@ 000002de:c05780a7

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIMZH7DEPPQ

I really enjoy listening to non-technical people talk about technology when they get the bigger picture impacts and how it relates to our humanity.

I was reminded of this video by @k00b's post about an AI generated video of a victim forgiving his killer.

Piper says, "Computers are better at words than you. Than I". But they are machines. They cannot feel. They cannot have emotion.

This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me

~ Matthew 15:8

Most of us hate it when people are fake with us. When they say things they don't mean. When they say things just to get something they want from us. Yet, we are quickly falling into this same trap with technology. Accepting it as real and human. I'm not suggesting we can't use technology but we have to be careful that we do not fall into this mechanical trap and forget what makes humans special.

We are emotional and spiritual beings. Though AI didn't exist during the times Jesus walked the earth read the verse above in a broader context.

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

“‘This people honors me with their lips,

but their heart is far from me;

in vain do they worship me,

teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

Empty words. Words without meaning because they are not from a pure desire and love. You may not be a Christian but don't miss the significance of this. There is a value in being real. Sharing true emotion and heart. Don't fall into the trap of the culture of lies that surrounds us. I would rather hear true words with mistakes and less eloquence any day over something fake. I would rather share a real moment with the ones I love than a million fake moments. Embrace the messy imperfect but real world.

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973324

@ b6dcdddf:dfee5ee7

You can now fund projects on Geyser using Credit Cards, Apple Pay, Bank Transfers, and more.

The best part: 🧾 You pay in fiat and ⚡️ the creator receives Bitcoin.

You heard it right! Let's dive in 👇

First, how does it work? For contributors, it's easy! Once the project creator has verified their identity, anyone can contribute with fiat methods. Simply go through the usual contribution flow and select 'Pay with Fiat'. The first contribution is KYC-free.

Why does this matter? 1. Many Bitcoiners don't want to spend their Bitcoin: 👉 Number go up (NgU) 👉 Capital gains taxes With fiat contributions, there's no more excuse to contribute towards Bitcoin builders and creators! 2. Non-bitcoin holders want to support projects too. If someone loves your mission but only has a debit card, they used to be stuck. Now? They can back your Bitcoin project with familiar fiat tools. Now, they can do it all through Geyser!

So, why swap fiat into Bitcoin? Because Bitcoin is borderless. Fiat payouts are limited to certain countries, banks, and red tape. By auto-swapping fiat to Bitcoin, we ensure: 🌍 Instant payouts to creators all around the world ⚡️ No delays or restrictions 💥 Every contribution is also a silent Bitcoin buy

How to enable Fiat contributions If you’re a creator, it’s easy: - Go to your Dashboard → Wallet - Click “Enable Fiat Contributions” - Complete a quick ID verification (required by our payment provider) ✅ That’s it — your project is now open to global fiat supporters.

Supporting Bitcoin adoption At Geyser, our mission is to empower Bitcoin creators and builders. Adding fiat options amplifies our mission. It brings more people into the ecosystem while staying true to what we believe: ⚒️ Build on Bitcoin 🌱 Fund impactful initiatives 🌎 Enable global participation

**Support projects with fiat now! ** We've compiled a list of projects that currently have fiat contributions enabled. If you've been on the fence to support them because you didn't want to spend your Bitcoin, now's the time to do your first contribution!

Education - Citadel Dispatch: https://geyser.fund/project/citadel - @FREEMadeiraOrg: https://geyser.fund/project/freemadeira - @MyfirstBitcoin_: https://geyser.fund/project/miprimerbitcoin

Circular Economies - @BitcoinEkasi: https://geyser.fund/project/bitcoinekasi - Madagascar Bitcoin: https://geyser.fund/project/madagasbit - @BitcoinChatt : https://geyser.fund/project/bitcoinchatt - Uganda Gayaza BTC Market: https://geyser.fund/project/gayazabtcmarket

Activism - Education Bitcoin Channel: https://geyser.fund/project/streamingsats

Sports - The Sats Fighter Journey: https://geyser.fund/project/thesatsfighterjourney

Culture - Bitcoin Tarot Cards: https://geyser.fund/project/bitcointarotcard

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973003

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

One of the best first rounds in recent memory just concluded. Let's recap our playoff contests.

Bracket Challenge

In our joint contest with Global Sports Central, @WeAreAllSatoshi is leading the way with 85 points, while me and some nostr jabroni are tied for second with 80 points.

The bad news is that they are slightly ahead of us, with an average score of 62 to our 60.8. We need to go back in time and make less stupid picks.

Points Challenge

With the Warriors victory, I jumped into a commanding lead over @grayruby. LA sure let most of you down. I say you hold @realBitcoinDog responsible for his beloved hometown's failures.

I still need @Car and @Coinsreporter to make their picks for this round. The only matchup they can choose from is Warriors (7) @ Timberwolves (6). Lucky for them, that's probably the best one to choose from.

| Stacker | Points | |---------|--------| | @Undisciplined | 25| | @grayruby | 24| | @Coinsreporter | 19 | | @BlokchainB | 19| | @Carresan | 18 | | @gnilma | 18 | | @WeAreAllSatoshi | 12 | | @fishious | 11 | | @Car | 1 |

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973284

@ 2e8970de:63345c7a

https://www.epi.org/blog/wage-growth-since-1979-has-not-been-stagnant-but-it-has-definitely-been-suppressed/

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/972959

@ f72e682e:c51af867

All across the Lightning Network we can detect quite a lot of nodes, specially new nodes but also old nodes, that show a concerning lack of good node operation which impedes proper routing. I’ve seen nodes with a variable capacity whose channels are stagnant and non performant, which raises a question: what is the point on maintaining a public node if you are not able to route and dynamically assign resources as needed? Certainly it is a useless node, and channels of those nodes with other nodes better maintained are also useless, not because the fault of the good ones, but because the fault of the bad ones, which makes the whole network not as performant and great as it should be.

For the shake of improving the Lightning Network, I have created this guide, so every node out there can become useful, and, also, will greatly improve gains in routing for itself. Do not expect to become rich or even live out of routing fees, that is impossible unless you have a node with 100 or more BTC in 2025, but at least, a node should be able to cover its own maintenance costs; its the idea. Problem is that, currently, most nodes run on a loss, and that is highly related with the fee policy and the choice of nodes that they connect to. Let’s put an end to this. Here you will learn how to, at least, earn enough to cover electricity of your node, and with luck, a bit more.

Current earnings cover electricity and the payment of my node:

3K sats per day might not seem much for a 5 BTC capacity (2.5 BTC real outbound) node, but the screenshot was taken in a bad day, when the mempool was empty. I took the screenshot of a bad day on purpose, to prove my point. Some other days, specially when Bitcoin is going bullish and it is used a lot, I have seen 20K per day. A quick calculation brings around 1M sats per year at a minimum, more than enough to pay electricity, the machine, and even a bit more for beers and fun! Real gains across the year could be closer to around 5M in my case, which is not bad. And what is incredible, I maintain general low fees for most of the cases, except when I have no liquidity in the channel which must be high, as you will understand later in this article. So if you double or triple my recommended fees I would expect quite a lot more earnings. So expect gains of around 2% of the total capacity (4% for the amount you put in) per year minimum, and any extra beyond that by fine-tuning my recommendations I'm sure it will be very welcomed by you!

Step 1: put the node in a good machine

Please, don’t use an old computer or laptop, unless you change the SSD for a new one. Bitcoin and lightning uses the SSD heavily, which means it will fry it sooner or later. That is so that I recommend changing the SSD every 2 years even it it still feels good. If your SSD dies during operation, expect big loses. I’ve seen this so many times, and it also happened to me, that I am very serious about recommending it. Also, please use only Linux with ext4 file format, other formats, including ZFS, I’ve seen failing badly. If your filesystem fails, the sqlite db that LND or CLN uses will fail and you will force close many if not most channels, with big fees for onchain closings, which will totally ruin all your gains. You have been warned!

Also, please take your time to configure a clearnet (ipv4) address. Do not rely only on Tor, because Tor is slow and unreliable, specially when updating channel states on the gossip, which you will be doing a lot. Of course, configure Tor also, but as secondary, because too many nodes are Tor only, which is unfortunate.

Step 2: connect to good nodes

As a public node operator, your duty is to connect to as many nodes as possible, but first, to good reputable nodes. Your first 10 channels should be with big nodes and service providers, like exchanges, wallets, but also to very well positioned big nodes. Take your time to select these 10 first nodes and connect to the ones you think will improve your position in the network. Don’t choose the first 10 biggest, take your time to study the fees. Select nodes that use a wide range of fees, from 0 to 1000ppm. Don’t discard a node because you see some channels with high fees, it could only mean that they have no liquidity right now in that channel. But if all its channels have high fees, or at least all small channels have high fees, then discard it.

Then, when you have your first 10 big nodes connected, go ahead and go to https://lightningnetwork.plus/ to choose less popular ones. You need them, because you seek to fill the voids between smaller nodes, it is what most of your revenue will come from. Always try to do swaps, use the liquidity pool later when you have enough total inbound liquidity. Remember that total capacity is not total outbound. Total capacity is total outbound + total inbound. So you can start with 0.25BTC of your own, but total capacity could be much higher if other peers have open channels to you.

A proper public node should have a minimum of 50 channels at its peak. It doesn’t matter much the size of the channels, but the quantity and the quality. A node with 50x500k sized channels will usually perform 10x better than a node with 5x5M sized channels, even if they have the same total capacity. This is because more opportunities to route will be found if you have more channels, which means you are much better positioned.

Anyway, the minimum recommended is 1M per channel because most HTCLs are 100k to 500k and less than 1M will wipe out all your liquidity in the channels in one or two routings. This could change in the future because of the Bitcoin price, but in 2025 this is the state of things. But if you don’t have 0.25 BTC to open 50 channels (25 open by you, 25 by others using swaps), just use smaller channels, don't let your available liquidity to crush your excitement, who knows what is the future ahead us! Remember that we are just at the beginning of this technology and there is nothing that impides your channels to be open for the next 20 years when 1BTC=$1M! I would put the ultra minimum at 250k per channel, which means a 12.5M node (6.25M required sats to start with), but even that is too precarious in 2025. But hopefully not in the future! If you have less than that my honest recommendation is to run a private node and open private channels only, and only if you absolutely need a node because you have to provide a service for multiple people and you can't conform to use simpler wallets. Right now, I can think of only one example of requiring an ultra-small node instead of wallets, which is using LNBits to service your small business or family. Be aware, anyway, that a 12.5M node will definitely not cover your node running costs in 2025, it is just an investment and positioning for a future!

In any case, never, ever, put all your BTC in a LN node, at most one third of your bitcoins and only when you are confident.

Also remember you have to be online 24/7. Please, don’t setup a node if you can’t. Remember you are providing a constant service, not an intermittent one. This guide won’t work if you are not committed to this rule.

Step 3: understand the flow

I’ve seen too many node operators that do not understand how payments are routed, and this is a big problem, because this is the base of everything we do with a LN node.

Payments go from one node to another to another to another until it reaches destination. Each node has what is called an outbound fee. This fee controls how much does it cost to route a payment through that node. If the fee is low it is considered attractive and other nodes will prefer to use that route. If the fee is high, it is obvious that nodes will not choose that route unless there is no other way.

But there is a problem here: all channels have a liquidity limit. If a channel has 1M liquidity and a payment of 500k comes through it, then now the channel has 500k liquidity, that is, a ratio of 0.5. If another 400k comes through, now it has 100k liquidity and a ratio of 0.1. If now somebody tries to route a 200k payment through that channel, and error will happen, because it doesn’t have enough liquidity. It is called an HTCL failure, and this are quite normal. Liquidity can come backwards, which means that now that channel becomes the income instead of the outcome, so if 300k comes in, in the example above, now the liquidity ratio is 0.4 (100k already there plus 300k that just came in). So it is easy to understand that liquidity is very volatile: it will come in and out with any successful in or out HTLC.

