@ 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.

@ 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. 👀️️️️️️

@ 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.

@ 6e0ea5d6:0327f353

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The husband agreed.

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

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

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

A toast to our family!

@ 4857600b:30b502f4

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

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

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

@ 80a6a657:536a97e2

The dawn of Bitcoin ushered in a transformative mission: empowering individuals and dismantling centralized power structures that erode personal freedoms. As the world’s first decentralized currency, Bitcoin offers an alternative financial system—one that transcends borders, government control, and corporate interests.

But this mission isn’t just about money. It’s about freedom. It’s about self-sovereignty. And most importantly, it’s a rallying cry for vigilance in an ongoing struggle for the liberation of humanity from systemic oppression. Who better to lead this critical mission than those who have already dedicated their lives to serving and protecting freedom: Veterans.

Freedom: A Lifelong Fight Freedom is neither freely given nor guaranteed—it is earned and fiercely preserved. Veterans understand this intimately. They have endured sacrifice, hardship, and battle in their service to protect the liberties we often take for granted. And today, freedom faces threats from a new frontier: financial manipulation, surveillance, and the centralization of power.

Governments across the globe continue to devalue currencies through inflation, tighten financial surveillance by controlling banking systems, and stifle individual autonomy. These issues underscore the need for a sound financial alternative, one that aligns with the ideals veterans have sworn to uphold. The solution? Bitcoin.

Bitcoin represents the antithesis of centralized control. It is censorship-resistant, immune to monetary debasement, and built upon a trustless, transparent system. It is not merely a currency; it is a tool for human liberation.

Vigilance in Bitcoin Adoption While Bitcoin adoption grows, the journey is far from complete. The powerful status quo—central banks, governments, and financial elites—does not take threats to its systems lightly. These entities work tirelessly to misinform, regulate, and marginalize Bitcoin. This makes sustained vigilance in promoting Bitcoin adoption not just important, but essential.

The failure to remain vigilant could see Bitcoin’s potential diminished through undue regulation, controlled implementation (such as CBDCs—Central Bank Digital Currencies), or a failure to educate people about its benefits. Complacency would mean ceding victory to oppressive systems the world over.

This is why Bitcoin adoption isn’t solely a technological phenomenon—it is an ideological mission. To resist control, to safeguard freedom, and to empower individuals to thrive under self-sovereignty requires the active participation of people across all sectors of society.

Why Veterans Are Uniquely Positioned to Lead Veterans are inherently equipped to lead the charge in the fight for Bitcoin adoption and the broader battle for freedom. Their unique skillsets, shaped by discipline, adaptability, and leadership under pressure, are perfectly suited to this challenge. Here’s why veterans play a pivotal role in this movement: 1. Leadership and Vision: Veterans are natural leaders. They can galvanize communities toward a vision of financial independence, self-sovereignty, and empowerment through Bitcoin. Their experience coordinating efforts—whether on the battlefield or in humanitarian missions—allows them to efficiently communicate the importance of Bitcoin adoption. 2. Commitment to Freedom: The fight for Bitcoin adoption is deeply aligned with the ethos of service members: defending freedom at all costs. Veterans understand that true freedom cannot persist without vigilance, sacrifice, and a commitment to challenging oppressive systems. 3. Trust and Credibility: The military often fosters a level of trust and camaraderie among people. Veterans, therefore, have the clout to introduce Bitcoin to communities that may otherwise view it with skepticism. Their credibility as protectors of freedom gives them an edge in delivering Bitcoin’s message of liberation. 4. Adaptability in Uncertain Environments: Just as they’ve thrived in complex and chaotic environments, veterans are poised to navigate the evolving financial landscape. Bitcoin is still maturing and faces regulatory challenges, technological hurdles, and cultural misunderstandings. Veterans excel at adapting to change and finding solutions in challenging circumstances. 5. Mission-Driven Mindset: Every mission has an objective, and every objective demands clear focus. Veterans approach tasks methodically and with a commitment to success—the same mindset required to bridge the gap between Bitcoin skepticism and widespread adoption.

The Call to Action Veterans, the mission isn’t over. Humanity stands at a crossroads, and freedom is at stake. Bitcoin is not just a disruptive technology; it’s the torchbearer of liberty in a world increasingly dominated by centralized control. It’s time to take the skills, discipline, and passion forged in your service and channel them into this new fight: the fight for financial freedom and independence from a centralized system that has dominated the lives of billions of people for far too long.

Educate yourself about Bitcoin. Learn its nuances, its strengths, and its use cases. Share this knowledge with your communities, help dismantle misconceptions, and shine a light on the real promise of self-sovereignty. Become an anchor of leadership in this decentralized revolution.

For civilians: do not underestimate the importance of this mission. Every individual who adopts Bitcoin drives us one step closer to a world where personal freedom and economic empowerment are accessible to all. Join arms with veterans, thought leaders, and Bitcoin adopters to ensure the torch of liberty burns brightly.

Closing Thoughts Bitcoin is more than a financial revolution—it’s a movement for freedom. Veterans have long stood on the frontline for this cause, and today, they have an opportunity to champion it in a new way. With vigilance, resolve, and determination, humanity can achieve greater levels of freedom. But, as with all efforts to secure liberty, we must remain constantly committed to the mission. Remember: freedom demands eternal vigilance. So does Bitcoin.

Will you answer the call? Together, we can reshape the future as champions of sovereignty and bring the world closer to the ideals we all deserve.

---

OPERATION BITCOIN is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit on a mission to connect military veterans with Bitcoin.

You can directly support this mission by sharing our publication with a veteran today, zapping this article or donating at www.operationbitcoin.io

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

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

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

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

@ fd208ee8:0fd927c1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 0fa80bd3:ea7325de

intro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ bbef5093:71228592

*Holtec új atomenergetikai együttműködése Utah államban*

Az amerikai Holtec International stratégiai megállapodást kötött Utah állammal és a Hi Tech Solutions nukleáris szolgáltatóval, hogy elősegítse saját fejlesztésű, SMR-300 típusú kis moduláris reaktorainak (SMR) telepítését Utahban és az Egyesült Államok Mountain West régiójában. A megállapodás értelmében 2028-ig állandó képzési központot hoznak létre Utahban, amely az üzemeltetéshez, karbantartáshoz és az új generációs nukleáris technológiákhoz szükséges munkaerő képzését célozza, szoros együttműködésben helyi egyetemekkel, főiskolákkal és szakiskolákkal.

A projekt Utah állam energetikai stratégiájának („Operation Gigawatt” és „Built Here”) része, amely a következő tíz évben megduplázná az állam energiatermelését, kiemelt szerepet szánva a tiszta nukleáris energiának. A Holtec Utah-t választotta nyugati gyártóbázisának is, ezzel erősítve az amerikai nukleáris ellátási láncot és hosszú távú munkahelyeket teremtve. A cég a 2030-as években akár 4 GW összkapacitású SMR-300 telepítését tervezi főként Utahban és Wyomingban.

Az SMR-300 egy nyomottvizes reaktor, amely 300 MW villamos vagy 1050 MW hőteljesítményt biztosít, és a Holtec tervei szerint kulcsszerepet játszhat a tiszta, szén-dioxid-mentes energiatermelésben.

*Amerikai SMR-piac helyzete*

Az SMR-technológia az utóbbi években került a figyelem középpontjába, mivel gyorsabban és olcsóbban telepíthető, mint a hagyományos atomerőművek, és lehetőséget kínál magánbefektetők számára is. Ugyanakkor az első amerikai SMR-projekt, a NuScale és a Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems közös beruházása költségnövekedés miatt meghiúsult, ami rávilágított a technológia gazdasági kihívásaira.

Nemzetközi fejlemények és további hírek

• Az ausztrál Okapi Resources és az Urenco együttműködési megállapodást kötött új urán dúsítási technológia fejlesztésére, amely tisztább és olcsóbb dúsítási eljárást ígér.
• Az Argonne National Laboratory sikeresen kicserélt egy 30 éves kulcsfontosságú alkatrészt a nátriumhűtésű gyorsreaktor-tesztberendezésében, ami hozzájárulhat a gyorsreaktor-technológia fejlesztéséhez az Egyesült Államokban.
• A Tennessee Egyetem ösztöndíjprogramot indít a Fülöp-szigeteki nukleáris szakemberek képzésére, támogatva ezzel a délkelet-ázsiai ország nukleáris energiafejlesztési törekvéseit.
• Bulgáriában a Westinghouse Electric Company helyi beszállítókkal kötött megállapodásokat két új AP1000 típusú reaktor építéséhez a kozloduji atomerőműben.

@ d61f3bc5:0da6ef4a

I remember the first gathering of Nostr devs two years ago in Costa Rica. We were all psyched because Nostr appeared to solve the problem of self-sovereign online identity and decentralized publishing. The protocol seemed well-suited for textual content, but it wasn't really designed to handle binary files, like images or video.

The Problem

When I publish a note that contains an image link, the note itself is resilient thanks to Nostr, but if the hosting service disappears or takes my image down, my note will be broken forever. We need a way to publish binary data without relying on a single hosting provider.

We were discussing how there really was no reliable solution to this problem even outside of Nostr. Peer-to-peer attempts like IPFS simply didn't work; they were hopelessly slow and unreliable in practice. Torrents worked for popular files like movies, but couldn't be relied on for general file hosting.

Awesome Blossom

A year later, I attended the Sovereign Engineering demo day in Madeira, organized by Pablo and Gigi. Many projects were presented over a three hour demo session that day, but one really stood out for me.

Introduced by hzrd149 and Stu Bowman, Blossom blew my mind because it showed how we can solve complex problems easily by simply relying on the fact that Nostr exists. Having an open user directory, with the corresponding social graph and web of trust is an incredible building block.

Since we can easily look up any user on Nostr and read their profile metadata, we can just get them to simply tell us where their files are stored. This, combined with hash-based addressing (borrowed from IPFS), is all we need to solve our problem.

How Blossom Works

The Blossom protocol (Blobs Stored Simply on Mediaservers) is formally defined in a series of BUDs (Blossom Upgrade Documents). Yes, Blossom is the most well-branded protocol in the history of protocols. Feel free to refer to the spec for details, but I will provide a high level explanation here.

The main idea behind Blossom can be summarized in three points:

1. Users specify which media server(s) they use via their public Blossom settings published on Nostr;
2. All files are uniquely addressable via hashes;
3. If an app fails to load a file from the original URL, it simply goes to get it from the server(s) specified in the user's Blossom settings.

Just like Nostr itself, the Blossom protocol is dead-simple and it works!

Let's use this image as an example:

If you look at the URL for this image, you will notice that it looks like this:

blossom.primal.net/c1aa63f983a44185d039092912bfb7f33adcf63ed3cae371ebe6905da5f688d0.jpg

All Blossom URLs follow this format:

[server]/[file-hash].[extension]

The file hash is important because it uniquely identifies the file in question. Apps can use it to verify that the file they received is exactly the file they requested. It also gives us the ability to reliably get the same file from a different server.

Nostr users declare which media server(s) they use by publishing their Blossom settings. If I store my files on Server A, and they get removed, I can simply upload them to Server B, update my public Blossom settings, and all Blossom-capable apps will be able to find them at the new location. All my existing notes will continue to display media content without any issues.

Blossom Mirroring

Let's face it, re-uploading files to another server after they got removed from the original server is not the best user experience. Most people wouldn't have the backups of all the files, and/or the desire to do this work.

This is where Blossom's mirroring feature comes handy. In addition to the primary media server, a Blossom user can set one one or more mirror servers. Under this setup, every time a file is uploaded to the primary server the Nostr app issues a mirror request to the primary server, directing it to copy the file to all the specified mirrors. This way there is always a copy of all content on multiple servers and in case the primary becomes unavailable, Blossom-capable apps will automatically start loading from the mirror.

Mirrors are really easy to setup (you can do it in two clicks in Primal) and this arrangement ensures robust media handling without any central points of failure. Note that you can use professional media hosting services side by side with self-hosted backup servers that anyone can run at home.

Using Blossom Within Primal

Blossom is natively integrated into the entire Primal stack and enabled by default. If you are using Primal 2.2 or later, you don't need to do anything to enable Blossom, all your media uploads are blossoming already.

To enhance user privacy, all Primal apps use the "/media" endpoint per BUD-05, which strips all metadata from uploaded files before they are saved and optionally mirrored to other Blossom servers, per user settings. You can use any Blossom server as your primary media server in Primal, as well as setup any number of mirrors:

## Conclusion

For such a simple protocol, Blossom gives us three major benefits:

1. Verifiable authenticity. All Nostr notes are always signed by the note author. With Blossom, the signed note includes a unique hash for each referenced media file, making it impossible to falsify.
2. File hosting redundancy. Having multiple live copies of referenced media files (via Blossom mirroring) greatly increases the resiliency of media content published on Nostr.
3. Censorship resistance. Blossom enables us to seamlessly switch media hosting providers in case of censorship.

Thanks for reading; and enjoy! 🌸

@ 6538925e:571e55c3

It’s been a little while since we released a major design update, so we’re really excited to get this new version of the app into your hands. Here’s a breakdown of all the main updates included in Fountain 1.2:

#### Library Design Update

• New content-type filters at the top of the page make it easier to navigate between podcasts and music in your library.

• Recently Played is now the default view in your library, so it’s easier to jump back into podcasts you’ve already started.

• The Music filter now makes it easier to find saved tracks and albums, and it also gives you a list of all the artists whose music you’ve saved.

• We’ve refreshed the design of the content cards to make it easier to see how much time is remaining on episodes you’ve already started.

#### Content Pages Design Update

• All of the different content pages have undergone an extensive redesign, including shows, episodes, artists, albums, tracks, clips and playlists

• We’ve replaced the tab layout we were using on the content pages with one scrollable page, making it easier to access features like chapters and tracklists

• We’ve sanitised the formatting of show notes too, and if there is no activity for a given episode, we now display the expanded show notes

#### Episode Summaries

Ever looked at a 4-hour Lex Fridman episode and wished you could just read a high-level summary? We certainly have, so we did something about it.

• Every episode page now has a Summary button above the show notes.

• Simply pay 500 sats to unlock a summary, or upgrade to Fountain Premium for $2.99/month to enjoy unlimited summaries.

• Summaries and transcripts now come as a bundle — two for the price of one!

• Thanks to major improvements, they’re now faster, cheaper, and more accurate than ever before.

#### Playback Improvements

We’ve completely rebuilt our audio engine from the ground up. Playback is now more robust and reliable — especially for music. Here are some of the key enhancements in Fountain 1.2:

• Tracks now load and play instantly when tapped.

• When playing a collection of tracks (e.g. from an artist, album, or playlist), you can now skip seamlessly between them.

• We’ve replaced the scrollable player page with full-screen modals to make it easier to access show notes, comments, transcripts, chapters, tracklists, and your queue.

• The new Smart Resume feature rewinds the episode by 5 seconds when you hit pause, so you don’t miss a beat.

• You can now skip forward or backward by 60 seconds for faster navigation through episodes.

Other Bug Fixes & Improvements

• Rebuilt payment stats for more complete and reliable transaction records.

• Refreshed the design of the Settings pages for better usability.

• Added new episode notification preferences in Settings.

• Fixed several playback issues that were causing crashes or freezes.

• Updated lock screen display and controls for livestreams.

• Fixed issue where the next item in the queue paused unexpectedly.

• Resolved playback stuttering on Android during livestreams.

• Fixed disappearing playback controls on the lock screen.

• Fixed playback speed not updating correctly.

• Resolved issue where played episodes couldn’t be replayed.

• Fixed playback not resuming correctly when listening in the car.

• Synced car playback position with the device.

• Fixed persistent car display refresh issue.

• Fixed volume control via car controls.

• Resolved issue with headphone controls after playing a transcript.

• Fixed disappearing metadata on the lock screen.

• Fixed bug where downloaded episodes stopped in airplane mode but showed as playing.

---

We would love to hear how you’re finding Fountain 1.2. Please submit your thoughts and feedback via the main menu in the app and we will take it on board as we continue to improve the app.

If you want to help test new features out before they get released, you can join Fountain Beta on Telegram. All iOS and Android users welcome.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

Introduction: The Power of Fiction and the Shaping of Collective Morality

Stories define the moral landscape of a civilization. From the earliest mythologies to the modern spectacle of global cinema, the tales a society tells its youth shape the parameters of acceptable behavior, the cost of transgression, and the meaning of justice, power, and redemption. Among the most globally influential narratives of the past half-century is the Star Wars saga, a sprawling science fiction mythology that has transcended genre to become a cultural religion for many. Central to this mythos is the arc of Anakin Skywalker, the fallen Jedi Knight who becomes Darth Vader. In Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith, Anakin commits what is arguably the most morally abhorrent act depicted in mainstream popular cinema: the mass murder of children. And yet, by the end of the saga, he is redeemed.

This chapter introduces the uninitiated to the events surrounding this narrative turn and explores the deep structural and ethical concerns it raises. We argue that the cultural treatment of Darth Vader as an anti-hero, even a role model, reveals a deep perversion in the collective moral grammar of the modern West. In doing so, we consider the implications this mythology may have on young adults navigating identity, masculinity, and agency in a world increasingly shaped by spectacle and symbolic narrative.

Part I: The Scene and Its Context

In Revenge of the Sith (2005), the third episode of the Star Wars prequel trilogy, the protagonist Anakin Skywalker succumbs to fear, ambition, and manipulation. Convinced that the Jedi Council is plotting against the Republic and desperate to save his pregnant wife from a vision of death, Anakin pledges allegiance to Chancellor Palpatine, secretly the Sith Lord Darth Sidious. Upon doing so, he is given a new name—Darth Vader—and tasked with a critical mission: to eliminate all Jedi in the temple, including its youngest members.

In one of the most harrowing scenes in the film, Anakin enters the Jedi Temple. A group of young children, known as "younglings," emerge from hiding and plead for help. One steps forward, calling him "Master Skywalker," and asks what they are to do. Anakin responds by igniting his lightsaber. The screen cuts away, but the implication is unambiguous. Later, it is confirmed through dialogue and visual allusion that he slaughtered them all.

There is no ambiguity in the storytelling. The man who will become the galaxy’s most feared enforcer begins his descent by murdering defenseless children.

Part II: A New Kind of Evil in Youth-Oriented Media

For decades, cinema avoided certain taboos. Even films depicting war, genocide, or psychological horror rarely crossed the line into showing children as victims of deliberate violence by the protagonist. When children were harmed, it was by monstrous antagonists, supernatural forces, or offscreen implications. The killing of children was culturally reserved for historical atrocities and horror tales.

In Revenge of the Sith, this boundary was broken. While the film does not show the violence explicitly, the implication is so clear and so central to the character arc that its omission from visual depiction does not blunt the narrative weight. What makes this scene especially jarring is the tonal dissonance between the gravity of the act and the broader cultural treatment of Star Wars as a family-friendly saga. The juxtaposition of child-targeted marketing with a central plot involving child murder is not accidental—it reflects a deeper narrative and commercial structure.

This scene was not a deviation from the arc. It was the intended turning point.

Part III: Masculinity, Militarism, and the Appeal of the Anti-Hero

Darth Vader has long been idolized as a masculine icon. His towering presence, emotionless control, and mechanical voice exude power and discipline. Military institutions have quoted him. He is celebrated in memes, posters, and merchandise. Within the cultural imagination, he embodies dominance, command, and strategic ruthlessness.

For many young men, particularly those struggling with identity, agency, and perceived weakness, Vader becomes more than a character. He becomes an archetype: the man who reclaims power by embracing discipline, forsaking emotion, and exacting vengeance against those who betrayed him. The emotional pain that leads to his fall mirrors the experiences of isolation and perceived emasculation that many young men internalize in a fractured society.

The symbolism becomes dangerous. Anakin's descent into mass murder is portrayed not as the outcome of unchecked cruelty, but as a tragic mistake rooted in love and desperation. The implication is that under enough pressure, even the most horrific act can be framed as a step toward a noble end.

Part IV: Redemption as Narrative Alchemy

By the end of the original trilogy (Return of the Jedi, 1983), Darth Vader kills the Emperor to save his son Luke and dies shortly thereafter. Luke mourns him, honors him, and burns his body in reverence. In the final scene, Vader's ghost appears alongside Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda—the very men who once considered him the greatest betrayal of their order. He is welcomed back.

There is no reckoning. No mention of the younglings. No memorial to the dead. No consequence beyond his own internal torment.

This model of redemption is not uncommon in Western storytelling. In Christian doctrine, the concept of grace allows for any sin to be forgiven if the sinner repents sincerely. But in the context of secular mass culture, such redemption without justice becomes deeply troubling. The cultural message is clear: even the worst crimes can be erased if one makes a grand enough gesture at the end. It is the erasure of moral debt by narrative fiat.

The implication is not only that evil can be undone by good, but that power and legacy matter more than the victims. Vader is not just forgiven—he is exalted.

Part V: Real-World Reflections and Dangerous Scripts

In recent decades, the rise of mass violence in schools and public places has revealed a disturbing pattern: young men who feel alienated, betrayed, or powerless adopt mythic narratives of vengeance and transformation. They often see themselves as tragic figures forced into violence by a cruel world. Some explicitly reference pop culture, quoting films, invoking fictional characters, or modeling their identities after cinematic anti-heroes.

It would be reductive to claim Star Wars causes such events. But it is equally naive to believe that such narratives play no role in shaping the symbolic frameworks through which vulnerable individuals understand their lives. The story of Anakin Skywalker offers a dangerous script:

• You are betrayed.
• You suffer.
• You kill.
• You become powerful.
• You are redeemed.

When combined with militarized masculinity, institutional failure, and cultural nihilism, this script can validate the darkest impulses. It becomes a myth of sacrificial violence, with the perpetrator as misunderstood hero.

Part VI: Cultural Responsibility and Narrative Ethics

The problem is not that Star Wars tells a tragic story. Tragedy is essential to moral understanding. The problem is how the culture treats that story. Darth Vader is not treated as a warning, a cautionary tale, or a fallen angel. He is merchandised, celebrated, and decontextualized.

By separating his image from his actions, society rebrands him as a figure of cool dominance rather than ethical failure. The younglings are forgotten. The victims vanish. Only the redemption remains. The merchandise continues to sell.

Cultural institutions bear responsibility for how such narratives are presented and consumed. Filmmakers may intend nuance, but marketing departments, military institutions, and fan cultures often reduce that nuance to symbol and slogan.

Conclusion: Reckoning with the Stories We Tell

The story of Anakin Skywalker is not morally neutral. It is a tale of systemic failure, emotional collapse, and unchecked violence. When presented in full, it can serve as a powerful warning. But when reduced to aesthetic dominance and easy redemption, it becomes a tool of moral decay.

The glorification of Darth Vader as a cultural icon—divorced from the horrific acts that define his transformation—is not just misguided. It is dangerous. It trains a generation to believe that power erases guilt, that violence is a path to recognition, and that final acts of loyalty can overwrite the deliberate murder of the innocent.

To the uninitiated, Star Wars may seem like harmless fantasy. But its deepest myth—the redemption of the child-killer through familial love and posthumous honor—deserves scrutiny. Not because fiction causes violence, but because fiction defines the possibilities of how we understand evil, forgiveness, and what it means to be a hero.

We must ask: What kind of redemption erases the cries of murdered children? And what kind of culture finds peace in that forgetting?

@ e3ba5e1a:5e433365

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Libertas magnitudo est

@ daa41bed:88f54153

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

Let's begin by defining a couple of things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 7ef5f1b1:0e0fcd27

A monthly newsletter by The 256 Foundation

May 2025

Introduction:

Welcome to the fifth newsletter produced by The 256 Foundation! April was a jam-packed month for the Foundation with events ranging from launching three grant projects to the first official Ember One release. The 256 Foundation has been laser focused on our mission to dismantle the proprietary mining empire, signing off on a productive month with the one-finger salute to the incumbent mining cartel.

[IMG-001] Hilarious meme from @CincoDoggos

Dive in to catch up on the latest news, mining industry developments, progress updates on grant projects, Actionable Advice on helping test Hydra Pool, and the current state of the Bitcoin network.

