und hinten nicht stimmen können.

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben.

(Bild von pixabay)

@ 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

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 83279ad2:bd49240d

test

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Danke, dass du diesen Weg mit mir weitergehst!

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

A debonair day-to-night hideaway fuses heritage charm with contemporary flair in the Penang capital of George Town...

Housed in a historic landmark on George Town’s atmospheric Lebuh Farquhar, just a stone’s throw from the iconic Eastern & Oriental Hotel, MOJO JOJO is a café and brunch spot by day, and a refined eatery come nightfall. With an effortlessly cool edge, the space has been designed by Empt Studio and combines contemporary charm with the energy of this Malaysian city.

Split into two sections, the venue caters to both hotel guests and passersby. One side offers an intimate, tailored dining experience for those seeking a respite from the buzz of outside, while the other spills out onto the street, embracing George Town’s lively buzz. The soaring ceilings create a sense of openness, further enhanced by the introduction of a mezzanine above the kitchen, maximising space without compromising on airiness.

Natural materials feature throughout with custom bamboo display systems and solid Nyatoh timber fixtures lending a rich, textural warmth. Deliberately crafted interlocking joints pay homage to traditional woodworking techniques, reinforcing both strength and authenticity. Every detail nods to meticulous craftsmanship, from the aged wood grains to the earthy material palette that echoes the heritage of its surroundings.

Lighting plays a supporting yet pivotal role, with carefully curated, softly diffused illumination accentuating the textures and forms within. The interplay of warm light and natural materials fosters an immersive, atmospheric retreat from the fast-paced city outside.

A refuge for slow mornings and, later on, offering a more cultured affair, MOJO JOJO is a debonair dining spot for the handsome Penang capital.

Read more https://www.emptstudio.com/projects/mojojojo

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/966008

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ eac63075:b4988b48

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

Understanding Quantum Computing’s Attack Priorities

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

1. Attacks on Wallets

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

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

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

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

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

2. Attacks on Mining

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

---

Satoshi Nakamoto in 2010 on Quantum Computing and Bitcoin Attacks

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

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

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

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

---

How Can Users Protect Themselves?

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

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

---

BIP-360 and Bitcoin’s Preparation for the Future

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

BIP-360 addresses three main pillars:

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

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

---

Post-Quantum Algorithms: The Future of Bitcoin Cryptography

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

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

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

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

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

---

Why Quantum Computing Is Far from Being a Threat

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

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

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

---

Conclusion: Bitcoin’s Secure Future

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

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

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

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Hubless Wheels + Donut Motor brings manufacturing & performance benefits

Verge Next, a subsidiary of Estonia-based Verge Motorcycles, invented this Donut Motor. It's designed to drive a hubless wheel. Although once seen as something that simply looked cool in renderings, the company says the hubless arrangement brings performance and manufacturing benefits, "delivering unmatched torque and power density with minimal weight."

For one thing, there's no chain, belt or drivetrain required. Secondly, it frees the body of the bike from the task of holding the motor—everything is now contained within that rear wheel.

The company has not only incorporated the Donut Motor into their own bikes, but is now licensing the technology. Assuming it does what it says on the tin, our future streetscapes will be covered with hubless bikes, scooters and motorcycles.

Here's a closer look at a Verge bike and how its design is influenced by the motor:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og9vlJRe2-M

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/966001

@ 78b3c1ed:5033eea9

Umbrel Core-lightning(以下CLNと略す)を運用するにあたり役に立ちそうなノウハウやメモを随時投稿します。

・configファイルを用意する Umbrelのアプリとして必要な設定はdocker-compose.ymlで指定されている。 それ以外の設定をしたい場合configファイルに入れると便利。 configファイルの置き場所は /home/umbrel/umbrel/app-data/core-lightning/data/lightningd ここにtouch configとでもやってファイルをつくる。 cd /home/umbrel/umbrel/app-data/core-lightning/data/lightningd touch config 以下内容をひな型として使ってみてください。 行頭に#があるとコメント行になります。つまり.iniフォーマット。 /home/umbrel/umbrel/app-data/core-lightning/data/lightningd/config ```

[General options]

[Bitcoin control options]

[Lightning daemon options]

[Lightning node customization options]

[Lightning channel and HTLC options]

[Payment control options]

[Networking options]

[Lightning Plugins]

