@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ aa8de34f:a6ffe696

19. März 2025

🔐 1. SHA-256 is Quantum-Resistant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

🕵️♂️ 2.1 The Public Key Never Appears

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

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

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

🔄 3. Bitcoin Can Upgrade

Even if quantum computers eventually become a real threat:

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

🔄 7. The Logarithmic Difficulty Adjustment Neutralizes Threats

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

---

🔥 Final Verdict: Quantum Computers Are Too Slow for Bitcoin

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

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

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

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

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

In much of the world, it is incredibly difficult to access U.S. dollars. Local currencies are often poorly managed and riddled with corruption. Billions of people demand a more reliable alternative. While the dollar has its own issues of corruption and mismanagement, it is widely regarded as superior to the fiat currencies it competes with globally. As a result, Tether has found massive success providing low cost, low friction access to dollars. Tether claims 400 million total users, is on track to add 200 million more this year, processes 8.1 million transactions daily, and facilitates $29 billion in daily transfers. Furthermore, their estimates suggest nearly 40% of users rely on it as a savings tool rather than just a transactional currency.

Tether’s rise has made the company a financial juggernaut. Last year alone, Tether raked in over $13 billion in profit, with a lean team of less than 100 employees. Their business model is elegantly simple: hold U.S. Treasuries and collect the interest. With over $113 billion in Treasuries, Tether has turned a straightforward concept into a profit machine.

Tether’s success has resulted in many competitors eager to claim a piece of the pie. This has triggered a massive venture capital grift cycle in USD tokens, with countless projects vying to dethrone Tether. Due to Tether’s entrenched network effect, these challengers face an uphill battle with little realistic chance of success. Most educated participants in the space likely recognize this reality but seem content to perpetuate the grift, hoping to cash out by dumping their equity positions on unsuspecting buyers before they realize the reality of the situation.

Historically, Tether’s greatest vulnerability has been U.S. government intervention. For over a decade, the company operated offshore with few allies in the U.S. establishment, making it a major target for regulatory action. That dynamic has shifted recently and Tether has seized the opportunity. By actively courting U.S. government support, Tether has fortified their position. This strategic move will likely cement their status as the dominant USD token for years to come.

While undeniably a great tool for the millions of users that rely on it, Tether is not without flaws. As a centralized, trusted third party, it holds the power to freeze or seize funds at its discretion. Corporate mismanagement or deliberate malpractice could also lead to massive losses at scale. In their goal of mitigating regulatory risk, Tether has deepened ties with law enforcement, mirroring some of the concerns of potential central bank digital currencies. In practice, Tether operates as a corporate CBDC alternative, collaborating with authorities to surveil and seize funds. The company proudly touts partnerships with leading surveillance firms and its own data reveals cooperation in over 1,000 law enforcement cases, with more than $2.5 billion in funds frozen.

---

The global demand for Tether is undeniable and the company’s profitability reflects its unrivaled success. Tether is owned and operated by bitcoiners and will likely continue to push forward strategic goals that help the movement as a whole. Recent efforts to mitigate the threat of U.S. government enforcement will likely solidify their network effect and stifle meaningful adoption of rival USD tokens or CBDCs. Yet, for all their achievements, Tether is simply a worse form of money than bitcoin. Tether requires trust in a centralized entity, while bitcoin can be saved or spent without permission. Furthermore, Tether is tied to the value of the US Dollar which is designed to lose purchasing power over time, while bitcoin, as a truly scarce asset, is designed to increase in purchasing power with adoption. As people awaken to the risks of Tether’s control, and the benefits bitcoin provides, bitcoin adoption will likely surpass it.

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hours: Available 24 hours

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

Digitalisierung ist der Schlüssel für Kontrolle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Was nützt die schönste Schuldenbremse, wenn der Russe vor der Tür steht? \ Wir können uns verteidigen lernen oder alle Russisch lernen. \ Jens Spahn

In der Politik ist buchstäblich keine Idee zu riskant, kein Mittel zu schäbig und keine Lüge zu dreist, als dass sie nicht benutzt würden. Aber der Clou ist, dass diese Masche immer noch funktioniert, wenn nicht sogar immer besser. Ist das alles wirklich so schwer zu durchschauen? Mir fehlen langsam die Worte.

Aktuell werden sowohl in der Europäischen Union als auch in Deutschland riesige Milliardenpakete für die Aufrüstung – also für die Rüstungsindustrie – geschnürt. Die EU will 800 Milliarden Euro locker machen, in Deutschland sollen es 500 Milliarden «Sondervermögen» sein. Verteidigung nennen das unsere «Führer», innerhalb der Union und auch an «unserer Ostflanke», der Ukraine.

Das nötige Feindbild konnte inzwischen signifikant erweitert werden. Schuld an allem und zudem gefährlich ist nicht mehr nur Putin, sondern jetzt auch Trump. Europa müsse sich sowohl gegen Russland als auch gegen die USA schützen und rüsten, wird uns eingetrichtert.

Und während durch Diplomatie genau dieser beiden Staaten gerade endlich mal Bewegung in die Bemühungen um einen Frieden oder wenigstens einen Waffenstillstand in der Ukraine kommt, rasselt man im moralisch überlegenen Zeigefinger-Europa so richtig mit dem Säbel.

Begleitet und gestützt wird der ganze Prozess – wie sollte es anders sein – von den «Qualitätsmedien». Dass Russland einen Angriff auf «Europa» plant, weiß nicht nur der deutsche Verteidigungsminister (und mit Abstand beliebteste Politiker) Pistorius, sondern dank ihnen auch jedes Kind. Uns bleiben nur noch wenige Jahre. Zum Glück bereitet sich die Bundeswehr schon sehr konkret auf einen Krieg vor.

Die FAZ und Corona-Gesundheitsminister Spahn markieren einen traurigen Höhepunkt. Hier haben sich «politische und publizistische Verantwortungslosigkeit propagandistisch gegenseitig befruchtet», wie es bei den NachDenkSeiten heißt. Die Aussage Spahns in dem Interview, «der Russe steht vor der Tür», ist das eine. Die Zeitung verschärfte die Sache jedoch, indem sie das Zitat explizit in den Titel übernahm, der in einer ersten Version scheinbar zu harmlos war.

Eine große Mehrheit der deutschen Bevölkerung findet Aufrüstung und mehr Schulden toll, wie ARD und ZDF sehr passend ermittelt haben wollen. Ähnliches gelte für eine noch stärkere militärische Unterstützung der Ukraine. Etwas skeptischer seien die Befragten bezüglich der Entsendung von Bundeswehrsoldaten dorthin, aber immerhin etwa fifty-fifty.

Eigentlich ist jedoch die Meinung der Menschen in «unseren Demokratien» irrelevant. Sowohl in der Europäischen Union als auch in Deutschland sind die «Eliten» offenbar der Ansicht, der Souverän habe in Fragen von Krieg und Frieden sowie von aberwitzigen astronomischen Schulden kein Wörtchen mitzureden. Frau von der Leyen möchte über 150 Milliarden aus dem Gesamtpaket unter Verwendung von Artikel 122 des EU-Vertrags ohne das Europäische Parlament entscheiden – wenn auch nicht völlig kritiklos.

In Deutschland wollen CDU/CSU und SPD zur Aufweichung der «Schuldenbremse» mehrere Änderungen des Grundgesetzes durch das abgewählte Parlament peitschen. Dieser Versuch, mit dem alten Bundestag eine Zweidrittelmehrheit zu erzielen, die im neuen nicht mehr gegeben wäre, ist mindestens verfassungsrechtlich umstritten.

Das Manöver scheint aber zu funktionieren. Heute haben die Grünen zugestimmt, nachdem Kanzlerkandidat Merz läppische 100 Milliarden für «irgendwas mit Klima» zugesichert hatte. Die Abstimmung im Plenum soll am kommenden Dienstag erfolgen – nur eine Woche, bevor sich der neu gewählte Bundestag konstituieren wird.

Interessant sind die Argumente, die BlackRocker Merz für seine Attacke auf Grundgesetz und Demokratie ins Feld führt. Abgesehen von der angeblichen Eile, «unsere Verteidigungsfähigkeit deutlich zu erhöhen» (ausgelöst unter anderem durch «die Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz und die Ereignisse im Weißen Haus»), ließ uns der CDU-Chef wissen, dass Deutschland einfach auf die internationale Bühne zurück müsse. Merz schwadronierte gefährlich mehrdeutig:

«Die ganze Welt schaut in diesen Tagen und Wochen auf Deutschland. Wir haben in der Europäischen Union und auf der Welt eine Aufgabe, die weit über die Grenzen unseres eigenen Landes hinausgeht.»

[Titelbild: Tag des Sieges]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 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.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

Bitcoin has always been rooted in freedom and resistance to authority. I get that many of you are conflicted about the US Government stacking but by design we cannot stop anyone from using bitcoin. Many have asked me for my thoughts on the matter, so let’s rip it.

Concern

One of the most glaring issues with the strategic bitcoin reserve is its foundation, built on stolen bitcoin. For those of us who value private property this is an obvious betrayal of our core principles. Rather than proof of work, the bitcoin that seeds this reserve has been taken by force. The US Government should return the bitcoin stolen from Bitfinex and the Silk Road.

Usually stolen bitcoin for the reserve creates a perverse incentive. If governments see a bitcoin as a valuable asset, they will ramp up efforts to confiscate more bitcoin. The precedent is a major concern, and I stand strongly against it, but it should be also noted that governments were already seizing coin before the reserve so this is not really a change in policy.

Ideally all seized bitcoin should be burned, by law. This would align incentives properly and make it less likely for the government to actively increase coin seizures. Due to the truly scarce properties of bitcoin, all burned bitcoin helps existing holders through increased purchasing power regardless. This change would be unlikely but those of us in policy circles should push for it regardless. It would be best case scenario for American bitcoiners and would create a strong foundation for the next century of American leadership.

Optimism

The entire point of bitcoin is that we can spend or save it without permission. That said, it is a massive benefit to not have one of the strongest governments in human history actively trying to ruin our lives.

Since the beginning, bitcoiners have faced horrible regulatory trends. KYC, surveillance, and legal cases have made using bitcoin and building bitcoin businesses incredibly difficult. It is incredibly important to note that over the past year that trend has reversed for the first time in a decade. A strategic bitcoin reserve is a key driver of this shift. By holding bitcoin, the strongest government in the world has signaled that it is not just a fringe technology but rather truly valuable, legitimate, and worth stacking.

This alignment of incentives changes everything. The US Government stacking proves bitcoin’s worth. The resulting purchasing power appreciation helps all of us who are holding coin and as bitcoin succeeds our government receives direct benefit. A beautiful positive feedback loop.

Realism

We are trending in the right direction. A strategic bitcoin reserve is a sign that the state sees bitcoin as an asset worth embracing rather than destroying. That said, there is a lot of work left to be done. We cannot be lulled into complacency, the time to push forward is now, and we cannot take our foot off the gas. We have a seat at the table for the first time ever. Let's make it worth it.

We must protect the right to free usage of bitcoin and other digital technologies. Freedom in the digital age must be taken and defended, through both technical and political avenues. Multiple privacy focused developers are facing long jail sentences for building tools that protect our freedom. These cases are not just legal battles. They are attacks on the soul of bitcoin. We need to rally behind them, fight for their freedom, and ensure the ethos of bitcoin survives this new era of government interest. The strategic reserve is a step in the right direction, but it is up to us to hold the line and shape the future.

@ 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.

@ 4925ea33:025410d8

1. O que é um Aromaterapeuta?

O aromaterapeuta é um profissional especializado na prática da Aromaterapia, responsável pelo uso adequado de óleos essenciais, ervas aromáticas, águas florais e destilados herbais para fins terapêuticos.

A atuação desse profissional envolve diferentes métodos de aplicação, como inalação, uso tópico, sempre considerando a segurança e a necessidade individual do cliente. A Aromaterapia pode auxiliar na redução do estresse, alívio de dores crônicas, relaxamento muscular e melhora da respiração, entre outros benefícios.

Além disso, os aromaterapeutas podem trabalhar em conjunto com outros profissionais da saúde para oferecer um tratamento complementar em diversas condições. Como já mencionado no artigo sobre "Como evitar processos alérgicos na prática da Aromaterapia", é essencial ter acompanhamento profissional, pois os óleos essenciais são altamente concentrados e podem causar reações adversas se utilizados de forma inadequada.

---

2. Como um Aromaterapeuta Pode Ajudar?

Você pode procurar um aromaterapeuta para diferentes necessidades, como:

✔ Questões Emocionais e Psicológicas

Auxílio em momentos de luto, divórcio, demissão ou outras situações desafiadoras.

Apoio na redução do estresse, ansiedade e insônia.

Vale lembrar que, em casos de transtornos psiquiátricos, a Aromaterapia deve ser usada como terapia complementar, associada ao tratamento médico.

✔ Questões Físicas

Dores musculares e articulares.

Problemas respiratórios como rinite, sinusite e tosse.

Distúrbios digestivos leves.

Dores de cabeça e enxaquecas. Nesses casos, a Aromaterapia pode ser um suporte, mas não substitui a medicina tradicional para identificar a origem dos sintomas.

✔ Saúde da Pele e Cabelos

Tratamento para acne, dermatites e psoríase.

Cuidados com o envelhecimento precoce da pele.

Redução da queda de cabelo e controle da oleosidade do couro cabeludo.

✔ Bem-estar e Qualidade de Vida

Melhora da concentração e foco, aumentando a produtividade.

Estímulo da disposição e energia.

Auxílio no equilíbrio hormonal (TPM, menopausa, desequilíbrios hormonais).

Com base nessas necessidades, o aromaterapeuta irá indicar o melhor tratamento, calculando doses, sinergias (combinação de óleos essenciais), diluições e técnicas de aplicação, como inalação, uso tópico ou difusão.

---

3. Como Funciona uma Consulta com um Aromaterapeuta?

Uma consulta com um aromaterapeuta é um atendimento personalizado, onde são avaliadas as necessidades do cliente para a criação de um protocolo adequado. O processo geralmente segue estas etapas:

✔ Anamnese (Entrevista Inicial)

Perguntas sobre saúde física, emocional e estilo de vida.

Levantamento de sintomas, histórico médico e possíveis alergias.

Definição dos objetivos da terapia (alívio do estresse, melhora do sono, dores musculares etc.).

✔ Escolha dos Óleos Essenciais

Seleção dos óleos mais indicados para o caso.

Consideração das propriedades terapêuticas, contraindicações e combinações seguras.

✔ Definição do Método de Uso

O profissional indicará a melhor forma de aplicação, que pode ser:

Inalação: difusores, colares aromáticos, vaporização.

Uso tópico: massagens, óleos corporais, compressas.

Banhos aromáticos e escalda-pés. Todas as diluições serão ajustadas de acordo com a segurança e a necessidade individual do cliente.

✔ Plano de Acompanhamento

Instruções detalhadas sobre o uso correto dos óleos essenciais.

Orientação sobre frequência e duração do tratamento.

Possibilidade de retorno para ajustes no protocolo.

A consulta pode ser realizada presencialmente ou online, dependendo do profissional.

---

Quer saber como a Aromaterapia pode te ajudar? Agende uma consulta comigo e descubra os benefícios dos óleos essenciais para o seu bem-estar!

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

There is something quietly rebellious about stacking sats. In a world obsessed with instant gratification, choosing to patiently accumulate Bitcoin, one sat at a time, feels like a middle finger to the hype machine. But to do it right, you have got to stay humble. Stack too hard with your head in the clouds, and you will trip over your own ego before the next halving even hits.

Small Wins

Stacking sats is not glamorous. Discipline. Stacking every day, week, or month, no matter the price, and letting time do the heavy lifting. Humility lives in that consistency. You are not trying to outsmart the market or prove you are the next "crypto" prophet. Just a regular person, betting on a system you believe in, one humble stack at a time. Folks get rekt chasing the highs. They ape into some shitcoin pump, shout about it online, then go silent when they inevitably get rekt. The ones who last? They stack. Just keep showing up. Consistency. Humility in action. Know the game is long, and you are not bigger than it.

Ego is Volatile

Bitcoin’s swings can mess with your head. One day you are up 20%, feeling like a genius and the next down 30%, questioning everything. Ego will have you panic selling at the bottom or over leveraging the top. Staying humble means patience, a true bitcoin zen. Do not try to "beat” Bitcoin. Ride it. Stack what you can afford, live your life, and let compounding work its magic.

Simplicity

There is a beauty in how stacking sats forces you to rethink value. A sat is worth less than a penny today, but every time you grab a few thousand, you plant a seed. It is not about flaunting wealth but rather building it, quietly, without fanfare. That mindset spills over. Cut out the noise: the overpriced coffee, fancy watches, the status games that drain your wallet. Humility is good for your soul and your stack. I have a buddy who has been stacking since 2015. Never talks about it unless you ask. Lives in a decent place, drives an old truck, and just keeps stacking. He is not chasing clout, he is chasing freedom. That is the vibe: less ego, more sats, all grounded in life.

The Big Picture

Stack those sats. Do it quietly, do it consistently, and do not let the green days puff you up or the red days break you down. Humility is the secret sauce, it keeps you grounded while the world spins wild. In a decade, when you look back and smile, it will not be because you shouted the loudest. It will be because you stayed the course, one sat at a time. \ \ Stay Humble and Stack Sats. 🫡

@ 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.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

This piece is the first in a series that will focus on things I think are a priority if your focus is similar to mine: building a strong family and safeguarding their future.

---

Choosing the ideal place to raise a family is one of the most significant decisions you will ever make. For simplicity sake I will break down my thought process into key factors: strong property rights, the ability to grow your own food, access to fresh water, the freedom to own and train with guns, and a dependable community.

A Jurisdiction with Strong Property Rights

Strong property rights are essential and allow you to build on a solid foundation that is less likely to break underneath you. Regions with a history of limited government and clear legal protections for landowners are ideal. Personally I think the US is the single best option globally, but within the US there is a wide difference between which state you choose. Choose carefully and thoughtfully, think long term. Obviously if you are not American this is not a realistic option for you, there are other solid options available especially if your family has mobility. I understand many do not have this capability to easily move, consider that your first priority, making movement and jurisdiction choice possible in the first place.

Abundant Access to Fresh Water

Water is life. I cannot overstate the importance of living somewhere with reliable, clean, and abundant freshwater. Some regions face water scarcity or heavy regulations on usage, so prioritizing a place where water is plentiful and your rights to it are protected is critical. Ideally you should have well access so you are not tied to municipal water supplies. In times of crisis or chaos well water cannot be easily shutoff or disrupted. If you live in an area that is drought prone, you are one drought away from societal chaos. Not enough people appreciate this simple fact.

Grow Your Own Food

A location with fertile soil, a favorable climate, and enough space for a small homestead or at the very least a garden is key. In stable times, a small homestead provides good food and important education for your family. In times of chaos your family being able to grow and raise healthy food provides a level of self sufficiency that many others will lack. Look for areas with minimal restrictions, good weather, and a culture that supports local farming.

Guns

The ability to defend your family is fundamental. A location where you can legally and easily own guns is a must. Look for places with a strong gun culture and a political history of protecting those rights. Owning one or two guns is not enough and without proper training they will be a liability rather than a benefit. Get comfortable and proficient. Never stop improving your skills. If the time comes that you must use a gun to defend your family, the skills must be instinct. Practice. Practice. Practice.

A Strong Community You Can Depend On

No one thrives alone. A ride or die community that rallies together in tough times is invaluable. Seek out a place where people know their neighbors, share similar values, and are quick to lend a hand. Lead by example and become a good neighbor, people will naturally respond in kind. Small towns are ideal, if possible, but living outside of a major city can be a solid balance in terms of work opportunities and family security.

---

Let me know if you found this helpful. My plan is to break down how I think about these five key subjects in future posts.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

Here’s a revised timeline of macro-level events from The Mandibles: A Family, 2029–2047 by Lionel Shriver, reimagined in a world where Bitcoin is adopted as a widely accepted form of money, altering the original narrative’s assumptions about currency collapse and economic control. In Shriver’s original story, the failure of Bitcoin is assumed amid the dominance of the bancor and the dollar’s collapse. Here, Bitcoin’s success reshapes the economic and societal trajectory, decentralizing power and challenging state-driven outcomes.

Part One: 2029–2032

• 2029 (Early Year)\ The United States faces economic strain as the dollar weakens against global shifts. However, Bitcoin, having gained traction emerges as a viable alternative. Unlike the original timeline, the bancor—a supranational currency backed by a coalition of nations—struggles to gain footing as Bitcoin’s decentralized adoption grows among individuals and businesses worldwide, undermining both the dollar and the bancor.

• 2029 (Mid-Year: The Great Renunciation)\ Treasury bonds lose value, and the government bans Bitcoin, labeling it a threat to sovereignty (mirroring the original bancor ban). However, a Bitcoin ban proves unenforceable—its decentralized nature thwarts confiscation efforts, unlike gold in the original story. Hyperinflation hits the dollar as the U.S. prints money, but Bitcoin’s fixed supply shields adopters from currency devaluation, creating a dual-economy split: dollar users suffer, while Bitcoin users thrive.

• 2029 (Late Year)\ Dollar-based inflation soars, emptying stores of goods priced in fiat currency. Meanwhile, Bitcoin transactions flourish in underground and online markets, stabilizing trade for those plugged into the bitcoin ecosystem. Traditional supply chains falter, but peer-to-peer Bitcoin networks enable local and international exchange, reducing scarcity for early adopters. The government’s gold confiscation fails to bolster the dollar, as Bitcoin’s rise renders gold less relevant.

• 2030–2031\ Crime spikes in dollar-dependent urban areas, but Bitcoin-friendly regions see less chaos, as digital wallets and smart contracts facilitate secure trade. The U.S. government doubles down on surveillance to crack down on bitcoin use. A cultural divide deepens: centralized authority weakens in Bitcoin-adopting communities, while dollar zones descend into lawlessness.

• 2032\ By this point, Bitcoin is de facto legal tender in parts of the U.S. and globally, especially in tech-savvy or libertarian-leaning regions. The federal government’s grip slips as tax collection in dollars plummets—Bitcoin’s traceability is low, and citizens evade fiat-based levies. Rural and urban Bitcoin hubs emerge, while the dollar economy remains fractured.

Time Jump: 2032–2047

• Over 15 years, Bitcoin solidifies as a global reserve currency, eroding centralized control. The U.S. government adapts, grudgingly integrating bitcoin into policy, though regional autonomy grows as Bitcoin empowers local economies.

Part Two: 2047

• 2047 (Early Year)\ The U.S. is a hybrid state: Bitcoin is legal tender alongside a diminished dollar. Taxes are lower, collected in BTC, reducing federal overreach. Bitcoin’s adoption has decentralized power nationwide. The bancor has faded, unable to compete with Bitcoin’s grassroots momentum.

• 2047 (Mid-Year)\ Travel and trade flow freely in Bitcoin zones, with no restrictive checkpoints. The dollar economy lingers in poorer areas, marked by decay, but Bitcoin’s dominance lifts overall prosperity, as its deflationary nature incentivizes saving and investment over consumption. Global supply chains rebound, powered by bitcoin enabled efficiency.

• 2047 (Late Year)\ The U.S. is a patchwork of semi-autonomous zones, united by Bitcoin’s universal acceptance rather than federal control. Resource scarcity persists due to past disruptions, but economic stability is higher than in Shriver’s original dystopia—Bitcoin’s success prevents the authoritarian slide, fostering a freer, if imperfect, society.

Key Differences

• Currency Dynamics: Bitcoin’s triumph prevents the bancor’s dominance and mitigates hyperinflation’s worst effects, offering a lifeline outside state control.
• Government Power: Centralized authority weakens as Bitcoin evades bans and taxation, shifting power to individuals and communities.
• Societal Outcome: Instead of a surveillance state, 2047 sees a decentralized, bitcoin driven world—less oppressive, though still stratified between Bitcoin haves and have-nots.

This reimagining assumes Bitcoin overcomes Shriver’s implied skepticism to become a robust, adopted currency by 2029, fundamentally altering the novel’s bleak trajectory.

@ 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.

@ 6e0ea5d6:0327f353

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The husband agreed.

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

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

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

A toast to our family!

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 4857600b:30b502f4

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

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

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

@ 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.

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

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

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

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

@ 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.

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 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)

@ 0fa80bd3:ea7325de

intro

The Russian state made me a Bitcoiner. In 1991, it devalued my grandmother's hard-earned savings. She worked tirelessly in the kitchen of a dining car on the Moscow–Warsaw route. Everything she had saved for my sister and me to attend university vanished overnight. This story is similar to what many experienced, including Wences Casares. The pain and injustice of that time became my first lessons about the fragility of systems and the value of genuine, incorruptible assets, forever changing my perception of money and my trust in government promises.

In 2014, I was living in Moscow, running a trading business, and frequently traveling to China. One day, I learned about the Cypriot banking crisis and the possibility of moving money through some strange thing called Bitcoin. At the time, I didn’t give it much thought. Returning to the idea six months later, as a business-oriented geek, I eagerly began studying the topic and soon dove into it seriously.

I spent half a year reading articles on a local online journal, BitNovosti, actively participating in discussions, and eventually joined the editorial team as a translator. That’s how I learned about whitepapers, decentralization, mining, cryptographic keys, and colored coins. About Satoshi Nakamoto, Silk Road, Mt. Gox, and BitcoinTalk. Over time, I befriended the journal’s owner and, leveraging my management experience, later became an editor. I was drawn to the crypto-anarchist stance and commitment to decentralization principles. We wrote about the economic, historical, and social preconditions for Bitcoin’s emergence, and it was during this time that I fully embraced the idea.

It got to the point where I sold my apartment and, during the market's downturn, bought 50 bitcoins, just after the peak price of $1,200 per coin. That marked the beginning of my first crypto winter. As an editor, I organized workflows, managed translators, developed a YouTube channel, and attended conferences in Russia and Ukraine. That’s how I learned about Wences Casares and even wrote a piece about him. I also met Mikhail Chobanyan (Ukrainian exchange Kuna), Alexander Ivanov (Waves project), Konstantin Lomashuk (Lido project), and, of course, Vitalik Buterin. It was a time of complete immersion, 24/7, and boundless hope.

After moving to the United States, I expected the industry to grow rapidly, attended events, but the introduction of BitLicense froze the industry for eight years. By 2017, it became clear that the industry was shifting toward gambling and creating tokens for the sake of tokens. I dismissed this idea as unsustainable. Then came a new crypto spring with the hype around beautiful NFTs – CryptoPunks and apes.

I made another attempt – we worked on a series called Digital Nomad Country Club, aimed at creating a global project. The proceeds from selling images were intended to fund the development of business tools for people worldwide. However, internal disagreements within the team prevented us from completing the project.

With Trump’s arrival in 2025, hope was reignited. I decided that it was time to create a project that society desperately needed. As someone passionate about history, I understood that destroying what exists was not the solution, but leaving everything as it was also felt unacceptable. You can’t destroy the system, as the fiery crypto-anarchist voices claimed.

With an analytical mindset (IQ 130) and a deep understanding of the freest societies, I realized what was missing—not only in Russia or the United States but globally—a Bitcoin-native system for tracking debts and financial interactions. This could return control of money to ordinary people and create horizontal connections parallel to state systems. My goal was to create, if not a Bitcoin killer app, then at least to lay its foundation.

At the inauguration event in New York, I rediscovered the Nostr project. I realized it was not only technologically simple and already quite popular but also perfectly aligned with my vision. For the past month and a half, using insights and experience gained since 2014, I’ve been working full-time on this project.

@ 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.

@ e3ba5e1a:5e433365

My favorite line in any Marvel movie ever is in “Captain America.” After Captain America launches seemingly a hopeless assault on Red Skull’s base and is captured, we get this line:

“Arrogance may not be a uniquely American trait, but I must say, you do it better than anyone.”

Yesterday, I came across a comment on the song Devil Went Down to Georgia that had a very similar feel to it:

America has seemingly always been arrogant, in a uniquely American way. Manifest Destiny, for instance. The rest of the world is aware of this arrogance, and mocks Americans for it. A central point in modern US politics is the deriding of racist, nationalist, supremacist Americans.

That’s not what I see. I see American Arrogance as not only a beautiful statement about what it means to be American. I see it as an ode to the greatness of humanity in its purest form.

For most countries, saying “our nation is the greatest” is, in fact, twinged with some level of racism. I still don’t have a problem with it. Every group of people should be allowed to feel pride in their accomplishments. The destruction of the human spirit since the end of World War 2, where greatness has become a sin and weakness a virtue, has crushed the ability of people worldwide to strive for excellence.

But I digress. The fears of racism and nationalism at least have a grain of truth when applied to other nations on the planet. But not to America.

That’s because the definition of America, and the prototype of an American, has nothing to do with race. The definition of Americanism is freedom. The founding of America is based purely on liberty. On the God-given rights of every person to live life the way they see fit.

American Arrogance is not a statement of racial superiority. It’s barely a statement of national superiority (though it absolutely is). To me, when an American comments on the greatness of America, it’s a statement about freedom. Freedom will always unlock the greatness inherent in any group of people. Americans are definitionally better than everyone else, because Americans are freer than everyone else. (Or, at least, that’s how it should be.)

In Devil Went Down to Georgia, Johnny is approached by the devil himself. He is challenged to a ridiculously lopsided bet: a golden fiddle versus his immortal soul. He acknowledges the sin in accepting such a proposal. And yet he says, “God, I know you told me not to do this. But I can’t stand the affront to my honor. I am the greatest. The devil has nothing on me. So God, I’m gonna sin, but I’m also gonna win.”

Libertas magnitudo est

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ daa41bed:88f54153

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

Let's begin by defining a couple of things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 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.

@ e3ba5e1a:5e433365

I got into a friendly discussion on X regarding health insurance. The specific question was how to deal with health insurance companies (presumably unfairly) denying claims? My answer, as usual: get government out of it!

The US healthcare system is essentially the worst of both worlds:

• Unlike full single payer, individuals incur high costs
• Unlike a true free market, regulation causes increases in costs and decreases competition among insurers

I'm firmly on the side of moving towards the free market. (And I say that as someone living under a single payer system now.) Here's what I would do:

• Get rid of tax incentives that make health insurance tied to your employer, giving individuals back proper freedom of choice.
• Reduce regulations significantly.

• In the short term, some people will still get rejected claims and other obnoxious behavior from insurance companies. We address that in two ways:

  1. Due to reduced regulations, new insurance companies will be able to enter the market offering more reliable coverage and better rates, and people will flock to them because they have the freedom to make their own choices.
  2. Sue the asses off of companies that reject claims unfairly. And ideally, as one of the few legitimate roles of government in all this, institute new laws that limit the ability of fine print to allow insurers to escape their responsibilities. (I'm hesitant that the latter will happen due to the incestuous relationship between Congress/regulators and insurers, but I can hope.)

Will this magically fix everything overnight like politicians normally promise? No. But it will allow the market to return to a healthy state. And I don't think it will take long (order of magnitude: 5-10 years) for it to come together, but that's just speculation.

And since there's a high correlation between those who believe government can fix problems by taking more control and demanding that only credentialed experts weigh in on a topic (both points I strongly disagree with BTW): I'm a trained actuary and worked in the insurance industry, and have directly seen how government regulation reduces competition, raises prices, and harms consumers.

And my final point: I don't think any prior art would be a good comparison for deregulation in the US, it's such a different market than any other country in the world for so many reasons that lessons wouldn't really translate. Nonetheless, I asked Grok for some empirical data on this, and at best the results of deregulation could be called "mixed," but likely more accurately "uncertain, confused, and subject to whatever interpretation anyone wants to apply."

https://x.com/i/grok/share/Zc8yOdrN8lS275hXJ92uwq98M

@ 91bea5cd:1df4451c

Definição de ULID:

Timestamp 48 bits, Aleatoriedade 80 bits Sendo Timestamp 48 bits inteiro, tempo UNIX em milissegundos, Não ficará sem espaço até o ano 10889 d.C. e Aleatoriedade 80 bits, Fonte criptograficamente segura de aleatoriedade, se possível.