The problem is: how do you know if a channel has liquidity? For privacy reasons, the liquidity of a channel is never announced, and only the two connected nodes know it. This is logical, to avoid bad actors to figure out which payments have been done by other people. So the only possible solution is to try all connected channels you have until one lets you go through because it has enough liquidity. And it is going to be done, always, in the order of outbound fees, from low to high. So the channel that has the lowest fee with enough liquidity, will catch the prize.

There is a way to signal that you have liquidity or you don’t, and it is based on scarcity: if you don’t have much liquidity, you increase the outbound fee, so other nodes will not find attractive to route through you in that direction. You don't have much liquidity, so why bother to allow routing? But, when you have again outbound liquidity, because other nodes have taken the opposite direction (inbound) using another channel of yours which has liquidity (as outbound), you intelligently lower the fees to signal your new updated increased liquidity in the channel. So, the idea is simple: if you have liquidity in the channel, you put low fees, if you don’t have liquidity, you put high fees. Please read that again until you fully understand it, it is extremely important.

There is another concept introduced by LND which is negative inbound fees: if you put negative inbound fees, for example -100ppm, it means that any payment going from that inbound channel to another of your outbound channels, will have a maximum discount of 100ppm. (Don’t worry, you will never lose because LND forbids to route losing money, so 100ppm is the maximum, but it could be less if the outgoing channel has less than 100ppm fees.) What this does is to encourage the filling of empty channels at the cost of earning less in channels with plenty of liquidity. This is very good, because it will automatically rebalance your extremes: channels with no liquidity will be filled up, channels with plenty of liquidity will be emptied down, creating a balance.

It is obvious that the total ratio, including all your channels, should be around 100%. That means that the total amount summing all channels of inbound and outbound should be approximately the same. Don’t get obsessed with this, 80% or 120% is ok too, but if it is lower or higher than that you should take measures to open or close channels, or even swap out or in using boltz.exchange or LOOP.

Step 4: managing fees

So, in order to make proper routing, you will have to constantly monitor all your channels on a regular basis. Minimum recommended frequency is once a day. You can do this automatically or manually. Some people prefer to do it manually because each channel has its own characteristics and some fees work better than others, which is something you learn with time observing the flow. But some other people, like me, don’t want to spend so much time doing so, and do automatic fee management using charge-lnd or lndg automators. A mixture of both styles is possible by disabling automatic fee management for selected channels.

Every node operator has his/her own preferences, but here are some basic recommendations that you can tweak over time as you acquire experience: ratio > 0.98: fees 0 (or less than 10) 0.2 < ratio < 0.98: fees proportional max 128, min 16 0.2 > ratio > 0.05: fees 500, inbound -16 ratio < 0.05: fees 1000, inbound -64 ratio = 0: fees more than 1000, inbound -128 So, as you can see, when the channel is full we encourage routing, when the channel is more balanced is when the earnings will occur (from 16 to 128ppm), when the channel is mostly empty we discourage forward routing (500ppm) but encourage backwards routing (inbound -16) and when it is almost empty we clearly totally discourage forward routing (1000ppm) but encourage backwards routing (inbound -64). And when someone just opened a channel with us, all liquidity is theirs so we aggressively encourage inbound routing by putting ultra high outbound fees and ultra inbound discounts. Simple, eh?

Step 5: automatic fee management

As stated before, you can automate this using charge-lnd or lndg or Lightning Terminal if you use LND. If you use CLN you are probably limited to create a personalized script, because I don’t know of any similar tool for it, apart from CL-BOSS which is unmaintained and non-customizable.

You will run this configuration a maximum of once per hour, and a minimum of once per day. You should not try to run it more frequent than once per hour because of two reasons: 1. The channel states stored in the gossip take from some minutes to some hours to properly propagate. 2. Some nodes will ban you if you try to update more than once per hour. What I recommend is once every 2 hours for big nodes with more than 50 channels. If you have less than 50 channels, your gossip will be slow to propagate so run it once a day. If you get many “Insufficient Fee” errors is because you are trying to update channel states too frequently. Also, some people report that increasing the variable numgraphsyncpeers in the LND configuration file helps with better propagation, but be aware that this will increase bandwidth usage.

I’ve been using lndg for some time, but I switched to charge-lnd because it is clearly superior and faster and more customizable. Lndg is still great for rebalancing (which I use a lot) and as a general interface, but I have disabled the fee management, which I now do with charge-lnd. If you can’t access charge-lnd then just use lndg with the frequency chosen above, but be aware that the configuration parameters are very limited, as you will soon realize (you are limited to just one strategy which is proportional, and it is very slow as it changes the fee in incremental steps). Yet it is better using lndg than nothing.

Lightning Terminal from Lightning Labs I have not tested. So I can’t say anything about it.