[Experimental Options]

``` configに設定できる内容は以下を参照 https://lightning.readthedocs.io/lightningd-config.5.html セクションを意味する[]があるけれどもこれは私(tanakei)が意図的に見やすく区別しやすくするために付けただけ。これら行の＃は外さない。

・configの設定をCLNに反映させる appスクリプトでCLNを再起動すると反映することができる。 configを書き換えただけでは反映されない。 cd /home/umbrel/umbrel/scripts ./app restart core-lightning

・ログをファイルに出力させる

以下の場所でtouch log.txtとしてlog.txtファイルを作る。 /home/umbrel/umbrel/app-data/core-lightning/data/lightningd cd /home/umbrel/umbrel/app-data/core-lightning/data/lightningd touch log.txt 次にconfigの[Lightning daemon options]セクションにlog-fileを追加する。 ```

[Lightning daemon options]

log-file=/data/.lightning/log.txt ``` ※Dockerによって/home/umbrel/umbrel/app-data/core-lightning/data/lightningd は /data/.lightning として使われている。

・addrとbind-addrの違い どちらも着信用のインターフェースとポートの設定。addrは指定したホストIPアドレス:ポート番号をノードURIに含めて公開する(node_announcementのuris)。bind-addrは公開しない。

・実験的機能のLN Offerを有効にする configの[Experimental Options]セクションに以下を追加する。 ```

[Experimental Options]

experimental-onion-messages experimental-offers ``` ※ v24.08でexperimental-onion-messageは廃止されデフォルト有効であり、上記設定の追加は不要になりました。 ※ v21.11.1 では experimental-offersは廃止されデフォルト有効であり、上記設定の追加は不要になりました。 もう実験扱いじゃなくなったのね...

・完全にTorでの発信オンリーにする UmbrelはなぜかCLNの発信をClearnetとTorのハイブリッドを許している。それは　always-use-proxy=true　の設定がないから。(LNDは発着信Torのみなのに) なのでこの設定をconfigに追加してCLNも発着進Torのみにする。 ```

[Networking options]

always-use-proxy=true ```

・任意のニーモニックからhsm_secretを作る CLNのhsm_secretはLNDのwallet.dbのようなもの。ノードで使う様々な鍵のマスター鍵となる。Umbrel CLNはこのhsm_secretファイルを自動生成したものを使い、これをバックアップするためのニーモニックを表示するとかそういう機能はない。自分で作って控えてあるニーモニックでhsm_secretを作ってしまえばこのファイルが壊れてもオンチェーン資金は復旧はできる。

1.CLNインストール後、dockerコンテナに入る docker exec -it core-lightning_lightningd_1 bash 2.lightning-hsmtoolコマンドを使って独自hsm_secretを作る ``` cd data/.lightning/bitcoin lightning-hsmtool generatehsm my-hsm_secret

・上記コマンドを実行するとニーモニックの言語、ニーモニック、パスフレーズの入力を催促される。 Select your language: 0) English (en) 1) Spanish (es) 2) French (fr) 3) Italian (it) 4) Japanese (jp) 5) Chinese Simplified (zhs) 6) Chinese Traditional (zht) Select [0-7]: 0　※定番の英単語なら0を入力 Introduce your BIP39 word list separated by space (at least 12 words): <ニーモニックを入力する> Warning: remember that different passphrases yield different bitcoin wallets. If left empty, no password is used (echo is disabled). Enter your passphrase: <パスフレーズを入力する>　※パスフレーズ不要ならそのままエンターキーを押す。 New hsm_secret file created at my-hsm_secret Use the encrypt command to encrypt the BIP32 seed if needed

コンテナから抜ける exit

3.appスクリプトでCLNを止めて、独自hsm_secret以外を削除 ※【重要】いままで使っていたhsm_secretを削除する。もしチャネル残高、ウォレット残高があるならチャネルを閉じて資金を退避すること。自己責任！ cd ~/umbrel/scripts/ ./app stop core-lightning

cd ~/umbrel/app-data/core-lightning/data/lightningd/bitcoin rm gossip_store hsm_secret lightningd.sqlite3 lightning-rpc mv my-hsm_secret hsm_secret 4.appスクリプトでCLNを再開する cd ~/umbrel/scripts/ ./app start core-lightning ```

【補記】 hsm_secret作成につかうニーモニックはBIP39で、LNDのAezeedと違って自分が作成されたブロック高さというものを含んでいない。新規でなくて復元して使う場合は作成されたブロック高さからブロックチェーンをrescanする必要がある。 configの１行目にrescanオプションを付けてCLNをリスタートする。 ``` // 特定のブロック高さを指定する場合はマイナス記号をつける rescan=-756000

// 現在のブロック高さから指定ブロック分さかのぼった高さからrescanする rescan=10000 ※現在の高さが760,000なら10000指定だと750,000からrescan ```

・clnrestについて core-lightningでREST APIを利用したい場合、別途c-lightning-restを用意する必要があった。v23.8から標準でclnrestというプラグインがついてくる。pythonで書かれていて、ソースからビルドした場合はビルド完了後にpip installでインストールする。elementsproject/lightningdのDockerイメージではインストール済みになっている。 (v25.02からgithubからバイナリをダウンロードしてきた場合はpip install不要になったようだ) このclnrestを使うにはcreaterunesコマンドでruneというLNDのマカロンのようなものを作成する必要がある。アプリ側でこのruneとREST APIを叩いてcore-lightningへアクセスすることになる。 自分が良く使っているLNbitsやスマホアプリZeus walletはclnrestを使う。まだclnrestに対応していないアプリもあるので留意されたし。

・Emergency recoverについて LNDのSCBのようなもの。ファイル名はemergency.recover チャネルを開くと更新される。 hsm_secretとこのファイルだけを置いてCLNを開始すると自動でこのファイルから強制クローズするための情報が読み出されてDLPで相手から強制クローズするような仕組み。この機能はv0.12から使える。

