@ cefb08d1:f419beff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOqWgxCo7Kw

The Catch Up Day 1: Bonsoy Gold Coast Pro provides opening day dominance from upper echelon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1uM0FnyPvA

Next Round, elimination:

Results of the 1st day, opening round: https://www.worldsurfleague.com/events/2025/ct/325/bonsoy-gold-coast-pro/results

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/970160

@ cefb08d1:f419beff

There is a well-known legend about pelicans that has been told for centuries: it was believed that pelican parents would wound their own chests with their beaks to feed their young with their blood. In reality, pelicans actually catch fish in their large beaks and then press their beaks to their chicks’ mouths to feed them. The myth likely arose because young pelicans sometimes peck their mother's chest while competing for food, but the mother does not harm herself intentionally.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/970123

@ cefb08d1:f419beff

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/970118

@ cefb08d1:f419beff

I still get some errors on those relays as related in https://stacker.news/items/797226 :

wss://relay.snort.social/, wss://relay.damus.io/, wss://nostr.mutinywallet.com/, wss://relay.mutinywallet.com/

Is it "normal" ?

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/969662

@ 4ba8e86d:89d32de4

Tutorial OpenKeychain

1. Baixar no F-droid https://f-droid.org/app/org.sufficientlysecure.keychain

Ao abrir o OpenKeychain pela primeira vez, você verá uma tela inicial indicando que ainda não há chaves configuradas. Nesse ponto, você terá três opções:

1. Criar uma nova chave PGP diretamente no OpenKeychain: Ideal para quem está começando e precisa de uma solução simples para criptografia em comunicações diárias.

2. Usar um token de segurança (como Fidesmo, Yubikey, NEO, ou Sigilance) Se você busca uma segurança ainda maior, pode optar por armazenar sua chave privada em um token de segurança. Com essa configuração, a chave privada nunca é salva no dispositivo móvel. O celular atua apenas como uma interface de comunicação, enquanto a chave permanece protegida no token, fora do alcance de possíveis invasores remotos. Isso garante que somente quem possui o token fisicamente possa usar a chave, elevando significativamente o nível de segurança e controle sobre seus dados.

3. Importar uma chave PGP existente: Você pode importar uma chave PGP que já tenha sido gerada anteriormente, seja por meio de um arquivo no dispositivo ou por outro meio ler na área de transferência. https://image.nostr.build/51fdd924df4843ab73faa02a505c8fb17794f1789396ed89b154348ebb337f07.jpg

1. CRIANDO UMA NOVA CHAVE PGP.

Para iniciantes, recomendamos criar uma nova chave diretamente no aplicativo. abordaremos o uso do OpenKeychain em modo online, que é mais comum para comunicações diárias.

Passo 1: Clique em “Criar minha chave”. https://image.nostr.build/235f5cfdf4c3006ca3b00342741003f79a5055355c2a8ee425fc33c875f51e49.jpg

Passo 2: Criando sua chave PGP.

Para criar sua chave, você precisará fornecer algumas informações Os campos 'Nome' e 'Endereço de e-mail' são apenas formas convenientes para identificar a sua chave PGP.

• Nome: Escolha um nome ou um pseudônimo. https://image.nostr.build/de3fe3ddbde0c7bf084be6e4b8150fdb8612365550622559b0ee72f50f56a159.jpg

• E-mail: Associe um endereço de e-mail à chave, seja ele pessoal ou um e-mail relacionado ao pseudônimo. https://image.nostr.build/aff62baaeafe2c9a429ef10435a6f99dea36d6cfd7494e2bb882421dc8ed0f4e.jpg

2. REVISANDO E PERSONALIZANDO A CRIAÇÃO DA CHAVE.

Passo 3: Antes de criar sua chave PGP, verifique se os dados inseridos estão corretos. https://image.nostr.build/a8ec09ef3d9b4f557b0c4e380e7ca45d0fdbfa33fe80becea03ed0e5f5eedd24.jpg

Você também pode personalizar as configurações de segurança clicando nos três pontos no canto superior direito. https://image.nostr.build/1ce615555cea9a979ea951472052a219e77f4e1ebaaf5fcbbe9e91ea4f852bce.jpg

Ao cliclar em ' nova subchave ' pode alterar a data de expiração e pode mudar a criptografia usado na chave cliclando opção ed2255/cv255. https://image.nostr.build/b3224ff3dbe48ff78c4a2df8b001926b6d3eef1e33ef677a73b0d281791073da.jpg https://image.nostr.build/7763c7847e062cdcf71aafedbc2ef4c38056fd66aeb162ef3a1c30c028a14376.jpg https://image.nostr.build/5d3e20ade460dd5e89cc001ebdc062a36aff2c0e1573584ca3c0d1cb34bddcce.jpg

Neste tutorial, utilizaremos as configurações padrão do aplicativo.

Passo 4: Clique em "Criar chave" para concluir o processo. https://image.nostr.build/a8ec09ef3d9b4f557b0c4e380e7ca45d0fdbfa33fe80becea03ed0e5f5eedd24.jpg

3. Como Compartilhar sua Chave PGP Pública

Após criar sua chave PGP, você pode compartilhá-la para que outras pessoas possam enviar mensagens criptografadas para você. Veja o passo a passo de como exibir e compartilhar sua chave pública:

Passo 1: Acesse sua chave pública

Abra o OpenKeychain e selecione a chave que deseja compartilhar. Clique na chave para visualizar os detalhes. https://image.nostr.build/689c5237075317e89e183d2664630de973b09b68aaf8f3e3033654e987b781be.jpg https://image.nostr.build/4001610109579f27535628932258087b3b06c1f86b05f4f85537b6585c12a10b.jpg

Passo 2: Copiar sua chave pública

Nos detalhes da chave, você verá a opção "Copiar para a Área de Transferência". Clique nessa opção para copiar o código da sua chave pública. https://image.nostr.build/01ab3efa5e997e1910a2f8f7a888e6ad60350574cca4ca0214eee5581797f704.jpg

A chave PGP copiada terá o seguinte formato:

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

mDMEZwsLHRYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdA6NRLlJIWnTBJtYwZHlrMbTKRbYuXmjsMn8MB 7etV3HK0JERhbmllbCBGcmFnYSAgPGRhbmllbGZyYWdhQG1haWwuaTJwPohyBBMW CAAaBAsJCAcCFQgCFgECGQEFgmcLCx0CngECmwMACgkQFZf+kMeJWpR4cwEA8Jt1 TZ/+YlHg3EYphW8KsZOboHLi+L88whrWbka+0s8A/iuaNFAK/oQAlM2YI2e0rAjA VuUCo66mERQNLl2/qN0LuDgEZwsLHRIKKwYBBAGXVQEFAQEHQEj/ZfJolkCjldXP 0KQimE/3PfO9BdJeRtzZA+SsJDh+AwEIB4hhBBgWCAAJBYJnCwsdApsMAAoJEBWX /pDHiVqUo/oA/266xy7kIZvd0PF1QU9mv1m2oOdo7QSoqvgFiq6AmelbAP9lExY5 edctTa/zl87lCddYsZZhxG9g2Cg7xX/XsfrnAA== =TniY -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Dica: Se ocorrer algum erro ao compartilhar sua chave pública com um amigo, peça para que ele a criptografe para ele mesmo. Isso permitirá que ele adicione a chave corretamente. Caso a chave pública ainda não esteja no dispositivo, ao clicar em "Backup de chave", aparecerá a opção para importá-la. Se a chave já estiver no dispositivo, essa ação irá recarregá-la. https://image.nostr.build/cd12abf07c93473db95483fe23112325f89d3eb02977e42756708bbd043f8bcf.jpg  https://image.nostr.build/537aeae38d229ee2cc78e18f412237b659c059e1c74fd7f0deecfe37f15713c9.jpg  https://image.nostr.build/16c8a3db5966c7c06904ee236655f47a6464ae0c1b5af6af27b28c61611d2bbe.jpg

Passo 3: Compartilhar sua chave PGP

Você pode colar a chave pública em e-mails, assinaturas, perfis de redes sociais ou outros meios para compartilhá-la facilmente. Para facilitar a visualização, você também pode exibi-la em seu perfil de redes sociais.

Para acessar mais opções de compartilhamento, clique nos três pontos no canto superior direito e selecione a opção "Avançado". https://image.nostr.build/0d4a13b7bd9a4794017247d1a56fac082db0f993a2011a4dd40e388b22ec88f5.jpg https://image.nostr.build/4ac2a7bc9fa726531a945221cf7d10e0e387deba68100ccf52fdedfcd17cbd59.jpg

Na seção "Compartilhar", você verá sua Key ID e terá a opção de publicar sua chave PGP em um servidor de chaves. https://image.nostr.build/1e972cc211a6d8060cdbd4a8aa642dd1a292810c532f178d3ddb133d1b9bca76.jpg

Passo 4: Como compartilhar sua chave pública PGP no formato .asc. no OpenKeychain

1 . Acesse sua chave

Abra o OpenKeychain e toque na chave que você deseja compartilhar. Isso abrirá a tela com os detalhes da chave. https://image.nostr.build/c080f03d2eb7a9f7833fec0ff1942a5b70b97e4f7da7c6bc79ca300ef9ace55d.jpg

2 . Compartilhe o arquivo .asc

Toque no ícone de compartilhamento, como indicado na imagem abaixo. O aplicativo abrirá a janela para que você escolha por qual app deseja compartilhar sua chave pública no formato .asc. Nesse exemplo, usei o SimpleXChat , mas você pode usar qualquer aplicativo de sua preferência.

1. Botão de compartilhar. https://image.nostr.build/8da74bdb04737a45df671a30bba1dd2e7980841fa0c2d751d6649630e7c25470.jpg

2. Seleção do aplicativo para compartilhamento. https://image.nostr.build/5444f4e9d3fa5aef6b191bb6f553f94c6e49d30ead874c9ee435bca3218fd6c8.jpg

3. Enviando via SimpleXChat. https://image.nostr.build/e5d1ca04cbc69e1e8ac5caf1ab2a4b9b695500861c1ae9c55cea679cce349214.jpg

Sugestão para compartilhar nas redes sociais:

Você pode exibir sua chave de forma simples, por exemplo:

PGP: 1597 FE90 C789 5A94

Importar a chave pública usando a fingerprint

Passo 1:Clique no ícone "+" para começar. https://image.nostr.build/ca6e6e569b4be60165eaf60c7ba1e6e3ec781b525e467c72b4f3605837e6b5ec.jpg

Passo 2: Selecione a opção "Buscar Chave". https://image.nostr.build/87e27d9435e6e3ef78063b9f15799a8120ead4637cd06c89c0220b48327573ae.jpg

Passo 3: Digite a fingerprint da chave em letras minúsculas, sem espaços. A chave correspondente aparecerá para ser adicionada. https://image.nostr.build/33e6819edd4582d7a8513e8814dacb07e1a62994bb3238c1b5b3865a46b5f234.jpg

Além disso, você pode compartilhar sua chave pública em formato QR Code, facilitando a troca de chaves em eventos ou conversas rápidas. Como Assinar Mensagens para Confirmar a Autenticidade da Sua Rede Social

Você pode autenticar sua conta em redes sociais utilizando sua chave PGP. Ao assinar uma mensagem com sua chave, você demonstra que realmente possui essa conta. Siga o passo a passo abaixo para assinar uma mensagem:

Passo 1: Clique na sua chave PGP.  https://image.nostr.build/ffacce1bfb293c9a0888cd5efe340a63d96b293f4c010f8626105c7b212d8558.jpg

Passo 2: Clique no ícone indicado pela seta para abrir o campo de texto.  https://image.nostr.build/4e992a2553810e2583b9d190280ce00a52fc423600a75eca48cbf541cf47d3c2.jpg

Passo 3: Deixe a opção "Encriptar para:" vazio. Em "Assinar com:", selecione sua chave PGP e digite a mensagem que deseja enviar, como o nome da sua rede social.  https://image.nostr.build/a4a2a8d233d186e3d8d9adddccc445bcb3ca3ed88de0db671a77cede12323a75.jpg

Passo 4: Clique no ícone indicado pela seta para copiar o texto assinado. Uma mensagem aparecerá informando: "Assinado/Encriptado com Sucesso".  https://image.nostr.build/a076dfc90e30a495af0872005bf70f412df57b7a0e1c2e17cf5aee9e9b3e39aa.jpg

A mensagem copiada terá o seguinte formato:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256

Minha rede social NOSTR é Danielfraga oficial. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iIQEARYIACwlHERhbmllbCBGcmFnYSAgPGRhbmllbGZyYWdhQG1haWwuaTJwPgUC ZxBBLgAKCRAVl/6Qx4lalGeNAPwP71rpsbhRnZhoWZsTDOFZY8ep/d0e5qYx5iPx HV26dwD/fKyiir1TR8JwZvEbOTYS0+Dn4DFlRAAfR3lKVTC96w4= =37Lj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Com isso, você pode facilmente demonstrar a autenticidade da sua conta nas redes sociais.

4. PROTEGENDO SUA CHAVE COM UMA SENHA.

Passo 5: Após a criação da chave, é fundamental definir uma senha (ou passphrase) para adicionar uma camada extra de segurança. Recomendamos usar senhas longas (com mais de 20 caracteres) e de alta entropia para evitar ataques de força bruta. Ferramentas como KeePassDX ou Bitwarden podem ajudá-lo a gerar e gerenciar essas senhas.

Para definir a senha, clique na sua chave PGP, acesse o menu no canto superior direito e selecione "Alterar senha". https://image.nostr.build/689c5237075317e89e183d2664630de973b09b68aaf8f3e3033654e987b781be.jpg https://image.nostr.build/f28ecaa9890a8827f93cac78846c4b2ef67f86ccfc3501fdadf1d1c4874b0041.jpg https://image.nostr.build/919c277fbec63c397402abdd60f915cb239a674c317855cbda63a38edef80789.jpg

Agora basta adicionar uma senha forte. https://image.nostr.build/eb378219fbb1780f89663a474ce43b8d8ebb13beeb538f2a16279b056e5d9645.jpg https://image.nostr.build/cdfa3f9c6c4045841341da789deabb6318107812d5ba195529418572ab352aaf.jpg

5. CRIPTOGRAFAR E DESCRIPTOGRAFAR MENSAGENS E ARQUIVOS COM SUA CHAVE PGP

Criptografar Mensagens

Você pode criptografar mensagens para garantir que apenas o destinatário, que possui sua chave pública, possa lê-las. Siga os passos abaixo para criptografar um texto:

Passo 1: Abra o menu lateral clicando no ícone no canto superior esquerdo.
https://image.nostr.build/13ac93b38dd1633118ae3142401c13e8a089caabdf4617055284cc521a45b069.jpg

Passo 2: Selecione a opção "Encriptar/Descriptar".
https://image.nostr.build/8cd905d616b53968f0551c071d9acc2f47bbe8434c2c7e1a33076a504342de48.jpg

Passo 3: Clique na opção "Encriptar Texto".
https://image.nostr.build/405a730a6c774759d7913f92f59059d43146db4afb28451a6f8833f94e99437f.jpg

Passo 4: Preencha os seguintes campos: https://image.nostr.build/7dc5eba39ff82a321195dbf46b8113818632e3ef41175991d58e799a8e9d2751.jpg

1. Encriptar para: Selecione o destinatário da mensagem, ou seja, a pessoa para quem você está enviando o texto criptografado.
   https://image.nostr.build/1e8c8cba6d3c3136d9857512e2794a81ceb7434eccdfb0f7d26cdef008b2e6d2.jpg

2. Assinar com: Escolha sua chave PGP para assinar a mensagem.
   https://image.nostr.build/d25b228c35b132d396d01c354ef093b43b3565578fbc0d6ff7b9de4e41619855.jpg

3. Digitar o texto: No campo de texto, escreva a mensagem que deseja criptografar.
   https://image.nostr.build/8537271dfa4445e60cb4c3cdb5d97571dc0ff5ee8acd6ed89a8c81e4bd8736c2.jpg

Passo 5: Depois de preencher os campos, você pode copiar o texto criptografado de duas formas:

1. Copiar para a área de transferência: Clique na opção para copiar o texto criptografado e cole-o em um aplicativo de mensagens para enviá-lo.
   https://image.nostr.build/a5cb8e2c538a38db3972e7f3ac9aa9f602cda6b62848ff0c4b99928a67dcd486.jpg

2. Compartilhar diretamente: Utilize a opção de compartilhamento para enviar o texto criptografado diretamente através de seus aplicativos de mensagens.
   https://image.nostr.build/2b79cb564d623788a0de1111a067e0eb496f743389d465d4f4e8f6e65f0d08a7.jpg https://image.nostr.build/ff59e52bc8ab54ff377980a6ba5d1c4743d3298de11e5daa187ab7d45163a7be.jpg

Criptografar arquivos.

Passo 1: Abra o menu lateral clicando no ícone no canto superior esquerdo.
https://image.nostr.build/13ac93b38dd1633118ae3142401c13e8a089caabdf4617055284cc521a45b069.jpg

Passo 2: Selecione a opção "Encriptar/Descriptar".
https://image.nostr.build/8cd905d616b53968f0551c071d9acc2f47bbe8434c2c7e1a33076a504342de48.jpg

Passo 3 : clique na opção "Encriptar arquivos ". https://image.nostr.build/3fcae48ee38e7f4079ebccfd3eafb9ab0ad3559221d2c3560cdfe60e29f56a15.jpg

Passo 4 : os passos a seguir são os mesmo que você seguiu pra encriptar a mensagem texto. Ítens "Encriptar para:" "Assinar com:" https://image.nostr.build/4d6599b9d3a9fdfae0964daaa9dae513d5ce277a7b61930fa2937d534f72ed40.jpg

Passo 5 : clilcar na opção " Adicionair arquivo(s)" Vai abrir na memória interna do celular selecione o arquivo que deseja encriptar. https://image.nostr.build/09e3b9b54a1406426114926aab19011c36b98886ebae6fcf556cfea83bb2c2f4.jpg https://image.nostr.build/af422e243b36762dd66111ec7c848a1352c100ca3040dc21792c923f80aef74d.jpg https://image.nostr.build/ebebbdb273b4bca58d901852aec1c60e4799aa77e9d12a31f992b0cf8f73e753.jpg

Passo 6: Depois de preencher os campos, você pode compartilhar o arquivo criptografado de duas formas:

1. Salvar na memória do celular: A primeira opção salva o arquivo criptografado no armazenamento do seu dispositivo. Você terá a opção de editar o nome do arquivo antes de salvar.
   https://image.nostr.build/0a47c1e9f0003541f47091b2c2e8ce6b8d1533d95463e331b218070bae964ac8.jpg https://image.nostr.build/95a7a2b67356eb5ded5b217bab38a19bdeba5af7befd105834e413e0aec45462.jpg https://image.nostr.build/66cb3d22b271f3b73b7015613c72711a3ffbf5e1070d43153f9d1f3fcf35001c.jpg https://image.nostr.build/f9624d86f7592fe7ffad932b7805762dc279d9e8ff410222108155438a2c970f.jpg

2. Compartilhar diretamente: Utilize a opção de compartilhamento para enviar o arquivo criptografado diretamente por meio dos seus aplicativos de mensagens.
   https://image.nostr.build/85541e466c7755c65bd6ba0208a6d8612beaa5298712b6d92f53865167695a38.jpg https://image.nostr.build/bf1e0f0aeb60cafbdf82af4b3b598288519e85b396bd3f9e00e61f65b89ea9f8.jpg https://image.nostr.build/fb090339898f37cdbb020828689b142ca601ca3ee549f67ddf6b2e094df9ab9f.jpg https://image.nostr.build/50c249ced06efe465ba533fef15207b0dcd1a725e9b2c139e8d85c13fd798276.jpg

Descriptografar Mensagens e Arquivos

Para ler uma mensagem ou arquivo criptografado que você recebeu, utilize sua chave privada. Siga os passos abaixo:

Descriptografar Mensagens

Passo 1: Copie a mensagem criptografada que você recebeu.
https://image.nostr.build/c37754b12a458e0176b9137ae0aa9e8209f853bf9d9292c0867fd8b0606d53c4.jpg

Passo 2: Clique na opção "Ler da área de transferência" para descriptografar o texto.
https://image.nostr.build/d83c7dad2ee1cb6267779863bc174ee1a8f3cc3c86b69063345321027bdde7b5.jpg https://image.nostr.build/c0fae86e6ab1fe9dcee86753972c818bed489ea11efdd09b7e7da7422a9c81eb.jpg

Descriptografar Arquivos

Passo 1: Clique na opção "Selecionar arquivo de entrada".
https://image.nostr.build/9c276c630311d19a576f2e35b5ba82bac07360476edae3f1a8697ff85df9e3c9.jpg

Passo 2: Selecione o arquivo criptografado que deseja descriptografar.
https://image.nostr.build/6b6c2a3284ba96e7168fc7bd0916020c4f1bed7b77dfca48227fc96d6929e15a.jpg https://image.nostr.build/9945aad644af2e2020e07e55f65f11a0958d55e8fc9e13c862e6b9ca88b4f4d9.jpg

6. BACKUP E RESTAURAÇÃO DE CHAVE PGP.

Realizar o backup das suas chaves PGP é fundamental para evitar a perda de acesso às suas mensagens e dados criptografados. O OpenKeychain facilita esse processo, permitindo que você faça um backup completo e seguro. Recomendamos que você armazene o backup em um local seguro, como um HD externo ou pendrive conectado via cabo OTG, sempre protegendo-o com senha.