Definitions:

DOJ = Department of Justice

SDNY = Southern District of New York

BTC = Bitcoin

SD = Secure Digital

Th/s = Terahash per second

OSMU = Open Source Miners United

tx = transaction

PSBT = Partially Signed Bitcoin Transaction

FIFO = First In First Out

PPLNS = Pay Per Last N Shares

GB = Gigabyte

RAM = Random Access Memory

ASIC = Application Specific Integrated Circuit

Eh/s = Exahash per second

Ph/s = Petahash per second

News:

April 7: the first of a few notable news items that relate to the Samourai Wallet case, the US Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum titled “Ending Regulation By Prosecution”. The memo makes the DOJ’s position on the matter crystal clear, stating; “Specifically, the Department will no longer target virtual currency exchanges, mixing and tumbling services, and offline wallets for the acts of their end users or unwitting violations of regulations…”. However, despite the clarity from the DOJ, the SDNY (sometimes referred to as the “Sovereign District” for it’s history of acting independently of the DOJ) has yet to budge on dropping the charges against the Samourai Wallet developers. Many are baffled at the SDNY’s continued defiance of the Trump Administration’s directives, especially in light of the recent suspensions and resignations that swept through the SDNY office in the wake of several attorneys refusing to comply with the DOJ’s directive to drop the charges against New York City Mayor, Eric Adams. There is speculation that the missing piece was Trump’s pick to take the helm at the SDNY, Jay Clayton, who was yet to receive his Senate confirmation and didn’t officially start in his new role until April 22. In light of the Blanche Memo, on April 29, the prosecution and defense jointly filed a letter requesting additional time for the prosecution to determine it’s position on the matter and decide if they are going to do the right thing, comply with the DOJ, and drop the charges. Catch up on what’s at stake in this case with an appearance by Diverter on the Unbounded Podcast from April 24, the one-year anniversary of the Samourai Wallet developer’s arrest. This is the most important case facing Bitcoiners as the precedence set in this matter will have ripple effects that touch all areas of the ecosystem. The logic used by SDNY prosecutors argues that non-custodial wallet developers transfer money in the same way a frying pan transfers heat but does not “control” the heat. Essentially saying that facilitating the transfer of funds on behalf of the public by any means constitutes money transmission and thus requires a money transmitter license. All non-custodial wallets (software or hardware), node operators, and even miners would fall neatly into these dangerously generalized and vague definitions. If the SDNY wins this case, all Bitcoiners lose. Make a contribution to the defense fund here.

April 11: solo miner with ~230Th/s solves Block #891952 on Solo CK Pool, bagging 3.11 BTC in the process. This will never not be exciting to see a regular person with a modest amount of hashrate risk it all and reap all the mining reward. The more solo miners there are out there, the more often this should occur.

April 15: B10C publishes new article on mining centralization. The article analyzes the hashrate share of the currently five biggest pools and presents a Mining Centralization Index. The results demonstrate that only six pools are mining more than 95% of the blocks on the Bitcoin Network. The article goes on to explain that during the period between 2019 and 2022, the top two pools had ~35% of the network hashrate and the top six pools had ~75%. By December 2023 those numbers grew to the top two pools having 55% of the network hashrate and the top six having ~90%. Currently, the top six pools are mining ~95% of the blocks.

[IMG-002] Mining Centralization Index by @0xB10C

B10C concludes the article with a solution that is worth highlighting: “More individuals home-mining with small miners help too, however, the home-mining hashrate is currently still negligible compared to the industrial hashrate.”

April 15: As if miner centralization and proprietary hardware weren’t reason enough to focus on open-source mining solutions, leave it to Bitmain to release an S21+ firmware update that blocks connections to OCEAN and Braiins pools. This is the latest known sketchy development from Bitmain following years of shady behavior like Antbleed where miners would phone home, Covert ASIC Boost where miners could use a cryptographic trick to increase efficiency, the infamous Fork Wars, mining empty blocks, and removing the SD card slots. For a mining business to build it’s entire operation on a fragile foundation like the closed and proprietary Bitmain hardware is asking for trouble. Bitcoin miners need to remain flexible and agile and they need to be able to adapt to changes instantly – the sort of freedoms that only open-source Bitcoin mining solutions are bringing to the table.

Free & Open Mining Industry Developments:

The development will not stop until Bitcoin mining is free and open… and then it will get even better. Innovators did not disappoint in April, here are nine note-worthy events:

April 5: 256 Foundation officially launches three more grant projects. These will be covered in detail in the Grant Project Updates section but April 5 was a symbolic day to mark the official start because of the 6102 anniversary. A reminder of the asymmetric advantage freedom tech like Bitcoin empowers individuals with to protect their rights and freedoms, with open-source development being central to those ends.

April 5: Low profile ICE Tower+ for the Bitaxe Gamma 601 introduced by @Pleb_Style featuring four heat pipes, 2 copper shims, and a 60mm Noctua fan resulting in up to 2Th/s. European customers can pick up the complete upgrade kit from the Pleb Style online store for $93.00.

IMG-003] Pleb Style ICE Tower+ upgrade kit

April 8: Solo Satoshi spells out issues with Bitaxe knockoffs, like Lucky Miner, in a detailed article titled The Hidden Cost of Bitaxe Clones. This concept can be confusing for some people initially, Bitaxe is open-source, right? So anyone can do whatever they want… right? Based on the specific open-source license of the Bitaxe hardware, CERN-OHL-S, and the firmware, GPLv3, derivative works are supposed to make the source available. Respecting the license creates a feed back loop where those who benefit from the open-source work of those who came before them contribute back their own modifications and source files to the open-source community so that others can benefit from the new developments. Unfortunately, when the license is disrespected what ends up happening is that manufacturers make undocumented changes to the components in the hardware and firmware which yields unexpected results creating a number of issues like the Bitaxe overheating, not connecting to WiFi, or flat out failure. This issue gets further compounded when the people who purchased the knockoffs go to a community support forum, like OSMU, for help. There, a number of people rack their brains and spend their valuable time trying to replicate the issues only to find out that they cannot replicate the issues since the person who purchased the knockoff has something different than the known Bitaxe model and the distributor who sold the knockoff did not document those changes. The open-source licenses are maintaining the end-users’ freedom to do what they want but if the license is disrespected then that freedom vanishes along with details about whatever was changed. There is a list maintained on the Bitaxe website of legitimate distributors who uphold the open-source licenses, if you want to buy a Bitaxe, use this list to ensure the open-source community is being supported instead of leeched off of.

April 8: The Mempool Open Source Project v3.2.0 launches with a number of highlights including a new UTXO bubble chart, address poisoning detection, and a tx/PSBT preview feature. The GitHub repo can be found here if you want to self-host an instance from your own node or you can access the website here. The Mempool Open Source Project is a great blockchain explorer with a rich feature set and helpful visualization tools.

[IMG-004] Address poisoning example

April 8: @k1ix publishes bitaxe-raw, a firmware for the ESP32S3 found on Bitaxes which enables the user to send and receive raw bytes over USB serial to and from the Bitaxe. This is a helpful tool for research and development and a tool that is being leveraged at The 256 Foundation for helping with the Mujina miner firmware development. The bitaxe-raw GitHub repo can be found here.

April 14: Rev.Hodl compiles many of his homestead-meets-mining adaptations including how he cooks meat sous-vide style, heats his tap water to 150°F, runs a hashing space heater, and how he upgraded his clothes dryer to use Bitcoin miners. If you are interested in seeing some creative and resourceful home mining integrations, look no further. The fact that Rev.Hodl was able to do all this with closed-source proprietary Bitcoin mining hardware makes a very bullish case for the innovations coming down the pike once the hardware and firmware are open-source and people can gain full control over their mining appliances.

April 21: Hashpool explained on The Home Mining Podcast, an innovative Bitcoin mining pool development that trades mining shares for ecash tokens. The pool issues an “ehash” token for every submitted share, the pool uses ecash epochs to approximate the age of those shares in a FIFO order as they accrue value, a rotating key set is used to eventually expire them, and finally the pool publishes verification proofs for each epoch and each solved block. The ehash is provably not inflatable and payouts are similar to the PPLNS model. In addition to the maturity window where ehash tokens are accruing value, there is also a redemption window where the ehash tokens can be traded in to the mint for bitcoin. There is also a bitcoin++ presentation from earlier this year where @vnprc explains the architecture.

April 26: Boerst adds a new page on stratum.work for block template details, you can click on any mining pool and see the extended details and visualization of their current block template. Updates happen in real-time. The page displays all available template data including the OP_RETURN field and if the pool is merge mining, like with RSK, then that will be displayed too. Stratum dot work is a great project that offers helpful mining insights, be sure to book mark it if you haven’t already.

[IMG-005] New stratum.work live template page

April 27: Public Pool patches Nerdminer exploit that made it possible to create the impression that a user’s Nerdminer was hashing many times more than it actually was. This exploit was used by scammers trying to convince people that they had a special firmware for the Nerminer that would make it hash much better. In actuality, Public Pool just wasn’t checking to see if submitted shares were duplicates or not. The scammers would just tweak the Nerdminer firmware so that valid shares were getting submitted five times, creating the impression that the miner was hashing at five times the actual hashrate. Thankfully this has been uncovered by the open-source community and Public Pool quickly addressed it on their end.

Grant Project Updates:

Three grant projects were launched on April 5, Mujina Mining Firmware, Hydra Pool, and Libre Board. Ember One was the first fully funded grant and launched in November 2024 for a six month duration.

Ember One:

@skot9000 is the lead engineer on the Ember One and April 30 marked the conclusion of the first grant cycle after six months of development culminating in a standardized hashboard featuring a ~100W power consumption, 12-24v input voltage range, USB-C data communication, on-board temperature sensors, and a 125mm x 125mm formfactor. There are several Ember One versions on the road map, each with a different kind of ASIC chip but staying true to the standardized features listed above. The first Ember One, the 00 version, was built with the Bitmain BM1362 ASIC chips. The first official release of the Ember One, v3, is available here. v4 is already being worked on and will incorporate a few circuit safety mechanisms that are pretty exciting, like protecting the ASIC chips in the event of a power supply failure. The firmware for the USB adaptor is available here. Initial testing firmware for the Ember One 00 can be found here and full firmware support will be coming soon with Mujina. The Ember One does not have an on-board controller so a separate, USB connected, control board is required. Control board support is coming soon with the Libre Board. There is an in-depth schematic review that was recorded with Skot and Ryan, the lead developer for Mujina, you can see that video here. Timing for starting the second Ember One cycle is to be determined but the next version of the Ember One is planned to have the Intel BZM2 ASICs. Learn more at emberone.org

Mujina Mining Firmware:

@ryankuester is the lead developer for the Mujina firmware project and since the project launched on April 5, he has been working diligently to build this firmware from scratch in Rust. By using the bitaxe-raw firmware mentioned above, over the last month Ryan has been able to use a Bitaxe to simulate an Ember One so that he can start building the necessary interfaces to communicate with the range of sensors, ASICs, work handling, and API requests that will be necessary. For example, using a logic analyzer, this is what the first signs of life look like when communicating with an ASIC chip, the orange trace is a message being sent to the ASIC and the red trace below it is the ASIC responding [IMG-006]. The next step is to see if work can be sent to the ASIC and results returned. The GitHub repo for Mujina is currently set to private until a solid foundation has been built. Learn more at mujina.org

[IMG-006] First signs of life from an ASIC

Libre Board:

@Schnitzel is the lead engineer for the Libre Board project and over the last month has been modifying the Raspberry Pi Compute Module I/O Board open-source design to fit the requirements for this project. For example, removing one of the two HDMI ports, adding the 40-pin header, and adapting the voltage regulator circuit so that it can accept the same 12-24vdc range as the Ember One hashboards. The GitHub repo can be found here, although there isn’t much to look at yet as the designs are still in the works. If you have feature requests, creating an issue in the GitHub repo would be a good place to start. Learn more at libreboard.org

Hydra Pool:

@jungly is the lead developer for Hydra Pool and over the last month he has developed a working early version of Hydra Pool specifically for the upcoming Telehash #2. Forked from CK Pool, this early version has been modified so that the payout goes to the 256 Foundation bitcoin address automatically. This way, users who are supporting the funderaiser with their hashrate do not need to copy/paste in the bitcoin address, they can just use any vanity username they want. Jungly was also able to get a great looking statistics dashboard forked from CKstats and modify it so that the data is populated from the Hydra Pool server instead of website crawling. After the Telehash, the next steps will be setting up deployment scripts for running Hydra Pool on a cloud server, support for storing shares in a database, and adding PPLNS support. The 256 Foundation is only running a publicly accessible server for the Telehash and the long term goals for Hydra Pool are that the users host their own instance. The 256 Foundation has no plans on becoming a mining pool operator. The following Actionable Advice column shows you how you can help test Hydra Pool. The GitHub repo for Hydra Pool can be found here. Learn more at hydrapool.org

Actionable Advice:

The 256 Foundation is looking for testers to help try out Hydra Pool. The current instance is on a hosted bare metal server in Florida and features 64 cores and 128 GB of RAM. One tester in Europe shared that they were only experiencing ~70ms of latency which is good. If you want to help test Hydra Pool out and give any feedback, you can follow the directions below and join The 256 Foundation public forum on Telegram here.

The first step is to configure your miner so that it is pointed to the Hydra Pool server. This can look different depending on your specific miner but generally speaking, from the settings page you can add the following URL:

stratum+tcp://stratum.hydrapool.org:3333

On some miners, you don’t need the “stratum+tcp://” part or the port, “:3333”, in the URL dialog box and there may be separate dialog boxes for the port.

Use any vanity username you want, no need to add a BTC address. The test iteration of Hydra Pool is configured to payout to the 256 Foundation BTC address.

If your miner has a password field, you can just put “x” or “1234”, it doesn’t matter and this field is ignored.

Then save your changes and restart your miner. Here are two examples of what this can look like using a Futurebit Apollo and a Bitaxe:

[IMG-007] Apollo configured to Hydra Pool

[IMG-008] Bitaxe Configured to Hydra Pool

Once you get started, be sure to check stats.hydrapool.org to monitor the solo pool statistics.

[IMG-009] Ember One hashing to Hydra Pool

At the last Telehash there were over 350 entities pointing as much as 1.12Eh/s at the fundraiser at the peak. At the time the block was found there was closer to 800 Ph/s of hashrate. At this next Telehash, The 256 Foundation is looking to beat the previous records across the board. You can find all the Telehash details on the Meetup page here.

State of the Network:

Hashrate on the 14-day MA according to mempool.space increased from ~826 Eh/s to a peak of ~907 Eh/s on April 16 before cooling off and finishing the month at ~841 Eh/s, marking ~1.8% growth for the month.

[IMG-010] 2025 hashrate/difficulty chart from mempool.space

Difficulty was 113.76T at it’s lowest in April and 123.23T at it’s highest, which is a 8.3% increase for the month. But difficulty dropped with Epoch #444 just after the end of the month on May 3 bringing a -3.3% downward adjustment. All together for 2025 up to Epoch #444, difficulty has gone up ~8.5%.

According to the Hashrate Index, ASIC prices have flat-lined over the last month. The more efficient miners like the <19 J/Th models are fetching $17.29 per terahash, models between 19J/Th – 25J/Th are selling for $11.05 per terahash, and models >25J/Th are selling for $3.20 per terahash. You can expect to pay roughly $4,000 for a new-gen miner with 230+ Th/s.

[IMG-011] Miner Prices from Luxor’s Hashrate Index

Hashvalue over the month of April dropped from ~56,000 sats/Ph per day to ~52,000 sats/Ph per day, according to the new and improved Braiins Insights dashboard [IMG-012]. Hashprice started out at $46.00/Ph per day at the beginning of April and climbed to $49.00/Ph per day by the end of the month.

[IMG-012] Hashprice/Hashvalue from Braiins Insights

The next halving will occur at block height 1,050,000 which should be in roughly 1,063 days or in other words ~154,650 blocks from time of publishing this newsletter.

Conclusion:

Thank you for reading the fifth 256 Foundation newsletter. Keep an eye out for more newsletters on a monthly basis in your email inbox by subscribing at 256foundation.org. Or you can download .pdf versions of the newsletters from there as well. You can also find these newsletters published in article form on Nostr.

If you haven’t done so already, be sure to RSVP for the Texas Energy & Mining Summit (“TEMS”) in Austin, Texas on May 6 & 7 for two days of the highest Bitcoin mining and energy signal in the industry, set in the intimate Bitcoin Commons, so you can meet and mingle with the best and brightest movers and shakers in the space.

[IMG-013] TEMS 2025 flyer

While you’re at it, extend your stay and spend Cinco De Mayo with The 256 Foundation at our second fundraiser, Telehash #2. Everything is bigger in Texas, so set your expectations high for this one. All of the lead developers from the grant projects will be present to talk first-hand about how to dismantle the proprietary mining empire.

If you are interested in helping The 256 Foundation test Hydra Pool, then hopefully you found all the information you need to configure your miner in this issue.

[IMG-014] FREE SAMOURAI

If you want to continue seeing developers build free and open solutions be sure to support the Samourai Wallet developers by making a tax-deductible contribution to their legal defense fund here. The first step in ensuring a future of free and open Bitcoin development starts with freeing these developers.

Live Free or Die,

-econoalchemist

@ 51faaa77:2c26615b

There has been a lot of debate about a recent discussion on the mailing list and a pull request on the Bitcoin Core repository. The main two points are about whether a mempool policy regarding OP_RETURN outputs should be changed, and whether there should be a configuration option for node operators to set their own limit. There has been some controversy about the background and context of these topics and people are looking for more information. Please ask short (preferably one sentence) questions as top comments in this topic. @Murch, and maybe others, will try to answer them in a couple sentences. @Murch and myself have collected a few questions that we have seen being asked to start us off, but please add more as you see fit.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/971277

@ 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.

@ e3ba5e1a:5e433365

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 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.

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

Comments: 3395 (Top Territory!!!) Posts: 306 (3rd) Stacking: 198k (2nd)

We're really bouncing back from the post-Super Bowl lull, with lots of contests and discussion threads. I think we've really found our niche with those two things.

The rest of Stacker News is experiencing declining activity, so our steady growth since February really tells me that we're on the right track.

Thanks for being part of our growing sports community!

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/970289

@ d61f3bc5:0da6ef4a

I remember the first gathering of Nostr devs two years ago in Costa Rica. We were all psyched because Nostr appeared to solve the problem of self-sovereign online identity and decentralized publishing. The protocol seemed well-suited for textual content, but it wasn't really designed to handle binary files, like images or video.

The Problem

When I publish a note that contains an image link, the note itself is resilient thanks to Nostr, but if the hosting service disappears or takes my image down, my note will be broken forever. We need a way to publish binary data without relying on a single hosting provider.

We were discussing how there really was no reliable solution to this problem even outside of Nostr. Peer-to-peer attempts like IPFS simply didn't work; they were hopelessly slow and unreliable in practice. Torrents worked for popular files like movies, but couldn't be relied on for general file hosting.

Awesome Blossom

A year later, I attended the Sovereign Engineering demo day in Madeira, organized by Pablo and Gigi. Many projects were presented over a three hour demo session that day, but one really stood out for me.

Introduced by hzrd149 and Stu Bowman, Blossom blew my mind because it showed how we can solve complex problems easily by simply relying on the fact that Nostr exists. Having an open user directory, with the corresponding social graph and web of trust is an incredible building block.

Since we can easily look up any user on Nostr and read their profile metadata, we can just get them to simply tell us where their files are stored. This, combined with hash-based addressing (borrowed from IPFS), is all we need to solve our problem.

How Blossom Works

The Blossom protocol (Blobs Stored Simply on Mediaservers) is formally defined in a series of BUDs (Blossom Upgrade Documents). Yes, Blossom is the most well-branded protocol in the history of protocols. Feel free to refer to the spec for details, but I will provide a high level explanation here.

The main idea behind Blossom can be summarized in three points:

1. Users specify which media server(s) they use via their public Blossom settings published on Nostr;
2. All files are uniquely addressable via hashes;
3. If an app fails to load a file from the original URL, it simply goes to get it from the server(s) specified in the user's Blossom settings.

Just like Nostr itself, the Blossom protocol is dead-simple and it works!

Let's use this image as an example:

If you look at the URL for this image, you will notice that it looks like this:

blossom.primal.net/c1aa63f983a44185d039092912bfb7f33adcf63ed3cae371ebe6905da5f688d0.jpg

All Blossom URLs follow this format:

[server]/[file-hash].[extension]

The file hash is important because it uniquely identifies the file in question. Apps can use it to verify that the file they received is exactly the file they requested. It also gives us the ability to reliably get the same file from a different server.

Nostr users declare which media server(s) they use by publishing their Blossom settings. If I store my files on Server A, and they get removed, I can simply upload them to Server B, update my public Blossom settings, and all Blossom-capable apps will be able to find them at the new location. All my existing notes will continue to display media content without any issues.

Blossom Mirroring

Let's face it, re-uploading files to another server after they got removed from the original server is not the best user experience. Most people wouldn't have the backups of all the files, and/or the desire to do this work.

This is where Blossom's mirroring feature comes handy. In addition to the primary media server, a Blossom user can set one one or more mirror servers. Under this setup, every time a file is uploaded to the primary server the Nostr app issues a mirror request to the primary server, directing it to copy the file to all the specified mirrors. This way there is always a copy of all content on multiple servers and in case the primary becomes unavailable, Blossom-capable apps will automatically start loading from the mirror.

Mirrors are really easy to setup (you can do it in two clicks in Primal) and this arrangement ensures robust media handling without any central points of failure. Note that you can use professional media hosting services side by side with self-hosted backup servers that anyone can run at home.

Using Blossom Within Primal

Blossom is natively integrated into the entire Primal stack and enabled by default. If you are using Primal 2.2 or later, you don't need to do anything to enable Blossom, all your media uploads are blossoming already.

To enhance user privacy, all Primal apps use the "/media" endpoint per BUD-05, which strips all metadata from uploaded files before they are saved and optionally mirrored to other Blossom servers, per user settings. You can use any Blossom server as your primary media server in Primal, as well as setup any number of mirrors:

## Conclusion

For such a simple protocol, Blossom gives us three major benefits:

1. Verifiable authenticity. All Nostr notes are always signed by the note author. With Blossom, the signed note includes a unique hash for each referenced media file, making it impossible to falsify a media file and maliciously ascribe it to the note author.
2. File hosting redundancy. Having multiple live copies of referenced media files (via Blossom mirroring) greatly increases the resiliency of media content published on Nostr.
3. Censorship resistance. Blossom enables us to seamlessly switch media hosting providers in case of censorship.

Thanks for reading; and enjoy! 🌸

@ 91bea5cd:1df4451c

Definição de ULID:

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

Gerar ULID

```sql

CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS pgcrypto;

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

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

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

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

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

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

ULID TO UUID

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

v = regexp_split_to_array(ulid, '');

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

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

RETURN bytes; END $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql IMMUTABLE;

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

UUID to ULID

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

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

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

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

Gera 11 Digitos aleatórios: YBKXG0CKTH4

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

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

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

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

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

END; $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql; ```

Exemplo de USO

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

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

Fontes

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

@ 91bea5cd:1df4451c

Definição de ULID:

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

Gerar ULID

```sql

CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS pgcrypto;

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

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

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

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

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

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

ULID TO UUID

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

v = regexp_split_to_array(ulid, '');

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

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

RETURN bytes; END $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql IMMUTABLE;

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

UUID to ULID

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

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

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

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

Gera 11 Digitos aleatórios: YBKXG0CKTH4

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

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

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

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

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

END; $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql; ```

Exemplo de USO

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

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

Fontes

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

@ 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.

@ e3ba5e1a:5e433365

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marginal benefit

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marginal cost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equilibrium price

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

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

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

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

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

Modeling taxes

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

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

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

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

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

As we can see, the equilibrium has shifted:

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

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

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

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

Other taxes

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

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

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

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

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

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

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

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

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

@ 6389be64:ef439d32

In Jewish folklore, the golem—shaped from clay—is brought to life through sacred knowledge. Clay’s negative charge allows it to bind nutrients and water, echoing its mythic function as a vessel of potential.