動作確認してみた所、LNDのSCBに比べるとかなり使いづらい。 1. CLNがTor発信だとチャネルパートナーと接続できない。 　Clearnet発信できても相手がTorのみノードならTor発信せざるを得ない。 　相手と通信できなければ資金回収できない。 2. 相手がLNDだとなぜか強制クローズされない。相手がCLNならできる。

つまり、自分と相手がClearnetノードでかつ相手もCLNならば Emergency recoverで強制クローズして資金回収できる。こんな条件の厳しい復旧方法がマジで役に立つのか？

v0.11以降ならばLNDのchannel.dbに相当するlightningd.sqlite3をプライマリ・セカンダリDBと冗長化できるので、セカンダリDBをNFSで保存すればUmbrelのストレージが壊れてもセカンダリDBで復旧できる。そのためemergerncy.recoverを使う必要がないと思われる。

・LN offer(BOLT#12)ついて 使いたいなら 1.publicチャネルを開く 　publicチャネルを開けばチャネルとノードの情報(channel_announcement, node_announcement)が他ノードに伝わる。送金したい相手がこの情報を元に経路探索する。 2.その後しばらく待つ CLNノードを立てたばかりだと経路探索するに十分なチャネルとノードの情報が揃ってない。せめて1日は待つ。

LNURLの場合インボイスをhttpsで取得するが、OfferはLN経由で取得する。そのためにチャネルとノードの情報が必要。privateチャネルばかりのノードはチャネル情報もそうだがノード情報も出さない。 Offerで使えるBlind pathという機能なら中間ノードIDを宛先ノードとすることが可能で、これならチャネルとノード情報を公開しなくても受けとれるのだがCLNは対応してない模様(2025年1月現在) CLNでOfferで受け取るにはチャネルとノード情報を公開する必要がある。そのためpublicチャネルを開く。公開されていれば良いのでTorでもOK。クリアネットで待ち受けは必須ではない。

・hsm_sercretとニーモニック lightning-hsmtoolを使うとニーモニックからhsm_secretを作れる。ニーモニックからシードを作ると64バイト。これはニーモニックおよびソルトにパスフレーズをPBKDF2(HMAC-SHA512を2048回)にかけると512ビット(64バイト)のシードができる。しかしhsm_secretは32バイト。CLNでは64バイトの最初の32バイトをhsm_secretとして利用しているみたい。 このhsm_secretにHMAC-SHA512をかけて512ビットとした値がウォレットのマスター鍵となる。なのでhsm_secret自体がBIP-32でいうマスターシードそのものではない。 sparrow walletにCLNのウォレットを復元したい場合は lightning-hsmtool dumponchaindescriptors --show-secrets とやってディスクリプターウォレットを出力。出力内容にマスター鍵(xprv～)があるので、これをインポートする。導出パス設定はm/0とする。sparrowが残りを補完してm/0/0/0, m/0/0/1とやってくれる。

<おまけ> configファイルのサンプル。Umbrelを使わない場合は以下のサンプルが役に立つはず。上記のelementsproject/lightningdならば/root/.lightningに任意のディレクトリをマウントしてそのディレクトリにconfigを置く。 ```

[General options]

不可逆なDBアップグレードを許可しない

database-upgrade=false

[Bitcoin control options]

network=bitcoin bitcoin-rpcconnect= bitcoin-rpcport= bitcoin-rpcuser= bitcoin-rpcpassword=

[Lightning daemon options]

postgresを使う場合

wallet=postgres://USER:PASSWORD@HOST:PORT/DB_NAME

bookkeeper-db=postgres://USER:PASSWORD@HOST:PORT/DB_NAME

sqlite3を使う場合。デフォルトはこちらで以下の設定が無くても~/.lightning/bitconに自動で作成される。

wallet=sqlite3:///home/USERNAME/.lightning/bitcoin/lightningd.sqlite3

bookkeeper-db=sqlite3:///home/USERNAME/.lightning/bitcoin/accounts.sqlite3

ログファイルは自動で作成されない

log-file=/home/USERNAME/.lightning/lightningd-log

log-level=debug

[Lightning node customization options]

alias= rgb=

固定手数料。ミリサトシで指定。

fee-base=1000000

変動手数料。ppmで指定。

fee-per-satoshi=0

最小チャネルキャパシティ(sats)

min-capacity-sat=100000

HTLC最少額。ミリサトシで指定。

htlc-minimum-msat=1000

[Lightning channel and HTLC options]

large-channels # v23.11よりデフォルトでラージチャネルが有効。

チャネル開設まで6承認

funding-confirms=6

着信できるHTLCの数。開いたら変更できない。1～483 (デフォルトは 30) の範囲にする必要があります

max-concurrent-htlcs=INTEGER

アンカーチャネルを閉じるためにウォレットに保持しておく資金。デフォルトは 25,000sat

チャネルを"忘れる(forget)"するまではリザーブされる模様。forgetはチャネル閉じてから100ブロック後

min-emergency-msat=10000000

[Cleanup control options]

autoclean-cycle=3600 autoclean-succeededforwards-age=0 autoclean-failedforwards-age=0 autoclean-succeededpays-age=0 autoclean-failedpays-age=0 autoclean-paidinvoices-age=0 autoclean-expiredinvoices-age=0

[Payment control options]

disable-mpp

[Networking options]

bind-addrだとアナウンスしない。

bind-addr=0.0.0.0:9375

tor

proxy=: always-use-proxy=true

Torの制御ポート。addr=statictor だとhidden serviceをノードURIとして公開する。

addr=statictor:: tor-service-password=

experimental-websocket-portは廃止された。bind-addr=ws:が代替。

bind-addr=ws::2106

clnrestプラグイン, REST API

clnrest-host=0.0.0.0 clnrest-port=3010 clnrest-protocol=http

v24.11よりgrpcはデフォルト有効

grpc-host=0.0.0.0 grpc-port=9736

[Lightning Plugins]

[Experimental Options]

experimental-onion-messages # v24.08で廃止。デフォルト有効

experimental-offers # v24.11.1で廃止。デフォルト有効

流動性広告からチャネルを開くときにexperimental-dual-fundが必要らしい。

experimental-dual-fund

experimental-splicing

experimental-peer-storage