Gerar ULID

```sql

CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS pgcrypto;

CREATE FUNCTION generate_ulid() RETURNS TEXT AS $$ DECLARE -- Crockford's Base32 encoding BYTEA = '0123456789ABCDEFGHJKMNPQRSTVWXYZ'; timestamp BYTEA = E'\000\000\000\000\000\000'; output TEXT = '';

unix_time BIGINT; ulid BYTEA; BEGIN -- 6 timestamp bytes unix_time = (EXTRACT(EPOCH FROM CLOCK_TIMESTAMP()) * 1000)::BIGINT; timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 0, (unix_time >> 40)::BIT(8)::INTEGER); timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 1, (unix_time >> 32)::BIT(8)::INTEGER); timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 2, (unix_time >> 24)::BIT(8)::INTEGER); timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 3, (unix_time >> 16)::BIT(8)::INTEGER); timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 4, (unix_time >> 8)::BIT(8)::INTEGER); timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 5, unix_time::BIT(8)::INTEGER);

-- 10 entropy bytes ulid = timestamp || gen_random_bytes(10);

-- Encode the timestamp output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 0) & 224) >> 5)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 0) & 31))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 1) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 1) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 2) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 2) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 2) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 3) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 3) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 4) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 4) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 4) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 5) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 5) & 31)));

-- Encode the entropy output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 6) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 6) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 7) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 7) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 7) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 8) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 8) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 9) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 9) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 9) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 10) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 10) & 31))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 11) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 11) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 12) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 12) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 12) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 13) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 13) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 14) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 14) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 14) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 15) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 15) & 31)));

RETURN output; END $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql VOLATILE; ```

ULID TO UUID

```sql CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION parse_ulid(ulid text) RETURNS bytea AS $$ DECLARE -- 16byte bytes bytea = E'\x00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000'; v char[]; -- Allow for O(1) lookup of index values dec integer[] = ARRAY[ 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 1, 18, 19, 1, 20, 21, 0, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 255, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 1, 18, 19, 1, 20, 21, 0, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 255, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ]; BEGIN IF NOT ulid ~* '^[0-7][0-9ABCDEFGHJKMNPQRSTVWXYZ]{25}$' THEN RAISE EXCEPTION 'Invalid ULID: %', ulid; END IF;

v = regexp_split_to_array(ulid, '');

-- 6 bytes timestamp (48 bits) bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 0, (dec[ASCII(v[1])] << 5) | dec[ASCII(v[2])]); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 1, (dec[ASCII(v[3])] << 3) | (dec[ASCII(v[4])] >> 2)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 2, (dec[ASCII(v[4])] << 6) | (dec[ASCII(v[5])] << 1) | (dec[ASCII(v[6])] >> 4)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 3, (dec[ASCII(v[6])] << 4) | (dec[ASCII(v[7])] >> 1)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 4, (dec[ASCII(v[7])] << 7) | (dec[ASCII(v[8])] << 2) | (dec[ASCII(v[9])] >> 3)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 5, (dec[ASCII(v[9])] << 5) | dec[ASCII(v[10])]);

-- 10 bytes of entropy (80 bits); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 6, (dec[ASCII(v[11])] << 3) | (dec[ASCII(v[12])] >> 2)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 7, (dec[ASCII(v[12])] << 6) | (dec[ASCII(v[13])] << 1) | (dec[ASCII(v[14])] >> 4)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 8, (dec[ASCII(v[14])] << 4) | (dec[ASCII(v[15])] >> 1)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 9, (dec[ASCII(v[15])] << 7) | (dec[ASCII(v[16])] << 2) | (dec[ASCII(v[17])] >> 3)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 10, (dec[ASCII(v[17])] << 5) | dec[ASCII(v[18])]); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 11, (dec[ASCII(v[19])] << 3) | (dec[ASCII(v[20])] >> 2)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 12, (dec[ASCII(v[20])] << 6) | (dec[ASCII(v[21])] << 1) | (dec[ASCII(v[22])] >> 4)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 13, (dec[ASCII(v[22])] << 4) | (dec[ASCII(v[23])] >> 1)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 14, (dec[ASCII(v[23])] << 7) | (dec[ASCII(v[24])] << 2) | (dec[ASCII(v[25])] >> 3)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 15, (dec[ASCII(v[25])] << 5) | dec[ASCII(v[26])]);

RETURN bytes; END $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql IMMUTABLE;

CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION ulid_to_uuid(ulid text) RETURNS uuid AS $$ BEGIN RETURN encode(parse_ulid(ulid), 'hex')::uuid; END $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql IMMUTABLE; ```

UUID to ULID

```sql CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION uuid_to_ulid(id uuid) RETURNS text AS $$ DECLARE encoding bytea = '0123456789ABCDEFGHJKMNPQRSTVWXYZ'; output text = ''; uuid_bytes bytea = uuid_send(id); BEGIN

-- Encode the timestamp output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 0) & 224) >> 5)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 0) & 31))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 1) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 1) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 2) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 2) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 2) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 3) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 3) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 4) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 4) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 4) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 5) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 5) & 31)));

-- Encode the entropy output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 6) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 6) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 7) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 7) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 7) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 8) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 8) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 9) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 9) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 9) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 10) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 10) & 31))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 11) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 11) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 12) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 12) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 12) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 13) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 13) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 14) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 14) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 14) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 15) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 15) & 31)));

RETURN output; END $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql IMMUTABLE; ```

Gera 11 Digitos aleatórios: YBKXG0CKTH4

```sql -- Cria a extensão pgcrypto para gerar uuid CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS pgcrypto;

-- Cria a função para gerar ULID CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION gen_lrandom() RETURNS TEXT AS $$ DECLARE ts_millis BIGINT; ts_chars TEXT; random_bytes BYTEA; random_chars TEXT; base32_chars TEXT := '0123456789ABCDEFGHJKMNPQRSTVWXYZ'; i INT; BEGIN -- Pega o timestamp em milissegundos ts_millis := FLOOR(EXTRACT(EPOCH FROM clock_timestamp()) * 1000)::BIGINT;

-- Converte o timestamp para base32
ts_chars := '';
FOR i IN REVERSE 0..11 LOOP
    ts_chars := ts_chars || substr(base32_chars, ((ts_millis >> (5 * i)) & 31) + 1, 1);
END LOOP;

-- Gera 10 bytes aleatórios e converte para base32
random_bytes := gen_random_bytes(10);
random_chars := '';
FOR i IN 0..9 LOOP
    random_chars := random_chars || substr(base32_chars, ((get_byte(random_bytes, i) >> 3) & 31) + 1, 1);
    IF i < 9 THEN
        random_chars := random_chars || substr(base32_chars, (((get_byte(random_bytes, i) & 7) << 2) | (get_byte(random_bytes, i + 1) >> 6)) & 31 + 1, 1);
    ELSE
        random_chars := random_chars || substr(base32_chars, ((get_byte(random_bytes, i) & 7) << 2) + 1, 1);
    END IF;
END LOOP;

-- Concatena o timestamp e os caracteres aleatórios
RETURN ts_chars || random_chars;

END; $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql; ```

Exemplo de USO

```sql -- Criação da extensão caso não exista CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS pgcrypto; -- Criação da tabela pessoas CREATE TABLE pessoas ( ID UUID DEFAULT gen_random_uuid ( ) PRIMARY KEY, nome TEXT NOT NULL );

-- Busca Pessoa na tabela SELECT * FROM "pessoas" WHERE uuid_to_ulid ( ID ) = '252FAC9F3V8EF80SSDK8PXW02F'; ```

Fontes

• https://github.com/scoville/pgsql-ulid
• https://github.com/geckoboard/pgulid

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Danke, dass du diesen Weg mit mir weitergehst!

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 91bea5cd:1df4451c

Definição de ULID:

Timestamp 48 bits, Aleatoriedade 80 bits Sendo Timestamp 48 bits inteiro, tempo UNIX em milissegundos, Não ficará sem espaço até o ano 10889 d.C. e Aleatoriedade 80 bits, Fonte criptograficamente segura de aleatoriedade, se possível.

Gerar ULID

```sql

CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS pgcrypto;

CREATE FUNCTION generate_ulid() RETURNS TEXT AS $$ DECLARE -- Crockford's Base32 encoding BYTEA = '0123456789ABCDEFGHJKMNPQRSTVWXYZ'; timestamp BYTEA = E'\000\000\000\000\000\000'; output TEXT = '';

unix_time BIGINT; ulid BYTEA; BEGIN -- 6 timestamp bytes unix_time = (EXTRACT(EPOCH FROM CLOCK_TIMESTAMP()) * 1000)::BIGINT; timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 0, (unix_time >> 40)::BIT(8)::INTEGER); timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 1, (unix_time >> 32)::BIT(8)::INTEGER); timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 2, (unix_time >> 24)::BIT(8)::INTEGER); timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 3, (unix_time >> 16)::BIT(8)::INTEGER); timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 4, (unix_time >> 8)::BIT(8)::INTEGER); timestamp = SET_BYTE(timestamp, 5, unix_time::BIT(8)::INTEGER);

-- 10 entropy bytes ulid = timestamp || gen_random_bytes(10);

-- Encode the timestamp output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 0) & 224) >> 5)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 0) & 31))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 1) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 1) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 2) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 2) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 2) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 3) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 3) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 4) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 4) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 4) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 5) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 5) & 31)));

-- Encode the entropy output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 6) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 6) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 7) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 7) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 7) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 8) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 8) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 9) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 9) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 9) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 10) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 10) & 31))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 11) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 11) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 12) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 12) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 12) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 13) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 13) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 14) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 14) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 14) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(ulid, 15) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(ulid, 15) & 31)));

RETURN output; END $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql VOLATILE; ```

ULID TO UUID

```sql CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION parse_ulid(ulid text) RETURNS bytea AS $$ DECLARE -- 16byte bytes bytea = E'\x00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000'; v char[]; -- Allow for O(1) lookup of index values dec integer[] = ARRAY[ 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 1, 18, 19, 1, 20, 21, 0, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 255, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 1, 18, 19, 1, 20, 21, 0, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 255, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ]; BEGIN IF NOT ulid ~* '^[0-7][0-9ABCDEFGHJKMNPQRSTVWXYZ]{25}$' THEN RAISE EXCEPTION 'Invalid ULID: %', ulid; END IF;

v = regexp_split_to_array(ulid, '');

-- 6 bytes timestamp (48 bits) bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 0, (dec[ASCII(v[1])] << 5) | dec[ASCII(v[2])]); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 1, (dec[ASCII(v[3])] << 3) | (dec[ASCII(v[4])] >> 2)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 2, (dec[ASCII(v[4])] << 6) | (dec[ASCII(v[5])] << 1) | (dec[ASCII(v[6])] >> 4)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 3, (dec[ASCII(v[6])] << 4) | (dec[ASCII(v[7])] >> 1)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 4, (dec[ASCII(v[7])] << 7) | (dec[ASCII(v[8])] << 2) | (dec[ASCII(v[9])] >> 3)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 5, (dec[ASCII(v[9])] << 5) | dec[ASCII(v[10])]);

-- 10 bytes of entropy (80 bits); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 6, (dec[ASCII(v[11])] << 3) | (dec[ASCII(v[12])] >> 2)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 7, (dec[ASCII(v[12])] << 6) | (dec[ASCII(v[13])] << 1) | (dec[ASCII(v[14])] >> 4)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 8, (dec[ASCII(v[14])] << 4) | (dec[ASCII(v[15])] >> 1)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 9, (dec[ASCII(v[15])] << 7) | (dec[ASCII(v[16])] << 2) | (dec[ASCII(v[17])] >> 3)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 10, (dec[ASCII(v[17])] << 5) | dec[ASCII(v[18])]); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 11, (dec[ASCII(v[19])] << 3) | (dec[ASCII(v[20])] >> 2)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 12, (dec[ASCII(v[20])] << 6) | (dec[ASCII(v[21])] << 1) | (dec[ASCII(v[22])] >> 4)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 13, (dec[ASCII(v[22])] << 4) | (dec[ASCII(v[23])] >> 1)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 14, (dec[ASCII(v[23])] << 7) | (dec[ASCII(v[24])] << 2) | (dec[ASCII(v[25])] >> 3)); bytes = SET_BYTE(bytes, 15, (dec[ASCII(v[25])] << 5) | dec[ASCII(v[26])]);

RETURN bytes; END $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql IMMUTABLE;

CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION ulid_to_uuid(ulid text) RETURNS uuid AS $$ BEGIN RETURN encode(parse_ulid(ulid), 'hex')::uuid; END $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql IMMUTABLE; ```

UUID to ULID

```sql CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION uuid_to_ulid(id uuid) RETURNS text AS $$ DECLARE encoding bytea = '0123456789ABCDEFGHJKMNPQRSTVWXYZ'; output text = ''; uuid_bytes bytea = uuid_send(id); BEGIN

-- Encode the timestamp output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 0) & 224) >> 5)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 0) & 31))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 1) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 1) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 2) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 2) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 2) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 3) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 3) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 4) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 4) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 4) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 5) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 5) & 31)));

-- Encode the entropy output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 6) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 6) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 7) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 7) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 7) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 8) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 8) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 9) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 9) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 9) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 10) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 10) & 31))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 11) & 248) >> 3)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 11) & 7) << 2) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 12) & 192) >> 6))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 12) & 62) >> 1)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 12) & 1) << 4) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 13) & 240) >> 4))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 13) & 15) << 1) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 14) & 128) >> 7))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 14) & 124) >> 2)); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 14) & 3) << 3) | ((GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 15) & 224) >> 5))); output = output || CHR(GET_BYTE(encoding, (GET_BYTE(uuid_bytes, 15) & 31)));

RETURN output; END $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql IMMUTABLE; ```

Gera 11 Digitos aleatórios: YBKXG0CKTH4

```sql -- Cria a extensão pgcrypto para gerar uuid CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS pgcrypto;

-- Cria a função para gerar ULID CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION gen_lrandom() RETURNS TEXT AS $$ DECLARE ts_millis BIGINT; ts_chars TEXT; random_bytes BYTEA; random_chars TEXT; base32_chars TEXT := '0123456789ABCDEFGHJKMNPQRSTVWXYZ'; i INT; BEGIN -- Pega o timestamp em milissegundos ts_millis := FLOOR(EXTRACT(EPOCH FROM clock_timestamp()) * 1000)::BIGINT;

-- Converte o timestamp para base32
ts_chars := '';
FOR i IN REVERSE 0..11 LOOP
    ts_chars := ts_chars || substr(base32_chars, ((ts_millis >> (5 * i)) & 31) + 1, 1);
END LOOP;

-- Gera 10 bytes aleatórios e converte para base32
random_bytes := gen_random_bytes(10);
random_chars := '';
FOR i IN 0..9 LOOP
    random_chars := random_chars || substr(base32_chars, ((get_byte(random_bytes, i) >> 3) & 31) + 1, 1);
    IF i < 9 THEN
        random_chars := random_chars || substr(base32_chars, (((get_byte(random_bytes, i) & 7) << 2) | (get_byte(random_bytes, i + 1) >> 6)) & 31 + 1, 1);
    ELSE
        random_chars := random_chars || substr(base32_chars, ((get_byte(random_bytes, i) & 7) << 2) + 1, 1);
    END IF;
END LOOP;

-- Concatena o timestamp e os caracteres aleatórios
RETURN ts_chars || random_chars;

END; $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql; ```

Exemplo de USO

```sql -- Criação da extensão caso não exista CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS pgcrypto; -- Criação da tabela pessoas CREATE TABLE pessoas ( ID UUID DEFAULT gen_random_uuid ( ) PRIMARY KEY, nome TEXT NOT NULL );

-- Busca Pessoa na tabela SELECT * FROM "pessoas" WHERE uuid_to_ulid ( ID ) = '252FAC9F3V8EF80SSDK8PXW02F'; ```

Fontes

• https://github.com/scoville/pgsql-ulid
• https://github.com/geckoboard/pgulid

@ e3ba5e1a:5e433365

President Trump has started rolling out his tariffs, something I blogged about in November. People are talking about these tariffs a lot right now, with many people (correctly) commenting on how consumers will end up with higher prices as a result of these tariffs. While that part is true, I’ve seen a lot of people taking it to the next, incorrect step: that consumers will pay the entirety of the tax. I put up a poll on X to see what people thought, and while the right answer got a lot of votes, it wasn't the winner.

For purposes of this blog post, our ultimate question will be the following:

• Suppose apples currently sell for $1 each in the entire United States.
• There are domestic sellers and foreign sellers of apples, all receiving the same price.
• There are no taxes or tariffs on the purchase of apples.
• The question is: if the US federal government puts a $0.50 import tariff per apple, what will be the change in the following:
• Number of apples bought in the US
• Price paid by buyers for apples in the US
• Post-tax price received by domestic apple producers
• Post-tax price received by foreign apple producers

Before we can answer that question, we need to ask an easier, first question: before instituting the tariff, why do apples cost $1?

And finally, before we dive into the details, let me provide you with the answers to the ultimate question. I recommend you try to guess these answers before reading this, and if you get it wrong, try to understand why:

1. The number of apples bought will go down
2. The buyers will pay more for each apple they buy, but not the full amount of the tariff
3. Domestic apple sellers will receive a higher price per apple
4. Foreign apple sellers will receive a lower price per apple, but not lowered by the full amount of the tariff

In other words, regardless of who sends the payment to the government, both taxed parties (domestic buyers and foreign sellers) will absorb some of the costs of the tariff, while domestic sellers will benefit from the protectionism provided by tariffs and be able to sell at a higher price per unit.

Marginal benefit

All of the numbers discussed below are part of a helper Google Sheet I put together for this analysis. Also, apologies about the jagged lines in the charts below, I hadn’t realized before starting on this that there are some difficulties with creating supply and demand charts in Google Sheets.

Let’s say I absolutely love apples, they’re my favorite food. How much would I be willing to pay for a single apple? You might say “$1, that’s the price in the supermarket,” and in many ways you’d be right. If I walk into supermarket A, see apples on sale for $50, and know that I can buy them at supermarket B for $1, I’ll almost certainly leave A and go buy at B.

But that’s not what I mean. What I mean is: how high would the price of apples have to go everywhere so that I’d no longer be willing to buy a single apple? This is a purely personal, subjective opinion. It’s impacted by how much money I have available, other expenses I need to cover, and how much I like apples. But let’s say the number is $5.

How much would I be willing to pay for another apple? Maybe another $5. But how much am I willing to pay for the 1,000th apple? 10,000th? At some point, I’ll get sick of apples, or run out of space to keep the apples, or not be able to eat, cook, and otherwise preserve all those apples before they rot.

The point being: I’ll be progressively willing to spend less and less money for each apple. This form of analysis is called marginal benefit: how much benefit (expressed as dollars I’m willing to spend) will I receive from each apple? This is a downward sloping function: for each additional apple I buy (quantity demanded), the price I’m willing to pay goes down. This is what gives my personal demand curve. And if we aggregate demand curves across all market participants (meaning: everyone interested in buying apples), we end up with something like this:

Assuming no changes in people’s behavior and other conditions in the market, this chart tells us how many apples will be purchased by our buyers at each price point between $0.50 and $5. And ceteris paribus (all else being equal), this will continue to be the demand curve for apples.

Marginal cost

Demand is half the story of economics. The other half is supply, or: how many apples will I sell at each price point? Supply curves are upward sloping: the higher the price, the more a person or company is willing and able to sell a product.

Let’s understand why. Suppose I have an apple orchard. It’s a large property right next to my house. With about 2 minutes of effort, I can walk out of my house, find the nearest tree, pick 5 apples off the tree, and call it a day. 5 apples for 2 minutes of effort is pretty good, right?

Yes, there was all the effort necessary to buy the land, and plant the trees, and water them… and a bunch more than I likely can’t even guess at. We’re going to ignore all of that for our analysis, because for short-term supply-and-demand movement, we can ignore these kinds of sunk costs. One other simplification: in reality, supply curves often start descending before ascending. This accounts for achieving efficiencies of scale after the first number of units purchased. But since both these topics are unneeded for understanding taxes, I won’t go any further.

Anyway, back to my apple orchard. If someone offers me $0.50 per apple, I can do 2 minutes of effort and get $2.50 in revenue, which equates to a $75/hour wage for me. I’m more than happy to pick apples at that price!

However, let’s say someone comes to buy 10,000 apples from me instead. I no longer just walk out to my nearest tree. I’m going to need to get in my truck, drive around, spend the day in the sun, pay for gas, take a day off of my day job (let’s say it pays me $70/hour). The costs go up significantly. Let’s say it takes 5 days to harvest all those apples myself, it costs me $100 in fuel and other expenses, and I lose out on my $70/hour job for 5 days. We end up with:

• Total expenditure: $100 + $70 * 8 hours a day * 5 days \== $2900
• Total revenue: $5000 (10,000 apples at $0.50 each)
• Total profit: $2100

So I’m still willing to sell the apples at this price, but it’s not as attractive as before. And as the number of apples purchased goes up, my costs keep increasing. I’ll need to spend more money on fuel to travel more of my property. At some point I won’t be able to do the work myself anymore, so I’ll need to pay others to work on the farm, and they’ll be slower at picking apples than me (less familiar with the property, less direct motivation, etc.). The point being: at some point, the number of apples can go high enough that the $0.50 price point no longer makes me any money.

This kind of analysis is called marginal cost. It refers to the additional amount of expenditure a seller has to spend in order to produce each additional unit of the good. Marginal costs go up as quantity sold goes up. And like demand curves, if you aggregate this data across all sellers, you get a supply curve like this:

Equilibrium price

We now know, for every price point, how many apples buyers will purchase, and how many apples sellers will sell. Now we find the equilibrium: where the supply and demand curves meet. This point represents where the marginal benefit a buyer would receive from the next buyer would be less than the cost it would take the next seller to make it. Let’s see it in a chart:

You’ll notice that these two graphs cross at the $1 price point, where 63 apples are both demanded (bought by consumers) and supplied (sold by producers). This is our equilibrium price. We also have a visualization of the surplus created by these trades. Everything to the left of the equilibrium point and between the supply and demand curves represents surplus: an area where someone is receiving something of more value than they give. For example:

• When I bought my first apple for $1, but I was willing to spend $5, I made $4 of consumer surplus. The consumer portion of the surplus is everything to the left of the equilibrium point, between the supply and demand curves, and above the equilibrium price point.
• When a seller sells his first apple for $1, but it only cost $0.50 to produce it, the seller made $0.50 of producer surplus. The producer portion of the surplus is everything to the left of the equilibrium point, between the supply and demand curves, and below the equilibrium price point.

Another way of thinking of surplus is “every time someone got a better price than they would have been willing to take.”

OK, with this in place, we now have enough information to figure out how to price in the tariff, which we’ll treat as a negative externality.

Modeling taxes

Alright, the government has now instituted a $0.50 tariff on every apple sold within the US by a foreign producer. We can generally model taxes by either increasing the marginal cost of each unit sold (shifting the supply curve up), or by decreasing the marginal benefit of each unit bought (shifting the demand curve down). In this case, since only some of the producers will pay the tax, it makes more sense to modify the supply curve.

First, let’s see what happens to the foreign seller-only supply curve when you add in the tariff:

With the tariff in place, for each quantity level, the price at which the seller will sell is $0.50 higher than before the tariff. That makes sense: if I was previously willing to sell my 82nd apple for $3, I would now need to charge $3.50 for that apple to cover the cost of the tariff. We see this as the tariff “pushing up” or “pushing left” the original supply curve.

We can add this new supply curve to our existing (unchanged) supply curve for domestic-only sellers, and we end up with a result like this:

The total supply curve adds up the individual foreign and domestic supply curves. At each price point, we add up the total quantity each group would be willing to sell to determine the total quantity supplied for each price point. Once we have that cumulative supply curve defined, we can produce an updated supply-and-demand chart including the tariff:

As we can see, the equilibrium has shifted:

• The equilibrium price paid by consumers has risen from $1 to $1.20.
• The total number of apples purchased has dropped from 63 apples to 60 apples.
• Consumers therefore received 3 less apples. They spent $72 for these 60 apples, whereas previously they spent $63 for 3 more apples, a definite decrease in consumer surplus.
• Foreign producers sold 36 of those apples (see the raw data in the linked Google Sheet), for a gross revenue of $43.20. However, they also need to pay the tariff to the US government, which accounts for $18, meaning they only receive $25.20 post-tariff. Previously, they sold 42 apples at $1 each with no tariff to be paid, meaning they took home $42.
• Domestic producers sold the remaining 24 apples at $1.20, giving them a revenue of $28.80. Since they don’t pay the tariff, they take home all of that money. By contrast, previously, they sold 21 apples at $1, for a take-home of $21.
• The government receives $0.50 for each of the 60 apples sold, or in other words receives $30 in revenue it wouldn’t have received otherwise.

We could be more specific about the surpluses, and calculate the actual areas for consumer surplus, producer surplus, inefficiency from the tariff, and government revenue from the tariff. But I won’t bother, as those calculations get slightly more involved. Instead, let’s just look at the aggregate outcomes:

• Consumers were unquestionably hurt. Their price paid went up by $0.20 per apple, and received less apples.
• Foreign producers were also hurt. Their price received went down from the original $1 to the new post-tariff price of $1.20, minus the $0.50 tariff. In other words: foreign producers only receive $0.70 per apple now. This hurt can be mitigated by shifting sales to other countries without a tariff, but the pain will exist regardless.
• Domestic producers scored. They can sell less apples and make more revenue doing it.
• And the government walked away with an extra $30.

Hopefully you now see the answer to the original questions. Importantly, while the government imposed a $0.50 tariff, neither side fully absorbed that cost. Consumers paid a bit more, foreign producers received a bit less. The exact details of how that tariff was split across the groups is mediated by the relevant supply and demand curves of each group. If you want to learn more about this, the relevant search term is “price elasticity,” or how much a group’s quantity supplied or demanded will change based on changes in the price.

Other taxes

Most taxes are some kind of a tax on trade. Tariffs on apples is an obvious one. But the same applies to income tax (taxing the worker for the trade of labor for money) or payroll tax (same thing, just taxing the employer instead). Interestingly, you can use the same model for analyzing things like tax incentives. For example, if the government decided to subsidize domestic apple production by giving the domestic producers a $0.50 bonus for each apple they sell, we would end up with a similar kind of analysis, except instead of the foreign supply curve shifting up, we’d see the domestic supply curve shifting down.

And generally speaking, this is what you’ll always see with government involvement in the economy. It will result in disrupting an existing equilibrium, letting the market readjust to a new equilibrium, and incentivization of some behavior, causing some people to benefit and others to lose out. We saw with the apple tariff, domestic producers and the government benefited while others lost.

You can see the reverse though with tax incentives. If I give a tax incentive of providing a deduction (not paying income tax) for preschool, we would end up with:

• Government needs to make up the difference in tax revenue, either by raising taxes on others or printing more money (leading to inflation). Either way, those paying the tax or those holding government debased currency will pay a price.
• Those people who don’t use the preschool deduction will receive no benefit, so they simply pay a cost.
• Those who do use the preschool deduction will end up paying less on tax+preschool than they would have otherwise.

This analysis is fully amoral. It’s not saying whether providing subsidized preschool is a good thing or not, it simply tells you where the costs will be felt, and points out that such government interference in free economic choice does result in inefficiencies in the system. Once you have that knowledge, you’re more well educated on making a decision about whether the costs of government intervention are worth the benefits.

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

Federal employees must remove pronouns from email signatures by the end of the day. This directive comes from internal memos tied to two executive orders signed by Donald Trump. The orders target diversity and equity programs within the government.

CDC, Department of Transportation, and Department of Energy employees were affected. Staff were instructed to make changes in line with revised policy prohibiting certain language.

One CDC employee shared frustration, stating, “In my decade-plus years at CDC, I've never been told what I can and can't put in my email signature.” The directive is part of a broader effort to eliminate DEI initiatives from federal discourse.

@ 0fa80bd3:ea7325de

"Degeneration" or "Вырождение" ![[photo_2025-01-29 23.23.15.jpeg]]

A once-functional object, now eroded by time and human intervention, stripped of its original purpose. Layers of presence accumulate—marks, alterations, traces of intent—until the very essence is obscured. Restoration is paradoxical: to reclaim, one must erase. Yet erasure is an impossibility, for to remove these imprints is to deny the existence of those who shaped them.

The work stands as a meditation on entropy, memory, and the irreversible dialogue between creation and decay.

@ 0fa80bd3:ea7325de

Lyn Alden - биткойн евангелист или евангелистка, я пока не понял npub1a2cww4kn9wqte4ry70vyfwqyqvpswksna27rtxd8vty6c74era8sdcw83a

Thomas Pacchia - PubKey owner - X - @tpacchia npub1xy6exlg37pw84cpyj05c2pdgv86hr25cxn0g7aa8g8a6v97mhduqeuhgpl

calvadev - Shopstr npub16dhgpql60vmd4mnydjut87vla23a38j689jssaqlqqlzrtqtd0kqex0nkq

Calle - Cashu founder npub12rv5lskctqxxs2c8rf2zlzc7xx3qpvzs3w4etgemauy9thegr43sf485vg

Джек Дорси npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m

21 ideas npub1lm3f47nzyf0rjp6fsl4qlnkmzed4uj4h2gnf2vhe3l3mrj85vqks6z3c7l

Много адресов. Хз кто надо сортировать https://github.com/aitechguy/nostr-address-book

ФиатДжеф - создатель Ностр - https://github.com/fiatjaf npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6

EVAN KALOUDIS Zues wallet npub19kv88vjm7tw6v9qksn2y6h4hdt6e79nh3zjcud36k9n3lmlwsleqwte2qd

Программер Коди https://github.com/CodyTseng/nostr-relay npub1syjmjy0dp62dhccq3g97fr87tngvpvzey08llyt6ul58m2zqpzps9wf6wl

Anna Chekhovich - Managing Bitcoin at The Anti-Corruption Foundation https://x.com/AnyaChekhovich npub1y2st7rp54277hyd2usw6shy3kxprnmpvhkezmldp7vhl7hp920aq9cfyr7

@ 0fa80bd3:ea7325de

![[yedinaya-rossiya-bear.png]]

1️⃣ Be where the bear roams. Stay in its territory, where it hunts for food. No point setting a trap in your backyard if the bear’s chilling in the forest.

2️⃣ Set a well-hidden trap. Bury it, disguise it, and place the bait right in the center. Bears are omnivores—just like secret police KGB agents. And what’s the tastiest bait for them? Money.

3️⃣ Wait for the bear to take the bait. When it reaches in, the trap will snap shut around its paw. It’ll be alive, but stuck. No escape.

Now, what you do with a trapped bear is another question... 😏

@ 0fa80bd3:ea7325de

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is where Nostr comes in.

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

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

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

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued new guidance halting spending on most foreign aid grants for 90 days, including military assistance to Ukraine. This immediate order shocked State Department officials and mandates “stop-work orders” on nearly all existing foreign assistance awards.

While it allows exceptions for military financing to Egypt and Israel, as well as emergency food assistance, it restricts aid to key allies like Ukraine, Jordan, and Taiwan. The guidance raises potential liability risks for the government due to unfulfilled contracts.

A report will be prepared within 85 days to recommend which programs to continue or discontinue.

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

President Trump plans to withdraw 20,000 U.S. troops from Europe and expects European allies to contribute financially to the remaining military presence. Reported by ANSA, Trump aims to deliver this message to European leaders since taking office. A European diplomat noted, “the costs cannot be borne solely by American taxpayers.”

The Pentagon hasn't commented yet. Trump has previously sought lower troop levels in Europe and had ordered cuts during his first term. The U.S. currently maintains around 65,000 troops in Europe, with total forces reaching 100,000 since the Ukraine invasion. Trump's new approach may shift military focus to the Pacific amid growing concerns about China.

Sauce

@ 6be5cc06:5259daf0

A seguir, veja como instalar e configurar o Privoxy no Pop!_OS.

---

1. Instalar o Tor e o Privoxy

Abra o terminal e execute:

bash sudo apt update sudo apt install tor privoxy

Explicação:

• Tor: Roteia o tráfego pela rede Tor.
• Privoxy: Proxy avançado que intermedia a conexão entre aplicativos e o Tor.

---

2. Configurar o Privoxy

Abra o arquivo de configuração do Privoxy:

bash sudo nano /etc/privoxy/config

Navegue até a última linha (atalho: Ctrl + / depois Ctrl + V para navegar diretamente até a última linha) e insira:

bash forward-socks5 / 127.0.0.1:9050 .

Isso faz com que o Privoxy envie todo o tráfego para o Tor através da porta 9050.

Salve (CTRL + O e Enter) e feche (CTRL + X) o arquivo.

---

3. Iniciar o Tor e o Privoxy

Agora, inicie e habilite os serviços:

bash sudo systemctl start tor sudo systemctl start privoxy sudo systemctl enable tor sudo systemctl enable privoxy

Explicação:

• start: Inicia os serviços.
• enable: Faz com que iniciem automaticamente ao ligar o PC.

---

4. Configurar o Navegador Firefox

Para usar a rede Tor com o Firefox:

1. Abra o Firefox.
2. Acesse Configurações → Configurar conexão.
3. Selecione Configuração manual de proxy.
4. Configure assim:
   • Proxy HTTP: 127.0.0.1
   • Porta: 8118 (porta padrão do Privoxy)
   • Domínio SOCKS (v5): 127.0.0.1
   • Porta: 9050
5. Marque a opção "Usar este proxy também em HTTPS".
6. Clique em OK.

---

5. Verificar a Conexão com o Tor

Abra o navegador e acesse:

text https://check.torproject.org/

Se aparecer a mensagem "Congratulations. This browser is configured to use Tor.", a configuração está correta.

---

Dicas Extras

• Privoxy pode ser ajustado para bloquear anúncios e rastreadores.
• Outros aplicativos também podem ser configurados para usar o Privoxy.

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

Oregano oil is a potent natural compound that offers numerous scientifically-supported health benefits.

Active Compounds

The oil's therapeutic properties stem from its key bioactive components: - Carvacrol and thymol (primary active compounds) - Polyphenols and other antioxidant

Antimicrobial Properties

Bacterial Protection The oil demonstrates powerful antibacterial effects, even against antibiotic-resistant strains like MRSA and other harmful bacteria. Studies show it effectively inactivates various pathogenic bacteria without developing resistance.

Antifungal Effects It effectively combats fungal infections, particularly Candida-related conditions like oral thrush, athlete's foot, and nail infections.

Digestive Health Benefits

Oregano oil supports digestive wellness by: - Promoting gastric juice secretion and enzyme production - Helping treat Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth (SIBO) - Managing digestive discomfort, bloating, and IBS symptoms

Anti-inflammatory and Antioxidant Effects

The oil provides significant protective benefits through: - Powerful antioxidant activity that fights free radicals - Reduction of inflammatory markers in the body - Protection against oxidative stress-related conditions

Respiratory Support

It aids respiratory health by: - Loosening mucus and phlegm - Suppressing coughs and throat irritation - Supporting overall respiratory tract function

Additional Benefits

Skin Health - Improves conditions like psoriasis, acne, and eczema - Supports wound healing through antibacterial action - Provides anti-aging benefits through antioxidant properties

Cardiovascular Health Studies show oregano oil may help: - Reduce LDL (bad) cholesterol levels - Support overall heart health

Pain Management The oil demonstrates effectiveness in: - Reducing inflammation-related pain - Managing muscle discomfort - Providing topical pain relief

Safety Note

While oregano oil is generally safe, it's highly concentrated and should be properly diluted before use Consult a healthcare provider before starting supplementation, especially if taking other medications.

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

The past 26 August, Tor introduced officially a proof-of-work (PoW) defense for onion services designed to prioritize verified network traffic as a deterrent against denial of service (DoS) attacks.

~ > This feature at the moment, is deactivate by default, so you need to follow these steps to activate this on a MiniBolt node:

• Make sure you have the latest version of Tor installed, at the time of writing this post, which is v0.4.8.6. Check your current version by typing

tor --version

Example of expected output:

Tor version 0.4.8.6. This build of Tor is covered by the GNU General Public License (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html) Tor is running on Linux with Libevent 2.1.12-stable, OpenSSL 3.0.9, Zlib 1.2.13, Liblzma 5.4.1, Libzstd N/A and Glibc 2.36 as libc. Tor compiled with GCC version 12.2.0

~ > If you have v0.4.8.X, you are OK, if not, type sudo apt update && sudo apt upgrade and confirm to update.