Biochar in Amazonian terra preta shares this trait: it holds life-sustaining ions and harbors living intention. Both materials, inert alone, become generative through human action. The golem and black earths exist in parallel—one cultural, one ecological—shaping the lifeless into something that serves, protects, and endures.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/970089

@ 97c70a44:ad98e322

There was a slight dust up recently over a website someone runs removing a listing for an app someone built based on entirely arbitrary criteria. I'm not to going to attempt to speak for either wounded party, but I would like to share my own personal definition for what constitutes a "nostr app" in an effort to help clarify what might be an otherwise confusing and opaque purity test.

In this post, I will be committing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, in which I start with the most liberal definition I can come up with, and gradually refine it until all that is left is the purest, gleamingest, most imaginary and unattainable nostr app imaginable. As I write this, I wonder if anything built yet will actually qualify. In any case, here we go.

It uses nostr

The lowest bar for what a "nostr app" might be is an app ("application" - i.e. software, not necessarily a native app of any kind) that has some nostr-specific code in it, but which doesn't take any advantage of what makes nostr distinctive as a protocol.

Examples might include a scraper of some kind which fulfills its charter by fetching data from relays (regardless of whether it validates or retains signatures). Another might be a regular web 2.0 app which provides an option to "log in with nostr" by requesting and storing the user's public key.

In either case, the fact that nostr is involved is entirely neutral. A scraper can scrape html, pdfs, jsonl, whatever data source - nostr relays are just another target. Likewise, a user's key in this scenario is treated merely as an opaque identifier, with no appreciation for the super powers it brings along.

In most cases, this kind of app only exists as a marketing ploy, or less cynically, because it wants to get in on the hype of being a "nostr app", without the developer quite understanding what that means, or having the budget to execute properly on the claim.

It leverages nostr

Some of you might be wondering, "isn't 'leverage' a synonym for 'use'?" And you would be right, but for one connotative difference. It's possible to "use" something improperly, but by definition leverage gives you a mechanical advantage that you wouldn't otherwise have. This is the second category of "nostr app".

This kind of app gets some benefit out of the nostr protocol and network, but in an entirely selfish fashion. The intention of this kind of app is not to augment the nostr network, but to augment its own UX by borrowing some nifty thing from the protocol without really contributing anything back.

Some examples might include:

• Using nostr signers to encrypt or sign data, and then store that data on a proprietary server.
• Using nostr relays as a kind of low-code backend, but using proprietary event payloads.
• Using nostr event kinds to represent data (why), but not leveraging the trustlessness that buys you.

An application in this category might even communicate to its users via nostr DMs - but this doesn't make it a "nostr app" any more than a website that emails you hot deals on herbal supplements is an "email app". These apps are purely parasitic on the nostr ecosystem.

In the long-term, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Email's ubiquity is self-reinforcing. But in the short term, this kind of "nostr app" can actually do damage to nostr's reputation by over-promising and under-delivering.

It complements nostr

Next up, we have apps that get some benefit out of nostr as above, but give back by providing a unique value proposition to nostr users as nostr users. This is a bit of a fine distinction, but for me this category is for apps which focus on solving problems that nostr isn't good at solving, leaving the nostr integration in a secondary or supporting role.

One example of this kind of app was Mutiny (RIP), which not only allowed users to sign in with nostr, but also pulled those users' social graphs so that users could send money to people they knew and trusted. Mutiny was doing a great job of leveraging nostr, as well as providing value to users with nostr identities - but it was still primarily a bitcoin wallet, not a "nostr app" in the purest sense.

Other examples are things like Nostr Nests and Zap.stream, whose core value proposition is streaming video or audio content. Both make great use of nostr identities, data formats, and relays, but they're primarily streaming apps. A good litmus test for things like this is: if you got rid of nostr, would it be the same product (even if inferior in certain ways)?

A similar category is infrastructure providers that benefit nostr by their existence (and may in fact be targeted explicitly at nostr users), but do things in a centralized, old-web way; for example: media hosts, DNS registrars, hosting providers, and CDNs.

To be clear here, I'm not casting aspersions (I don't even know what those are, or where to buy them). All the apps mentioned above use nostr to great effect, and are a real benefit to nostr users. But they are not True Scotsmen.

It embodies nostr

Ok, here we go. This is the crème de la crème, the top du top, the meilleur du meilleur, the bee's knees. The purest, holiest, most chaste category of nostr app out there. The apps which are, indeed, nostr indigitate.

This category of nostr app (see, no quotes this time) can be defined by the converse of the previous category. If nostr was removed from this type of application, would it be impossible to create the same product?

To tease this apart a bit, apps that leverage the technical aspects of nostr are dependent on nostr the protocol, while apps that benefit nostr exclusively via network effect are integrated into nostr the network. An app that does both things is working in symbiosis with nostr as a whole.

An app that embraces both nostr's protocol and its network becomes an organic extension of every other nostr app out there, multiplying both its competitive moat and its contribution to the ecosystem:

• In contrast to apps that only borrow from nostr on the technical level but continue to operate in their own silos, an application integrated into the nostr network comes pre-packaged with existing users, and is able to provide more value to those users because of other nostr products. On nostr, it's a good thing to advertise your competitors.
• In contrast to apps that only market themselves to nostr users without building out a deep integration on the protocol level, a deeply integrated app becomes an asset to every other nostr app by becoming an organic extension of them through interoperability. This results in increased traffic to the app as other developers and users refer people to it instead of solving their problem on their own. This is the "micro-apps" utopia we've all been waiting for.

Credible exit doesn't matter if there aren't alternative services. Interoperability is pointless if other applications don't offer something your app doesn't. Marketing to nostr users doesn't matter if you don't augment their agency as nostr users.

If I had to choose a single NIP that represents the mindset behind this kind of app, it would be NIP 89 A.K.A. "Recommended Application Handlers", which states:

Nostr's discoverability and transparent event interaction is one of its most interesting/novel mechanics. This NIP provides a simple way for clients to discover applications that handle events of a specific kind to ensure smooth cross-client and cross-kind interactions.

These handlers are the glue that holds nostr apps together. A single event, signed by the developer of an application (or by the application's own account) tells anyone who wants to know 1. what event kinds the app supports, 2. how to link to the app (if it's a client), and (if the pubkey also publishes a kind 10002), 3. which relays the app prefers.

As a sidenote, NIP 89 is currently focused more on clients, leaving DVMs, relays, signers, etc somewhat out in the cold. Updating 89 to include tailored listings for each kind of supporting app would be a huge improvement to the protocol. This, plus a good front end for navigating these listings (sorry nostrapp.link, close but no cigar) would obviate the evil centralized websites that curate apps based on arbitrary criteria.

Examples of this kind of app obviously include many kind 1 clients, as well as clients that attempt to bring the benefits of the nostr protocol and network to new use cases - whether long form content, video, image posts, music, emojis, recipes, project management, or any other "content type".

To drill down into one example, let's think for a moment about forms. What's so great about a forms app that is built on nostr? Well,

• There is a spec for forms and responses, which means that...
• Multiple clients can implement the same data format, allowing for credible exit and user choice, even of...
• Other products not focused on forms, which can still view, respond to, or embed forms, and which can send their users via NIP 89 to a client that does...
• Cryptographically sign forms and responses, which means they are self-authenticating and can be sent to...
• Multiple relays, which reduces the amount of trust necessary to be confident results haven't been deliberately "lost".

Show me a forms product that does all of those things, and isn't built on nostr. You can't, because it doesn't exist. Meanwhile, there are plenty of image hosts with APIs, streaming services, and bitcoin wallets which have basically the same levels of censorship resistance, interoperability, and network effect as if they weren't built on nostr.

It supports nostr

Notice I haven't said anything about whether relays, signers, blossom servers, software libraries, DVMs, and the accumulated addenda of the nostr ecosystem are nostr apps. Well, they are (usually).

This is the category of nostr app that gets none of the credit for doing all of the work. There's no question that they qualify as beautiful nostrcorns, because their value propositions are entirely meaningless outside of the context of nostr. Who needs a signer if you don't have a cryptographic identity you need to protect? DVMs are literally impossible to use without relays. How are you going to find the blossom server that will serve a given hash if you don't know which servers the publishing user has selected to store their content?

In addition to being entirely contextualized by nostr architecture, this type of nostr app is valuable because it does things "the nostr way". By that I mean that they don't simply try to replicate existing internet functionality into a nostr context; instead, they create entirely new ways of putting the basic building blocks of the internet back together.

A great example of this is how Nostr Connect, Nostr Wallet Connect, and DVMs all use relays as brokers, which allows service providers to avoid having to accept incoming network connections. This opens up really interesting possibilities all on its own.

So while I might hesitate to call many of these things "apps", they are certainly "nostr".

Appendix: it smells like a NINO

So, let's say you've created an app, but when you show it to people they politely smile, nod, and call it a NINO (Nostr In Name Only). What's a hacker to do? Well, here's your handy-dandy guide on how to wash that NINO stench off and Become a Nostr.

You app might be a NINO if:

• There's no NIP for your data format (or you're abusing NIP 78, 32, etc by inventing a sub-protocol inside an existing event kind)
• There's a NIP, but no one knows about it because it's in a text file on your hard drive (or buried in your project's repository)
• Your NIP imposes an incompatible/centralized/legacy web paradigm onto nostr
• Your NIP relies on trusted third (or first) parties
• There's only one implementation of your NIP (yours)
• Your core value proposition doesn't depend on relays, events, or nostr identities
• One or more relay urls are hard-coded into the source code
• Your app depends on a specific relay implementation to work (ahem, relay29)
• You don't validate event signatures
• You don't publish events to relays you don't control
• You don't read events from relays you don't control
• You use legacy web services to solve problems, rather than nostr-native solutions
• You use nostr-native solutions, but you've hardcoded their pubkeys or URLs into your app
• You don't use NIP 89 to discover clients and services
• You haven't published a NIP 89 listing for your app
• You don't leverage your users' web of trust for filtering out spam
• You don't respect your users' mute lists
• You try to "own" your users' data

Now let me just re-iterate - it's ok to be a NINO. We need NINOs, because nostr can't (and shouldn't) tackle every problem. You just need to decide whether your app, as a NINO, is actually contributing to the nostr ecosystem, or whether you're just using buzzwords to whitewash a legacy web software product.

If you're in the former camp, great! If you're in the latter, what are you waiting for? Only you can fix your NINO problem. And there are lots of ways to do this, depending on your own unique situation:

• Drop nostr support if it's not doing anyone any good. If you want to build a normal company and make some money, that's perfectly fine.
• Build out your nostr integration - start taking advantage of webs of trust, self-authenticating data, event handlers, etc.
• Work around the problem. Think you need a special relay feature for your app to work? Guess again. Consider encryption, AUTH, DVMs, or better data formats.
• Think your idea is a good one? Talk to other devs or open a PR to the nips repo. No one can adopt your NIP if they don't know about it.
• Keep going. It can sometimes be hard to distinguish a research project from a NINO. New ideas have to be built out before they can be fully appreciated.
• Listen to advice. Nostr developers are friendly and happy to help. If you're not sure why you're getting traction, ask!

I sincerely hope this article is useful for all of you out there in NINO land. Maybe this made you feel better about not passing the totally optional nostr app purity test. Or maybe it gave you some actionable next steps towards making a great NINON (Nostr In Not Only Name) app. In either case, GM and PV.

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

My month long endeavor to be less of a lazibones has concluded.

For the whole month, I fairly consistently did whatever little chores needed to be done, as soon as I noticed they needed to be done. That was mostly laundry, making the bed, and (un)loading the dishwasher, plus lots of random cleaning up after the dog and kid.

Even with focusing less on getting steps, my steps were up about 15% from the previous month (which had nicer weather, btw). These were less empty steps, too. I was actually being productive.

I'm not sure any of the JBP-esque room cleaning type benefits materialized, but it was good for me, so I'll try to carry some new habits forward.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/969995

@ 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

@ 0fa80bd3:ea7325de

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

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

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

@ 0fa80bd3:ea7325de

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

Thomas Pacchia - PubKey owner - X - @tpacchia npub1xy6exlg37pw84cpyj05c2pdgv86hr25cxn0g7aa8g8a6v97mhduqeuhgpl

calvadev - Shopstr npub16dhgpql60vmd4mnydjut87vla23a38j689jssaqlqqlzrtqtd0kqex0nkq

Calle - Cashu founder npub12rv5lskctqxxs2c8rf2zlzc7xx3qpvzs3w4etgemauy9thegr43sf485vg

Джек Дорси npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m

21 ideas npub1lm3f47nzyf0rjp6fsl4qlnkmzed4uj4h2gnf2vhe3l3mrj85vqks6z3c7l

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

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

EVAN KALOUDIS Zues wallet npub19kv88vjm7tw6v9qksn2y6h4hdt6e79nh3zjcud36k9n3lmlwsleqwte2qd

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

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

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Album art didn’t always exist. In the early 1900s, recorded music was still a novelty, overshadowed by sales of sheet music. Early vinyl records were vastly different from what we think of today: discs were sold individually and could only hold up to four minutes of music per side. Sometimes, only one side of the record was used. One of the most popular records of 1910, for example, was “Come, Josephine, in My Flying Machine”: it clocked in at two minutes and 39 seconds.

The invention of album art can get lost in the story of technological mastery. But among all the factors that contributed to the rise of recorded music, it stands as one of the few that was wholly driven by creators themselves. Album art — first as marketing material, then as pure creative expression — turned an audio-only medium into a multi-sensory experience.

This is the story of the people who made music visible.

Continue reading

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/972642

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

The top three ~econ posts, by zaprank, in April were

Pleb Economist #6: Analysis of Trump's Reciprocal Tariff Calculations by @SimpleStacker

Remember those goofy tariff and non-tariff barrier numbers? SimpleStacker walks us through the assumptions and formulas that they were derived from. There's a good discussion around how much sense those assumptions make and where they came from.

Twenty One Capital: You Can Just Do Things (Bloomberg, Matt Levine) by @denlillaapan

A commentary on a commentary on the 21 Capital bitcoin strategy. Why are investors willing to pay several multiples of bitcoin's current purchase price to get exposure to it in this form? Let @denlillaapan know in the comments.

The WSJ (kinda) covers the Mar-a-Lago Accords plus Miran's Incredible Speech by @028559d218

Analysis of Steve Miran's speech about "Global Public Goods". Will the rest of the world tell America to "go F itself", as the author repeatedly suggests? Eventually, no doubt they/we will.

---

Thanks to our great authors and generous zappers!

The top post will be entered into the quarterly top post contest, which we'll hold in July.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/969806

@ 0fa80bd3:ea7325de

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

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

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

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

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

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

I don’t like garlic. It’s not a dislike for the taste in the moment, so much as an extreme dislike for the way it stays with you—sometimes for days—after a particularly garlicky meal.

Interestingly enough, both of my brothers love garlic. They roast it by itself and keep it at the ready so they can have a very strong garlic profile in their cooking. When I prepare a dish, I don’t even see garlic on the ingredient list. I’ve cut it out of my life so completely that my brain genuinely skips over it in recipes. While my brothers are looking for ways to sneak garlic into everything they make, I’m subconsciously avoiding it altogether.

A few years back, when I was digging intensely into how design systems mature, I stumbled on the concept of a design system origin story. There are two extreme origin stories and an infinite number of possibilities between. On one hand you have the grassroots system, where individuals working on digital products are simply trying to solve their own daily problems. They’re frustrated with having to go cut and paste elements from past designs or with recreating the same layouts over and over, so they start to work more systematically. On the other hand, you have the top down system, where leadership is directing teams to take a more systematic approach, often forming a small partially dedicated core team to tackle some centralized assets and guidelines for all to follow. The influences in those early days bias a design system in interesting and impactful ways.

We’ve established that there are a few types of bias that are either intentionally or unintentionally embedded into our design systems. Acknowledging this is a great first step. But, what’s the impact of this? Does it matter?

I believe there are a few impacts design system biases, but there’s one that stands out. The bias in your design system makes some individuals feel the system is meant for them and others feel it’s not. This is a problem because, a design system cannot live up to it’s expected value until it is broadly in use. If individuals feel your design system is not for them, the won’t use it. And, as you know, it doesn’t matter how good your design system is if nobody is using it.

Continue reading

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/972641

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

The first round is not quite over, with Warriors vs Rockets and Nuggets vs Clippers, still going in the West, But we do know most of who will be playing in the second round, so it's not too early to start thinking about our picks.

This contest is open entry throughout. Just submit a pick for who will win their series and who will be the leading scorer of the entire playoff round. You can select a team or player, up until tipoff of their series.

Matchups (seed)

• Pacers (4) @ Cavs (1)
• Knicks (3) @ Celtics (2)
• Nuggets (4) or Clippers (5) @ Thunder (1)
• T-Wolves (6) @ Rockets (2) or Warriors (7) @ T-Wolves (6)

Scoring

2 Points + seed for picking a winner + 2 points for picking the leading scorer (total points) of the round

Standings

These will change if the Clippers or Warriors advance. Also, if Jokic scores 37 or more, he will catch Brunson (who no one selected) and net a few stackers another point. | Stacker | Points | |---------|--------| | @grayruby | 24| | @Coinsreporter | 19 | | @Carresan | 18 | | @gnilma | 18 | | @Undisciplined | 17 | | @WeAreAllSatoshi | 12 | | @fishious | 11 | | @BlokchainB | 11 | | @Car | 1 |

Prize

10k sats (or total zaps on these posts, whichever is larger)

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/969492

@ 0fa80bd3:ea7325de

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is where Nostr comes in.

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

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

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

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

The European Accessibility Act is coming, now is a great time for accessibility trainings!. In my Accessibility for Designer workshop, you will learn how to design accessible mockups that prevent issues in visual design, interactions, navigation, and content. You will be able to spot problems early, fix them in your designs, and communicate accessibility clearly with your team. This is a practical workshop with hands-on exercises, not just theory. You’ll actively apply accessibility principles to real design scenarios and mockups. And will get access to my accessibility resources: checklists, annotation kits and more.

When? 4 sessions of 2 hours + Q and As, on: - Mon, June 16, - Tue, June 17, Mon, - June 23 and Tue, - June 24. 9:30 – 12:00 PM PT or 18:30 – 21:00 CET

Register with 15% discount ($255) https://ti.to/smashingmagazine/online-workshops-2022/with/87vynaoqc0/discount/welcometomyworkshop

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/971772

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

After exclusively talking about NFL draft and NBA playoffs last week, we have a lot of ground to make up.

The race for second place in the T20k cricket contest is heating up, but @Coinsreporter has a very commanding hold on 1st. I similarly have a stranglehold on last place in the CricZap contest and, not to brag, I just broke @grayruby's impressive mark for worst single month performance.

We're down to the final two survivors in the UEFA Survivor Pool. C'mon @TNStacker, we're all pulling for you.

The US continues to dominate the rest of the world... in our US vs the world contest.

Our MLB fantasy league (courtesy of @NEEDcreations) is a lot of fun, with tons of daily roster moves and movement in the standings. We should also finally have time for @grayruby to rant about how the American League is the suckiest bunch of sucks who ever sucked (where's that from?).

We do have more playoff basketball to cover. The games this week have been spectacular and we have second round series to start talking about. Shoutout to @WeAreAllSatoshi for hosting discussion threads. I'll get some posts up later summarizing how the bracket challenge is going and taking second round picks in the playoff points challenge.

NHL playoffs are also underway and we've barely talked about them, yet. What are the interesting storylines of round 1? How's the bracket challenge going?

And, of course, we'll talk about our favorite Predyx sports markets.

What else do stackers want to talk about?

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/969413

@ 1d7ff02a:d042b5be

ผมได้ติดตามการแบนการซื้อขายแบบ P2P ของ Binance ในประเทศไทยมาระยะหนึ่งแล้ว จากสถานการณ์ดังกล่าว เห็นได้อย่างชัดเจนว่ารัฐบาลกำลังเริ่มโจมตี Bitcoin ก่อนที่เราจะบรรลุถึง Bitcoin Standard เราจำเป็นต้องมีความเป็นส่วนตัวและอิสระทางการเงิน ซึ่งการซื้อขายแบบ P2P มีความสำคัญมากในการบรรลุเป้าหมายนี้

ความสำคัญของ No-KYC P2P

No-KYC P2P คือหัวใจสำคัญ - เราจำเป็นต้องมีแพลตฟอร์มที่เป็นทางรอด เราไม่สามารถเชื่อใจแพลตฟอร์มแบบรวมศูนย์ได้เนื่องจากสาเหตุสองประการ: 1. ความเสี่ยงจากการถูกโกงโดยแพลตฟอร์มเอง (rug pull) 2. การถูกควบคุมจากภาครัฐ

แพลตฟอร์ม No-KYC P2P ที่แนะนำ

ผมอยากเสนอให้นักพัฒนาและชุมชน Bitcoin ไทย พิจารณาการศึกษาและพัฒนาแพลตฟอร์ม No-KYC P2P ปัจจุบันมีหลายทางเลือกที่มีอยู่แล้ว เช่น:

• Bisq
• RoboSats
• Mostro
• HodlHodl
• Lnp2pbot

เหตุผลที่แนะนำ Lnp2pbot

ผมขอแนะนำให้นำใช้หรือพัฒนาต่อจาก Lnp2pbot เนื่องจากข้อดีหลายประการ:

1. ประสบการณ์ผู้ใช้ (UX) ที่ดีกว่า - เมื่อเทียบกับแพลตฟอร์มอื่นๆ
2. ใช้ Telegram เป็นพื้นฐาน - มีระบบ Escrow (บุคคลที่สามที่ถือเงินระหว่างการทำธุรกรรม) ซึ่งเพิ่มความมั่นใจและลดโอกาสการถูกโกง
3. ลดการรวมศูนย์ - ไม่จำเป็นต้องพัฒนาแอปและส่งขึ้นสโตร์ ซึ่งจะทำให้นักพัฒนาต้องเปิดเผยตัวตนและกลายเป็นจุดอ่อนให้รัฐบาลควบคุม
4. สร้างชุมชนได้ง่าย - ทุกคนสามารถสร้างกลุ่มหรือชุมชนเพื่อการซื้อขายได้ ทำให้ตลาดพัฒนากลุ่มที่น่าเชื่อถือตามกลไกตลาดเสรี
5. ใช้งานจริงในหลายประเทศแล้ว - ปัจจุบันมีหลายประเทศที่นำ Lnp2pbot ไปใช้งานจริงแล้ว แสดงให้เห็นถึงความเสถียรและความเชื่อถือได้ของระบบ

บทบาทของนักพัฒนาไทย

Lnp2pbot อาจยังมีข้อจำกัดด้าน UX โดยเฉพาะสำหรับผู้ใช้ท้องถิ่น นักพัฒนาไทยสามารถนำเอาซอฟต์แวร์มาพัฒนาต่อและดำเนินการเองได้ เนื่องจากเป็นโอเพนซอร์สอยู่แล้ว

สิ่งสำคัญที่สุดคือการรักษาให้ซอฟต์แวร์เป็นโอเพนซอร์สและให้ทุกคนสามารถนำไปใช้หรือทำให้มันทำงานได้ด้วยตนเอง วิธีการนี้จะหลีกเลี่ยงการมีจุดรวมศูนย์ที่รัฐบาลสามารถโจมตีได้

@ 2183e947:f497b975

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

1. Hosting

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

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

2. Moderation

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

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

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

3. Escrow

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

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

4. Consequences

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

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

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

5. Conclusion

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

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

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

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

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

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Crabtree's Framework for Evaluating Human-Centered Research

Picture this: You've spent three weeks conducting qualitative research for a finance app redesign. You carefully recruited 12 participants, conducted in-depth interviews, and identified patterns around financial anxiety and decision paralysis. You're excited to present your findings when the inevitable happens:

"But are these results statistically significant?"

"Just 12 people? How can we make decisions that affect thousands of users based on conversations with just 12 people?"

As UX professionals, we regularly face stakeholders who evaluate our qualitative research using criteria designed for quantitative methods... This misalignment undermines the unique value qualitative research brings to product development.

