@ 99556507:a6cf5c08

El paradigma del trabajador común aceptado en nuestra era es trabajar duro durante 40 años por un salario para tener derecho a una jubilación los últimos 20 o con suerte 25 años de vida.

Pero ¿es ésto lo más rentable? ¿Hay otras alternativas?

Vamos a ponernos en la piel de un asalariado o un autónomo que ha cotizado durante 30 años por la base máxima y está a una década todavía de poder jubilarse. ¿Le conviene trabajar esa década para tener derecho a la pensión estatal? ¿O es una estafa?

Hagamos números: La cotización máxima del autónomo o la del empresario a cuenta del trabajador hoy en día es de 1.472€/mes, 12 pagas al año, o 17.664€/año. En 10 años, y considerando una inflación del 4% anual, pagará 202.075€ en cotizaciones sociales.

El cotizante que haya pagado esto durante toda su vida laboral tiene derecho a la jubilación máxima, que hoy es de 3.267€/ mes, 14 pagas al año, o 45.746,40€/año. Si pensamos que la esperanza de vida en España es de 83 años y se tiene derecho a la jubilación a los 67, significa que un pensionista medio recibirá la pensión durante 16 años. Pero vamos a a hacer las cuentas para Matusalén, el pensionista pesadilla para el gobierno y las aseguradoras, que llegará a cumplir los 92 años, recibiendo la pensión durante 25 años.

Asumamos que el gobierno, que necesita imperiosamente los votos de los 7 millones de pensionistas, seguirá revalorizando las pensiones con el IPC oficial, es decir, a una media del 4% anual.

Matusalén se jubilará a los 67 y recibirá a lo largo de sus 25 años de pensionista la cantidad de 1.905.000€(1), de los cuales tendrá que pagar alrededor de un 28% de impuestos.

[(1) 45.746,40*(1-1,0425)/(1-1.04)] = 1.905.150

Es decir, Matusalén pagará 202.000€ en total a lo largo de 10 años para recibir 1.905.000€ distribuidos durante los siguientes 25. Parece un buen negocio, ¿no?

Pero, y si Matusalén, que es una persona cabal y ahorradora, ha ido haciendo una hucha durante sus 30 años de vida laboral a razón de 1000€ al mes, de manera que ahora ya dispone de esos 202.075€ necesarios para pagar sus cotizaciones hasta la edad de jubilación, y además le sobran 160.000€ para sus gastos la próxima década, a razón de 16.000€/año, que deberían de ser suficiente para vivir, puesto que esta cantidad es justo el salario mínimo interprofesional actual. ¿Le merece la pena seguir trabajando o puede plantearse dejar de hacerlo y usar esos ahorros para pagar sus cotizaciones de los siguientes 10 años, y tener derecho a la jubilación cuando cumpla 67 años?

O ya puestos a hacer cuentas, dado que tiene un capital disponible de 202.000€ en el banco, ¿podría pensar en alguna inversión alternativa que revalorizara su dinero de manera que mejorase las prestaciones de su jubilación (los 1.905.000€ calculados antes)?

Aquí es donde sale a jugar la fórmula del interés compuesto: Cf = Ci * (1+Rn), donde: Cf: capital final (queremos llegar a 1.905.000€) Ci: capital inicial (los 202.075€ de Matu) R: tasa de interés anual (CAGR) n: numero de años de la inversión (10)

¿Qué crecimiento anual compuesto (CAGR) necesitaría Matu para obtener el total de lo que nos daría su pensión tras 25 años, pero en tan solo 10 años, de manera que pudiera disponer de todo ese capital incluso antes de jubilarse? Haciendo las cuentas, R = (Cf/Ci-1)(1/n) = 23.09 %

Por si has llegado hasta aquí pero te has perdido por el camino, acabamos de concluir que una persona que invierta hoy 202.075€ en un producto que rente un 23,09% anual, obtendrá 1.905.000€ en 10 años, el equivalente a toda su jubilación.

Pues esto parece incluso mejor que la alternativa anterior, ¿no? Pero claro, hay que encontrar un producto que garantice esta rentabilidad sostenida durante una década. ¿Qué podría ser? A esta alturas, si sigues por aquí, ya habrás podido intuir por dónde van los tiros. Lo único que ha garantizado esta revalorización hasta la fecha es #bitcoin.

Éste el el cuadro del CAGR de Bitcoin tabulado por años. Se lee de la siguiente manera: A finales de 2024, la columna "CAGR 2024" da el CAGR (rendimiento anual compuesto) para la diferencia de años entre 2024 y el año de la cifra que estemos mirando. Por ejemplo, el CAGR a 31/12/2024 de una inversión realizada el 31/12/2023, es decir de 1 año, es del 276,92%. Si la inversión se realizó el 31/12/2016, el CAGR 8 años después, a final de 2024, es del 78,22% ANUAL

(Ver imagen 1)

El tío Matusalén está buscando algo que le dé un mínimo del 23,09% anual, ¿recordáis?. Pues da igual cuándo haya invertido y cuánto tiempo mantenga la inversión. BTC siempre supera ese umbral, por mucho.

"Ya Manolito, pero estás mirando rendimientos desde finales de 2024, cuando Bitcoin hizo un precio máximo histórico. Esto no asegura que haya ocurrido esto cada año, ¿no?"

El siguiente cuadro muestra los CAGR calculados a finales de cada año, los últimos 6 años. Las cifras en verde corresponden a los rendimientos de inversiones mantenidas 10 años. No podemos ir más para atrás porque Bitcoin acaba de cumplir 16 años.

(ver imagen 2)

No es difícil comprobar que a 10 años vista, bitcoin siempre ha superado de largo esta tasa de crecimiento.

*Consideraciones fiscales ** La pensión máxima devenga impuestos sobre la base de rentas del trabajo a razón del 28% anual, mientras que las inversiones tributan a un máximo del 26% sobre la base de las rentas de capital, suponiendo que se recupere todo el mismo año. Si se distribuyen los rendimientos plurianualmente, ese 26% puede reducirse entono al 21%, suponiendo otro 7% anual de ventaja neta sobre la pensión. En el caso particular de Matusalén, los 45.746,40€ anuales de su pensión tributarían íntegros al 28%, por lo que los 1.905.150 se quedarían netos en 823.435,20€ al cabo de 25 años. Si hubiese optado por invertir los 202.075€ en Bitcoin, y suponiendo que la rentabilidad obtenida es solo la necesaria para conseguir los 1.905.150€, tributaría al 26% sobre la ganancia si decide convertirlos en € de una vez, es decir, pagaría 26%(1.905.150-202.075)=442,800€, con lo que le quedarían netos 1.462.350€. Si decide por el contrario vender solo bitcoins cada año por valor de 45,746€, y suponiendo que mantienen el mismo valor en € durante los 25 años, pagaría el 21% sobre la plusvalía, es decir 357.645€ a lo largo de los 25 años por lo que le habrá quedado neto 1.547.504€.

Resumiendo: Renta neta con la pensión estatal tras 25 años: 823.435€ Renta neta con el plan de inversión en bitcoin, con rescate en una vez, el año 0: 1.462.350€ Renta neta con el plan de inversión en bitcoin, con rescate a lo largo de 25 años: 1.547.504€

Hay que recordar que todo el ejercicio está realizado para el mejor caso del pensionista estatal, que vivirá muy por encima de la media. Cualquier número de años inferior mejorará la rentabilidad del plan de bitcoin respecto al estatal.

Conclusión: Al bueno de Matu más le vale comprar bitcoins hoy mismo con ese dinero ahorrado. No solamente no necesitará una pensión sino que lo más probable es que sus ahorros valgan 5 veces más que lo que conseguiría de pensionista, pero 25 años antes.

@ 52b4a076:e7fad8bd

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

Regular relays have challenges

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

NFDB: A scalable database for large relays

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

Search

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

Personalization

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

Other

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

Calcite: A local microrelay database

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

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

For zero-downtime, NFDB is recommended.

Noswhere SmartCache

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

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

routerd

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

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

Ending notes

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

A lot more is to come. 👀️️️️️️

@ 40b9c85f:5e61b451

Introduction

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

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

The Current State of DVMs: Challenges and Limitations

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

1. Inconsistent Implementation

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

2. Fragmented Specifications

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

3. Ambiguous API Interfaces

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

The Reflection Pattern: A Solution from RPC Systems

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

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

How Reflection Could Transform the DVM Specification

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

1. Defined Lifecycle Phases

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

2. Schema-Based Interactions

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

3. Capability Negotiation

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

Implementation Approach

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

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

Parallels with Other Protocols

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

@ 1b9fc4cd:1d6d4902

To outsiders, the music industry is usually viewed as a glamorous world of fame, fortune, and creativity. However, lurking underneath the surface, the industry is also a field fraught with mental health challenges. From the history of addiction to the pressures of fame, artists have long wrestled with maintaining their mental well-being. Daniel Siegel Alonso looks at how many artists have found effective coping strategies, turning to therapy, mindfulness practices, and using music itself as a healing outlet.

The Dark History of Addiction in Music

Siegel Alonso notes that the history of addiction in the music industry is well-documented. The strain of constant touring, public scrutiny, and the never-ending pursuit of success have driven many artists to find relief in substances. Iconic musicians like Kurt Cobain, Amy Winehouse, and Jim Morrison are stark reminders of how addiction can destroy lives.

Guitarist John Frusciante of the Red Hot Chili Peppers is a notable example of someone who battled severe addiction. At the height of his career, Frusciante fell deeply into heroin addiction, which led him to leave the band in 1992. His addiction nearly cost him his life, but after a long and painful struggle, he managed to turn his life around. Frusciante’s journey to recovery involved intensive therapy and a recommitment to his music, ultimately rejoining the band and contributing to some of the group's most celebrated albums.

Seeking Help

One of the most crucial steps in addressing mental health issues is seeking professional help. Therapy provides a safe space for creative individuals to explore their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors with a trained professional. Therapy can be a lifeline for musicians, who often face unique pressures.

Frusciante’s recovery underscores the importance of professional help. He didn’t just quit drugs cold turkey; he underwent a comprehensive treatment plan that included therapy and support from friends and family. His story is a testament to the power of seeking help and the possibility of recovery, even after hitting rock bottom.

Music as an Outlet

For many musicians, creating music is more than just a career; it’s a vital outlet for expression and coping. Writing, performing, and listening to music can be powerful therapeutic tools. Music allows artists to channel their emotions into something constructive and beautiful, providing a release from their struggles.

Daniel Siegel Alonso takes The Beatles' George Harrison as an example. Harrison turned to Transcendental Meditation (TM) as a means of coping with the pressures of superstardom and personal turmoil. Introduced to TM in the 1960s, Harrison found solace and clarity through the practice, which influenced both his songwriting and his personal life. The song “Within You Without You” reflects his spiritual journey and the peace he found through TM. The recording marked a significant departure from the Beatles' previous work; musically, it evokes the Indian devotional tradition, while the overtly spiritual quality of the lyrics reflects Harrison's absorption in Hindu philosophy.

Mindfulness and Meditation

Mindfulness and meditation have become increasingly popular among musicians seeking to maintain their mental health. These practices help individuals stay grounded, reduce stress, and improve overall well-being. George Harrison’s embrace of TM is a prime example of how mindfulness can transform a creative person's life.

Harrison’s dedication to TM didn’t just help him personally; it also profoundly impacted his music. His incorporation of Indian instruments and philosophical themes into his songs brought a new dimension to The Beatles’ music and left an enduring legacy in the music world. By finding a healthy outlet in meditation, Harrison could navigate the challenges of fame and continue creating impactful music.

The Power of Community

Siegel Alonso notes that another vital aspect of mental health is the strength of community. Like all individuals, musicians need a support system. Whether it’s fellow bandmates, family, friends, or mental health professionals, having people to lean on can make a significant difference.

John Frusciante’s return to the Red Hot Chili Peppers is a testament to the importance of community. His bandmates supported him through his recovery, and their familial bond played a vital role in his comeback. The collaborative nature of music itself fosters a sense of belonging and mutual support, which is critical for mental health.

Moving Forward

The music industry has made strides in recent years to address mental health more openly. Initiatives like MusiCares provide resources and support for musicians dealing with mental health issues. However, there is still much work to be done. Shattering the stigma around mental health and fostering open conversations are key steps toward a healthier industry.

Musicians like John Frusciante and George Harrison show us that recovery and well-being are possible, even though the journey may be challenging. By seeking help, embracing mindfulness, and finding healthy outlets for expression, musicians can navigate their challenges and continue to inspire us with their art.

In conclusion, mental health in the music industry is a complex issue. Still, with the right coping strategies and support systems, Daniel Siegel Alonso posits that it is achievable to overcome the challenges. As fans and listeners, we can also play a role by supporting initiatives promoting mental health and recognizing the humanity behind the music we cherish. After all, the well-being of the artists who create the soundtrack of our lives is just as important as the music itself.

@ 4961e68d:a2212e1c

热死人了

@ 4961e68d:a2212e1c

热死人了！

@ 8cda1daa:e9e5bdd8

Bitcoin cracked the code for money.  Now it's time to rebuild everything else.

What about identity, trust, and collaboration? What about the systems that define how we live, create, and connect?

Bitcoin gave us a blueprint to separate money from the state. But the state still owns most of your digital life. It's time for something more radical.

Welcome to the Atomic Economy - not just a technology stack, but a civil engineering project for the digital age. A complete re-architecture of society, from the individual outward.

The Problem: We Live in Digital Captivity

Let's be blunt: the modern internet is hostile to human freedom.

You don't own your identity. You don't control your data. You don't decide what you see.

Big Tech and state institutions dominate your digital life with one goal: control.

• Poisoned algorithms dictate your emotions and behavior.
• Censorship hides truth and silences dissent.
• Walled gardens lock you into systems you can't escape.
• Extractive platforms monetize your attention and creativity - without your consent.

This isn't innovation. It's digital colonization.

A Vision for Sovereign Society

The Atomic Economy proposes a new design for society - one where: - Individuals own their identity, data, and value. - Trust is contextual, not imposed. - Communities are voluntary, not manufactured by feeds. - Markets are free, not fenced. - Collaboration is peer-to-peer, not platform-mediated.

It's not a political revolution. It's a technological and social reset based on first principles: self-sovereignty, mutualism, and credible exit.

So, What Is the Atomic Economy?

The Atomic Economy is a decentralized digital society where people - not platforms - coordinate identity, trust, and value.

It's built on open protocols, real software, and the ethos of Bitcoin. It's not about abstraction - it's about architecture.

Core Principles: - Self-Sovereignty: Your keys. Your data. Your rules. - Mutual Consensus: Interactions are voluntary and trust-based. - Credible Exit: Leave any system, with your data and identity intact. - Programmable Trust: Trust is explicit, contextual, and revocable. - Circular Economies: Value flows directly between individuals - no middlemen.

The Tech Stack Behind the Vision

The Atomic Economy isn't just theory. It's a layered system with real tools:

1. Payments & Settlement

• Bitcoin & Lightning: The foundation - sound, censorship-resistant money.
• Paykit: Modular payments and settlement flows.
• Atomicity: A peer-to-peer mutual credit protocol for programmable trust and IOUs.

2. Discovery & Matching

• Pubky Core: Decentralized identity and discovery using PKARR and the DHT.
• Pubky Nexus: Indexing for a user-controlled internet.
• Semantic Social Graph: Discovery through social tagging - you are the algorithm.

3. Application Layer

• Bitkit: A self-custodial Bitcoin and Lightning wallet.
• Pubky App: Tag, publish, trade, and interact - on your terms.
• Blocktank: Liquidity services for Lightning and circular economies.
• Pubky Ring: Key-based access control and identity syncing.

These tools don't just integrate - they stack. You build trust, exchange value, and form communities with no centralized gatekeepers.

The Human Impact

This isn't about software. It's about freedom.

• Empowered Individuals: Control your own narrative, value, and destiny.
• Voluntary Communities: Build trust on shared values, not enforced norms.
• Economic Freedom: Trade without permission, borders, or middlemen.
• Creative Renaissance: Innovation and art flourish in open, censorship-resistant systems.

The Atomic Economy doesn't just fix the web. It frees the web.

Why Bitcoiners Should Care

If you believe in Bitcoin, you already believe in the Atomic Economy - you just haven't seen the full map yet.

• It extends Bitcoin's principles beyond money: into identity, trust, coordination.
• It defends freedom where Bitcoin leaves off: in content, community, and commerce.
• It offers a credible exit from every centralized system you still rely on.
• It's how we win - not just economically, but culturally and socially.

This isn't "web3." This isn't another layer of grift. It's the Bitcoin future - fully realized.

Join the Atomic Revolution

• If you're a builder: fork the code, remix the ideas, expand the protocols.
• If you're a user: adopt Bitkit, use Pubky, exit the digital plantation.
• If you're an advocate: share the vision. Help people imagine a free society again.

Bitcoin promised a revolution. The Atomic Economy delivers it.

Let's reclaim society, one key at a time.

Learn more and build with us at Synonym.to.

@ c4b5369a:b812dbd6

Offline transactions with Cashu

Over the past few weeks, I've been busy implementing offline capabilities into nutstash. I think this is one of the key value propositions of ecash, beinga a bearer instrument that can be used without internet access. It does however come with limitations, which can lead to a bit of confusion. I hope this article will clear some of these questions up for you!

What is ecash/Cashu?

Ecash is the first cryptocurrency ever invented. It was created by David Chaum in 1983. It uses a blind signature scheme, which allows users to prove ownership of a token without revealing a link to its origin. These tokens are what we call ecash. They are bearer instruments, meaning that anyone who possesses a copy of them, is considered the owner.

Cashu is an implementation of ecash, built to tightly interact with Bitcoin, more specifically the Bitcoin lightning network. In the Cashu ecosystem, Mints are the gateway to the lightning network. They provide the infrastructure to access the lightning network, pay invoices and receive payments. Instead of relying on a traditional ledger scheme like other custodians do, the mint issues ecash tokens, to represent the value held by the users.

How do normal Cashu transactions work?

A Cashu transaction happens when the sender gives a copy of his ecash token to the receiver. This can happen by any means imaginable. You could send the token through email, messenger, or even by pidgeon. One of the common ways to transfer ecash is via QR code.

The transaction is however not finalized just yet! In order to make sure the sender cannot double-spend their copy of the token, the receiver must do what we call a swap. A swap is essentially exchanging an ecash token for a new one at the mint, invalidating the old token in the process. This ensures that the sender can no longer use the same token to spend elsewhere, and the value has been transferred to the receiver.

What about offline transactions?

Sending offline

Sending offline is very simple. The ecash tokens are stored on your device. Thus, no internet connection is required to access them. You can litteraly just take them, and give them to someone. The most convenient way is usually through a local transmission protocol, like NFC, QR code, Bluetooth, etc.

The one thing to consider when sending offline is that ecash tokens come in form of "coins" or "notes". The technical term we use in Cashu is Proof. It "proofs" to the mint that you own a certain amount of value. Since these proofs have a fixed value attached to them, much like UTXOs in Bitcoin do, you would need proofs with a value that matches what you want to send. You can mix and match multiple proofs together to create a token that matches the amount you want to send. But, if you don't have proofs that match the amount, you would need to go online and swap for the needed proofs at the mint.

Another limitation is, that you cannot create custom proofs offline. For example, if you would want to lock the ecash to a certain pubkey, or add a timelock to the proof, you would need to go online and create a new custom proof at the mint.

Receiving offline

You might think: well, if I trust the sender, I don't need to be swapping the token right away!

You're absolutely correct. If you trust the sender, you can simply accept their ecash token without needing to swap it immediately.

This is already really useful, since it gives you a way to receive a payment from a friend or close aquaintance without having to worry about connectivity. It's almost just like physical cash!

It does however not work if the sender is untrusted. We have to use a different scheme to be able to receive payments from someone we don't trust.

Receiving offline from an untrusted sender

To be able to receive payments from an untrusted sender, we need the sender to create a custom proof for us. As we've seen before, this requires the sender to go online.

The sender needs to create a token that has the following properties, so that the receciver can verify it offline:

• It must be locked to ONLY the receiver's public key
• It must include an offline signature proof (DLEQ proof)
• If it contains a timelock & refund clause, it must be set to a time in the future that is acceptable for the receiver
• It cannot contain duplicate proofs (double-spend)
• It cannot contain proofs that the receiver has already received before (double-spend)

If all of these conditions are met, then the receiver can verify the proof offline and accept the payment. This allows us to receive payments from anyone, even if we don't trust them.

At first glance, this scheme seems kinda useless. It requires the sender to go online, which defeats the purpose of having an offline payment system.

I beleive there are a couple of ways this scheme might be useful nonetheless:

1. Offline vending machines: Imagine you have an offline vending machine that accepts payments from anyone. The vending machine could use this scheme to verify payments without needing to go online itself. We can assume that the sender is able to go online and create a valid token, but the receiver doesn't need to be online to verify it.

2. Offline marketplaces: Imagine you have an offline marketplace where buyers and sellers can trade goods and services. Before going to the marketplace the sender already knows where he will be spending the money. The sender could create a valid token before going to the marketplace, using the merchants public key as a lock, and adding a refund clause to redeem any unspent ecash after it expires. In this case, neither the sender nor the receiver needs to go online to complete the transaction.

How to use this

Pretty much all cashu wallets allow you to send tokens offline. This is because all that the wallet needs to do is to look if it can create the desired amount from the proofs stored locally. If yes, it will automatically create the token offline.

Receiving offline tokens is currently only supported by nutstash (experimental).

To create an offline receivable token, the sender needs to lock it to the receiver's public key. Currently there is no refund clause! So be careful that you don't get accidentally locked out of your funds!

The receiver can then inspect the token and decide if it is safe to accept without a swap. If all checks are green, they can accept the token offline without trusting the sender.

The receiver will see the unswapped tokens on the wallet homescreen. They will need to manually swap them later when they are online again.

Later when the receiver is online again, they can swap the token for a fresh one.

Summary

We learned that offline transactions are possible with ecash, but there are some limitations. It either requires trusting the sender, or relying on either the sender or receiver to be online to verify the tokens, or create tokens that can be verified offline by the receiver.

I hope this short article was helpful in understanding how ecash works and its potential for offline transactions.

Cheers,

Gandlaf

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Simple design

For as long as I remember, I’ve believed in simple design as a principle in my practice. It feels fundamental to me when I think about good design.

At the same time, I see many successful examples of complex products in the world. So I decided to ask, what value is simple design really providing me and my work?

Is it nostalgia?

I sometimes wonder if simple design is rooted in nostalgia. An example I like to use is:

Imagine yourself in the year 1981. You just purchased a brand new desk calculator. You are excited because you should be able to do any type of paperwork calculations you can imagine on it.

As you start to use it for the first time, it immediately prompts you to update its software. After using it for a few calculations, it asks you to fill out a survey about your experience. One day in the middle of adding up your checkbook, it interrupts you to tell you about a new leather-bound desk calendar the company just released. Sometimes in the middle of a complex calculation, the calculator will lag and crash. You have to restart it often to fix the issue.

I have a feeling that a person in 1981 would think this is a terrible calculator. They purchased the device to perform their calculations, nothing more. Why is it requiring so much more of their attention and effort?

Focus

I think simple design often refers to a focused product. A product that does a specific task can sometimes do that task really well. Products that try to do many things can offer a lot of value, but rarely do all the things well.

Some people prefer to use specific tools for specific tasks. Others prefer a wide variety of features.

I think the benefits of using fewer products are often a major reason complex products are successful. They may not be focused, they might be lower quality as a result, but people can use them for a wide variety of applications.

You can open a can of beans with a Swiss Army Knife — it will get the job done.

Art and subjectivity

Maybe simple design is valuable for intangible reasons. There is an art to simplicity. There is a beauty to simplicity.

A user can see more of the product's intentionality. The creator chose to leave certain features out. They decided what to include. The product likely exudes more vision and personality.

That might be unnoticed by some, but very valuable to others who care about craft. People who value the experience as much as the result.

Ease of use

I think a true benefit of simple design is the effect it has on ease of use. The less things there are to do in a product, the more obvious the things you can do become.

A simple product requires less of a user. That means a user can stay focused on their own needs and use the product in ways they define. They will encounter boundaries which limit them. These limitations could drive some away, but some might be engaged to find new and creative ways of working.

When to abandon simple design

I think the sad news is simple design is ultimately a limiting factor of a product's growth. I think there are many examples of this throughout the course of history (i.e. Ello vs Facebook, Rdio vs Spotify, Simplenote vs Notion, VSCO vs Instagram, Clear vs Things, Peach vs Twitter, etc). At the same time, I think 'simple design' does provide an entry point to successfully define what a product is.

The biggest challenge is continuing to evoke the benefits of simple design in an established product, while allowing a product to evolve and grow to meet its users' needs. That is a balancing act that very few products have ever achieved, but feels like an ideal that successful products should strive for.

---

One of Charlie Deets Writings

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/969089

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

After being featured in the NY Times and WSJ, New York City officially opens a major addition to Central Park, the Davis Center at the Harlem Meer. Designed by architect Susan T Rodriguez in collaboration with Mitchell Giurgola, the renovation project replaces the old Lasker Rink and pool with a recreational facility that’s built directly into the landscape, restoring nature, reconnecting paths, and creating a year-round space for community activity. At the heart of the new design is a transformative water feature that shifts with the seasons, from a skating rink in winter to a lush green lawn in spring and fall and a pool in the summer.

The center’s new oval-shaped pool sits lower than the old one, surrounded by a gently sloped grassy berm. In winter, the pool becomes an ice-skating rink, making the site a destination in every season. A splash pad at the end of the water feature offers extra water play in the summer. By integrating the design into the natural shape of the land, the architects were able to open up the space around the pool and allow the landscape to flow around it, resulting in a setting that feels like it’s always been there.

Sustainability was a core part of the project. The building is expected to earn LEED Gold certification, thanks to features like passive ventilation, locally sourced stone and wood, energy-efficient systems, and a roof that absorbs rainwater. Bird-safe glass helps protect local wildlife, and recycled materials from the old building were reused during construction. Even more important, the new center supports free and low-cost programming year-round, including education, nature walks, community events, and recreation. It’s designed to welcome all kinds of visitors—from families and school groups to joggers, birdwatchers, and casual parkgoers.

Continue reading: https://www.designboom.com/architecture/giant-pool-new-york-central-park-new-davis-center-susan-t-rodriguez-mitchell-giurgola-04-24-2025/

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/969086

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed software engineering, but their application to physical engineering domains remains underexplored. This paper evaluates LLMs' capabilities in high-powered rocketry design through RocketBench, a benchmark connecting LLMs to high-fidelity rocket simulations. We test models on two increasingly complex design tasks: target altitude optimization and precision landing challenges. Our findings reveal that while state-of-the-art LLMs demonstrate strong baseline engineering knowledge, they struggle to iterate on their designs when given simulation results and ultimately plateau below human performance levels. However, when enhanced with reinforcement learning (RL), we show that a 7B parameter model outperforms both SoTA foundation models and human experts. This research demonstrates that RL-trained LLMs can serve as effective tools for complex engineering optimization, potentially transforming engineering domains beyond software development.

PDF: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2504.19394

Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.19394

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/969083

@ 3ffac3a6:2d656657

Introduction: Don't Despair—This Can Be Fixed (But Don't Reboot Yet)

Running ZFS on a Raspberry Pi offers powerful features for home servers and personal NAS setups. But with power comes complexity, and in recent months, a quiet pitfall has emerged for Pi users who track kernel updates closely: upgrading to an unsupported kernel version breaks ZFS.

⚠️ Important Warning: If you've just upgraded your kernel and you're using ZFS, do not reboot yet. Rebooting without a working ZFS module can leave your system unbootable—even if you don't have critical partitions on ZFS. The system may hang because it tries to load the missing ZFS kernel module during boot and fails, halting the boot process.

If you're already facing a broken setup or can't boot — don't panic. This guide outlines both the worst-case scenario and the ideal recovery strategy. Whether you're locked out or preparing for a smooth upgrade, we've got you covered.

---

The Problem: A Kernel Update Too Far

As of ZFS version 2.2.3 (used in Debian-based Raspberry Pi OS), the filesystem supports Linux kernels up to 6.7. However, Raspberry Pi OS backports recently began shipping 6.12.x kernels. If you upgrade to 6.12 without precautions:

• ZFS will fail to compile against the new kernel
• DKMS errors will appear during package updates
• Your ZFS module will be missing after reboot
• Your Raspberry Pi may fail to boot, even without ZFS-mounted root or critical paths, simply due to systemd or boot scripts expecting the kernel module to be present

Example ZFS Compilation Error:

During package updates or installs, you'll see something like:

checking whether bdev_open_by_path() exists... configure: error: *** None of the expected "blkdev_get_by_path()" interfaces were detected. *** This may be because your kernel version is newer than what is *** supported, or you are using a patched custom kernel with *** incompatible modifications. *** *** ZFS Version: zfs-2.2.3-1~bpo12+1~rpt1 *** Compatible Kernels: 3.10 - 6.7

This error means ZFS cannot build its kernel module against Linux 6.12.x, making it unusable.

Why This Happens: The Version Trap

The key problem is that ZFS 2.2.3 remains installed even after a kernel upgrade, and it doesn't get upgraded automatically during apt upgrade. Since ZFS 2.2.3 only supports up to kernel 6.7, it fails to compile against 6.12.x.

However, if you remove and then reinstall ZFS, the package manager installs ZFS 2.3.1, which does support Linux kernel 6.12.x. This version transition is what resolves the issue — but only if you explicitly purge and reinstall ZFS.

---

Worst Case: The System That Wouldn’t Boot

After upgrading the kernel and rebooting, the system failed to boot properly. It showed errors like:

cannot open access to console, the root account is locked

Although the system did not have critical filesystems on ZFS, the boot process still stalled because system services attempted to load the ZFS kernel module, which was no longer available. This resulted in an unrecoverable boot failure.

The only way forward was to reformat and reinstall Raspberry Pi OS. However, the default Raspberry Pi OS image still comes with a 6.6.x kernel, which is incompatible with ZFS 2.3.1 and newer kernels unless upgraded. Therefore, the recovery process requires one crucial step:

1. First, perform a full system upgrade:

sudo apt update && sudo apt full-upgrade

This brings the kernel up to 6.12.x.

1. Then, reinstall ZFS:

sudo apt install zfs-dkms zfsutils-linux

Once this is complete, your system will be running kernel 6.12 with ZFS 2.3.1, and you can safely import your pools and resume operations.

---

Best Case Recovery: Clean Cut, Clean Upgrade

For users who can still log into their system, here's the cleanest and safest sequence to move forward:

1. Stop all services using ZFS, including Docker, NFS, Samba, backup tools, etc.
2. Export all ZFS pools:

sudo zpool export -a 3. Disable swap if it lives on a ZFS vdev:

sudo swapoff /dev/sdXn 4. Purge ZFS packages:

sudo apt purge zfsutils-linux zfs-dkms zfs-zed sudo rm -rf /usr/src/zfs* /var/lib/dkms/zfs 5. Update the kernel to the desired version:

sudo apt update && sudo apt full-upgrade 6. Reboot into the new kernel:

sudo reboot 7. Reinstall ZFS:

sudo apt install zfs-dkms zfsutils-linux 8. Import your pool(s):

sudo zpool import poolname 9. Restart services that depend on ZFS.

---

Final Notes: Prevention Is Better Than Recovery

To avoid this issue in the future:

• Hold your current working kernel version:

sudo apt-mark hold linux-image-rpi-v8 linux-headers-rpi-v8 * Or track ZFS GitHub for kernel compatibility before upgrading * Or test upgrades on a second Pi or cloned SD card before rolling them out to production

---

Conclusion: A Solvable Trap

ZFS on the Raspberry Pi remains a powerful option, but it demands careful version tracking. If you upgrade responsibly, or recover cleanly as described above, you can continue benefiting from advanced features like snapshots, send/receive, and compression even on this tiny powerhouse.

Don’t let a kernel update ruin your storage plans—with preparation, the Pi + ZFS combo can remain stable and strong.

@ 502ab02a:a2860397

เราได้อ่านเรื่อง EVERY eggwhite ไปแล้วคิดว่าเขาจะหยุดแค่นี้ไหมครับ 555555 ไม่มีทางครับ การคืบคลานต้องมีต่อไป วันนี้จะมาในตอนที่ชื่อว่า

EVERY Egg ไข่ยุคใหม่ที่ไม่ต้องใช้แม่ไก่อีกต่อไป ลองนึกภาพ "ไข่เจียว" ที่ไม่มีแม่ไก่เกี่ยวข้องแม้แต่ขนไก่สักเส้น...ใช่เลยจ้ะ โลกตอนนี้ไปถึงจุดที่ ไข่ สามารถผลิตได้จาก “ยีสต์” ที่ถูกดัดแปลงพันธุกรรม เพื่อให้มันสร้าง “โปรตีนไข่” แบบเดียวกับในธรรมชาติ โดยไม่ต้องผ่านแม่ไก่ ไม่ต้องมีเปลือก และแน่นอน...ไม่มีเสียงขันตอนเช้าอีกต่อไป

ผู้เล่นที่น่าจับตาที่สุดคือบริษัท EVERY Company จาก Silicon Valley เจ้าเดิมที่เปิดตัวผลิตภัณฑ์ใหม่ในชื่อ EVERY Egg ซึ่งเป็น “ของเหลว” ที่หน้าตาเหมือนวิปไข่ไก่ แต่เบื้องหลังคือกระบวนการผลิตระดับไซไฟ! พวกเขาใช้เทคนิคที่เรียกว่า precision fermentation หรือ “การหมักแม่นยำ” เพื่อสั่งให้ยีสต์สร้างโปรตีน ovalbumin (โปรตีนหลักในไข่ขาว) และ lysozyme (สารฆ่าเชื้อแบคทีเรียตามธรรมชาติในไข่) ออกมา จากนั้นก็เอามาผสม เติมแต่ง แต่งกลิ่น เติมสี ใส่สารกันเสียเล็กน้อย...ปิ๊ง! ได้ไข่ที่ไม่มีไข่ ได้ใจประชาชนที่กินสารอาหารแบบคลั่งตัวเลข

จุดขายที่ EVERY Company ใช้ในการนำเสนอ EVERY Egg สลุตมาเป็นตับ ตับ ตับ แบบนี้ครับ 1. High quality egg protein ใช้โปรตีน ovalbumin ที่ได้จากกระบวนการ fermentation ด้วย precision fermentation จากยีสต์สายพันธุ์ Pichia pastoris ซึ่งเป็น โปรตีนหลักในไข่ขาวธรรมชาติและเคลมว่าให้คุณสมบัติเทียบเท่าหรือดีกว่าไข่จากไก่ในเรื่องโครงสร้างโปรตีนและการทำงานในอาหาร เช่น การตีขึ้นฟู (foaming) และการอิมัลซิไฟ คุณเอ๊ยยยย ฟลัฟฟลี่สุดๆ 555 2. No hens used เป็น selling point หลักที่สื่อสารหนักมากในเชิง “ไม่เบียดเบียนสัตว์” ดูมีคุณธรรม จึงถูกจัดเป็นมังสวิรัติ (vegan-friendly) แม้จะได้จากจุลินทรีย์ที่ออกแบบให้ผลิตโปรตีนที่เหมือนจากสัตว์ จุดนี้ล่อใจผู้บริโภควีแกนและกลุ่มที่ต่อต้านฟาร์มอุตสาหกรรมอย่างเต็มๆ พร้อมถวิลหา 3. No cholesterol ยังเป็นจุดขายหลักได้ตลอดกาลกับการครอบงำให้กลัวคอเลสเตอรอล เพราะผลิตจากจุลินทรีย์ ไม่ใช่จากสัตว์จริง ๆ จึงไม่มีคอเลสเตอรอลเลย ซึ่งเป็นข้อได้เปรียบเทียบกับไข่ไก่ที่มีคอเลสเตอรอลตามธรรมชาติ 4. No saturated fat พอๆกันครับ ยังเป็นจุดขู่จุดขายได้ตลอดกาลเช่นเดียวกับคอเลสเตอรอล โปรตีนที่ผลิตจากยีสต์ไม่มีไขมันอิ่มตัวเช่นเดียวกับผลิตภัณฑ์จากสัตว์จริง 5. No artificial flavors แหม่ พยายามสร้างภาพลักษณ์ว่าเป็น clean label ไม่ใช้แต่งกลิ่นหรือสารเติมแต่งรส (แม้จะเป็นผลิตภัณฑ์ที่ผ่านกระบวนการขั้นสูงมากก็ตาม) 6. No salmonella จุดที่คนโคตรกลัวเลยในไข่ สังเกตุไหมว่า จัดหนักจัดเน้นขยี้ความกลัวของคนได้ทุกจุด อย่างอันนี้เนื่องจากไม่มีสัตว์เข้ามาเกี่ยวข้องในการผลิต ทำให้โอกาสปนเปื้อนเชื้อซัลโมเนลลาที่พบบ่อยในไข่สดแทบเป็นศูนย์ เป็นจุดขายด้านความปลอดภัยอาหาร (food safety) ที่เขาเน้นมาก

เท่านี้ยังไม่พอครับ คำถามที่คนต้องสงสัยแน่นอนคือ ชนิดของกรดอมิโนหละครบไหม pain point ของชาววีแกน เนื่องจาก EVERY Company ใช้เทคนิค “Precision Fermentation” โดยใส่ยีนจากไก่ลงไปในยีสต์ เพื่อให้ผลิต ovalbumin ได้เหมือนในธรรมชาติ จึงทำให้โครงสร้างของกรดอะมิโนในโปรตีนนี้ เหมือนไข่จริงแทบ 100% โปรตีน ovalbumin ที่ใช้ผลิต เป็น primary protein จึงถือว่าเป็น โปรตีนมาตรฐาน (reference protein) ในทางโภชนาการ เพราะมี กรดอะมิโนจำเป็นทั้ง 9 ชนิด ในปริมาณที่เพียงพอ ได้แก่ Leucine, Lysine, Valine, Isoleucine, Threonine, Methionine, Phenylalanine, Tryptophan, Histidine

แต่... แม้จะมีกรดอะมิโนครบ ก็ยังมีเรื่องให้คิด โปรตีนนี้ ไม่มาจากธรรมชาติ โดยตรง แต่ผ่านการผลิตจากสิ่งมีชีวิตดัดแปลงพันธุกรรม (GMO yeast) ยังไม่มีข้อมูลชัดเจนเรื่อง bioavailability (การดูดซึม) เมื่อเทียบกับไข่จริง และที่สำคัญ คือการบริโภค “complete protein” ไม่ได้แปลว่า ปลอดภัยในระยะยาว ถ้าพื้นฐานมันคือ GMO จากแลปที่ไม่มีวิวัฒนาการร่วมกับมนุษย์ แน่นอนว่ามันยังต้องการ "ตลาดทดลอง" เพื่อทดลองและเก็บข้อมูลประกอบสินค้าในระยะเวลานึง เข้าใจไหม "หนูๆ"

คำถามคือ โปรตีนแท้...หรือแค่ “เลียนแบบ” EVERY Egg บอกว่าเขาสร้างโปรตีนเหมือนไข่เป๊ะชนิดที่ว่าเชฟชื่อดังยังแยกไม่ออก (ถ้าไม่ดูฉลาก) สามารถนำไปทอด ทำไข่คน ไข่เจียว โอ๊มเล็ต ได้เหมือนไข่จริงทุกประการ แถมยังไม่มีคอเลสเตอรอล ไม่มีไขมันอิ่มตัว มีแต่ “โปรตีนล้วนๆ” แบบคลีนๆ

แต่ตรงนี้แหละที่มันเริ่ม น่าสงสัย เพราะการไม่มีไขมันเลย มันก็คือการตัดเอา matrix ทางโภชนาการ ที่ธรรมชาติออกแบบมาให้เราย่อยง่าย ดูดซึมวิตามินได้ดี และช่วยให้เรารู้สึกอิ่มแบบธรรมชาติ ไข่แท้จากไก่ ไม่ใช่แค่แหล่งโปรตีน แต่มันคือ “ของขวัญจากธรรมชาติ” ที่มีทั้ง choline, lutein, zeaxanthin, วิตามิน A, D, E, B12, โอเมก้า-3, ไขมันดี และเลซิธิน อยู่ครบทุกอนู ช่วยทั้งสมอง ดวงตา และตับ

ในขณะที่ EVERY Egg คือ “ไข่ที่เราอยากให้มันเป็น” มากกว่า “ไข่ที่ธรรมชาติอยากให้เราได้กิน”

บริษัท The EVERY Company ได้ร่วมมือกับเชฟระดับสุดยอดมากมาย ซึ่งการร่วมมือครั้งนี้มีเป้าหมายเพื่อแสดงให้เห็นว่าโปรตีนไข่ที่ผลิตจากกระบวนการ precision fermentation ของ EVERY Egg สามารถตอบสนองมาตรฐานสูงสุดของวงการอาหารชั้นเลิศได้ เรามาดูตัวอย่างกันครับว่า มีที่ไหนบ้าง

1. Eleven Madison Park โดย เชฟ Daniel Humm (มิชลิน3 ดาว ที่นิวยอร์ก) EVERY Egg เปิดตัวครั้งแรกในปี 2023 ที่ร้าน Eleven Madison Park ซึ่งเป็นร้านอาหารระดับมิชลิน 3 ดาว ในนิวยอร์ก โดยเชฟ Daniel Humm ได้สร้างสรรค์เมนูพิเศษที่ใช้ EVERY Egg เป็นส่วนประกอบหลัก เช่น ออมเล็ต ค็อกเทล และของหวาน เพื่อแสดงถึงความสามารถของผลิตภัณฑ์นี้ในการตอบสนองมาตรฐานสูงสุดของวงการอาหารชั้นเลิศระดับ fine dining มิชลิน

2. Chantal Guillon (ร้านมาการองฝรั่งเศสในซานฟรานซิสโก) EVERY Company ได้ร่วมมือกับร้านขนม Chantal Guillon ในการผลิตมาการองที่ใช้ EVERY EggWhite™ ซึ่งเป็นโปรตีนไข่ขาวที่ผลิตจากกระบวนการ precision fermentation โดยไม่มีการใช้ไข่จากไก่เลย ผลิตภัณฑ์นี้ได้รับการยอมรับว่าให้รสชาติและเนื้อสัมผัสที่เทียบเท่ากับไข่ขาวธรรมชาติ

3. The Vegetarian Butcher เป็นแบรนด์ในเครือ Unilever ตามที่ได้เคยให้ข้อมูลไปแล้ว EVERY Company ได้จับมือกับ The Vegetarian Butcher ซึ่งเป็นแบรนด์อาหารมังสวิรัติในเครือ Unilever เพื่อพัฒนาและผลิตผลิตภัณฑ์ที่ใช้โปรตีนไข่จาก EVERY Egg โดยมีเป้าหมายในการลดการใช้สัตว์ในห่วงโซ่อาหารและส่งเสริมความยั่งยืนในอุตสาหกรรมอาหาร

4. Grupo Palacios ผู้ผลิต Spanish Omelet รายใหญ่ของโลก EVERY Company ได้ร่วมมือกับ Grupo Palacios ซึ่งเป็นผู้ผลิต Spanish Omelet รายใหญ่ของโลก โดยนำ EVERY Egg มาใช้ในผลิตภัณฑ์ของตน เพื่อเป็นทางเลือกที่ปลอดภัยและยั่งยืนต่อไข่ไก่ธรรมชาติ ซึ่งอาจมีปัญหาเรื่องการปนเปื้อนและความไม่แน่นอนในการผลิต

Fiat Egg บนเส้นทางเดียวกับ Fiat Food เฮียชวนให้มองภาพใหญ่เหมือนเวลาเรายืนอยู่บนดาดฟ้าแล้วมองลงไปที่ตลาด... ผลิตภัณฑ์อย่าง EVERY Egg ไม่ใช่แค่การสร้าง “ของใหม่” แต่มันคือการ เปลี่ยนแปลงพื้นฐานของอาหาร ด้วยแนวคิดแบบ “Fiat” เป๊ะ Fiat Food คืออาหารที่ไม่ได้เกิดจากธรรมชาติ แต่ถูก “กำหนดให้มีคุณค่า” โดยอุตสาหกรรม Fiat Money คือเงินที่ไม่ได้มีมูลค่าในตัวเอง แต่รัฐบาลบอกให้เรายอมรับมันเป็นเงิน

ในโลกนี้ ถ้า “ไข่” ไม่ต้องมาจากแม่ไก่ “นม” ไม่ต้องมาจากเต้า และ “เนื้อ” ไม่ต้องมาจากวัว แต่ใช้แค่สารเคมี + ยีสต์ + กราฟ + กลิ่นสังเคราะห์ = “ของกินได้” แล้วมันจะเหลือความเป็น อาหารแท้ (real food) อยู่อีกไหม?

เบื้องหลังที่เราควรถามให้ลึก แม้ว่า EVERY จะอ้างว่าโปรตีนจากยีสต์ของเขา “ปลอดภัยและยั่งยืน” แต่ยังไม่มีข้อมูลด้าน long-term health impact ยังไม่มีข้อมูลว่ายีสต์ GMO ที่ใช้ จะกระตุ้นภูมิแพ้หรือมีสารตกค้างหรือไม่ ยังไม่รู้ว่าสารแต่งกลิ่น รส และตัวพาอื่นๆ ที่ใส่ใน EVERY Egg จะส่งผลอะไรกับ microbiome หรือฮอร์โมนของเราในระยะยาว แต่นั่นก็คงมาพร้อมกับคำตอบหรูๆหล่อๆว่า "ขอให้มั่นใจในกระบวนการผลิตที่ทันสมัยและดีเยี่ยม" . . . ตามเคย

และที่น่าสนใจคือ...ผลิตภัณฑ์ EVERY Egg ยังไม่ได้รับการรับรอง GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) อย่างเป็นทางการจาก FDA จึงยังไม่สามารถวางจำหน่ายในร้านค้าปลีกทั่วไปได้ บริษัทกำลังร่วมมือกับบริษัทอาหารข้ามชาติในการเปิดตัวผลิตภัณฑ์ในปีนี้ แต่ยังไม่มีข้อมูลชัดเจนเกี่ยวกับการวางจำหน่ายในร้านค้าปลีกทั่วไป​ แต่ส่วนตัวเฮียคิดว่าไม่น่ากังวล น่าจะผ่านฉลุยแหละ 5555

ไข่สังเคราะห์ = ความหวัง? หรือกับดักในรูปของนวัตกรรม? เราคงไม่ปฏิเสธว่ามีหลายคนบนโลกที่แพ้ไข่จริง หรือห่วงใยเรื่องสวัสดิภาพสัตว์ รวมถึงต้องการความ "บริสุทธิ์" "สกัด" "เข้มข้น" แต่คำถามคือ...จะดีกว่าไหมถ้าเราหาทางผลิต ไข่จริงจากไก่ที่เลี้ยงแบบธรรมชาติ ในระบบ regenerative farming แทนที่จะพยายามสร้างโปรตีนปลอมขึ้นมาแข่ง? ทุกครั้งที่มีของใหม่ที่ดูดี สะอาด และ “คลีน” เฮียอยากให้ทุกคน ถามกลับในใจว่า “คลีน” แค่ในห้องแล็บ หรือ “คลีน” ในธรรมชาติจริงๆ?

สรุปแบบไม่ต้องตีลังกาคิดได้ว่า EVERY Egg คือก้าวใหม่ของเทคโนโลยีอาหารที่กำลังวิ่งไปข้างหน้าแบบไม่เหลียวหลัง แต่ในฐานะที่เฮียเชื่อใน real food, nutrient density และความฉลาดของธรรมชาติ เราอาจต้องเตือนใจไว้ว่า...การใช้ยีสต์ดัดแปลงพันธุกรรมมาผลิต “ไข่เทียม” ไม่ใช่ความผิด แต่ก็ไม่ใช่ความจำเป็นไหม เพราะแท้จริงแล้ว เรามี “ไข่” ที่สมบูรณ์แบบอยู่ในธรรมชาติแล้ว...แค่ไม่ควรปล่อยให้อุตสาหกรรมทำลายภาพลักษณ์ของมัน เพื่อขายของที่ “เหมือนไข่” แต่ไม่มีชีวิต

คำถามเดิมครับ วันนึงเมื่อถึงจุดที่คุณไม่ได้เลือก แล้วมันมีให้แค่นี้ วันนั้นจะทำอย่างไร วันแห่งความ "บริสุทธิ์" "สกัด" "เข้มข้น" ที่เราถวิลหา ??? #pirateketo #กูต้องรู้มั๊ย #ม้วนหางสิลูก #siamstr

@ fd0bcf8c:521f98c0

Bitcoin

It stands alone. Immutable. Unyielding. It records without mercy. Each transaction cuts deep. Some carry wealth. Others just data. The debate rages on.

OP_RETURN

It divides us all. Bloat versus freedom. Money versus use. Simple versus complex.

Nodes

They bear heavy weight. Each byte costs something. Storage grows. Bandwidth drains. Money defenders stand guard.

"Our purpose is clear...Money serves one master." —Mises

Not art.

Not storage.

Not games.

The fee-payers

They disagree. "I paid. I belong." The miners take their cut. The highest fee wins. No questions asked. The protocol allows it.

"Accept what exists."—Marcus Aurelius

The chain is neutral. Always neutral.

What is a transaction?

None agree. Value transfer only? Or any valid data? The white paper speaks. "Electronic cash system." Yet code evolved. It grew teeth. It allows more now.

"Shitcoin"

Cuts both ways. A dangerous word. It keeps focus. It maintains unity. But it wounds creation. Makes builders desperate. They force ideas onto Bitcoin. They use OP_RETURN poorly. They bloat what needs no bloating. Seneca saw this coming...

"Fear makes suffering worse."

Innovation needs proper soil. Not forced transplants.

Money debates sharpen knives. Is Bitcoin gold? Is it currency? Mantras echo loudly.

"Digital gold."

_"Spend dollars, saving Bitcoin." _

"Never sell your Bitcoin."

Bitcoin becomes idol. Not tool. Mises would disapprove, "Money must move." Without exchange, it dies. If none spend, why fight bloat?

Rhetoric

It hurts us. "Shitcoin" closes minds. Forces square pegs round. Drives experiments home. To Bitcoin they return. Bearing misshapen plans.

"Knowledge exists in dispersion," Hayek warns.

Let ideas find homes. Let Bitcoin be Bitcoin.

Fees

They bring new problems. Users flee high costs. They seek cheaper chains. The wealthy still play games. They can afford the bloat. The poor cannot compete. The rich inscribe at will. Rothbard saw this trap, "Markets need equal rules."

Fee markets favor wealth. Always have. Always will.

Nodes must still run. Validators must validate. Decentralized. Resistant. Strong. The burden grows heavier. But principles matter most.

The battle

It continues. Hard words. Hard choices.

Bitcoin endures all. Money or platform? Gold or currency? The answers shift. The chain grows. Block by block. Byte by byte.

We need clearer words. Cleaner definitions. Less pride. More thought. Let Bitcoin be what it is. Not what we demand.

Bitcoin is human.

Not magical. Not divine. Fallible like its makers. A young experiment still. It could fail tomorrow.

"Nothing is too big to fail." —Satoshi

Our rhetoric needs maturity. Our definitions need clarity. Bitcoin needs humility. From all who touch the code.

@ 6fc114c7:8f4b1405

Losing access to your cryptocurrency can feel like losing a part of your future. Whether it’s a forgotten password, a damaged seed backup, or simply one wrong transfer, the stress can be overwhelming. But there’s a silver lining — Crypt Recver is here to help! With our expert-led recovery services, you can reclaim your lost Bitcoin and other cryptos safely and swiftly.

Why Trust Crypt Recver? 🤝 🛠️ Expert Recovery Solutions At Crypt Recver, we specialize in resolving some of the most complex wallet-related issues. Our team of skilled engineers has the tools and expertise to tackle:

Partially lost or forgotten seed phrases Extracting funds from outdated or invalid wallet addresses Recovering data from damaged hardware wallets Restoring coins from old or unsupported wallet formats You’re not just getting a service; you’re gaining a partner in your cryptocurrency journey.

🚀 Fast and Efficient Recovery We understand that time is critical in crypto recovery. Our optimized systems ensure that you can regain access to your funds quickly, aiming for speed without sacrificing security. With a 90%+ success rate, you can trust us to fight against the clock on your behalf.

🔒 Privacy is Our Priority Your confidentiality matters. Every recovery session is handled with the utmost care, ensuring all processes are encrypted and confidential. You can rest easy, knowing your sensitive information stays private.

💻 Advanced Technology Our proprietary tools and brute-force optimization techniques allow for maximum efficiency in recovery. No matter how challenging your case may be, our technology is designed to give you the best chance at getting your crypto back.

Our Recovery Services Include: 📈 Bitcoin Recovery: Lost access to your Bitcoin wallet? We help recover lost wallets, private keys, and passphrases. Transaction Recovery: Mistakes happen — whether it’s an incorrect wallet address or a lost password, let us handle the recovery. Cold Wallet Restoration: If your cold wallet is failing, we can safely extract your assets and migrate them into a secure, new wallet. Private Key Generation: Lost your private key? Don’t worry. Our experts can help you regain control using advanced methods — all while ensuring your privacy remains intact. ⚠️ What We Don’t Do While we can handle many scenarios, there are some limitations. For example, we cannot recover funds stored in custodial wallets, or cases where there is a complete loss of four or more seed words without any partial info available. We’re transparent about what’s possible, so you know what to expect.

Don’t Let Lost Crypto Hold You Back! ⏳ Did you know that 3 to 3.4 million BTC — nearly 20% of the total supply — are estimated to be permanently lost? Don’t become part of that statistic! Whether it’s due to a forgotten password, sending funds to the wrong address, or damaged drives, we can help you navigate through it all.

🛡️ Real-Time Dust Attack Protection Protecting your privacy goes beyond just recovery. Our services include dust attack protection, which keeps your activity anonymous and your funds secure. Our suite will shield your identity from unwanted tracking, ransomware, and phishing attempts.

🎉 Start Your Recovery Journey Today! Are you ready to reclaim your lost crypto? Don’t wait until it’s too late!

👉 Request Wallet Recovery Help Now!

📞 Need Immediate Assistance? Connect with Us! For real-time support or questions, reach out to our dedicated team on:

✉️ Telegram: Chat with Us on Telegram 💬 WhatsApp: Message Us on WhatsApp Crypt Recver is your trusted partner in the world of cryptocurrency recovery. Let us turn your challenges into victories. Don’t hesitate — your crypto future starts now! 🚀✨

Act fast and secure your digital assets with Crypt Recver!Losing access to your cryptocurrency can feel like losing a part of your future. Whether it’s a forgotten password, a damaged seed backup, or simply one wrong transfer, the stress can be overwhelming. But there’s a silver lining — Crypt Recver is here to help! With our expert-led recovery services, you can reclaim your lost Bitcoin and other cryptos safely and swiftly.

# Why Trust Crypt Recver? 🤝

🛠️ Expert Recovery Solutions

At Crypt Recver, we specialize in resolving some of the most complex wallet-related issues. Our team of skilled engineers has the tools and expertise to tackle:

• Partially lost or forgotten seed phrases
• Extracting funds from outdated or invalid wallet addresses
• Recovering data from damaged hardware wallets
• Restoring coins from old or unsupported wallet formats

You’re not just getting a service; you’re gaining a partner in your cryptocurrency journey.

🚀 Fast and Efficient Recovery

We understand that time is critical in crypto recovery. Our optimized systems ensure that you can regain access to your funds quickly, aiming for speed without sacrificing security. With a 90%+ success rate, you can trust us to fight against the clock on your behalf.

🔒 Privacy is Our Priority

Your confidentiality matters. Every recovery session is handled with the utmost care, ensuring all processes are encrypted and confidential. You can rest easy, knowing your sensitive information stays private.

💻 Advanced Technology

Our proprietary tools and brute-force optimization techniques allow for maximum efficiency in recovery. No matter how challenging your case may be, our technology is designed to give you the best chance at getting your crypto back.

Our Recovery Services Include: 📈

• Bitcoin Recovery: Lost access to your Bitcoin wallet? We help recover lost wallets, private keys, and passphrases.
• Transaction Recovery: Mistakes happen — whether it’s an incorrect wallet address or a lost password, let us handle the recovery.
• Cold Wallet Restoration: If your cold wallet is failing, we can safely extract your assets and migrate them into a secure, new wallet.
• Private Key Generation: Lost your private key? Don’t worry. Our experts can help you regain control using advanced methods — all while ensuring your privacy remains intact.

⚠️ What We Don’t Do

While we can handle many scenarios, there are some limitations. For example, we cannot recover funds stored in custodial wallets, or cases where there is a complete loss of four or more seed words without any partial info available. We’re transparent about what’s possible, so you know what to expect.

# Don’t Let Lost Crypto Hold You Back! ⏳

Did you know that 3 to 3.4 million BTC — nearly 20% of the total supply — are estimated to be permanently lost? Don’t become part of that statistic! Whether it’s due to a forgotten password, sending funds to the wrong address, or damaged drives, we can help you navigate through it all.

🛡️ Real-Time Dust Attack Protection

Protecting your privacy goes beyond just recovery. Our services include dust attack protection, which keeps your activity anonymous and your funds secure. Our suite will shield your identity from unwanted tracking, ransomware, and phishing attempts.

🎉 Start Your Recovery Journey Today!

Are you ready to reclaim your lost crypto? Don’t wait until it’s too late!

👉 Request Wallet Recovery Help Now!

📞 Need Immediate Assistance? Connect with Us!

For real-time support or questions, reach out to our dedicated team on:

• ✉️ Telegram: Chat with Us on Telegram
• 💬 WhatsApp: Message Us on WhatsApp

Crypt Recver is your trusted partner in the world of cryptocurrency recovery. Let us turn your challenges into victories. Don’t hesitate — your crypto future starts now! 🚀✨

Act fast and secure your digital assets with Crypt Recver!

@ 2183e947:f497b975

Most darknet markets (DNMs) are designed poorly in the following ways:

1. Hosting

Most DNMs use a model whereby merchants fill out a form to create their listings, and the data they submit then gets hosted on the DNM's servers. In scenarios where a "legal" website would be forced to censor that content (e.g. a DMCA takedown order), DNMs, of course, do not obey. This can lead to authorities trying to find the DNM's servers to take enforcement actions against them. This design creates a single point of failure.

A better design is to outsource hosting to third parties. Let merchants host their listings on nostr relays, not on the DNM's server. The DNM should only be designed as an open source interface for exploring listings hosted elsewhere, that way takedown orders end up with the people who actually host the listings, i.e. with nostr relays, and not with the DNM itself. And if a nostr relay DOES go down due to enforcement action, it does not significantly affect the DNM -- they'll just stop querying for listings from that relay in their next software update, because that relay doesn't work anymore, and only query for listings from relays that still work.

2. Moderation

Most DNMs have employees who curate the listings on the DNM. For example, they approve/deny listings depending on whether they fit the content policies of the website. Some DNMs are only for drugs, others are only for firearms. The problem is, to approve a criminal listing is, in the eyes of law enforcement, an act of conspiracy. Consequently, they don't just go after the merchant who made the listing but the moderators who approved it, and since the moderators typically act under the direction of the DNM, this means the police go after the DNM itself.

A better design is to outsource moderation to third parties. Let anyone call themselves a moderator and create lists of approved goods and services. Merchants can pay the most popular third party moderators to add their products to their lists. The DNM itself just lets its users pick which moderators to use, such that the user's choice -- and not a choice by the DNM -- determines what goods and services the user sees in the interface.

That way, the police go after the moderators and merchants rather than the DNM itself, which is basically just a web browser: it doesn't host anything or approve of any content, it just shows what its users tell it to show. And if a popular moderator gets arrested, his list will still work for a while, but will gradually get more and more outdated, leading someone else to eventually become the new most popular moderator, and a natural transition can occur.

3. Escrow

Most DNMs offer an escrow solution whereby users do not pay merchants directly. Rather, during the Checkout process, they put their money in escrow, and request the DNM to release it to the merchant when the product arrives, otherwise they initiate a dispute. Most DNMs consider escrow necessary because DNM users and merchants do not trust one another; users don't want to pay for a product first and then discover that the merchant never ships it, and merchants don't want to ship a product first and then discover that the user never pays for it.

The problem is, running an escrow solution for criminals is almost certain to get you accused of conspiracy, money laundering, and unlicensed money transmission, so the police are likely to shut down any DNM that does this. A better design is to oursource escrow to third parties. Let anyone call themselves an escrow, and let moderators approve escrows just like they approve listings. A merchant or user who doesn't trust the escrows chosen by a given moderator can just pick a different moderator. That way, the police go after the third party escrows rather than the DNM itself, which never touches user funds.

4. Consequences

Designing a DNM along these principles has an interesting consequence: the DNM is no longer anything but an interface, a glorified web browser. It doesn't host any content, approve any listings, or touch any money. It doesn't even really need a server -- it can just be an HTML file that users open up on their computer or smart phone. For two reasons, such a program is hard to take down:

First, it is hard for the police to justify going after the DNM, since there are no charges to bring. Its maintainers aren't doing anything illegal, no more than Firefox does anything illegal by maintaining a web browser that some people use to browse illegal content. What the user displays in the app is up to them, not to the code maintainers. Second, if the police decided to go after the DNM anyway, they still couldn't take it down because it's just an HTML file -- the maintainers do not even need to run a server to host the file, because users can share it with one another, eliminating all single points of failure.

Another consequence of this design is this: most of the listings will probably be legal, because there is more demand for legal goods and services than illegal ones. Users who want to find illegal goods would pick moderators who only approve those listings, but everyone else would use "legal" moderators, and the app would not, at first glance, look much like a DNM, just a marketplace for legal goods and services. To find the illegal stuff that lurks among the abundant legal stuff, you'd probably have to filter for it via your selection of moderators, making it seem like the "default" mode is legal.

5. Conclusion

I think this DNM model is far better than the designs that prevail today. It is easier to maintain, harder to take down, and pushes the "hard parts" to the edges, so that the DNM is not significantly affected even if a major merchant, moderator, or escrow gets arrested. I hope it comes to fruition.

@ 826e9f89:ffc5c759

What follows began as snippets of conversations I have been having for years, on and off, here and there. It will likely eventually be collated into a piece I have been meaning to write on “payments” as a whole. I foolishly started writing this piece years ago, not realizing that the topic is gargantuan and for every week I spend writing it I have to add two weeks to my plan. That may or may not ever come to fruition, but in the meantime, Tether announced it was issuing on Taproot Assets and suddenly everybody is interested again. This is as good a catalyst as any to carve out my “stablecoin thesis”, such as it exists, from “payments”, and put it out there for comment and feedback.

In contrast to the “Bitcoiner take” I will shortly revert to, I invite the reader to keep the following potential counterargument in mind, which might variously be termed the “shitcoiner”, “realist”, or “cynical” take, depending on your perspective: that stablecoins have clear product-market-fit. Now, as a venture capitalist and professional thinkboi focusing on companies building on Bitcoin, I obviously think that not only is Bitcoin the best money ever invented and its monetization is pretty much inevitable, but that, furthermore, there is enormous, era-defining long-term potential for a range of industries in which Bitcoin is emerging as superior technology, even aside from its role as money. But in the interest not just of steelmanning but frankly just of honesty, I would grudgingly agree with the following assessment as of the time of writing: the applications of crypto (inclusive of Bitcoin but deliberately wider) that have found product-market-fit today, and that are not speculative bets on future development and adoption, are: Bitcoin as savings technology, mining as a means of monetizing energy production, and stablecoins.

I think there are two typical Bitcoiner objections to stablecoins of significantly greater importance than all others: that you shouldn’t be supporting dollar hegemony, and that you don’t need a blockchain. I will elaborate on each of these, and for the remainder of the post will aim to produce a synthesis of three superficially contrasting (or at least not obviously related) sources of inspiration: these objections, the realisation above that stablecoins just are useful, and some commentary on technical developments in Bitcoin and the broader space that I think inform where things are likely to go. As will become clear as the argument progresses, I actually think the outcome to which I am building up is where things have to go. I think the technical and economic incentives at play make this an inevitability rather than a “choice”, per se. Given my conclusion, which I will hold back for the time being, this is a fantastically good thing, hence I am motivated to write this post at all!

Objection 1: Dollar Hegemony

I list this objection first because there isn’t a huge amount to say about it. It is clearly a normative position, and while I more or less support it personally, I don’t think that it is material to the argument I am going on to make, so I don’t want to force it on the reader. While the case for this objection is probably obvious to this audience (isn’t the point of Bitcoin to destroy central banks, not further empower them?) I should at least offer the steelman that there is a link between this and the realist observation that stablecoins are useful. The reason they are useful is because people prefer the dollar to even shitter local fiat currencies. I don’t think it is particularly fruitful to say that they shouldn’t. They do. Facts don’t care about your feelings. There is a softer bridging argument to be made here too, to the effect that stablecoins warm up their users to the concept of digital bearer (ish) assets, even though these particular assets are significantly scammier than Bitcoin. Again, I am just floating this, not telling the reader they should or shouldn’t buy into it.

All that said, there is one argument I do want to put my own weight behind, rather than just float: stablecoin issuance is a speculative attack on the institution of fractional reserve banking. A “dollar” Alice moves from JPMorgan to Tether embodies two trade-offs from Alice’s perspective: i) a somewhat opaque profile on the credit risk of the asset: the likelihood of JPMorgan ever really defaulting on deposits vs the operator risk of Tether losing full backing and/or being wrench attacked by the Federal Government and rugging its users. These risks are real but are almost entirely political. I’m skeptical it is meaningful to quantify them, but even if it is, I am not the person to try to do it. Also, more transparently to Alice, ii) far superior payment rails (for now, more on this to follow).

However, from the perspective of the fiat banking cartel, fractional reserve leverage has been squeezed. There are just as many notional dollars in circulation, but there the backing has been shifted from levered to unlevered issuers. There are gradations of relevant objections to this: while one might say, Tether’s backing comes from Treasuries, so you are directly funding US debt issuance!, this is a bit silly in the context of what other dollars one might hold. It’s not like JPMorgan is really competing with the Treasury to sell credit into the open market. Optically they are, but this is the core of the fiat scam. Via the guarantees of the Federal Reserve System, JPMorgan can sell as much unbacked credit as it wants knowing full well the difference will be printed whenever this blows up. Short-term Treasuries are also JPMorgan’s most pristine asset safeguarding its equity, so the only real difference is that Tether only holds Treasuries without wishing more leverage into existence. The realization this all builds up to is that, by necessity,

Tether is a fully reserved bank issuing fiduciary media against the only dollar-denominated asset in existence whose value (in dollar terms) can be guaranteed. Furthermore, this media arguably has superior “moneyness” to the obvious competition in the form of US commercial bank deposits by virtue of its payment rails.

That sounds pretty great when you put it that way! Of course, the second sentence immediately leads to the second objection, and lets the argument start to pick up steam …

Objection 2: You Don’t Need a Blockchain

I don’t need to explain this to this audience but to recap as briefly as I can manage: Bitcoin’s value is entirely endogenous. Every aspect of “a blockchain” that, out of context, would be an insanely inefficient or redundant modification of a “database”, in context is geared towards the sole end of enabling the stability of this endogenous value. Historically, there have been two variations of stupidity that follow a failure to grok this: i) “utility tokens”, or blockchains with native tokens for something other than money. I would recommend anybody wanting a deeper dive on the inherent nonsense of a utility token to read Only The Strong Survive, in particular Chapter 2, Crypto Is Not Decentralized, and the subsection, Everything Fights For Liquidity, and/or Green Eggs And Ham, in particular Part II, Decentralized Finance, Technically. ii) “real world assets” or, creating tokens within a blockchain’s data structure that are not intended to have endogenous value but to act as digital quasi-bearer certificates to some or other asset of value exogenous to this system. Stablecoins are in this second category.

RWA tokens definitionally have to have issuers, meaning some entity that, in the real world, custodies or physically manages both the asset and the record-keeping scheme for the asset. “The blockchain” is at best a secondary ledger to outsource ledger updates to public infrastructure such that the issuer itself doesn’t need to bother and can just “check the ledger” whenever operationally relevant. But clearly ownership cannot be enforced in an analogous way to Bitcoin, under both technical and social considerations. Technically, Bitcoin’s endogenous value means that whoever holds the keys to some or other UTXOs functionally is the owner. Somebody else claiming to be the owner is yelling at clouds. Whereas, socially, RWA issuers enter a contract with holders (whether legally or just in terms of a common-sense interpretation of the transaction) such that ownership of the asset issued against is entirely open to dispute. That somebody can point to “ownership” of the token may or may not mean anything substantive with respect to the physical reality of control of the asset, and how the issuer feels about it all.

And so, one wonders, why use a blockchain at all? Why doesn’t the issuer just run its own database (for the sake of argument with some or other signature scheme for verifying and auditing transactions) given it has the final say over issuance and redemption anyway? I hinted at an answer above: issuing on a blockchain outsources this task to public infrastructure. This is where things get interesting. While it is technically true, given the above few paragraphs, that, you don’t need a blockchain for that, you also don’t need to not use a blockchain for that. If you want to, you can.