```

@ 849838f4:0ea97fbb

2nmn

@ eac63075:b4988b48

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

PT-BR version

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

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

1. Introduction to Consensus in Bitcoin

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

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

Evolution of Consensus in Bitcoin

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

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

---

2. Technical Components of Consensus

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

Validation of Blocks and Transactions

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

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

Chain Selection

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

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

Soft Forks vs. Hard Forks

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

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

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

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

---

3. Stakeholders in Bitcoin's Consensus

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

1. Economic Nodes

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

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

2. Investors

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

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

3. Media Influencers

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

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

4. Miners

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

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

5. Protocol Developers

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

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

6. Users and Application Developers

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

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

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

---

4. Mechanisms for Activating Updates in Bitcoin

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

Flag Day

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

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

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

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

BIP34 and BIP9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BIP8 (LOT=True)

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

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

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

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

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

---

5. Risks and Considerations in Consensus Updates

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

Network Fragility with Alternative Implementations

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

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

Chain Splits and Impact on Stakeholders

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

Each group of stakeholders reacts differently to a chain split:

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

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

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

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

Regulatory Impacts and Institutional Investors

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

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

Security Considerations in Soft Forks and Hard Forks

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

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

Bounty Claim Risks and Attack Scenarios

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

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

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

---

6. Recommendations for the Consensus Process in Bitcoin

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

1. Careful Evaluation of Proposal Maturity

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

2. Extensive Testing in Secure and Compatible Networks

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

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

3. Importance of Stakeholder Engagement

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

4. Key Questions for Evaluating Consensus Proposals

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

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

5. Coordination and Timing in Implementations

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

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

6. Continuous Monitoring and Re-evaluation

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

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

---

7. Conclusion

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

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

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

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

---

8. Links

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

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

@ d41bf82f:ed90d888

เบื้องหลังการเปลี่ยนแปลงครั้งใหญ่ในประวัติศาสตร์ เราต้องเข้าใจปัจจัยที่เปลี่ยนแปลงตรรกะของความรุนแรง โดยเฉพาะปัจจัยเชิงมหภาค 4 ประเภทหลัก ได้แก่ ภูมิประเทศ ภูมิอากาศ จุลชีพ และเทคโนโลยี

1. ภูมิประเทศ เป็นตัวกำหนดที่สำคัญมากต่อรูปแบบของรัฐและความสามารถในการควบคุมพลเมืองโดยเฉพาะเมื่อเปรียบระหว่างสภาพภูมิประเทศทางบกและทางทะเล พื้นที่ทะเลเปิดนั้นยากต่อการผูกขาดหรือควบคุม ทำให้กฎของรัฐไม่สามารถบังคับใช้ได้อย่างมีประสิทธิภาพ ต่างจากแผ่นดิน ซึ่งส่งผลต่อการจัดวางอำนาจอย่างลึกซึ้ง เมื่อเศรษฐกิจเริ่มเคลื่อนเข้าสู่โลกไซเบอร์ซึ่งมีลักษณะคล้ายทะเลเปิดมากกว่าภาคพื้นดิน รูปแบบของการปกครองและการใช้ความรุนแรงจึงมีแนวโน้มเปลี่ยนแปลงไปอย่างมีนัยสำคัญ ประวัติศาสตร์ก็สนับสนุนมุมมองนี้ รัฐยุคแรก ๆ มักเกิดขึ้นในพื้นที่ราบลุ่มชลประทานที่ล้อมรอบด้วยทะเลทราย เช่น เมโสโปเตเมียและอียิปต์ ซึ่งทำให้ประชาชนจำเป็นต้องพึ่งพารัฐที่สามารถควบคุมแหล่งน้ำเพื่อดำรงชีวิตได้ ก่อให้เกิดระบบเผด็จการที่มั่นคง ขณะที่ภูมิประเทศที่กระจายอำนาจ เช่น กรีซโบราณ กลับเอื้อต่อการเกิดประชาธิปไตย เพราะผู้คนสามารถพึ่งตนเองได้มากกว่า มีอิสระในการค้าขายทางทะเล และเข้าถึงรายได้ที่นำไปแลกกับอำนาจทางทหารและการเมืองได้
2. ภูมิอากาศก็มีบทบาทไม่แพ้กันในการกำหนดกรอบของอำนาจทางการเมือง เช่น หลังสิ้นยุคน้ำแข็งราว 13,000 ปีก่อน ความเปลี่ยนแปลงของระบบนิเวศทำให้ทุ่งหญ้าเลี้ยงสัตว์ลดลง และป่าทึบเข้ามาแทนที่ ทำให้มนุษย์ต้องเปลี่ยนวิถีชีวิตจากนักล่ามาเป็นเกษตรกรอย่างหลีกเลี่ยงไม่ได้ การเปลี่ยนแปลงนี้ไม่ได้เกิดขึ้นเพราะความสมัครใจ แต่เพราะสิ่งแวดล้อมบีบบังคับ ภูมิอากาศยังมีอิทธิพลต่อเสถียรภาพทางเศรษฐกิจและการเมืองอย่างชัดเจน เช่น ศตวรรษที่ 17 ซึ่งเป็นยุคหนาวเย็นที่สุดช่วงหนึ่งในประวัติศาสตร์ ทำให้เกิดวิกฤตอาหารและความอดอยากทั่วโลก นำไปสู่การก่อกบฏและการปฏิวัติในหลายประเทศ
3. จุลชีพ ก็มีบทบาทในเชิงการเมืองมหภาคอย่างลึกซึ้ง การล่มสลายของประชากรพื้นเมืองในทวีปอเมริกาจากโรคที่ชาวยุโรปนำเข้า เช่น หัด หรือไข้ทรพิษ ทำให้ยุโรปสามารถยึดครองดินแดนเหล่านั้นได้อย่างง่ายดาย แม้ในบางครั้งจะยังไม่ได้ลงจากเรือด้วยซ้ำ ในอีกด้านหนึ่ง จุลชีพก็เคยเป็นกำแพงที่ป้องกันไม่ให้จักรวรรดิยุโรปขยายอำนาจ เช่น มาลาเรียในแอฟริกาที่เคยทำให้พื้นที่เหล่านั้น “ต่อต้านอำนาจจากภายนอก” ได้อย่างนานหลายศตวรรษ
4. เทคโนโลยี ซึ่งเป็นปัจจัยที่ที่ทรงอิทธิพลที่สุดต่อการเปลี่ยนแปลงของโครงสร้างอำนาจในประวัติศาสตร์มนุษย์ เพราะมันสามารถเปลี่ยน “ต้นทุน” และ “ผลตอบแทน” ของการใช้ความรุนแรงได้อย่างรวดเร็วและชัดเจน ทั้งในแง่ของอาณาเขต ขนาดของรัฐ ลักษณะของสงคราม และแม้แต่ความชอบธรรมทางการเมือง ผู้เขียนได้แยกอิทธิพลของเทคโนโลยีออกเป็น 5 มิติหลัก ซึ่งล้วนมีบทบาทอย่างสำคัญในการจัดรูปแบบของอำนาจ ได้แก่:

A. ดุลยภาพระหว่างการโจมตีและการป้องกัน เทคโนโลยีแต่ละยุคมีผลอย่างมากต่อความได้เปรียบระหว่างฝ่ายรุกกับฝ่ายรับ หากเทคโนโลยีในยุคนั้นเอื้อต่อ “การโจมตี” (เช่น เครื่องยิงหิน, รถถัง, ระเบิดทางอากาศ) ต้นทุนของการขยายอำนาจจะต่ำลง รัฐหรือจักรวรรดิจะรวมศูนย์มากขึ้นเพราะสามารถควบคุมพื้นที่กว้างได้ด้วยกำลังที่มีประสิทธิภาพ แต่หากเทคโนโลยีเอื้อให้ “การป้องกัน” มีต้นทุนต่ำและได้เปรียบ (เช่น ปราสาทยุคกลาง, อาวุธต่อต้านอากาศยาน, การเข้ารหัสข้อมูลในโลกไซเบอร์) รัฐจะมีแนวโน้มกระจายตัว และอำนาจท้องถิ่นจะแข็งแกร่งขึ้น

B. ความเท่าเทียมกันทางทหารของพลเมือง เทคโนโลยีอาวุธยังเป็นตัวแปรสำคัญในการกำหนดว่า “พลเมืองธรรมดา” มีอำนาจเพียงใดในการเผชิญหน้ากับชนชั้นปกครอง ตัวอย่างที่ชัดเจนคือในยุคก่อนปฏิวัติดินปืน ชาวนาที่ถือแค่ส้อมหรือจอบไม่อาจต้านอัศวินติดเกราะได้ แต่เมื่อการใช้ปืนแพร่หลาย เส้นแบ่งระหว่างสามัญชนกับขุนนางก็เริ่มจางลง และเกิดการปฏิวัติทางสังคมตามมาในหลายพื้นที่

C. ขนาดขององค์กรที่จำเป็นต่อการใช้ความรุนแรง บางเทคโนโลยีต้องการระบบสนับสนุนขนาดใหญ่ เช่น เสบียง การสื่อสาร การขนส่ง และระบบการฝึกฝนที่ซับซ้อน ซึ่งหมายความว่าเฉพาะองค์กรที่มีทรัพยากรขนาดใหญ่เท่านั้นจึงสามารถใช้อำนาจอย่างมีประสิทธิภาพได้ ตัวอย่างเช่น สมัยสงครามโลก รัฐที่มีอุตสาหกรรมและสายส่งที่มั่นคงเท่านั้นจึงสามารถรบได้นาน

D. ขนาดของกิจกรรมทางเศรษฐกิจในการผลิต ขนาดของหน่วยเศรษฐกิจที่ “เหมาะสมที่สุด” ในการผลิตสินค้าและบริการก็เป็นตัวแปรทางเทคโนโลยีที่ส่งผลต่อโครงสร้างของรัฐ หากเศรษฐกิจจำเป็นต้องอาศัยตลาดขนาดใหญ่ พื้นที่กว้าง หรือระบบโลจิสติกส์ที่ซับซ้อน รัฐขนาดใหญ่จะมีข้อได้เปรียบ เช่น จักรวรรดิอังกฤษที่สามารถจัดระบบเศรษฐกิจข้ามทวีปได้ในศตวรรษที่ 19 แต่หากเทคโนโลยีเอื้อให้เศรษฐกิจท้องถิ่นมีความคล่องตัว สามารถผลิตแบบกระจาย (distributed production)ได้ รัฐขนาดใหญ่ก็จะมีประสิทธิภาพน้อยลง และอำนาจจะกระจายตัว

E. การกระจายของเทคโนโลยี หากเทคโนโลยีสามารถถูก “ผูกขาด” ได้โดยกลุ่มเล็ก ๆ เช่น การควบคุมแหล่งพลังงานนิวเคลียร์ หรือการพัฒนาอาวุธล้ำสมัย อำนาจจะกระจุกอยู่กับชนชั้นนำ แต่หากเทคโนโลยีแพร่กระจายได้อย่างกว้างขวาง เช่น การใช้ดินปืน แป้นพิมพ์ อำนาจก็จะสลายตัวไปยังประชาชนทั่วไป

เมื่อพิจารณาประวัติศาสตร์ในมุมของ “สิ่งที่เกิดขึ้นจริง” ควบคู่กับ “สิ่งที่อาจเกิดขึ้นได้” เราจะเริ่มตระหนักถึงบทบาทของโอกาสและความเปราะบางที่มักถูกมองข้าม โดยเฉพาะในกรณีของจุลชีพ แม้จะเป็นตัวแปรที่ทรงพลังในอดีต แต่กลับดูเหมือนว่ามันมีผลกระทบต่อโครงสร้างอำนาจในยุคใหม่ต่ำกว่าที่ควรจะเป็น ทั้งที่ในทางทฤษฎีแล้ว มันมีศักยภาพสูงยิ่งในการเปลี่ยนแปลงประวัติศาสตร์ หากเชื้อไวรัสสายพันธุ์ใหม่ที่ร้ายแรงและแพร่กระจายได้ง่าย เทียบเท่าหรือรุนแรงกว่ามาลาเรีย แพร่ระบาดในหมู่นักสำรวจโปรตุเกสช่วงต้นของยุคการเดินเรือ อาจไม่มีการสำรวจหรือขยายอาณานิคมเกิดขึ้นเลย เช่นเดียวกับหากโคลัมบัสและผู้ย้ายถิ่นกลุ่มแรกในโลกใหม่ต้องเผชิญโรคร้ายที่มีฤทธิ์รุนแรงพอ ๆ กับหัดซึ่งคร่าชีวิตชาวพื้นเมืองไปอย่างมหาศาล พวกเขาอาจไม่สามารถตั้งรกรากได้เลยด้วยซ้ำ