PASSOS PARA REALIZAR O BACKUP:

Passo 1: Abra o menu lateral clicando no ícone no canto superior esquerdo.
https://image.nostr.build/13ac93b38dd1633118ae3142401c13e8a089caabdf4617055284cc521a45b069.jpg

Passo 2: Selecione a opção Backup/restaurar.
https://image.nostr.build/6fa8fd14e23b47c6c924bc0d900646663f2124a93d8172ae79fdf43b5c7d4490.jpg

Passo 3: Escolha a primeira opção: Backup completo (criptografado).
https://image.nostr.build/4875fb27b6d04c3cb838b4fb9f308ef9194edc35ba1254ba965b7f0db2544170.jpg

Passo 4: O backup será protegido por um código de backup gerado automaticamente. Anote esse código em um papel e guarde local seguro, pois sem ele você não conseguirá recuperar suas chaves PGP. Após anotar o código, marque a opção “Anotei o código” e clique em Salvar Backup. Obs: todas as vezes que você for fazer o backup da sua chave PGP vai ser criado um novo código aleatório.

https://image.nostr.build/72a317ef5e59a01c03c36f1d04a91d42c418a478cc82e372acf21bb8302daa00.jpg

Passo 5: Escolha o local onde deseja salvar o backup (HD externo, pendrive, etc.), confirme sua escolha e clique em OK. Você verá uma mensagem de confirmação indicando que o backup foi salvo com sucesso.

https://image.nostr.build/d757e8bdf429371320daa44be8a48a0dbeb2324129f4254327f0f0383e70ede4.jpg https://image.nostr.build/f3ad80ceb8a191b4d1b40722b1d0d4f85bf183d412e7d7d901b25d19b2dfe0e3.jpg

Importação da Chave PGP

Caso você precise restaurar suas chaves PGP a partir de um backup, o OpenKeychain também facilita o processo de importação. Siga os passos abaixo para restaurar sua chave PGP:

Passo 1: Selecione a opção "Selecionar arquivo de entrada"

Abra o OpenKeychain, acesse o menu lateral no canto superior esquerdo e escolha a opção "Selecionar arquivo de entrada" para localizar o arquivo de backup que você deseja importar.
https://image.nostr.build/a06ddc1c1e6c50519097e614aa25b14311e49c0ca4d4607e42ebdcca3a6641c4.jpg

Passo 2: Selecione o arquivo de backup
Navegue até o local onde você salvou o arquivo de backup (HD externo, pendrive, etc.) e selecione-o. Em seguida, o OpenKeychain solicitará que você insira o código de recuperação que foi gerado no momento do backup. https://image.nostr.build/9d5649c04a98ec8b0a29355d9068e48313b1c5dc36cd965961f4d33f22d10046.jpg

Passo 3: Digite o código de recuperação
Insira o código de recuperação que você anotou anteriormente. É importante digitar o código corretamente para garantir o sucesso da restauração.

Passo 4: Depois de inserir o código corretamente, o OpenKeychain irá restaurar suas chaves PGP, e uma mensagem de confirmação será exibida, indicando que a recuperação foi concluída com sucesso.

Agora suas chaves estão restauradas e você pode continuar usando o OpenKeychain para gerenciar suas comunicações criptografadas de maneira segura.

https://www.openkeychain.org/

https://github.com/open-keychain/open-keychain

https://youtu.be/fptlAx_j4OA

@ a008def1:57a3564d

A Vision for #GitViaNostr

Git has long been the standard for version control in software development, but over time, we has lost its distributed nature. Originally, Git used open, permissionless email for collaboration, which worked well at scale. However, the rise of GitHub and its centralized pull request (PR) model has shifted the landscape.

Now, we have the opportunity to revive Git's permissionless and distributed nature through Nostr!

We’ve developed tools to facilitate Git collaboration via Nostr, but there are still significant friction that prevents widespread adoption. This article outlines a vision for how we can reduce those barriers and encourage more repositories to embrace this approach.

First, we’ll review our progress so far. Then, we’ll propose a guiding philosophy for our next steps. Finally, we’ll discuss a vision to tackle specific challenges, mainly relating to the role of the Git server and CI/CD.

I am the lead maintainer of ngit and gitworkshop.dev, and I’ve been fortunate to work full-time on this initiative for the past two years, thanks to an OpenSats grant.

How Far We’ve Come

The aim of #GitViaNostr is to liberate discussions around code collaboration from permissioned walled gardens. At the core of this collaboration is the process of proposing and applying changes. That's what we focused on first.

Since Nostr shares characteristics with email, and with NIP34, we’ve adopted similar primitives to those used in the patches-over-email workflow. This is because of their simplicity and that they don’t require contributors to host anything, which adds reliability and makes participation more accessible.

However, the fork-branch-PR-merge workflow is the only model many developers have known, and changing established workflows can be challenging. To address this, we developed a new workflow that balances familiarity, user experience, and alignment with the Nostr protocol: the branch-PR-merge model.

This model is implemented in ngit, which includes a Git plugin that allows users to engage without needing to learn new commands. Additionally, gitworkshop.dev offers a GitHub-like interface for interacting with PRs and issues. We encourage you to try them out using the quick start guide and share your feedback. You can also explore PRs and issues with gitplaza.

For those who prefer the patches-over-email workflow, you can still use that approach with Nostr through gitstr or the ngit send and ngit list commands, and explore patches with patch34.

The tools are now available to support the core collaboration challenge, but we are still at the beginning of the adoption curve.

Before we dive into the challenges—such as why the Git server setup can be jarring and the possibilities surrounding CI/CD—let’s take a moment to reflect on how we should approach the challenges ahead of us.

Philosophy

Here are some foundational principles I shared a few years ago:

• Let Git be Git
• Let Nostr be Nostr
• Learn from the successes of others

I’d like to add one more:

• Embrace anarchy and resist monolithic development.

Micro Clients FTW

Nostr celebrates simplicity, and we should strive to maintain that. Monolithic developments often lead to unnecessary complexity. Projects like gitworkshop.dev, which aim to cover various aspects of the code collaboration experience, should not stifle innovation.

Just yesterday, the launch of following.space demonstrated how vibe-coded micro clients can make a significant impact. They can be valuable on their own, shape the ecosystem, and help push large and widely used clients to implement features and ideas.

The primitives in NIP34 are straightforward, and if there are any barriers preventing the vibe-coding of a #GitViaNostr app in an afternoon, we should work to eliminate them.

Micro clients should lead the way and explore new workflows, experiences, and models of thinking.

Take kanbanstr.com. It provides excellent project management and organization features that work seamlessly with NIP34 primitives.

From kanban to code snippets, from CI/CD runners to SatShoot—may a thousand flowers bloom, and a thousand more after them.

Friction and Challenges

The Git Server

In #GitViaNostr, maintainers' branches (e.g., master) are hosted on a Git server. Here’s why this approach is beneficial:

• Follows the original Git vision and the "let Git be Git" philosophy.
• Super efficient, battle-tested, and compatible with all the ways people use Git (e.g., LFS, shallow cloning).
• Maintains compatibility with related systems without the need for plugins (e.g., for build and deployment).
• Only repository maintainers need write access.

In the original Git model, all users would need to add the Git server as a 'git remote.' However, with ngit, the Git server is hidden behind a Nostr remote, which enables:

• Hiding complexity from contributors and users, so that only maintainers need to know about the Git server component to start using #GitViaNostr.
• Maintainers can easily swap Git servers by updating their announcement event, allowing contributors/users using ngit to automatically switch to the new one.

Challenges with the Git Server

While the Git server model has its advantages, it also presents several challenges:

1. Initial Setup: When creating a new repository, maintainers must select a Git server, which can be a jarring experience. Most options come with bloated social collaboration features tied to a centralized PR model, often difficult or impossible to disable.

2. Manual Configuration: New repositories require manual configuration, including adding new maintainers through a browser UI, which can be cumbersome and time-consuming.

3. User Onboarding: Many Git servers require email sign-up or KYC (Know Your Customer) processes, which can be a significant turn-off for new users exploring a decentralized and permissionless alternative to GitHub.

Once the initial setup is complete, the system works well if a reliable Git server is chosen. However, this is a significant "if," as we have become accustomed to the excellent uptime and reliability of GitHub. Even professionally run alternatives like Codeberg can experience downtime, which is frustrating when CI/CD and deployment processes are affected. This problem is exacerbated when self-hosting.

Currently, most repositories on Nostr rely on GitHub as the Git server. While maintainers can change servers without disrupting their contributors, this reliance on a centralized service is not the decentralized dream we aspire to achieve.

Vision for the Git Server

The goal is to transform the Git server from a single point of truth and failure into a component similar to a Nostr relay.

Functionality Already in ngit to Support This

1. State on Nostr: Store the state of branches and tags in a Nostr event, removing reliance on a single server. This validates that the data received has been signed by the maintainer, significantly reducing the trust requirement.

2. Proxy to Multiple Git Servers: Proxy requests to all servers listed in the announcement event, adding redundancy and eliminating the need for any one server to match GitHub's reliability.

Implementation Requirements

To achieve this vision, the Nostr Git server implementation should:

1. Implement the Git Smart HTTP Protocol without authentication (no SSH) and only accept pushes if the reference tip matches the latest state event.

2. Avoid Bloat: There should be no user authentication, no database, no web UI, and no unnecessary features.

3. Automatic Repository Management: Accept or reject new repositories automatically upon the first push based on the content of the repository announcement event referenced in the URL path and its author.

Just as there are many free, paid, and self-hosted relays, there will be a variety of free, zero-step signup options, as well as self-hosted and paid solutions.

Some servers may use a Web of Trust (WoT) to filter out spam, while others might impose bandwidth or repository size limits for free tiers or whitelist specific npubs.

Additionally, some implementations could bundle relay and blossom server functionalities to unify the provision of repository data into a single service. These would likely only accept content related to the stored repositories rather than general social nostr content.

The potential role of CI / CD via nostr DVMs could create the incentives for a market of highly reliable free at the point of use git servers.

This could make onboarding #GitViaNostr repositories as easy as entering a name and selecting from a multi-select list of Git server providers that announce via NIP89.

!(image)[https://image.nostr.build/badedc822995eb18b6d3c4bff0743b12b2e5ac018845ba498ce4aab0727caf6c.jpg]

Git Client in the Browser

Currently, many tasks are performed on a Git server web UI, such as:

• Browsing code, commits, branches, tags, etc.
• Creating and displaying permalinks to specific lines in commits.
• Merging PRs.
• Making small commits and PRs on-the-fly.

Just as nobody goes to the web UI of a relay (e.g., nos.lol) to interact with notes, nobody should need to go to a Git server to interact with repositories. We use the Nostr protocol to interact with Nostr relays, and we should use the Git protocol to interact with Git servers. This situation has evolved due to the centralization of Git servers. Instead of being restricted to the view and experience designed by the server operator, users should be able to choose the user experience that works best for them from a range of clients. To facilitate this, we need a library that lowers the barrier to entry for creating these experiences. This library should not require a full clone of every repository and should not depend on proprietary APIs. As a starting point, I propose wrapping the WASM-compiled gitlib2 library for the web and creating useful functions, such as showing a file, which utilizes clever flags to minimize bandwidth usage (e.g., shallow clone, noblob, etc.).

This approach would not only enhance clients like gitworkshop.dev but also bring forth a vision where Git servers simply run the Git protocol, making vibe coding Git experiences even better.

song

nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 created song with a complementary vision that has shaped how I see the role of the git server. Its a self-hosted, nostr-permissioned git server with a relay baked in. Its currently a WIP and there are some compatability with ngit that we need to work out.

We collaborated on the nostr-permissioning approach now reflected in nip34.

I'm really excited to see how this space evolves.

CI/CD

Most projects require CI/CD, and while this is often bundled with Git hosting solutions, it is currently not smoothly integrated into #GitViaNostr yet. There are many loosely coupled options, such as Jenkins, Travis, CircleCI, etc., that could be integrated with Nostr.

However, the more exciting prospect is to use DVMs (Data Vending Machines).

DVMs for CI/CD

Nostr Data Vending Machines (DVMs) can provide a marketplace of CI/CD task runners with Cashu for micro payments.

There are various trust levels in CI/CD tasks:

• Tasks with no secrets eg. tests.
• Tasks using updatable secrets eg. API keys.
• Unverifiable builds and steps that sign with Android, Nostr, or PGP keys.

DVMs allow tasks to be kicked off with specific providers using a Cashu token as payment.

It might be suitable for some high-compute and easily verifiable tasks to be run by the cheapest available providers. Medium trust tasks could be run by providers with a good reputation, while high trust tasks could be run on self-hosted runners.

Job requests, status, and results all get published to Nostr for display in Git-focused Nostr clients.

Jobs could be triggered manually, or self-hosted runners could be configured to watch a Nostr repository and kick off jobs using their own runners without payment.

But I'm most excited about the prospect of Watcher Agents.

CI/CD Watcher Agents

AI agents empowered with a NIP60 Cashu wallet can run tasks based on activity, such as a push to master or a new PR, using the most suitable available DVM runner that meets the user's criteria. To keep them running, anyone could top up their NIP60 Cashu wallet; otherwise, the watcher turns off when the funds run out. It could be users, maintainers, or anyone interested in helping the project who could top up the Watcher Agent's balance.

As aluded to earlier, part of building a reputation as a CI/CD provider could involve running reliable hosting (Git server, relay, and blossom server) for all FOSS Nostr Git repositories.

This provides a sustainable revenue model for hosting providers and creates incentives for many free-at-the-point-of-use hosting providers. This, in turn, would allow one-click Nostr repository creation workflows, instantly hosted by many different providers.

Progress to Date

nostr:npub1hw6amg8p24ne08c9gdq8hhpqx0t0pwanpae9z25crn7m9uy7yarse465gr and nostr:npub16ux4qzg4qjue95vr3q327fzata4n594c9kgh4jmeyn80v8k54nhqg6lra7 have been working on a runner that uses GitHub Actions YAML syntax (using act) for the dvm-cicd-runner and takes Cashu payment. You can see example runs on GitWorkshop. It currently takes testnuts, doesn't give any change, and the schema will likely change.

Note: The actions tab on GitWorkshop is currently available on all repositories if you turn on experimental mode (under settings in the user menu).

It's a work in progress, and we expect the format and schema to evolve.

Easy Web App Deployment

For those disapointed not to find a 'Nostr' button to import a git repository to Vercel menu: take heart, they made it easy. vercel.com_import_options.png there is a vercel cli that can be easily called in CI / CD jobs to kick of deployments. Not all managed solutions for web app deployment (eg. netlify) make it that easy.

Many More Opportunities

Large Patches via Blossom

I would be remiss not to mention the large patch problem. Some patches are too big to fit into Nostr events. Blossom is perfect for this, as it allows these larger patches to be included in a blossom file and referenced in a new patch kind.

Enhancing the #GitViaNostr Experience

Beyond the large patch issue, there are numerous opportunities to enhance the #GitViaNostr ecosystem. We can focus on improving browsing, discovery, social and notifications. Receiving notifications on daily driver Nostr apps is one of the killer features of Nostr. However, we must ensure that Git-related notifications are easily reviewable, so we don’t miss any critical updates.

We need to develop tools that cater to our curiosity—tools that enable us to discover and follow projects, engage in discussions that pique our interest, and stay informed about developments relevant to our work.

Additionally, we should not overlook the importance of robust search capabilities and tools that facilitate migrations.

Concluding Thoughts

The design space is vast. Its an exciting time to be working on freedom tech. I encourage everyone to contribute their ideas and creativity and get vibe-coding!

I welcome your honest feedback on this vision and any suggestions you might have. Your insights are invaluable as we collaborate to shape the future of #GitViaNostr. Onward.

Contributions

To conclude, I want to acknowledge some the individuals who have made recent code contributions related to #GitViaNostr:

nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 (gitstr, song, patch34), nostr:npub1useke4f9maul5nf67dj0m9sq6jcsmnjzzk4ycvldwl4qss35fvgqjdk5ks (gitplaza)

nostr:npub1elta7cneng3w8p9y4dw633qzdjr4kyvaparuyuttyrx6e8xp7xnq32cume (ngit contributions, git-remote-blossom),nostr:npub16p8v7varqwjes5hak6q7mz6pygqm4pwc6gve4mrned3xs8tz42gq7kfhdw (SatShoot, Flotilla-Budabit), nostr:npub1ehhfg09mr8z34wz85ek46a6rww4f7c7jsujxhdvmpqnl5hnrwsqq2szjqv (Flotilla-Budabit, Nostr Git Extension), nostr:npub1ahaz04ya9tehace3uy39hdhdryfvdkve9qdndkqp3tvehs6h8s5slq45hy (gnostr and experiments), and others.

nostr:npub1uplxcy63up7gx7cladkrvfqh834n7ylyp46l3e8t660l7peec8rsd2sfek (git-remote-nostr)

Project Management nostr:npub1ltx67888tz7lqnxlrg06x234vjnq349tcfyp52r0lstclp548mcqnuz40t (kanbanstr) Code Snippets nostr:npub1ygzj9skr9val9yqxkf67yf9jshtyhvvl0x76jp5er09nsc0p3j6qr260k2 (nodebin.io) nostr:npub1r0rs5q2gk0e3dk3nlc7gnu378ec6cnlenqp8a3cjhyzu6f8k5sgs4sq9ac (snipsnip.dev)

CI / CD nostr:npub16ux4qzg4qjue95vr3q327fzata4n594c9kgh4jmeyn80v8k54nhqg6lra7 nostr:npub1hw6amg8p24ne08c9gdq8hhpqx0t0pwanpae9z25crn7m9uy7yarse465gr

and for their nostr:npub1c03rad0r6q833vh57kyd3ndu2jry30nkr0wepqfpsm05vq7he25slryrnw nostr:npub1qqqqqq2stely3ynsgm5mh2nj3v0nk5gjyl3zqrzh34hxhvx806usxmln03 and nostr:npub1l5sga6xg72phsz5422ykujprejwud075ggrr3z2hwyrfgr7eylqstegx9z for their testing, feedback, ideas and encouragement.

Thank you for your support and collaboration! Let me know if I've missed you.

@ 32e18276:5c68e245

I’m going to be on an ordinals panels as one of the people who is counter arguing the claim that they are good for bitcoin. I decided to brush up on the technicals on how inscriptions work. I am starting to see luke’s perspective on how it is exploiting a loophole in bitcoin’s anti-data-spam mechanisms.

Storing data in Bitcoin, the “standard” way

The standard way you add “data” to bitcoin is by calling the OP_RETURN opcode. Bitcoin devs noticed that people were storing data (like the bitcoin whitepaper) in the utxo set via large multisig transactions. The problem with this is that this set is unprunable and could grow over time. OP_RETURN outputs on the other-hand are provably prunable and don’t add to utxo bloat.

Here’s an excerpt from the march 2014 0.9.0 release notes that talks about this:

On OP_RETURN: There was been some confusion and misunderstanding in the community, regarding the OP_RETURN feature in 0.9 and data in the blockchain. This change is not an endorsement of storing data in the blockchain. The OP_RETURN change creates a provably-prunable output, to avoid data storage schemes – some of which were already deployed – that were storing arbitrary data such as images as forever-unspendable TX outputs, bloating bitcoin’s UTXO database. Storing arbitrary data in the blockchain is still a bad idea; it is less costly and far more efficient to store non-currency data elsewhere.

Much of the work on bitcoin core has been focused on making sure the system continues to function in a decentralized way for its intended purpose in the presence of people trying to abuse it for things like storing data. Bitcoin core has always discouraged this, as it is not designed for storage of images and data, it is meant for moving digital coins around in cyberspace.

To help incentive-align people to not do stupid things, OP_RETURN transactions were not made non-standard, so that they are relayable by peers and miners, but with the caveat:

1. They can only push 40 bytes (later increased to 80,83, I’m guessing to support larger root merkle hashes since that is the only sane usecase for op_return)

Bitcoin also added an option called -datacarriersize which limits the total number of bytes from these outputs that you will relay or mine.

Why inscriptions are technically an exploit

Inscriptions get around the datacarriersize limit by disguising data as bitcoin script program data via OP_PUSH inside OP_IF blocks. Ordinals do not use OP_RETURN and are not subjected to datacarriersize limits, so noderunners and miners currently have limited control over the total size of this data that they wish to relay and include in blocks. Luke’s fork of bitcoin-core has some options to fight this spam, so hopefully we will see this in core sometime soon as well.

Inscriptions are also taking advantage of features in segwit v1 (witness discount) and v2/taproot (no arbitrary script size limit). Each of these features have interesting and well-justified reasons why they were introduced.

The purpose of the witness discount was to make it cheaper to spend many outputs which helps the reduction of the utxo set size. Inscriptions took advantage of this discount to store monke jpegs disguised as bitcoin scripts. Remember, bitcoin is not for storing data, so anytime bitcoin-devs accidentally make it cheap and easy to relay data then this should be viewed as an exploit. Expect it to be fixed, or at least provide tools to noderunners for fighting this spam.

Where do we go from here

The interesting part of this story is that people seem to attach value to images stored on the bitcoin blockchain, and they are willing to pay the fee to get it in the block, so non-ideologic miners and people who don’t care about the health and decentralization of bitcoin are happy to pay or collect the fee and move on.

Data should not get a discount, people should pay full price if they want to store data. They should just use op_return and hashes like opentimestamps or any other reasonable protocol storing data in bitcoin.

After going through this analysis I’ve come to the opinion that this is a pretty bad data-spam exploit and bitcoin devs should be working on solutions. Ideological devs like luke who actually care about the health and decentralization of the network are and I’m glad to see it.

@ 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. 👀️️️️️️

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Redistributing Git with Nostr

Every time someone tries to "decentralize" Git -- like many projects tried in the past to do it with BitTorrent, IPFS, ScuttleButt or custom p2p protocols -- there is always a lurking comment: "but Git is already distributed!", and then the discussion proceeds to mention some facts about how Git supports multiple remotes and its magic syncing and merging abilities and so on.

Turns out all that is true, Git is indeed all that powerful, and yet GitHub is the big central hub that hosts basically all Git repositories in the giant world of open-source. There are some crazy people that host their stuff elsewhere, but these projects end up not being found by many people, and even when they do they suffer from lack of contributions.

Because everybody has a GitHub account it's easy to open a pull request to a repository of a project you're using if it's on GitHub (to be fair I think it's very annoying to have to clone the repository, then add it as a remote locally, push to it, then go on the web UI and click to open a pull request, then that cloned repository lurks forever in your profile unless you go through 16 screens to delete it -- but people in general seem to think it's easy).

It's much harder to do it on some random other server where some project might be hosted, because now you have to add 4 more even more annoying steps: create an account; pick a password; confirm an email address; setup SSH keys for pushing. (And I'm not even mentioning the basic impossibility of offering push access to external unknown contributors to people who want to host their own simple homemade Git server.)

At this point some may argue that we could all have accounts on GitLab, or Codeberg or wherever else, then those steps are removed. Besides not being a practical strategy this pseudo solution misses the point of being decentralized (or distributed, who knows) entirely: it's far from the ideal to force everybody to have the double of account management and SSH setup work in order to have the open-source world controlled by two shady companies instead of one.

What we want is to give every person the opportunity to host their own Git server without being ostracized. at the same time we must recognize that most people won't want to host their own servers (not even most open-source programmers!) and give everybody the ability to host their stuff on multi-tenant servers (such as GitHub) too. Importantly, though, if we allow for a random person to have a standalone Git server on a standalone server they host themselves on their wood cabin that also means any new hosting company can show up and start offering Git hosting, with or without new cool features, charging high or low or zero, and be immediately competing against GitHub or GitLab, i.e. we must remove the network-effect centralization pressure.

External contributions

The first problem we have to solve is: how can Bob contribute to Alice's repository without having an account on Alice's server?