This is clearly the case given stablecoins exist at all and have gone this route. If one gets too angry about not needing a blockchain for that, one equally risks yelling at clouds! And, in fact, one can make an even stronger argument, more so from the end users’ perspective. These products do not exist in a vacuum but rather compete with alternatives. In the case of stablecoins, the alternative is traditional fiat money, which, as stupid as RWAs on a blockchain are, is even dumber. It actually is just a database, except it’s a database that is extremely annoying to use, basically for political reasons because the industry managing these private databases form a cartel that never needs to innovate or really give a shit about its customers at all. In many, many cases, stablecoins on blockchains are dumb in the abstract, but superior to the alternative methods of holding and transacting in dollars existing in other forms. And note, this is only from Alice’s perspective of wanting to send and receive, not a rehashing of the fractional reserve argument given above. This is the essence of their product-market-fit. Yell at clouds all you like: they just are useful given the alternative usually is not Bitcoin, it’s JPMorgan’s KYC’d-up-the-wazoo 90s-era website, more than likely from an even less solvent bank.

So where does this get us? It might seem like we are back to “product-market-fit, sorry about that” with Bitcoiners yelling about feelings while everybody else makes do with their facts. However, I think we have introduced enough material to move the argument forward by incrementally incorporating the following observations, all of which I will shortly go into in more detail: i) as a consequence of making no technical sense with respect to what blockchains are for, today’s approach won’t scale; ii) as a consequence of short-termist tradeoffs around socializing costs, today’s approach creates an extremely unhealthy and arguably unnatural market dynamic in the issuer space; iii) Taproot Assets now exist and handily address both points i) and ii), and; iv) eCash is making strides that I believe will eventually replace even Taproot Assets.

To tease where all this is going, and to get the reader excited before we dive into much more detail: just as Bitcoin will eat all monetary premia, Lightning will likely eat all settlement, meaning all payments will gravitate towards routing over Lightning regardless of the denomination of the currency at the edges. Fiat payments will gravitate to stablecoins to take advantage of this; stablecoins will gravitate to TA and then to eCash, and all of this will accelerate hyperbitcoinization by “bitcoinizing” payment rails such that an eventual full transition becomes as simple as flicking a switch as to what denomination you want to receive.

I will make two important caveats before diving in that are more easily understood in light of having laid this groundwork: I am open to the idea that it won’t be just Lightning or just Taproot Assets playing the above roles. Without veering into forecasting the entire future development of Bitcoin tech, I will highlight that all that really matters here are, respectively: a true layer 2 with native hashlocks, and a token issuance scheme that enables atomic routing over such a layer 2 (or combination of such). For the sake of argument, the reader is welcome to swap in “Ark” and “RGB” for “Lightning” and “TA” both above and in all that follows. As far as I can tell, this makes no difference to the argument and is even exciting in its own right. However, for the sake of simplicity in presentation, I will stick to “Lightning” and “TA” hereafter.

1) Today’s Approach to Stablecoins Won’t Scale

This is the easiest to tick off and again doesn’t require much explanation to this audience. Blockchains fundamentally don’t scale, which is why Bitcoin’s UTXO scheme is a far better design than ex-Bitcoin Crypto’s’ account-based models, even entirely out of context of all the above criticisms. This is because Bitcoin transactions can be batched across time and across users with combinations of modes of spending restrictions that provide strong economic guarantees of correct eventual net settlement, if not perpetual deferral. One could argue this is a decent (if abstrusely technical) definition of “scaling” that is almost entirely lacking in Crypto.

What we see in ex-Bitcoin crypto is so-called “layer 2s” that are nothing of the sort, forcing stablecoin schemes in these environments into one of two equally poor design choices if usage is ever to increase: fees go higher and higher, to the point of economic unviability (and well past it) as blocks fill up, or move to much more centralized environments that increasingly are just databases, and hence which lose the benefits of openness thought to be gleaned by outsourcing settlement to public infrastructure. This could be in the form of punting issuance to a bullshit “layer 2” that is a really a multisig “backing” a private execution environment (to be decentralized any daw now) or an entirely different blockchain that is just pretending even less not to be a database to begin with. In a nutshell, this is a decent bottom-up explanation as to why Tron has the highest settlement of Tether.

This also gives rise to the weirdness of “gas tokens” - assets whose utility as money is and only is in the form of a transaction fee to transact a different kind of money. These are not quite as stupid as a “utility token,” given at least they are clearly fulfilling a monetary role and hence their artificial scarcity can be justified. But they are frustrating from Bitcoiners’ and users’ perspectives alike: users would prefer to pay transaction fees on dollars in dollars, but they can’t because the value of Ether, Sol, Tron, or whatever, is the string and bubblegum that hold their boondoggles together. And Bitcoiners wish this stuff would just go away and stop distracting people, whereas this string and bubblegum is proving transiently useful.

All in all, today’s approach is fine so long as it isn’t being used much. It has product-market fit, sure, but in the unenviable circumstance that, if it really starts to take off, it will break, and even the original users will find it unusable.

2) Today’s Approach to Stablecoins Creates an Untenable Market Dynamic

Reviving the ethos of you don’t need a blockchain for that, notice the following subtlety: while the tokens representing stablecoins have value to users, that value is not native to the blockchain on which they are issued. Tether can (and routinely does) burn tokens on Ethereum and mint them on Tron, then burn on Tron and mint on Solana, and so on. So-called blockchains “go down” and nobody really cares. This makes no difference whatsoever to Tether’s own accounting, and arguably a positive difference to users given these actions track market demand. But it is detrimental to the blockchain being switched away from by stripping it of “TVL” that, it turns out, was only using it as rails: entirely exogenous value that leaves as quickly as it arrived.

One underdiscussed and underappreciated implication of the fact that no value is natively running through the blockchain itself is that, in the current scheme, both the sender and receiver of a stablecoin have to trust the same issuer. This creates an extremely powerful network effect that, in theory, makes the first-to-market likely to dominate and in practice has played out exactly as this theory would suggest: Tether has roughly 80% of the issuance, while roughly 19% goes to the political carve-out of USDC that wouldn’t exist at all were it not for government interference. Everybody else combined makes up the final 1%.

So, Tether is a full reserve bank but also has to be everybody’s bank. This is the source of a lot of the discomfort with Tether, and which feeds into the original objection around dollar hegemony, that there is an ill-defined but nonetheless uneasy feeling that Tether is slowly morphing into a CBDC. I would argue this really has nothing to do with Tether’s own behavior but rather is a consequence of the market dynamic inevitably created by the current stablecoin scheme. There is no reason to trust any other bank because nobody really wants a bank, they just want the rails. They want something that will retain a nominal dollar value long enough to spend it again. They don’t care what tech it runs on and they don’t even really care about the issuer except insofar as having some sense they won’t get rugged.

Notice this is not how fiat works. Banks can, of course, settle between each other, thus enabling their users to send money to customers of other banks. This settlement function is actually the entire point of central banks, less the money printing and general corruption enabled (we might say, this was the historical point of central banks, which have since become irredeemably corrupted by this power). This process is clunkier than stablecoins, as covered above, but the very possibility of settlement means there is no gigantic network effect to being the first commercial issuer of dollar balances. If it isn’t too triggering to this audience, one might suggest that the money printer also removes the residual concern that your balances might get rugged! (or, we might again say, you guarantee you don’t get rugged in the short term by guaranteeing you do get rugged in the long term).

This is a good point at which to introduce the unsettling observation that broader fintech is catching on to the benefits of stablecoins without any awareness whatsoever of all the limitations I am outlining here. With the likes of Stripe, Wise, Robinhood, and, post-Trump, even many US megabanks supposedly contemplating issuing stablecoins (obviously within the current scheme, not the scheme I am building up to proposing), we are forced to boggle our minds considering how on earth settlement is going to work. Are they going to settle through Ether? Well, no, because i) Ether isn’t money, it’s … to be honest, I don’t think anybody really knows what it is supposed to be, or if they once did they aren’t pretending anymore, but anyway, Stripe certainly hasn’t figured that out yet so, ii) it won’t be possible to issue them on layer 1s as soon as there is any meaningful volume, meaning they will have to route through “bullshit layer 2 wrapped Ether token that is really already a kind of stablecoin for Ether.”

The way they are going to try to fix this (anybody wanna bet?) is routing through DEXes, which is so painfully dumb you should be laughing and, if you aren’t, I would humbly suggest you don’t get just how dumb it is. What this amounts to is plugging the gap of Ether’s lack of moneyness (and wrapped Ether’s hilarious lack of moneyness) with … drum roll … unknowable technical and counterparty risk and unpredictable cost on top of reverting to just being a database. So, in other words, all of the costs of using a blockchain when you don’t strictly need to, and none of the benefits. Stripe is going to waste billions of dollars getting sandwich attacked out of some utterly vanilla FX settlement it is facilitating for clients who have even less of an idea what is going on and why North Korea now has all their money, and will eventually realize they should have skipped their shitcoin phase and gone straight to understanding Bitcoin instead …

3) Bitcoin (and Taproot Assets) Fixes This

To tie together a few loose ends, I only threw in the hilariously stupid suggestion of settling through wrapped Ether on Ether on Ether in order to tee up the entirely sensible suggestion of settling through Lightning. Again, not that this will be new to this audience, but while issuance schemes have been around on Bitcoin for a long time, the breakthrough of Taproot Assets is essentially the ability to atomically route through Lightning.

I will admit upfront that this presents a massive bootstrapping challenge relative to the ex-Bitcoin Crypto approach, and it’s not obvious to me if or how this will be overcome. I include this caveat to make it clear I am not suggesting this is a given. It may not be, it’s just beyond the scope of this post (or frankly my ability) to predict. This is a problem for Lightning Labs, Tether, and whoever else decides to step up to issue. But even highlighting this as an obvious and major concern invites us to consider an intriguing contrast: scaling TA stablecoins is hardest at the start and gets easier and easier thereafter. The more edge liquidity there is in TA stables, the less of a risk it is for incremental issuance; the more TA activity, the more attractive deploying liquidity is into Lightning proper, and vice versa. With apologies if this metaphor is even more confusing than it is helpful, one might conceive of the situation as being that there is massive inertia to bootstrap, but equally there could be positive feedback in driving the inertia to scale. Again, I have no idea, and it hasn’t happened yet in practice, but in theory it’s fun.

More importantly to this conversation, however, this is almost exactly the opposite dynamic to the current scheme on other blockchains, which is basically free to start, but gets more and more expensive the more people try to use it. One might say it antiscales (I don’t think that’s a real word, but if Taleb can do it, then I can do it too!).

Furthermore, the entire concept of “settling in Bitcoin” makes perfect sense both economically and technically: economically because Bitcoin is money, and technically because it can be locked in an HTLC and hence can enable atomic routing (i.e. because Lightning is a thing). This is clearly better than wrapped Eth on Eth on Eth or whatever, but, tantalisingly, is better than fiat too! The core message of the payments tome I may or may not one day write is (or will be) that fiat payments, while superficially efficient on the basis of centralized and hence costless ledger amendments, actually have a hidden cost in the form of interbank credit. Many readers will likely have heard me say this multiple times and in multiple settings but, contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a fiat debit. Even if styled as a debit, all fiat payments are credits and all have credit risk baked into their cost, even if that is obscured and pushed to the absolute foundational level of money printing to keep banks solvent and hence keep payment channels open.

Furthermore! this enables us to strip away the untenable market dynamic from the point above. The underappreciated and underdiscussed flip side of the drawback of the current dynamic that is effectively fixed by Taproot Assets is that there is no longer a mammoth network effect to a single issuer. Senders and receivers can trust different issuers (i.e. their own banks) because those banks can atomically settle a single payment over Lightning. This does not involve credit. It is arguably the only true debit in the world across both the relevant economic and technical criteria: it routes through money with no innate credit risk, and it does so atomically due to that money’s native properties.

Savvy readers may have picked up on a seed I planted a while back and which can now delightfully blossom:

This is what Visa was supposed to be!

Crucially, this is not what Visa is now. Visa today is pretty much the bank that is everybody’s counterparty, takes a small credit risk for the privilege, and oozes free cash flow bottlenecking global consumer payments.

But if you read both One From Many by Dee Hock (for a first person but pretty wild and extravagant take) and Electronic Value Exchange by David Stearns (for a third person, drier, but more analytical and historically contextualized take) or if you are just intimately familiar with the modern history of payments for whatever other reason, you will see that the role I just described for Lightning in an environment of unboundedly many banks issuing fiduciary media in the form of stablecoins is exactly what Dee Hock wanted to create when he envisioned Visa:

A neutral and open layer of value settlement enabling banks to create digital, interbank payment schemes for their customers at very low cost.

As it turns out, his vision was technically impossible with fiat, hence Visa, which started as a cooperative amongst member banks, was corrupted into a duopolistic for-profit rent seeker in curious parallel to the historical path of central banks …

4) eCash

To now push the argument to what I think is its inevitable conclusion, it’s worth being even more vigilant on the front of you don’t need a blockchain for that. I have argued that there is a role for a blockchain in providing a neutral settlement layer to enable true debits of stablecoins. But note this is just a fancy and/or stupid way of saying that Bitcoin is both the best money and is programmable, which we all knew anyway. The final step is realizing that, while TA is nice in terms of providing a kind of “on ramp” for global payments infrastructure as a whole to reorient around Lightning, there is some path dependence here in assuming (almost certainly correctly) that the familiarity of stablecoins as “RWA tokens on a blockchain” will be an important part of the lure.

But once that transition is complete, or is well on its way to being irreversible, we may as well come full circle and cut out tokens altogether. Again, you really don’t need a blockchain for that, and the residual appeal of better rails has been taken care of with the above massive detour through what I deem to be the inevitability of Lightning as a settlement layer. Just as USDT on Tron arguably has better moneyness than a JPMorgan balance, so a “stablecoin” as eCash has better moneyness than as a TA given it is cheaper, more private, and has more relevantly bearer properties (in other words, because it is cash). The technical detail that it can be hashlocked is really all you need to tie this all together. That means it can be atomically locked into a Lightning routed debit to the recipient of a different issuer (or “mint” in eCash lingo, but note this means the same thing as what we have been calling fully reserved banks). And the economic incentive is pretty compelling too because, for all their benefits, there is still a cost to TAs given they are issued onchain and they require asset-specific liquidity to route on Lightning. Once the rest of the tech is in place, why bother? Keep your Lightning connectivity and just become a mint.

What you get at that point is dramatically superior private database to JPMorgan with the dramatically superior public rails of Lightning. There is nothing left to desire from “a blockchain” besides what Bitcoin is fundamentally for in the first place: counterparty-risk-free value settlement.

And as a final point with a curious and pleasing echo to Dee Hock at Visa, Calle has made the point repeatedly that David Chaum’s vision for eCash, while deeply philosophical besides the technical details, was actually pretty much impossible to operate on fiat. From an eCash perspective, fiat stablecoins within the above infrastructure setup are a dramatic improvement on anything previously possible. But, of course, they are a slippery slope to Bitcoin regardless …

Objections Revisited

As a cherry on top, I think the objections I highlighted at the outset are now readily addressed – to the extent the reader believes what I am suggesting is more or less a technical and economic inevitability, that is. While, sure, I’m not particularly keen on giving the Treasury more avenues to sell its welfare-warfare shitcoin, on balance the likely development I’ve outlined is an enormous net positive: it’s going to sell these anyway so I prefer a strong economic incentive to steadily transition not only to Lightning as payment rails but eCash as fiduciary media, and to use “fintech” as a carrot to induce a slow motion bank run.

As alluded to above, once all this is in place, the final step to a Bitcoin standard becomes as simple as an individual’s decision to want Bitcoin instead of fiat. On reflection, this is arguably the easiest part! It's setting up all the tech that puts people off, so trojan-horsing them with “faster, cheaper payment rails” seems like a genius long-term strategy.

And as to “needing a blockchain” (or not), I hope that is entirely wrapped up at this point. The only blockchain you need is Bitcoin, but to the extent people are still confused by this (which I think will take decades more to fully unwind), we may as well lean into dazzling them with whatever innovation buzzwords and decentralization theatre they were going to fall for anyway before realizing they wanted Bitcoin all along.

Conclusion

Stablecoins are useful whether you like it or not. They are stupid in the abstract but it turns out fiat is even stupider, on inspection. But you don’t need a blockchain, and using one as decentralization theatre creates technical debt that is insurmountable in the long run. Blockchain-based stablecoins are doomed to a utility inversely proportional to their usage, and just to rub it in, their ill-conceived design practically creates a commercial dynamic that mandates there only ever be a single issuer.

Given they are useful, it seems natural that this tension is going to blow up at some point. It also seems worthwhile observing that Taproot Asset stablecoins have almost the inverse problem and opposite commercial dynamic: they will be most expensive to use at the outset but get cheaper and cheaper as their usage grows. Also, there is no incentive towards a monopoly issuer but rather towards as many as are willing to try to operate well and provide value to their users.

As such, we can expect any sizable growth in stablecoins to migrate to TA out of technical and economic necessity. Once this has happened - or possibly while it is happening but is clearly not going to stop - we may as well strip out the TA component and just use eCash because you really don’t need a blockchain for that at all. And once all the money is on eCash, deciding you want to denominate it in Bitcoin is the simplest on-ramp to hyperbitcoinization you can possibly imagine, given we’ve spent the previous decade or two rebuilding all payments tech around Lightning.

Or: Bitcoin fixes this. The End.

• Allen, #892,125

thanks to Marco Argentieri, Lyn Alden, and Calle for comments and feedback

@ dbc27e2e:b1dd0b0b

This method focuses on the amount of water in the first pour, which ultimately defines the coffee’s acidity and sweetness (more water = more acidity, less water = more sweetness). For the remainder of the brew, the water is divided into equal parts according to the strength you wish to attain.

Dose:

20g coffee (Coarse ground coffee)
300mL water (92°C / 197.6°F)
Time: 3:30

Instructions:

1. Pour 1: 0:00 > 50mL (42% of 120mL = 40% of total – less water in the ratio, targeting sweetness.)
2. Pour 2: 0:45 > 70mL (58% of 120mL = 40% of total – the top up for 40% of total.)
3. Pour 3: 1:30 > 60mL (The remaining water is 180mL / 3 pours = 60mL per pour)
4. Pour 4: 2:10 > 60mL
5. Pour 5: 2:40 > 60mL
6. Remove the V60 at 3:30

@ 34f1ddab:2ca0cf7c

In the world of cryptocurrency, the stakes are high, and losing access to your digital assets can be a nightmare. But fear not — Crypt Recver is here to turn that nightmare into a dream come true! With expert-led recovery services and cutting-edge technology, Crypt Recver specializes in helping you regain access to your lost Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

Why Choose Crypt Recver? 🤔 🔑 Expertise You Can Trust At Crypt Recver, we combine state-of-the-art technology with skilled engineers who have a proven track record in crypto recovery. Whether you’ve forgotten your passwords, lost your private keys, or dealt with damaged hardware wallets, our team is equipped to help.

⚡ Fast Recovery Process Time is of the essence when it comes to recovering lost funds. Crypt Recver’s systems are optimized for speed, enabling quick recoveries — so you can get back to what matters most: trading and investing.

🎯 High Success Rate With over a 90% success rate, our recovery team has helped countless clients regain access to their lost assets. We understand the intricacies of cryptocurrency and are dedicated to providing effective solutions.

🛡️ Confidential & Secure Your privacy is our priority. All recovery sessions at Crypt Recver are encrypted and kept entirely confidential. You can trust us with your information, knowing that we maintain the highest standards of security.

🔧 Advanced Recovery Tools We use proprietary tools and techniques to handle complex recovery scenarios, from recovering corrupted wallets to restoring coins from invalid addresses. No matter how challenging the situation, we have a plan.

Our Recovery Services Include: 📈 Bitcoin Recovery: Have you lost access to your Bitcoin wallet? We can help you recover lost wallets, private keys, and passphrases. Transaction Recovery: Mistaken transfers, lost passwords, or missing transaction records — let us help you reclaim your funds! Cold Wallet Restoration: Did your cold wallet fail? We specialize in extracting assets safely and securely. Private Key Generation: Forgotten your private key? We can help you generate new keys linked to your funds without compromising security. Don’t Let Lost Crypto Ruin Your Day! 🕒 With an estimated 3 to 3.4 million BTC lost forever, it’s critical to act swiftly when facing access issues. Whether you’ve been a victim of a dust attack or have simply forgotten your key, Crypt Recver offers the support you need to reclaim your digital assets.

🚀 Start Your Recovery Now! Ready to get your cryptocurrency back? Don’t let uncertainty hold you back!

👉 Request Wallet Recovery Help Today!

Need Immediate Assistance? 📞 For quick queries or support, connect with us on:

✉️ Telegram: Chat with Us on Telegram 💬 WhatsApp: Message Us on WhatsApp Trust Crypt Recver for the Best Crypto Recovery Service — Get back to trading with confidence! 💪In the world of cryptocurrency, the stakes are high, and losing access to your digital assets can be a nightmare. But fear not — Crypt Recver is here to turn that nightmare into a dream come true! With expert-led recovery services and cutting-edge technology, Crypt Recver specializes in helping you regain access to your lost Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

# Why Choose Crypt Recver? 🤔

🔑 Expertise You Can Trust

At Crypt Recver, we combine state-of-the-art technology with skilled engineers who have a proven track record in crypto recovery. Whether you’ve forgotten your passwords, lost your private keys, or dealt with damaged hardware wallets, our team is equipped to help.

⚡ Fast Recovery Process

Time is of the essence when it comes to recovering lost funds. Crypt Recver’s systems are optimized for speed, enabling quick recoveries — so you can get back to what matters most: trading and investing.

🎯 High Success Rate

With over a 90% success rate, our recovery team has helped countless clients regain access to their lost assets. We understand the intricacies of cryptocurrency and are dedicated to providing effective solutions.

🛡️ Confidential & Secure

Your privacy is our priority. All recovery sessions at Crypt Recver are encrypted and kept entirely confidential. You can trust us with your information, knowing that we maintain the highest standards of security.

🔧 Advanced Recovery Tools

We use proprietary tools and techniques to handle complex recovery scenarios, from recovering corrupted wallets to restoring coins from invalid addresses. No matter how challenging the situation, we have a plan.

# Our Recovery Services Include: 📈

• Bitcoin Recovery: Have you lost access to your Bitcoin wallet? We can help you recover lost wallets, private keys, and passphrases.
• Transaction Recovery: Mistaken transfers, lost passwords, or missing transaction records — let us help you reclaim your funds!
• Cold Wallet Restoration: Did your cold wallet fail? We specialize in extracting assets safely and securely.
• Private Key Generation: Forgotten your private key? We can help you generate new keys linked to your funds without compromising security.

Don’t Let Lost Crypto Ruin Your Day! 🕒

With an estimated 3 to 3.4 million BTC lost forever, it’s critical to act swiftly when facing access issues. Whether you’ve been a victim of a dust attack or have simply forgotten your key, Crypt Recver offers the support you need to reclaim your digital assets.

🚀 Start Your Recovery Now!

Ready to get your cryptocurrency back? Don’t let uncertainty hold you back!

👉 Request Wallet Recovery Help Today!

Need Immediate Assistance? 📞

For quick queries or support, connect with us on:

• ✉️ Telegram: Chat with Us on Telegram
• 💬 WhatsApp: Message Us on WhatsApp

Trust Crypt Recver for the Best Crypto Recovery Service — Get back to trading with confidence! 💪

@ 2cb30c36:cc7ecec1

Test

This is a test

@ 63616fef:5e05fd6a

How to achieve net zero:

1) Vastly reduce reliable electric generation 2) Optimize for unreliable, and intermittent power generation

Long form article posted via untype.app

@ 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.

@ 7bdef7be:784a5805

We value sovereignty, privacy and security when accessing online content, using several tools to achieve this, like open protocols, open OSes, open software products, Tor and VPNs.

The problem

Talking about our social presence, we can manually build up our follower list (social graph), pick a Nostr client that is respectful of our preferences on what to show and how, but with the standard following mechanism, our main feed is public, so everyone can actually snoop what we are interested in, and what is supposable that we read daily.

The solution

Nostr has a simple solution for this necessity: encrypted lists. Lists are what they appear, a collection of people or interests (but they can also group much other stuff, see NIP-51). So we can create lists with contacts that we don't have in our main social graph; these lists can be used primarily to create dedicated feeds, but they could have other uses, for example, related to monitoring. The interesting thing about lists is that they can also be encrypted, so unlike the basic following list, which is always public, we can hide the lists' content from others. The implications are obvious: we can not only have a more organized way to browse content, but it is also really private one.

One might wonder what use can really be made of private lists; here are some examples:

• Browse “can't miss” content from users I consider a priority;
• Supervise competitors or adversarial parts;
• Monitor sensible topics (tags);
• Following someone without being publicly associated with them, as this may be undesirable;

The benefits in terms of privacy as usual are not only related to the casual, or programmatic, observer, but are also evident when we think of how many bots scan our actions to profile us.

The current state

Unfortunately, lists are not widely supported by Nostr clients, and encrypted support is a rarity. Often the excuse to not implement them is that they are harder to develop, since they require managing the encryption stuff (NIP-44). Nevertheless, developers have an easier option to start offering private lists: give the user the possibility to simply mark them as local-only, and never push them to the relays. Even if the user misses the sync feature, this is sufficient to create a private environment.

To date, as far as I know, the best client with list management is Gossip, which permits to manage both encrypted and local-only lists.

Beg your Nostr client to implement private lists!

@ ecda4328:1278f072

When designing a highly available Kubernetes (or k3s) cluster, one of the key architectural questions is: "How many ETCD nodes should I run?"

A recent discussion in our team sparked this very debate. Someone suggested increasing our ETCD cluster size from 3 to more nodes, citing concerns about node failures and the need for higher fault tolerance. It’s a fair concern—nobody wants a critical service to go down—but here's why 3-node ETCD clusters are usually the sweet spot for most setups.

---

The Role of ETCD and Quorum

ETCD is a distributed key-value store used by Kubernetes to store all its state. Like most consensus-based systems (e.g., Raft), ETCD relies on quorum to operate. This means that more than half of the ETCD nodes must be online and in agreement for the cluster to function correctly.

What Quorum Means in Practice

• In a 3-node ETCD cluster, quorum is 2.
• In a 5-node cluster, quorum is 3.

⚠️ So yes, 5 nodes can tolerate 2 failures vs. just 1 in a 3-node setup—but you also need more nodes online to keep the system functional. More nodes doesn't linearly increase safety.

---

Why 3 Nodes is the Ideal Baseline

Running 3 ETCD nodes hits a great balance:

• Fault tolerance: 1 node can fail without issue.
• Performance: Fewer nodes = faster consensus and lower latency.
• Simplicity: Easier to manage, upgrade, and monitor.

Even the ETCD documentation recommends 3–5 nodes total, with 5 being the upper limit before write performance and operational complexity start to degrade.

Systems like Google's Chubby—which inspired systems like ETCD and ZooKeeper—also recommend no more than 5 nodes.

---

The Myth of Catastrophic Failure

"If two of our three ETCD nodes go down, the cluster will become unusable and need deep repair!"

This is a common fear, but the reality is less dramatic:

• ETCD becomes read-only: You can't schedule or update workloads, but existing workloads continue to run.
• No deep repair needed: As long as there's no data corruption, restoring quorum just requires bringing at least one other ETCD node back online.
• Still recoverable if two nodes are permanently lost: You can re-initialize the remaining node as a new single-node ETCD cluster using --cluster-init, and rebuild from there.

---

What About Backups?

In k3s, ETCD snapshots are automatically saved by default. For example:

• Default path: /var/lib/rancher/k3s/server/db/snapshots/

You can restore these snapshots in case of failure, making ETCD even more resilient.

---

When to Consider 5 Nodes

Adding more ETCD nodes only makes sense at scale, such as:

• Running 12+ total cluster nodes
• Needing stronger fault domains for regulatory/compliance reasons

Note: ETCD typically requires low-latency communication between nodes. Distributing ETCD members across availability zones or regions is generally discouraged unless you're using specialized networking and understand the performance implications.

Even then, be cautious—you're trading some simplicity and performance for that extra failure margin.

---

TL;DR

• 3-node ETCD clusters are the best choice for most Kubernetes/k3s environments.
• 5-node clusters offer more redundancy but come with extra complexity and performance costs.
• Loss of quorum is not a disaster—it’s recoverable.
• Backups and restore paths make even worst-case recovery feasible.

And finally: if you're seeing multiple ETCD nodes go down frequently, the real problem might not be the number of nodes—but your hosting provider.

---

@ 088436cd:9d2646cc

The arrival of the coronavirus brought not only illness and death but also fear and panic. In such an environment of uncertainty, people have naturally stocked up on necessities, not knowing when things will return to normal.

Retail shelves have been cleared out, and even online suppliers like Amazon and Walmart are out of stock for some items. Independent sellers on these e-commerce platforms have had to fill the gap. With the huge increase in demand, they have found that their inventory has skyrocketed in value.

Many in need of these items (e.g. toilet paper, hand sanitizer and masks) balk at the new prices. They feel they are being taken advantage of in a time of need and call for intervention by the government to lower prices. The government has heeded that call, labeling the independent sellers as "price gougers" and threatening sanctions if they don't lower their prices. Amazon has suspended seller accounts and law enforcement at all levels have threatened to prosecute. Prices have dropped as a result and at first glance this seems like a victory for fair play. But, we will have to dig deeper to understand the unseen consequences of this intervention.

We must look at the economics of the situation, how supply and demand result in a price and how that price acts as a signal that goes out to everyone, informing them of underlying conditions in the economy and helping coordinate their actions.

It all started with a rise in demand. Given a fixed supply (e.g., the limited stock on shelves and in warehouses), an increase in demand inevitably leads to higher prices. Most people are familiar with this phenomenon, such as paying more for airline tickets during holidays or surge pricing for rides.

Higher prices discourage less critical uses of scarce resources. For example, you might not pay $1,000 for a plane ticket to visit your aunt if you can get one for $100 the following week, but someone else might pay that price to visit a dying relative. They value that plane seat more than you.

*** During the crisis, demand surged and their shelves emptied even though

However, retail outlets have not raised prices. They have kept them low, so the low-value uses of things like toilet paper, masks and hand sanitizer has continued. Often, this "use" just takes the form of hoarding. At everyday low prices, it makes sense to buy hundreds of rolls and bottles. You know you will use them eventually, so why not stock up? And, with all those extra supplies in the closet and basement, you don't need to change your behavior much. You don't have to ration your use.

At the low prices, these scarce resources got bought up faster and faster until there was simply none left. The reality of the situation became painfully clear to those who didn't panic and got to the store late: You have no toilet paper and you're not going to any time soon.

However, if prices had been allowed to rise, a number of effects would have taken place that would have coordinated the behavior of everyone so that valuable resources would not have been wasted or hoarded, and everyone could have had access to what they needed.

On the demand side, if prices had been allowed to rise, people would have begun to self-ration. You might leave those extra plies on the roll next time if you know they will cost ten times as much to replace. Or, you might choose to clean up a spill with a rag rather than disposable tissue. Most importantly, you won't hoard as much. That 50th bottle of hand sanitizer might just not be worth it at the new, high price. You'll leave it on the shelf for someone else who may have none.

On the supply side, higher prices would have incentivized people to offer up more of their stockpiles for sale. If you have a pallet full of toilet paper in your basement and all of the sudden they are worth $15 per roll, you might just list a few online. But, if it is illegal to do so, you probably won't.

Imagine you run a business installing insulation and have a few thousand respirator masks on hand for your employees. During a pandemic, it is much more important that people breathe filtered air than that insulation get installed, and that fact is reflected in higher prices. You will sell your extra masks at the higher price rather than store them for future insulation jobs, and the scarce resource will be put to its most important use.

Producers of hand sanitizer would go into overdrive if prices were allowed to rise. They would pay their employees overtime, hire new ones, and pay a premium for their supplies, making sure their raw materials don't go to less important uses.

These kinds of coordinated actions all across the economy would be impossible without real prices to guide them. How do you know if it makes sense to spend an extra $10k bringing a thousand masks to market unless you know you can get more than $10 per mask? If the price is kept artificially low, you simply can't do it. The money just isn't there.

These are the immediate effects of a price change, but incredibly, price changes also coordinate people's actions across space and time.

Across space, there are different supply and demand conditions in different places, and thus prices are not uniform. We know some places are real "hot spots" for the virus, while others are mostly unaffected. High demand in the hot spots leads to higher prices there, which attracts more of the resource to those areas. Boxes and boxes of essential items would pour in where they are needed most from where they are needed least, but only if prices were allowed to adjust freely.

This would be accomplished by individuals and businesses buying low in the unaffected areas, selling high in the hot spots and subtracting their labor and transportation costs from the difference. Producers of new supply would know exactly where it is most needed and ship to the high-demand, high-price areas first. The effect of these actions is to increase prices in the low demand areas and reduce them in the high demand areas. People in the low demand areas will start to self-ration more, reflecting the reality of their neighbors, and people in the hotspots will get some relief.

However, by artificially suppressing prices in the hot spot, people there will simply buy up the available supply and run out, and it will be cost prohibitive to bring in new supply from low-demand areas.

Prices coordinate economic actions across time as well. Just as entrepreneurs and businesses can profit by transporting scarce necessities from low-demand to high-demand areas, they can also profit by buying in low-demand times and storing their merchandise for when it is needed most.

Just as allowing prices to freely adjust in one area relative to another will send all the right signals for the optimal use of a scarce resource, allowing prices to freely adjust over time will do the same.

When an entrepreneur buys up resources during low-demand times in anticipation of a crisis, she restricts supply ahead of the crisis, which leads to a price increase. She effectively bids up the price. The change in price affects consumers and producers in all the ways mentioned above. Consumers self-ration more, and producers bring more of the resource to market.

Our entrepreneur has done a truly incredible thing. She has predicted the future, and by so doing has caused every individual in the economy to prepare for a shortage they don't even know is coming! And, by discouraging consumption and encouraging production ahead of time, she blunts the impact the crisis will have. There will be more of the resource to go around when it is needed most.

On top of this, our entrepreneur still has her stockpile she saved back when everyone else was blithely using it up. She can now further mitigate the damage of the crisis by selling her stock during the worst of it, when people are most desperate for relief. She will know when this is because the price will tell her, but only if it is allowed to adjust freely. When the price is at its highest is when people need the resource the most, and those willing to pay will not waste it or hoard it. They will put it to its highest valued use.

The economy is like a big bus we are all riding in, going down a road with many twists and turns. Just as it is difficult to see into the future, it is difficult to see out the bus windows at the road ahead.

On the dashboard, we don't have a speedometer or fuel gauge. Instead we have all the prices for everything in the economy. Prices are what tell us the condition of the bus and the road. They tell us everything. Without them, we are blind.

Good times are a smooth road. Consumer prices and interest rates are low, investment returns are steady. We hit the gas and go fast. But, the road is not always straight and smooth. Sometimes there are sharp turns and rough patches. Successful entrepreneurs are the ones who can see what is coming better than everyone else. They are our navigators.

When they buy up scarce resources ahead of a crisis, they are hitting the brakes and slowing us down. When they divert resources from one area to another, they are steering us onto a smoother path. By their actions in the market, they adjust the prices on our dashboard to reflect the conditions of the road ahead, so we can prepare for, navigate and get through the inevitable difficulties we will face.

Interfering with the dashboard by imposing price floors or price caps doesn't change the conditions of the road (the number of toilet paper rolls in existence hasn't changed). All it does is distort our perception of those conditions. We think the road is still smooth--our heavy foot stomping the gas--as we crash onto a rocky dirt road at 80 miles per hour (empty shelves at the store for weeks on end).

Supply, demand and prices are laws of nature. All of this is just how things work. It isn't right or wrong in a moral sense. Price caps lead to waste, shortages and hoarding as surely as water flows downhill. The opposite--allowing prices to adjust freely--leads to conservation of scarce resources and their being put to their highest valued use. And yes, it leads to profits for the entrepreneurs who were able to correctly predict future conditions, and losses for those who weren't.

Is it fair that they should collect these profits? On the one hand, anyone could have stocked up on toilet paper, hand sanitizer and face masks at any time before the crisis, so we all had a fair chance to get the supplies cheaply. On the other hand, it just feels wrong that some should profit so much at a time when there is so much need.

Our instinct in the moment is to see the entrepreneur as a villain, greedy "price gouger". But we don't see the long chain of economic consequences the led to the situation we feel is unfair.

If it weren't for anti-price-gouging laws, the major retailers would have raised their prices long before the crisis became acute. When they saw demand outstrip supply, they would have raised prices, not by 100 fold, but gradually and long before anyone knew how serious things would have become. Late comers would have had to pay more, but at least there would be something left on the shelf.

As an entrepreneur, why take risks trying to anticipate the future if you can't reap the reward when you are right? Instead of letting instead of letting entrepreneurs--our navigators--guide us, we are punishing and vilifying them, trying to force prices to reflect a reality that simply doesn't exist.

In a crisis, more than any other time, prices must be allowed to fluctuate. To do otherwise is to blind ourselves at a time when danger and uncertainty abound. It is economic suicide.

In a crisis, there is great need, and the way to meet that need is not by pretending it's not there, by forcing prices to reflect a world where there isn't need. They way to meet the need is the same it has always been, through charity.

If the people in government want to help, the best way for the to do so is to be charitable and reduce their taxes and fees as much as possible, ideally to zero in a time of crisis. Amazon, for example, could instantly reduce the price of all crisis related necessities by 20% if they waived their fee. This would allow for more uses by more people of these scarce supplies as hoarders release their stockpiles on to the market, knowing they can get 20% more for their stock. Governments could reduce or eliminate their tax burden on high-demand, crisis-related items and all the factors that go into their production, with the same effect: a reduction in prices and expansion of supply. All of us, including the successful entrepreneurs and the wealthy for whom high prices are not a great burden, could donate to relief efforts.

These ideas are not new or untested. This is core micro economics. It has been taught for hundreds of years in universities the world over. The fact that every crisis that comes along stirs up ire against entrepreneurs indicates not that the economics is wrong, but that we have a strong visceral reaction against what we perceive to be unfairness. This is as it should be. Unfairness is wrong and the anger it stirs in us should compel us to right the wrong. Our anger itself isn't wrong, it's just misplaced.

Entrepreneurs didn't cause the prices to rise. Our reaction to a virus did that. We saw a serious threat and an uncertain future and followed our natural impulse to hoard. Because prices at major retail suppliers didn't rise, that impulse ran rampant and we cleared the shelves until there was nothing left. We ran the bus right off the road and them blamed the entrepreneurs for showing us the reality of our situation, for shaking us out of the fantasy of low prices.

All of this is not to say that entrepreneurs are high-minded public servants. They are just doing their job. Staking your money on an uncertain future is a risky business. There are big risks and big rewards. Most entrepreneurs just scrape by or lose their capital in failed ventures.

However, the ones that get it right must be allowed to keep their profits, or else no one will try and we'll all be driving blind. We need our navigators. It doesn't even matter if they know all the positive effects they are having on the rest of us and the economy as a whole. So long as they are buying low and selling high--so long as they are doing their job--they will be guiding the rest of us through the good times and the bad, down the open road and through the rough spots.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

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

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

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

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

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

@ 2ed3596e:98b4cc78

The Bitcoin Well Affiliate program is here! You can earn a bitcoin bonus of 21% of revenue generated from transactions every time someone you refer transacts on our platform. Bitcoin Well Affiliates can also complete bounty tasks to earn sats, such as Bitcoin Well video tutorials. The Affiliate program is our way of aligning incentives with our mission to enable independence. 

How to apply for the Bitcoin Well Affiliate program

The Affiliate program is big folks in and bitcoin or folks with a LOT of experience with bitcoin and self-custody wallets; the most important quality is a passion for orange-pilling!  

Bitcoin Well Affiliates earn more than double our referral commission (21% of revenue generated from transactions), get a custom Bitcoin Well Affiliate webpage to help you get referrals and unlock bounty tasks for bonus sats. You can apply to join the Affiliate program by clicking here.

How to earn your Bitcoin Well Referral bonus

To refer a customer to Bitcoin Well, have them sign up using your Bitcoin Well referral link, this can be found in your Bitcoin Well account under Rewards > Referrals. Your referred customers also get a sign up bonus of 1,000 Bitcoin Well. You get 500 points for each referral, too. 

Your personal referral link will be https://bitcoinwell.com/app/ref/YOUR_WELLTAG. A person can also be referred by typing in your welltag in the Referral Code field on the sign up page. 

The best part? Sats are AUTOMATICALLY paid to your designated Lightning Wallet.

Who is eligible to refer to Bitcoin Well?

The Bitcoin Well Affiliate program is available to anyone! However, our services are only available in Canada and the United States. 

The Affiliate program includes referrals to business and High Net Worth Individuals that use our OTC desk.  

How to hunt Affiliate bounty tasks and earn sats

Affiliates can hunt bounty tasks by making Bitcoin Well tutorials and uploading them to Youtube or X in exchange for sats.

Bounty tasks such as How to buy bitcoin (USA) on Bitcoin Well are a fantastic resource to generate referrals and boost traffic to your pages. Affiliate bounty tasks earn you 21,000-105,000 sats per video. \ \ Affiliate bounty tasks are only available to approved Bitcoin Well Affiliates. Read our Affiliate Bounty article for more details on submitting Affiliate bounties. 

How does the Bitcoin Well referral program work?

The Bitcoin Well Affiliate and referral programs pay you automatically for your referral’s activities.  

\ For example, today we have a 1.2% spread on standard portal transactions (buy, sell, pay bills). This means for every $100 someone spends on the platform we make $1.20, you’ll earn $0.24, automatically paid in sats. If they are using a Lite Account, with a 3% spread, you will earn $0.61 on that transaction, automatically paid in sats. 

Referral bonuses don’t have an expiration date, cause we are all in bitcoin for the long haul! 

The 21% revenue share for whales that end up purchasing through our OTC desk goes a long way, potentially in the thousands of referrals dollars per transaction. We do not place a cap on referral bonuses, so the bigger the whale, the bigger the referral bonus you earn!

How and when do I get paid?

Your referral bonuses are automatically paid out to the designated Lightning Wallet in your referral page. If you prefer, you can select a manual payout where you can withdraw your payouts at any time via LNURLw. \ \ OTC referral bonuses are processed around the middle of each month to your referral Lightning wallet.

What if I am not a fit for the Affiliate Program? Can I still earn from referrals?

Not everyone is the right fit for the Affiliate program, and that’s okay! Maintaining a far-reaching social presence is tough work. \ \ Thankfully, regular customers can still earn unlimited commissions from referrals at a 10% rate! This means for every $100 someone spends on the platform we make $1.20, you’ll earn $0.12, automatically paid in sats. The more your referrals transact, the more sats go to your Lightning wallet!

What makes Bitcoin Well different

Bitcoin Well is on a mission to enable independence. We do this by making it easy to self custody bitcoin. By custodying their own money, our customers are free to do as they wish without begging for permission. By creating a full ecosystem to buy, sell and use your bitcoin to connect with the modern financial world, you are able to have your cake and eat it too - or have your bitcoin in self custody and easily spend it too 🎂 

Create your Bitcoin Well account now →

Invest in Bitcoin Well

We are publicly traded (and love it when our customers become shareholders!) and hold ourselves to a high standard of enabling life on a Bitcoin standard. If you want to learn more about Bitcoin Well, please visit our website!

@ 16f1a010:31b1074b

grain is a nostr relay built using Go, currently utilizing MongoDB as its database. Binaries are provided for AMD64 Windows and Linux. grain is Go Relay Architecture for Implementing Nostr

Introduction

grain is a nostr relay built using Go, currently utilizing MongoDB as its database. Binaries are provided for AMD64 Windows and Linux. grain is Go Relay Architecture for Implementing Nostr

Prerequisites

• Grain requires a running MongoDB instance. Please refer to this separate guide for instructions on setting up MongoDB: nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzq9h35qgq6n8ll0xyyv8gurjzjrx9sjwp4hry6ejnlks8cqcmzp6tqqxnzde5xg6rwwp5xsuryd3knfdr7g

Download Grain

Download the latest release for your system from the GitHub releases page

amd64 binaries provided for Windows and Linux, if you have a different CPU architecture, you can download and install go to build grain from source

Installation and Execution

• Create a new folder on your system where you want to run Grain.
• The downloaded binary comes bundled with a ZIP file containing a folder named "app," which holds the frontend HTML files. Unzip the "app" folder into the same directory as the Grain executable.

Run Grain

• Open your terminal or command prompt and navigate to the Grain directory.
• Execute the Grain binary.

on linux you will first have to make the program executable

chmod +x grain_linux_amd64

Then you can run the program

./grain_linux_amd64

(alternatively on windows, you can just double click the grain_windows_amd64.exe to start the relay)

You should see a terminal window displaying the port on which your relay and frontend are running.

If you get

Failed to copy app/static/examples/config.example.yml to config.yml: open app/static/examples/config.example.yml: no such file or directory

Then you probably forgot to put the app folder in the same directory as your executable or you did not unzip the folder.

Congrats! You're running grain 🌾!

You may want to change your NIP11 relay information document (relay_metadata.json) This informs clients of the capabilities, administrative contacts, and various server attributes. It's located in the same directory as your executable.

Configuration Files

Once Grain has been executed for the first time, it will generate the default configuration files inside the directory where the executable is located. These files are:

bash config.yml whitelist.yml blacklist.yml

Prerequisites: - Grain requires a running MongoDB instance. Please refer to this separate guide for instructions on setting up MongoDB: [Link to MongoDB setup guide].

Download Grain:

Download the latest release for your system from the GitHub releases page

amd64 binaries provided for Windows and Linux, if you have a different CPU architecture, you can download and install go to build grain from source

Installation and Execution:

• Create a new folder on your system where you want to run Grain.
• The downloaded binary comes bundled with a ZIP file containing a folder named "app," which holds the frontend HTML files. Unzip the "app" folder into the same directory as the Grain executable.

Run Grain:

• Open your terminal or command prompt and navigate to the Grain directory.
• Execute the Grain binary.

on linux you will first have to make the program executable

chmod +x grain_linux_amd64

Then you can run the program

./grain_linux_amd64

(alternatively on windows, you can just double click the grain_windows_amd64.exe to start the relay)

You should see a terminal window displaying the port on which your relay and frontend are running.

If you get

Failed to copy app/static/examples/config.example.yml to config.yml: open app/static/examples/config.example.yml: no such file or directory

Then you probably forgot to put the app folder in the same directory as your executable or you did not unzip the folder.

Congrats! You're running grain 🌾!

You may want to change your NIP11 relay information document (relay_metadata.json) This informs clients of the capabilities, administrative contacts, and various server attributes. It's located in the same directory as your executable.

Configuration Files:

Once Grain has been executed for the first time, it will generate the default configuration files inside the directory where the executable is located. These files are:

bash config.yml whitelist.yml blacklist.yml

Configuration Documentation

You can always find the latest example configs on my site or in the github repo here: config.yml

whitelist.yml

blacklist.yml

Config.yml

This config.yml file is where you customize how your Grain relay operates. Each section controls different aspects of the relay's behavior.

1. mongodb (Database Settings)

• uri: mongodb://localhost:27017/:
  • This is the connection string for your MongoDB database.
  • mongodb://localhost:27017/ indicates that your MongoDB server is running on the same computer as your Grain relay (localhost) and listening on port 27017 (the default MongoDB port).
  • If your MongoDB server is on a different machine, you'll need to change localhost to the server's IP address or hostname.
  • The trailing / indicates the root of the mongodb server. You will define the database in the next line.
• database: grain:
  • This specifies the name of the MongoDB database that Grain will use to store Nostr events. Grain will create this database if it doesn't already exist.
  • You can name the database whatever you want. If you want to run multiple grain relays, you can and they can have different databases running on the same mongo server.

2. server (Relay Server Settings)

• port: :8181:
  • This sets the port on which your Grain relay will listen for incoming nostr websocket connections and what port the frontend will be available at.
• read_timeout: 10 # in seconds:
  • This is the maximum time (in seconds) that the relay will wait for a client to send data before closing the connection.
• write_timeout: 10 # in seconds:
  • This is the maximum time (in seconds) that the relay will wait for a client to receive data before closing the connection.
• idle_timeout: 120 # in seconds:
  • This is the maximum time (in seconds) that the relay will keep a connection open if there's no activity.
• max_connections: 100:
  • This sets the maximum number of simultaneous client connections that the relay will allow.
• max_subscriptions_per_client: 10:
  • This sets the maximum amount of subscriptions a single client can request from the relay.

3. resource_limits (System Resource Limits)

• cpu_cores: 2 # Limit the number of CPU cores the application can use:
  • This restricts the number of CPU cores that Grain can use. Useful for controlling resource usage on your server.
• memory_mb: 1024 # Cap the maximum amount of RAM in MB the application can use:
  • This limits the maximum amount of RAM (in megabytes) that Grain can use.
• heap_size_mb: 512 # Set a limit on the Go garbage collector's heap size in MB:
  • This sets a limit on the amount of memory that the Go programming language's garbage collector can use.

4. auth (Authentication Settings)

• enabled: false # Enable or disable AUTH handling:
  • If set to true, this enables authentication handling, requiring clients to authenticate before using the relay.
• relay_url: "wss://relay.example.com/" # Specify the relay URL:
  • If authentication is enabled, this is the url that clients will use to authenticate.

5. UserSync (User Synchronization)

• user_sync: false:
  • If set to true, the relay will attempt to sync user data from other relays.
• disable_at_startup: true:
  • If user sync is enabled, this will prevent the sync from starting when the relay starts.
• initial_sync_relays: [...]:
  • A list of other relays to pull user data from.
• kinds: []:
  • A list of event kinds to pull from the other relays. Leaving this empty will pull all event kinds.
• limit: 100:
  • The limit of events to pull from the other relays.
• exclude_non_whitelisted: true:
  • If set to true, only users on the whitelist will have their data synced.
• interval: 360:
  • The interval in minutes that the relay will resync user data.

6. backup_relay (Backup Relay)

• enabled: false:
  • If set to true, the relay will send copies of received events to the backup relay.
• url: "wss://some-relay.com":
  • The url of the backup relay.

7. event_purge (Event Purging)

• enabled: false:
  • If set to true, the relay will automatically delete old events.
• keep_interval_hours: 24:
  • The number of hours to keep events before purging them.
• purge_interval_minutes: 240:
  • How often (in minutes) the purging process runs.
• purge_by_category: ...:
  • Allows you to specify which categories of events (regular, replaceable, addressable, deprecated) to purge.
• purge_by_kind_enabled: false:
  • If set to true, events will be purged based on the kinds listed below.
• kinds_to_purge: ...:
  • A list of event kinds to purge.
• exclude_whitelisted: true:
  • If set to true, events from whitelisted users will not be purged.

8. event_time_constraints (Event Time Constraints)

• min_created_at: 1577836800:
  • The minimum created_at timestamp (Unix timestamp) that events must have to be accepted by the relay.
• max_created_at_string: now+5m:
  • The maximum created at time that an event can have. This example shows that the max created at time is 5 minutes in the future from the time the event is received.
  • min_created_at_string and max_created_at work the same way.

9. rate_limit (Rate Limiting)

• ws_limit: 100:
  • The maximum number of WebSocket messages per second that the relay will accept.
• ws_burst: 200:
  • Allows a temporary burst of WebSocket messages.
• event_limit: 50:
  • The maximum number of Nostr events per second that the relay will accept.
• event_burst: 100:
  • Allows a temporary burst of Nostr events.
• req_limit: 50:
  • The limit of http requests per second.
• req_burst: 100:
  • The allowed burst of http requests.
• max_event_size: 51200:
  • The maximum size (in bytes) of a Nostr event that the relay will accept.
• kind_size_limits: ...:
  • Allows you to set size limits for specific event kinds.
• category_limits: ...:
  • Allows you to set rate limits for different event categories (ephemeral, addressable, regular, replaceable).
• kind_limits: ...:
  • Allows you to set rate limits for specific event kinds.

By understanding these settings, you can tailor your Grain Nostr relay to meet your specific needs and resource constraints.

whitelist.yml

The whitelist.yml file is used to control which users, event kinds, and domains are allowed to interact with your Grain relay. Here's a breakdown of the settings:

1. pubkey_whitelist (Public Key Whitelist)

• enabled: false:
  • If set to true, this enables the public key whitelist. Only users whose public keys are listed will be allowed to publish events to your relay.
• pubkeys::
  • A list of hexadecimal public keys that are allowed to publish events.
  • pubkey1 and pubkey2 are placeholders, you will replace these with actual hexadecimal public keys.
• npubs::
  • A list of npubs that are allowed to publish events.
  • npub18ls2km9aklhzw9yzqgjfu0anhz2z83hkeknw7sl22ptu8kfs3rjq54am44 and npub2 are placeholders, replace them with actual npubs.
  • npubs are bech32 encoded public keys.

2. kind_whitelist (Event Kind Whitelist)

• enabled: false:
  • If set to true, this enables the event kind whitelist. Only events with the specified kinds will be allowed.
• kinds::
  • A list of event kinds (as strings) that are allowed.
  • "1" and "2" are example kinds. Replace these with the kinds you want to allow.
  • Example kinds are 0 for metadata, 1 for short text notes, and 2 for recommend server.

3. domain_whitelist (Domain Whitelist)

• enabled: false:
  • If set to true, this enables the domain whitelist. This checks the domains .well-known folder for their nostr.json. This file contains a list of pubkeys. They will be considered whitelisted if on this list.
• domains::
  • A list of domains that are allowed.
  • "example.com" and "anotherdomain.com" are example domains. Replace these with the domains you want to allow.

blacklist.yml

The blacklist.yml file allows you to block specific content, users, and words from your Grain relay. Here's a breakdown of the settings:

1. enabled: true

• This setting enables the blacklist functionality. If set to true, the relay will actively block content and users based on the rules defined in this file.

2. permanent_ban_words:

• This section lists words that, if found in an event, will result in a permanent ban for the event's author.
• - really bad word is a placeholder. Replace it with any words you want to permanently block.

3. temp_ban_words:

• This section lists words that, if found in an event, will result in a temporary ban for the event's author.
• - crypto, - web3, and - airdrop are examples. Replace them with the words you want to temporarily block.

4. max_temp_bans: 3

• This sets the maximum number of temporary bans a user can receive before they are permanently banned.

5. temp_ban_duration: 3600

• This sets the duration of a temporary ban in seconds. 3600 seconds equals one hour.

6. permanent_blacklist_pubkeys:

• This section lists hexadecimal public keys that are permanently blocked from using the relay.
• - db0c9b8acd6101adb9b281c5321f98f6eebb33c5719d230ed1870997538a9765 is an example. Replace it with the public keys you want to block.

7. permanent_blacklist_npubs:

• This section lists npubs that are permanently blocked from using the relay.
• - npub1x0r5gflnk2mn6h3c70nvnywpy2j46gzqwg6k7uw6fxswyz0md9qqnhshtn is an example. Replace it with the npubs you want to block.
• npubs are the human readable version of public keys.

8. mutelist_authors:

• This section lists hexadecimal public keys of author of a kind1000 mutelist. Pubkey authors on this mutelist will be considered on the permanent blacklist. This provides a nostr native way to handle the backlist of your relay
• - 3fe0ab6cbdb7ee27148202249e3fb3b89423c6f6cda6ef43ea5057c3d93088e4 is an example. Replace it with the public keys of authors that have a mutelist you would like to use as a blacklist. Consider using your own.
• Important Note: The mutelist Event MUST be stored in this relay for it to be retrieved. This means your relay must have a copy of the authors kind10000 mutelist to consider them for the blacklist.

Running Grain as a Service:

Windows Service:

To run Grain as a Windows service, you can use tools like NSSM (Non-Sucking Service Manager). NSSM allows you to easily install and manage any application as a Windows service.

* For instructions on how to install NSSM, please refer to this article: [Link to NSSM install guide coming soon].

1. Open Command Prompt as Administrator:

   • Open the Windows Start menu, type "cmd," right-click on "Command Prompt," and select "Run as administrator."

2. Navigate to NSSM Directory:

   • Use the cd command to navigate to the directory where you extracted NSSM. For example, if you extracted it to C:\nssm, you would type cd C:\nssm and press Enter.

3. Install the Grain Service:

   • Run the command nssm install grain.
   • A GUI will appear, allowing you to configure the service.

4. Configure Service Details:

   • In the "Path" field, enter the full path to your Grain executable (e.g., C:\grain\grain_windows_amd64.exe).
   • In the "Startup directory" field, enter the directory where your Grain executable is located (e.g., C:\grain).

5. Install the Service:

   • Click the "Install service" button.

6. Manage the Service:

   • You can now manage the Grain service using the Windows Services manager. Open the Start menu, type "services.msc," and press Enter. You can start, stop, pause, or restart the Grain service from there.

Linux Service (systemd):

To run Grain as a Linux service, you can use systemd, the standard service manager for most modern Linux distributions.

1. Create a Systemd Service File:

   • Open a text editor with root privileges (e.g., sudo nano /etc/systemd/system/grain.service).

2. Add Service Configuration:

   • Add the following content to the grain.service file, replacing the placeholders with your actual paths and user information:

   ```toml [Unit] Description=Grain Nostr Relay After=network.target

   [Service] ExecStart=/path/to/grain_linux_amd64 WorkingDirectory=/path/to/grain/directory Restart=always User=your_user #replace your_user Group=your_group #replace your_group

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

   • Replace /path/to/grain/executable with the full path to your Grain executable.
   • Replace /path/to/grain/directory with the directory containing your Grain executable.
   • Replace your_user and your_group with the username and group that will run the Grain service.

3. Reload Systemd:

   • Run the command sudo systemctl daemon-reload to reload the systemd configuration.

4. Enable the Service:

   • Run the command sudo systemctl enable grain.service to enable the service to start automatically on boot.

5. Start the Service:

   • Run the command sudo systemctl start grain.service to start the service immediately.

6. Check Service Status:

   • Run the command sudo systemctl status grain.service to check the status of the Grain service. This will show you if the service is running and any recent logs.
   • You can run sudo journalctl -f -u grain.service to watch the logs

More guides are in the works for setting up tailscale to access your relay from anywhere over a private network and for setting up a cloudflare tunnel to your domain to deploy a grain relay accessible on a subdomain of your site eg wss://relay.yourdomain.com

@ c0c42bba:a5feb7b5

Wisdom for the Fourth Decade

🔥

Turning 40 is like hitting the “I should really know better by now” milestone. It’s a time when you look back at your past self, shake your head, and chuckle (or cringe) at your youthful blunders.

Here are 15 truths you should embrace by this significant age, each one a guide to a more fulfilling, empowered life.

Leverage Is Key

Ever wonder why your colleague who seems to be on perpetual coffee breaks makes ten times more than you? It's not black magic. They have leverage—whether it's through technology, skills, or knowing how to delegate their way out of everything. Find your leverage and watch your value skyrocket.

Distraction: The Silent Killer

In our world of incessant notifications and cat videos, distraction is the enemy. It’s like having a mosquito in the room when you're trying to sleep. Cultivate a habit of deep work. Guard your attention like it's the last piece of cake at a party—fiercely.

Beware of Unqualified Advice

Taking advice from someone who hasn’t achieved what you want is like asking a cat for swimming lessons. Be selective with whose counsel you follow. Choose mentors who have walked the path and let their experiences be your map.

Own Your Life

Here’s the blunt truth: no one is coming to save you. Your problems, your life, are 100% your responsibility. Embrace this ownership. Empower yourself to be the hero of your own story. Don’t wait for a knight in shining armor—be your own rescue mission.

Action Over Self-Help Books

You don’t need to turn your living room into a self-help library. You need action. Self-discipline beats all the motivational quotes in the world. Commit to taking steps, however small, towards your goals. It's the doing, not just the knowing, that transforms dreams into reality.

The Power of Sales Skills

Unless your college degree is as specific as a neurosurgeon’s, your ticket to higher earnings in the next 90 days is learning sales. It’s a skill that opens doors, creates opportunities, and accelerates financial growth faster than you can say "commission."

No One Cares (In a Good Way)

Stop worrying about what others think—they’re too busy worrying about themselves. Take bold steps, make your moves, and create your chances. The world is too preoccupied with its own drama to scrutinize yours.

Collaborate with the Brilliant

When you meet someone smarter than you, don’t let your ego turn it into a competition. Collaborate with them. Two heads (especially two brilliant ones) are better than one, and together you can achieve remarkable things.

The Smoking Deception

Smoking has zero benefits. It’s like trying to improve your driving skills by riding a tricycle. If you want to sharpen your focus and enhance your thinking, ditch the habit. Your lungs—and your future self—will thank you.

Comfort: A Dangerous Addiction

Comfort is like quicksand. It feels nice until you’re stuck and can’t move. Regularly challenge yourself. Step out of your comfort zone because growth and fulfillment lie just beyond the boundaries of what feels easy.

Guard Your Privacy

Not everyone needs to know your life story, your plans, or what you had for breakfast. Maintain a sense of mystery. It’s not about being secretive; it’s about keeping some things just for yourself.

Alcohol: A Costly Vice

Alcohol impairs your judgment and lowers your inhibitions. It’s like paying someone to mess up your life. Avoid it. Clear thinking and control over your actions are priceless.

Keep Your Standards High

Don’t settle for less just because it’s available. High standards attract high-quality opportunities and people. Know your worth and hold out for what aligns with your values and goals.

Prioritize Your Chosen Family

The family you create is more important than the one you were born into. Nurture these relationships. They are your ride-or-die, your squad, your home team. Invest in them as they will be the cornerstone of your support system.

Take Nothing Personally

To save yourself from a myriad of mental burdens, learn not to take things personally. Most of the time, people’s actions are a reflection of their reality, not yours. This mindset shift will free you from unnecessary stress and emotional turmoil.

Embrace These Lessons

@ 1408bad0:4971f2ca

Raised by Wolves is another sci-fi flick where Earth faces an extinction level event and lots of cool androids.

The series has some exciting action points showing a side of AI androids used as super weapons against humanity. If you were thinking to get an AI girlfriend, you might have a change of mind.

We see some pretty cool androids, but the awesome Necromancer is pretty spectacular and powerful and you wonder if anything can stop them. However, bizarrely, at times they are also apparently weak and despite their power, the religious group doesn't shy away from confrontation without any real weapons.

It would have been good if they had explored this side more and some of the advanced tech available like which gave the atheista super strength and speed to combat them.

The series has a feel like Foundation to it, but much less polished and maybe more negative and dreary at times. Instead of exploring exciting themes, it descends into mindless trivialities and bizarre gory rituals like killing a hideous pregnant animal and parading the dead baby corpse around.

They arrive on a mysterious but quite dreary planet and things start to set the scene.

The androids themselves are quite well played. The "Mother" is as expected in these woke times the strong and powerful one. The "Father" is the beta male serving her and the kids. It's all quite bizarre in a way.

When they first land they use some tech to make a base quickly and easily, but it disappoints how basic it all is. This is then compounded when the religious group arrive and instead of using modern tech to make a base as you might expect, instead turn into the Amish and make everything from wood. Oh yes, there are trees on this planet, but no really nice food.

The oddness continues and grows throughout the season as the androids become more human and spoiler alert , the most ridiculous storyline emerges as mother becomes pregnant and also really annoying. She starts attaching other bits and creatures to her to suck their blood out for her baby.

Despite all my criticisms, it has been an interesting first series but very disappointing in many ways compared to Foundation.

@ 04ea4f83:210e1713

30. November 2022

Sehr geehrter Herr Bindseil und Herr Schaff von der Europäischen Zentralbank,

Ich schreibe Ihnen heute, am Tag der Veröffentlichung Ihres EZB-Blog-Berichts „Bitcoin's Last Stand", sowohl mit Belustigung als auch mit Bestürzung. Ich amüsiere mich darüber, wie albern und hilflos Sie beide erscheinen, indem Sie sich auf müde und längst widerlegte Erzählungen über Bitcoin und seine Nutzlosigkeit und Verschwendung stützen. Und ich bin beunruhigt, weil ich von zwei sehr gut ausgebildeten und etablierten Mitgliedern Ihres Fachgebiets eine viel differenziertere kritische Sichtweise auf den aufkeimenden Bitcoin und die Lightning Skalierungslösung erwartet hätte.

Sie haben sich mit Ihren dilettantischen Versuchen, Angst, Unsicherheit und Zweifel an einem globalen Open-Source-Kooperationsprojekt zu säen, das als ein ständig wachsendes Wertspeicher und -übertragungssystem für viele Millionen Menschen weltweit fungiert, wirklich einen Bärendienst erwiesen. Ein System, das jedes Jahr von mehr und mehr Menschen genutzt wird, da sie von seiner Effektivität und seinem Nutzen erfahren. Und ein System, das noch nie gehackt oder geknackt wurde, das funktioniert, um die „Banklosen" zu versorgen, besonders in den Ländern und Orten, wo sie von finsteren totalitären Regierungen schwer unterdrückt oder von der finanziell „entwickelten" Welt einfach im Stich gelassen wurden. In der Tat ist Bitcoin bereits gesetzliches Zahlungsmittel in El Salvador und der Zentralafrikanischen Republik, und erst gestern erhielt er in Brasilien den Status eines „Zahlungsmittels".

Es entbehrt nicht einer gewissen Ironie, wenn ich schreibe, dass Sie das Ziel so gründlich verfehlen, insbesondere weil die Bank- und Finanzsysteme, zu denen Sie gehören, für eine Energie- und Materialverschwendung verantwortlich sind, die um Größenordnungen größer ist als die Systeme und Ressourcen, die das Bitcoin-Netzwerk antreiben und erhalten. Ich bin mir sicher, dass Sie sich der revolutionären kohlenstoff- und treibhausgasreduzierenden Effekte bewusst sind, die Bitcoin-Mining-Anlagen haben, wenn sie neben Methan-emittierenden Mülldeponien und/oder Ölproduktionsanlagen angesiedelt sind. Und ich weiß, dass Sie auch gut über solar- und windbetriebene Bitcoin-Mining-Cluster informiert sind, die dabei helfen, Mikronetze in unterversorgten Gemeinden einzurichten.

Ich könnte noch weiter darüber sprechen, wie das Lightning-Netzwerk implementiert wird, um Überweisungszahlungen zu erleichtern sowie Finanztechnologie und Souveränität in Gemeinden in Laos und Afrika südlich der Sahara zu bringen. Aber lassen Sie mich zu dem Teil kommen, der einen gewöhnlichen Menschen wie mich einfach zutiefst traurig macht. Bitcoin ist, wie Sie sehr wohl wissen (trotz Ihrer dummen und veralteten Verleumdungen), ein technologisches Netzwerk, das nicht auf nationaler oder internationaler Verschuldung oder der Laune von Politikern basiert oder durch sie entwertet wird. Es ist ein System, das jenseits der Kontrolle einer einzelnen Person, eines Landes oder einer Gruppe von Ländern liegt. Wenn Bitcoin sprechen könnte (was er in der Tat ungefähr alle zehn Minuten tut, durch das elektro-mathematische Knistern und Summen des Wahrheitsfeuers), würde er diese Worte aussprechen:

„Über allen Völkern steht die Menschlichkeit".\ \ Als Bankiers der Europäischen Union, als Menschen von der Erde, als biologische Wesen, die denselben Gesetzen des Verfalls und der Krankheit unterliegen wie alle anderen Wesen, wäre es da nicht erfrischend für Sie beide, das Studium und die Teilnahme an einer Technologie zu begrüßen, die die Arbeit und die Bemühungen der sich abmühenden Menschen auf unserem Planeten bewahrt, anstatt sie zu entwerten? Wie die Bitcoin-Kollegin Alyse Killeen wiederholt gesagt hat: „Bitcoin ist FinTech für arme Menschen".

Ich bin dankbar für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit und hoffe, dass Sie über Bitcoin nachdenken und es gründlicher studieren werden.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Cosmo Crixter

@ 04ea4f83:210e1713

Digitales Geld ist nur Text, die ganze Zeit

Bei digitalem Geld geht es im Grunde nur um Zahlen in einem Hauptbuch. Die ganze Zeit über sind es die Zahlen, auf die es ankommt. Lange Zahlen sind einfach nur Zeichenketten im PC und diese werden als Nachrichten in einem Netzwerk, das durch Regeln gebildet wird, an gleichwertige Peers gesendet - das ist Bitcoin, das mit einem einzigartigen dezentralen Zeitstempel-Algorithmus kombiniert wird, der durch die Unfälschbarkeit von Energie gesichert ist. Das Ergebnis ist ein Bargeldnetzwerk mit einem festen, vorprogrammierten Zeitplan für die Geldschöpfung, das den ersten absolut knappen digitalen Inhabervermögenswert schafft.\ \ Diese revolutionären Ideen werden bleiben, genauso wie das Feuer, das Rad, die Elektrizität, das Smartphone, das Internet oder die Zahl Null. Technologie entwickelt sich weiter und was machen lebende Organismen? Sie können mutieren, genau wie Viren, und das hat mich zu dem Schluss gebracht, dass es auch in dieser Hinsicht eine Verbindung gibt und das obwohl Gigi bereits einige der vielen Facetten von Bitcoin beschrieben hat. Für mich ist die Grundlage die Abstraktion, dass Bitcoin nur die Summe aller Menschen ist, die Satoshis besitzen oder anderweitig mit dem Bitcoin-Netzwerk interagieren.\ \ Die Technologien werden in einem bestimmten Tempo angenommen. Allerdings gibt es immer frühe oder späte Entdecker von neuer Technologie. Aber was passiert, wenn es zu einer ernsthaften Bedrohung wird, wenn hartes Geld nicht adoptiert wird? Was passiert, wenn die Geschwindigkeit der Preiszunahme so hoch wird, dass es unmöglich ist, jemanden zu finden, der Satoshi in Fiat tauschen möchte? Was passiert, wenn die Hyperbitcoinisierung morgen beginnt? Was wäre, wenn es eine UpSideProtection™️ gäbe, die diesen Prozess noch mehr beschleunigt und dir Bitcoin zu einem Bruchteil seines wahren Wertes sichert?\ \ Wir alle wünschen uns einen sicheren Übergang, um den Krieg aufgrund einer scheiternden Dollar-Hegemonie zu vermeiden, und tatsächlich gibt es ein Rennen, um den Krieg zu vermeiden. Mein größtes Geschenk ist die Zeit, die ich ich investiere, und die monetäre Energie, die ich in Bitcoin spare, und da ich schon eine Weile dabei bin, sehe ich, dass meine Mitstreiter die gleiche Mission verfolgen. Aber das ist NICHT genug. Wir müssen skalieren. Schneller.\ \ Das Erstaunen über den  Kurzfilm der große Widerstand hat mich zu dem Schluss gebracht, dass wir alle Werkzeuge und Informationen in Form von Lehrern, Podcasts, Büchern und aufklärenden Videos bereits haben. Der Vorteil einer festen Geldmenge wird aber noch nicht von einer kritischen Masse verstanden, sondern nur von einer intoleranten Minderheit. Diese Minderheit wächst von Tag zu Tag. Ihre Inkarnationen sind die DCA-Armee, die Hodler der letzten Instanz, die unbeirrten Stacker, die Cyberhornets, die Memefactory™️ und Mitglieder der 21 Gruppe auf der ganzen Welt.\ \ Wir Bitcoiner sind räumlich getrennt, aber nicht in der Zeit. Getrennt in der Sprache, aber nicht in der Mission. Vereint müssen wir uns zu Wort melden, aufklären und Bitcoin wie einen Virus verbreiten.\ \ Niemand entscheidet, was Bitcoin für dich ist - dieser Virus des Geistes verfestigt sich in unbestechlichen Zahlen, die zu einer wachsenden Zahl an UTXOs in den Geldbörsen führen, nicht in negativen gesundheitlichen Auswirkungen. Bitcoin ist der Virus der Schuldenindustrie, der Virus, der im 21. Jahrhundert zur größten Definanzialisierung und Auflösung des Kredits führen wird. Da wir noch nicht in einer hyperbitcoinisierten Welt leben, müssen wir den Virus effektiver machen. Bitcoin muss mutieren, aber es ist nicht Bitcoin, der tatsächlich mutiert, sondern die Menschen, die ihn benutzen. Sie werden zu toxischen Maximalisten, die den Virus noch stärker verbreiten und alle Shitcoiner während ihrer Anwesenheit geistig infizieren oder argumentativ töten.\ \ Ich habe mich gefragt, wie wir eine Milliarde Menschen dazu ausbilden und überzeugen können, Bitcoin freiwillig zu nutzen und darin zu sparen, so dass sie Bitcoin als primäres Mittel zur Speicherung und Übermittlung von Werten in Raum und Zeit nutzen? Die Hyperbitcoinisierung braucht nur eine einzige, starke positive Rückkopplungsschleife um wirklich in Gang zu kommen, und diese Rückkopplung gibt es bereits, aber nicht in den Köpfen aller. Ab einer bestimmten Schwelle wird die Schwerkraft von Bitcoins gehärteten monetären Eigenschaften einfach zu hoch sein, als dass die Spieltheorie nicht zu dieser Rückkopplung führen würde, vor allem da Bitcoin im Jahr 2024 Gold in Punkto Knappheit übertrifft.\ \ Die Verbreitung der Idee einer festen dezentralen Geldmenge, die der Macht zentraler Kräfte entzogen ist, ist der Virus. Der Weg, das Spiel zu spielen, ist, Stacker zu stapeln, und Stacker stapeln Sats, wodurch die Geldmenge noch dezentralisierter wird und ein Verbot noch absurder wird. Sats sind endlich und unser Spiel ist es auch. Allein eine bestimmte Anzahl von einfachen Leuten, den Plebs, kann den Preis auf 1.000.000 EURO treiben.\ \ Letztendlich wird sich die Welt an das neue Gleichgewicht der Macht zugunsten des Individuums anpassen. Diese Idee in die Köpfe der Massen zu bringen, ist die wichtigste Aufgabe für 2023, die in das nächste Halving Mitte 2024 führt.\ \ Wir müssen unseren Reproduktionswert erhöhen, um die Akzeptanz zu steigern. Die Verwendung von Bitcoin als Zahlungsmittel und eine Kreislaufwirtschaft ist wichtig. Bildung ist wichtig. Apps und Anwendungsfälle sind wichtig. Die Kaufkraft, d.h. die Moskau Zeit, die sich in Richtung Mitternacht (00:00) bewegt, spielt eine Rolle, und all dies hängt zusammen.\ \ Aber wie genau können Plebs eine Milliarde Menschen überzeugen?\ \ Wie genau hat das Corona-Virus eine Milliarde Menschen infiziert?\ \ Peer-to-Peer.\ \ Erhebe deine Stimme, wer auch immer du bist, sprich über Bitcoin, werde aktiv und BUIDL oder lass uns einfach Spaß daran haben, arm zu bleiben und es genießen, jeden Tag bestohlen zu werden.\ \ Lass uns Yellow mehr Freizeit schenken und Bitcoin bis 100k+ aufkaufen und uns damit ins Stackheaven befördern.

"Don't stop believin' HODL on to that feelin' "

Der Rest wird in die unumstößliche Geschichte der Timechain eingraviert.

„Unter dieser Maske gibt es mehr als nur Fleisch. Unter dieser Maske ist eine Idee. Und Ideen sind kugelsicher."  Alan Moore, V wie Vendetta

⚡

Danke für deine Aufmerksamkeit .\ \ #GetShortFiat und #GetOnZero\ \ Es ist immer noch 60 Uhr. Sei weise und stapele unbeirrt. Man kann die Mathematik und Physik nicht austricksen.\ \ Wenn der Post dir Motivation zum Stapeln von Sats oder dem Stapeln von Stackern gemacht hat, freue ich mich, wenn du mir auch etwas beim Stapeln hilfst!

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

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

TL;DR please educate your children about online safety.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 04ea4f83:210e1713

Was ist ein Meme?

Bevor wir uns in die Materie vertiefen, sollten wir einen genaueren Blick auf die Begriffe werfen, mit denen wir es zu tun haben. Laut dem American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language ist ein Meme „eine Einheit kultureller Informationen, wie z. B. eine kulturelle Praxis oder Idee, die verbal oder durch wiederholte Handlungen von einem Geist zum anderen übertragen wird".

Der Begriff wurde von Richard Dawkins in seinem 1976 erschienenen Buch geprägt und ist eine Anspielung auf das Wort "Gen", die Einheit der biologischen Information, die sexuell von einem Organismus auf einen anderen übertragen wird.

Dawkins erkannte, dass kulturelle Informationen ähnlich wie biologische Informationen sind und sich genauso verbreiten und mutieren, wenn auch auf einer höheren Abstraktionsebene. Genau wie bei biologischen Informationen ist der ultimative Test für kulturelle Informationen das Überleben, und genau wie biologische Informationen müssen sie für die Umwelt geeignet sein, um sich zu verbreiten und am Leben zu gehalten zu werden.

Manche Ideen funktionieren einfach nicht, wenn sie fehl am Platz sind oder die Zeit nicht reif für sie ist. Sie werden schnell sterben, genau wie der sprichwörtliche Fisch auf dem Trockenen. Andere Memes funktionieren vielleicht eine Zeit lang, verblassen aber langsam durch allmähliche Veränderungen in der Umwelt oder brechen plötzlich durch die von ihnen ausgelösten destruktiven Rückkopplungsschleifen zusammen. Wie Gene verbreiten sich Meme langfristig nur dann, wenn sie für den Organismus und seine Umwelt von Nutzen sind.

„In der Wissenschaft der Ökologie lernt man, dass der Mensch nicht ein Organismus in einer Umwelt ist, sondern eine Organismus-Umwelt-Beziehung. Das heißt, ein einheitlicher Bereich des Verhaltens. Wenn man das Verhalten eines Organismus sorgfältig beschreibt, kann man das nicht tun, ohne gleichzeitig das Verhalten der Umwelt zu beschreiben... [...] Der Organismus ist nicht die Marionette der Umwelt, die von ihr herumgeschubst wird. Umgekehrt ist auch die Umwelt nicht die Marionette des Organismus, die vom Organismus herumgeschubst wird. Die Beziehung zwischen ihnen ist, um es mit John Deweys Worten zu sagen, transaktional."\ \ Alan Watts

Was hat das mit Bitcoin zu tun? Nun, du musst dich fragen, wie das Bitcoin-Netzwerk zustande kommt, und wenn du das tust, wirst du feststellen, dass Bitcoin sich nicht allzu sehr von den oben erwähnten Memen und Genen unterscheidet. Bitcoin ist ein instanziierter Computercode, ein digitaler Organismus, der die Menschheit dafür bezahlt, ihn am Leben zu erhalten, wie Ralph Merkle es so treffend formulierte. Die kumulative Arbeit, die in Bitcoins Timechain eingebettet ist, ist das, was Bitcoin real macht und was ihn von gewöhnlicher Information unterscheidet. Und von gewöhnlichen Computerprogrammen, was das betrifft. Genauso wie es einen Unterschied zwischen dir selbst und einem Ausdruck deiner DNA gibt, gibt es einen Unterschied zwischen dem Bitcoin-Code - den Memes, die er sich zu Nutze macht - und der realen Instanziierung von Bitcoin.

Das Bitcoin-Netzwerk instanziiert und validiert sich selbst alle 10 Minuten, Block für Block, wie ein Uhrwerk. Diese Blöcke sind die Informationseinheit, die übertragen wird, und ja, genau wie bei den Memen ist diese Information eine kulturelle Information. Die Tatsache, dass diese Information elektronisch übertragen wird, spielt keine Rolle; sie verkörpert immer noch den Kern der Bitcoin-Kultur, die Seele des Netzwerks. Und genau wie Memes wird diese Information durch wiederholte Aktionen von einem Knotenpunkt zum anderen übertragen. Und davor, von einem Geist zum anderen.

Im ökologischen Sinne handeln wir alle mit Bitcoin, und Bitcoin handelt mit uns. Wenn du von Bitcoin gehört hast, wenn du das Meme „21 Millionen" kennst, dann hat Bitcoin mit dir Geschäfte gemacht. Lange bevor du deine erste Bitcoin-Transaktion gemacht haben.

Memes und ihre Umgebung

Bitcoin sind Menschen, wenn es darauf ankommt. Ja, es ist Software, aber die Menschen müssen die Software ausführen und, was noch wichtiger ist, selbst entscheiden, was Bitcoin ist. Es gibt keine Autorität, wenn es um Bitcoin geht. So muss jeder für sich selbst herausfinden, was Bitcoin ist, und aus der Überschneidung der verschiedenen Standpunkte ergibt sich ein Konsens. Dies ist ein ständiger Prozess, denn es geht nicht nur darum, was Bitcoin derzeit ist, sondern auch darum, was Bitcoin sein könnte. Was Bitcoin sein sollte. Genau darum ging es im Blocksize War. Ein Kampf um die Seele von Bitcoin. Eine Meinungsverschiedenheit über die Zukunft und den ultimativen Zweck von Bitcoin. Ein Unterschied im memetischen Material, der letztendlich zu einer Spaltung des Protokolls führte, was wiederum zu einer Spaltung des Netzwerks und einer Spaltung der Kultur führte.

Aber auch ohne eine Spaltung, selbst wenn ein Konsens besteht, ist die Frage „was Bitcoin ist" nicht eindeutig zu beantworten.

Für dich mag das Lightning Network nicht wichtig sein, und es steht dir frei, eine Vor-SegWit-Version von Bitcoin zu betreiben. Für jemand anderen sind Dickbutts und Fürze auf der Blockchain vielleicht nicht wichtig, und er könnte sich entscheiden, eine Vor-Taproot-Version von Bitcoin zu verwenden (oder eine Version zu verwenden, die Ordnungszahlen (Ordinals) nicht respektiert). Bitcoin ist abwärtskompatibel, und Upgrades sind optional, gerade weil es keine Autorität gibt, die etwas vorschreibt.

So funktioniert Bitcoin, und so wird es immer funktionieren, weshalb Memes wichtig sind und warum es eigentlich durchweg Memes sind.

Um Bitcoin zu nutzen, muss man sich freiwillig entscheiden. Man muss zuerst von der Idee überzeugt werden, von der Idee, Sats zu akzeptieren, damit Fiat fallen zu lassen und Bitcoin zu erwerben. Erst wenn man davon überzeugt ist, dass elektronisches Bargeld mit einer (absolut) festen Menge nützlich sein könnte, wird man es akzeptieren oder damit sparen.

Das Meme „21 Millionen" kommt zuerst, und nachdem unsere Gehirne ausreichend von der Idee infiziert wurden, werden wir deshalb die Software starten, die die 21 Millionen ins Leben rufen.

Natürlich kommen manche Leute - ich glaube, die meisten - auf Umwegen zum Bitcoin. Du denkst, dass es sich um einen spekulativen Vermögenswert handelt, etwas, das existiert, um mehr Dollar zu verdienen, d. h. um mehr Papiergeld zu verdienen. Oder du entdeckst ihn über Online-Glücksspiele oder andere Wege, und auf diese Weise kommen sie zu ihren ersten Sätzen. Aber selbst wenn du auf Umwegen zu Bitcoin kommst, selbst wenn Bitcoin vor deiner Haustür ankommt, ohne dass du verstehst, womit du es zu tun hast, musst du lernen, Bitcoin selbstbestimmt zu nutzen, oder du wirst es nicht schaffen.

Bitcoin auf eine selbstsouveräne Art und Weise zu nutzen, bedeutet, dass du die Memes von Bitcoin absorbieren musst. Zum Beispiel musst du die „21 Millionen" übernehmen und ihnen zustimmen, sonst hast du keinen Bitcoin, sondern einen Shitcoin in den Händen. Bitcoin am Laufen zu halten bedeutet, Bitcoin auszuleben, was wiederum bedeutet, seine eigenen Schlüssel zu besitzen, seinen eigenen Knoten zu betreiben und den zentralen Konsensparametern zuzustimmen, die Bitcoin zu Bitcoin machen.

Mit der Zeit wird ein horizontaler Meme-Transfer stattfinden. Bitcoin wird auf dich abfärben. Du wirst nicht nur den Ideen ausgesetzt sein, die in Bitcoin eingebettet sind; nein, du wirst ein Teil davon sein und das Meme leben, indem du die Satoshi Tag für Tag und Block für Block hältst.

Oder du wirst es nicht. Wenn du mit den Ideen, die in den Konsensparametern von Bitcoin eingebettet sind, nicht einverstanden sind, hast du zwei Möglichkeiten: Du kannst dich abspalten oder unter dem Bitcoin Derangement Syndrom leiden. Man kann sich natürlich auch an die Umwelt anpassen und in Symbiose mit ihr leben, was bedeutet, sich mit dem in Bitcoin eingebetteten memetischen Material zu arrangieren - es zu akzeptieren und ihm langsam zuzustimmen.

Wenn man die zuvor skizzierte ökologische Sichtweise anwendet, bilden Bitcoin und die Bitcoiner selbst den Organismus-Umwelt und beeinflussen sich gegenseitig in 10-Minuten-Intervallen. Das Knifflige daran ist, dass Bitcoin sowohl Organismus als auch Umwelt ist, genau wie wir selbst. Das Bitcoin-Meme lebt in unseren Gehirnen und unsere Vorstellung davon, was Bitcoin ist - und was es sein sollte - ändert sich mit der Zeit. Die ökonomische Erweiterung von uns - unsere Sats - leben in der Umgebung, die Bitcoin ist, eine Umgebung, die wir individuell und kollektiv hervorbringen.

Wir formen unsere Werkzeuge, und unsere Werkzeuge formen uns. Und wir benutzen unsere Werkzeuge, um unsere Umwelt zu formen, die natürlich auch uns formt. Kultur ist das Ergebnis dieser gegenseitigen Beeinflussung, und was ist Kultur anderes als eine Vielzahl von Memen?

Bei Bitcoin haben wir es mit einem unglaublichen meinungsbildenden Werkzeug zu tun, das eng mit uns verwoben ist. Ein Werkzeug, das ein Umfeld schafft, das lächerlich schwer zu ändern ist. Ich würde sogar so weit gehen zu sagen, dass einige Aspekte dieser seltsamen Meme-Werkzeug-Organismus-Umwelt-Schleife unmöglich zu ändern sind, da dies die Identität von Bitcoin und Bitcoinern gleichermaßen zerstören würde.

Für mich wird Bitcoin immer durch 21ismus definiert werden, auch wenn ich der letzte Mensch wäre, der an dieses Meme glauben würde. Anstelle dessen würde ich lieber auf dem Hügel von 21 Millionen sterben - allein und in Armut, mit dem Node in der Hand und zwölf Worten in meinem Kopf - als einer Erhöhung des Bitcoin-Angebots um 1 % zuzustimmen. (Buchvorschlag: Mandibles)

Es gibt diejenigen, die diese unveränderliche Umgebung akzeptieren, und diejenigen, die sie ablehnen, was natürlich zu einer Spaltung der Kultur führt.

Kulturelle Spaltungen

Wir erleben zweifelsohne eine Art Kulturkrieg. Links gegen Rechts, Rot gegen Schwarz, Based gegen Woke, Blue Bird gegen Purple Bird und Furries gegen normale Menschen. Es ist schwer, die Bruchlinien auszumachen, die diesem Krieg zugrunde liegen. Einige glauben, dass es auf Individualismus gegen Kollektivismus hinausläuft. Andere sehen es als Kapitalismus vs. Marxismus, selbstregulierende Ordnung vs. zentrale Planung. Wieder andere spekulieren, dass dieses Chaos mit dem Rückgang des religiösen Glaubens zusammenhängt, der eine Folge der nietzscheanischen Ermordung Gottes ist.

Alle diese Gründe mögen zutreffend oder teilweise zutreffend sein, aber für mich als Bitcoiner - als jemand, der die Graphen des "WTF geschah 1971" viele Male bestaunt hat - ist es schwer, etwas anderes als den Notstand des Fiat-Geldes als den Hauptgrund für das Chaos, das wir erleben, zu benennen. Für mich scheint es offensichtlich, dass diese verrückten Zeiten ein Ergebnis des Fiat-Geldsystems und der wirtschaftlichen sowie memetischen Konsequenzen sind, die es mit sich bringt. Es ist ein System, das völlig von der Realität abgekoppelt ist, ein künstliches und hochpolitisches Umfeld, das, ob wir es erkennen oder nicht, das wirtschaftliche Betriebssystem unserer Welt ist. Für mich lässt sich die Bruchlinie der Gesellschaft am besten als „Bitcoin vs. Fiat" zusammenfassen.

Seit 50 Jahren leben wir die Idee des Fiat-Geldes aus. Das Meme, dass die Art des Basisgeldes keine Rolle spielt, die hartnäckige Überzeugung, dass „wir es uns selbst schulden". Wir scheinen zu glauben, dass unsere kollektive Zukunft ein magischer goldener Topf ist - scheinbar ohne Boden -, aus dem wir uns immer und immer wieder etwas leihen können.

Ich glaube, dass wir uns in der Endphase des großen Fiat-Experiments befinden. Einmal mehr haben die arroganten Könige dieser Welt beschlossen, Gott zu spielen und sich in Kräfte einzumischen, die größer sind als sie, größer als wir. Wieder einmal müssen wir feststellen, dass das Drucken von Geld keinen wirklichen Wert schafft. Einmal mehr wird sich die Gesellschaft wandeln oder ganz zusammenbrechen, wie es in Ägypten, Rom und in vielen anderen Kulturen vor der unseren geschah. Und einmal mehr wird sich die Natur durchsetzen, indem sie Verwüstung anrichtet und alles ausrottet, was nicht mit ihr übereinstimmt. Seien es Ideen oder anderes.

„Als es nun an Geld gebrach im Lande Ägypten und in Kanaan, kamen alle Ägypter zu Josef und sprachen: Schaffe uns Brot! Warum lässt du uns vor dir sterben? Denn das Geld ist zu Ende."\ \ Mose 47:15

Diesmal ist das Fiat-Experiment jedoch nicht lokal begrenzt. Es ist nicht das Geld eines einzelnen Landes, das versagt, sondern das Meme des Fiat-Geldes selbst.

Geld drucken vs. das Geld in Ordnung bringen

Die Erkenntnis der Bedeutung des Geldes sowie der moralischen und kulturellen Implikationen der Natur des Geldes - und der Ethik der Geldproduktion - hat mein Weltbild unwiderruflich verändert. Als ich erkannte, dass Gelddrucken nichts anderes als eine Umverteilung von Reichtum ist und dass eine zentral geplante Umverteilung von Reichtum eine unmögliche Aufgabe ist - nicht nur rechnerisch, sondern auch moralisch -, dämmerte mir, dass Konfiszierung durch Inflation und andere Formen der unfreiwilligen Umverteilung nichts anderes ist als Diebstahl auf Umwegen. Das Fiat-System ist ein System der Sklaverei, und nein, das ist keine Übertreibung.

Aber hier ist die gute Nachricht: Bitcoin schafft hier Abhilfe.

Das ist unsere Meme-Welt, alle anderen leben nur darin.

Es gibt eine bestimmte Ethik, die in Bitcoin eingebettet ist, und es ist diese Ethik, die den Grundstein für die Meme bildet, die wir entstehen und sich verbreiten sehen. Wenn ich es in einem Satz zusammenfassen müsste, dann wäre es dieser: „Du sollst nicht stehlen." Wenn ich es in einer Zahl zusammenfassen müsste, dann wäre es natürlich 21 Millionen.

Die Motivation hinter der Erschaffung von Bitcoin ist zweifelsohne politisch, wie „Kanzlerin am Rande der zweiten Bankenrettung" und verschiedene Kommentare von Satoshi zeigen. So stimmte Satoshi zwar der Aussage zu, dass „sie in der Kryptographie keine Lösung für politische Probleme finden werden", aber er erwähnte auch, dass „wir eine wichtige Schlacht im Wettrüsten gewinnen und ein neues Territorium der Freiheit gewinnen können". Man beachte die Worte, die in dieser Aussage verwendet werden: ein Gebiet (Umfeld) der Freiheit (im Gegensatz zur Sklaverei).

Ich würde argumentieren, dass „eine große Schlacht gewinnen" eine Untertreibung ist, und ich würde auch argumentieren, dass die ursprüngliche Behauptung falsch ist, aber ich werde darauf zurückkommen.

Doch auch ohne diese Kommentare, selbst wenn die in den Genesis-Block eingebettete Botschaft „ooga chaka ooga ooga ooga chaka" lauten würde, wäre Bitcoin immer noch politisch. Ja, das daraus resultierende System ist unpolitisch, genau wie der Sonnenaufgang unpolitisch ist, aber der Akt der Schaffung von bitcoin ist ein politischer Akt. Er ist eine Aussage, eine Manifestation bestimmter Ideen, von Qualitätsmemes.

Vergleiche die in Bitcoin eingebettete Ethik (festes Angebot, keine erzwungene Umverteilung, kein kostenloses Mittagessen, keine Rettungsaktionen) mit der Ethik des Fiat-Geldes (endloses Angebot, zentral geplante Umverteilung, Rettungsaktionen für Freunde, alles ist erfunden) - oder, noch drastischer, mit der „Ethik" der Shitcoins, die nur Fiat-Geld auf Steroiden ist (jeder kann sein eigenes Geld drucken, nichts ist wichtig, Rugpulls sind lustig und Dickbutts sind im Grunde die Mona Lisa).

Ist es eine Überraschung, dass die Kultur rund um diese Phänomene so unterschiedlich ist? Oder ist „du wirst nichts besitzen und du wirst glücklich sein" einfach eine Folge des Mems, das Fiat-Geld ist? Ist der kulturelle Unterschied zwischen Bitcoinern und Shitcoinern ein natürliches Ergebnis der Meme, die in den verschiedenen Organismus-Umgebungen eingebettet sind und von diesen hervorgebracht werden?

Im Klartext bedeutet das Meme des Fiat-Geldes - die Idee, dass wir Geld aus dem Nichts erschaffen können und sollten - einfach zu sagen: „Ich weiß besser als der Markt, wie man Geld verteilt", was bedeutet, dass ich besser als alle anderen weiß, was gut und was schlecht ist, was wertvoll ist und was nicht, was notwendig und was überflüssig ist.

Die Frage, die das Fiat-System beantwortet, ist die folgende: Wer darf Geld fälschen und wie viel? Und wer darf Zugang zu Geld haben, und wer nicht? Die Antwort ist politisch und wird mit Gewalt durchgesetzt.

Das Bitcoin-System beantwortet dieselben Fragen, und die Antworten sind ebenso einfach wie ethisch: Niemand darf Geld fälschen, und jeder kann darauf zugreifen. Keine Ausnahmen.

Dies sind zwei sehr unterschiedliche Ideen, zwei sehr unterschiedliche Memes. Die eine wird im Fiat-System umgesetzt, die andere im Bitcoin-System. Das eine bricht aus den Nähten, das andere tuckert vor sich hin und wächst wirtschaftlich, rechnerisch und memetisch - alle 10 Minuten.

Bitcoin vs. Gold

Wenn es darum geht, die Grundursache vieler unserer Übel zu identifizieren, hatten die Goldanhänger (größtenteils) die richtige Idee. Aber sie hatten keine Möglichkeit, ihre Ideen auf sinnvolle und effektive Weise umzusetzen, die in der vernetzten Welt des 21. Das Meme des „gesunden Geldes" ist das richtige Mem, aber ohne eine Möglichkeit, dieses Meme effizient umzusetzen, hat das Meme keine Möglichkeit, sich in der Bevölkerung zu verbreiten.

So sieht es aus, liebe Goldfresser: Wir werden nicht zu einem Goldstandard zurückkehren. Gold hat in der Vergangenheit versagt, und es würde auch in der Zukunft versagen. Die Nützlichkeit des „Goldstandard"- Memes ist zu einem Ende gekommen. Das Überbleibsel seiner glorreichen Vergangenheit wird nur noch in der Linguistik zu finden sein.

„Warum", fragst du dich? Nun, zunächst einmal verbietet der physische Körper des Goldes die Teleportation, d. h. die elektronische Übertragung von Gold. Er verbietet die Unsichtbarkeit, d. h. die plausible Abstreitbarkeit des Besitzes. Bitcoin kann sofort teleportiert und perfekt versteckt werden. Man kann ihn im Kopf behalten, und niemand kann wissen, ob man Bitcoin tatsächlich besitzt oder nicht. Gold wird allein aus logistischen Gründen immer in Tresoren zentralisiert sein. Bitcoin muss das nicht sein. Gold wird sich immer mit einer bestimmten Rate aufblähen, da eine unbekannte Menge noch unter der Erde (und im Weltraum) liegt. Die Menge, die sich über der Erde befindet, ist ebenfalls unbekannt, da der weltweite Goldvorrat nicht einfach überprüft werden kann.

Im Gegensatz dazu ist Bitcoin absolut knapp und perfekt überprüfbar. Alle 10 Minuten wird der Gesamtvorrat an Bitcoin geprüft. Alle 10 Minuten wird der Emissionsplan überprüft. Alle 10 Minuten werden Milliarden von Sats endgültig und elektronisch, d.h. mit Lichtgeschwindigkeit, abgerechnet. Eine echte, physische Abrechnung. Global und sofort, ohne große Kosten oder Reibungsverluste. Alle 10 Minuten.

Das Gold-Meme wird sich noch eine Weile halten, und das ist auch gut so. Die Menschen sind nostalgisch, besonders wenn sie in ihren Gewohnheiten verhaftet sind. Wie bei wissenschaftlichen Revolutionen wird sich die monetäre Revolution, die derzeit im Gange ist, wahrscheinlich langsam verbreiten: eine Beerdigung nach der anderen.

Ich glaube jedoch, dass Bitcoin die Macht hat, die Köpfe und Herzen der Menschen sehr schnell zu gewinnen, wenn diese Köpfe offen oder kulturell angepasst genug sind; oder wenn die Veränderung in ihrem Umfeld drastisch genug ist.

Allmählich, dann plötzlich.

Politik vs. Kultur

Kehren wir zu der Behauptung zurück, dass "du in der Kryptographie keine Lösung für politische Probleme finden werden". Ich habe bereits erwähnt, dass ich dem nicht zustimme, und hier ist der Grund. Politik ist der Kultur nachgelagert, und Kryptographie im Allgemeinen (und Bitcoin im Besonderen) verändert die Kultur.

Das sollte jedem außer dem blindesten Beobachter des Bitcoin-Bereichs sonnenklar sein. Die Kultur rund um Bitcoin ist durchdrungen von Verantwortung und Selbsteigentum („besitze deine eigenen Schlüssel" & „nicht deine Schlüssel, nicht dein Bitcoin"), Verifizierung und Schlussfolgerungen aus ersten Prinzipien ("vertraue nicht, verifiziere"), langfristigem Denken und Sparen für die Zukunft ("bleibe bescheiden, staple Sats"), sowie einem Fokus auf harte Arbeit, Integrität, Wahrheit und sichtbare Ergebnisse ("Proof-of-work, der Arbeitsnachweis").

Satoshi erkannte in wahrer Cypherpunk-Manier, dass Memes implementiert werden müssen, um sich möglichst effizient zu verbreiten, weshalb er sich hinsetzte und den Code schrieb. Es war auch der erste Test für die Tauglichkeit seiner Ideen, wie er in einem seiner vielen Forenbeiträge erwähnte: „Ich musste den ganzen Code schreiben, bevor ich mich selbst davon überzeugen konnte, dass ich jedes Problem lösen kann, und dann habe ich das Whitepaper geschrieben."

Das ist der Arbeitsnachweis, genau da. Das ist Anti-Fiat. Nicht nur darüber reden, sondern es auch tun. Mit gutem Beispiel vorangehen. Nicht nur über die Ideen spekulieren, die man im Kopf hat, die Memes, die man in der Welt verbreitet sehen möchte, sondern sie auch umsetzen. Das heißt, sie an der Realität zu messen.

„Lass deine Memes keine Träume sein."

Satoshi (paraphrasiert)

Ist es eine Überraschung, dass sich Bitcoin in den Bereichen „gesunde Ernährung", „gesunde Landwirtschaft", „freie Meinungsäußerung und Menschenrechte ausbreitet? Dass Bitcoin schnell und einfach von Menschen verstanden wird, die buchstäblich nahe am Boden sind, verbunden mit der grundlegenden Realität der Dinge? Ist es eine Überraschung, dass Bitcoin von denjenigen genutzt und verstanden wird, die es am meisten brauchen? Von denjenigen, die in Ländern leben, in denen das Geld versagt? Von denjenigen, die vom Fiat-System abgelehnt werden?

Das sollte keine Überraschung sein. Einige Kulturen haben eine natürliche Überschneidung mit der Bitcoin-Kultur, und es sind diese Kulturen, die Bitcoin zuerst annehmen werden. Frühe Beispiele sind die Cypherpunk-Kultur sowie die Kulturen rund um die österreichische Wirtschaft, den Libertarismus und das muslimische Finanzwesen. Wenn diese Kulturen Bitcoin annehmen, wird Bitcoin seinerseits diese Kulturen annehmen und dich beeinflussen. Ein für beide Seiten vorteilhafter Einfluss, wie er für alles, was langfristig überlebt, erforderlich ist, und wie er für die Symbiose, die die Natur darstellt, Standard ist. Der Organismus und das Umfeld, das durch die orangefarbene Münze und ihre Besitzer geschaffen wird, will überleben. Bitcoin: das egoistische Meme.

Natürlich gibt es auch Fiat-Meme. Es ist das, was unsere Kultur in den letzten 50 Jahren geprägt hat: „Fake it till you make it" und „YOLO" kommen mir in den Sinn, was interessanterweise die moderne Version der keynesianischen Idee ist, dass wir auf lange Sicht alle tot sind. Ist es verwunderlich, dass ein Umfeld, das durch falsches Geld geschaffen wurde, zu falschem Essen, falschen Körpern, falscher Gesundheit, falscher Medizin, falschen Beziehungen, falschen Experten und falschen Menschen führt?

Diejenigen, die an der Spitze der Fiat-Pyramide sitzen, sprechen von „nutzlosen Essern" und versuchen uns davon zu überzeugen, dass wir nichts besitzen müssen, aber trotzdem glücklich sein werden. Man muss sich über den Slogan wundern: „Du wirst nichts besitzen und du wirst glücklich sein".

„Du wirst ein glücklicher kleiner Sklave sein", heißt es in diesem Meme. Jemand hat beschlossen, dass Glück das ultimative Ziel ist, das es zu erreichen gilt, und du (und nur du) weißt, wie du es für dich erreichen können.

„Glück"

Als ob Glück das eigentliche Ziel wäre, das A und O, der Grund für unsere Existenz. Was ist mit dem Streben nach etwas Sinnvollem, etwas, das schwer ist, etwas, das Opfer erfordert, das Schmerz und Leid mit sich bringt?

\ „Jeder Mensch ist glücklich, bis das Glück plötzlich ein Ziel ist."

Tame Impala

Oder was ist mit der Aussage von Lagarde, dass „wir glücklicher sein sollten, einen Arbeitsplatz zu haben, als dass unsere Ersparnisse geschützt sind?" Das ist Ausdruck eines bestimmten Memes, das sich in ihrem Kopf festgesetzt hat, des Mems, dass Arbeitsplatzsicherheit die meisten anderen Bedürfnisse übertrumpft und dass normale Menschen kein Vermögen anhäufen müssen. Schlimmer noch: Es suggeriert, dass es völlig in Ordnung ist, das zu stehlen, was normale Menschen durch fleißige Arbeit im Laufe ihres Lebens angespart haben.

Wir sollte glücklicher sein einen Job zu haben als das unsere Erparnisse geschützt werden. Christine Largarde Präsidentin der ECB, Oktober 2019

Es gibt einen Grund, warum wir vom „Rattenrennen" oder dem „Hamsterrad" sprechen und warum dieser Teil unserer Kultur in Kunst und Film so stark kritisiert wird. Um Tyler Durden zu zitieren: „Die Werbung bringt uns dazu, Autos und Klamotten zu jagen, Jobs zu machen, die wir hassen, damit wir Scheiß kaufen können, den wir nicht brauchen. Wir sind die mittleren Kinder der Geschichte, Mann. Wir haben keinen Sinn und keinen Platz. Wir haben keinen Großen Krieg. Keine Weltwirtschaftskrise. Unser großer Krieg ist ein spiritueller Krieg... unsere große Depression ist unser Leben. Wir sind alle durch das Fernsehen in dem Glauben erzogen worden, dass wir eines Tages alle Millionäre, Filmgötter und Rockstars sein werden. Aber das werden wir nicht. Und wir lernen diese Tatsache langsam kennen. Und wir sind sehr, sehr wütend."

Ich glaube jedoch nicht, dass die Menschen wütend sind. Ich glaube, dass die meisten Menschen deprimiert und nihilistisch sind. Sie sehen keinen Ausweg, sie sind hoffnungslos und haben sich mit ihrer Position im System abgefunden - ob bewusst oder unbewusst.

Nichts zeigt die Plackerei des Fiat-Rattenrennens besser als der kurze Animationsfilm „Happiness", der eine visuelle Reise durch die unerbittliche Suche des Menschen nach Erfüllung in der modernen Welt darstellt. Er setzt in Bilder um, was viele Menschen nicht in Worte fassen können. Hilflosigkeit, Sucht, Hoffnungslosigkeit. Eine Krise des Selbst, eine Krise des Sinns. Das Fehlen einer hoffnungsvollen Vision für die Zukunft.

„Ehrlich gesagt, ist es ziemlich deprimierend", so ein 44-jähriger Arbeiter, der allein im Wald festsitzt. „Ich habe versucht, einen Gedanken zu formulieren, ihn auszudrücken, ohne zusammenzubrechen und zu weinen. Aber ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob ich ihn weitergeben kann, ohne zu weinen."

„Mein Problem, einer der Gründe, warum ich hierher kommen wollte, war also, dass ich versuchen wollte, über den neuen Aspekt meines Lebens nachzudenken. Mit anderen Worten: nach den Kindern."

„Ein Mensch kann eine Menge Dinge ertragen, für jemanden, den er liebt. Die gleichen Dinge nur für sich selbst zu ertragen, ist nicht so einfach. Ich bin Elektriker. Man könnte meinen, das sei nicht so schwer, aber es sind viele sich wiederholende Aufgaben. Ich weiß, dass jeder seine eigene Arbeit hat, ich weiß, dass das einfach der Lauf der Welt ist. Aber für mich ist der Gedanke, dass ich weitere 15 Jahre meines Lebens damit verbringen muss, auf die Wochenenden zu warten, einfach eine Qual. Einfach nur die banale Qual des Ganzen..."

Schau dir bei Möglichkeit diesen Clip an. Es ist eine Sache, über das Meme des Rattenrennens zu theoretisieren; es ist eine andere Sache, einem erwachsenen Mann zuzusehen, der weinend zusammenbricht, nachdem er über sein Leben, das System, in das er eingebettet ist, und die Zukunft, die dieses System für ihn bereithält, nachgedacht hat. Nachdem er sich die Tränen weggewischt hat, spekuliert er darüber, was der Grund für seine depressive Stimmung sein könnte: „An diesem Ort kenne ich die Regeln. Es ist das Leben außerhalb dieses Ortes, das mich zum Weinen bringt."

Das ist es, nicht wahr? Regeln und Regeländerungen. Wenn du jemanden zutiefst deprimieren wollen, änderst du die Regeln, und zwar häufig. Zwingen du sie, etwas Sinnloses zu tun. Ändere die Regeln willkürlich. Das ist es, was die Menschen wirklich demoralisiert: in einem System willkürlicher Regeländerungen gefangen zu sein. Keine Hoffnung auf Stabilität und kein Ausweg.

Der Dritte Weltkrieg wird ein Guerilla-Informationskrieg sein, bei dem es keine Trennung zwischen militärischer und ziviler Beteiligung gibt. - Marshall McLuhan

Das Meme ist die Nachricht.

"Weißt du, jetzt habe ich es endlich verstanden. Über den Unterschied zwischen einem echten Krieg und einem globalen Guerillakrieg. Denn was wir jetzt haben, ist kein konventioneller Krieg mit scharfen Waffen. Mit militärischer Ehre, militärischen Rängen, militärischer Aktivität... Das ist ein Kulturkrieg. Wir haben die Unruhen. Wir haben die Unordnung. Und jetzt weiß ich wirklich, wie das funktioniert. Wenn die Unruhen vorbei sind, kann man nicht mehr sagen: „Ich habe mit Stolz gedient. Es spielt keine Rolle, auf welcher Seite man steht. Denn die Unruhen sind ein Krieg gegen den Stolz. Es ist ein Krieg gegen die Moral der Menschen. Man kann dem Feind nicht als Gleicher gegenübertreten. Jeder lebt im Schatten. Es ist immer verdeckt. Es ist immer gefälscht. Er ist immer erfunden. Und es kann keine Geschichte darüber geschrieben werden, weil alles abgeschottet ist."\ \ Bruce Sterling

Für die Geldpolitik gibt es im Fiat-System keine Regeln. „Die Regeln sind erfunden, und die Punkte sind egal", um Drew Carey zu zitieren. Die Realität hat Regeln, und wenn ein Fiat-System erst einmal aus dem Ruder gelaufen ist, dann ist es die Realität, die die Konsequenzen zieht, nicht das Fiat-System selbst.

Das Fiat-System ist kaputt; sein Geld ist wertlos; seine Kultur ist deprimiert und hoffnungslos. Wenn die Politik der Kultur nachgelagert ist, ist es dann eine Überraschung, dass unsere Politik größtenteils eine Clownshow ist, die nur auf Äußerlichkeiten und kurzfristige Ziele ausgerichtet ist? Wo gibt es Hoffnung in der hoffnungslosen Welt des fiat everything? Kaputte Ideen führen zu kaputten Umgebungen, die wiederum zu kaputten Organismen führen. Ist der Mensch erst einmal kaputt, wird er nicht in der Lage sein, seine Umwelt auf eine für alle Seiten vorteilhafte Weise zu verändern. Ganz im Gegenteil. Er wird in einer Abwärtsspirale aus Verzweiflung und Zerstörung feststecken und versuchen, „um jeden Preis" zu tun, was nötig ist.

Ohne Bitcoin sind die Aussichten für unsere Zukunft düster. Ohne Bitcoin hast du zwei Möglichkeiten: die schwarze Pille des Pessimismus oder das Soma des Nihilismus.

Es gibt einen Grund, warum die Leute sagen, dass Bitcoin Hoffnung ist.

Schwarze Pille vs. Orange Pille

Bitcoin ist Hoffnung, weil die Regeln von Bitcoin bekannt und stabil sind. Das Bitcoin-System ist wahnsinnig zuverlässig, funktioniert wie ein Uhrwerk, mit Regeln, die bekannt und in Stein gemeißelt sind. Es ist eine Umgebung mit eisenharten Zwängen, die ohne Herrscher durchgesetzt werden.

Es ist nicht nur das Gegenteil des Fiat-Systems, sondern auch sein Gegengift. Es ist nicht nur ein Rettungsboot, in das jeder einsteigen kann, der in Not ist, sondern auch ein Heilmittel, das Sinn und Optimismus gibt, wo es vorher keinen gab.

Es ist leicht, depressiv zu werden, wenn man die Übel des Fiat-Systems erkannt hat. Viele Bitcoiner, die heute von Optimismus erfüllt sind, waren hoffnungslos und fatalistisch, bevor sie die orangefarbene Pille schluckten. Viele Menschen sind es immer noch, Lionel Shriver und die meisten Goldfresser eingeschlossen.

Aber man muss bereit sein. Man kann sich nur selbst eine orangefarbene Pille geben, wie man sagt. Niemand kann dir Bitcoin aufzwingen.

Du müsstest eine Erleuchtung haben, dieselbe Erleuchtung wie unser 44-jähriger Elektriker im Wald, der über sein Leben nachdenkt. Kurz nach seinem Zusammenbruch und seinem Monolog darüber, dass er im Rattenrennen feststeckt, kommt er zu einer plötzlichen Erkenntnis: „Ich muss etwas ändern. Es ist nicht die Welt, die sich ändern muss. Es bin ich, der sich ändern muss. Es ist meine Einstellung zum Leben."

Ja. Was für ein Chad.

Das ist buchstäblich die Funktionsweise von Bitcoin.

Fiat Denkweise vs. Bitcoin Denkweise

\ Das Fiat-System wird nicht einfach verschwinden, und es wird auch nicht still und leise verschwinden. Zu viele Menschen sind immer noch mit dem Gedanken an leicht verdientes Geld infiziert, arbeiten in Scheißjobs und führen ein Fiat-Leben. Der Tod des Fiat-Organismus ist jedoch unausweichlich. Er ist selbstzerstörerisch, und wie alle Tiere, die in die Enge getrieben werden und am Rande des Todes stehen, wird er in einem letzten Versuch, das Unvermeidliche zu verhindern, um sich schlagen.

Piggies von artdesignbysf

„Unser großer Krieg ist ein spiritueller Krieg", wie Tyler Durden es so treffend formulierte. Und wir sind mittendrin in diesem Krieg.

Mit jedem Tag wird es offensichtlicher, dass dies ein geistiger Krieg ist. Ein Zusammenprall von Ideen, ein Kampf der unterschiedlichen Weltanschauungen.

Selbst der letzte Boss von Bitcoin, Augustin Carstens, weiß, dass dies ein Krieg ist. Warum sonst würde er, die Verkörperung des Fiat-Standards, im Fernsehen auftreten und Folgendes sagen?

„Vor ein paar Jahren wurden Kryptowährungen als Alternative zu Papiergeld dargestellt. Ich denke, diese Schlacht ist gewonnen. Eine Technologie macht noch kein vertrauenswürdiges Geld."

Augustin Carstens

Wenn wir uns nicht in einem memetischen Krieg befänden, warum wäre es dann notwendig zu erklären, dass eine Schlacht gewonnen wurde?

Wenn wir uns nicht mitten in einem spirituellen Krieg befinden würden, warum würde Christine Lagarde, eine Person, die wegen Fahrlässigkeit und Missbrauchs öffentlicher Gelder verurteilt wurde - eine Person, die jetzt Präsidentin der Europäischen Zentralbank ist - öffentlich erklären, dass wir Bitcoin auf globaler Ebene regulieren müssen, denn „wenn es einen Ausweg gibt, wird dieser Ausweg genutzt werden?"

Warum würde Stephen Lynch behaupten, dass Bitcoin „auf Null gehen wird, wenn wir ein CBDC entwickeln, das den vollen Glauben und Kredit der Vereinigten Staaten hinter sich hat?"

Warum würde Neel Kashkari, verrückt wie er ist, vor eine Kamera treten, um das Mem zu verbreiten, dass „es unendlich viel Bargeld in der Federal Reserve gibt", in der Hoffnung, dass diese Aussage das Vertrauen in das zusammenbrechende Fiat-System stärken würde?

Es ist fast unmöglich, sich diese Interviews anzusehen, ohne den Kopf zu schütteln. Glauben diese Menschen wirklich, was sie sagen? Ist es Böswilligkeit oder ist es Unwissenheit? Oder ist es einfach ein Auswuchs der verzerrten Weltsicht des Fiat-Verstandes? Sind diese Menschen nicht mehr zu retten, oder könnte Bitcoin sie sogar demütigen und sie auf den Pfad der Verantwortung und der Finanzdisziplin bringen?

Wie auch immer die Antwort lauten mag, die bloße Existenz von Bitcoin ist eine Beleidigung für ihr Denken, oder für jedes Fiat-Denken, was das betrifft. Bitcoin setzt die Idee außer Kraft, dass Geld vom Staat geschaffen werden muss. Seine Architektur sagt: „Jeder sollte Zugang zum Geldsystem haben". Sein Design sagt: „Wir sehen, was ihr getan habt, Fiat-Leute, und wir werden dem ein Ende setzen."

„Die Existenz von Bitcoin ist eine Beleidigung für den Fiat-Verstand."

\ Es ist ironisch, dass das, was die meisten Fiat-Leute zuerst sehen, die Schlachtrufe der Bitcoiner sind, die „HODL!" schreien und „wir werden euch obsolet machen" von den Dächern schreien. Du übersiehst die tiefere Wahrheit dieser Memes, die Tatsache, dass diese Meme der tiefen Überzeugung entspringen, dass ein mathematisch und thermodynamisch gesundes System einem politischen System vorzuziehen ist. Sie hören weder das Brummen der ASICs, noch achten sie auf die gültigen Blöcke, die unaufhörlich eintreffen. Alle 10 Minuten wird leise geflüstert: „Du sollst nicht stehlen."

Das laute und prahlerische Oberflächenphänomen lässt sich leicht ins Lächerliche ziehen und abtun. Der zutiefst technische, wirtschaftliche und spieltheoretische Organismus, der die 21 Millionen zustande bringt, nicht so sehr. Beide sind im Wachstum begriffen. Beide sind miteinander verwoben. Das eine kann ohne das andere nicht existieren.

Fiat-Selbst vs. Bitcoin-Selbst

\ Beim ersten Kontakt wird der Bitcoin von den meisten abgetan. In einer Welt, die vom Fiat-Standard beherrscht wird, sind die meisten Menschen nicht in der Lage, die orangefarbene Münze zu verstehen, wenn sie zum ersten Mal über sie stolpern. Ich denke, man kann mit Sicherheit sagen, dass die meisten Bitcoiner es nicht sofort „verstanden" haben. Ich habe es anfangs sicherlich nicht verstanden.

Die Reise vieler Bitcoiner lässt sich wie folgt zusammenfassen:

1. Was zum Teufel ist das?
2. Was zum Teufel ist das?
3. Was zur Hölle?
4. Die Scheiße?
5. Scheiße...
6. All in.

Der Prozess des Verstehens und der Annahme von Bitcoin ist der Prozess des Verlassens deines Fiat-Selbst hinter sich. Man muss die Fiat-Memes aus dem Kopf bekommen und die Bitcoin-Memes hineinlassen. Du musst dein Fiat-Selbst ausbrennen und dein Bitcoin-Selbst aufbauen. Tag für Tag, Aktion für Aktion, Block für Block.

Indem du am System der Fiat-Schuldensklaverei teilnimmst, verstärkst du das Meme der sofortigen Befriedigung, der Diskontierung der Zukunft für die Gegenwart, des falschen Geldes und des kurzfristigen Denkens. Indem du am Bitcoin-System teilnimmst, stärkst du das Mem des gesunden Geldes, des unelastischen Angebots, des langfristigen Denkens, der Verantwortung und der unveräußerlichen Eigentumsrechte.

„Man kann die Revolution nicht kaufen. Man kann die Revolution nicht machen. Du kannst nur die Revolution sein. Sie ist in deinem Geist, oder sie ist nirgendwo." - Ursula K. Le Guin

Verstehe mich nicht falsch. Es ist nichts falsch daran, in den Fiat-Minen zu arbeiten und bescheiden Sats zu stapeln. Es ist eines der wichtigsten Dinge, die du tun kannst. Das Stapeln von Sats gibt dir Freiheit, Kontrolle und Selbstständigkeit. Es ermöglicht dir, sich in eine Position der Stabilität und Stärke zu manövrieren, und ehe du dich versiehst, wird der einfache Akt des demütigen Stapelns und der Liebe zu deinem zukünftigen dich selbst verändern.

Der wahre Kampf ist ein persönlicher Kampf. Den Drang zu unterdrücken, etwas umsonst haben zu wollen. Die Gewohnheit der sofortigen Befriedigung aufzugeben und eine Kultur des langfristigen Denkens aufzubauen. Ablehnung von impulsiven Ausgaben, Akzeptanz von Opfern und Einschränkungen.

Die Beziehung zwischen Ihnen und der Welt ist transaktional, wie John Dewey uns lehrte. Nicht nur unsere physischen Körper sind an unsere physische Umgebung gebunden, sondern wir sind auch über die ebenso reale wirtschaftliche Umgebung, an der wir uns beteiligen, miteinander verbunden. Und mit jedem Dollar, den wir ausgeben, und jedem Satoshi, den wir sparen, erschaffen wir unsere Zukunft.

Es gibt eine Weggabelung. Das Schild auf der einen Seite sagt: „Du wirst nichts besitzen und du wirst glücklich sein". Das Schild auf der anderen Seite sagt: „Du wirst Bitcoin besitzen und du wirst die beste Version deiner selbst sein."

Die Wahl liegt bei dir.

Bitcoin hat die Macht, die beste Version von sich selbst hervorzubringen, weil die Anreize von Bitcoin auf gegenseitige Verbesserung ausgerichtet sind. Auf individueller Ebene erfordert der Besitz von Bitcoin eine Änderung der Zeitpräferenz und der Verantwortung. Der Besitz impliziert, dass man seine eigenen Schlüssel besitzt. Wenn du das nicht tun, besitzts du keine Bitcoin, sondern Schuldscheine. Es bedeutet auch, dass du deinen eigenen Knotenpunkt betreiben, um zu überprüfen, ob du tatsächlich Bitcoin besitzen. Wenn man das nicht tut, vertraut man auf das Wort eines anderen, verlässt sich auf seine Sicht von Bitcoin, seine Weltsicht und darauf, dass er einen nicht anlügt.

Darüber hinaus bedeutet der fortgesetzte Besitz von Bitcoin, dass man die Verantwortung übernimmt, einen Wert für die Gesellschaft zu schaffen. Geld tut nichts anderes, als zu zirkulieren, also musst etwas leisten, das andere Menschen als wertvoll empfinden. Wenn du das nicht tust, wirst du bald keine Bitcoin mehr haben. Die Natur wird dich dazu zwingen, dich von deinen Sats zu trennen, denn jeder - auch du - muss essen.

„Beschäftige dich mit dem Sinn des Lebens, wirf leere Hoffnungen beiseite, engagiere dich für deine eigene Rettung - wenn du dich überhaupt um dich selbst kümmerst - und tue es, solange du kannst."\ \ Marcus Aurelius

Der Bitcoin-Weg ist kein einfacher Weg, aber ein erfüllender. Er ist erfüllend, weil du die Regeln kennst, du kennst die Konsequenzen, und du hast die Verantwortung. Es ist ein Weg, der es dir erlaubt, dein Leben so zu gestalten, wie du es für richtig hältst, aber du musstes auch selbst gestalten. Es ist ein Weg, der es dir ermöglicht, sich vor Übergriffen und Diebstahl zu schützen, und der langfristige Sicherheit und Stabilität bietet. Aber du musst ihn gehen. Du musst mitmachen. Du musst ihn ausleben.

Du musst dein Fiat-Selbst ausbrennen und die einfachen Antworten, die Abkürzungen und den Scheinwert hinter dir lassen. Du musst etwas Reales anbieten, jemand Reales sein und im Falle des Scheiterns die realen Konsequenzen tragen.

Die Grenze zwischen Gut und Böse verläuft nicht nur in jedermanns Herzen, sondern auch die Grenze zwischen Fiat und Bitcoin verläuft ebenfalls in jedermanns Herzen. Es geht nicht um „wir gegen sie". Es geht um unser Fiat-Selbst gegen unser Bitcoin-Selbst. Persönliche Verantwortung vs. vorsätzliche Ignoranz. Systemische Fragilität vs. langfristige Stabilität. Mit jeder Handlung triffst du eine Entscheidung, und du hast keine andere Wahl als zu handeln.

Es gibt eine Weggabelung, und jeder Einzelne von uns muss sich entscheiden, welchen Weg er einschlagen will. Den scheinbar bequemen Weg, den die Machthaber vorgeben, oder den Bitcoin-Weg: hart, steinig, mit Höhen und Tiefen, ohne Sicherheitsnetze und ohne Rettungsaktionen. Es ist kein einfacher Weg, aber es ist ein schöner Weg. Ein Weg, der Geduld, Verantwortung und Disziplin lehrt. Ein Weg, der dich demütig macht. Ein sinnvoller Weg. Ein Weg, den zu gehen sich lohnt.

Früher war es ein einsamer Weg, aber das ist er nicht mehr. Früher war es ein verrückter Weg. Heute ist der Weg zu mehr Freiheit der verrückte Weg. Es ist ein langer Weg, ein täglicher Kampf. Und niemand außer dir kann diesen Weg gehen. Ich würde dir gerne sagen, dass ich dich auf dem Gipfel treffe, aber ich fürchte, es gibt keinen Gipfel. Ich treffe dich stattdessen auf dem Weg.

Gigi ist ein professioneller Shitposter und Meme-Kenner. Er ist vor kurzem aus der woken Höllenlandschaft der Vogel-App in das lila gelobte Land des Straußen-Protokolls umgezogen. Wenn er nicht gerade Shitposting betreibt, ist er meistens damit beschäftigt, ein Bitcoin-Genießer zu sein und seine Pflaumen im Glanz der orangefarbenen Münze zu baden. Du kannst ihn herbeirufen, indem du seinem npub in den Kartenschlitz eines stillgelegten Geldautomaten flüsterst:

npub1dergggklka99wwrs92yz8wdjs952h2ux2ha2ed598ngwu9w7a6fsh9xzpc

@ fd78c37f:a0ec0833

In this edition, we’re thrilled to sit down with Tomek K from Bitcoin Alby, a passionate advocate for Bitcoin’s global adoption. Tomek K shares how Alby is driving innovation in the Bitcoin ecosystem and offers a glimpse into his vision for the cryptocurrency’s future. From his journey as a libertarian activist to co-founding the Bitcoin Film Festival, Tomek K’s story is one of curiosity, purpose, and a relentless pursuit of freedom through technology.

YakiHonne: Tomek K, it’s a pleasure to meet you! Today, we’re diving into your community topic—Alby Wallet. But before we begin, let me introduce our readers to Yakihonne. Yakihonne is a decentralized media client powered by the Nostr protocol, dedicated to promoting free speech through technology. It empowers creators to truly own their voices and assets, offering features like smart filtering, verified notes, and a focus on long-form content. So, Tomek, could you tell us about yourself and your work with Alby?

Tomek K: Of course! I’m Tomek K, originally from Poland, and right now, I’m speaking to you from Sri Lanka. I love traveling and observing how different countries adopt Bitcoin. For most of my career, I’ve been a free-market advocate, promoting economic freedom through various projects—essentially doing PR for capitalism. I’ve organized conferences, political demonstrations, economic seminars, summer festivals, and even opened a bar in Warsaw to spread these ideas in different ways.

During this advocacy work, I came across Bitcoin. At first, I didn’t pay much attention to it, but over time, I started feeling frustrated—our efforts raised awareness about freedom, but they didn’t bring measurable change. That led me to study Bitcoin more deeply, and I gradually shifted my focus to Bitcoin activism. Along the way, I collaborated with publishers to translate Bitcoin-related books into Polish and co-founded the Bitcoin Film Festival with friends from Meetup. Later, I joined Alby, marking my transition from free-market activism to Bitcoin promotion.

At the Bitcoin Film Festival, I handle operations and networking—organizing the event, managing logistics, and making things happen. Our team is small, but I enjoy the work. I’m passionate about Bitcoin because I came for the revolution, and I’m staying for the revolution.

That said, I don’t consider myself a Bitcoin absolutist. I see Bitcoin as a tool for freedom, not just a currency or a more efficient technology. If there were a better tool for advancing liberty and making societies freer, I’d probably focus on that. But for now, Bitcoin appears to be the most effective tool for freedom. Ultimately, I consider myself a “life maximalist”—because to live a good life, you need freedom, and to have freedom today, you need sound money. And right now, that money is Bitcoin.

YakiHonne: Was there a specific moment or event that sparked your interest in Bitcoin and motivated you to join the Alby community?

Tomek K: What attracted me to Bitcoin was its promise of global monetary independence and its ability to reduce the control of the Federal Reserve, central banks, and governments—the strongest and most covert control mechanisms in the world. Unfortunately, many people, even libertarians, often overlook this.

As for why I joined Alby, it’s because this startup is driven by values and mission rather than simply chasing profits, like selling tokens or games. This aligns well with my interest in the Lightning Network. As I explored Lightning more deeply, I came across Alby. I’ve always enjoyed testing new tools, trying them firsthand, and understanding the communities behind them—so naturally, I became part of it. Along the way, I also got to know some of the team members, which reinforced my involvement.

Additionally, Alby supported the Bitcoin Film Festival. While they weren’t the largest sponsor, their contribution was generous. The festival served as a great platform for them and other projects. I think it was good marketing because people like me—who have strong networking skills, arrange podcast interviews, and organize various activities—help build awareness and positive PR. That was part of my role.

If I had to pinpoint a single defining moment that led me here, I honestly couldn’t. Becoming a Bitcoiner doesn’t happen overnight. You can’t just read The Bitcoin Standard, declare that you understand Bitcoin, and instantly become a maximalist. Anyone who’s intellectually honest will admit that it takes multiple touchpoints—articles, films, career shifts, essays, hands-on experimentation, and actually using Bitcoin—to truly grasp its significance. I had many such moments along the way: reading The Bitcoin Standard, learning from friends who had a deeper understanding of Bitcoin, and working at Alby, which further expanded my knowledge of the Lightning Network’s capabilities and limitations. It wasn’t one turning point but a series of pivotal experiences that shaped my path.

YakiHonne: How did the Alby community start, and how did it attract its first members?

Tomek K: When I joined Alby, the community had already been established for some time. It originally emerged within the browser design community, where early users helped developers refine the product by providing feedback. That’s how the first members joined, and this process has been ongoing for four years now.

As for how Alby attracted members, it was through a mix of channels—social media (Twitter, Telegram, Discord), email engagement, and active participation in Bitcoin conferences. But the core strategy has always been openness, engaging with users, and listening to their feedback. Sometimes that means making a joke, sometimes defending against unfair criticism, and other times implementing requested features. We’ve always worked to maintain an active and friendly community atmosphere.

We also host bi-weekly community calls, which are a central part of our activities. Every two weeks, available team members meet with users for open Q&A sessions, issue discussions, and demonstrations of various projects integrating with Alby. I’ve participated in some of these calls, and they help maintain strong relationships with users, developers, and other projects—something crucial for the ecosystem. The Bitcoin technology landscape is somewhat fragmented, and grassroots coordination is necessary since there’s no single leader defining terminology or coding practices.

That’s also why Alby doesn’t exist in isolation. Almost everything we’ve built has been made possible by the creators of previous libraries, prior codebases, and collaborative efforts in writing specifications for protocols. Projects like Yakihonne and many others also recognize the importance of open-source collaboration. I think it’s essential to acknowledge the contributions of the open-source community. One thing I really appreciate is that Bitcoiners are driving open-source development in virtually every part of the world, all working toward a shared and meaningful goal.

YakiHonne:Were there any notable challenges in the early days that left a strong impression on you?

Tomek K :When I first joined Alby, I struggled with a bit of imposter syndrome for months. I was handling PR for the project, but I didn’t fully understand all the technical details—how certain protocols interact or what’s happening under the hood. It took time to get familiar with everything and really feel like I belonged.

Regulatory pressure has also been a huge challenge. In some cases, developers have been arrested, projects have had to leave certain countries, and users have been geoblocked based on their location. But challenges like these can also drive innovation. For example, Alby developed AlbyHub, an open-source self-custodial node, as a response to these kinds of issues.

There are always risks in this space—governments might suddenly demand a banking license or require compliance with new regulations. These are real obstacles, but we tackle them by embracing decentralization and open-source solutions. That’s how we ensure the project stays true to its mission and vision.

YakiHonne:If someone wanted to start a Bitcoin community today or grow an existing one, what advice would you give them?

Tomek K: The most important thing is to just get started. A community begins with action, and it takes more than one person. Even if it’s just you and a friend grabbing a beer, that’s already a start. Maybe after the first or second meetup, you post on Meetup.com, Twitter, or local forums:"Hey, we’re hosting a Bitcoin meetup in this city. We just want to connect with other Bitcoiners!" If you keep doing it consistently, the community will naturally grow. Over time, the bar where you meet might get interested in accepting Bitcoin, or you might meet some OGs in your area who decide to join—maybe they already run a business and want to support what you’re doing.

You don’t have to over-plan everything from the start. No need to think, “We need a podcast, 10 episodes, a logo…”—all that can come later. Just bootstrap it: organize a meetup, grab a beer, and get going. As you go, you’ll adapt, improve, and build recognition.Beyond that, it’s a great way to meet other Bitcoiners, develop leadership skills, and learn about community building. And at the very least, you’ll have fun doing it—which, honestly, is one of the main reasons I keep organizing meetups and other activities.

YakiHonne: Exactly, the key is to take action—just start and see where it leads. Does your community focus more on Bitcoin’s technical aspects, like coding and development, or do you emphasize non-technical areas such as education and outreach? Or do you try to balance both?

Tomek K: Our users come from all kinds of backgrounds. Some are very engaged and provide feedback regularly, while others prefer to stay in the background. Some attend our community calls, and within that group, some are developers actively building projects and collaborating with us. At the same time, there are developers we know are out there, but they never directly engage with us. That’s just how the Bitcoin community works—there’s no strict definition of being part of Alby. People engage in their own way. Some users are active on Discord, some aren’t, but we treat them all as part of the family, keeping them informed through newsletters, offering support, and making sure they stay updated with what’s happening at Alby.

As for whether we lean more toward technical development or non-technical outreach, there’s no clear-cut answer. Our community is diverse—we cater to a wide range of Lightning Network users. Some just use the browser extension, while others are deeply involved in our ecosystem. We also work with NGOs, educational initiatives, and community organizations. At the same time, we place a strong emphasis on developers and maintaining good relationships with them. Our repositories and developer portal offer useful libraries and examples, making it easier for both aspiring and experienced developers to integrate the Lightning Network into their projects. Developer relations are something we consider highly important.

YakiHonne: I understand that you're also the founder of another Bitcoin-related film project. Could you tell us a bit about it? What exactly inspired you to combine Bitcoin and filmmaking?

Tomek K: Yes, I founded Bitcoin Film Fest to help build what I call Bitcoin Cinema—an emerging industry that blends Bitcoin and filmmaking. I wanted to track everything happening at the intersection of these two worlds. Just like e-commerce, energy, and information technology, I believe the film industry will eventually be shaped by Bitcoin. And in fact, it’s already happening. There are Bitcoin-themed movies, and even major Hollywood productions have started including Bitcoin references. Bitcoin filmmakers, Bitcoin culture, and even a Bitcoin subculture already exist. We have our own heroes, stories, and values, and from this, films are being created. I love cinema, and I love Bitcoin—this was my way of bringing the two together.

The festival itself happened somewhat by accident—but maybe it was meant to be. It all started in Warsaw when I was organizing a Bitcoin meetup. I planned to screen a Bitcoin documentary, but due to technical issues, it didn’t happen. So, over a few beers, we came up with an idea: if we couldn’t show one film, why not go all in and create a full-scale Bitcoin film festival? We started researching and realized there were enough Bitcoin-related films out there to make it happen. So, we did.

The response from the community was overwhelmingly positive. It became clear that people wanted a space for Bitcoin cinema—a hub for information, networking, and collaboration. We started using the term “Binema” (Bitcoin Cinema) to describe this emerging genre. I find it fascinating to witness the growth of Bitcoin culture and storytelling. Before this, I had followed libertarian artistic movements closely, and now I see how important culture is for Bitcoin’s adoption—it’s not just about the technical and financial aspects.

Bitcoin adoption isn’t going to happen overnight, and it won’t happen without developers, educators, infrastructure builders, UX designers, and many others contributing to the ecosystem. Culture is one of the most powerful tools for shaping society, and I, like many others, am working to bring Bitcoin adoption closer through film. We’re witnessing the early days of Bitcoin cinema. I missed out on the birth of traditional cinema, but this time, I want to be part of it.

YakiHonne:In your region, does the government support or oppose Bitcoin? How has this stance impacted the development of the Bitcoin community so far?

Tomek K :Bitcoin doesn’t concern itself with nation-state borders, and frankly, we don’t either. The situation in Poland has little influence on what we do. The only connection is that I, along with two others, happen to be in Poland, but most of our team is globally distributed. On a broader scale, the U.S. tends to shape regulatory trends, and unfortunately, it often does so in a more restrictive way. However, Poland itself hasn’t had a significant impact on our work.