Continue reading https://uxpsychology.substack.com/p/beyond-numbers-how-to-properly-evaluate

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/971767

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

Chef's notes

arbitray

• test
• of
• chefs notes

hedding 2

Details

• ⏲️ Prep time: 20
• 🍳 Cook time: 1 hour
• 🍽️ Servings: 5

Ingredients

• Test ingredient
• 2nd test ingredient

Directions

1. Bake
2. Cool

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

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

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

Sauce

@ 20986fb8:cdac21b3

传统黑客松：闪耀火花中的局限

过去几十年里，黑客松一直是技术文化的培养皿——24小时或48小时的狂热编程马拉松，在披萨、咖啡因和几近不可能的乐观情绪中推进。

自1999年Sun Microsystems首次举办黑客松，要求Java开发者在Palm V掌上电脑上完成一日编程，到创业公司和大学里通宵达旦的“黑客日”[1]，这些活动始终在庆祝黑客精神。它们为我们带来了Facebook的“点赞”按钮和聊天功能——这些标志性的创新[1]，皆诞生于一夜之间的即兴狂想。

它们也催生了如GroupMe这样的公司——这个应用仅用了几个深夜时段就完成开发，一年后就被Skype以8000万美元收购[2]。

黑客松逐渐成为技术界的传说，成为“无拘束创造力”的代名词。然而，尽管充满激情和炒作，传统黑客松却存在着严重的局限：它们是偶发、线下的活动——更像是“蓝月亮”才出现一次的肾上腺素爆发，而不是一种可持续的创新流程。

一次黑客松也许能在周末召集100名程序员共聚一室，但活动结束后便销声匿迹，直到下一年。

频率低、规模小、触达有限。只有能亲临现场的人（往往是硅谷或精英高校）才有机会参与。哪怕你是来自拉各斯或圣保罗的天才黑客，只要身处远方，你的绝妙创意也注定被忽视。

这类冲刺式活动的成果也极为受限。

当然，团队可能构建出炫酷的演示项目，并赢得一时风头。但大多数情况下，这些项目只是一次性原型——“玩具”应用，最终并未发展为真正的产品或公司。有研究表明，只有约5%的黑客松项目在活动结束几个月后还有任何生命迹象[3]。

其余95%则如烟云般消散——在“黑客松宿醉”中夭折：人们回到“正职”，而演示代码也蒙尘。

批评者甚至给黑客松取了个贬义的别名：“周末虚耗松”（weekend wastedathons），抨击其成果如同短命的“蒸汽软件”（vaporware）[3]。

想想看：一阵创造力的爆发，数十个点子竞相绽放……然后呢？

你能说出几个真正从黑客松走出的成功企业名字？对于每一个如Carousell或EasyTaxi那样从黑客松中诞生、后来成功融资数千万美元的项目，就有几百个聪明的创意组合永远不见天日[2]。

传统黑客松模式，尽管令人兴奋，却极少能转化为持续的创新。

它更像是被时间、地域和后续缺失所束缚的孤岛式创新。黑客松是事件，不是流程；它是烟花，不是日出。

此外，黑客松在历史上一直颇为封闭。

直到近年，它们主要由技术圈内人士自办自娱。大型科技公司会举办内部黑客松，以激发员工创造力（Facebook每几周举办一次通宵活动，最终诞生了时间线和标记功能，影响了十亿用户 [1]）；NASA和世界银行也曾尝试用黑客松推进公民科技。但这些都是例外，印证了一个普遍规律：黑客松从来不是常规工作流程，而是特例事件。

在科技巨头之外，鲜有组织具备资源或经验能频繁举办黑客松。

除非你是Google、Microsoft，或资金雄厚的创业孵化器，否则黑客松只是一场偶尔奢侈的尝试。事实上，当今世界上最大的黑客松是微软的内部全球黑客松——有多达70,000名员工跨越75个国家同时参与，这是壮观的成就，但唯有企业巨头才能负担得起[4]。

而中小型玩家只能仰望、惊叹。

限制显而易见：黑客松太少见、太封闭，无法真正激活全球人才库；周期太短，难以构建成熟产品；过于孤立，无法真正撼动行业。

没错，它们确实产生过惊艳的灵感时刻——创新的闪光灯。

但若视其为持续进步的机制，传统黑客松则显得捉襟见肘。作为投资者或科技领袖，你或许会为创造力鼓掌，但仍会追问：真正的长期影响在哪里？有谁搭建了把这些火花转化为持续光束的基础设施？

正如克莱顿·克里斯滕森的《创新者的窘境》所言，传统巨头往往将黑客松项目视作“玩具”——有趣但不切实际。

而事实上，“每一个未来的大事物，起初总是被当作玩具”。黑客松的确催生了不少“玩具”，却极少能拥有支持系统去把它们变为下一个伟大的事物。

这个模式，是时候被重新发明了。

为何到了2020年代，我们还在用1990年代的创新方式？为何将突破性的想法限制在一个周末或一个地点？为何允许95%的早期创新无声凋谢？

这些问题，悬而未解，等待着回答。

Hackathons 2.0 ——DoraHacks与黑客松的第一次进化（2020–2024）

DoraHacks登场。

在2020年代初，DoraHacks如同一台“心脏除颤器”，令黑客松这种形式重获新生。DoraHacks 1.0（大致始于2020年、延续至2024年）并非对黑客松的微调，而是对其彻底的重塑：将传统黑客松从1.0升级到2.0。它汲取原有理念，加速、扩展并升级至全维度，全方位放大其影响力。结果是一场全球黑客运动的兴起，一个将黑客松从“一锤子买卖”变为持续技术创新引擎的平台。

DoraHacks如何革命性地重构黑客松？请看以下几个维度：

从24小时到24天（甚至24周）——时间轴的重构

DoraHacks拉长了黑客松的时间框架，解锁了远超以往的创新潜能。

相比于传统那种紧张焦躁的24小时冲刺，DoraHacks支持的黑客松往往持续数周甚至数月——这是一场范式转变。

团队终于有了足够时间去打磨原型、迭代优化、反复精炼。更长的周期意味着项目能从粗糙演示走向成熟MVP。黑客们终于可以“偶尔睡觉”，引入用户反馈，将灵感的火花铸造成实用的成果。

时间的延展模糊了黑客松与加速器之间的界限，但保留了黑客松自由、开放的精神。例如，DoraHacks为区块链初创团队组织的黑客松通常持续6到8周，最终成果往往能吸引真实用户与投资人。

延长的时间，把“玩具”变成了产品。就像黑客松终于“长大成人”：Less Hack, More BUIDL（少些临时拼凑，多些踏实构建）。打破24小时范式之后，黑客松真正变得更高效、更深远、更具生产力。

从街角咖啡馆到全球虚拟竞技场——地理限制的打破

DoraHacks将黑客松从线下搬到云端，释放出全球参与的可能性。

2020年之前，黑客松意味着必须到现场——可能是旧金山某仓库，或是大学实验室，与本地队友并肩作战。而DoraHacks颠覆了这一格局：任何人、任何地方，只要连上网络，就可以参与。

一位尼日利亚的开发者、乌克兰的设计师、巴西的产品经理，如今可以在同一场线上黑客松中协作创新。地理边界不复存在。

当DoraHacks举办面向非洲区块链开发者的Naija HackAtom时，吸引了来自尼日利亚科技社群的500多名参与者（包括160多位开发者，odaily.news）。在另一场活动中，来自数十个国家的黑客同时在线参与、构思、竞争 [6]。

这种全球性拓展不仅增加了参与人数，更引入了多样的视角和本地问题。一个金融科技黑客松中，可能有拉美开发者解决汇款问题；一个AI黑客松中，亚洲或非洲开发者将机器学习应用于本地医疗。

线上化，让黑客松变得真正普惠。DoraHacks有效地民主化了创新的入场门槛——你只需要一根网线和一颗创作的心。

结果是：创意的数量与质量实现量子飞跃。 黑客松不再是精英小圈子的游戏，而是一场面向全人类的全球创新嘉年华。

从几十人到数万人——规模的跃迁

DoraHacks推动的另一项革命，就是规模的扩展。传统黑客松人少而亲密（几十人，顶多几百）。DoraHacks则催生了成千上万人参与、数百万美元奖金池的大型活动。

例如，在2021年的一场线上黑客松中，近7000名参与者提交了550个项目，争夺500万美元奖金。这是2010年代初期根本无法想象的规模[7]。

DoraHacks本身也成为这些“超级黑客松”的中枢。平台在Web3领域所举办的黑客松常常吸引数百支队伍参赛，奖金高达数百万美元。

这不只是好看的数据，而是更广泛的全球人才投入，也带来了更高概率的真正突破性成果。

以BNB Chain支持的黑客松系列为例，在DoraHacks推动下，有216支开发团队获得了超过1000万美元的资金支持[8]——是的，真金白银的种子投资。这哪是黑客松？简直就是一个小型经济体。

奖池也从“披萨钱”膨胀成“起步资本”，吸引那些有抱负、懂商业的创业者参与。越来越多的项目不再只是周末练习，而是具备融资能力的初创企业。黑客松，也由“科技科学展”升格为“全球创业发射台”。

从玩具项目到真公司（甚至独角兽）——成果的飞跃

最令人振奋的一点是：DoraHacks所孵化的项目，不只是应用，更是真正的公司。其中一些甚至成长为独角兽（估值超过10亿美元的公司）。

我们之前提到过2020年之前为数不多的成功案例，比如Carousell（一个在2012年黑客松上诞生的小点子，如今已成为估值11亿美元的二手市场[2]），或EasyTaxi（始于黑客松，后融资7500万美元、覆盖30个国家[2]）。

DoraHacks让这种奇迹频繁上演。通过更长的周期、更多的支持、更好的资金接力，黑客松逐渐成为真正的“创新孵化器”。

以1inch Network为例——它是一家去中心化金融聚合平台，起初就是在2019年一个黑客松中诞生的。创始人Sergej Kunz和Anton Bukov在社区支持下完成了最初的原型，随后持续迭代。

如今，1inch的累计交易额已超4000亿美元，成为DeFi领域的头部平台之一 [9]。

再看DoraHacks Web3黑客松中的优胜者，许多项目已经完成了数百万美元的融资，获得顶级VC支持。

黑客松成为了“创业世界的前门”，创始人往往在此首次亮相。比如Solana Season Hackathons中的热门项目STEPN —— 一个“边走边赚”应用，于2021年赢得黑客松奖项，不久后就成长为拥有数十亿美元代币经济的现象级产品[10]。

这不是孤立事件，而是DoraHacks设定的系统性趋势。它的黑客松正在源源不断地产出可投、可用、可落地的创业项目。

某种意义上，DoraHacks模糊了黑客松与早期孵化器的界限。玩乐的黑客精神依然在，但结果已不只是炫耀——而是真实存在的公司，有用户，有营收，有估值。

借用投资人Chris Dixon的话说：DoraHacks把那些“玩具”，扶育成了下一个伟大的事物[5]。

DoraHacks不仅优化了旧模式，它创造了一个全新的创新生态

DoraHacks主导的第一次黑客松进化，不只是“修补优化”，而是打造了一个全新的创新系统。

黑客松变得高频、全球化、具决定性影响。

它不再是短暂的周末狂欢，而是持续的创新供给链。

DoraHacks平台每年孵化出上百个可行项目，其中很多都获得后续融资。它不仅提供活动本身，更提供“术后护理”：社区支持、导师指导、连接投资人与资助渠道（如DoraHacks的资助计划和二次方资助机制）。 到2024年，成果不言自明。DoraHacks已成长为全球最重要的黑客松平台——一个贯通区块链、AI乃至更多前沿科技的黑客运动中枢。

数据不会说谎。

9年间，DoraHacks帮助4000多个项目获得超过3000万美元资金（coindesk.com）[11]；到2025年，这一数字飙升，DoraHacks支持的黑客松和资助总计为超过21000个初创团队提供了逾8000万美元资金（linkedin.com）[12]。

这不是夸张宣传——而是写入技术史的事实。CoinDesk评价道：“DoraHacks已成为全球最活跃的多链Web3开发平台与黑客松组织者之一。”（coindesk.com）[13]

主流技术生态纷纷注意到这一趋势。

超过40个公链（包括L1与L2）——从Solana到Polygon再到Avalanche——皆与DoraHacks合作，组织黑客松与开放创新计划（blockworks.co）[13]。

Blockworks 报道称，DoraHacks已成为数十个Web3生态系统的“核心合作伙伴”，帮助他们连接全球开发者资源（blockworks.co）[11]。

在投资人眼中，DoraHacks本身就是关键基础设施：“DoraHacks对Web3基础设施建设至关重要。”一位支持平台的VC如此指出（blockworks.co）[13]。

简而言之：到2024年，DoraHacks已将黑客松从一个小众事件变为全球创新引擎。

它证明：只要规模足够、流程健全，黑客松可以持续地产出真实、可投、可商业化的创新。

它连接开发者与资源，把“孤岛式创新”变成一场全球开发者的常青运动。

这就是Hackathons 2.0：更大、更久、更无界，也远比以往更具颠覆性。

也许你会问：还能比这更好吗？

DoraHacks似乎已经破解了“如何让黑客创造力产生持久影响”的密码。

但这并不是终点。事实上，DoraHacks团队即将揭示的，是一场更加激进的革命。

如果说DoraHacks 1.0是“进化”，那接下来将是一次范式转移的“革命”。

Agentic Hackathon：BUIDL AI与第二次黑客松革命

2024年，DoraHacks推出了BUIDL AI，并由此提出了“Agentic Hackathon（自主智能黑客松）”的概念。

如果说最初的黑客松像是模拟电话，DoraHacks 1.0则使其进化为智能手机，那么BUIDL AI的出现，就像为黑客松安装上了AI副驾驶——进入自动驾驶模式。

这不仅是渐进式的提升，而是一场彻底的第二次革命。

BUIDL AI为黑客松注入了人工智能、自动化与“智能代理”能力（Agentic），根本性地改变了黑客松的组织方式与体验路径。

我们正迈入“自主智能创新时代（Age of Agentic Innovation）”，在这个时代中，借助AI代理运行的黑客松可以以前所未有的频率、高效与智慧展开。

那么，究竟什么是Agentic Hackathon？

它是一种由AI代理全面增强的黑客松，从策划、评审到参与者支持都涵盖在内，使得创新的速度与规模达到前所未有的高度。

在Agentic Hackathon中，AI是那位永不疲倦的共同组织者，与人类并肩工作。 过去那些压垮组织者的繁琐流程，如今交由智能算法完成。你可以想象——黑客松几乎在自动运行，如同一场永不停歇的“点子锦标赛”。

借助BUIDL AI，DoraHacks实现了“自驾黑客松”：自主、高效、全天候运行，且可在多个领域同时并行。 这并非科幻小说，而是正在发生的现实。我们来看BUIDL AI是如何运作的，以及它如何将黑客松效率提升十倍以上：

AI驱动的评审与项目筛选：效率提升10倍以上

大型黑客松中最耗时的环节之一就是评审数百个项目提交。传统做法常常需要组织者耗费数周精力，才能从中筛选出有潜力的项目。

BUIDL AI彻底改变了这一切。

它配备了BUIDL Review模块——一个AI驱动的评审系统，能够从多个维度（项目完整性、创意性、主题契合度等）智能分析项目，并自动剔除质量较低的提交[14]。

就像配备了一支随叫随到的专家评审军团。

效果如何？原本需要几百人小时完成的工作，如今几分钟即可完成。

DoraHacks报告称，AI辅助评审已将组织效率提高超过10倍[14]。

想象一下：一项原本需要一个月枯燥工作完成的任务，如今在几天之内搞定，而且评分更一致、公正、透明。 组织者不再淹没在文书工作中，参与者也能更快获得反馈。

当然，AI并不完全取代人工评委——最终决策仍需专家参与，但AI承担了繁重的初审环节。这也意味着：黑客松可放心接纳更多项目提交，因为AI会帮你完成筛选。

不再因为“人手不足”而限制报名人数。

在Agentic Hackathon中，再也没有优秀项目被埋没的遗憾，因为AI确保它们都能被看到。

自动化市场营销与内容讲述：让每场黑客松都自带扩散力

赢得一场黑客松固然令人激动，但如果无人知晓，影响力也就大打折扣。

过去，黑客松结束后，组织者通常需要手动撰写总结、撰文致谢、更新结果——虽然重要，却常常被推迟。

BUIDL AI改变了这一点。

它配备了自动化营销模块，可一键生成黑客松的总结报告与传播内容[14]。

想象这样一个AI，它完整“观察”了整场黑客松（包括提交项目、获奖名单、技术趋势），然后自动撰写出一份专业报道：突出最佳创意、介绍获胜团队、提炼洞察（比如“本次黑客松中60%的项目应用AI于医疗场景”）。

BUIDL AI正是这么做的：自动生成“高光集锦”与总结报告[14]。

这不仅节省了组织者的写作工作，还极大提升了黑客松的传播力。

活动结束数小时内，一份内容丰富的总结即可全球发布，展示创新成果，吸引关注。

赞助方与合作伙伴对此尤为青睐，因为他们的投资能被迅速宣传；参与者也很喜欢，因为自己的项目立刻获得庆祝与曝光。

本质上，每一场黑客松都在讲述一个故事，而BUIDL AI确保这个故事被迅速、广泛地传播。

这种自动化叙事机制，使得黑客松不再是孤立事件，而是持续内容的源泉，为下一场活动积蓄动能。

这是一个良性循环：黑客松产出创新，AI包装传播，传播吸引更多创新者。

一键发起，多黑客松并行：组织者的自由释放

BUIDL AI最具解放性的功能之一，是一键启动黑客松、支持多场并行管理。

过去，发起一场黑客松本身就是一项大型项目：报名系统、评委协调、奖金设计、沟通流程……一切都需人工配置。

DoraHacks的BUIDL AI引入了“一键发起黑客松”工具 [14] 。

组织者只需输入基本信息（主题、奖池、时间、评审规则），平台即自动生成活动页面、提交入口、评审流程等，就像发一篇博客一样简单。

这极大降低了社区与公司举办黑客松的门槛。

如今，即使是一个初创公司或大学社团，也可以轻松举办全球级黑客松，无需专职活动团队。

此外，BUIDL AI还支持多场黑客松的并行管理[14]。

过去，即使是科技巨头也难以同步组织多场黑客松——资源消耗太大。如今，一个生态系统可以同时运行DeFi、AI、 IoT等主题黑客松，背后由AI自动调度。

自BUIDL AI发布以来，组织12场/年，甚至同时运行数场黑客松，从“不可能”变成常规操作[14]。

平台还自动管理参与者接入、发送提醒、通过聊天机器人回答常见问题，确保流程顺畅。

简而言之，BUIDL AI让黑客松主办方像使用云服务器一样“按需发起”创新活动。

这是一场结构性转变：黑客松不再是“偶尔有空才办”的事件，而是“需要时就能发”的常态流程。 我们正在见证永续黑客松文化的诞生——不再是偶尔的火花，而是持续的火焰，始终燃烧，永不熄灭。

实时AI导师与智能助手：人人皆可成为“Agentic Hacker”

Agentic Hackathon的“智能代理”不仅体现在后台，也贯穿了参与者的体验。

借助AI集成，开发者得到了更智能的工具与支持。

例如，BUIDL AI可以配备AI助手，在活动中实时回答开发者问题（如“这个API怎么用？”、“有没有这个算法的代码示 例？”），就像随叫随到的技术导师。

它还可以推荐协作伙伴、推送参考资料。

本质上，每位参与者都像身边多了一个AI队友——全能、勤奋、永不疲倦。

一些本需数小时调试的bug，借助AI助手几分钟即可解决。

这意味着：项目质量提升，参与者学习效率大幅提高。

正如followin.io所言，这种“agentic协助”体现了“人人皆可成为黑客”的愿景[14]。

AI自动化了大量重复性工作，放大了小团队的能力边界[14]。

在Agentic Hackathon中，两个人加AI助手，就能完成过去五人团队数周才能达成的任务[14]。

这既降低了门槛，也拉高了上限——创新的天花板不再遥不可及。

总结：从黑客松2.0跃迁至3.0，进入智能化持续创新的新时代

所有这些变革，指向同一个事实：黑客松已从偶发的灵感爆发，演化为持续、高频、AI优化的创新流程。

我们正从黑客松2.0走向黑客松3.0——一个自主、常驻、智能的新时代。

这是一场范式转移。

黑客松不再是你参加的一场活动，而是你生活的一个创新环境。

借助BUIDL AI，DoraHacks描绘出这样的世界：“黑客松将进入一个前所未有的自动化与智能化时代，使全球更多黑客、开发者与开源社区能够轻松发起与参与。”

创新将随时随地发生，因为支持它的基础设施正由AI驱动、全天候运转于云端。

黑客松已成为一个智能平台，随时准备将创意转化为现实。

更关键的是，这一切并不局限于区块链。

BUIDL AI是通用平台——无论是AI、气候科技、医疗、教育等领域，都可接入Agentic Hackathon平台，享受更高频、更高效的创新节奏。

这预示着一个未来：黑客松将成为默认的解决问题方式。

公司与社区不再靠封闭的委员会与研发部门推进创新，而是将问题投入黑客松竞技场——一个始终活跃的解决问题引擎。

形象地说：

**DoraHacks 1.0 让黑客松拥有了高速引擎；

DoraHacks 2.0 加上 BUIDL AI，则让它变成一辆自动驾驶的赛车——油门踩到底。**

成本、复杂度、时间的阻碍——都不复存在。

如今，任何组织都能毫无阻力地驶入创新高速公路，从0加速到60。

黑客松频率如博客更新，融入日常运营，如同敏捷开发的冲刺演示。

按需创新，规模扩张——这就是Agentic Hackathon的力量。

随需创新：Agentic Hackathon 如何惠及所有人

Agentic Hackathon（自主智能黑客松）的诞生，并非只是技术社区的一款“新奇玩具”，而是一种变革性的工具，可服务于企业、开发者，乃至整个行业。

我们正步入一个全新时代：任何拥有愿景的人都能将“黑客松即服务”转化为推动创新的引擎。以下是不同参与者如何从这场革命中受益：

AI公司 —— 加速生态成长的发动机

对于专注于人工智能的公司（如 OpenAI、Google、Microsoft、Stability AI 等），黑客松是一座座发掘其技术创意用途的金矿。

如今借助 Agentic Hackathon，这些公司几乎可以为自己的平台持续举办一场“永不落幕”的开发者大会。

比如，OpenAI 可以为 GPT-4 或 DALL·E 启动全年在线的黑客松，鼓励全球开发者持续实验、展示这些AI的应用场景——本质上，以众包方式为AI平台孵化创新与杀手级应用。

收益何在？生态系统和用户基数的指数级扩展。

新的用例往往来自公司内部未曾设想的角落。 （最早展示 GPT-3 能撰写法律合同、生成游戏关卡的，不是大公司，而是独立黑客——他们在黑客松和社区挑战中发现了这些潜力。）

有了 BUIDL AI，AI 公司可以一键启动月度黑客松，每月聚焦不同方向（比如本月自然语言处理，下月机器人控制）。 这是市场营销与产品研发的倍增器。

无需再组织昂贵的开发者布道之旅，AI 将成为全球开发者互动的主力军。产品在推广的同时也在优化。 本质上，每家AI公司都可以开启自己的“黑客松联赛”，推动API或模型的普及与应用。