SourceHut has reminded GitHub users that Git has always had this (for most) arcane git send-email command that is the original way to send patches, using an once-open protocol.

Turns out Nostr acts as a quite powerful email replacement and can be used to send text content just like email, therefore patches are a very good fit for Nostr event contents.

Once you get used to it and the proper UIs (or CLIs) are built sending and applying patches to and from others becomes a much easier flow than the intense clickops mixed with terminal copypasting that is interacting with GitHub (you have to clone the repository on GitHub, then update the remote URL in your local directory, then create a branch and then go back and turn that branch into a Pull Request, it's quite tiresome) that many people already dislike so much they went out of their way to build many GitHub CLI tools just so they could comment on issues and approve pull requests from their terminal.

Replacing GitHub features

Aside from being the "hub" that people use to send patches to other people's code (because no one can do the email flow anymore, justifiably), GitHub also has 3 other big features that are not directly related to Git, but that make its network-effect harder to overcome. Luckily Nostr can be used to create a new environment in which these same features are implemented in a more decentralized and healthy way.

Issues: bug reports, feature requests and general discussions

Since the "Issues" GitHub feature is just a bunch of text comments it should be very obvious that Nostr is a perfect fit for it.

I will not even mention the fact that Nostr is much better at threading comments than GitHub (which doesn't do it at all), which can generate much more productive and organized discussions (and you can opt out if you want).

Search

I use GitHub search all the time to find libraries and projects that may do something that I need, and it returns good results almost always. So if people migrated out to other code hosting providers wouldn't we lose it?

The fact is that even though we think everybody is on GitHub that is a globalist falsehood. Some projects are not on GitHub, and if we use only GitHub for search those will be missed. So even if we didn't have a Nostr Git alternative it would still be necessary to create a search engine that incorporated GitLab, Codeberg, SourceHut and whatnot.

Turns out on Nostr we can make that quite easy by not forcing anyone to integrate custom APIs or hardcoding Git provider URLs: each repository can make itself available by publishing an "announcement" event with a brief description and one or more Git URLs. That makes it easy for a search engine to index them -- and even automatically download the code and index the code (or index just README files or whatever) without a centralized platform ever having to be involved.

The relays where such announcements will be available play a role, of course, but that isn't a bad role: each announcement can be in multiple relays known for storing "public good" projects, some relays may curate only projects known to be very good according to some standards, other relays may allow any kind of garbage, which wouldn't make them good for a search engine to rely upon, but would still be useful in case one knows the exact thing (and from whom) they're searching for (the same is valid for all Nostr content, by the way, and that's where it's censorship-resistance comes from).

Continuous integration

GitHub Actions are a very hardly subsidized free-compute-for-all-paid-by-Microsoft feature, but one that isn't hard to replace at all. In fact there exists today many companies offering the same kind of service out there -- although they are mostly targeting businesses and not open-source projects, before GitHub Actions was introduced there were also many that were heavily used by open-source projects.

One problem is that these services are still heavily tied to GitHub today, they require a GitHub login, sometimes BitBucket and GitLab and whatnot, and do not allow one to paste an arbitrary Git server URL, but that isn't a thing that is very hard to change anyway, or to start from scratch. All we need are services that offer the CI/CD flows, perhaps using the same framework of GitHub Actions (although I would prefer to not use that messy garbage), and charge some few satoshis for it.

It may be the case that all the current services only support the big Git hosting platforms because they rely on their proprietary APIs, most notably the webhooks dispatched when a repository is updated, to trigger the jobs. It doesn't have to be said that Nostr can also solve that problem very easily.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

Du bist recht appetitlich oben anzuschauen, \ doch unten hin die Bestie macht mir Grauen. \ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Wie wenig bekömmlich sogenannte «Ultra-Processed Foods» wie Fertiggerichte, abgepackte Snacks oder Softdrinks sind, hat kürzlich eine neue Studie untersucht. Derweil kann Fleisch auch wegen des Einsatzes antimikrobieller Mittel in der Massentierhaltung ein Problem darstellen. Internationale Bemühungen, diesen Gebrauch zu reduzieren, um die Antibiotikaresistenz bei Menschen einzudämmen, sind nun möglicherweise gefährdet.

Leider ist Politik oft mindestens genauso unappetitlich und ungesund wie diverse Lebensmittel. Die «Corona-Zeit» und ihre Auswirkungen sind ein beredtes Beispiel. Der Thüringer Landtag diskutiert gerade den Entwurf eines «Coronamaßnahmen-Unrechtsbereinigungsgesetzes» und das kanadische Gesundheitsministerium versucht, tausende Entschädigungsanträge wegen Impfnebenwirkungen mit dem Budget von 75 Millionen Dollar unter einen Hut zu bekommen. In den USA soll die Zulassung von Covid-«Impfstoffen» überdacht werden, während man sich mit China um die Herkunft des Virus streitet.

Wo Corona-Verbrecher von Medien und Justiz gedeckt werden, verfolgt man Aufklärer und Aufdecker mit aller Härte. Der Anwalt und Mitbegründer des Corona-Ausschusses Reiner Fuellmich, der seit Oktober 2023 in Untersuchungshaft sitzt, wurde letzte Woche zu drei Jahren und neun Monaten verurteilt – wegen Veruntreuung. Am Mittwoch teilte der von vielen Impfschadensprozessen bekannte Anwalt Tobias Ulbrich mit, dass er vom Staatsschutz verfolgt wird und sich daher künftig nicht mehr öffentlich äußern werde.

Von der kommenden deutschen Bundesregierung aus Wählerbetrügern, Transatlantikern, Corona-Hardlinern und Russenhassern kann unmöglich eine Verbesserung erwartet werden. Nina Warken beispielsweise, die das Ressort Gesundheit übernehmen soll, diffamierte Maßnahmenkritiker als «Coronaleugner» und forderte eine Impfpflicht, da die wundersamen Injektionen angeblich «nachweislich helfen». Laut dem designierten Außenminister Johann Wadephul wird Russland «für uns immer der Feind» bleiben. Deswegen will er die Ukraine «nicht verlieren lassen» und sieht die Bevölkerung hinter sich, solange nicht deutsche Soldaten dort sterben könnten.

Eine wichtige Personalie ist auch die des künftigen Regierungssprechers. Wenngleich Hebestreit an Arroganz schwer zu überbieten sein wird, dürfte sich die Art der Kommunikation mit Stefan Kornelius in der Sache kaum ändern. Der Politikchef der Süddeutschen Zeitung «prägte den Meinungsjournalismus der SZ» und schrieb «in dieser Rolle auch für die Titel der Tamedia». Allerdings ist, anders als noch vor zehn Jahren, die Einbindung von Journalisten in Thinktanks wie die Deutsche Atlantische Gesellschaft (DAG) ja heute eher eine Empfehlung als ein Problem.

Ungesund ist definitiv auch die totale Digitalisierung, nicht nur im Gesundheitswesen. Lauterbachs Abschiedsgeschenk, die «abgesicherte» elektronische Patientenakte (ePA) ist völlig überraschenderweise direkt nach dem Bundesstart erneut gehackt worden. Norbert Häring kommentiert angesichts der Datenlecks, wer die ePA nicht abwähle, könne seine Gesundheitsdaten ebensogut auf Facebook posten.

Dass die staatlichen Kontrolleure so wenig auf freie Software und dezentrale Lösungen setzen, verdeutlicht die eigentlichen Intentionen hinter der Digitalisierungswut. Um Sicherheit und Souveränität geht es ihnen jedenfalls nicht – sonst gäbe es zum Beispiel mehr Unterstützung für Bitcoin und für Initiativen wie die der Spar-Supermärkte in der Schweiz.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ 266815e0:6cd408a5

Its been six long months of refactoring code and building out to the applesauce packages but the app is stable enough for another release.

This update is pretty much a full rewrite of the non-visible parts of the app. all the background services were either moved out to the applesauce packages or rewritten, the result is that noStrudel is a little faster and much more consistent with connections and publishing.

New layout

The app has a new layout now, it takes advantage of the full desktop screen and looks a little better than it did before.

Removed NIP-72 communities

The NIP-72 communities are no longer part of the app, if you want to continue using them there are still a few apps that support them ( like satellite.earth ) but noStrudel won't support them going forward.

The communities where interesting but ultimately proved too have some fundamental flaws, most notably that all posts had to be approved by a moderator. There were some good ideas on how to improve it but they would have only been patches and wouldn't have fixed the underlying issues.

I wont promise to build it into noStrudel, but NIP-29 (relay based groups) look a lot more promising and already have better moderation abilities then NIP-72 communities could ever have.

Settings view

There is now a dedicated settings view, so no more hunting around for where the relays are set or trying to find how to add another account. its all in one place now

Cleaned up lists

The list views are a little cleaner now, and they have a simple edit modal

New emoji picker

Just another small improvement that makes the app feel more complete.

Experimental Wallet

There is a new "wallet" view in the app that lets you manage your NIP-60 cashu wallet. its very experimental and probably won't work for you, but its there and I hope to finish it up so the app can support NIP-61 nutzaps.

WARNING: Don't feed the wallet your hard earned sats, it will eat them!

Smaller improvements

• Added NSFW flag for replies
• Updated NIP-48 bunker login to work with new spec
• Linkfy BIPs
• Added 404 page
• Add NIP-22 comments under badges, files, and articles
• Add max height to timeline notes
• Fix articles view freezing on load
• Add option to mirror blobs when sharing notes
• Remove "open in drawer" for notes

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

--- Quellen: ---

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

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

---

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

@ 4961e68d:a2212e1c

热死人了

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

Manipulation erkennen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ist Russland aggressiv und expansiv?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was ist los in der Ukraine?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hasst der Westen die Russen?

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

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

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

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

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

Fazit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Quellen: ---

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

[2] Zwei nette Beispiele:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben.

@ 5cb68b7a:b7cb67d5

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!

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Vorlage Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ 4961e68d:a2212e1c

热死人了！

@ 8125b911:a8400883

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

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

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

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

Download

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

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

Installation

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

macOS Users:

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

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

Windows Users:

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

Connecting

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

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

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

Restrictions

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

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

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

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

Currently, the maximum value for this parameter is 2.

Conclusion

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

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

Not your relay, not your events.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

Dazu passend:

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

---

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

@ 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.‹

@ aa8de34f:a6ffe696

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

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

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

-- Denn es braucht keinen Untergrund mehr. --

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 5df413d4:2add4f5b

This opinion piece was first published in BTC Magazine on Feb 20, 2023

Just in case we needed a reminder, banks are showing us that they can and will gatekeep their customers’ money to prevent them from engaging with bitcoin. This should be a call to action for Bitcoiners or anyone else who wants to maintain control over their finances to move toward more proactive use of permissionless bitcoin tools and practices.

Since January of 2023, when Jamie Dimon decried Bitcoin as a “hyped-up fraud” and “a pet rock,” on CNBC, I've found myself unable to purchase bitcoin using my Chase debit card on Cash App. And I'm not the only one — if you have been following Bitcoin Twitter, you might have also seen Alana Joy tweet about her experience with the same. (Alana Joy Twitter account has since been deleted).

In both of our cases, it is the bank preventing bitcoin purchases and blocking inbound fiat transfers to Cash App for customers that it has associated with Bitcoin. All under the guise of “fraud protection,” of course.

No, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense — Chase still allows ACH bitcoin purchases and fiat on Cash App can be used for investing in stocks, saving or using Cash App’s own debit card, not just bitcoin — but yes, it is happening. Also, no one seems to know exactly when this became Chase’s policy. The fraud representative I spoke with wasn’t sure and couldn’t point to any documentation, but reasoned that the rule has been in place since early last year. Yet murkier still, loose chatter can be found on Reddit about this issue going back to at least April 2021.

However, given that I and so many others were definitely buying bitcoin via Chase debit throughout 2021 and 2022, I’d wager that this policy, up to now, has only been exercised haphazardly, selectively, arbitrarily, even. Dark patterns abound, but for now, it seems like I just happen to be one of the unlucky ones…

That said, there is nothing preventing this type of policy from being enforced broadly and in earnest by one or many banks. If and as banks feel threatened by Bitcoin, we will surely see more of these kinds of opaque practices.

It’s Time To Get Proactive

Instead, we should expect it and prepare for it. So, rather than railing against banks, I want to use this as a learning experience to reflect on the importance of permissionless, non-KYC Bitcoining, and the practical actions we can take to advance the cause.

Bank with backups and remember local options. Banking is a service, not servitude. Treat it as such. Maintaining accounts at multiple banks may provide some limited fault tolerance against banks that take a hostile stance toward Bitcoin, assuming it does not become the industry norm. Further, smaller, local and regional banks may be more willing to work with Bitcoiner customers, as individual accounts can be far more meaningful to them than they are to larger national banks — though this certainly should not be taken for granted.

If you must use KYC’d Bitcoin services, do so thoughtfully. For Cash App (and services like it), consider first loading in fiat and making buys out of the app’s native cash balance instead of purchasing directly through a linked bank account/debit card where information is shared with the bank that allows it to flag the transaction for being related to bitcoin. Taking this small step may help to avoid gatekeeping and can provide some minor privacy, from the bank at least.

Get comfortable with non-KYC bitcoin exchanges. Just as many precoiners drag their feet before making their first bitcoin buys, so too do many Bitcoiners drag their feet in using permissionless channels to buy and sell bitcoin. Robosats, Bisq, Hodl Hodl— you can use the tools. For anyone just getting started, BTC Sessions has excellent video tutorial content on all three, which are linked.

If you don’t yet know how to use these services, it’s better to pick up this knowledge now through calm, self-directed learning rather than during the panic of an emergency or under pressure of more Bitcoin-hostile conditions later. And for those of us who already know, we can actively support these services. For instance, more of us taking action to maintain recurring orders on such platforms could significantly improve their volumes and liquidity, helping to bootstrap and accelerate their network effects.

Be flexible and creative with peer-to-peer payment methods. Cash App, Zelle, PayPal, Venmo, Apple Cash, Revolut, etc. — the services that most users seem to be transacting with on no-KYC exchanges — they would all become willing, if not eager and active agents of financial gatekeeping in any truly antagonistic, anti-privacy environment, even when used in a “peer-to-peer” fashion.

Always remember that there are other payment options — such as gift cards, the original digital-bearer items — that do not necessarily carry such concerns. Perhaps, an enterprising soul might even use Fold to earn bitcoin rewards on the backend for the gift cards used on the exchange…

Find your local Bitcoin community! In the steadily-advancing shadow war on all things permissionless, private, and peer-to-peer, this is our best defense. Don’t just wait until you need other Bitcoiners to get to know other Bitcoiners — to paraphrase Texas Slim, “Shake your local Bitcoiner’s hand.” Get to know people and never underestimate the power of simply asking around. There could be real, live Bitcoiners near you looking to sell some corn and happy to see it go to another HODLer rather than to a bunch of lettuce-handed fiat speculators on some faceless, centralized, Ponzi casino exchange. What’s more, let folks know your skills, talents and expertise — you might be surprised to find an interested market that pays in BTC!

In closing, I believe we should think of permissionless Bitcoining as an essential and necessary core competency, just like we do with Self-Custody. And we should push it with similar urgency and intensity. But as we do this, we should also remember that it is a spectrum and a progression and that there are no perfect solutions, only tradeoffs. Realization of the importance of non-KYC practices will not be instant or obvious to near-normie newcoiners, coin-curious fence-sitters or even many minted Bitcoiners. My own experience is certainly a testament to this.

As we promote the active practice of non-KYC Bitcoining, we can anchor to empathy, patience and humility — always being mindful of the tremendous amount of unlearning most have to go through to get there. So, even if someone doesn’t get it the first time, or the nth time, that they hear it from us, if it helps them get to it faster at all, then it’s well worth it.

~Moon

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ 6fc114c7:8f4b1405

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! 💪

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ 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.‹

@ 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.

@ 52b4a076:e7fad8bd

Introduction

Me and Fishcake have been working on infrastructure for Noswhere and Nostr.build. Part of this involves processing a large amount of Nostr events for features such as search, analytics, and feeds.

I have been recently developing nosdex v3, a newer version of the Noswhere scraper that is designed for maximum performance and fault tolerance using FoundationDB (FDB).

Fishcake has been working on a processing system for Nostr events to use with NB, based off of Cloudflare (CF) Pipelines, which is a relatively new beta product. This evening, we put it all to the test.

First preparations

We set up a new CF Pipelines endpoint, and I implemented a basic importer that took data from the nosdex database. This was quite slow, as it did HTTP requests synchronously, but worked as a good smoke test.

Asynchronous indexing

I implemented a high-contention queue system designed for highly parallel indexing operations, built using FDB, that supports: - Fully customizable batch sizes - Per-index queues - Hundreds of parallel consumers - Automatic retry logic using lease expiration

When the scraper first gets an event, it will process it and eventually write it to the blob store and FDB. Each new event is appended to the event log.

On the indexing side, a Queuer will read the event log, and batch events (usually 2K-5K events) into one work job. This work job contains: - A range in the log to index - Which target this job is intended for - The size of the job and some other metadata

Each job has an associated leasing state, which is used to handle retries and prioritization, and ensure no duplication of work.

Several Workers monitor the index queue (up to 128) and wait for new jobs that are available to lease.

Once a suitable job is found, the worker acquires a lease on the job and reads the relevant events from FDB and the blob store.

Depending on the indexing type, the job will be processed in one of a number of ways, and then marked as completed or returned for retries.

In this case, the event is also forwarded to CF Pipelines.

Trying it out

The first attempt did not go well. I found a bug in the high-contention indexer that led to frequent transaction conflicts. This was easily solved by correcting an incorrectly set parameter.

We also found there were other issues in the indexer, such as an insufficient amount of threads, and a suspicious decrease in the speed of the Queuer during processing of queued jobs.

Along with fixing these issues, I also implemented other optimizations, such as deprioritizing Worker DB accesses, and increasing the batch size.

To fix the degraded Queuer performance, I ran the backfill job by itself, and then started indexing after it had completed.

Bottlenecks, bottlenecks everywhere

After implementing these fixes, there was an interesting problem: The DB couldn't go over 80K reads per second. I had encountered this limit during load testing for the scraper and other FDB benchmarks.

As I suspected, this was a client thread limitation, as one thread seemed to be using high amounts of CPU. To overcome this, I created a new client instance for each Worker.

After investigating, I discovered that the Go FoundationDB client cached the database connection. This meant all attempts to create separate DB connections ended up being useless.

Using OpenWithConnectionString partially resolved this issue. (This also had benefits for service-discovery based connection configuration.)

To be able to fully support multi-threading, I needed to enabled the FDB multi-client feature. Enabling it also allowed easier upgrades across DB versions, as FDB clients are incompatible across versions:

FDB_NETWORK_OPTION_EXTERNAL_CLIENT_LIBRARY="/lib/libfdb_c.so" FDB_NETWORK_OPTION_CLIENT_THREADS_PER_VERSION="16"

Breaking the 100K/s reads barrier

After implementing support for the multi-threaded client, we were able to get over 100K reads per second.

You may notice after the restart (gap) the performance dropped. This was caused by several bugs: 1. When creating the CF Pipelines endpoint, we did not specify a region. The automatically selected region was far away from the server. 2. The amount of shards were not sufficient, so we increased them. 3. The client overloaded a few HTTP/2 connections with too many requests.

I implemented a feature to assign each Worker its own HTTP client, fixing the 3rd issue. We also moved the entire storage region to West Europe to be closer to the servers.

After these changes, we were able to easily push over 200K reads/s, mostly limited by missing optimizations:

It's shards all the way down

While testing, we also noticed another issue: At certain times, a pipeline would get overloaded, stalling requests for seconds at a time. This prevented all forward progress on the Workers.

We solved this by having multiple pipelines: A primary pipeline meant to be for standard load, with moderate batching duration and less shards, and high-throughput pipelines with more shards.

Each Worker is assigned a pipeline on startup, and if one pipeline stalls, other workers can continue making progress and saturate the DB.

The stress test

After making sure everything was ready for the import, we cleared all data, and started the import.

The entire import lasted 20 minutes between 01:44 UTC and 02:04 UTC, reaching a peak of: - 0.25M requests per second - 0.6M keys read per second - 140MB/s reads from DB - 2Gbps of network throughput

FoundationDB ran smoothly during this test, with: - Read times under 2ms - Zero conflicting transactions - No overloaded servers

CF Pipelines held up well, delivering batches to R2 without any issues, while reaching its maximum possible throughput.

Finishing notes

Me and Fishcake have been building infrastructure around scaling Nostr, from media, to relays, to content indexing. We consistently work on improving scalability, resiliency and stability, even outside these posts.

Many things, including what you see here, are already a part of Nostr.build, Noswhere and NFDB, and many other changes are being implemented every day.

If you like what you are seeing, and want to integrate it, get in touch. :)

If you want to support our work, you can zap this post, or register for nostr.land and nostr.build today.

@ aa8de34f:a6ffe696

19. März 2025

🔐 1. SHA-256 is Quantum-Resistant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

🕵️♂️ 2.1 The Public Key Never Appears

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

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

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

🔄 3. Bitcoin Can Upgrade

Even if quantum computers eventually become a real threat:

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

🔄 7. The Logarithmic Difficulty Adjustment Neutralizes Threats

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

---

🔥 Final Verdict: Quantum Computers Are Too Slow for Bitcoin

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

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

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

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

@ 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.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

Digitalisierung ist der Schlüssel für Kontrolle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 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.

@ 044da344:073a8a0e

Mein Thema kommt heute aus dem Kalender und hat gleich noch zu einem Video geführt. Internationaler Tag der Pressefreiheit – wie jedes Jahr am 3. Mai. Das Publikum liebt Ranglisten. Shanghai für die Hochschulen, der Best Country Report für die Lebensqualität und Freedom House für die Freiheit in der Welt. Es gibt Aufsteiger und Absteiger und Jahr für Jahr eine Meldung, über die sich trefflich diskutieren lässt – vor allem in Europa und Nordamerika, wo die Sieger wohnen. Man muss die Statistik dafür nicht einmal fälschen, sondern einfach nur das messen, was man selbst am besten kann, und alles weglassen, was das Bild trüben könnte. Bei den „Reportern ohne Grenzen“ sorgen dafür die Geldgeber und Fragen, die sich zum Beispiel in Afrika oder in Südostasien gar nicht stellen. Ergebnis: Die Medien sind bei uns ziemlich frei, auch wenn Leser dieser Seite wissen, dass das so nicht stimmt.