YakiHonne:Has your Bitcoin Film Fest community ever used film as a way to connect with members—perhaps by watching a Bitcoin-related movie or hosting a movie night to make things more fun and engaging? Have you done anything like that before?

Tomek K:Yes, absolutely! The film festival itself is a great example—we watch movies together and build a community around them. Aside from the festival we organized in Warsaw, we've also hosted film screenings at various Bitcoin events, like Sats and Facts in Thailand, BTC Prague, Plan B Lugano, Frimadera, Adopting Bitcoin, and several other conferences. We also organize online watch parties—actually, there's one happening next Sunday. The movie is available on Prime Video, but we'll sync up on Discord to watch it together, chat, and share our thoughts. We'll be announcing it on Twitter, so if you check Bitcoin Film Fest on Twitter, you'll find details on how to join.

Film has been a great way to connect with members and spark discussions. We've seen Bitcoin meetups worldwide organizing movie nights—our volunteer friends in Montenegro have hosted one, and our partners in Kenya and South Africa have done the same. Lately, movie nights have been happening more and more frequently, which is exciting.

It's still early—after all, Bitcoin is only 16 years old, so the selection of Bitcoin movies is still relatively small. Many of these films haven’t had large budgets or massive talent pools yet, but that’s changing. Right now, we’re primarily focused on showing films within the Bitcoin community rather than creating films aimed at the general public. That said, those kinds of projects are also emerging. I’m optimistic about the growth of Bitcoin cinema—better storytelling, AI-driven advancements, increasing interest from audiences, and even sponsors willing to invest in filmmakers. Big things are coming, and while we already have some great Bitcoin films, the best is yet to come. We’re still in the early days, and this is the time to contribute and help shape the future of Bitcoin cinema.

YakiHonne:We’ve come to the end of today’s interview, and I’ve truly enjoyed every moment of it. I’m very sure your idea will be incredibly engaging, inspiring more people and attracting a broad audience. Thank you so much for your time today—it was a great conversation.

@ 04ea4f83:210e1713

In nicht allzu vielen Jahren wird die Zahl der Bitcoiner in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika zehn Millionen überschreiten. Wenn wir diesen Meilenstein erreichen, ist das Spiel vorbei: Bitcoin gewinnt.

Mein Lieblingsautor und -denker, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, schrieb in seinem Buch Skin in the Game über "die unnachgiebige Minderheit". Das Konzept funktioniert folgendermaßen: Auf fast allen verpackten Lebensmitteln, die in den USA verkauft werden, ist außen ein kleines U in einem Kreis aufgedruckt. Nur sehr wenige US-Bürger benötigen die durch dieses U gekennzeichnete Koscher-Zertifizierung, aber für die Lebensmittelhersteller ist es einfacher, nicht für jedes Produkt zwei separate Versionen zu produzieren, so dass sie im Allgemeinen alles koscher machen. Nach Taleb gilt die Regel: „Ein koscherer Esser wird niemals nicht-koschere Lebensmittel essen, aber einem nicht-koscheren Esser ist es nicht verboten, koscher zu essen."

„Bei den meisten beobachteten komplexen Systemen liegt der Anteil der Minderheit, der erforderlich ist, um die Bevölkerung von ihrer unnachgiebigen Meinung abzubringen, in der Größenordnung von 3 bis 4%. Bei einer US-Bevölkerung von 325 Millionen sind 3% 10 Millionen." - Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Ein Fintech-Fonds, der seit 2012 im Bitcoin-Bereich tätig ist, hat kürzlich eine intensive Analyse durchgeführt, die zur besten Schätzung des Bitcoin-Besitzes geführt hat, die ich kenne. Nur 7 Millionen Menschen weltweit haben einen Wert von 100 Dollar oder mehr im Bitcoin-Protokoll gespeichert. Um die Zahlen zu runden, nehmen wir an, dass die Hälfte dieser Menschen in den USA lebt und dass ein Siebtel von ihnen einen höheren Wert als $2500 in BTC speichert. Das sind gerade einmal 500.000 US-Bürger mit einer bedeutenden Menge an Bitcoin. Und wie viel Prozent davon verstehen und interessieren sich tatsächlich so sehr für Bitcoin, dass sie dafür kämpfen würden? Lass uns großzügig sein und sagen wir 20%.

Es gibt ungefähr 100.000 Bitcoiner in den Vereinigten Staaten. Das bedeutet, dass wir eine 100-fache Steigerung benötigen, um das Niveau einer "unnachgiebigen Minderheit" zu erreichen. Das ist der Grund, warum die Akzeptanz alle anderen Prioritäten für Bitcoin dominiert.

„Bitcoiner haben bereits so viele potentielle Angriffsvektoren ausgeschaltet und so viel FUD gehandhabt, dass es nicht mehr viel Abwärtsrisiko für Bitcoin gibt." - Cory Klippsten

Ein weiteres Konzept, auf das sich Taleb in den fünf Bänden seines Incerto bezieht, ist: Schütze dich vor dem Abwärtsrisiko. Bitcoiner haben bereits so viele potentielle Angriffsvektoren ausgeschaltet und so viel FUD gehandhabt, dass es nicht mehr viel Abwärtsrisiko für Bitcoin gibt. Aber es gibt ein gewisses Risiko, egal ob man es mit unter 1%, unter 10% oder mehr beziffert. Und der bei weitem bedrohlichste Angriffsvektor wäre meiner Meinung nach eine konzertierte Aktion der US-Regierung auf vielen Ebenen, die versucht, Bitcoin auszurotten, um die Hegemonie des Dollars auf der ganzen Welt zu erhalten.

Um es klar zu sagen: Bitcoin würde selbst den konzertiertesten und bösartigsten Angriff der US-Regierung überleben. Er könnte sogar gedeihen, im Stil von Antifragile (ein weiteres Buch von Taleb), mit Menschen auf der ganzen Welt, die massenhaft Sats kaufen, wenn sie sehen, wie der frühere Hegemon ausschlägt. Es könnte aber auch anders kommen, mit einem massiven Rückgang der Netzwerkaktivität und des gespeicherten Wertes, mit Tausenden von Menschenleben, die irreparabel gestört werden, und mit einer Verzögerung unserer leuchtend orangenen Zukunft um Jahrzehnte oder länger.

Das ist für mich nicht hinnehmbar. Deshalb habe ich mein Leben der Rekrutierung der anderen 99% unserer unnachgiebigen Bitcoiner-Minderheit hier in den Vereinigten Staaten gewidmet. Es gibt bereits 100.000 von uns. Helfe mit, die anderen 9,9 Millionen zu rekrutieren.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

High-Level Overview

Bitcoin developers are currently debating a proposed change to how Bitcoin Core handles the OP_RETURN opcode — a mechanism that allows users to insert small amounts of data into the blockchain. Specifically, the controversy revolves around removing built-in filters that limit how much data can be stored using this feature (currently capped at 80 bytes).

Summary of Both Sides

Position A: Remove OP_RETURN Filters

Advocates: nostr:npub1ej493cmun8y9h3082spg5uvt63jgtewneve526g7e2urca2afrxqm3ndrm, nostr:npub12rv5lskctqxxs2c8rf2zlzc7xx3qpvzs3w4etgemauy9thegr43sf485vg, nostr:npub17u5dneh8qjp43ecfxr6u5e9sjamsmxyuekrg2nlxrrk6nj9rsyrqywt4tp, others

Arguments: - Ineffectiveness of filters: Filters are easily bypassed and do not stop spam effectively. - Code simplification: Removing arbitrary limits reduces code complexity. - Permissionless innovation: Enables new use cases like cross-chain bridges and timestamping without protocol-level barriers. - Economic regulation: Fees should determine what data gets added to the blockchain, not protocol rules.

Position B: Keep OP_RETURN Filters

Advocates: nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk, nostr:npub1s33sw6y2p8kpz2t8avz5feu2n6yvfr6swykrnm2frletd7spnt5qew252p, nostr:npub1wnlu28xrq9gv77dkevck6ws4euej4v568rlvn66gf2c428tdrptqq3n3wr, others

Arguments: - Historical intent: Satoshi included filters to keep Bitcoin focused on monetary transactions. - Resource protection: Helps prevent blockchain bloat and abuse from non-financial uses. - Network preservation: Protects the network from being overwhelmed by low-value or malicious data. - Social governance: Maintains conservative changes to ensure long-term robustness.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths of Removing Filters

• Encourages decentralized innovation.
• Simplifies development and maintenance.
• Maintains ideological purity of a permissionless system.

Weaknesses of Removing Filters

• Opens the door to increased non-financial data and potential spam.
• May dilute Bitcoin’s core purpose as sound money.
• Risks short-term exploitation before economic filters adapt.

Strengths of Keeping Filters

• Preserves Bitcoin’s identity and original purpose.
• Provides a simple protective mechanism against abuse.
• Aligns with conservative development philosophy of Bitcoin Core.

Weaknesses of Keeping Filters

• Encourages central decision-making on allowed use cases.
• Leads to workarounds that may be less efficient or obscure.
• Discourages novel but legitimate applications.

Long-Term Consequences

If Filters Are Removed

• Positive: Potential boom in new applications, better interoperability, cleaner architecture.
• Negative: Risk of increased blockchain size, more bandwidth/storage costs, spam wars.

If Filters Are Retained

• Positive: Preserves monetary focus and operational discipline.
• Negative: Alienates developers seeking broader use cases, may ossify the protocol.

Conclusion

The debate highlights a core philosophical split in Bitcoin: whether it should remain a narrow monetary system or evolve into a broader data layer for decentralized applications. Both paths carry risks and tradeoffs. The outcome will shape not just Bitcoin's technical direction but its social contract and future role in the broader crypto ecosystem.

@ 4d41a7cb:7d3633cc

Did you know that Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs), commonly known as "us dollars" are broken contracts? In fact FRNs started as dollar IOUs and then the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) defaulted on its debts and made the U.S citizens pay the bill: effectively stealing the privately owned gold.

The United States Dollar

It is not that the dollar was "backed by gold" as it is commonly said. The dollar was primally a measure of weight of silver and then a measure of weight of gold. Let see a little history about the U.S dollar.

What does the constitution says?

Article I, Section 8:

This section grants Congress the power "to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures."

Article I, Section 10:

"No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."

The United States government, by decree, created the dollar as measure of weight defined by the Coinage Act of 1792 as 371.25 grains (24 grams) of silver.

The 1794 silver dollar, known as the "Flowing Hair dollar," was the first silver dollar coin produced by the United States Mint. This was the original dollar! The were minted in $1, $0,5.

In 1795 the United States minted its first gold coins under the Coinage Act of 1792, which introduced the following denominations: $2,5, $5 and $10. The silver to gold ratio was fixed at 1:15, meaning 15 ounces of silver was the equivalent to one ounce of gold.

Individuals could bring silver bullion to the U.S. Mint and have it coined into legal tender.

## Coinage acts

The Coinage Act of 1834 adjusted the gold-to-silver ratio to 16:1 and and the weight of the gold coins because gold was undervalue and encouraging the melting and exporting of American gold.

The coinage act of 1837 defined the silver dollar as containing 412.5 grains of standard silver (90% silver and 10% copper) and it reinforced the legal tender status of these coins, ensuring their acceptance for all debts, public and private.

The Coinage Act of 1849 specifically addressed the introduction of new gold denominations in response to the California Gold Rush, which significantly increased gold supplies in the United States. The Act authorized the minting of a $1 gold coin, the smallest gold denomination ever issued by the United States. The Act also authorized the creation of the $20 gold coin, known as the Double Eagle.

The gold dollar coin contained 23.22 grains of pure gold or 1.505grams or 0.0484 troy ounces.

The Double Eagle contained 464.4 grains of pure gold or 30.093 grams, 0.968 troy ounces.

The coinage act of 1857 sought to establish a uniform domestic currency and reduce reliance on foreign coins, demonetizing every foreign coins as legal tender. This was also the beginning of the Flying Eagle cent, which was smaller in diameter and composed of 88% copper and 12% nickel. This centralized more the coinage in the U.S.

U.S Gold certificates

The Act of March 3, 1863, officially known as the National Bank Act, was a significant piece of legislation during the American Civil War aimed at creating a national banking system and establishing a uniform national currency.

This legislation allowed the U.S. Treasury to issue gold certificates, which served as a form of paper currency backed by gold. The introduction of gold certificates was primarily intended to facilitate transactions involving gold without the need for the physical transfer of the metal.

This was primary for large size comercial transactions or payments among banks.

1865 Series

"It is hereby certified that one hundred dollars have been deposited with the assistant treasurer of the U.S in New York payable in GOLD at his office in the xxx New York "

The coinage act of 1873 also known as the "crime of 1873" was the intent to demonetize silver by ceasing the minting of silver dollars which meant that citizens could no longer bring silver to the mint to be coined into legal tender. By stopping the production of silver dollars, the Act implicitly placed the U.S. on a gold standard, where gold, not silver, was the primary basis for currency. This had lasting economic effects, particularly on farmers and silver miners who preferred bimetallism (the use of both gold and silver as standards).

The Act was controversial, particularly in western and rural areas where silver was a significant economic factor. Many believed that the Act was passed to benefit creditors and large financial interests by adopting a gold standard, which tended to deflate prices and increase the value of money.

The coinage act of 1878, The Act mandated the U.S. Treasury to purchase a specified amount of silver each month, between two million and four million dollars worth, and to mint it into silver dollars. This marked a partial return to the use of silver as currency through the coinage of the standard silver dollar. The Act allowed for the issuance of silver certificates, which could be used as currency in place of actual silver coins, thus easing the circulation of silver-backed currency.

The Bland-Allison Act was passed against a backdrop of economic depression and agrarian unrest. It represented a compromise between advocates of the gold standard and those wishing to return to bimetallism.

1882 series

The 30 years of economic and political discourse between bimetallism supporters and gold only advocates finally ended in the 1900.

The Gold Standard Act of 1900

The Gold Standard Act of 1900 formalized the monetary system of the United States by establishing gold as the sole standard for redeeming paper money and effectively ending the bimetallic standard. It established that the gold dollar would be the standard unit of value, equating the dollar to 25.8 grains of gold at a purity of 90%. Silver certificates and silver coins remained in circulation but without the backing of free and unlimited coinage.

Let's remember that the dollar was still a measure of gold. The certificates where government IOUs for that gold that was deposited in the treasury of the United States.

1907 series of gold certificates:

## The Federal Reserve Act of 1913

The Federal Reserva Act of 1913 created a monopoly over the issuance of the American paper currency. This marked the privatization of the currency and a centralization of power like never before. More about this in another article.

But essentially the secret agenda of banksters was to issue IOUs without any restriction and make the United State Government responsible to redeem this paper currency for gold. And I will show you exactly how. Alfred Owen Crozier wrote a book in 1912 one year before the bill was passed analyzing and opposing it and made this same argument.

Federal Reserve Notes

A paper contract, a promissory note, an "I owe you x amount"

This paper currency issued by this private central bank were dollar IOUs contracts or promissory notes.

According to Black's law dictionary a Federal Reserve note is: The paper currency in circulation in the United States. The notes are issued by the Federal Reserve Banks, are effectively non-interest-bearing promissory notes payable to bearer on demand, and are issued in denominations of $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, $100, $500, $1000, $5,000 and $10,000.

NON INTERES BEARING PROMISSORY NOTES.

A promissory note is a written, unconditional promise made by one party (the maker) to pay a definite sum of money to another party (the payee) or bearer, either on demand or at a specified future date. It is essentially a financial instrument representing a formal commitment to settle a specified monetary obligation.

Key Characteristics of a Promissory Note:

1. Written Instrument: The promise to pay must be documented in writing.
2. Unconditional Promise: The promise to pay cannot be contingent on any external factors or conditions.
3. Definite Sum: The amount to be paid must be clearly specified and agreed upon in the note.
4. Payee: The note must designate the person or entity to whom the payment is to be made either explicitly or implicitly by specifying it as payable "to bearer".
5. Payable on Demand or at a Specific Time: The promissory note should indicate whether the payment is due upon demand by the payee or at a specific future date as agreed by the involved parties.

Promissory notes are commonly used in various financial transactions, including loans, business financing, and real estate deals, as they formalize the commitment to pay and can be enforced as a legal contract if necessary.

The Federal Reserve (FED) issued paper contract promising to be redeemable in gold. Most people never saw or understood the contract. Most never read it because the Fed cleverly hid the contract on the front of the bill by dividing it into five separate lines of text with a very different typeface for each line and placing the president's picture right in the middle. They even used the old lawyer's trick of hiding the most important text in small print.

Over time, the terms and conditions of the contract were watered down until they eventually became literally a promissory note for nothing. But let's analice how they did this step by step...

FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES: 1914 SERIES

Content of the contract:

Federal reserve note

The United States of America will pay to the bearer on demand: FIFTY DOLLARS

Authorized by federal reserve act of December 23, 1913

This note is receivable by all national and member banks and federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs and other public dues. It is redeemable in gold on demand at the treasury department of the United States in the city of Washington district of Columbia or in gold or lawful money at any federal reserve bank.

So if a dollar was 20.67 per ounce, $50 could be exchanged for about 2.42 ounces of gold.

FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES :1918 SERIES

Content of the contract:

Federal reserve note

The United States of America will pay to the bearer on demand: Ten thousand dollars

Authorized by federal reserve act of December 23, 1913, as amended by act of September 26, 1918

This note is receivable by all national and member banks and federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs and other public dues. It is redeemable in gold on demand at the treasury department of the United States in the city of Washington district of Columbia or in gold or lawful money at any federal reserve bank.

So if a dollar was 20.67 per ounce, $10,000 could be exchanged for 484.29ounces of gold.

Series of 1928

The great imitation

In 1928 the U.S government issued a new series of gold certificates payable to the bearer on demand.

The same year the Federal Reserve issued it's own promissory notes copying the us government gold certificate's design:

Content of the contract:

Federal reserve note

The United States of America

will pay to the bearer on demand: One hundred dollars

Reedemable in gold on demand at the United States treasury, or in gold or lawful money, at any federal reserve bank.

So if a dollar was 20.67 per ounce, $100 could be exchanged for 4.84 ounces of gold.

Here's all the denominations issued by the Federal Reserve back then:

This instrument was the facilitator of the Great depression, the inflation and deflation of the paper currency: as Thomas Jefferson warned long time ago:

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency first by inflation then by deflation the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered... I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.”

THE CONFISCATION OF GOLD

The end of the dollar and the replacement of gold and gold certificates by Federal Reserve Notes worthless paper currency.

Executive Order 6102, issued on April 5, 1933, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, forced everyone to exchange their gold and gold certificates for federal reserve notes at $20,67 FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES per ounce.

THIS WAS THE END OF THE DOLLAR. THE END OF THE GOLD STANDARD. THE END OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT. THE END OF FREEDOM. THE ABANDONMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES.

The Gold Reserve Act of 1934

This act further devalued the "gold content of the FRNs" and ended the redemption of gold certificates for gold coins. One ounce of gold was now "35 FRNs" in theory but this was not entirely true.

Lets analice the evolution of the Federal Reserve Notes.

Content of the contract:

Federal reserve note

The United States of America

will pay to the bearer on demand: One hundred dollars

THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AND IT IS REDEEMABLE IN LAWFUL MONEY AT THE UNITED STATES TREASURY, OR AT ANY FEDERAL RESERVE BANK.

So if a dollar was 20.67 per ounce, $100 could be exchanged for one hundred dollars of Lawful money?

They eliminated the gold clause from the contract. This contract is a lie, what is this redeemable for? U.S treasuries? Different denominations of FRNs? They changed the definition of lawful money. This was never money this was a broken contract and it gets obvious in the next series...

1963 Series

This series look like they did photoshop on the "payable to the bearer on demand" part that was below franklin in previous series.

Content of the contract now was

Federal reserve note

The United States of America

THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE.

ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS

Conclusion

Between 1913 and 1928 the dollar was gradually replaced by Federal Reserve Notes until in 1934 the gold standard was definitively abandoned. From that time the Federal Reserve Note became the "new legal tender money" replacing the dollar and slowly replacing silver coins too until in 1965 silver was definitively abandoned.

---

IT IS NOT THAT THE DOLLAR WAS “BACKED” BY SILVER OR GOLD.

Gold and silver were such powerful money during the founding of the United States of America that the founding fathers declared that only gold or silver coins can be “money” in America. Since gold and silver coinage was heavy and inconvenient for a lot of transactions, they were stored in banks and a claim check was issued as a money substitute. People traded their coupons as money or “currency.” Currency is not money, but a money substitute. Redeemable currency must promise to pay a dollar equivalent in gold or silver money. Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) make no such promises and are not “money.” A Federal Reserve Note is a debt obligation of the federal United States government, not “money.” The federal United States government and the U.S. Congress were not and have never been authorized by the Constitution for the united States of America to issue currency of any kind, but only lawful money – gold and silver coin.

It is essential that we comprehend the distinction between real money and paper money substitute. One cannot get rich by accumulating money substitutes; one can only get deeper into debt. We the People no longer have any “money.” Most Americans have not been paid any “money” for a very long time, perhaps not in their entire life. Now do you comprehend why you feel broke? Now do you understand why you are “bankrupt” along with the rest of the country?

@ 75869cfa:76819987

GM, Nostriches!

The Nostr Review is a biweekly newsletter focused on Nostr statistics, protocol updates, exciting programs, the long-form content ecosystem, and key events happening in the Nostr-verse. If you’re interested, join me in covering updates from the Nostr ecosystem!

Quick review:

In the past two weeks, Nostr statistics indicate over 225,000 daily trusted pubkey events. The number of new users has seen a notable decrease, with profiles containing a contact list dropping by 95%. More than 10 million events have been published, with posts and reposts showing a decrease. Total Zap activity stands at approximately 15 million, marking a 10% decrease.

Additionally, 26 pull requests were submitted to the Nostr protocol, with 6 merged. A total of 45 Nostr projects were tracked, with 8 releasing product updates, and over 463 long-form articles were published, 29% focusing on Bitcoin and Nostr. During this period, 2 notable events took place, and 3 significant events are upcoming.

Nostr Statistics

Based on user activity, the total daily trusted pubkeys writing events is about 225,000, representing a slight 8 % decrease compared to the previous period. Daily activity peaked at 18179 events, with a low of approximately 16093.

The number of new users has decreased significantly. Profiles with a contact list are now around 17,511, reflecting a 95% drop. Profiles with a bio have decreased by 62% compared to the previous period. The only category showing growth is pubkeys writing events, which have increased by 27%.

Regarding event publishing, all metrics have shown a decline. The total number of note events published is around 10 million, reflecting a 14% decrease. Posts remain the most dominant in terms of volume, totaling approximately 1.6 million, which is a 6.1% decrease. Both reposts and reactions have decreased by about 10%.

For zap activity, the total zap amount is about 15 million, showing an increase of over 10% compared to the previous period.

Data source: https://stats.nostr.band/

NIPs

Bulletin Boards

nostr:npub1gcxzte5zlkncx26j68ez60fzkvtkm9e0vrwdcvsjakxf9mu9qewqlfnj5z is proposing that A bulletin board is a relay-centric system of forums where users can post and reply to others, typically around a specific community. The relay operator controls and moderates who can post and view content. A board is defined by kind:30890. Its naddr representation must provide the community's home relays, from which all posts should be gathered. No other relays should be used.

Add NIP-101e: Workout Events

nostr:npub1xy54p83r6wnpyhs52xjeztd7qyyeu9ghymz8v66yu8kt3jzx75rqhf3urc is proposing a standardized way to represent fitness and workout data in Nostr, including: Exercise Templates (kind: 33401) for storing reusable exercise definitions, Workout Templates (kind: 33402) for defining workout plans, Workout Records (kind: 1301) for recording completed workouts. The format provides structured data for fitness tracking while following Nostr conventions for data representation.Many fitness applications use proprietary formats, locking user data into specific platforms. This NIP enables decentralized fitness tracking, allowing users to control their workout data and history while facilitating social sharing and integration between fitness applications.

NIP-47 client-created secret

nostr:npub1zk6u7mxlflguqteghn8q7xtu47hyerruv6379c36l8lxzzr4x90q0gl6ef is proposing a PR introduces two "1-click" connection flows for setting up initial NWC connections. Rather than having to copy-paste a connection string, the user is presented with an authorization page which they can approve or decline. The secret is generated locally and never leaves the client. HTTP flow - for publicly accessible lightning wallets. Implemented in Alby Hub (my.albyhub.com) and CoinOS (coinos.io). Nostr flow - for mobile-based / self-hosted lightning wallets, very similar to NWA but without a new event type added. Implemented in Alby Go and Alby Hub. Benefits over NWC Deep Links are that it works cross-device, mobile to web, and the client-generated secret never leaves the client. Both flows are also implemented in Alby JS SDK and Bitcoin Connect.

add B0 NIP for Blossom interaction

nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 describes a tiny subset of possible Blossom capabilities, but arguably the most important from the point of view of a most basic Nostr client. This NIP specifies how Nostr clients can use Blossom for handling media. Blossom is a set of standards (called BUDs) for dealing with servers that store files addressable by their SHA-256 sums. Nostr clients may make use of all the BUDs for allowing users to upload files, manage their own files and so on, but most importantly Nostr clients SHOULD make use of BUD-03 to fetch kind:10063 lists of servers for each user.

NIP-C0: Communi-keys

nostr:npub149p5act9a5qm9p47elp8w8h3wpwn2d7s2xecw2ygnrxqp4wgsklq9g722q defines a standard for creating, managing and publishing to communities by leveraging existing key pairs and relays, introducing the concept of "Communi-keys". This approach allows any existing npub to become a community (identity + manager) while maintaining compatibility with existing relay infrastructure.

A way for relays to be honest about their algos

securitybrahh is proposing a PR introduces NIP-41, a way for relays to be honest about their algos, edits 01.md to account for changes in limit (related #78, #1434, received_at?, #620, #1645) when algo is provided, appends 11.md for relays to advertize whether they are an aggregator or not and their provided algos. solves #522, supersedes #579.

nip31: template-based "alt" tags for known kinds

nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 is proposing that clients hardcoding alt tags are not very trustworthy. alt tags tend to be garbage in a long-enough timeframe.This fixes it with hardcoded rich templates that anyone can implement very easily without having to do it manually for each kind. alt tags can still be used as a fallback.

First draft of NIP-44v3

nostr:npub1gcxzte5zlkncx26j68ez60fzkvtkm9e0vrwdcvsjakxf9mu9qewqlfnj5z is proposing a PR addresses 3 main problems of NIP-44v2. First, It has a message size limit of 65Kb, which is unnecessarily small. Second, It forces the encrypting key to be the same as the event's signing key. Which forces multi-sig actors to share their main private key in order to encrypt the payload that would be later signed by the group. Decoupling singing and encryption keys, for both source and destination, is one of the goals of this version. And It offers no way to describe what's inside the encrypted blob before requesting the user's approval to decrypt and send the decrypted info back to the requesting application. This PR adds an alt description to allow decrypting signers to display a message and warn the user of what type of information the requesting application is receiving.

Notable Projects

Damus nostr:npub18m76awca3y37hkvuneavuw6pjj4525fw90necxmadrvjg0sdy6qsngq955

• Notes in progress will always be persisted and saved automatically. Never lose those banger notes when you aren't quite ready to ship them.
• Make your profile look just right without any fuss. It also optimizes them on upload now to not nuke other people’s phone data bills.
• You won't see the same note more than once in your home feed.
• Fixed note loading when clicking notifications and damus.io links.
• Fixed NWC not working when you first connect a wallet.
• Fixed overly sensitive and mildly infuriating touch gestures in the thread view when scrolling

Primal nostr:npub12vkcxr0luzwp8e673v29eqjhrr7p9vqq8asav85swaepclllj09sylpugg

Primal for Android build 2.1.9 has been released. * Multi-account support * Deep linking support * "Share via Primal" support * Bug fixes and improvements

Yakihonne nostr:npub1yzvxlwp7wawed5vgefwfmugvumtp8c8t0etk3g8sky4n0ndvyxesnxrf8q

YakiHonne Wallet just got a fresh new look!

0xchat nostr:npub1tm99pgz2lth724jeld6gzz6zv48zy6xp4n9xu5uqrwvx9km54qaqkkxn72

0xchat v1.4.7-beta release * Upgraded the Flutter framework to v3.29.0. * Private chat implementation changed to NIP-104 Nostr MLS. * NIP-17 and NIP-29 messages now support q tags. * You can swipe left to reply to your own messages. * Chat messages now support code block display. * Copy images from the clipboard. * Fixed an issue where underlined text in chat appeared as italic.

GOSSIP 0.14.0 nostr:npub189j8y280mhezlp98ecmdzydn0r8970g4hpqpx3u9tcztynywfczqqr3tg8

Several major bugs have been fixed in the last week. * New Features and Improvements * Zappers and amounts are now shown (click on the zap total) * Reactions and who reacted are now shown (click on the reaction numbers) * Multiple search UI/UX improvements * Undo Send works for DMs too * Undo Send now restores the draft * UI: Side panel contains less so it can be thinner. Bottom bar added. * UI: frame count and spinner (optional) * Relay UI: sorting by score puts important relays at the top. * Relay UI: add more filters so all the bits are covered * Image and video loading is much faster (significant lag reduction) * Thread loading fix makes threads load far more reliably * Settings have reset-to-default buttons, so you don't get too lost. * Setting 'limit inbox seeking to inbox relays' may help avoid spam at the expense of possibly * Fix some bugs * And more updates

Nostur v1.18.1 nostr:npub1n0stur7q092gyverzc2wfc00e8egkrdnnqq3alhv7p072u89m5es5mk6h0

New in this version: * Floating mini video player * Videos: Save to library, Copy video URL, Add bookmark * Improved video stream / chat view * Top zaps on live chat * Posting to Picture-first * Profile view: Show interactions with you (conversations, reactions, zaps, reposts) * Profile view: Show actual reactions instead of only Likes * Improved search + Bookmark search * Detect nsfw / content-warning in posts * Show more to show reactions outside Web of Trust * Show more to show zaps outside Web of Trust * Support .avif image format * Support .mp3 format * Support .m4v video format * Improved zap verification for changed wallets * Improved outbox support * Show label on restricted posts * Low data mode: load media in app on tap instead of external browser * Many other bug fixes and performance improvements

Alby nostr:npub1getal6ykt05fsz5nqu4uld09nfj3y3qxmv8crys4aeut53unfvlqr80nfm

Latest two releases of Alby Go, 1.10 and 1.11, brought you lots of goodies: * BTC Map integration for quick access to global bitcoin merchants map * Confirm new NWC connections to your Alby Hub directly in Alby Go! No more copy-pasting or QR code scanning * Support for MoneyBadger Pay Pick n Pay QR payments in over 2000 stores in South Africa

ZEUS v0.10.0 nostr:npub1xnf02f60r9v0e5kty33a404dm79zr7z2eepyrk5gsq3m7pwvsz2sazlpr5

ZEUS v0.10.0 is now available. This release features the ability to renew channel leases, spin up multiple embedded wallets, Nostr Wallet Connect client support, and more. * Renewable channels * NWC client support * Ability to create multiple Embedded LND 'node in the phone' wallets * Ability to delete Embedded LND wallets * Embedded LND: v0.18.5-beta * New share button (share ZEUS QR images) * Tools: Export Activity CSVs, Developer tools, chantools * Activity: filter by max amount, memo, and note

Long-Form Content Eco

In the past two weeks, more than 463 long-form articles have been published, including over 91 articles on Bitcoin and more than 41 related to Nostr, accounting for 29% of the total content.

These articles about Nostr mainly explore the rise of Nostr as a decentralized platform that is reshaping the future of the internet. They emphasize Nostr's role in providing users with greater freedom, ownership, and fair monetization, particularly in the realm of content creation. The platform is positioned as a counter to centralized social media networks, offering uncensored interactions, enhanced privacy, and direct transactions. Many articles delve into Nostr’s potential to integrate with Bitcoin, creating a Layer 3 solution that promises to end the dominance of old internet structures. Discussions also cover the technical aspects of Nostr, such as the implementation of relays and group functionalities, as well as security concerns like account hacks. Furthermore, there is an exploration of the philosophical and anthropological dimensions of Nostr, with the rise of "Dark Nostr" being portrayed as a deeper expression of decentralized freedom.

The Bitcoin articles discuss the ongoing evolution of Bitcoin and its increasing integration into global financial systems. Many articles focus on the growing adoption of Bitcoin, particularly in areas like Argentina and the U.S., where Bitcoin is being used for rental payments and the establishment of a strategic Bitcoin reserve. Bitcoin is also portrayed as a response to the centralized financial system, with discussions about how it can empower individuals through financial sovereignty, provide a hedge against inflation, and create fairer monetization models for creators. Additionally, the articles explore the challenges and opportunities within the Bitcoin ecosystem, including the rise of Bitcoin ETFs, the development of Bitcoin mining, and the potential impact of AI on Bitcoin adoption. There is also emphasis on Bitcoin's cultural and economic implications, as well as the need for decentralized education and innovation to drive further adoption.

Thank you, nostr:npub1ygzsm5m9ndtgch9n22cwsx2clwvxhk2pqvdfp36t5lmdyjqvz84qkca2m5 nostr:npub1rsv7kx5avkmq74p85v878e9d5g3w626343xhyg76z5ctfc30kz7q9u4dke nostr:npub17wrn0xxg0hfq7734cfm7gkyx3u82yfrqcdpperzzfqxrjf9n7tes6ra78k nostr:npub1fxq5crl52mre7luhl8uqsa639p50853r3dtl0j0wwvyfkuk4f6ssc5tahv nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx nostr:npub19mf4jm44umnup4he4cdqrjk3us966qhdnc3zrlpjx93y4x95e3uq9qkfu2 nostr:npub1marc26z8nh3xkj5rcx7ufkatvx6ueqhp5vfw9v5teq26z254renshtf3g0 nostr:npub1uv0m8xc6q4cnj2p0tewmcgkyzg8cnteyhed0zv30ez03w6dzwvnqtu6gwl nostr:npub1ygzsm5m9ndtgch9n22cwsx2clwvxhk2pqvdfp36t5lmdyjqvz84qkca2m5 nostr:npub1mhcr4j594hsrnen594d7700n2t03n8gdx83zhxzculk6sh9nhwlq7uc226 nostr:npub1xzuej94pvqzwy0ynemeq6phct96wjpplaz9urd7y2q8ck0xxu0lqartaqn nostr:npub1gqgpfv65dz8whvyup942daagsmwauj0d8gtxv9kpfvgxzkw4ga4s4w9awr nostr:npub16dswlmzpcys0axfm8kvysclaqhl5zv20ueurrygpnnm7k9ys0d0s2v653f and others, for your work. Enriching Nostr’s long-form content ecosystem is crucial.

Nostriches Global Meet Ups

Recently, several Nostr events have been hosted in different countries. * The first Bitcoin Meetup organized by Mi Primer Bitcoin was successfully held on March 14, 2025, at Texijal Pizza in Apaneca. The event included Bitcoin education, networking, a Q&A session, and merchandise distribution, offering an exciting experience for all participants.
* The Btrust Space discussion was successfully held on March 13, 2024. The event focused on how to support Bitcoin developers, fund open-source contributions, and grow the Bitcoin ecosystem. The speakers included Bitcoin core contributors, Btrust CEO, engineering leads, and other project leaders.

Here is the upcoming Nostr event that you might want to check out.

• The Nostr Workshop, organized by YakiHonne and Bitcoin Safari, will take place online via Google Meet on March 17, 2025, at 7:00 PM (GMT+1). The event will introduce the Nostr ecosystem and Bitcoin payments, with participants learning about decentralized technology through YakiHonne and earning rewards. Register and verify your account to claim exclusive rewards, and invite friends to unlock additional rewards.
• The 2025 Bitcoin, Crypto Economy, and Law FAQ Webinar will be held online on March 20, 2025 (Thursday) from 12:00 to 13:00 Argentina time. The webinar will be hosted by Martin Paolantonio (Academic Director of the course) and Daniel Rybnik (Lawyer specializing in Banking, Corporate, and Financial Law). The session aims to introduce the academic program and explore Bitcoin, the crypto economy, and related legal issues.
• Bitcoin Educators Unconference 2025 will take place on April 10, 2025, at Bitcoin Park in Nashville, Tennessee, USA. This event is non-sponsored and follows an Unconference format, allowing all participants to apply as speakers and share their Bitcoin education experiences in a free and interactive environment. The event has open-sourced all its blueprints and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to encourage global communities to organize similar Unconference events.

Additionally, We warmly invite event organizers who have held recent activities to reach out to us so we can work together to promote the prosperity and development of the Nostr ecosystem.

Thanks for reading! If there’s anything I missed, feel free to reach out and help improve the completeness and accuracy of my coverage.

@ 2ed3596e:98b4cc78

Our bounty program rewards Bitcoin Well Affiliates for making tutorials and Bitcoin Well walkthroughs. Make a video within our guidelines, share your post URLs (Youtube and X) and get paid over per video. 

Each month we’ll have new bounty tasks with different tutorials available for you to make and earn sats. Click here to submit a Bitcoin Well bounty. 

Bounty tasks and requirements for May 2025

For the month of May, the following bounty tasks will be available to approved Bitcoin Well Affiliates: 

1. Buy bitcoin on-chain (Canada) – 63,000 sats

2. Requirements:

   • Buy walkthrough process: homescreen → buy page → e-transfer Q&A explained → review order → on-chain delivery explanation

   • Voice over guiding through each step

   • Mention OTC for Large purchases over $100k. Mention and include booking link in video description 

   • Include affiliate webpage/referral link in video description 

   • Uploaded to youtube and X/Nostr 

3. Buy bitcoin via Lightning (USA) – 63,000 sats

4. Requirements:

   • Buy walkthrough process: homescreen → buy page → order form → bank funding and rate lock → order delivery expectations → confirm order 

   • Voice over guiding through each step

   • Mention OTC for Large purchases over $100k. Mention and include booking link in video description 

   • Include affiliate webpage/referral link in video description 

   • Uploaded to youtube and X/Nostr 

5. Pay bills on-chain (Canada) – 42,000 sats

6. Requirements:

   • Bill pay walkthrough process: homescreen →  bill page → add a bill → bill pay order form → explain static bill pay address → confirm and review order → time to fulfill

   • Voice over guiding through each step

   • Include affiliate webpage/referral link in video description 

   • Uploaded to youtube and X/Nostr 

7. Recurring bitcoin buy (USA) – 105,000 sats

8. Requirements:

   • Recurring Buy walkthrough process: homescreen → buy page → order form → funding → date and frequency selection → order delivery expectations → confirm order 

   • Voice over guiding through each step

   • Mention OTC for Large purchases over $100k. Mention and include booking link in video description 

   • Include affiliate webpage/referral link in video description

   • Uploaded to youtube and X/Nostr 

Please note that all requirements must be satisfied for a video to earn its bounty. Any questions about Bitcoin Well products details or bounty requirements can be directed to Konrad, Community Manager @ Bitcoin Well: k.fitz@bitcoinwell.com

Completed your bounty content and ready to earn your sats? Submit your bounty tasks here. 

@ 04cb16e4:2ec3e5d5

Wenn man etwas verkaufen will, muss man eine Geschichte über sein Produkt erzählen. Nur wenige können etwas damit anfangen, wenn du sagst: Unser Produkt enthält 50 Gramm Hafer (hoffentlich gentechnikfrei), 5 mittelgroße Erdbeeren, Spuren von Sesamschalen sowie einen Teelöffel Honig. So funktioniert das nicht. Dein Riegel braucht einen Namen und eine Geschichte.

Wenn wir über Krieg und Frieden sprechen, denn gibt es zumeist Zahlen, Fakten und Meinungen. Tausende von Kindern die in einem Krieg getötet werden sind eine schockierende Anzahl. Nimmst du die Zahlen weg und beschäftigst dich mit jedem einzelnen Schicksal, dann ist das unmöglich zu ertragen. Also kämpfen wir hier vor Ort, in Deutschland, zwar nicht mit Waffen gegeneinander, sondern mittels unserer Meinungen in Kombination mit zu vermittelnden relativen Wahrheiten. Da kommt das Ego ins Spiel. Wir wollen unbedingt Recht haben! Irgendeiner soll in diesem Meinungskampf am Ende als Gewinner dastehen. Weil er die besseren Argumente hat. Schließlich werden Emotionen mit Fakten vermischt und als Totschlagargumente in die Gegenfront geworfen.

Was aber, wenn man eine Geschichte über den Krieg erzählt, die jeden mitnehmen kann, ganz gleich, welche Meinung man zu den aktuell verhandelten Kampfschauplätzen hat? Alles Trennende wird aus der Erzählung herausgenommen und was bleibt, sind die zerstörerische Kraft des Krieges und die Verantwortung jedes einzelnen Menschen zu entscheiden, ob er dieses grausame Monster füttert oder eben nicht. In dem afrikanischen Märchen „Sheikhi“ basieren diese Entscheidungen nicht auf Fakten und Meinungen, sondern auf persönlichen Erfahrungen. Die Protagonisten nehmen uns mit in ihre Welt und lassen uns ihre inneren Kämpfe, Zweifel, Ängste und Hoffnungen miterleben. Wir können uns mit ihnen identifizieren, obwohl wir unter völlig anderen Bedingungen leben und sterben.

Hier kannst du das Buch direkt beim Verlag bestellen

Die alternative Buchmesse Seitenwechsel

Am Ende des Buches konnte ich gar nicht anders, als eine tiefe Sehnsucht nach Frieden und Einigkeit zu verspüren. Diese Sehnsucht basierte aber nicht mehr auf dem Bedürfnis, bessere Argumente als die vermeintliche Gegenseite zu haben, sondern vielmehr darauf, dass dieses verzweifelte Ringen und Hassen endlich zu einem Ende kommt. Nicht nur auf den Schlachtfeldern Asiens und Afrikas, sondern ebenfalls auf Facebook, X, den Straßen unserer Städte und im Krieg jedes Menschen gegen sich selbst. Inzwischen gelingt es mir immer öfter, mir einen bissigen Kommentar zu verkneifen, wenn jemand auf Facebook etwas schreibt, was ich unerträglich finde. Ich weiß, das ich ihn nicht vom Gegenteil überzeugen werde und das mein Kommentar das selbe Monster füttert, dass sich an den Opfern des Krieges satt isst.

Wenn es irgendwo Menschen auf der Welt gibt, die Mord und Folter verzeihen können, dann kann auch ich eine andere Meinung ertragen ohne rechthaberisch, arrogant und destruktiv zu werden. Notfalls gehe ich in den Wald und schreie.

https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/9x9anxqcuity7639/Sheiki.mp3

@ 79dff8f8:946764e3

Hello world

@ a012dc82:6458a70d

Argentina's journey through economic turmoil has been long and fraught with challenges. The country has grappled with inflation, debt, and a fragile economic structure that has left policymakers searching for solutions. In this context, President Javier Milei's introduction of the "Ley Ómnibus" represented a bold step towards addressing these systemic issues. The reform package was not just a set of isolated measures but a comprehensive plan aimed at overhauling the Argentine economy and social framework. The intention was to create a more robust, free, and prosperous Argentina, where economic freedoms could lead to broader social benefits.

The "Ley Ómnibus" was ambitious in its scope, covering a wide range of areas from tax reform to social policies, aiming to stimulate economic growth, reduce bureaucratic red tape, and enhance the overall quality of life for Argentines. This package was seen as a critical move to reset the economic compass of the country, aiming to attract foreign investment, boost local industry, and provide a clearer, more stable environment for businesses and individuals alike. However, such sweeping reforms were bound to encounter resistance, particularly when they touched upon sensitive areas like taxation and digital assets.

Table of Contents

• The Crypto Tax Proposal: Initial Considerations

• Public Backlash and Strategic Withdrawal

• The Rationale Behind Dropping Crypto Taxes

• Implications for Crypto Investors and the Market

• Milei's Political Strategy and Future Prospects

• Conclusion

• FAQs

The Crypto Tax Proposal: Initial Considerations

Within the vast array of proposals in the Ley Ómnibus, the crypto tax stood out due to its novelty and the growing interest in digital currencies within Argentina. The country had seen a surge in cryptocurrency adoption, driven by factors such as high inflation rates and currency controls that made traditional financial systems less attractive. Cryptocurrencies offered an alternative for savings, investment, and transactions, leading to a burgeoning crypto economy.

The initial rationale behind proposing a crypto tax was multifaceted. On one hand, it aimed to bring Argentina in line with global trends where countries are increasingly seeking to regulate and tax digital currencies. On the other hand, it was seen as a potential new revenue stream for the government, which was desperately seeking funds to address its fiscal deficits. The proposal also intended to bring transparency to a sector that is often criticized for its opacity, making it easier to combat fraud, money laundering, and other illicit activities associated with cryptocurrencies.

However, the proposal was not just about regulation and revenue. It was also a litmus test for Argentina's approach to innovation and digital transformation. How the government handled this issue would signal its stance towards new technologies and economic paradigms, which are increasingly dominated by digital assets and fintech innovations.

Public Backlash and Strategic Withdrawal

The backlash against the proposed crypto taxes was swift and significant. The crypto community in Argentina, which had been flourishing in an environment of relative freedom, saw the tax as a direct threat to its growth and viability. But the discontent went beyond the crypto enthusiasts; the general public, already burdened by high taxes and economic instability, viewed the proposal as yet another financial strain.

The protests and debates that ensued highlighted a broader discontent with the government's approach to economic management. Many Argentines felt that the focus should be on fixing the fundamental issues plaguing the economy, such as inflation and corruption, rather than imposing new taxes. The crypto tax became a symbol of the government's perceived detachment from the real concerns of its citizens.

In this heated atmosphere, President Milei's decision to withdraw the crypto tax proposal from the Ley Ómnibus was not just a tactical retreat; it was a necessary move to quell the growing unrest and focus on more pressing economic reforms. This decision underscored the complexities of governing in a highly polarized environment and the need for a more nuanced approach to policy-making, especially when dealing with emerging technologies and markets.

The Rationale Behind Dropping Crypto Taxes

The decision to drop the crypto tax from the omnibus reform package was not taken lightly. It was a recognition of the crypto sector's unique dynamics and the government's limitations in effectively regulating and taxing this space without stifling innovation. The move also reflected a broader understanding of the economic landscape, where rapid development and legislative efficiency were deemed more crucial than ever.

By removing the contentious clauses, the government aimed to streamline the passage of the Ley Ómnibus, ensuring that other, less controversial, reforms could be implemented swiftly. This strategic pivot was also a nod to the global debate on how best to integrate cryptocurrencies into national economies. Argentina's government recognized that a more cautious and informed approach was necessary, one that could balance the need for regulation with the desire to foster a thriving digital economy.

Furthermore, the withdrawal of the crypto tax proposal can be seen as an acknowledgment of the power of public opinion and the crypto community's growing influence. It highlighted the need for governments to engage with stakeholders and understand the implications of new technologies before rushing to regulate them.

Implications for Crypto Investors and the Market

The removal of the crypto tax proposal has had immediate and significant implications for the Argentine crypto market. For investors, the decision has provided a reprieve from the uncertainty that had clouded the sector, allowing them to breathe a sigh of relief and continue their activities without the looming threat of new taxes. This has helped sustain the momentum of the crypto market in Argentina, which is seen as a vital component of the country's digital transformation and economic diversification.

However, the situation remains complex and fluid. The government's stance on cryptocurrencies is still evolving, and future regulations could impact the market in unforeseen ways. Investors are now more aware of the need to stay informed and engaged with regulatory developments, understanding that the legal landscape for digital currencies is still being shaped.

The episode has also highlighted the broader challenges facing the Argentine economy, including the need for comprehensive tax reform and the creation of a more conducive environment for technological innovation and investment. The crypto market's response to the government's actions reflects the delicate balance between regulation and growth, a balance that will be crucial for Argentina's economic future.

Milei's Political Strategy and Future Prospects

President Milei's handling of the crypto tax controversy reveals much about his political strategy and vision for Argentina. By withdrawing the proposal, he demonstrated a willingness to listen to public concerns and adapt his policies accordingly. This flexibility could be a key asset as he navigates the complex landscape of Argentine politics and governance.

The episode also offers insights into the potential future direction of Milei's administration. The focus on economic reforms, coupled with a pragmatic approach to contentious issues, suggests a leadership style that prioritizes economic stability and growth over ideological purity. This could bode well for Argentina's future, particularly if Milei can harness the energy and innovation of the digital economy as part of his broader reform agenda.

However, the challenges ahead are significant. The Ley Ómnibus is just one part of a larger puzzle, and Milei's ability to implement comprehensive reforms will be tested in the coming months and years. The crypto tax saga has shown that while change is possible, it requires careful negotiation, stakeholder engagement, and a clear understanding of the economic and social landscape.

Conclusion

The story of Argentina's crypto tax proposal is a microcosm of the broader challenges facing the country as it seeks to reform its economy and society. It highlights the tensions between innovation and regulation, the importance of public opinion, and the complexities of governance in a rapidly changing world.

As Argentina moves forward, the lessons learned from this episode will be invaluable. The need for clear, informed, and inclusive policy-making has never been greater, particularly as the country navigates the uncertainties of the digital age.

FAQs

What is the Ley Ómnibus? The Ley Ómnibus, formally known as the "Law of Bases and Starting Points for the Freedom of Argentines," is a comprehensive reform package introduced by President Javier Milei. It aims to address various economic, social, and administrative issues in Argentina, aiming to stimulate growth, reduce bureaucracy, and improve the overall quality of life.

Why were crypto taxes proposed in Argentina? Crypto taxes were proposed as part of the Ley Ómnibus to broaden the tax base, align with global trends of regulating digital currencies, and generate additional revenue for the government. They were also intended to bring more transparency to the cryptocurrency sector in Argentina.

Why were the proposed crypto taxes withdrawn? The proposed crypto taxes were withdrawn due to significant public backlash and concerns that they would stifle innovation and economic freedom in the burgeoning crypto market. The decision was also influenced by the government's priority to ensure the swift passage of other reforms within the Ley Ómnibus.

What does the withdrawal of crypto taxes mean for investors? The withdrawal means that, for now, crypto investors in Argentina will not face additional taxes specifically targeting their cryptocurrency holdings or transactions. However, selling large amounts of cryptocurrency at a profit will still be subject to income tax.

That's all for today

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

NOSTR: croxroad@getalby.com

X: @croxroadnewsco

Instagram: @croxroadnews.co/

Youtube: @thebitcoinlibertarian

Store: https://croxroad.store

Subscribe to CROX ROAD Bitcoin Only Daily Newsletter

https://www.croxroad.co/subscribe

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

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

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

@ 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.

@ f1989a96:bcaaf2c1

Good morning, readers!

This week, we bring pressing news from Belarus, where the regime’s central bank is preparing to launch its central bank digital currency in close collaboration with Russia by the end of 2026. Since rigging the 2020 election, President Alexander Lukashenko has ruled through brute force and used financial repression to crush civil society and political opposition. A Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) in the hands of such an authoritarian leader is a recipe for greater control over all aspects of financial activity.

Meanwhile, Russia is planning to further restrict Bitcoin access for ordinary citizens. This time, the Central Bank of Russia and the Ministry of Finance announced joint plans to launch a state-regulated cryptocurrency exchange available exclusively to “super-qualified investors.” Access would be limited to those meeting previously defined thresholds of $1.2 million in assets or an annual income above $580,000. This is a blatant attempt by the Kremlin to dampen the accessibility and impact of Bitcoin for those who need it most.

In freedom tech news, we spotlight Samiz. This new tool allows users to create a Bluetooth mesh network over nostr, allowing users' messages and posts to pass through nearby devices on the network even while offline. When a post reaches someone with an Internet connection, it is broadcast across the wider network. While early in development, Mesh networks like Samiz hold the potential to disseminate information posted by activists and human rights defenders even when authoritarian regimes in countries like Pakistan, Venezuela, or Burma try to restrict communications and the Internet.

We end with a reading of our very own Financial Freedom Report #67 on the Bitcoin Audible podcast, where host Guy Swann reads the latest news on plunging currencies, CBDCs, and new Bitcoin freedom tools. We encourage our readers to give it a listen and stay tuned for future readings of HRF’s Financial Freedom Report on Bitcoin Audible. We also include an interview with HRF’s global bitcoin adoption lead, Femi Longe, who shares insights on Bitcoin’s growing role as freedom money for those who need it most.

Now, let’s see what’s in store this week!

SUBSCRIBE HERE

GLOBAL NEWS

Belarus | Launching CBDC in Late 2026

Belarus is preparing to launch its CBDC, the digital ruble, into public circulation by late 2026. Roman Golovchenko, the chairman of the National Bank of the Republic of Belarus (and former prime minister), made the regime’s intent clear: “For the state, it is very important to be able to trace how digital money moves along the entire chain.” He added that Belarus was “closely cooperating with Russia regarding the development of the CBDC.” The level of surveillance and central control that the digital ruble would embed into Belarus’s financial system would pose existential threats to what remains of civil society in the country. Since stealing the 2020 election, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has ruled through sheer force, detaining over 35,000 people, labeling dissidents and journalists as “extremists,” and freezing the bank accounts of those who challenge his authority. In this context, a CBDC would not be a modern financial tool — it would be a means of instant oppression, granting the regime real-time insight into every transaction and the ability to act on it directly.

Russia | Proposes Digital Asset Exchange Exclusively for Wealthy Investors

A month after proposing a framework that would restrict the trading of Bitcoin to only the country’s wealthiest individuals (Russians with over $1.2 million in assets or an annual income above $580,000), Russia’s Ministry of Finance and Central Bank have announced plans to launch a government-regulated cryptocurrency exchange available exclusively to “super-qualified investors.” Under the plan, only citizens meeting the previously stated wealth and income thresholds (which may be subject to change) would be allowed to trade digital assets on the platform. This would further entrench financial privilege for Russian oligarchs while cutting ordinary Russians off from alternative financial tools and the financial freedom they offer. Finance Minister Anton Siluanov claims this will bring digital asset operations “out of the shadows,” but in reality, it suppresses grassroots financial autonomy while exerting state control over who can access freedom money.

Cuba | Ecash Brings Offline Bitcoin Payments to Island Nation in the Dark

As daily blackouts and internet outages continue across Cuba, a new development is helping Cubans achieve financial freedom: Cashu ecash. Cashu is an ecash protocol — a form of digital cash backed by Bitcoin that enables private, everyday payments that can also be done offline — a powerful feature for Cubans experiencing up to 20-hour daily blackouts. However, ecash users must trust mints (servers operated by individuals or groups that issue and redeem ecash tokens) not to disappear with user funds. To leverage this freedom tech to its fullest, the Cuban Bitcoin community launched its own ecash mint, mint.cubabitcoin.org. This minimizes trust requirements for Cubans to transact with ecash and increases its accessibility by running the mint locally. Cuba Bitcoin also released a dedicated ecash resource page, helping expand accessibility to freedom through financial education. For an island nation where the currency has lost more than 90% of its value, citizens remain locked out of their savings, and remittances are often hijacked by the regime, tools like ecash empower Cubans to preserve their financial privacy, exchange value freely, and resist the financial repression that has left so many impoverished.

Zambia | Introduces Cyber Law to Track and Intercept Digital Communications

Zambia’s government passed two new cyber laws granting officials sweeping powers to track and intercept digital communications while increasing surveillance over Zambians' online activity. Officials insist it will help combat cybercrime. Really, it gives the president absolute control over the direction of a new surveillance agency — a powerful tool to crush dissent. This follows earlier plans to restrict the use of foreign currency in the economy to fight inflation, which effectively trapped Zambians in a financial system centered around the volatile “kwacha” currency (which reached a record low earlier this year with inflation above 16%). For activists, journalists, and everyday Zambians, the new laws over online activity threaten the ability to organize and speak freely while potentially hampering access to freedom tech.

India | Central Bank Deputy Governor Praises CBDC Capabilities

At the Bharat Inclusion Summit in Bengaluru, India, the deputy governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), Rabi Sankar, declared, “I have so far not seen any use case that potentially can solve the problem of cross-border money transfer; only CBDC has the ability to solve it.” Yet — seemingly unbeknownst to Sankar, Bitcoin has served as an effective remittance tool for more than a decade at low cost, fast speed, and with no central point of control. Sankar’s remarks follow a growing push to normalize state-controlled, surveillance-based digital money as a natural progression of currency. The RBI’s digital rupee CBDC, currently in pilot phase, is quickly growing into one of the most advanced CBDCs on the planet. It is being embedded into the government’s UPI payment system and offered through existing financial institutions and platforms. Decentralized alternatives like Bitcoin can achieve financial inclusion and payment efficiency too — but without sacrificing privacy, autonomy, or basic rights over to the state.

Tanzania | Opposition Party Excluded From Election Amid Financial Repression

Last week, the Tanzanian regime banned the use of foreign currency in transactions, leaving Tanzanians to rely solely on the rapidly depreciating Tanzanian shilling. Now, Tanzania's ruling party has taken a decisive step to eliminate political opposition ahead of October’s general elections by barring the CHADEMA party from participation under the pretense of treason against their party leader, Tundu Lissu. Law enforcement arrested Lissu at a public rally where he was calling for electoral reforms. This political repression is not happening in isolation. Last year, the Tanzanian regime blocked access to X, detained hundreds of opposition members, and disappeared dissidents. These developments suggest a broader strategy to silence criticism and electoral competition through arrests, censorship, and economic coercion.

BITCOIN AND FREEDOM TECH NEWS

Samiz | Create a Bluetooth Mesh Network with Nostr

Samiz, an app for creating a Bluetooth mesh network over nostr, is officially available for testing. Mesh networks, where interconnected computers relay data to one another, can provide offline access to nostr if enough users participate. For example, when an individual is offline but has Samiz enabled, their device can connect to other nearby devices through Bluetooth, allowing nostr messages to hop locally from phone to phone until reaching someone with internet access, who can then broadcast the message to the wider nostr network. Mesh networks like this hold powerful implications for activists and communities facing censorship, Internet shutdowns, or surveillance. In places with restricted finances and organization, Samiz, while early in development, can potentially offer a way to distribute information through nostr without relying on infrastructure that authoritarian regimes can shut down.

Spark | New Bitcoin Payments Protocol Now Live

Lightspark, a company building on the Bitcoin Lightning Network, officially released Spark, a new payment protocol built on Bitcoin to make transactions faster, cheaper, and more privacy-protecting. Spark leverages a technology called statechains to enable self-custodial and off-chain Bitcoin transactions for users by transferring the private keys associated with their bitcoin rather than signing and sending a transaction with said keys. Spark also supports stablecoins (digital tokens pegged to fiat currency) and allows users to receive payments while offline. While these are promising developments, in its current state, Spark is not completely trustless; therefore, it is advisable only to hold a small balance of funds on the protocol as this new payment technology gets off the ground. You can learn more about Spark here.

Boltz | Now Supports Nostr Zaps

Boltz, a non-custodial bridge for swapping between different Bitcoin layers, released a new feature called Zap Swaps, enabling users to make Lightning payments as low as 21 satoshis (small units of bitcoin). This feature enables bitcoin microtransactions like nostr zaps, which are use cases that previously required workaround solutions. With the release, users of Boltz-powered Bitcoin wallets like Misty Breez can now leverage their wallets for zaps on nostr. These small, uncensorable bitcoin payments are a powerful tool for supporting activists, journalists, and dissidents — offering a permissionless way to support free speech and financial freedom worldwide. HRF is pleased to see this past HRF grantee add support for the latest freedom tech features.

Coinswap | Adds Support for Coin Selection

Coinswap, an in-development protocol that enables users to privately swap Bitcoin with one another, added support for coin selection, boosting the protocol’s privacy capabilities. Coin selection allows Bitcoin users to choose which of their unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs) to spend, giving them granular control over their transactions and the information they choose to reveal. For activists, journalists, and anyone operating under financial surveillance and repression, this addition (when fully implemented and released) can strengthen Bitcoin’s ability to resist censorship and protect human rights. HRF’s first Bitcoin Development Fund (BDF) grant was to Coinswap, and we are glad to see the continued development of the protocol.

bitcoin++ | Upcoming Bitcoin Developer Conference

The next bitcoin++ conference, a global, bitcoin-only developer series organized by Bitcoin educator Lisa Neigut, will occur in Austin, Texas, from May 7 to 9, 2025. A diverse group of privacy advocates, developers, and freedom tech enthusiasts will convene to learn about the mempool (the queue of pending and unconfirmed transactions in a Bitcoin node). Attendees will learn how Bitcoin transactions are sorted into blocks, mempool policies, and how transactions move through time and space to reach the next block. These events offer an incredible opportunity to connect with the technical Bitcoin community, who are ultimately many of the figures building the freedom tools that are helping individuals preserve their rights and freedoms in the face of censorship. Get your tickets here.

OpenSats | Announces 11th Wave of Nostr Grants

OpenSats, a nonprofit organization supporting open-source software and projects, announced its 11th round of grants for nostr, a decentralized protocol that enables uncensorable communications. Two projects stand out for their potential impact on financial freedom and activism: HAMSTR, which enables nostr messaging over ham radio that keeps information and payments flowing in off-grid or censored environments, and Nostr Double Ratchet, which brings end-to-end encrypted private messaging to nostr clients, safeguarding activists from surveillance. These tools help dissidents stay connected, coordinate securely, and transact privately, making them powerful assets for those resisting authoritarian control. Read the full list of grants here.

Bitcoin Design Community | Organizes Designathon for Open-Source UX Designers

The Bitcoin Design Community is hosting its next Designathon between May 4 and 18, 2025, inviting designers of all levels and backgrounds to creatively explore ideas to advance Bitcoin’s user experience and interface. Unlike traditional hackathons, this event centers specifically on design, encouraging open collaboration on projects that improve usability, accessibility, and innovation in open-source Bitcoin tools. Participants can earn monetary prizes, rewards, and recognition for their work. Anyone can join or start a project. Learn more here.

RECOMMENDED CONTENT

Plunging Currencies, CBDCs, and New Bitcoin Freedom Tools with Guy Swann

In this reading on the Bitcoin Audible podcast, host Guy Swan reads HRF’s Financial Freedom Report #67, offering listeners a front-row view into the latest developments in financial repression and resistance. He unpacks how collapsing currencies, rising inflation, and CBDC rollouts tighten state control in Turkey, Russia, and Nigeria. But he also highlights the tools for pushing back, from the first Stratum V2 mining pool to Cashu’s new Tap-to-Pay ecash feature. If you’re a reader of the Financial Freedom Report, we encourage you to check out the Bitcoin Audible podcast, where Guy Swan will be doing monthly readings of our newsletter. Listen to the full recording here.

Bitcoin Beyond Capital: Freedom Money for the Global South with Femi Longe

In this interview at the 2025 MIT Bitcoin Expo, journalist Frank Corva speaks with Femi Longe, HRF’s global bitcoin lead, who shares insights on Bitcoin’s growing role as freedom money for those living under authoritarian regimes. The conversation highlights the importance of building Bitcoin solutions that center on the specific problems faced by communities rather than the technology itself. Longe commends projects like Tando in Kenya and Bit.Spenda in Ghana, which integrate Bitcoin and Lightning into familiar financial channels, making Bitcoin more practical and accessible for everyday payments and saving. You can watch the interview here and catch the livestreams of the full 2025 MIT Bitcoin Expo here.

If this article was forwarded to you and you enjoyed reading it, please consider subscribing to the Financial Freedom Report here.

Support the newsletter by donating bitcoin to HRF’s Financial Freedom program via BTCPay.\ Want to contribute to the newsletter? Submit tips, stories, news, and ideas by emailing us at ffreport @ hrf.org

The Bitcoin Development Fund (BDF) is accepting grant proposals on an ongoing basis. The Bitcoin Development Fund is looking to support Bitcoin developers, community builders, and educators. Submit proposals here.

Subscribe to newsletter

Apply for a grant

Support our work

Visit our website

@ c3ae4ad8:e54d46cb

Ingredients

10 oz frozen chopped spinach, thawed 2 TB butter, divided ½ small shallot, minced 1/2 cup crumbled feta cheese 6 large or 9 medium eggs 1 cup of heavy cream salt & pepper

Directions

Preheat oven to 350F. Grease a pie dish with 1 tablespoon of the butter.

In a skillet, add butter and saute the diced shallots and cook until slightly softened.

Place the thawed chopped spinach into a towel or paper towel and wrap it around the spinach into a ball and squeeze until you remove as much liquid as possible.