But here is a good starting configuration for charge-lnd that you can customize to your preferences:

``` [default]

'default' is special, it is used if no other policy matches a channel

strategy = static base_fee_msat = 128 fee_ppm = 96 inbound_base_fee_msat = 0 inbound_fee_ppm = 0 min_fee_ppm_delta=20

[mydefaults]

no strategy, so this only sets some defaults

base_fee_msat = 128 min_fee_ppm_delta = 0

[lost-onchain-sync]

The fact that lnd was not synchronized with the chain for more than 5 minutes

was an indicator of a severe problem in the past.

onchain.synced_to_chain = false base_fee_msat = 210_000 fee_ppm = 210_000

[expensive]

match channels where the peer node has set a high (>=8_000 ppm) fee rate

and set the same fee rate on our side (strategy=match_peer)

chan.min_fee_ppm = 8000 strategy = match_peer

[leafnode]

charge non-routing (private=true) peers a bit more for our service

chan.private = true strategy = static fee_ppm = 1000

[encourage-routing]

'autobalance' (lower fees so using outbound is more attractive)

chan.min_ratio = 0.98 inbound_base_fee_msat = 0 inbound_fee_ppm = 0 strategy = static base_fee_msat = 64 fee_ppm = 16

[discourage-routing]

'autobalance' (higher fees so using outbound is less attractive)

chan.max_ratio = 0.2 chan.min_ratio = 0.05 strategy = proportional inbound_base_fee_msat = -64 inbound_fee_ppm = -16 min_fee_ppm = 32 max_fee_ppm = 700 base_fee_msat = 1_000

[all-liquidity-is-theirs] chan.max_ratio = 0.00 inbound_base_fee_msat = -128 inbound_fee_ppm = -128 strategy = static base_fee_msat = 1_000 fee_ppm = 1000

[discourage-routing-extreme] chan.max_ratio = 0.05 inbound_base_fee_msat = -128 inbound_fee_ppm = -32 strategy = proportional min_fee_ppm = 32 max_fee_ppm = 1000 base_fee_msat = 1_000

[proportional]

'proportional' can also be used to auto balance (lower fee rate when low remote balance & higher rate when higher remote balance)

fee_ppm decreases linearly with the channel balance ratio (min_fee_ppm when ratio is 1, max_fee_ppm when ratio is 0)

20% excess:

chan.min_ratio = 0.2 chan.max_ratio = 0.98 strategy = proportional min_fee_ppm = 32

20% excess, so for a max of 128, it’s calculated 128/(1-0.20)=160

max_fee_ppm = 160 inbound_base_fee_msat = 0 inbound_fee_ppm = 0 base_fee_msat = 128 min_fee_ppm_delta=16 ```

So you might run this config in a crontab or with your node distribution script if it is provided. I think Umbrel has this app in their portfolio, so just use it if you have Umbrel and ignore the following. If you run it manually or with a distro that doesn’t have charge-lnd, you can configure a crontab. This is just an example, please ask support for proper configuration on your distro. And if you distro do not include charge-lnd, ask support to include it, at this point it’s quite a necessity. Anyway here is the manual configuration: ``` $ crontab -e

0 */2 * * * echo "=======>" date >> /home/nodo/charge-lnd/log && /home/nodo/charge-lnd/env/bin/charge-lnd -c /home/nodo/charge-lnd/my.config >> /home/nodo/charge-lnd/log ```

That is supposing charge-lnd executable is installed under /home/nodo/charge-lnd/env/bin/charge-lnd and config is in /home/nodo/charge-lnd/my.config and LND is running without docker. If it is running under docker, you will have to ask support of your distro.

Step 6: help your peers

Remember that your peers are not only your competition, they are also your customers. So it is a strange symbiosis: you compete with them, but they also help you (and you help them).

If your peers are not well informed and have a bad maintained node, you are in a loss, because your channels with them will get stagnant and will not route. If they are well informed and know how to manage a node, then the channels will not be stagnant and they will route through you.

So it is stupid to keep this information as a secret. Every node operator should know it. And the more people know it, the better for everybody.

So, please, if you detect stagnant channels and bad maintained peers connected to you, just lead them to this guide, or guide them yourself. It’s a good idea to bookmark this guide so you have it prepared for the future.

And that’s it!! Happy routing!!

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/972730

@ 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

@ da0b9bc3:4e30a4a9

Hello Stackers!

Welcome on into the ~Music Corner of the Saloon!

A place where we Talk Music. Share Tracks. Zap Sats.

So stay a while and listen.

🚨Don't forget to check out the pinned items in the territory homepage! You can always find the latest weeklies there!🚨

🚨Subscribe to the territory to ensure you never miss a post! 🚨

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/972645

@ 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

@ b154080c:00027cc7

Introduction

In the ancient times of Israel, masculinity found its true embodiment in the courageous story of Daniel. Amidst the foreign land of Babylon, Daniel stood firm in his convictions, showcasing strength, and dedication to his beliefs.

Despite living in a culture that sought to diminish his faith, Daniel refused to bow before idols or false deities. His defiance challenged societal expectations, revealing a masculinity that transcended worldly norms. Rooted in his unshakable belief in the one true God, Daniel's resolve remained unyielding. Facing the wrath of the king, Daniel fearlessly stood before Nebuchadnezzar, humbly declaring his allegiance to God alone. Cast into a blazing furnace as punishment, Daniel emerged unharmed. God's angel shielded him from the scorching flames, proving that his faith made him invincible. Witnessing this display of masculinity, Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged the greatness of Daniel's God, bringing about a profound transformation.

Daniel's story serves as a testament to the essence of masculinity—a resolute dedication to one's convictions, the courage to defy societal expectations, and a commitment to truth. His faith and devotion inspire generations, exemplifying the power of masculine conviction.

There have been countless instances throughout history where acts of courage have taken place on a spectrum. Although both men and women can display such acts, history has shown that resolve, courage, and bravery have predominantly resided within the realm of masculinity. The Apostle Paul himself concluded the book of 1 Corinthians by saying, "Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love" (16:13-14). By combining this passage with the numerous accounts of provision, battle, sacrifice, and honor, it becomes evident that God has designed inherent and very important differences within the male gender.

The Bible presents us with inspiring examples of both courageous women, such as Deborah, Rahab, and Esther, and valiant men, including Joshua, Gideon, Samson, David, Jonathan, Nehemiah, the Prophets, the twelve Apostles, and above all, Jesus Himself. While these accounts acknowledge the remarkable contributions of women, they predominantly highlight the male figures who exemplify strength, boldness, courage, and a resolute sense of responsibility. Throughout its pages, the Bible paints a vivid picture of masculinity's profound impact and enduring significance which we must embrace.

Jesus’ Masculinity

Jesus exhibited remarkable courage throughout many of his acts, and it is through his expression of masculinity that this courage shines even brighter. Jesus' masculinity played a crucial role in enabling him to display great bravery and determination in fulfilling his mission. However, it's important to note that Jesus redefines masculinity beyond physical strength or dominance, embracing resilience, self-sacrifice, and unyielding conviction as its defining qualities.

Jesus' courage stemmed from his deep understanding of his purpose and his unshakable faith in his Father's plan. He fearlessly challenged the religious authorities of his time, calling out hypocrisy and speaking truth to power. Despite facing opposition and hostility, Jesus stood firm in his convictions, undeterred by the threats and ridicule he encountered. Jesus' embodiment of masculinity highlights the transformative power it can have when rooted in love and compassion.

Modern Culture Poisoning the Church

It is important to realize the true masculinity of Jesus and the example that he has set for us in this regard. Unfortunately, I often see a tendency nowadays to downplay Jesus' masculinity and instead depict Him in a more feminized manner.

In both our culture and the modern church, there is a tendency to present a version of Jesus that deviates from the biblical portrayal. Perhaps you've come across people who refer to Jesus as their "best friend" or even draw comparisons between their relationship with Him and that of a "boyfriend.” This is in fact very unbiblical. The Bible never presents our love for God using such romantic or erotic language. While the men depicted in Scripture certainly loved God, they were never portrayed as being desperate for Him or romantically in love with Him. People are often taught a very shallow and weak portrayal of Him.

In the United States, particularly in the context of flourishing Protestantism, the shift from considering the community as a whole to focusing on the individual has led to a rise in strong individualistic beliefs which has resulted in a diminished sense of community within the Catholic Church. When the focal point of Catholicism becomes "Jesus and me," it opens the door to a mindset of being "spiritual" rather than "religious.” Attending church becomes a matter of personal choice, and faith no longer necessarily influences or intersects with areas such as business or politics. The sole emphasis becomes on one's personal relationship with Christ, prioritizing individual salvation over communal or global redemption. The vision of the kingdom of God taking shape on earth also becomes less urgent, as the emphasis shifts towards a faith centered on transcendence, emotions, and sentiment, rather than tangible actions.

The perception of Jesus' masculinity has been negatively impacted by the trend of feminizing Him, which has contributed to a decline in the courage displayed by men today. This shift can be attributed to various factors that have influenced societal perspectives.

In contrast to the promises of Jesus, which include suffering, trials, and pain, it is often only presented to them that Christianity is the solution to these hardships. Instead of acknowledging the reality of challenges, the contemporary portrayal of Christianity tends to market it as the antidote to suffering and pain. It is important to recognize and reflect upon the significant difference between how Jesus called His disciples and the prevailing emphasis on personal relationships with Him today. Instead of inviting them to have a personal connection, He simply said, "Follow me." Understanding this distinction is crucial in our understanding of Jesus' call to discipleship. "Follow me" implies a sense of purpose, a shared mission or goal to pursue. This contrast highlights the divergence between the original intent of discipleship and the way it is often portrayed around me nowadays.

I want to emphasize that I am by no means denying the significance of having a personal relationship with Christ. On the contrary, I am simply highlighting the importance of recognizing that personal relationships, including our relationship with Christ, require more than just superficial connections. They demand a deep sense of faith, trust, and communion with Him. Drawing inspiration from the courageous example of Jesus, who fearlessly confronted societal norms and spoke truth to power, our relationship with Him can empower us to embrace courage in our own lives. Just as Jesus fearlessly faced opposition, persecution, and ultimately sacrificed Himself for the sake of others, our connection with Him can embolden us to stand up for what is right, to live out our faith boldly, and to face life's challenges with strength. It is not a casual or complacent association but a courageous and transformative bond that empowers us to live out our faith with conviction and to impact the world around us positively.

As modern sermons take center stage, it's become apparent that there is a tendency to downplay the contrasts found in the teachings of the Bible. As mentions of heaven and hell, sin and life, grace and justice, as well as the analogies involving battles and soldiers for Christ have always been very prevalent, they have become way less common nowadays. We hear fewer calls for Catholics to embrace their crosses and passionately commit themselves to the cause of the gospel and the well-being of others. Instead, the spotlight has shifted towards how the gospel can serve as a tool for personal growth and fulfillment, focusing on self-realization. The gospel is often presented as a therapeutic treatment rather than a heroic challenge. The emphasis lies on the rewards rather than the obstacles, creating the idea of all gain, no pain (lol).

The rise of praise and worship music has also brought about significant changes in people's perception of Christ. While traditional hymns focused on singing about God, emphasizing His greatness, power, and distinctiveness, praise and worship music takes a different approach. It presents God as a close companion, an intimate presence by our side, emphasizing His love and care for us. This shift in emphasis, while not inherently negative, certainly plays a substantial role in shaping our understanding of Christ's nature and relationship with us.

Jesus is the Epitome of Masculinity

I believe Jesus stands as the epitome of masculinity, offering an unrivaled example for men to emulate. Through His life and teachings, He reveals the true essence of what it means to be a man. He leads with courage, facing challenges head-on without hesitation. His fearlessness shines through as He confronts opposition and stands firm in His convictions. Moreover, His love is not self-serving but sacrificial, displayed vividly through His ultimate act of giving His own life for the sake of others. And in the face of adversity, His resolve remains unshakeable, inspiring men to stand strong in their beliefs and principles. Jesus, in His entirety, embodies the essence of true masculinity, setting an unparalleled standard that us men must aspire to.

Around me, I’m often seeing a tendency to shy away from addressing challenging subjects with resolute conviction. Rather than speaking with clarity and certainty, there is a preference for using vague language and ambiguous statements to navigate sensitive issues. In stark contrast, Jesus stood firmly and fearlessly, fearlessly proclaiming His truth. His words shook the foundations of societal norms, demanding radical commitment from His followers. True boldness lies in the courage to speak truth, even when faced with opposition and adversity.

Boldness is a very masculine characteristic. While some may argue that boldness is not exclusive to gender, the Bible primarily associates this characteristic with men. On the other hand, the beauty of women is highlighted through the importance of a gentle and quiet spirit, which also very much holds great value in the eyes of God. 1 Peter 3:4 addressing woman and wives, "Let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious." This reminds us that inner qualities such as a gentle and tranquil demeanor also hold significant worth and are highly esteemed.

As Jesus exemplified true boldness, courageously speaking God's truth regardless of the consequences. His courage serves as the ultimate model of masculinity, inspiring men to fearlessly pursue God's will. Jesus exemplified bravery, rooted in His deep reverence for God. Unlike the fear of man, which arises from sin, Jesus' bravery stemmed from His love for God. His resolute posture and authoritative responses to godless men demonstrated a masculinity untainted by timidity. Jesus taught us to lead with courage, grounded in reverence for God and faith in His sovereignty.

In a culture where love is often misrepresented, Jesus' sacrificial love stands as the true definition. Love, as demonstrated by Jesus, goes beyond superficial feelings; it entails sacrificial commitment. Jesus willingly laid down His life for His bride, the Church, showcasing the essence of true masculinity. Men are called to sacrificially love their wives, mirroring Christ's example. This selfless love forms the foundation for men to protect, nurture, and fight for those entrusted to their care.

Christ's resolve was the driving force behind the cross, demonstrating His commitment to fulfill His mission. His choice to embrace the cross, knowing the suffering and wrath He would endure, showcases resolute masculinity. In history, heroic moments of perseverance are predominantly marked by male resolve. The biological advantage provided by testosterone further supports men's capacity for enduring resolve. Jesus' resolve to save His people from sin teaches men to stand firm in the face of challenges, abiding in their commitment to their calling.

Restoring the Church's Boldness and Reclaiming Biblical Masculinity and Femininity

The landscape of the Church has undergone a significant transformation, moving away from its historic expression of Christianity. We've witnessed a shift from powerful, convicting sermons to soft, TED-talk style infotainment. Classic hymns highlighting doctrine, sacrifice, and piety have been replaced by emotionally driven love songs that resemble romantic ballads. It's clear that the local church has undergone a real emasculation.

This departure from biblical foundations has contributed to a great deal of confusion within the Church, particularly concerning the understanding of biblical manhood and womanhood. The increasing push for egalitarianism has led to women fighting for leadership roles, while men find themselves adrift without clear guidance regarding their responsibilities in marriage, the church, and the family. I believe this confusion and distortion of gender roles to be the enemy's central strategy for our generation. By infiltrating the Church with a heightened emphasis on feminine emotion, the enemy has left us unprepared for moments requiring masculine boldness, fearlessness, sacrifice, and resolve.

We must acknowledge that there is a difference between a surface-level expression of faith and the profound conviction displayed by those facing intense trials. The challenges and hardships that people face in the midst of adversity provide a profound glimpse into the strength and genuineness of their faith. These trials are a powerful testimony to their commitment and courage. Throughout history, numerous Christians have faced unimaginable suffering, even enduring torture, dismemberment, and martyrdom, all because of their devotion to Christ. Their remarkable sacrifices inspire us and remind us of the immense cost of following Jesus. Yet, the trend of timidity displayed by the present-day Church, yielding to government overreach or even complying with laws that endorse sexual sin contrary to biblical teachings, will come at a significant cost.

It is high time for the Church to reclaim its boldness and restore the biblical understanding of masculinity and femininity. We must reject the watered-down version of Christianity that has spread throughout our culture and embrace a faith rooted in conviction and sacrifice. By understanding and embracing the unique roles and responsibilities of men and women as outlined in Scripture, we can restore clarity and purpose to our families, churches, and communities. Let us rise above the societal pressures, rekindle the fire of biblical truth, and stand firm in our commitment to Christ, no matter the cost.

As we progress, it becomes clear that the importance of strong, virtuous Catholic men is growing. This should not catch us off guard. The feminist movement of the 21st century is truly toxic. It goes way beyond advocating for the rightful appreciation of women; it seeks to establish female dominance. Moreover, its influence knows no boundaries. Like the LGBTQ community, its aim is to permeate every aspect of public, personal, and spiritual life. We must not only be alarmed by this trend but also prepare ourselves to stand firmly against it. We need biblically grounded shepherds and faithful women who can discern the subtle infiltration of an effeminate culture and guard against it.