Okay: Deutschland hat es wieder nicht ganz geschafft in den grünen Bereich – dorthin, wo die skandinavischen Länder stehen, die Niederlande oder Irland. Deutschland gehört auch nicht mehr zu den Top Ten wie noch 2024, aber es war knapp. Platz elf. Zum Glück nennen die „Reporter ohne Grenzen“ die Schuldigen. Zensur? Gott bewahre. Das Ausblenden, Diffamieren, Verleumden von allen, die laut Fragen stellen zum Regierungskurs? Doch nicht bei uns. Dieses Land würde auch in Sachen Pressefreiheit längst Weltmeister sein, wenn da nicht ein paar Unverbesserliche wären, die auf Journalisten ungefähr so reagieren wie ein Stier auf ein rotes Tuch. Glaubt man den „Reportern ohne Grenzen“, dann sind Demos in Deutschland ein gefährlicher Ort für alle, die dort mit Kamera, Mikro oder Presseschild auftauchen. 75 „physische Angriffe“ 2024, davon die meisten in Berlin und beim Thema Nahost, wobei es zwei Bild-Reporter allein auf 29 Einträge gebracht haben (Iman Sefati und seine Fotografin Yalcin Askin).

Vorweg: Jede Attacke ist eine zu viel. Gleich danach kommt aber der Verdacht, dass das ganz gut passt, weil die „Reporter ohne Grenzen“ so eine „zunehmende Pressefeindlichkeit“ beklagen können und „ein verengtes Verständnis von Pressefreiheit“. Zitat: „Denn viele Bürger*innen sehen Berichterstattende, die nicht ihrem eigenen politischen Spektrum entstammen, mittlerweile als Gegner an.“

Sorry für die Genderei. Ich habe das so gelassen, weil es vermutlich bereits damit anfängt. Mit einem „verengten Verständnis“ auch und gerade bei der Sprache. Lassen Sie uns das in drei Schritten angehen. Nummer eins: Wir schauen auf den Kellner, der da jedes Jahr zum Welttag der Pressefreiheit eine Quittung ausstellt. Nummer zwei: Wir zählen nach. Und Nummer drei: Wir schlagen all das drauf, was in der Rechnung fehlt.

Die „Reporter ohne Grenzen“ sitzen in Paris und sind damit auf den ersten Blick weniger verdächtig als der US-Thinktank „Freedom House“, der bis 2017 jedes Jahr eine Konkurrenzliste veröffentlicht hat und einen Großteil seiner Gelder und Sicherheiten direkt oder indirekt aus dem Staatshaushalt in Washington bezieht. Der Volksmund weiß, was das Brot aus den Liedern macht, die draußen gesungen werden. Bei den „Reportern ohne Grenzen“ kommt das Geld aus ganz ähnlich Töpfen – 2023 zu drei Vierteln von der EU, von staatlichen Behörden und von den großen Stiftungen. Ford, Luminate (Geldbörse von Ebay-Gründer Pierre Omidyar, der auch bei den Faktencheckern mitspielt), Open Society Foundations. Der deutsche Steuerzahler ist über ein Ministerium (Entwicklungshilfe) und den Berliner Senat jeweils mit einer Viertelmillion Euro dabei. Dass die Niederlande und Schweden mitspielen, erklärt sich bei einem Blick auf die Ergebnisse (in diesem Jahr: Platz 3 und 4). Besser kann man nicht investieren in Werbung für das eigene Land.

Diese Platzierungen sind gewissermaßen ein Selbstläufer, weil all das in die Wertung kommt, was der Westen gut findet – die formale Trennung von Regierung und Redaktionen zum Beispiel. Andersherum: Abzüge gibt es überall da, wo der Staat, Parteien oder Politiker selbst Medien betreiben. In Uganda zum Beispiel, Platz 143, gibt es kaum Werbetreibende, die ein TV-Programm finanzieren könnten, und nur ein kleines Publikum, das sich ein Zeitungsabo leisten kann und will. Sonntags drängen sich die Menschen dort vor kleinen Hütten mit großen Bildschirmen, um ihren Lieblingen aus der Premier League zuzujubeln und vielleicht einen Wettgewinn einzustreichen, der sie über die Woche trägt. Auf dem Land gehören die Radiostationen in aller Regel lokalen Größen. Kirche, Politik, Wirtschaft. Ich habe dort Interviews geführt und gelernt: Über „Pressefreiheit“ und Informationsqualität sagt das alles wenig. Die Menschen in Uganda wissen sehr genau, wer jeweils zu ihnen spricht, und machen sich ihren Reim darauf. Ein anderer Kriterienkatalog könnte daraus ein Qualitätsmerkmal machen. Während Besitz- und damit Machtverhältnisse im Westen hinter Nebelkerzen versteckt werden (Objektivität, Unabhängigkeit, Neutralität), herrscht in Uganda Transparenz.

Neben dem „politischen Kontext“ haben die „Reporter ohne Grenzen“ vier weitere Blöcke in ihrem Punktekatalog. Gesetze, Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft, Sicherheit. Die Fragen decken das ab, was bei uns Standard ist. Dürfen sich Journalisten gewerkschaftlich organisieren? Werden sie bestochen? Können Nachrichtenmedien finanziell überleben? Werden Karikaturen toleriert? Ich will hier nicht zu sehr auf Uganda herumreiten. Nur: Der Beruf wird dort völlig anders gesehen als hier. Es gibt nur eine kleine vierstellige Zahl an Journalisten. 1000, vielleicht 1500. Die meisten sind jung, weil die Redaktionen als Sprungbrett gesehen werden zu einem wirklich lukrativen Job in der Verwaltung, in den Unternehmen, in der Politik. Wer zu einer Pressekonferenz fährt, erwartet dort einen Umschlag. Offiziell: Anreisepauschale. Inoffiziell der Preis für einen wohlwollenden Bericht. Die „Reporter ohne Grenzen“ strafen Uganda folglich ab. Angriffe auf Journalisten (oft von Sicherheitsleuten), wenig Schutz vor Gericht, wenig Achtung vor dem Beruf. Platz 143 halt.

Und Deutschland? Die Demos wie gesagt und Leute, die die Dinge einfach falsch sehen. Ein „verengtes Verständnis von Pressefreiheit“. Außerdem sagen die „Reporter ohne Grenzen“: Wir tun zu wenig gegen „Hassrede und Desinformation“. Der Koalitionsvertrag von Schwarz-Rot ist offenbar nicht mehr eingeflossen in diesen Bericht. Dort heißt es:

Gezielte Einflussnahme auf Wahlen sowie inzwischen alltägliche Desinformation und Fake News sind ernste Bedrohungen für unsere Demokratie, ihre Institutionen und den gesellschaftlichen Zusammenhalt. Die bewusste Verbreitung falscher Tatsachenbehauptungen ist durch die Meinungsfreiheit nicht gedeckt. Deshalb muss die staatsferne Medienaufsicht unter Wahrung der Meinungsfreiheit auf der Basis klarer gesetzlicher Vorgaben gegen Informationsmanipulation sowie Hass und Hetze vorgehen können.

Schon vorab hatten die „Reporter ohne Grenzen“ von „einem stark verengten Meinungskorridor bei der Arbeit zu Israel und Palästina“ berichtet. Selbst alte Hasen haben in dieser Befragung gesagt, dass sie noch nie einen solchen Druck erlebt hätten – vor allem dann, wenn es um die israelische Kriegsführung geht, um die Folgen für die Bevölkerung in Gaza und um das, was in Deutschland zu diesem Thema passiert. Ich verlinke hier die Münchner Rede von Andreas Zumach, gehalten im November 2018, wo all das schon Thema war.

Und sonst? Corona, Ukraine, Klima und damit Energiewende? Kontokündigungen? Gerichtsurteile, die selbst es bis in die Weltpresse schafften (im Bild: The Economist vom 16. April 2025) und dort Unbehagen auslösten? Eine Cancel Culture, die Sprecher aus der Öffentlichkeit verbannt, die sich gegen die herrschende Ideologie und den Regierungskurs stellen?

Alles kein Thema – jedenfalls nicht für die Experten, die gefragt werden (Journalisten, Forscher, Akademiker, Menschenrechtsspezialisten; mithin Menschen, die in irgendeiner Form von Staat oder Konzernen abhängen). Die konzernfreien oder neuen Medien senden für die „Reporter ohne Grenzen“ offenbar jenseits von Gut und Böse. Und dass die Regierung Fernsehen, Radio und Presse nicht unbedingt selbst betreiben muss wie in Uganda, um ihre Sicht der Dinge flächendeckend zu verbreiten, scheint dort außerhalb jeder Vorstellungskraft zu liegen. Anders ist nicht zu erklären, dass im Bericht zwar ein paar öffentlich-rechtliche Skandälchen auftauchen und der Stellenabbau bei der Südwestdeutschen Medienholding, aber nichts zu lesen ist über die Aufrüstung der Medienapparate in Ministerien, Parteien, Unternehmen und über den Druck, der davon auf Journalisten ausgeht, die zwar keinen Umschlag bekommen, wenn sie ordentlich berichten, aber sicher ein wenig Exklusives, wahrscheinlich eine Beförderung und vielleicht sogar ein Ticket für den Sprung auf die andere, besser entlohnte Seite. Bis es soweit ist, melden sie einfach, dass mit der Medienfreiheit alles okay ist, wenn es da nicht diese Chaoten auf der Straße geben würde und ein paar Unverbesserliche mit einem „verengten Verständnis von Pressefreiheit“. Sonst müsste man sich möglicherweise aufmachen und nach den Ursachen für den Unmut fragen.

Michael Meyen: Videos

Freie Akademie für Medien & Journalismus

Unterstützen

@ 9bde4214:06ca052b

"It's gonna be permissionless or hell."

Gigi and gzuuus are vibing towards dystopia.

Books & articles mentioned:

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

In this dialogue:

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

@ 91bea5cd:1df4451c

O Contexto Legal Brasileiro e o Consentimento

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

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

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

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

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

Outros riscos:

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

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

Riscos de Falsas Acusações e Alegação de Coação Futura

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

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

Estratégias de Prevenção e Mitigação

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

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

2. Documentação do Consentimento:

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

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

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

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

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

Observações Importantes

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

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

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

O que vem a ser consentimento viciado

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isso tem duas implicações sérias:

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

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

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

Conclusão

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

---

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

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

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

@ d0ea1c34:9c84dc37

Markdown Rendering Test Document

Basic Text Formatting

This is a paragraph with bold text, italic text, and bold italic text. You can also use underscores for bold or single underscores for italics.

This is a paragraph with some inline code using backticks.

Lists

Unordered Lists

• Item 1
• Item 2
• Nested item 2.1
• Nested item 2.2
• Item 3

Ordered Lists

1. First item
2. Second item
3. Nested item 2.1
4. Nested item 2.2
5. Third item

Links and Images

Link to GitHub

Blockquotes

This is a blockquote.

It can span multiple lines.

And can be nested.