In a large bowl, crack in the eggs and add the cream, salt & pepper, then whisk until foamy and increased in volume. Fluff up the spinach with a fork and add it to the egg mixture. Add the crumbled feta and fold both in.

In the greased pie dish, and then pour the egg mixture and bake at 350 for 35-40 minutes. Let cool for 10-15 minutes before serving.

Reheating and leftovers The best presentation and clean cuts will come from chilling for several hours or overnight in the fridge. To reheat, place a serving onto a microwave-safe plate and cover with a paper towel and heat for 30-40 seconds. It's also great cold.

Makes 6-8 servings.

@ b8a9df82:6ab5cbbd

Last week at Bitcoin Investment Week in New York City, hosted by Anthony Pompliano, Jack Mallers walked in wearing sneakers and a T-shirt, casually dropping, “Man… I hate politics.”

That was it. That was the moment I felt aligned again. That’s the energy I came for. No suits. No corporate jargon. Just a guy who gets it—who cares about people, bringing Bitcoin-powered payments to the masses and making sure people can actually use it.

His presence was a reminder of why we’re here in the first place. And his words—“I hate politics”—were a breath of fresh air.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Anthony was a fantastic host. His ability to mix wittiness, playfulness, and seriousness made him an entertaining moderator. But this week was unlike anything I’ve ever experienced in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

One of the biggest letdowns was the lack of interaction. No real Q&A sessions, no direct engagement, no real discussions. Just one fireside chat after another.

And sure, I get it—people love to hear themselves talk. But where were the questions? The critical debates? The chance for the audience to actually participate?

I’m used to Bitcoin meetups and conferences where you walk away with new ideas, new friends, and maybe even a new project to contribute to. Here, it was more like sitting in an expensive lecture hall, watching a lineup of speakers tell us things we already know.

A different vibe—and not in a good way

Over the past few months, I’ve attended nearly ten Bitcoin conferences, each leaving me feeling uplifted, inspired, and ready to take action. But this? This felt different. And not in a good way.

If this had been my first Bitcoin event, I might have walked away questioning whether I even belonged here. It wasn’t Prague. It wasn’t Riga. It wasn’t the buzzing, grassroots, pleb-filled gatherings I had grown to love. Instead, it felt more like a Wall Street networking event disguised as a Bitcoin conference.

Maybe it was the suits.

Or the fact that I was sitting in a room full of investors who have no problem dropping $1,000+ on a ticket.

Or that it reminded me way too much of my former life—working as a manager in London’s real estate industry, navigating boardrooms full of finance guys in polished shoes, talking about “assets under management.”

Bitcoin isn’t just an investment thesis. It’s a revolution. A movement. And yet, at times during this week, I felt like I was back in my fiat past, stuck in a room where people measured success in dollars, not in freedom.

Maybe that’s the point. Bitcoin Investment Week was never meant to be a pleb gathering.

That said, the week did have some bright spots. PubKey was a fantastic kickoff. That was real Bitcoin culture—plebs, Nostr, grassroots energy. People who actually use Bitcoin, not just talk about it.

But the absolute highlight? Jack Mallers, sneakers and all, cutting through the noise with his authenticity.

So, why did we even go?

Good question. Maybe it was curiosity. Maybe it was stepping out of our usual circles to see Bitcoin through a different lens. Maybe it was to remind ourselves why we chose this path in the first place.

Would I go again? Probably not.

Would I trade Prague, Riga, bitcoin++ or any of the grassroots Bitcoin conferences for this? Not a chance.

At the end of the day, Bitcoin doesn’t belong to Wall Street from my opinion. It belongs to the people who actually use it. And those are the people I want to be around.

@ 2e8970de:63345c7a

Research out of China; they used ice lithography to fabricate 72 nm patterns on living tardigrades. The wild thing isn’t just that they “tattooed” tardigrades. It’s that tardigrades are so resilient, and focused electron beams so precise, that 40% of them survived and went about their lives after the procedure.

https://www.acs.org/pressroom/presspacs/2025/april/scientists-have-found-a-way-to-tattoo-tardigrades.html

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/968469

@ 8947a945:9bfcf626

Law of diminishing returns : ทำมากได้น้อย ซวยหน่อยขาดทุน

** หมายเหตุ บทความนี้มีเนื้อหาต่อเนื่องจาก “(TH) Why I quit : สาเหตุที่ผมลาออกจากที่(ทำงาน) ที่ (เคย) เรียกว่า”บ้าน” ใครยังไม่ได้อ่าน แนะนำให้ไปอ่านก่อนนะครับ

ผมได้ยิน คุณท็อป จิรายุส (คุณท๊อป บิทคับ) พูดคำว่า "Law of diminishing returns" ไว้ตอนแชร์มุมมองด้านการทำธุรกิจ ตอนนั้นผมไม่เข้าใจ แต่ผมรู้สึกว่ามันเป็นเจ๋งดี

สำหรับผม สรุปกฏนี้สั้นๆ คือ “ทำมากได้น้อย ซวยหน่อยขาดทุน”

กฏข้อนี้ว่าด้วยเรื่องการทำธุรกิจ พูดถึงปัจจัย 3 อย่าง - Fixed input คือสิ่งที่ไม่สามารถผลิตเพิ่มได้อีกในธุรกิจตอนนั้น เช่น จำนวนห้องตรวจในโรงพยาบาล, พื้นที่ที่ดินทำการเกษตร, ห้องเก็บสินค้า, จำนวนโต๊ะทำงานในสำนักงาน, ช่องบริการลูกค้าในธุรกิจบริการต่างๆ เป็นต้น ผมขอเรียกสั้นๆว่า “พื้นที่” - Variable input คือสิ่งที่สามารถเติมเข้ามาในธุรกิจได้ ปรับแต่งได้ เช่น แรงงาน เครื่องจักร พลังงาน - Marginal product คือผลลัพธ์ของธุรกิจ กำไรเพิ่มขึ้นหลังจากเพิ่ม variable input เข้าสู่ระบบ

ระยะของ law of diminishing returns

• Increased return (ทำเงินได้เยอะขึ้น) เมื่อป้อนแรงงานหรือเครื่องจักรเข้าสู่ระบบ ธุรกิจสามารถทำเงินเพิ่มขึ้นเนื่องจาก fixed input เดิมที่ถูกใช้สอยไม่เต็มที่ (underutilized) ถูกเติมเต็ม กรณีของรพ. คือมีห้องตรวจที่ว่าง ไม่มีหมอนั่งตรวจคนไข้ ห้องตรวจนั้นก็จะไม่สร้างรายได้ แต่เมื่อห้องนั้นมีหมอมานั่ง จะเปลี่ยนเป็นพื้นที่ที่ก่อให้เกิดรายได้ เมื่อห้องตรวจทุกห้องมีหมอนั่งครบ ถือว่าเต็มศักยภาพ ประสิทธิภาพการทำงานที่ดีตามมา
• Diminishing return (ทำมากได้น้อย) จุดของความพอดี (optimum point) คือจุดที่สมดุลพอดีของธุรกิจนั้น ทำกำไรได้เหมาะสม ไม่มากไม่น้อยจนเกินไป แต่ถ้ามองไม่เห็นจุด optimum นี้แล้วยังเพิ่ม”แรงงาน”เข้าไปอีก มันจะทำให้ ”พื้นที่” วุ่นวายเละเทะ ประสิทธิภาพในการทำงานลดลง
• Negative returns (ซวยหน่อยขาดทุน) ถ้ายังไม่หยุดเพิ่ม “แรงงาน” อีก สามารถนำมาสู่การขาดทุน

สรุปเป็นกราฟหน้าตาตามนี้ครับ

ทำไมมันถึงเป็นอย่างนั้น

ผมใช้โมเดลธุรกิจรพ.นี้เป็นตัวอย่างเลยนะครับ

ช่วงแรกที่สร้างรพ. ห้องตรวจมีไม่มาก จำนวนหมอและคนไข้สมดุลกันพอดี งานไม่หนักเกินไป การดูแลคนไข้มีประสิทธิภาพ รพ.เป็นที่ไว้ใจของคนในพื้นที่ มีชื่อเสียง ถูกบอกต่อ ทำให้จำนวนคนไข้เข้ามารับบริการมากขึ้น ต้องขยายพื้นที่รพ. สร้างตึกเพิ่ม รับบุคคลากรทุกระดับเข้ามาทำงานมากขึ้น จนเต็มพื้นที่ที่ดินรพ.ไม่สามารถขยายเพิ่มไปได้มากกว่านี้แล้ว เกิดสมดุลพอดี ทุกพื้นที่ถูกใช้งานเต็มศักยภาพ ประสิทธิภาพงานดีมาก

ผลการดำเนินงาน

ไม่เคยขาดทุน ผ่านช่วงวิกฤตต้มยำกุ้ง และ COVID ได้สบายๆ ฐานะทางการเงินแข็งแรง จ่ายปันผลสม่ำเสมอ ถ้าผมเป็นเจ้าของรพ.ผมจะ 1. สร้างระบบ 2. สร้างทีมผู้บริหาร 3. เน้นย้ำความสำคัญทำตามระบบ 3. Plan - Do- Check - Act เมื่อเกิดปัญหา

เพื่อให้ตัวผมสามารถถอยตัวเองออกมาจากตัวธุรกิจ คอยติดตาม monitor ทุกไตรมาส อย่างใกล้ชิด ไม่ทำอะไรเพิ่มไปมากกว่านี้

แต่สุดท้ายมันก็เกิดเหตุการณ์ทายาทรุ่นที่ 2 “ไม่เอา” นั่นแหละครับ มันทำให้วัฒนธรรมองค์กรเปลี่ยน ก้าวเท้าเข้าไปสู่ยุคตกต่ำ

บริหารแบบล้าหลัง ทำอะไรไม่สุด คิดว่าทำแล้วแต่จริงๆคือไม่ได้ทำ แก้ปัญหาไม่ตรงจุดสร้างปัญหากว่าเดิม

---

ตัวอย่าง

1. นโยบายการประหยัดพลังงานเพื่อลด carbon footprint

ฟังดูเหมือนจะดี แต่รพ.สื่อสารให้

รณรงค์ให้ปิดไฟ ... ปิดแอร์เมื่อไม่ใช้งาน ...

ผมว่าประโยคนี้มันคุ้นๆ เหมือนเคยได้ยินมามากกว่า 10 ปีแล้ว ... หรือผมเข้าใจผิดหรือเปล่าไม่แน่ใจ

รณรงค์แค่นี้แหละครับ เรื่องลด carbon footprint ไม่ได้เป็นการคิดอะไรใหม่ๆที่เหมาะกับยุคสมัย หรือสร้างอะไรที่จับต้องได้ (objective)

แต่สิ่งที่ทำสวนทางโดยสิ้นเชิงคือใช้พลาสติกแบบใช้แล้วทิ้ง (single use plastic) เป็นภาชนะหลักในการบรรจุอาหารของแพทย์ และผู้เข้าร่วมประชุมงานใหญ่ๆ มีเสียงเสนอแนะจากบุคคลากรทุกระดับว่าให้ทำเป็นบุฟเฟ่ต์ จานชามช้อนส้อมแบบปกติก็ได้ เสนอกันมา 5 ปี ก็ยังคงไม่่มีการเปลี่ยนแปลง ได้รับแจ้งลงมาว่าใช้ภาชนะพลาสติกมันประหยัดกว่า เอาเป็นว่ากล่องข้าวพลาสติกมีการใช้อย่างน้อย 1200 กล่องต่อเดือน … คาดว่าสมการการปล่อยก๊าสคาร์บอน (carbon emission) ที่ทีมผู้บริหารคำนวณ อาจจะซับซ้อนเกินความเข้าใจของผมก็ได้นะครับ

2. การตลาดที่ล้มเหลวและพาแพทย์ซวย

ทำการตลาดไม่เข้าเป้า “เหมือนจะ” ทำ digital marketing แต่ทำแค่โพสกราฟฟิคโปรโมชั่นภาพนิ่งลงสื่อโซเชียลทุกช่องทาง แล้วบอกว่านั่นคือ digital marketing

... แต่เดี๋ยวก่อนๆๆๆ ...

ผมจะบอกว่าการโพสมันเป็นแค่ 1 ใน 10 ของ digital marketing แต่รพ.เข้าใจว่าตัวเองได้เข้าสู่ digital marketing แล้ว

... จริงๆมันไม่ใช่เลยเว้ย ...

ผลลัพธ์คือไม่สามารถเปิดน่านน้ำลูกค้าใหม่ได้เลย ได้แต่ฐานลูกค้าเดิมที่มี brand royalty (แต่แนวโน้มลดลง)

แถมที่แย่ที่สุดคือทำการตลาดแพคเกจออกมาโดยไม่ปรึกษาแพทย์ก่อนว่ามันขัดต่อมาตรฐานการรักษาหรือไม่ กลายเป็นทำแพคเกจดึงดูดคนไข้เข้ามาใช้บริการ แต่การรักษาในแพคเกจขัดต่อมาตรฐานการรักษาของแพทย์

คนไข้ไม่รู้หรอกครับ คนไข้จะเอาตามที่มีในแพคเกจ เขาจ่ายตังค์แล้ว แต่ความซวยมันไปตกอยู่กับแพทย์

3. วางกลยุทธไม่เข้าเป้า

ทุกๆต้นปีทางผู้บริหารจะประกาศกลยุทธประจำปี ว่าในปีนั้นๆรพ.จะมุ้งเน้นพัฒนาด้านไหน รพ.นี้มีปัญหาที่เป็นงูกินหางมานาน มันส่งผลต่อประสิทธิภาพการทำงานของหมอและพยาบาล มีการเสนอแก้ปัญหาเรื่องนี้วนซ้ำซากมา 5 ปี แต่ไม่ได้รับแก้ไขจริงจัง (ผมขอไม่เล่านะครับ)

แต่กลยุทธประจำปี 3 ปีที่ผ่านมา พุ่งใส่ตัวบุคคลากร เน้นพฤติกรรมบริการที่ดีเลิศ ทราบมาว่ามีการลงทุนกับโครงการนี้หลักแสนหรือหลักล้าน มีการจัด workshop เชิญวิทยากรและ trainer จากบริษัทภายนอก (outsource) เข้ามาอบรม เป็นโครงการที่เน้นให้บุคคลากรทุกคนเข้าอบรม 100%

ผมมองว่าปัญหาที่เป็นราก (root cause) มันยังไม่ถูกแก้เลย เปรียบเทียบเหมือนฐานรากของอาคารที่มันโคลงเคลงๆไม่มั่นคงยังไม่ได้รับการแก้ไข แต่พยายามตกแต่งห้องด้วยวัสดุคุณภาพดีและเทคโนโลยีที่ทันสมัย … แต่พร้อมจะล้มลงมาได้ทุกเมื่อ

4. มีเสน่ดึงดูด partner ใหม่ๆ แต่ไม่เอาเอง

ในช่วง COVID ระลอกแรก มีผู้นำทางด้านธุรกิจโรงแรมในจังหวัดมานำเสนอโมเดลธุรกิจ “hospitel เปลี่ยนโรงแรมให้เป็นโรงพยาบาล” ด้วยศักยภาพของรพ.ที่มีบุคคลากรเพียงพอ และตัวโรงแรมที่นำมาเสนอมีห้องพักประมาณ 300 ห้อง เป็นโมเดลที่รพ.และโรงแรม win-win ทั้งคู่ แต่ทางผู้บริหารมองว่าไม่คุ้ม ปฏิเสธข้อเสนอนี้ ทำให้เสียโอกาสให้กับคู่แข่งคว้าตลาด blue ocean นี้ไป

ผมได้แต่เกาหัวตอนรู้เรื่องนี้ เพราะ 1. ช่วง COVID คนไข้น้อย พนักงานโดนลดชั่วโมงการทำงาน ได้เงินเดือนขั้นต่ำ ไม่ได้ OT 2. ทาง partner เสนอขอบุคคลากรเหล่านี้แหละ ไปช่วยงาน เรื่องสถานที่ทางโรงแรมเขามีแม่บ้าน ฝ่ายทำความสะอาดอยู่แล้ว 3. ทาง partner เสนอ profit sharing กับทางรพ. ถึงผมจะไม่รู้ตัวเลข แต่เชื่อว่ามันยุติธรรม

ผมก็ไม่รู้ครับ ว่าอะไรคือคุ้มสำหรับผู้บริหาร

5. Top down absolute power

ไม่ฟังข้อเสนอจากตัวแทนหมอ คนที่มีอำนาจการตัดสินใจไม่เคยเอาตัวลงมาคุยกับหมอแบบจริงจังเลย

1-2 ปีจะลงมาพบหมอทั้งรพ.ซักหนึ่งครั้ง สร้างภาพเก่ง พูดขายฝันสวนหรูถึงภาพที่เขาต้องการ สั่งการลงมา พอเกิดปัญหาตัวเองไม่ลงมารับผิดชอบ แต่อาศัยหน่วยข่าวกรอง(ที่ไม่รู้ว่ากรองอะไรเข้าไปบ้าง) ออกคำสั่งแก้ผ้าเอาหน้ารอดลงมาทีหลัง

แถมสั่งให้เงียบและหุบปาก

ครั้งหนึ่งมีคำสั่งออกมาไม่ชัดเจน จนพยาบาลทำงานไม่ได้ ตัวแทนพยาบาลต้องโทรมาหาผมเพื่อให้ผมช่วย

ผมรวบรวมข้อมูลทั้งหมดและพบว่าคำสั่งมีปัญหาจริงๆ ผมจึง chat line ลงไปสอบถามผู้บริหารเพื่อขอความชัดเจน

… ผ่านไปไม่ถึง 5 นาที หนึ่งในผู้บริหาร(คนที่แทงข้างหลังผมที่หาว่าผมมาตรวจคนไข้ VIP เขาช้า 5 นาทีนั่นแหละ)โทรหาผมทันทีคุยกับผมสั้นๆ ใจความว่า “คำสั่งนั้นเอาแบบเดิม ไม่ต้องแก้ และให้ผมเงียบๆซะ”... (ก็ได้วะครับ)

จุดเปลี่ยนที่ทำให้รพ.เข้าสู่ law of diminishing returns

ห้องตรวจทุกห้องของรพ. ถูกใช้จนเต็มศักยภาพ … เอาจริงๆคือล้นศักยภาพเสียอีก (over-utilized) บางแผนกมีเก้าอี้ดนตรี - หมอคนแรกหมดเวลาออกตรวจ - หมอคนต่อไปเดินเข้าใช้ห้องตรวจต่อทันที - ถ้าไม่ทันก็ต้องคว้าห้องตรวจที่ว่างพร้อมใช้งานก่อน - หมอทำการไล่ที่กันเอง - หมอบางท่านต้องใช้ห้องทำงานของพยาบาลเป็นห้องตรวจชั่วคราว

ห้องพักผู้ป่วยก็เช่นกัน บางช่วงเตียงเต็มจนไม่สามารถ admit คนไข้ได้

แต่จำที่ผมบอกได้มั้ยครับว่า คนที่เป็น top down absolute power ไม่เคยเอาตัวลงมาพูดคุยกับแพทย์เพื่อรับฟังปัญหาที่แท้จริงเลย รับแต่ข่าวกรอง(ที่ไม่รู้ว่ากรองอะไรเข้าไปบ้าง) ช่วงนึงมีคนไข้ complaint ว่ารอนั่งรอหมอนาน หมอมาตรวจช้า ผู้บริหารเลยพยายามจะแก้ปัญหา โดยการ monitor waiting time (ระยะเวลารอหมอ) หยิบยกเรื่องนี้ขึ้นมาเป็นวาระเร่งด่วนต้องรีบแก้ไข

แต่เขายังงงๆกับ concept waiting time อยู่เลยว่าจะนับตั้งแต่ตอนไหนถึงตอนไหน - Waiting time สั้นแปลว่าดี เพราะคนไข้ได้เจอหมอเร็ว - Waiting time นานแปลว่าไม่ดี เพราะคนไข้นั่งรอหมอนาน

เขาตีความจากตัวเลขครับ แต่เคยเอาตัวลงมาดูจริงๆหรือเปล่าว่าทำไมตัวเลขมันถึงออกมาไม่ดี

คำตอบคือ“ไม่” ครับ

หมอบางสาขามีความจำเป็นต้องไปดูคนไข้ที่อาการหนักใช้เวลารักษานาน ... หรือ ... รับปรึกษาจากแพทย์ต่างสาขา ... หรือ ... เป็นสาขาเฉพาะทางของเฉพาะทางอีกที ต้องใช้เวลาตรวจละเอียดตรวจนาน

มันเป็นกระบวนการทำงานของหมอ ที่หมอด้วยกันเข้าใจกัน

ส่วนคนเก็บข้อมูลก็นำเสนอไปทั้งอย่างนั้นโดยที่ไม่ได้วิเคราะห์อะไรเลย มันเป็นการกรองข้อมูลที่ไม่รอบคอบก่อนนำเสนอผู้บริหาร

สุดท้ายผู้บริหาร “โทษหมอ” ว่าไม่มีการบริหารเวลาทำงานที่ดีเพียงพอ ทำให้คนไข้รอนาน เขาสรุปกันดื้อๆแบบนี้เลยครับ

พอหนักๆเข้า “รอหมอนาน ต้องเพิ่มหมอ” season การรับสมัครหมอหลายตำแหน่งได้เริ่มขึ้น

แต่เดี๋ยวนะ ห้องตรวจมันแน่นจนแทบไม่มีที่ให้หมอนั่งทำงานแล้ว แต่เขาก็ไม่สนครับ รับหมอหน้าใหม่ๆมาเพิ่มเรื่อยๆ

ด้วย mindset ว่า "ต้องเพิ่มหมอ หมอจะได้เยอะขึ้น คนไข้จะได้ไม่ต้องรอนาน" และเชื่อว่าจะทำรายได้ให้รพ.มากขึ้น หมอหน้าใหม่บางท่านเข้ามาทำงานวันแรกถึงขั้นอยู่ในสภาวะ dead air คือไม่มีที่ให้นั่งทำงาน

“ทำมากได้น้อย” เริ่มต้น

คนไข้รพ.นี้ ส่วนใหญ่เป็นโรคซับซ้อน ต้องการทักษะและเวลาหมอเฉพาะทางแต่ละสาขาอยู่ดี ไม่ได้ทำให้ waiting time ดีขึ้น คนไข้ยัง “นั่งรอหมอนานเหมือนเดิม”

รายได้เริ่มลดลง ยอดคนไข้เริ่มลดลง รพ.พยายามแก้เกมโดยการเพิ่มราคาค่าบริการ (เพิ่มขนาด ticket size) ทำให้มีเสียงรีวิวตามโซเชียลว่า "แพง"

ผลที่เกิดขึ้นคือคนไข้หลายคนอาศัยรพ.นี้ในการตรวจวินิจฉัยโรคแล้วเอาผลไปรักษาต่อรพ.รัฐบาลตามสิทธิ์เพราะสู้ราคาค่ารักษาไม่ไหว บางคนมีประกันสุขภาพหลายฉบับแต่ก็ต้องจ่ายส่วนต่างมากอยู่ดี

วิธีการข้างต้นนี้ ไม่ผิดกติกาครับ ผล X-ray , CT, MRI, ultrasound จากรพ.เอกชน ไวกว่ารพ.รัฐบาลอยู่แล้ว แต่ก็มีคนไข้บางส่วนยินดีจ่ายแพง เพราะเชื่อมั่นหมอที่รพ.นี้ไม่อยากย้ายรพ.ก็มีครับ เพราะหมอไม่ได้ทำอะไรผิด หมอเก่งๆมีเยอะ

ถึงแม้ว่ารพ.จะรักษา momentum มีจำนวนคนไข้ประมาณ 1100 - 1200 รายต่อวัน แต่ก็เป็นโรคง่ายๆ(simple disease) เช่นไข้หวัด อาหารเป็นพิษ เป็นต้น โรคเหล่านี้ ticket size ไม่ได้ใหญ่มาก ประคองไว้ไม่ให้ขาดทุนเท่านั้นครับ

แต่ความแพงแบบไม่สมเหตุสมผล ทำให้คนไข้หลายรายถอดใจย้ายรพ.ตั้งแต่ทราบค่าใช้จ่ายวินาทีแรก

คนไข้น้อยลง --> รายได้ลดลง --> เพิ่ม ticket size ต่อหัวให้แพงขึ้น --> คนไข้หนีเพราะแพงเกิน

ผมไม่รู้ว่าผู้บริหารเขาเห็นไหม แต่คาดว่าคงจะไม่เห็น

ส่วนโรคหรือการผ่าตัดที่สมศักดิ์ศรีกับศักยภาพของรพ. "น้อยมากจนแทบไม่มี" ไม่ใช่สาเหตุอื่นเลยครับ โดนรพ.คู่แข่งในรัศมี 20 กิโลเมตรเอาไปหมด เพราะราคาถูกกว่า หมอก็เก่งไม่แพ้กัน หมอบางคนเคยอยู่ที่รพ.แห่งนี้ เสนอโปรเจคการรักษาโรคบางโรคที่สามารถสร้างรายได้เป็นกอบเป็นกำ แต่ทางรพ.ไม่เอาเอง สุดท้ายหมอเหล่านั้นย้ายไปอยู่กับรพ.คู่แข่งและผลักดันโปรเจคเหล่านั้นสำเร็จจนมีชื่อเสียง

"รพ.ขายสินค้า premium ไม่ได้เลย ขายได้แต่สินค้าเกรดท้องตลาด"

กลยุทธที่รพ.ทำต่อมาคือเพิ่มจำนวนชั่วโมงการทำงานของหมอให้เพิ่มขึ้นโดยให้หมอมาทำงานเร็วขึ้น 2 ชม. แต่ไม่จ่าย OT ให้ ด้วยตรรกะว่าถ้าหมอทำงานนานขึ้น จะมีจำนวนคนไข้มากขึ้น ทางรพ.ไม่ได้ขอร้อง แต่บีบคอให้หมอร่วมมือ หากไม่ร่วมมือไล่ออกทันที

ไปๆมาๆ มีการไล่ออกกระทันหันเกิดขึ้น มีการส่งหนังสือส่วนตัวหาหมอทุกคน ใครมีรายชื่อที่จะปลดออกก็ต้องออกจากงานทันที

ผมมองว่าฐานะทางการเงินมีปัญหารุนแรงครับ เงินเดือนพนักงานถือเป็น fixed cost ที่ธุรกิจต้องแบกรับ ถ้าเจ๋งจริงต้องควบคุมรายจ่ายให้ธุรกิจสามารถไปต่อได้โดยไม่ปลดคน ในส่วนของธุรกิจรพ. หมอคือบุคคลากรที่สำคัญที่สุดและเป็นด่านสุดท้ายที่จะไล่ออกเพื่อรักษาชีวิตของธุรกิจ ตอนนี้รพ.ได้เข้าสู่ระยะสุดท้ายของ law of diminishing returns คือ “ซวยหน่อยขาดทุน” เป็นที่เรียบร้อยครับ

จุดจบของรพ.แบบนี้ ที่ศักยภาพดี แต่บริหารห่วยแตก มันจะจบด้วยการถูก take over ผ่านมาไม่นานกราฟหุ้นออกอาการ exit liquidity แล้วครับ

ข้อคิดที่อยากแบ่งปันกับทุกคนที่อ่านมาจนจบ

1. ช่วงธุรกิจเปลี่ยนผ่านสู่ทายาท คือจุดวัดใจหัวเลี้ยวหัวต่อว่าจะรอดหรือไม่รอด
2. Law of diminishing returns ไม่ได้ใช้เฉพาะกับธุรกิจ แต่สามารถประยุกต์ใช้กับการดำเนินชีวิตได้หลายมิติ หากใครเข้าใจ จะขยับเข้าสู่ Pareto’s rule … สั้นๆคือ ทำน้อยแต่ได้(โคตร)มาก
3. เจ้าของธุรกิจ ต้องหูไว มองหาเนื้อร้ายที่คอยกัดกินธุรกิจให้เจอ แล้วกำจัดมันซะ ก่อนที่ธุรกิจจะล้มทั้งยืน ทับตัวเองตาย

@ 7776c32d:45558888

I've edited this post to remove the spam. nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqamkcvk5k8g730e2j6atadp6mxk7z4aaxc7cnwrlkclx79z4tzygqy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq3jamnwvaz7tmswfjk66t4d5h8qunfd4skctnwv46z7qpqyrvezvufls3mrzc0att0vw0kw2pavu9pqlfzzrjtph5jrcnm28dqf26e23

@ 7776c32d:45558888

The nostr:npub12vkcxr0luzwp8e673v29eqjhrr7p9vqq8asav85swaepclllj09sylpugg Android app will no longer load anything for me at all, as of today.

Much worse and harder to fix, they have added a "delete" feature before fixing the "advanced search" functionality for my account. They also haven't given me any answers on the topic since nostr:npub1zga04e73s7ard4kaektaha9vckdwll3y8auztyhl3uj764ua7vrqc7ppvc told me he "couldn't repro" and left it at that.

The so-called "delete" feature is of course not actually able to reliably delete posts from nostr. It will probably hide posts from Primal's so-called "advanced search" but a more honest "hide post from Primal users and remove Primal's infrastructure from efforts to publicly preserve it" button would be more embarrassing for a VC-funded corporatist nostr app to implement.

This means the "advanced search" will never be reliable for me, when it was one of the most essential features I paid over a million sats for, the day Primal "legends" launched. Despite me being a day-1 subscriber, Primal spent the first several months ignoring my posts on the topic and keeping me blocked from search functionality to make it harder for me to use this feature to help find evidence in disputes, as I paid to be able to do; and now they've added post deletions before fixing it, so whenever they finally do "fix" it, I will still need to use a different tool in order to find posts others deny making, since this one allows the posts to simply be gone.

Being a Primal "legend" also no longer means you'll stand by your past statements and face scrutiny for them. Of course, it never did, since tons of Primal "legends" are high-follower npubs who have me muted. But at least their "legend" subscriptions meant they contributed to fund the infrastructure to help Primal keep posts forever, with no deleting.

Now, it seems like I'm the only one who had that intention. The really influential "legends" never wanted a permanent record to show their statements could face scrutiny. People like nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx + nostr:npub1rtlqca8r6auyaw5n5h3l5422dm4sry5dzfee4696fqe8s6qgudks7djtfs + nostr:npub18ams6ewn5aj2n3wt2qawzglx9mr4nzksxhvrdc4gzrecw7n5tvjqctp424 and others saw me trying to hold them accountable. I'm guessing at least one of them wanted to be able to block me from using search functionality, to make it harder for me to find my past conversations with them, or their past posts on a given topic. They seem like people who would be happy I was blocked from that functionality for a long enough time to roll out post deletions and make sure the issue could never really be fixed for me. Or maybe every high-follower npub is one of those people, since none of them have really helped me with this by reposting my posts about it or anything.

In the mean time, did they fund other projects that help ensure a controllable record?

Did any of my fellow Primal "legends" give a million sats to some other project to run a nostr search engine with the same filtering options, and a permanent record of past posts? No. There is no other nostr search engine with the same filtering options and a permanent record of past posts. I can't fund such a project alone.

Do I have a tool I can use to easily make backups of a list of npubs and search their posts locally, with the same kind of filtering options, on my own system? Also no.

My best bet for reviewing my past interactions with an npub is now the list of all interactions in jumble.social which takes a while to dig through, but it's a welcome addition to nostr. Much better than nothing. Nostr.band is still my best bet for finding a given npub's past posts on a given topic.

Where are posts being stored forever right now? Hopefully more than enough relays, but apparently not Primal's. Maybe not enough overall.

My guess is, some posts will continue to end up being lost forever, or too obfuscated to find with whatever search tools I have available. Sometimes, these will probably be disputed posts that the original posters deny making, and I wouldn't be surprised if one of those posters turned out to be a so-called "Primal legend" - which isn't what those words were supposed to mean when I paid a million sats for permanent post archival and search access on a decentralized, censorship-resistant social media app.

Of course, the number 1 reason I paid for Primal "legends" was to make it more embarrassing for them to censor me. At the time, it seemed like they were making the app's cache connection much slower and less reliable for me than other users, and silently filtering my posts and/or notifications for other users. I assumed they would find it too embarrassing to keep being so blatant about this, and that has worked so far. They clearly still target me, perhaps as intensely as before, but not as blatantly.

@ 1c19eb1a:e22fb0bc

It's been barely two years since I joined Nostr on my main npub, nostr:npub1kun5628raxpm7usdkj62z2337hr77f3ryrg9cf0vjpyf4jvk9r9smv3lhe, and in just that relatively short time, the amount of development on top of this protocol has been staggering. When nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m first opened the floodgates of adoption by tweeting about Nostr, it felt like most of the available clients were barely serviceable and held together with a prayer and copious amounts of duct tape. Of course, it can sometimes still feel that way, but there are definitely some Nostr apps looking and feeling more polished and providing true innovation when compared with legacy social platforms. Indeed, there are a growing number of Nostr-based applications and tools that have very little to do with social media at all.

One thing we have not had available to the growing Nostr community, and those considering joining it, is a source for application reviews that is thorough, approachable, knowledgeable, and balanced. This is what I hope to begin to provide through this new npub dedicated to reviewing as many of the Nostr clients, apps, and tools as I possibly can, so you the reader can determine which ones will fit your needs, and perhaps help you find new ones you had never heard about.

One of the best parts about Nostr is the portability of your identity and social graph, allowing users to log into any Nostr-based application with their same "account" without some centralized tech giant like Google or Apple owning who you are and all of your data. Leverage this super-power of Nostr with me as we explore the best applications and tools the intrepid developers building on this platform have cooked up.

What will you review?

My choice of applications to review will be based on a few factors.

First, I will only be reviewing applications that have a production release, or are otherwise considered production ready by the developer. nostr:npub1xtscya34g58tk0z605fvr788k263gsu6cy9x0mhnm87echrgufzsevkk5s, you won't have to worry that I will be putting NoteDeck under the microscope while it is still very much in alpha. All of us who love to try the new clients as soon as they are available understand well enough that there will be plenty of bugs, UI quirks, and rough edges to look past.

Second, I will generally be reviewing applications that are meant to be user-facing for the average person. That is, apps that your normie friends might soon be using, and then asking you why they can't edit anything they post. I will not be doing reviews of various relay implementations, for instance, unless they are designed to be approachable to the average user to install and manage. nostr:npub10npj3gydmv40m70ehemmal6vsdyfl7tewgvz043g54p0x23y0s8qzztl5h, your project might just be a notable exception.

Third, my reviews will be limited by the operating systems I have available to me at the time. Sorry folks over on iOS, Mac, and Windows. I will only be able to review apps I can run on Android, Linux, or my web browser for the time being.

How will the apps be rated?

I want to be thorough in my reviews, and yet avoid overloading my readers with information they don't care about. In order to attempt to achieve this, I will break my reviews into several sections, so readers can skip to the sections relevant to their interests.

First, I will provide a basic overview of the type of application I am reviewing, what it is trying to achieve, and why a user might want to try it out.

Next, I will give my overall impression of the application. The good, the bad, and the ugly, as it were, so that those who just want a brief rundown can get the TLDR right out the gate and be on their way.

Then we will begin diving into the nitty-gritty with an in depth look at the main features of the application. What it does well. What features seem lacking. What expected features are absent. What features make it unique and set it apart from other applications with a similar purpose.

For the sake of all the baby Nostriches out there, the next section will be an assessment of how approachable the application would likely be to a normie who is coming to Nostr with no idea what a public and private key are, what relays are, or why they might want to start interacting here instead of on a legacy equivalent. What would someone used to Twitter think of #Snort? What would someone used to Spotify think of #Fountain or #Wavlake?

The next section will be a review of the application's UI. The design and polish. How easy it is to find the things you want in the areas you would expect them. In short, how well the application achieves the goal of making the user feel at home and want to continue using the app just through quality UI design.

If you know me and my contstant harping on developers to include various forms of external signing, it should be no surprise to you that the next section will cover login options. What does the sign-in and sign-up flow look like, and does the user have to expose their private key to the application in order to use it?

A review of virtually any Nostr application would be incomplete without a section dedicated to zap integration. How prominent is zapping in the app? How easy is it to zap or start receiving zaps? Are zaps displayed in a way that encourages users to compete to be top zapper? Is Nostr Wallet Connect supported for using external wallets for one-tap-zapping?

Most Nostr applications, even "other stuff" clients, are designed to present some form of content to the user. The next section will cover how easy it is for the user to find the type of content they may be interested in, or to discover content they didn't know they might be interested in. For social clients, how easy is it to discover other users that they might want to follow?

The backbone of the protocol is the interplay between clients and relays, and the next section of the review will cover how the app manages relays. Are they hidden from the user? Are there sensible defaults? Can users who want to do so select the relays they prefer? Does the app respect relays the user has selected in other apps, or are the app's relays independent of those selected in other apps. Worse, does the app overwrite your selected relays with its defaults?

Finally, I will scour the #AskNostr feed for questions and comments from other users about the app under review to get more perspectives than just my own. What are the common pain-points other users are having? What do they love about the app? What features would they like to see added?

Are there other sections you would like to see me add before I start dropping reviews? Get them to me soon, because I am currently taking notes for my first review, which will be the #Primal #Android client!

PV 🤙

@ 4fe4a528:3ff6bf06

Bitcoin has emerged as a significant player in the financial markets, often drawing comparisons to traditional assets like stocks and gold. Historically, Bitcoin has shown a correlation with the S&P 500, reflecting the broader market trends. However, recent trends indicate a decoupling of Bitcoin from the S&P 500 and a growing correlation with gold. This essay explores the factors contributing to this shift and the implications for investors.

One of the primary reasons for Bitcoin's decoupling from the S&P 500 is the evolving perception of Bitcoin as a store of value rather than a speculative asset. As inflation concerns rise and central banks adopt expansive monetary policies, investors are increasingly looking for assets that can preserve value. Gold has long been regarded as a safe haven during economic uncertainty, and Bitcoin is increasingly being viewed in a similar light. This shift in perception has led to a growing correlation between Bitcoin and gold, as both assets are seen as hedges against inflation and currency devaluation.

Additionally, the increasing institutional adoption of Bitcoin has played a crucial role in its decoupling from traditional equities. Major corporations and institutional investors are now allocating a portion of their portfolios to Bitcoin, viewing it as a digital gold. This institutional interest has provided Bitcoin with a level of legitimacy and stability that was previously lacking, allowing it to operate independently of the stock market's fluctuations. As more institutional players enter the Bitcoin market, the asset's price movements may become less influenced by the broader economic conditions that affect the S&P 500.

Moreover, the unique characteristics of Bitcoin, such as its limited supply and decentralized nature, further differentiate it from traditional equities. Unlike stocks, which can be influenced by company performance and market sentiment, Bitcoin's value is driven by supply and demand dynamics within its own ecosystem. The halving events, which reduce the rate at which new Bitcoins are created, create scarcity and can lead to price appreciation independent of stock market trends.

In conclusion, the decoupling of Bitcoin from the S&P 500 and its coupling with gold can be attributed to a combination of factors, including a shift in perception towards Bitcoin as a store of value, increasing institutional adoption, and its unique characteristics as a digital asset. As investors seek alternatives to traditional assets in an uncertain economic landscape, Bitcoin's role as a hedge against inflation and currency devaluation is likely to strengthen. This evolving relationship between Bitcoin, gold, and traditional equities will continue to shape the investment landscape in the years to come.

Yesterday I fixed my neighbor's computer. He laughed at me for being into Bitcoin. We are still early.

@ 318ebaba:9a262eae

h1

h2

| Head | Head | Head | Head | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Data | Data | Data | Data | | Data | Data | Data | Data |

Speek your mind Ggggh

@ 62a6a41e:b12acb43

War is rarely (or if ever) the will of the people. Throughout history, wars have been orchestrated by political and economic elites, while the media plays a key role in shaping public opinion. World War I is a clear example of how propaganda was used to glorify war, silence dissent, and demonize the enemy.

Today, we see similar tactics being used in the Ukrainian War. The media spreads one-sided narratives, censors alternative views, and manipulates public sentiment. This article argues that wars are decided from the top, and media is used to justify them.

---

How the Media Glorified and Propagated WW1

The Media Sold War as an Adventure

Before WW1, newspapers and propaganda made war seem noble and exciting. Young men were encouraged to enlist for honor and glory. Posters displayed slogans like “Your Country Needs You”, making war look like a duty rather than a tragedy.

Demonization of the Enemy

Governments and media portrayed Germans as "barbaric Huns," spreading exaggerated stories like the "Rape of Belgium," where German soldiers were accused of horrific war crimes—many later proven false. Today, Russia is painted as purely evil, while NATO’s role and Ukraine’s internal conflicts are ignored.

Social Pressure & Nationalism

Anyone who opposed WW1 was labeled a traitor. Conscientious objectors were shamed, jailed, or even executed. The same happens today—if you question support for Ukraine, you are called "pro-Russian" or "anti-European." In the U.S., opposing war is falsely linked to supporting Trump or extremism.

Fabricated Stories

During WW1, fake reports of German soldiers killing babies were widely spread. In Ukraine, reports of massacres and war crimes often circulate without verification, while Ukrainian war crimes receive little coverage.

---

How the Media Promotes War Today: The Case of Ukraine

One-Sided Narratives

The media presents Ukraine as a heroic struggle against an evil invader, ignoring the 2014 coup, the Donbas conflict, and NATO expansion. By simplifying the issue, people are discouraged from questioning the full story.

Censorship and Suppression of Dissent

During WW1, anti-war activists were jailed. Today, journalists and commentators questioning NATO’s role face censorship, deplatforming, or cancellation.

Selective Coverage

Media highlights civilian deaths in Ukraine but ignores similar suffering in Yemen, Syria, or Palestine. Coverage depends on political interests, not humanitarian concern.

Glorification of War Efforts

Ukrainian soldiers—even extremist groups—are painted as heroes. Meanwhile, peace negotiations and diplomatic efforts receive little attention.

---

War is a Top-Down Decision, Not the Will of the People

People Don’t Want Wars

If given a choice, most people would reject war. Examples:

• Before WW1: Many workers and socialists opposed war, but governments ignored them.
• Vietnam War: Protests grew, but the war continued.
• Iraq War (2003): Millions protested, yet the invasion went ahead.

Small Elites Decide War

Wars benefit arms manufacturers, politicians, and corporate interests—not ordinary people. Public opposition is often ignored or crushed.

Manipulation Through Fear

Governments use fear to justify war: “If we don’t act now, it will be too late.” This tactic was used in WW1, the Iraq War, and is used today in Ukraine.

---

Violence vs. War: A Manufactured Conflict

Violence Happens, But War is Manufactured

Conflicts and disputes are natural, but large-scale war is deliberately planned using propaganda and logistical preparation.

War Requires Justification

If war were natural, why does it need massive media campaigns to convince people to fight? Just like in WW1, today’s wars rely on media narratives to gain support.

---

The Crimea Referendum: A Case of Ignored Democracy

Crimea’s 2014 Referendum

• Over 90% of Crimeans voted to join Russia in 2014.
• Western governments called it "illegitimate," while similar referendums (like in Kosovo) were accepted.

The Contradiction in Democracy

• If democracy is sacred, why ignore a clear vote in Crimea?
• Other examples: Brexit was resisted, Catalonia’s referendum was shut down, and peace referendums were dismissed when they didn’t fit political interests.
• Democracy is used as a tool when convenient.

---

VII. The Libertarian Case Against War

The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP)

Libertarianism is fundamentally opposed to war because it violates the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP)—the idea that no person or institution has the right to initiate force against another. War, by its very nature, is the ultimate violation of the NAP, as it involves mass killing, destruction, and theft under the guise of national interest.

War is State Aggression

• Governments wage wars, not individuals. No private citizen would naturally start a conflict with another country.
• The state forces people to fund wars through taxation, violating their economic freedom.
• Conscription, used in many wars, is nothing more than state-sponsored slavery, forcing individuals to fight and die for political goals they may not support.

War Creates Bigger Government

• War expands state power, eroding civil liberties (e.g., WW1's Espionage Act, the Patriot Act after 9/11).
• The military-industrial complex grows richer while taxpayers foot the bill.
• Emergency powers granted during wars rarely get repealed after conflicts end, leaving citizens with fewer freedoms.

Peaceful Trade vs. War

• Libertarians advocate for free trade as a means of cooperation. Countries that trade are less likely to go to war.
• Wars destroy wealth and infrastructure, while peaceful trade increases prosperity for all.
• Many wars have been fought not for defense, but for economic interests, such as securing oil, resources, or geopolitical power.

Who Benefits from War?

• Not the people, who suffer death, destruction, and economic hardship.
• Not small businesses or workers, who bear the burden of inflation and taxes to fund wars.
• Not individual liberty, as war leads to greater state control and surveillance.
• Only the elites, including defense contractors, politicians, and bankers, who profit from war and use it to consolidate power.

Conclusion: The Media’s Role in War is Crucial

Wars don’t happen naturally—they are carefully planned and sold to the public using propaganda, fear, and nationalism.

• WW1 and Ukraine prove that media is key to war-making.
• The media silences peace efforts and glorifies conflict.
• If people truly had a choice, most wars would never happen.

To resist this, we must recognize how we are manipulated and reject the forced narratives that push us toward war.

@ 5df413d4:2add4f5b

𝗦𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗲: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗻𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝗹 𝗟𝗮𝘄𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗟𝗶𝗳𝗲, 𝗚𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗗𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵 𝗶𝗻 𝗢𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗺𝘀, 𝗖𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝘆 𝗚𝗲𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗿𝗲𝘆 𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁

This book is a wonderfully cross-disciplinary exercise in fractal discovery and insight onto our world - initially the result of the author's pondering his own mortality which led to a study of longevity across organisms, and then expanded to social structures like cities and companies.

In the book, “scale" itself, conceptually, is defined as "how systems respond to changes in size." Does doubling an animal's dimensions increase its relative strength? Does doubling a city's size double it's relative rate of crime? These 2 questions introduce the key distinctions between sublinear scaling (the larger the thing, the relatively less of some characteristic it has) and superlinear scaling (the larger the thing, the relatively more of some characteristic it has), respectively.

Organisms, we discover, scale sublinearally - larger animals are more efficient requiring less energy per unit of weight, but similarly they become, relatively structurally weaker as size increases - this is why Godzilla cannot exist, he would collapse under his own weight! Further, biological metabolic rates scale sublinearlly to size, so as the organism grows, energy demands of cellular maintenance outstrips supply leading to cessation of growth and eventual death (we also find companies face a similar fate, with "costs" replacing cellular maintenance).

Cities, however, are more interesting. In terms of infrastructure they scale like organisms (sublinearlly), but in terms of emergent human outputs, they scale superlinearlly - the larger the city, the relatively more patents, companies, GDP, crime, and disease it will host. For cities, superlinear scaling of those emergent human properties, or "social metabolism" results in the creation of social capital increasingly outpacing the demands of maintenance (those being largely infrastructural) suggesting accelerating, unbounded, open-ended growth.

With regard to growth, superlinearity results in exponential growth, which the author approaches as a terrifying and dark mathematical horror. He illustrates this with what I found to be the book's most illuminating vignette…

SCENARIO: It is 11:00. A petri dish 🧫 contains a single bacteria🦠 cell. This bacteria will double every minute. The petri dish will be completely full in 1 hour. At what time is the petri dish 🧫 50% full?

If you said anything other than 11:59, you've missed the key implication of exponential growth. Exponential growth is slowly, then all at once. But let’s double down on this to really underscore that point - at what time does the petri dish in the aforementioned scenarios become just 1% full? The answer is somewhere between 11:53 and 11:54. Reflect on that.

What might this kind of acceleration in growth mean for technological advancement? For human population and biosphere carrying capacity? For resource consumption? And for how all of these things interrelate and impact each other? Quite thankfully, the book rejects Malthusianism. While still raising legitimate questions about the math of an exponentially expanding Earthbound civilization's sustainability, the author rightfully points to the imperative to harness nuclear and solar energy at-scale as our best hopes to sustain requirements both continuous population and technological acceleration.

Finally, the examination of exponentiality brings us to the deepest conundrum identified in the book - the finite time singularity - where unbounded growth cannot sustain without either (1) infinite energy or (2) paradigm shift "reset" that temporarily staves off system collapse. But wait! There's more! The mathematics of superlinearity suggest that, in absence of infinite energy, the chain of paradigm shift resets are themselves required to happen at an ever faster and faster pace, or at shorter and shorter intervals.

So, if we are confined to Earth's closed system, the need for continuous and unending paradigm shift innovations at ever-shorter intervals eventually manifests a meta-finite time singularity, the essential singularity which is perhaps, inescapable. The core insight to be extrapolated here is that if we are to overcome the singularity trap, we must drive real, constant step-function innovation and that this innovation must, almost necessarily, allow us to progressively harness orders of magnitude more energy than today - think Dyson Spheres, interstellar / intergalactic travel, quasar bitcoin mining, and so on.

CONCLUSION: Dense yet whimsical, lengthy yet very fun. Questing and questioning cover to cover. Great for anyone interested in inter-disciplinarianism and fractal thinking (the long practice of which I find lends to heightened levels of predictive intuition) (4.5/5☢️)

https://www.amazon.com/Scale-Universal-Growth-Organisms-Companies/dp/014311090X

Bitcoin #Plebchain #Coffeechain #Books #Bookstr #Nostr #NostrLove #GrowNostr #Writestr #Createstr

@ 8947a945:9bfcf626

Chef's notes

https://video.nostr.build/ea19333ab7f700a6557b6f52f1f8cfe214671444687fa7ea56a18e5d751fe0a9.mp4

https://video.nostr.build/bcae8d39e22f66689d51f34e44ecabdf7a57b5099cc456e3e0f29446b1dfd0de.mp4

Details

• ⏲️ Prep time: 5 min
• 🍳 Cook time: 5 min
• 🍽️ Servings: 1

Ingredients

• ไข่ 1 - 2 ฟอง
• ข้าวโอ๊ต 3 - 4 ช้อน

Directions

1. ตอกไข่ + ตีไข่
2. ปรุงรส พริกไทย หรือ ซอสถั่วเหลืองตามชอบ
3. ใส่ข้าวโอ๊ต 3 - 4 ช้อน
4. ใส่ถั่วลิสงอบ 1 - 2 หยิบมือ
5. เทน้ำใส่พอท่วมข้าวโอ๊ต
6. เข้าไมโครเวฟ ไฟแรง 1 - 2 นาที

@ 460c25e6:ef85065c

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

Public Home/Outbox Relays

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

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

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

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

Public Inbox Relays

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

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

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

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

DM Inbox Relays

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

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

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

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

Private Home Relays

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

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

Search relays:

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

Local Relays:

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

General Relays:

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

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

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

My setup

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

Then, on your relay lists, put:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And a few of the recommended relays from Amethyst.

Final Considerations

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

@ fd78c37f:a0ec0833

Author: Taryn Christiansen

Introduction:

The future doesn’t look good for America. The economy is down, politics is in shambles, and, perhaps most devastating, the culture is split. The only agreement is that change is needed.

This article aims to pave a road forward. Innovation drives the economy, and great innovations change and improve daily life. Joint efforts between public institutions and private enterprise, along with the energy and momentum generated by efficient and productive programs, can be orchestrated to cultivate national pride. But those programs need to have a noble purpose. Devotion toward technologies with the potential to transform and improve people’s lives should be the goal. Due to recent advancements in biotechnology, efforts should be directed there.

Section 1 dives into the cultural divide. Section 2 outlines a way forward by examining the innovative process and how it can be implemented. Section 3 looks at the specifics of that implementation. Section 4 consists of concluding remarks about the future.

Section 1: A Divided Country

There are two competing visions dividing America. The Woke vision asserts that the United States was, and is, a fundamentally oppressive regime. The idea of a universal reason, the notion that human beings can attain progress in perpetuity through liberal democracy, science, and capitalism, is seen as nothing more than an ideological weapon used to coerce people into acquiescing to a hierarchy that benefits the few while exploiting the many – and so, out of principles of fairness and equity, the country has to be dismantled.

The Trumpian vision attempts to reaffirm American values. It aims to reestablish American exceptionalism and reinvigorate the American vision of prosperity and economic growth. It seeks to rekindle a sense of American greatness. But it does so cheaply. It is, in essence, the dying breath of a consumer culture fighting its own death. Like the first vision, it too rejects reason and discussion and the procedural processes necessary for liberal democracy. It perceives power as the proper political tool for achieving its objectives. It is not an attempt to restore the values that once characterized the country; it breaks from the American tradition in a radical direction toward a politics of entertainment.

Long ago, the country believed that the human capacity for reason – the ability to see the world clearly under the light of truth, unencumbered by bias or prejudice, free from instinct and emotion – was the torch that carries posterity forward. The founders believed the Bill of Rights and The Constitution enshrined eternal truths that reason alone made accessible. John Locke, an influential figure for the founders, stated that the primary purpose of government is to protect individuals' natural rights. We are all free and have the right to live the life we wish to live. But government is needed to ensure others do not interfere with those rights. What binds us is not a religion or creed but the mutual opportunity for each individual to form their own beliefs, to live out their own conceptions of the good. While fundamental, we will see that it is not enough. A collective purpose is necessary.

Now, the Woke vision sees this older view as wholly mythological – and for good reason. For example, there was a time when black people did not know they were descendants from Africa or the Caribbean and not naturally disposed slaves. People’s various histories and genealogies were stripped away, creating a space by which their humanity could be taken and they could be exploited. They were purposefully and intentionally cast into the shadows of history, and the culpable thought themselves perfectly justified. There was a time when moral and historical narratives depicting a grand destiny of white people conquering the West were considered to be true and that the genocide of Native peoples was not only acceptable but in fact necessary, and therefore legitimate. It has been a titanic and creative effort by great individuals and collective coalitions to get America to become self-conscious of its heinous blunders. Some of the best art and ideas of the twentieth century were born out of those efforts. The beginnings of liberation are born out of the ability to imagine a horizon beyond one’s current circumstances. And that ability for many people has been forged by courageous and heroic predecessors. But the spirit of those movements and their development into the Woke vision is a sign that it has lost its creative potential.

The Woke vision asserts that values like reason and rights are the remains of a colonial legacy. However, by negating them and failing to replace them with new values, deconstructive forces are all that remain. The country has historically failed (as well as succeeded) in living up to what reason and rights demand. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t the proper path forward. The assumption here is that they are, and they have to be creatively reinterpreted.

And the Trumpian vision fails as well. But it is worse because it never did, nor will it ever have any real creative potential. It is highly destructive. We can think about this in the following way.

The nineteenth-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche believed a single, fundamental drive governs all of organic life: the will to power. Life, in a constant struggle, perpetually strives to expand and overcome itself repeatedly. From the brute force of two animals fighting for scarce resources to the highest manifestation of human potential, such as moral systems and inspiring artwork, all are produced from the same vital energy and source: the effort to attain power and mastery over a chaotic world.

As society develops and moves away from a state of nature, the will to power transfigures itself through a sublimative process that demands the individual to repress particular instincts and act according to the strictures and constraints formulated and instituted by the collective. As Freud observed in his Civilization and Its Discontents, the push and pull between primitive and ancient instincts and civilization’s repression of them create inextricable tensions. The Yale historian Marci Shore makes an incisive observation of Trump as a symbolic figure using this context and its language: he is the release and outpouring of those repressed instincts – the license to overthrow the restraints placed on the individual. Trump is the embodiment of brute force, a blind ego striving to assert itself over the world, adopting whatever means are available to achieve its aim. He is an eruption of the repressed Hobbesian state of nature, which expresses “a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that ceaseth only in death.” This is a destructive instinct, and we would be wise not to find out what follows.

Section 2: Unity Through Innovation

So, what is the solution? The country needs a ballast point. It needs national pride. Without a shared sense of identity and purpose, a sense of belonging to a larger community bound by a set of values, the country will continue to unravel. Regardless of the philosophical-level disputes and disagreements on fundamental principles that divide left from right, a collective identity needs to emerge. This article argues that, like the founders, we should turn to our institutions. We should look at how our institutions can facilitate needs by enabling individuals with the creative energy and tenacity to bring about new technologies and innovations that will transform the economy and standards of living. But not just new gadgets and services like iPhones and DoorDash but new technologies with the potential to enable people to live more fulfillingly and purposefully. New vaccines to eliminate unruly diseases, new therapies to mitigate the effects of debilitating illnesses, novel pharmaceuticals with competitive prices and cheaper means of production, and innovative mechanisms to empower people with disabilities to live as they are only able to imagine should play a major part in the mission that characterizes the country. That is a purpose to be proud of. Institutions like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) should act as bows, shooting forward the individuals and companies striving to reach that mark.

There’s a lot of talk about government efficiency and the need to be more fiscally responsible. Those are good things. But efficiency needs to have a purpose. There must be a goal that efficiency works to achieve. We should not wish to live without regulatory institutions. For example, people like Balaji Srinivasan are wrong to think we’re better off in an FDA-free society. The goal should be to harness those institutions, conduct more research and development, and utilize resources more effectively to achieve the results we want as a country. Just as we should strive to continue and expand our role in the AI race, we should also aim to maintain and further develop our leadership in biotech.

But we need a new of what the historian Gary Gerstle calls political order to achieve this. Political orders are “a vision of the good life that sells important constituencies on the virtues of a way of doing politics. The New Deal order and the Neoliberal order—which are, in a sense, the reverse of each other—illustrate this.”

It is common in America to see the world through the lenses of The New Deal and Neoliberal political orders for resolving issues in the country. The latter is to let the market decide, and the former is to create government programs to achieve some conception of the good. The former is, more or less, a libertarian solution and was very popular during the 1980s. The latter took form in what is known as progressivism, and it found popular expression during the 1930s and 1940s in FDR’s New Deal programs. The basic distinction separating these two political orders is between the right and the good.

Rights are the norms of obligations and constraints necessary for us all to coexist while simultaneously maintaining what many believe is the principal value of liberal democracy: freedom and liberty (these terms will be used interchangeably). Rights are not in the business of prescribing definite ways of life or enforcing particular ends for people to pursue. Rights preserve the conditions for freedom, and people are free to choose what to do with that freedom insofar as their decisions do not infringe on another person’s right to do so as well. Freedom, then, is the absence of coercion. By having that freedom, each is allowed to exercise their powers and capabilities according to their own discretion.

In the American context, by virtue of being a human being, we are said to be endowed with inalienable rights. And those rights both protect each individual from external coercion and provide a license for certain kinds of action. I am protected from being forced to say certain opinions and adopt particular beliefs. And I have the license to speak my own opinions, expound my own beliefs, and give voice to my own personal conscience. I am protected from forced association with people whom I do not wish to associate with, from the coercion to vote for a particular candidate, from being disallowed to protest, and from adopting ends I do not agree with or value. And, of course, that means I have a license to associate with whom I wish, vote for whoever I like, protest legislation I dislike, and adopt the ends I truly value. We are all free, and we all are obligated and constrained to preserve the conditions for us all to exercise that freedom mutually.

But if that is what rights are, how does a society ensure a distribution of goods and services for everyone to enjoy and partake in? After all, a right to free speech isn’t going to ensure anyone that they will have meals for nourishment, clothing for warmth, shelter from harsh conditions. The response comes from Adam Smith: economic freedom. Everyone has a natural propensity to “truck, barter, and trade” in order to improve their condition. And by the very nature of voluntary exchange, each party benefits. By an individual living his life according to his own interests, values, and ends, he “promote(s) an end which has no part of his own intention.” The invisible hand of the market promotes the ends held by other individuals, allowing everyone to live as they see fit and to coexist harmoniously with the community. By having the political freedom of rights and the economic freedom to exchange, people cooperate spontaneously and organically. That is the spirit of the neoliberal political order.

A conception of the good is different, and its meaning can be disclosed through the great liberal philosopher Voltaire’s likely apocryphal statement, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” What Voltaire disagrees with is not someone’s right to speak but of what they are saying, and we can imagine the person to be voicing their conception of the good, their values and ends that they believe characterize the good life, the life we ought to live, and Voltaire disapproves of it. The good is concerned with the proper ends that should be prioritized in order to flourish. Socrates famously declared the unexamined life is not worth living. Well, he’s espousing a conception of the good. It is a life of the intellect, a life of rational reflection and deliberation aimed toward self-knowledge. Are one’s beliefs consistent? Does one’s actions contradict what one truly believes? Is one aware of what one truly believes? And does one have the desire to discover the truth? These are Socratic questions, and a life devoted to answering them is a Socratic one.

Now, if there is a universal conception of the good life, if human beings have particular ends that define what it means to be a human being, and if failing to fulfill those ends implies a failure to realize one’s human potential for flourishing, then rights do not secure such outcomes. Rights only ensure individuals are free to pursue such ends if they wish. And given the contingency of life, that is to say that, because people are born into conditions they did not choose but were instead thrown into them, and because some individuals are born into wealth and advantage and some are born into poverty and disadvantage, some have the privilege to achieve the ends characterizing a good life and some do not. And that is unfair. And so, government programs, central planning, and economic stewardship can be used to enable and empower the underprivileged to achieve what others are better positioned to do. This is the spirit of the New Deal political order.

The mistake is to think the appropriate social, cultural, and political issues can be resolved by only one of these political orders. It is not one or the other. Both of these political orders capture powerful intuitions about how society should best function and operate, and there should be a synthesis between them.

Now, it is common knowledge that innovation drives economic growth. As capital becomes more efficient and fewer inputs are required to produce more outputs, the economy expands. In Matt Ridely’s book, Innovation: How It Works, he demonstrates beautifully the often messy and non-rational character of the innovative process.

At the heart of that process, he says, is serendipity. As frustrating as it is to human nature, the innovative process cannot be intelligently designed into a precise instrument capable of reproducing all the wonderful fruits that result from it. There is something inherently unpredictable about it, something unruly. It is organic and spontaneous. It demands the determination of individuals willing to fail over and over again until enough experience, insight, and gradual, often painstaking, progress results in the desired effects.

Ridley observes that so many of these innovations require the rich air of freedom to stimulate the instinct for exploration and discovery. Freedom nourishes and sustains that instinct, allowing it to grow and flourish. People must be free from unnecessary regulations and constraints to focus their creative energy on projects that demand endless hours of trying countless imaginative possibilities – and failing until something works. There’s always a tremendous amount of risk-taking. People need to be free to take them.

People also need to be free to collaborate with others who are also devoted to discovering a solution to seemingly intractable problems. The division of labor, where individuals specialize in a particular task and coordinate with others who do the same to maximize efficiency and productivity, is essential to the process. There’s a reason, as Ridley notes, that many innovations take place in cities, where individuals freely associate and influence one another.

Freedom also allows room for mistakes. Ridley documents many cases where innovation is the result of a mistake, not an intentional plan of action. Innovations can often begin with an intention that has nothing to do with the innovation itself. A deliberate decision leading to a breakthrough discovery can be entirely unrelated, even frivolous. Take the example of Louie Pasteur, one of the key discoverers of germ theory. He was inoculating chickens with cholera from an infected chicken broth when he left for vacation, leaving his assistant, Charles Chamberland, to continue the experiments. Charles, for whatever reason (perhaps he thought the whole idea was crazy), forgot about his responsibility and went on vacation. When both returned, they injected a chicken with the stale broth.

It made the chicken sick but did not kill it. And so he injected the same chicken with a much more virulent cholera strain that typically and easily killed chickens – and it failed. The chicken lived. Vaccines, an innovation on inoculation, emerged. Funny enough, a similar incident occurred with Alexander Fleming. Known for being sloppy, Fleming carelessly left out a culture plate of staphylococcus and took off for vacation for a couple of weeks. When he returned, he discovered a mold had grown that was resistant to the bacteria.

Penicillin was soon developed. All this is to say that, along with Ridley, “Innovation is the child of freedom and the parent of prosperity.”

But government has also been integral to many inventions and innovations that would later revolutionize the economy and, therefore, daily life itself. Mariana Mazzucato’s book The Entrepreneurial State makes a persuasive case for the significance of public institutions in the innovative process. When the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), initially known as ARPA until 1972, was established in 1958 in response to the launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik in 1957, it aimed to promote ‘blue-sky thinking’ for technological initiatives. Meaning that the goal was to invest in riskier research that potentially would yield long-term gains despite not having any immediate or obvious returns on investment. DARPA pursued “ideas that went beyond the horizon in that they may not produce results for ten or 20 years.”

What makes DARPA a successful agency is its decentralized model. The philosophy is: "Find brilliant people. Give them resources. Get out of their way." DARPA hires talented and competent experts to run programs autonomously, providing them the discretion to pursue projects highlighted by their expertise, which are often considered risky. This model enables experts to connect with other researchers, facilitating collaboration and the creation of highly efficient and productive divisions of labor. And again, these are projects that likely wouldn’t find market interest because of their niche or unexplored nature. There isn’t an immediate and conspicuous payoff. And so the connected but separate-from-government model of DARPA provides scientists with a wide degree of latitude, and that freedom allows them to engage in the innovative process of trial and error and risk-taking.

Technologies developed by DARPA included ARPANET, the precursor to the internet; early GPS technology; the beginnings of autonomous vehicles; speech recognition; personal computing; and early AI.

Other agencies have also been foundational in technological advancements (for example, the National Science Foundation (NSF) provided critical grants to facilitate what would become Google’s search engine algorithm). But the DARPA model is what is most interesting here.

If government programs like DARPA can be leveraged to spur more innovation, particularly in areas such as biotech, and these innovations can drive economic growth by being put into the hands of entrepreneurs, investors, and small, medium, and large firms, then this demands national effort and attention. If successful, it is a project worthy of national pride.

So, government programs and spending, if properly structured, can yield high returns on investment if people are given the freedom to explore, try things out, and make the mistakes necessary for the innovative process to be carried through. And we can look to a recent example where the absence of the efforts potentially could have been disastrous. The story of the COVID-19 vaccines is one where the lack of zeal for exploration and breakthrough discoveries could have hindered the development of mRNA research, leaving it underdeveloped when it was needed at a critical moment.

Section 3: Covid-19, The Imperative For Research and Development, and The Institutional Framework

To start, Peter Theil is popular for remarking that innovation in many industries has grown stagnant. Energy, manufacturing, and transportation, for example, haven’t seen much progress in the past half-century.

Computation, on the other hand, has surpassed the imagination. The innovations have not been in atoms but in bits. As Theil puts it, “We wanted flying cars; instead we got 140 characters.” And Ridley writes, “If cars had improved as fast as computers since 1982, they would get nearly four million miles per gallon, so they could go to the moon and back a hundred times on a single tank of fuel.” Unfortunately, we still have to visit the gas station and pay those exorbitant prices.

But biotech has gained momentum in the past decade. The COVID vaccines are an extraordinary example of this. But they wouldn’t have been ready to come to market without the previous three decades of research and development invested in them. And that research and development almost didn’t happen because people lacked the vision and the willingness to embrace the risk that great technological discoveries, inventions, and innovations always require.

Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s book Abundance tells this story very well. Katalin Kariko, one of the discoverers of mRNA’s therapeutic capabilities, had enormous difficulty securing funding for her research as an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Those with power thought it too risky, that it didn’t show enough promise, and allocated most resources to DNA research at the time, believing it to be the more auspicious investment. Nevertheless, as so many pioneering figures have done before her, Kariko maintained her vision of unlocking mRNA’s potential for saving lives.

By sheer luck, by the fortune contained in everyday decisions that would lead to saving millions of lives several decades later, Kariko met a colleague who was researching HIV vaccines at the time, Drew Weissman, at a Xerox machine in 1997. He would be pivotal in her research. She is a biochemist, and he, an immunologist. Each provided the knowledge and expertise the other was lacking, and that was essential to their respective goals. Through the serendipity of deciding to walk to a different department to make copies at the time and place she did, Kariko encountered an opportunity to make strides in her research.

Together, however, the two still managed to collect barely enough funding. “The NIH,” which is the largest public funder of biomedical research, “rejected practically all of their grant applications.” They couldn’t get others to have the same foresight. Even after a breakthrough, where they were finally able to send mRNA information into cells without causing horrible inflammation, those in power still blinked. Fortunately, private investment supplied the gust they needed to keep their research going, and two companies created to pursue mRNA research, Moderna and BioNTech, facilitated the vaccine’s development. When Covid spread, enough progress had been made. The FDA, which has set a poor precedent for getting products to market when it matters most, streamlined the approval process and made the vaccine available.

The key features of this story are the following. The first is the lack of risk-taking by institutions and agencies whose aim should be to provide resources to those striving to innovate and push technological progress forward. The second is the lack of coordination to establish intentional environments to converge the paths of those who have the determination, discipline, and vision to bring innovation to fruition. Imagine if Kariko and Weismann didn’t meet; picture Kariko choosing to make copies somewhere else or at a different time. The future may have been radically different. And thirdly, and more optimistically, the FDA served a vital role when it mattered. As a public institution responsible for promoting the public good, they served admirably.

These three parts – funding research, coordinating talent, and the institutions facilitating the results – should coalesce into an optimally functioning whole. Researchers who are trying to shape and influence an unforeseeable future should be encouraged and rewarded. Those who possess powerful and novel ideas, along with the imagination and determination to bring them to life, should be in direct contact with one another. Their paths should cross – intentionally. And lastly, institutions should follow the FDA’s example. Slow regulatory regimes, lengthy processes and paperwork, licensing barriers, and stifling restrictions should be streamlined and transformed into facilitators for technological development and the introduction of powerful and revolutionary technologies into the market.

More funding should be devoted to riskier research. Those with novel and fresh ideas with the potential to disrupt current scientific knowledge and produce a breakthrough should be sought out. It is estimated that roughly 2-5% of the NIH’s current budget of $45 billion is allocated to high-risk research. That should be increased. Programs like the High-Risk, High-Reward Research Program, which includes awards to innovative researchers and ideas, should take on a more robust role and budget than it currently does.

Furthermore, approximately 80% of the NIH budget is allocated to extramural research programs, which are external programs conducted outside of the institution itself. A larger portion of those who receive that funding should be based on their potential for innovation. Currently, as Klein and Thompson observe, the process of obtaining a research grant, which involves extensive paperwork and minutiae, is bureaucratic, cumbersome, inefficient, and time-consuming. A significant amount of energy that should be allocated toward advancing research is spent on securing the funding to do it.

Submitting an application, going through the two review processes, and being approved takes typically nine months to a year. And most fail, leading many scientists to have to apply numerous times in a year. And those doing the review process aren’t necessarily looking for cutting-edge proposals; they’re looking for what fits bureaucratic standards. Of course, this is contentious, but Kariko's story demonstrates its reality. Ridley offers another example. When Francisco Majica made critical advancements in CRISPR technology, it took him “more than a year to get his results published, so sniffy were the prestigious journals at the idea of a significant discovery coming from a scientific nobody.” Institutions must do a better job of trying and supporting novel and unexplored ideas, regardless of who or what they originate from. For example, biotech DAOs do not currently receive funding from government institutions, such as the NIH, due to the traditional legal framework used to distribute resources. Regulatory and legal changes should be implemented to maximize their potential. If there is too much emphasis on process, on bureaucratic procedures and standards, fruitful and rich opportunities suffocate.

The NIH budget also allocates funds to intramural research programs, which are internally connected to the NIH itself. These research programs account for roughly 10% of the NIH’s total budget. A highly promising model to adopt is the DARPA model articulated in Section 2. The NIH should adopt something similar. It should allocate resources to decentralized programs to bring together the best scientists to generate breakthrough ideas. Those programs should be spaces where scientists are free to pursue visionary projects.

Smaller biotech firms, startups, and those without robust forms of funding are often forced to pursue ideas that will capture immediate investment attention. And because of the burdensome and costly bureaucratic processes, investors are justly skeptical about anything risky and cutting-edge.