Let us not forget that Catholicism is not egalitarian. While men and women are equally valued before the cross, our roles and responsibilities differ. In marriage, Christianity follows a complementarian model, where the husband leads with sacrificial love, and the wife respects and supports him. People are too sensitive about the word “patriarchy” nowadays. In terms of leadership, the Church holds a patriarchal stance. At the same time, patriarchy, like any other system, is not immune to the potential for sinful expressions. However, when approached with sacrificial love, adherence to biblical order, and a commitment to honoring God, the structure of patriarchy - as well as areas such as marriage, fatherhood, and heterosexuality - can yield to way more goodness. We should strive for a church culture that aligns with the gender-culture outlined in God’s Word: gentle, safe, and encouraging, while also strong, bold, and committed to upholding biblical order and fulfilling the mission entrusted to us. This balance allows the church to fully embody the presence of Christ, enabling His people to confidently advance alongside our great Lord.

We must prepare ourselves for an increasing need for men who embrace biblical masculinity and women who faithfully embody femininity. It is crucial not to overlook the pervasive influence of an effeminate culture and the agenda of distorted ideologies. By embracing the distinct roles and responsibilities that God has given to both men and women, we cultivate a church culture that mirrors the beauty of Christ and empowers His people to wholeheartedly pursue His mission with courage. We must recognize the urgency to embrace and embody biblical masculinity in the face of cultural challenges and shifting ideologies. Equipped with the truth of God's Word, we can navigate the complexities of the world and fulfill our God-given roles with great faith. Let us rise as men who boldly embrace our calling, standing firm in the face of challenges, and wholeheartedly pursuing lives of holiness and service to God and His Church. May we stand united, guided by His Word, and ready to face the battles ahead with strength, grace, and resolved faith.

From Nashville with love,

Suhail Saqan

This was inspired by The Imitation of Christ. Read here.

@ 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! 🌸

@ c230edd3:8ad4a712

Chef's notes

This cake is not too sweet and very simple to make. The 3 flavors and mild and meld well with the light sweetness.

Details

• ⏲️ Prep time: 15 min
• 🍳 Cook time: 45 min
• 🍽️ Servings: 12

Ingredients

• 1 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
• 1/2 tsp salt
• 2 tsp baking soda
• 1 cup sugar
• 3 large eggs
• 1/2 cup full fat milk
• 3/4 cup unfiltered olive oil
• 2/3 cup finely chopped raw, unsalted almonds
• 2 tsp lavender
• 1 Tbsp powdered sugar

Directions

1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees F. Lightly butter 8 inch baking pan.
2. In smal bowl, whisk together flour, salt, and baking soda.
3. In large bowl, beat eggs and sugar until light colored and fluffy. Add milk.
4. Slowly pour and stir in olive oil.
5. Fold dry ingredients into the wet ingredients,
6. Stir in the almonds and the lavender, reserving some flowers for garnish.
7. Pour into prepared pan and bake for 45 min, or until toothpick comes out clean.
8. Cool on wire rack, dust with powdered sugar and top with reserved lavender.

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Design can’t be effective when squeezed into a decades-old process.

When the Agile Manifesto was inked in 2001, it was supposed to spark a revolution, and it did: by 2023, 71% of US companies were using Agile. The simple list of commitments to collaboration and adaptiveness branched into frameworks such as Scrum and Kanban.

“Agile” was about having a responsive mindset, not about which process you followed, but it became about which process you followed.

Agile was designed for engineering teams but spread to whole companies. Scaled frameworks emerged to coordinate Scrum teams, with a sprawling training and certification industry. In 2022, the enterprise Agile transformation industry was predicted to reach $142 billion by 2032.

Continue reading

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/972640

@ 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

@ dd664d5e:5633d319

Speak your truth, Nostr

I think that there's a difference in the decisions people make when they're True Believers, and when they've just been hired to do something, or they arrived much later and don't really get the point of the decisions. It's that way with any organization controlled by a protocol, such as a constitution, basic law, canon, or core specification.

The True Believers all eventually look like idiotic fanatics who can't "keep up with the cool kids", but they arrived there because they were looking for a solution to a particular problem that they were having. If you then change the solution, to solve some other problem, while destroying the solution that attracted them to the project, in the first place, then they'll be unhappy about it.

Being cool doesn't automatically make you right about everything, but you can simply have enough might to "change" what is right. Shift the goalposts so that the problem you are trying to solve is The Most Pressing Problem. Everyone still focused on the Original Problem is reduced to protesting and being called "difficult", "unhelpful", "uncooperative", "rude".

Why are they protesting? Why don't they just go with the flow? Look at us, we never protest. We are so nice! We're totally happy with the way things are going. We are always polite and elegant and regal. Only rude people complain.

Good vibes only.

@ 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

@ b98139a6:eb269255

I’m exhausted from the endless OP_RETURN vs. Core infighting… so I figured I’d relax with the nice, calm, debate about Due Process. 😉

Okay, sure—this topic is every bit as heated in legal circles as block sizes and fork wars are in Bitcoin. But for a Bitcoin-savvy, intellectually curious audience, the current political battle over Due Process is worth diving into. Let’s explore how the U.S. Constitution phrases different rights (who exactly gets them), and why “due process” isn’t a one-size-fits-all procedure.

(This is partly an explainer, and partly a discussion prompt. I am sure that I will have some pushback, especially from other attorneys. That's cool! Reasonable people can disagree on even contentious topics like ultimate grant of rights to noncitizens. Maybe even OP_RETURN!)

“The People” vs. “No Person” – Who Gets What Rights?

One of the first points of confusion in constitutional law is that not all rights are phrased the same way. Some rights are granted to “the people,” while others protect “persons” or “the accused.” These aren’t just linguistic quirks – they signal which groups are protected (citizens or everyone). Let’s break it down:

• Rights of “the People”: Several amendments (like the 1st, 2nd, and 4th) explicitly mention “the people.” For example, the Second Amendment says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and the Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure… against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Supreme Court has noted that “the people” refers to those within the national community of the United States. In plain terms, this implies these rights are geared toward citizens and others with a strong connection to the U.S. (In a 1990 case, Chief Justice Rehnquist suggested that “the people” who enjoy 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendment rights are those “who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country”. See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990).) In other words, if you’re not part of “We the People” (say, a foreigner with no ties), those particular rights may not fully extend to you.

• Rights of “Persons”: Other rights use broad language like “no person shall…” – notably, the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. It doesn’t say “no citizen” – it says “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” This wording was very intentional. It means any person under U.S. jurisdiction is owed due process, regardless of citizenship status. The same goes for the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination and double jeopardy – it protects “persons.” So even if someone isn’t a U.S. citizen, if the U.S. government is trying to lock them up or take something from them, the Constitution demands some form of fair procedure. (As one legal expert dryly noted in response to a political slogan, the Constitution “does not make any distinction between citizens and noncitizens” when it comes to due process.)

• Rights of “the Accused”: The Sixth Amendment speaks of “the accused” – “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury,” and so on. This applies to anyone who finds themselves prosecuted under U.S. criminal law. Citizen or not, if you’re charged with a crime in a U.S. court, you are “the accused” and you get those Sixth Amendment rights. There’s no citizenship test for the right to a lawyer, a jury, etc.

• The 14th Amendment – Citizens and Persons: After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was adopted, and it cleverly uses both terms. First it says “All persons born or naturalized in the U.S. … are citizens.” That defines citizenship. But then it says “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Here we see “any person” again. This was a big statement: the 14th Amendment explicitly is not limited to citizens in its protections of due process and equal protection. The Supreme Court recognized way back in 1886 that these provisions are “universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, color, or nationality.” In practical terms, this means a foreign student, an undocumented immigrant, or a tourist on U.S. soil is a “person” under the 14th Amendment and thus is owed due process and equal protection by any state or local government. (However, the 14th’s “privileges or immunities” clause does specifically protect “citizens” – things like the right to travel between states, etc. – highlighting that some rights were meant for citizens only, while core concepts of due process apply to everyone.)

In summary, the Constitution carefully differentiates who it’s talking about. “The people” usually means the American people (members of the national community), whereas “no person” means literally any person (citizen or not) under U.S. authority. So, next time someone claims “Hey, non-citizens aren’t protected by the Constitution!”, you can politely point out that the text says otherwise in many places. The Founders and those who amended the Constitution knew exactly what they were doing with those words.

Due Process ≠ One-Size-Fits-All (Article III Courts vs. Article II Courts)

Now let’s tackle the second big point: Due Process. We often hear the term thrown around (sometimes in heated Twitter debates as much as in courtrooms). But due process isn’t a monolith – the kind of “process” someone is “due” can vary a lot depending on the situation. Think of it as a sliding scale: the more serious the deprivation of your rights, the more robust the process the government must give you.

In the U.S., this plays out by having different types of courts and procedures for different matters. Let’s contrast two extremes:

• Criminal Prosecutions (Article III courts): These are the trials for serious offenses. They take place in Article III courts, meaning the normal judiciary with independent judges (appointed for life under Article III of the Constitution). Here, due process is at its most robust. If the government wants to put someone in jail (or even take their life in capital cases), it must jump through many hoops: a formal indictment, the right to an attorney, a public jury trial, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, etc. The Constitution spells out many of these protections in the 5th and 6th Amendments (grand jury indictment, no double jeopardy, speedy trial, impartial jury, right to counsel, etc.). These safeguards apply to “the accused” in criminal cases – which, as we noted, means anyone accused, citizen or not. The idea is that when the stakes are highest (your liberty or life on the line), the procedural protections are strongest. It’s the legal equivalent of Bitcoin’s full nodes rigorously verifying every block – no shortcuts allowed when something so valuable is at stake.

• Immigration/Deportation Proceedings (Article II courts): On the other end, consider the process for deporting someone for violating immigration laws. Surprisingly to many, removal/deportation cases don’t happen in the regular courts at all – they happen in administrative tribunals under the Executive Branch. Since 1983, immigration courts have been housed in the Department of Justice (under the Attorney General), making them what are called “Article II courts,” operating under the authority of the President. The officials who preside are immigration judges, but they are not Article III judges – they’re essentially DOJ employees. And because deportation is classified as a civil matter, not a criminal one, the due process requirements are different (and more limited).

Why are they more limited? By law, deportation is not considered a “punishment” for a crime – it’s civil and administrative. See Wong Wing v. United States 163 U.S. 228 (1896). The Supreme Court has said for over a century that removing an undocumented or removable alien is just the government enforcing immigration policy, “not a punishment for crime.” It’s akin to revoking someone’s permission to remain in the country, rather than convicting them of a criminal offense. Because it’s not punishment, many of the constitutional protections that apply in criminal cases don’t apply in deportation proceedings. There’s no jury trial in immigration court, no requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt (the government usually just needs “clear and convincing” evidence of removability), and the government doesn’t have to provide a free lawyer if you can’t afford one. In fact, the Supreme Court explicitly noted that things like the right to a jury and the ban on “cruel and unusual punishments” “have no application” in deportation cases.

This doesn’t mean immigrants have zero rights – due process still applies, just in a more basic form. Typically, due process in deportation means the right to notice of the charges and a fair hearing before a neutral adjudicator. You get to appear before an immigration judge, present evidence, and argue your case (for example, that you have legal status, or that you qualify for asylum, etc.). The government can’t just pick you up and secretly put you on a plane without any procedure at all (except in certain very narrow scenarios like expedited removal at the border, which still involves at least an interview). But the level of process is much less elaborate than in a criminal court. It’s the difference between a quick SPV node verification and a full node verification – the former is “lighter” and leaves more room for error.

And errors do happen, which is why this debate is fierce. Immigration judges handle hundreds of thousands of cases and sometimes people with rights do slip through the cracks. There have been cases of U.S. citizens mistakenly detained or nearly deported because the system is under strain and shortcuts get taken. That’s why critics argue that even if deportation isn’t “punitive,” it sure feels like punishment to the people on the receiving end. The Supreme Court itself has acknowledged that being deported can be devastating – in one case, the Court noted deportation may result in “the loss of all that makes life worth living.” Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945), see also Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276 (1922). Despite this harsh reality, the legal doctrine remains that it’s not punishment in the criminal sense. Wong Wing v. United States (163 U.S. 228, 1896).

To sum up, “Due Process” comes in levels: at minimum, it means fundamental fairness – the government can’t just do stuff to you arbitrarily without some procedure. But what procedure is due depends on context. If you’re a citizen facing a criminal charge, due process is maximal – you get the full panoply of rights in an Article III court. If you’re a non-citizen facing deportation, due process still applies, but in a limited, civil proceeding way – an Article II tribunal where the process is streamlined. The law draws this line because of the formal distinction that deportation = civil remedy, not criminal punishment. Or as one official recently put it (to much controversy): “the judicial process is for Americans. Immediate deportation is for illegal aliens.” (Many lawyers and judges vehemently disagree with that phrasing, citing the Fifth Amendment’s “no person” language, but it captures the attitude that immigration proceedings are a separate track.)

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/972420

@ 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.

@ 6e64b83c:94102ee8

Nostr-static is a powerful static site generator that transforms long-form Nostr content into beautiful, standalone websites. It makes your content accessible to everyone, even those not using Nostr clients. For more information check out my previous blog post How to Create a Blog Out of Nostr Long-Form Articles

What's New in Version 0.7?

RSS and Atom Feeds

Version 0.7 brings comprehensive feed support with both RSS and Atom formats. The system automatically generates feeds for your main content, individual profiles, and tag-specific pages. These feeds are seamlessly integrated into your site's header, making them easily discoverable by feed readers and content aggregators.

This feature bridges the gap between Nostr and traditional web publishing, allowing your content to reach readers who prefer feed readers or automated content distribution systems.

Smart Content Discovery

The new tag discovery system enhances your readers' experience by automatically finding and recommending relevant articles from the Nostr network. It works by:

1. Analyzing the tags in your articles
2. Fetching popular articles from Nostr that share these tags
3. Using configurable weights to rank these articles based on:
4. Engagement metrics (reactions, reposts, replies)
5. Zap statistics (amount, unique zappers, average zap size)
6. Content quality signals (report penalties)

This creates a dynamic "Recommended Articles" section that helps readers discover more content they might be interested in, all while staying within the Nostr ecosystem.

See the new features yourself by visiting our demo at: https://blog.nostrize.me

@ 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.

@ 00033a93:774465e5

An Italian artist just announced in the small town of Fornelli a statue of Satoshi, involving the administration in the project and the community of Fornelli in Bitcoin!

Not all heroes wear capes!

Italian article here:

https://bitcoinbeer.events/article/21

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/971872

@ 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.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

Manipulation erkennen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ist Russland aggressiv und expansiv?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was ist los in der Ukraine?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hasst der Westen die Russen?

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

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

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

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

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

Fazit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Quellen: ---

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

[2] Zwei nette Beispiele:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ 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

@ 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.

@ 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

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. 👀️️️️️️

@ 1f79058c:eb86e1cb

I'm currently using this bash script to publish long-form content from local Markdown files to Nostr relays.

It requires all of yq, jq, and nak to be installed.

Usage

Create a signed Nostr event and print it to the console:

bash markdown_to_nostr.sh article-filename.md

Create a Nostr event and publish it to one or more relays:

bash markdown_to_nostr.sh article-filename.md ws://localhost:7777 wss://nostr.kosmos.org

Markdown format

You can specify your metadata as YAML in a Front Matter header. Here's an example file:

```markdown

title: "Good Morning" summary: "It's a beautiful day" image: https://example.com/i/beautiful-day.jpg date: 2025-04-24T15:00:00Z tags: gm, poetry published: false

---

In the blue sky just a few specks of gray
In the evening of a beautiful day
Though last night it rained and more rain on the way
And that more rain is needed 'twould be fair to say.

— Francis Duggan ```

The metadata keys are mostly self-explanatory. Note:

• All keys except for title are optional
• date, if present, will be set as the published_at date.
• If published is set to true, it will publish a kind 30023 event, otherwise a kind 30024 (draft)
• The d tag (widely used as URL slug for the article) will be the filename without the .md extension

@ 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.

@ efc19139:a370b6a8

Bitcoin has a controversial reputation, but in this essay, I argue that Bitcoin is actually a pretty cool thing; it could even be described as the hippie movement of the digital generations.

Mainstream media often portrays Bitcoin purely as speculation, with headlines focusing on price fluctuations or painting it as an environmental disaster. It has frequently been declared dead and buried, only to rise again—each time, it's labeled as highly risky and suspicious as a whole. Then there are those who find blockchain fascinating in general but dismiss Bitcoin as outdated, claiming it will soon be replaced by a new cryptocurrency (often one controlled by the very author making the argument). Let’s take a moment to consider why Bitcoin is interesting and how it can drive broad societal change, much like the hippie movement once did. Bitcoin is a global decentralized monetary system operating on a peer-to-peer network. Since nearly all of humanity lives within an economic system based on money, it’s easy to see how an overhaul of the financial system could have a profound impact across different aspects of society. Bitcoin differs from traditional money through several unique characteristics: it is scarce, neutral, decentralized, and completely permissionless. There is no central entity—such as a company—that develops and markets Bitcoin, meaning it cannot be corrupted.

Bitcoin is an open digital network, much like the internet. Due to its lack of a central governing entity and its organic origin, Bitcoin can be considered a commodity, whereas other cryptocurrencies resemble securities, comparable to stocks. Bitcoin’s decentralized nature makes it geopolitically neutral. Instead of being controlled by a central authority, it operates under predefined, unchangeable rules. No single entity in the world has the ability to arbitrarily influence decision-making within the Bitcoin network. This characteristic is particularly beneficial in today’s political climate, where global uncertainty is heightened by unpredictable leaders of major powers. The permissionless nature of Bitcoin and its built-in resistance to censorship are crucial for individuals living under unstable conditions. Bitcoin is used to raise funds for politically persecuted activists and for charitable purposes in regions where financial systems have been weaponized against political opponents or used to restrict people's ability to flee a country. These are factors that may not immediately come to mind in Western nations, where such challenges are not commonly faced. Additionally, according to the World Bank, an estimated 1.5 billion people worldwide still lack access to any form of banking services.

Mining is the only way to ensure that no one can seize control of the Bitcoin network or gain a privileged position within it. This keeps Bitcoin neutral as a protocol, meaning a set of rules without leaders. It is not governed in the same way a company is, where ownership of shares dictates control. Miners earn the right to record transactions in Bitcoin’s ledger by continuously proving that they have performed work to obtain that right. This proof-of-work algorithm is also one reason why Bitcoin has spread so organically. If recording new transactions were free, we would face a problem similar to spam: there would be an endless number of competing transactions, making it impossible to reach consensus on which should officially become part of the decentralized ledger. Mining can be seen as an auction for adding the next set of transactions, where the price is the amount of energy expended. Using energy for this purpose is the only way to ensure that mining remains globally decentralized while keeping the system open and permissionless—free from human interference. Bitcoin’s initial distribution was driven by random tech enthusiasts around the world who mined it as a hobby, using student electricity from their bedrooms. This is why Bitcoin’s spread can be considered organic, in contrast to a scenario where it was created by a precisely organized inner circle that typically would have granted itself advantages before the launch.

If energy consumption is considered concerning, the best regulatory approach would be to create optimal conditions for mining in Finland, where over half of energy production already comes from renewable sources. Modern miners are essentially datacenters, but they have a unique characteristic: they can adjust their electricity consumption seamlessly and instantly without delay. This creates synergy with renewable energy production, which often experiences fluctuations in supply. The demand flexibility offered by miners provides strong incentives to invest increasingly in renewable energy facilities. Miners can commit to long-term projects as last-resort consumers, making investments in renewables more predictable and profitable. Additionally, like other datacenters, miners produce heat as a byproduct. As a thought experiment, they could also be considered heating plants, with a secondary function of securing the Bitcoin network. In Finland, heat is naturally needed year-round. This combination of grid balancing and waste heat recovery would be key to Europe's energy self-sufficiency. Wouldn't it be great if the need to bow to fossil fuel powers for energy could be eliminated? Unfortunately, the current government has demonstrated a lack of understanding of these positive externalities by proposing tax increases on electricity. The so-called fiat monetary system also deserves criticism in Western nations, even though its flaws are not as immediately obvious as elsewhere. It is the current financial system in which certain privileged entities control the issuance of money as if by divine decree, which is what the term fiat (command) refers to. The system subtly creates and maintains inequality.

The Cantillon effect is an economic phenomenon in which entities closer to newly created money benefit at the expense of those farther away. Access to the money creation process is determined by credit ratings and loan terms, as fiat money is always debt. The Cantillon effect is a distorted version of the trickle-down theory, where the loss of purchasing power in a common currency gradually moves downward. Due to inflation, hard assets such as real estate, precious metals, and stocks become more expensive, just as food prices rise in stores. This process further enriches the wealthy while deepening poverty. The entire wealth of lower-income individuals is often held in cash or savings, which are eroded by inflation much like a borrowed bottle of Leijona liquor left out too long. Inflation is usually attributed to a specific crisis, but over the long term (spanning decades), monetary inflation—the expansion of the money supply—plays a significant role. Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, known for his work on currencies, describes inflation in his book The Accidental Theorist as follows, loosely quoted: "It is really, really difficult to cut nominal wages. Even with low inflation, making labor cheaper would require a large portion of workers to accept wage cuts. Therefore, higher inflation leads to higher employment." Since no one wants to voluntarily give up their salary in nominal terms, the value of wages must be lowered in real terms by weakening the currency in which they are paid. Inflation effectively cuts wages—or, in other words, makes labor cheaper. This is one of the primary reasons why inflation is often said to have a "stimulating" effect on the economy.

It does seem somewhat unfair that employees effectively subsidize their employers’ labor costs to facilitate new hires, doesn’t it? Not to mention the inequities faced by the Global South in the form of neocolonialism, where Cantillon advantages are weaponized through reserve currencies like the US dollar or the French franc. This follows the exact same pattern, just on a larger scale. The Human Rights Foundation (hrf.org) has explored the interconnection between the fiat monetary system and neocolonialism in its publications, advocating for Bitcoin as part of the solution. Inflation can also be criticized from an environmental perspective. Since it raises time preference, it encourages people to make purchases sooner rather than delay them. As Krugman put it in the same book, “Extra money burns in your pocket.” Inflation thus drives consumption while reducing deliberation—it’s the fuel of the economy. If the goal from an environmental standpoint is to moderate economic activity, the first step should be to stop adding fuel to the fire. The impact of inflation on intergenerational inequality and the economic uncertainty faced by younger generations is rarely discussed. Boomers have benefited from the positive effects of the trend sparked by the Nixon shock in 1971, such as wealth accumulation in real estate and inflation-driven economic booms. Zoomers, meanwhile, are left to either fix the problems of the current system or find themselves searching for a lifeboat.

Bitcoin emerged as part of a long developmental continuum within the discussion forums of rebellious programmers known as cypherpunks, or encryption activists. It is an integral part of internet history and specifically a counterculture movement. Around Bitcoin, grassroots activists and self-organized communities still thrive, fostering an atmosphere that is welcoming, inspiring, and—above all—hopeful, which feels rare in today’s world. Although the rush of suits and traditional financial giants into Bitcoin through ETF funds a year ago may have painted it as opportunistic and dull in the headlines, delving into its history and culture reveals ever-fascinating angles and new layers within the Bitcoin sphere. Yet, at its core, Bitcoin is simply money. It possesses all seven characteristics required to meet the definition of money: it is easily divisible, transferable, recognizable, durable, fungible, uniform, and straightforward to receive. It serves as a foundation on which coders, startup enthusiasts, politicians, financial executives, activists, and anarchists alike can build. The only truly common denominator among the broad spectrum of Bitcoin users is curiosity—openness to new ideas. It merely requires the ability to recognize potential in an alternative system and a willingness to embrace fundamental change. Bitcoin itself is the most inclusive system in the world, as it is literally impossible to marginalize or exclude its users. It is a tool for peaceful and voluntary collaboration, designed so that violence and manipulation are rendered impossible in its code.

Pretty punk in the middle of an era of polarization and division, wouldn’t you say?

The original author (not me) is the organizer of the Bitcoin conference held in Helsinki, as well as a founding member and vice chairman of the Finnish Bitcoin Association. More information about the event can be found at: https://btchel.com and https://njump.me/nprofile1qqs89v5v46jcd8uzv3f7dudsvpt8ntdm3927eqypyjy37yx5l6a30fcknw5z5 ps. Zaps and sats will be forwarded to author!

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/971219

@ 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.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Redistributing Git with Nostr

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

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

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

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

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

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

External contributions

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

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

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

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

Replacing GitHub features

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

Issues: bug reports, feature requests and general discussions

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

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

Search

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

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

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

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

Continuous integration

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

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

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

@ 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

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

KOReader is a document viewer for E Ink devices. Supported file formats include EPUB, PDF, DjVu, XPS, CBT, CBZ, FB2, PDB, TXT, HTML, RTF, CHM, DOC, MOBI and ZIP files. It’s available for Kindle, Kobo, PocketBook, Android and desktop Linux.