Code Blocks

```python def hello_world(): print("Hello, world!")

This is a Python code block with syntax highlighting

hello_world() ```

javascript // JavaScript code block function helloWorld() { console.log("Hello, world!"); }

Tables

| Header 1 | Header 2 | Header 3 | |----------|----------|----------| | Cell 1 | Cell 2 | Cell 3 | | Cell 4 | Cell 5 | Cell 6 | | Cell 7 | Cell 8 | Cell 9 |

Horizontal Rules

---

---

---

Task Lists

• [x] Completed task
• [ ] Incomplete task
• [x] Another completed task

Math (if supported)

Inline math: $E = mc^2$

Block math:

$$ \frac{d}{dx}e^x = e^x $$

Footnotes

Here's a sentence with a footnote reference[^1].

[^1]: This is the footnote content.

Definition Lists

Term 1 : Definition 1

Term 2 : Definition 2a : Definition 2b

Special Characters & Escaping

*This text is surrounded by asterisks but not italicized*

Advanced Formatting

Click to expand

This is hidden content that appears when expanded.

Emoji (if supported)

:smile: :heart: :thumbsup:

Final Notes

This document demonstrates various Markdown formatting features. Compatibility may vary across different Markdown renderers and platforms.

@ 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

@ 2e8970de:63345c7a

The figure in this article illustrates exactly how most biology papers are secretly p-hacked. A large number of hypotheses is explored, and only the ones that form a coherent story are reported.

This is actually the main reason behind the replication crisis in biology IMO. (source)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-025-02635-7

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/970464

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Tag des Sieges]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

«Wir brauchen eine digitale Brandmauer gegen den Faschismus», schreibt der Chaos Computer Club (CCC) auf seiner Website. Unter diesem Motto präsentierte er letzte Woche einen Forderungskatalog, mit dem sich 24 Organisationen an die kommende Bundesregierung wenden. Der Koalitionsvertrag müsse sich daran messen lassen, verlangen sie.

In den drei Kategorien «Bekenntnis gegen Überwachung», «Schutz und Sicherheit für alle» sowie «Demokratie im digitalen Raum» stellen die Unterzeichner, zu denen auch Amnesty International und Das NETTZ gehören, unter anderem die folgenden «Mindestanforderungen»:

• Verbot biometrischer Massenüberwachung des öffentlichen Raums sowie der ungezielten biometrischen Auswertung des Internets.
• Anlasslose und massenhafte Vorratsdatenspeicherung wird abgelehnt.
• Automatisierte Datenanalysen der Informationsbestände der Strafverfolgungsbehörden sowie jede Form von Predictive Policing oder automatisiertes Profiling von Menschen werden abgelehnt.
• Einführung eines Rechts auf Verschlüsselung. Die Bundesregierung soll sich dafür einsetzen, die Chatkontrolle auf europäischer Ebene zu verhindern.
• Anonyme und pseudonyme Nutzung des Internets soll geschützt und ermöglicht werden.
• Bekämpfung «privaten Machtmissbrauchs von Big-Tech-Unternehmen» durch durchsetzungsstarke, unabhängige und grundsätzlich föderale Aufsichtsstrukturen.
• Einführung eines digitalen Gewaltschutzgesetzes, unter Berücksichtigung «gruppenbezogener digitaler Gewalt» und die Förderung von Beratungsangeboten.
• Ein umfassendes Förderprogramm für digitale öffentliche Räume, die dezentral organisiert und quelloffen programmiert sind, soll aufgelegt werden.

Es sei ein Irrglaube, dass zunehmende Überwachung einen Zugewinn an Sicherheit darstelle, ist eines der Argumente der Initiatoren. Sicherheit erfordere auch, dass Menschen anonym und vertraulich kommunizieren können und ihre Privatsphäre geschützt wird.

Gesunde digitale Räume lebten auch von einem demokratischen Diskurs, lesen wir in dem Papier. Es sei Aufgabe des Staates, Grundrechte zu schützen. Dazu gehöre auch, Menschenrechte und demokratische Werte, insbesondere Freiheit, Gleichheit und Solidarität zu fördern sowie den Missbrauch von Maßnahmen, Befugnissen und Infrastrukturen durch «die Feinde der Demokratie» zu verhindern.

Man ist geneigt zu fragen, wo denn die Autoren «den Faschismus» sehen, den es zu bekämpfen gelte. Die meisten der vorgetragenen Forderungen und Argumente finden sicher breite Unterstützung, denn sie beschreiben offenkundig gängige, kritikwürdige Praxis. Die Aushebelung der Privatsphäre, der Redefreiheit und anderer Grundrechte im Namen der Sicherheit wird bereits jetzt massiv durch die aktuellen «demokratischen Institutionen» und ihre «durchsetzungsstarken Aufsichtsstrukturen» betrieben.

Ist «der Faschismus» also die EU und ihre Mitgliedsstaaten? Nein, die «faschistische Gefahr», gegen die man eine digitale Brandmauer will, kommt nach Ansicht des CCC und seiner Partner aus den Vereinigten Staaten. Private Überwachung und Machtkonzentration sind dabei weltweit schon lange Realität, jetzt endlich müssen sie jedoch bekämpft werden. In dem Papier heißt es:

«Die willkürliche und antidemokratische Machtausübung der Tech-Oligarchen um Präsident Trump erfordert einen Paradigmenwechsel in der deutschen Digitalpolitik. (...) Die aktuellen Geschehnisse in den USA zeigen auf, wie Datensammlungen und -analyse genutzt werden können, um einen Staat handstreichartig zu übernehmen, seine Strukturen nachhaltig zu beschädigen, Widerstand zu unterbinden und marginalisierte Gruppen zu verfolgen.»

Wer auf der anderen Seite dieser Brandmauer stehen soll, ist also klar. Es sind die gleichen «Feinde unserer Demokratie», die seit Jahren in diese Ecke gedrängt werden. Es sind die gleichen Andersdenkenden, Regierungskritiker und Friedensforderer, die unter dem großzügigen Dach des Bundesprogramms «Demokratie leben» einem «kontinuierlichen Echt- und Langzeitmonitoring» wegen der Etikettierung «digitaler Hass» unterzogen werden.

Dass die 24 Organisationen praktisch auch die Bekämpfung von Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon und anderen fordern, entbehrt nicht der Komik. Diese fallen aber sicher unter das Stichwort «Machtmissbrauch von Big-Tech-Unternehmen». Gleichzeitig verlangen die Lobbyisten implizit zum Beispiel die Förderung des Nostr-Netzwerks, denn hier finden wir dezentral organisierte und quelloffen programmierte digitale Räume par excellence, obendrein zensurresistent. Das wiederum dürfte in der Politik weniger gut ankommen.

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Die «Eliten» führen bereits groß angelegte Pilotprojekte für eine Zukunft durch, die sie wollen und wir nicht. Das schreibt der OffGuardian in einem Update zum Thema «EU-Brieftasche für die digitale Identität». Das Portal weist darauf hin, dass die Akteure dabei nicht gerade zimperlich vorgehen und auch keinen Hehl aus ihren Absichten machen. Transition News hat mehrfach darüber berichtet, zuletzt hier und hier.

Mit der EU Digital Identity Wallet (EUDI-Brieftasche) sei eine einzige von der Regierung herausgegebene App geplant, die Ihre medizinischen Daten, Beschäftigungsdaten, Reisedaten, Bildungsdaten, Impfdaten, Steuerdaten, Finanzdaten sowie (potenziell) Kopien Ihrer Unterschrift, Fingerabdrücke, Gesichtsscans, Stimmproben und DNA enthält. So fasst der OffGuardian die eindrucksvolle Liste möglicher Einsatzbereiche zusammen.

Auch Dokumente wie der Personalausweis oder der Führerschein können dort in elektronischer Form gespeichert werden. Bis 2026 sind alle EU-Mitgliedstaaten dazu verpflichtet, Ihren Bürgern funktionierende und frei verfügbare digitale «Brieftaschen» bereitzustellen.

Die Menschen würden diese App nutzen, so das Portal, um Zahlungen vorzunehmen, Kredite zu beantragen, ihre Steuern zu zahlen, ihre Rezepte abzuholen, internationale Grenzen zu überschreiten, Unternehmen zu gründen, Arzttermine zu buchen, sich um Stellen zu bewerben und sogar digitale Verträge online zu unterzeichnen.

All diese Daten würden auf ihrem Mobiltelefon gespeichert und mit den Regierungen von neunzehn Ländern (plus der Ukraine) sowie über 140 anderen öffentlichen und privaten Partnern ausgetauscht. Von der Deutschen Bank über das ukrainische Ministerium für digitalen Fortschritt bis hin zu Samsung Europe. Unternehmen und Behörden würden auf diese Daten im Backend zugreifen, um «automatisierte Hintergrundprüfungen» durchzuführen.

Der Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände (VZBV) habe Bedenken geäußert, dass eine solche App «Risiken für den Schutz der Privatsphäre und der Daten» berge, berichtet das Portal. Die einzige Antwort darauf laute: «Richtig, genau dafür ist sie ja da!»

Das alles sei keine Hypothese, betont der OffGuardian. Es sei vielmehr «Potential». Damit ist ein EU-Projekt gemeint, in dessen Rahmen Dutzende öffentliche und private Einrichtungen zusammenarbeiten, «um eine einheitliche Vision der digitalen Identität für die Bürger der europäischen Länder zu definieren». Dies ist nur eines der groß angelegten Pilotprojekte, mit denen Prototypen und Anwendungsfälle für die EUDI-Wallet getestet werden. Es gibt noch mindestens drei weitere.

Den Ball der digitalen ID-Systeme habe die Covid-«Pandemie» über die «Impfpässe» ins Rollen gebracht. Seitdem habe das Thema an Schwung verloren. Je näher wir aber der vollständigen Einführung der EUid kämen, desto mehr Propaganda der Art «Warum wir eine digitale Brieftasche brauchen» könnten wir in den Mainstream-Medien erwarten, prognostiziert der OffGuardian. Vielleicht müssten wir schon nach dem nächsten großen «Grund», dem nächsten «katastrophalen katalytischen Ereignis» Ausschau halten. Vermutlich gebe es bereits Pläne, warum die Menschen plötzlich eine digitale ID-Brieftasche brauchen würden.

Die Entwicklung geht jedenfalls stetig weiter in genau diese Richtung. Beispielsweise hat Jordanien angekündigt, die digitale biometrische ID bei den nächsten Wahlen zur Verifizierung der Wähler einzuführen. Man wolle «den Papierkrieg beenden und sicherstellen, dass die gesamte Kette bis zu den nächsten Parlamentswahlen digitalisiert wird», heißt es. Absehbar ist, dass dabei einige Wahlberechtigte «auf der Strecke bleiben» werden, wie im Fall von Albanien geschehen.

Derweil würden die Briten gerne ihre Privatsphäre gegen Effizienz eintauschen, behauptet Tony Blair. Der Ex-Premier drängte kürzlich erneut auf digitale Identitäten und Gesichtserkennung. Blair ist Gründer einer Denkfabrik für globalen Wandel, Anhänger globalistischer Technokratie und «moderner Infrastruktur».

Abschließend warnt der OffGuardian vor der Illusion, Trump und Musk würden den US-Bürgern «diesen Schlamassel ersparen». Das Department of Government Efficiency werde sich auf die digitale Identität stürzen. Was könne schließlich «effizienter» sein als eine einzige App, die für alles verwendet wird? Der Unterschied bestehe nur darin, dass die US-Version vielleicht eher privat als öffentlich sei – sofern es da überhaupt noch einen wirklichen Unterschied gebe.

[Titelbild: Screenshot OffGuardian]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Ständige Lügen und Unterstellungen, permanent falsche Fürsorge \ können Bausteine von emotionaler Manipulation sein. Mit dem Zweck, \ Macht und Kontrolle über eine andere Person auszuüben. \ Apotheken Umschau

Irgendetwas muss passiert sein: «Gaslighting» ist gerade Thema in vielen Medien. Heute bin ich nach längerer Zeit mal wieder über dieses Stichwort gestolpert. Das war in einem Artikel von Norbert Häring über Manipulationen des Deutschen Wetterdienstes (DWD). In diesem Fall ging es um eine Pressemitteilung vom Donnerstag zum «viel zu warmen» Winter 2024/25.

Häring wirft der Behörde vor, dreist zu lügen und Dinge auszulassen, um die Klimaangst wach zu halten. Was der Leser beim DWD nicht erfahre, sei, dass dieser Winter kälter als die drei vorangegangenen und kälter als der Durchschnitt der letzten zehn Jahre gewesen sei. Stattdessen werde der falsche Eindruck vermittelt, es würde ungebremst immer wärmer.

Wem also der zu Ende gehende Winter eher kalt vorgekommen sein sollte, mit dessen Empfinden stimme wohl etwas nicht. Das jedenfalls wolle der DWD uns einreden, so der Wirtschaftsjournalist. Und damit sind wir beim Thema Gaslighting.

Als Gaslighting wird eine Form psychischer Manipulation bezeichnet, mit der die Opfer desorientiert und zutiefst verunsichert werden, indem ihre eigene Wahrnehmung als falsch bezeichnet wird. Der Prozess führt zu Angst und Realitätsverzerrung sowie zur Zerstörung des Selbstbewusstseins. Die Bezeichnung kommt von dem britischen Theaterstück «Gas Light» aus dem Jahr 1938, in dem ein Mann mit grausamen Psychotricks seine Frau in den Wahnsinn treibt.

Damit Gaslighting funktioniert, muss das Opfer dem Täter vertrauen. Oft wird solcher Psychoterror daher im privaten oder familiären Umfeld beschrieben, ebenso wie am Arbeitsplatz. Jedoch eignen sich die Prinzipien auch perfekt zur Manipulation der Massen. Vermeintliche Autoritäten wie Ärzte und Wissenschaftler, oder «der fürsorgliche Staat» und Institutionen wie die UNO oder die WHO wollen uns doch nichts Böses. Auch Staatsmedien, Faktenchecker und diverse NGOs wurden zu «vertrauenswürdigen Quellen» erklärt. Das hat seine Wirkung.

Warum das Thema Gaslighting derzeit scheinbar so populär ist, vermag ich nicht zu sagen. Es sind aber gerade in den letzten Tagen und Wochen auffällig viele Artikel dazu erschienen, und zwar nicht nur von Psychologen. Die Frankfurter Rundschau hat gleich mehrere publiziert, und Anwälte interessieren sich dafür offenbar genauso wie Apotheker.

Die Apotheken Umschau machte sogar auf «Medical Gaslighting» aufmerksam. Davon spreche man, wenn Mediziner Symptome nicht ernst nähmen oder wenn ein gesundheitliches Problem vom behandelnden Arzt «schnöde heruntergespielt» oder abgetan würde. Kommt Ihnen das auch irgendwie bekannt vor? Der Begriff sei allerdings irreführend, da er eine manipulierende Absicht unterstellt, die «nicht gewährleistet» sei.

Apropos Gaslighting: Die noch amtierende deutsche Bundesregierung meldete heute, es gelte, «weiter [sic!] gemeinsam daran zu arbeiten, einen gerechten und dauerhaften Frieden für die Ukraine zu erreichen». Die Ukraine, wo sich am Montag «der völkerrechtswidrige Angriffskrieg zum dritten Mal jährte», verteidige ihr Land und «unsere gemeinsamen Werte».

Merken Sie etwas? Das Demokratieverständnis mag ja tatsächlich inzwischen in beiden Ländern ähnlich traurig sein. Bezüglich Friedensbemühungen ist meine Wahrnehmung jedoch eine andere. Das muss an meinem Gedächtnis liegen.

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ e3ba5e1a:5e433365

Prelude

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

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

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

Intro

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

The Filibuster: A Security Rule with No Teeth

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

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

Supreme Court Packing: Because Nine’s Just a Number

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

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

The Executive Should Go Full Klingon

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

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

Let the System Crash

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

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

States Are the Real MVPs

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

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

Chaos Isn’t the Enemy

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

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

Why This Matters

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

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

@ fc7085c3:0b32a4cb

• ~~finish writing some experimental specs and store on hidden repo for later~~
• ~~fix bugs on in-house js web components framework (with react-like hooks)~~
• ~~add signal/reactive hooks to framework~~ (thx to nootropics)
• (ongoing) slooowly migrate kind:1 app from Qwik to above framework
• test feasibility of new app - codename: ZULULA. cool? flawed?
• if cool, finish ZULULA basic features
• nread.me: add nostr documentation (mpa for this part cause seo)
• nread.me: add nip crud (save on relay)
• nread.me: add nip curation (rating and labeling)
• nread.me: filter by curator / rating / labeling
• nread.me: seed curator (fiatjaf) adds other curators
• revamp kind:1 app login
• add basic engagement features then halt kind:1 app dev
• start simplified messenger app to test custom chat spec
• ...don't know what's next yet

@ 6ad3e2a3:c90b7740

You are wearing a helmet, but it's been on your head so long you no longer notice it.

The helmet interfaces with your mind via thought-emotion. It influences what you think about and how you feel.

You could remove the helmet at any time. But the thought-emotions keep you distracted, fearful and attached.

Occasionally you remember you are wearing it. Moments of clarity and detachment. You see the way your experience is colored by it. You know it is biased, untrue to reality. You seriously contemplate removing it.

But the moment passes.

Later, you remember contemplating your helmet’s removal, but you wonder what you will gain from it, whether it’s worth doing.

You are no longer having a moment of clarity, just a memory of the question that arose from it, but colored now by thought-emotions.

You decide even if you wanted to remove it, you would put it back on before long. After all, you have never kept it off before, why would you suddenly live without this interface now? The interface is what you know.

Maybe one day, when you are in a more secure place, when your ducks are more in a row, you will remove it. Not now, not in the midst of all this chaos, so many things to do, so much on your plate. You will leave it on for now. You will deal with this later.

But one day too late it dawns on you it is always ever now, and later means never. You have lived your entire life at the behest of the interface when all you had to do was remove it.

@ 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

@ 5a261a61:2ebd4480

What a day yesterday!

I had a really big backlog of both work and non-work things to clean up. But I was getting a little frisky because my health finally gave me some energy to be in the mood for intimacy after the illness-filled week had forced libido debt on me. I decided to cheat it out and just take care of myself quickly. Horny thoughts won over, and I got at least e-stim induced ass slaps to make it more enjoyable. Quick clean up and everything seemed ok...until it wasn't.

The rest of the morning passed uneventfully as I worked through my backlog, but things took a turn in the early afternoon. I had to go pickup kids, and I just missed Her between the doors, only managed to get a fast kiss. A little bummed from the work issues and failed expectations of having a few minutes together, I got on my way.

Then it hit me—the most serious case of blue balls I had in a long time. First came panic. I was getting to the age when unusual symptoms raise concerns—cancer comes first to mind, as insufficient release wasn't my typical problem. So I called Her. I explained what was happening and expressed hope for some alone time. Unfortunately, that seemed impossible with our evening schedule: kids at home, Her online meeting, and my standing gamenight with the boys. These game sessions are our sacred ritual—a preserved piece of pre-kids sanity that we all protect in our calendars. Not something I wanted to disturb.

Her reassurance was brief but unusualy promising: "Don't worry, I get this."

Evening came, and just as I predicted, there was ZERO time for shenanigans while we took care of the kids. But once we put them to bed (I drew straw for early sleeper), with parental duties complete, I headed downstairs to prepare for my gaming session. Headset on, I greeted my fellows and started playing.

Not five minutes later, She opened the door with lube in one hand, fleshlight in the other, and an expecting smile on Her face. Definitely unexpected. I excused myself from the game, muted mic, but She stopped me.

"There will be nothing if you won't play," She said. She just motioned me to take my pants off. And off to play I was. Not an easy feat considering I twisted my body sideways so She could access anything She wanted while I still reached keyboard and mouse.

She slowly started touching me and observing my reactions, but quickly changed to using Her mouth. Getting a blowjob while semihard was always so strange. The semi part didn't last long though...

As things intensified, She was satisfied with my erection and got the fleshlight ready. It was a new toy for us, and it was Her first time using it on me all by Herself (usually She prefers watching me use toys). She applied an abundance of lube that lasted the entire encounter and beyond.

Shifting into a rhythm, She started pumping slowly but clearly enjoyed my reactions when She unexpectedly sped up, forcing me to mute the mic. I knew I wouldn't last long. When She needed to fix Her hair, I gentlemanly offered to hold the fleshlight, having one hand still available for gaming. She misunderstood, thinking I was taking over completely, which initially disappointed me.

To my surprise, She began taking Her shirt off the shoulders, offering me a pornhub-esque view. To clearly indicate that finish time had arrived, She moved Her lubed hand teasingly toward my anal. She understood precisely my contradictory preferences—my desire to be thoroughly clean before such play versus my complete inability to resist Her when aroused. That final move did it—I muted the mic just in time to vocally express how good She made me feel.

Quick clean up, kiss on the forehead, and a wish for me to have a good game session followed. The urge to abandon the game and cuddle with Her was powerful, but She stopped me. She had more work to complete on Her todo list than just me.

Had a glass, had a blast; overall, a night well spent I would say.

@ 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

@ 90c656ff:9383fd4e

The emergence of Bitcoin brought a new perspective to the concept of money, challenging the conventional financial system based on fiat currencies. While fiat currencies like the real, dollar, and euro are widely used and recognized as means of exchange, Bitcoin represents a digital innovation that promotes decentralization and financial autonomy. Although both serve basic functions such as a medium of exchange and store of value, their main differences lie in how they are issued, managed, and transacted.

One of the key distinctions between Bitcoin and fiat currencies is the way they are issued and administered. Fiat currencies are issued by central banks, which have the power to regulate the amount in circulation. This model allows for the implementation of monetary policies, such as increasing the money supply to stimulate the economy or decreasing it to control inflation. However, this power can also result in currency devaluation if money is issued in excess.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, has a completely decentralized issuance system. It is created through a process called mining, in which computers solve complex mathematical problems to validate transactions on the network. Additionally, the total supply of bitcoins is limited to 21 million units, making it a deflationary asset—its scarcity can potentially increase its value over time. This limitation contrasts sharply with the unlimited nature of fiat money printing.

Fiat currencies are centralized, meaning their issuance and control are decided by governmental authorities. This also means that transactions involving these currencies go through intermediaries like banks, which can impose fees and limits, and are subject to regulations and audits.

Bitcoin, by contrast, is decentralized. It operates on a peer-to-peer network where transactions are verified by participants called miners and recorded in a public ledger known as the blockchain. This decentralization eliminates the need for intermediaries, making Bitcoin more resistant to censorship and government control. It also provides greater transparency, as anyone can verify transactions on the network.

Another important difference lies in how transactions are carried out. With fiat currencies, transactions usually depend on banks or payment systems, which may impose time restrictions and high fees, especially for international transfers.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, enables direct transfers between people, anywhere in the world and at any time, without the need for intermediaries. This makes the system more accessible, particularly for those without bank accounts or living in countries with restrictive financial systems. Additionally, Bitcoin transaction fees can be lower than those charged by traditional banks.