For example, regarding the FDA approval process, small molecule drugs like pharmaceuticals generally take ten to fifteen years to reach the market. On average, one drug costs $1-2 billion to move through the process, and less than ten percent of those who enter clinical trials succeed. Biologics, such as vaccines and gene therapies, typically take ten to twelve years to reach the market and have a slightly higher success rate than small molecule drugs, ranging from 12 to 15 percent. Those are extensive periods of time, the costs are astronomical, and few can maintain the resources to climb the mountain. This discourages bold enterprise – and it leads to higher prices as well. Due to the cumbersome approval process, the FDA offers exclusivity to companies that bring a product to market, both to reward innovation and to allow companies the opportunity to recoup the tremendous losses incurred by the approval process. This can lead to monopolistic pricing. Innovation should not be rewarded by harming the consumer. Innovation should lift the tide that raises all boats. And so the innovative process shouldn’t be exclusive to those with enough capital to take risks. It should be available to anyone with the tenacity to actualize a bold and promising idea. That’s not to say the process should be less rigorous and methodical. It’s that it needs to be more efficient. But not just efficiency for efficiency's sake; it needs to be efficient toward the right ends and outcomes, and innovation should be a leading goal.

Therefore, a primary goal of the FDA should be to stimulate market interest by expediting the most innovative technologies emerging from research programs driven by the NIH and its innovation initiatives. It’s very important that private research continues innovating as well, and increases in private investment toward manufacturing and research – like Johnson & Johnson’s recent announcement – is good. But new technologies, drugs, vaccines, and therapies should be a central mission of the institutional framework advocated for here – and the process should begin with creativity for creativity’s sake. The profit motive should be employed after realizing a passionate and creative vision. Those truly motivated by inspiration, the people who have the will to manifest something novel and unimaginable, are generally the worst at navigating the business aspect - not always, but often. And the energy pushing them forward is a precious and scarce resource. And so institutions like the FDA and NIH should foster, rather than stifle, their capabilities and opportunities for creating meaningful contributions to the country and the world. The FDA has a history of being slow and untimely when it comes to processing and approving applications for moving to clinical trials. For example, the AIDS epidemic is a stain on the institution’s reputation. When AIDS spread across the US in 1980, it took scientists three years to identify HIV as the cause, five years for the FDA to approve the first blood test to screen for the virus, and seven years to finally get a drug to market. The response to COVID-19 should be the golden standard by which the FDA operates.

Section 4: Human Being and Its Essence

Now, let’s ask the following: what does this have to do with national pride? How does this provide a new vision for the country?

In Alex Karp’s new book, The Technological Republic, he criticizes Silicon Valley for forgetting its roots in developing technology for national purposes. The foundational technology that defines Silicon Valley originated from government programs like DARPA and NASA, which had a clear purpose. They had a mission, and the achievements under those programs demonstrate that.

But now Silicon Valley has shifted to the consumer. Innovations in Silicon Valley generally make life more convenient, comfortable, pleasant, breezy. Goods and services satisfy all our wants and preferences. New apps, better features on social media, increasingly competent virtual assistants, faster food delivery services, endless streams of television and movies and videos, smart appliances, and more and more advanced phones pervade everyday life. The goal is always immediate gratification. There is no horizon that these products look up to. Everything is here and now.

This takes us back to our discussion of rights and conceptions of the good. Silicon Valley isn’t tethered to any real purpose or collective aim. Its goal is to let the market decide. There is no moral or spiritual integrity, no conception of the good that permeates Silicon Valley and its products. Nothing is off limits because it is the consumer’s right to choose. If there is a want, if enough people are willing to buy, Silicon Valley will produce it. No substantive conviction guides their innovations. What does Silicon Valley stand for? It certainly has a creative spirit – just look at all the devices we have today – but that spirit lacks a purpose, and so it wanders aimlessly chasing the fleeting nature of the consumer.

It’s perfectly understandable that Silicon Valley has severed itself from its military roots. Not only would it lose a substantial portion of revenue if it returned to those roots, but there is, of course, a moral dilemma at the heart of most military endeavors, and it is wise to take that seriously. And the Tech sector should not aim to impose a conception of the good on the consumers. The issue is its obsession with the consumer. There are more pressing areas of concern that warrant attention. The wealth of talent in Silicon Valley is better spent in those areas. And it should be done through the efficient use of public institutions.

The new vision is one where taxpayer dollars are used for purposeful and meaningful projects that generate new technologies and innovations that contribute to people’s real needs, not just their wants and preferences. Genuine pride involves courage and bold risk for the sake of principle. It consists in having the determination to carry through an arduous enterprise. And we should be proud as a country if a joint effort between the public and private sectors achieves collective ends.

And at the heart of this pride should be the creative process. Albert Einstein wrote that great scientific discoveries – the new ideas that are leaps in progress toward the expansion of human knowledge – are, again, not the inevitable product of a rigid, refined, and precisely applied method. He believed the great discoveries, the ones that establish new scientific paradigms that enrich society with so many practical fruit, result from a cosmic feeling, a kind of religious experience born out of feelings of awe, wonder, and mystery that are produced by the intellectual and spiritual effort to understand the rational order of the cosmos. He writes, “Enough for me (is) the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifest itself in nature… I maintain that cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest incitement to scientific research.”

Reaching for and clinching a new and profound idea is not a mechanical and algorithmic activity. Regardless of how finely one specifies the rules of procedure or how regimented the institutional standards for scientific knowledge are prescribed, intuition, sensitivity to the world and its objects, amazement at the experience of observing the world and its causal relations, in short, the feelings and moods of the subject investigating the object, are integral to the discovery of scientific ideas. Methods are pivotal in locating and developing the precise, logical nature of those ideas, but initial contact with them demands variables that are not reducible to fixed procedures. Ideas powerful enough to change the world and better the human condition originate in cosmic feelings of wonder and curiosity and are not strictly an output of a mechanized division of labor.

AI will outrun the human capacity for intelligence. This is a likely prediction. And so what will it mean to be a human being then? For centuries, philosophers have distinguished human beings from other parts of nature by invoking our seemingly unique capacity for reason. We have the ability to contemplate, reflect, and grasp the physical laws governing the cosmos. We can harness those laws and employ them to manipulate our environment, alter its forms, and recombine its parts, allowing us to raise our living standards beyond our ancestor’s imaginations. We are highly intelligent beings, and our intelligence has been regarded as our distinguishing mark.

AI erodes this image. This new technology is becoming, and perhaps already is, a concrete realization, an externalization of what history thought was uniquely our own. The reality that reason isn’t special, that it is nothing more than a physical product of an accidental evolution, a wisp of luck, has become more and more firmly impressed upon the mind over the last two centuries. AI will make it indelible; it is the final proof. And so what is a human being? What distinguishes us?

The answer is in our spontaneous acts of creativity, in our ability to produce beauty in art, complexity in design, and in our profound capability to experience wonder. Again, the innovative process discussed above cannot be rationally formed into a precise instrument. As frustrating as it is, as much as it bumps against our instinct to make everything intelligible and known, our ability for spontaneity and creativity, our capacity to fail over and over again until we receive those moments of imaginative brilliance, cannot be reduced into a definite set of rules and procedures.

And so as the world changes, as everything alters before our eyes, we have to value what makes us distinctly human. We need a new Enlightenment, one that celebrates our creativity and our will to manifest what we can internally envision. Our self-respect as individuals and collectives lies in our instincts for curiosity, inquiry, discovery, and the creative and imaginative processes that animate them.

@ fd0bcf8c:521f98c0

Collapse.

It's a slow burn.

The LA Fires started decades ago.

Hemingway said, when asked how he went broke:

"Slowly, then all at once."

That’s how collapse happens. Slowly, then suddenly.

Campfire

Ever build one?

You gather wood. Stack the foundation. Set the fuel. Light it up.

If it catches, keep going. Got to stoke it. Feed it. Watch it. In time, the fire's good.

Process It takes time.

Time to gather, build and ignite.

People come at the end. When the flame's dancing.

Like Sunday dinner.

People gather when food's ready. But, only the cook was in the kitchen.

Slow

Societal collapse's similar.

It takes years.

Decades.

Centuries.

A slow cook.

When people notice, the meal’s made. By the time they smell the fire, the forest’s already burning.

People see collapse, but it fell long time ago.

LA

Water, ran dry. Power went out. Fuel stations, empty. Help wasn't on the way.

Politicians politicking.

Making feel-good promises. People believed them. All bad decisions. One after another. They voted for it.

In time, it adds up.

Then, it falls down.

Shift

Analog to digital I work in animation.

Started analog, paper and pencil. It went digital. Scanners, tablets and all.

Veterans, didn't see it coming. Die-hards, refused to acknowledge. They went out of work. Those who adapted—they run the shows now.

Lockdowns

2008, I started a studio.

100% remote. A virtual company.

Some laughed. Others got angry. Said it wouldn't work. They couldn't see.

2020 comes with lockdowns.

Everyone scrambles. Those already digital, thrived.

The rest, shutdown.

History

The Wheel We carried goods. Then came the wheel.

Movement exploded. Trade thrived. Cities rose.

Hunter-gatherers? Left behind.

Collapse wasn't sudden. It was quiet. A shift.

The new formed. The old faded.

Change was inevitable.

Gunpowder

War changed.

Castles crumbled. Swords became relics. Power shifted.

Empires that adapted, thrived. Those that didn't, vanished.

Adapt or die.

The Internet

Borders blurred. Knowledge spread. Walls fell.

Old industries resisted. New empires emerged.

Collapse? No. A new frontier.

Borderless commerce. Shrinking government.

Info and influence, moving fast.

Bitcoin

Money, redefined.

No banks. No middlemen. Just code.

Governments dismiss it. Institutions fear it. But change ignores permission.

A ledger, transparent. A system, unstoppable. Like the internet rewrote communication, Bitcoin rewrites money.

Each invention displaced the old world.

Each collapse brought new opportunity.

Repeats

Mayans Built pyramids. Charted the stars. Cities thrived.

Then, slow decline.

Deforestation. Drought. Conflict.

People scattered.

Cities abandoned.

By the time the Spanish arrived, the fall was old news.

Romans

Not a fall. A fade.

Corruption. Inflation. Invasions. Cracks formed.

The West crumbled. The East endured.

Rome never vanished. Its laws, language, culture? Still here.

Japan

Collapse? No. Reinvention.

Shoguns fell. Meiji rose. Feudal to industrial. War crushed it. Post-war rebuilt it.

The '90s?

A peak. Tech giant. Economic force.

Then, stagnation. Aging population. Debt. Decline.

Still here. Still strong. But no longer rising.

Rhyme

US

Once a colony. Then an empire.

England ruled. America rose. Industry boomed. The 20th century belonged to the U.S.

A superpower. Factories roared. Gold backed the dollar.

A nation built on sound money.

Then, fiat. Paper promises. The gold standard abandoned.

Inflation crept in. Prices rose. Debt piled up. Each decade, the dollar bought less. Wages stagnated. Savings eroded.

Easy money, easy people.

Debt fueled bubbles. Each crash, deeper. The system, fragile.

Wealth concentrated. Time and energy, lost meaning.

A quiet nihilism grew.

People worked more. Gained less. Purpose eroded. Culture followed.

A nation distracted, chasing illusions of prosperity.

Today

The debt's bigger. The politics, fractured. The system strains. The foundation shifts.

The old fades into new.

What's next?

Every collapse starts slow. Then, all at once.

Change

Collapse is change.

It's natural. We see it throughout history.

Like a campfire—fire consumes, but it also brings warmth. Like dinner—before the meal, there’s preparation, transformation. Like LA fires—destructive, painful, but from the ashes, renewal. Possibly.

"To decompose is to be recomposed. That's what nature does. Nature, through whom all things happen as they should, and have happened forever in just the same way, and will continue one way or another endlessly."—Marcus Aurelius

Collapse isn’t the end.

It’s transition.

Preparing

"The Romans were reluctant to acknowledge change, and so are we." —The Sovereign Individual

Florida has hurricanes.

Happens every year. The news reports. Satellites confirm paths. Some, listen and prepare. Others, don't.

The storm comes.

Those prepared, benefit. The rest, suffer.

Like the old animators. They resisted. Now, they’re gone.

Collapse has warnings. How to prepare:

Mindset

Stay calm. See the patterns. Change is constant. Opportunity hides in disruption. Zoom out. Fear distorts judgment.

Skill Development

Learn adaptability. Master digital tools. Understand money. Grow networks. Invest in knowledge, not just assets.

Philosophy

Think long-term. Collapse spans generations. Pass down wisdom. Build resilience. Grow beyond survival—thrive.

Action

Own less, know more. Create. Don’t just consume.

Be part of what’s next.

Conclusion

The fire’s already burning. You can tend it—or watch it burn everything down.

There's a saying:

"There are three types of people in this world: those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who wonder what happened."—Pat Riley

Be the former.

---

Rare Passenger / block height 880 440

@ a2eddb26:e2868a80

In personal finance, the principles of financial independence and time sovereignty (FITS) empower individuals to escape the debt-based cycle that forces them into perpetual work. What if companies could apply the same principles? What if businesses, instead of succumbing to the relentless push for infinite growth, could optimize for real demand?

This case study of the GPU industry aims to show that fiat-driven incentives distort technological progress and imagines an alternative future built on sound money.

Fiat Business: Growth or Death

Tech companies no longer optimize for efficiency, longevity, or real user needs. Instead, under a fiat system, they are forced into a perpetual growth model. If NVIDIA, AMD, or Intel fail to show revenue expansion, their stock price tanks. Let's take NVIDIA's GPUs as an example. The result is predictable:

• GPUs that nobody actually needs but everyone is told to buy.
• A focus on artificial benchmarks instead of real-world performance stability.
• Endless FPS increases that mean nothing for 99% of users.

The RTX 5090 is not for gamers. It is for NVIDIA’s quarterly earnings. This is not a surprise on a fiat standard.

Fiat Marketing: The Illusion of Need and the Refresh Rate Trap

Benchmarks confirm that once a GPU maintains 120+ FPS in worst-case scenarios, additional performance gains become irrelevant for most players. This level of capability was reached years ago. The problem is that efficiency does not sell as easily as bigger numbers.

This extends beyond raw GPU power and into the display market, where increasing refresh rates and resolutions are marketed as critical upgrades, despite diminishing real-world benefits for most users. While refresh rates above 120Hz may offer marginal improvements for competitive esports players, the average user sees little benefit beyond a certain threshold. Similarly, 8K resolutions are pushed as the next frontier, even though 4K remains underutilized due to game optimization and hardware constraints. This is why GPUs keep getting bigger, hotter, and more expensive, even when most gamers would be fine with a card from five years ago. It is why every generation brings another “must-have” feature, regardless of whether it impacts real-world performance.

Marketing under fiat operates on the principle of making people think they need something they do not. The fiat standard does not just distort capital allocation. It manufactures demand by exaggerating the importance of specifications that most users do not truly need.

The goal is not technological progress but sales volume. True innovation would focus on meaningful performance gains that align with actual gaming demands, such as improving latency, frame-time consistency, and efficient power consumption. Instead, marketing convinces consumers they need unnecessary upgrades, driving them into endless hardware cycles that favor stock prices over user experience.

They need the next-gen cycle to maintain high margins. The hardware is no longer designed for users. It is designed for shareholders. A company operating on sound money would not rely on deceptive marketing cycles. It would align product development with real user needs instead of forcing artificial demand.

The Shift to AI

For years, GPUs were optimized for gaming. Then AI changed everything. OpenAI, Google, and Stability AI now outbid consumers for GPUs. The 4090 became impossible to find, not because of gamers, but because AI labs were hoarding them.

The same companies that depended on the consumer upgrade cycle now see their real profits coming from data centers. Yet, they still push gaming hardware aggressively. However, legitimate areas for improvement do exist. While marketing exaggerates the need for higher FPS at extreme resolutions, real gaming performance should focus on frame stability, low latency, and efficient rendering techniques. These are the areas where actual innovation should be happening. Instead, the industry prioritizes artificial performance milestones to create the illusion of progress, rather than refining and optimizing for the gaming experience itself. Why?

Gamers Fund the R&D for AI and Bear the Cost of Scalping

NVIDIA still needs gamers, but not in the way most think. The gaming market provides steady revenue, but it is no longer the priority. With production capacity shifting toward AI and industrial clients, fewer GPUs are available for gamers. This reduced supply has led to rampant scalping, where resellers exploit scarcity to drive up prices beyond reasonable levels. Instead of addressing the issue, NVIDIA benefits from the inflated demand and price perception, creating an even stronger case for prioritizing enterprise sales. Gaming revenue subsidizes AI research. The more RTX cards they sell, the more they justify pouring resources into data-center GPUs like the H100, which generate significantly higher margins than gaming hardware.

AI dictates the future of GPUs. If NVIDIA and AMD produced dedicated gamer-specific GPUs in higher volumes, they could serve that market at lower prices. But in the fiat-driven world of stockholder demands, maintaining artificially constrained supply ensures maximum profitability. Gamers are left paying inflated prices for hardware that is no longer built with them as the primary customer. That is why GPU prices keep climbing. Gamers are no longer the main customer. They are a liquidity pool.

The Financial Reality

The financial reports confirm this shift: NVIDIA’s 2024 fiscal year saw a 126% revenue increase, reaching \$60.9 billion. The data center segment alone grew 217%, generating \$47.5 billion. (Source)

The numbers make it clear. The real money is in AI and data centers, not gaming. NVIDIA has not only shifted its focus away from gamers but has also engaged in financial engineering to maintain its dominance. The company has consistently engaged in substantial stock buybacks, a hallmark of fiat-driven financial practices. In August 2023, NVIDIA announced a \$25 billion share repurchase program, surprising some investors given the stock's significant rise that year. (Source) This was followed by an additional \$50 billion buyback authorization in 2024, bringing the total to \$75 billion over two years. (Source)

These buybacks are designed to return capital to shareholders and can enhance earnings per share by reducing the number of outstanding shares. However, they also reflect a focus on short-term stock price appreciation rather than long-term value creation. Instead of using capital for product innovation, NVIDIA directs it toward inflating stock value, ultimately reducing its long-term resilience and innovation potential. In addition to shifting production away from consumer GPUs, NVIDIA has also enabled AI firms to use its chips as collateral to secure massive loans. Lambda, an AI cloud provider, secured a \$500 million loan backed by NVIDIA's H200 and Blackwell AI chips, with financing provided by Macquarie Group and Industrial Development Funding. (Source)

This practice mirrors the way Bitcoin miners have used mining hardware as collateral, expecting continuous high returns to justify the debt. GPUs are fast-depreciating assets that lose value rapidly as new generations replace them. Collateralizing loans with such hardware is a high-risk strategy that depends on continued AI demand to justify the debt. AI firms borrowing against them are placing a leveraged bet on demand staying high. If AI market conditions shift or next-generation chips render current hardware obsolete, the collateral value could collapse, leading to cascading loan defaults and liquidations.

This is not a sound-money approach to business. It is fiat-style quicksand financialization, where loans are built on assets with a limited shelf life. Instead of focusing on sustainable capital allocation, firms are leveraging their future on rapid turnover cycles. This further shifts resources away from gamers, reinforcing the trend where NVIDIA prioritizes high-margin AI sales over its original gaming audience.

At the same time, NVIDIA has been accused of leveraging anti-competitive tactics to maintain its market dominance. The GeForce Partner Program (GPP) launched in 2018 sought to lock hardware partners into exclusive deals with NVIDIA, restricting consumer choice and marginalizing AMD. Following industry backlash, the program was canceled. (Source)

NVIDIA is not merely responding to market demand but shaping it through artificial constraints, financialization, and monopolistic control. The result is an industry where consumers face higher prices, limited options, and fewer true innovations as companies prioritize financial games over engineering excellence.

On this basis, short-term downturns fueled by stock buybacks and leveraged bets create instability, leading to key staff layoffs. This forces employees into survival mode rather than fostering long-term innovation and career growth. Instead of building resilient, forward-looking teams, companies trapped in fiat incentives prioritize temporary financial engineering over actual product and market development.

A Sound Money Alternative: Aligning Incentives

Under a sound money system, consumers would become more mindful of purchases as prices naturally decline over time. This would force businesses to prioritize real value creation instead of relying on artificial scarcity and marketing hype. Companies would need to align their strategies with long-term customer satisfaction and sustainable engineering instead of driving demand through planned obsolescence.

Imagine an orange-pilled CEO at NVIDIA. Instead of chasing infinite growth, they persuade the board to pivot toward sustainability and long-term value creation. The company abandons artificial product cycles, prioritizing efficiency, durability, and cost-effectiveness. Gaming GPUs are designed to last a decade, not three years. The model shifts to modular upgrades instead of full replacements. Pricing aligns with real user needs, not speculative stock market gains.

Investors initially panic. The stock takes a temporary hit, but as consumers realize they no longer need to upgrade constantly, brand loyalty strengthens. Demand stabilizes, reducing volatility in production and supply chains. Gamers benefit from high-quality products that do not degrade artificially. AI buyers still access high-performance chips but at fair market prices, no longer subsidized by forced consumer churn.

This is not an abstract vision. Businesses could collateralize loans with Bitcoin. Companies could also leverage highly sought-after end products that maintain long-term value. Instead of stock buybacks or anti-competitive practices, companies would focus on building genuine, long-term value. A future where Bitcoin-backed reserves replace fiat-driven financial engineering would stabilize capital allocation, preventing endless boom-bust cycles. This shift would eliminate the speculative nature of AI-backed loans, fostering financial stability for both borrowers and lenders.

Sound money leads to sound business. When capital allocation is driven by real value rather than debt-fueled expansion, industries focus on sustainable innovation rather than wasteful iteration.

Reclaiming Time Sovereignty for Companies

The fiat system forces corporations into unsustainable growth cycles. Companies that embrace financial independence and time sovereignty can escape this trap and focus on long-term value.

GPU development illustrates this distortion. The RTX 3080 met nearly all gaming needs, yet manufacturers push unnecessary performance gains to fuel stock prices rather than improve usability. GPUs are no longer designed for gamers but for AI and enterprise clients, shifting NVIDIA’s priorities toward financial engineering over real innovation.

This cycle of GPU inflation stems from fiat-driven incentives—growth for the sake of stock performance rather than actual demand. Under a sound money standard, companies would build durable products, prioritizing efficiency over forced obsolescence.

Just as individuals can reclaim financial sovereignty, businesses can do the same. Embracing sound money fosters sustainable business strategies, where technology serves real needs instead of short-term speculation.

Bitcoin

FITS

Marketing

TimeSovereignty

BitcoinFixesThis

OptOut

EngineeringNotFinance

SoundBusiness

@ 6b3780ef:221416c8

We are excited to announce the finalization of our DVMCP specification update, which integrates the latest Model Context Protocol (MCP) version 2025-03-26 and other improvements. This article highlights the key points of this update, and the differences between our initial vision and the final specification, providing insights into how our ideas evolved during the drafting process.

The Journey from Concept to Specification

Last week, we shared our vision for updating the DVMCP specification to better integrate with the Model Context Protocol. After extensive drafting and feedback, we've finalized a specification that maintains our core vision while making important refinements to ensure optimal functionality, interoperability, and user experience. We are also improving the tagging of our specifications to make it more consistent, using the draft mcp:2025-03-26 rev1 tag to identify the version of the specification and the revision number we are in. We hope this will make the specification clearer and easier to track changes.

Key Changes in the Final Specification

Refined Event Kind Structure

In our initial proposal, we outlined a modular event structure with dedicated event kinds for server announcements (31316) and separate kinds for capability categories (31317, 31318, and 31319). The final specification maintains this approach but provides more detailed implementation guidelines.

Enhanced Ephemeral Events

One of the most significant refinements involves our approach to ephemeral events. The final specification clearly defines three ephemeral event kinds:

• Requests (25910): Client requests to servers
• Responses (26910): Server responses to client requests
• Notifications (21316): Status updates, progress information, and interactive elements

This approach provides a more efficient communication pattern while reducing unnecessary storage burden on relays.

Standardized Content Structure

While our initial vision mentioned separating Nostr metadata and MCP payloads, the final specification provides concrete implementation details:

• Content Field: Contains stringified MCP JSON-RPC messages, maintaining full compatibility with the MCP specification
• Tags Field: Contains all Nostr-specific metadata using standardized tag patterns

This clear separation ensures that both protocols can operate seamlessly together without compromising either protocol's integrity.

Comprehensive Protocol Flows

The final specification includes detailed protocol flows for:

1. Public Server Discovery: Finding servers through published announcements
2. Private Server Discovery: Direct connection to servers using the MCP initialization process
3. Capability Operations: Standardized patterns for listing, executing, and managing all capability types

These flows provide implementers with clear guidance on how to build compliant clients and servers.

Payment and Authorization

The specification now includes concrete implementations for payment handling and authorization:

• Payment Required Notifications: Using the ephemeral notification kind (21316) with specific tag patterns
• Authorization Flow: Leveraging Nostr's cryptographic properties for secure authorization

What Remained Consistent

Despite these refinements, our core vision remained intact:

1. Expanded Capability Support: The specification fully embraces MCP's complete capabilities framework, including tools, resources, and prompts
2. Modular Architecture: The separation of server announcements and capability listings improves maintainability and extensibility
3. Protocol Interoperability: The specification maintains compatibility with both Nostr and MCP

Implementation Status

With the specification now finalized, we're updating our reference implementations:

• DVMCP-bridge: Server-side implementation for exposing MCP capabilities through Nostr
• DVMCP-discovery: Client-side library for discovering and consuming MCP capabilities via Nostr

Community Involvement

We want to express our gratitude to everyone who provided feedback on our draft specification. Your insights helped shape a more robust and practical protocol.

Looking Forward

This specification represents a significant advancement in bridging the Nostr and MCP ecosystems. By providing a standardized way to discover, access, and utilize MCP capabilities through the Nostr network, we're enabling new possibilities for applications.

We invite developers to explore the final specification and begin building with our reference implementations. Together, we can create a more open, interoperable, and powerful ecosystem

The complete specification is available at 2025-03-26.md.

@ 97c70a44:ad98e322

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

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

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

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

The Need for Speed

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

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

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

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

Svelte is not Javascript

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

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

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

Proxies are not objects

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

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

we... can maximise both efficiency and ergonomics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Components are not functions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

@ 08964cb5:51bf010f

«Reflexiones y Acción: Entre la Defensa del Patrimonio»

[English below][Deutsch unten]

Los recientes acontecimientos que han puesto en peligro mi patrimonio, así como los valores fundamentales que definen mi camino, me han llevado a tomar una decisión importante: iniciar una campaña de recaudación de fondos. Esta iniciativa no solo busca proteger lo que he construido con esfuerzo, sino también garantizar que pueda seguir adelante con proyectos y principios que son esenciales para mí.

Tu apoyo puede marcar una gran diferencia. Si deseas conocer más sobre esta causa o contribuir con tu solidaridad, te invito a visitar ›🔗 éste enlace.‹ "Reflections and Action: Safeguarding My Heritage"

---

“Reflections and Action: Safeguarding My Heritage”

The recent events that have jeopardised my assets and the core values that define my journey have led me to take a significant step: launching a fundraising campaign. This initiative aims not only to protect what I have built with hard work but also to ensure that I can continue moving forward with projects and principles that are essential to me.

Your support can make a real difference. If you’d like to learn more about this cause or contribute with your solidarity, I invite you to visit ›🔗 this link.‹

---

„Überlegungen und Handeln: Den Schutz meines Vermögens”

Die jüngsten Ereignisse, die mein Vermögen sowie die grundlegenden Werte, die meinen Weg bestimmen, gefährdet haben, haben mich dazu veranlasst, einen wichtigen Schritt zu gehen: den Start einer Spendenkampagne. Diese Initiative zielt nicht nur darauf ab, das zu schützen, was ich mit harter Arbeit aufgebaut habe, sondern auch sicherzustellen, dass ich mit Projekten und Prinzipien, die für mich unerlässlich sind, weitermachen kann.

Deine Unterstützung kann einen großen Unterschied machen. Wenn du mehr über diese Sache erfahren oder mit deiner Solidarität beitragen möchtest, lade ich dich ein, ›🔗 diesen Link zu besuchen.‹

@ 08964cb5:51bf010f

«Reflexiones y Acción: Entre la Defensa del Patrimonio»

[English below][Deutsch unten]

Los recientes acontecimientos que han puesto en peligro mi patrimonio, así como los valores fundamentales que definen mi camino, me han llevado a tomar una decisión importante: iniciar una campaña de recaudación de fondos. Esta iniciativa no solo busca proteger lo que he construido con esfuerzo, sino también garantizar que pueda seguir adelante con proyectos y principios que son esenciales para mí.

Tu apoyo puede marcar una gran diferencia. Si deseas conocer más sobre esta causa o contribuir con tu solidaridad, te invito a visitar ›🔗éste enlace.‹

---

"Reflections and Action: Safeguarding My Heritage"

The recent events that have jeopardised my assets and the core values that define my journey have led me to take a significant step: launching a fundraising campaign. This initiative aims not only to protect what I have built with hard work but also to ensure that I can continue moving forward with projects and principles that are essential to me.

Your support can make a real difference. If you’d like to learn more about this cause or contribute with your solidarity, I invite you to visit ›🔗this link.‹

---

"Überlegungen und Handeln: Den Schutz meines Vermögens"

Die jüngsten Ereignisse, die mein Vermögen sowie die grundlegenden Werte, die meinen Weg bestimmen, gefährdet haben, haben mich dazu veranlasst, einen wichtigen Schritt zu gehen: den Start einer Spendenkampagne. Diese Initiative zielt nicht nur darauf ab, das zu schützen, was ich mit harter Arbeit aufgebaut habe, sondern auch sicherzustellen, dass ich mit Projekten und Prinzipien, die für mich unerlässlich sind, weitermachen kann.

Deine Unterstützung kann einen großen Unterschied machen. Wenn du mehr über diese Sache erfahren oder mit deiner Solidarität beitragen möchtest, lade ich dich ein, ›🔗diesen Link zu besuchen.‹

@ 2b24a1fa:17750f64

Ein Gedicht unserer Zeit von Lionne Douce.

Sprecherin: Sabrina Khalil

https://soundcloud.com/radiomuenchen/der-gutmenschzug-ist-da-von?

@ c4b5369a:b812dbd6

As promised in my last article:

nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzp394x6dfmvn69cduj7e9l2jgvtvle7n5w5rtrunjlr6tx6up9k7kqq2k6ernff9hw3tyd3y453rdtph5uvm6942kzuw08y0

In this one we will dive into how exactly an unidirectional payments channel powered ecash mint system would be implemented, using the tech available today! So if you haven't read that article yet, give it a read!

I first intended to write a longwinded article, explaining each part of the system. But then I realized that I would need some visualization to get the message across in a more digestable way. This lead me to create a slide deck, and as I started to design the slides it became more and more clear that the information is easier shown with visualizations, than written down. I will try to give a summary as best as I can in this article, but I urge you, to please go visit the slide deck too, for the best experience:

---

TAKE ME TO THE SLIDE DECK!

---

Intro

In this article we will go over how we can build unidirectional payment channels on Bitcoin. Then we will take a look into how Cashu ecash mints work, and how we can use unidirectional payment channels to change the dynamics between ecash users and the mint.

Before we start, let me also give credits to nostr:npub1htnhsay5dmq3r72tukdw72pduzfdcja0yylcajuvnc2uklkhxp8qnz3qac for comming up with the idea, to nostr:npub148jz5r9xujcjpqygk69yl4jqwjqmzgrqly26plktfjy8g4t7xaysj9xhgp for providing an idea for non-expiring unidirectional channels, and nostr:npub1yrnuj56rnen08zp2h9h7p74ghgjx6ma39spmpj6w9hzxywutevsst7k5cx unconference for hosting an event where these ideas could be discussed and flourish.

Building unidirectional payment channels

If you've read the previous article, you already know what unidirectional payment channels are. There are actually a coupple different ways to implement them, but they all do have a few things in common:

1. The sender can only send
2. The Receiver can only receive
3. They are VERY simple

Way simpler than the duplex channels like we are using in the lightning network today, at least. Of course, duplex channels are being deployed on LN for a reason. They are very versatile and don't have these annoying limitations that the unidirectional payment channels have. They do however have a few drawbacks:

1. Peers have liveness requirements (or they might forfeit their funds)
2. Peers must backup their state after each transaction (if they don't they might forfeit their funds)
3. It is a pretty complex system

This article is not meant to discredit duplex channels. I think they are great. I just also think that in some use-cases, their requirements are too high and the system too complex.

But anyway, let's see what kind of channels we can build!

Spillman/CLTV-Channel

The Spillman channel idea has been around for a long time. It's even explained in Tadge Dryjas Presentation on Payment channels and the lightning network from back in the day. I compiled a list of some of the most important propperties of them in the slide below:

Great!

Now that we know their properties, let's take a look at how we can create such a channel (Slides):

We start out by the sender creating a funding TX. The sender doesn't broadcast the transaction though. If he does, he might get locked into a multisig with the receiver without an unilateral exit path.

Instead the sender also creates a refund TX spending the outputs of the yet unsigned funding TX. The refund TX is timelocked, and can only be broadcast after 1 month. Both sender and receiver can sign this refund TX without any risks. Once sender receives the signed refund TX, he can broadcast the funding TX and open the channel. The sender can now update the channel state, by pre-signing update transactions and sending them over to the receiver. Being a one-way channel, this can be done in a single message. It is very simple. There is no need for invalidating old states, since the sender does not hold any signed update TXs it is impossible for the sender to broadcast an old state. The receiver only cares about the latest state anyways, since that is the state where he gets the most money. He can basically delete any old states. The only thing the receiver needs to make sure of, is broadcasting the latest update TX before the refund TX's timelock expires. Otherwise, the sender might take the whole channel balance back to himself.

This seems to be already a pretty useful construct, due to its simplicity. But we can make it even more simple!

This setup works basically the same way as the previous one, but instead of having a refund transaction, we build the timelock spend path directly into the funding TX This allows the sender to have an unilateral exit right from the start, and he can broadcast the funding TX without communicating with the receiver. In the worst case, the receiver rejects the channel, and the sender can get his money back after the timelock on the output has expired. Everything else basically works in the same way as in the example above.

The beauty about this channel construct is in its simplicity. The drawbacks are obvious, but they do offer some nice properties that might be useful in certain cases.

One of the major drawbacks of the Spillman-style channels (apart from being unidirectional) is that they expire. This expiry comes with the neat property that neither of the party has to watch the chain for channel closures, and the sender can operate the channel with zero additional state, apart from his private keys. But they do expire. And this can make them quite inflexible. It might work in some contexts, but not so much in others, where time needs to be more flexible.

This is where Roose-Childs triggered channels come into play.

Roose-Childs triggered channel

(I gave it that name, named after nostr:npub148jz5r9xujcjpqygk69yl4jqwjqmzgrqly26plktfjy8g4t7xaysj9xhgp and nostr:npub1htnhsay5dmq3r72tukdw72pduzfdcja0yylcajuvnc2uklkhxp8qnz3qac . If someone knows if this idea has been around before under a different name, please let us know!)

Roose-Childs triggered channels were an idea developed by Steven and Luke at the nostr:npub1yrnuj56rnen08zp2h9h7p74ghgjx6ma39spmpj6w9hzxywutevsst7k5cx unconference. They essentially remove the channel expiry limitation in return for introducing the need for the sender to create a channel backup at the time of channel creation, and for the receiver the need to watch the chain for trigger transactions closing the channel.

They also allow for splicing funds, which can be important for a channel without expiry, allowing the sender to top-up liquidity once it runs out, or for the receiver taking out liquidity from the channel to deploy the funds elsewhere.

Now, let's see how we can build them!

The funding TX actually looks the same as in the first example, and similarly it gets created, but not signed by the sender. Then, sender and receiver both sign the trigger TX. The trigger TX is at the heart of this scheme. It allows both sender and receiver to unilaterally exit the channel by broadcasting it (more on that in a bit).

Once the trigger TX is signed and returned to the sender, the sender can confidently sign and boradcast the funding TX and open the channel. The trigger TX remains off-chain though. Now, to update the channel, the sender can pre-sign transactions in similar fashion to the examples above, but this time, spending the outputs of the unbroadcasted trigger TX. This way, both parties can exit the channel at any time. If the receiver wants to exit, he simply boradcasts the trigger TX and immediately spends its outputs using the latest update TX. If the sender wants to exit he will broadcast the trigger TX and basically force the receivers hand. Either, the receiver will broadcast the latest update TX, or the sender will be able to claim the entire channel balance after the timelock expired.

We can also simplify the receiver's exit path, by the sender pre-signing an additional transaction R exit TX for each update. this way, the receiver only needs to broadcast one transaction instead of two.

As we've mentioned before, there are some different trade-offs for Roose-Childs triggered channels. We introduce some minimal state and liveness requirements, but gain more flexibility.

Ecash to fill in the gaps

(I will assume that the reader knows how ecash mints work. If not, please go check the slides where I go through an explanation)

Essentially, we are trying to get a lightning like experience, without all the lightning complexities and requirements. One big issue with ecash, is that it is fully custodial. If we can offset that risk by holding most of the funds in a self custodial channel, we can have a reasonable trade-off between usability and self custody.

In a system like that, we would essentially turn the banking model onto its head. Where in a traditional bank, the majority of the funds are held in the banks custody, and the user only withdraws into his custody what he needs to transact, in our model the user would hold most funds in his own custody.

If you ask me, this approach makes way more sense. Instead of a custodian, we have turned the "bank" into a service provider.

Let's take a look at how it would work in a more practical sense:

The ecash user would open an unidirectional payment channel to the mint, using one of his on-chain UTXOs. This allows him then to commit incrementally funds into the mints custody, only the amounts for his transactional needs. The mint offers connectivity to the lightning network an handles state and liveness as a service provider.

The ecash user, can remain offline at all times, and his channel funds will always be safe. The mint can only ever claim the balance in the channel via the update TXs. The mint can of course still decide to no longer redeem any ecash, at which point they would have basically stolen the ecash user's transactional balance. At that point, it would probably be best for the ecash user to close his channel, and no longer interact or trust this mint.

Here are some of the most important points of this system summarized:

And that is basically it! I hope you enjoyed this breakdown of Unidirectional payment channel enabled Ecash mints!

If you did, consider leaving me a zap. Also do let me know if this type of breakdown helps you understand a new topic well. I am considering doing similar breakdowns on other systems, such as ARK, Lightning or Statechains, if there is a lot of interest, and it helps people, I'll do it!

Pleas also let me know what you think about the unidirectional channel - ecash mint idea in the comments. It's kind of a new idea, an it probably has flaws, or things that we haven't thought about yet. I'd love to discuss it with you!

I'll leave you with this final slide:

Cheers,

Gandlaf

@ e7bc35f8:3ed2a7cf

In the heart of Romania’s 2024 presidential election, a seismic shock rattled the foundations of its democracy. Just days before the final runoff, the Constitutional Court made an unprecedented move: it annulled the entire election, citing evidence of Russian interference that propelled a far-right nationalist, Călin Georgescu, to a surprise lead. Was this a bold reflex to safeguard democratic integrity against foreign manipulation, or a chilling cancellation of the people’s voice, silencing millions who had cast their ballots? As Romania grapples with this historic decision, the line between protecting democracy and undermining it has never been blurrier, leaving citizens and observers alike questioning the true cost of this electoral upheaval.

In this article, I will explore Romania’s 2024 presidential election annulment chronologically, tracing the rise of far-right candidate Călin Georgescu, the Constitutional Court’s decision to cancel the vote on December 6, and the resulting protests and probes into foreign interference. This timeline will clarify whether the move was a democratic safeguard or an undemocratic suppression of the people’s will.

October 15, 2024

Judges booted candidate Diana Șoșoacă, leader of the ultra-nationalist party S.O.S Romania, from the race because she threatened Bucharest’s place in the EU and NATO. But her rivals are saying the court overstepped its remit.

The unprecedented ruling by the Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR) sparked criticism from Șoșoacă’s rivals across the political spectrum, encompassing socialists, liberals and academics — with one figure even pointing to how it echoes the Kremlin’s electoral governance.

November 22, 2024

The final major poll before Romania’s 2024 presidential election, released on the eve of the vote, painted a starkly different picture from the eventual outcome. Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu led with 23.7%, followed by Elena Lasconi at 17.8%, George Simion at 16.9%, and Nicolae Ciucă at 14.3%. Astonishingly, Călin Georgescu, who would later surge to a stunning first-round victory, languished in fifth place with just 8.1%, a staggering underestimation that would soon fuel suspicions of manipulation and upend the nation’s electoral process.

November 24, 2024

In a stunning upset, Călin Georgescu won Romania’s 2024 presidential election with 22.94% of the vote, dominating the first round despite trailing in pre-election polls. George Simion, often labeled the country’s “hard right chief” by Western media, lagged behind in fourth place with just 13.8%. No credible evidence suggests vote tampering; Georgescu’s victory reflected a genuine surge of voter support, particularly among the diaspora, where he won overwhelmingly—except in Moldova, where he secured only 3.11% amid a large pro-Russian population that had narrowly passed a pro-EU referendum a month earlier.

As regards Georgescu himself, by CV, appearance and speaking style he comes across as the ideal candidate. He studied agronomy, has a PhD in soil science and is a university lecturer; has worked at senior levels in government – including in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs – as well as at the UN and other NGOs, with a focus on sustainable development; and he speaks four foreign languages. He projects a professional, clean-cut image of a determined, experienced 62 year-old nationalist at the apex of his powers, speaking very simply and clearly in a calm, confident manner. Strictly by these superficial PR metrics, on paper, he is, at first glance, perfectly suited for the role.

Nor is he unknown in Romanian politics; but he is – or has been – a very fringe figure. His name was floated several times in recent years, in nationalist-populist circles, as a potential alternative for prime minister. He nearly became honorary president of Romania’s main nationalist conservative party, AUR, before the deal fell through when past comments came to light in which he had called the country’s Second World War leader and Axis ally, Marshal Antonescu – who is considered responsible for the Romanian Holocaust – a “hero”.

Georgescu had conducted a persuasive online campaign, primarily on TikTok, focusing on the importance of an autochthon economy, the inherent superiority of rural life in Romania, and essentially claiming that just like a national poet from the 19th century, he is a divine messenger. The campaign consisted of thousands of TikTok profiles distributing ten-second videos about him, with many influencers suggesting in the past weeks that they would vote for him. According to Georgescu, he didn’t spend any money on the campaign, but the scale and the professionalism in which it was conducted suggest otherwise.

November 25, 2024

Politico comes to remind us why EU is so interested about Romania. According to this article, Romania has been a steadfast ally in the West’s support for Ukraine, leveraging the Port of Constanța as a critical lifeline for exporting Ukrainian grain and funneling military supplies into the conflict zone. The war has also elevated the strategic significance of the Mihail Kogălniceanu air base on the Black Sea, poised to become NATO’s largest. However, Călin Georgescu’s unexpected electoral triumph raises alarms across Europe, as his leadership could pivot Romania away from this pro-Western stance, potentially disrupting these vital geopolitical roles. This prospect underscores why European leaders are deeply invested in ensuring Romania remains in “reliable” hands, aligned with NATO and EU priorities.

November 26, 2024

Reformist Elena Lasconi, who was going to face Georgescu in the runoff on Dec. 8, was directly warning that Romanians must now rally together to stop the country falling back under the thrall of Russia, which occupied it after World War II. She urged a crowd in Bucharest not to let frustration with the current establishment “become a vulnerability exploited by Russia.”

November 28, 2024

The official claim of Russian meddling rested directly and exclusively on a specific set of intelligence documents on the matter, first submitted in a closed National Security Council meeting on 28 November. Romania’s Constitutional Court asked the country’s top election authority to recount and check again all ballots from Sunday’s presidential election first round.

November 30, 2024

Elena Lasconi, who narrowly secured a runoff spot by edging out PSD Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu by just 2,700 votes, has firmly rejected allegations of electoral misconduct. Lasconi and her party, USR, accuse the PSD and center-right PNL of undermining the people’s will through the annulment push. In a passionate statement, she urged, “I appeal to all state institutions: Don’t destroy democracy in Romania,” highlighting the high stakes for the nation’s democratic integrity.

December 4, 2024

The set of intelligence documents on the matter, first submitted in a closed National Security Council meeting on 28 November and then hastily declassified on 4 December by the sitting President in order to “inform” the Constitutional Court’s decision. But the reports contained no actual evidence of the sort.

The documents alleged that 800 TikTok accounts had been activated just before the election and that they had supported Călin Georgescu’s campaign.

Albeit these reports did not definitely say that the meddling effort managed to actually sway the election in Georgescu’s favour, they suggested it.

I ve translated the declassified documents using the AI tools: Grok and ChatGPT. I can assure you that the following summary from "Brussels Signal" is accurate. I will quote the summary because of the key importance on the subject:

The documents provide no concrete evidence of Russian state interference in Romania’s presidential elections or any links between presidential candidate Calin Georgescu and Russia.

The most important and explosive term used in these documents (by SRI) is “state actor.” The documents offer no evidence or analytical explanation for the use of this term, rendering it an unsupported claim.

On the contrary, to the extent that they shed light on anything, the documents indicate that Georgescu’s campaign simply employed highly effective digital marketing techniques, giving him a “comparative exponential” advantage (according to SRI).

The documents offer only disparate, circumstantial, and often trivial information presented in a way that leaves plenty of room for wide-ranging interpretations. Their tone and terminology appear designed to fuel an anti-Georgescu narrative in the public sphere.

As intelligence products, the documents are sloppy and of very poor quality by Allied standards. They include contradictions, errors, and blatant inaccuracies. The language is often vague, and key terms remain undefined (e.g., various uses of the word “network”). For the most part, the documents are full only of useless platitudes, with the majority of the information already having been circulating in the public domain in the days after 24 November (the date of the first voting round).

The documents are merely “Briefing Notes” (note informative, in Romanian), not assessments – thus lacking clear and definitive analytical conclusions or interpretations. They make isolated claims (mostly unsupported), with no discussion of sources or evidence. This is likely a method for the intelligence services to protect themselves politically. Subsequent interpretations of these documents by the media are not, therefore, based on conclusions of the Romanian state.

The documents are also redacted in key parts. It is therefore important to understand that the information in these documents was only partially declassified – despite the media narrative suggesting the documents were declassified in their entirety. It is also important to understand that the redacted passages may alter the meaning of the text.

The SIE Briefing Note has not actually been declassified. The President only published an “unclassified excerpt” from it. The SIE Note itself remains classified, likely because it contradicts the Notes submitted by the other agencies.

The documents do point to potential irregularities in Georgescu’s campaign finance statements. However, such issues are common in campaigns worldwide and, moreover, should be investigated with respect to all the other candidates as well, in the same way. In any case, the documents make no suggestion of foreign funding, let alone from Russia.

The only concrete elements noted in the documents as being specifically identified as of 24 November (the day of the vote in the first round) are: 100 TikTok influencer accounts paid to distribute content using 3 (three) hashtags that do not even mention Calin Georgescu; 797 accounts created before (!) the launch of TikTok itself, under this brand name; 1,088 users in a “coordination” group on Telegram (which, again, is standard in all political campaigns); and $381,000 paid to some “influencers”.

Conclusion: The CSAT documents declassified by the President provide absolutely no real, concrete basis for the public narratives about a “Russian attack” on Romania or of links between Georgescu’s campaign and Russia. These documents, by themselves, cannot rationally be used as arguments against this candidate because they prove nothing.

Shortly after the vote in a televised address President Iohannis claimed that the ‘campaign was illegally supported from outside Romania’ and that it is a ‘matter of national security’.

December 6, 2024

Romania’s top constitutional court dramatically cancelled high-stakes presidential elections after security services warned Russia was mounting “aggressive” hybrid attacks against the country. Călin Georgescu was accused to benefit from a TikTok campaign that was similar to influence operations allegedly run by the Kremlin in Ukraine and Moldova. The files said Moscow was targeting Romania as an enemy state, using “aggressive hybrid action,” a view backed by the United States, at that time.

Running as an independent, Georgescu was due to face liberal Elena Lasconi of the Save Romania Union (USR) in a Dec. 8 runoff. Suspicious of the two old parties, she is also calling on the court not to meddle with Romanian democracy. According to Radio Romania Actualitati, she said: ‘Today is the moment when the Romanian state has trampled on democracy,’ adding: ‘We should have gone ahead with the vote. We should have respected the will of the Romanian people, whether we like it or not; legally and legitimately, nine million Romanian citizens, both at home and in the diaspora, have expressed their preference for a particular candidate by voting. We cannot ignore their will.’

Elena Lasconi, a liberal—by Western standards, however, she might not be considered a typical liberal, as she openly expresses patriotism, displays the Romanian flag alongside the EU flag, and occasionally wears traditional folk costumes—former TV journalist. Lasconi, like Georgescu, is an anti-establishment figure, vocal in her criticism of the current political elite and adept at channelling voter discontent and frustration with mainstream parties. It is no surprise, then, that both the Social Democratic Party (PSD) and the National Liberal Party (PNL)—Romania’s two largest establishment parties—reacted with dismay to the performances of Georgescu and Lasconi. This discontent was amplified by the fact that neither party’s candidate came close to qualifying for a potential second round. Politicians from both the far right as well as liberal reformists Save Romania Union (USR) party view an annulment as an attempt by the widely distrusted old establishment parties — the Social Democratic Party (PSD) and the center-right National Liberal Party (PNL) — to hold on to power by pulling strings within the judiciary. Elena Lasconi, a liberal former TV journalist who was set to stand against Georgescu in the second round, was mortified by what she saw as a hijacking of the electoral process.

The court canceled the process completely, leaving voters bemused as they turned up to cast their ballots. In a defiant video released on Friday night, Georgescu accused the court of launching “practically a formalized coup d’état” and told his supporters to show they are “brave” and not to give up.

In fact, Georgescu was leading with as much as 77 per cent against Lasconi’s 23 per cent in the diaspora when Romania’s Constitutional Court decided to annul the elections.

The President, at that time, Klaus Iohannis was due to end his term on Dec. 21. But in an address to the nation Friday evening, he announced that he was going to stay on until the next president was about to sworn in.

Nicolae Ciucă, the head of the Romanian senate and the National Liberal Party’s presidential candidate in the first round said that The decision to cancel the vote was “without precedent in Romania’s democratic history,” he said, adding “the current situation is a difficult test for our democratic institutions.”

According to the press's findings, behind Georgescu there appears to have been an entire “network” of volunteers – often organised via Telegram – running thousands of co-ordinated TikTok accounts designed to boost each other’s posts – i.e. Georgescu’s short promo videos. TikTok has only relatively recently caught on in Romania; certainly it wasn’t a factor at the last election. This might explain why a strong TikTok campaign would not have registered properly in political analysis, and why it might’ve had an outsized effect on voting intentions. It is also a warning for the future of the very idea of democratic politics, as it shows that it is possible for candidates to completely side-step the traditional “public square”, avoid any major real-world debates or campaigning, and win elections exclusively online.

Still, there is a great deal of mystery over exactly how all this worked. Georgescu’s TikTok metrics are inferior to his three key adversaries for example: there were 145 million views this year for Georgescu’s main hashtags compared to 396 million for Simion’s, 328 million for Ciolacu and 202 million for Lasconi. One difference is that the bulk of Georgescu’s TikTok views and followers accrued within the past two months. Coupled with other indicators, it seems rather clear that so-called “troll farms” have been at work on his behalf, to spread his message; but it is not clear whether this practice is unique to Georgescu or whether it has been used – to varying degrees – by his opponents as well.

As Georgescu is perceived to be “pro-Russia” – an imprecise term to boot – suspicion in this regard is directed towards the Kremlin. But hard evidence is lacking; there is no smoking gun, so far. Russian actors are involved in virtually every election in the West, but their exact role in swinging the result is hardly ever clear. In the US a Congressional investigation – eventually known as the “Russia Hoax”, for good reason – failed to prove alleged collusion between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Moscow, despite widespread belief in this story from those shocked that “orange man” could ever win because his message was more effective.

The reaction from the EU and Washington was particularly alarming, though hardly surprising. ‘The integrity of Romania’s elections is paramount for Romanians’ hard-earned democracy. It is the choice of the Romanian people whom they elect. No other country or foreign actor has that right,’ the US State Department said in a statement. The contradiction is glaring, isn’t it? It’s supposedly the Romanians’ choice who they elect, yet if a candidate not favoured by the Americans wins, the election results are annulled.

Moscow denied meddling into the Romanian democratic process.

December 20, 2024

According to a Snoop (investigative journalist organization) investigation, Georgescu’s alleged financing would have been done by the PNL. ** All this, so that Georgescu’s message would spread and more people could vote for him so that George Simion would not make it to the second round. ** In fact, the ANAF (National Agency for Tax Administration) discovered that the PNL paid for a campaign massively promoting Călin Georgescu on TikTok, published on 20 December 2024.

December 22, 2024

Subsequent investigations by the National Agency for Fiscal Administration (ANAF), Romania’s tax authority, uncovered the origins of Călin Georgescu’s successful TikTok campaign: the PNL. The centre-right party’s campaign initially employed the hashtag #echilibrusiseriozitate to promote European values and pro-EU positions. Kensington Communication, the company responsible for the campaign, also targeted Georgescu’s content, aiming to counter his EU-critical rhetoric. However, the hashtag #echilibrusiseriozitate, designed to create an unfavourable environment for non-liberal presidential candidates on TikTok, was replaced by #echilibrusiverticalitate on the FameUP platform—a free automated platform that amplifies marketing campaigns. Interestingly, this new hashtag was ultimately adopted and used by Georgescu’s supporters, transforming its purpose and amplifying his campaign’s visibility. The Romanian government proposed 4 May as the date for a new presidential election. However, no formal decision was made since. Călin Georgescu has since challenged the Constitutional Court’s decision at a local appeals court and lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights. ‘I will take our cause to the heart of Europe, to the highest courts. Each of us is doing our part in this historic mission to defend our democracy,’ he declared.

January 5, 2025

Recent polls show that Călin Georgescu remains the most popular presidential candidate, with some surveys suggesting that the ultranationalist contender could garner close to 40 per cent support.

January 8, 2025

The court is considering disqualifying Georgescu for undeclared campaign funding.

The leaders of the ruling coalition made up of the Social Democrats (PSD), Liberals (PNL), the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians (UDMR), and the minorities' group decided on the new dates for the presidential elections. According to the agreed election schedule, the first round would have taken place on May 4, followed by the runoff on May 18.

At the beginning of the government meeting, prime minister Marcel Ciolacu announced the introduction of sanctions against social media networks that favor candidates, according to Europa Libera Romania.

Georgescu’s appeal against the constitutional court’s decision to nullify the election was rejected, so he lodged a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights.

In fact, even the Venice Commission (the officially European Commission for Democracy through Law) stated that, regarding what had happened in Romania, evidence must be given: ‘An election annulment must be based on transparent evidence, not classified information.’

January 10, 2025

Former European commissioner Thierry Breton assured that the European Union has mechanisms to overturn an eventual AfD victory:

We did it in Romania and obviously we will do it in Germany if necessary.

This was widely seen as a clear admission of their true intentions, as if they had dropped all pretenses and fully revealed themselves.

They tell you to your face that they can suspend elections and that absolutely nothing happens, then they have the cheek to declare themselves the ‘democrats’ and ‘tolerant’, when it is them who are the main enemies of democracy and freedom of expression!

January 12, 2025

Tens of thousands of supporters of Romanian presidential candidate Călin Georgescu took to the streets in Bucharest on Sunday to protest the annulment of the presidential election. With no concrete evidence emerging to substantiate the allegations of Russian interference, it has become increasingly evident that the progressive elite will go to any lengths to remain in power.

February 1, 2025 According to the last polls, Georgescu would be around 50 per cent; specifically, according to the last one published by România TV, he would obtain 47 per cent.

February 10, 2025

Romanian President Klaus Iohannis announced his resignation before his possible forced dismissal from parliament. Iohannis, echoing Joe Biden, made sure to pardon his family and the judges who suspended the presidential election before leaving, for reasons of precaution.

Once the court cancelled the elections—so no new president was elected—, it also decided to lengthen the current president’s term in office until a new vote in May 2025. Iohannis faced raising opposition, however, as some viewed his lengthened mandate as illegitimate. On the one hand, the Romanian constitution states that a presidential term is five years, and the president remains in office until their successor takes over. On the other hand, it also makes clear that the presidency can be extended only in case of war or catastrophe. Protests also took place against the decision of him remaining in office, and the legislature initiated his removal as well. **Preventing a successful impeachment procedure, Klaus Iohannis stepped down. ** In his resignation speech he highlighted that Romania’s western partners will not understand the reason why he was forced to step down, and that his departure will damage Bucharest’s relationship with its allies. The country’s interim president will be the Senate’s president, Ilie Bolojan.

February 15, 2025

The Constitutional Court of Romania is accused of canceling elections without evidence, allegedly to suppress votes against the EU-aligned political establishment. Claims suggest court judges are linked to Soros-funded NGOs. A network of "independent" NGOs and media, funded by hundreds of millions from the EU and USAID, is said to promote left-wing globalist agendas, manipulate public opinion, and counter conservative values. EU grants and a secret 130 million euro contract to a French agency, tied to corruption, allegedly fueled pro-EU media campaigns, undermining independent journalism and labeling critics as pro-Russia. Independent journalist, Iosefina Pascal, talks thoroughly about this case.

February 19, 2025 Renowned journalist and X (formerly Twitter) personality Mario Nawfal interviews Georgescu, with clear expressions of support for Trump and Musk, alongside a strong critical stance toward George Soros.

February 26, 2025 Romania’s presidential candidate, Calin Georgescu was arrested while en route to Bucharest to announce his new presidential campaign. Georgescu’s campaign team has confirmed that Georgescu was picked up by the police and detained in the middle of traffic for questioning at the attorney general’s office.

Georgescu was declared the winner of that election round, but an arrest warrant was issued against him on February 26, as reported by the Romanian press.

Romanian prosecutors have initiated criminal proceedings against the right-wing politician and candidate for the 2024 presidential election, Călin Georgescu, on six charges. These include allegations of engaging in unconstitutional activities and providing inaccurate financial disclosures, according to official sources.

March 1, 2025

Thousands march for freedom in Romania. Over 200,000 Romanians flood streets for Georgescu. Anti-Soros feelings are everywhere.

March 6, 2025

The Romanian opposition – denied a likely victory – took their case to the European Court of Human Rights.

The ECHR (The European Convention on Human Rights, a supranational convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe) threw the case out without even hearing it. Apparently, the Romanian courts were perfectly within their rights to simply indefinitely postpone their election on the basis of unproven allegations.

Romania is moving toward its strictest censorship law since 1989, granting authorities the power to block websites and social media posts without independent review.

The Emergency Ordinance (OUG) would allow the government to shut down content deemed “false information,” “manipulation,” or a “threat to national security,” with no clear definitions or court approval required.

The Romanian Intelligence Service (SRI), military, cybersecurity agencies, and electoral authorities would have sweeping powers to remove posts and block platforms, while internet providers refusing to comply could face massive daily fines.

This law could be used to silence journalists and political opponents, as there is no independent oversight and no clear standard for what counts as “false information.”

The government claims the measure is meant to combat foreign election interference, but it will actually be weaponized against free speech.

March 7, 2025 Călin Georgescu, the people’s choice in Romania’s annulled election, has officially submitted his candidacy for the upcoming presidential race, backed by over 324,000 signatures.

The Constitutional Court will decide this month or early April if his candidacy is approved, assuming, of course, that he doesn't get arrested again this time.

March 8, 2025

Demonstrators gathered in front of Romania’s Palace of Parliament, holding banners thanking Tulsi Gabbard and urging Trump to “help take our country back!”