• Basic PoW support can be checked by running this command:

tor --list-modules

Expected output:

relay: yes dirauth: yes dircache: yes pow: **yes**

~ > If you have pow: yes, you are OK

• Now go to the torrc file of your MiniBolt and add the parameter to enable PoW for each hidden service added

sudo nano /etc/tor/torrc

Example:

```

Hidden Service BTC RPC Explorer

HiddenServiceDir /var/lib/tor/hidden_service_btcrpcexplorer/ HiddenServiceVersion 3 HiddenServicePoWDefensesEnabled 1 HiddenServicePort 80 127.0.0.1:3002 ```

~ > Bitcoin Core and LND use the Tor control port to automatically create the hidden service, requiring no action from the user. We have submitted a feature request in the official GitHub repositories to explore the need for the integration of Tor's PoW defense into the automatic creation process of the hidden service. You can follow them at the following links:

• Bitcoin Core: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/issues/8002
• LND: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28499

---

More info:

• https://blog.torproject.org/introducing-proof-of-work-defense-for-onion-services/
• https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/onion-services/onion-support/-/wikis/Documentation/PoW-FAQ

---

Enjoy it MiniBolter! 💙

@ 6be5cc06:5259daf0

Bitcoin: Um sistema de dinheiro eletrônico direto entre pessoas.

Satoshi Nakamoto
satoshin@gmx.com
www.bitcoin.org

---

Resumo

O Bitcoin é uma forma de dinheiro digital que permite pagamentos diretos entre pessoas, sem a necessidade de um banco ou instituição financeira. Ele resolve um problema chamado gasto duplo, que ocorre quando alguém tenta gastar o mesmo dinheiro duas vezes. Para evitar isso, o Bitcoin usa uma rede descentralizada onde todos trabalham juntos para verificar e registrar as transações.

As transações são registradas em um livro público chamado blockchain, protegido por uma técnica chamada Prova de Trabalho. Essa técnica cria uma cadeia de registros que não pode ser alterada sem refazer todo o trabalho já feito. Essa cadeia é mantida pelos computadores que participam da rede, e a mais longa é considerada a verdadeira.

Enquanto a maior parte do poder computacional da rede for controlada por participantes honestos, o sistema continuará funcionando de forma segura. A rede é flexível, permitindo que qualquer pessoa entre ou saia a qualquer momento, sempre confiando na cadeia mais longa como prova do que aconteceu.

---

1. Introdução

Hoje, quase todos os pagamentos feitos pela internet dependem de bancos ou empresas como processadores de pagamento (cartões de crédito, por exemplo) para funcionar. Embora esse sistema seja útil, ele tem problemas importantes porque é baseado em confiança.

Primeiro, essas empresas podem reverter pagamentos, o que é útil em caso de erros, mas cria custos e incertezas. Isso faz com que pequenas transações, como pagar centavos por um serviço, se tornem inviáveis. Além disso, os comerciantes são obrigados a desconfiar dos clientes, pedindo informações extras e aceitando fraudes como algo inevitável.

Esses problemas não existem no dinheiro físico, como o papel-moeda, onde o pagamento é final e direto entre as partes. No entanto, não temos como enviar dinheiro físico pela internet sem depender de um intermediário confiável.

O que precisamos é de um sistema de pagamento eletrônico baseado em provas matemáticas, não em confiança. Esse sistema permitiria que qualquer pessoa enviasse dinheiro diretamente para outra, sem depender de bancos ou processadores de pagamento. Além disso, as transações seriam irreversíveis, protegendo vendedores contra fraudes, mas mantendo a possibilidade de soluções para disputas legítimas.

Neste documento, apresentamos o Bitcoin, que resolve o problema do gasto duplo usando uma rede descentralizada. Essa rede cria um registro público e protegido por cálculos matemáticos, que garante a ordem das transações. Enquanto a maior parte da rede for controlada por pessoas honestas, o sistema será seguro contra ataques.

---

2. Transações

Para entender como funciona o Bitcoin, é importante saber como as transações são realizadas. Imagine que você quer transferir uma "moeda digital" para outra pessoa. No sistema do Bitcoin, essa "moeda" é representada por uma sequência de registros que mostram quem é o atual dono. Para transferi-la, você adiciona um novo registro comprovando que agora ela pertence ao próximo dono. Esse registro é protegido por um tipo especial de assinatura digital.

O que é uma assinatura digital?

Uma assinatura digital é como uma senha secreta, mas muito mais segura. No Bitcoin, cada usuário tem duas chaves: uma "chave privada", que é secreta e serve para criar a assinatura, e uma "chave pública", que pode ser compartilhada com todos e é usada para verificar se a assinatura é válida. Quando você transfere uma moeda, usa sua chave privada para assinar a transação, provando que você é o dono. A próxima pessoa pode usar sua chave pública para confirmar isso.

Como funciona na prática?

Cada "moeda" no Bitcoin é, na verdade, uma cadeia de assinaturas digitais. Vamos imaginar o seguinte cenário:

1. A moeda está com o Dono 0 (você). Para transferi-la ao Dono 1, você assina digitalmente a transação com sua chave privada. Essa assinatura inclui o código da transação anterior (chamado de "hash") e a chave pública do Dono 1.
2. Quando o Dono 1 quiser transferir a moeda ao Dono 2, ele assinará a transação seguinte com sua própria chave privada, incluindo também o hash da transação anterior e a chave pública do Dono 2.
3. Esse processo continua, formando uma "cadeia" de transações. Qualquer pessoa pode verificar essa cadeia para confirmar quem é o atual dono da moeda.

Resolvendo o problema do gasto duplo

Um grande desafio com moedas digitais é o "gasto duplo", que é quando uma mesma moeda é usada em mais de uma transação. Para evitar isso, muitos sistemas antigos dependiam de uma entidade central confiável, como uma casa da moeda, que verificava todas as transações. No entanto, isso criava um ponto único de falha e centralizava o controle do dinheiro.

O Bitcoin resolve esse problema de forma inovadora: ele usa uma rede descentralizada onde todos os participantes (os "nós") têm acesso a um registro completo de todas as transações. Cada nó verifica se as transações são válidas e se a moeda não foi gasta duas vezes. Quando a maioria dos nós concorda com a validade de uma transação, ela é registrada permanentemente na blockchain.

Por que isso é importante?

Essa solução elimina a necessidade de confiar em uma única entidade para gerenciar o dinheiro, permitindo que qualquer pessoa no mundo use o Bitcoin sem precisar de permissão de terceiros. Além disso, ela garante que o sistema seja seguro e resistente a fraudes.

---

3. Servidor Timestamp

Para assegurar que as transações sejam realizadas de forma segura e transparente, o sistema Bitcoin utiliza algo chamado de "servidor de registro de tempo" (timestamp). Esse servidor funciona como um registro público que organiza as transações em uma ordem específica.

Ele faz isso agrupando várias transações em blocos e criando um código único chamado "hash". Esse hash é como uma impressão digital que representa todo o conteúdo do bloco. O hash de cada bloco é amplamente divulgado, como se fosse publicado em um jornal ou em um fórum público.

Esse processo garante que cada bloco de transações tenha um registro de quando foi criado e que ele existia naquele momento. Além disso, cada novo bloco criado contém o hash do bloco anterior, formando uma cadeia contínua de blocos conectados — conhecida como blockchain.

Com isso, se alguém tentar alterar qualquer informação em um bloco anterior, o hash desse bloco mudará e não corresponderá ao hash armazenado no bloco seguinte. Essa característica torna a cadeia muito segura, pois qualquer tentativa de fraude seria imediatamente detectada.

O sistema de timestamps é essencial para provar a ordem cronológica das transações e garantir que cada uma delas seja única e autêntica. Dessa forma, ele reforça a segurança e a confiança na rede Bitcoin.

---

4. Prova-de-Trabalho

Para implementar o registro de tempo distribuído no sistema Bitcoin, utilizamos um mecanismo chamado prova-de-trabalho. Esse sistema é semelhante ao Hashcash, desenvolvido por Adam Back, e baseia-se na criação de um código único, o "hash", por meio de um processo computacionalmente exigente.

A prova-de-trabalho envolve encontrar um valor especial que, quando processado junto com as informações do bloco, gere um hash que comece com uma quantidade específica de zeros. Esse valor especial é chamado de "nonce". Encontrar o nonce correto exige um esforço significativo do computador, porque envolve tentativas repetidas até que a condição seja satisfeita.

Esse processo é importante porque torna extremamente difícil alterar qualquer informação registrada em um bloco. Se alguém tentar mudar algo em um bloco, seria necessário refazer o trabalho de computação não apenas para aquele bloco, mas também para todos os blocos que vêm depois dele. Isso garante a segurança e a imutabilidade da blockchain.

A prova-de-trabalho também resolve o problema de decidir qual cadeia de blocos é a válida quando há múltiplas cadeias competindo. A decisão é feita pela cadeia mais longa, pois ela representa o maior esforço computacional já realizado. Isso impede que qualquer indivíduo ou grupo controle a rede, desde que a maioria do poder de processamento seja mantida por participantes honestos.

Para garantir que o sistema permaneça eficiente e equilibrado, a dificuldade da prova-de-trabalho é ajustada automaticamente ao longo do tempo. Se novos blocos estiverem sendo gerados rapidamente, a dificuldade aumenta; se estiverem sendo gerados muito lentamente, a dificuldade diminui. Esse ajuste assegura que novos blocos sejam criados aproximadamente a cada 10 minutos, mantendo o sistema estável e funcional.

---

5. Rede

A rede Bitcoin é o coração do sistema e funciona de maneira distribuída, conectando vários participantes (ou nós) para garantir o registro e a validação das transações. Os passos para operar essa rede são:

1. Transmissão de Transações: Quando alguém realiza uma nova transação, ela é enviada para todos os nós da rede. Isso é feito para garantir que todos estejam cientes da operação e possam validá-la.

2. Coleta de Transações em Blocos: Cada nó agrupa as novas transações recebidas em um "bloco". Este bloco será preparado para ser adicionado à cadeia de blocos (a blockchain).

3. Prova-de-Trabalho: Os nós competem para resolver a prova-de-trabalho do bloco, utilizando poder computacional para encontrar um hash válido. Esse processo é como resolver um quebra-cabeça matemático difícil.

4. Envio do Bloco Resolvido: Quando um nó encontra a solução para o bloco (a prova-de-trabalho), ele compartilha esse bloco com todos os outros nós na rede.

5. Validação do Bloco: Cada nó verifica o bloco recebido para garantir que todas as transações nele contidas sejam válidas e que nenhuma moeda tenha sido gasta duas vezes. Apenas blocos válidos são aceitos.

6. Construção do Próximo Bloco: Os nós que aceitaram o bloco começam a trabalhar na criação do próximo bloco, utilizando o hash do bloco aceito como base (hash anterior). Isso mantém a continuidade da cadeia.

Resolução de Conflitos e Escolha da Cadeia Mais Longa

Os nós sempre priorizam a cadeia mais longa, pois ela representa o maior esforço computacional já realizado, garantindo maior segurança. Se dois blocos diferentes forem compartilhados simultaneamente, os nós trabalharão no primeiro bloco recebido, mas guardarão o outro como uma alternativa. Caso o segundo bloco eventualmente forme uma cadeia mais longa (ou seja, tenha mais blocos subsequentes), os nós mudarão para essa nova cadeia.

Tolerância a Falhas

A rede é robusta e pode lidar com mensagens que não chegam a todos os nós. Uma transação não precisa alcançar todos os nós de imediato; basta que chegue a um número suficiente deles para ser incluída em um bloco. Da mesma forma, se um nó não receber um bloco em tempo hábil, ele pode solicitá-lo ao perceber que está faltando quando o próximo bloco é recebido.

Esse mecanismo descentralizado permite que a rede Bitcoin funcione de maneira segura, confiável e resiliente, sem depender de uma autoridade central.

---

6. Incentivo

O incentivo é um dos pilares fundamentais que sustenta o funcionamento da rede Bitcoin, garantindo que os participantes (nós) continuem operando de forma honesta e contribuindo com recursos computacionais. Ele é estruturado em duas partes principais: a recompensa por mineração e as taxas de transação.

Recompensa por Mineração

Por convenção, o primeiro registro em cada bloco é uma transação especial que cria novas moedas e as atribui ao criador do bloco. Essa recompensa incentiva os mineradores a dedicarem poder computacional para apoiar a rede. Como não há uma autoridade central para emitir moedas, essa é a maneira pela qual novas moedas entram em circulação. Esse processo pode ser comparado ao trabalho de garimpeiros, que utilizam recursos para colocar mais ouro em circulação. No caso do Bitcoin, o "recurso" consiste no tempo de CPU e na energia elétrica consumida para resolver a prova-de-trabalho.

Taxas de Transação

Além da recompensa por mineração, os mineradores também podem ser incentivados pelas taxas de transação. Se uma transação utiliza menos valor de saída do que o valor de entrada, a diferença é tratada como uma taxa, que é adicionada à recompensa do bloco contendo essa transação. Com o passar do tempo e à medida que o número de moedas em circulação atinge o limite predeterminado, essas taxas de transação se tornam a principal fonte de incentivo, substituindo gradualmente a emissão de novas moedas. Isso permite que o sistema opere sem inflação, uma vez que o número total de moedas permanece fixo.

Incentivo à Honestidade

O design do incentivo também busca garantir que os participantes da rede mantenham um comportamento honesto. Para um atacante que consiga reunir mais poder computacional do que o restante da rede, ele enfrentaria duas escolhas:

1. Usar esse poder para fraudar o sistema, como reverter transações e roubar pagamentos.
2. Seguir as regras do sistema, criando novos blocos e recebendo recompensas legítimas.

A lógica econômica favorece a segunda opção, pois um comportamento desonesto prejudicaria a confiança no sistema, diminuindo o valor de todas as moedas, incluindo aquelas que o próprio atacante possui. Jogar dentro das regras não apenas maximiza o retorno financeiro, mas também preserva a validade e a integridade do sistema.

Esse mecanismo garante que os incentivos econômicos estejam alinhados com o objetivo de manter a rede segura, descentralizada e funcional ao longo do tempo.

---

7. Recuperação do Espaço em Disco

Depois que uma moeda passa a estar protegida por muitos blocos na cadeia, as informações sobre as transações antigas que a geraram podem ser descartadas para economizar espaço em disco. Para que isso seja possível sem comprometer a segurança, as transações são organizadas em uma estrutura chamada "árvore de Merkle". Essa árvore funciona como um resumo das transações: em vez de armazenar todas elas, guarda apenas um "hash raiz", que é como uma assinatura compacta que representa todo o grupo de transações.

Os blocos antigos podem, então, ser simplificados, removendo as partes desnecessárias dessa árvore. Apenas a raiz do hash precisa ser mantida no cabeçalho do bloco, garantindo que a integridade dos dados seja preservada, mesmo que detalhes específicos sejam descartados.

Para exemplificar: imagine que você tenha vários recibos de compra. Em vez de guardar todos os recibos, você cria um documento e lista apenas o valor total de cada um. Mesmo que os recibos originais sejam descartados, ainda é possível verificar a soma com base nos valores armazenados.

Além disso, o espaço ocupado pelos blocos em si é muito pequeno. Cada bloco sem transações ocupa apenas cerca de 80 bytes. Isso significa que, mesmo com blocos sendo gerados a cada 10 minutos, o crescimento anual em espaço necessário é insignificante: apenas 4,2 MB por ano. Com a capacidade de armazenamento dos computadores crescendo a cada ano, esse espaço continuará sendo trivial, garantindo que a rede possa operar de forma eficiente sem problemas de armazenamento, mesmo a longo prazo.

---

8. Verificação de Pagamento Simplificada

É possível confirmar pagamentos sem a necessidade de operar um nó completo da rede. Para isso, o usuário precisa apenas de uma cópia dos cabeçalhos dos blocos da cadeia mais longa (ou seja, a cadeia com maior esforço de trabalho acumulado). Ele pode verificar a validade de uma transação ao consultar os nós da rede até obter a confirmação de que tem a cadeia mais longa. Para isso, utiliza-se o ramo Merkle, que conecta a transação ao bloco em que ela foi registrada.

Entretanto, o método simplificado possui limitações: ele não pode confirmar uma transação isoladamente, mas sim assegurar que ela ocupa um lugar específico na cadeia mais longa. Dessa forma, se um nó da rede aprova a transação, os blocos subsequentes reforçam essa aceitação.

A verificação simplificada é confiável enquanto a maioria dos nós da rede for honesta. Contudo, ela se torna vulnerável caso a rede seja dominada por um invasor. Nesse cenário, um atacante poderia fabricar transações fraudulentas que enganariam o usuário temporariamente até que o invasor obtivesse controle completo da rede.

Uma estratégia para mitigar esse risco é configurar alertas nos softwares de nós completos. Esses alertas identificam blocos inválidos, sugerindo ao usuário baixar o bloco completo para confirmar qualquer inconsistência. Para maior segurança, empresas que realizam pagamentos frequentes podem preferir operar seus próprios nós, reduzindo riscos e permitindo uma verificação mais direta e confiável.

---

9. Combinando e Dividindo Valor

No sistema Bitcoin, cada unidade de valor é tratada como uma "moeda" individual, mas gerenciar cada centavo como uma transação separada seria impraticável. Para resolver isso, o Bitcoin permite que valores sejam combinados ou divididos em transações, facilitando pagamentos de qualquer valor.

Entradas e Saídas

Cada transação no Bitcoin é composta por:

• Entradas: Representam os valores recebidos em transações anteriores.
• Saídas: Correspondem aos valores enviados, divididos entre os destinatários e, eventualmente, o troco para o remetente.

Normalmente, uma transação contém:

• Uma única entrada com valor suficiente para cobrir o pagamento.
• Ou várias entradas combinadas para atingir o valor necessário.

O valor total das saídas nunca excede o das entradas, e a diferença (se houver) pode ser retornada ao remetente como troco.

Exemplo Prático

Imagine que você tem duas entradas:

1. 0,03 BTC
2. 0,07 BTC

Se deseja enviar 0,08 BTC para alguém, a transação terá:

• Entrada: As duas entradas combinadas (0,03 + 0,07 BTC = 0,10 BTC).
• Saídas: Uma para o destinatário (0,08 BTC) e outra como troco para você (0,02 BTC).

Essa flexibilidade permite que o sistema funcione sem precisar manipular cada unidade mínima individualmente.

Difusão e Simplificação

A difusão de transações, onde uma depende de várias anteriores e assim por diante, não representa um problema. Não é necessário armazenar ou verificar o histórico completo de uma transação para utilizá-la, já que o registro na blockchain garante sua integridade.

---

10. Privacidade

O modelo bancário tradicional oferece um certo nível de privacidade, limitando o acesso às informações financeiras apenas às partes envolvidas e a um terceiro confiável (como bancos ou instituições financeiras). No entanto, o Bitcoin opera de forma diferente, pois todas as transações são publicamente registradas na blockchain. Apesar disso, a privacidade pode ser mantida utilizando chaves públicas anônimas, que desvinculam diretamente as transações das identidades das partes envolvidas.

Fluxo de Informação

• No modelo tradicional, as transações passam por um terceiro confiável que conhece tanto o remetente quanto o destinatário.
• No Bitcoin, as transações são anunciadas publicamente, mas sem revelar diretamente as identidades das partes. Isso é comparável a dados divulgados por bolsas de valores, onde informações como o tempo e o tamanho das negociações (a "fita") são públicas, mas as identidades das partes não.

Protegendo a Privacidade

Para aumentar a privacidade no Bitcoin, são adotadas as seguintes práticas:

1. Chaves Públicas Anônimas: Cada transação utiliza um par de chaves diferentes, dificultando a associação com um proprietário único.
2. Prevenção de Ligação: Ao usar chaves novas para cada transação, reduz-se a possibilidade de links evidentes entre múltiplas transações realizadas pelo mesmo usuário.

Riscos de Ligação

Embora a privacidade seja fortalecida, alguns riscos permanecem:

• Transações multi-entrada podem revelar que todas as entradas pertencem ao mesmo proprietário, caso sejam necessárias para somar o valor total.
• O proprietário da chave pode ser identificado indiretamente por transações anteriores que estejam conectadas.

---

11. Cálculos

Imagine que temos um sistema onde as pessoas (ou computadores) competem para adicionar informações novas (blocos) a um grande registro público (a cadeia de blocos ou blockchain). Este registro é como um livro contábil compartilhado, onde todos podem verificar o que está escrito.

Agora, vamos pensar em um cenário: um atacante quer enganar o sistema. Ele quer mudar informações já registradas para beneficiar a si mesmo, por exemplo, desfazendo um pagamento que já fez. Para isso, ele precisa criar uma versão alternativa do livro contábil (a cadeia de blocos dele) e convencer todos os outros participantes de que essa versão é a verdadeira.

Mas isso é extremamente difícil.

Como o Ataque Funciona

Quando um novo bloco é adicionado à cadeia, ele depende de cálculos complexos que levam tempo e esforço. Esses cálculos são como um grande quebra-cabeça que precisa ser resolvido.

• Os “bons jogadores” (nós honestos) estão sempre trabalhando juntos para resolver esses quebra-cabeças e adicionar novos blocos à cadeia verdadeira.
• O atacante, por outro lado, precisa resolver quebra-cabeças sozinho, tentando “alcançar” a cadeia honesta para que sua versão alternativa pareça válida.

Se a cadeia honesta já está vários blocos à frente, o atacante começa em desvantagem, e o sistema está projetado para que a dificuldade de alcançá-los aumente rapidamente.

A Corrida Entre Cadeias

Você pode imaginar isso como uma corrida. A cada bloco novo que os jogadores honestos adicionam à cadeia verdadeira, eles se distanciam mais do atacante. Para vencer, o atacante teria que resolver os quebra-cabeças mais rápido que todos os outros jogadores honestos juntos.

Suponha que:

• A rede honesta tem 80% do poder computacional (ou seja, resolve 8 de cada 10 quebra-cabeças).
• O atacante tem 20% do poder computacional (ou seja, resolve 2 de cada 10 quebra-cabeças).

Cada vez que a rede honesta adiciona um bloco, o atacante tem que "correr atrás" e resolver mais quebra-cabeças para alcançar.

Por Que o Ataque Fica Cada Vez Mais Improvável?

Vamos usar uma fórmula simples para mostrar como as chances de sucesso do atacante diminuem conforme ele precisa "alcançar" mais blocos:

P = (q/p)^z

• q é o poder computacional do atacante (20%, ou 0,2).
• p é o poder computacional da rede honesta (80%, ou 0,8).
• z é a diferença de blocos entre a cadeia honesta e a cadeia do atacante.

Se o atacante está 5 blocos atrás (z = 5):

P = (0,2 / 0,8)^5 = (0,25)^5 = 0,00098, (ou, 0,098%)

Isso significa que o atacante tem menos de 0,1% de chance de sucesso — ou seja, é muito improvável.

Se ele estiver 10 blocos atrás (z = 10):

P = (0,2 / 0,8)^10 = (0,25)^10 = 0,000000095, (ou, 0,0000095%).

Neste caso, as chances de sucesso são praticamente nulas.

Um Exemplo Simples

Se você jogar uma moeda, a chance de cair “cara” é de 50%. Mas se precisar de 10 caras seguidas, sua chance já é bem menor. Se precisar de 20 caras seguidas, é quase impossível.

No caso do Bitcoin, o atacante precisa de muito mais do que 20 caras seguidas. Ele precisa resolver quebra-cabeças extremamente difíceis e alcançar os jogadores honestos que estão sempre à frente. Isso faz com que o ataque seja inviável na prática.

Por Que Tudo Isso é Seguro?

• A probabilidade de sucesso do atacante diminui exponencialmente. Isso significa que, quanto mais tempo passa, menor é a chance de ele conseguir enganar o sistema.
• A cadeia verdadeira (honesta) está protegida pela força da rede. Cada novo bloco que os jogadores honestos adicionam à cadeia torna mais difícil para o atacante alcançar.

E Se o Atacante Tentar Continuar?

O atacante poderia continuar tentando indefinidamente, mas ele estaria gastando muito tempo e energia sem conseguir nada. Enquanto isso, os jogadores honestos estão sempre adicionando novos blocos, tornando o trabalho do atacante ainda mais inútil.

Assim, o sistema garante que a cadeia verdadeira seja extremamente segura e que ataques sejam, na prática, impossíveis de ter sucesso.

---

12. Conclusão

Propusemos um sistema de transações eletrônicas que elimina a necessidade de confiança, baseando-se em assinaturas digitais e em uma rede peer-to-peer que utiliza prova de trabalho. Isso resolve o problema do gasto duplo, criando um histórico público de transações imutável, desde que a maioria do poder computacional permaneça sob controle dos participantes honestos. A rede funciona de forma simples e descentralizada, com nós independentes que não precisam de identificação ou coordenação direta. Eles entram e saem livremente, aceitando a cadeia de prova de trabalho como registro do que ocorreu durante sua ausência. As decisões são tomadas por meio do poder de CPU, validando blocos legítimos, estendendo a cadeia e rejeitando os inválidos. Com este mecanismo de consenso, todas as regras e incentivos necessários para o funcionamento seguro e eficiente do sistema são garantidos.

---

Faça o download do whitepaper original em português: https://bitcoin.org/files/bitcoin-paper/bitcoin_pt_br.pdf

@ 3f770d65:7a745b24

The recent shutdown of TikTok in the United States due to a potential government ban serves as a stark reminder how fragile centralized platforms truly are under the surface. While these platforms offer convenience, a more polished user experience, and connectivity, they are ultimately beholden to governments, corporations, and other authorities. This makes them vulnerable to censorship, regulation, and outright bans. In contrast, Nostr represents a shift in how we approach online communication and content sharing. Built on the principles of decentralization and user choice, Nostr cannot be banned, because it is not a platform—it is a protocol.

PROTOCOLS, NOT PLATFORMS.

At the heart of Nostr's philosophy is user choice, a feature that fundamentally sets it apart from legacy platforms. In centralized systems, the user experience is dictated by a single person or governing entity. If the platform decides to filter, censor, or ban specific users or content, individuals are left with little action to rectify the situation. They must either accept the changes or abandon the platform entirely, often at the cost of losing their social connections, their data, and their identity.

What's happening with TikTok could never happen on Nostr. With Nostr, the dynamics are completely different. Because it is a protocol, not a platform, no single entity controls the ecosystem. Instead, the protocol enables a network of applications and relays that users can freely choose from. If a particular application or relay implements policies that a user disagrees with, such as censorship, filtering, or even government enforced banning, they are not trapped or abandoned. They have the freedom to move to another application or relay with minimal effort.

THIS IS POWERFUL.

Take, for example, the case of a relay that decides to censor specific content. On a legacy platform, this would result in frustration and a loss of access for users. On Nostr, however, users can simply connect to a different relay that does not impose such restrictions. Similarly, if an application introduces features or policies that users dislike, they can migrate to a different application that better suits their preferences, all while retaining their identity and social connections.

The same principles apply to government bans and censorship. A government can ban a specific application or even multiple applications, just as it can block one relay or several relays. China has implemented both tactics, yet Chinese users continue to exist and actively participate on Nostr, demonstrating Nostr's ability to resistant censorship.

How? Simply, it turns into a game of whack-a-mole. When one relay is censored, another quickly takes its place. When one application is banned, another emerges. Users can also bypass these obstacles by running their own relays and applications directly from their homes or personal devices, eliminating reliance on larger entities or organizations and ensuring continuous access.

AGAIN, THIS IS POWERUFL.

Nostr's open and decentralized design makes it resistant to the kinds of government intervention that led to TikTok's outages this weekend and potential future ban in the next 90 days. There is no central server to target, no company to regulate, and no single point of failure. (Insert your CEO jokes here). As long as there are individuals running relays and applications, users continue creating notes and sending zaps.

Platforms like TikTok can be silenced with the stroke of a pen, leaving millions of users disconnected and abandoned. Social communication should not be silenced so incredibly easily. No one should have that much power over social interactions.

Will we on-board a massive wave of TikTokers in the coming hours or days? I don't know.

TikTokers may not be ready for Nostr yet, and honestly, Nostr may not be ready for them either. The ecosystem still lacks the completely polished applications, tools, and services they’re accustomed to. This is where we say "we're still early". They may not be early adopters like the current Nostr user base. Until we bridge that gap, they’ll likely move to the next centralized platform, only to face another government ban or round of censorship in the future. But eventually, there will come a tipping point, a moment when they’ve had enough. When that time comes, I hope we’re prepared. If we’re not, we risk missing a tremendous opportunity to onboard people who genuinely need Nostr’s freedom.

Until then, to all of the Nostr developers out there, keep up the great work and keep building. Your hard work and determination is needed.

@ cff1720e:15c7e2b2

Einleitung\ \ Schwierige Dinge einfach zu erklären ist der Anspruch von ELI5 (explain me like I'm 5). Das ist in unserer hoch technisierten Welt dringend erforderlich, denn nur mit dem Verständnis der Technologien können wir sie richtig einsetzen und weiter entwickeln.\ Ich starte meine Serie mit Nostr, einem relativ neuen Internet-Protokoll. Was zum Teufel ist ein Internet-Protokoll? Formal beschrieben sind es internationale Standards, die dafür sorgen, dass das Internet seit über 30 Jahren ziemlich gut funktioniert. Es ist die Sprache, in der sich die Rechner miteinander unterhalten und die auch Sie täglich nutzen, vermutlich ohne es bewusst wahrzunehmen. http(s) transportiert ihre Anfrage an einen Server (z.B. Amazon), und html sorgt dafür, dass aus den gelieferten Daten eine schöne Seite auf ihrem Bildschirm entsteht. Eine Mail wird mit smtp an den Mailserver gesendet und mit imap von ihm abgerufen, und da alle den Standard verwenden, funktioniert das mit jeder App auf jedem Betriebssystem und mit jedem Mail-Provider. Und mit einer Mail-Adresse wie roland@pareto.space können sie sogar jederzeit umziehen, egal wohin. Cool, das ist state of the art! Aber warum funktioniert das z.B. bei Chat nicht, gibt es da kein Protokoll? Doch, es heißt IRC (Internet Relay Chat → merken sie sich den Namen), aber es wird so gut wie nicht verwendet. Die Gründe dafür sind nicht technischer Natur, vielmehr wurden mit Apps wie Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram, TikTok u.a. bewusst Inkompatibilitäten und Nutzerabhängigkeiten geschaffen um Profite zu maximieren.

Warum Nostr?

Da das Standard-Protokoll nicht genutzt wird, hat jede App ihr eigenes, und wir brauchen eine handvoll Apps um uns mit allen Bekannten auszutauschen. Eine Mobilfunknummer ist Voraussetzung für jedes Konto, damit können die App-Hersteller die Nutzer umfassend tracken und mit dem Verkauf der Informationen bis zu 30 USD je Konto und Monat verdienen. Der Nutzer ist nicht mehr Kunde, er ist das Produkt! Der Werbe-SPAM ist noch das kleinste Problem bei diesem Geschäftsmodell. Server mit Millionen von Nutzerdaten sind ein “honey pot”, dementsprechend oft werden sie gehackt und die Zugangsdaten verkauft. 2024 wurde auch der Twitter-Account vom damaligen Präsidenten Joe Biden gehackt, niemand wusste mehr wer die Nachrichten verfasst hat (vorher auch nicht), d.h. die Authentizität der Inhalte ist bei keinem dieser Anbieter gewährleistet. Im selben Jahr wurde der Telegram-Gründer in Frankreich in Beugehaft genommen, weil er sich geweigert hatte Hintertüren in seine Software einzubauen. Nun kann zum Schutz "unserer Demokratie” praktisch jeder mitlesen, was sie mit wem an Informationen austauschen, z.B. darüber welches Shampoo bestimmte Politiker verwenden. 

Und wer tatsächlich glaubt er könne Meinungsfreiheit auf sozialen Medien praktizieren, findet sich schnell in der Situation von Donald Trump wieder (seinerzeit amtierender Präsident), dem sein Twitter-Konto 2021 abgeschaltet wurde (Cancel-Culture). Die Nutzerdaten, also ihr Profil, ihre Kontakte, Dokumente, Bilder, Videos und Audiofiles - gehören ihnen ohnehin nicht mehr sondern sind Eigentum des Plattform-Betreibers; lesen sie sich mal die AGB's durch. Aber nein, keine gute Idee, das sind hunderte Seiten und sie werden permanent geändert. Alle nutzen also Apps, deren Technik sie nicht verstehen, deren Regeln sie nicht kennen, wo sie keine Rechte haben und die ihnen die Resultate ihres Handelns stehlen. Was würde wohl der Fünfjährige sagen, wenn ihm seine ältere Schwester anbieten würde, alle seine Spielzeuge zu “verwalten” und dann auszuhändigen wenn er brav ist? “Du spinnst wohl”, und damit beweist der Knirps mehr Vernunft als die Mehrzahl der Erwachsenen. \ \ Resümee: keine Standards, keine Daten, keine Rechte = keine Zukunft!

\ Wie funktioniert Nostr?

Die Entwickler von Nostr haben erkannt dass sich das Server-Client-Konzept in ein Master-Slave-Konzept verwandelt hatte. Der Master ist ein Synonym für Zentralisierung und wird zum “single point of failure”, der zwangsläufig Systeme dysfunktional macht. In einem verteilten Peer2Peer-System gibt es keine Master mehr sondern nur gleichberechtigte Knoten (Relays), auf denen die Informationen gespeichert werden. Indem man Informationen auf mehreren Relays redundant speichert, ist das System in jeglicher Hinsicht resilienter. Nicht nur die Natur verwendet dieses Prinzip seit Jahrmillionen erfolgreich, auch das Internet wurde so konzipiert (das ARPAnet wurde vom US-Militär für den Einsatz in Kriegsfällen unter massiven Störungen entwickelt). Alle Nostr-Daten liegen auf Relays und der Nutzer kann wählen zwischen öffentlichen (zumeist kostenlosen) und privaten Relays, z.B. für geschlossene Gruppen oder zum Zwecke von Daten-Archivierung. Da Dokumente auf mehreren Relays gespeichert sind, werden statt URL's (Locator) eindeutige Dokumentnamen (URI's = Identifier) verwendet, broken Links sind damit Vergangenheit und Löschungen / Verluste ebenfalls.\ \ Jedes Dokument (Event genannt) wird vom Besitzer signiert, es ist damit authentisch und fälschungssicher und kann nur vom Ersteller gelöscht werden. Dafür wird ein Schlüsselpaar verwendet bestehend aus privatem (nsec) und öffentlichem Schlüssel (npub) wie aus der Mailverschlüsselung (PGP) bekannt. Das repräsentiert eine Nostr-Identität, die um Bild, Namen, Bio und eine lesbare Nostr-Adresse ergänzt werden kann (z.B. roland@pareto.space ), mehr braucht es nicht um alle Ressourcen des Nostr-Ökosystems zu nutzen. Und das besteht inzwischen aus über hundert Apps mit unterschiedlichen Fokussierungen, z.B. für persönliche verschlüsselte Nachrichten (DM → OxChat), Kurznachrichten (Damus, Primal), Blogbeiträge (Pareto), Meetups (Joinstr), Gruppen (Groups), Bilder (Olas), Videos (Amethyst), Audio-Chat (Nostr Nests), Audio-Streams (Tunestr), Video-Streams (Zap.Stream), Marktplätze (Shopstr) u.v.a.m. Die Anmeldung erfolgt mit einem Klick (single sign on) und den Apps stehen ALLE Nutzerdaten zur Verfügung (Profil, Daten, Kontakte, Social Graph → Follower, Bookmarks, Comments, etc.), im Gegensatz zu den fragmentierten Datensilos der Gegenwart.\ \ Resümee: ein offener Standard, alle Daten, alle Rechte = große Zukunft!

\ Warum ist Nostr die Zukunft des Internet?

“Baue Dein Haus nicht auf einem fremden Grundstück” gilt auch im Internet - für alle App-Entwickler, Künstler, Journalisten und Nutzer, denn auch ihre Daten sind werthaltig. Nostr garantiert das Eigentum an den Daten, und überwindet ihre Fragmentierung. Weder die Nutzung noch die kreativen Freiheiten werden durch maßlose Lizenz- und Nutzungsbedingungen eingeschränkt. Aus passiven Nutzern werden durch Interaktion aktive Teilnehmer, Co-Creatoren in einer Sharing-Ökonomie (Value4Value). OpenSource schafft endlich wieder Vertrauen in die Software und ihre Anbieter. Offene Standards ermöglichen den Entwicklern mehr Kooperation und schnellere Entwicklung, für die Anwender garantieren sie Wahlfreiheit. Womit wir letztmalig zu unserem Fünfjährigen zurückkehren. Kinder lieben Lego über alles, am meisten die Maxi-Box “Classic”, weil sie damit ihre Phantasie im Kombinieren voll ausleben können. Erwachsene schenken ihnen dann die viel zu teuren Themenpakete, mit denen man nur eine Lösung nach Anleitung bauen kann. “Was stimmt nur mit meinen Eltern nicht, wann sind die denn falsch abgebogen?" fragt sich der Nachwuchs zu Recht. Das Image lässt sich aber wieder aufpolieren, wenn sie ihren Kindern Nostr zeigen, denn die Vorteile verstehen sogar Fünfjährige.

\ Das neue Internet ist dezentral. Das neue Internet ist selbstbestimmt. Nostr ist das neue Internet.

https://nostr.net/ \ https://start.njump.me/

Hier das Interview zum Thema mit Radio Berliner Morgenröte

https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-yxc36-17bb4be

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

A new report from the National Sports Shooting Foundation (NSSF) shows that civilian firearm possession exceeded 490 million in 2022. The total from 1990 to 2022 is estimated at 491.3 million firearms. In 2022, over ten million firearms were domestically produced, leading to a total of 16,045,911 firearms available in the U.S. market.

Of these, 9,873,136 were handguns, 4,195,192 were rifles, and 1,977,583 were shotguns. Handgun availability aligns with the concealed carry and self-defense market, as all states allow concealed carry, with 29 having constitutional carry laws.

@ f9cf4e94:96abc355

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

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

---

Passo 1: Atualizar o Sistema 🖥️

Primeiro, atualize seu sistema e instale o Tor:

bash apt update apt install tor

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

Passo 3: Baixar o Binário do Nostr 🚀

Baixe o binário mais recente do Nostr aqui no GitHub.

---

Passo 4: Criar as Pastas Necessárias 📂

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

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

---

Passo 5: Listar os Dispositivos Conectados 🔌

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

bash lsblk

---

Passo 6: Formatando o Pendrive 💾

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

bash mkfs.vfat /dev/sda

---

Passo 7: Montar o Pendrive 💻

Monte o pendrive na pasta /mnt/edriver:

bash mount /dev/sda /mnt/edriver

---

Passo 8: Verificar UUID dos Dispositivos 📋

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

bash blkid

---

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

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

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

---

Passo 10: Copiar o Binário para a Pasta Correta 📥

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

bash cp nrs-arm64 /opt/nrs

---

Passo 11: Criar o Arquivo de Configuração 🛠️

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

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

---

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

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

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

Recarregue os serviços e inicie o serviço nrs:

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

---

Passo 13: Configurar o Tor 🌐

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

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

---

Passo 14: Habilitar e Iniciar o Tor 🧅

Agora, ative e inicie o serviço Tor:

bash systemctl enable --now tor.service

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

---

Observações ⚠️

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

---

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

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

@ 6389be64:ef439d32

Black Locust can grow up to 170 ft tall

Grows 3-4 ft. per year

Native to North America

Cold hardy in zones 3 to 8

Firewood

• BLT wood, on a pound for pound basis is roughly half that of Anthracite Coal
• Since its growth is fast, firewood can be plentiful

Timber

• Rot resistant due to a naturally produced robinin in the wood
  • 100 year life span in full soil contact! (better than cedar performance)
  • Fence posts
  • Outdoor furniture
  • Outdoor decking
• Sustainable due to its fast growth and spread
  • Can be coppiced (cut to the ground)
  • Can be pollarded (cut above ground)
• Its dense wood makes durable tool handles, boxes (tool), and furniture
  • The wood is tougher than hickory, which is tougher than hard maple, which is tougher than oak.
  • A very low rate of expansion and contraction
  • Hardwood flooring
  • The highest tensile beam strength of any American tree
• The wood is beautiful

Legume

• Nitrogen fixer
  • Fixes the same amount of nitrogen per acre as is needed for 200-bushel/acre corn
  • Black walnuts inter-planted with locust as “nurse” trees were shown to rapidly increase their growth [[Clark, Paul M., and Robert D. Williams. (1978) Black walnut growth increased when interplanted with nitrogen-fixing shrubs and trees. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science, vol. 88, pp. 88-91.]]

Bees

• The edible flower clusters are also a top food source for honey bees

Shade Provider

• Its light, airy overstory provides dappled shade