Download it from https://koreader.rocks Repository: https://github.com/koreader/koreader

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/970912

@ 8671a6e5:f88194d1

"I tried pasting my login key into the text field, but no luck—it just wouldn't work. Turns out, the login field becomes completely unusable whenever the on-screen keyboard shows up on my phone. So either no one ever bothered to test this on a phone, or they did and thought, ‘Eh, who needs to actually log in anyway?’."

### \ \ Develop and evolve

Any technology or industry at the forefront of innovation faces the same struggle. Idealists, inventors, and early adopters jump in first, working to make things usable for the technical crowd. Only later do the products begin to take shape for the average user.

Bitcoin’s dropping the Ball on usability (and user-experience)

First, we have to acknowledge the progress we've made. Bitcoin has come a long way in terms of usability—no doubt about it. Even if I still think it’s bad, it’s nowhere near as terrible as it was ten or more years ago. The days of printing a paper wallet from some shady website and hoping it would still work months or years later are behind us. The days of buggy software never getting fixed are mostly over.

The Bitcoin technology itself made progress through many BIPs (Bitcoin Improvement Proposals) and combined with an increasing number of apps, devs, websites and related networks (Liquid, Lightning, Nostr, ....) we can say that we're seeing a strong ecosystem going its way. The ecosystem is alive and expanding, and technically, things are clearly working. The problem is that we’re still building with a mindset where developers and project managers consider usability—but don’t truly care about it in practice. They don’t lead with it. (Yes, there are always exceptions.)

All that progress looks cool, when you see the latest releases of hardware wallets, software wallets, exchanges, nostr clients and services built purely for bitcoin, you're usually thinking that we've progressed nicely. But I want to focus on the downside of all these shiny tools. Because if Bitcoin has made it this far, it’s mostly thanks to people who deeply understand its value and are stubborn enough to push through the friction. They don’t give up when the user experience sucks.

Many bitcoiners completely lost their perspective on the software front in my opinion. Because we could have been so much further ahead, and we didn't because some of the most important components on the user-facing side of Bitcoin (arguably the most important part) hasn’t kept pace with the popularity and possible growth. And that should be a great concern, because Bitcoin is meant to be open and accessible. The blockchain is public. This is supposed to be for everyone. This is an open ledger technology so in theory everything is user-facing to one extent or another. Yet we fail on that front to make the glue stick. Somewhere, we’re easily amused by the tools we create, and often contains hurdles we can’t see or feel. While users reject it after 5 seconds tops.

We didn’t came a lot further yet, because we’ve ignored usability at its core (pun intended).

I’m not talking about usability in the “it works on my machine” sense. I’m talking about usability that meets the standard of modern apps. Think Spotify, Instagram, Uber, Gmail. Products that ordinary people use without reading a manual or digging through forums.

That’s the bar. We’re still far from it.

Bad UX scares your grandma away

… and that’s how many bitcoiners apparently like it.

Subsequently, when I say usability, I’m using it as an umbrella term. For me, it covers user experience, user interface, and real-life, full-cycle testing—from onboarding a brand new user to rolling out a new version of the app. And oh boy, our onboarding is so horrible. (“Hey wanna try bitcoin? Here’s an app that takes up to 4 minutes or more to get though, but wait, you’ll have to install a plugin, or wait I’ll send you an on-chain transaction…)

Take a look at the listings on Bitvocation, an excellent job board for Bitcoiners and related projects. You’ll quickly notice a pattern: almost no companies are hiring software testers. It’s marketing, more marketing, some sales, and of course, full-stack developers. But … No testers.

Because testing has become something that’s often skipped or automated in a hurry. Maybe the devs run a test locally to confirm that the feature they just built doesn’t crash outright. That’s it. And if testing does happen at a company, it’s usually shallow—focused only on the top five percent of critical bugs. The finer points that shape real user experience, like button placement, navigation flow, and responsiveness, are dumped on “the community.”

Which leads to some software being rushed out to production, and only then do teams discover how many problems exist in the real world. If there’s anyone left to care that is, since most teams are scattered all over the world and get paid by the hour by some VC firm on a small runway to a launch date.

This has real life consequences I’ve seen for myself with new users. Like a lightning wallet having a +5 minute onboarding time, and a fat on-screen error for the new users, or a hardware wallet stuck in an endless upgrade loop, just because nobody tested it on a device that was “old” (as in, one year old).

The result is clear: usability and experience testing are so low on the priority list, they may as well not exist. And that’s tragic, because the enthusiasm of new users gets crushed the moment they run into what I call Linux’plaining.

That’s when something obvious fails — like a lookup command that’s copied straight from their own help documentation but doesn’t work — and the answer you get as a user is something like: “Yeah, but first you have to…” followed by an explanation that isn’t mentioned anywhere in the interface or documentation. You were just supposed to know. No one updates the documentation, and no one cares. As most of the projects are very temporary or don’t really care if it succeeds or not, because they’re bitcoiners and bitcoin always wins. Just like PGP always was super cool and good, and users should just be smarter.

Lessons from the past usability disasters

We can always learn from the past especially when its precedents are still echoing through the systems we use today

So here goes, some examples from the legacy / fiat industry:

Lotus Notes, for example. Once a titan in enterprise communication software, which managed to capture about 145 million mailboxes. But its downfall is an example of what happens when you ignore and keep ignoring real-life user needs and fail to evolve with the market. Software like that doesn’t just fade, it collapses under the weight of its own inertia and bloat. If you think bitcoin can’t have that, yes… we’re of course not having a competitor in the market (hard money is hard money, not a mailbox or office software provider of course). But we can erode trust to the extent that it becomes LotusNotes’d.

Its archaic 1990s interface came with clunky navigation and a chaotic document management system. Users got frustrated fast—basic tasks took too long. Picture this: you're stuck in a cubicle, trying to find the calendar function in Lotus Notes while a giant office printer hisses and spits out stacks of paper behind you. The platform never made the leap to modern expectations. It failed to deliver proper mobile clients and clung to outdated tech like LotusScript and the Domino architecture, which made it vulnerable to security issues and incompatible with the web standards of the time. By 2012, IBM pulled the plug on the Lotus brand, as businesses moved en masse to cloud-based alternatives.

Another kind of usability failure has plagued PGP1 (and still does so after 34 years). PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) is a time-tested and rock-solid method for encryption and key exchange, but it’s riddled with usability problems, especially for anyone who isn’t technically inclined.

Its very nature and complexity are already steep hurdles (and yes, you can’t make it fully easy without compromising how it’s supposed to work—granted). But the real problem? Almost zero effort has gone into giving even the most eager new users a manageable learning curve. That neglect slowly killed off any real user base—except for the hardcore encryption folks who already know what they’re doing.

Ask anyone in a shopping street or the historic center of your city if they’ve heard of PGP. And on the off chance someone knows it’s not a trendy new fast-food joint called “Perfectly Grilled Poultry,” the odds of them having actually used it in the past six months are basically zero, unless you happen to bump into that one neckbeard guy in his 60s wearing a stained Star Wars T-shirt named Leonard.

The builders of PGP made one major mistake: they never treated usability as a serious design goal (that’s normal for people knee deep in encryption, I get that, it’s the way it is). PGP is fantastic on itself. Other companies and projects tried to build around it, but while they stumbled, tools like Signal and ProtonMail stepped in; offering the same core features of encryption and secure messaging, minus the headache. They delivered what PGP never could: powerful functionality wrapped in something regular people can actually use. Now, we’ve got encrypted communication flowing through apps like Signal, where all the complex tech is buried so deep in the background, the average user doesn’t even realize it’s there. ProtonMail went one step further even, integrating PGP so cleanly that users never need to exchange keys or understand the cryptography behind it all, yet still benefit from bulletproof encryption.

There’s no debate—this shift is a good thing. History shows that unusable software fades into irrelevance. Whether due to lack of interest, failure to reach critical mass, or a competitor swooping in to eat market share, clunky tools don’t survive. Now, to be clear, Bitcoin doesn’t have to worry about that kind of threat. There’s no real competition when it comes to hard money. Unless, of course, you genuinely believe that flashy shitcoins are a viable alternative—in which case, you might as well stop reading here and go get yourself scammed on the latest Solana airdrop or whatever hype train’s leaving the station today for the degens.

The main takeaway here is that Bitcoin must avoid becoming the next Lotus Notes, bloated with features but neglected by users—or the next PGP, sidelined by its own lack of usability. That kind of trajectory would erode trust, especially if usability and onboarding keep falling behind. And honestly, we’re already seeing signs of this in bitcoin. User adoption in Europe, especially in countries like Germany is noticeably lagging. The introduction of the EU’s MiCA regulations isn’t helping either. Most of the companies that were actually pushing adoption are now either shutting down, leaving the EU, or jumping through creative loopholes just to stay alive. And the last thing on anyone’s mind is improving UX. It takes time, effort, and specialized people to seriously think through how to build this properly, from the beginning, with this ease of use and onboarding in mind. That’s a luxury most teams can’t or won’t prioritize right now. Understandably when the lack of funds is still a major issue within the bitcoin space. (for people sitting on hard money, there’s surprisingly little money flowing into useful projects that aren’t hyped up empty boxes)

The number of nodes being set up by end users worldwide isn’t exactly skyrocketing either. Sure, there’s some growth but let’s not overstate it. Based on Bitnodes’ snapshots taken in March of each year, we’re looking at: 2022 : around 10500 2023 : around 17000 2024 : around 18500 2025 : around 21000 (I know there are different methods of measuring these, like read-only nodes, the % change is roughly the same nonetheless)

In my opinion, if we had non-clunky software that was actually released with proper testing and usability in mind, we could’ve easily doubled those node numbers. A bad user experience with a wallet spreads fast—and brings in exactly zero new users. The same goes for people trying to set up a miner or spin up a node, only to give up after a few frustrating steps. Sure, there are good people out there making guides and videos2 to help mitigate those hurdles, and that helps. But let’s be honest: there’s still very little “wow” factor when average users interact with most Bitcoin software. Almost every time they walk away, it’s because of one of two things—usability issues or bugs.

For the record: if a user can’t set up a wallet because the interface is so rotten or poorly tested, so they don’t know where to click or how to even select a seed word from a list, then that’s a problem — that’s a bug. Argue all you want: sure, it’s not a code-level bug and no, it’s not a system crash. But it is a usability failure. Call it onboarding friction, UX flaw, whatever fits your spreadsheet or circus Maximus of failures in your ticketing system. Bottom line: if your software doesn’t help users accomplish its core purpose, it’s broken. It’s a bug. Pretending it’s something a copywriter or marketing team can fix is pure deflection. The solution isn’t to relabel the problem, 1990’s telecom-style, just to avoid dealing with it. It’s to actually sit down, think, collaborate, and go through the issue, and getting real solutions out. ”No it’s not an issue, that’s how it works” like someone from a failing (and by now defunct) wallet told me once, is not a solution.

You got 21 seconds

The user can’t be onboarded because your software has an “issue”? In my book, that’s a bug. The usual response when you report it? “Yeah, that’s not a priority.” Well, guess what? It actually is a priority. All these small annoyances, hurdles, and bits of BS still plague this industry, and they make the whole experience miserable for regular people trying it out for the first time. The first 21 seconds (yeah, you see what I did there) are the most important when someone opens new software. If it doesn’t click right away—if they’re fiddling with sats or dollar signs, or hunting for some hidden setting buried behind a tiny arrow—it’s game over. They’re annoyed. They’re gone.

And this is exactly why we’re seeing a flood of shitcoin apps sweeping new users off their feet with "faster apps" or "nicer designs" apps that somehow can afford the UI specialists and slick, centralized setups to spread their lies and scams.