Romania’s Constitutional Court has unanimously rejected 4 appeals attempting to block Călin Georgescu from the presidential race. The challenges, filed by minor candidates Sebastian Popescu and Cristian Terheș, accused him of failing to disclose campaign funding and alleged foreign financial ties. The court dismissed the claims as inadmissible, citing procedural failures and lack of legal merit.

Allegedly Soros-linked activists flood Romanian Electoral Bureau with 1,000 identical appeals against CĂLIN GEORGESCU

Over 1,000 copy-paste appeals were filed against Călin Georgescu’s candidacy, organized by Soros-backed activists trying to block him.

But the Electoral Bureau (BEC) is set to reject them all—the challenges were filed before his candidacy was even validated, making them invalid.

March 9, 2025

Calin Georgescu’s presidential candidacy has been officially rejected, sparking outrage among his supporters, who attempted to breach the Bureau of Electoral Control (BEC).

The candidacy was rejected with 10 votes in favor and 4 against.

Romania’s Electoral Office bypassed the Constitutional Court, which had approved his candidacy in December, and shut him down directly instead.

George Simion, president of the AUR stated in viral video:

Georgescu put his candidacy at the Central Electoral Bureau and by 10 members to 4, it was rejected without any reason. All the papers were in good order. They just said they voted through their conscience. We live in a dictatorship. Please help us. Please be on our side to restore democracy in Romania.

March 11, 2025

Romanian presidential candidate Călin Georgescu cannot run in the Presidential Election. Călin Georgescu’s appeal against the invalidation of his presidential candidacy has been rejected by the Constitutional Court.

March 27, 2025

The National Authority for Administration and Regulation in Communications (ANCOM), coordinator of digital services in Romania held an exercise to test the capacity to respond to challenges that may emerge in the online environment, in view of the presidential elections in May.

This initiative takes its root from the Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM), which ironically, was established during the G7 Charlevoix Summit in June 2018, meant to enhance cooperation among nations in addressing ‘crisis’ moments and perceived threats to western democracy.

Ahead of Romania’s new presidential election, the European Commission has launched its ‘RRM’ as a proactive strategy which the EC presents as a means to tackle potential electoral law violations on social media in member states holding elections. In effect, a similar simulation was reportedly held before the February elections in Germany. Coincidentally, a call for proposals to manage the new project described as a “Media Freedom Rapid Response Mechanism” was issued by the European Commission on Oct 24, 2024, under the cross-sectoral strand of the Creative Europe Programme. This CFP was launched to allegedly promote an independent and pluralistic media environment through an independent Europe-wide rapid response mechanism.

Subsequently, the Romanian government is now drafting an emergency ordinance to empower authorities to eliminate illegal (or inconvenient) online content, which they argue is essential for protecting the electoral process. However, some interpret this as a sign of a democratic crisis, with the current administration struggling to maintain power and resorting to emergency measures to suppress opposition and their freedom of speech. Recent polls suggest that Călin Georgescu could win the presidency in a single round, a situation complicated by the exclusion of the right-wing conservative candidate from the May 2025 elections. Other talks about possible corruption surrounding the construction of the multi-billion classified secret service contract for the Realization of the infrastructure of NATO 57th Air Base Mihail Kogălniceanu, located only 30 kilometres from the Black Sea and anticipated to be NATO’s largest base in Europe upon completion.

@ c0c42bba:a5feb7b5

Hey guy this is my first note on nostr and I'm glad we have something like this now. I've been a Substack writer for a couple of years now and I'm so excited to jump on this and I can't wait for the many things I can do with this

please show your support

@ 107f2bb3:d78aa4c4

bye

@ 42342239:1d80db24

Almost 150 years ago, the British newspaper editor William Thomas Stead wrote that "the editorial pen is a sceptre of power, compared with which the sceptre of many a monarch is but a gilded lath". He had begun to regard journalism as something more than just conveying information - the journalist or editor could become a ruler.

Times had certainly changed compared to a few hundred years earlier. Before Gutenberg's invention of the printing press, it was mainly the church that controlled the dissemination of information in Europe, but when Stead put pen to paper, this control had shifted to newspapers, schools, and universities. Eventually, technologies like radio and TV entered the scene, but the power dynamics remained asymmetrical - only a few could send information to the many.

However, with the emergence of the internet, and especially with the spread of social media, a significant change followed. Instead of only a few being able to send information to the many, many could send to many. Almost anyone could now create their own newspaper, radio, or TV channel. The power over information dissemination was decentralised.

Ten years ago, Roberta Alenius, who was then press secretary for Sweden's Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of the Moderate Party, shared her experiences with Social Democratic and Moderate Party internet activists on social media. She reported that social media played a significant role in how news "comes out" and is shaped, and that journalism was now downstream of social media. Five years later, NATO's then-Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that "NATO must be prepared for both conventional and hybrid threats: from tanks to tweets." This finally underscores the importance of social media.

Elon Musk, who took over X (formerly Twitter) in 2022, has claimed that "it's absolutely fundamental and transformative that the people actually get to decide the news and narrative and what's important," and that citizen journalism is the future.

While his platform allows most expressions - for better or worse - the reach of messages is instead limited ("freedom of speech does not mean freedom of reach "). X has also opened its recommendation algorithm to the outside world by making it open-source. Although this is a welcome step, the fact remains that it's impossible to know which code is actually used and what adjustments are made by humans or algorithms.

William Thomas Stead's "sceptre of power", which has wandered from the church to newspaper and TV editorial offices, and now to citizens according to Elon Musk, risks being transferred to algorithms' opaque methods?

Instead of talking about "toxic algorithms" and TikTok bans, like the so many do today, we should ask ourselves more fundamental questions. What happens when algorithms are no longer objective (how can they ever be?), but instead become tools for shaping our reality? Perhaps our greatest challenge today is not deciding who should govern the information landscape, but instead recognising that no one is up to the task - not even well-ventilated computers.

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Design and build chemical processes, better. Alkali is creating the world's first AI Process Engineer.

What the future of chemical process design should look like.

Under the hood, APE-0 uses tried-and-true open-source packages to run simulations. You don't have to trust that the LLM predicted the result — you can check out the simulation file it produced, and run it yourself!

Discover more at https://www.alkali-eng.com/blogs/introducing-fel-0

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/968211

@ 554ab6fe:c6cbc27e

Bitcoin’s Price and the Power Law: A Reflection of Energy and the Early Stages of Monetary Adoption Introduction Bitcoin’s price trajectory has long puzzled analysts, with its seemingly chaotic booms and busts. However, when examined through the lens of power laws, a pattern emerges—one that is fundamentally tied to Bitcoin’s energy-based production cost. This article argues that Bitcoin’s price has historically followed a power law because its underlying cost structure is dictated by mining, an energy-intensive process. However, this relationship will not persist indefinitely. I propose that as Bitcoin matures into a widely adopted monetary system, its price will decouple from mining production costs and instead oscillate in accordance with natural business cycles, much like traditional forms of money.

Bitcoin’s Price and the Power Law

Source and Credit: Giovanni Santostasi’s “The Bitcoin Power Law”

When Bitcoin’s price is plotted on a logarithmic scale against time, a strikingly straight-line trajectory appears, punctuated by cycles of rapid price expansion (bull markets) followed by severe corrections (bear markets). These perturbations correspond to Bitcoin’s well-known halving cycles, which occur approximately every four years and reduce the block reward paid to miners, effectively doubling the cost of production per Bitcoin. Historically, Bitcoin’s price has always returned to a fundamental minimum—one that closely aligns with the average cost of mining.

This observation suggests that Bitcoin’s power law price behavior is not arbitrary but rather a reflection of its fundamental energy constraints. As in many natural systems governed by power laws, energy dynamics play a central role. In Bitcoin’s case, the “base layer” of its valuation is determined by the energy and computational resources required for mining. This power law behavior is therefore a consequence of Bitcoin’s fundamental design: as block subsidies decrease and mining efficiency improves, the minimum sustainable price follows an upward trajectory dictated by production costs.

Bitcoin as an Energy-Based System

Power laws commonly emerge in natural systems involving energy constraints, from thermodynamics to biological ecosystems and planetary dynamics. Bitcoin, as an energy-based monetary system, exhibits similar characteristics. Mining requires significant electricity and computational power, and as the difficulty adjustment ensures a competitive equilibrium, the cost of mining a Bitcoin remains closely tied to its market value over the long run.

Unlike traditional fiat currencies, which are controlled by central banks and subject to arbitrary monetary expansion, Bitcoin’s supply schedule is immutable. Its economic foundation is rooted in proof of work, where value is derived from energy expenditure. This fundamental linkage between energy and price explains why Bitcoin’s valuation has adhered to a power law trajectory. It is an entropy engine, and follows physical laws related to energy and entropy.

However, this pattern is not a permanent feature of Bitcoin’s monetary future—it is, rather, an indication of Bitcoin’s early-stage monetization process.

The Transition from Mining-Based Pricing to a Business Cycle

A crucial implication of Bitcoin’s price following a power law dictated by mining costs is that it suggests Bitcoin has yet to fully mature as money. If Bitcoin were already a widely adopted monetary standard, its valuation would no longer be primarily influenced by the floor mining costs but instead by macroeconomic forces—specifically, the natural fluctuations of the business cycle.

In a world where Bitcoin is the dominant global currency, the “price of money” (which correlates with the cost of capital and prevailing interest rates) would fluctuate according to the broader economic cycle. The dynamics would resemble those of natural interest rate cycles described by the Austrian School of Economics:

• During periods of economic expansion, lower interest rates spur increased investment and consumption, prices slightly rise, and savings deplete.
• As savings decline and prices rise, interest rates naturally rise as well, leading to reduced investment and spending, initiating a contractionary phase and lowered prices.
• During the contraction, savings accumulate, more capital becomes available, and interest rates and prices decline.
• With the availability of capital, lower interest rates and lowered prices, the economy is now ready to enter a phase of investment and expansion once again.
• This oscillatory process continues indefinitely, driven by real economic growth rather than central bank intervention.

If Bitcoin were fully monetized, its price would no longer oscillate based on mining halvings and energy costs but instead reflect economic expansion and contraction cycles—just as traditional currencies do when not artificially manipulated by central banks.

The Early Stage Indicator: Bitcoin’s Dependence on Mining Costs

Today, Bitcoin’s price still “bounces” off the power law baseline, indicating that its valuation remains primarily anchored to its minimum cost of production. This means that, while Bitcoin is widely recognized as an asset, it has not yet reached the level of adoption where its price is dictated by macroeconomic cycles.

A future in which Bitcoin is used as a primary medium of exchange and unit of account would necessarily imply a decoupling from mining-driven pricing. Instead of periodic halvings triggering speculative bull runs followed by crashes, Bitcoin’s price would become far more stable, with fluctuations primarily driven by business cycle dynamics. The continued adherence to the power law model, therefore, is evidence that Bitcoin is still in an early phase of adoption—where mining remains a primary determinant of price.

Conclusion

Bitcoin’s price trajectory has long conformed to a power law, reflecting the underlying energy costs of mining. This characteristic, however, is likely not a permanent feature but rather a hallmark of Bitcoin’s early stage as an emerging monetary system. As adoption increases and Bitcoin becomes widely used as money, its price should transition away from being dictated by mining costs and should instead fluctuate according to the natural oscillations of the business cycle.

The persistence of Bitcoin’s power law trend is a sign that it remains in its infancy. The real transformation will occur when Bitcoin is no longer bound to its production cost but is instead driven by the natural ebb and flow of savings, investment, and capital cycles—marking its full emergence as a global monetary system.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog is for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as financial advice. Please consult with a financial advisor or conduct your own research before making any financial decisions.

@ be41636e:e55c4909

I asked unleashed.chat's DeepSeek model to provide the pieces of evidence against the moon landing. What follows is what I got as my answer.

Generally, I like the answer, though it mixed up the claim and counterarguments at times.

Also, I didn't like the conclusion :))

But all said, I believe the Van Allen Belts are one of the most solid argument against the moon landing.

---

The question of whether the moon landing was faked has been a topic of debate, with various arguments presented by those who doubt the authenticity of the event. Here is a summary of the key points often cited against the moon landing, along with counterarguments and explanations:

Arguments Against the Moon Landing: Waving Flag:

Claim: The American flag appears to wave in the wind, despite the moon having no atmosphere. Counterargument: The flag's movement was caused by the astronauts' actions, as they adjusted it using a rod behind the flag. Missing Stars:

Claim: The photos lack visible stars, which should be present in the moon's black sky. Counterargument: The cameras were set for optimal lighting of the lunar surface, making stars too faint to capture. Shadow Anomalies:

Claim: Shadows in photos appear to come from multiple directions, suggesting studio lighting. Counterargument: The moon's surface is uneven, causing shadows to appear differently, and the sun's angle can create varied shadows. Van Allen Belts:

Claim: Astronauts would have been exposed to lethal radiation from the Van Allen belts. Counterargument: The missions were timed to pass through the belts quickly, minimizing exposure. Lack of Blast Crater:

Claim: No noticeable crater was created by the lunar module's descent engine. Counterargument: The engine's thrust was designed to minimize impact, and the moon's surface is softer than expected. Missing Footage:

Claim: Original tapes of the landing were lost, and restored footage is of lower quality. Counterargument: Footage was restored from other sources, including TV broadcasts and telemetry data. Soviet Silence:

Claim: The Soviets did not contest the landing, despite being space race competitors. Counterargument: The Soviets may not have had the means to verify the landing or were focused on their own programs. Technological Capabilities:

Claim: The technology of the 1960s was insufficient for a moon landing. Counterargument: Successful unmanned missions and technological advancements supported the capability. Number of Participants:

Claim: Thousands of people involved would have leaked the secret. Counterargument: Secrecy measures and unawareness of implications could have prevented leaks. "C" Rock Incident:

Claim: A rock appeared to float, suggesting tampering. Counterargument: The rock was a prop, and movement was due to low-gravity actions. Supporting Evidence for the Moon Landing: Moon Rocks: Analyzed and confirmed as lunar. Footprints and Equipment: Observed by subsequent missions and satellites. Cumulative Evidence: Multiple sources confirm the moon landing. In conclusion, while various arguments have been presented against the moon landing, each has been addressed with scientific explanations and evidence. The consensus among the scientific community is that the moon landing was genuine, supported by substantial evidence and corroborated by multiple sources.

The question of whether the moon landing was faked has been a topic of debate, with various arguments presented by those who doubt the authenticity of the event. Here is a summary of the key points often cited against the moon landing, along with counterarguments and explanations:

Arguments Against the Moon Landing:

1. Waving Flag:

   • Claim: The American flag appears to wave in the wind, despite the moon having no atmosphere.
   • Counterargument: The flag's movement was caused by the astronauts' actions, as they adjusted it using a rod behind the flag.

2. Missing Stars:

   • Claim: The photos lack visible stars, which should be present in the moon's black sky.
   • Counterargument: The cameras were set for optimal lighting of the lunar surface, making stars too faint to capture.

3. Shadow Anomalies:

   • Claim: Shadows in photos appear to come from multiple directions, suggesting studio lighting.
   • Counterargument: The moon's surface is uneven, causing shadows to appear differently, and the sun's angle can create varied shadows.

4. Van Allen Belts:

   • Claim: Astronauts would have been exposed to lethal radiation from the Van Allen belts.
   • Counterargument: The missions were timed to pass through the belts quickly, minimizing exposure.

5. Lack of Blast Crater:

   • Claim: No noticeable crater was created by the lunar module's descent engine.
   • Counterargument: The engine's thrust was designed to minimize impact, and the moon's surface is softer than expected.

6. Missing Footage:

   • Claim: Original tapes of the landing were lost, and restored footage is of lower quality.
   • Counterargument: Footage was restored from other sources, including TV broadcasts and telemetry data.

7. Soviet Silence:

   • Claim: The Soviets did not contest the landing, despite being space race competitors.
   • Counterargument: The Soviets may not have had the means to verify the landing or were focused on their own programs.

8. Technological Capabilities:

   • Claim: The technology of the 1960s was insufficient for a moon landing.
   • Counterargument: Successful unmanned missions and technological advancements supported the capability.

9. Number of Participants:

   • Claim: Thousands of people involved would have leaked the secret.
   • Counterargument: Secrecy measures and unawareness of implications could have prevented leaks.

10. "C" Rock Incident:

    • Claim: A rock appeared to float, suggesting tampering.
    • Counterargument: The rock was a prop, and movement was due to low-gravity actions.

Supporting Evidence for the Moon Landing:

• Moon Rocks: Analyzed and confirmed as lunar.
• Footprints and Equipment: Observed by subsequent missions and satellites.
• Cumulative Evidence: Multiple sources confirm the moon landing.

In conclusion, while various arguments have been presented against the moon landing, each has been addressed with scientific explanations and evidence. The consensus among the scientific community is that the moon landing was genuine, supported by substantial evidence and corroborated by multiple sources.

@ 1d7ff02a:d042b5be

Source: https://youtu.be/e_Y9tI4dALA?si=F5wXRlpM0YulbhmY

Twitter Origins and Evolution

Twitter began as Dorsey's attempt to better understand cities by visualizing what people were doing and thinking (00:35-02:27) Key features like @mentions, hashtags, and retweets were invented by users, not the company (04:06-05:24) Dorsey realized Twitter was becoming significant when he saw politicians using it during Obama's first address to the nation (06:29-07:44)

Reflections on Twitter/X

Regrets monetizing too quickly through advertising rather than exploring better business models (12:19-13:05) Believes Twitter should have been built as an open protocol rather than a centralized company (13:05-14:23) Advocates for user choice in algorithms rather than having companies decide what content users see (15:35-18:31)

Decentralized Social Media

Started Blue Sky while at Twitter to create a decentralized social media protocol (22:51-24:07) Later focused on Nostr, which he believes has a better development model similar to Linux (24:07-25:57) Believes the future of social media includes agent-driven systems and greater user agency (29:01-29:41)

Block and Bitcoin

Block (formerly Square) focuses on economic empowerment through financial tools (32:08-32:47) Sees Bitcoin as essential for creating an internet protocol for moving money (33:25-35:09) Believes Bitcoin will eventually move beyond being just a store of value to become a currency for cross-border remittances (35:09-36:58)

Entrepreneurship Philosophy

Never intended to be an entrepreneur but wanted to build useful products (40:22-42:02) Compares entrepreneurship to art - knowing how to express ideas and where to set boundaries (42:02-43:09) Deals with rejection by viewing all experiences as teachers with lessons to offer (43:44-44:55)

Personal Habits

Practices meditation daily and previously did 10-day silent retreats (45:30-46:43) Creates daily lists of both what to do and what not to do (47:21-48:28) Eats only once a day to save time and better appreciate food (51:29-52:39) Dedicates morning hours to learning difficult subjects like quantum physics (48:28-49:40)

His advice to young people: observe everything, take in information, and don't worry about immediately reacting to it (52:39-53:00).

Noteable Quotes

• On Twitter's co-creation with users: "What's interesting about Twitter is it wasn't really us who determined where it went, it was the people using it." (04:06)

• On algorithms: "I think it's less about free speech, I think it's more about do we get to choose how the algorithms are programming us, because the algorithms are definitively programming us." (15:35)

• On rejections and setbacks: "Everything I encounter, everything I experience is a teacher and they have some lesson for me, and it's up to me whether I decide to learn from it or not." (43:44)

• On entrepreneurship as art: "It's expression, it's knowing when to end something, it's knowing what the chapters are and where the piece begins and where it ends." (42:02)

• On Bitcoin's potential: "Bitcoin is over close to 16 years old right now. It's never gone down, it's never had a security issue, it has no leader, it has a completely open roadmap, and it's determined by a consensus development model." (36:18)

• On learning: "I think people skip the observing phase too often. I don't think people are good listeners. I don't think people have honed their ability to observe the world and observe nature and observe how things work." (50:19)

• On his advice to young people: "Observe everything, like take everything in, get love information, love receiving information, don't worry about reacting to it, don't worry about memorizing it, don't worry about doing anything with it at all, just be open." (52:39)

@ d61f3bc5:0da6ef4a

Micropayments on the Internet have been theorized for decades. However, it wasn’t until the emergence of Nostr that we’ve finally seen them deployed at scale. Nostr is still in its infancy, yet we are already witnessing an explosion of apps built on top of this open protocol. And most of them are featuring zaps! With the recent Primal 2.1 release, Nostr developers now have the option to enhance the experience for their users by integrating a Nostr-powered bitcoin wallet. 

There is no doubt that micropayments add a new dimension to consumer apps. The incumbents have realized this and are rushing to add payments to their closed platforms. It won't be long before apps that don’t include built-in payments feel dated or outright broken. The question is not if apps of the future will have built-in payments, but what kind of payments they will be. Given that open networks have a tendency to win, our bet is that apps of the future will be powered by Bitcoin. Let’s see how Primal can help.

Primal Wallet

Our vision for Primal Wallet is simple: deliver the smoothest transactional bitcoin wallet, endowed with expert Nostr skills. The wallet leverages Nostr’s open social graph as a de facto public lightning directory, while offering the highest level of user experience for Nostr’s rich content. For example, the user can scroll through the transaction list, select a zap, and drill straight into the conversation thread where the zap originated. The whole flow feels perfectly natural.  Since we launched Primal Wallet in December 2023, the user response has been incredibly positive. People love the idea of being able to post something on Nostr, get zaps from plebs around the world, then buy a coffee or a meal with those sats - all from the same app. 

Having a bitcoin wallet with social skills resonated strongly with users, so Primal Wallet grew rapidly in popularity and usage. Since the launch, we have processed 1,338,460 transactions, with 238,916 just in the past month alone. This rivals some of the leading bitcoin wallets, and we are just getting started! We hear from many bitcoin OGs that they are using Primal Wallet as their transactional daily driver. Bullish. 

All this is great, but something has been missing. Our users demanded the ability to connect Primal Wallet to other Nostr apps, so they can zap from anywhere in Nostr’s growing ecosystem.

Zapping from Any Nostr App

For an existing Primal user, connecting the wallet to a new Nostr app can now be done in two clicks. Let’s take a look at how this is done from Olas, one of the most exciting new apps on Nostr:

Yes. Click, click. And you can start zapping! 

Such smooth integration of payments is not available in any competing technology stack. Tradfi, fintech, crypto, etc., have nothing on Bitcoin and Nostr. Two clicks and your external wallet is connected. I’ll give you a moment now to allow for this new reality to settle in.

Primal enables you to connect any number of external apps and manage them from wallet settings: Note that you can set your daily spend budget for each app or revoke its access at any time.

How This Works

So, what is this sorcery? How does it work under the hood?

Connecting Nostr apps to external wallets is accomplished via the Nostr Wallet Connect protocol. It utilizes Nostr’s public relay infrastructure to enable communication between apps and wallets. You can learn more about this protocol here, and access developer docs here.

The smooth, two-click connection setup UX is implemented through deep links between Primal and the external app. Here’s the deep link that the external app needs to call to invoke this feature: 

nostrnwc+primal://connect?appicon=[icon_url]&appname=[app_name]&callback=[callback_string]

After the user clicks “Create Wallet Connection” in Primal, the Primal app calls the deep link defined in the callback, and passes the NWC connection string. That's all that the external app needs to make the wallet connection.

What Comes Next?

The Nostr Wallet Connect protocol has been around for almost two years. Several bitcoin wallets implement it and many Nostr apps use it as their main way of enabling payments. What’s new with Primal 2.1 is the elevated user experience. Since Primal is a Nostr-powered wallet, it is aware of all the relevant metadata for each transaction: Nostr zaps, users, and the related events. Primal indexes the entire Nostr network, and now this is open to all Nostr apps that wish to integrate payments. 

Nostr keeps expanding and getting better. Its openness enables us to build capabilities that lift all boats. The future is bright; I can’t wait to see how things evolve from here. 🍿🍿🍿

@ 866e0139:6a9334e5

Autor: Ludwig F. Badenhagen. Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben. Sie finden alle Texte der Friedenstaube und weitere Texte zum Thema Frieden hier. Die neuesten Pareto-Artikel finden Sie auch in unserem Telegram-Kanal.

---

Die neuesten Artikel der Friedenstaube gibt es jetzt auch im eigenen Friedenstaube-Telegram-Kanal.

---

Woran erkennt man einen Verbrecher? Die meisten Menschen erfahren von Verbrechern aus den Medien, denn die Medien erklären, wer ein Verbrecher und was ein Verbrechen ist. Die Medien berufen sich hierbei gerne auf „Experten“ und „helfen“ dem gewöhnlichen Bürger bei der „Einordnung“ von Sachverhalten. Man lernt, dass „ein junger Mann“, der mit einem Messer ein hilfloses Baby abschlachtet, nicht so hart bestraft wird, wie etwa ein „Steuersünder“. Und wer glaubt, dass Wahlbetrug juristisch geahndet werden könnte, der irrt ebenso wie jemand, der glaubt, dass es in einer Demokratie erlaubt sein könnte, ein satirisches Meme über einen Politiker zu teilen. Neuerdings sind selbst „Meinungen unterhalb der Strafbarkeitsgrenze“ für gewöhnliche Bürger nicht mehr folgenlos.

Bekanntlich ist die Staatsanwaltschaft in Deutschland eine weisungsgebundene Behörde und als solche ein Teil der Exekutive. Dem Staatsanwalt selbst ist gemäß § 353b Strafgesetzbuch zudem strafrechtlich untersagt, ihm gegenüber erteilte Weisungen Dritten mitzuteilen. Sofern demnach direkte Weisungen erteilt würden, hätte der weisungsgebundene Staatsanwalt diese nicht nur zu befolgen, sondern dürfte auch niemandem gegenüber offenbaren, dass er nicht aus eigener Überzeugung, sondern auf Anweisung - wie beispielsweisen aus politischen Motiven heraus - handelt. Diese juristische Konstruktion eröffnet regierenden Politikern einen erheblichen Gestaltungsspielraum. 

Anstelle der konsequenten Anwendung des Strafrechts gab es vor allem in der jüngeren Vergangenheit bei den der Öffentlichkeit nicht zu verbergenden Verfehlungen von Politikern lediglich folgenlose Untersuchungsausschüsse. Könnte dies daran gelegen haben, dass Gerechtigkeit eine Frage von Auslegung und Deutung ist – und die Politiker die Deutungshoheit haben?

Wenn dies so wäre, würde sich die Frage aufdrängen, wie weitgehend denn Straftaten dieser Personengruppe ungestraft ausgeführt werden könnten? Ein Manager eines Unternehmens wird für Fehlverhalten massiv bestraft, während der Lenker eines Landes quasi alles tun kann, was er – im Auftrag der Leute, für die er tatsächlich tätig ist – tun möchte? Wenn dies so wäre, würde es sich dann nicht eher um eine Kabale als um eine ehrenhafte Regierung handeln?

---

DIE FRIEDENSTAUBE FLIEGT AUCH IN IHR POSTFACH!

Hier können Sie die Friedenstaube abonnieren und bekommen die Artikel zugesandt, vorerst für alle kostenfrei, wir starten gänzlich ohne Paywall. (Die Bezahlabos fangen erst zu laufen an, wenn ein Monetarisierungskonzept für die Inhalte steht). Sie wollen der Genossenschaft beitreten oder uns unterstützen? Mehr Infos hier oder am Ende des Textes. friedenstaube@pareto.space

---

Was wäre in diesem Fall mit dem Gewaltmonopol? Könnten die Soldaten und Polizisten dann nicht für das Durchsetzen der individuellen Interessen dieser Leute missbraucht werden? Ein Bürger dürfte sich nicht kritisch über diese Leute äußern, oder müsste stärkste Repressionen erdulden. Wenn die Gerichtsbarkeit dieser Kabale dienen würde, wäre denn dann eine Rechtsprechung überhaupt möglich? Was würde mit einem Richter, der „in einer wichtigen Sache das falsche Urteil sprechen“ würde, denn passieren? Würde möglicherweise sein Haus von einem Sonderkommando durchsucht und würde er gedemütigt? Würde er seinen Job verlieren und käme er ins Gefängnis? Und wie würde dies auf andere Richter wirken? Würden sich diese gegen die Kabale auflehnen oder lieber tun, was die Kabale ihnen vorgibt?

Was wäre, wenn solch eine Kabale zu Krieg, höheren Steuerzahlungen, medizinischen Zwangsbehandlungen etc. unter Androhung von Bestrafungen zwingen würde? Und was wäre, wenn die Menschen erkennen würden, dass sie von Verbrechern regiert werden?

Was würden Sie tun?

Nun, man könnte demonstrieren, auf die Straße gehen, und dort für seine Rechte eintreten, oder? Aber ist dieses „Demonstrationsrecht“, welches dem eigentlichen Souverän, dem Bürger, „großzügig“ eingeräumt wurde, nicht etwas völlig Wirkungsloses? Wer demonstriert, hat das Gewaltmonopol des Staates zu akzeptieren, sodass er zwar geschlagen, mit Wasserwerfern und Pfefferspray besprüht, gewürgt und von Hunden gebissen werden, aber sich selbst nicht wehren darf. Wenn sich ein Demonstrant in der „falschen Sache“ nicht an die Demonstrationsregeln hält und beispielsweise Sicherheitsabstände nicht korrekt einhält, wird er sehr schnell von einem gepanzerten und anonymisierten Polizisten bestraft. Und was ist mit den vielen V-Leuten? Ein so genannter Agent Provokateur mischt sich unter die Demonstranten und gibt vor, ein Teil von diesen zu sein, um dann in deren Namen „etwas Unrechtes“ zu tun wie eine Reichsbürger-Fahne zu schwenken oder einen Sicherheitsabstand nicht einzuhalten oder einen Polizisten anzugreifen. Und schon hat man „einen Grund“, dieser Demonstration einen besonderen Anstrich zu verpassen. Wer sich noch an „den Sturm auf den Reichstag“ und die Verleihungen von Verdienstorden für „die Rettung unserer Demokratie“ erinnert, weiß, dass Demonstrationen gelenkt werden können und dass ein gewöhnlicher Bürger, der „sein Demonstrationsrecht“ wahrnimmt, im Zuge einer solchen Veranstaltung am eigenen Leib erfahren kann, dass ihm die Demo im günstigsten Fall weder genützt noch geschadet hat.

Aber was sonst könnte man tun, wenn man von Verbrechern regiert würde? Was könnte getan werden, wenn Untaten wie Kriegstreiberei, Gesundheitsdiktatur, Steuerwillkür, Klimawahn, Wahlmanipulationen etc. nicht „aus Versehen“, sondern mit schädigender Absicht, also mit Vorsatz getan wurden und werden?

Wer sich diese Fragen stellt, ist bereits sehr weit und weitgehend isoliert, denn der große Teil der Bevölkerung wird durch die Medien nicht nur darüber „informiert“, was Straftaten sind, sondern erhält zudem „wohlwollende Einordnungen“ zum jeweils aktuellen Geschehen. Der „gute Bürger Unsererdemokratie“ ist einfach „besser informiert“, und weiß, was er zu denken hat. Für den „guten Bürger“ ist alles klar: Wir leben in der besten Demokratie aller Zeiten und die Politiker geben ihr Bestes, zu unser aller Wohle. Sie schützen uns vor Pandemien, vor Feinden der Demokratie und Feinden des Landes, und sind hierbei weitestgehend selbstlos. 

Aber wer sich der Mühe unterziehen möchte, selbst zu denken, der hat die Möglichkeit, seine eigenen Einordnungen auf der Basis ungeschwärzter Fakten vorzunehmen. Wer beispielsweise die RKI-Protokolle oder auch anderes Material ungeschwärzt lesen möchte, kann sich (noch) unabhängiger Portale bedienen, die seitens der Regierung zwar allesamt verboten werden sollen (da man schließlich als Regierung bestimmen möchte, was die Bürger zu lesen und zu glauben haben), die aber derzeit noch verfügbar sind.

In welcher Welt wollen wir und unsere Kinder leben und was ist zu tun, damit diese wünschenswerte Welt entsteht? Die Menschen sollten in die Wahrnehmung und von dort aus in die Erkenntnis kommen. Und aus der Erkenntnis ins Wollen, denn letztendlich ist das Wollen stets die Grundvoraussetzung für das Tun. Und ohne das Tun passiert – nichts.

Lesen Sie hier, wie Menschen wie Vieh behandelt werden und hier, wie das System organisiert ist. Und hier ist zu nachzulesen, was getan werden könnte, wenn Verbrecher an der Macht wären.

---

LASSEN SIE DER FRIEDENSTAUBE FLÜGEL WACHSEN!

Hier können Sie die Friedenstaube abonnieren und bekommen die Artikel zugesandt.

Schon jetzt können Sie uns unterstützen:

• Für 50 CHF/EURO bekommen Sie ein Jahresabo der Friedenstaube.
• Für 120 CHF/EURO bekommen Sie ein Jahresabo und ein T-Shirt/Hoodie mit der Friedenstaube.
• Für 500 CHF/EURO werden Sie Förderer und bekommen ein lebenslanges Abo sowie ein T-Shirt/Hoodie mit der Friedenstaube.
• Ab 1000 CHF werden Sie Genossenschafter der Friedenstaube mit Stimmrecht (und bekommen lebenslanges Abo, T-Shirt/Hoodie).

Für Einzahlungen in CHF (Betreff: Friedenstaube):

Für Einzahlungen in Euro:

Milosz Matuschek

IBAN DE 53710520500000814137

BYLADEM1TST

Sparkasse Traunstein-Trostberg

Betreff: Friedenstaube

Wenn Sie auf anderem Wege beitragen wollen, schreiben Sie die Friedenstaube an: friedenstaube@pareto.space

---

Sie sind noch nicht auf Nostr and wollen die volle Erfahrung machen (liken, kommentieren etc.)? Zappen können Sie den Autor auch ohne Nostr-Profil! Erstellen Sie sich einen Account auf Start. Weitere Onboarding-Leitfäden gibt es im Pareto-Wiki.

@ c4b5369a:b812dbd6

Unidirectional payment channels revisited

Nodeless lightning - Reduce ecash mints custodial risk

---

Sats N Facts

The nostr:npub1yrnuj56rnen08zp2h9h7p74ghgjx6ma39spmpj6w9hzxywutevsst7k5cx unconference has just wrapped up. And what a blast it was. In the heart of northern Thailand, developers, researchers, content creators and more, came together to share ideas on how Bitcoin, Nostr and other free protocols are being used everyday to liberate people.

Not only were stories shared from different community leaders on how embracing bitcoin has empowered them and their communities, but a big goal of the unconference was to bring bitcoin engineers and developers from various domains together in one room, unstructured, chaotic, and let them do their thing.

At first, I thought not having a schedule might be boring, but oh boy was I wrong. There was so much stuff going on, it was hard to choose which session I would have to miss!

Luke's Spillman channel proposal

One of the sessions I definitely did not want to miss, was nostr:npub1htnhsay5dmq3r72tukdw72pduzfdcja0yylcajuvnc2uklkhxp8qnz3qac s proposal

Ecash mints funded with Spillman channels: The ultimate nodeless Lightning wallet

.

In true unconference fashion, he announced in the main room that the session was about to start, and that the people that are interested should meet him in the whiteboard corner in 10 minutes. The corner was packed, and Luke explained his proposal.

What's a "Spillman channel"?

Essentially when we are talking about Spillman channels, what is meant are unidirectional payment channels (or CLTV-style channels). An unidirectional payment channel means, only one party can send payments, but not receive, and the other party can only receive, but not send. They also expire after a predetermined amount of time, and must be closed.

At first glance, this might look kinda stupid. After all, we have Poon-Dryja channels that are powering the lightning network. They are bi-directional, do not expire, and can be used to shuffle coins back and forth theorethically an unlimited amount of times.

So, why bother with this stupid one-way channel?

Simplicity is king

People that have worked with lightning channels can sing you a song about complexity, state handling and risks about the current state of bidirectional payment channels. Essentially, There are a lot of requirements on both channel parties when it comes to Liveness (being online) and also state handling (continuous backups). In some cases, especially when in the context of end-users wanting to perform payments on their mobile phone, they would appreciate it if there was not so much complexity and overhead involved.

The gist of the idea is to combine unidirectional channels and ecash mints to achieve the following:

A self custodial unidirectional payment channel to an ecash mint, massively reducing the senders liveness and state handling requirements when compared to a lightning channel. Sending payments through the mint will be done through swapping some of the channel balance for ecash tokens. At this point, the user is trusting the mint to honor the redemption of these tokens, while the remaining channel balance remains in self custody. This gives them better controll over their funds than just holding their entire balance custodied in the mint. The ecash tokens can then be redeemed to pay a lightning invoice, just the same as it is done now with normal cashu mints.

So this channel, that has no liveness or state management requirements for the sender, and must have a pre-defined close time, seems to be a perfect fit for the following usecase:

1. A sender receives his salary once a month. He opens a channel that is valid for one month.
2. The sender then can do his daily spending over this channel. He only trusts the mint with the amount for the current outgoing payment while it is swapped for ecash, waiting for redemption.
3. If the sender must receive funds (a refund for example), he can do so into the mints custody, by receiving ecash. He can spend his ecash funds first when doing his next payment, to reduce his custodial exposure.
4. When the channel expires, or runs out of funds, the mint closes the channel.

From a consumer perspective, that just want to receive his salary and make frequent payments afterwards, this usecase seems to make a lot of sense. Obviously from a merchants perspective on the other hand, such a channel doesn't really work. But that's fine, it's not the problem we're trying to solve here.

What do you think of this idea? Be sure to let me know in the comments!

In the next article, we will dive into how such a system can be implemented today, using Bitcoin, Cashu and Lightning. We will also discover how the system can be improved, to make channels non-expiring (A collaborative idea between nostr:npub148jz5r9xujcjpqygk69yl4jqwjqmzgrqly26plktfjy8g4t7xaysj9xhgp and nostr:npub1htnhsay5dmq3r72tukdw72pduzfdcja0yylcajuvnc2uklkhxp8qnz3qac born at nostr:npub1yrnuj56rnen08zp2h9h7p74ghgjx6ma39spmpj6w9hzxywutevsst7k5cx ).

So stay tuned!

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

The mystical d attribute in SVG paths is actually a series of small commands. In this guide, we'll take a look at each path command and how we can use them to draw icons. Read more at https://www.nan.fyi/svg-paths

I you'd like to learn Interactive SVG Animations, here a text-based mini-course on making whimsical, playful SVG animations https://www.svg-animations.how/

credits: @nandafyi

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/968195

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

credits: @rubenslp

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/968189

@ 5df413d4:2add4f5b

Blank

@ d4309e24:8a81fcb0

1. What if You Could Send a Message into the Future?

Imagine leaving a message for your future self, a loved one, or even an entire community—one that no one, not even you, can unlock until a specific moment in time. Picture leaving a message for your children, a note of wisdom or love that remains hidden until they're old enough to appreciate it, all timed by Bitcoin's block height. You might also make a bold prediction about the future price of Bitcoin, sealing it away until the blockchain reaches a certain block height.

This is the idea behind Hatchstr, a decentralized app for time-locked messages that only unlock at predetermined Bitcoin block heights—no central authority required.

Why Build This?

I want to dive into the Nostr protocol not just by reading documentation, but by actually building something that embodies its core principles: censorship resistance, user ownership, and decentralization. Hatchstr is both an experiment and a contribution to the Nostr ecosystem—a way to test the limits of permissionless communication while learning and engaging with the community.

2. The Vision: How Hatchstr Would Work for Users

At its core, Hatchstr lets users create time capsules—encrypted messages that only become readable after a specified Bitcoin block height. Here’s what that looks like:

• You design a capsule with text and images using Hatchstr’s web app.
• You pick an unlock time (e.g., 1000 blocks from now).
• The message is encrypted, locked away, and published as a Nostr event.
• At the chosen time, the decryption key is revealed, allowing the recipient to finally access the message.

Potential Use Cases

• Personal Messages: Send birthday wishes that unlock at midnight, time-delayed love letters, or notes to your future self.

• Timed Learning: Lock educational content to unlock when students reach key learning stages or ages.

• Creative Storytelling: Release serialized fiction, riddles, or treasure hunt clues that unlock over time.

• Community & Events: Time-gate announcements for Nostr-based communities or scheduled voting mechanisms.

3. The Centralized Trap: Why Build on Nostr

When thinking about how to implement this, we could go the obvious, easy route:

• Store messages on a centralized server.
• Release them when the time is right.
• Let users download their messages.

Simple, right? But is it the right approach? Let's break it down.

Why This Fails

• Single Point of Failure: If my server goes down, all messages are unavailable.

• Privacy Risks: Users would need to trust me not to access their messages.

• Ownership & Longevity: What happens if I lose interest? The system dies with me.

A centralized model defeats the purpose of time-locking messages. Users shouldn’t have to trust a third party. We need decentralization.

4. Nostr to the Rescue: How Decentralization Can Help

Instead of a single server holding messages hostage, Nostr allows users to publish messages to decentralized relays. Here are the key differences:

• Nostr IDs = Self-Owned Identities: Your public key is your identity, not tied to any company.

• Relays = Decentralized Bulletin Boards: Anyone can run one, ensuring redundancy and censorship resistance.

• Messages = Signed Events: Cryptographically signed by the sender or encrypted for only the recipient.

How Nostr Reduces Centralization

In this version of Hatchstr, capsules are still stored in a centralized manner at first until they 'hatch'. However, once the Bitcoin block height condition is met:

• Capsule Publication: The system publishes the capsule events to Nostr relays, making the messages available for decryption by the intended recipients.

This approach, while not eliminating the central server, allows for:

• Third-Party Clients: Developers can now create clients that interact with Hatchstr capsules on Nostr, enhancing the system's openness and potentially leading to a richer ecosystem around time-locked messages.

• Decentralized Access: Even though the initial storage is centralized, the access to the messages becomes decentralized once published to Nostr, reducing the dependency on a single point for message retrieval.

We have some improvements, but I am sure we can do better!

5. The Path to Decentralized Timekeeping

The Timeless Nature of Encryption

Encrypted messages exist outside time—once locked, they remain secure indefinitely. Modern cryptography (like AES-256) doesn’t "expire" or weaken unless decrypted (excluding brute force attacks). This creates a paradox: How do you bind something timeless to a specific moment in the physical world?

The Time-Lock Puzzle Dilemma

Cryptographers have proposed time-lock puzzles—encryption that requires sustained computation to unlock, theoretically forcing a minimum wait time. But these face critical hurdles:

• Hardware Uncertainty

  Solving time depends on an attacker’s computational power. A nation-state could crack in hours what takes years for a regular user.

• No Real-World Alignment

  Puzzles can’t guarantee unlocks align with calendar dates or real-world events ("unlock on my child’s 18th birthday").

• Energy Waste

  Requires continuous computation, making it environmentally impractical for longer time locking.

Bitcoin as a Decentralized Clock

This is where Bitcoin’s blockchain shines. Its difficulty-adjusted proof-of-work acts as a trustless metronome:

• Predictable Rhythm

  Despite hash rate fluctuations, the 10-minute block target (via difficulty adjustments) creates a consistent approximation of real-world time.

• Immutable History

  Block height 1,000,000 will always correspond to the same point in Bitcoin’s timeline, regardless of future changes in mining power

Splitting the Problem

Hatchstr can bridge timeless encryption and blockchain timing by separating concerns:

1. Capsules – The time-locked message itself:

• Design independent of the time-locking mechanism.

• Encrypted client-side.

• Content stored anywhere the user wants (IPFS, personal servers, etc.).

• Completely owned by the user—not Hatchstr.

2. Clock Servers – Independent, lightweight timing nodes that:

• Only publish decryption keys when the target Bitcoin block height is reached.

• Users can choose which Clock Server to trust.

• Anyone can run their own Clock Server.

• Multiple servers can coordinate to prevent a single point of failure.

This means Hatchstr itself doesn’t store anything—users are fully in control.

6. What Comes Next

This project is just beginning—a blueprint with open questions and untested assumptions. In the next two articles, I’ll explore how to turn this concept into something tangible. First, how we might design playful time capsules that can be displayed faithfully by multiple clients, balancing creativity with decentralization. Then, the messy realities of clock servers: why federating them matters, how to incentivize reliability, and borrow Bitcoin’s rhythm without centralizing control. We will dive into setting up a simple clock server to get things started.

I’m still learning Nostr’s ecosystem, and this project is as much about sharing my education as anything else. If any part of this concept makes you think “yes, but…” or “what if…”, I’d genuinely love to hear it. Find me on Nostr – no expertise required, just an interest in sending messages to the future. :

npub16scfufrpsqcukjg7ymu4r40h7j4dwqy4pajgz48e6lmnmz5pljcqh678uh

Thank you for reading 🧡

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

Please respect Virginia Giuffre’s memory by refraining from asking about the circumstances or theories surrounding her passing.

Since Virginia Giuffre’s death, I’ve reflected on what she would want me to say or do. This piece is my attempt to honor her legacy.

When I first spoke with Virginia, I was struck by her unshakable hope. I had grown cynical after years in the anti-human trafficking movement, worn down by a broken system and a government that often seemed complicit. But Virginia’s passion, creativity, and belief that survivors could be heard reignited something in me. She reminded me of my younger, more hopeful self. Instead of warning her about the challenges ahead, I let her dream big, unburdened by my own disillusionment. That conversation changed me for the better, and following her lead led to meaningful progress.

Virginia was one of the bravest people I’ve ever known. As a survivor of Epstein, Maxwell, and their co-conspirators, she risked everything to speak out, taking on some of the world’s most powerful figures.

She loved when I said, “Epstein isn’t the only Epstein.” This wasn’t just about one man—it was a call to hold all abusers accountable and to ensure survivors find hope and healing.

The Epstein case often gets reduced to sensational details about the elite, but that misses the bigger picture. Yes, we should be holding all of the co-conspirators accountable, we must listen to the survivors’ stories. Their experiences reveal how predators exploit vulnerabilities, offering lessons to prevent future victims.

You’re not powerless in this fight. Educate yourself about trafficking and abuse—online and offline—and take steps to protect those around you. Supporting survivors starts with small, meaningful actions. Free online resources can guide you in being a safe, supportive presence.

When high-profile accusations arise, resist snap judgments. Instead of dismissing survivors as “crazy,” pause to consider the trauma they may be navigating. Speaking out or coping with abuse is never easy. You don’t have to believe every claim, but you can refrain from attacking accusers online.

Society also fails at providing aftercare for survivors. The government, often part of the problem, won’t solve this. It’s up to us. Prevention is critical, but when abuse occurs, step up for your loved ones and community. Protect the vulnerable. it’s a challenging but a rewarding journey.

If you’re contributing to Nostr, you’re helping build a censorship resistant platform where survivors can share their stories freely, no matter how powerful their abusers are. Their voices can endure here, offering strength and hope to others. This gives me great hope for the future.

Virginia Giuffre’s courage was a gift to the world. It was an honor to know and serve her. She will be deeply missed. My hope is that her story inspires others to take on the powerful.

@ 502ab02a:a2860397

EVERY Company ไข่ขาวเชื้อรา ที่รัฐส่งเสริม Unilever อุ้ม และเราถูกคลุมถุงให้กิน

อู๊ว ฉันเกิดมาเป็นไก่ โดนคนเลี้ยงเอาไว้ วันๆไม่ต้องทำอะไร แค่กินแล้วออกไข่ ป๊อกๆๆๆๆๆ กะต๊อก ป๊อกๆๆๆ ป๊อกๆๆๆๆๆ กะต๊อก ป๊อกๆๆๆ เพลงของเป้ อารักษ์ อาจกลายเป็นแค่คำเปรียบเปรย มนุษย์ ที่ถูกริดรอนสิทธิ์ตัวเองลงทุกวันจากนักล่า https://youtu.be/RctpDMoymVw?si=D3jzUXZBmyjxKGpN

โลกยุคใหม่อาจไม่ต้องมีแม่ไก่ แค่มีเชื้อรา กับเทคโนโลยี "precision fermentation" ก็สามารถทำให้ “ไข่” โผล่ออกมาในรูปของผงโปรตีนที่ไม่เคยผ่านตูดอุ่นๆ ไม่เคยมีเสียงกุ๊กๆ และไม่เคยเจอรังเจี๊ยบอีกต่อไป แต่เบื้องหลังของไข่ทดแทนที่ว่า “ก้าวหน้า” นี้ กลับเป็นการเคลื่อนไหวที่เชื่อมโยงรัฐ ธุรกิจยักษ์ และแคมเปญแนว “greenwashing” ได้อย่างแนบเนียนแบบพิมพ์นิยมของโลกอาหารสังเคราะห์ เรื่องราวมันประมาณนี้ครับ

เมื่อไข่เกิดจากเชื้อรา The EVERY Company ซึ่งเดิมชื่อว่า Clara Foods ก่อตั้งขึ้นในปี 2014 โดย Arturo Elizondo และเพื่อนร่วมทีมที่ออกมาจากโครงการ IndieBio ซึ่งเป็น accelerator สำหรับสตาร์ทอัปด้านชีววิทยาสังเคราะห์ที่มีชื่อเสียงใน Silicon Valley ได้ใช้ยีสต์ที่ถูกดัดแปลงพันธุกรรม (GMO yeast) สายพันธุ์ Komagataella phaffii เพื่อให้มันสร้าง “ovalbumin” หรือโปรตีนไข่ขาวขึ้นมาได้ คล้ายการหลอกยีสต์ให้กลายเป็นโรงงานสร้างไข่แบบไม่ต้องมีไก่ กระบวนการหมักนี้คือการจับยีสต์ใส่ถัง เติมน้ำตาล เติมสารอาหาร แล้วรอให้มัน "ผลิต" โปรตีนในห้องแล็บ แล้วก็สกัดออกมา ทำให้บริสุทธิ์ ตากแห้ง แล้วบรรจุใส่ซอง ชูป้าย “animal-free” แปะคำว่า “sustainable” แล้วส่งเข้าสู่ตลาดโปรตีนทดแทน ผลิตภัณฑ์นี้ได้รับการรับรองจาก FDA ว่าเป็น Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS)

แต่คำถามคือ… ยีสต์ GMO + กระบวนการหมัก = sustainable จริงหรือเปล่า?

ถึงจะเป็นโปรตีนสังเคราะห์ ที่คนแพ้ไข่ก็ยังแพ้อยู่ดี แม้จะไม่มีสัตว์เกี่ยวข้องเลย แต่ EVERY Egg White ก็ยังคงต้องติดป้าย “Contains Egg” ตามกฎหมาย เพราะโครงสร้างโปรตีนที่ผลิตออกมา "เหมือน" โปรตีนไข่จริงมากจนสามารถกระตุ้นอาการแพ้ในคนที่แพ้ไข่ได้อยู่ดี แปลว่า... เราไม่ได้หลุดพ้นจากปัญหาแพ้อาหารเลย แค่เปลี่ยนแหล่งกำเนิดจากไก่มาเป็นเชื้อรา แต่สิ่งที่น่าคิดคือ นี่แสดงว่าองค์ประกอบของมันเหมือนชนิดที่ว่า สำเนาถูกต้องขนาดคนแพ้ไข่ยังแพ้อยู่ คุณคิดว่าในมุมนี้น่าคิดกว่าไหม???

Back ดีมีกองทัพอุ้ม เงินภาษีหนุน ที่น่าจับตาคือ EVERY ได้รับเงินสนับสนุนกว่า 2 ล้านดอลลาร์จากกระทรวงกลาโหมสหรัฐฯ (DoD) เพื่อศึกษาความเป็นไปได้ในการผลิตโปรตีนในประเทศ ตัวเลขนี้ไม่ใช่เล่น ๆ แปลว่า ภาครัฐกำลังพิจารณาให้ "ไข่จากเชื้อรา" เป็นอาหารแห่งอนาคตของกองทัพ ซึ่งหมายถึงเม็ดเงินระดับพันล้านเหรียญหากแผนนี้เดินหน้า และเมื่อรัฐหนุนขนาดนี้ เทคโนโลยีที่ยังแพงก็จะ “ไม่แพง” อีกต่อไป เพราะเงินภาษีช่วยลดต้นทุนแบบกลาย ๆ เหมือนที่เคยเกิดกับ Beyond Meat หรือ Impossible Foods

เท่านั้นไม่พอครับ ไข่ขาวของท่าน ได้รับการคัดเลือกที่จะจับมือกับ The Vegetarian Butcher บริษัทลูกของ Unilever บริษัทอาหารที่ครองตลาดโลกราวกับเป็นเจ้าของตู้เย็นของประชากรโลก Unilever จะใช้โปรตีนไข่จาก EVERY ใส่ในผลิตภัณฑ์ plant-based meat ที่กำลังไต่ตลาดโลก โดยไม่จำเป็นต้องแจ้งผู้บริโภคว่าโปรตีนนี้มาจากเชื้อรา GMO หรือกระบวนการ biotech ที่ไม่ธรรมดา แม้จะถูกจัดว่าเป็น "non-animal ingredient" หรือ "ไม่ได้มาจากสัตว์โดยตรง" แต่ก็มีสิทธิ์เข้าสู่เมนูมังสวิรัติ วีแกน และอาหารเด็กได้อย่างง่ายดาย เพราะภาพจำที่สื่อมวลชนร่วมกันสร้างขึ้น เพราะไม่มีภาพของ “สัตว์” อยู่ในกระบวนการเลย จึงกลายเป็น “วีแกนได้” ในสายตาคนทั่วไป ทั้งที่ความจริงมันคือเทคโนโลยีชีวภาพระดับลึก ด้วยการใช้คำอย่าง “cruelty-free”, “animal-free”, “sustainable protein”, รวมถึงหน้าตาผลิตภัณฑ์ที่ดูใสสะอาด ไร้กลิ่นอายห้องแล็บ

แม้จะยังไม่มีหลักฐานตรงๆ ว่า EVERY เข้าล็อบบี้รัฐบาลเหมือน Oatly แต่เส้นทางที่เห็นชัดคือความร่วมมือกับองค์กรระดับนโยบาย เช่น Good Food Institute (GFI) และกลุ่มผลักดัน food-tech เพื่อก่อรูปแนวคิดว่า “อาหารที่ไม่ได้มาจากธรรมชาติ” = “อนาคต” และเมื่อแบรนด์เหล่านี้จับมือกับยักษ์ใหญ่ กลายเป็นอาหารในโรงเรียน ทหาร โรงพยาบาล หรือ planet of the future คนทั่วไปก็ไม่มีสิทธิ์เลือกอีกต่อไป เพราะทุกที่ถูกจัดสรรโดยนโยบายที่ใครบางคนได้ตัดสินไปแล้ว

EVERY Company ไม่ได้ขายแค่ไข่สังเคราะห์ แต่ขาย “อนาคตของอาหาร” แบบที่มนุษย์ถูกแยกออกจากธรรมชาติ แล้วพึ่งพาเทคโนโลยีและเงินทุนแทน และในโลกที่รัฐกับบริษัทยักษ์กำลังร่วมมือกันสร้างนิยามใหม่ของคำว่า “โปรตีนดีต่อสิ่งแวดล้อม” เราในฐานะผู้บริโภคควรถามกลับว่า…

ดีต่อใคร? ธรรมชาติ หรือห้องแล็บ? สุขภาพของมนุษย์ หรือผลกำไรของเจ้าของแพลตฟอร์มอาหาร?

***สรุป timeline เบาๆ 2014 – Clara Foods ก่อตั้งในซานฟรานซิสโก โดยมีเป้าหมายผลิต “ไข่โดยไม่ต้องใช้ไก่” ผ่านกระบวนการ fermentation 2015-2019 – รับทุนหลายรอบ รวมถึงจาก Horizons Ventures (ที่ลงทุนใน Impossible Foods), IndieBio, Blue Horizon ฯลฯ 2021 – เปลี่ยนชื่อจาก Clara Foods เป็น The EVERY Company เพื่อสะท้อนเป้าหมายที่กว้างขึ้น: การสร้างโปรตีน “EVERYthing” จากจุลชีพ

ปล. ใครอยากอ่านเอกสาร GRAS ตัวเต็มของ EGGWHITE โหลดได้จากที่นี่ครับ https://www.fda.gov/media/175248/download #pirateketo #กูต้องรู้มั๊ย #ม้วนหางสิลูก #siamstr

@ e373ca41:b82abcc5

This article by Milosz Matuschek first appeared in German in "Freischwebende Intelligenz".

In my first multi-part Corona series, The Corona Complex, I focused on the early inconsistencies of the "pandemic." In The Corona Connection, I will explore the key players involved in this event over multiple installments.

It’s not yet spring, but the bud of truth is already breaking through the icy layer of lies. You can cover the truth with as much PR, manipulation, and propaganda as you want—it will only turn into compost. Because truth is rooted in something; it’s a living organism, while lies are rotting waste. The coming weeks and months will be enlightening.

The USAID Front Organization

The grand cleanup led by Musk & Trump is in full swing. In the U.S., the agency USAID is currently being dismantled amid protests from employees. As of Friday, February 7, nearly all staff members have lost their jobs. What does this mean?

Der Spiegel referred to USAID as a "development agency" and reported that a nervous Bill Gates now wants to call Trump "to save lives." The NZZ euphemistically describes USAID as an "independent development aid agency." Seeing "AID" in the name, people think of humanitarian efforts—Bob Geldof, compassionate nuns, and "Bread for the World."

In reality, USAID ("United States Agency for International Development" – claim: "From the American People") is far from just a food distribution service (although it does that too). Primarily, it serves as a covert, rapid-response intelligence force for operations such as regime change, astroturfing, and targeted executions—expanding new business models for the U.S. empire. They are the enforcers who move in before "peace, democracy, and reconstruction" are declared.

USAID was heavily involved in Ukraine, providing $5 billion in funding, as Robert Kennedy Jr. recently stated in an interview. The agency throws money around freely, financing both the GAVI vaccine alliance and the World Economic Forum—because, of course, these are the world's most "needy" causes.

https://x.com/ShadowofEzra/status/1886153128757629157

The PREDICT Program

It gets even stranger. Under the so-called PREDICT program, significant funding was allocated to research coronaviruses in bats. This research was conducted in collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and included gain-of-function experiments. In 2017, the NIH lifted a previously imposed moratorium on funding such research, paving the way for its resumption and expansion, including international partnerships like the one with WIV.

USAID spent about $200 million in taxpayer money on bat virus research, with approximately $50 million going directly to WIV. Despite being a publicly funded science program, PREDICT's administrators have largely refused to release sensitive details about its research. Peter Daszak, who received substantial funding (now cut off), even ignored some subpoenas. Officials shared information with taxpayers only reluctantly and in minimal amounts.

https://x.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1886098345938284813

A 2023 investigation by the White Coat Waste Project, following a public records request, revealed that U.S. taxpayer dollars—through the NIH and USAID—flowed to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These funds supported gain-of-function experiments in which viruses were genetically modified to increase their transmissibility or virulence. The program ended in 2019.

The Mystery of Ben Hu

One of the most explosive revelations was the identification of Ben Hu, a lead researcher at WIV, as a potential "Patient Zero." Reports indicate that he developed COVID-like symptoms as early as November 2019—before the first officially recognized cases. Hu was deeply involved in the gain-of-function experiments funded by U.S. taxpayer money.

Looking further back, the picture becomes clearer. As early as 2012, USAID funds were used to capture bats in caves, including those in Mojiang, where several miners died from a deadly respiratory illness. The infection was reportedly caused by bat droppings.

https://x.com/TheSeeker268/status/1886469590701760960

Too many coincidences are piling up: The virus strain from back then, RaTG13, has striking similarities to SARS-CoV-2. Fauci’s pardon dates back to as early as 2014. A significant portion of funding from both Fauci and USAID went to Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance. Daszak in 2016 gave surprisingly candid responses regarding gain-of-function research.

https://x.com/mazemoore/status/1883378918687719725

The director of the CDC, Robert Redfield, had already pointed out in previous hearings that U.S. public funds were used for research in Wuhan.

So, to summarize here quickly, adding a question:

• A CIA front organization was catching sick bats in a previous outbreak zone of deadly respiratory diseases in China (e.g., Mojiang caves) in 2012.
• It funded tens of millions of dollars' worth of research to enhance the pathogenicity of coronaviruses in Wuhan.
• It transferred money to Chinese military-medical institutions.
• Wuhan researcher Ben Hu fell mysteriously ill and became Patient Zero.

So here’s the question: Isn't a natural origin of the virus the most obvious explanation in the world?

---

ADVERTISEMENT:

Looking for the easiest way to buy Bitcoin and store it yourself? The Relai app is the No. 1 crypto start-up and No. 2 of all fintech start-ups in Switzerland. Here you can buy Bitcoin in just a few steps and also set up savings plans. Nobody has access to your Bitcoin except you. With the referral code MILOSZ you save on fees (no financial advice). Disclaimer due to regulatory issues: The services of the Relai App are hereby only recommended to inhabitants of Switzerland or Italy.

Need more security? The Trezor wallets are recommended and easy to use, others are available in the store. Need more advice? Book an introductory meeting with a wallet expert.

---

Who still believes in a natural origin of COVID-19?

The official narrative worldwide is that the virus originated naturally—perhaps from someone consuming or handling a bat at a wet market near WIV. Yet, neither the sick animal nor the first human case of "natural transmission" has ever been identified.

At the same time, intelligence-backed "nudging" units worked preemptively to discredit vaccine skeptics and bolster "Trusted News Initiatives" and fact-checking programs. Even the CIA director has now suggested that COVID may have originated in a lab. And he likely knows exactly why.

One thing is certain: The theory of natural zoonotic transmission in COVID-19 has been obliterated. It was the PR stunt of the century. A joint effort by the CIA and China—who else could pull off such a grand deception?

These revelations are making the players behind the "Corona Connection" increasingly visible: a network of CIA-China partnerships, NGOs, the media apparatus, corrupt politicians, and willing, unscrupulous, or even outright sociopathic scientists.

As these connections come to light over the next months and years, the consequences for those involved—and for society at large—will be immense. We are approaching a moment of societal reckoning. A house of cards can only stand for so long before it collapses.

In Germany, Christian Drosten was one of the most aggressive proponents of the "conspiracy theory" label, frequently using it to discredit critics. As one of the main gatekeepers of the COVID narrative, he played a key role in shaping the scientific community’s response. His most steadfast domestic opponent was Hamburg physicist Roland Wiesendanger.

Drosten was one of the most outspoken propagandists of the zoonosis theory—while simultaneously working as its chief cover-up artist and deflector. He often portrayed himself as the misunderstood victim.

This is what happens when the desire for recognition and power overshadows any sense of medical ethics. Now, serious questions arise about his role: What did he know about the research in Wuhan? Was he aware of USAID’s funding? Given that Charité (his institution) received grants from Bill Gates and that his PCR test was immediately declared the global gold standard, it seems unlikely that he knew nothing.

This demands an investigative committee and legal proceedings.

In the coming weeks and months, many more connections will be uncovered, fully exposing the "Corona Connection."

The era of silence is over.

And so is the era of immunity.

---

This article was written with the Pareto-client on Nostr. Check it out!

Join the marketplace of ideas! We are building a publishing ecosystem on Nostr for citizen-journalism, starting with a client for blogging and newsletter distribution. Sound money and sound information should finally be in the hands of the people, right? Want to learn more about the Pareto Project? Zap me, if you want to contribute (all Zaps go to the project).

Are you a publication or journalist and want to be part of it, test us, migrate your content to Nostr? Write to team@pareto.space**

Not yet on Nostr and want the full experience? Easy onboarding via Nosta.me.

@ 5df413d4:2add4f5b

@ e0e92e54:d630dfaa

The Leadership Lesson I Learned at the Repair Shop

Today was a reminder of "Who You Know" actually matters.

Our van has been acting up as of late. Front-end noise. My guess? CV joint or bushings.

Not that I’m a mechanic though—my dad took the hammer away from me when I was 12, and now all "my" tools have flowers printed on them or Pink handles...

Yesterday it become apparent to my wife that "sooner rather than later" was optimal.

So this morning she took it to a repair shop where we know the owners.

You may have guessed by now that I’m no car repair guy. It’s just not my strength and I’m ok with that! And even though it’s not my strength, I’m smart enough to know enough about vehicles to be dangerous…

And I’m sure just like you, I hate being ripped off. So last year, we both decided she would handle repair duties—I just get too fired up by most the personnel that work there whom won’t shoot straight with you.

So this morning my wife takes our van in. She sees the owner and next thing my wife knows, the owner’s wife (my wife’s friend) is texting to go get coffee while they take care of the van.

Before the two ladies took off, my wife was told "we'll need all day as one step of it is a 4-hour job just to get to the part that needs to be replaced..."

And the estimate? Half the parts were warrantied out and the labor is lower than we expected it to be.

Fast forward, coffee having been drank… nearly 4 hours on the dot, we get a call “your van is ready!”

My wife didn't stand there haggling the price for parts and labor.

Nope…here’s the real deal:

1. Leadership = Relationships
2. You can’t have too many

Granted, quality is better than quantity in everything I can think of, and that is true for relationships as well...

And while there are varying degrees or depths of relationships. The best ones go both ways.

We didn’t expect a deal because we were at our friend’s shop. We went because we trust them.

That’s it.

Any other expectation other than a transparent and truthful transaction would be manipulating and exploiting the relationship…the exchange would fall into the purely transactional at best and be parasitic at worst!

The Bigger Lesson

Here’s the kicker:

This isn’t about vans or a repair shop. It’s about leading.

Theodore Roosevelt nailed it: “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.”

Trust comes from relationships.

Relationships begin with who you know…And making who you know matter.

In other words, the relevance of the relationship is critical.

Your Move

Next time you dodge a call—or skip an event—pause.

Kill that thought…Or at least its tire marks. 😁

Realize that relationships fuel your business, your life, and your impact.

Because leadership? It’s relationships.

====

💡Who’s one person you can invest in today? A teammate? A client? A mechanic? 😉

🔹 Drop your answer below 👇 Or hit me up—book a Discovery Call. Let’s make your leadership thrive.

---

Jason Ansley* is the founder of Above The Line Leader*, where he provides tailored leadership support and operational expertise to help business owners, entrepreneurs, and leaders thrive— without sacrificing your faith, family, or future.

*Want to strengthen your leadership and enhance operational excellence? Connect with Jason at https://abovethelineleader.com/#your-leadership-journey

*📌 This article first appeared on NOSTR. You can also find more Business Leadership Articles and content at: 👉 https://abovethelineleader.com/business-leadership-articles

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

GitCitadel Development Operations

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

Supplier Coordination

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

OneDev Implementation

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

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

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

Next Infrasteps

Automated Testing

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

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

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

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

Automated Builds

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

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

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

Expanding the Status Page

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

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

Building on stone

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

Happy building!

@ 961e8955:d7fa53e4

"@YakiHonne community partners successfully convened a seminal Nostr101 meetup in Barnawa, Nigeria! Donning bespoke YakiHonne Nigeria Limited Edition T-shirts, the Purple Army infused the town with infectious energy.

Facilitated by @Olaoluwa Ezekiel Michael, this gathering leveraged YakiHonne's decentralized platform to foster unbridled dialogue, idea exchange, and community engagement.

The event's resounding success underscores the burgeoning demand for decentralized solutions in Africa. This milestone marks the inception of a revolutionary movement, empowering voices and fostering collaboration throughout the continent.

Nostr #DecentralizedRevolution #Africa #CommunityFirst #YakiHonne"

@ e111a405:fa441558

OpenAI released its new o3 models and numerous people argue that this is in fact Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) – in other words, an AI system that is on par with human intelligence. Even if o3 is not yet AGI, the emphasis now lies on “yet,” and – considering the exponential progression – we can expect AGI to arrive within months or maximum one to two years.

According to OpenAI, it only took 3 months to go from the o1 model to the o3 model. This is a 4x+ acceleration relative to previous progress. If this speed of AI advancement is maintained, it means that by the end of 2025 we will be as much ahead of o3 as o3 is ahead of GPT-3 (released in May 2020). And, after achieving AGI, the self-reinforcing feedback loop will only further accelerate exponential improvements of these AI systems.

But, most anti-intuitively, even after we have achieved AGI, it will for quite some time look as if nothing has happened. You won’t feel any change and your job and business will feel safe and untouchable. Big fallacy. We can expect that after AGI it will take many months of not 1-2 years for the real transformations to happen. Why? Because AGI in and of itself does not release value into the economy. It will be much more important to apply it. But as AGI becomes cheaper, agentic, and embedded into the world, we will see a transformation-explosion – replacing those businesses and jobs that are unprepared.

I thought a lot about the impact the announced – and soon to be released – o3 model, and the first AGI model are going to have.

To make it short: I am extremely confident that any skill or process that can be digitized will be. As a result, the majority of white-collar and skilled jobs are on track for massive disruption or elimination.