แต่เมื่อมองย้อนกลับไป สิ่งเหล่านี้กลับไม่เคยเกิดขึ้น และนั่นทำให้เรายิ่งมีแนวโน้มจะเชื่อใน “ชะตากรรม” บางอย่างของประวัติศาสตร์ อย่างไรก็ตาม หากมองในแง่กลไกของพลังที่ขับเคลื่อนอำนาจ การที่จุลชีพกลับมีบทบาทสนับสนุนการรวมศูนย์ของรัฐในยุคใหม่มากกว่าการขัดขวาง ก็เป็นสิ่งที่น่าพิจารณา ทหารและผู้ตั้งถิ่นฐานจากโลกตะวันตกไม่ได้มีเพียงเทคโนโลยีเป็นแต้มต่อ แต่ยังมี “ภูมิคุ้มกันที่สั่งสมจากประสบการณ์กับโรค” อีกด้วย โรคที่มาพร้อมกับนักสำรวจจากยุโรปจึงกลายเป็น “อาวุธลับ” ที่ทำลายชาวพื้นเมืองก่อนที่ผู้รุกรานจะลงจากเรือด้วยซ้ำ

แม้ว่าจะมีข้อสันนิษฐานว่าซิฟิลิสแพร่จากโลกใหม่กลับไปยังยุโรป แต่ผลกระทบของมันก็จำกัดอยู่ในระดับวัฒนธรรม โดยเฉพาะด้านศีลธรรมทางเพศ ไม่ได้ส่งผลกระทบในระดับการเมืองมหภาคอย่างที่โรคระบาดในยุคกลางเคยทำ เช่น กาฬโรคหรือโรคไข้ทรพิษ เพราะในยุคสมัยใหม่ ระบบอุตสาหกรรมและโครงสร้างทางการแพทย์มีความสามารถในการควบคุมภัยจากจุลชีพได้มากขึ้น ไม่ว่าจะผ่านระบบสุขาภิบาล วัคซีน หรือยาปฏิชีวนะ

อย่างไรก็ดี การปรากฏตัวของโรคเอดส์ และความกังวลเกี่ยวกับไวรัสกลายพันธุ์ในช่วงปลายศตวรรษที่ 20 ได้แสดงให้เห็นว่า จุลชีพอาจไม่ได้เป็น “ปัจจัยรอง” ที่ไร้ฤทธิ์เสมอไป และอาจหวนกลับมาเป็นปัจจัยหลักที่กำหนดแนวทางของอำนาจใหม่อีกครั้งได้ในอนาคต หากมีโรคระบาดใหญ่เกิดขึ้นซึ่งรุนแรงพอที่จะทำลายความสามารถของรัฐในการควบคุมระบบเศรษฐกิจและชีวิตสาธารณะ โครงสร้างของอำนาจอาจสั่นคลอนยิ่งกว่าผลกระทบจากภูมิอากาศหรือภูมิประเทศเสียอีก

ปัญหาคือเราไม่สามารถคาดการณ์จุดเริ่มต้นของเหตุการณ์เหล่านี้ได้อย่างแม่นยำ ไม่มีแบบจำลองใดที่สามารถควบคุมหรือคาดเดาธรรมชาติได้อย่างสมบูรณ์ แม้จะมีความพยายามทางวิทยาศาสตร์และการเฝ้าระวังระดับโลก การที่เรารอดพ้นจากโรคร้ายในอดีตไม่ได้แปลว่าจะรอดได้อีกในอนาคต ความคาดหวังว่าปัจจัยมหภาคในพันปีข้างหน้าจะยังคงเป็น “เทคโนโลยี” ไม่ใช่ “จุลชีพ” จึงเป็นเพียงสมมติฐานที่ตั้งอยู่บนความหวังมากกว่าหลักประกันใด ๆ

และแม้ว่าเทคโนโลยีจะมีบทบาทอย่างล้นเหลือในช่วงห้าศตวรรษที่ผ่านมา แต่บทเรียนจากการปฏิวัติการเกษตรในยุคโบราณก็ยังคงเตือนใจว่า ปัจจัยที่เปลี่ยนแปลงวิถีของอำนาจในระดับรากฐานที่สุดอาจไม่ได้ยิ่งใหญ่หรือก้าวหน้าเสมอไป บางครั้งสิ่งที่ทำให้โลกเปลี่ยนแปลงไปอย่างถาวร ไม่ใช่จักรกลที่ซับซ้อนหรืออาวุธล้ำยุค หากแต่เป็นสิ่งมีชีวิตขนาดเล็กที่เราแทบมองไม่เห็นด้วยตาเปล่า — และมันก็อาจย้อนกลับมามีบทบาทสำคัญอีกครั้งในศตวรรษของเรา.

อย่าลืมว่าหนังสือเล่มนี้เขียนขึ้นในปี 1997 — ยุคที่โลกยังไม่เคยรู้จักกับ COVID-19

บทถัดไปจะพูดถึงเรื่องการปฏิวัติครั้งแรกของ Sapiens การปฏิวัติเกษตรกรรม

@ eac63075:b4988b48

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

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

(PT-BR version here)

What is a CBDC?

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

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

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

Practical Example: The Case of DREX During the Pandemic

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

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

How Does China's Social Credit System Work?

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

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

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

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

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

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

DREX and Bill No. 3,341/2024

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

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

Risks and Individual Freedom

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

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

The Relationship Between DREX and Pix

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

International Precedents and Resistance to CBDC

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

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

Bill No. 3,341/2024 and Popular Pressure

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

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

What’s at Stake?