  • Planted on the west side of a garden it provides relief during the hottest part of the day
  • (nitrogen provider)
  • Planted on the west side of a house, its quick growth soon shades that side from the sun

Wind-break

• Fast growth plus it's feathery foliage reduces wind for animals, crops, and shelters

Fodder

• Over 20% crude protein
• 4.1 kcal/g of energy
• Baertsche, S.R, M.T. Yokoyama, and J.W. Hanover (1986) Short rotation, hardwood tree biomass as potential ruminant feed-chemical composition, nylon bag ruminal degradation and ensilement of selected species. J. Animal Sci. 63 2028-2043

@ 6389be64:ef439d32

Bitcoin is more than money, more than an asset, and more than a store of value. Bitcoin is a Prime Mover, an enabler and it ignites imaginations. It certainly fueled an idea in my mind. The idea integrates sensors, computational prowess, actuated machinery, power conversion, and electronic communications to form an autonomous, machined creature roaming forests and harvesting the most widespread and least energy-dense fuel source available. I call it the Forest Walker and it eats wood, and mines Bitcoin.

I know what you're thinking. Why not just put Bitcoin mining rigs where they belong: in a hosted facility sporting electricity from energy-dense fuels like natural gas, climate-controlled with excellent data piping in and out? Why go to all the trouble building a robot that digests wood creating flammable gasses fueling an engine to run a generator powering Bitcoin miners? It's all about synergy.

Bitcoin mining enables the realization of multiple, seemingly unrelated, yet useful activities. Activities considered un-profitable if not for Bitcoin as the Prime Mover. This is much more than simply mining the greatest asset ever conceived by humankind. It’s about the power of synergy, which Bitcoin plays only one of many roles. The synergy created by this system can stabilize forests' fire ecology while generating multiple income streams. That’s the realistic goal here and requires a brief history of American Forest management before continuing.

Smokey The Bear

In 1944, the Smokey Bear Wildfire Prevention Campaign began in the United States. “Only YOU can prevent forest fires” remains the refrain of the Ad Council’s longest running campaign. The Ad Council is a U.S. non-profit set up by the American Association of Advertising Agencies and the Association of National Advertisers in 1942. It would seem that the U.S. Department of the Interior was concerned about pesky forest fires and wanted them to stop. So, alongside a national policy of extreme fire suppression they enlisted the entire U.S. population to get onboard via the Ad Council and it worked. Forest fires were almost obliterated and everyone was happy, right? Wrong.

Smokey is a fantastically successful bear so forest fires became so few for so long that the fuel load - dead wood - in forests has become very heavy. So heavy that when a fire happens (and they always happen) it destroys everything in its path because the more fuel there is the hotter that fire becomes. Trees, bushes, shrubs, and all other plant life cannot escape destruction (not to mention homes and businesses). The soil microbiology doesn’t escape either as it is burned away even in deeper soils. To add insult to injury, hydrophobic waxy residues condense on the soil surface, forcing water to travel over the ground rather than through it eroding forest soils. Good job, Smokey. Well done, Sir!

Most terrestrial ecologies are “fire ecologies”. Fire is a part of these systems’ fuel load and pest management. Before we pretended to “manage” millions of acres of forest, fires raged over the world, rarely damaging forests. The fuel load was always too light to generate fires hot enough to moonscape mountainsides. Fires simply burned off the minor amounts of fuel accumulated since the fire before. The lighter heat, smoke, and other combustion gasses suppressed pests, keeping them in check and the smoke condensed into a plant growth accelerant called wood vinegar, not a waxy cap on the soil. These fires also cleared out weak undergrowth, cycled minerals, and thinned the forest canopy, allowing sunlight to penetrate to the forest floor. Without a fire’s heat, many pine tree species can’t sow their seed. The heat is required to open the cones (the seed bearing structure) of Spruce, Cypress, Sequoia, Jack Pine, Lodgepole Pine and many more. Without fire forests can’t have babies. The idea was to protect the forests, and it isn't working.

So, in a world of fire, what does an ally look like and what does it do?

Meet The Forest Walker

For the Forest Walker to work as a mobile, autonomous unit, a solid platform that can carry several hundred pounds is required. It so happens this chassis already exists but shelved.

Introducing the Legged Squad Support System (LS3). A joint project between Boston Dynamics, DARPA, and the United States Marine Corps, the quadrupedal robot is the size of a cow, can carry 400 pounds (180 kg) of equipment, negotiate challenging terrain, and operate for 24 hours before needing to refuel. Yes, it had an engine. Abandoned in 2015, the thing was too noisy for military deployment and maintenance "under fire" is never a high-quality idea. However, we can rebuild it to act as a platform for the Forest Walker; albeit with serious alterations. It would need to be bigger, probably. Carry more weight? Definitely. Maybe replace structural metal with carbon fiber and redesign much as 3D printable parts for more effective maintenance.

The original system has a top operational speed of 8 miles per hour. For our purposes, it only needs to move about as fast as a grazing ruminant. Without the hammering vibrations of galloping into battle, shocks of exploding mortars, and drunken soldiers playing "Wrangler of Steel Machines", time between failures should be much longer and the overall energy consumption much lower. The LS3 is a solid platform to build upon. Now it just needs to be pulled out of the mothballs, and completely refitted with outboard equipment.

The Small Branch Chipper

When I say “Forest fuel load” I mean the dead, carbon containing litter on the forest floor. Duff (leaves), fine-woody debris (small branches), and coarse woody debris (logs) are the fuel that feeds forest fires. Walk through any forest in the United States today and you will see quite a lot of these materials. Too much, as I have described. Some of these fuel loads can be 8 tons per acre in pine and hardwood forests and up to 16 tons per acre at active logging sites. That’s some big wood and the more that collects, the more combustible danger to the forest it represents. It also provides a technically unlimited fuel supply for the Forest Walker system.

The problem is that this detritus has to be chewed into pieces that are easily ingestible by the system for the gasification process (we’ll get to that step in a minute). What we need is a wood chipper attached to the chassis (the LS3); its “mouth”.

A small wood chipper handling material up to 2.5 - 3.0 inches (6.3 - 7.6 cm) in diameter would eliminate a substantial amount of fuel. There is no reason for Forest Walker to remove fallen trees. It wouldn’t have to in order to make a real difference. It need only identify appropriately sized branches and grab them. Once loaded into the chipper’s intake hopper for further processing, the beast can immediately look for more “food”. This is essentially kindling that would help ignite larger logs. If it’s all consumed by Forest Walker, then it’s not present to promote an aggravated conflagration.

I have glossed over an obvious question: How does Forest Walker see and identify branches and such? LiDaR (Light Detection and Ranging) attached to Forest Walker images the local area and feed those data to onboard computers for processing. Maybe AI plays a role. Maybe simple machine learning can do the trick. One thing is for certain: being able to identify a stick and cause robotic appendages to pick it up is not impossible.

Great! We now have a quadrupedal robot autonomously identifying and “eating” dead branches and other light, combustible materials. Whilst strolling through the forest, depleting future fires of combustibles, Forest Walker has already performed a major function of this system: making the forest safer. It's time to convert this low-density fuel into a high-density fuel Forest Walker can leverage. Enter the gasification process.

The Gassifier

The gasifier is the heart of the entire system; it’s where low-density fuel becomes the high-density fuel that powers the entire system. Biochar and wood vinegar are process wastes and I’ll discuss why both are powerful soil amendments in a moment, but first, what’s gasification?

Reacting shredded carbonaceous material at high temperatures in a low or no oxygen environment converts the biomass into biochar, wood vinegar, heat, and Synthesis Gas (Syngas). Syngas consists primarily of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and methane. All of which are extremely useful fuels in a gaseous state. Part of this gas is used to heat the input biomass and keep the reaction temperature constant while the internal combustion engine that drives the generator to produce electrical power consumes the rest.

Critically, this gasification process is “continuous feed”. Forest Walker must intake biomass from the chipper, process it to fuel, and dump the waste (CO2, heat, biochar, and wood vinegar) continuously. It cannot stop. Everything about this system depends upon this continual grazing, digestion, and excretion of wastes just as a ruminal does. And, like a ruminant, all waste products enhance the local environment.

When I first heard of gasification, I didn’t believe that it was real. Running an electric generator from burning wood seemed more akin to “conspiracy fantasy” than science. Not only is gasification real, it’s ancient technology. A man named Dean Clayton first started experiments on gasification in 1699 and in 1901 gasification was used to power a vehicle. By the end of World War II, there were 500,000 Syngas powered vehicles in Germany alone because of fossil fuel rationing during the war. The global gasification market was $480 billion in 2022 and projected to be as much as $700 billion by 2030 (Vantage Market Research). Gasification technology is the best choice to power the Forest Walker because it’s self-contained and we want its waste products.

Biochar: The Waste

Biochar (AKA agricultural charcoal) is fairly simple: it’s almost pure, solid carbon that resembles charcoal. Its porous nature packs large surface areas into small, 3 dimensional nuggets. Devoid of most other chemistry, like hydrocarbons (methane) and ash (minerals), biochar is extremely lightweight. Do not confuse it with the charcoal you buy for your grill. Biochar doesn’t make good grilling charcoal because it would burn too rapidly as it does not contain the multitude of flammable components that charcoal does. Biochar has several other good use cases. Water filtration, water retention, nutrient retention, providing habitat for microscopic soil organisms, and carbon sequestration are the main ones that we are concerned with here.

Carbon has an amazing ability to adsorb (substances stick to and accumulate on the surface of an object) manifold chemistries. Water, nutrients, and pollutants tightly bind to carbon in this format. So, biochar makes a respectable filter and acts as a “battery” of water and nutrients in soils. Biochar adsorbs and holds on to seven times its weight in water. Soil containing biochar is more drought resilient than soil without it. Adsorbed nutrients, tightly sequestered alongside water, get released only as plants need them. Plants must excrete protons (H+) from their roots to disgorge water or positively charged nutrients from the biochar's surface; it's an active process.

Biochar’s surface area (where adsorption happens) can be 500 square meters per gram or more. That is 10% larger than an official NBA basketball court for every gram of biochar. Biochar’s abundant surface area builds protective habitats for soil microbes like fungi and bacteria and many are critical for the health and productivity of the soil itself.

The “carbon sequestration” component of biochar comes into play where “carbon credits” are concerned. There is a financial market for carbon. Not leveraging that market for revenue is foolish. I am climate agnostic. All I care about is that once solid carbon is inside the soil, it will stay there for thousands of years, imparting drought resiliency, fertility collection, nutrient buffering, and release for that time span. I simply want as much solid carbon in the soil because of the undeniably positive effects it has, regardless of any climactic considerations.

Wood Vinegar: More Waste

Another by-product of the gasification process is wood vinegar (Pyroligneous acid). If you have ever seen Liquid Smoke in the grocery store, then you have seen wood vinegar. Principally composed of acetic acid, acetone, and methanol wood vinegar also contains ~200 other organic compounds. It would seem intuitive that condensed, liquefied wood smoke would at least be bad for the health of all living things if not downright carcinogenic. The counter intuition wins the day, however. Wood vinegar has been used by humans for a very long time to promote digestion, bowel, and liver health; combat diarrhea and vomiting; calm peptic ulcers and regulate cholesterol levels; and a host of other benefits.

For centuries humans have annually burned off hundreds of thousands of square miles of pasture, grassland, forest, and every other conceivable terrestrial ecosystem. Why is this done? After every burn, one thing becomes obvious: the almost supernatural growth these ecosystems exhibit after the burn. How? Wood vinegar is a component of this growth. Even in open burns, smoke condenses and infiltrates the soil. That is when wood vinegar shows its quality.

This stuff beefs up not only general plant growth but seed germination as well and possesses many other qualities that are beneficial to plants. It’s a pesticide, fungicide, promotes beneficial soil microorganisms, enhances nutrient uptake, and imparts disease resistance. I am barely touching a long list of attributes here, but you want wood vinegar in your soil (alongside biochar because it adsorbs wood vinegar as well).

The Internal Combustion Engine

Conversion of grazed forage to chemical, then mechanical, and then electrical energy completes the cycle. The ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) converts the gaseous fuel output from the gasifier to mechanical energy, heat, water vapor, and CO2. It’s the mechanical energy of a rotating drive shaft that we want. That rotation drives the electric generator, which is the heartbeat we need to bring this monster to life. Luckily for us, combined internal combustion engine and generator packages are ubiquitous, delivering a defined energy output given a constant fuel input. It’s the simplest part of the system.

The obvious question here is whether the amount of syngas provided by the gasification process will provide enough energy to generate enough electrons to run the entire system or not. While I have no doubt the energy produced will run Forest Walker's main systems the question is really about the electrons left over. Will it be enough to run the Bitcoin mining aspect of the system? Everything is a budget.

CO2 Production For Growth

Plants are lollipops. No matter if it’s a tree or a bush or a shrubbery, the entire thing is mostly sugar in various formats but mostly long chain carbohydrates like lignin and cellulose. Plants need three things to make sugar: CO2, H2O and light. In a forest, where tree densities can be quite high, CO2 availability becomes a limiting growth factor. It’d be in the forest interests to have more available CO2 providing for various sugar formation providing the organism with food and structure.

An odd thing about tree leaves, the openings that allow gasses like the ever searched for CO2 are on the bottom of the leaf (these are called stomata). Not many stomata are topside. This suggests that trees and bushes have evolved to find gasses like CO2 from below, not above and this further suggests CO2 might be in higher concentrations nearer the soil.

The soil life (bacterial, fungi etc.) is constantly producing enormous amounts of CO2 and it would stay in the soil forever (eventually killing the very soil life that produces it) if not for tidal forces. Water is everywhere and whether in pools, lakes, oceans or distributed in “moist” soils water moves towards to the moon. The water in the soil and also in the water tables below the soil rise toward the surface every day. When the water rises, it expels the accumulated gasses in the soil into the atmosphere and it’s mostly CO2. It’s a good bet on how leaves developed high populations of stomata on the underside of leaves. As the water relaxes (the tide goes out) it sucks oxygenated air back into the soil to continue the functions of soil life respiration. The soil “breathes” albeit slowly.

The gasses produced by the Forest Walker’s internal combustion engine consist primarily of CO2 and H2O. Combusting sugars produce the same gasses that are needed to construct the sugars because the universe is funny like that. The Forest Walker is constantly laying down these critical construction elements right where the trees need them: close to the ground to be gobbled up by the trees.

The Branch Drones

During the last ice age, giant mammals populated North America - forests and otherwise. Mastodons, woolly mammoths, rhinos, short-faced bears, steppe bison, caribou, musk ox, giant beavers, camels, gigantic ground-dwelling sloths, glyptodons, and dire wolves were everywhere. Many were ten to fifteen feet tall. As they crashed through forests, they would effectively cleave off dead side-branches of trees, halting the spread of a ground-based fire migrating into the tree crown ("laddering") which is a death knell for a forest.

These animals are all extinct now and forests no longer have any manner of pruning services. But, if we build drones fitted with cutting implements like saws and loppers, optical cameras and AI trained to discern dead branches from living ones, these drones could effectively take over pruning services by identifying, cutting, and dropping to the forest floor, dead branches. The dropped branches simply get collected by the Forest Walker as part of its continual mission.

The drones dock on the back of the Forest Walker to recharge their batteries when low. The whole scene would look like a grazing cow with some flies bothering it. This activity breaks the link between a relatively cool ground based fire and the tree crowns and is a vital element in forest fire control.

The Bitcoin Miner

Mining is one of four monetary incentive models, making this system a possibility for development. The other three are US Dept. of the Interior, township, county, and electrical utility company easement contracts for fuel load management, global carbon credits trading, and data set sales. All the above depends on obvious questions getting answered. I will list some obvious ones, but this is not an engineering document and is not the place for spreadsheets. How much Bitcoin one Forest Walker can mine depends on everything else. What amount of biomass can we process? Will that biomass flow enough Syngas to keep the lights on? Can the chassis support enough mining ASICs and supporting infrastructure? What does that weigh and will it affect field performance? How much power can the AC generator produce?

Other questions that are more philosophical persist. Even if a single Forest Walker can only mine scant amounts of BTC per day, that pales to how much fuel material it can process into biochar. We are talking about millions upon millions of forested acres in need of fuel load management. What can a single Forest Walker do? I am not thinking in singular terms. The Forest Walker must operate as a fleet. What could 50 do? 500?

What is it worth providing a service to the world by managing forest fuel loads? Providing proof of work to the global monetary system? Seeding soil with drought and nutrient resilience by the excretion, over time, of carbon by the ton? What did the last forest fire cost?

The Mesh Network

What could be better than one bitcoin mining, carbon sequestering, forest fire squelching, soil amending behemoth? Thousands of them, but then they would need to be able to talk to each other to coordinate position, data handling, etc. Fitted with a mesh networking device, like goTenna or Meshtastic LoRa equipment enables each Forest Walker to communicate with each other.

Now we have an interconnected fleet of Forest Walkers relaying data to each other and more importantly, aggregating all of that to the last link in the chain for uplink. Well, at least Bitcoin mining data. Since block data is lightweight, transmission of these data via mesh networking in fairly close quartered environs is more than doable. So, how does data transmit to the Bitcoin Network? How do the Forest Walkers get the previous block data necessary to execute on mining?

Back To The Chain

Getting Bitcoin block data to and from the network is the last puzzle piece. The standing presumption here is that wherever a Forest Walker fleet is operating, it is NOT within cell tower range. We further presume that the nearest Walmart Wi-Fi is hours away. Enter the Blockstream Satellite or something like it.

A separate, ground-based drone will have two jobs: To stay as close to the nearest Forest Walker as it can and to provide an antennae for either terrestrial or orbital data uplink. Bitcoin-centric data is transmitted to the "uplink drone" via the mesh networked transmitters and then sent on to the uplink and the whole flow goes in the opposite direction as well; many to one and one to many.

We cannot transmit data to the Blockstream satellite, and it will be up to Blockstream and companies like it to provide uplink capabilities in the future and I don't doubt they will. Starlink you say? What’s stopping that company from filtering out block data? Nothing because it’s Starlink’s system and they could decide to censor these data. It seems we may have a problem sending and receiving Bitcoin data in back country environs.

But, then again, the utility of this system in staunching the fuel load that creates forest fires is extremely useful around forested communities and many have fiber, Wi-Fi and cell towers. These communities could be a welcoming ground zero for first deployments of the Forest Walker system by the home and business owners seeking fire repression. In the best way, Bitcoin subsidizes the safety of the communities.

Sensor Packages

LiDaR

The benefit of having a Forest Walker fleet strolling through the forest is the never ending opportunity for data gathering. A plethora of deployable sensors gathering hyper-accurate data on everything from temperature to topography is yet another revenue generator. Data is valuable and the Forest Walker could generate data sales to various government entities and private concerns.

LiDaR (Light Detection and Ranging) can map topography, perform biomass assessment, comparative soil erosion analysis, etc. It so happens that the Forest Walker’s ability to “see,” to navigate about its surroundings, is LiDaR driven and since it’s already being used, we can get double duty by harvesting that data for later use. By using a laser to send out light pulses and measuring the time it takes for the reflection of those pulses to return, very detailed data sets incrementally build up. Eventually, as enough data about a certain area becomes available, the data becomes useful and valuable.

Forestry concerns, both private and public, often use LiDaR to build 3D models of tree stands to assess the amount of harvest-able lumber in entire sections of forest. Consulting companies offering these services charge anywhere from several hundred to several thousand dollars per square kilometer for such services. A Forest Walker generating such assessments on the fly while performing its other functions is a multi-disciplinary approach to revenue generation.

pH, Soil Moisture, and Cation Exchange Sensing

The Forest Walker is quadrupedal, so there are four contact points to the soil. Why not get a pH data point for every step it takes? We can also gather soil moisture data and cation exchange capacities at unheard of densities because of sampling occurring on the fly during commission of the system’s other duties. No one is going to build a machine to do pH testing of vast tracts of forest soils, but that doesn’t make the data collected from such an endeavor valueless. Since the Forest Walker serves many functions at once, a multitude of data products can add to the return on investment component.

Weather Data

Temperature, humidity, pressure, and even data like evapotranspiration gathered at high densities on broad acre scales have untold value and because the sensors are lightweight and don’t require large power budgets, they come along for the ride at little cost. But, just like the old mantra, “gas, grass, or ass, nobody rides for free”, these sensors provide potential revenue benefits just by them being present.

I’ve touched on just a few data genres here. In fact, the question for universities, governmental bodies, and other institutions becomes, “How much will you pay us to attach your sensor payload to the Forest Walker?”

Noise Suppression

Only you can prevent Metallica filling the surrounds with 120 dB of sound. Easy enough, just turn the car stereo off. But what of a fleet of 50 Forest Walkers operating in the backcountry or near a township? 500? 5000? Each one has a wood chipper, an internal combustion engine, hydraulic pumps, actuators, and more cooling fans than you can shake a stick at. It’s a walking, screaming fire-breathing dragon operating continuously, day and night, twenty-four hours a day, three hundred sixty-five days a year. The sound will negatively affect all living things and that impacts behaviors. Serious engineering consideration and prowess must deliver a silencing blow to the major issue of noise.

It would be foolish to think that a fleet of Forest Walkers could be silent, but if not a major design consideration, then the entire idea is dead on arrival. Townships would not allow them to operate even if they solved the problem of widespread fuel load and neither would governmental entities, and rightly so. Nothing, not man nor beast, would want to be subjected to an eternal, infernal scream even if it were to end within days as the fleet moved further away after consuming what it could. Noise and heat are the only real pollutants of this system; taking noise seriously from the beginning is paramount.

Fire Safety

A “fire-breathing dragon” is not the worst description of the Forest Walker. It eats wood, combusts it at very high temperatures and excretes carbon; and it does so in an extremely flammable environment. Bad mix for one Forest Walker, worse for many. One must take extreme pains to ensure that during normal operation, a Forest Walker could fall over, walk through tinder dry brush, or get pounded into the ground by a meteorite from Krypton and it wouldn’t destroy epic swaths of trees and baby deer. I envision an ultimate test of a prototype to include dowsing it in grain alcohol while it’s wrapped up in toilet paper like a pledge at a fraternity party. If it runs for 72 hours and doesn’t set everything on fire, then maybe outside entities won’t be fearful of something that walks around forests with a constant fire in its belly.

The Wrap

How we think about what can be done with and adjacent to Bitcoin is at least as important as Bitcoin’s economic standing itself. For those who will tell me that this entire idea is without merit, I say, “OK, fine. You can come up with something, too.” What can we plug Bitcoin into that, like a battery, makes something that does not work, work? That’s the lesson I get from this entire exercise. No one was ever going to hire teams of humans to go out and "clean the forest". There's no money in that. The data collection and sales from such an endeavor might provide revenues over the break-even point but investment demands Alpha in this day and age. But, plug Bitcoin into an almost viable system and, voilà! We tip the scales to achieve lift-off.

Let’s face it, we haven’t scratched the surface of Bitcoin’s forcing function on our minds. Not because it’s Bitcoin, but because of what that invention means. The question that pushes me to approach things this way is, “what can we create that one system’s waste is another system’s feedstock?” The Forest Walker system’s only real waste is the conversion of low entropy energy (wood and syngas) into high entropy energy (heat and noise). All other output is beneficial to humanity.

Bitcoin, I believe, is the first product of a new mode of human imagination. An imagination newly forged over the past few millennia of being lied to, stolen from, distracted and otherwise mis-allocated to a black hole of the nonsensical. We are waking up.

What I have presented is not science fiction. Everything I have described here is well within the realm of possibility. The question is one of viability, at least in terms of the detritus of the old world we find ourselves departing from. This system would take a non-trivial amount of time and resources to develop. I think the system would garner extensive long-term contracts from those who have the most to lose from wildfires, the most to gain from hyperaccurate data sets, and, of course, securing the most precious asset in the world. Many may not see it that way, for they seek Alpha and are therefore blind to other possibilities. Others will see only the possibilities; of thinking in a new way, of looking at things differently, and dreaming of what comes next.

@ e3ba5e1a:5e433365

My blog posts and reading material have both been on a decidedly economics-heavy slant recently. The topic today, incentives, squarely falls into the category of economics. However, when I say economics, I’m not talking about “analyzing supply and demand curves.” I’m talking about the true basis of economics: understanding how human beings make decisions in a world of scarcity.

A fair definition of incentive is “a reward or punishment that motivates behavior to achieve a desired outcome.” When most people think about economic incentives, they’re thinking of money. If I offer my son $5 if he washes the dishes, I’m incentivizing certain behavior. We can’t guarantee that he’ll do what I want him to do, but we can agree that the incentive structure itself will guide and ultimately determine what outcome will occur.

The great thing about monetary incentives is how easy they are to talk about and compare. “Would I rather make $5 washing the dishes or $10 cleaning the gutters?” But much of the world is incentivized in non-monetary ways too. For example, using the “punishment” half of the definition above, I might threaten my son with losing Nintendo Switch access if he doesn’t wash the dishes. No money is involved, but I’m still incentivizing behavior.

And there are plenty of incentives beyond our direct control! My son is also incentivized to not wash dishes because it’s boring, or because he has some friends over that he wants to hang out with, or dozens of other things. Ultimately, the conflicting array of different incentive structures placed on him will ultimately determine what actions he chooses to take.

Why incentives matter

A phrase I see often in discussions—whether they are political, parenting, economic, or business—is “if they could just do…” Each time I see that phrase, I cringe a bit internally. Usually, the underlying assumption of the statement is “if people would behave contrary to their incentivized behavior then things would be better.” For example:

• If my kids would just go to bed when I tell them, they wouldn’t be so cranky in the morning.
• If people would just use the recycling bin, we wouldn’t have such a landfill problem.
• If people would just stop being lazy, our team would deliver our project on time.

In all these cases, the speakers are seemingly flummoxed as to why the people in question don’t behave more rationally. The problem is: each group is behaving perfectly rationally.

• The kids have a high time preference, and care more about the joy of staying up now than the crankiness in the morning. Plus, they don’t really suffer the consequences of morning crankiness, their parents do.
• No individual suffers much from their individual contribution to a landfill. If they stopped growing the size of the landfill, it would make an insignificant difference versus the amount of effort they need to engage in to properly recycle.
• If a team doesn’t properly account for the productivity of individuals on a project, each individual receives less harm from their own inaction. Sure, the project may be delayed, company revenue may be down, and they may even risk losing their job when the company goes out of business. But their laziness individually won’t determine the entirety of that outcome. By contrast, they greatly benefit from being lazy by getting to relax at work, go on social media, read a book, or do whatever else they do when they’re supposed to be working.

My point here is that, as long as you ignore the reality of how incentives drive human behavior, you’ll fail at getting the outcomes you want.

If everything I wrote up until now made perfect sense, you understand the premise of this blog post. The rest of it will focus on a bunch of real-world examples to hammer home the point, and demonstrate how versatile this mental model is.

Running a company

Let’s say I run my own company, with myself as the only employee. My personal revenue will be 100% determined by my own actions. If I decide to take Tuesday afternoon off and go fishing, I’ve chosen to lose that afternoon’s revenue. Implicitly, I’ve decided that the enjoyment I get from an afternoon of fishing is greater than the potential revenue. You may think I’m being lazy, but it’s my decision to make. In this situation, the incentive–money–is perfectly aligned with my actions.

Compare this to a typical company/employee relationship. I might have a bank of Paid Time Off (PTO) days, in which case once again my incentives are relatively aligned. I know that I can take off 15 days throughout the year, and I’ve chosen to use half a day for the fishing trip. All is still good.

What about unlimited time off? Suddenly incentives are starting to misalign. I don’t directly pay a price for not showing up to work on Tuesday. Or Wednesday as well, for that matter. I might ultimately be fired for not doing my job, but that will take longer to work its way through the system than simply not making any money for the day taken off.

Compensation overall falls into this misaligned incentive structure. Let’s forget about taking time off. Instead, I work full time on a software project I’m assigned. But instead of using the normal toolchain we’re all used to at work, I play around with a new programming language. I get the fun and joy of playing with new technology, and potentially get to pad my resume a bit when I’m ready to look for a new job. But my current company gets slower results, less productivity, and is forced to subsidize my extracurricular learning.

When a CEO has a bonus structure based on profitability, he’ll do everything he can to make the company profitable. This might include things that actually benefit the company, like improving product quality, reducing internal red tape, or finding cheaper vendors. But it might also include destructive practices, like slashing the R\&D budget to show massive profits this year, in exchange for a catastrophe next year when the next version of the product fails to ship.

Or my favorite example. My parents owned a business when I was growing up. They had a back office where they ran operations like accounting. All of the furniture was old couches from our house. After all, any money they spent on furniture came right out of their paychecks! But in a large corporate environment, each department is generally given a budget for office furniture, a budget which doesn’t roll over year-to-year. The result? Executives make sure to spend the entire budget each year, often buying furniture far more expensive than they would choose if it was their own money.

There are plenty of details you can quibble with above. It’s in a company’s best interest to give people downtime so that they can come back recharged. Having good ergonomic furniture can in fact increase productivity in excess of the money spent on it. But overall, the picture is pretty clear: in large corporate structures, you’re guaranteed to have mismatches between the company’s goals and the incentive structure placed on individuals.

Using our model from above, we can lament how lazy, greedy, and unethical the employees are for doing what they’re incentivized to do instead of what’s right. But that’s simply ignoring the reality of human nature.

Moral hazard

Moral hazard is a situation where one party is incentivized to take on more risk because another party will bear the consequences. Suppose I tell my son when he turns 21 (or whatever legal gambling age is) that I’ll cover all his losses for a day at the casino, but he gets to keep all the winnings.

What do you think he’s going to do? The most logical course of action is to place the largest possible bets for as long as possible, asking me to cover each time he loses, and taking money off the table and into his bank account each time he wins.

But let’s look at a slightly more nuanced example. I go to a bathroom in the mall. As I’m leaving, I wash my hands. It will take me an extra 1 second to turn off the water when I’m done washing. That’s a trivial price to pay. If I don’t turn off the water, the mall will have to pay for many liters of wasted water, benefiting no one. But I won’t suffer any consequences at all.

This is also a moral hazard, but most people will still turn off the water. Why? Usually due to some combination of other reasons such as:

1. We’re so habituated to turning off the water that we don’t even consider not turning it off. Put differently, the mental effort needed to not turn off the water is more expensive than the 1 second of time to turn it off.
2. Many of us have been brought up with a deep guilt about wasting resources like water. We have an internal incentive structure that makes the 1 second to turn off the water much less costly than the mental anguish of the waste we created.
3. We’re afraid we’ll be caught by someone else and face some kind of social repercussions. (Or maybe more than social. Are you sure there isn’t a law against leaving the water tap on?)

Even with all that in place, you may notice that many public bathrooms use automatic water dispensers. Sure, there’s a sanitation reason for that, but it’s also to avoid this moral hazard.

A common denominator in both of these is that the person taking the action that causes the liability (either the gambling or leaving the water on) is not the person who bears the responsibility for that liability (the father or the mall owner). Generally speaking, the closer together the person making the decision and the person incurring the liability are, the smaller the moral hazard.

It’s easy to demonstrate that by extending the casino example a bit. I said it was the father who was covering the losses of the gambler. Many children (though not all) would want to avoid totally bankrupting their parents, or at least financially hurting them. Instead, imagine that someone from the IRS shows up at your door, hands you a credit card, and tells you you can use it at a casino all day, taking home all the chips you want. The money is coming from the government. How many people would put any restriction on how much they spend?

And since we’re talking about the government already…

Government moral hazards

As I was preparing to write this blog post, the California wildfires hit. The discussions around those wildfires gave a huge number of examples of moral hazards. I decided to cherry-pick a few for this post.

The first and most obvious one: California is asking for disaster relief funds from the federal government. That sounds wonderful. These fires were a natural disaster, so why shouldn’t the federal government pitch in and help take care of people?

The problem is, once again, a moral hazard. In the case of the wildfires, California and Los Angeles both had ample actions they could have taken to mitigate the destruction of this fire: better forest management, larger fire department, keeping the water reservoirs filled, and probably much more that hasn’t come to light yet.

If the federal government bails out California, it will be a clear message for the future: your mistakes will be fixed by others. You know what kind of behavior that incentivizes? More risky behavior! Why spend state funds on forest management and extra firefighters—activities that don’t win politicians a lot of votes in general—when you could instead spend it on a football stadium, higher unemployment payments, or anything else, and then let the feds cover the cost of screw-ups.

You may notice that this is virtually identical to the 2008 “too big to fail” bail-outs. Wall Street took insanely risky behavior, reaped huge profits for years, and when they eventually got caught with their pants down, the rest of us bailed them out. “Privatizing profits, socializing losses.”

And here’s the absolute best part of this: I can’t even truly blame either California or Wall Street. (I mean, I do blame them, I think their behavior is reprehensible, but you’ll see what I mean.) In a world where the rules of the game implicitly include the bail-out mentality, you would be harming your citizens/shareholders/investors if you didn’t engage in that risky behavior. Since everyone is on the hook for those socialized losses, your best bet is to maximize those privatized profits.

There’s a lot more to government and moral hazard, but I think these two cases demonstrate the crux pretty solidly. But let’s leave moral hazard behind for a bit and get to general incentivization discussions.

Non-monetary competition

At least 50% of the economics knowledge I have comes from the very first econ course I took in college. That professor was amazing, and had some very colorful stories. I can’t vouch for the veracity of the two I’m about to share, but they definitely drive the point home.