Coinbase最近首次举办AI主题黑客松，尝试连接加密与AI领域——他们很清楚，要播下新范式的种子，黑客松是最佳路径[15] 。

未来，我们将看到所有AI平台效仿：持续通过黑客松教育开发者、生成内容（演示、教程），并发掘可投资/可招聘的杰出人才。这将是社区建设的超级助推器。

L1/L2与技术平台 —— 发现下一只独角兽

对于区块链的一层/二层网络（Layer1/Layer2），以及任何技术平台（如云服务、VR平台等）来说，黑客松已成为新的“Deal Flow”（项目源）。

在 Web3 世界里，许多顶级项目与协议都诞生于黑客松，这一点早已被广泛认同。

我们看到，1inch 就是始于黑客松，后来成长为 DeFi 独角兽（cointelegraph.com）[9]。

Polygon 积极举办黑客松以寻找其生态的新型dApps；Filecoin 借助黑客松发掘分布式存储应用。

借助 DoraHacks 和 BUIDL AI，这些平台现在可以高频率地组织黑客松，持续输出创新成果。

不再是一年一两次大型活动，而是一个滚动进行的计划——比如每季度一场，甚至同时多地开展全球挑战，保持开发者“常态建设”。

回报率巨大：即使设有可观奖金，黑客松的举办成本也远低于收购一个蓬勃发展的初创公司或协议所需投入。 黑客松本质上是将早期研发外包给充满热情的社区成员，最好的创意自然浮现。

Solana 的黑客松就促成了 Phantom、Solend 等明星项目的落地。Facebook 的内部黑客松也曾带来推动平台主导地位的功能创新[1]。

现在，任何平台都可以将黑客松“外部化”：作为发现人才与创新的“雷达”。借助 BUIDL AI，哪怕一个 L2 区块链的核心团队人手有限，也能并行运行多场黑客松与赏金任务——一场关注 DeFi，一场关注 NFT，一场关注游戏等等。

AI 负责初审项目与管理社区问答，让平台的 DevRel 团队不至于“过劳”。结果是，一条源源不断的创新供给链，不断喂养平台增长。下一个独角兽、下一个杀手级应用，将被提前识别并扶持成长。

黑客松已成为 VC 和技术生态的新型创业漏斗（Startup Funnel）。

未来，投资人将活跃于 Agentic Hackathon 中——因为那里正是“未来车库”的所在：黑客们聚集在云端黑客室中重塑世界。

正如 Paul Graham 所言：“黑客与画家，皆为创造者”，他们将在黑客松平台的画布上，描绘未来科技的蓝图。

所有公司与社区 —— 创新成为一种持续流程

或许 BUIDL AI 最深远的影响是：让所有组织都能举办黑客松，不再局限于科技公司。

任何希望推动创新的机构——银行探索金融科技、医院网络寻找医疗科技方案、政府寻找公民科技创意——都可以利用 Agentic Hackathon。

创新不再是巨头的特权，它成为一项“云服务”，人人可用。

比如，一个城市政府可以举办全年黑客松，征集“智慧城市”解决方案，让本地开发者持续提出、建设项目以改善城市生活。

BUIDL AI 平台可以设置不同“赛道”：交通、能源、安全，每月评选最佳创意并给予奖励。

这比传统招标流程更加灵活，能更高效地激发社区活力与项目孵化。

同样地，任何担心被颠覆的财富500强公司（其实谁不担心？）都可以主动“自我颠覆”——通过黑客松邀请员工和外部创新者挑战企业自身难题。

在 agentic 模式下，即使是非技术型公司也能轻松参与；AI 会引导流程，保障运行顺畅。试想：黑客松成为每一家企业战略部门的“标配工具”，不断原型化未来。

正如 Marc Andreessen 所说，“软件正在吞噬整个世界”——而现在，每家公司都可以通过举办黑客松，参与“软件化”自身问题的过程。

这将推动跨行业的创新民主化。

尝试大胆创意的门槛大幅降低（周末黑客松 vs. 数月企业流程），更多潜在颠覆性创意将在企业内部浮现。

有了 DoraHacks 的全球影响力，企业也能轻松吸引外部创新者参与。

零售公司为何不能从全球黑客那里众包 AR 购物创意？

制药公司为何不办场生物信息学黑客松以探索数据分析新方法？

答案只有一个：没有理由不做。Agentic Hackathon 让一切变得可行、值得。

黑客松即服务（Hackathon-as-a-Service）将成为下一代的创新部门——要么使用它，要么被使用它的人超越。

结语：从偶发事件到创新基础设施的演进

所有上述变革，归结为一个深刻转变：黑客松正从一次性的活动，演变为创新生态系统中的常驻组成部分。

它们正成为像云计算、宽带网络一样的基础资源：随时可用，规模无限。

想获得新点子或原型？办场黑客松，让全球开发者接招。

想激活开发者社群？发布主题黑客松，提供舞台。

想试验10种解决方案？来一场比赛，看看谁跑出来。

我们正在见证所谓“创新公地（Innovation Commons）”的诞生：一个持续匹配问题与创意、迅速迭代解决方案的协 作空间。

AI是这片公地的维护者，保证运行高效、协作持久，不再需要消耗人为组织者的精力。

这也正好回应了人们对黑客松的批评：缺乏可持续性与后续跟进。

而在Agentic模型中，黑客松不再是孤岛——它们可以彼此衔接：上届的优胜团队可以直接晋级加速器，或参与下月的 新主题挑战。

BUIDL AI 甚至可以追踪团队进展，推荐资助机会、合作方、甚至下一步要申请的Grant，彻底解决过去“项目周末之后无人接手”的痛点。

好项目不会在周日夜晚“死掉”，而是被自动引导进入下一阶段的旅程。

我们还应认识到一种更深层的哲学意义：

创新文化，变得更具实验性、更重才智、更具节奏感。

在Agentic Hackathon的世界中，座右铭是：“为啥不原型一下？为啥不现在就试？”

因为启动一场实验的门槛如此之低，创新思维将像空气般流入每一个组织、每一个社区。

失败的成本极低（只需几周），成功的可能却极高（也许就是下一个突破）。

这是一块供“颠覆性想法”安全试验的沙盒，也正是解决《创新者的窘境》的现实路径：

结构性地为那些被视为“玩具”的想法，保留生长空间[5]。

企业无需在“核心业务”与“实验创新”之间二选一——他们可以为后者开设一条常驻黑客松轨道。

本质上，DoraHacks 与 BUIDL AI 打造了一座“创新工厂”——任何有远见的组织都可以“租用”一周末，甚至一年。

从 Like 按钮到点火升空：黑客松是创新的摇篮

要真正理解这个新时代的分量，我们不妨回顾一下——多少改变世界的创新，其实起源于黑客松项目或类似黑客松的实验，即使当时还受限于旧有模式。而现在，随着这些限制被移除，我们能期待的，将远远不止于此。 历史本身，就是黑客松创新模式的最佳佐证：

Facebook 的基因，由黑客松塑造

马克·扎克伯格本人曾表示，Facebook 的许多关键功能都来自公司内部的黑客松：“点赞”按钮、Facebook Chat、时间线功能，无一不是工程师们在通宵达旦的黑客松中迸发出的创意[1]。

一位实习生在黑客松中构建的“评论区标记好友”原型，在短短两周后就上线，触达了十亿用户[1]。Facebook 的核心理念“Move fast and break things（快速行动，大胆试错）”，几乎就是黑客松精神的官方化表达。

可以毫不夸张地说，Facebook 能在2000年代超越 MySpace，正是得益于其由黑客松推动的快速创新文化[1]。

如果黑客松能在一家公司的内部产生如此颠覆性作用，想象一下——当它成为全球网络时，创新的速度将怎样改变整个世界？

Google 的“20% 时间”项目：制度化的黑客精神

Google 长期鼓励员工将20%的时间投入到自由探索的副项目中，这本质上是黑客松理念的延伸：结构外的探索实验。 Gmail 和 Google News 就是这样诞生的。

此外，Google 也曾围绕其 API 举办公开黑客松（如 Android 黑客松），催生了无数应用。

换句话说，Google 将黑客式实验制度化，获得了巨大的创新红利。

如今借助 Agentic Hackathon，即便没有 Google 资源的公司，也能制度化实验文化。

世界各地的开发者，都可以把每个周末当作自己的“20%时间”，借由这些平台启动属于自己的探索。

开源运动的推进器：Hackathons + Open Source = 强生态

开源软件世界也从“代码冲刺”（黑客松形式）中受益匪浅。

例如整个 OpenBSD 操作系统的开发就离不开其定期举办的黑客松[3]。

近年来，Node.js 与 TensorFlow 等项目也都通过黑客松来构建工具与生态组件。

其结果是：更强壮的技术生态，更活跃的贡献者社群。

DoraHacks 也在延续这种传统，并将自己定位为“全球领先的黑客松社区与开源开发者激励平台”[17]。

开源与黑客松的结合——都去中心化、社群驱动、基于 meritocracy（才智主义）——本身就是创新引擎。

我们可以预见，未来开源项目将借助 BUIDL AI 启动“永不停歇的黑客松”：持续修复 bug、加入新功能、奖励优秀贡献者。

这将为开源世界注入新生命——不仅通过奖金提供激励，还能以系统化的方式提供认可与传播。

初创世界：黑客松造就新公司

众多初创企业的起点，都是黑客松。 我们已提到的 Carousell（起于Startup Weekend，估值超10亿美元[2]）、EasyTaxi（同样出自Startup Weekend，融资7500万美元[2]）。 再加上：

• Zapier（集成工具平台，灵感来自黑客松）
• GroupMe（如前所述，被Skype收购）
• Instacart（传说在Y Combinator Demo Day 黑客松中以早期版本夺得优胜）
• 以及无数加密初创项目（包括 Ethereum 创始人们的相识与合作也源于早期黑客松与比特币线下聚会）

如今，当 Coinbase 想寻找链上 AI 的下一个机会时，他们办一场黑客松[15]。

Stripe 想推动支付平台上的应用数量，也选择了办黑客松并发放 Bounty。

这种模式行之有效：找到充满热情的构建者，为他们提供跳板。

有了 Agentic Hackathon，这个跳板不再只是弹射一次，而是始终在线，能接住更多人。

这个“创业漏斗”变宽了，我们将看到更多初创企业诞生于黑客松。

完全可以想象：

2030年代最伟大的公司，不会诞生于车库，而是源自一场在线黑客松，由几个在 Discord 上认识的开发者，在 AI 导师协助下完成原型，并在 DoraHacks 平台数周内获得融资。

换句话说，“车库神话”已进化为全球、云端、AI驱动的创业现实。

黑客与画家：创造者的共鸣

Paul Graham 在《Hackers & Painters》中曾将“黑客”比作“画家”——两者皆为纯粹的创作者[16]。

而黑客松，正是这种创造能量最集中、最爆发的场域。

许多伟大程序员都会告诉你，他们最具灵感的作品，正是在黑客松或秘密小项目中完成的——在没有官僚主义的束缚 下，沉浸于“心流”中完成的创作。

扩大黑客松的规模与频率，本质上就是扩大人类的创造力边界。

我们或许会想起文艺复兴时期——艺术家与发明家聚集在赞助人举办的工坊中自由创作；而如今，黑客松就是现代文艺复兴的“创客工坊”。

它融合了艺术、科学与企业家精神。

若达·芬奇活在今天，他一定会如鱼得水地出现在黑客松中——他以疯狂原型迭代著称。

更重要的是：黑客松完美解决了《创新者的窘境》中的核心问题：鼓励人们去做那些 incumbent（巨头）不屑一顾、看似“小而无用”的项目——而那恰恰往往是颠覆性创新的藏身之处 [5]。

DoraHacks 正是通过制度化黑客松，制度化了颠覆本身——确保下一个 Netflix、Airbnb，不会因为“听起来像个玩具”而被错过。

黑客松已成为全球创新基础设施的一部分

我们已从“黑客松罕见且本地化”的时代，走到了“黑客松持续且全球化”的今天。

这不仅是节奏上的转变，更是全球创新基础设施的关键转折点。

19世纪，我们修建了铁路与电报，催化了工业革命，连接了市场与思想；

20世纪，我们构建了互联网与万维网，引爆了信息革命；

而今，21世纪，DoraHacks 与 BUIDL AI 正在搭建“创新高速公路”：一个持续运行、AI驱动的网络，

在全球范围内，实时连接解决者与问题、人才与机会、资本与创意。

这是为 创新本身修建的基础设施。

伟大的愿景：全球创新的新基础设施

我们正站在一个历史拐点上。

有了 DoraHacks 和 Agentic Hackathon（自主智能黑客松）的出现，创新不再局限于象牙塔、硅谷办公室，或一年一度的大会。

它正成为一项持续的全球性活动——一个随时随地聚集最聪明头脑与最大胆创意的竞技场。

这是一个未来：创新将像 Wi-Fi 一样无处不在，像摩尔定律一样不断加速。

这是 DoraHacks 正在主动构建的未来，而它所带来的影响将是深远的。

想象几年之后的世界：DoraHacks + BUIDL AI 成为跨行业创新项目的默认基础设施。

这个平台7×24不间断运转，承载着从 AI 医疗、气候变化应对，到艺术娱乐前沿的各类黑客松。

而且它不仅仅属于程序员——设计师、创业者、科学家，任何有创造力冲动的人，都能接入这张全球创新网络。

一个伦敦的创业者凌晨2点冒出商业点子；2点15分，她就在 DoraHacks 上发起一场48小时黑客松，AI 自动为她召集来自四大洲的协作者。

听起来疯狂？但未来这将成为常态。

亚洲某国突发环境危机，政府通过 BUIDL AI 紧急发起黑客松，数日内即收到来自全球的数十个可执行科技方案。 纽约某家风投基金希望发现新项目，不再只是等着 PPT 投递——他们直接赞助一场开放黑客松，要求提交原型，而非空谈构想。

这就是 Agentic 创新正在发生的方式：快速、无边界、智能协作。 在这个即将到来的时代，DoraHacks 将如同 GitHub 之于代码、AWS 之于初创企业一般，成为全球创新的基础平台。

你甚至可以称它为创新的 GitHub——不是一个存储代码的工具，而是项目诞生的土壤[17]。 DoraHacks 自称是“全球黑客运动的引擎”；而有了 BUIDL AI，它更成为这场运动的自动驾驶系统。

我们应将其视为全球公共创新基础设施的一部分：

正如高速公路运输货物、互联网传递信息，DoraHacks 传递的是创新本身——

从创意萌芽到落地实施，以惊人的速度。

当历史回顾2020年代，持续性、AI驱动的黑客松的诞生，将被视为人类创新模式变革的重要篇章。

这是一幅宏大但真实可触的愿景：

创新，将变成一场永恒的黑客松。

设想一下：

黑客精神深入社会每个角落，成为对现状的持续挑战，时刻发出这样的提问：

“我们如何改进这件事？”、“我们如何重新发明那件事？”

然后立刻号召人才，迅速投入行动。

这不是混乱，而是一种全新的、有组织、去中心化的研发模式。

一个大胆问题——“我们能治愈这种疾病吗？”、“我们能否让儿童教育更高效？”、“我们能不能让城市真正可持续？”—— 不再需要靠闭门造车的委员会来思考十年，而是一场全球黑客松，就可能在几天或几周内产生答案。 这将是一个创新不再稀缺、不再由少数人垄断，而是成为一项公共物品的世界。

一场开放的、胜者为王的比赛，不管解决方案来自斯坦福博士，还是拉各斯的自学黑客，只要够好，就能脱颖而出。 如果你觉得这听起来太理想，请看看我们已经走了多远：

黑客松从一个名不见经传的程序员聚会，变成了支撑十亿美元企业和全球关键技术的创新机制。 （别忘了，比特币本身就是黑客文化的产物！）

随着 DoraHacks 的壮大和 BUIDL AI 的腾飞，黑客松正朝着持续化与无处不在的方向稳步推进。 技术已经准备就绪，模式已经跑通，现在的关键是执行与普及。

而趋势已然明朗：

• 越来越多公司拥抱开放创新；
• 越来越多开发者远程工作、参与在线社区；
• AI 正快速成为每个创造过程的副驾驶。

DoraHacks 正站在这场转型的核心。

它拥有先发优势、全球社区、明确愿景。

他们的理念非常清晰：“为黑客运动提供永恒燃料”是他们的口号之一[18]。

在他们眼中，黑客松不仅是活动，更是一场必须永续进行的思维革命。 而 BUIDL AI，正是支撑这场永续革命的引擎。

这预示着一个未来：

DoraHacks + BUIDL AI，将成为全球创新关键基础设施的一部分，就像公共事业一样。

这是一张“创新电网”；一旦接入它，奇迹发生。

Marc Andreessen 常在文章中以“建造更好的未来”为信条，热情洋溢地谈论人类的进步。

如果秉持这一精神，我们可以大胆断言：

Agentic Hackathon 将重塑我们的未来——更快、更好。

它们将加速人类解决最难问题的速度，

动员更广泛的人才库，

以史无前例的节奏不断迭代方案。

它们将赋能每一个人——让地球上任何拥有创造力的人，立即就能获得工具、社群和机会，产生真正的影响，而不是“未来某天”。

这是一种深层次的民主化。

它呼应了早期互联网的精神：不需许可的创新（Permissionless Innovation）。

而 DoraHacks 正在将这一精神引入结构化的创新事件中，并将其延展为一种持久的创新模式。

总结：我们正目睹一场范式的彻底转变：黑客松被重塑，创新被解放。

旧模型的限制已被打破，

新范式的核心是：

高频黑客松、AI增强、结果导向。

DoraHacks 在 2020–2024 年引领了这场变革，

而随着 BUIDL AI 的登场，它即将开启下一个篇章——Agentic Innovation 的时代。

对投资者与有远见的领袖而言，这是一场集结号。

我们常说要“投资基础设施”，

那么现在，就是投资“创新本身的基础设施”。

支持 DoraHacks 和它的使命，

就像支持跨洲铁路或洲际高速的建造者，

只不过这次运载的是创意与突破。

网络效应巨大：每一场新增的黑客松、每一位新增的参与者，

都以复利效应提升整个生态系统的价值。

这是一场正和博弈（Positive-Sum Game），

DoraHacks 将是那个创造并捕捉全球价值的平台与社区。

DoraHacks 重新定义了黑客松：

它将黑客松从偶发行为变成了持续创新的系统方法。

在这个过程中，它敞开了创新之门，

引领我们进入一个全新的时代：

一个创新可以自主驱动、自组织、永不停歇的时代。

我们正站在这个新时代的黎明。

这是一个真正意义上：

拥有开发者，拥有世界的时代[14] 。

DoraHacks 正在确保：

无论你身在何处，只要你是开发者、黑客、梦想家，

你都能为这个世界的未来贡献力量。

前方的远景令人震撼——一个由全球黑客思维构成的智能蜂巢，

不断发明、持续发现，

由 AI 指引航向，

由 DoraHacks 与 BUIDL AI 领航。

这不仅仅是一个平台，

它是一项革命性的基础设施——创新的铁路，创意的高速。

请系好安全带：

DoraHacks 已经启程，

Agentic Innovation 的时代已经到来，

未来正以黑客松的速度，向我们疾驰而来。

这场黑客松，永不停歇。

而这，正是我们构建更美好世界的方式。

参考文献：

[1] Vocoli. (2015). Facebook’s Secret Sauce: The Hackathon . https://www.vocoli.com/blog/june-2015/facebook-s-secret-sauce-the-hackathon/

[2] Analytics India Magazine. (2023). Borne Out Of Hackathons . https://analyticsindiamag.com/ai-trends/borne-out-of-hackathons/

[3] Wikipedia. (n.d.). Hackathon: Origin and History . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackathon#Origin_and_history

[4] LinkedIn. (2024). This year marked my third annual participation in Microsoft’s Global… . https://www.linkedin.com/posts/clare-ashforth_this-year-marked-my-third-annual-participation-activity-7247636808119775233-yev-

[5] Glasp. (n.d.). Chris Dixon’s Quotes . https://glasp.co/quotes/chris-dixon

[6] ODaily. (2024). Naija HackAtom Hackathon Recap . https://www.odaily.news/en/post/5203212

[7] Solana. (2021). Meet the winners of the Riptide hackathon - Solana . https://solana.com/news/riptide-hackathon-winners-solana

[8] DoraHacks. (n.d.). BNB Grant DAO - DoraHacks . https://dorahacks.io/bnb

[9] Cointelegraph. (2021). From Hackathon Project to DeFi Powerhouse: AMA with 1inch Network . https://cointelegraph.com/news/from-hackathon-project-to-defi-powerhouse-ama-with-1inch-network

[10] Gemini. (2022). How Does STEPN Work? GST and GMT Token Rewards . https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/stepn-nft-sneakers-gmt-token-gst-crypto-move-to-earn-m2e

[11] CoinDesk. (2022). Inside DoraHacks: The Open Source Bazaar Empowering Web3 Innovations . https://www.coindesk.com/sponsored-content/inside-dorahacks-the-open-source-bazaar-empowering-web3-innovations

[12] LinkedIn. (n.d.). DoraHacks . https://www.linkedin.com/company/dorahacks

[13] Blockworks. (2022). Web3 Hackathon Incubator DoraHacks Nabs $20M From FTX, Liberty City . https://blockworks.co/news/web3-hackathon-incubator-dorahacks-nabs-20m-from-ftx-liberty-city

[14] Followin. (2024). BUIDL AI: The future of Hackathon, a new engine for global open source technology . https://followin.io/en/feed/16892627

[15] Coinbase. (2024). Coinbase Hosts Its First AI Hackathon: Bringing the San Francisco Developer Community Onchain . https://www.coinbase.com/developer-platform/discover/launches/Coinbase-AI-hackathon

[16] Graham, P. (2004). Hackers & Painters . https://ics.uci.edu/~pattis/common/handouts/hackerspainters.pdf

[17] Himalayas. (n.d.). DoraHacks hiring Research Engineer – BUIDL AI . https://himalayas.app/companies/dorahacks/jobs/research-engineer-buidl-ai

[18] X. (n.d.). DoraHacks . https://x.com/dorahacks?lang=en

@ 6be5cc06:5259daf0

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

---

1. Instalar o Tor e o Privoxy

Abra o terminal e execute:

bash sudo apt update sudo apt install tor privoxy

Explicação:

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

---

2. Configurar o Privoxy

Abra o arquivo de configuração do Privoxy:

bash sudo nano /etc/privoxy/config

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

bash forward-socks5 / 127.0.0.1:9050 .

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

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

---

3. Iniciar o Tor e o Privoxy

Agora, inicie e habilite os serviços:

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

Explicação:

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

---

4. Configurar o Navegador Firefox

Para usar a rede Tor com o Firefox:

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

---

5. Verificar a Conexão com o Tor

Abra o navegador e acesse:

text https://check.torproject.org/

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

---

Dicas Extras

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

@ 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.

@ bf95e1a4:ebdcc848

This is a part of the Bitcoin Infinity Academy course on Knut Svanholm's book Bitcoin: Sovereignty Through Mathematics. For more information, check out our Geyser page!

Holding On

In the old days, we Scandinavians had to save in order to prepare for the long winter. We chopped wood and salted meat in order to survive. In our current age of consumerism, however, we’ve forgotten all that and we pilgrim to the shopping malls as much as everyone else. No one seems to even have a savings account anymore. Interest rates are low, and we’re told to borrow and spend as much as we can. We’re bombarded with advertising for loans, mortgages, and financial services on a daily basis. Why? Because of our inability to understand the nature of money and its mechanics. Inflation is the underlying force that makes us squander rather than save. Inflation hinders us from reaping the fruits of our labor whenever we see fit, and it makes that very fruit rot. Bitcoin reverses the rotting process and provides us with a means of transporting the value of our labor not only through space but also through time.

The Stanford Marshmallow Experiments was a series of studies on delayed gratification conducted in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In these experiments, children were given a marshmallow or a cookie and were told that they would receive an additional one if they could control their urges and not touch the first one for fifteen minutes. Follow-up studies found that the kids who were able to resist the temptation of the first cookie tended to score better on SAT tests, have lower BMIs, and higher incomes than their less disciplined counterparts. Investing in your future self — in other words, resisting present temptation by delaying gratification — is the most effective skill you can cultivate for a brighter future. You reap what you sow. This can be described as having a low time preference. Having a low time preference is a fundamental factor in the economic success of any human endeavor. Not trying to catch fish with your hands for a couple of days in order to construct a rod or net when on a deserted island might make you hungry during those sacrificed days, but it will provide a better chance of catching fish in the future. Likewise, learning new skills now might lead to a higher salary in the future. Unfortunately, our current monetary system distorts our perceptions and incentives and favors those with a higher time preference — those who spend rather than save. We’re at a different point in history than the above-mentioned marooned fisherman. "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime," the saying goes. The ultimate goal should be to teach mankind to teach itself how to fish. What our current paradigm endorses is “give a man enough distractions, and he will stop thinking about finding better ways to support his loved ones and will succumb to whatever narrative you fill his head with, to make him work for you through taxes and inflation instead of for himself.”