Fiat currencies offer security backed by government laws and the banking system, but users must place trust in those intermediaries. Bitcoin, by contrast, offers a high level of security through advanced cryptography. Digital wallets that store bitcoins are protected by private keys, ensuring that only the owner has access.

However, privacy works differently. Fiat currency transactions are typically linked to the user's identity, whereas Bitcoin offers a certain level of anonymity, since wallet addresses do not require personal identification. Still, all transactions are public and recorded on the blockchain, which can serve as a point of monitoring for authorities.

The value of fiat currencies is backed by trust in the government that issues them and the country's economy. In contrast, Bitcoin is not backed by any government or physical asset. Its value is determined by market supply and demand, making it highly volatile. While this volatility presents a risk, it also attracts people who see Bitcoin as a long-term appreciation opportunity.

In summary, Bitcoin and fiat currencies differ significantly in their structure, control, and functionality. While fiat currencies are government-controlled and depend on intermediaries, Bitcoin offers decentralization, transparency, and financial freedom. Despite its volatility and some regulatory challenges, Bitcoin represents a new alternative to the traditional financial system.

Thank you very much for reading this far. I hope everything is well with you, and sending a big hug from your favorite Bitcoiner maximalist from Madeira. Long live freedom!

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 866e0139:6a9334e5

---

Autor: CJ Hopkins. Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben. Sie finden alle Texte der Friedenstaube und weitere Texte zum Thema Frieden hier.**

Dieser Beitrag erschien zuerst auf dem Substack-Blog des Autors.

---

Er soll andauern, was er auch tut. Genau wie der nie endende Krieg in Orwells 1984 wird er vom Imperium gegen seine eigenen Untertanen geführt, aber nicht nur, um die Struktur der Gesellschaft intakt zu halten, sondern in unserem Fall auch, um die Gesellschaft in eine neo-totalitäre global-kapitalistische Dystopie zu verwandeln.

Bist du nicht vertraut mit dem Krieg gegen was auch immer?

Nun ja, okay, du erinnerst dich an den Krieg gegen den Terror.

Du erinnerst dich daran, als die „Freiheit und Demokratie“ von „den Terroristen“ angegriffen wurden und wir keine andere Wahl hatten, als uns unserer demokratischen Rechte und Prinzipien zu entledigen, einen nationalen „Notstand“ auszurufen, die verfassungsmäßigen Rechte der Menschen auszusetzen, einen Angriffskrieg gegen ein Land im Nahen Osten anzuzetteln, das für uns keinerlei Bedrohung darstellte, und unsere Straßen, Bahnhöfe, Flughäfen und alle anderen Orte mit schwer bewaffneten Soldaten zu füllen, denn sonst hätten „die Terroristen gewonnen“. Du erinnerst dich, als wir ein Offshore-Gulag bauten, um verdächtige Terroristen auf unbestimmte Zeit wegzusperren, die wir zuvor zu CIA-Geheimgefängnissen verschleppt hatten, wo wir sie gefoltert und gedemütigt haben, richtig?

Natürlich erinnerst du dich. Wer könnte das vergessen?

---

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.

---

Erinnerst du dich, als die National Security Agency keine andere Wahl hatte, als ein geheimes „Terroristen-Überwachungsprogramm“ einzurichten, um Amerikaner auszuspionieren, oder sonst „hätten die Terroristen gewonnen“? Oder wie wäre es mit den „Anti-Terror“-Unterleibsuntersuchungen der TSA, der Behörde für Transportsicherheit, die nach über zwanzig Jahren immer noch in Kraft sind?

Und was ist mit dem Krieg gegen den Populismus? An den erinnerst du dich vielleicht nicht so gut.

Ich erinnere mich, denn ich habe zwei Bücher dazu veröffentlicht. Er begann im Sommer 2016, als das Imperium erkannte, dass „rechte Populisten“ die „Freiheit und Demokratie“ in Europa bedrohten und Trump in den USA auf dem Vormarsch war. Also wurde ein weiterer „Notstand“ ausgerufen – diesmal von der Gemeinschaft der Geheimdienste, den Medien, der akademischen Welt und der Kulturindustrie. Ja, genau, es war wieder einmal an der Zeit, unsere demokratischen Prinzipien hintanzustellen, „Hassrede“ in sozialen Medien zu zensieren, die Massen mit lächerlicher offizieller Propaganda über „Russiagate,“ „Hitlergate“ und so weiter zu bombardieren – sonst hätten „die Rechtspopulisten gewonnen.“

Der Krieg gegen den Populismus gipfelte in der Einführung des Neuen Normalen Reichs.

Im Frühjahr 2020 rief das Imperium einen globalen „gesundheitlichen Ausnahmezustand“ aus, als Reaktion auf ein Virus mit einer Überlebensrate von etwa 99,8 Prozent. Das Imperium hatte keine andere Wahl, als ganze Gesellschaften abzuriegeln, jeden dazu zu zwingen, in der Öffentlichkeit medizinisch aussehende Masken zu tragen, die Öffentlichkeit mit Propaganda und Lügen zu bombardieren, die Menschen dazu zu nötigen, sich einer Reihe experimenteller mRNA-„Impfungen“ zu unterziehen, Proteste gegen ihre Dekrete zu verbieten und systematisch diejenigen zu zensieren und zu verfolgen, die es wagten, ihre erfundenen „Fakten“ in Frage zu stellen oder ihr totalitäres Programm zu kritisieren.

Das Imperium hatte keine andere Wahl, als das alles zu tun, denn sonst hätten „die Covid-Leugner, die Impfgegner, die Verschwörungstheoretiker und all die anderen Extremisten gewonnen.“

Ich bin mir ziemlich sicher, dass du dich an all das erinnerst.

Und jetzt … nun, hier sind wir. Ja, du hast es erraten – es ist wieder einmal an der Zeit, kräftig auf die US-Verfassung und die Meinungsfreiheit zu scheißen, Menschen in irgendein salvadorianisches Höllenloch abzuschieben, das wir angemietet haben, weil ein Polizist ihre Tattoos nicht mochte, Universitätsstudenten wegen ihrer Anti-Israel-Proteste festzunehmen und zu verschleppen und natürlich die Massen mit Lügen und offizieller Propaganda zu bombardieren, denn … okay, alle zusammen jetzt: „sonst hätten die antisemitischen Terroristen und venezolanischen Banden gewonnen!“

Fängst du an, ein Muster zu erkennen? Ja? Willkommen beim Krieg gegen-was-auch-immer!

Wenn du die Zusammenhänge noch nicht ganz siehst, okay, lass es mich noch einmal ganz simpel erklären.

Das globale ideologische System, in dem wir alle leben, wird totalitär. (Dieses System ist der globale Kapitalismus, aber nenne es, wie du willst. Es ist mir scheißegal.) Es reißt die Simulation der Demokratie nieder, die es nicht mehr aufrechterhalten muss. Der Kalte Krieg ist vorbei. Der Kommunismus ist tot. Der globale Kapitalismus hat keine externen Feinde mehr. Also muss er die Massen nicht mehr mit demokratischen Rechten und Freiheiten besänftigen. Deshalb entzieht er uns diese Rechte nach und nach und konditioniert uns darauf, ihren Verlust hinzunehmen.

Er tut dies, indem er eine Reihe von „Notständen“ inszeniert, jeder mit einer anderen „Bedrohung“ für die „Demokratie,“ die „Freiheit,“ „Amerika“ oder „den Planeten“ – oder was auch immer. Jeder mit seinen eigenen „Monstern,“ die eine so große Gefahr für die „Freiheit“ oder was auch immer darstellen, dass wir unsere verfassungsmäßigen Rechte aufgeben und die demokratischen Werte ad absurdum führen müssen, denn: sonst „würden die Monster gewinnen.“

Es tut dies, indem es sein Antlitz von „links“ nach „rechts,“ dann zurück nach „links“, und dann zurück nach „rechts,“ dann nach „links“ und so weiter neigt, weil es unsere Kooperation dafür benötigt. Nicht die Kooperation von uns allen auf einmal. Nur eine kooperative demografische Gruppe auf einmal.

Es ist dabei erfolgreich – also das System – indem es unsere Angst und unseren Hass instrumentalisiert. Dem System ist es völlig egal, ob wir uns als „links“ oder „rechts“ identifizieren, aber es braucht uns gespalten in „links“ und „rechts,“ damit es unsere Angst und unseren Hass aufeinander nähren kann … eine Regierung, ein „Notfall,“ ein „Krieg“ nach dem anderen.

Da hast du es. Das ist der Krieg gegen was auch immer. Noch simpler kann ich es nicht erklären.

Oh, und noch eine letzte Sache … wenn du einer meiner ehemaligen Fans bist, wie Rob, die über meine „Einsichten“ oder Loyalitäten oder was auch immer verwirrt sind … nun, der Text, den du gerade gelesen hast, sollte das für dich klären. Ich stehe auf keiner Seite. Überhaupt keiner. Aber ich habe ein paar grundlegende demokratische Prinzipien. Und die richten sich nicht danach, was gerade populär ist oder wer im Weißen Haus sitzt.

Die Sache ist die: Ich muss mich morgens im Spiegel anschauen können ohne dort einen Heuchler oder … du weißt schon, einen Feigling zu sehen.

(Aus dem Amerikanischen übersetzt von René Boyke).

---

CJ Hopkins ist ein US-amerikanischer Dramatiker, Romanautor und politischer Satiriker. Zu seinen Werken zählen die Stücke Horse Country, Screwmachine/Eyecandy und The Extremists. Er hat sich als profilierter Kritiker des Corona-Regimes profiliert und veröffentlicht regelmäßig auf seinem Substack-Blog.

Sein aktuelles Buch:

https://x.com/CJHopkins_Z23/status/1907795633689264530

Hier in einem aktuellen Gespräch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF-G32P0leI

---

LASSEN SIE DER FRIEDENSTAUBE FLÜGEL WACHSEN!

Hier können Sie die Friedenstaube abonnieren und bekommen die Artikel zugesandt. (Vorerst alle, da wir den Mailversand testen, später ca. drei Mails pro Woche.)

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: milosz@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.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 91bea5cd:1df4451c

Básico

bash lsblk # Lista todos os diretorios montados.

Para criar o sistema de arquivos:

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

Criando um subvolume:

bash btrfs subvolume create SubVol

Montando Sistema de Arquivos:

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

Lista os discos formatados no diretório:

bash btrfs filesystem show /mnt

Adiciona novo disco ao subvolume:

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

Lista novamente os discos do subvolume:

bash btrfs filesystem show /mnt

Exibe uso dos discos do subvolume:

bash btrfs filesystem df /mnt

Balancea os dados entre os discos sobre raid1:

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

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

iniciar o processo de depuração :

bash btrfs scrub start /mnt

ver o status do processo de depuração Btrfs em execução:

bash btrfs scrub status /mnt

ver o status do scrub Btrfs para cada um dos dispositivos

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

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

btrfs scrub resume / data

Listando os subvolumes:

bash btrfs subvolume list /Reports

Criando um instantâneo dos subvolumes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

bash btrfs filsystem sync /Reports

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

bash btrfs device delete /dev/sdc /Reports

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

bash btrfs scrub status -dR / Relatórios

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

bash $ sudo btrfs scrub cancel / Reports

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

bash sudo btrfs scrub resume /Reports

mostra o uso do dispositivo de armazenamento:

btrfs filesystem usage /data

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

sudo btrfs balance start --full-balance /data

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

Opções importantes de montagem Btrfs

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

As opções de montagem Btrfs mais importantes são:

**1. acl e noacl

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

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

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

**2. autodefrag e noautodefrag

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

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

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

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

**3. compactar e compactar-forçar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**4. subvol e subvolid

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

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

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

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

**5. dispositivo

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

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

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

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

Por exemplo,

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

**6. degraded

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

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

**7. commit

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

O padrão é definido como 30 segundos.

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

**8. ssd e nossd

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

A opção de montagem nossd desativa a otimização do SSD.

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

**9. ssd_spread e nossd_spread

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

A opção de montagem nossd_spread desativa o recurso ssd_spread .

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

**10. descarte e nodiscard

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

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

Por padrão, a opção de montagem nodiscard é usada.

**11. norecovery

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

**12. usebackuproot e nousebackuproot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**14. skip_balance

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

**15. datacow e nodatacow

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

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

**16. datasum e nodatasum

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

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

Perfis Btrfs

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

Os perfis Btrfs disponíveis são os seguintes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 90c656ff:9383fd4e

Bitcoin was created as something far beyond just a digital currency; it is a revolutionary idea that challenges the foundations of the conventional financial system. The concept behind its creation, presented by the enigmatic Satoshi Nakamoto, focuses on two main principles: decentralization and financial freedom. These ideas reflect an effort to return control of money to the people, eliminating intermediaries and reducing the influence of governments and large financial institutions.

Decentralization is the foundation of Bitcoin. Unlike traditional currencies, which are issued and managed by central banks and governments, Bitcoin operates on a peer-to-peer network. This means there is no central authority or single entity controlling the currency. Instead, all transactions are validated and recorded on a public ledger called the blockchain or timechain, maintained by thousands of computers around the world.

This decentralized structure ensures that Bitcoin is resistant to censorship and immune to monetary policy manipulations such as excessive money printing, which can lead to inflation. It also removes the need for intermediaries like banks, allowing for direct transactions between users. This is especially valuable in scenarios where the traditional banking system is inaccessible or unreliable, such as in remote areas or countries facing economic crises.

The financial freedom promoted by Bitcoin is another transformative element. In traditional systems, individuals depend on third parties such as banks or financial institutions to access, store, and transfer money. These entities can impose restrictions like withdrawal limits, high transfer fees, or even freeze accounts. With Bitcoin, the user has full control over their funds through private keys (a kind of password that grants access to their digital wallet).

Moreover, Bitcoin offers an accessible solution for billions of people worldwide who are unbanked. According to World Bank data, around 1.4 billion adults lack access to a bank account, but many of them do have access to the internet or smartphones. Bitcoin allows these individuals to participate in the global economy without needing intermediary institutions.

Another crucial point is its censorship resistance. In authoritarian regimes or politically unstable situations, governments may confiscate or freeze citizens' assets. Bitcoin, being decentralized and operating on a global network, cannot be arbitrarily controlled or seized, offering an extra layer of financial protection for individuals at risk.

Bitcoin’s vision also includes the creation of a fairer and more transparent financial system. The blockchain or timechain, by recording all transactions in a public and immutable way, reduces the chances of fraud and corruption. Additionally, the limited supply of 21 million bitcoins, hard-coded into the system, supports a deflationary model that contrasts with the unlimited expansion of fiat currencies. This gives Bitcoin the potential to be a stable store of value in the long term.

Despite its promising vision, the path toward full financial freedom is not without challenges. Bitcoin’s price volatility, regulatory concerns, and technological barriers remain hurdles to overcome. However, these challenges also create opportunities for innovation and for strengthening the ecosystem over time.

In summary, the vision behind Bitcoin represents a disruption of the centralized financial system, offering people more autonomy, transparency, and security over their financial resources. It is not just a technology but a movement that aims to empower individuals, especially those excluded or harmed by traditional economic models. By promoting decentralization and financial freedom, Bitcoin paves the way for a future where money truly belongs to the people, not the institutions.

Thank you very much for reading this far — I hope everything is well with you, and sending a big hug from your favorite Bitcoiner maximalist from Madeira. Long live freedom!

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 9223d2fa:b57e3de7

12,600 steps

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ fd06f542:8d6d54cd

排名随机， 列表正在增加中。

Cody Tseng

jumble.social 的作者

https://jumble.social/users/npub1syjmjy0dp62dhccq3g97fr87tngvpvzey08llyt6ul58m2zqpzps9wf6wl

• Running [ wss://nostr-relay.app ] (free & WoT) 💜⚡️
• Building 👨‍💻:
• https://github.com/CodyTseng/jumble
• https://github.com/CodyTseng/nostr-relay-tray
• https://github.com/CodyTseng/danmakustr
• https://github.com/CodyTseng/nostr-relay-nestjs
• https://github.com/CodyTseng/nostr-relay
• https://github.com/CodyTseng

阿甘

• @agan0
• 0xchat.com
• canidae40@coinos.io
• https://jumble.social/users/npub13zyg3zysfylqc6nwfgj2uvce5rtlck2u50vwtjhpn92wzyusprfsdl2rce

joomaen

• Follows you
• joomaen.com

• 95aebd@wallet.yakihonne.com

• nobot

• https://joomaen.filegear-sg.me/
• https://jumble.social/users/npub1wlpfd84ymdx2rpvnqht7h2lkq5lazvkaejywrvtchlvn3geulfgqp74qq0

颜值精选官

• wasp@ok0.org
• 专注分享 各类 图片与视频，每日为你带来颜值盛宴，心动不止一点点。欢迎关注，一起发现更多美好！
• https://jumble.social/users/npub1d5ygkef6r0l7w29ek9l9c7hulsvdshms2qh74jp5qpfyad4g6h5s4ap6lz

6svjszwk

• 6svjszwk@ok0.org
• 83vEfErLivtS9to39i73ETeaPkCF5ejQFbExoM5Vc2FDLqSE5Ah6NbqN6JaWPQbMeJh2muDiHPEDjboCVFYkHk4dHitivVi

• low-time-preference

• anarcho-capitalism

• libertarianism

• bitcoin #monero

• https://jumble.social/users/npub1sxgnpqfyd5vjexj4j5tsgfc826ezyz2ywze3w8jchd0rcshw3k6svjszwk

𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘳

• everyday@iris.to
• 虽然现在对某些事情下结论还为时尚早，但是从趋势来看，邪恶抬头已经不可避免。
• 我们要做的就是坚持内心的那一份良知，与邪恶战斗到底。
• 黑暗森林时代，当好小透明。
• bc1q7tuckqhkwf4vgc64rsy3rxy5qy6pmdrgxewcww
• https://jumble.social/users/npub1j2pha2chpr0qsmj2f6w783200upa7dvqnnard7vn9l8tv86m7twqszmnke

nostr_cn_dev

npub1l5r02s4udsr28xypsyx7j9lxchf80ha4z6y6269d0da9frtd2nxsvum9jm@npub.cash

Developed the following products: - NostrBridge, 网桥转发 - TaskQ5, 分布式多任务 - NostrHTTP, nostr to http - Postr, 匿名交友，匿名邮局 - nostrclient (Python client) . -nostrbook, (nostrbook.com) 用nostr在线写书 * https://www.duozhutuan.com nostrhttp demo * https://github.com/duozhutuan/NostrBridge * * https://jumble.social/users/npub1l5r02s4udsr28xypsyx7j9lxchf80ha4z6y6269d0da9frtd2nxsvum9jm *

CXPLAY

• lightning@cxplay.org
• 😉很高兴遇到你, 你可以叫我 CX 或 CXPLAY, 这个名字没有特殊含义, 无需在意.
• ©本账号下所有内容如未经特殊声明均使用 CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 许可协议授权.
• 🌐如果您在 Fediverse 收到本账号的内容则说明您的实例已与 Mostr.pub 或 Momostr.pink Bridge 互联, 您所看到的账号为镜像, 所有账号内容正在跨网传递. 如有必要请检查原始页面.
• 🧑‍💻正在提供中文本地化(i10n): #Amethyst #Amber #Citrine #Soapbox #Ditto #Alby
• https://cx.ms/

https://jumble.social/users/npub1gd8e0xfkylc7v8c5a6hkpj4gelwwcy99jt90lqjseqjj2t253s2s6ch58h

w

• 0xchat的作者
• 0xchat@getalby.com
• Building for 0xchat
• https://www.0xchat.com/
• https://jumble.social/users/npub10td4yrp6cl9kmjp9x5yd7r8pm96a5j07lk5mtj2kw39qf8frpt8qm9x2wl

Michael

• highman@blink.sv
• Composer Artist | Musician
• 🎹🎼🎤🏸🏝️🐕❤️
• 在這裡可以看到「我看世界」的樣子
• 他是光良
• https://jumble.social/users/npub1kr5vqlelt8l47s2z0l47z4myqg897m04vrnaqks3emwryca3al7sv83ry3

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Hear this, warriors of the Empire!

A dishonorable shadow spreads across our once-proud institutions, infecting our very bloodlines with weakness. The House of Duras—may their names be spoken with contempt—has betrayed the sacred warrior code of Kahless. No, they have not attacked us with disruptors or blades. Their weapon is more insidious: fear and silence.

Cowardice Masquerading as Concern

These traitors would strip our children of their birthright. They forbid the young from training with the bat'leth in school! Their cowardly decree does not come in the form of an open challenge, but in whispers of fear, buried in bureaucratic dictates. "It is for safety," they claim. "It is to prevent bloodshed." Lies! The blood of Klingons must be tested in training if it is to be ready in battle. We are not humans to be coddled by illusions of safety.

Indoctrination by Silence

In their cowardice, the House of Duras seeks to shape our children not into warriors, but into frightened bureaucrats who speak not of honor, nor of strength. They spread a vile practice—of punishing younglings for even speaking of combat, for recounting glorious tales of blades clashing in the halls of Sto-Vo-Kor! A child who dares write a poem of battle is silenced. A young warrior who shares tales of their father’s triumphs is summoned to the headmaster’s office.

This is no accident. This is a calculated cultural sabotage.

Weakness Taught as Virtue

The House of Duras has infected the minds of the teachers. These once-proud mentors now tremble at shadows, seeing future rebels in the eyes of their students. They demand security patrols and biometric scanners, turning training halls into prisons. They have created fear, not of enemies beyond the Empire, but of the students themselves.

And so, the rituals of strength are erased. The bat'leth is banished. The honor of open training and sparring is forbidden. All under the pretense of protection.

A Plan of Subjugation

Make no mistake. This is not a policy; it is a plan. A plan to disarm future warriors before they are strong enough to rise. By forbidding speech, training, and remembrance, the House of Duras ensures the next generation kneels before the High Council like servants, not warriors. They seek an Empire of sheep, not wolves.

Stand and Resist

But the blood of Kahless runs strong! We must not be silent. We must not comply. Let every training hall resound with the clash of steel. Let our children speak proudly of their ancestors' battles. Let every dishonorable edict from the House of Duras be met with open defiance.

Raise your voice, Klingons! Raise your blade! The soul of the Empire is at stake. We will not surrender our future. We will not let the cowardice of Duras shape the spirit of our children.

The Empire endures through strength. Through honor. Through battle. And so shall we!

@ 90c656ff:9383fd4e

Bitcoin is the world’s first decentralized digital currency, created in 2009 by an individual or group under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. Its birth marked the beginning of a revolution in the global financial system, introducing a new kind of currency that is not controlled by governments or traditional financial institutions. The history of Bitcoin is deeply rooted in the ideals of economic freedom, transparency, and resistance to censorship.

The journey began in October 2008, when Satoshi Nakamoto published a paper titled “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.” The white paper, published on the Cryptography mailing list, described the idea of a digital payment system based on a peer-to-peer network. This concept eliminates the need for intermediaries like banks and solves a problem known as “double spending” — the possibility of duplicating digital currencies — through a technology called blockchain, or what Satoshi Nakamoto himself referred to as the timechain.