In the 1970s, the US had an oil shortage. To “fix” this problem, they instituted price caps on gasoline, which of course resulted in insufficient gasoline. To “fix” this problem, they instituted policies where, depending on your license plate number, you could only fill up gas on certain days of the week. (Irrelevant detail for our point here, but this just resulted in people filling up their tanks more often, no reduction in gas usage.)

Anyway, my professor’s wife had a friend. My professor described in great detail how attractive this woman was. I’ll skip those details here since this is a PG-rated blog. In any event, she never had any trouble filling up her gas tank any day of the week. She would drive up, be told she couldn’t fill up gas today, bat her eyes at the attendant, explain how helpless she was, and was always allowed to fill up gas.

This is a demonstration of non-monetary compensation. Most of the time in a free market, capitalist economy, people are compensated through money. When price caps come into play, there’s a limit to how much monetary compensation someone can receive. And in that case, people find other ways of competing. Like this woman’s case: through using flirtatious behavior to compensate the gas station workers to let her cheat the rules.

The other example was much more insidious. Santa Monica had a problem: it was predominantly wealthy and white. They wanted to fix this problem, and decided to put in place rent controls. After some time, they discovered that Santa Monica had become wealthier and whiter, the exact opposite of their desired outcome. Why would that happen?

Someone investigated, and ended up interviewing a landlady that demonstrated the reason. She was an older white woman, and admittedly racist. Prior to the rent controls, she would list her apartments in the newspaper, and would be legally obligated to rent to anyone who could afford it. Once rent controls were in place, she took a different tact. She knew that she would only get a certain amount for the apartment, and that the demand for apartments was higher than the supply. That meant she could be picky.

She ended up finding tenants through friends-of-friends. Since it wasn’t an official advertisement, she wasn’t legally required to rent it out if someone could afford to pay. Instead, she got to interview people individually and then make them an offer. Normally, that would have resulted in receiving a lower rental price, but not under rent controls.

So who did she choose? A young, unmarried, wealthy, white woman. It made perfect sense. Women were less intimidating and more likely to maintain the apartment better. Wealthy people, she determined, would be better tenants. (I have no idea if this is true in practice or not, I’m not a landlord myself.) Unmarried, because no kids running around meant less damage to the property. And, of course, white. Because she was racist, and her incentive structure made her prefer whites.

You can deride her for being racist, I won’t disagree with you. But it’s simply the reality. Under the non-rent-control scenario, her profit motive for money outweighed her racism motive. But under rent control, the monetary competition was removed, and she was free to play into her racist tendencies without facing any negative consequences.

Bureaucracy

These were the two examples I remember for that course. But non-monetary compensation pops up in many more places. One highly pertinent example is bureaucracies. Imagine you have a government office, or a large corporation’s acquisition department, or the team that apportions grants at a university. In all these cases, you have a group of people making decisions about handing out money that has no monetary impact on them. If they give to the best qualified recipients, they receive no raises. If they spend the money recklessly on frivolous projects, they face no consequences.

Under such an incentivization scheme, there’s little to encourage the bureaucrats to make intelligent funding decisions. Instead, they’ll be incentivized to spend the money where they recognize non-monetary benefits. This is why it’s so common to hear about expensive meals, gift bags at conferences, and even more inappropriate ways of trying to curry favor with those that hold the purse strings.

Compare that ever so briefly with the purchases made by a small mom-and-pop store like my parents owned. Could my dad take a bribe to buy from a vendor who’s ripping him off? Absolutely he could! But he’d lose more on the deal than he’d make on the bribe, since he’s directly incentivized by the deal itself. It would make much more sense for him to go with the better vendor, save $5,000 on the deal, and then treat himself to a lavish $400 meal to celebrate.

Government incentivized behavior

This post is getting longer in the tooth than I’d intended, so I’ll finish off with this section and make it a bit briefer. Beyond all the methods mentioned above, government has another mechanism for modifying behavior: through directly changing incentives via legislation, regulation, and monetary policy. Let’s see some examples:

• Artificial modification of interest rates encourages people to take on more debt than they would in a free capital market, leading to malinvestment and a consumer debt crisis, and causing the boom-bust cycle we all painfully experience.
• Going along with that, giving tax breaks on interest payments further artificially incentivizes people to take on debt that they wouldn’t otherwise.
• During COVID-19, at some points unemployment benefits were greater than minimum wage, incentivizing people to rather stay home and not work than get a job, leading to reduced overall productivity in the economy and more printed dollars for benefits. In other words, it was a perfect recipe for inflation.
• The tax code gives deductions to “help” people. That might be true, but the real impact is incentivizing people to make decisions they wouldn’t have otherwise. For example, giving out tax deductions on children encourages having more kids. Tax deductions on childcare and preschools incentivizes dual-income households. Whether or not you like the outcomes, it’s clear that it’s government that’s encouraging these outcomes to happen.
• Tax incentives cause people to engage in behavior they wouldn’t otherwise (daycare+working mother, for example).
• Inflation means that the value of your money goes down over time, which encourages people to spend more today, when their money has a larger impact. (Milton Friedman described this as high living.)

Conclusion

The idea here is simple, and fully encapsulated in the title: incentives determine outcomes. If you want to know how to get a certain outcome from others, incentivize them to want that to happen. If you want to understand why people act in seemingly irrational ways, check their incentives. If you’re confused why leaders (and especially politicians) seem to engage in destructive behavior, check their incentives.

We can bemoan these realities all we want, but they are realities. While there are some people who have a solid internal moral and ethical code, and that internal code incentivizes them to behave against their externally-incentivized interests, those people are rare. And frankly, those people are self-defeating. People should take advantage of the incentives around them. Because if they don’t, someone else will.

(If you want a literary example of that last comment, see the horse in Animal Farm.)

How do we improve the world under these conditions? Make sure the incentives align well with the overall goals of society. To me, it’s a simple formula:

• Focus on free trade, value for value, as the basis of a society. In that system, people are always incentivized to provide value to other people.
• Reduce the size of bureaucracies and large groups of all kinds. The larger an organization becomes, the farther the consequences of decisions are from those who make them.
• And since the nature of human beings will be to try and create areas where they can control the incentive systems to their own benefits, make that as difficult as possible. That comes in the form of strict limits on government power, for example.

And even if you don’t want to buy in to this conclusion, I hope the rest of the content was educational, and maybe a bit entertaining!

@ 3f770d65:7a745b24

I’ve been using Notedeck for several months, starting with its extremely early and experimental alpha versions, all the way to its current, more stable alpha releases. The journey has been fascinating, as I’ve had the privilege of watching it evolve from a concept into a functional and promising tool.

In its earliest stages, Notedeck was raw—offering glimpses of its potential but still far from practical for daily use. Even then, the vision behind it was clear: a platform designed to redefine how we interact with Nostr by offering flexibility and power for all users.

I'm very bullish on Notedeck. Why? Because Will Casarin is making it! Duh! 😂

Seriously though, if we’re reimagining the web and rebuilding portions of the Internet, it’s important to recognize the potential of Notedeck. If Nostr is reimagining the web, then Notedeck is reimagining the Nostr client.

Notedeck isn’t just another Nostr app—it’s more a Nostr browser that functions more like an operating system with micro-apps. How cool is that?

Much like how Google's Chrome evolved from being a web browser with a task manager into ChromeOS, a full blown operating system, Notedeck aims to transform how we interact with the Nostr. It goes beyond individual apps, offering a foundation for a fully integrated ecosystem built around Nostr.

As a Nostr evangelist, I love to scream INTEROPERABILITY and tout every application's integrations. Well, Notedeck has the potential to be one of the best platforms to showcase these integrations in entirely new and exciting ways.

Do you want an Olas feed of images? Add the media column.

Do you want a feed of live video events? Add the zap.stream column.

Do you want Nostr Nests or audio chats? Add that column to your Notedeck.

Git? Email? Books? Chat and DMs? It's all possible.

Not everyone wants a super app though, and that’s okay. As with most things in the Nostr ecosystem, flexibility is key. Notedeck gives users the freedom to choose how they engage with it—whether it’s simply following hashtags or managing straightforward feeds. You'll be able to tailor Notedeck to fit your needs, using it as extensively or minimally as you prefer.

Notedeck is designed with a local-first approach, utilizing Nostr content stored directly on your device via the local nostrdb. This will enable a plethora of advanced tools such as search and filtering, the creation of custom feeds, and the ability to develop personalized algorithms across multiple Notedeck micro-applications—all with unparalleled flexibility.

Notedeck also supports multicast. Let's geek out for a second. Multicast is a method of communication where data is sent from one source to multiple destinations simultaneously, but only to devices that wish to receive the data. Unlike broadcast, which sends data to all devices on a network, multicast targets specific receivers, reducing network traffic. This is commonly used for efficient data distribution in scenarios like streaming, conferencing, or large-scale data synchronization between devices.

In a local first world where each device holds local copies of your nostr nodes, and each device transparently syncs with each other on the local network, each node becomes a backup. Your data becomes antifragile automatically. When a node goes down it can resync and recover from other nodes. Even if not all nodes have a complete collection, negentropy can pull down only what is needed from each device. All this can be done without internet.

-Will Casarin

In the context of Notedeck, multicast would allow multiple devices to sync their Nostr nodes with each other over a local network without needing an internet connection. Wild.

Notedeck aims to offer full customization too, including the ability to design and share custom skins, much like Winamp. Users will also be able to create personalized columns and, in the future, share their setups with others. This opens the door for power users to craft tailored Nostr experiences, leveraging their expertise in the protocol and applications. By sharing these configurations as "Starter Decks," they can simplify onboarding and showcase the best of Nostr’s ecosystem.

Nostr’s “Other Stuff” can often be difficult to discover, use, or understand. Many users doesn't understand or know how to use web browser extensions to login to applications. Let's not even get started with nsecbunkers. Notedeck will address this challenge by providing a native experience that brings these lesser-known applications, tools, and content into a user-friendly and accessible interface, making exploration seamless. However, that doesn't mean Notedeck should disregard power users that want to use nsecbunkers though - hint hint.

For anyone interested in watching Nostr be developed live, right before your very eyes, Notedeck’s progress serves as a reminder of what’s possible when innovation meets dedication. The current alpha is already demonstrating its ability to handle complex use cases, and I’m excited to see how it continues to grow as it moves toward a full release later this year.

@ 23b0e2f8:d8af76fc

Necessário

• Um Android que você não use mais (a câmera deve estar funcionando).
• Um cartão microSD (opcional, usado apenas uma vez).
• Um dispositivo para acompanhar seus fundos (provavelmente você já tem um).

Algumas coisas que você precisa saber

• O dispositivo servirá como um assinador. Qualquer movimentação só será efetuada após ser assinada por ele.
• O cartão microSD será usado para transferir o APK do Electrum e garantir que o aparelho não terá contato com outras fontes de dados externas após sua formatação. Contudo, é possível usar um cabo USB para o mesmo propósito.
• A ideia é deixar sua chave privada em um dispositivo offline, que ficará desligado em 99% do tempo. Você poderá acompanhar seus fundos em outro dispositivo conectado à internet, como seu celular ou computador pessoal.

---

O tutorial será dividido em dois módulos:

• Módulo 1 - Criando uma carteira fria/assinador.
• Módulo 2 - Configurando um dispositivo para visualizar seus fundos e assinando transações com o assinador.

---

No final, teremos:

• Uma carteira fria que também servirá como assinador.
• Um dispositivo para acompanhar os fundos da carteira.

---

Módulo 1 - Criando uma carteira fria/assinador

1. Baixe o APK do Electrum na aba de downloads em https://electrum.org/. Fique à vontade para verificar as assinaturas do software, garantindo sua autenticidade.

2. Formate o cartão microSD e coloque o APK do Electrum nele. Caso não tenha um cartão microSD, pule este passo.

1. Retire os chips e acessórios do aparelho que será usado como assinador, formate-o e aguarde a inicialização.

1. Durante a inicialização, pule a etapa de conexão ao Wi-Fi e rejeite todas as solicitações de conexão. Após isso, você pode desinstalar aplicativos desnecessários, pois precisará apenas do Electrum. Certifique-se de que Wi-Fi, Bluetooth e dados móveis estejam desligados. Você também pode ativar o modo avião.\ (Curiosidade: algumas pessoas optam por abrir o aparelho e danificar a antena do Wi-Fi/Bluetooth, impossibilitando essas funcionalidades.)

1. Insira o cartão microSD com o APK do Electrum no dispositivo e instale-o. Será necessário permitir instalações de fontes não oficiais.

1. No Electrum, crie uma carteira padrão e gere suas palavras-chave (seed). Anote-as em um local seguro. Caso algo aconteça com seu assinador, essas palavras permitirão o acesso aos seus fundos novamente. (Aqui entra seu método pessoal de backup.)

---

Módulo 2 - Configurando um dispositivo para visualizar seus fundos e assinando transações com o assinador.

1. Criar uma carteira somente leitura em outro dispositivo, como seu celular ou computador pessoal, é uma etapa bastante simples. Para este tutorial, usaremos outro smartphone Android com Electrum. Instale o Electrum a partir da aba de downloads em https://electrum.org/ ou da própria Play Store. (ATENÇÃO: O Electrum não existe oficialmente para iPhone. Desconfie se encontrar algum.)

2. Após instalar o Electrum, crie uma carteira padrão, mas desta vez escolha a opção Usar uma chave mestra.

1. Agora, no assinador que criamos no primeiro módulo, exporte sua chave pública: vá em Carteira > Detalhes da carteira > Compartilhar chave mestra pública.

1. Escaneie o QR gerado da chave pública com o dispositivo de consulta. Assim, ele poderá acompanhar seus fundos, mas sem permissão para movimentá-los.

2. Para receber fundos, envie Bitcoin para um dos endereços gerados pela sua carteira: Carteira > Addresses/Coins.

3. Para movimentar fundos, crie uma transação no dispositivo de consulta. Como ele não possui a chave privada, será necessário assiná-la com o dispositivo assinador.

1. No assinador, escaneie a transação não assinada, confirme os detalhes, assine e compartilhe. Será gerado outro QR, desta vez com a transação já assinada.

1. No dispositivo de consulta, escaneie o QR da transação assinada e transmita-a para a rede.

---

Conclusão

Pontos positivos do setup:

• Simplicidade: Basta um dispositivo Android antigo.
• Flexibilidade: Funciona como uma ótima carteira fria, ideal para holders.

Pontos negativos do setup:

• Padronização: Não utiliza seeds no padrão BIP-39, você sempre precisará usar o electrum.
• Interface: A aparência do Electrum pode parecer antiquada para alguns usuários.

Nesse ponto, temos uma carteira fria que também serve para assinar transações. O fluxo de assinar uma transação se torna: Gerar uma transação não assinada > Escanear o QR da transação não assinada > Conferir e assinar essa transação com o assinador > Gerar QR da transação assinada > Escanear a transação assinada com qualquer outro dispositivo que possa transmiti-la para a rede.

Como alguns devem saber, uma transação assinada de Bitcoin é praticamente impossível de ser fraudada. Em um cenário catastrófico, você pode mesmo que sem internet, repassar essa transação assinada para alguém que tenha acesso à rede por qualquer meio de comunicação. Mesmo que não queiramos que isso aconteça um dia, esse setup acaba por tornar essa prática possível.

---

@ 1bda7e1f:bb97c4d9

Tldr

• Nostr is an open and interoperable protocol
• You can integrate it with workflow automation tools to augment your experience
• n8n is a great low/no-code workflow automation tool which you can host yourself
• Nostrobots allows you to integrate Nostr into n8n
• In this blog I create some workflow automations for Nostr
• A simple form to delegate posting notes
• Push notifications for mentions on multiple accounts
• Push notifications for your favourite accounts when they post a note
• All workflows are provided as open source with MIT license for you to use

Inter-op All The Things

Nostr is a new open social protocol for the internet. This open nature exciting because of the opportunities for interoperability with other technologies. In Using NFC Cards with Nostr I explored the nostr: URI to launch Nostr clients from a card tap.

The interoperability of Nostr doesn't stop there. The internet has many super-powers, and Nostr is open to all of them. Simply, there's no one to stop it. There is no one in charge, there are no permissioned APIs, and there are no risks of being de-platformed. If you can imagine technologies that would work well with Nostr, then any and all of them can ride on or alongside Nostr rails.

My mental model for why this is special is Google Wave ~2010. Google Wave was to be the next big platform. Lars was running it and had a big track record from Maps. I was excited for it. Then, Google pulled the plug. And, immediately all the time and capital invested in understanding and building on the platform was wasted.

This cannot happen to Nostr, as there is no one to pull the plug, and maybe even no plug to pull.

So long as users demand Nostr, Nostr will exist, and that is a pretty strong guarantee. It makes it worthwhile to invest in bringing Nostr into our other applications.

All we need are simple ways to plug things together.

Nostr and Workflow Automation

Workflow automation is about helping people to streamline their work. As a user, the most common way I achieve this is by connecting disparate systems together. By setting up one system to trigger another or to move data between systems, I can solve for many different problems and become way more effective.

n8n for workflow automation

Many workflow automation tools exist. My favourite is n8n. n8n is a low/no-code workflow automation platform which allows you to build all kinds of workflows. You can use it for free, you can self-host it, it has a user-friendly UI and useful API. Vs Zapier it can be far more elaborate. Vs Make.com I find it to be more intuitive in how it abstracts away the right parts of the code, but still allows you to code when you need to.

Most importantly you can plug anything into n8n: You have built-in nodes for specific applications. HTTP nodes for any other API-based service. And community nodes built by individual community members for any other purpose you can imagine.

Eating my own dogfood

It's very clear to me that there is a big design space here just demanding to be explored. If you could integrate Nostr with anything, what would you do?

In my view the best way for anyone to start anything is by solving their own problem first (aka "scratching your own itch" and "eating your own dogfood"). As I get deeper into Nostr I find myself controlling multiple Npubs – to date I have a personal Npub, a brand Npub for a community I am helping, an AI assistant Npub, and various testing Npubs. I need ways to delegate access to those Npubs without handing over the keys, ways to know if they're mentioned, and ways to know if they're posting.

I can build workflows with n8n to solve these issues for myself to start with, and keep expanding from there as new needs come up.

Running n8n with Nostrobots

I am mostly non-technical with a very helpful AI. To set up n8n to work with Nostr and operate these workflows should be possible for anyone with basic technology skills.

• I have a cheap VPS which currently runs my HAVEN Nostr Relay and Albyhub Lightning Node in Docker containers,
• My objective was to set up n8n to run alongside these in a separate Docker container on the same server, install the required nodes, and then build and host my workflows.

Installing n8n

Self-hosting n8n could not be easier. I followed n8n's Docker-Compose installation docs–

• Install Docker and Docker-Compose if you haven't already,
• Create your docker-compose.yml and .env files from the docs,
• Create your data folder sudo docker volume create n8n_data,
• Start your container with sudo docker compose up -d,
• Your n8n instance should be online at port 5678.

n8n is free to self-host but does require a license. Enter your credentials into n8n to get your free license key. You should now have access to the Workflow dashboard and can create and host any kind of workflows from there.

Installing Nostrobots

To integrate n8n nicely with Nostr, I used the Nostrobots community node by Ocknamo.

In n8n parlance a "node" enables certain functionality as a step in a workflow e.g. a "set" node sets a variable, a "send email" node sends an email. n8n comes with all kinds of "official" nodes installed by default, and Nostr is not amongst them. However, n8n also comes with a framework for community members to create their own "community" nodes, which is where Nostrobots comes in.

You can only use a community node in a self-hosted n8n instance (which is what you have if you are running in Docker on your own server, but this limitation does prevent you from using n8n's own hosted alternative).

To install a community node, see n8n community node docs. From your workflow dashboard–

• Click the "..." in the bottom left corner beside your username, and click "settings",
• Cilck "community nodes" left sidebar,
• Click "Install",
• Enter the "npm Package Name" which is n8n-nodes-nostrobots,
• Accept the risks and click "Install",
• Nostrobots is now added to your n8n instance.

Using Nostrobots

Nostrobots gives you nodes to help you build Nostr-integrated workflows–

• Nostr Write – for posting Notes to the Nostr network,
• Nostr Read – for reading Notes from the Nostr network, and
• Nostr Utils – for performing certain conversions you may need (e.g. from bech32 to hex).

Nostrobots has good documentation on each node which focuses on simple use cases.

Each node has a "convenience mode" by default. For example, the "Read" Node by default will fetch Kind 1 notes by a simple filter, in Nostrobots parlance a "Strategy". For example, with Strategy set to "Mention" the node will accept a pubkey and fetch all Kind 1 notes that Mention the pubkey within a time period. This is very good for quick use.

What wasn't clear to me initially (until Ocknamo helped me out) is that advanced use cases are also possible.

Each node also has an advanced mode. For example, the "Read" Node can have "Strategy" set to "RawFilter(advanced)". Now the node will accept json (anything you like that complies with NIP-01). You can use this to query Notes (Kind 1) as above, and also Profiles (Kind 0), Follow Lists (Kind 3), Reactions (Kind 7), Zaps (Kind 9734/9735), and anything else you can think of.

Creating and adding workflows

With n8n and Nostrobots installed, you can now create or add any kind of Nostr Workflow Automation.

• Click "Add workflow" to go to the workflow builder screen,
• If you would like to build your own workflow, you can start with adding any node. Click "+" and see what is available. Type "Nostr" to explore the Nostrobots nodes you have added,
• If you would like to add workflows that someone else has built, click "..." in the top right. Then click "import from URL" and paste in the URL of any workflow you would like to use (including the ones I share later in this article).

Nostr Workflow Automations

It's time to build some things!

A simple form to post a note to Nostr

I started very simply. I needed to delegate the ability to post to Npubs that I own in order that a (future) team can test things for me. I don't want to worry about managing or training those people on how to use keys, and I want to revoke access easily.

I needed a basic form with credentials that posted a Note.

For this I can use a very simple workflow–

• A n8n Form node – Creates a form for users to enter the note they wish to post. Allows for the form to be protected by a username and password. This node is the workflow "trigger" so that the workflow runs each time the form is submitted.
• A Set node – Allows me to set some variables, in this case I set the relays that I intend to use. I typically add a Set node immediately following the trigger node, and put all the variables I need in this. It helps to make the workflows easier to update and maintain.
• A Nostr Write node (from Nostrobots) – Writes a Kind-1 note to the Nostr network. It accepts Nostr credentials, the output of the Form node, and the relays from the Set node, and posts the Note to those relays.

Once the workflow is built, you can test it with the testing form URL, and set it to "Active" to use the production form URL. That's it. You can now give posting access to anyone for any Npub. To revoke access, simply change the credentials or set to workflow to "Inactive".

It may also be the world's simplest Nostr client.

You can find the Nostr Form to Post a Note workflow here.

Push notifications on mentions and new notes

One of the things Nostr is not very good at is push notifications. Furthermore I have some unique itches to scratch. I want–

• To make sure I never miss a note addressed to any of my Npubs – For this I want a push notification any time any Nostr user mentions any of my Npubs,
• To make sure I always see all notes from key accounts – For this I need a push notification any time any of my Npubs post any Notes to the network,
• To get these notifications on all of my devices – Not just my phone where my Nostr regular client lives, but also on each of my laptops to suit wherever I am working that day.

I needed to build a Nostr push notifications solution.

To build this workflow I had to string a few ideas together–

• Triggering the node on a schedule – Nostrobots does not include a trigger node. As every workflow starts with a trigger we needed a different method. I elected to run the workflow on a schedule of every 10-minutes. Frequent enough to see Notes while they are hot, but infrequent enough to not burden public relays or get rate-limited,
• Storing a list of Npubs in a Nostr list – I needed a way to store the list of Npubs that trigger my notifications. I initially used an array defined in the workflow, this worked fine. Then I decided to try Nostr lists (NIP-51, kind 30000). By defining my list of Npubs as a list published to Nostr I can control my list from within a Nostr client (e.g. Listr.lol or Nostrudel.ninja). Not only does this "just work", but because it's based on Nostr lists automagically Amethyst client allows me to browse that list as a Feed, and everyone I add gets notified in their Mentions,
• Using specific relays – I needed to query the right relays, including my own HAVEN relay inbox for notes addressed to me, and wss://purplepag.es for Nostr profile metadata,
• Querying Nostr events (with Nostrobots) – I needed to make use of many different Nostr queries and use quite a wide range of what Nostrobots can do–
  • I read the EventID of my Kind 30000 list, to return the desired pubkeys,
  • For notifications on mentions, I read all Kind 1 notes that mention that pubkey,
  • For notifications on new notes, I read all Kind 1 notes published by that pubkey,
  • Where there are notes, I read the Kind 0 profile metadata event of that pubkey to get the displayName of the relevant Npub,
  • I transform the EventID into a Nevent to help clients find it.
• Using the Nostr URI – As I did with my NFC card article, I created a link with the nostr: URI prefix so that my phone's native client opens the link by default,
• Push notifications solution – I needed a push notifications solution. I found many with n8n integrations and chose to go with Pushover which supports all my devices, has a free trial, and is unfairly cheap with a $5-per-device perpetual license.

Once the workflow was built, lists published, and Pushover installed on my phone, I was fully set up with push notifications on Nostr. I have used these workflows for several weeks now and made various tweaks as I went. They are feeling robust and I'd welcome you to give them a go.

You can find the Nostr Push Notification If Mentioned here and If Posts a Note here.

In speaking with other Nostr users while I was building this, there are all kind of other needs for push notifications too – like on replies to a certain bookmarked note, or when a followed Npub starts streaming on zap.stream. These are all possible.

Use my workflows

I have open sourced all my workflows at my Github with MIT license and tried to write complete docs, so that you can import them into your n8n and configure them for your own use.

To import any of my workflows–

• Click on the workflow of your choice, e.g. "Nostr_Push_Notify_If_Mentioned.json",
• Click on the "raw" button to view the raw JSON, ex any Github page layout,
• Copy that URL,
• Enter that URL in the "import from URL" dialog mentioned above.

To configure them–

• Prerequisites, credentials, and variables are all stated,
• In general any variables required are entered into a Set Node that follows the trigger node,
• Pushover has some extra setup but is very straightforward and documented in the workflow.

What next?

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

Then in my latest two blogs I explored different types of interoperability with NFC cards and now n8n Workflow Automation.

Thinking ahead n8n can power any kind of interoperability between Nostr and any other legacy technology solution. On my mind as I write this:

• Further enhancements to posting and delegating solutions and forms (enhanced UI or different note kinds),
• Automated or scheduled posting (such as auto-liking everything Lyn Alden posts),
• Further enhancements to push notifications, on new and different types of events (such as notifying me when I get a new follower, on replies to certain posts, or when a user starts streaming),
• All kinds of bridges, such as bridging notes to and from Telegram, Slack, or Campfire. Or bridging RSS or other event feeds to Nostr,
• All kinds of other automation (such as BlackCoffee controlling a coffee machine),
• All kinds of AI Assistants and Agents,

In fact I have already released an open source workflow for an AI Assistant, and will share more about that in my next blog.

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

GM Nostr.

@ 3f770d65:7a745b24

Here are my predictions for Nostr in 2025:

Decentralization: The outbox and inbox communication models, sometimes referred to as the Gossip model, will become the standard across the ecosystem. By the end of 2025, all major clients will support these models, providing seamless communication and enhanced decentralization. Clients that do not adopt outbox/inbox by then will be regarded as outdated or legacy systems.

Privacy Standards: Major clients such as Damus and Primal will move away from NIP-04 DMs, adopting more secure protocol possibilities like NIP-17 or NIP-104. These upgrades will ensure enhanced encryption and metadata protection. Additionally, NIP-104 MLS tools will drive the development of new clients and features, providing users with unprecedented control over the privacy of their communications.

Interoperability: Nostr's ecosystem will become even more interconnected. Platforms like the Olas image-sharing service will expand into prominent clients such as Primal, Damus, Coracle, and Snort, alongside existing integrations with Amethyst, Nostur, and Nostrudel. Similarly, audio and video tools like Nostr Nests and Zap.stream will gain seamless integration into major clients, enabling easy participation in live events across the ecosystem.

Adoption and Migration: Inspired by early pioneers like Fountain and Orange Pill App, more platforms will adopt Nostr for authentication, login, and social systems. In 2025, a significant migration from a high-profile application platform with hundreds of thousands of users will transpire, doubling Nostr’s daily activity and establishing it as a cornerstone of decentralized technologies.

@ e97aaffa:2ebd765d

Último dia do ano, momento para tirar o pó da bola de cristal, para fazer reflexões, previsões e desejos para o próximo ano e seguintes.

Ano após ano, o Bitcoin evoluiu, foi ultrapassando etapas, tornou-se cada vez mais mainstream. Está cada vez mais difícil fazer previsões sobre o Bitcoin, já faltam poucas barreiras a serem ultrapassadas e as que faltam são altamente complexas ou tem um impacto profundo no sistema financeiro ou na sociedade. Estas alterações profundas tem que ser realizadas lentamente, porque uma alteração rápida poderia resultar em consequências terríveis, poderia provocar um retrocesso.

Código do Bitcoin

No final de 2025, possivelmente vamos ter um fork, as discussões sobre os covenants já estão avançadas, vão acelerar ainda mais. Já existe um consenso relativamente alto, a favor dos covenants, só falta decidir que modelo será escolhido. Penso que até ao final do ano será tudo decidido.

Depois dos covenants, o próximo foco será para a criptografia post-quantum, que será o maior desafio que o Bitcoin enfrenta. Criar uma criptografia segura e que não coloque a descentralização em causa.

Espero muito de Ark, possivelmente a inovação do ano, gostaria de ver o Nostr a furar a bolha bitcoinheira e que o Cashu tivesse mais reconhecimento pelos bitcoiners.

Espero que surjam avanços significativos no BitVM2 e BitVMX.

Não sei o que esperar das layer 2 de Bitcoin, foram a maior desilusão de 2024. Surgiram com muita força, mas pouca coisa saiu do papel, foi uma mão cheia de nada. Uma parte dos projetos caiu na tentação da shitcoinagem, na criação de tokens, que tem um único objetivo, enriquecer os devs e os VCs.

Se querem ser levados a sério, têm que ser sérios.

“À mulher de César não basta ser honesta, deve parecer honesta”

Se querem ter o apoio dos bitcoiners, sigam o ethos do Bitcoin.

Neste ponto a atitude do pessoal da Ark é exemplar, em vez de andar a chorar no Twitter para mudar o código do Bitcoin, eles colocaram as mãos na massa e criaram o protocolo. É claro que agora está meio “coxo”, funciona com uma multisig ou com os covenants na Liquid. Mas eles estão a criar um produto, vão demonstrar ao mercado que o produto é bom e útil. Com a adoção, a comunidade vai perceber que o Ark necessita dos covenants para melhorar a interoperabilidade e a soberania.

É este o pensamento certo, que deveria ser seguido pelos restantes e futuros projetos. É seguir aquele pensamento do J.F. Kennedy:

“Não perguntem o que é que o vosso país pode fazer por vocês, perguntem o que é que vocês podem fazer pelo vosso país”

Ou seja, não fiquem à espera que o bitcoin mude, criem primeiro as inovações/tecnologia, ganhem adoção e depois demonstrem que a alteração do código camada base pode melhorar ainda mais o vosso projeto. A necessidade é que vai levar a atualização do código.

Reservas Estratégicas de Bitcoin

Bancos centrais

Com a eleição de Trump, emergiu a ideia de uma Reserva Estratégia de Bitcoin, tornou este conceito mainstream. Foi um pivot, a partir desse momento, foram enumerados os políticos de todo o mundo a falar sobre o assunto.

A Senadora Cynthia Lummis foi mais além e propôs um programa para adicionar 200 mil bitcoins à reserva ao ano, até 1 milhão de Bitcoin. Só que isto está a criar uma enorme expectativa na comunidade, só que pode resultar numa enorme desilusão. Porque no primeiro ano, o Trump em vez de comprar os 200 mil, pode apenas adicionar na reserva, os 198 mil que o Estado já tem em sua posse. Se isto acontecer, possivelmente vai resultar numa forte queda a curto prazo. Na minha opinião os bancos centrais deveriam seguir o exemplo de El Salvador, fazer um DCA diário.

Mais que comprar bitcoin, para mim, o mais importante é a criação da Reserva, é colocar o Bitcoin ao mesmo nível do ouro, o impacto para o resto do mundo será tremendo, a teoria dos jogos na sua plenitude. Muitos outros bancos centrais vão ter que comprar, para não ficarem atrás, além disso, vai transmitir uma mensagem à generalidade da população, que o Bitcoin é “afinal é algo seguro, com valor”.

Mas não foi Trump que iniciou esta teoria dos jogos, mas sim foi a primeira vítima dela. É o próprio Trump que o admite, que os EUA necessitam da reserva para não ficar atrás da China. Além disso, desde que os EUA utilizaram o dólar como uma arma, com sanção contra a Rússia, surgiram boatos de que a Rússia estaria a utilizar o Bitcoin para transações internacionais. Que foram confirmados recentemente, pelo próprio governo russo. Também há poucos dias, ainda antes deste reconhecimento público, Putin elogiou o Bitcoin, ao reconhecer que “Ninguém pode proibir o bitcoin”, defendendo como uma alternativa ao dólar. A narrativa está a mudar.

Já existem alguns países com Bitcoin, mas apenas dois o fizeram conscientemente (El Salvador e Butão), os restantes têm devido a apreensões. Hoje são poucos, mas 2025 será o início de uma corrida pelos bancos centrais. Esta corrida era algo previsível, o que eu não esperava é que acontecesse tão rápido.

Empresas

A criação de reservas estratégicas não vai ficar apenas pelos bancos centrais, também vai acelerar fortemente nas empresas em 2025.

Mas as empresas não vão seguir a estratégia do Saylor, vão comprar bitcoin sem alavancagem, utilizando apenas os tesouros das empresas, como uma proteção contra a inflação. Eu não sou grande admirador do Saylor, prefiro muito mais, uma estratégia conservadora, sem qualquer alavancagem. Penso que as empresas vão seguir a sugestão da BlackRock, que aconselha um alocações de 1% a 3%.

Penso que 2025, ainda não será o ano da entrada das 6 magníficas (excepto Tesla), será sobretudo empresas de pequena e média dimensão. As magníficas ainda tem uma cota muito elevada de shareholders com alguma idade, bastante conservadores, que têm dificuldade em compreender o Bitcoin, foi o que aconteceu recentemente com a Microsoft.

Também ainda não será em 2025, talvez 2026, a inclusão nativamente de wallet Bitcoin nos sistema da Apple Pay e da Google Pay. Seria um passo gigante para a adoção a nível mundial.

ETFs

Os ETFs para mim são uma incógnita, tenho demasiadas dúvidas, como será 2025. Este ano os inflows foram superiores a 500 mil bitcoins, o IBIT foi o lançamento de ETF mais bem sucedido da história. O sucesso dos ETFs, deve-se a 2 situações que nunca mais se vão repetir. O mercado esteve 10 anos à espera pela aprovação dos ETFs, a procura estava reprimida, isso foi bem notório nos primeiros meses, os inflows foram brutais.

Também se beneficiou por ser um mercado novo, não existia orderbook de vendas, não existia um mercado interno, praticamente era só inflows. Agora o mercado já estabilizou, a maioria das transações já são entre clientes dos próprios ETFs. Agora só uma pequena percentagem do volume das transações diárias vai resultar em inflows ou outflows.

Estes dois fenómenos nunca mais se vão repetir, eu não acredito que o número de inflows em BTC supere os número de 2024, em dólares vai superar, mas em btc não acredito que vá superar.

Mas em 2025 vão surgir uma infindável quantidade de novos produtos, derivativos, novos ETFs de cestos com outras criptos ou cestos com ativos tradicionais. O bitcoin será adicionado em produtos financeiros já existentes no mercado, as pessoas vão passar a deter bitcoin, sem o saberem.

Com o fim da operação ChokePoint 2.0, vai surgir uma nova onda de adoção e de produtos financeiros. Possivelmente vamos ver bancos tradicionais a disponibilizar produtos ou serviços de custódia aos seus clientes.

Eu adoraria ver o crescimento da adoção do bitcoin como moeda, só que a regulamentação não vai ajudar nesse processo.

Preço

Eu acredito que o topo deste ciclo será alcançado no primeiro semestre, posteriormente haverá uma correção. Mas desta vez, eu acredito que a correção será muito menor que as anteriores, inferior a 50%, esta é a minha expectativa. Espero estar certo.

Stablecoins de dólar

Agora saindo um pouco do universo do Bitcoin, acho importante destacar as stablecoins.

No último ciclo, eu tenho dividido o tempo, entre continuar a estudar o Bitcoin e estudar o sistema financeiro, as suas dinâmicas e o comportamento humano. Isto tem sido o meu foco de reflexão, imaginar a transformação que o mundo vai sofrer devido ao padrão Bitcoin. É uma ilusão acreditar que a transição de um padrão FIAT para um padrão Bitcoin vai ser rápida, vai existir um processo transitório que pode demorar décadas.