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

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

A Call to Action

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

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

@ 502ab02a:a2860397

PAN... แค่แพนเค้ก หรือ แผนล้อมโลกเรื่องอาหาร เมื่อหมากตัวจริงชื่อ Sebastian Joy

เราได้รู้จักกับคุณ Sebastian Joy กันไปแล้วนะครับ วันนี้เรามาขยายผลกันอีกหน่อย

ถ้าโลกนี้เป็นเกมหมากรุก อาหารคือกระดานที่ทุกตัวหมากต้องเหยียบเดิน และใครที่วางหมากอาหารได้...ก็วางโลกได้เหมือนกัน

ปี 2018 มีโครงการหนึ่งถือกำเนิดขึ้นในเยอรมนีอย่างเงียบๆ ชื่อว่า Physicians Association for Nutrition (PAN) เบื้องหน้าเหมือนเป็นมูลนิธิการกุศล ตั้งขึ้นมาเพื่อ "ช่วยให้หมอเข้าใจเรื่องโภชนาการจากพืช" แต่ถ้าเปิดแว่นขยายส่องให้ดีๆ มันคือหนึ่งในฟันเฟืองสำคัญของแผนเปลี่ยนอนาคตอาหารโลกจาก Animal-Based ไปเป็น Plant-Based ที่เป็น lab plant based ที่ไม่ใช่อาหารธรรมชาติแบบหลักแก่นที่ Vegan สืบทอดกันมา โดยอ้างเรื่อง "สุขภาพ" และ "สิ่งแวดล้อม" เป็นฉากหน้า

PAN นั้นเสมือนเป็นลูกสมุนตัวกลั่นของคนที่ชื่อ Sebastian Joy ชายหนุ่มสายโปรโมทแนว Vegan ที่ก่อนหน้านั้นก่อตั้งองค์กร ProVeg International ซึ่งมีสายสัมพันธ์กับพวก Start-up อาหารทางเลือก (ไม่ว่าจะเป็นเนื้อปลอม เนื้อพืชดีเอนเอ นมพืชที่มาจากจุลินทรีย์ ไปจนถึงการส่งเสริมวัตถุดิบจากแบคทีเรีย โรงงาน และห้องแลบ) แล้ว ProVeg ไม่ได้ทำงานเดี่ยวๆ นะจ๊ะ... เบื้องหลังเชื่อมโยงกับเครือข่ายที่หนุน World Economic Forum (WEF) และแนวคิด Great Reset ที่อยาก "รีเซ็ต" วิธีการกินของคนทั้งโลก โดยให้อาหารเป็น Plant-Based แบบ lab created และ Meat Lab-Based เป็นหลัก

ส่วน PAN ถูกใช้เป็น "หมากที่แต่งตัวเป็นหมอ" เพื่อเดินเกมไปสู่การแทรกแซงนโยบายประเทศต่างๆ ผ่านช่องทาง "สาธารณสุข" และ "การศึกษาแพทย์" เพื่อมาเป็นกำลังหลักให้ในแผนงาน

เรามาดูตัวอย่างผลงานเด่นของ PAN กันครับ 1. ผลักดันให้รวม Plant-Based เข้าไปในหลักสูตรแพทย์และพยาบาล (โดยใช้เหตุผลว่า "หมอต้องรู้จักอาหารเพื่อสุขภาพ") 2. ช่วยรณรงค์ให้โรงพยาบาล โรงเรียน และมหาวิทยาลัย เปลี่ยนเมนูอาหารเป็น Plant-Based 3. สนับสนุนงานวิจัย และโครงการ เช่น Green Food Experience ที่กดดันให้ภาคธุรกิจและภาครัฐบาลหันมาทำตาม "แนวทางอาหารยั่งยืน" แบบที่ PAN และพรรคพวกกำหนด 4. มีสถานะ "Observer" ในองค์การสหประชาชาติ (UN) เพื่อเสนอความคิดเห็นในการกำหนดนโยบายสาธารณสุขและสิ่งแวดล้อมระดับโลก

และเบื้องหลังอีกชั้นที่น่าสนใจ... Sebastian Joy มีความสัมพันธ์ลึกซึ้งกับวงการ Start-up อาหารใหม่ๆ ที่พยายามตีตลาด Plant-Based และ Lab-Grown Food อย่างเช่น Perfect Day, Beyond Meat, Mosa Meat ฯลฯ ผ่านการโปรโมท "โภชนาการจากพืชเพื่อสุขภาพที่ดีกว่า" โดยใช้ PAN เป็นเครื่องมือให้ดู "มีอำนาจทางวิชาการ" มากขึ้น

หรือถ้าให้พูดง่ายๆ คือ สร้างสนามแข่ง แล้วจับมือกับนักแข่งที่ตัวเองลงทุนไว้ PAN ดูเหมือนเป็นองค์กรกลางๆ ใสๆ แต่มันเชื่อมโยงกับโครงข่าย NGO และบริษัทเอกชนที่มุ่งแปลงร่างอาหารโลกอยู่เบื้องหลัง การที่ PAN ผลักดันนโยบายระดับประเทศ และแทรกซึมในระบบการศึกษา หมายความว่าอนาคตคนรุ่นใหม่จะถูกปลูกฝังแนวคิด "เนื้อสัตว์ไม่ดี" โดยไม่ทันรู้ตัว

แล้วมันเกี่ยวอะไรกับเรา? จินตนาการดูครับว่า - ถ้าวันหนึ่งโรงเรียนของลูกเรามีแต่เมนูถั่วเหลือง ซีเรียล นมโอ๊ต หรือ ไอศกรีมเวย์จากจุลินทรีย์ และห้ามเสิร์ฟเนื้อสัตว์ด้วยสารพัดเหตุผล เช่น เนื้อปนเปื้อนง่าย เนื้อทำให้เป็นมะเร็ง หรือแม้แต่สอนเด็กว่า เนื้อคือตัวการทำลายสิ่งแวดล้อมด้วย มีเทน นั่นอาจเป็นผลลัพธ์จากงานเบื้องหลังของ PAN - ถ้าวันหนึ่งนโยบายอาหารของประเทศเน้นลดเนื้อสัตว์ อ้างสุขภาพ อ้างสิ่งแวดล้อม อ้างโรคระบาด อ้างกฎแห่ง DNA ที่ถูกจดสิทธิบัตร แล้วโปรโมทเนื้อปลอมแทน นั่นอาจเป็นรอยเท้าของ Sebastian Joy ที่เดินมาก่อนแล้ว - ถ้าวันหนึ่งหมอจำนวนมากเชื่อว่า “เนื้อสัตว์คือตัวร้ายที่แพร่มะเร็งหรือทำให้สุขภาพเสีย” โดยไม่มีการตั้งคำถาม นั่นคือชัยชนะของหมากตัวนี้