The blockchain, or timechain, is essentially a public and immutable ledger that records all Bitcoin transactions. It operates through a decentralized system where participants in the network (the so-called nodes) verify transactions and organize them into blocks. These blocks are in turn linked together in a continuous chain, forming the basis of the system’s security and transparency.

On January 3, 2009, Satoshi Nakamoto mined the first Bitcoin block, known as the genesis block. The block contained a coded message referencing the 2008 global financial crisis: "The Times, January 3, 2009, Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks." This message is emblematic of the motivation behind Bitcoin: to provide an alternative to the centralized financial system that failed to protect the global economy.

Throughout 2009 and 2010, Bitcoin remained an experiment among tech and crypto enthusiasts. The first Bitcoin transactions took place between network participants, and the first commercial use of the currency occurred on May 22, 2010, when a programmer named Laszlo Hanyecz bought two pizzas for 10,000 Bitcoins. This historic transaction became known as “Bitcoin Pizza Day.”

Satoshi Nakamoto continued to contribute to Bitcoin's development until the end of 2010, when he gradually disappeared from the community. To this day, his identity remains a mystery, and there is no concrete evidence of who or how many people were behind the pseudonym. Before leaving, Satoshi Nakamoto handed over control of the project to other developers and made it clear that Bitcoin should be a decentralized technology, owned by everyone and controlled by no one.

Since then, Bitcoin has grown exponentially. It has evolved from a technological experiment into a multibillion-dollar asset and is widely considered a legitimate form of digital money and store of value. Governments, companies, and individuals around the world have adopted Bitcoin as an alternative to traditional fiat currencies.

In summary, the creation of Bitcoin by Satoshi Nakamoto was more than just the birth of a digital currency; it was the beginning of a global movement to rethink how money is controlled and distributed. Although the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto remains unknown, his legacy will continue to shape the future of the financial system and challenge traditional economic structures.

Thank you very much for reading this far. I hope everything is well with you, and sending a big hug from your favorite Bitcoiner maximalist from Madeira. Long live freedom!

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 6e0ea5d6:0327f353

Ascolta.

We live in times where the average man is measured by the speeches he gives — not by the commitments he keeps. People talk about dreams, goals, promises… but what truly remains is what’s honored in the silence of small gestures, in actions that don’t seek applause, in attitudes unseen — yet speak volumes.

Punctuality, for example. Showing up on time isn’t about the clock. It’s about respect. Respect for another’s time, yes — but more importantly, respect for one’s own word. A man who is late without reason is already running late in his values. And the one who excuses his own lateness with sweet justifications slowly gets used to mediocrity.

Keeping your word is more than fulfilling promises. It is sealing, with the mouth, what the body must later uphold. Every time a man commits to something, he creates a moral debt with his own dignity. And to break that commitment is to declare bankruptcy — not in the eyes of others, but in front of himself.

And debts? Even the small ones — or especially the small ones — are precise thermometers of character. A forgotten sum, an unpaid favor, a commitment left behind… all of these reveal the structure of the inner building that man resides in. He who neglects the small is merely rehearsing for his future collapse.

Life, contrary to what the reckless say, is not built on grand deeds. It is built with small bricks, laid with almost obsessive precision. The truly great man is the one who respects the details — recognizing in them a code of conduct.

In Sicily, especially in the streets of Palermo, I learned early on that there is more nobility in paying a five-euro debt on time than in flaunting riches gained without word, without honor, without dignity.

As they say in Palermo: L’uomo si conosce dalle piccole cose.

So, amico mio, Don’t talk to me about greatness if you can’t show up on time. Don’t talk to me about respect if your word is fickle. And above all, don’t talk to me about honor if you still owe what you once promised — no matter how small.

Thank you for reading, my friend!

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

A toast to our family!

@ 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!

@ 0d8633e5:eec06e57

The Flash USDT Generator is responsible for producing and storing Flash USDT tokens with a flexible daily limit. It ensures a consistent supply of tokens for transactions while managing distribution securely and efficiently. Our Flash USDT offers a unique, temporary cryptocurrency that lasts for 90 days before expiring. This innovative solution allows for seamlesstrading and transferring of funds. Notably, the Flash Bitcoin and USDT can be transferred to 12 different wallets, including prominent platforms like Binance and Trust Wallet.

Features Adjustable Daily Limit: Customizable settings allow for modifying the token generation cap. Automated Distribution: Ensures quick and secure token transfers to user wallets. Minimal Latency: Prevents blockchain congestion issues for seamless transfers. Real-Time Transaction Verification: Each transaction is immediately verified on the respective blockchain explorer to confirm accuracy and validity. Temporary Nature: One of the most distinctive characteristics of USDT FLASH Generator is that it generates flash coin that is designed to disappear from any wallet after a period of ninety days. This unique feature ensures that any assets received in USDT FLASH will not linger indefinitely, creating a dynamic and engaging transaction experience.

Kindly visit globalfashexperts.com for more information Contact Information For more information or to make a purchase, please contact us through the following channels:

Email: globalfashexperts@gmail.com Flash USDT:https://globalfashexperts.com/product/flash-usdt/ Flash USDT: https://globalfashexperts.com/product/flash-usdt-generator-software/The Flash USDT Generator is responsible for producing and storing Flash USDT tokens with a flexible daily limit. It ensures a consistent supply of tokens for transactions while managing distribution securely and efficiently. Our Flash USDT offers a unique, temporary cryptocurrency that lasts for 90 days before expiring. This innovative solution allows for seamlesstrading and transferring of funds. Notably, the Flash Bitcoin and USDT can be transferred to 12 different wallets, including prominent platforms like Binance and Trust Wallet.

Features

1. Adjustable Daily Limit: Customizable settings allow for modifying the token generation cap.
2. Automated Distribution: Ensures quick and secure token transfers to user wallets.
3. Minimal Latency: Prevents blockchain congestion issues for seamless transfers.
4. Real-Time Transaction Verification: Each transaction is immediately verified on the respective blockchain explorer to confirm accuracy and validity.
5. Temporary Nature: One of the most distinctive characteristics of USDT FLASH Generator is that it generates flash coin that is designed to disappear from any wallet after a period of ninety days. This unique feature ensures that any assets received in USDT FLASH will not linger indefinitely, creating a dynamic and engaging transaction experience.

Kindly visit globalfashexperts.com for more information

Contact Information

For more information or to make a purchase, please contact us through the following channels:

• Email: globalfashexperts@gmail.com
• Flash USDT:https://globalfashexperts.com/product/flash-usdt/
• Flash USDT: https://globalfashexperts.com/product/flash-usdt-generator-software/

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 0fa80bd3:ea7325de

DAOs promised decentralization. They offered a system where every member could influence a project's direction, where money and power were transparently distributed, and decisions were made through voting. All of it recorded immutably on the blockchain, free from middlemen.

But something didn’t work out. In practice, most DAOs haven’t evolved into living, self-organizing organisms. They became something else: clubs where participation is unevenly distributed. Leaders remained - only now without formal titles. They hold influence through control over communications, task framing, and community dynamics. Centralization still exists, just wrapped in a new package.

But there's a second, less obvious problem. Crowds can’t create strategy. In DAOs, people vote for what "feels right to the majority." But strategy isn’t about what feels good - it’s about what’s necessary. Difficult, unpopular, yet forward-looking decisions often fail when put to a vote. A founder’s vision is a risk. But in healthy teams, it’s that risk that drives progress. In DAOs, risk is almost always diluted until it becomes something safe and vague.

Instead of empowering leaders, DAOs often neutralize them. This is why many DAOs resemble consensus machines. Everyone talks, debates, and participates, but very little actually gets done. One person says, “Let’s jump,” and five others respond, “Let’s discuss that first.” This dynamic might work for open forums, but not for action.

Decentralization works when there’s trust and delegation, not just voting. Until DAOs develop effective systems for assigning roles, taking ownership, and acting with flexibility, they will keep losing ground to old-fashioned startups led by charismatic founders with a clear vision.

We’ve seen this in many real-world cases. Take MakerDAO, one of the most mature and technically sophisticated DAOs. Its governance token (MKR) holders vote on everything from interest rates to protocol upgrades. While this has allowed for transparency and community involvement, the process is often slow and bureaucratic. Complex proposals stall. Strategic pivots become hard to implement. And in 2023, a controversial proposal to allocate billions to real-world assets passed only narrowly, after months of infighting - highlighting how vision and execution can get stuck in the mud of distributed governance.

On the other hand, Uniswap DAO, responsible for the largest decentralized exchange, raised governance participation only after launching a delegation system where token holders could choose trusted representatives. Still, much of the activity is limited to a small group of active contributors. The vast majority of token holders remain passive. This raises the question: is it really community-led, or just a formalized power structure with lower transparency?

Then there’s ConstitutionDAO, an experiment that went viral. It raised over $40 million in days to try and buy a copy of the U.S. Constitution. But despite the hype, the DAO failed to win the auction. Afterwards, it struggled with refund logistics, communication breakdowns, and confusion over governance. It was a perfect example of collective enthusiasm without infrastructure or planning - proof that a DAO can raise capital fast but still lack cohesion.

Not all efforts have failed. Projects like Gitcoin DAO have made progress by incentivizing small, individual contributions. Their quadratic funding mechanism rewards projects based on the number of contributors, not just the size of donations, helping to elevate grassroots initiatives. But even here, long-term strategy often falls back on a core group of organizers rather than broad community consensus.

The pattern is clear: when the stakes are low or the tasks are modular, DAOs can coordinate well. But when bold moves are needed—when someone has to take responsibility and act under uncertainty DAOs often freeze. In the name of consensus, they lose momentum.

That’s why the organization of the future can’t rely purely on decentralization. It must encourage individual initiative and the ability to take calculated risks. People need to see their contribution not just as a vote, but as a role with clear actions and expected outcomes. When the situation demands, they should be empowered to act first and present the results to the community afterwards allowing for both autonomy and accountability. That’s not a flaw in the system. It’s how real progress happens.

@ 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.

---

@ d0aa74cd:603d35cd

CLI #Haskell

https://photonsphere.org/post/2025-05-03-command-line-energy-prices-haskell/

@ f7f4e308:b44d67f4

https://sns-video-hw.xhscdn.com/stream/1/110/258/01e7ec7be81a85850103700195f3c4ba45_258.mp4

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Johann Gabriel Seidl (1804-1875)

@ c066aac5:6a41a034

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

My Background: A Small Side Story

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

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

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

Nicolas Cage: Actor

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

Nick Cave: Songwriter

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

Jim Jarmusch: Director

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

NOSTR: We Need Bold Art

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

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In diesem Sinne wünsche ich euch allen urige Weihnachtstage!

---

Dieser Beitrag ist letztes Jahr in meiner Denkbar erschienen.

@ 90c656ff:9383fd4e

Bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency created in 2009 by an individual or group under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. Unlike traditional government-issued currencies like the US dollar or the euro, Bitcoin is not controlled by any central authority, such as a central bank or financial institution. This innovative feature has made it a focal point of economic, technological, and even social debate in recent years.

Bitcoin operates using a technology called blockchain (which the Bitcoin community increasingly prefers to call "timechain"). It is essentially a distributed digital ledger. The blockchain or timechain records all transactions made on the Bitcoin network in an open and transparent way. Each block contains a set of transactions that are immutably added to the chain once they are verified by miners (miners are basically network participants who use their computing power to validate these same transactions). This ensures security and prevents fraud, as no person or entity can retroactively alter the records.

One of Bitcoin's most notable features is its limited supply. Only 21 million Bitcoins can ever be created, which gives Bitcoin a deflationary nature — unlike fiat currencies, which central banks can print in unlimited quantities. This fixed limit, combined with growing global interest in the technology in general and individual privacy specifically, has driven Bitcoin’s value over time.

Another important characteristic of Bitcoin is that it enables direct peer-to-peer transactions, removing the need for intermediaries. This is particularly useful in cases like international transfers, where Bitcoin can be used to send money quickly and at low cost, without going through a bank or traditional financial services. Additionally, it is seen as a form of financial freedom in countries with unstable local currencies (often due to central banks printing money uncontrollably) or strict state-imposed capital controls.

However, Bitcoin is not immune to criticism — though these are often hollow arguments that mask the personal interests of those making them, whether because they work in traditional banks or brokerages and fear losing "power" or even their jobs, or because they have bad intentions and want to promote their own cryptocurrencies, which are fundamentally worthless (the infamous “shitcoins”). Bitcoin’s price volatility can also pose significant risks for inexperienced users who buy at a certain price and end up selling when the value drops by half, losing at least half their money. On the other hand, many experts view Bitcoin as a technological and social milestone that challenges existing economic models.

In summary, Bitcoin is much more than just a “crypto” or “cryptocurrency.” It represents a revolution — or a revision — in how most people think about money, offering a decentralized, transparent, and censorship-resistant alternative. Although it still faces challenges to becoming widely accepted by some skeptics and by governments worried about losing control over “their” populations (as mentioned earlier), its impact has been undeniable, paving the way for a new era in the global economy and opening many minds to reflection.

Thank you very much for reading this far — I hope you're doing well, and sending a huge hug from your favorite Bitcoiner maximalist from Madeira. Long live freedom!

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

Capitalism is the most effective system for scaling innovation. The pursuit of profit is an incredibly powerful human incentive. Most major improvements to human society and quality of life have resulted from this base incentive. Market competition often results in the best outcomes for all.

That said, some projects can never be monetized. They are open in nature and a business model would centralize control. Open protocols like bitcoin and nostr are not owned by anyone and if they were it would destroy the key value propositions they provide. No single entity can or should control their use. Anyone can build on them without permission.

As a result, open protocols must depend on donation based grant funding from the people and organizations that rely on them. This model works but it is slow and uncertain, a grind where sustainability is never fully reached but rather constantly sought. As someone who has been incredibly active in the open source grant funding space, I do not think people truly appreciate how difficult it is to raise charitable money and deploy it efficiently.

Projects that can be monetized should be. Profitability is a super power. When a business can generate revenue, it taps into a self sustaining cycle. Profit fuels growth and development while providing projects independence and agency. This flywheel effect is why companies like Google, Amazon, and Apple have scaled to global dominance. The profit incentive aligns human effort with efficiency. Businesses must innovate, cut waste, and deliver value to survive.

Contrast this with non monetized projects. Without profit, they lean on external support, which can dry up or shift with donor priorities. A profit driven model, on the other hand, is inherently leaner and more adaptable. It is not charity but survival. When survival is tied to delivering what people want, scale follows naturally.

The real magic happens when profitable, sustainable businesses are built on top of open protocols and software. Consider the many startups building on open source software stacks, such as Start9, Mempool, and Primal, offering premium services on top of the open source software they build out and maintain. Think of companies like Block or Strike, which leverage bitcoin’s open protocol to offer their services on top. These businesses amplify the open software and protocols they build on, driving adoption and improvement at a pace donations alone could never match.

When you combine open software and protocols with profit driven business the result are lean, sustainable companies that grow faster and serve more people than either could alone. Bitcoin’s network, for instance, benefits from businesses that profit off its existence, while nostr will expand as developers monetize apps built on the protocol.

Capitalism scales best because competition results in efficiency. Donation funded protocols and software lay the groundwork, while market driven businesses build on top. The profit incentive acts as a filter, ensuring resources flow to what works, while open systems keep the playing field accessible, empowering users and builders. Together, they create a flywheel of innovation, growth, and global benefit.

@ 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.

@ 5f078e90:b2bacaa3

The Spoonbill's Dawn

In a marsh where reeds whispered secrets to the wind, a roseate spoonbill named Sable waded through dawn’s amber glow. Her pink feathers shimmered, catching the first light as she swept her spoon-shaped bill through the shallows, sifting for shrimp. Unlike her flock, who chattered and preened, Sable moved with quiet purpose, her eyes tracing ripples for signs of life.

Each morning, she returned to a lone cypress, its roots cradling a pool where minnows danced. Here, Sable had found an odd companion: a young alligator named Moss, whose emerald scales blended with the water’s edge. Moss never lunged, only watched, his eyes like polished stones. Sable, curious, began leaving shrimp at the pool’s edge. Moss, in turn, nudged smooth pebbles toward her, gifts from the marsh’s depths.

One dawn, a storm loomed, its thunder rattling the reeds. The flock fled, their wings a pink blur against charcoal clouds, but Sable lingered. The pool was still; Moss hadn’t surfaced. She dipped her bill, calling softly, her heart a flutter of worry. Then, a ripple—Moss emerged, sluggish, a gash on his flank from a poacher’s trap. Sable’s instinct was to flee, but she stayed, her bill probing the mud for healing herbs she’d seen egrets use.

With gentle nudges, she pressed the herbs to Moss’s wound, her pink wings shielding him from the rain. Moss rumbled, a low thanks, and rested. By dusk, the storm passed, and the marsh gleamed under a crescent moon. Moss stirred, stronger, and nudged a final pebble to Sable—a heart-shaped stone, glinting pink like her feathers.

Sable took flight, the stone clutched in her bill, her wings carving hope into the sky. The flock returned, awed by her tale, and the marsh buzzed with their chatter. Sable and Moss remained, their bond a quiet legend, proof that even in a wild world, trust could bloom where dawn met dusk.

Word count: 313

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 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

@ 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.

@ e4950c93:1b99eccd

En savoir plus sur Wikipedia

🧵 Produits en cette matière

Les marques suivantes proposent des produits fait exclusivement ou principalement avec cette matière :

Vêtements

• Engel
• Dilling

---

Cet article est publié sur origine-nature.com 🌐 See this article in English

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 1d7ff02a:d042b5be

ບົດຄວາມນີ້ແປມາຈາ: https://jackkruse.com/what-to-do-with-new-cancer-diagnosis/

ເນື້ອຫາສຳລັບຜູ້ອ່ານ: 1. ຈະເຮັດແນວໃດເມື່ອທ່ານໄດ້ຮັບການວິນິດໄສວ່າເປັນມະເຮັງ? 2. ສະໜາມຮົບກັບມະເຮັງທີ່ສຳຄັນແມ່ນຢູ່ບ່ອນການປິ່ນປົວແບບແພດ ຫຼື ໃນຮ່າງກາຍຂອງທ່ານເອງ? 3. ອາຫານການກິນມີບົດບາດແນວໃດ? 4. ຈະຮັບມືກັບໝໍມະເຮັງຄົນໃໝ່ຂອງທ່ານແນວໃດ? 5. ບໍ່ຕ້ອງຢ້ານທີ່ຈະສຳຫຼວດທຸກຄວາມເປັນໄປໄດ້ເພື່ອຊະນະສົງຄາມນີ້. ຮຽນຮູ້ກ່ຽວກັບອາຫານ ketogenic!!!

ກ່ອນທ່ານຈະອ່ານບົດຄວາມນີ້, ໃຫ້ເບິ່ງວິດີໂອນີ້: HYPERLINK

ບົດຄວາມນີ້ແມ່ນສຳລັບໜຶ່ງໃນໝູ່ທີ່ພິເສດຂອງຂ້ອຍ ຜູ້ທີ່ພົວພັນຂ້ອຍໃນອາທິດນີ້ ແລະ ບອກວ່າເມຍລາວຖືກວິນິດໄສວ່າເປັນມະເຮັງໃນໄວອາຍຸໜຸ່ມ. ຂ້ອຍໄດ້ຍິນຈາກການໂທ ແລະ ໂພສຂອງລາວໃນ Facebook ວ່າມັນກຳລັງທຳລາຍລາວ. ຂ້ອຍບອກລາວທັນທີໃຫ້ໄປຊື້ປື້ມ Anti Cancer: A New Way of Life ໂດຍ David Servan Schreiber ແລະ ມອບໃຫ້ເຈົ້າສາວຂອງລາວ. ຂ່າວດີກໍ່ຄືຫຼາຍລ້ານຄົນໃນຈຳນວນ 6 ລ້ານຄົນທີ່ກຳລັງປິ່ນປົວມະເຮັງໃນປະຈຸບັນຈະມີຊີວິດທີ່ສົມບູນຕໍ່ໄປ. ຈຳນວນຜູ້ລອດຊີວິດຕາມຄວາມຄິດເຫັນຂອງຂ້ອຍຍັງຕ່ຳເກີນໄປ (ປະມານ 45-50%). ນອກຈາກນັ້ນ, ຫຼາຍຄົນໃນຈຳນວນ 2000 ຄົນທີ່ເສຍຊີວິດຈາກມະເຮັງທຸກມື້ແມ່ນເນື່ອງຈາກຄອບຄົວຂອງພວກເຂົາບໍ່ຮູ້ກ່ຽວກັບຊັບພະຍາກອນທີ່ມີໃນປະຈຸບັນສຳລັບການປິ່ນປົວມະເຮັງທັງແບບດັ້ງເດີມ ແລະ ແບບທາງເລືອກ ເຊັ່ນ: ການປິ່ນປົວແບບເສີມ ຫຼື ແບບບູລະນາການ.

ເມື່ອຖືກວິນິດໄສດ້ວຍພະຍາດນີ້, ທ່ານຈະຮູ້ສຶກສັ່ນສະເທືອນຢ່າງຮຸນແຮງ. ສິ່ງສຳຄັນທີ່ທ່ານຕ້ອງຮູ້ແມ່ນພະຍາດນີ້ບໍ່ພຽງແຕ່ສາມາດຕໍ່ສູ້ໄດ້ແຕ່ຍັງສາມາດປ້ອງກັນໄດ້ຖ້າທ່ານຕັດສິນໃຈປ່ຽນແປງບາງສິ່ງທັນທີ ແລະ ປ່ອຍວາງຄວາມເຊື່ອທີ່ບໍ່ຖືກຕ້ອງທີ່ທ່ານໄດ້ສະສົມໃນຊີວິດ. ນີ້ເປັນຄວາມຈິງໂດຍສະເພາະຖ້າທ່ານເຮັດວຽກໃນຂົງເຂດສາທາລະນະສຸກ ແລະ ໄດ້ດຳລົງຊີວິດຕາມຄວາມເຊື່ອຕາຍຕົວຕະຫຼອດຊີວິດ. ປື້ມນີ້ຂຽນໂດຍແພດນັກຄົ້ນຄວ້າທີ່ບໍ່ພຽງແຕ່ຖືກກະທົບຈາກມະເຮັງ ແຕ່ຍັງເປັນມະເຮັງສະໝອງທີ່ອັນຕະລາຍທີ່ສຸດ. ລາວສາມາດຮື້ຖອນຄວາມເຊື່ອຂອງຕົນເອງໃນຖານະແພດດ້ວຍວິທະຍາສາດໃໝ່ທີ່ມີຢູ່ສຳລັບນັກຄົ້ນຄວ້າ ແຕ່ບໍ່ແມ່ນແພດມະເຮັງທົ່ວໄປ. ປື້ມນີ້ຈຳເປັນສຳລັບທຸກຄົນທີ່ເປັນມະເຮັງ ຫຼື ມີປັດໄຈສ່ຽງ ເພື່ອທ່ານຈະໄດ້ຊະນະກ່ອນມັນເລີ່ມ. ນີ້ແມ່ນໜຶ່ງໃນເຫດຜົນທີ່ຂ້ອຍຂຽນ QUILT ຂອງຂ້ອຍ ເພາະຂ້ອຍເຊື່ອວ່າຖ້າທ່ານປົກປ້ອງຈຸລັງຂອງທ່ານ ທ່ານຈະບໍ່ເປັນພະຍາດນີ້. ດຽວນີ້ ໝູ່ຂອງຂ້ອຍເປັນພະຍາດນີ້... ນີ້ແມ່ນບົດຄວາມກ່ຽວກັບສິ່ງທີ່ທ່ານອາດພິຈາລະນາເຮັດທັນທີຫຼັງຈາກປຶກສາກັບແພດມະເຮັງຂອງທ່ານ. ພິຈາລະນາຂໍຄວາມຄິດເຫັນທີສອງຈາກສູນມະເຮັງທີ່ສຳຄັນເຊັ່ນ MD Anderson.