Furthermore, I think many experts and think tanks are fooling themselves by believing that humans will maintain “some edge” and work peacefully side-by-side with an AI system. I don’t think AGI will augment knowledge workers – i.e. anyone working with language, code, numbers, or any kind of specialized software – it will replace them!

So, if your job or business relies purely on standardized cognitive tasks, you are racing toward the cliff’s edge, and it is time to pivot now!

Let’s start with the worst. Businesses and jobs in which you should pivot immediately – or at least not enter as of today – include but are not limited to anything that involves sitting at a computer:

• anything with data entry or data processing (run as fast as you can!)
• anything that involves writing (copywriting, technical writing,
• editing, proofreading, translation)
• most coding and web development
• SAAS (won’t exist in a couple of years)
• banking (disrupted squared: AGI + Blockchain)
• accounting and auditing (won’t exist as a job in 5-10 years)
• insurance (will be disrupted)
• law (excluding high-stake litigation, negotiation, courtroom advocacy)
• any generic design, music, and video creation (graphic design, stock photography, stock videos)
• market and investment research and analysis (AI will take over 100%)
• trading, both quantitative and qualitative (don’t exit but profit now, but expect to be disrupted within 5 years)
• any middle-layer-management (project and product management)
• medical diagnostics (will be 100% AI within 5 years)
• most standardized professional / consulting services

However, I believe that in high-stakes domains (health, finance, governance), regulators and the public will demand a “human sign-off”. So if you are in accounting, auditing, law, or finance I’d recommend pivoting to a business model where the ability to anchor trust becomes a revenue source.

The question is, where should you pivot to or what business to start in 2025?

My First Principles of a Post-AGI Business Model

First, even as AI becomes infallible, human beings will still crave real, raw, direct trust relationships. People form bonds around shared experiences, especially offline ones. I believe a truly future-proof venture leverages these primal instincts that machines can never replicate at a deeply visceral level. Nevertheless, I believe it is a big mistake to assume that humans will “naturally” stick together just because we are the same species. AGI might quickly appear more reliable, less selfish than most human beings, and have emotional intelligence. So a business build upon the thesis of the “human advantage” must expertly harness and establish emotional ties, tribal belonging, and shared experiences – all intangible values that are far more delicate and complex than logic.

First Principle: Operate in the Physical World

If your product or service can be fully digitalized and delivered via the cloud, AGI can replicate it with near-zero marginal cost Infuse strategic real-world constraints (logistics, location-specific interactions, physical limitations, direct relationships) that create friction and scarcity – where AI alone will struggle

Second Principle: Create Hyper Niche Human Experiences

• The broader audience, the easier it is for AI to dominate. Instead, cultivate specialized groups and subcultures with strong in-person and highly personalized experiences.
• Offer creative or spiritual elements that defy pure rational patterns and thus remain less formulaic

Third Principle: Emphasize Adaptive, Micro-Scale Partnerships

• Align with small, local, or specialized stakeholders. Use alliances with artisan suppliers, local talents, subject-matter experts, and so on.
• Avoid single points of failure; build a decentralized network that is hard for a single AI to replicate or disrupt

Fourth Principle: Embed Extreme Flexibility

• Structured, hierarchical organizations are easily out-iterated by AI that can reorganize and optimize instantly
• Cultivate fluid teams with quickly reconfigurable structures, use agile, project based collaboration that can pivot as soon AGI-based competition arises

Opportunity Vectors

With all of that in mind, there are niches that before looked unattractive, because less scalable, that today offer massive opportunities – let’s call them opportunity vectors.

The first opportunity vector I have already touched upon:

Trust and Validation Services: Humans verifying or certifying that a certain AI outcome is ethically or legally sound – while irrational, it is exactly what humans will insist on, particularly where liability is high (medicine, finance, law, infrastructure)

Frontier Sectors with Regulatory and Ethical Friction: Think of markets where AI will accelerate R&D but human oversight, relationship management, and accountability remain essential: genetic engineering, biotech, advanced materials, quantum computing, etc.

The second opportunity vector focuses on the human edge:

• Experience & Community: Live festivals, immersive events, niche retreats, or spiritual explorations – basically any scenario in which emotional energy and a human experience is the core product - Rare Craftsmanship & Creative Quirks: Think of hyper-personalized items, physical artwork, artisanal or hands-on creations. Items that carry an inherent uniqueness or intangible meaning that an AI might replicate in design, but can’t replicate in “heritage” or provenance.

Risk Tactics

Overall, the best insurance is fostering a dynamic brand and a loyal community that invests personally and emotionally in you. People will buy from those whose values they trust. If you stand for something real, you create an emotional bond that AI can’t break. I’m not talking about superficial corporate social responsibility (nobody cares) but about authenticity that resonates on a near-spiritual level.

As you build your business, erect an ethical moat by providing “failsafe” services where your human personal liability and your brand acts as a shield for AI decisions. This creates trust and differentiation among anonymous pure-AGI play businesses.

Seek and create small, specialized, local, or digital micro-monopolies – areas too tiny or fractal for the “big AI players” to devote immediate resources to. Over time, multiply these micro-monopolies by rolling them up under one trusted brand.

Furthermore, don’t avoid AI. You cannot out-AI the AI. So as you build a business on the human edge moat, you should still harness AI to do 90% of the repetitive and analytic tasks – this frees your human capital to build human relationships, solve ambiguous problem, or invent new offerings.

Bet on What Makes Us Human

To summarize, AI is logical, combinatorial intelligence. The advancements in AI will commoditize logic and disrupt any job and business that is mainly build upon logic as capital. Human – on the other hand – is authenticity. What makes human human and your brand authentic are elements of chaos, empathy, spontaneity. In this context, human is fostering embodied, emotional, culturally contextual, physically immersive experiences. Anything that requires raw creativity, emotional intelligence, local presence, or unique personal relationships will be more AI resilient.

Therefore, a Post-AGI business must involve:

• Tangibility: Physical goods, spaces, unique craftsmanship
• Human Connection: Emotional, face-to-face, improvisational experiences
• Comprehensive Problem Solving: Complex negotiations, messy real-world situations, diverse stakeholder management

The inverse list of AGI proof industries involve some or multiple aspects of that:

Physical, In-Person, Human-Intensive Services - Healthcare: Nursing, Physical therapy, Hands-on caregiving - Skilled trades & craftsmanship

High-Level Strategy & Complex Leadership - Diplomacy, Negotiation, Trust building - Visionary entrepreneurship

Deep Emotional / Experiential Offerings - Group experiences, retreats, spiritual or therapeutic gatherings - Artistic expression that thrives on “imperfection”, physical presence, or spontaneous creativity

Infrastructure for AGI - Human-based auditing/verification - Physical data center operations & advanced hardware - Application and embedment of AI in the forms of AGI agents, algorithmic improvements, etc. to make it suitable for everyday tasks and workflow

The real differentiator is whether a business is anchored in the physical world’s complexity, emotional trust, or intangible brand relationships. Everything pure data-driven or standardized is on the chopping block – imminently.

@ c9badfea:610f861a

1. Install Image Toolbox (it's free and open source)
2. Launch the app and navigate to the Tools tab
3. Choose Cipher from the tool list
4. Pick any file from your device storage
5. Keep Encryption toggle selected
6. Enter a password in the Key field
7. Keep default AES/GCM/NoPadding algorithm
8. Tap the Encrypt button and save your encrypted file
9. If you want to decrypt the file just repeat the previous steps but choose Decryption instead of Encryption in step 5

@ 9bcc5462:eb501d90

Cuneiform is mankind’s first writing system created by the ancient Sumerians of Mesopotamia, what is now Iraq. (The word “Sumer” means land of civilized kings). Despite being developed 5,000 years ago, its parallels to Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays will blow your mind! The most striking is how both breakthroughs materialized from the fundamental need to track value exchange–from primal grain tallies to now exchanging bitcoin.

Let’s begin with the fact that the styluses used by these archaic scribes were crafted from reed plants. Their stems were strong because of attachment points called nodes! These were the resilient, ring-like parts of the stem that joined it together with the rest of the plant. Similarly, although symbolically, lightning nodes are powerful on nostr since they allow us to zap each other with sats. An approach stemming from the need to modernize how we interact on social media, trade in networks and conduct business—It’s not surprising cuneiform came about as a way for merchants and farmers to track economic transactions and agricultural inventories!

Another parallel involves how both share everlasting marks. The Sumerians used their styluses to press wedge-like symbols onto wet tablets. They then would bake them in the sun, leaving a permanent record of the documentation. If an error was made, it could not be changed. Likewise, on nostr there is no delete function. Once you publish a note, including any typos, it is preserved for history.

Lastly, the proto-writing that emerged in Mesopotamia which led to Cuneiform was in the form of bullae (bulla: singular). These were spherical clay envelopes encased with tokens representing a transaction. They were sealed with unique markings representing the parties involved for authentication. In other words, cuneiform cylinder seals were effectively early public key cryptography! The seal itself being the private key and its impression being the public key. Just as us nostriches use our nsec to sign our notes with integrity and verify value-for-value with our npub.

               *Rare bulla seal (shout out to Conny Waters from ancientpages.com)*

                               *Sumerian cuneiform tablet (source: britannica.com)*

At the end of the day, maybe we’re not so different from our ancestors after all. The evolution of our writing technology over the course of our history is more than innovation born of necessity. Across millennia, 3025 BCE to 2025 AD, it's man telling the universe– we will be remembered– beyond space and time. As our ancestors stacked their clay tablets, we’ll stack our sats! Onward nostr! The new land of civilized kings.

        *Mankind's Innovations in Writing Technology by Learning Producers, Inc.*

@ 2fdae362:c9999539

The architecture you choose for your embedded firmware has long-lasting consequences. It impacts how quickly you can add features, how easily your team can debug and maintain the system, and how confidently you can scale. While main loops and real-time operating systems (RTOS) are common, a third option — the state machine kernel — often delivers the most value in modern embedded development. At Wolff Electronic Design, we’ve used this approach for over 15 years to build scalable, maintainable, and reliable systems across a wide range of industries.

Every embedded system starts with one big decision: how will the firmware be structured?
Many teams default to the familiar—using a simple main loop or adopting a RTOS. But those approaches can introduce unnecessary complexity or long-term maintenance headaches. A third option, often overlooked, is using a state machine kernel—an event-driven framework designed for reactive, real-time systems. Below, we compare the three options head-to-head to help you choose the right architecture for your next project.

Comparison Chart

| Approach | Description | Pros | Cons | Best For | |-----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------| | Main Loop | A single, continuous while-loop calling functions in sequence | Simple to implement, low memory usage | Hard to scale, difficult to manage timing and state | Small, simple devices | | RTOS | Multi-threaded system with scheduler, tasks, and preemption | Good for multitasking, robust toolchain support | Thread overhead, complex debugging, race conditions | Systems with multiple async tasks | | State Machine Kernel | Event-driven system with structured state transitions, run in a single thread | Easy to debug, deterministic behavior, scalable and modular | Learning curve, may need rethinking architecture | Reactive systems, clean architecture |

Why the State Machine Kernel Wins

Promotes Innovation Without Chaos

With clear, hierarchical state transitions, your codebase becomes modular and self-documenting — making it easier to prototype, iterate, and innovate without fear of breaking hidden dependencies or triggering bugs.

Prevents Hidden Complexity

Unlike RTOSes, where tasks run in parallel and can create race conditions or timing bugs, state machines run cooperatively in a single-threaded model. This eliminates deadlocks, stack overflows, and debugging nightmares that come with thread-based systems.

Scales Without Becoming Fragile

As features and states are added, the system remains predictable. You don’t have to untangle spaghetti logic or rework your entire loop to support new behaviors — you just add new events and state transitions.

Improves Maintainability and Handoff

Because logic is encapsulated in individual states with defined transitions, the code is easier to understand, test, and maintain. This lowers the cost of onboarding new developers or revisiting the system years later.

---

At Wolff Electronic Design, we’ve worked with every kind of firmware structure over the past 15+ years. Our go-to for complex embedded systems? A state machine kernel. It gives our clients the flexibility of RTOS-level structure without the bugs, complexity, or overhead. Whether you’re developing restaurant equipment or industrial control systems, this architecture offers a better path forward: clean, maintainable, and built to last.

Learn more about our capabilities here.

design, #methodologies, #quantumleaps, #statemachines

@ d830ee7b:4e61cd62

การเผชิญหน้า (The Collision Point)

กลางปี 2017 ที่ร้านคราฟท์เบียร์เล็ก ๆ ในย่านเกาะเกร็ด นนทบุรี อากาศร้อนจนเครื่องปรับอากาศ (ที่ยังไม่มี) ในร้านทำงานหนักแทบไหม้ "แจ๊ก กู้ดเดย์" (Jakk Goodday) นั่งลงบนเก้าอี้ไม้ที่เจ้าของร้านกันไว้ให้เป็นประจำ ราวกับเขาเป็นลูกค้าขาประจำระดับวีไอพี

กลิ่นกาแฟคั่ว ลอยผสมกับไอความร้อนจากนอกหน้าต่าง (ผิดร้านหรือเปล่า?) เกิดเป็นบรรยากาศขมติดปลายลิ้นชวนให้คนจิบแล้วอยากถอนใจ

เขาเหลือบมองออกไปนอกหน้าต่าง.. เห็นแสงแดดแผดเผาราวกับมันรู้ว่าสงคราม Blocksize กำลังคุกรุ่นขึ้นอีกครั้ง

บรรยากาศนอกหน้าต่างกับใน ฟอรัม Bitcointalk ช่างเหมือนกันจนน่าขนลุก มันร้อนแรง ไร้ความปรานี

แจ๊กเปิดแล็ปท็อป กดเข้าเว็บฟอรัม พอเสียงแจ้งเตือน “—ติ๊ง” ดังขึ้น คิ้วของเขาก็ขมวดเล็กน้อย คล้ายได้กลิ่นดินปืนกลางสนามรบ

“โรเจอร์ แวร์ (Roger Ver) ไลฟ์เดือดลั่นเวที!” “ปีเตอร์ วูเล (Pieter Wuille) โต้กลับเรื่อง SegWit!” “Hard Fork ใกล้ถึงจุดปะทะแล้ว!”

แจ๊กคลิกเข้าไปในลิงก์ของไลฟ์ทันที เหมือนมือของเขาไม่ต้องการคำสั่งจากสมอง ความคุ้นเคยกับเหตุการณ์แบบนี้บอกเขาว่า นี่ไม่ใช่ดีเบตธรรมดา แต่มันอาจเปลี่ยนอนาคตของ Bitcoin ได้จริง ๆ

เห็นแค่พาดหัวสั้น ๆ แต่ความตึงเครียดก็ชัดเจนขึ้นเรื่อย ๆ ทุกข้อความเหมือนสุมไฟใส่ใจกองหนึ่งที่พร้อมระเบิดได้ทุกเมื่อ

โทรศัพท์ของแจ๊กดังพร้อมปรากฏชื่อ แชมป์ ‘PIGROCK’ ลอยขึ้นมา เขาหยิบขึ้นมารับทันที

“ว่าไงวะแชมป์… มีอะไรด่วนหรือเปล่า?” น้ำเสียงแจ๊กฟังดูเหมือนง่วง ๆ แต่จริง ๆ เขาพร้อมจะลุกมาวิเคราะห์สถานการณ์ให้ฟังทุกเมื่อ

“พี่แจ๊ก.. ผมอ่านดีเบตเรื่อง SegWit ในฟอรัมอยู่ครับ บางคนด่าว่ามันไม่ได้แก้ปัญหาจริง ๆ บ้างก็บอกถ้าเพิ่ม Blocksize ไปเลยจะง่ายกว่า... ผมเลยสงสัยว่า Hard Fork ที่เค้าพูดถึงกันนี่คืออะไร ใครคิดอะไรก็ Fork กันได้ง่าย ๆ เลยเหรอ"

"แล้วถ้า Fork ไปหลายสาย สุดท้ายเหรียญไหนจะเป็น ‘Bitcoin ที่แท้จริง’ ล่ะพี่?”

“แล้วการ Fork มันส่งผลกับนักลงทุนยังไงครับ? คนทั่วไปอย่างผมควรถือไว้หรือขายหนีตายดีล่ะเนี่ย?”

แจ๊กยิ้มมุมปาก ชอบใจที่น้องถามจี้จุด

“เอางี้… การ Fork มันเหมือนแบ่งถนนออกเป็นสองสาย ใครชอบกติกาเก่าก็วิ่งถนนเส้นเก่า ใครอยากแก้กติกาใหม่ก็ไปถนนเส้นใหม่"

"แต่ประเด็นคือ... นี่ไม่ใช่เรื่องเล็ก ๆ เพราะมีผลต่ออัตลักษณ์ของ Bitcoin ทั้งหมดเลยนะมึง—ใครจะยอมปล่อยผ่านง่าย ๆ”

"คิดดูสิ ถ้าครั้งนี้พวกเขา Fork จริง มันอาจไม่ได้เปลี่ยนแค่เครือข่าย แต่เปลี่ยนวิธีที่คนมอง Bitcoin ไปตลอดกาลเลยนะ"

"แล้วใครมันจะอยากลงทุนในระบบที่แตกแยกซ้ำแล้วซ้ำเล่าวะ?"

“งั้นหมายความว่าตอนนี้ก็มีสองแนวใหญ่ ๆ ชัวร์ใช่ไหมครับ?” แชมป์ถามต่อ

“ฝั่ง โรเจอร์ แวร์ ที่บอกว่าต้องเพิ่ม Blocksize ให้ใหญ่จุใจ กับฝั่งทีม Core อย่าง ปีเตอร์ วูเล ที่ยืนยันต้องใช้ SegWit ทำให้บล็อกเบา ไม่กระทบการกระจายอำนาจ?”

“ใช่เลย” แจ๊กจิบกาแฟดำเข้ม ๆ ผสมน้ำผึ้งไปหนึ่งอึก

“โรเจอร์นี่เขาเชื่อว่า Bitcoin ต้องเป็นเงินสดดิจิทัลที่ใช้จ่ายไว ค่าธรรมเนียมไม่แพง ส่วนปีเตอร์กับ Bitcoin Core มองว่าการเพิ่มบล็อกเยอะ ๆ มันจะไปฆ่า Node รายย่อย คนไม่มีทุนก็รัน Node ไม่ไหว สุดท้าย Bitcoin จะกลายเป็นระบบกึ่งรวมศูนย์ ซึ่งมันผิดหลักการเดิมของ ซาโตชิ ไงล่ะ”

“ฟังแล้วก็ไม่ใช่เรื่องง่ายนะพี่… งั้นที่ผมได้ยินว่า จิฮั่น อู๋ (Jihan Wu) เจ้าของ Bitmain ที่ถือ Hashrate เกินครึ่งนี่ก็มาอยู่ฝั่งเดียวกับโรเจอร์ใช่ไหม?"

"เพราะยิ่งบล็อกใหญ่ ค่าธรรมเนียมยิ่งเพิ่ม นักขุดก็ได้กำไรสูงขึ้นใช่ป่ะ?”

“ไอ้เรื่องกำไรก็ส่วนหนึ่ง...” แจ๊กถอนหายใจ

“แต่ที่สำคัญกว่านั้นคืออำนาจต่อรอง… ตอนประชุมลับที่ฮ่องกงเมื่อปีที่แล้ว พี่เองก็ถูกชวนให้เข้าไปในฐานะคนกลาง เลยเห็นภาพน่าขนลุกอยู่หน่อย ๆ"

"จิฮั่นนั่งไขว่ห้างด้วยสีหน้ามั่นใจมาก ด้วย Hashrate ราว 60% ของโลก สั่งซ้ายหันขวาหันเหมือนเป็นแม่ทัพใหญ่ได้เลย พอโรเจอร์ก็ไฟแรงอยู่แล้ว อยากให้ Bitcoin ครองโลกด้วยวิธีของเขา สองคนนี่จับมือกันทีจะเขย่าชุมชน Bitcoin ได้ทั้งกระดาน”

"พี่รู้สึกเหมือนนั่งอยู่ในศึกชิงบัลลังก์ยุคใหม่ คนหนึ่งยึดพลังขุด คนหนึ่งยึดความศรัทธาในชื่อ Bitcoin แต่สิ่งที่พี่สงสัยในตอนนั้นคือ… พวกเขาสู้เพื่อใครกันแน่?"

แชมป์เงียบไปครู่เหมือนกำลังประมวลผล “แล้วตอนนั้นพี่คิดยังไงบ้างครับ? รู้สึกกลัวหรือว่ายังไง?”

“จะไม่กลัวได้ไง!” แจ๊กหัวเราะแห้ง ๆ แวบหนึ่งก็นึกถึงสีหน้าที่ยิ้มเยาะของทั้งคู่ตอนประกาศความพร้อมจะ Fork

“พี่อดคิดไม่ได้ว่าถ้า Core ยังไม่ยอมขยายบล็อก พวกนั้นจะลากนักขุดทั้งกองทัพแฮชเรตไปทำเครือข่ายใหม่ให้เป็น ‘Bitcoin สายใหญ่’ แล้วทิ้งเครือข่ายเดิมให้ซวนเซ"

"แค่คิดก็นึกถึงสงครามกลางเมืองในหนังประวัติศาสตร์แล้วน่ะ.. แตกเป็นสองฝ่าย สุดท้ายใครแพ้ใครชนะ ไม่มีใครทำนายได้จริง ๆ”

พูดจบ.. เขาเปิดฟอรัมดูไลฟ์ดีเบตจากงานในปี 2017 ต่อ โรเจอร์ แวร์ กำลังพูดในโทนร้อนแรง

“Bitcoin ไม่ใช่ของคนรวย! ถ้าคุณไม่เพิ่ม Blocksize คุณก็ทำให้ค่าธรรมเนียมพุ่งจนคนธรรมดาใช้ไม่ได้!”

ขณะเดียวกัน ปีเตอร์ วูเล่ ยืนอยู่ฝั่งตรงข้าม สีหน้าเยือกเย็นราวกับตั้งรับมานาน “การเพิ่มบล็อกคือการทำลายโครงสร้าง Node รายย่อยในระยะยาว แล้วมันจะยังเรียกว่ากระจายอำนาจได้หรือ?”

"ถ้าคุณอยากให้ Bitcoin เป็นของคนรวยเพียงไม่กี่คน ก็เชิญขยายบล็อกไปเถอะนะ แต่ถ้าอยากให้มันเป็นระบบที่คนทุกระดับมีส่วนร่วมจริง ๆ ..คุณต้องฟังเสียง Node รายเล็กด้วย" ปีเตอร์กล่าว

เสียงผู้คนในงานโห่ฮากันอย่างแตกเป็นสองฝ่าย บ้างก็เชียร์ความตรงไปตรงมาของโรเจอร์ บ้างก็เคารพเหตุผลเชิงเทคนิคของปีเตอร์

ข้อความจำนวนมหาศาลในฟอรัมต่างโหมกระพือไปต่าง ๆ นานา มีทั้งคำด่าหยาบคายจนแจ๊กต้องเบือนหน้า ตลอดจนการวิเคราะห์ลึก ๆ ถึงอนาคตของ Bitcoin ที่อาจไม่เหมือนเดิม

ในระหว่างนั้น.. แชมป์ส่งข้อความ Discord กลับมาอีก

“พี่ ถ้า Fork จริง ราคาจะป่วนแค่ไหน? ที่เขาว่าคนถือ BTC จะได้เหรียญใหม่ฟรี ๆ จริงไหม? ผมกลัวว่าถ้าเกิดแบ่งเครือข่ายไม่รู้กี่สาย ตลาดอาจมั่วจนคนหายหมดก็ได้ ใช่ไหมครับ?”

"แล้วถ้าเครือข่ายใหม่ล้มเหลวล่ะครับ? จะส่งผลอะไรต่อชุมชน Bitcoin เดิม?"

"ไอ้แชมป์มึงถามรัวจังวะ!?" แจ๊กสบถเพราะเริ่มตั้งรับไม่ทัน

“ก็ขึ้นกับตลาดจะเชื่อว่าสายไหนเป็น ‘ของจริง’ อีกนั่นแหละ” แจ๊กพิมพ์กลับ

“บางคนถือไว้เผื่อได้เหรียญใหม่ฟรี บางคนขายหนีตายก่อน"

"พี่เองก็ยังไม่กล้าการันตีเลย แต่ที่แน่ ๆ สงครามนี้ไม่ได้มีแค่ผลกำไร มันกระทบศรัทธาของชุมชน Bitcoin ทั้งหมดด้วย"

"ถ้าชาวเน็ตเลิกเชื่อมั่น หรือคนนอกมองว่าพวกเราทะเลาะกันเองเหมือนเด็กแย่งของเล่น ต่อให้ฝั่งไหนชนะ ก็อาจไม่มีผู้ใช้เหลือให้ฉลอง”

แล้วสายตาแจ๊กก็ปะทะกับกระทู้ใหม่ที่เด้งขึ้นมาบนหน้าฟอรัม

“โรเจอร์ แวร์ ประกาศ: ถ้าไม่เพิ่ม Blocksize เราจะฟอร์กเป็น Bitcoin ที่แท้จริง!”

ตัวหนังสือหนาแปะอยู่ตรงนั้นส่งแรงสั่นสะเทือนราวกับจะดึงคนในวงการให้ต้องเลือกข้างกันแบบไม่อาจกลับหลังได้

แจ๊กเอื้อมมือปิดแล็ปท็อปช้า ๆ คล้ายยอมรับความจริงว่าหนทางประนีประนอมอาจไม่มีอีกแล้ว..

“สงครามนี่คงใกล้ระเบิดเต็มทีล่ะนะ” เขาลุกจากเก้าอี้ สะพายเป้ พึมพำกับตัวเองขณะมองกาแฟดำที่เหลือครึ่งแก้ว “ถ้าพวกเขาฟอร์กจริง โลกคริปโตฯ ที่เราเคยรู้จักอาจไม่มีวันเหมือนเดิมอีกต่อไป”

เขามองออกไปนอกหน้าต่าง แสงแดดที่แผดเผาราวกับกำลังบอกว่า.. อนาคตของ Bitcoin อยู่ในจุดที่เส้นแบ่งระหว่างชัยชนะกับความล่มสลายเริ่มพร่าเลือน... และอาจไม่มีทางย้อนกลับ

ก่อนเดินออกจากร้าน เขากดส่งข้อความสั้น ๆ ถึงแชมป์

“เตรียมใจกับความปั่นป่วนไว้ให้ดี ไม่แน่ว่าเราอาจจะได้เห็น Bitcoin แตกเป็นหลายสาย.. ใครจะอยู่ใครจะไปไม่รู้เหมือนกัน แต่เรื่องนี้คงไม่จบง่าย ๆ แน่”

แจ๊กผลักประตูออกไปพบกับแดดจัดที่เหมือนแผดเผากว่าเดิม พายุร้อนไม่ได้มาแค่ในรูปความร้อนกลางกรุง แต่มาในรูป “สงคราม Blocksize” ที่พร้อมจะฉีกชุมชนคริปโตออกเป็นฝักฝ่าย และอาจลามบานปลายจนกลายเป็นศึกประวัติศาสตร์

ทว่าสิ่งที่ค้างคาใจกลับเป็นคำถามนั้น…

เมื่อเครือข่ายแบ่งเป็นหลายสายแล้ว เหรียญไหนจะเป็น Bitcoin จริง?

หรือบางที... ในโลกที่ใครก็ Fork ได้ตามใจ เราจะไม่มีวันได้เห็น “Bitcoin หนึ่งเดียว” อีกต่อไป?

คำถามที่ไม่มีใครตอบได้ชัดนี้ส่องประกายอยู่ตรงปลายทาง ราวกับป้ายเตือนว่า “อันตรายข้างหน้า” และคนในชุมชนทั้งหมดกำลังจะต้องเผชิญ…

โดยไม่มีใครมั่นใจเลยว่าจะรอด หรือจะแตกสลายไปก่อนกันแน่...

สองเส้นทาง (The Forked Path)

กลางปี 2017 ท้องฟ้าเหนือบุรีรัมย์ยังคงคุกรุ่นด้วยไอแดดและความร้อนแรงของสงคราม Blocksize แจ๊ก กู้ดเดย์ ก้าวเข้ามาในคาเฟ่เล็ก ๆ แห่งหนึ่งในย่านเทศบาลด้วยสีหน้าครุ่นคิด เขาพยายามมองหามุมสงบสำหรับนั่งตั้งหลักในโลกความเป็นจริง ก่อนจะจมดิ่งสู่สงครามในโลกดิจิทัลบนฟอรัม Bitcointalk อีกครั้ง

กลิ่นกาแฟคั่วเข้มลอยกระทบจมูก แจ๊กสั่งกาแฟดำแก้วโปรดแล้วปลีกตัวมาที่โต๊ะริมกระจก กระจกบานนั้นสะท้อนแสงอาทิตย์จัดจ้า ราวกับจะบอกว่าวันนี้คงไม่มีใครหนีความร้อนที่กำลังแผดเผา ทั้งในอากาศและในชุมชน Bitcoin ได้พ้น

เขาเปิดแล็ปท็อปขึ้น ล็อกอินเข้า Bitcointalk.org ตามเคย ข้อความและกระทู้มากมายกระหน่ำแจ้งเตือน ไม่ต่างอะไรจากสมรภูมิคำพูดที่ไม่มีวันหลับ “Hong Kong Agreement ล้มเหลวจริงหรือ?” “UASF คือปฏิวัติโดย Node?” เหล่านี้ล้วนสะท้อนความไม่แน่นอนในชุมชน Bitcoin ที่ตอนนี้ ดูคล้ายจะถึงจุดแตกหักเต็มที...

“ทั้งที่ตอนนั้นเราก็พยายามกันแทบตาย…” แจ๊กพึมพำ มองจอด้วยสายตาเหนื่อยใจพร้อมภาพความทรงจำย้อนกลับเข้าในหัว เขายังจำการประชุมที่ฮ่องกงเมื่อต้นปี 2016 ได้แม่น ยามนั้นความหวังในการประนีประนอมระหว่าง Big Block และ Small Block ดูเป็นไปได้ หากแต่กลายเป็นละครฉากใหญ่ที่จบลงโดยไม่มีใครยอมถอย...

---

...การประชุม Hong Kong Agreement (2016)

ภายในห้องประชุมหรูของโรงแรมใจกลางย่านธุรกิจฮ่องกง บรรยากาศตึงเครียดยิ่งกว่าการเจรจาสงบศึกในสมัยโบราณ

โรเจอร์ แวร์ ยืนเสนอว่า “การเพิ่ม Blocksize สำคัญต่ออนาคตของ Bitcoin — เราอยากให้คนทั่วไปเข้าถึงได้โดยไม่ต้องจ่ายค่าธรรมเนียมแพง ๆ”

“จิฮั่น อู๋ (Jihan Wu)” จาก Bitmain นั่งฝั่งเดียวกับโรเจอร์ คอยเสริมว่าการเพิ่มบล็อกคือโอกาสสำหรับนักขุด และหากทีม Core ไม่ยอม พวกเขาก็พร้อม “ดัน Fork” ขึ้นได้ทุกเมื่อ ด้วย Hashrate มหาศาลที่พวกเขาคุมไว้

ฝั่ง ปีเตอร์ วูเล (Pieter Wuille) กับ เกร็ก แมกซ์เวลล์ (Greg Maxwell) จาก Bitcoin Core เถียงกลับอย่างใจเย็นว่า “การขยายบล็อกอาจดึงดูดทุนใหญ่ ๆ แล้วไล่ Node รายย่อยออกไป ชุมชนอาจไม่เหลือความกระจายอำนาจอย่างที่ Satoshi ตั้งใจ”

สุดท้าย บทสรุปที่เรียกว่า Hong Kong Agreement ลงนามได้ก็จริง แต่มันกลับเป็นแค่ลายเซ็นบนกระดาษที่ไม่มีฝ่ายไหนเชื่อใจใคร

แจ๊กเบือนสายตาออกนอกหน้าต่าง สังเกตเห็นผู้คนเดินขวักไขว่ บ้างก็ดูรีบร้อน บ้างเดินทอดน่องเหมือนว่างเปล่า นี่คงไม่ต่างอะไรกับชาวเน็ตในฟอรัมที่แบ่งฝ่ายกันใน “สงคราม Blocksize” อย่างไม่มีทีท่าจะหยุด

แค่ไม่กี่นาที... เสียงโทรศัพท์ก็ดังขึ้น ชื่อ แชมป์ ‘PIGROCK’ โชว์หราเต็มจออีกครั้ง

“ว่าไงเจ้าแชมป์?” แจ๊กกรอกเสียงในสายด้วยอารมณ์เหนื่อย ๆ ทว่าพร้อมจะอธิบายเหตุการณ์ตามสไตล์คนที่ชอบครุ่นคิด

“พี่แจ๊ก.. ผมเข้าใจแล้วว่าการประชุมฮ่องกงมันล้มเหลว ตอนนี้ก็มีคนแยกเป็นสองขั้ว Big Block กับ SegWit แต่ผมเจออีกกลุ่มในฟอรัมเรียกว่า UASF (User-Activated Soft Fork) ที่เหมือนจะกดดันพวกนักขุดให้ยอมรับ SegWit..."

"อยากรู้ว่าตกลง UASF มันสำคัญยังไงครับ? ทำไมใคร ๆ ถึงเรียกว่าเป็น การปฏิวัติโดย Node กัน?”

แจ๊กอมยิ้มก่อนจะวางแก้วกาแฟลง พูดด้วยน้ำเสียงจริงจังกว่าเดิม “UASF น่ะหรือ? มันเปรียบได้กับการที่ ‘ชาวนา’ หรือ ‘ประชาชนตัวเล็ก ๆ’ ออกมาประกาศว่า ‘ฉันจะไม่รับบล็อกของนักขุดที่ไม่รองรับ SegWit นะ ถ้าแกไม่ทำตาม ฉันก็จะตัดบล็อกแกทิ้ง!’ เสมือนเป็นการปฏิวัติที่บอกว่าแรงขุดมากแค่ไหนก็ไม่สำคัญ ถ้าคนรัน Node ไม่ยอม… เชนก็เดินต่อไม่ได้”

“โห… ฟังดูแรงจริง ๆ พี่ แล้วถ้านักขุดไม่ร่วมมือ UASF จะเกิดอะไรขึ้น?” แชมป์ถามต่อเสียงสั่นนิด ๆ

“ก็อาจเกิด ‘Chain Split’ ยังไงล่ะ"

"แยกเครือข่ายเป็นสองสาย สุดท้ายเครือข่ายเดิม กับเครือข่ายใหม่ที่รองรับ SegWit ไม่ตรงกัน คนอาจสับสนหนักยิ่งกว่า Hard Fork ปกติด้วยซ้ำ"

"แต่นั่นแหละ... มันแสดงพลังว่าผู้ใช้ทั่วไปก็มีสิทธิ์กำหนดทิศทาง Bitcoin ไม่ได้น้อยไปกว่านักขุดเลย”

“เข้าใจแล้วครับพี่… เหมือน การปฏิวัติโดยประชาชนตาดำ ๆ ที่จับมือกันค้านอำนาจทุนใหญ่ใช่ไหม?” แชมป์หยุดครู่หนึ่ง “ผมเคยคิดว่า Node รายย่อยน้อยรายจะไปสู้อะไรไหว แต่ตอนนี้ดูท่าจะเปลี่ยนเกมได้จริงว่ะพี่…”

“ใช่เลย” แจ๊กตอบ

“นี่เป็นความพิเศษของ Bitcoin ที่บอกว่า ‘เราคุมเครือข่ายร่วมกัน’ แม้แต่ Bitmain ที่มี Hashrate มากกว่า 50% ก็หนาวได้ถ้าผู้ใช้หรือ Node รายย่อยรวมพลังกันมากพอ”

แชมป์ฟังด้วยความตื่นเต้นปนกังวล “แล้วแบบนี้ เรื่อง SegWit กับ Blocksize จะจบยังไงครับ? เห็นข่าวว่าถ้านักขุดโดนกดดันมาก ๆ คนอย่าง จิฮั่น อู๋ อาจออกไปสนับสนุน Bitcoin Cash ที่จะเปิดบล็อกใหญ่”

แจ๊กเลื่อนดูฟีดข่าวในฟอรัม Bitcointalk อีกครั้ง ก็เห็นพาดหัวชัด ๆ

“Bitmain ประกาศกร้าวพร้อมหนุน BCH เต็มพิกัด!”

เขาถอนหายใจเฮือกหนึ่ง “ก็ใกล้เป็นจริงแล้วล่ะ… โรเจอร์ แวร์ เองก็ผลักดัน BCH ว่าคือ Bitcoin แท้ที่ค่าธรรมเนียมถูก ใช้งานได้จริง ส่วนฝั่ง BTC ที่ยึดเอา SegWit เป็นหลัก ก็ไม่ยอมให้ Blocksize เพิ่มใหญ่เกินจำเป็น.."

"ต่างคนต่างมีเหตุผล... แต่อุดมการณ์นี่คนละทางเลย”

“แล้วพี่คิดว่าใครจะเป็นฝ่ายชนะครับ?”

“เฮ้ย.. มึงถามยากไปหรือเปล่า” แจ๊กหัวเราะหึ ๆ “ทุกคนมีโอกาสได้หมด และก็มีโอกาสพังหมดเหมือนกัน ถ้า UASF กดดันนักขุดให้อยู่กับ Core ได้ พวกเขาอาจยอมแพ้ แต่ถ้า Bitmain เทใจไป BCH นักขุดรายใหญ่คนอื่น ๆ ก็คงตาม"

"แล้วถ้าฝั่ง BCH เริ่มได้เปรียบ... อาจดึงคนไปเรื่อย ๆ สุดท้ายจะเหลือไหมล่ะฝั่ง SegWit ตัวจริง?”

“งั้น Node รายย่อยจะยืนอยู่ตรงไหนล่ะครับพี่?” แชมป์ถามอย่างหนักใจ

“Node รายย่อยและชุมชนผู้ใช้นี่แหละ คือ ตัวแปรชี้ขาด ทุกวันนี้คนกลุ่ม UASF พยายามโชว์พลังว่าตัวเองมีสิทธิ์ตั้งกติกาเหมือนกัน ไม่ใช่แค่นักขุด"

"อย่างที่บอก.. มันคือการ ‘ลุกขึ้นปฏิวัติ’ โดยชาวนา ต่อสู้กับเจ้าที่ที่ถือ ‘แฮชเรต’ เป็นอาวุธ”

แจ๊กตบบ่าตัวเองเบา ๆ ก่อนจะหัวเราะเล็กน้อย

“นี่แหละความมันของ Bitcoin ไม่มีเจ้าไหนสั่งได้เบ็ดเสร็จจริง ๆ ทุกฝั่งต่างถือไพ่คนละใบ สงครามยังไม่รู้จะจบยังไง ถึงอย่างนั้นมันก็สะท้อนวิญญาณ ‘decentralization’ ที่แท้จริง กล้ายอมรับสิทธิ์ทุกฝ่ายเพื่อแข่งขันกันตามกติกา”

จู่ ๆ ในหน้าฟอรัมก็มีกระทู้ใหม่เด้งเด่น “Bitmain หนุน Bitcoin Cash ด้วย Hashrate กว่า 50%! สงครามเริ่มแล้ว?” ข้อความนั้นดังโครมครามเหมือนระเบิดลงกลางวง

แจ๊กนิ่งไปชั่วขณะ สัมผัสได้ถึงความปั่นป่วนที่กำลังปะทุขึ้นอีกครั้ง เหงื่อบางเบาซึมบนหน้าผากแม้อากาศในคาเฟ่จะเย็นฉ่ำ เขาหันมองโทรศัพท์ที่ยังค้างสายกับแชมป์ แล้วเอ่ยด้วยน้ำเสียงจริงจัง

“นี่ล่ะ.. จุดเริ่มของสองเส้นทางอย่างชัดเจน… บล็อกใหญ่จะไปกับ BCH ส่วน SegWit ก็อยู่กับ BTC แน่นอนว่าทั้งสองฝ่ายไม่คิดถอยง่าย ๆ นักขุดจะเลือกข้างไหน? Node รายย่อยจะยอมใคร?"

"เมื่อสงครามครั้งนี้นำไปสู่การแบ่งเครือข่าย ใครกันแน่จะเป็นผู้ชนะตัวจริง? หรืออาจไม่มีผู้ชนะเลยก็เป็นได้”

ปลายสายเงียบงัน มีแต่เสียงหายใจของแชมป์ที่สะท้อนความกังวลปนอยากรู้อย่างแรง

“พี่… สุดท้ายแล้วเรากำลังยืนอยู่บนรอยแยกที่พร้อมจะฉีกทุกอย่างออกเป็นชิ้น ๆ ใช่ไหมครับ?”

“อาจจะใช่ก็ได้... หรือถ้ามองอีกมุม อาจเป็นวัฏจักรที่ Bitcoin ต้องเจอเป็นระยะ ทุกคนมีสิทธิ์ Fork ได้ตามใจใช่ไหมล่ะ? ก็ขอให้โลกได้เห็นกันว่าชุมชนไหนแน่จริง” แจ๊กพูดทิ้งท้ายก่อนจะแย้มยิ้มเจือรอยอ่อนล้า

ภาพบนจอคอมพิวเตอร์ฉายกระทู้ถกเถียงกันไม่หยุด ประหนึ่งเวทีดีเบตที่ไม่มีวันปิดไฟ แจ๊กจิบกาแฟอึกสุดท้ายเหมือนจะเตรียมพร้อมใจก่อนเข้าสู่สนามรบครั้งใหม่ สงครามยังไม่จบ.. ซ้ำยังดูหนักข้อยิ่งขึ้นเรื่อย ๆ

เขาลุกขึ้นจากโต๊ะ ชำเลืองมองแสงแดดจัดจ้าที่สาดลงมาไม่หยุด เปรียบเหมือนไฟแห่งข้อขัดแย้งที่เผาผลาญทั้งชุมชน Bitcoin ไม่ว่าใครจะเลือกอยู่ฝั่งไหน กลุ่ม UASF, กลุ่ม Big Block, หรือ กลุ่ม SegWit ทางเดินข้างหน้าล้วนเต็มไปด้วยความไม่แน่นอน

“สุดท้ายแล้ว… เมื่อกระดานแบ่งเป็นสองเส้นทางอย่างเด่นชัด สงคราม Blocksize จะจบลงด้วยใครได้บทผู้ชนะ?"

"หรือบางที… มันอาจไม่มีผู้ชนะที่แท้จริงในระบบที่ใครก็ Fork ได้ตลอดเวลา”

คำถามนี้ลอยติดค้างอยู่ในบรรยากาศยามบ่ายที่ร้อนระอุ ชวนให้ใครก็ตามที่จับตาดูสงคราม Blocksize ต้องฉุกคิด

เมื่อไม่มีใครเป็นเจ้าของ Bitcoin อย่างสมบูรณ์ ทุกคนจึงมีสิทธิ์บงการและเสี่ยงต่อการแตกแยกได้ทุกเมื่อ แล้วท้ายที่สุด ชัยชนะ–ความพ่ายแพ้ อาจไม่ใช่จุดสิ้นสุดของโลกคริปโตฯ

แต่เป็นเพียงจุดเริ่มต้นของการวิวัฒน์ที่ไม่มีวันจบสิ้น…

เมาท์แถมเรื่อง UASF (User-Activated Soft Fork)

นี่สนามรบยุคกลางที่ดูเหมือนในหนังแฟนตาซี ทุกคนมีดาบ มีโล่ แต่จู่ ๆ คนตัวเล็กที่เราไม่เคยสังเกต—พวกชาวนา ช่างไม้ คนแบกน้ำ—กลับรวมตัวกันยกดาบบุกวังเจ้าเมือง พร้อมตะโกนว่า “พอเถอะ! เราก็มีสิทธิ์เหมือนกัน!”

มันอาจจะดูเวอร์ ๆ หน่อยใช่ไหมครับ?

แต่ในโลก Bitcoin ปี 2017 นี่คือสิ่งที่เกิดขึ้นในรูปแบบ “User-Activated Soft Fork” หรือ UASF การปฏิวัติด้วยพลังโหนด ซึ่งทำให้นักขุดยักษ์ใหญ่ตัวสั่นงันงกันมาแล้ว!

แล้ว UASF มันคืออะไรล่ะ?

“User-Activated Soft Fork” หรือเรียกย่อ ๆ ว่า “UASF” ไม่ใช่อัปเกรดซอฟต์แวร์สวย ๆ แต่เป็น “ดาบเล่มใหม่” ที่คนตัวเล็ก—หมายถึง โหนด รายย่อย—ใช้ต่อรองกับนักขุดรายใหญ่ โดยกติกาคือ.. ถ้านักขุดไม่ทำตาม (เช่น ไม่รองรับ SegWit) โหนดก็จะปฏิเสธบล็อกของพวกเขาอย่างไม่เกรงใจใคร

สมมุติว่าคุณคือโหนด..

คุณรันซอฟต์แวร์ Bitcoin คอยตรวจสอบธุรกรรม วันดีคืนดี คุณประกาศ “ต่อไปถ้าใครไม่รองรับ SegWit ฉันไม่ยอมรับบล็อกนะ!” นี่ล่ะครับ “UASF” ตัวเป็น ๆ

คำขวัญสุดฮิตของ UASF

“No SegWit, No Block”

หรือแปลว่าถ้าบล็อกไม่รองรับ SegWit ก็เชิญออกไปเลยจ้า..

มันเหมือนการที่ชาวนาโผล่มาตบโต๊ะอาหารท่านขุนว่า “นายใหญ่จะปลูกอะไรก็ปลูกไป แต่ไม่งั้นฉันไม่รับผลผลิตนายนะ!”

ความเชื่อมโยงกับ BIP 148

ถ้าจะพูดถึง UASF ต้องรู้จัก BIP 148 ไว้นิดนึง มันเปรียบเหมือน “ธงปฏิวัติ” ที่ตีตราว่าวันที่ 1 สิงหาคม 2017 คือเส้นตาย!

BIP 148 บอกไว้ว่า.. ถ้าถึงวันนั้นแล้วยังมีนักขุดหน้าไหนไม่รองรับ SegWit บล็อกที่ขุดออกมาก็จะถูกโหนดที่ใช้ UASF “แบน” หมด

ผลลัพธ์ที่ตั้งใจ นักขุดไม่อยากโดนแบนก็ต้องทำตาม UASF กล่าวคือ “นายต้องรองรับ SegWit นะ ไม่งั้นอด!”

หลายคนกลัวกันว่า “อ้าว ถ้านักขุดใหญ่ ๆ ไม่ยอมแล้วหันไปขุดสายอื่น จะไม่กลายเป็นแยกเครือข่าย (Chain Split) หรือ?”

ใช่ครับ.. มันอาจเกิดสงครามสายใหม่ทันทีไงล่ะ

ทำไม UASF ถึงสำคัญ?

ย้อนกลับไปก่อนปี 2017 Bitcoin มีปัญหาโลกแตกทั้งค่าธรรมเนียมแพง ธุรกรรมหน่วง บวกกับความขัดแย้งเรื่อง “จะเพิ่ม Blocksize ดีไหม?” ทางกลุ่มนักขุดรายใหญ่ (นำโดย Bitmain, Roger Ver ฯลฯ) รู้สึกว่า “SegWit ไม่ใช่ทางออกที่แท้จริง” แต่อีกฝั่ง (ทีม Core) ชี้ว่า “Blocksize ใหญ่มากไปจะรวมศูนย์นะ โหนดรายย่อยตายหมด”

UASF เลยโผล่มา เหมือนชาวนาตะโกนว่า

“หุบปากได้แล้วไอ้พวกที่สู้กัน! ถ้าพวกแกไม่รองรับ SegWit พวกข้า (โหนด) ก็จะไม่เอาบล็อกแก”

สาระก็คือ.. มันคือตัวบ่งชี้ว่าคนตัวเล็กอย่างโหนดรายย่อยก็มีพลังต่อรอง เป็นกลไกที่ดึงอำนาจจากมือทุนใหญ่กลับสู่มือชุมชน (Decentralization ที่แท้ทรู)

วิธีการทำงานของ UASF

ลองจินตนาการตาม..

1. การกำหนดเส้นตาย BIP 148 ประกาศไว้ “ถึงวันที่ 1 สิงหาคม 2017 ถ้านายยังไม่รองรับ SegWit โหนด UASF จะไม่รับบล็อกนาย”

2. ถ้าคุณเป็นนักขุด… คุณขุดบล็อกออกมา แต่ไม่ได้ตีธง “ฉันรองรับ SegWit” UASF โหนดเห็นปุ๊บ พวกเขาจะจับโยนทิ้งไปเลย

3. ผลกระทบ? นักขุดที่ไม่ยอมทำตามจะเจอปัญหา บล็อกที่ขุดออกมาไม่มีใครรับ—เสียแรงขุดฟรี

อาจเกิด Chain Split คือ แยกเครือข่ายเลย ถ้านักขุดเหล่านั้นไปตั้งสายใหม่

ความสำเร็จและความท้าทายของ UASF

ความสำเร็จ.. หลังการรวมพลังผู้ใช้ โหนดรายย่อยกดดันนักขุดได้ไม่น้อย จนกระทั่ง SegWit เปิดใช้งานจริงใน Bitcoin วันที่ 24 สิงหาคม 2017 ช่วยให้ธุรกรรมเร็วขึ้น แก้ Transaction Malleability และเปิดทางสู่ Lightning Network ในอนาคต

ความท้าทาย.. นักขุดบางค่ายไม่โอเค.. โดยเฉพาะ Bitmain ซึ่งคาดว่าจะสูญรายได้บางส่วน ก็นำไปสู่การสนับสนุน “Bitcoin Cash (BCH)” แยกสาย (Hard Fork) ของตัวเองตั้งแต่วันที่ 1 สิงหาคม 2017 นั่นเอง

ว่าแล้วก็เปรียบง่าย ๆ

UASF เหมือนปฏิบัติการยึดคฤหาสน์เจ้าเมืองมาเปิดให้ชาวบ้านเข้าอยู่ฟรี.. แต่อีกฝ่ายบอก

“งั้นฉันออกไปตั้งคฤหาสน์ใหม่ดีกว่า!”

บทเรียนสำคัญ UASF เป็นตัวอย่างชัดว่า “ผู้ใช้” หรือ โหนดรายย่อย สามารถสร้างแรงกดดันให้นักขุดต้องยอมเปลี่ยนได้จริง ๆ ไม่ใช่แค่ยอมรับเงื่อนไขที่ขุดกันมา

ผลกระทบระยะยาวหลังจากนั้นล่ะ?

SegWit ถูกใช้งาน ทำให้ค่าธรรมเนียมธุรกรรมลดลง (ช่วงหนึ่ง) เกิด Lightning Network เป็น Layer 2 สุเฟี้ยวของ Bitcoin เกิด BCH (Bitcoin Cash) เป็นสายแยกที่อ้างว่า Blocksize ใหญ่คือทางออก

สรุปแล้ว UASF ทำให้โลกได้รู้ว่า..

Bitcoin ไม่ใช่ของนักขุด หรือของฝ่ายพัฒนาใดฝ่ายเดียว แต่มันเป็นของทุกคน!

“Bitcoin เป็นของทุกคน”

ไม่มีใครมีอำนาจเบ็ดเสร็จ ไม่ว่าคุณจะถือ Hashrate มากแค่ไหน ถ้า Node ทั่วโลกไม่เอา ก็จบ!

“แรงขุดใหญ่แค่ไหน ก็แพ้ใจมวลชน!”

(น่าจะมีตอนต่อไปนะ.. ถ้าชอบก็ Zap โหด ๆ เป็นกำลังใจให้ด้วยนะครับ)

@ 1c19eb1a:e22fb0bc

I am happy to present to you the first full review posted to Nostr Reviews: #Primal for #Android!

Primal has its origins as a micro-blogging, social media client, though it is now expanding its horizons into long-form content. It was first released only as a web client in March of 2023, but has since had a native client released for both iOS and Android. All of Primal's clients recently had an update to Primal 2.0, which included both performance improvements and a number of new features. This review will focus on the Android client specifically, both on phone and tablet.

Since Primal has also added features that are only available to those enrolled in their new premium subscription, it should also be noted that this review will be from the perspective of a free user. This is for two reasons. First, I am using an alternate npub to review the app, and if I were to purchase premium at some time in the future, it would be on my main npub. Second, despite a lot of positive things I have to say about Primal, I am not planning to regularly use any of their apps on my main account for the time being, for reasons that will be discussed later in the review.

The application can be installed through the Google Play Store, nostr:npub10r8xl2njyepcw2zwv3a6dyufj4e4ajx86hz6v4ehu4gnpupxxp7stjt2p8, or by downloading it directly from Primal's GitHub. The full review is current as of Primal Android version 2.0.21. Updates to the review on 4/30/2025 are current as of version 2.2.13.

In the ecosystem of "notes and other stuff," Primal is predominantly in the "notes" category. It is geared toward users who want a social media experience similar to Twitter or Facebook with an infinite scrolling feed of notes to interact with. However, there is some "other stuff" included to complement this primary focus on short and long form notes including a built-in Lightning wallet powered by #Strike, a robust advanced search, and a media-only feed.

Overall Impression

Score: 4.4 / 5 (Updated 4/30/2025)

Primal may well be the most polished UI of any Nostr client native to Android. It is incredibly well designed and thought out, with all of the icons and settings in the places a user would expect to find them. It is also incredibly easy to get started on Nostr via Primal's sign-up flow. The only two things that will be foreign to new users are the lack of any need to set a password or give an email address, and the prompt to optionally set up the wallet.

Complaints prior to the 2.0 update about Primal being slow and clunky should now be completely alleviated. I only experienced quick load times and snappy UI controls with a couple very minor exceptions, or when loading DVM-based feeds, which are outside of Primal's control.

Primal is not, however, a client that I would recommend for the power-user. Control over preferred relays is minimal and does not allow the user to determine which relays they write to and which they only read from. Though you can use your own wallet, it will not appear within the wallet interface, which only works with the custodial wallet from Strike. Moreover, and most eggregiously, the only way for existing users to log in is by pasting their nsec, as Primal does not support either the Android signer or remote signer options for users to protect their private key at this time. This lack of signer support is the primary reason the client received such a low overall score. If even one form of external signer log in is added to Primal, the score will be amended to 4.2 / 5, and if both Android signer and remote signer support is added, it will increase to 4.5.

Update: As of version 2.2.13, Primal now supports the Amber Android signer! One of the most glaring issues with the app has now been remedied and as promised, the overall score above has been increased.

Another downside to Primal is that it still utilizes an outdated direct message specification that leaks metadata that can be readily seen by anyone on the network. While the content of your messages remains encrypted, anyone can see who you are messaging with, and when. This also means that you will not see any DMs from users who are messaging from a client that has moved to the latest, and far more private, messaging spec.

That said, the beautiful thing about Nostr as a protocol is that users are not locked into any particular client. You may find Primal to be a great client for your average #bloomscrolling and zapping memes, but opt for a different client for more advanced uses and for direct messaging.

Features

Primal has a lot of features users would expect from any Nostr client that is focused on short-form notes, but it also packs in a lot of features that set it apart from other clients, and that showcase Primal's obvious prioritization of a top-tier user experience.

Home Feed

By default, the infinitely scrolling Home feed displays notes from those you currently follow in chronological order. This is traditional Nostr at its finest, and made all the more immersive by the choice to have all distracting UI elements quickly hide themselves from view as the you begin to scroll down the feed. They return just as quickly when you begin to scroll back up.

Scrolling the feed is incredibly fast, with no noticeable choppiness and minimal media pop-in if you are on a decent internet connection.

Helpfully, it is easy to get back to the top of the feed whenever there is a new post to be viewed, as a bubble will appear with the profile pictures of the users who have posted since you started scrolling.

Interacting With Notes

Interacting with a note in the feed can be done via the very recognizable icons at the bottom of each post. You can comment, zap, like, repost, and/or bookmark the note.

Notably, tapping on the zap icon will immediately zap the note your default amount of sats, making zapping incredibly fast, especially when using the built-in wallet. Long pressing on the zap icon will open up a menu with a variety of amounts, along with the ability to zap a custom amount. All of these amounts, and the messages that are sent with the zap, can be customized in the application settings.

Users who are familiar with Twitter or Instagram will feel right at home with only having one option for "liking" a post. However, users from Facebook or other Nostr clients may wonder why they don't have more options for reactions. This is one of those things where users who are new to Nostr probably won't notice they are missing out on anything at all, while users familiar with clients like #Amethyst or #noStrudel will miss the ability to react with a 🤙 or a 🫂.

It's a similar story with the bookmark option. While this is a nice bit of feature parity for Twitter users, for those already used to the ability to have multiple customized lists of bookmarks, or at minimum have the ability to separate them into public and private, it may be a disappointment that they have no access to the bookmarks they already built up on other clients. Primal offers only one list of bookmarks for short-form notes and they are all visible to the public. However, you are at least presented with a warning about the public nature of your bookmarks before saving your first one.

Yet, I can't dock the Primal team much for making these design choices, as they are understandable for Primal's goal of being a welcoming client for those coming over to Nostr from centralized platforms. They have optimized for the onboarding of new users, rather than for those who have been around for a while, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Post Creation

Composing posts in Primal is as simple as it gets. Accessed by tapping the obvious circular button with a "+" on it in the lower right of the Home feed, most of what you could need is included in the interface, and nothing you don't.

Your device's default keyboard loads immediately, and the you can start typing away.

There are options for adding images from your gallery, or taking a picture with your camera, both of which will result in the image being uploaded to Primal's media-hosting server. If you prefer to host your media elsewhere, you can simply paste the link to that media into your post.

There is also an @ icon as a tip-off that you can tag other users. Tapping on this simply types "@" into your note and brings up a list of users. All you have to do to narrow down the user you want to tag is continue typing their handle, Nostr address, or paste in their npub.

This can get mixed results in other clients, which sometimes have a hard time finding particular users when typing in their handle, forcing you to have to remember their Nostr address or go hunt down their npub by another means. Not so with Primal, though. I had no issues tagging anyone I wanted by simply typing in their handle.

Of course, when you are tagging someone well known, you may find that there are multiple users posing as that person. Primal helps you out here, though. Usually the top result is the person you want, as Primal places them in order of how many followers they have. This is quite reliable right now, but there is nothing stopping someone from spinning up an army of bots to follow their fake accounts, rendering follower count useless for determining which account is legitimate. It would be nice to see these results ranked by web-of-trust, or at least an indication of how many users you follow who also follow the users listed in the results.

Once you are satisfied with your note, the "Post" button is easy to find in the top right of the screen.

Feed Selector and Marketplace

Primal's Home feed really shines when you open up the feed selection interface, and find that there are a plethora of options available for customizing your view. By default, it only shows four options, but tapping "Edit" opens up a new page of available toggles to add to the feed selector.

The options don't end there, though. Tapping "Add Feed" will open up the feed marketplace, where an ever-growing number of custom feeds can be found, some created by Primal and some created by others. This feed marketplace is available to a few other clients, but none have so closely integrated it with their Home feeds like Primal has.

Unfortunately, as great as these custom feeds are, this was also the feature where I ran into the most bugs while testing out the app.

One of these bugs was while selecting custom feeds. Occasionally, these feed menu screens would become unresponsive and I would be unable to confirm my selection, or even use the back button on my device to back out of the screen. However, I was able to pull the screen down to close it and re-open the menu, and everything would be responsive again.

This only seemed to occur when I spent 30 seconds or more on the same screen, so I imagine that most users won't encounter it much in their regular use.

Another UI bug occurred for me while in the feed marketplace. I could scroll down the list of available feeds, but attempting to scroll back up the feed would often close the interface entirely instead, as though I had pulled the screen down from the top, when I was swiping in the middle of the screen.

The last of these bugs occurred when selecting a long-form "Reads" feed while in the menu for the Home feed. The menu would allow me to add this feed and select it to be displayed, but it would fail to load the feed once selected, stating "There is no content in this feed." Going to a different page within the the app and then going back to the Home tab would automatically remove the long-form feed from view, and reset back to the most recently viewed short-form "Notes" feed, though the long-form feed would still be available to select again. The results were similar when selecting a short-form feed for the Reads feed.

I would suggest that if long-form and short-form feeds are going to be displayed in the same list, and yet not be able to be displayed in the same feed, the application should present an error message when attempting to add a long-form feed for the Home feed or a short-form feed for the Reads feed, and encourage the user add it to the proper feed instead.

Long-Form "Reads" Feed

A brand new feature in Primal 2.0, users can now browse and read long-form content posted to Nostr without having to go to a separate client. Primal now has a dedicated "Reads" feed to browse and interact with these articles.

This feed displays the author and title of each article or blog, along with an image, if available. Quite conveniently, it also lets you know the approximate amount of time it will take to read a given article, so you can decide if you have the time to dive into it now, or come back later.

Noticeably absent from the Reads feed, though, is the ability to compose an article of your own. This is another understandable design choice for a mobile client. Composing a long-form note on a smart-phone screen is not a good time. Better to be done on a larger screen, in a client with a full-featured text editor.

Tapping an article will open up an attractive reading interface, with the ability to bookmark for later. These bookmarks are a separate list from your short-form note bookmarks so you don't have to scroll through a bunch of notes you bookmarked to find the article you told yourself you would read later and it's already been three weeks.

While you can comment on the article or zap it, you will notice that you cannot repost or quote-post it. It's not that you can't do so on Nostr. You absolutely can in other clients. In fact, you can do so on Primal's web client, too. However, Primal on Android does not handle rendering long-form note previews in the Home feed, so they have simply left out the option to share them there. See below for an example of a quote-post of a long-form note in the Primal web client vs the Android client.

Primal Web:

Primal Android:

The Explore Tab

Another unique feature of the Primal client is the Explore tab, indicated by the compass icon. This tab is dedicated to discovering content from outside your current follow list. You can find the feed marketplace here, and add any of the available feeds to your Home or Reads feed selections. You can also find suggested users to follow in the People tab. The Zaps tab will show you who has been sending and receiving large zaps. Make friends with the generous ones!

The Media tab gives you a chronological feed of just media, displayed in a tile view. This can be great when you are looking for users who post dank memes, or incredible photography on a regular basis. Unfortunately, it appears that there is no way to filter this feed for sensitive content, and so you do not have to scroll far before you see pornographic material.

Indeed, it does not appear that filters for sensitive content are available in Primal for any feed. The app is kind enough to give a minimal warning that objectionable content may be present when selecting the "Nostr Firehose" option in your Home feed, with a brief "be careful" in the feed description, but there is not even that much of a warning here for the media-only feed.

The media-only feed doesn't appear to be quite as bad as the Nostr Firehose feed, so there must be some form of filtering already taking place, rather than being a truly global feed of all media. Yet, occasional sensitive content still litters the feed and is unavoidable, even for users who would rather not see it. There are, of course, ways to mute particular users who post such content, if you don't want to see it a second time from the same user, but that is a never-ending game of whack-a-mole, so your only realistic choices in Primal are currently to either avoid the Nostr Firehose and media-only feeds, or determine that you can put up with regularly scrolling past often graphic content.

This is probably the only choice Primal has made that is not friendly to new users. Most clients these days will have some protections in place to hide sensitive content by default, but still allow the user to toggle those protections off if they so choose. Some of them hide posts flagged as sensitive content altogether, others just blur the images unless the user taps to reveal them, and others simply blur all images posted by users you don't follow. If Primal wants to target new users who are accustomed to legacy social media platforms, they really should follow suit.

The final tab is titled "Topics," but it is really just a list of popular hashtags, which appear to be arranged by how often they are being used. This can be good for finding things that other users are interested in talking about, or finding specific content you are interested in.

If you tap on any topic in the list, it will display a feed of notes that include that hashtag. What's better, you can add it as a feed option you can select on your Home feed any time you want to see posts with that tag.

The only suggestion I would make to improve this tab is some indication of why the topics are arranged in the order presented. A simple indicator of the number of posts with that hashtag in the last 24 hours, or whatever the interval is for determining their ranking, would more than suffice.

Even with those few shortcomings, Primal's Explore tab makes the client one of the best options for discovering content on Nostr that you are actually interested in seeing and interacting with.

Built-In Wallet

While this feature is completely optional, the icon to access the wallet is the largest of the icons at the bottom of the screen, making you feel like you are missing out on the most important feature of the app if you don't set it up. I could be critical of this design choice, but in many ways I think it is warranted. The built-in wallet is one of the most unique features that Primal has going for it.

Consider: If you are a new user coming to Nostr, who isn't already a Bitcoiner, and you see that everyone else on the platform is sending and receiving sats for their posts, will you be more likely to go download a separate wallet application or use one that is built-into your client? I would wager the latter option by a long shot. No need to figure out which wallet you should download, whether you should do self-custody or custodial, or make the mistake of choosing a wallet with unexpected setup fees and no Lightning address so you can't even receive zaps to it. nostr:npub16c0nh3dnadzqpm76uctf5hqhe2lny344zsmpm6feee9p5rdxaa9q586nvr often states that he believes more people will be onboarded to Bitcoin through Nostr than by any other means, and by including a wallet into the Primal client, his team has made adopting Bitcoin that much easier for new Nostr users.

Some of us purists may complain that it is custodial and KYC, but that is an unfortunate necessity in order to facilitate onboarding newcoiners to Bitcoin. This is not intended to be a wallet for those of us who have been using Bitcoin and Lightning regularly already. It is meant for those who are not already familiar with Bitcoin to make it as easy as possible to get off zero, and it accomplishes this better than any other wallet I have ever tried.

In large part, this is because the KYC is very light. It does need the user's legal name, a valid email address, date of birth, and country of residence, but that's it! From there, the user can buy Bitcoin directly through the app, but only in the amount of $4.99 at a time. This is because there is a substantial markup on top of the current market price, due to utilizing whatever payment method the user has set up through their Google Play Store. The markup seemed to be about 19% above the current price, since I could purchase 4,143 sats for $4.99 ($120,415 / Bitcoin), when the current price was about $101,500. But the idea here is not for the Primal wallet to be a user's primary method of stacking sats. Rather, it is intended to get them off zero and have a small amount of sats to experience zapping with, and it accomplishes this with less friction than any other method I know.

Moreover, the Primal wallet has the features one would expect from any Lightning wallet. You can send sats to any Nostr user or Lightning address, receive via invoice, or scan to pay an invoice. It even has the ability to receive via on-chain. This means users who don't want to pay the markup from buying through Primal can easily transfer sats they obtained by other means into the Primal wallet for zapping, or for using it as their daily-driver spending wallet.

Speaking of zapping, once the wallet is activated, sending zaps is automatically set to use the wallet, and they are fast. Primal gives you immediate feedback that the zap was sent and the transaction shows in your wallet history typically before you can open the interface. I can confidently say that Primal wallet's integration is the absolute best zapping experience I have seen in any Nostr client.

One thing to note that may not be immediately apparent to new users is they need to add their Lightning address with Primal into their profile details before they can start receiving zaps. So, sending zaps using the wallet is automatic as soon as you activate it, but receiving is not. Ideally, this could be further streamlined, so that Primal automatically adds the Lightning address to the user's profile when the wallet is set up, so long as there is not currently a Lightning address listed.

Of course, if you already have a Lightning wallet, you can connect it to Primal for zapping, too. We will discuss this further in the section dedicated to zap integration.

Advanced Search

Search has always been a tough nut to crack on Nostr, since it is highly dependent on which relays the client is pulling information from. Primal has sought to resolve this issue, among others, by running a caching relay that pulls notes from a number of relays to store them locally, and perform some spam filtering. This allows for much faster retrieval of search results, and also makes their advanced search feature possible.

Advanced search can be accessed from most pages by selecting the magnifying glass icon, and then the icon for more options next to the search bar.

As can be seen in the screenshot below, there are a plethora of filters that can be applied to your search terms.

You can immediately see how this advanced search could be a very powerful tool for not just finding a particular previous note that you are looking for, but for creating your own custom feed of notes. Well, wouldn't you know it, Primal allows you to do just that! This search feature, paired with the other features mentioned above related to finding notes you want to see in your feed, makes Primal hands-down the best client for content discovery.

The only downside as a free user is that some of these search options are locked behind the premium membership. Or else you only get to see a certain number of results of your advanced search before you must be a premium member to see more.

Can My Grandma Use It?

Score: 4.8 / 5 Primal has obviously put a high priority on making their client user-friendly, even for those who have never heard of relays, public/private key cryptography, or Bitcoin. All of that complexity is hidden away. Some of it is available to play around with for the users who care to do so, but it does not at all get in the way of the users who just want to jump in and start posting notes and interacting with other users in a truly open public square.

To begin with, the onboarding experience is incredibly smooth. Tap "Create Account," enter your chosen display name and optional bio information, upload a profile picture, and then choose some topics you are interested in. You are then presented with a preview of your profile, with the ability to add a banner image, if you so choose, and then tap "Create Account Now."

From there you receive confirmation that your account has been created and that your "Nostr key" is available to you in the application settings. No further explanation is given about what this key is for at this point, but the user doesn't really need to know at the moment, either. If they are curious, they will go to the app settings to find out.

At this point, Primal encourages the user to activate Primal Wallet, but also gives the option for the user to do it later.

That's it! The next screen the user sees if they don't opt to set up the wallet is their Home feed with notes listed in chronological order. More impressive, the feed is not empty, because Primal has auto-followed several accounts based on your selected topics.

Now, there has definitely been some legitimate criticism of this practice of following specific accounts based on the topic selection, and I agree. I would much prefer to see Primal follow hashtags based on what was selected, and combine the followed hashtags into a feed titled "My Topics" or something of that nature, and make that the default view when the user finishes onboarding. Following particular users automatically will artificially inflate certain users' exposure, while other users who might be quality follows for that topic aren't seen at all.

The advantage of following particular users over a hashtag, though, is that Primal retains some control over the quality of the posts that new users are exposed to right away. Primal can ensure that new users see people who are actually posting quality photography when they choose it as one of their interests. However, even with that example, I chose photography as one of my interests and while I did get some stunning photography in my Home feed by default based on Primal's chosen follows, I also scrolled through the Photography hashtag for a bit and I really feel like I would have been better served if Primal had simply followed that hashtag rather than a particular set of users.

We've already discussed how simple it is to set up the Primal Wallet. You can see the features section above if you missed it. It is, by far, the most user friendly experience to onboarding onto Lightning and getting a few sats for zapping, and it is the only one I know of that is built directly into a Nostr client. This means new users will have a frictionless introduction to transacting via Lightning, perhaps without even realizing that's what they are doing.

Discovering new content of interest is incredibly intuitive on Primal, and the only thing that new users may struggle with is getting their own notes seen by others. To assist with this, I would suggest Primal encourage users to make their first post to the introductions hashtag and direct any questions to the AskNostr hashtag as part of the onboarding process. This will get them some immediate interactions from other users, and further encouragement to set up their wallet if they haven't already done so.

How do UI look?

Score: 4.9 / 5

Primal is the most stunningly beautiful Nostr client available, in my honest opinion. Despite some of my hangups about certain functionality, the UI alone makes me want to use it.

It is clean, attractive, and intuitive. Everything I needed was easy to find, and nothing felt busy or cluttered. There are only a few minor UI glitches that I ran into while testing the app. Some of them were mentioned in the section of the review detailing the feed selector feature, but a couple others occurred during onboarding.

First, my profile picture was not centered in the preview when I uploaded it. This appears to be because it was a low quality image. Uploading a higher quality photo did not have this result.

The other UI bug was related to text instructions that were cut off, and not able to scroll to see the rest of them. This occurred on a few pages during onboarding, and I expect it was due to the size of my phone screen, since it did not occur when I was on a slightly larger phone or tablet.

Speaking of tablets, Primal Android looks really good on a tablet, too! While the client does not have a landscape mode by default, many Android tablets support forcing apps to open in full-screen landscape mode, with mixed results. However, Primal handles it well. I would still like to see a tablet version developed that takes advantage of the increased screen real estate, but it is certainly a passable option.

At this point, I would say the web client probably has a bit better UI for use on a tablet than the Android client does, but you miss out on using the built-in wallet, which is a major selling point of the app.

This lack of a landscape mode for tablets and the few very minor UI bugs I encountered are the only reason Primal doesn't get a perfect score in this category, because the client is absolutely stunning otherwise, both in light and dark modes. There are also two color schemes available for each.

Log In Options

Score: 4 / 5 (Updated 4/30/2025)

Unfortunately, Primal has not included any options for log in outside of pasting your private key into the application. While this is a very simple way to log in for new users to understand, it is also the least secure means to log into Nostr applications.

This is because, even with the most trustworthy client developer, giving the application access to your private key always has the potential for that private key to somehow be exposed or leaked, and on Nostr there is currently no way to rotate to a different private key and keep your identity and social graph. If someone gets your key, they are you on Nostr for all intents and purposes.

This is not a situation that users should be willing to tolerate from production-release clients at this point. There are much better log in standards that can and should be implemented if you care about your users.

That said, I am happy to report that external signer support is on the roadmap for Primal, as confirmed below:

nostr:note1n59tc8k5l2v30jxuzghg7dy2ns76ld0hqnn8tkahyywpwp47ms5qst8ehl

No word yet on whether this will be Android signer or remote signer support, or both.

This lack of external signer support is why I absolutely will not use my main npub with Primal for Android. I am happy to use the web client, which supports and encourages logging in with a browser extension, but until the Android client allows users to protect their private key, I cannot recommend it for existing Nostr users.

Update: As of version 2.2.13, all of what I have said above is now obsolete. Primal has added Android signer support, so users can now better protect their nsec by using Amber!

I would still like to see support for remote signers, especially with nstart.me as a recommended Nostr onboarding process and the advent of FROSTR for key management. That said, Android signer support on its own has been a long time coming and is a very welcome addition to the Primal app. Bravo Primal team!

Zap Integration

Score: 4.8 / 5

As mentioned when discussing Primal's built-in wallet feature, zapping in Primal can be the most seamless experience I have ever seen in a Nostr client. Pairing the wallet with the client is absolutely the path forward for Nostr leading the way to Bitcoin adoption.

But what if you already have a Lightning wallet you want to use for zapping? You have a couple options. If it is an Alby wallet or another wallet that supports Nostr Wallet Connect, you can connect it with Primal to use with one-tap zapping.

How your zapping experience goes with this option will vary greatly based on your particular wallet of choice and is beyond the scope of this review. I used this option with a hosted wallet on my Alby Hub and it worked perfectly. Primal gives you immediate feedback that you have zapped, even though the transaction usually takes a few seconds to process and appear in your wallet's history.

The one major downside to using an external wallet is the lack of integration with the wallet interface. This interface currently only works with Primal's wallet, and therefore the most prominent tab in the entire app goes unused when you connect an external wallet.

An ideal improvement would be for the wallet screen to work similar to Alby Go when you have an external wallet connected via Nostr Wallet Connect, allowing the user to have Primal act as their primary mobile Lightning wallet. It could have balance and transaction history displayed, and allow sending and receiving, just like the integrated Primal wallet, but remove the ability to purchase sats directly through the app when using an external wallet.

Content Discovery

Score: 4.8 / 5

Primal is the best client to use if you want to discover new content you are interested in. There is no comparison, with only a few caveats.

First, the content must have been posted to Nostr as either a short-form or long-form note. Primal has a limited ability to display other types of content. For instance, discovering video content or streaming content is lacking.

Second, you must be willing to put up with the fact that Primal lacks a means of filtering sensitive content when you are exploring beyond the bounds of your current followers. This may not be an issue for some, but for others it could be a deal-breaker.

Third, it would be preferable for Primal to follow topics you are interested in when you choose them during onboarding, rather than follow specific npubs. Ideally, create a "My Topics" feed that can be edited by selecting your interests in the Topics section of the Explore tab.

Relay Management

Score: 2.5 / 5

For new users who don't want to mess around with managing relays, Primal is fantastic! There are 7 relays selected by default, in addition to Primal's caching service. For most users who aren't familiar with Nostr's protocol archetecture, they probably won't ever have to change their default relays in order to use the client as they would expect.

However, two of these default relays were consistently unreachable during the week that I tested. These were relay.plebes.fans and remnant.cloud. The first relay seems to be an incorrect URL, as I found nosflare.plebes.fans online and with perfect uptime for the last 12 hours on nostr.watch. I was unable to find remnant.cloud on nostr.watch at all. A third relay was intermittent, sometimes online and reachable, and other times unreachable: v1250.planz.io/nostr. If Primal is going to have default relays, they should ideally be reliable and with accurate URLs.

That said, users can add other relays that they prefer, and remove relays that they no longer want to use. They can even set a different caching service to use with the client, rather than using Primal's.

However, that is the extent of a user's control over their relays. They cannot choose which relays they want to write to and which they want to read from, nor can they set any private relays, outbox or inbox relays, or general relays. Loading the npub I used for this review into another client with full relay management support revealed that the relays selected in Primal are being added to both the user's public outbox relays and public inbox relays, but not to any other relay type, which leads me to believe the caching relay is acting as the client's only general relay and search relay.

One unique and welcomed addition is the "Enhanced Privacy" feature, which is off by default, but which can be toggled on. I am not sure why this is not on by default, though. Perhaps someone from the Primal team can enlighten me on that choice.

By default, when you post to Nostr, all of your outbox relays will see your IP address. If you turn on the Enhanced Privacy mode, only Primal's caching service will see your IP address, because it will post your note to the other relays on your behalf. In this way, the caching service acts similar to a VPN for posting to Nostr, as long as you trust Primal not to log or leak your IP address.

In short, if you use any other Nostr clients at all, do not use Primal for managing your relays.

Media Hosting Options

Score: 4.9 / 5 This is a NEW SECTION of this review, as of version 2.2.13!

Primal has recently added support for the Blossom protocol for media hosting, and has added a new section within their settings for "Media Uploads."

Media hosting is one of the more complicated problems to solve for a decentralized publishing protocol like Nostr. Text-based notes are generally quite small, making them no real burden to store on relays, and a relay can prune old notes as they see fit, knowing that anyone who really cared about those notes has likely archived them elsewhere. Media, on the other hand, can very quickly fill up a server's disk space, and because it is usually addressable via a specific URL, removing it from that location to free up space means it will no longer load for anyone.

Blossom solves this issue by making it easy to run a media server and have the same media mirrored to more than one for redundancy. Since the media is stored with a file name that is a hash of the content itself, if the media is deleted from one server, it can still be found from any other server that has the same file, without any need to update the URL in the Nostr note where it was originally posted.

Prior to this update, Primal only allowed media uploads to their own media server. Now, users can upload to any blossom server, and even choose to have their pictures or videos mirrored additional servers automatically. To my knowledge, no other Nostr client offers this automatic mirroring at the time of upload.

One of my biggest criticisms of Primal was that it had taken a siloed approach by providing a client, a caching relay, a media server, and a wallet all controlled by the same company. The whole point of Nostr is to separate control of all these services to different entities. Now users have more options for separating out their media hosting and their wallet to other providers, at least. I would still like to see other options available for a caching relay, but that relies on someone else being willing to run one, since the software is open for anyone to use. It's just not your average, lightweight relay that any average person can run from home.

Regardless, this update to add custom Blossom servers is a most welcome step in the right direction!

Current Users' Questions

The AskNostr hashtag can be a good indication of the pain points that other users are currently having with a client. Here are some of the most common questions submitted about Primal since the launch of 2.0:

nostr:note1dqv4mwqn7lvpaceg9s7damf932ydv9skv2x99l56ufy3f7q8tkdqpxk0rd

This was a pretty common question, because users expect that they will be able to create the same type of content that they can consume in a particular client. I can understand why this was left out in a mobile client, but perhaps it should be added in the web client.

nostr:note16xnm8a2mmrs7t9pqymwjgd384ynpf098gmemzy49p3572vhwx2mqcqw8xe

This is a more concerning bug, since it appears some users are experiencing their images being replaced with completely different images. I did not experience anything similar in my testing, though.

nostr:note1uhrk30nq0e566kx8ac4qpwrdh0vfaav33rfvckyvlzn04tkuqahsx8e7mr

There hasn't been an answer to this, but I have not been able to find a way. It seems search results will always include replies as well as original notes, so a feed made from the search results will as well. Perhaps a filter can be added to the advanced search to exclude replies? There is already a filter to only show replies, but there is no corresponding filter to only show original notes.

nostr:note1zlnzua28a5v76jwuakyrf7hham56kx9me9la3dnt3fvymcyaq6eqjfmtq6

Since both mobile platforms support the wallet, users expect that they will be able to access it in their web client, too. At this time, they cannot. The only way to have seamless zapping in the web client is to use the Alby extension, but there is not a way to connect it to your Primal wallet via Nostr Wallet Connect either. This means users must have a separate wallet for zapping on the web client if they use the Primal Wallet on mobile.

nostr:note15tf2u9pffy58y9lk27y245ew792raqc7lc22jezxvqj7xrak9ztqu45wep

It seems that Primal is filtering for spam even for profiles you actively follow. Moreover, exactly what the criteria is for being considered spam is currently opaque.

nostr:note1xexnzv0vrmc8svvduurydwmu43w7dftyqmjh4ps98zksr39ln2qswkuced

For those unaware, Blossom is a protocol for hosting media as blobs identified by a hash, allowing them to be located on and displayed from other servers they have been mirrored to when when the target server isn't available. Primal currently runs a Blossom server (blossom.primal.net) so I would expect we see Blossom support in the future.

nostr:note1unugv7s36e2kxl768ykg0qly7czeplp8qnc207k4pj45rexgqv4sue50y6

Currently, Primal on Android only supports uploading photos to your posts. Users must upload any video to some other hosting service and copy/paste a link to the video into their post on Primal. I would not be surprised to see this feature added in the near future, though.

nostr:note10w6538y58dkd9mdrlkfc8ylhnyqutc56ggdw7gk5y7nsp00rdk4q3qgrex

Many Nostr users have more than one npub for various uses. Users would prefer to have a way to quickly switch between accounts than to have to log all the way out and paste their npub for the other account every time they want to use it.

There is good news on this front, though:

nostr:note17xv632yqfz8nx092lj4sxr7drrqfey6e2373ha00qlq8j8qv6jjs36kxlh

Wrap Up

All in all, Primal is an excellent client. It won't be for everyone, but that's one of the strengths of Nostr as a protocol. You can choose to use the client that best fits your own needs, and supplement with other clients and tools as necessary.

There are a couple glaring issues I have with Primal that prevent me from using it on my main npub, but it is also an ever-improving client, that already has me hopeful for those issues to be resolved in a future release.

So, what should I review next? Another Android client, such as #Amethyst or #Voyage? Maybe an "other stuff" app, like #Wavlake or #Fountain? Please leave your suggestions in the comments.

I hope this review was valuable to you! If it was, please consider letting me know just how valuable by zapping me some sats and reposting it out to your follows.

Thank you for reading!

PV 🤙