I hate to say it, but the Phantom wallet for example, for the Solana network, loaded with fake airdrop schemes and the most blatant scams — has a far better UX than most Bitcoin wallets and Lightning Wallets. Learn from it. Download that **** and get to know what we do wrong and how we can learn from the enemy.

That’s a hard truth. So, instead of just screaming “Uh, shitcooooin!” (yes, we know it is), maybe we should start learning from it. Their apps are better than ours in terms of UI and UX. They attract more people 5x faster (we know that’s also because of the fast gains and retardation playing with the marketing) but we can’t keep ignoring that. Somehow these apps attract more than our trustworthiness, our steady, secure, decentralized hard money truth.

It’s like stepping into one of the best Italian restaurants in town—supposedly. But then the menu’s a mess, the staff is scrolling on their phones, and something smells burnt coming from the kitchen. So, what do you do? You walk out. You cross the street to the fast food joint and order a burger and fries. And as you’re walking out with your food, someone from the Italian place yells at you: “Fast food is bad!” ”Yeah man I know, I wanted a nice Spaghetti aglio e olio, but here I am, digesting a cheeseburger that felt rather spongy.” (the problem is so gone so deep now, that users just walk past that Italian restaurant, don’t even recognize it as a restaurant because it doesn’t have cheeseburgers).

Fear of the dark

Technical people, not marketeers built bitcoin, it’s build on hundreds of small building blocks that interacted over time to have the bitcoin network and it’s immer evolving value. At one point David Chaum cooked up eCash, using blind signatures to let people send digital money anonymously — except it was still stuck on clunky centralized servers. Go back even further, to the 1970s, when Diffie, Hellman, and Rivest introduced public-key cryptography—the magic sauce that gave us secure digital signatures and authentication, making sure your messages stayed private and tamper-proof.

Fast forward to the 1990s, where peer-to-peer started to take off, decentralized networks getting started. Adam Back’s Hashcash in ‘97 used proof-of-work to fight email spam, and the cypherpunks were all about sticking it to the man with privacy-first, the invention 199 Human-Readable 128-bit keys3, decentralized systems. We started to swap files over p2p networks and later, torrents.

All these parts—anonymous cash, encryption, and leaderless networks finally clicked into place when Satoshi Nakamoto poured them into a chain of blocks, built on an ingenious “time-stamping” system: the timechain, or blockchain if you prefer. And just like that, Bitcoin was born—a peer-to-peer money system that didn’t need middlemen and actually worked without any central servers.

So yes, it’s only natural that Bitcoin and the many tools, born from math, obscurity, and cryptography, isn’t exactly always a user-interface darling. That’s also it’s charm for me in any case, as the core is robust and valuable beyond belief. That’s why we love to so see more use, more adoption.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t squash critical “show-stopper” bugs before releasing bitcoin-related software. And it sure as hell doesn’t mean we should act like jerks when a user points out something’s broken, confusing, or just doesn’t meet expectations. We can’t be complacent either about our role as builders of the next generations, as the core is hard money, and it would be a fatal mistake for the world to see it being used only for some rockstars from Wall Street and their counterparts to store their debt laden fiat. We can free people, make them better, make them elevate themselves. And yet, the people we try to elevate, we often alienate. All because we don’t test our stuff well enough. We should be so good, we blow the banking apps away. (they’re blowing themselves out of the market luckily with fiat “features” and overly over the top use of “analytics” to measure your carbon footprint for example).

We should be so damn professional that someone using Bitcoin apps for a full year wouldn’t even notice any bugs, because there wouldn’t be much to get annoyed by.

So… we have to do better. I’ve seen it time and time again — on Lightning tipping apps, Nostr plugins, wallets, hardware wallets, even metal plates we can screw up somehow … you name it. “It works on my machine”, isn’t enough anymore! Those days are over.

Even apps built with solid funding and strong dev and test teams like fedi.xyz4 can miss the mark. While the idea was good and the app itself ran fine without too much hurdles and usual bugs. But usability failed on a different front: there was just nothing meaningful to do in the app beyond poking around, chatting a bit, and sending a few sats back and forth. The communities it’s supposed to connect, just aren’t there, or weren’t there “yet”.

It’s a beautifully designed application and a strong proof-of-concept for federated community funds. But then… nothing. No one I know uses it. Their last blogpost was from beginning of October 2024, which doesn’t bode well, writing this than 6 months after. That said, they got some great onboarding going, usually under 20 seconds, which proves it can be done right (even if it was all a front-end for a more complex backend).

As you can see “usability” is a broad terminology, covering technical aspects, user-interface, but also use-cases. Even if you have a cool app that works really well and is well thought-out users won’t use it if there’s no real substance. You can’t get that critical mass by waiting for customers to come in or communities to embrace it. They won’t, because most of the individuals already had past experiences with bitcoin apps or services, and there’s a reason for them not being on-board already.

A lot of bitcoin companies build tools for new people. Never for the lapsed people, the persons that came in, thought of it as an investment or “a coin”… then left because of a bad experience or the price going down in fiat. All the while we have some software that usually isn’t so kind to new people, or causes loss of funds and time. Even if they make one little “mistake” of not knowing the system beforehand.

Bitcoin’s Moby Dick

\ Bitcoin itself has a big issue here. The user base could grow faster, and more robust, if there wasn’t software that worked as a sort of repellent against users.

I especially see a younger and less tech-savvy audience absolutely disliking the software we have now. No matter if it’s Electrum’s desktop wallet (hardly the sexiest tool out there, although I like it myself, but it lacks some features), Sparrow, or any lightning wallet out there (safe for WoS). I even saw people disliking Proton wallet, which I personally thought of as something really slick, well-made and polished. But even that doesn’t cut it for many people, as the “account” and “wallet” system wasn’t clear enough for them. (You see, we all have the same bias, because we know bitcoin, we look at it from a perspective of “facepalm, of course it’s a wallet named “account”, but when you sit next to a new user, it becomes clear that this is a hurdle. (please proton wallet: name a wallet a wallet, not “account”. But most users already in bitcoin, love what you’re doing)

Naturally disliking usability

The same technically brilliant people who maintain Bitcoin and build its apps haven’t quite tapped into their inner Steve Jobs—if that person even exists in the Bitcoin space. Let’s be honest: the next iOS-style wow moment, or the kind of frictionless usability seen in Spotify or Instagram, probably won’t come from hardcore Bitcoin devs alone. In fact, some builders in the space seem to actively disregard—or even look down on—discussions about usability. Just mention names like Wallet of Satoshi (yes, we all know it’s a custodial frontend) or the need for smoother interactions with Bitcoin, and you’ll get eye-rolls or defensive rants instead of curiosity or openness.

Moving more towards a better user interface for things like Sparrow or Bitcoin Core for example, would bring all kinds of “bad things” according to some, and on top of that, bring in new users (noobs) that ask questions like: “Do you burn all these sats when I make a transaction?” (Yes, that’s a real one.)

I get the “usability sucks” gripe — fear of losing key features, dumbing things down, or opening the door to unwanted changes (like BIP proposals real bitcoiners hate) that tweak bitcoin to suit any user’s whim. Close to no one in bitcoin (really in bitcoin!) wants that, including me.

That fear is however largely unfounded; because Bitcoin doesn’t change without consensus. Any change that would undermine its core use or value proposition simply won’t make it through. And let’s be honest: most of the users who crave these “faster,” centralized alternatives—those drawn to slick apps, one-click solutions, and dopamine-driven UI—will either stick with fiat, ape into the shitcoin-of-the-month, or praise the shiny new CBDC once it drops (“much fast, much cool”). These degen types, chasing fiat gains and jackpot dreams, aren’t relevant to this story, No matter what we build for bitcoin, they’ll always love the fiat-story and will always dislike bitcoin because it’s not a jackpot for them. (Honestly, why don’t they just gamble at a casino?)

People who fear that improving usability will somehow bring down the Bitcoin network are being a bit too paranoid—and honestly, they often don’t understand what usability or proper testing actually means.

They treat it like fluff, when in reality it's fundamental. Usability doesn't mean dumbing things down or compromising Bitcoin's core values; it means understanding why your fancy new app isn’t being used by anyone outside of your bubble. Testing is the beating heart of getting things out with confidence. Nothing more satisfying in software building than to proudly show even your beta versions to users, knowing it’s well tested. It’s much more than clicking a few buttons and tossing your code on GitHub. It's about asking real questions: can someone outside your Telegram group actually use this and will it they be using the software at all?

If you create a Nostr app that opens an in-app browser window and then tries to log you in with your NIPS05 or NIPS07 or whatever number it is that authenticates you, then you need to think about how it’s going to work in real life. Have people already visited this underlying website? Is that website using the exact same mechanism? Is it really working like we think it is in the real world? (Some notable good things are happening with the development of Keychat for example, I have the feeling they get it, it’s not all bad). And yes, there are still bugs and things to improve there, they’re just starting. (The browser section and nostr login need some work imho).

Guess what? You can test your stuff. But it takes time and effort. The kind of effort that, if skipped, gets multiplied across thousands of people. Thousands of people wasting their time trying to use your app, hitting errors, assuming they did something wrong, retrying, googling workarounds—only to eventually realize: it’s not them. It’s a bug. A bug you didn’t catch. Because you didn’t test. And now everyone loses. And guess what? Those users? They’re not coming back.

A good example (to stay positive here) is Fountain App, where the first versions were , eh… let’s say not so good, and then quickly evolved into a company and product that works really well, and also listens to their users and fixes their bugs. The interface can still be better in my opinion, but it’s getting there. And it’s super good now.

A bad example? Alby. (Sorry to say.) It still suffers from a bloated, clunky interface and an onboarding flow that utterly confuses new or returning users. It just doesn’t get the job done. Opinions may vary, sure, but hand this app to any non-technical user and ask them to get online and do a Nostr zap. Watch what happens. If they even manage to get through the initial setup, that is.

Another example? Bitkit. When I tried transferring funds from the "savings" to the "spending" account, the wallet silently opened a Lightning channel—no warning, no explanation—and suddenly my coins were locked up. To make things worse, the wallet still showed the full balance as spendable, even though part of it was now stuck in that channel. That was in November 2024, the last time I touched Bitkit. I wasted too much time trying to figure it out, I haven’t looked back (assuming the project is even still alive, I didn’t see them pop up anywhere).

Some metal BIP39 backup tools are great in theory but poorly executed. I bought one that didn’t even include a simple instruction on how to open it. The person I gave it to spent two hours trying to open it with a screwdriver and even attempted drilling. Turns out, it just slides open with some pressure. A simple instruction would’ve saved all that frustration.

Builders often assume users “just get it,” but a small guide could’ve prevented all the hassle. It’s a small step, but it’s crucial for better user experience. So why not avoid such situations and put a friggin cheap piece of paper in the box so people know how to open it? (The creators would probably facepalm if they read this, “how can users nòt see this?”). Yeah,… put a paper in there with instructions.

That’s natural, because as a creator you’re “in” it, you know. You don’t see how others would overlook something so obvious.

Bitcoiners are extremely bad on that front.

I’ll dive deeper into some examples in part 2 of this post.

By AVB

end of part 1

If you like to support independent thought and writings on bitcoin, follow this substack please https://coinos.io/allesvoorbitcoin/receive\ \ footnotes:

1 https://philzimmermann.com/EN/findpgp/

2 BTC sessions: set up a bitcoin node

3 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1751

4 https://www.fedi.xyz/

@ 8125b911:a8400883

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

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

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

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

Download

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

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

Installation

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

macOS Users:

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

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

Windows Users:

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

Connecting

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

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

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

Restrictions

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

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

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

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

Currently, the maximum value for this parameter is 2.