1. ອ່ານປື້ມ Anticancer ທີ່ກ່າວເຖິງຂ້າງເທິງ. ມັນສຳຄັນທີ່ຈະເຫັນພະຍາດນີ້ໃນມຸມມອງໃໝ່.

2. ປ່ຽນອາຫານການກິນຂອງທ່ານທັນທີເປັນ Epi-paleo Rx ແລະ ອອກຫ່າງຈາກອາຫານແບບຕາເວັນຕົກມາດຕະຖານ.

3. ເລີ່ມເຮັດສະມາທິໂດຍໄວເທົ່າທີ່ຈະເປັນໄປໄດ້ເພື່ອຄວບຄຸມ cortisol ແລະ ຄວາມກັງວົນຂອງທ່ານ. (ທາງເລືອກບໍ່ສຳຄັນແຕ່ການເຮັດຈິງຊ່ວຍຊີວິດໄດ້)

4. ຄົນເຈັບຄວນປຶກສາຫາລືກ່ຽວກັບແຜນການປິ່ນປົວມະເຮັງ: ປັດໃຈສຳຄັນໃນມະເຮັງ: ຄວນຄົນເຈັບໃຊ້ອາຫານເສີມສຳລັບປະເພດມະເຮັງທີ່ທ່ານມີບໍ?

5. ພິຈາລະນາເລີ່ມລະບົບອາຫານເສີມ ລວມເຖິງ Curcumin, Reservatrol, Quercetin, ນ້ຳມັນປາ Omega ສາມ (ຄຸນນະພາບ Rx), ວິຕາມິນ D3 ໂດຍມີເປົ້າໝາຍເກີນ 50 ng/dl, ການໃຊ້ CoEnZQ10 ເປັນປະຈຳທຸກວັນ, R-alpha lipoic acid ແລະ ວິຕາມິນ K ທຸກມື້. ພິຈາລະນາການໃຊ້ N Acetyl Cysteine ທຸກວັນເຊັ່ນກັນ. ສັງເກດວ່າຂ້ອຍບໍ່ໄດ້ກຳນົດປະລິມານເພາະປະລິມານທີ່ຕ້ອງການສຳລັບການບຳບັດມະເຮັງແມ່ນສູງກວ່າທີ່ຈະໃຊ້ໃນການປ້ອງກັນ. ສິ່ງນີ້ຄວນເຮັດພາຍໃຕ້ການປຶກສາກັບແພດມະເຮັງຂອງທ່ານ. ຖ້າແພດມະເຮັງຂອງທ່ານບໍ່ເປີດໃຈກວ້າງກ່ຽວກັບບັນຫາເຫຼົ່ານີ້... ຫຼັງຈາກອ່ານປື້ມໃນຂັ້ນຕອນທີໜຶ່ງ ທ່ານອາດຈະຕ້ອງຊອກຫາແພດມະເຮັງຄົນໃໝ່. ເຫຼົ່ານີ້ແມ່ນສິ່ງທີ່ຂ້ອຍພິຈາລະນາວ່າເປັນອາຫານເສີມຫຼັກສຳລັບມະເຮັງສ່ວນໃຫຍ່ທີ່ມະນຸດເປັນ.

6. ໃນອາຫານຂອງທ່ານໃຫ້ເພີ່ມ ຂີ້ໝິ້ນ, ຂິງ, ກະທຽມ, ຣອດສະແມລີ, ແລະ ໃບແບຊິນ (ໃບໂຫລະພາ) ໃສ່ອາຫານຂອງທ່ານໃຫ້ຫຼາຍເທົ່າທີ່ຈະເປັນໄປໄດ້. ທ່ານຄວນດື່ມຊາຂຽວ 1 ລິດຕໍ່ມື້. ຊາຂຽວມີ L-Theanine ທີ່ຊ່ວຍຫຼຸດຄວາມກັງວົນ ແຕ່ຍັງເປັນສ່ວນເສີມຂອງຢາເຄມີບຳບັດໂດຍເຮັດໃຫ້ພວກມັນມີປະສິດທິພາບຍິ່ງຂຶ້ນ. ທ່ານຍັງສາມາດໃຊ້ສານສະກັດຊາຂຽວຖ້າທ່ານບໍ່ຕ້ອງການດື່ມຂອງແຫຼວຫຼາຍ ຫຼື ບໍ່ສາມາດດື່ມໄດ້ເນື່ອງຈາກສະພາບຂອງທ່ານ.

7. ໃນປີ 1955 Otto Warburg ຜູ້ຊະນະລາງວັນໂນເບວພົບວ່າມະເຮັງທັງໝົດໃຊ້ນ້ຳຕານເປັນແຫຼ່ງພະລັງງານ ແລະ ລະດັບອິນຊູລິນສູງເຮັດໃຫ້ຮ່າງກາຍສູນເສຍການຄວບຄຸມລະບົບພູມຄຸ້ມກັນທີ່ຈະປ້ອງກັນມັນ. ນີ້ໝາຍຄວາມວ່າຄົນເຈັບຕ້ອງຈຳກັດທຸກສິ່ງທີ່ກະຕຸ້ນອິນຊູລິນ. ອາຫານແບບ Epi-paleo ທີ່ມີຄາໂບໄຮເດຣດຕ່ຳເຮັດໄດ້ແນວນີ້ພໍດີ. ຂໍ້ມູນອ້າງອີງທີ່ດີສຳລັບອາຫານແມ່ນຢູ່ບ່ອນນີ້.

8. ລະບົບພູມຄຸ້ມກັນຂອງທ່ານແມ່ນການປ້ອງກັນທີ່ດີທີ່ສຸດຕໍ່ມະເຮັງ. ເພີ່ມລະດັບວິຕາມິນ D ແລະ ຮັກສາລະດັບອິນຊູລິນໃຫ້ຕ່ຳກວ່າສອງ. ການຫຼຸດລະດັບ cortisol ຈະປັບປຸງ leptin ແຕ່ສິ່ງສຳຄັນທີ່ສຸດແມ່ນເພີ່ມຈຳນວນຈຸລັງ Natural Killer (WBC) ທີ່ເປັນສ່ວນໜຶ່ງຂອງລະບົບພູມຄຸ້ມກັນໃນຈຸລັງທີ່ຕໍ່ສູ້ກັບມະເຮັງ. ທ່ານຈະໄດ້ອ່ານຫຼາຍກ່ຽວກັບຈຸລັງເຫຼົ່ານີ້ໃນປື້ມທີ່ຂ້ອຍແນະນຳໃນຂັ້ນຕອນທີໜຶ່ງ.

9. ຜັກ. ເຮັດໃຫ້ຜັກຕະກຸນ cruciferous ເປັນອາຫານຫຼັກ. ພືດທັງໝົດໃນຕະກຸນ Brassica ແມ່ນໝູ່ຂອງທ່ານ. Glucosinolates ສາມາດຢັບຢັ້ງ, ຊະລໍ, ແລະ ປີ້ນການເກີດມະເຮັງຫຼາຍຂັ້ນຕອນ. ເຫດຜົນແມ່ນການປ່ອຍ isothiocyanates ເຊັ່ນ sulphoraphanes. Sulphoraphanes ເຮັດສອງສິ່ງຫຼັກ. ພວກມັນສົ່ງເສີມ apoptosis (levee 19) ແລະ ກະຕຸ້ນເອນໄຊມ໌ detoxification ໄລຍະສອງໃນຕັບທີ່ເສີມຄວາມເຂັ້ມແຂງໃຫ້ກັບຍີນ p53 ເປັນຜູ້ປົກປ້ອງຈີໂນມຂອງພວກເຮົາ. ຈຸລັງມະເຮັງມັກຈະຕາຍ (necrosis) ເມື່ອສຳຜັດກັບ sulphoraphanes ຢ່າງຕໍ່ເນື່ອງເປັນເວລາດົນ. ຜັກບຣອກໂຄລີຍັງມີສານ metabolite ຂັ້ນສອງທີ່ເອີ້ນວ່າ Indole 3 Carbinol ທີ່ແຕກຕົວຕໍ່ໄປເປັນສານຕ້ານມະເຮັງອີກຊະນິດໜຶ່ງຊື່ວ່າ DIM, diindolylmethane. ທ່ານບໍ່ສາມາດກິນຜັກພວກນີ້ຫຼາຍພໍຖ້າທ່ານເປັນມະເຮັງໃນທັດສະນະຂອງຂ້ອຍ. I3C ຍັງຂັດຂວາງ 16-hydroxyestrone ແລະ ມີປະໂຫຍດຫຼາຍໃນການປ້ອງກັນມະເຮັງເຕົ້ານົມ ແລະ ມະເຮັງຮັງໄຂ່ໃນແມ່ຍິງ ແລະ ມະເຮັງຕ່ອມລູກໝາກໃນຜູ້ຊາຍ.

10. ນີ້ແມ່ນສິ່ງທີ່ຂັດກັບຄວາມເຊື່ອຊຶ່ງຢູ່ໃນຫົວຂອງທ່ານ... ກິນ cholesterol ຫຼາຍໆ. ໂດຍສະເພາະນ້ຳມັນໝາກພ້າວ. ຫຼາຍການສຶກສາທາງລະບາດວິທະຍາສະແດງໃຫ້ເຫັນວ່າລະດັບ cholesterol ໃນເລືອດຕ່ຳສຳພັນກັບອັດຕາການເກີດມະເຮັງສູງ. ນີ້ແມ່ນເຫດຜົນທີ່ການກິນອາຫານ ketogenic Epi-paleo ມີຄວາມໝາຍຫຼາຍ. ເປັນຫຍັງອາຫານແບບ ketogenic? ເພາະມະເຮັງທັງໝົດໃຊ້ກລູໂຄສເປັນວັດຖຸດິບ. ທ່ານຈຳເປັນຕ້ອງປ່ຽນເຊື້ອໄຟຂອງຈຸລັງ. ໄປຊອກຫາ Otto Warburg ໃນ Google ສຳລັບລາຍລະອຽດເພີ່ມເຕີມ. ອາຫານແບບ ketogenic ຄວນມີ MCT ຈາກນ້ຳມັນໝາກພ້າວຫຼາຍ ເພາະພວກມັນໃຫ້ຂໍ້ໄດ້ປຽບຫຼາຍແກ່ຈຸລັງປົກກະຕິກວ່າຈຸລັງມະເຮັງ. ຂໍ້ໄດ້ປຽບນີ້ເຮັດໃຫ້ລະບົບພູມຄຸ້ມກັນຂອງທ່ານສາມາດຕາມທັນຈຸລັງມະເຮັງ ແລະ ທຳລາຍພວກມັນໂດຍໃຊ້ກົນໄກຊີວະວິທະຍາຂອງທ່ານເອງ. ມີຫຼາຍບົດຄວາມໃນວາລະສານມະເຮັງທີ່ພິມເຜີຍແຜ່ສະແດງໃຫ້ເຫັນການເຊື່ອມໂຍງແບບດຽວກັນ.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a296b972:e5a7a2e8

Derzeit formiert sich ein neues Gruselkabinett, als Folge einer Pandemie der Ungeeigneten. Kostproben der Unfähigkeit konnte man schon in den aktuellen „Quassel-Shows“ des Staatsfunks „genießen“. Die Riege der Universal-Dilettanten, die noch schnell hochgelobt wurde, macht gerade Platz für Rekruten aus dem Milieu der überzeugten Realitätsverweigerer.

Impfpflichtbefürworter, ideologisch vergiftete Klima- und Gender-Gagaisten, Verteidiger des Russen-Dauer-Feindbilds, Finanzwirtschafts-Ahnungslose, zahllose „Südamerika-Experten“, die davon überzeugt sind, solche zu sein, weil sie unfallfrei eine Banane essen können und weitere, die als einzige Qualifikation das Prädikat „Untauglich“ auszeichnet, geben sich ein neues Stelldichein.

Nach Vorbild des öffentlich-rechtlichen Unfugs bilden sie ein in sich geschlossenes System, das sich gegen Kritik abschotten will, in dem es alles, was sich nach Nicht-nach-dem-Maul geredet anhört, als Hass und Hetze bezeichnet und sich als Hüter der Wahrheit aufspielt.

Begriffe wie „Hass und Hetze“ und „Kriegstüchtigkeit“ werden einem Wortschatz entlehnt, die dem bisher dunkelsten Kapitel der deutschen Geschichte entnommen sind. Zur Abschreckung verwendete Begriffe, im Sinne von „Wehret den Anfängen!“, wie die Anlehnung „Impfen macht frei“ hingegen, werden mit Geldbußen und Haft belegt. Es kommt eben immer darauf an, von wem diese verbrannten Begriffe verwendet werden.

Wenn aus einer Demokratie „Unseredemokratie“ wird, müssen alle Alarmglocken schrillen, weil so Tür und Tor weit aufgerissen werden, um Tendenzen und Ideologien den Einzug zu ermöglichen, die in einer freiheitlich-demokratischen Grundordnung nichts, aber auch rein gar nichts zu suchen haben, weil die Auslegung davon, was „Unseredemokratie“ bedeutet, in den Händen derjenigen liegt, die sich zwar noch als Volksvertreter ausgeben, aber den Willen des Souveräns nicht mehr umsetzen.

Die Meinung und der Wille des Volkes werden maximal ignoriert und unterdrückt. Mit einem „weiter so“ manifestiert sich die Verachtung der Wähler, die in ihrer unterstellten Dummheit bestenfalls noch als Stimmvieh taugen, ansonsten aber zu vernachlässigen sind, wenn das Ziel erreicht ist: Die Macht!

Eine Absichtserklärung, genannt Koalitionsvertrag, ist die Grundlage für „alles kann, nichts muss“. Er lässt so eine unbegrenzte Flexibilität in jede Richtung zu, alles ist möglich. ALLES!

Die Basis der Koalition beruht auf Lügen, sei es in der Migrationspolitik oder in der Neuverschuldung. Das gemeinsame Klüngeln hat schon begonnen, bevor der eigentliche Regierungsauftrag überhaupt erteilt wurde.

Das wirklich einzige, gemeinsame Ziel ist, mit allen Mitteln an der Macht zu bleiben, koste es, was es wolle und eine demokratisch gewählte Opposition, die rund ein Viertel der Wählerstimmen ausmacht, wo immer es geht zu delegitimieren und so klein zu halten, wie es nur eben geht.

Hirngespinste sollen weiter vorangetrieben, die Rückkehr zur Vernunft soll unter allen Umständen verhindert werden, bzw. ist aufgrund mangelnder Kenntnisse und Einsicht gar nicht möglich.

Das Lügen bleibt den Nicht-Volksvertretern vorbehalten, die definieren, was Lüge ist und was nicht, sofern die Kritik vom Volk kommt. Berichtet man über die Politik, spricht man von Unwahrheiten, spricht die Politik über das Volk, sind es Lügen. Überall wird mit zweierlei Maß gemessen.

Die Verachtung des Souveräns wirkt wie ein Bumerang und wird wie durch einen Spiegel auf die Versender zurückgeworfen.

Ein zukünftiger Ex-Bundeskanzler verliert bereits den Rückhalt, noch bevor er in sein Amt eingesetzt wird. Grisu, der kleine Drache, will unbedingt, nur einmal im Leben, Feuerwehrmann werden. Phrasen-Dreschen wird zur Staatsräson.

Ministerposten werden nach maximaler Fachferne verschachert.

Gut ausgebildete Kräfte verlassen das Land, die Wirtschaft stagniert, massive Einbrüche in der Auto-Industrie, der einstigen Vorzeige-Marken in der ganzen Welt. Ja, Autos bauen, das könnten die Deutschen, wenn sie noch dürften.

Wer kann, wandert ab ins Ausland, wo Energiekosten und Steuern ein unternehmerisches Handeln ermöglichen, statt es mit aller Kraft durch gezielte Wirtschaftsvernichtung abzuwürgen. Wo ist der massive Widerstand seitens der Wirtschaftsverbände, der Industrie- und Handelskammern und Groß-Unternehmen? Geht es denen immer noch zu gut?

Recht haben und Recht bekommen waren noch nie so weit auseinander, wie heute.

Die Kirche, in einem christlich geprägten Land, schreibt ihre eigene Lehre um: „Gott ist queer!“ Grenzt das schon an Gotteslästerung aus den eigenen Reihen? Dabei merkt sie offensichtlich nicht, dass sie sich damit selbst abschafft. Wieder einmal springt sie auf den Zug der vorgegebenen Staatsdoktrin auf. Unvergessen die Hakenkreuzfahne über dem Hauptportal am Kölner Dom in der bisher dunkelsten Zeit Deutschlands.

Eine Überzeugung, und seien die Beweggründe mit noch so guten Absichten verbunden, darf nie wieder zu einer Ideologie werden, die nur in die Irre führen kann. Deshalb ist es demokratische Pflicht, auf die Gefahr hinzuweisen, wenn auch nur der leiseste Hauch Anlass zu solchen Befürchtungen gibt. Das gilt für die Kirche, die Politik, die Rechtsprechung und Menschen, von denen man den Eindruck hat, dass sie sich verirrt haben.

Das Zuviel an Fremden wird nicht gestoppt. Eine Minderheit, die bei Verstand geblieben ist, verlässt das Land, wenn es ihr finanziell möglich ist. Andere, die sich das nicht leisten können, müssen ausharren und dabei zusehen, wie ein Land vor die Hunde geht.

Gut integrierte „Gastarbeiter“ schämen sich für den Plebs, der nach Deutschland kommt. Natürlich unter dem Deckmantel der Menschlichkeit, der die Menschlichkeit gegenüber den Bio-Deutschen mit Füßen tritt. Ihr Ansehen, ihr Fleiß und ihre Dankbarkeit, dass sich ihre Vätergeneration hier eine neue Existenz aufbauen konnte, wird mit Füßen getreten. Sie geraten unter einen Generalverdacht, der ihnen schadet. Auch sie haben Jahrzehnte in die Krankenkassen eingezahlt und ihre Steuern brav entrichtet.

Der Polizei sind von staatlicher Seite die Hände gebunden gegen Clan-Kriminalität und asozialem Verhalten durchzugreifen. Sie bilden Parallel-Gesellschaften mit eigenen Regeln und eigenen Gesetzen und die Polizei muss tatenlos dabei zusehen. Banden in Berlin und Duisburg stellen sich über herrschende Gesetze, Roma terrorisieren Kiel, benehmen sich, wie die Axt im Walde. „An Leib und Leben gefährdete Migranten“ werfen, wie in Bochum, Ziegel von Dächern, und gefährden die Bevölkerung an Leib und Leben. Anschließend setzen sie sich mit einem Gartenstuhl auf einem Kamin in die Sonne und träumen vermutlich vom Ausblick auf dem Kilimandscharo. Statt sie bei Kopf und Kragen zu fassen und sofort aus dem Land zu werfen, werden solche irren Taten mit psychischen Problemen aufgrund der Erfahrungen in ihrem Heimatland entschuldigt. Würden sich solche Bekloppte in ihrem eigenen Land vergleichbare Handlungen erlauben, würde sie die Dorfgemeinschaft wahrscheinlich den Löwen zum Fraß vorwerfen.

Jeder, der nicht das in Deutschland geltende Recht akzeptiert und stattdessen seine eigene Auffassung von Recht durchsetzen will, gehört unverzüglich des Landes verwiesen, und es ist Aufgabe des Staates, dafür zu sorgen, dass solche Personen nie wieder einen Fuß über die Grenzen des Landes setzen dürfen. Stattdessen werden die Fahnder verfolgt und die Täter laufen gelassen. Der Staat lässt so zu, dass geltendes Recht unterwandert und außer Kraft gesetzt wird. Seine abschreckende Wirkung geht verloren, weil es in den einschlägigen Kreisen bekannt ist, dass sich jeder aufführen kann, wie er will, ohne, dass es Konsequenzen nach sich zieht.

Gepaart mit Willkür ist das hoch gefährliches Dynamit, dass die Gesellschaft sprengt und eine Gefahr in sich birgt, dass die Gesellschaft ab dem Punkt, wo es unerträglich geworden ist, zur Selbstjustiz greift, und das wäre möglicherweise der Anfang eines Bürgerkriegs.

Für alles ist Geld da. Es werden Schulden in atemberaubender Höhe aufgenommen, vor allem, um die Kriegswirtschaft anzukurbeln, um vor einem Feind - Russland gewappnet zu sein, das nicht das geringste Interesse an einem Land hat, das nichts unversucht lässt, auf irgendeine Art und Weise Selbstmord zu begehen. Einmal muss es doch gelingen!

Und natürlich müssen auch die westlichen Werte im Stellvertreterkrieg zwischen den USA und Russland in der Ukraine verteidigt werden.

Kein Geld ist allerdings für die eigenen Leute da. Im Gegenteil: Wer Flaschen sammelt, muss ab einer bestimmten Höhe der Einnahmen ein Gewerbe anmelden. Aber sonst haben die Sesselfurzer nichts zu tun, oder? Es sollte Geld in die Hand genommen werden, die zunehmende Armut in der Bevölkerung nachhaltig zu stoppen, aus dem Abfahrtsvorschlags-Plan der Bahn wieder einen richtigen Fahrplan zu machen, die Schlagloch-Nostalgie á la DDR abzuschaffen, Brücken wieder ihrem Wesen zuzuführen, nämlich, dass man drüberfahren kann, das ganze Land einer dringenden Generalüberholung zu unterziehen, die Gewinnorientierung aus dem Gesundheitssystem wieder abzuschaffen, die Fallpauschalen samt dem Verursacher in die Wüste zu schicken, Deutschland steuer-sexy zu machen.

Das ist wohl zu viel verlangt, denn diejenigen, die das bewirken könnten, haben keine Not. Die einzige Not, die sie kennen, ist, wie sie immer genug Leim auf Vorrat haben können, um an ihrem Pöstchen kleben zu bleiben. Solche Menschen können nur in einem geschützten Rahmen existieren, weil sie in der Welt da draußen gar nicht zurecht kämen, geschweige denn in der Lage wären, für ihren Lebensunterhalt mit einer wirklichen Arbeit selbst zu sorgen.

Der Staat erfüllt nicht mehr seine Aufgabe für die Sicherheit seiner Bürger zu sorgen. Statt Messer-Attacken und Terror-Anschläge aufzuklären und damit den Bürgern ein Gefühl von Sicherheit zu vermitteln, wird die Aufklärung auf dem Mond im Meer der Stille versenkt. Transparenz: Fehlanzeige. Im besten Fall werden Symptom-Bekämpfungs-Maßnahmen ergriffen, statt die Ursachen zu verunmöglichen. Schilder an Messerverbots-Zonen aufzustellen, manifestieren bestenfalls die Gewissheit der Lächerlichkeit und Unfähigkeit seitens der Messerfachkräfte und der selbstfahrenden Autos, die von niemandem gesteuert werden.

Gleiches gilt für das Nennen der hinlänglich bekannten Verursacher der Sprengung der Nordstream 2-Pipelines, die dem scheidenden Bundeskanzler, an dessen Namen man sich schon jetzt nicht mehr erinnern kann, bekannt gewesen sein müssen. Selbst Trump soll sich auf die Frage, ob die USA maßgeblich daran beteiligt waren, geäußert haben, dass, wenn er auf diese Frage antworten würde, er seinem Land sehr schaden würde. Er könne aber mit Gewissheit sagen, dass es die Russen nicht waren. Immerhin ist eine für ganz Europa wichtige Energieversorgung absichtlich, bewusst und mutwillig zerstört worden. Aber aus Rücksicht darauf, dass die Wahrheit Teile der deutschen Bevölkerung verunsichern könnte, verzichtet man in Berlin auf eine Stellungnahme, lügt wiederholt, dass die Ermittlungen noch andauern und glaubt, dass man die Bürger damit ahnungslos halten kann. Die doofen Deutschen werden auch das noch schlucken.

Vergessen die Verpflichtung: Von deutschem Boden soll nur noch Frieden ausgehen. Vergessen die grauen Gesichter der Männer mit einem hochgeklappten Hosenbein, in der Kinderzeit. Wer von den aktuellen Kriegstreibern war live bei einem Gemetzel dabei, in dem Körperteile herumfliegen und Blut spritzt, in dem Menschen zerfetzt werden oder in ihren Panzern bei lebendigem Leib verbrennen? Viele Dümmste unter den Dummen kennen Krieg nur aus Video-Spielen. Nur einmal live als Zaungast dabei sein, und sehen, wie der halbe Darm aus dem Körper heraushängt, dann würde sich ihr großes Maul schon von alleine schließen.

Immer mehr Deutsche sagen: Das ist nicht mehr mein Staat. Kann man es ihnen verdenken?

Deutschland ist ein Paradebeispiel dafür, wie man in der heutigen Zeit, ein einst in aller Welt hochangesehenes Land, im Handumdrehen wirtschaftlich, politisch, rechtsstaatlich, gesundheitlich, und nicht zuletzt auch gesellschaftlich zerstören kann.

Sowohl innen- als auch außenpolitisch wurde nichts unterlassen, um Deutschland, vom Ausland aus gesehen, in die absolute Lächerlichkeit zu überführen.

Die Dummheit, gepaart mit unerträglicher Überheblichkeit, haben ein Maß erreicht, dass in die Gefährlichkeit übergegangen ist. Deutschland braucht gar keinen Feind von außen, denn der Feind sitzt im eigenen Land und zerstört es von innen heraus.

Der Eindruck taucht auf, dass spätestens mit dem Corona-Ereignis das Schleusentor des Wahnsinns sperrangelweit aufgerissen wurde, und keiner vermag es derzeit wieder zu schließen.

Entweder schließen sich Kräfte zusammen, die noch vorhanden sind, dieses Land von innen heraus zu retten, hierzu tragen auch die Neuen Medien erheblich bei, oder Deutschland ist noch einmal darauf angewiesen, von außen gerettet zu werden.

Zukunftsplanungen werden verunmöglicht. Mindestens eine Generation wird die komplette Lebensplanung geraubt. Man ist gezwungen, von einem Tag auf den anderen zu leben, weil alles derartig unberechenbar geworden ist. Eine junge Familie überlegt sich drei Mal, ob sie noch Kinder in diese Welt setzen will. Wo soll das enden?

Der Alltag in Deutschland gleicht einer Dauer-Vorstellung eines Theater-Stücks. Irgendwie läuft es noch, jedoch es fehlt der Rückhalt. Man versucht seinen Alltag zu meistern, Normalität zu leben, doch über allem schwebt das Damokles-Schwert. Keiner weiß, wie lange was noch gut geht und welchen Irrsinn sich die Realitätsverweigerer als Nächstes ausdenken werden. Manchen gelingt das Verdrängen recht gut. Manche schotten sich vollkommen von schlechten Nachrichten ab. Die Psychologie sagt jedoch, dass jedes erlebte Trauma den Menschen früher oder später einholen wird.

Wetten, wie lange die unheilvolle Allianz der Neuen Nullen halten wird, können ab sofort entgegengenommen werden. Und dann? Wie geht es weiter?

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben.

(Bild von pixabay)

@ 21335073:a244b1ad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

@ a95c6243:d345522c

Konsum ist Therapie.
Wolfgang Joop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 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.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 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

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

Recently we have seen a wave of high profile X accounts hacked. These attacks have exposed the fragility of the status quo security model used by modern social media platforms like X. Many users have asked if nostr fixes this, so lets dive in. How do these types of attacks translate into the world of nostr apps? For clarity, I will use X’s security model as representative of most big tech social platforms and compare it to nostr.

The Status Quo

On X, you never have full control of your account. Ultimately to use it requires permission from the company. They can suspend your account or limit your distribution. Theoretically they can even post from your account at will. An X account is tied to an email and password. Users can also opt into two factor authentication, which adds an extra layer of protection, a login code generated by an app. In theory, this setup works well, but it places a heavy burden on users. You need to create a strong, unique password and safeguard it. You also need to ensure your email account and phone number remain secure, as attackers can exploit these to reset your credentials and take over your account. Even if you do everything responsibly, there is another weak link in X infrastructure itself. The platform’s infrastructure allows accounts to be reset through its backend. This could happen maliciously by an employee or through an external attacker who compromises X’s backend. When an account is compromised, the legitimate user often gets locked out, unable to post or regain control without contacting X’s support team. That process can be slow, frustrating, and sometimes fruitless if support denies the request or cannot verify your identity. Often times support will require users to provide identification info in order to regain access, which represents a privacy risk. The centralized nature of X means you are ultimately at the mercy of the company’s systems and staff.

Nostr Requires Responsibility

Nostr flips this model radically. Users do not need permission from a company to access their account, they can generate as many accounts as they want, and cannot be easily censored. The key tradeoff here is that users have to take complete responsibility for their security. Instead of relying on a username, password, and corporate servers, nostr uses a private key as the sole credential for your account. Users generate this key and it is their responsibility to keep it safe. As long as you have your key, you can post. If someone else gets it, they can post too. It is that simple. This design has strong implications. Unlike X, there is no backend reset option. If your key is compromised or lost, there is no customer support to call. In a compromise scenario, both you and the attacker can post from the account simultaneously. Neither can lock the other out, since nostr relays simply accept whatever is signed with a valid key.

The benefit? No reliance on proprietary corporate infrastructure.. The negative? Security rests entirely on how well you protect your key.

Future Nostr Security Improvements

For many users, nostr’s standard security model, storing a private key on a phone with an encrypted cloud backup, will likely be sufficient. It is simple and reasonably secure. That said, nostr’s strength lies in its flexibility as an open protocol. Users will be able to choose between a range of security models, balancing convenience and protection based on need.

One promising option is a web of trust model for key rotation. Imagine pre-selecting a group of trusted friends. If your account is compromised, these people could collectively sign an event announcing the compromise to the network and designate a new key as your legitimate one. Apps could handle this process seamlessly in the background, notifying followers of the switch without much user interaction. This could become a popular choice for average users, but it is not without tradeoffs. It requires trust in your chosen web of trust, which might not suit power users or large organizations. It also has the issue that some apps may not recognize the key rotation properly and followers might get confused about which account is “real.”

For those needing higher security, there is the option of multisig using FROST (Flexible Round-Optimized Schnorr Threshold). In this setup, multiple keys must sign off on every action, including posting and updating a profile. A hacker with just one key could not do anything. This is likely overkill for most users due to complexity and inconvenience, but it could be a game changer for large organizations, companies, and governments. Imagine the White House nostr account requiring signatures from multiple people before a post goes live, that would be much more secure than the status quo big tech model.

Another option are hardware signers, similar to bitcoin hardware wallets. Private keys are kept on secure, offline devices, separate from the internet connected phone or computer you use to broadcast events. This drastically reduces the risk of remote hacks, as private keys never touches the internet. It can be used in combination with multisig setups for extra protection. This setup is much less convenient and probably overkill for most but could be ideal for governments, companies, or other high profile accounts.

---

Nostr’s security model is not perfect but is robust and versatile. Ultimately users are in control and security is their responsibility. Apps will give users multiple options to choose from and users will choose what best fits their need.

@ a93be9fb:6d3fdc0c

GG

@ 866e0139:6a9334e5

Autor: Friderike Komárek. 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 in unserem Telegram-Kanal.

---

Die neuesten Artikel der Friedenstaube gibt es jetzt auch im eigenen Friedenstaube-Telegram-Kanal.

---

Was grade war, ist schief.

Wer Frieden will, ist böse.

Wer tötet, der ist lieb.

Gesund ist nur symptomlos krank,

Abstand ist gefühlte Nähe,

Maskenatmen – Gott sei Dank!

Fakten dienen Hass und Hetze,

Lügen tun gut.

Wer Fakten nennt, der wird zensiert,

Wahrheit schafft nur böses Blut.

Für Frieden braucht man Krieg,

für Meinungsfreiheit die Zensur.

Demokratie, die braucht Verbote,

fürs Klima zerstört man die Natur.

Mann ist Frau

und Frau ist Mann.

Ein Glück, dass man

die Biologie jetzt lenken kann!

Der Größenwahn beherrscht die Welt,

hat alles auf den Kopf gestellt.

Kritiker wandern als Kriminelle ins Gefängnis.

Mit ihren Gedanken bringen sie

die andern in Bedrängnis.

Was schief war, das ist grade.

Was grade war, ist schief.

---

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.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Danke, dass du diesen Weg mit mir weitergehst!