In Bitcoin, people with a low time preference win. If you can resist the urge to sell, you will be rewarded in the future. The Bitcoin community refers to not selling as HODLing, which originated when a bitcointalk.org forumer named GameKyuubi misspelled the word holding in a now-famous post titled "I AM HODLING." The post became one of the Bitcoin community’s most prominent memes and a battle cry to resist the urge to sell during bear markets. Bitcoiners who have decided never to sell most or all of their holdings are referred to as HODLers of last resort. This term is not to be confused with the central banking term lender of last resort. The yearly highs in the price of Bitcoin are arguably less interesting than the yearly lows, which are practically decided by these HODLers of last resort. Considering its limited supply, all that Bitcoin needs to keep rising in price over the medium and long term are these people. Adoption and other metrics of measuring the success of Bitcoin are all dwarfed by the currency’s remarkable rise in value since its inception. The price has increased by a factor of ten approximately every three years. The best guarantee we have that it will keep doing so is Bitcoin’s limited supply combined with the HODLers of last resort.

In the Bitcoin space, and even more so in the cryptocurrency space on the whole, there’s a lot of talk about usage and adoption. We’re shown metrics of trading volumes and merchant acceptance, and we’re led to believe that these correlate with the short and long-term value in one way or another. While there may be truth in some of these theories, the most basic function of a deflationary asset is overlooked and rarely mentioned — the elephant in the room, so to speak. The best use for a commodity as scarce as Bitcoin is not to spend it or even to trade it but to save it and hold it for as long as you can. By doing so, you limit the number of coins in circulation. The more people that do this, the harder it will be to come by and the higher its price will be. Nothing on Earth is as scarce as Bitcoin. Nothing is as irreplicable, as immutable, and at the same time as portable as Bitcoin — its unique history and resistance to change have already proven this over and over. Its absolute scarcity is what gives Bitcoin its value, and ironically enough, this seems to be the hardest thing for people to understand about it. What if everyone in the network became a HODLer and decided to never sell, wouldn’t the network just slowly come to a halt? Not at all. Everyone has a price. Few would resist selling some of their Bitcoin if it could buy them a small city. There are price levels for each HODLer where reallocating financially may be a wise thing to do. A Bitcoin is also very divisible: The smallest unit, the satoshi, sometimes referred to as a sat, is one-hundred millionth of a Bitcoin. Even smaller units are made possible with the introduction of the Lightning Network, albeit not in the actual Bitcoin blockchain. Together, this enables Bitcoin to be highly saleable even at astronomical price levels.

What not having sound money has done to us is simply unfathomable. Imagine every person on Earth knowing that every transaction they’ll ever make will have a real impact on their future prosperity. We’re so used to inflationary currencies that most people don’t even realize why sound money is important. We’re so used to having a large cut of our income silently taken away from us that we don’t even realize how much of our day we spend working for someone else. Wars are funded by inflation. Imagine how many man-hours were put in by people who didn’t realize they were actually working for a war machine funded by a corrupt currency during World War II. Every time you use a fiat currency, you legitimize counterfeiting. Every time you use Bitcoin, you promote sound money. In fact, every time you don’t use your Bitcoin but save it instead, you promote sound money because sound money increases in value when the total number of coins in circulation is limited. It all sounds a bit magic and far-fetched, doesn’t it? Increased value over time, no matter what happens? Well, that is why many of us so-called Bitcoin Maximalists are so excited that we put our careers at risk for this technology. Once you realize what Bitcoin is and what it will do for the world, there is no way of un-realizing it. It really is mind-blowing.

At the beginning of time-that-actually-is-money — in other words, around 2009 — Bitcoin was mostly considered a toy for the cypherpunk movement. As its price started to grow rapidly, a small group of early investors became very wealthy, which in turn spawned a media hype around the phenomenon. Mainstream media remained largely skeptical, portraying Bitcoin as a pyramid scheme, a tulip craze, or a bubble at best. Most journalists simply couldn’t understand how an asset seemingly created out of thin air could have any long-term relevance. Some were frustrated because they thought that they’d missed the train. Many still do. In a world where companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon can rise from zero to world dominance in a decade, people tried to find the Next Big Thing — the next Bitcoin. This attracted charlatans and scammers to the field who launched hundreds of altcoins, claiming to someday be technically superior, faster, or more privacy-focused. What the snake-oil salespeople omitted were the crucial facts: their new coins and tokens were not decentralized (and therefore neither immutable nor censorship-resistant), did not have a fair distribution, and so on. What most people still don’t get is that if Bitcoin doesn’t work, nothing will. This is humanity’s best shot at sound money. It is also, very likely, our only shot at it.

Many venture capital firms, hedge funds, and retail investors were bamboozled by the buzzword frenzy and invested great sums in these quack tokens. This generated confusion in the market as many altcoins increased dramatically in price at an even higher rate than Bitcoin. Due to human nature and a lack of understanding of basic monetary economics, the bubble grew bigger and bigger until it inevitably popped and wiped out most of the useless alternative cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin experienced ups and downs as well, but they were less volatile. Bitcoin bottomed at levels well above the beginning of the previous bull run and then resumed rising just as it had done several times before. The victims of the altcoin craze will take note of this. They will learn the hard way what separates the original from the copycat. They will see the undisputable superiority of sound money. It’s just a matter of time. Time, which is money.

Every time the people of Venezuela, Turkey, Argentina, or Zimbabwe are screwed over by their respective central banking authorities and turn to Bitcoin to preserve their savings or income from rampant inflation, the world becomes more aware of Bitcoin as a store of value. In comparison to the Venezuelan Bolivar, there was no crash in Bitcoin at all. There’s also a good chance the really big players will accumulate aggressively during the next bull market, given that Bitcoin, for the moment, still represents a very small allocation of institutional and hedge fund investment. Consider what will happen when institutional investors and a growing number of larger nations start to see Bitcoin’s potentially limitless upside. At this point, central banks will start to accumulate Bitcoin in an attempt to keep up with reality. This will legitimize the technology even further.

It is still unclear when this will all play out. When it does, however, it will be the largest transfer of wealth from one medium to another in human history. Early investors, many of which are technically competent, will become financially independent and, therefore, able to contribute to the ecosystem full-time. More and more people will demand payment in Bitcoin for its ability to store value. Remember that the next block reward halving is just around the corner and that Bitcoin will have an even greater stock-to-flow ratio than gold in just a few years. After the halving in 2020, Bitcoin will have a supply inflation rate of approximately 1.8%, which is lower than the US Federal Reserve’s target 2% price inflation rate. It is important to remember that Bitcoin is still an experiment. Should the experiment work, however, hyperbitcoinization is just a matter of time.

The implications of giving everyone on Earth the ability to rot-proof the fruit of their labor and transport its value through time are hard to overstate. The closest thing we’ve had to it historically is gold, but gold is not very divisible and not very easy for the general public to get their hands on. More importantly, gold is not absolutely scarce. No one knows how much of it there is left buried in the Earth's crust. Investing in real estate has also been seen as a good store of value throughout the ages, but real estate needs a lot of maintenance and is not cheap to hold on to. Real estate is also relatively easy to confiscate in the event of political collapse. Bitcoin provides us with the potential ability to store any amount in our heads and pass it down through generations without anyone ever knowing we had it in the first place. It effectively endows each individual with the power possessed by the feudal kings to turn people into knights. Any bitcoiner can now dub any no-coiner into a fully-fledged time-proof bitcoiner.

About the Bitcoin Infinity Academy

The Bitcoin Infinity Academy is an educational project built around Knut Svanholm’s books about Bitcoin and Austrian Economics. Each week, a whole chapter from one of the books is released for free on Highlighter, accompanied by a video in which Knut and Luke de Wolf discuss that chapter’s ideas. You can join the discussions by signing up for one of the courses on our Geyser page. Signed books, monthly calls, and lots of other benefits are also available.

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

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

Active Compounds

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

Antimicrobial Properties

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

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

Digestive Health Benefits

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

Anti-inflammatory and Antioxidant Effects

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

Respiratory Support

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

Additional Benefits

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

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

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

Safety Note

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

@ fd0bcf8c:521f98c0

Bitcoin

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

OP_RETURN

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

Nodes

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

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

Not art.

Not storage.

Not games.

The fee-payers

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

"Accept what exists."—Marcus Aurelius

The chain is neutral. Always neutral.

What is a transaction?

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

"Shitcoin"

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

"Fear makes suffering worse."

Innovation needs proper soil. Not forced transplants.

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

"Digital gold."

_"Spend dollars, saving Bitcoin." _

"Never sell your Bitcoin."

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

Rhetoric

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

"Knowledge exists in dispersion," Hayek warns.

Let ideas find homes. Let Bitcoin be Bitcoin.

Fees

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

Fee markets favor wealth. Always have. Always will.

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

The battle

It continues. Hard words. Hard choices.

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

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

Bitcoin is human.

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

"Nothing is too big to fail." —Satoshi

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

@ 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.

@ b17fccdf:b7211155

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

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

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

tor --version

Example of expected output:

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

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

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

tor --list-modules

Expected output:

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

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

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

sudo nano /etc/tor/torrc

Example:

```

Hidden Service BTC RPC Explorer

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

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

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

---

More info:

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

---

Enjoy it MiniBolter! 💙

@ 088436cd:9d2646cc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 6be5cc06:5259daf0

Bitcoin: Um sistema de dinheiro eletrônico direto entre pessoas.

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

---

Resumo

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

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

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

---

1. Introdução

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

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

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

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

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

---

2. Transações

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

O que é uma assinatura digital?

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

Como funciona na prática?

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

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

Resolvendo o problema do gasto duplo

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

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

Por que isso é importante?

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

---

3. Servidor Timestamp

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

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

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

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

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

---

4. Prova-de-Trabalho

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

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

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

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

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

---

5. Rede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolução de Conflitos e Escolha da Cadeia Mais Longa

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

Tolerância a Falhas

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

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

---

6. Incentivo

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

Recompensa por Mineração

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

Taxas de Transação

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

Incentivo à Honestidade

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

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

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

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

---

7. Recuperação do Espaço em Disco

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

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

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

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

---

8. Verificação de Pagamento Simplificada

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

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

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

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

---

9. Combinando e Dividindo Valor

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

Entradas e Saídas

Cada transação no Bitcoin é composta por:

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

Normalmente, uma transação contém:

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

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

Exemplo Prático

Imagine que você tem duas entradas:

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

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

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

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

Difusão e Simplificação

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

---

10. Privacidade

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

Fluxo de Informação

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

Protegendo a Privacidade

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

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

Riscos de Ligação

Embora a privacidade seja fortalecida, alguns riscos permanecem:

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

---

11. Cálculos

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

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

Mas isso é extremamente difícil.

Como o Ataque Funciona

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

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

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

A Corrida Entre Cadeias

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

Suponha que:

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

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

Por Que o Ataque Fica Cada Vez Mais Improvável?

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

P = (q/p)^z

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neste caso, as chances de sucesso são praticamente nulas.

Um Exemplo Simples

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

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

Por Que Tudo Isso é Seguro?

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

E Se o Atacante Tentar Continuar?

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

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

---

12. Conclusão

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

---

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

@ 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.

@ 3f770d65:7a745b24

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

PROTOCOLS, NOT PLATFORMS.

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

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

THIS IS POWERFUL.

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

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

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

AGAIN, THIS IS POWERUFL.

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

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

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

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

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

@ 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 .

@ 04ea4f83:210e1713

30. November 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Cosmo Crixter

@ cff1720e:15c7e2b2

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

Warum Nostr?

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

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

\ Wie funktioniert Nostr?

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

\ Warum ist Nostr die Zukunft des Internet?

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

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

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

Hier das Interview zum Thema mit Radio Berliner Morgenröte

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

@ 04ea4f83:210e1713

Digitales Geld ist nur Text, die ganze Zeit

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

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

Der Rest wird in die unumstößliche Geschichte der Timechain eingraviert.

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

⚡

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

@ 9223d2fa:b57e3de7

12,600 steps

@ 9e69e420:d12360c2

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

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

@ 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.

@ f9cf4e94:96abc355

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

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

---

Passo 1: Atualizar o Sistema 🖥️

Primeiro, atualize seu sistema e instale o Tor:

bash apt update apt install tor

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

Passo 3: Baixar o Binário do Nostr 🚀

Baixe o binário mais recente do Nostr aqui no GitHub.

---

Passo 4: Criar as Pastas Necessárias 📂

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

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

---

Passo 5: Listar os Dispositivos Conectados 🔌

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

bash lsblk

---

Passo 6: Formatando o Pendrive 💾

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

bash mkfs.vfat /dev/sda

---

Passo 7: Montar o Pendrive 💻

Monte o pendrive na pasta /mnt/edriver:

bash mount /dev/sda /mnt/edriver

---

Passo 8: Verificar UUID dos Dispositivos 📋

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

bash blkid

---

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

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

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

---

Passo 10: Copiar o Binário para a Pasta Correta 📥

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

bash cp nrs-arm64 /opt/nrs

---

Passo 11: Criar o Arquivo de Configuração 🛠️

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

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

---

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

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

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

Recarregue os serviços e inicie o serviço nrs:

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

---

Passo 13: Configurar o Tor 🌐

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

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

---

Passo 14: Habilitar e Iniciar o Tor 🧅

Agora, ative e inicie o serviço Tor:

bash systemctl enable --now tor.service

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

---

Observações ⚠️

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

---

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

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

@ 04ea4f83:210e1713

Was ist ein Meme?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Memes und ihre Umgebung

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kulturelle Spaltungen

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geld drucken vs. das Geld in Ordnung bringen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bitcoin vs. Gold

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allmählich, dann plötzlich.

Politik vs. Kultur

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

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

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

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

„Lass deine Memes keine Träume sein."

Satoshi (paraphrasiert)

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

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

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

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

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

„Glück"

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

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

Tame Impala

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Das Meme ist die Nachricht.

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

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

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

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

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

Schwarze Pille vs. Orange Pille

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

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

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

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

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

Ja. Was für ein Chad.

Das ist buchstäblich die Funktionsweise von Bitcoin.

Fiat Denkweise vs. Bitcoin Denkweise

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

Piggies von artdesignbysf

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

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

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

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

Augustin Carstens

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fiat-Selbst vs. Bitcoin-Selbst

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

Die Reise vieler Bitcoiner lässt sich wie folgt zusammenfassen:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Die Wahl liegt bei dir.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

npub1dergggklka99wwrs92yz8wdjs952h2ux2ha2ed598ngwu9w7a6fsh9xzpc

@ 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.

@ 04ea4f83:210e1713

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 6389be64:ef439d32

Black Locust can grow up to 170 ft tall

Grows 3-4 ft. per year

Native to North America

Cold hardy in zones 3 to 8

Firewood

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

Timber

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

Legume

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

Bees

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

Shade Provider

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

Wind-break

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

Fodder

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

@ 6389be64:ef439d32

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

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

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

Smokey The Bear

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

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

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

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

Meet The Forest Walker

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

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

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

The Small Branch Chipper

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

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

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

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

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

The Gassifier

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

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

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

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

Biochar: The Waste

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

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

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

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

Wood Vinegar: More Waste

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

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

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

The Internal Combustion Engine

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

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

CO2 Production For Growth

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

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

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

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

The Branch Drones

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

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

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

The Bitcoin Miner

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

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

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

The Mesh Network

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

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

Back To The Chain

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

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

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

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

Sensor Packages

LiDaR

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

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

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

pH, Soil Moisture, and Cation Exchange Sensing

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

Weather Data

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

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

Noise Suppression

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

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

Fire Safety

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

The Wrap

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

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

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

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

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

High-Level Overview

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

Summary of Both Sides

Position A: Remove OP_RETURN Filters

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

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

Position B: Keep OP_RETURN Filters

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

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

Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths of Removing Filters

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

Weaknesses of Removing Filters

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

Strengths of Keeping Filters

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

Weaknesses of Keeping Filters

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

Long-Term Consequences

If Filters Are Removed

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

If Filters Are Retained

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

Conclusion

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

@ e3ba5e1a:5e433365

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

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

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

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

Why incentives matter

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

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

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

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

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

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

Running a company

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moral hazard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And since we’re talking about the government already…

Government moral hazards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-monetary competition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bureaucracy

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

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

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

Government incentivized behavior

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 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.

@ f1989a96:bcaaf2c1

Good morning, readers!

This week, we bring pressing news from Belarus, where the regime’s central bank is preparing to launch its central bank digital currency in close collaboration with Russia by the end of 2026. Since rigging the 2020 election, President Alexander Lukashenko has ruled through brute force and used financial repression to crush civil society and political opposition. A Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) in the hands of such an authoritarian leader is a recipe for greater control over all aspects of financial activity.

Meanwhile, Russia is planning to further restrict Bitcoin access for ordinary citizens. This time, the Central Bank of Russia and the Ministry of Finance announced joint plans to launch a state-regulated cryptocurrency exchange available exclusively to “super-qualified investors.” Access would be limited to those meeting previously defined thresholds of $1.2 million in assets or an annual income above $580,000. This is a blatant attempt by the Kremlin to dampen the accessibility and impact of Bitcoin for those who need it most.

In freedom tech news, we spotlight Samiz. This new tool allows users to create a Bluetooth mesh network over nostr, allowing users' messages and posts to pass through nearby devices on the network even while offline. When a post reaches someone with an Internet connection, it is broadcast across the wider network. While early in development, Mesh networks like Samiz hold the potential to disseminate information posted by activists and human rights defenders even when authoritarian regimes in countries like Pakistan, Venezuela, or Burma try to restrict communications and the Internet.

We end with a reading of our very own Financial Freedom Report #67 on the Bitcoin Audible podcast, where host Guy Swann reads the latest news on plunging currencies, CBDCs, and new Bitcoin freedom tools. We encourage our readers to give it a listen and stay tuned for future readings of HRF’s Financial Freedom Report on Bitcoin Audible. We also include an interview with HRF’s global bitcoin adoption lead, Femi Longe, who shares insights on Bitcoin’s growing role as freedom money for those who need it most.

Now, let’s see what’s in store this week!

SUBSCRIBE HERE

GLOBAL NEWS

Belarus | Launching CBDC in Late 2026

Belarus is preparing to launch its CBDC, the digital ruble, into public circulation by late 2026. Roman Golovchenko, the chairman of the National Bank of the Republic of Belarus (and former prime minister), made the regime’s intent clear: “For the state, it is very important to be able to trace how digital money moves along the entire chain.” He added that Belarus was “closely cooperating with Russia regarding the development of the CBDC.” The level of surveillance and central control that the digital ruble would embed into Belarus’s financial system would pose existential threats to what remains of civil society in the country. Since stealing the 2020 election, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has ruled through sheer force, detaining over 35,000 people, labeling dissidents and journalists as “extremists,” and freezing the bank accounts of those who challenge his authority. In this context, a CBDC would not be a modern financial tool — it would be a means of instant oppression, granting the regime real-time insight into every transaction and the ability to act on it directly.

Russia | Proposes Digital Asset Exchange Exclusively for Wealthy Investors

A month after proposing a framework that would restrict the trading of Bitcoin to only the country’s wealthiest individuals (Russians with over $1.2 million in assets or an annual income above $580,000), Russia’s Ministry of Finance and Central Bank have announced plans to launch a government-regulated cryptocurrency exchange available exclusively to “super-qualified investors.” Under the plan, only citizens meeting the previously stated wealth and income thresholds (which may be subject to change) would be allowed to trade digital assets on the platform. This would further entrench financial privilege for Russian oligarchs while cutting ordinary Russians off from alternative financial tools and the financial freedom they offer. Finance Minister Anton Siluanov claims this will bring digital asset operations “out of the shadows,” but in reality, it suppresses grassroots financial autonomy while exerting state control over who can access freedom money.

Cuba | Ecash Brings Offline Bitcoin Payments to Island Nation in the Dark

As daily blackouts and internet outages continue across Cuba, a new development is helping Cubans achieve financial freedom: Cashu ecash. Cashu is an ecash protocol — a form of digital cash backed by Bitcoin that enables private, everyday payments that can also be done offline — a powerful feature for Cubans experiencing up to 20-hour daily blackouts. However, ecash users must trust mints (servers operated by individuals or groups that issue and redeem ecash tokens) not to disappear with user funds. To leverage this freedom tech to its fullest, the Cuban Bitcoin community launched its own ecash mint, mint.cubabitcoin.org. This minimizes trust requirements for Cubans to transact with ecash and increases its accessibility by running the mint locally. Cuba Bitcoin also released a dedicated ecash resource page, helping expand accessibility to freedom through financial education. For an island nation where the currency has lost more than 90% of its value, citizens remain locked out of their savings, and remittances are often hijacked by the regime, tools like ecash empower Cubans to preserve their financial privacy, exchange value freely, and resist the financial repression that has left so many impoverished.

Zambia | Introduces Cyber Law to Track and Intercept Digital Communications

Zambia’s government passed two new cyber laws granting officials sweeping powers to track and intercept digital communications while increasing surveillance over Zambians' online activity. Officials insist it will help combat cybercrime. Really, it gives the president absolute control over the direction of a new surveillance agency — a powerful tool to crush dissent. This follows earlier plans to restrict the use of foreign currency in the economy to fight inflation, which effectively trapped Zambians in a financial system centered around the volatile “kwacha” currency (which reached a record low earlier this year with inflation above 16%). For activists, journalists, and everyday Zambians, the new laws over online activity threaten the ability to organize and speak freely while potentially hampering access to freedom tech.

India | Central Bank Deputy Governor Praises CBDC Capabilities

At the Bharat Inclusion Summit in Bengaluru, India, the deputy governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), Rabi Sankar, declared, “I have so far not seen any use case that potentially can solve the problem of cross-border money transfer; only CBDC has the ability to solve it.” Yet — seemingly unbeknownst to Sankar, Bitcoin has served as an effective remittance tool for more than a decade at low cost, fast speed, and with no central point of control. Sankar’s remarks follow a growing push to normalize state-controlled, surveillance-based digital money as a natural progression of currency. The RBI’s digital rupee CBDC, currently in pilot phase, is quickly growing into one of the most advanced CBDCs on the planet. It is being embedded into the government’s UPI payment system and offered through existing financial institutions and platforms. Decentralized alternatives like Bitcoin can achieve financial inclusion and payment efficiency too — but without sacrificing privacy, autonomy, or basic rights over to the state.

Tanzania | Opposition Party Excluded From Election Amid Financial Repression

Last week, the Tanzanian regime banned the use of foreign currency in transactions, leaving Tanzanians to rely solely on the rapidly depreciating Tanzanian shilling. Now, Tanzania's ruling party has taken a decisive step to eliminate political opposition ahead of October’s general elections by barring the CHADEMA party from participation under the pretense of treason against their party leader, Tundu Lissu. Law enforcement arrested Lissu at a public rally where he was calling for electoral reforms. This political repression is not happening in isolation. Last year, the Tanzanian regime blocked access to X, detained hundreds of opposition members, and disappeared dissidents. These developments suggest a broader strategy to silence criticism and electoral competition through arrests, censorship, and economic coercion.

BITCOIN AND FREEDOM TECH NEWS

Samiz | Create a Bluetooth Mesh Network with Nostr

Samiz, an app for creating a Bluetooth mesh network over nostr, is officially available for testing. Mesh networks, where interconnected computers relay data to one another, can provide offline access to nostr if enough users participate. For example, when an individual is offline but has Samiz enabled, their device can connect to other nearby devices through Bluetooth, allowing nostr messages to hop locally from phone to phone until reaching someone with internet access, who can then broadcast the message to the wider nostr network. Mesh networks like this hold powerful implications for activists and communities facing censorship, Internet shutdowns, or surveillance. In places with restricted finances and organization, Samiz, while early in development, can potentially offer a way to distribute information through nostr without relying on infrastructure that authoritarian regimes can shut down.

Spark | New Bitcoin Payments Protocol Now Live

Lightspark, a company building on the Bitcoin Lightning Network, officially released Spark, a new payment protocol built on Bitcoin to make transactions faster, cheaper, and more privacy-protecting. Spark leverages a technology called statechains to enable self-custodial and off-chain Bitcoin transactions for users by transferring the private keys associated with their bitcoin rather than signing and sending a transaction with said keys. Spark also supports stablecoins (digital tokens pegged to fiat currency) and allows users to receive payments while offline. While these are promising developments, in its current state, Spark is not completely trustless; therefore, it is advisable only to hold a small balance of funds on the protocol as this new payment technology gets off the ground. You can learn more about Spark here.

Boltz | Now Supports Nostr Zaps

Boltz, a non-custodial bridge for swapping between different Bitcoin layers, released a new feature called Zap Swaps, enabling users to make Lightning payments as low as 21 satoshis (small units of bitcoin). This feature enables bitcoin microtransactions like nostr zaps, which are use cases that previously required workaround solutions. With the release, users of Boltz-powered Bitcoin wallets like Misty Breez can now leverage their wallets for zaps on nostr. These small, uncensorable bitcoin payments are a powerful tool for supporting activists, journalists, and dissidents — offering a permissionless way to support free speech and financial freedom worldwide. HRF is pleased to see this past HRF grantee add support for the latest freedom tech features.

Coinswap | Adds Support for Coin Selection

Coinswap, an in-development protocol that enables users to privately swap Bitcoin with one another, added support for coin selection, boosting the protocol’s privacy capabilities. Coin selection allows Bitcoin users to choose which of their unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs) to spend, giving them granular control over their transactions and the information they choose to reveal. For activists, journalists, and anyone operating under financial surveillance and repression, this addition (when fully implemented and released) can strengthen Bitcoin’s ability to resist censorship and protect human rights. HRF’s first Bitcoin Development Fund (BDF) grant was to Coinswap, and we are glad to see the continued development of the protocol.

bitcoin++ | Upcoming Bitcoin Developer Conference

The next bitcoin++ conference, a global, bitcoin-only developer series organized by Bitcoin educator Lisa Neigut, will occur in Austin, Texas, from May 7 to 9, 2025. A diverse group of privacy advocates, developers, and freedom tech enthusiasts will convene to learn about the mempool (the queue of pending and unconfirmed transactions in a Bitcoin node). Attendees will learn how Bitcoin transactions are sorted into blocks, mempool policies, and how transactions move through time and space to reach the next block. These events offer an incredible opportunity to connect with the technical Bitcoin community, who are ultimately many of the figures building the freedom tools that are helping individuals preserve their rights and freedoms in the face of censorship. Get your tickets here.

OpenSats | Announces 11th Wave of Nostr Grants

OpenSats, a nonprofit organization supporting open-source software and projects, announced its 11th round of grants for nostr, a decentralized protocol that enables uncensorable communications. Two projects stand out for their potential impact on financial freedom and activism: HAMSTR, which enables nostr messaging over ham radio that keeps information and payments flowing in off-grid or censored environments, and Nostr Double Ratchet, which brings end-to-end encrypted private messaging to nostr clients, safeguarding activists from surveillance. These tools help dissidents stay connected, coordinate securely, and transact privately, making them powerful assets for those resisting authoritarian control. Read the full list of grants here.

Bitcoin Design Community | Organizes Designathon for Open-Source UX Designers

The Bitcoin Design Community is hosting its next Designathon between May 4 and 18, 2025, inviting designers of all levels and backgrounds to creatively explore ideas to advance Bitcoin’s user experience and interface. Unlike traditional hackathons, this event centers specifically on design, encouraging open collaboration on projects that improve usability, accessibility, and innovation in open-source Bitcoin tools. Participants can earn monetary prizes, rewards, and recognition for their work. Anyone can join or start a project. Learn more here.

RECOMMENDED CONTENT

Plunging Currencies, CBDCs, and New Bitcoin Freedom Tools with Guy Swann

In this reading on the Bitcoin Audible podcast, host Guy Swan reads HRF’s Financial Freedom Report #67, offering listeners a front-row view into the latest developments in financial repression and resistance. He unpacks how collapsing currencies, rising inflation, and CBDC rollouts tighten state control in Turkey, Russia, and Nigeria. But he also highlights the tools for pushing back, from the first Stratum V2 mining pool to Cashu’s new Tap-to-Pay ecash feature. If you’re a reader of the Financial Freedom Report, we encourage you to check out the Bitcoin Audible podcast, where Guy Swan will be doing monthly readings of our newsletter. Listen to the full recording here.

Bitcoin Beyond Capital: Freedom Money for the Global South with Femi Longe

In this interview at the 2025 MIT Bitcoin Expo, journalist Frank Corva speaks with Femi Longe, HRF’s global bitcoin lead, who shares insights on Bitcoin’s growing role as freedom money for those living under authoritarian regimes. The conversation highlights the importance of building Bitcoin solutions that center on the specific problems faced by communities rather than the technology itself. Longe commends projects like Tando in Kenya and Bit.Spenda in Ghana, which integrate Bitcoin and Lightning into familiar financial channels, making Bitcoin more practical and accessible for everyday payments and saving. You can watch the interview here and catch the livestreams of the full 2025 MIT Bitcoin Expo here.

If this article was forwarded to you and you enjoyed reading it, please consider subscribing to the Financial Freedom Report here.

Support the newsletter by donating bitcoin to HRF’s Financial Freedom program via BTCPay.\ Want to contribute to the newsletter? Submit tips, stories, news, and ideas by emailing us at ffreport @ hrf.org

The Bitcoin Development Fund (BDF) is accepting grant proposals on an ongoing basis. The Bitcoin Development Fund is looking to support Bitcoin developers, community builders, and educators. Submit proposals here.

Subscribe to newsletter

Apply for a grant

Support our work

Visit our website

@ 3f770d65:7a745b24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Will Casarin

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

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

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

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

@ 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.

@ 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.

@ 23b0e2f8:d8af76fc

Necessário

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

Algumas coisas que você precisa saber

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

---

O tutorial será dividido em dois módulos:

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

---

No final, teremos:

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

---

Módulo 1 - Criando uma carteira fria/assinador

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Conclusão

Pontos positivos do setup:

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

Pontos negativos do setup:

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

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

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

---

@ 1bda7e1f:bb97c4d9

Tldr

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

Inter-op All The Things

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

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

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

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

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

All we need are simple ways to plug things together.

Nostr and Workflow Automation

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

n8n for workflow automation

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

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

Eating my own dogfood

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

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

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

Running n8n with Nostrobots

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

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

Installing n8n

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

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

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

Installing Nostrobots

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

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

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

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

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

Using Nostrobots

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creating and adding workflows

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

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

Nostr Workflow Automations

It's time to build some things!

A simple form to post a note to Nostr

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

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

For this I can use a very simple workflow–

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

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

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

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

Push notifications on mentions and new notes

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

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

I needed to build a Nostr push notifications solution.

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

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

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

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

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

Use my workflows

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

To import any of my workflows–

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

To configure them–

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

What next?

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

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

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

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

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

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

GM Nostr.

@ fd0bcf8c:521f98c0

Collapse.

It's a slow burn.

The LA Fires started decades ago.

Hemingway said, when asked how he went broke:

"Slowly, then all at once."

That’s how collapse happens. Slowly, then suddenly.

Campfire

Ever build one?

You gather wood. Stack the foundation. Set the fuel. Light it up.

If it catches, keep going. Got to stoke it. Feed it. Watch it. In time, the fire's good.

Process It takes time.

Time to gather, build and ignite.

People come at the end. When the flame's dancing.

Like Sunday dinner.

People gather when food's ready. But, only the cook was in the kitchen.

Slow

Societal collapse's similar.

It takes years.

Decades.

Centuries.

A slow cook.

When people notice, the meal’s made. By the time they smell the fire, the forest’s already burning.

People see collapse, but it fell long time ago.

LA

Water, ran dry. Power went out. Fuel stations, empty. Help wasn't on the way.

Politicians politicking.

Making feel-good promises. People believed them. All bad decisions. One after another. They voted for it.

In time, it adds up.

Then, it falls down.

Shift

Analog to digital I work in animation.

Started analog, paper and pencil. It went digital. Scanners, tablets and all.

Veterans, didn't see it coming. Die-hards, refused to acknowledge. They went out of work. Those who adapted—they run the shows now.

Lockdowns

2008, I started a studio.

100% remote. A virtual company.

Some laughed. Others got angry. Said it wouldn't work. They couldn't see.

2020 comes with lockdowns.

Everyone scrambles. Those already digital, thrived.

The rest, shutdown.

History

The Wheel We carried goods. Then came the wheel.

Movement exploded. Trade thrived. Cities rose.

Hunter-gatherers? Left behind.

Collapse wasn't sudden. It was quiet. A shift.

The new formed. The old faded.

Change was inevitable.

Gunpowder

War changed.

Castles crumbled. Swords became relics. Power shifted.

Empires that adapted, thrived. Those that didn't, vanished.

Adapt or die.

The Internet

Borders blurred. Knowledge spread. Walls fell.

Old industries resisted. New empires emerged.

Collapse? No. A new frontier.

Borderless commerce. Shrinking government.

Info and influence, moving fast.

Bitcoin

Money, redefined.

No banks. No middlemen. Just code.

Governments dismiss it. Institutions fear it. But change ignores permission.