Com a re-entrada de Trump na Casa Branca, prometendo uma política altamente protecionista, vai provocar uma forte valorização do dólar, consequentemente as restantes moedas do mundo vão derreter. Provocando uma inflação generalizada, gerando uma corrida às stablecoins de dólar nos países com moedas mais fracas. Trump vai ter uma política altamente expansionista, vai exportar dólares para todo o mundo, para financiar a sua própria dívida. A desigualdade entre os pobres e ricos irá crescer fortemente, aumentando a possibilidade de conflitos e revoltas.

“Casa onde não há pão, todos ralham e ninguém tem razão”

Será mais lenha, para alimentar a fogueira, vai gravar os conflitos geopolíticos já existentes, ficando as sociedade ainda mais polarizadas.

Eu acredito que 2025, vai haver um forte crescimento na adoção das stablecoins de dólares, esse forte crescimento vai agravar o problema sistémico que são as stablecoins. Vai ser o início do fim das stablecoins, pelo menos, como nós conhecemos hoje em dia.

Problema sistémico

O sistema FIAT não nasceu de um dia para outro, foi algo que foi construído organicamente, ou seja, foi evoluindo ao longo dos anos, sempre que havia um problema/crise, eram criadas novas regras ou novas instituições para minimizar os problemas. Nestes quase 100 anos, desde os acordos de Bretton Woods, a evolução foram tantas, tornaram o sistema financeiro altamente complexo, burocrático e nada eficiente.

Na prática é um castelo de cartas construído sobre outro castelo de cartas e que por sua vez, foi construído sobre outro castelo de cartas.

As stablecoins são um problema sistémico, devido às suas reservas em dólares e o sistema financeiro não está preparado para manter isso seguro. Com o crescimento das reservas ao longo dos anos, foi se agravando o problema.

No início a Tether colocava as reservas em bancos comerciais, mas com o crescimento dos dólares sob gestão, criou um problema nos bancos comerciais, devido à reserva fracionária. Essas enormes reservas da Tether estavam a colocar em risco a própria estabilidade dos bancos.

A Tether acabou por mudar de estratégia, optou por outros ativos, preferencialmente por títulos do tesouro/obrigações dos EUA. Só que a Tether continua a crescer e não dá sinais de abrandamento, pelo contrário.

Até o próprio mundo cripto, menosprezava a gravidade do problema da Tether/stablecoins para o resto do sistema financeiro, porque o marketcap do cripto ainda é muito pequeno. É verdade que ainda é pequeno, mas a Tether não o é, está no top 20 dos maiores detentores de títulos do tesouros dos EUA e está ao nível dos maiores bancos centrais do mundo. Devido ao seu tamanho, está a preocupar os responsáveis/autoridades/reguladores dos EUA, pode colocar em causa a estabilidade do sistema financeiro global, que está assente nessas obrigações.

Os títulos do tesouro dos EUA são o colateral mais utilizado no mundo, tanto por bancos centrais, como por empresas, é a charneira da estabilidade do sistema financeiro. Os títulos do tesouro são um assunto muito sensível. Na recente crise no Japão, do carry trade, o Banco Central do Japão tentou minimizar a desvalorização do iene através da venda de títulos dos EUA. Esta operação, obrigou a uma viagem de emergência, da Secretaria do Tesouro dos EUA, Janet Yellen ao Japão, onde disponibilizou liquidez para parar a venda de títulos por parte do Banco Central do Japão. Essa forte venda estava desestabilizando o mercado.

Os principais detentores de títulos do tesouros são institucionais, bancos centrais, bancos comerciais, fundo de investimento e gestoras, tudo administrado por gestores altamente qualificados, racionais e que conhecem a complexidade do mercado de obrigações.

O mundo cripto é seu oposto, é naife com muita irracionalidade e uma forte pitada de loucura, na sua maioria nem faz a mínima ideia como funciona o sistema financeiro. Essa irracionalidade pode levar a uma “corrida bancária”, como aconteceu com o UST da Luna, que em poucas horas colapsou o projeto. Em termos de escala, a Luna ainda era muito pequena, por isso, o problema ficou circunscrito ao mundo cripto e a empresas ligadas diretamente ao cripto.

Só que a Tether é muito diferente, caso exista algum FUD, que obrigue a Tether a desfazer-se de vários biliões ou dezenas de biliões de dólares em títulos num curto espaço de tempo, poderia provocar consequências terríveis em todo o sistema financeiro. A Tether é grande demais, é já um problema sistémico, que vai agravar-se com o crescimento em 2025.

Não tenham dúvidas, se existir algum problema, o Tesouro dos EUA vai impedir a venda dos títulos que a Tether tem em sua posse, para salvar o sistema financeiro. O problema é, o que vai fazer a Tether, se ficar sem acesso às venda das reservas, como fará o redeem dos dólares?

Como o crescimento do Tether é inevitável, o Tesouro e o FED estão com um grande problema em mãos, o que fazer com o Tether?

Mas o problema é que o atual sistema financeiro é como um curto cobertor: Quanto tapas a cabeça, destapas os pés; Ou quando tapas os pés, destapas a cabeça. Ou seja, para resolver o problema da guarda reservas da Tether, vai criar novos problemas, em outros locais do sistema financeiro e assim sucessivamente.

Conta mestre

Uma possível solução seria dar uma conta mestre à Tether, dando o acesso direto a uma conta no FED, semelhante à que todos os bancos comerciais têm. Com isto, a Tether deixaria de necessitar os títulos do tesouro, depositando o dinheiro diretamente no banco central. Só que isto iria criar dois novos problemas, com o Custodia Bank e com o restante sistema bancário.

O Custodia Bank luta há vários anos contra o FED, nos tribunais pelo direito a ter licença bancária para um banco com full-reserves. O FED recusou sempre esse direito, com a justificativa que esse banco, colocaria em risco toda a estabilidade do sistema bancário existente, ou seja, todos os outros bancos poderiam colapsar. Perante a existência em simultâneo de bancos com reserva fracionária e com full-reserves, as pessoas e empresas iriam optar pelo mais seguro. Isso iria provocar uma corrida bancária, levando ao colapso de todos os bancos com reserva fracionária, porque no Custodia Bank, os fundos dos clientes estão 100% garantidos, para qualquer valor. Deixaria de ser necessário limites de fundos de Garantia de Depósitos.

Eu concordo com o FED nesse ponto, que os bancos com full-reserves são uma ameaça a existência dos restantes bancos. O que eu discordo do FED, é a origem do problema, o problema não está nos bancos full-reserves, mas sim nos que têm reserva fracionária.

O FED ao conceder uma conta mestre ao Tether, abre um precedente, o Custodia Bank irá o aproveitar, reclamando pela igualdade de direitos nos tribunais e desta vez, possivelmente ganhará a sua licença.

Ainda há um segundo problema, com os restantes bancos comerciais. A Tether passaria a ter direitos similares aos bancos comerciais, mas os deveres seriam muito diferentes. Isto levaria os bancos comerciais aos tribunais para exigir igualdade de tratamento, é uma concorrência desleal. Isto é o bom dos tribunais dos EUA, são independentes e funcionam, mesmo contra o estado. Os bancos comerciais têm custos exorbitantes devido às políticas de compliance, como o KYC e AML. Como o governo não vai querer aliviar as regras, logo seria a Tether, a ser obrigada a fazer o compliance dos seus clientes.

A obrigação do KYC para ter stablecoins iriam provocar um terramoto no mundo cripto.

Assim, é pouco provável que seja a solução para a Tether.

FED

Só resta uma hipótese, ser o próprio FED a controlar e a gerir diretamente as stablecoins de dólar, nacionalizado ou absorvendo as existentes. Seria uma espécie de CBDC. Isto iria provocar um novo problema, um problema diplomático, porque as stablecoins estão a colocar em causa a soberania monetária dos outros países. Atualmente as stablecoins estão um pouco protegidas porque vivem num limbo jurídico, mas a partir do momento que estas são controladas pelo governo americano, tudo muda. Os países vão exigir às autoridades americanas medidas que limitem o uso nos seus respectivos países.

Não existe uma solução boa, o sistema FIAT é um castelo de cartas, qualquer carta que se mova, vai provocar um desmoronamento noutro local. As autoridades não poderão adiar mais o problema, terão que o resolver de vez, senão, qualquer dia será tarde demais. Se houver algum problema, vão colocar a responsabilidade no cripto e no Bitcoin. Mas a verdade, a culpa é inteiramente dos políticos, da sua incompetência em resolver os problemas a tempo.

Será algo para acompanhar futuramente, mas só para 2026, talvez…

É curioso, há uns anos pensava-se que o Bitcoin seria a maior ameaça ao sistema ao FIAT, mas afinal, a maior ameaça aos sistema FIAT é o próprio FIAT(stablecoins). A ironia do destino.

Isto é como uma corrida, o Bitcoin é aquele atleta que corre ao seu ritmo, umas vezes mais rápido, outras vezes mais lento, mas nunca pára. O FIAT é o atleta que dá tudo desde da partida, corre sempre em velocidade máxima. Só que a vida e o sistema financeiro não é uma prova de 100 metros, mas sim uma maratona.

Europa

2025 será um ano desafiante para todos europeus, sobretudo devido à entrada em vigor da regulamentação (MiCA). Vão começar a sentir na pele a regulamentação, vão agravar-se os problemas com os compliance, problemas para comprovar a origem de fundos e outras burocracias. Vai ser lindo.

O Travel Route passa a ser obrigatório, os europeus serão obrigados a fazer o KYC nas transações. A Travel Route é uma suposta lei para criar mais transparência, mas prática, é uma lei de controle, de monitorização e para limitar as liberdades individuais dos cidadãos.

O MiCA também está a colocar problemas nas stablecoins de Euro, a Tether para já preferiu ficar de fora da europa. O mais ridículo é que as novas regras obrigam os emissores a colocar 30% das reservas em bancos comerciais. Os burocratas europeus não compreendem que isto coloca em risco a estabilidade e a solvência dos próprios bancos, ficam propensos a corridas bancárias.

O MiCA vai obrigar a todas as exchanges a estar registadas em solo europeu, ficando vulnerável ao temperamento dos burocratas. Ainda não vai ser em 2025, mas a UE vai impor políticas de controle de capitais, é inevitável, as exchanges serão obrigadas a usar em exclusividade stablecoins de euro, as restantes stablecoins serão deslistadas.

Todas estas novas regras do MiCA, são extremamente restritas, não é para garantir mais segurança aos cidadãos europeus, mas sim para garantir mais controle sobre a população. A UE está cada vez mais perto da autocracia, do que da democracia. A minha única esperança no horizonte, é que o sucesso das políticas cripto nos EUA, vai obrigar a UE a recuar e a aligeirar as regras, a teoria dos jogos é implacável. Mas esse recuo, nunca acontecerá em 2025, vai ser um longo período conturbado.

Recessão

Os mercados estão todos em máximos históricos, isto não é sustentável por muito tempo, suspeito que no final de 2025 vai acontecer alguma correção nos mercados. A queda só não será maior, porque os bancos centrais vão imprimir dinheiro, muito dinheiro, como se não houvesse amanhã. Vão voltar a resolver os problemas com a injeção de liquidez na economia, é empurrar os problemas com a barriga, em de os resolver. Outra vez o efeito Cantillon.

Será um ano muito desafiante a nível político, onde o papel dos políticos será fundamental. A crise política na França e na Alemanha, coloca a UE órfã, sem um comandante ao leme do navio. 2025 estará condicionado pelas eleições na Alemanha, sobretudo no resultado do AfD, que podem colocar em causa a propriedade UE e o euro.

Possivelmente, só o fim da guerra poderia minimizar a crise, algo que é muito pouco provável acontecer.

Em Portugal, a economia parece que está mais ou menos equilibrada, mas começam a aparecer alguns sinais preocupantes. Os jogos de sorte e azar estão em máximos históricos, batendo o recorde de 2014, época da grande crise, não é um bom sinal, possivelmente já existe algum desespero no ar.

A Alemanha é o motor da Europa, quanto espirra, Portugal constipa-se. Além do problema da Alemanha, a Espanha também está à beira de uma crise, são os países que mais influenciam a economia portuguesa.

Se existir uma recessão mundial, terá um forte impacto no turismo, que é hoje em dia o principal motor de Portugal.

Brasil

Brasil é algo para acompanhar em 2025, sobretudo a nível macro e a nível político. Existe uma possibilidade de uma profunda crise no Brasil, sobretudo na sua moeda. O banco central já anda a queimar as reservas para minimizar a desvalorização do Real.

Sem mudanças profundas nas políticas fiscais, as reservas vão se esgotar. As políticas de controle de capitais são um cenário plausível, será interesse de acompanhar, como o governo irá proceder perante a existência do Bitcoin e stablecoins. No Brasil existe um forte adoção, será um bom case study, certamente irá repetir-se em outros países num futuro próximo.

Os próximos tempos não serão fáceis para os brasileiros, especialmente para os que não têm Bitcoin.

Blockchain

Em 2025, possivelmente vamos ver os primeiros passos da BlackRock para criar a primeira bolsa de valores, exclusivamente em blockchain. Eu acredito que a BlackRock vai criar uma própria blockchain, toda controlada por si, onde estarão os RWAs, para fazer concorrência às tradicionais bolsas de valores. Será algo interessante de acompanhar.

---

Estas são as minhas previsões, eu escrevi isto muito em cima do joelho, certamente esqueci-me de algumas coisas, se for importante acrescentarei nos comentários. A maioria das previsões só acontecerá após 2025, mas fica aqui a minha opinião.

Isto é apenas a minha opinião, Don’t Trust, Verify!

@ f9cf4e94:96abc355

Na era das grandes navegações, piratas ingleses eram autorizados pelo governo para roubar navios.

A única coisa que diferenciava um pirata comum de um corsário é que o último possuía a “Carta do Corso”, que funcionava como um “Alvará para o roubo”, onde o governo Inglês legitimava o roubo de navios por parte dos corsários. É claro, que em troca ele exigia uma parte da espoliação.

Bastante similar com a maneira que a Receita Federal atua, não? Na verdade, o caso é ainda pior, pois o governo fica com toda a riqueza espoliada, e apenas repassa um mísero salário para os corsários modernos, os agentes da receita federal.

Porém eles “justificam” esse roubo ao chamá-lo de imposto, e isso parece acalmar os ânimos de grande parte da população, mas não de nós. Não é por acaso que 'imposto' é o particípio passado do verbo 'impor'. Ou seja, é aquilo que resulta do cumprimento obrigatório -- e não voluntário -- de todos os cidadãos. Se não for 'imposto' ninguém paga. Nem mesmo seus defensores. Isso mostra o quanto as pessoas realmente apreciam os serviços do estado.

Apenas volte um pouco na história: os primeiros pagadores de impostos eram fazendeiros cujos territórios foram invadidos por nômades que pastoreavam seu gado. Esses invasores nômades forçavam os fazendeiros a lhes pagar uma fatia de sua renda em troca de "proteção". O fazendeiro que não concordasse era assassinado.

Os nômades perceberam que era muito mais interessante e confortável apenas cobrar uma taxa de proteção em vez de matar o fazendeiro e assumir suas posses. Cobrando uma taxa, eles obtinham o que necessitavam. Já se matassem os fazendeiros, eles teriam de gerenciar por conta própria toda a produção da fazenda. Daí eles entenderam que, ao não assassinarem todos os fazendeiros que encontrassem pelo caminho, poderiam fazer desta prática um modo de vida.

Assim nasceu o governo.

Não assassinar pessoas foi o primeiro serviço que o governo forneceu. Como temos sorte em ter à nossa disposição esta instituição!

Assim, não deixa de ser curioso que algumas pessoas digam que os impostos são pagos basicamente para impedir que aconteça exatamente aquilo que originou a existência do governo. O governo nasceu da extorsão. Os fazendeiros tinham de pagar um "arrego" para seu governo. Caso contrário, eram assassinados. Quem era a real ameaça? O governo. A máfia faz a mesma coisa.

Mas existe uma forma de se proteger desses corsários modernos. Atualmente, existe uma propriedade privada que NINGUÉM pode tirar de você, ela é sua até mesmo depois da morte. É claro que estamos falando do Bitcoin. Fazendo as configurações certas, é impossível saber que você tem bitcoin. Nem mesmo o governo americano consegue saber.

brasil #bitcoinbrasil #nostrbrasil #grownostr #bitcoin

@ 16d11430:61640947

At the intersection of philosophy, theology, physics, biology, and finance lies a terrifying truth: the fiat monetary system, in its current form, is not just an economic framework but a silent, relentless force actively working against humanity's survival. It isn't simply a failed financial model—it is a systemic engine of destruction, both externally and within the very core of our biological existence.

The Philosophical Void of Fiat

Philosophy has long questioned the nature of value and the meaning of human existence. From Socrates to Kant, thinkers have pondered the pursuit of truth, beauty, and virtue. But in the modern age, the fiat system has hijacked this discourse. The notion of "value" in a fiat world is no longer rooted in human potential or natural resources—it is abstracted, manipulated, and controlled by central authorities with the sole purpose of perpetuating their own power. The currency is not a reflection of society’s labor or resources; it is a representation of faith in an authority that, more often than not, breaks that faith with reckless monetary policies and hidden inflation.

The fiat system has created a kind of ontological nihilism, where the idea of true value, rooted in work, creativity, and family, is replaced with speculative gambling and short-term gains. This betrayal of human purpose at the systemic level feeds into a philosophical despair: the relentless devaluation of effort, the erosion of trust, and the abandonment of shared human values. In this nihilistic economy, purpose and meaning become increasingly difficult to find, leaving millions to question the very foundation of their existence.

Theological Implications: Fiat and the Collapse of the Sacred

Religious traditions have long linked moral integrity with the stewardship of resources and the preservation of life. Fiat currency, however, corrupts these foundational beliefs. In the theological narrative of creation, humans are given dominion over the Earth, tasked with nurturing and protecting it for future generations. But the fiat system promotes the exact opposite: it commodifies everything—land, labor, and life—treating them as mere transactions on a ledger.

This disrespect for creation is an affront to the divine. In many theologies, creation is meant to be sustained, a delicate balance that mirrors the harmony of the divine order. Fiat systems—by continuously printing money and driving inflation—treat nature and humanity as expendable resources to be exploited for short-term gains, leading to environmental degradation and societal collapse. The creation narrative, in which humans are called to be stewards, is inverted. The fiat system, through its unholy alliance with unrestrained growth and unsustainable debt, is destroying the very creation it should protect.

Furthermore, the fiat system drives idolatry of power and wealth. The central banks and corporations that control the money supply have become modern-day gods, their decrees shaping the lives of billions, while the masses are enslaved by debt and inflation. This form of worship isn't overt, but it is profound. It leads to a world where people place their faith not in God or their families, but in the abstract promises of institutions that serve their own interests.

Physics and the Infinite Growth Paradox

Physics teaches us that the universe is finite—resources, energy, and space are all limited. Yet, the fiat system operates under the delusion of infinite growth. Central banks print money without concern for natural limits, encouraging an economy that assumes unending expansion. This is not only an economic fallacy; it is a physical impossibility.

In thermodynamics, the Second Law states that entropy (disorder) increases over time in any closed system. The fiat system operates as if the Earth were an infinite resource pool, perpetually able to expand without consequence. The real world, however, does not bend to these abstract concepts of infinite growth. Resources are finite, ecosystems are fragile, and human capacity is limited. Fiat currency, by promoting unsustainable consumption and growth, accelerates the depletion of resources and the degradation of natural systems that support life itself.

Even the financial “growth” driven by fiat policies leads to unsustainable bubbles—inflated stock markets, real estate, and speculative assets that burst and leave ruin in their wake. These crashes aren’t just economic—they have profound biological consequences. The cycles of boom and bust undermine communities, erode social stability, and increase anxiety and depression, all of which affect human health at a biological level.

Biology: The Fiat System and the Destruction of Human Health

Biologically, the fiat system is a cancerous growth on human society. The constant chase for growth and the devaluation of work leads to chronic stress, which is one of the leading causes of disease in modern society. The strain of living in a system that values speculation over well-being results in a biological feedback loop: rising anxiety, poor mental health, physical diseases like cardiovascular disorders, and a shortening of lifespans.

Moreover, the focus on profit and short-term returns creates a biological disconnect between humans and the planet. The fiat system fuels industries that destroy ecosystems, increase pollution, and deplete resources at unsustainable rates. These actions are not just environmentally harmful; they directly harm human biology. The degradation of the environment—whether through toxic chemicals, pollution, or resource extraction—has profound biological effects on human health, causing respiratory diseases, cancers, and neurological disorders.

The biological cost of the fiat system is not a distant theory; it is being paid every day by millions in the form of increased health risks, diseases linked to stress, and the growing burden of mental health disorders. The constant uncertainty of an inflation-driven economy exacerbates these conditions, creating a society of individuals whose bodies and minds are under constant strain. We are witnessing a systemic biological unraveling, one in which the very act of living is increasingly fraught with pain, instability, and the looming threat of collapse.

Finance as the Final Illusion

At the core of the fiat system is a fundamental illusion—that financial growth can occur without any real connection to tangible value. The abstraction of currency, the manipulation of interest rates, and the constant creation of new money hide the underlying truth: the system is built on nothing but faith. When that faith falters, the entire system collapses.

This illusion has become so deeply embedded that it now defines the human experience. Work no longer connects to production or creation—it is reduced to a transaction on a spreadsheet, a means to acquire more fiat currency in a world where value is ephemeral and increasingly disconnected from human reality.

As we pursue ever-expanding wealth, the fundamental truths of biology—interdependence, sustainability, and balance—are ignored. The fiat system’s abstract financial models serve to disconnect us from the basic realities of life: that we are part of an interconnected world where every action has a reaction, where resources are finite, and where human health, both mental and physical, depends on the stability of our environment and our social systems.

The Ultimate Extermination

In the end, the fiat system is not just an economic issue; it is a biological, philosophical, theological, and existential threat to the very survival of humanity. It is a force that devalues human effort, encourages environmental destruction, fosters inequality, and creates pain at the core of the human biological condition. It is an economic framework that leads not to prosperity, but to extermination—not just of species, but of the very essence of human well-being.

To continue on this path is to accept the slow death of our species, one based not on natural forces, but on our own choice to worship the abstract over the real, the speculative over the tangible. The fiat system isn't just a threat; it is the ultimate self-inflicted wound, a cultural and financial cancer that, if left unchecked, will destroy humanity’s chance for survival and peace.

@ a367f9eb:0633efea

I’ll admit that I was wrong about Bitcoin. Perhaps in 2013. Definitely 2017. Probably in 2018-2019. And maybe even today.

Being wrong about Bitcoin is part of finally understanding it. It will test you, make you question everything, and in the words of BTC educator and privacy advocate Matt Odell, “Bitcoin will humble you”.

I’ve had my own stumbles on the way.

In a very public fashion in 2017, after years of using Bitcoin, trying to start a company with it, using it as my primary exchange vehicle between currencies, and generally being annoying about it at parties, I let out the bear.

In an article published in my own literary magazine Devolution Review in September 2017, I had a breaking point. The article was titled “Going Bearish on Bitcoin: Cryptocurrencies are the tulip mania of the 21st century”.

It was later republished in Huffington Post and across dozens of financial and crypto blogs at the time with another, more appropriate title: “Bitcoin Has Become About The Payday, Not Its Potential”.

As I laid out, my newfound bearishness had little to do with the technology itself or the promise of Bitcoin, and more to do with the cynical industry forming around it:

In the beginning, Bitcoin was something of a revolution to me. The digital currency represented everything from my rebellious youth.

It was a decentralized, denationalized, and digital currency operating outside the traditional banking and governmental system. It used tools of cryptography and connected buyers and sellers across national borders at minimal transaction costs.

…

The 21st-century version (of Tulip mania) has welcomed a plethora of slick consultants, hazy schemes dressed up as investor possibilities, and too much wishy-washy language for anything to really make sense to anyone who wants to use a digital currency to make purchases.

While I called out Bitcoin by name at the time, on reflection, I was really talking about the ICO craze, the wishy-washy consultants, and the altcoin ponzis.

What I was articulating — without knowing it — was the frame of NgU, or “numbers go up”. Rather than advocating for Bitcoin because of its uncensorability, proof-of-work, or immutability, the common mentality among newbies and the dollar-obsessed was that Bitcoin mattered because its price was a rocket ship.

And because Bitcoin was gaining in price, affinity tokens and projects that were imperfect forks of Bitcoin took off as well.

The price alone — rather than its qualities — were the reasons why you’d hear Uber drivers, finance bros, or your gym buddy mention Bitcoin. As someone who came to Bitcoin for philosophical reasons, that just sat wrong with me.

Maybe I had too many projects thrown in my face, or maybe I was too frustrated with the UX of Bitcoin apps and sites at the time. No matter what, I’ve since learned something.

I was at least somewhat wrong.

My own journey began in early 2011. One of my favorite radio programs, Free Talk Live, began interviewing guests and having discussions on the potential of Bitcoin. They tied it directly to a libertarian vision of the world: free markets, free people, and free banking. That was me, and I was in. Bitcoin was at about $5 back then (NgU).

I followed every article I could, talked about it with guests on my college radio show, and became a devoted redditor on r/Bitcoin. At that time, at least to my knowledge, there was no possible way to buy Bitcoin where I was living. Very weak.

I was probably wrong. And very wrong for not trying to acquire by mining or otherwise.

The next year, after moving to Florida, Bitcoin was a heavy topic with a friend of mine who shared the same vision (and still does, according to the Celsius bankruptcy documents). We talked about it with passionate leftists at Occupy Tampa in 2012, all the while trying to explain the ills of Keynesian central banking, and figuring out how to use Coinbase.

I began writing more about Bitcoin in 2013, writing a guide on “How to Avoid Bank Fees Using Bitcoin,” discussing its potential legalization in Germany, and interviewing Jeremy Hansen, one of the first political candidates in the U.S. to accept Bitcoin donations.

Even up until that point, I thought Bitcoin was an interesting protocol for sending and receiving money quickly, and converting it into fiat. The global connectedness of it, plus this cypherpunk mentality divorced from government control was both useful and attractive. I thought it was the perfect go-between.

But I was wrong.

When I gave my first public speech on Bitcoin in Vienna, Austria in December 2013, I had grown obsessed with Bitcoin’s adoption on dark net markets like Silk Road.

My theory, at the time, was the number and price were irrelevant. The tech was interesting, and a novel attempt. It was unlike anything before. But what was happening on the dark net markets, which I viewed as the true free market powered by Bitcoin, was even more interesting. I thought these markets would grow exponentially and anonymous commerce via BTC would become the norm.

While the price was irrelevant, it was all about buying and selling goods without permission or license.

Now I understand I was wrong.

Just because Bitcoin was this revolutionary technology that embraced pseudonymity did not mean that all commerce would decentralize as well. It did not mean that anonymous markets were intended to be the most powerful layer in the Bitcoin stack.

What I did not even anticipate is something articulated very well by noted Bitcoin OG Pierre Rochard: Bitcoin as a savings technology.

The ability to maintain long-term savings, practice self-discipline while stacking stats, and embrace a low-time preference was just not something on the mind of the Bitcoiners I knew at the time.

Perhaps I was reading into the hype while outwardly opposing it. Or perhaps I wasn’t humble enough to understand the true value proposition that many of us have learned years later.

In the years that followed, I bought and sold more times than I can count, and I did everything to integrate it into passion projects. I tried to set up a company using Bitcoin while at my university in Prague.

My business model depended on university students being technologically advanced enough to have a mobile wallet, own their keys, and be able to make transactions on a consistent basis. Even though I was surrounded by philosophically aligned people, those who would advance that to actually put Bitcoin into practice were sparse.

This is what led me to proclaim that “Technological Literacy is Doomed” in 2016.

And I was wrong again.

Indeed, since that time, the UX of Bitcoin-only applications, wallets, and supporting tech has vastly improved and onboarded millions more people than anyone thought possible. The entrepreneurship, coding excellence, and vision offered by Bitcoiners of all stripes have renewed a sense in me that this project is something built for us all — friends and enemies alike.

While many of us were likely distracted by flashy and pumpy altcoins over the years (me too, champs), most of us have returned to the Bitcoin stable.

Fast forward to today, there are entire ecosystems of creators, activists, and developers who are wholly reliant on the magic of Bitcoin’s protocol for their life and livelihood. The options are endless. The FUD is still present, but real proof of work stands powerfully against those forces.

In addition, there are now dozens of ways to use Bitcoin privately — still without custodians or intermediaries — that make it one of the most important assets for global humanity, especially in dictatorships.

This is all toward a positive arc of innovation, freedom, and pure independence. Did I see that coming? Absolutely not.

Of course, there are probably other shots you’ve missed on Bitcoin. Price predictions (ouch), the short-term inflation hedge, or the amount of institutional investment. While all of these may be erroneous predictions in the short term, we have to realize that Bitcoin is a long arc. It will outlive all of us on the planet, and it will continue in its present form for the next generation.

Being wrong about the evolution of Bitcoin is no fault, and is indeed part of the learning curve to finally understanding it all.

When your family or friends ask you about Bitcoin after your endless sessions explaining market dynamics, nodes, how mining works, and the genius of cryptographic signatures, try to accept that there is still so much we have to learn about this decentralized digital cash.

There are still some things you’ve gotten wrong about Bitcoin, and plenty more you’ll underestimate or get wrong in the future. That’s what makes it a beautiful journey. It’s a long road, but one that remains worth it.

@ 330516bf:ea23d292

The self-declaration of identity is a philosophical open source project, hosted at https://memdeklaro.github.io/

Foreword

ID documents do more harm than good and should not be seen as a solution for trust or authentication. Many economic and social interactions can be done anonymously. For other situations, trust can be achieved by simply saying your (self-chosen) name, using a web-of-trust, word-of-mouth reputation, vouches, memberships, escrows or cash deposits, and authentication can be achieved by using a password, cryptographic key pair (e.g. PGP, Monero) or physical key or code (such as house keys or a safe code).

Background

In recent years, more and more things are asking for proof of identity, from basic necessities like jobs, housing and healthcare, to smaller things like receiving mail, buying a sim card or joining a gym. However, it is not enough to write your name and address on a form. Instead, only government-issued IDs are accepted, which gives the state a “monopoly on identity”.

Monopolies are dangerous in general due to the fact that if the service provider is harmful, inaccessible or otherwise problematic, you cannot choose a different provider, start your own provider, or go without. This particular monopoly is even worse, considering that access to government ID determines if you may participate in the economy (jobs, banking), society (housing, volunteer work, education, libraries, sports) or even exist (national borders).

Many people have no access to government ID. This group includes some stateless people, refugees, people who weren’t registered at birth, and people who escaped from child abuse, domestic abuse or cult abuse. The state’s claimed solutions, such as asylum procedures, stateless determination procedures, delayed registration of birth, child protective services and witness protection, often cannot help in practice, as the victim is often ignored, accused of lying, blamed for the persecution, or worse sent back to the persecutors against their will. Despite issuing laissez-passer and Nansen passports in the past, the United Nations and Red Cross do not issue alternative IDs today. It would be a relief if these processes would work and allow vulnerable people to escape from undeserved and dangerous situations, but unfortunately this is not the reality.

In addition, the collectivist concept of citizenship can be dangerous. For example, if someone does not identify with their birth culture, they should not be forced to follow it for life or identify themselves as a member of this culture. Instead, they should be free to dissent against this culture or leave this culture’s jurisdiction. Even worse is conscription — the cruel system where a nation-state can force someone against their will to kill or be killed, just because they happened to be born inside a certain territory. The world would be more free if people could exist as individuals, conscientious objectors against the fatalism of birth cultures and violence of statism, with freedom of association to leave hostile environments and join self-chosen communities.

“The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb.”

Self-declaration of identity gives people the power to decide their own fate. People are no longer the property of nations, governments, birth cultures or birth parents. The choice of your own name and renunciation of your circumstances of birth is a liberating act of individualism, where your ideals, actions and efforts matter more than the situation that you were arbitrarily born into.

Self-declaration of identity

Instead of requiring third parties such as birth countries, birth cultures and birth parents to define an individual’s identity, the self-declaration allows you to define your own name and eschews the concepts of birth countries and citizenship.

The self-declaration is a CR-80 plastic card or paper business card (85.6mm x 54mm). The self-declaration is written in Esperanto and includes the Esperanto flag and symbol. Esperanto was chosen because it is anational (sennacieca = not associated with a specific country, culture or state) and was created as a borderless language of peace, built on voluntary free association. The design features artwork of a peace dove in a blue sky with clouds.

As it is a self-declaration, it is not stored in a central database, does not require a third party’s permission and does not need to be issued by an authority. You are the authority over your own life.

The self-declaration includes the text:

• Title: Self-declaration of identity (Memdeklaro de identeco)
• Location: Esperanto community (Esperantujo)
• Issuer: EPO (ISO code for Esperanto)
• Quote: One world, one humankind (Unu mondo, unu homaro)

The self-declaration of identity contains:

• Self-chosen first name (Antaŭnomo) and self-chosen surname (Nomo) → an individual should be able to freely choose their own name
• Birth date (Naskiĝdato) → for declaration of age
• Photo → Dimensions 35mm x 45mm
• Signature (Subskribo) → sign your self-declaration
• Notes field (Notoj) → a place to write a note, e.g. “the holder is a conscientious objector” (Portanto estas konscienca obĵetanto)
• ID number (Numero), issuance date (Eldondato), expiry date (Limdato), issuer (Eldonisto), MRZ → bureaucratic boilerplate

The self-declaration of identity does not contain:

• Place of birth → allows people to cut ties with hostile environments and self-define their culture, beliefs and personal ties
• Citizenship or stateless status → allows people to cut ties with hostile governments or cultures, and exist as an individual instead of as property of a state that they did not choose
• Parents’ names → allows victims of child abuse to cut ties with abusers

To make your own:

• Use the generator at https://memdeklaro.github.io/ or download the repo (https://github.com/memdeklaro/memdeklaro.github.io/) and open index.html in your browser
• Alternatively download the front template (fronto.jpg) and back template (dorso.jpg) from the linked repo, and use an image editor such as GIMP to add your text (the font OCR-B.ttf is provided) and your photo and signature
• Calculate the MRZ code here (TD1): https://www.dynamsoft.com/tools/mrz-generator/ (Choose any country, then replace it with EPO)
• Print it out as a business card and optionally laminate (dimensions: 85.6mm x 54mm) or order a CR-80 plastic card from a printing service

Example:

Note:

Unfortunately the self-declaration of identity cannot be used to bypass government ID requirements, such as for jobs, housing, healthcare, finances, volunteer work, contracts, receiving mail or buying a sim card. Other non-government IDs such as Digitalcourage Lichtbildausweis (https://shop.digitalcourage.de/gadgets/lichtbildausweis-mit-selbst-waehlbaren-daten.html) and World Passport (https://worldcitizengov.org/what-is-the-world-passport/) have the same limitations.

Nation-states’ refusal to print IDs for undocumented, stateless and unregistered people (while forcing government ID requirements on employers, landlords, doctors and more) can and does put innocent people’s lives in danger. But unfortunately even the United Nations has not been able to change this, despite issuing conventions on statelessness and refugee status in the 1950s.

Further Reading

For further reading about identity (and why the state’s monopoly is harmful):

Passports Were a “Temporary” War Measure — Speranta Dumitru https://fee.org/articles/passports-were-a-temporary-war-measure

During World War II, we did have something to hide — Hans de Zwart https://medium.com/@hansdezwart/during-world-war-ii-we-did-have-something-to-hide-40689565c550

The Little-Known Passport That Protected 450,000 Refugees — Cara Giaimo https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/nansen-passport-refugees

With each person left living on the streets, we are losing as a society — Petr Baroch https://www.statelessness.eu/blog/each-person-left-living-streets-we-are-losing-society

The rarely discussed dangers of KYC and what you can do about it — Anarkio https://vonupodcast.com/know-your-customer-kyc-the-rarely-discussed-danger-guest-article-audio

Exclusion and identity: life without ID — Privacy International https://www.privacyinternational.org/long-read/2544/exclusion-and-identity-life-without-id

Proving who I am: the plight of people in detention without proof of legal identity — Vicki Prais https://www.penalreform.org/blog/proving-who-i-am-the-plight-of-people/

Establishing identity is a vital, risky and changing business — The Economist https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2018/12/18/establishing-identity-is-a-vital-risky-and-changing-business

What’s in a name? The case for inclusivity through anonymity — Common Thread https://blog.twitter.com/common-thread/en/topics/stories/2021/whats-in-a-name-the-case-for-inclusivity-through-anonymity

True Names Not Required: On Identity and Pseudonymity in Cyberspace — Der Gigi https://dergigi.medium.com/true-names-not-required-fc6647dfe24a

Citizenship is obsolete — Samuela Davidova https://medium.com/@DavidovaSamuela/citizenship-is-obsolete-c36a20056752

License

Public Domain

Source code: https://github.com/memdeklaro/memdeklaro.github.io

Infographic

Translations