ในขณะที่คนส่วนใหญ่คิดว่ากำลังเลือกอาหารเอง หรือ คิดว่าฉันกิน plant base / vegan เพราะรักโลก รักสุขภาพ แต่จริงๆ แล้วมีมือที่มองไม่เห็นกำหนด "ตัวเลือก" ไว้แล้วเรียบร้อย เพราะทั้งหมดมันไม่ได้เป็นอาหารธรรมชาติ มันคืออาหาร "สร้าง" ที่ไม่มีสัตว์, มันคืออาหาร "สร้าง" ที่ต้อง "สร้าง" มาจากโรงงาน แล้วเราต้อง "ซื้อ" มากินเท่านั้น ถ้าไม่สร้าง local ให้แข็งแรง อย่าหลงไปตามความสวยงามของการรักโลกในมุมเดียว เราอาจจะไม่สามารถปลูกพืชมาเป็นอาหารเองได้ เราอาจไม่สามารถเลี้ยงสัตว์เพื่อกินเองได้

PAN ไม่ใช่แค่องค์กรให้ความรู้ด้านโภชนาการ / PAN คือเครื่องมือในกระดานหมากรุกที่กำลังจัดการ "ตั้งโปรแกรมใหม่" ให้คนทั้งโลกกินตามแบบที่นายทุนและเครือข่ายเบื้องหลังเขียนบทไว้ และชายที่ชื่อ Sebastian Joy นี่แหละ...คือหนึ่งในผู้ถือหมากที่ยิ้มอยู่หลังม่าน

อาหารแห่งอนาคต มีทางเดินเหลือไว้ให้ เกษตรกร old school บ้างไหม สนธิสัญญาต่างๆเรื่องเมล็ดพันธุ์ เหลือทางเดินไว้ให้เกษตรกรบ้างไหม หรือสุดท้าย เราจะไม่มีไดเอทให้เลือก ให้ทะเลาะกัน เพราะสุดท้าย เราต่างต้องกินอาหารจากโรงงานเหมือนกันหมด บทความนี้คงจะเป็นได้แค่เพียง การตั้งคำถามขึ้นมาไว้ แต่ไม่มีคำตอบ ว่าเรากำลังโดนอ้าง plant based food มาเคลือบความเป็น อาหารโรงงาน (Plant Food) หรือเปล่าเพราะวันนี้หลายคนอาจมองว่าเป็นการตื่นตูม คิดมาก หรือแม้แต่ เราเลือกได้แหละ ก็ได้ครับ

ผมไม่ได้มีปัญหากับสายพืชล้วน ไม่ว่าจะเจ วีแกน แพลนท์เบส เพราะถ้ากินเป็น มองสารอาหารเป็น จัดการ anti nutrient ได้ดี มันก็ดีสำหรับคนนั้น แต่ซีรีส์นี้สำคัญที่ว่า plant based food is not PLANT food อาหารจากพืชไม่ใช่อาหารจากโรงงานครับ

ก่อนถึงวันที่เราจะไม่มีสิทธิ์แม้แต่จะเลือก #pirateketo #กูต้องรู้มั๊ย #ม้วนหางสิลูก #siamstr

@ eac63075:b4988b48

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

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

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

Sections:

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

---

What Is Chat Control?

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

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

Origins of the Proposal

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

How Messaging Services Work

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

Key Elements of Chat Control

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

Why It Matters

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

---

Why Is the EU Pushing for Chat Control?

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

Protecting Children and Preventing Crime

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

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

Legal Context and Legislative Drivers

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

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

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

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

Balancing Security and Privacy

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

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

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

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

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

The Urgency Behind the Push

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

Criticism and Controversy

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

---

The Privacy Concerns and Risks

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

Infringement on Privacy Rights

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

Erosion of End-to-End Encryption

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

Concerns from Privacy Advocates

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

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

Potential for Government Overreach

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

Real-World Implications for Users

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

Legal and Ethical Concerns

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

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

Opposition from Member States and Organizations

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

---

The Technical Debate: Encryption and Backdoors

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

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

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

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

How Chat Control Affects Encryption

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

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

The Risks of Weakening Encryption

1. Compromised Security for All Users

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

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

2. Undermining Trust in Digital Services

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

3. Ineffectiveness Against Skilled Adversaries

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

Signal’s Response and Stance

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

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

Understanding Backdoors

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

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

The Slippery Slope Argument

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

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

Potential Technological Alternatives

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

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

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

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

---

Global Reactions and the Debate in Europe

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

Support for Chat Control

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

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

Opposition within the EU

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

Germany

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

Netherlands

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

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

Privacy Advocacy Groups

European Digital Rights (EDRi)

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

Politicians and Activists

Patrick Breyer

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

Global Reactions

International Organizations

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

Technology Companies

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

The Broader Debate

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

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

Public Opinion

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

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

---

Possible Consequences for Messaging Services

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

Impact on Encrypted Messaging Services

Signal and Similar Platforms

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

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

Potential Blocking or Limiting of Services

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

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

Effects on Smaller Providers

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

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

User Experience and Trust

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

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

Technical and Security Implications

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

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

Impact on Businesses and Professional Communications

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

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

Economic Consequences

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

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

Responses from Service Providers

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

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

Possible Adaptations

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

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

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

---

What Happens Next? The Future of Chat Control

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

Current Status of Legislation

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

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

Key Influencing Factors

1. Legal Challenges and Compliance with EU Law

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

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

2. Technological Feasibility

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

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

3. Political Dynamics

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

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

4. Industry Responses

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

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

Possible Scenarios

Optimistic Outcome:

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

Pessimistic Outcome:

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

Middle Ground:

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

How to Stay Informed and Protect Your Privacy

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

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

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

The Global Perspective

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

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

Looking Ahead

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

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

---

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Read more:

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