A ledger, transparent. A system, unstoppable. Like the internet rewrote communication, Bitcoin rewrites money.

Each invention displaced the old world.

Each collapse brought new opportunity.

Repeats

Mayans Built pyramids. Charted the stars. Cities thrived.

Then, slow decline.

Deforestation. Drought. Conflict.

People scattered.

Cities abandoned.

By the time the Spanish arrived, the fall was old news.

Romans

Not a fall. A fade.

Corruption. Inflation. Invasions. Cracks formed.

The West crumbled. The East endured.

Rome never vanished. Its laws, language, culture? Still here.

Japan

Collapse? No. Reinvention.

Shoguns fell. Meiji rose. Feudal to industrial. War crushed it. Post-war rebuilt it.

The '90s?

A peak. Tech giant. Economic force.

Then, stagnation. Aging population. Debt. Decline.

Still here. Still strong. But no longer rising.

Rhyme

US

Once a colony. Then an empire.

England ruled. America rose. Industry boomed. The 20th century belonged to the U.S.

A superpower. Factories roared. Gold backed the dollar.

A nation built on sound money.

Then, fiat. Paper promises. The gold standard abandoned.

Inflation crept in. Prices rose. Debt piled up. Each decade, the dollar bought less. Wages stagnated. Savings eroded.

Easy money, easy people.

Debt fueled bubbles. Each crash, deeper. The system, fragile.

Wealth concentrated. Time and energy, lost meaning.

A quiet nihilism grew.

People worked more. Gained less. Purpose eroded. Culture followed.

A nation distracted, chasing illusions of prosperity.

Today

The debt's bigger. The politics, fractured. The system strains. The foundation shifts.

The old fades into new.

What's next?

Every collapse starts slow. Then, all at once.

Change

Collapse is change.

It's natural. We see it throughout history.

Like a campfire—fire consumes, but it also brings warmth. Like dinner—before the meal, there’s preparation, transformation. Like LA fires—destructive, painful, but from the ashes, renewal. Possibly.

"To decompose is to be recomposed. That's what nature does. Nature, through whom all things happen as they should, and have happened forever in just the same way, and will continue one way or another endlessly."—Marcus Aurelius

Collapse isn’t the end.

It’s transition.

Preparing

"The Romans were reluctant to acknowledge change, and so are we." —The Sovereign Individual

Florida has hurricanes.

Happens every year. The news reports. Satellites confirm paths. Some, listen and prepare. Others, don't.

The storm comes.

Those prepared, benefit. The rest, suffer.

Like the old animators. They resisted. Now, they’re gone.

Collapse has warnings. How to prepare:

Mindset

Stay calm. See the patterns. Change is constant. Opportunity hides in disruption. Zoom out. Fear distorts judgment.

Skill Development

Learn adaptability. Master digital tools. Understand money. Grow networks. Invest in knowledge, not just assets.

Philosophy

Think long-term. Collapse spans generations. Pass down wisdom. Build resilience. Grow beyond survival—thrive.

Action

Own less, know more. Create. Don’t just consume.

Be part of what’s next.

Conclusion

The fire’s already burning. You can tend it—or watch it burn everything down.

There's a saying:

"There are three types of people in this world: those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who wonder what happened."—Pat Riley

Be the former.

---

Rare Passenger / block height 880 440

@ 8cda1daa:e9e5bdd8

Bitcoin's blockspace is a free market (and a fee market!)

Each byte bids for inclusion according to the fee it carries, whether that byte represents a coffee payment or an encoded inscription protocol. The current debate over expanding OP_RETURN is a reminder that the ledger does not interpret meaning; it only records weight in bytes and payment in bitcoin fees.

There is no value stored on Bitcoin's ledger other than the literal number of bitcoin units recorded in your UTXO.

That means there is no "digital energy" in there, no dollars, no "store of value," nothing except a number in a database.

When you spend bitcoin, for whatever reason, it is your counterparty that decides what those units are worth. They are free to discriminate them, or you, in any way they can get away with.

They can also attribute extra value to them for any reason: a ticker price on their favorite exchange, a JPG forever attached to the output, a USDT anchor, or a private protocol no one even knows about for a VIP club membership.

All value is subjective, so it is impossible to know the trade value of every transaction merely by looking at block data.

Your counterparty also decides when a trade is settled, not the Bitcoin blockchain. They may agree on one confirmation, or three, or zero... They might require a government‑issued ID or even custody of your first‑born child.

Do not confuse Bitcoin "transactions" with trades; they are only score updates in a database. All of the value is decided by people and made competitive by the open market.

Why OP_RETURN Matters Right Now

Bitcoin offers an 80‑byte OP_RETURN field that lets users write data without polluting the UTXO set. As blockspace demand soared with Ordinals, BRC‑20, and Runes, people began hiding data in taproot leaves and bare multisig outputs, which never get spent and therefore swell the UTXO set, driving up node costs.

Relaxing, or even removing, the 80‑byte cap would invite this data back into a provably unspendable, prunable space; the chain stays neutral - every byte either pays or waits.

Is this the right thing to do? Personally, I don't care. Things are working exactly how everyone should have expected.

How to Think About "Spam" vs "Use"

Fee neutrality: If it pays the market fee, it belongs. By design. Hidden context: You can never fully know the value or trade behind the onchain transaction.

UTXO preservation: Favor prunable data (witness & OP_RETURN) over perpetually unspent outputs.

Censorship fragments the mempool: Policy bans force operators to patch their nodes or run alternate relay networks, creating isolated pools, unreliable fee estimates, and extra burden for wallets that must navigate around invisible gaps.

Takeaway

We have no objective tool for classifying "usefulness" on‑chain. The cleanest rule remains: pay the fee, get the block. If you want a lean UTXO set, widen OP_RETURN and let economics, not censorship, do the pruning.

A Meta Recommendation

Bitcoin Core is the de-facto reference implementation, not the policy police. Any subjective rule, whether it targets memes, stablecoins, transaction flags, or inscriptions, can and should be handled in downstream forks, plug‑ins, or user‑level policy. Node operators already tweak mempool size, relay settings, and script limits to match their own risk models. Pretending they cannot already only muddies the debate.

A sure path to minimizing controversy is to keep Bitcoin Core truly core: compact, predictable, and neutral. Every extra rule adds maintenance overhead and widens the surface for accidental forks. By shipping only what consensus requires and leaving higher‑layer policy to the market, Core Devs protect the common base layer we all rely on, and their own sanity.

Bonus Take: 🌶️ Shrink Blocks, or Repeal Taproot

If a transaction looks like spam to you, the blunt but honest remedy is to cut capacity, not to micromanage content. The four‑megabyte block weight and Taproot's flexible script paths are exactly what unlocked today's wave of inscriptions and tokens. If that bothers you, push to shrink the block size or even roll back Taproot and own the trade‑offs. Anything else is selective outrage dressed up as policy.

(NOTE: I do not support any current fork or mempool policy proposals.)

@ 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.

@ 1d7ff02a:d042b5be

Source: https://youtu.be/e_Y9tI4dALA?si=F5wXRlpM0YulbhmY

Twitter Origins and Evolution

Twitter began as Dorsey's attempt to better understand cities by visualizing what people were doing and thinking (00:35-02:27) Key features like @mentions, hashtags, and retweets were invented by users, not the company (04:06-05:24) Dorsey realized Twitter was becoming significant when he saw politicians using it during Obama's first address to the nation (06:29-07:44)

Reflections on Twitter/X

Regrets monetizing too quickly through advertising rather than exploring better business models (12:19-13:05) Believes Twitter should have been built as an open protocol rather than a centralized company (13:05-14:23) Advocates for user choice in algorithms rather than having companies decide what content users see (15:35-18:31)

Decentralized Social Media

Started Blue Sky while at Twitter to create a decentralized social media protocol (22:51-24:07) Later focused on Nostr, which he believes has a better development model similar to Linux (24:07-25:57) Believes the future of social media includes agent-driven systems and greater user agency (29:01-29:41)

Block and Bitcoin

Block (formerly Square) focuses on economic empowerment through financial tools (32:08-32:47) Sees Bitcoin as essential for creating an internet protocol for moving money (33:25-35:09) Believes Bitcoin will eventually move beyond being just a store of value to become a currency for cross-border remittances (35:09-36:58)

Entrepreneurship Philosophy

Never intended to be an entrepreneur but wanted to build useful products (40:22-42:02) Compares entrepreneurship to art - knowing how to express ideas and where to set boundaries (42:02-43:09) Deals with rejection by viewing all experiences as teachers with lessons to offer (43:44-44:55)

Personal Habits

Practices meditation daily and previously did 10-day silent retreats (45:30-46:43) Creates daily lists of both what to do and what not to do (47:21-48:28) Eats only once a day to save time and better appreciate food (51:29-52:39) Dedicates morning hours to learning difficult subjects like quantum physics (48:28-49:40)

His advice to young people: observe everything, take in information, and don't worry about immediately reacting to it (52:39-53:00).

Noteable Quotes

• On Twitter's co-creation with users: "What's interesting about Twitter is it wasn't really us who determined where it went, it was the people using it." (04:06)

• On algorithms: "I think it's less about free speech, I think it's more about do we get to choose how the algorithms are programming us, because the algorithms are definitively programming us." (15:35)

• On rejections and setbacks: "Everything I encounter, everything I experience is a teacher and they have some lesson for me, and it's up to me whether I decide to learn from it or not." (43:44)

• On entrepreneurship as art: "It's expression, it's knowing when to end something, it's knowing what the chapters are and where the piece begins and where it ends." (42:02)

• On Bitcoin's potential: "Bitcoin is over close to 16 years old right now. It's never gone down, it's never had a security issue, it has no leader, it has a completely open roadmap, and it's determined by a consensus development model." (36:18)

• On learning: "I think people skip the observing phase too often. I don't think people are good listeners. I don't think people have honed their ability to observe the world and observe nature and observe how things work." (50:19)

• On his advice to young people: "Observe everything, like take everything in, get love information, love receiving information, don't worry about reacting to it, don't worry about memorizing it, don't worry about doing anything with it at all, just be open." (52:39)

@ 3f770d65:7a745b24

Here are my predictions for Nostr in 2025:

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

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

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

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

@ e0e92e54:d630dfaa

The Leadership Lesson I Learned at the Repair Shop

Today was a reminder of "Who You Know" actually matters.

Our van has been acting up as of late. Front-end noise. My guess? CV joint or bushings.

Not that I’m a mechanic though—my dad took the hammer away from me when I was 12, and now all "my" tools have flowers printed on them or Pink handles...

Yesterday it become apparent to my wife that "sooner rather than later" was optimal.

So this morning she took it to a repair shop where we know the owners.

You may have guessed by now that I’m no car repair guy. It’s just not my strength and I’m ok with that! And even though it’s not my strength, I’m smart enough to know enough about vehicles to be dangerous…

And I’m sure just like you, I hate being ripped off. So last year, we both decided she would handle repair duties—I just get too fired up by most the personnel that work there whom won’t shoot straight with you.

So this morning my wife takes our van in. She sees the owner and next thing my wife knows, the owner’s wife (my wife’s friend) is texting to go get coffee while they take care of the van.

Before the two ladies took off, my wife was told "we'll need all day as one step of it is a 4-hour job just to get to the part that needs to be replaced..."

And the estimate? Half the parts were warrantied out and the labor is lower than we expected it to be.

Fast forward, coffee having been drank… nearly 4 hours on the dot, we get a call “your van is ready!”

My wife didn't stand there haggling the price for parts and labor.

Nope…here’s the real deal:

1. Leadership = Relationships
2. You can’t have too many

Granted, quality is better than quantity in everything I can think of, and that is true for relationships as well...

And while there are varying degrees or depths of relationships. The best ones go both ways.

We didn’t expect a deal because we were at our friend’s shop. We went because we trust them.

That’s it.

Any other expectation other than a transparent and truthful transaction would be manipulating and exploiting the relationship…the exchange would fall into the purely transactional at best and be parasitic at worst!

The Bigger Lesson

Here’s the kicker:

This isn’t about vans or a repair shop. It’s about leading.

Theodore Roosevelt nailed it: “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.”

Trust comes from relationships.

Relationships begin with who you know…And making who you know matter.

In other words, the relevance of the relationship is critical.

Your Move

Next time you dodge a call—or skip an event—pause.

Kill that thought…Or at least its tire marks. 😁

Realize that relationships fuel your business, your life, and your impact.

Because leadership? It’s relationships.

====

💡Who’s one person you can invest in today? A teammate? A client? A mechanic? 😉

🔹 Drop your answer below 👇 Or hit me up—book a Discovery Call. Let’s make your leadership thrive.

---

Jason Ansley* is the founder of Above The Line Leader*, where he provides tailored leadership support and operational expertise to help business owners, entrepreneurs, and leaders thrive— without sacrificing your faith, family, or future.

*Want to strengthen your leadership and enhance operational excellence? Connect with Jason at https://abovethelineleader.com/#your-leadership-journey

*📌 This article first appeared on NOSTR. You can also find more Business Leadership Articles and content at: 👉 https://abovethelineleader.com/business-leadership-articles

@ 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.

@ e97aaffa:2ebd765d

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

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

Código do Bitcoin

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

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

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

Espero que surjam avanços significativos no BitVM2 e BitVMX.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reservas Estratégicas de Bitcoin

Bancos centrais

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

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

Mais que comprar bitcoin, para mim, o mais importante é a criação da Reserva, é colocar o Bitcoin ao mesmo nível do ouro, o impacto para o resto do mundo será tremendo, a teoria dos jogos na sua plenitude. Muitos outros bancos centrais vão ter que comprar, para não ficarem atrás, além disso, vai transmitir uma mensagem à generalidade da população, que o Bitcoin é “afinal é algo seguro, com valor”.

Mas não foi Trump que iniciou esta teoria dos jogos, mas sim foi a primeira vítima dela. É o próprio Trump que o admite, que os EUA necessitam da reserva para não ficar atrás da China. Além disso, desde que os EUA utilizaram o dólar como uma arma, com sanção contra a Rússia, surgiram boatos de que a Rússia estaria a utilizar o Bitcoin para transações internacionais. Que foram confirmados recentemente, pelo próprio governo russo. Também há poucos dias, ainda antes deste reconhecimento público, Putin elogiou o Bitcoin, ao reconhecer que “Ninguém pode proibir o bitcoin”, defendendo como uma alternativa ao dólar. A narrativa está a mudar.

Já existem alguns países com Bitcoin, mas apenas dois o fizeram conscientemente (El Salvador e Butão), os restantes têm devido a apreensões. Hoje são poucos, mas 2025 será o início de uma corrida pelos bancos centrais. Esta corrida era algo previsível, o que eu não esperava é que acontecesse tão rápido.

Empresas

A criação de reservas estratégicas não vai ficar apenas pelos bancos centrais, também vai acelerar fortemente nas empresas em 2025.

Mas as empresas não vão seguir a estratégia do Saylor, vão comprar bitcoin sem alavancagem, utilizando apenas os tesouros das empresas, como uma proteção contra a inflação. Eu não sou grande admirador do Saylor, prefiro muito mais, uma estratégia conservadora, sem qualquer alavancagem. Penso que as empresas vão seguir a sugestão da BlackRock, que aconselha um alocações de 1% a 3%.

Penso que 2025, ainda não será o ano da entrada das 6 magníficas (excepto Tesla), será sobretudo empresas de pequena e média dimensão. As magníficas ainda tem uma cota muito elevada de shareholders com alguma idade, bastante conservadores, que têm dificuldade em compreender o Bitcoin, foi o que aconteceu recentemente com a Microsoft.

Também ainda não será em 2025, talvez 2026, a inclusão nativamente de wallet Bitcoin nos sistema da Apple Pay e da Google Pay. Seria um passo gigante para a adoção a nível mundial.

ETFs

Os ETFs para mim são uma incógnita, tenho demasiadas dúvidas, como será 2025. Este ano os inflows foram superiores a 500 mil bitcoins, o IBIT foi o lançamento de ETF mais bem sucedido da história. O sucesso dos ETFs, deve-se a 2 situações que nunca mais se vão repetir. O mercado esteve 10 anos à espera pela aprovação dos ETFs, a procura estava reprimida, isso foi bem notório nos primeiros meses, os inflows foram brutais.

Também se beneficiou por ser um mercado novo, não existia orderbook de vendas, não existia um mercado interno, praticamente era só inflows. Agora o mercado já estabilizou, a maioria das transações já são entre clientes dos próprios ETFs. Agora só uma pequena percentagem do volume das transações diárias vai resultar em inflows ou outflows.

Estes dois fenómenos nunca mais se vão repetir, eu não acredito que o número de inflows em BTC supere os número de 2024, em dólares vai superar, mas em btc não acredito que vá superar.

Mas em 2025 vão surgir uma infindável quantidade de novos produtos, derivativos, novos ETFs de cestos com outras criptos ou cestos com ativos tradicionais. O bitcoin será adicionado em produtos financeiros já existentes no mercado, as pessoas vão passar a deter bitcoin, sem o saberem.

Com o fim da operação ChokePoint 2.0, vai surgir uma nova onda de adoção e de produtos financeiros. Possivelmente vamos ver bancos tradicionais a disponibilizar produtos ou serviços de custódia aos seus clientes.

Eu adoraria ver o crescimento da adoção do bitcoin como moeda, só que a regulamentação não vai ajudar nesse processo.

Preço

Eu acredito que o topo deste ciclo será alcançado no primeiro semestre, posteriormente haverá uma correção. Mas desta vez, eu acredito que a correção será muito menor que as anteriores, inferior a 50%, esta é a minha expectativa. Espero estar certo.

Stablecoins de dólar

Agora saindo um pouco do universo do Bitcoin, acho importante destacar as stablecoins.

No último ciclo, eu tenho dividido o tempo, entre continuar a estudar o Bitcoin e estudar o sistema financeiro, as suas dinâmicas e o comportamento humano. Isto tem sido o meu foco de reflexão, imaginar a transformação que o mundo vai sofrer devido ao padrão Bitcoin. É uma ilusão acreditar que a transição de um padrão FIAT para um padrão Bitcoin vai ser rápida, vai existir um processo transitório que pode demorar décadas.

Com a re-entrada de Trump na Casa Branca, prometendo uma política altamente protecionista, vai provocar uma forte valorização do dólar, consequentemente as restantes moedas do mundo vão derreter. Provocando uma inflação generalizada, gerando uma corrida às stablecoins de dólar nos países com moedas mais fracas. Trump vai ter uma política altamente expansionista, vai exportar dólares para todo o mundo, para financiar a sua própria dívida. A desigualdade entre os pobres e ricos irá crescer fortemente, aumentando a possibilidade de conflitos e revoltas.

“Casa onde não há pão, todos ralham e ninguém tem razão”

Será mais lenha, para alimentar a fogueira, vai gravar os conflitos geopolíticos já existentes, ficando as sociedade ainda mais polarizadas.

Eu acredito que 2025, vai haver um forte crescimento na adoção das stablecoins de dólares, esse forte crescimento vai agravar o problema sistémico que são as stablecoins. Vai ser o início do fim das stablecoins, pelo menos, como nós conhecemos hoje em dia.

Problema sistémico

O sistema FIAT não nasceu de um dia para outro, foi algo que foi construído organicamente, ou seja, foi evoluindo ao longo dos anos, sempre que havia um problema/crise, eram criadas novas regras ou novas instituições para minimizar os problemas. Nestes quase 100 anos, desde os acordos de Bretton Woods, a evolução foram tantas, tornaram o sistema financeiro altamente complexo, burocrático e nada eficiente.

Na prática é um castelo de cartas construído sobre outro castelo de cartas e que por sua vez, foi construído sobre outro castelo de cartas.

As stablecoins são um problema sistémico, devido às suas reservas em dólares e o sistema financeiro não está preparado para manter isso seguro. Com o crescimento das reservas ao longo dos anos, foi se agravando o problema.

No início a Tether colocava as reservas em bancos comerciais, mas com o crescimento dos dólares sob gestão, criou um problema nos bancos comerciais, devido à reserva fracionária. Essas enormes reservas da Tether estavam a colocar em risco a própria estabilidade dos bancos.

A Tether acabou por mudar de estratégia, optou por outros ativos, preferencialmente por títulos do tesouro/obrigações dos EUA. Só que a Tether continua a crescer e não dá sinais de abrandamento, pelo contrário.

Até o próprio mundo cripto, menosprezava a gravidade do problema da Tether/stablecoins para o resto do sistema financeiro, porque o marketcap do cripto ainda é muito pequeno. É verdade que ainda é pequeno, mas a Tether não o é, está no top 20 dos maiores detentores de títulos do tesouros dos EUA e está ao nível dos maiores bancos centrais do mundo. Devido ao seu tamanho, está a preocupar os responsáveis/autoridades/reguladores dos EUA, pode colocar em causa a estabilidade do sistema financeiro global, que está assente nessas obrigações.

Os títulos do tesouro dos EUA são o colateral mais utilizado no mundo, tanto por bancos centrais, como por empresas, é a charneira da estabilidade do sistema financeiro. Os títulos do tesouro são um assunto muito sensível. Na recente crise no Japão, do carry trade, o Banco Central do Japão tentou minimizar a desvalorização do iene através da venda de títulos dos EUA. Esta operação, obrigou a uma viagem de emergência, da Secretaria do Tesouro dos EUA, Janet Yellen ao Japão, onde disponibilizou liquidez para parar a venda de títulos por parte do Banco Central do Japão. Essa forte venda estava desestabilizando o mercado.

Os principais detentores de títulos do tesouros são institucionais, bancos centrais, bancos comerciais, fundo de investimento e gestoras, tudo administrado por gestores altamente qualificados, racionais e que conhecem a complexidade do mercado de obrigações.

O mundo cripto é seu oposto, é naife com muita irracionalidade e uma forte pitada de loucura, na sua maioria nem faz a mínima ideia como funciona o sistema financeiro. Essa irracionalidade pode levar a uma “corrida bancária”, como aconteceu com o UST da Luna, que em poucas horas colapsou o projeto. Em termos de escala, a Luna ainda era muito pequena, por isso, o problema ficou circunscrito ao mundo cripto e a empresas ligadas diretamente ao cripto.

Só que a Tether é muito diferente, caso exista algum FUD, que obrigue a Tether a desfazer-se de vários biliões ou dezenas de biliões de dólares em títulos num curto espaço de tempo, poderia provocar consequências terríveis em todo o sistema financeiro. A Tether é grande demais, é já um problema sistémico, que vai agravar-se com o crescimento em 2025.

Não tenham dúvidas, se existir algum problema, o Tesouro dos EUA vai impedir a venda dos títulos que a Tether tem em sua posse, para salvar o sistema financeiro. O problema é, o que vai fazer a Tether, se ficar sem acesso às venda das reservas, como fará o redeem dos dólares?

Como o crescimento do Tether é inevitável, o Tesouro e o FED estão com um grande problema em mãos, o que fazer com o Tether?

Mas o problema é que o atual sistema financeiro é como um curto cobertor: Quanto tapas a cabeça, destapas os pés; Ou quando tapas os pés, destapas a cabeça. Ou seja, para resolver o problema da guarda reservas da Tether, vai criar novos problemas, em outros locais do sistema financeiro e assim sucessivamente.

Conta mestre

Uma possível solução seria dar uma conta mestre à Tether, dando o acesso direto a uma conta no FED, semelhante à que todos os bancos comerciais têm. Com isto, a Tether deixaria de necessitar os títulos do tesouro, depositando o dinheiro diretamente no banco central. Só que isto iria criar dois novos problemas, com o Custodia Bank e com o restante sistema bancário.

O Custodia Bank luta há vários anos contra o FED, nos tribunais pelo direito a ter licença bancária para um banco com full-reserves. O FED recusou sempre esse direito, com a justificativa que esse banco, colocaria em risco toda a estabilidade do sistema bancário existente, ou seja, todos os outros bancos poderiam colapsar. Perante a existência em simultâneo de bancos com reserva fracionária e com full-reserves, as pessoas e empresas iriam optar pelo mais seguro. Isso iria provocar uma corrida bancária, levando ao colapso de todos os bancos com reserva fracionária, porque no Custodia Bank, os fundos dos clientes estão 100% garantidos, para qualquer valor. Deixaria de ser necessário limites de fundos de Garantia de Depósitos.

Eu concordo com o FED nesse ponto, que os bancos com full-reserves são uma ameaça a existência dos restantes bancos. O que eu discordo do FED, é a origem do problema, o problema não está nos bancos full-reserves, mas sim nos que têm reserva fracionária.

O FED ao conceder uma conta mestre ao Tether, abre um precedente, o Custodia Bank irá o aproveitar, reclamando pela igualdade de direitos nos tribunais e desta vez, possivelmente ganhará a sua licença.

Ainda há um segundo problema, com os restantes bancos comerciais. A Tether passaria a ter direitos similares aos bancos comerciais, mas os deveres seriam muito diferentes. Isto levaria os bancos comerciais aos tribunais para exigir igualdade de tratamento, é uma concorrência desleal. Isto é o bom dos tribunais dos EUA, são independentes e funcionam, mesmo contra o estado. Os bancos comerciais têm custos exorbitantes devido às políticas de compliance, como o KYC e AML. Como o governo não vai querer aliviar as regras, logo seria a Tether, a ser obrigada a fazer o compliance dos seus clientes.

A obrigação do KYC para ter stablecoins iriam provocar um terramoto no mundo cripto.

Assim, é pouco provável que seja a solução para a Tether.

FED

Só resta uma hipótese, ser o próprio FED a controlar e a gerir diretamente as stablecoins de dólar, nacionalizado ou absorvendo as existentes. Seria uma espécie de CBDC. Isto iria provocar um novo problema, um problema diplomático, porque as stablecoins estão a colocar em causa a soberania monetária dos outros países. Atualmente as stablecoins estão um pouco protegidas porque vivem num limbo jurídico, mas a partir do momento que estas são controladas pelo governo americano, tudo muda. Os países vão exigir às autoridades americanas medidas que limitem o uso nos seus respectivos países.

Não existe uma solução boa, o sistema FIAT é um castelo de cartas, qualquer carta que se mova, vai provocar um desmoronamento noutro local. As autoridades não poderão adiar mais o problema, terão que o resolver de vez, senão, qualquer dia será tarde demais. Se houver algum problema, vão colocar a responsabilidade no cripto e no Bitcoin. Mas a verdade, a culpa é inteiramente dos políticos, da sua incompetência em resolver os problemas a tempo.

Será algo para acompanhar futuramente, mas só para 2026, talvez…

É curioso, há uns anos pensava-se que o Bitcoin seria a maior ameaça ao sistema ao FIAT, mas afinal, a maior ameaça aos sistema FIAT é o próprio FIAT(stablecoins). A ironia do destino.

Isto é como uma corrida, o Bitcoin é aquele atleta que corre ao seu ritmo, umas vezes mais rápido, outras vezes mais lento, mas nunca pára. O FIAT é o atleta que dá tudo desde da partida, corre sempre em velocidade máxima. Só que a vida e o sistema financeiro não é uma prova de 100 metros, mas sim uma maratona.

Europa

2025 será um ano desafiante para todos europeus, sobretudo devido à entrada em vigor da regulamentação (MiCA). Vão começar a sentir na pele a regulamentação, vão agravar-se os problemas com os compliance, problemas para comprovar a origem de fundos e outras burocracias. Vai ser lindo.

O Travel Route passa a ser obrigatório, os europeus serão obrigados a fazer o KYC nas transações. A Travel Route é uma suposta lei para criar mais transparência, mas prática, é uma lei de controle, de monitorização e para limitar as liberdades individuais dos cidadãos.

O MiCA também está a colocar problemas nas stablecoins de Euro, a Tether para já preferiu ficar de fora da europa. O mais ridículo é que as novas regras obrigam os emissores a colocar 30% das reservas em bancos comerciais. Os burocratas europeus não compreendem que isto coloca em risco a estabilidade e a solvência dos próprios bancos, ficam propensos a corridas bancárias.

O MiCA vai obrigar a todas as exchanges a estar registadas em solo europeu, ficando vulnerável ao temperamento dos burocratas. Ainda não vai ser em 2025, mas a UE vai impor políticas de controle de capitais, é inevitável, as exchanges serão obrigadas a usar em exclusividade stablecoins de euro, as restantes stablecoins serão deslistadas.

Todas estas novas regras do MiCA, são extremamente restritas, não é para garantir mais segurança aos cidadãos europeus, mas sim para garantir mais controle sobre a população. A UE está cada vez mais perto da autocracia, do que da democracia. A minha única esperança no horizonte, é que o sucesso das políticas cripto nos EUA, vai obrigar a UE a recuar e a aligeirar as regras, a teoria dos jogos é implacável. Mas esse recuo, nunca acontecerá em 2025, vai ser um longo período conturbado.

Recessão

Os mercados estão todos em máximos históricos, isto não é sustentável por muito tempo, suspeito que no final de 2025 vai acontecer alguma correção nos mercados. A queda só não será maior, porque os bancos centrais vão imprimir dinheiro, muito dinheiro, como se não houvesse amanhã. Vão voltar a resolver os problemas com a injeção de liquidez na economia, é empurrar os problemas com a barriga, em de os resolver. Outra vez o efeito Cantillon.

Será um ano muito desafiante a nível político, onde o papel dos políticos será fundamental. A crise política na França e na Alemanha, coloca a UE órfã, sem um comandante ao leme do navio. 2025 estará condicionado pelas eleições na Alemanha, sobretudo no resultado do AfD, que podem colocar em causa a propriedade UE e o euro.

Possivelmente, só o fim da guerra poderia minimizar a crise, algo que é muito pouco provável acontecer.

Em Portugal, a economia parece que está mais ou menos equilibrada, mas começam a aparecer alguns sinais preocupantes. Os jogos de sorte e azar estão em máximos históricos, batendo o recorde de 2014, época da grande crise, não é um bom sinal, possivelmente já existe algum desespero no ar.

A Alemanha é o motor da Europa, quanto espirra, Portugal constipa-se. Além do problema da Alemanha, a Espanha também está à beira de uma crise, são os países que mais influenciam a economia portuguesa.

Se existir uma recessão mundial, terá um forte impacto no turismo, que é hoje em dia o principal motor de Portugal.

Brasil

Brasil é algo para acompanhar em 2025, sobretudo a nível macro e a nível político. Existe uma possibilidade de uma profunda crise no Brasil, sobretudo na sua moeda. O banco central já anda a queimar as reservas para minimizar a desvalorização do Real.

Sem mudanças profundas nas políticas fiscais, as reservas vão se esgotar. As políticas de controle de capitais são um cenário plausível, será interesse de acompanhar, como o governo irá proceder perante a existência do Bitcoin e stablecoins. No Brasil existe um forte adoção, será um bom case study, certamente irá repetir-se em outros países num futuro próximo.

Os próximos tempos não serão fáceis para os brasileiros, especialmente para os que não têm Bitcoin.

Blockchain

Em 2025, possivelmente vamos ver os primeiros passos da BlackRock para criar a primeira bolsa de valores, exclusivamente em blockchain. Eu acredito que a BlackRock vai criar uma própria blockchain, toda controlada por si, onde estarão os RWAs, para fazer concorrência às tradicionais bolsas de valores. Será algo interessante de acompanhar.

---

Estas são as minhas previsões, eu escrevi isto muito em cima do joelho, certamente esqueci-me de algumas coisas, se for importante acrescentarei nos comentários. A maioria das previsões só acontecerá após 2025, mas fica aqui a minha opinião.

Isto é apenas a minha opinião, Don’t Trust, Verify!

@ 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.

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

I was a bit more distracted than normal this month, but ~econ kept humming along.

• Posts: 228 (7th)
• Comments: 1459 (5th)
• Stacking: 128k (4th)
• Revenue: 74k (4th)

We're holding pretty steady, but haven't gotten back to our highs from last year.

With revenue down slightly, I'll move the post fee back towards the previous local max and conclude the posting fee optimization process for now. Going forward the posting fee will be set at 84 sats (until I decide to start messing with it again).

Next month, I'll start the comment fee optimization process.

We're still on pace for a profitable year and having a nice sized fund to pay out the end-of-year awards.

Thanks everyone for supporting this community!

Let me know if you have any suggestions for how to improve the territory.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/967545

@ f9cf4e94:96abc355

Na era das grandes navegações, piratas ingleses eram autorizados pelo governo para roubar navios.

A única coisa que diferenciava um pirata comum de um corsário é que o último possuía a “Carta do Corso”, que funcionava como um “Alvará para o roubo”, onde o governo Inglês legitimava o roubo de navios por parte dos corsários. É claro, que em troca ele exigia uma parte da espoliação.

Bastante similar com a maneira que a Receita Federal atua, não? Na verdade, o caso é ainda pior, pois o governo fica com toda a riqueza espoliada, e apenas repassa um mísero salário para os corsários modernos, os agentes da receita federal.

Porém eles “justificam” esse roubo ao chamá-lo de imposto, e isso parece acalmar os ânimos de grande parte da população, mas não de nós. Não é por acaso que 'imposto' é o particípio passado do verbo 'impor'. Ou seja, é aquilo que resulta do cumprimento obrigatório -- e não voluntário -- de todos os cidadãos. Se não for 'imposto' ninguém paga. Nem mesmo seus defensores. Isso mostra o quanto as pessoas realmente apreciam os serviços do estado.

Apenas volte um pouco na história: os primeiros pagadores de impostos eram fazendeiros cujos territórios foram invadidos por nômades que pastoreavam seu gado. Esses invasores nômades forçavam os fazendeiros a lhes pagar uma fatia de sua renda em troca de "proteção". O fazendeiro que não concordasse era assassinado.

Os nômades perceberam que era muito mais interessante e confortável apenas cobrar uma taxa de proteção em vez de matar o fazendeiro e assumir suas posses. Cobrando uma taxa, eles obtinham o que necessitavam. Já se matassem os fazendeiros, eles teriam de gerenciar por conta própria toda a produção da fazenda. Daí eles entenderam que, ao não assassinarem todos os fazendeiros que encontrassem pelo caminho, poderiam fazer desta prática um modo de vida.

Assim nasceu o governo.

Não assassinar pessoas foi o primeiro serviço que o governo forneceu. Como temos sorte em ter à nossa disposição esta instituição!

Assim, não deixa de ser curioso que algumas pessoas digam que os impostos são pagos basicamente para impedir que aconteça exatamente aquilo que originou a existência do governo. O governo nasceu da extorsão. Os fazendeiros tinham de pagar um "arrego" para seu governo. Caso contrário, eram assassinados. Quem era a real ameaça? O governo. A máfia faz a mesma coisa.

Mas existe uma forma de se proteger desses corsários modernos. Atualmente, existe uma propriedade privada que NINGUÉM pode tirar de você, ela é sua até mesmo depois da morte. É claro que estamos falando do Bitcoin. Fazendo as configurações certas, é impossível saber que você tem bitcoin. Nem mesmo o governo americano consegue saber.

brasil #bitcoinbrasil #nostrbrasil #grownostr #bitcoin

@ 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.

@ 1739d937:3e3136ef

MLS over Nostr - 30th April 2025

YO! Exciting stuff in this update so no intro, let's get straight into it.

🚢 Libraries Released

I've created 4 new Rust crates to make implementing NIP-EE (MLS) messaging easy for other projects. These are now part of the rust-nostr project (thanks nostr:npub1drvpzev3syqt0kjrls50050uzf25gehpz9vgdw08hvex7e0vgfeq0eseet) but aren't quite released to crates.io yet. They will be included in the next release of that library. My hope is that these libraries will give nostr developers a simple, safe, and specification-compliant way to work with MLS messaging in their applications.

Here's a quick overview of each:

nostr_mls_storage

One of the challenges of using MLS messaging is that clients have to store quite a lot of state about groups, keys, and messages. Initially, I implemented all of this in White Noise but knew that eventually this would need to be done in a more generalized way.

This crate defines traits and types that are used by the storage implementation crates and sets those up to wrap the OpenMLS storage layer. Now, instead of apps having to implement storage for both OpenMLS and Nostr, you simply pick your storage backend and go from there.

Importantly, because these are generic traits, it allows for the creation of any number of storage implementations for different backend storage providers; postgres, lmdb, nostrdb, etc. To start I've created two implementations; detailed below.

nostr_mls_memory_storage

This is a simple implementation of the nostr_mls_storage traits that uses an in-memory store (that doesn't persist anything to disc). This is principally for testing.

nostr_mls_sqlite_storage

This is a production ready implementation of the nostr_mls_storage traits that uses a persistent local sqlite database to store all data.

nostr_mls

This is the main library that app developers will interact with. Once you've chose a backend and instantiated an instance of NostrMls you can then interact with a simple set of methods to create key packages, create groups, send messages, process welcomes and messages, and more.

If you want to see a complete example of what the interface looks like check out mls_memory.rs.

I'll continue to add to this library over time as I implement more of the MLS protocol features.

🚧 White Noise Refactor

As a result of these new libraries, I was able to remove a huge amount of code from White Noise and refactor large parts of the app to make the codebase easier to understand and maintain. Because of this large refactor and the changes in the underlying storage layer, if you've installed White Noise before you'll need to delete it from your device before you trying to install again.

🖼️ Encrypted Media with Blossom

Let's be honest: Group chat would be basically useless if you couldn't share memes and gifs. Well, now you can in White Noise. Media in groups is encrypted using an MLS secret and uploaded to Blossom with a one-time use keypair. This gives groups a way to have rich conversations with images and documents and anything else while also maintaining the privacy and security of the conversation.

This is still in a rough state but rendering improvements are coming next.

📱 Damn Mobile

The app is still in a semi-broken state on Android and fully broken state on iOS. Now that I have the libraries released and the White Noise core code refactored, I'm focused 100% on fixing these issues. My goal is to have a beta version live on Zapstore in a few weeks.

🧑‍💻 Join Us

I'm looking for mobile developers on both Android and iOS to join the team and help us build the best possible apps for these platforms. I have grant funding available for the right people. Come and help us build secure, permissionless, censorship-resistant messaging. I can think of few projects that deserve your attention more than securing freedom of speech and freedom of association for the entire world. If you're interested or know someone who might be, please reach out to me directly.

🙏 Thanks to the People

Last but not least: A HUGE thank you to all the folks that have been helping make this project happen. You can check out the people that are directly working on the apps on Following._ (and follow them). There are also a lot of people behind the scenes that have helped in myriad ways to get us this far. Thank you thank you thank you.

🔗 Links

Libraries

• nostr_mls
• nostr_mls_storage
• nostr_mls_memory_storage
• nostr_mls_sqlite_storage

White Noise

• White Noise Repo
• White Noise Releases

Other

• Previous updates

@ 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.