(Machine translated)\ Memdeklaro de identenco: self declaration of identity, autodeclaración de identidad, autodeclaração de identidade, autodéclaration d’identité, autodichiarazione di identità, autodeclararea identității, Selbsterklärung zur Identität, eigen verklaring van identiteit, Selvdeklaration af identitet, självdeklaration av identitet, egenerklæring om identitet, henkilöllisyysvakuutus, Isikuandmete esitamine, identitātes pašdeklarēšana, savęs deklaravimas, önbevallás a személyazonosságról, własna deklaracja tożsamości, vlastní prohlášení o totožnosti, vlastné vyhlásenie o totožnosti, samoprijava identitete, самодеклариране на самоличността, самопроголошення ідентичності, самозаявление о личности, αυτο-δήλωση ταυτότητας, pernyataan identitas diri, öz kimlik beyanı, الإعلان الذاتي عن الهوية, 身份自报, 身份自報, 自己申告, 신원 자기 선언

...

@ 6389be64:ef439d32

Resilience is the ability to withstand shocks, adapt, and bounce back. It’s an essential quality in nature and in life. But what if we could take resilience a step further? What if, instead of merely surviving, a system could improve when faced with stress? This concept, known as anti-fragility, is not just theoretical—it’s practical. Combining two highly resilient natural tools, comfrey and biochar, reveals how we can create systems that thrive under pressure and grow stronger with each challenge.

Comfrey: Nature’s Champion of Resilience

Comfrey is a plant that refuses to fail. Once its deep roots take hold, it thrives in poor soils, withstands drought, and regenerates even after being cut down repeatedly. It’s a hardy survivor, but comfrey doesn’t just endure—it contributes. Known as a dynamic accumulator, it mines nutrients from deep within the earth and brings them to the surface, making them available for other plants.

Beyond its ecological role, comfrey has centuries of medicinal use, earning the nickname "knitbone." Its leaves can heal wounds and restore health, a perfect metaphor for resilience. But as impressive as comfrey is, its true potential is unlocked when paired with another resilient force: biochar.

Biochar: The Silent Powerhouse of Soil Regeneration

Biochar, a carbon-rich material made by burning organic matter in low-oxygen conditions, is a game-changer for soil health. Its unique porous structure retains water, holds nutrients, and provides a haven for beneficial microbes. Soil enriched with biochar becomes drought-resistant, nutrient-rich, and biologically active—qualities that scream resilience.

Historically, ancient civilizations in the Amazon used biochar to transform barren soils into fertile agricultural hubs. Known as terra preta, these soils remain productive centuries later, highlighting biochar’s remarkable staying power.

Yet, like comfrey, biochar’s potential is magnified when it’s part of a larger system.

The Synergy: Comfrey and Biochar Together

Resilience turns into anti-fragility when systems go beyond mere survival and start improving under stress. Combining comfrey and biochar achieves exactly that.

1. Nutrient Cycling and Retention\ Comfrey’s leaves, rich in nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus, make an excellent mulch when cut and dropped onto the soil. However, these nutrients can wash away in heavy rains. Enter biochar. Its porous structure locks in the nutrients from comfrey, preventing runoff and keeping them available for plants. Together, they create a system that not only recycles nutrients but amplifies their effectiveness.

2. Water Management\ Biochar holds onto water making soil not just drought-resistant but actively water-efficient, improving over time with each rain and dry spell.

3. Microbial Ecosystems\ Comfrey enriches soil with organic matter, feeding microbial life. Biochar provides a home for these microbes, protecting them and creating a stable environment for them to multiply. Together, they build a thriving soil ecosystem that becomes more fertile and resilient with each passing season.

Resilient systems can withstand shocks, but anti-fragile systems actively use those shocks to grow stronger. Comfrey and biochar together form an anti-fragile system. Each addition of biochar enhances water and nutrient retention, while comfrey regenerates biomass and enriches the soil. Over time, the system becomes more productive, less dependent on external inputs, and better equipped to handle challenges.

This synergy demonstrates the power of designing systems that don’t just survive—they thrive.

Lessons Beyond the Soil

The partnership of comfrey and biochar offers a valuable lesson for our own lives. Resilience is an admirable trait, but anti-fragility takes us further. By combining complementary strengths and leveraging stress as an opportunity, we can create systems—whether in soil, business, or society—that improve under pressure.

Nature shows us that resilience isn’t the end goal. When we pair resilient tools like comfrey and biochar, we unlock a system that evolves, regenerates, and becomes anti-fragile. By designing with anti-fragility in mind, we don’t just bounce back, we bounce forward.

By designing with anti-fragility in mind, we don’t just bounce back, we bounce forward.

@ e31e84c4:77bbabc0

Bitcoin and Fixed Income was Written By Wyatt O’Rourke. If you enjoyed this article then support his writing, directly, by donating to his lightning wallet: ultrahusky3@primal.net

Fiduciary duty is the obligation to act in the client’s best interests at all times, prioritizing their needs above the advisor’s own, ensuring honesty, transparency, and avoiding conflicts of interest in all recommendations and actions.

This is something all advisors in the BFAN take very seriously; after all, we are legally required to do so. For the average advisor this is a fairly easy box to check. All you essentially have to do is have someone take a 5-minute risk assessment, fill out an investment policy statement, and then throw them in the proverbial 60/40 portfolio. You have thousands of investment options to choose from and you can reasonably explain how your client is theoretically insulated from any move in the \~markets\~. From the traditional financial advisor perspective, you could justify nearly anything by putting a client into this type of portfolio. All your bases were pretty much covered from return profile, regulatory, compliance, investment options, etc. It was just too easy. It became the household standard and now a meme.

As almost every real bitcoiner knows, the 60/40 portfolio is moving into psyop territory, and many financial advisors get clowned on for defending this relic on bitcoin twitter. I’m going to specifically poke fun at the ‘40’ part of this portfolio.

The ‘40’ represents fixed income, defined as…

An investment type that provides regular, set interest payments, such as bonds or treasury securities, and returns the principal at maturity. It’s generally considered a lower-risk asset class, used to generate stable income and preserve capital.

Historically, this part of the portfolio was meant to weather the volatility in the equity markets and represent the “safe” investments. Typically, some sort of bond.

First and foremost, the fixed income section is most commonly constructed with U.S. Debt. There are a couple main reasons for this. Most financial professionals believe the same fairy tale that U.S. Debt is “risk free” (lol). U.S. debt is also one of the largest and most liquid assets in the market which comes with a lot of benefits.

There are many brilliant bitcoiners in finance and economics that have sounded the alarm on the U.S. debt ticking time bomb. I highly recommend readers explore the work of Greg Foss, Lawrence Lepard, Lyn Alden, and Saifedean Ammous. My very high-level recap of their analysis:

• A bond is a contract in which Party A (the borrower) agrees to repay Party B (the lender) their principal plus interest over time.

• The U.S. government issues bonds (Treasury securities) to finance its operations after tax revenues have been exhausted.

• These are traditionally viewed as “risk-free” due to the government’s historical reliability in repaying its debts and the strength of the U.S. economy

• U.S. bonds are seen as safe because the government has control over the dollar (world reserve asset) and, until recently (20 some odd years), enjoyed broad confidence that it would always honor its debts.

• This perception has contributed to high global demand for U.S. debt but, that is quickly deteriorating.

• The current debt situation raises concerns about sustainability.

• The U.S. has substantial obligations, and without sufficient productivity growth, increasing debt may lead to a cycle where borrowing to cover interest leads to more debt.

• This could result in more reliance on money creation (printing), which can drive inflation and further debt burdens.

In the words of Lyn Alden “Nothing stops this train”

Those obligations are what makes up the 40% of most the fixed income in your portfolio. So essentially you are giving money to one of the worst capital allocators in the world (U.S. Gov’t) and getting paid back with printed money.

As someone who takes their fiduciary responsibility seriously and understands the debt situation we just reviewed, I think it’s borderline negligent to put someone into a classic 60% (equities) / 40% (fixed income) portfolio without serious scrutiny of the client’s financial situation and options available to them. I certainly have my qualms with equities at times, but overall, they are more palatable than the fixed income portion of the portfolio. I don’t like it either, but the money is broken and the unit of account for nearly every equity or fixed income instrument (USD) is fraudulent. It’s a paper mache fade that is quite literally propped up by the money printer.

To briefly be as most charitable as I can – It wasn’t always this way. The U.S. Dollar used to be sound money, we used to have government surplus instead of mathematically certain deficits, The U.S. Federal Government didn’t used to have a money printing addiction, and pre-bitcoin the 60/40 portfolio used to be a quality portfolio management strategy. Those times are gone.

Now the fun part. How does bitcoin fix this?

Bitcoin fixes this indirectly. Understanding investment criteria changes via risk tolerance, age, goals, etc. A client may still have a need for “fixed income” in the most literal definition – Low risk yield. Now you may be thinking that yield is a bad word in bitcoin land, you’re not wrong, so stay with me. Perpetual motion machine crypto yield is fake and largely where many crypto scams originate. However, that doesn’t mean yield in the classic finance sense does not exist in bitcoin, it very literally does. Fortunately for us bitcoiners there are many other smart, driven, and enterprising bitcoiners that understand this problem and are doing something to address it. These individuals are pioneering new possibilities in bitcoin and finance, specifically when it comes to fixed income.

Here are some new developments –

Private Credit Funds – The Build Asset Management Secured Income Fund I is a private credit fund created by Build Asset Management. This fund primarily invests in bitcoin-backed, collateralized business loans originated by Unchained, with a secured structure involving a multi-signature, over-collateralized setup for risk management. Unchained originates loans and sells them to Build, which pools them into the fund, enabling investors to share in the interest income.

Dynamics

• Loan Terms: Unchained issues loans at interest rates around 14%, secured with a 2/3 multi-signature vault backed by a 40% loan-to-value (LTV) ratio.
• Fund Mechanics: Build buys these loans from Unchained, thus providing liquidity to Unchained for further loan originations, while Build manages interest payments to investors in the fund.

Pros

• The fund offers a unique way to earn income via bitcoin-collateralized debt, with protection against rehypothecation and strong security measures, making it attractive for investors seeking exposure to fixed income with bitcoin.

Cons

• The fund is only available to accredited investors, which is a regulatory standard for private credit funds like this.

Corporate Bonds – MicroStrategy Inc. (MSTR), a business intelligence company, has leveraged its corporate structure to issue bonds specifically to acquire bitcoin as a reserve asset. This approach allows investors to indirectly gain exposure to bitcoin’s potential upside while receiving interest payments on their bond investments. Some other publicly traded companies have also adopted this strategy, but for the sake of this article we will focus on MSTR as they are the biggest and most vocal issuer.

Dynamics

• Issuance: MicroStrategy has issued senior secured notes in multiple offerings, with terms allowing the company to use the proceeds to purchase bitcoin.

• Interest Rates: The bonds typically carry high-yield interest rates, averaging around 6-8% APR, depending on the specific issuance and market conditions at the time of issuance.

• Maturity: The bonds have varying maturities, with most structured for multi-year terms, offering investors medium-term exposure to bitcoin’s value trajectory through MicroStrategy’s holdings.

Pros

• Indirect Bitcoin exposure with income provides a unique opportunity for investors seeking income from bitcoin-backed debt.

• Bonds issued by MicroStrategy offer relatively high interest rates, appealing for fixed-income investors attracted to the higher risk/reward scenarios.

Cons

• There are credit risks tied to MicroStrategy’s financial health and bitcoin’s performance. A significant drop in bitcoin prices could strain the company’s ability to service debt, increasing credit risk.

• Availability: These bonds are primarily accessible to institutional investors and accredited investors, limiting availability for retail investors.

Interest Payable in Bitcoin – River has introduced an innovative product, bitcoin Interest on Cash, allowing clients to earn interest on their U.S. dollar deposits, with the interest paid in bitcoin.

Dynamics

• Interest Payment: Clients earn an annual interest rate of 3.8% on their cash deposits. The accrued interest is converted to Bitcoin daily and paid out monthly, enabling clients to accumulate Bitcoin over time.

• Security and Accessibility: Cash deposits are insured up to $250,000 through River’s banking partner, Lead Bank, a member of the FDIC. All Bitcoin holdings are maintained in full reserve custody, ensuring that client assets are not lent or leveraged.

Pros

• There are no hidden fees or minimum balance requirements, and clients can withdraw their cash at any time.

• The 3.8% interest rate provides a predictable income stream, akin to traditional fixed-income investments.

Cons

• While the interest rate is fixed, the value of the Bitcoin received as interest can fluctuate, introducing potential variability in the investment’s overall return.

• Interest rate payments are on the lower side

Admittedly, this is a very small list, however, these types of investments are growing more numerous and meaningful. The reality is the existing options aren’t numerous enough to service every client that has a need for fixed income exposure. I challenge advisors to explore innovative options for fixed income exposure outside of sovereign debt, as that is most certainly a road to nowhere. It is my wholehearted belief and call to action that we need more options to help clients across the risk and capital allocation spectrum access a sound money standard.

Additional Resources

• River: The future of saving is here: Earn 3.8% on cash. Paid in Bitcoin.

• Onramp: Bitcoin, The Emergent Asset Class

• MicroStrategy: MicroStrategy Announces Pricing of Offering of Convertible Senior Notes

---

Bitcoin and Fixed Income was Written By Wyatt O’Rourke. If you enjoyed this article then support his writing, directly, by donating to his lightning wallet: ultrahusky3@primal.net

@ a849beb6:b327e6d2

\ \ It was another historic week for both bitcoin and the Ten31 portfolio, as the world’s oldest, largest, most battle-tested cryptocurrency climbed to new all-time highs each day to close out the week just shy of the $100,000 mark. Along the way, bitcoin continued to accumulate institutional and regulatory wins, including the much-anticipated approval and launch of spot bitcoin ETF options and the appointment of several additional pro-bitcoin Presidential cabinet officials. The timing for this momentum was poetic, as this week marked the second anniversary of the pico-bottom of the 2022 bear market, a level that bitcoin has now hurdled to the tune of more than 6x despite the litany of bitcoin obituaries published at the time. The entirety of 2024 and especially the past month have further cemented our view that bitcoin is rapidly gaining a sense of legitimacy among institutions, fiduciaries, and governments, and we remain optimistic that this trend is set to accelerate even more into 2025.

Several Ten31 portfolio companies made exciting announcements this week that should serve to further entrench bitcoin’s institutional adoption. AnchorWatch, a first of its kind bitcoin insurance provider offering 1:1 coverage with its innovative use of bitcoin’s native properties, announced it has been designated a Lloyd’s of London Coverholder, giving the company unique, blue-chip status as it begins to write bitcoin insurance policies of up to $100 million per policy starting next month. Meanwhile, Battery Finance Founder and CEO Andrew Hohns appeared on CNBC to delve into the launch of Battery’s pioneering private credit strategy which fuses bitcoin and conventional tangible assets in a dual-collateralized structure that offers a compelling risk/return profile to both lenders and borrowers. Both companies are clearing a path for substantially greater bitcoin adoption in massive, untapped pools of capital, and Ten31 is proud to have served as lead investor for AnchorWatch’s Seed round and as exclusive capital partner for Battery.

As the world’s largest investor focused entirely on bitcoin, Ten31 has deployed nearly $150 million across two funds into more than 30 of the most promising and innovative companies in the ecosystem like AnchorWatch and Battery, and we expect 2025 to be the best year yet for both bitcoin and our portfolio. Ten31 will hold a first close for its third fund at the end of this year, and investors in that close will benefit from attractive incentives and a strong initial portfolio. Visit ten31.vc/funds to learn more and get in touch to discuss participating.\ \ Portfolio Company Spotlight 

Primal is a first of its kind application for the Nostr protocol that combines a client, caching service, analytics tools, and more to address several unmet needs in the nascent Nostr ecosystem. Through the combination of its sleek client application and its caching service (built on a completely open source stack), Primal seeks to offer an end-user experience as smooth and easy as that of legacy social media platforms like Twitter and eventually many other applications, unlocking the vast potential of Nostr for the next billion people. Primal also offers an integrated wallet (powered by Strike BLACK) that substantially reduces onboarding and UX frictions for both Nostr and the lightning network while highlighting bitcoin’s unique power as internet-native, open-source money. 

Selected Portfolio News

AnchorWatch announced it has achieved Llody’s Coverholder status, allowing the company to provide unique 1:1 bitcoin insurance offerings starting in December.\ \ Battery Finance Founder and CEO Andrew Hohns appeared on CNBC to delve into the company’s unique bitcoin-backed private credit strategy.

Primal launched version 2.0, a landmark update that adds a feed marketplace, robust advanced search capabilities, premium-tier offerings, and many more new features.

Debifi launched its new iOS app for Apple users seeking non-custodial bitcoin-collateralized loans.

Media

Strike Founder and CEO Jack Mallers joined Bloomberg TV to discuss the strong volumes the company has seen over the past year and the potential for a US bitcoin strategic reserve. 

Primal Founder and CEO Miljan Braticevic joined The Bitcoin Podcast to discuss the rollout of Primal 2.0 and the future of Nostr. 

Ten31 Managing Partner Marty Bent appeared on BlazeTV to discuss recent changes in the regulatory environment for bitcoin. 

Zaprite published a customer testimonial video highlighting the popularity of its offerings across the bitcoin ecosystem. 

Market Updates

Continuing its recent momentum, bitcoin reached another new all-time high this week, clocking in just below $100,000 on Friday. Bitcoin has now reached a market cap of nearly $2 trillion, putting it within 3% of the market caps of Amazon and Google. 

After receiving SEC and CFTC approval over the past month, long-awaited options on spot bitcoin ETFs were fully approved and launched this week. These options should help further expand bitcoin’s institutional liquidity profile, with potentially significant implications for price action over time.

The new derivatives showed strong performance out of the gate, with volumes on options for BlackRock’s IBIT reaching nearly $2 billion on just the first day of trading despite surprisingly tight position limits for the vehicles. 

Meanwhile, the underlying spot bitcoin ETF complex had yet another banner week, pulling in $3.4 billion in net inflows. 

New reports suggested President-elect Donald Trump’s social media company is in advanced talks to acquire crypto trading platform Bakkt, potentially the latest indication of the incoming administration’s stance toward the broader “crypto” ecosystem. 

On the macro front, US housing starts declined M/M again in October on persistently high mortgage rates and weather impacts. The metric remains well below pre-COVID levels. 

Pockets of the US commercial real estate market remain challenged, as the CEO of large Florida developer Related indicated that developers need further rate cuts “badly” to maintain project viability. 

US Manufacturing PMI increased slightly M/M, but has now been in contraction territory (<50) for well over two years.

The latest iteration of the University of Michigan’s popular consumer sentiment survey ticked up following this month’s election results, though so did five-year inflation expectations, which now sit comfortably north of 3%. 

Regulatory Update

After weeks of speculation, the incoming Trump administration appointed hedge fund manager Scott Bessent to head up the US Treasury. Like many of Trump’s cabinet selections so far, Bessent has been a public advocate for bitcoin. 

Trump also appointed Cantor Fitzgerald CEO Howard Lutnick – another outspoken bitcoin bull – as Secretary of the Commerce Department. 

Meanwhile, the Trump team is reportedly considering creating a new “crypto czar” role to sit within the administration. While it’s unclear at this point what that role would entail, one report indicated that the administration’s broader “crypto council” is expected to move forward with plans for a strategic bitcoin reserve.

Various government lawyers suggested this week that the Trump administration is likely to be less aggressive in seeking adversarial enforcement actions against bitcoin and “crypto” in general, as regulatory bodies appear poised to shift resources and focus elsewhere. 

Other updates from the regulatory apparatus were also directionally positive for bitcoin, most notably FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg’s confirmation that he plans to resign from his post at the end of President Biden’s term. 

Many critics have alleged Gruenberg was an architect of “Operation Chokepoint 2.0,” which has created banking headwinds for bitcoin companies over the past several years, so a change of leadership at the department is likely yet another positive for the space.

SEC Chairman Gary Gensler also officially announced he plans to resign at the start of the new administration. Gensler has been the target of much ire from the broader “crypto” space, though we expect many projects outside bitcoin may continue to struggle with questions around the Howey Test.

Overseas, a Chinese court ruled that it is not illegal for individuals to hold cryptocurrency, even though the country is still ostensibly enforcing a ban on crypto transactions. 

Noteworthy

The incoming CEO of Charles Schwab – which administers over $9 trillion in client assets – suggested the platform is preparing to “get into” spot bitcoin offerings and that he “feels silly” for having waited this long. As this attitude becomes more common among traditional finance players, we continue to believe that the number of acquirers coming to market for bitcoin infrastructure capabilities will far outstrip the number of available high quality assets. 

BlackRock’s 2025 Thematic Outlook notes a “renewed sense of optimism” on bitcoin among the asset manager’s client base due to macro tailwinds and the improving regulatory environment. Elsewhere, BlackRock’s head of digital assets indicated the firm does not view bitcoin as a “risk-on” asset. 

MicroStrategy, which was a sub-$1 billion market cap company less than five years ago, briefly breached a $100 billion equity value this week as it continues to aggressively acquire bitcoin. The company now holds nearly 350,000 bitcoin on its balance sheet. 

Notably, Allianz SE, Germany’s largest insurer, spoke for 25% of MicroStrategy’s latest $3 billion convertible note offering this week, suggesting growing appetite for bitcoin proxy exposure among more restricted pools of capital. 

The ongoing meltdown of fintech middleware provider Synapse has left tens of thousands of customers with nearly 100% deposit haircuts as hundreds of millions in funds remain missing, the latest unfortunate case study in the fragility of much of the US’s legacy banking stack. 

Travel

• BitcoinMENA, Dec 9-10

• Nashville BitDevs, Dec 10

• Austin BitDevs, Dec 19

• Nashville Energy and Mining Summit, Jan 30

@ 87730827:746b7d35

Original: https://techreport.com/crypto-news/brazil-central-bank-ban-monero-stablecoins/

Brazilian’s Central Bank Will Ban Monero and Algorithmic Stablecoins in the Country

Brazil proposes crypto regulations banning Monero and algorithmic stablecoins and enforcing strict compliance for exchanges.

---

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The Central Bank of Brazil has proposed regulations prohibiting privacy-centric cryptocurrencies like Monero.
• The regulations categorize exchanges into intermediaries, custodians, and brokers, each with specific capital requirements and compliance standards.
• While the proposed rules apply to cryptocurrencies, certain digital assets like non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are still ‘deregulated’ in Brazil.

In a Notice of Participation announcement, the Brazilian Central Bank (BCB) outlines regulations for virtual asset service providers (VASPs) operating in the country.

In the document, the Brazilian regulator specifies that privacy-focused coins, such as Monero, must be excluded from all digital asset companies that intend to operate in Brazil.

Let’s unpack what effect these regulations will have.

Brazil’s Crackdown on Crypto Fraud

If the BCB’s current rule is approved, exchanges dealing with coins that provide anonymity must delist these currencies or prevent Brazilians from accessing and operating these assets.

The Central Bank argues that currencies like Monero make it difficult and even prevent the identification of users, thus creating problems in complying with international AML obligations and policies to prevent the financing of terrorism.

According to the Central Bank of Brazil, the bans aim to prevent criminals from using digital assets to launder money. In Brazil, organized criminal syndicates such as the Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC) and Comando Vermelho have been increasingly using digital assets for money laundering and foreign remittances.

… restriction on the supply of virtual assets that contain characteristics of fragility, insecurity or risks that favor fraud or crime, such as virtual assets designed to favor money laundering and terrorist financing practices by facilitating anonymity or difficulty identification of the holder.

– Notice of Participation

The Central Bank has identified that removing algorithmic stablecoins is essential to guarantee the safety of users’ funds and avoid events such as when Terraform Labs’ entire ecosystem collapsed, losing billions of investors’ dollars.

The Central Bank also wants to control all digital assets traded by companies in Brazil. According to the current proposal, the national regulator will have the power to ask platforms to remove certain listed assets if it considers that they do not meet local regulations.

However, the regulations will not include NFTs, real-world asset (RWA) tokens, RWA tokens classified as securities, and tokenized movable or real estate assets. These assets are still ‘deregulated’ in Brazil.

Monero: What Is It and Why Is Brazil Banning It?

Monero ($XMR) is a cryptocurrency that uses a protocol called CryptoNote. It launched in 2013 and ‘erases’ transaction data, preventing the sender and recipient addresses from being publicly known. The Monero network is based on a proof-of-work (PoW) consensus mechanism, which incentivizes miners to add blocks to the blockchain. 

Like Brazil, other nations are banning Monero in search of regulatory compliance. Recently, Dubai’s new digital asset rules prohibited the issuance of activities related to anonymity-enhancing cryptocurrencies such as $XMR.

Furthermore, exchanges such as Binance have already announced they will delist Monero on their global platforms due to its anonymity features. Kraken did the same, removing Monero for their European-based users to comply with MiCA regulations.

Data from Chainalysis shows that Brazil is the seventh-largest Bitcoin market in the world.

In Latin America, Brazil is the largest market for digital assets. Globally, it leads in the innovation of RWA tokens, with several companies already trading this type of asset.

In Closing

Following other nations, Brazil’s regulatory proposals aim to combat illicit activities such as money laundering and terrorism financing.

Will the BCB’s move safeguard people’s digital assets while also stimulating growth and innovation in the crypto ecosystem? Only time will tell.

References

Cassio Gusson is a journalist passionate about technology, cryptocurrencies, and the nuances of human nature. With a career spanning roles as Senior Crypto Journalist at CriptoFacil and Head of News at CoinTelegraph, he offers exclusive insights on South America’s crypto landscape. A graduate in Communication from Faccamp and a post-graduate in Globalization and Culture from FESPSP, Cassio explores the intersection of governance, decentralization, and the evolution of global systems.

View all articles by Cassio Gusson

@ 5e5fc143:393d5a2c

Now test old reliable front end Stay tuned more later Keeping this as template long note for debugging in future as come across few NIP-33 post edit issues

@ af9c48b7:a3f7aaf4

Chef's notes

This simple, easy, no bake desert will surely be the it at you next family gathering. You can keep it a secret or share it with the crowd that this is a healthy alternative to normal pie. I think everyone will be amazed at how good it really is.

Details

• ⏲️ Prep time: 30
• 🍳 Cook time: 0
• 🍽️ Servings: 8

Ingredients

• 1/3 cup of Heavy Cream- 0g sugar, 5.5g carbohydrates
• 3/4 cup of Half and Half- 6g sugar, 3g carbohydrates
• 4oz Sugar Free Cool Whip (1/2 small container) - 0g sugar, 37.5g carbohydrates
• 1.5oz box (small box) of Sugar Free Instant Chocolate Pudding- 0g sugar, 32g carbohydrates
• 1 Pecan Pie Crust- 24g sugar, 72g carbohydrates

Directions

1. The total pie has 30g of sugar and 149.50g of carboydrates. So if you cut the pie into 8 equal slices, that would come to 3.75g of sugar and 18.69g carbohydrates per slice. If you decided to not eat the crust, your sugar intake would be .75 gram per slice and the carborytrates would be 9.69g per slice. Based on your objective, you could use only heavy whipping cream and no half and half to further reduce your sugar intake.
2. Mix all wet ingredients and the instant pudding until thoroughly mixed and a consistent color has been achieved. The heavy whipping cream causes the mixture to thicken the more you mix it. So, I’d recommend using an electric mixer. Once you are satisfied with the color, start mixing in the whipping cream until it has a consistent “chocolate” color thorough. Once your satisfied with the color, spoon the mixture into the pie crust, smooth the top to your liking, and then refrigerate for one hour before serving.

@ 41e6f20b:06049e45

Let me tell you a beautiful story. Last night, during the speakers' dinner at Monerotopia, the waitress was collecting tiny tips in Mexican pesos. I asked her, "Do you really want to earn tips seriously?" I then showed her how to set up a Cake Wallet, and she started collecting tips in Monero, reaching 0.9 XMR. Of course, she wanted to cash out to fiat immediately, but it solved a real problem for her: making more money. That amount was something she would never have earned in a single workday. We kept talking, and I promised to give her Zoom workshops. What can I say? I love people, and that's why I'm a natural orange-piller.

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

You have no idea

I regularly read comments from people, on here, wondering how it's possible to marry -- or even simply be friends! -- with someone who doesn't agree with you on politics. I see this sentiment expressed quite often, usually in the context of Bitcoin, or whatever pig is currently being chased through the village, as they say around here.

It seems rather sensible, but I don't think it's as hard, as people make it out to be. Further, I think it's a dangerous precondition to set, for your interpersonal relationships, because the political field is constantly in flux. If you determine who you will love, by their opinions, do you stop loving them if their opinions change, or if the opinions they have become irrelevant and a new set of opinions are needed -- and their new ones don't match your new ones? We could see this happen to relationships en masse, during the Covid Era, and I think it happens every day, in a slow grind toward the disintegration of interpersonal discourse.

I suspect many people do stop loving, at that point, as they never really loved the other person for their own sake, they loved the other person because they thought the other person was exactly like they are. But no two people are alike, and the longer you are in a relationship with someone else, the more the initial giddiness wears off and the trials and tribulations add up, the more you notice how very different you actually are. This is the point, where best friends and romantic couples say, We just grew apart.

But you were always apart. You were always two different people. You just didn't notice, until now.

I've also always been surprised at how many same-party relationships disintegrate because of some disagreement over some particular detail of some particular topic, that they generally agree on. To me, it seems like an irrelevant side-topic, but they can't stand to be with this person... and they stomp off. So, I tend to think that it's less that opinions need to align to each other, but rather than opinions need to align in accordance with the level of interpersonal tolerance they can bring into the relationship.

I was raised by relaxed revolutionaries

Maybe I see things this way because my parents come from two diverging political, cultural, national, and ethnic backgrounds, and are prone to disagreeing about a lot of "important" (to people outside their marriage) things, but still have one of the healthiest, most-fruitful, and most long-running marriages of anyone I know, from that generation. My parents, you see, aren't united by their opinions. They're united by their relationship, which is something outside of opinions. Beyond opinions. Relationships are what turn two different people into one, cohesive unit, so that they slowly grow together. Eventually, even their faces merge, and their biological clocks tick to the same rhythm. They eventually become one entity that contains differing opinions about the same topics.

It's like magic, but it's the result of a mindset, not a worldview. Or, as I like to quip:

The best way to stay married, is to not get divorced.

My parents simply determined early on, that they would stay together, and whenever they would find that they disagreed on something that didn't directly pertain to their day-to-day existence with each other they would just agree-to-disagree about that, or roll their eyes, and move on. You do you. Live and let live.

My parents have some of the most strongly held personal opinions of any people I've ever met, but they're also incredibly tolerant and can get along with nearly anyone, so their friends are a confusing hodgepodge of people we liked and found interesting enough to keep around. Which makes their house parties really fun, and highly unusual, in this day and age of mutual-damnation across the aisle.

The things that did affect them, directly, like which school the children should attend or which country they should live in, etc. were things they'd sit down and discuss, and somehow one opinion would emerge, and they'd again... move on.

And that's how my husband and I also live our lives, and it's been working surprisingly well. No topics are off-limits to discussion (so long as you don't drone on for too long), nobody has to give up deeply held beliefs, or stop agitating for the political decisions they prefer.

You see, we didn't like that the other always had the same opinion. We liked that the other always held their opinions strongly. That they were passionate about their opinions. That they were willing to voice their opinions; sacrifice to promote their opinions. And that they didn't let anyone browbeat or cow them, for their opinions, not even their best friends or their spouse. But that they were open to listening to the other side, and trying to wrap their mind around the possibility that they might just be wrong about something.

We married each other because we knew: this person really cares, this person has thought this through, and they're in it, to win it. What "it" is, is mostly irrelevant, so long as it doesn't entail torturing small animals in the basement, or raising the children on a diet of Mountain Dew and porn, or something.

Live and let live. At least, it's never boring. At least, there's always something to ~~argue~~ talk about. At least, we never think... we've just grown apart.

@ 4ba8e86d:89d32de4

Tutorial feito por Grom mestre⚡poste original abaixo:

http://xh6liiypqffzwnu5734ucwps37tn2g6npthvugz3gdoqpikujju525yd.onion/240277/tutorial-criando-e-acessando-sua-conta-de-email-pela-i2p?show=240277#q240277

Bom dia/tarde/noite a todos os camaradas. Seguindo a nossa série de tutoriais referentes a tecnologias essenciais para a segurança e o anonimato dos usuários, sendo as primeiras a openPGP e a I2P, lhes apresento mais uma opção para expandir os seus conhecimentos da DW. Muitos devem conhecer os serviços de mail na onion como DNMX e mail2tor, mas e que tal um serviço de email pela I2P. Nesse tutorial eu vou mostrar a vocês como criar a sua primeira conta no hq.postman.i2p e a acessar essa conta.

É importante que vocês tenham lido a minha primeira série de tutoriais a respeito de como instalar, configurar e navegar pela I2P nostr:nevent1qqsyjcz2w0e6d6dcdeprhuuarw4aqkw730y542dzlwxwssneq3mwpaspz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygzt4r5x6tvh39kujvmu8egqdyvf84e3w4e0mq0ckswamfwcn5eduspsgqqqqqqsyp5vcq Esse tutorial é um pré-requisito para o seguinte e portanto recomendo que leia-os antes de prosseguir com o seguinte tutorial. O tutorial de Kleopatra nostr:nevent1qqs8h7vsn5j6qh35949sa60dms4fneussmv9jd76n24lsmtz24k0xlqzyp9636rd9ktcjmwfxd7ru5qxjxyn6uch2uhas8utg8wa5hvf6vk7gqcyqqqqqqgecq8f7 é complementar dado que é extremamente recomendado assinar e criptografar as mensagens que seguem por emails pela DW. Sem mais delongas, vamos ao tutorial de fato.

1. Criando uma conta de email no hq.postman

Relembrando: Esse tutorial considera que você já tenha acesso à I2P. Entre no seu navegador e acesse o endereço hq.postman.i2p. O roteador provavelmente já contém esse endereço no seu addressbook e não haverá a necessidade de inserir o endereço b32 completo. Após entrar no site vá para a página '1 - Creating a mailbox' https://image.nostr.build/d850379fe315d2abab71430949b06d3fa49366d91df4c9b00a4a8367d53fcca3.jpg

Nessa página, insira as credenciais de sua preferências nos campos do formulário abaixo. Lembre-se que o seu endereço de email aceita apenas letras e números. Clique em 'Proceed' depois que preencher todos os campos. https://image.nostr.build/670dfda7264db393e48391f217e60a2eb87d85c2729360c8ef6fe0cf52508ab4.jpg

Uma página vai aparecer pedindo para confirmar as credenciais da sua nova conta. Se tudo estiver certo apenas clique em 'Confirm and Create Mailbox'. Se tudo ocorrer como conforme haverá uma confirmação de que a sua nova conta foi criada com sucesso. Após isso aguarde por volta de 5 minutos antes de tentar acessá-la, para que haja tempo suficiente para o servidor atualizar o banco de dados. https://image.nostr.build/ec58fb826bffa60791fedfd9c89a25d592ac3d11645b270c936c60a7c59c067f.jpg https://image.nostr.build/a2b7710d1e3cbb36431acb9055fd62937986b4da4b1a1bbb06d3f3cb1f544fd3.jpg

Pronto! Sua nova conta de email na I2P foi criada. Agora vamos para a próxima etapa: como acessar a sua conta via um cliente de email.

2. Configurando os túneis cliente de SMTP e POP3

O hq.postman não possui um cliente web que nos permite acessar a nossa conta pelo navegador. Para isso precisamos usar um cliente como Thunderbird e configurar os túneis cliente no I2Pd que serão necessários para o Thunderbird se comunicar com o servidor pela I2P.

Caso não tenha instalado o Thunderbird ainda, faça-o agora antes de prosseguir.

Vamos configurar os túneis cliente do servidor de email no nosso roteador. Para isso abra um terminal ou o seu gestor de arquivos e vá para a pasta de configuração de túneis do I2P. Em Linux esse diretório se localiza em /etc/i2pd/tunnels.d. Em Windows, essa pasta se localiza em C:\users\user\APPDATA\i2pd. Na pasta tunnels.d crie dois arquivos: smtp.postman.conf e pop-postman.conf. Lembre-se que em Linux você precisa de permissões de root para escrever na pasta de configuração. Use o comando sudoedit para isso.

Edite-os conforme as imagens a seguir:

Arquivo pop-postman.conf https://image.nostr.build/7e03505c8bc3b632ca5db1f8eaefc6cecb4743cd2096d211dd90bbdc16fe2593.jpg

Arquivo smtp-postman.conf https://image.nostr.build/2d06c021841dedd6000c9fc2a641ed519b3be3c6125000b188842cd0a5af3d16.jpg

Salve os arquivos e reinicie o serviço do I2Pd. Em Linux isso é feito pelo comando: sudo systemctl restart i2pd Entre no Webconsole do I2Pd pelo navegador (localhost:7070) e na seção I2P Tunnels, verifique se os túneis pop-postman e smtp-postman foram criados, caso contrário verifique se há algum erro nos arquivos e reinicie o serviço.

Com os túneis cliente criados, vamos agora configurar o Thunderbird

3. Configurando o Thunderbird para acessar a nossa conta

Abra o Thunderbird e clique em criar uma nova conta de email. Se você não tiver nenhum conta previamente presente nele você vai ser diretamente recebido pela janela de criação de conta a seguir. https://image.nostr.build/e9509d7bd30623716ef9adcad76c1d465f5bc3d5840e0c35fe4faa85740f41b4.jpg https://image.nostr.build/688b59b8352a17389902ec1e99d7484e310d7d287491b34f562b8cdd9dbe8a99.jpg

Coloque as suas credenciais, mas não clique ainda em Continuar. Clique antes em Configure Manually, já que precisamos configurar manualmente os servidores de SMTP e POP3 para, respectivamente, enviar e receber mensagens.

Preencha os campos como na imagem a seguir. Detalhe: Não coloque o seu endereço completo com o @mail.i2p, apenas o nome da sua conta. https://image.nostr.build/4610b0315c0a3b741965d3d7c1e4aff6425a167297e323ba8490f4325f40cdcc.jpg

Clique em Re-test para verificar a integridade da conexão. Se tudo estiver certo uma mensagem irá aparecer avisando que as configurações do servidores estão corretas. Clique em Done assim que estiver pronto para prosseguir. https://image.nostr.build/8a47bb292f94b0d9d474d4d4a134f8d73afb84ecf1d4c0a7eb6366d46bf3973a.jpg

A seguinte mensagem vai aparecer alertando que não estamos usando criptografia no envio das credenciais. Não há problema nenhum aqui, pois a I2P está garantindo toda a proteção e anonimato dos nossos dados, o que dispensa a necessidade de uso de TLS ou qualquer tecnologia similar nas camadas acima. Marque a opção 'I Understand the risks' e clique em 'Continue' https://image.nostr.build/9c1bf585248773297d2cb1d9705c1be3bd815e2be85d4342227f1db2f13a9cc6.jpg

E por fim, se tudo ocorreu como devido sua conta será criada com sucesso e você agora será capaz de enviar e receber emails pela I2P usando essa conta. https://image.nostr.build/8ba7f2c160453c9bfa172fa9a30b642a7ee9ae3eeb9b78b4dc24ce25aa2c7ecc.jpg

4. Observações e considerações finais

Como informado pelo próprio site do hq.postman, o domínio @mail.i2p serve apenas para emails enviados dentro da I2P. Emails enviados pela surface devem usar o domínio @i2pmai.org. É imprescindível que você saiba usar o PGP para assinar e criptografar as suas mensagens, dado que provavelmente as mensagens não são armazenadas de forma criptografada enquanto elas estão armazenadas no servidor. Como o protocolo POP3 delete as mensagens no imediato momento em que você as recebe, não há necessidade de fazer qualquer limpeza na sua conta de forma manual.

Por fim, espero que esse tutorial tenha sido útil para vocês. Que seu conhecimento tenha expandido ainda mais com as informações trazidas aqui. Até a próxima.

@ 5e5fc143:393d5a2c

We are now given a choice of digital freedom #nostr .

Creativity for every nostrich is now unleashed from the cage of bigtech censorship , rules and algo. But freedom comes with responsibility so pick right one(s). I will try share here some learning experience both technical and also from fundamental point of view. Just wanted kick start this article n fill as we go like living reference document.

Nostr itself is an application layer protocol that can used beyond just social media mirco or long blogging. Each nostr client heavily dependent on back-end servers call nostr "Relay servers" or in short "rs" or "relays" Relays can hosted anywhere in clearnet internet, onion net , vpn , i2p , nym Relays are controlled by their respective admins based NIP specs that they select to implement according to own decisions. Relays can have certain ToS (Terms of Service) Rules to adhered too.

New users can choose and pick client or app (ios / android/ windows) with preset of relays in the simplest form , but other advanced users need to do a regular manual relay management.

Relay management is an active regular task based on where when n how you are using.

Relay list are saved within you npub profile backup file which can edited and broadcast anytime.

Relay management is an active regular task based on where when and how you are using.

Relay list always need to be updated time to time as and when needed.

2 Users MUST a common RELAY between them even if one only need to follow another. Occasionally you may notice certain npub accounts you are following already but cannot see frequent notes publish by them – one of cause maybe you not sharing a common relay

Most nostr client applications has SETTINGS where user choose add/remove relays Also user choose which function to enable - READ or WRITE

Relay list for your account is always saved within you npub profile backup file which can edited and broadcast anytime. Hence any app or browser when u login with you npub the same relay list will be enforced. There could valid reasons why u need have list for if you trying to save bandwidth and traveling.

Functions in app.getcurrent.io and primal.net app for mobile apple or android are ideal for user traveling abroad and wanted to save bandwidth since relay management is done the providers in backend and saves hassle for basic usage.

Remember if someone is selecting relay on your behalf then you may not be necessarily able to pull and get some specific and special content that you may need. Such providers like coracle and nostrid also give option to override the default relays they selected.

Relay types: They can be categorized by various features or policy or technologies.

FREE PUBLIC Relays vs PAID PUBLIC Relays

PAID relays provide unrestricted access / write / filtering options than FREE relays but both are public clearnet relays. Just subscribing to PAID relays will not solve all problems unless you choose the relays properly and enable settings correctly.

Private Replay or Tor Relays – normally not easily visible until unless someone tell you. You can also host own private relay not opened to internet of archive and back of your own notes.

The technical landscape in nostr can be fast changing as more NIPs get proposed or updated. Relays admin can choose implement certain NIPs or not based on policy or technical limitations.

Example NIP33 defines “long notes” aka blogs as you now reading this in habla site which #1 UI and site for "Editable" long notes – some relays donot implement or allow this. NIP07 is used for client authentication like nos2x and is implemented by all relays in fact. Nostr is so fasting changing-hence many links many broken Pushing long note again.

To be continued again ... reference pics will added later also Hope this help you understand "why when what" to tune and maintain active set of proper relays. Relay Proxy, Relay aggregator or Relay multiplexer – Paid, Public, Free, Private, Event, Relays That’s all for now n more later ... Thank you 🙏 ! ⚡️ https://getalby.com/p/captjack ⚡️ PV 💜 🤙

References: https://habla.news/relays https://relay.exchange/ https://relays.vercel.app/ https://nostr.info/relays/ https://nostrudel.ninja/#/relays

Related Articles: https://thebitcoinmanual.com/articles/types-nostr-relays/ nostr:naddr1qqd5c6t8dp6xu6twvukkvctnwss92jfqvehhygzwdaehguszyrtp7w79k045gq80mtnpdxjuzl9t7vjxk52rv80f888y5xsd5mh55qcyqqq823cf39s98 https://habla.news/u/current@getcurrent.io/1694434022411

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Nostr is not decentralized nor censorship-resistant

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

Nostr today is indeed centralized.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

See also:

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

@ e6ce6154:275e3444

Este artigo foi censurado pelo estado e fomos obrigados a deletá-lo após ameaça de homens armados virem nos visitar e agredir nossa vida e propriedade.

Isto é mais uma prova que os autoproclamados antirracistas são piores que os racistas.

https://rothbardbrasil.com/pelo-direito-de-ser-racista-fascista-machista-e-homofobico

Segue artigo na íntegra. 👇

Sem dúvida, a escalada autoritária do totalitarismo cultural progressista nos últimos anos tem sido sumariamente deletéria e prejudicial para a liberdade de expressão. Como seria de se esperar, a cada dia que passa o autoritarismo progressista continua a se expandir de maneira irrefreável, prejudicando a liberdade dos indivíduos de formas cada vez mais deploráveis e contundentes.

Com a ascensão da tirania politicamente correta e sua invasão a todos os terrenos culturais, o autoritarismo progressista foi se alastrando e consolidando sua hegemonia em determinados segmentos. Com a eventual eclosão e a expansão da opressiva e despótica cultura do cancelamento — uma progênie inevitável do totalitarismo progressista —, todas as pessoas que manifestam opiniões, crenças ou posicionamentos que não estão alinhados com as pautas universitárias da moda tornam-se um alvo.

Há algumas semanas, vimos a enorme repercussão causada pelo caso envolvendo o jogador profissional de vôlei Maurício Sousa, que foi cancelado pelo simples fato de ter emitido sua opinião pessoal sobre um personagem de história em quadrinhos, Jon Kent, o novo Superman, que é bissexual. Maurício Sousa reprovou a conduta sexual do personagem, o que é um direito pessoal inalienável que ele tem. Ele não é obrigado a gostar ou aprovar a bissexualidade. Como qualquer pessoa, ele tem o direito pleno de criticar tudo aquilo que ele não gosta. No entanto, pelo simples fato de emitir a sua opinião pessoal, Maurício Sousa foi acusado de homofobia e teve seu contrato rescindido, sendo desligado do Minas Tênis Clube.

Lamentavelmente, Maurício Sousa não foi o primeiro e nem será o último indivíduo a sofrer com a opressiva e autoritária cultura do cancelamento. Como uma tirania cultural que está em plena ascensão e usufrui de um amplo apoio do establishment, essa nova forma de totalitarismo cultural colorido e festivo está se impondo de formas e maneiras bastante contundentes em praticamente todas as esferas da sociedade contemporânea. Sua intenção é relegar ao ostracismo todos aqueles que não se curvam ao totalitarismo progressista, criminalizando opiniões e crenças que divergem do culto à libertinagem hedonista pós-moderna. Oculto por trás de todo esse ativismo autoritário, o que temos de fato é uma profunda hostilidade por padrões morais tradicionalistas, cristãos e conservadores.

No entanto, é fundamental entendermos uma questão imperativa, que explica em partes o conflito aqui criado — todos os progressistas contemporâneos são crias oriundas do direito positivo. Por essa razão, eles jamais entenderão de forma pragmática e objetiva conceitos como criminalidade, direitos de propriedade, agressão e liberdade de expressão pela perspectiva do jusnaturalismo, que é manifestamente o direito em seu estado mais puro, correto, ético e equilibrado.

Pela ótica jusnaturalista, uma opinião é uma opinião. Ponto final. E absolutamente ninguém deve ser preso, cancelado, sabotado ou boicotado por expressar uma opinião particular sobre qualquer assunto. Palavras não agridem ninguém, portanto jamais poderiam ser consideradas um crime em si. Apenas deveriam ser tipificados como crimes agressões de caráter objetivo, como roubo, sequestro, fraude, extorsão, estupro e infrações similares, que representam uma ameaça direta à integridade física da vítima, ou que busquem subtrair alguma posse empregando a violência.

Infelizmente, a geração floquinho de neve — terrivelmente histérica, egocêntrica e sensível — fica profundamente ofendida e consternada sempre que alguém defende posicionamentos contrários à religião progressista. Por essa razão, os guerreiros da justiça social sinceramente acreditam que o papai-estado deve censurar todas as opiniões que eles não gostam de ouvir, assim como deve também criar leis para encarcerar todos aqueles que falam ou escrevem coisas que desagradam a militância.

Como a geração floquinho de neve foi criada para acreditar que todas as suas vontades pessoais e disposições ideológicas devem ser sumariamente atendidas pelo papai-estado, eles embarcaram em uma cruzada moral que pretende erradicar todas as coisas que são ofensivas à ideologia progressista; só assim eles poderão deflagrar na Terra o seu tão sonhado paraíso hedonista e igualitário, de inimaginável esplendor e felicidade.

Em virtude do seu comportamento intrinsecamente despótico, autoritário e egocêntrico, acaba sendo inevitável que militantes progressistas problematizem tudo aquilo que os desagrada.

Como são criaturas inúteis destituídas de ocupação real e verdadeiro sentido na vida, sendo oprimidas unicamente na sua própria imaginação, militantes progressistas precisam constantemente inventar novos vilões para serem combatidos.

Partindo dessa perspectiva, é natural para a militância que absolutamente tudo que exista no mundo e que não se enquadra com as regras autoritárias e restritivas da religião progressista seja encarado como um problema. Para a geração floquinho de neve, o capitalismo é um problema. O fascismo é um problema. A iniciativa privada é um problema. O homem branco, tradicionalista, conservador e heterossexual é um problema. A desigualdade é um problema. A liberdade é um problema. Monteiro Lobato é um problema (sim, até mesmo o renomado ícone da literatura brasileira, autor — entre outros títulos — de Urupês, foi vítima da cultura do cancelamento, acusado de ser racista e eugenista).

Para a esquerda, praticamente tudo é um problema. Na mentalidade da militância progressista, tudo é motivo para reclamação. Foi em função desse comportamento histérico, histriônico e infantil que o famoso pensador conservador-libertário americano P. J. O’Rourke afirmou que “o esquerdismo é uma filosofia de pirralhos chorões”. O que é uma verdade absoluta e irrefutável em todos os sentidos.

De fato, todas as filosofias de esquerda de forma geral são idealizações utópicas e infantis de um mundo perfeito. Enquanto o mundo não se transformar naquela colorida e vibrante utopia que é apresentada pela cartilha socialista padrão, militantes continuarão a reclamar contra tudo o que existe no mundo de forma agressiva, visceral e beligerante. Evidentemente, eles não vão fazer absolutamente nada de positivo ou construtivo para que o mundo se transforme no gracioso paraíso que eles tanto desejam ver consolidado, mas eles continuarão a berrar e vociferar muito em sua busca incessante pela utopia, marcando presença em passeatas inúteis ou combatendo o fascismo imaginário nas redes sociais.

Sem dúvida, estamos muito perto de ver leis absurdas e estúpidas sendo implementadas, para agradar a militância da terra colorida do assistencialismo eterno onde nada é escasso e tudo cai do céu. Em breve, você não poderá usar calças pretas, pois elas serão consideradas peças de vestuário excessivamente heterossexuais. Apenas calças amarelas ou coloridas serão permitidas. Você também terá que tingir de cor-de-rosa uma mecha do seu cabelo; pois preservar o seu cabelo na sua cor natural é heteronormativo demais da sua parte, sendo portanto um componente demasiadamente opressor da sociedade.

Você também não poderá ver filmes de guerra ou de ação, apenas comédias românticas, pois certos gêneros de filmes exaltam a violência do patriarcado e isso impede o mundo de se tornar uma graciosa festa colorida de fraternidades universitárias ungidas por pôneis resplandecentes, hedonismo infinito, vadiagem universitária e autogratificação psicodélica, que certamente são elementos indispensáveis para se produzir o paraíso na Terra.

Sabemos perfeitamente, no entanto, que dentre as atitudes “opressivas” que a militância progressista mais se empenha em combater, estão o racismo, o fascismo, o machismo e a homofobia. No entanto, é fundamental entender que ser racista, fascista, machista ou homofóbico não são crimes em si. Na prática, todos esses elementos são apenas traços de personalidade; e eles não podem ser pura e simplesmente criminalizados porque ideólogos e militantes progressistas iluminados não gostam deles.

Tanto pela ética quanto pela ótica jusnaturalista, é facilmente compreensível entender que esses traços de personalidade não podem ser criminalizados ou proibidos simplesmente porque integrantes de uma ideologia não tem nenhuma apreciação ou simpatia por eles. Da mesma forma, nenhum desses traços de personalidade representa em si um perigo para a sociedade, pelo simples fato de existir. Por incrível que pareça, até mesmo o machismo, o racismo, o fascismo e a homofobia merecem a devida apologia.

Mas vamos analisar cada um desses tópicos separadamente para entender isso melhor.

Racismo

Quando falamos no Japão, normalmente não fazemos nenhuma associação da sociedade japonesa com o racismo. No entanto, é incontestável o fato de que a sociedade japonesa pode ser considerada uma das sociedades mais racistas do mundo. E a verdade é que não há absolutamente nada de errado com isso.

Aproximadamente 97% da população do Japão é nativa; apenas 3% do componente populacional é constituído por estrangeiros (a população do Japão é estimada em aproximadamente 126 milhões de habitantes). Isso faz a sociedade japonesa ser uma das mais homogêneas do mundo. As autoridades japonesas reconhecidamente dificultam processos de seleção e aplicação a estrangeiros que desejam se tornar residentes. E a maioria dos japoneses aprova essa decisão.

Diversos estabelecimentos comerciais como hotéis, bares e restaurantes por todo o país tem placas na entrada que dizem “somente para japoneses” e a maioria destes estabelecimentos se recusa ostensivamente a atender ou aceitar clientes estrangeiros, não importa quão ricos ou abastados sejam.

Na Terra do Sol Nascente, a hostilidade e a desconfiança natural para com estrangeiros é tão grande que até mesmo indivíduos que nascem em algum outro país, mas são filhos de pais japoneses, não são considerados cidadãos plenamente japoneses.

Se estes indivíduos decidem sair do seu país de origem para se estabelecer no Japão — mesmo tendo descendência nipônica legítima e inquestionável —, eles enfrentarão uma discriminação social considerável, especialmente se não dominarem o idioma japonês de forma impecável. Esse fato mostra que a discriminação é uma parte tão indissociável quanto elementar da sociedade japonesa, e ela está tão profundamente arraigada à cultura nipônica que é praticamente impossível alterá-la ou atenuá-la por qualquer motivo.

A verdade é que — quando falamos de um país como o Japão — nem todos os discursos politicamente corretos do mundo, nem a histeria progressista ocidental mais inflamada poderão algum dia modificar, extirpar ou sequer atenuar o componente racista da cultura nipônica. E isso é consequência de uma questão tão simples quanto primordial: discriminar faz parte da natureza humana, sendo tanto um direito individual quanto um elemento cultural inerente à muitas nações do mundo. Os japoneses não tem problema algum em admitir ou institucionalizar o seu preconceito, justamente pelo fato de que a ideologia politicamente correta não tem no oriente a força e a presença que tem no ocidente.

E é fundamental enfatizar que, sendo de natureza pacífica — ou seja, não violando nem agredindo terceiros —, a discriminação é um recurso natural dos seres humanos, que está diretamente associada a questões como familiaridade e segurança.

Absolutamente ninguém deve ser forçado a apreciar ou integrar-se a raças, etnias, pessoas ou tribos que não lhe transmitem sentimentos de segurança ou familiaridade. Integração forçada é o verdadeiro crime, e isso diversos países europeus — principalmente os escandinavos (países que lideram o ranking de submissão à ideologia politicamente correta) — aprenderam da pior forma possível.

A integração forçada com imigrantes islâmicos resultou em ondas de assassinato, estupro e violência inimagináveis para diversos países europeus, até então civilizados, que a imprensa ocidental politicamente correta e a militância progressista estão permanentemente tentando esconder, porque não desejam que o ocidente descubra como a agenda “humanitária” de integração forçada dos povos muçulmanos em países do Velho Mundo resultou em algumas das piores chacinas e tragédias na história recente da Europa.

Ou seja, ao discriminarem estrangeiros, os japoneses estão apenas se protegendo e lutando para preservar sua nação como um ambiente cultural, étnico e social que lhe é seguro e familiar, assim se opondo a mudanças bruscas, indesejadas e antinaturais, que poderiam comprometer a estabilidade social do país.

A discriminação — sendo de natureza pacífica —, é benévola, salutar e indubitavelmente ajuda a manter a estabilidade social da comunidade. Toda e qualquer forma de integração forçada deve ser repudiada com veemência, pois, mais cedo ou mais tarde, ela irá subverter a ordem social vigente, e sempre será acompanhada de deploráveis e dramáticos resultados.

Para citar novamente os países escandinavos, a Suécia é um excelente exemplo do que não fazer. Tendo seguido o caminho contrário ao da discriminação racional praticada pela sociedade japonesa, atualmente a sociedade sueca — além de afundar de forma consistente na lama da libertinagem, da decadência e da deterioração progressista — sofre em demasia com os imigrantes muçulmanos, que foram deixados praticamente livres para matar, saquear, esquartejar e estuprar quem eles quiserem. Hoje, eles são praticamente intocáveis, visto que denunciá-los, desmoralizá-los ou acusá-los de qualquer crime é uma atitude politicamente incorreta e altamente reprovada pelo establishment progressista. A elite socialista sueca jamais se atreve a acusá-los de qualquer crime, pois temem ser classificados como xenófobos e intolerantes. Ou seja, a desgraça da Europa, sobretudo dos países escandinavos, foi não ter oferecido nenhuma resistência à ideologia progressista politicamente correta. Hoje, eles são totalmente submissos a ela.

O exemplo do Japão mostra, portanto — para além de qualquer dúvida —, a importância ética e prática da discriminação, que é perfeitamente aceitável e natural, sendo uma tendência inerente aos seres humanos, e portanto intrínseca a determinados comportamentos, sociedades e culturas.

Indo ainda mais longe nessa questão, devemos entender que na verdade todos nós discriminamos, e não existe absolutamente nada de errado nisso. Discriminar pessoas faz parte da natureza humana e quem se recusa a admitir esse fato é um hipócrita. Mulheres discriminam homens na hora de selecionar um parceiro; elas avaliam diversos quesitos, como altura, aparência, status social, condição financeira e carisma. E dentre suas opções, elas sempre escolherão o homem mais atraente, másculo e viril, em detrimento de todos os baixinhos, calvos, carentes, frágeis e inibidos que possam estar disponíveis. Da mesma forma, homens sempre terão preferência por mulheres jovens, atraentes e delicadas, em detrimento de todas as feministas de meia-idade, acima do peso, de cabelo pintado, que são mães solteiras e militantes socialistas. A própria militância progressista discrimina pessoas de forma virulenta e intransigente, como fica evidente no tratamento que dispensam a mulheres bolsonaristas e a negros de direita.

A verdade é que — não importa o nível de histeria da militância progressista — a discriminação é inerente à condição humana e um direito natural inalienável de todos. É parte indissociável da natureza humana e qualquer pessoa pode e deve exercer esse direito sempre que desejar. Não existe absolutamente nada de errado em discriminar pessoas. O problema real é a ideologia progressista e o autoritarismo politicamente correto, movimentos tirânicos que não respeitam o direito das pessoas de discriminar.

Fascismo

Quando falamos de fascismo, precisamos entender que, para a esquerda política, o fascismo é compreendido como um conceito completamente divorciado do seu significado original. Para um militante de esquerda, fascista é todo aquele que defende posicionamentos contrários ao progressismo, não se referindo necessariamente a um fascista clássico.

Mas, seja como for, é necessário entender que — como qualquer ideologia política — até mesmo o fascismo clássico tem o direito de existir e ocupar o seu devido lugar; portanto, fascistas não devem ser arbitrariamente censurados, apesar de defenderem conceitos que representam uma completa antítese de tudo aquilo que é valioso para os entusiastas da liberdade.

Em um país como o Brasil, onde socialistas e comunistas tem total liberdade para se expressar, defender suas ideologias e até mesmo formar partidos políticos, não faz absolutamente o menor sentido que fascistas — e até mesmo nazistas assumidos — sofram qualquer tipo de discriminação. Embora socialistas e comunistas se sintam moralmente superiores aos fascistas (ou a qualquer outra filosofia política ou escola de pensamento), sabemos perfeitamente que o seu senso de superioridade é fruto de uma pueril romantização universitária da sua própria ideologia. A história mostra efetivamente que o socialismo clássico e o comunismo causaram muito mais destruição do que o fascismo.

Portanto, se socialistas e comunistas tem total liberdade para se expressar, não existe a menor razão para que fascistas não usufruam dessa mesma liberdade.

É claro, nesse ponto, seremos invariavelmente confrontados por um oportuno dilema — o famoso paradoxo da intolerância, de Karl Popper. Até que ponto uma sociedade livre e tolerante deve tolerar a intolerância (inerente a ideologias totalitárias)?

As leis de propriedade privada resolveriam isso em uma sociedade livre. O mais importante a levarmos em consideração no atual contexto, no entanto — ao defender ou criticar uma determinada ideologia, filosofia ou escola de pensamento —, é entender que, seja ela qual for, ela tem o direito de existir. E todas as pessoas que a defendem tem o direito de defendê-la, da mesma maneira que todos os seus detratores tem o direito de criticá-la.

Essa é uma forte razão para jamais apoiarmos a censura. Muito pelo contrário, devemos repudiar com veemência e intransigência toda e qualquer forma de censura, especialmente a estatal.

Existem duas fortes razões para isso:

A primeira delas é a volatilidade da censura (especialmente a estatal). A censura oficial do governo, depois que é implementada, torna-se absolutamente incontrolável. Hoje, ela pode estar apontada para um grupo de pessoas cujas ideias divergem das suas. Mas amanhã, ela pode estar apontada justamente para as ideias que você defende. É fundamental, portanto, compreendermos que a censura estatal é incontrolável. Sob qualquer ponto de vista, é muito mais vantajoso que exista uma vasta pluralidade de ideias conflitantes na sociedade competindo entre si, do que o estado decidir que ideias podem ser difundidas ou não.

Além do mais, libertários e anarcocapitalistas não podem nunca esperar qualquer tipo de simpatia por parte das autoridades governamentais. Para o estado, seria infinitamente mais prático e vantajoso criminalizar o libertarianismo e o anarcocapitalismo — sob a alegação de que são filosofias perigosas difundidas por extremistas radicais que ameaçam o estado democrático de direito — do que o fascismo ou qualquer outra ideologia centralizada em governos burocráticos e onipotentes. Portanto, defender a censura, especialmente a estatal, representa sempre um perigo para o próprio indivíduo, que mais cedo ou mais tarde poderá ver a censura oficial do sistema se voltar contra ele.

Outra razão pela qual libertários jamais devem defender a censura, é porque — ao contrário dos estatistas — não é coerente que defensores da liberdade se comportem como se o estado fosse o seu papai e o governo fosse a sua mamãe. Não devemos terceirizar nossas próprias responsabilidades, tampouco devemos nos comportar como adultos infantilizados. Assumimos a responsabilidade de combater todas as ideologias e filosofias que agridem a liberdade e os seres humanos. Não procuramos políticos ou burocratas para executar essa tarefa por nós.

Portanto, se você ver um fascista sendo censurado nas redes sociais ou em qualquer outro lugar, assuma suas dores. Sinta-se compelido a defendê-lo, mostre aos seus detratores que ele tem todo direito de se expressar, como qualquer pessoa. Você não tem obrigação de concordar com ele ou apreciar as ideias que ele defende. Mas silenciar arbitrariamente qualquer pessoa não é uma pauta que honra a liberdade.

Se você não gosta de estado, planejamento central, burocracia, impostos, tarifas, políticas coletivistas, nacionalistas e desenvolvimentistas, mostre com argumentos coesos e convincentes porque a liberdade e o livre mercado são superiores a todos esses conceitos. Mas repudie a censura com intransigência e mordacidade.

Em primeiro lugar, porque você aprecia e defende a liberdade de expressão para todas as pessoas. E em segundo lugar, por entender perfeitamente que — se a censura eventualmente se tornar uma política de estado vigente entre a sociedade — é mais provável que ela atinja primeiro os defensores da liberdade do que os defensores do estado.

Machismo

Muitos elementos do comportamento masculino que hoje são atacados com virulência e considerados machistas pelo movimento progressista são na verdade manifestações naturais intrínsecas ao homem, que nossos avôs cultivaram ao longo de suas vidas sem serem recriminados por isso. Com a ascensão do feminismo, do progressismo e a eventual problematização do sexo masculino, o antagonismo militante dos principais líderes da revolução sexual da contracultura passou a naturalmente condenar todos os atributos genuinamente masculinos, por considerá-los símbolos de opressão e dominação social.

Apesar do Brasil ser uma sociedade liberal ultra-progressista, onde o estado protege mais as mulheres do que as crianças — afinal, a cada semana novas leis são implementadas concedendo inúmeros privilégios e benefícios às mulheres, aos quais elas jamais teriam direito em uma sociedade genuinamente machista e patriarcal —, a esquerda política persiste em tentar difundir a fantasia da opressão masculina e o mito de que vivemos em uma sociedade machista e patriarcal.

Como sempre, a realidade mostra um cenário muito diferente daquilo que é pregado pela militância da terra da fantasia. O Brasil atual não tem absolutamente nada de machista ou patriarcal. No Brasil, mulheres podem votar, podem ocupar posições de poder e autoridade tanto na esfera pública quanto em companhias privadas, podem se candidatar a cargos políticos, podem ser vereadoras, deputadas, governadoras, podem ser proprietárias do próprio negócio, podem se divorciar, podem dirigir, podem comprar armas, podem andar de biquíni nas praias, podem usar saias extremamente curtas, podem ver programas de televisão sobre sexo voltados única e exclusivamente para o público feminino, podem se casar com outras mulheres, podem ser promíscuas, podem consumir bebidas alcoólicas ao ponto da embriaguez, e podem fazer praticamente tudo aquilo que elas desejarem. No Brasil do século XXI, as mulheres são genuinamente livres para fazer as próprias escolhas em praticamente todos os aspectos de suas vidas. O que mostra efetivamente que a tal opressão do patriarcado não existe.

O liberalismo social extremo do qual as mulheres usufruem no Brasil atual — e que poderíamos estender a toda a sociedade contemporânea ocidental — é suficiente para desmantelar completamente a fábula feminista da sociedade patriarcal machista e opressora, que existe única e exclusivamente no mundinho de fantasias ideológicas da esquerda progressista.

Tão importante quanto, é fundamental compreender que nenhum homem é obrigado a levar o feminismo a sério ou considerá-lo um movimento social e político legítimo. Para um homem, ser considerado machista ou até mesmo assumir-se como um não deveria ser um problema. O progressismo e o feminismo — com o seu nefasto hábito de demonizar os homens, bem como todos os elementos inerentes ao comportamento e a cultura masculina — é que são o verdadeiro problema, conforme tentam modificar o homem para transformá-lo em algo que ele não é nem deveria ser: uma criatura dócil, passiva e submissa, que é comandada por ideologias hostis e antinaturais, que não respeitam a hierarquia de uma ordem social milenar e condições inerentes à própria natureza humana. Com o seu hábito de tentar modificar tudo através de leis e decretos, o feminismo e o progressismo mostram efetivamente que o seu real objetivo é criminalizar a masculinidade.

A verdade é que — usufruindo de um nível elevado de liberdades — não existe praticamente nada que a mulher brasileira do século XXI não possa fazer. Adicionalmente, o governo dá as mulheres uma quantidade tão avassaladora de vantagens, privilégios e benefícios, que está ficando cada vez mais difícil para elas encontrarem razões válidas para reclamarem da vida. Se o projeto de lei que pretende fornecer um auxílio mensal de mil e duzentos reais para mães solteiras for aprovado pelo senado, muitas mulheres que tem filhos não precisarão nem mesmo trabalhar para ter sustento. E tantas outras procurarão engravidar, para ter direito a receber uma mesada mensal do governo até o seu filho completar a maioridade.

O que a militância colorida da terra da fantasia convenientemente ignora — pois a realidade nunca corresponde ao seu conto de fadas ideológico — é que o mundo de uma forma geral continua sendo muito mais implacável com os homens do que é com as mulheres. No Brasil, a esmagadora maioria dos suicídios é praticada por homens, a maioria das vítimas de homicídio são homens e de cada quatro moradores de rua, três são homens. Mas é evidente que uma sociedade liberal ultra-progressista não se importa com os homens, pois ela não é influenciada por fatos concretos ou pela realidade. Seu objetivo é simplesmente atender as disposições de uma agenda ideológica, não importa quão divorciadas da realidade elas são.

O nível exacerbado de liberdades sociais e privilégios governamentais dos quais as mulheres brasileiras usufruem é suficiente para destruir a fantasiosa fábula da sociedade machista, opressora e patriarcal. Se as mulheres brasileiras não estão felizes, a culpa definitivamente não é dos homens. Se a vasta profusão de liberdades, privilégios e benefícios da sociedade ocidental não as deixa plenamente saciadas e satisfeitas, elas podem sempre mudar de ares e tentar uma vida mais abnegada e espartana em países como Irã, Paquistão ou Afeganistão. Quem sabe assim elas não se sentirão melhores e mais realizadas?

Homofobia

Quando falamos em homofobia, entramos em uma categoria muito parecida com a do racismo: o direito de discriminação é totalmente válido. Absolutamente ninguém deve ser obrigado a aceitar homossexuais ou considerar o homossexualismo como algo normal. Sendo cristão, não existe nem sequer a mais vaga possibilidade de que algum dia eu venha a aceitar o homossexualismo como algo natural. O homossexualismo se qualifica como um grave desvio de conduta e um pecado contra o Criador.

A Bíblia proíbe terminantemente conduta sexual imoral, o que — além do homossexualismo — inclui adultério, fornicação, incesto e bestialidade, entre outras formas igualmente pérfidas de degradação.

Segue abaixo três passagens bíblicas que proíbem terminantemente a conduta homossexual:

“Não te deitarás com um homem como se deita com uma mulher. Isso é abominável!” (Levítico 18:22 — King James Atualizada)

“Se um homem se deitar com outro homem, como se deita com mulher, ambos terão praticado abominação; certamente serão mortos; o seu sangue estará sobre eles.” (Levítico 20:13 — João Ferreira de Almeida Atualizada)

“O quê! Não sabeis que os injustos não herdarão o reino de Deus? Não sejais desencaminhados. Nem fornicadores, nem idólatras, nem adúlteros, nem homens mantidos para propósitos desnaturais, nem homens que se deitam com homens, nem ladrões, nem gananciosos, nem beberrões, nem injuriadores, nem extorsores herdarão o reino de Deus.” (1 Coríntios 6:9,10 —Tradução do Novo Mundo das Escrituras Sagradas com Referências)

Se você não é religioso, pode simplesmente levar em consideração o argumento do respeito pela ordem natural. A ordem natural é incondicional e incisiva com relação a uma questão: o complemento de tudo o que existe é o seu oposto, não o seu igual. O complemento do dia é a noite, o complemento da luz é a escuridão, o complemento da água, que é líquida, é a terra, que é sólida. E como sabemos o complemento do macho — de sua respectiva espécie — é a fêmea.

Portanto, o complemento do homem, o macho da espécie humana, é naturalmente a mulher, a fêmea da espécie humana. Um homem e uma mulher podem naturalmente se reproduzir, porque são um complemento biológico natural. Por outro lado, um homem e outro homem são incapazes de se reproduzir, assim como uma mulher e outra mulher.

Infelizmente, o mundo atual está longe de aceitar como plenamente estabelecida a ordem natural pelo simples fato dela existir, visto que tentam subvertê-la a qualquer custo, não importa o malabarismo intelectual que tenham que fazer para justificar os seus pontos de vista distorcidos e antinaturais. A libertinagem irrefreável e a imoralidade bestial do mundo contemporâneo pós-moderno não reconhecem nenhum tipo de limite. Quem tenta restabelecer princípios morais salutares é imediatamente considerado um vilão retrógrado e repressivo, sendo ativamente demonizado pela militância do hedonismo, da luxúria e da licenciosidade desenfreada e sem limites.

Definitivamente, fazer a apologia da moralidade, do autocontrole e do autodomínio não faz nenhum sucesso na Sodoma e Gomorra global dos dias atuais. O que faz sucesso é lacração, devassidão, promiscuidade e prazeres carnais vazios. O famoso escritor e filósofo francês Albert Camus expressou uma verdade contundente quando disse: “Uma só frase lhe bastará para definir o homem moderno — fornicava e lia jornais”.

Qualquer indivíduo tem o direito inalienável de discriminar ativamente homossexuais, pelo direito que ele julgar mais pertinente no seu caso. A objeção de consciência para qualquer situação é um direito natural dos indivíduos. Há alguns anos, um caso que aconteceu nos Estados Unidos ganhou enorme repercussão internacional, quando o confeiteiro Jack Phillips se recusou a fazer um bolo de casamento para o “casal” homossexual Dave Mullins e Charlie Craig.

Uma representação dos direitos civis do estado do Colorado abriu um inquérito contra o confeiteiro, alegando que ele deveria ser obrigado a atender todos os clientes, independente da orientação sexual, raça ou crença. Preste atenção nas palavras usadas — ele deveria ser obrigado a atender.

Como se recusou bravamente a ceder, o caso foi parar invariavelmente na Suprema Corte, que decidiu por sete a dois em favor de Jack Phillips, sob a alegação de que obrigar o confeiteiro a atender o “casal” homossexual era uma violação nefasta dos seus princípios religiosos. Felizmente, esse foi um caso em que a liberdade prevaleceu sobre a tirania progressista.

Evidentemente, homossexuais não devem ser agredidos, ofendidos, internados em clínicas contra a sua vontade, nem devem ser constrangidos em suas liberdades pelo fato de serem homossexuais. O que eles precisam entender é que a liberdade é uma via de mão dupla. Eles podem ter liberdade para adotar a conduta que desejarem e fazer o que quiserem (contanto que não agridam ninguém), mas da mesma forma, é fundamental respeitar e preservar a liberdade de terceiros que desejam rejeitá-los pacificamente, pelo motivo que for.

Afinal, ninguém tem a menor obrigação de aceitá-los, atendê-los ou sequer pensar que uma união estável entre duas pessoas do mesmo sexo — incapaz de gerar descendentes, e, portanto, antinatural — deva ser considerado um matrimônio de verdade. Absolutamente nenhuma pessoa, ideia, movimento, crença ou ideologia usufrui de plena unanimidade no mundo. Por que o homossexualismo deveria ter tal privilégio?

Homossexuais não são portadores de uma verdade definitiva, absoluta e indiscutível, que está acima da humanidade. São seres humanos comuns que — na melhor das hipóteses —, levam um estilo de vida que pode ser considerado “alternativo”, e absolutamente ninguém tem a obrigação de considerar esse estilo de vida normal ou aceitável. A única obrigação das pessoas é não interferir, e isso não implica uma obrigação em aceitar.

Discriminar homossexuais (assim como pessoas de qualquer outro grupo, raça, religião, nacionalidade ou etnia) é um direito natural por parte de todos aqueles que desejam exercer esse direito. E isso nem o direito positivo nem a militância progressista poderão algum dia alterar ou subverter. O direito natural e a inclinação inerente dos seres humanos em atender às suas próprias disposições é simplesmente imutável e faz parte do seu conjunto de necessidades.

Conclusão

A militância progressista é absurdamente autoritária, e todas as suas estratégias e disposições ideológicas mostram que ela está em uma guerra permanente contra a ordem natural, contra a liberdade e principalmente contra o homem branco, cristão, conservador e tradicionalista — possivelmente, aquilo que ela mais odeia e despreza.

Nós não podemos, no entanto, ceder ou dar espaço para a agenda progressista, tampouco pensar em considerar como sendo normais todas as pautas abusivas e tirânicas que a militância pretende estabelecer como sendo perfeitamente razoáveis e aceitáveis, quer a sociedade aceite isso ou não. Afinal, conforme formos cedendo, o progressismo tirânico e totalitário tende a ganhar cada vez mais espaço.

Quanto mais espaço o progressismo conquistar, mais corroída será a liberdade e mais impulso ganhará o totalitarismo. Com isso, a cultura do cancelamento vai acabar com carreiras, profissões e com o sustento de muitas pessoas, pelo simples fato de que elas discordam das pautas universitárias da moda.

A história mostra perfeitamente que quanto mais liberdade uma sociedade tem, mais progresso ela atinge. Por outro lado, quanto mais autoritária ela for, mais retrocessos ela sofrerá. O autoritarismo se combate com liberdade, desafiando as pautas de todos aqueles que persistem em implementar a tirania na sociedade. O politicamente correto é o nazismo dos costumes, que pretende subverter a moral através de uma cultura de vigilância policial despótica e autoritária, para que toda a sociedade seja subjugada pela agenda totalitária progressista.

Pois quanto a nós, precisamos continuar travando o bom combate em nome da liberdade. E isso inclui reconhecer que ideologias, hábitos e costumes de que não gostamos tem o direito de existir e até mesmo de serem defendidos.