Conclusion

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

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

Not your relay, not your events.

@ aa8de34f:a6ffe696

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

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

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

-- Denn es braucht keinen Untergrund mehr. --

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Well, today posts looks are dedicated to STAR WARS. Enjoy!

Today we’re looking at Beat Saber (2019) and why its most essential design element can be used to make great VR games that have nothing to do with music or rhythm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoOeO7S9ehw

It’s hard to believe Beat Saber was first released in Early Access seven years ago today. From day one, it was clear the game was something special, but even so we couldn’t have predicted it would become one of VR’s best-selling games of all time—a title it still holds all these years later. In celebration of the game’s lasting legacy we’re re-publishing our episode of Inside XR Design which explores the secret to Beat Saber’s fun, and how it can be applied to VR games which have nothing to do with music.

Read more at https://www.roadtovr.com/beat-saber-instructed-motion-until-you-fall-inside-xr-design/

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/970909

@ 40b9c85f:5e61b451

Introduction

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

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

The Current State of DVMs: Challenges and Limitations

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

1. Inconsistent Implementation

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

2. Fragmented Specifications

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

3. Ambiguous API Interfaces

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

The Reflection Pattern: A Solution from RPC Systems

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

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

How Reflection Could Transform the DVM Specification

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

1. Defined Lifecycle Phases

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

2. Schema-Based Interactions

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

3. Capability Negotiation

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

Implementation Approach

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

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

Parallels with Other Protocols

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ 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.

@ c3ae4ad8:e54d46cb

Ingredients

10 oz frozen chopped spinach, thawed 2 TB butter, divided ½ small shallot, minced 1/2 cup crumbled feta cheese 6 large or 9 medium eggs 1 cup of heavy cream salt & pepper

Directions

Preheat oven to 350F. Grease a pie dish with 1 tablespoon of the butter.

In a skillet, add butter and saute the diced shallots and cook until slightly softened.

Place the thawed chopped spinach into a towel or paper towel and wrap it around the spinach into a ball and squeeze until you remove as much liquid as possible.

In a large bowl, crack in the eggs and add the cream, salt & pepper, then whisk until foamy and increased in volume. Fluff up the spinach with a fork and add it to the egg mixture. Add the crumbled feta and fold both in.

In the greased pie dish, and then pour the egg mixture and bake at 350 for 35-40 minutes. Let cool for 10-15 minutes before serving.

Reheating and leftovers The best presentation and clean cuts will come from chilling for several hours or overnight in the fridge. To reheat, place a serving onto a microwave-safe plate and cover with a paper towel and heat for 30-40 seconds. It's also great cold.

Makes 6-8 servings.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

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

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Found this really fun, so created a few intros for latest SN newsletters https://stacker.news/items/960787/r/Design_r?commentId=970902 and https://stacker.news/items/970459/r/Design_r?commentId=970905

Create your STAR-WARS-like movie intro https://starwarsintrocreator.kassellabs.io/

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/970906

@ bbef5093:71228592

India csökkentené az atomerőművek építési idejét ambiciózus nukleáris céljai eléréséhez

India célja, hogy a jelenlegi 10 évről a „világszínvonalú” 6 évre csökkentse atomerőművi projektjeinek kivitelezési idejét, hogy elérje a 2047-re kitűzött, 100 GW beépített nukleáris kapacitást.

Az SBI Capital Markets (az Indiai Állami Bank befektetési banki leányvállalata) jelentése szerint ez segítene mérsékelni a korábbi költségtúllépéseket, és vonzóbbá tenné az országot a globális befektetők számára.

A jelentés szerint a jelenlegi, mintegy 8 GW kapacitás és a csak 7 GW-nyi építés alatt álló kapacitás mellett „jelentős gyorsítás” szükséges a célok eléréséhez.

A kormány elindította a „nukleáris energia missziót”, amelyhez körülbelül 2,3 milliárd dollárt (2 milliárd eurót) különített el K+F-re és legalább öt Bharat kis moduláris reaktor (BSMR) telepítésére, de további kihívásokat kell megoldania a célok eléréséhez.

Az építési idők csökkentése kulcsfontosságú, de a jelentés átfogó rendszerszintű reformokat is javasol, beleértve a gyorsabb engedélyezést, a földszerzési szabályok egyszerűsítését, az erőművek körüli védőtávolság csökkentését, és a szabályozó hatóság (Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) nagyobb önállóságát.

A jelentés szerint a nemzet korlátozott uránkészletei miatt elengedhetetlen az üzemanyagforrások diverzifikálása nemzetközi megállapodások révén, valamint az indiai nukleáris program 2. és 3. szakaszának felgyorsítása.

India háromlépcsős nukleáris programja célja egy zárt üzemanyagciklus kialakítása, amely a természetes uránra, a plutóniumra és végül a tóriumra épül. A 2. szakaszban gyorsneutronos reaktorokat használnak, amelyek több energiát nyernek ki az uránból, kevesebb bányászott uránt igényelnek, és a fel nem használt uránt új üzemanyaggá alakítják. A 3. szakaszban fejlett reaktorok működnek majd India hatalmas tóriumkészleteire alapozva.

2025 januárjában az indiai Nuclear Power Corporation (NPCIL) pályázatot írt ki Bharat SMR-ek telepítésére, először nyitva meg a nukleáris szektort indiai magáncégek előtt.

Eddig csak az állami tulajdonú NPCIL építhetett és üzemeltethetett kereskedelmi atomerőműveket Indiában.

A Bharat SMR-ek (a „Bharat” hindiül Indiát jelent) telepítése a „Viksit Bharat” („Fejlődő India”) program része.

Engedélyezési folyamat: „elhúzódó és egymásra épülő”

A Bharat atomerőmű fejlesztésének részletei továbbra sem világosak, de Nirmala Sitharaman pénzügyminiszter júliusban elmondta, hogy az állami National Thermal Power Corporation és a Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited közös vállalkozásában valósulna meg a fejlesztés.

Sitharaman hozzátette, hogy a kormány a magánszektorral közösen létrehozna egy Bharat Small Reactors nevű céget, amely SMR-ek és új nukleáris technológiák kutatás-fejlesztésével foglalkozna.

Az SBI jelentése szerint javítani kell az SMR programot, mert az engedélyezési folyamat jelenleg „elhúzódó és egymásra épülő”, és aránytalan kockázatot jelent a magánszereplők számára a reaktorfejlesztés során.

A program „stratégiailag jó helyzetben van a sikerhez”, mert szigorú belépési feltételeket támaszt, így csak komoly és alkalmas szereplők vehetnek részt benne.

A kormánynak azonban be kellene vezetnie egy kártérítési záradékot, amely védi a magáncégeket az üzemanyag- és nehézvíz-ellátás hiányától, amely az Atomenergia Minisztérium (DAE) hatáskörébe tartozik.

A jelentés szerint mind az üzemanyag, mind a nehézvíz ellátása a DAE-től függ, és „a hozzáférés hiánya” problémát jelenthet. India legtöbb kereskedelmi atomerőműve hazai fejlesztésű, nyomottvizes nehézvizes reaktor.

A jelentés szerint: „A meglévő szabályozási hiányosságok kezelése kulcsfontosságú, hogy a magánszektor vezethesse a kitűzött 100 GW nukleáris kapacitás 50%-ának fejlesztését 2047-ig.”

Az NPCIL nemrégiben közölte, hogy India 2031–32-ig további 18 reaktort kíván hozzáadni az energiamixhez, ezzel az ország nukleáris kapacitása 22,4 GW-ra nő.

A Nemzetközi Atomenergia-ügynökség adatai szerint Indiában 21 reaktor üzemel kereskedelmi forgalomban, amelyek 2023-ban az ország áramtermelésének körülbelül 3%-át adták. Hat egység van építés alatt.

---

Roszatom pert indított a leállított Hanhikivi-1 projekt miatt Finnországban

Az orosz állami Roszatom atomenergetikai vállalat pert indított Moszkvában a finn Fortum és Outokumpu cégek ellen, és 227,8 milliárd rubel (2,8 milliárd dollár, 2,4 milliárd euró) kártérítést követel a finnországi Hanhikivi-1 atomerőmű szerződésének felmondása miatt – derül ki bírósági dokumentumokból és a Roszatom közleményéből.

A Roszatom a „mérnöki, beszerzési és kivitelezési (EPC) szerződés jogellenes felmondása”, a részvényesi megállapodás, az üzemanyag-ellátási szerződés megsértése, valamint a kölcsön visszafizetésének megtagadása miatt követel kártérítést.

A Fortum a NucNetnek e-mailben azt írta, hogy „nem kapott hivatalos értesítést orosz perről”.

A Fortum 2025. április 29-i negyedéves jelentésében közölte, hogy a Roszatom finn leányvállalata, a Raos Project, valamint a Roszatom nemzetközi divíziója, a JSC Rusatom Energy International, illetve a Fennovoima (a Hanhikivi projektért felelős finn konzorcium) között a Hanhikivi EPC szerződésével kapcsolatban nemzetközi választottbírósági eljárás zajlik.

2025 februárjában a választottbíróság úgy döntött, hogy nincs joghatósága a Fortummal szembeni követelések ügyében. „Ez a döntés végleges volt, így a Fortum nem része a választottbírósági eljárásnak” – közölte a cég.

A Fortum 2015-ben kisebbségi tulajdonos lett a Fennovoima projektben, de a teljes tulajdonrészt 2020-ban leírta.

A Fennovoima konzorcium, amelyben a Roszatom a Raos-on keresztül 34%-os kisebbségi részesedéssel rendelkezett, 2022 májusában felmondta a Hanhikivi-1 létesítésére vonatkozó szerződést az ukrajnai háború miatti késedelmek és megnövekedett kockázatok miatt.

A projekt technológiája az orosz AES-2006 típusú nyomottvizes reaktor lett volna.

2021 áprilisában a Fennovoima közölte, hogy a projekt teljes beruházási költsége 6,5–7 milliárd euróról 7–7,5 milliárd euróra nőtt.

2022 augusztusában a Roszatom és a Fennovoima kölcsönösen milliárdos kártérítési igényt nyújtott be egymás ellen a projekt leállítása miatt.

A Fennovoima nemzetközi választottbírósági eljárást indított 1,7 milliárd euró előleg visszafizetéséért. A Roszatom 3 milliárd eurós ellenkeresetet nyújtott be. Ezek az ügyek jelenleg is nemzetközi bíróságok előtt vannak.

---

Dél-koreai delegáció Csehországba utazik nukleáris szerződés aláírására

Egy dél-koreai delegáció 2025. május 6-án Csehországba utazik, hogy részt vegyen egy több milliárd dolláros szerződés aláírásán, amely két új atomerőmű építéséről szól a Dukovany telephelyen – közölte a dél-koreai kereskedelmi, ipari és energetikai minisztérium.

A delegáció, amelyben kormányzati és parlamenti tisztviselők is vannak, kétnapos prágai látogatásra indul, hogy részt vegyen a szerdára tervezett aláírási ceremónián.

A küldöttség találkozik Petr Fiala cseh miniszterelnökkel és Milos Vystrcil szenátusi elnökkel is, hogy megvitassák a Dukovany projektet.

Fiala múlt héten bejelentette, hogy Prága május 7-én írja alá a Dukovany szerződést a Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) céggel.

A cseh versenyhivatal nemrég engedélyezte a szerződés aláírását a KHNP-vel, miután elutasította a francia EDF fellebbezését.

A versenyhivatal április 24-i döntése megerősítette a korábbi ítéletet, amelyet az EDF megtámadott, miután 2024 júliusában elvesztette a tenderpályázatot a KHNP-vel szemben.

Ez lehetővé teszi, hogy a két dél-koreai APR1400 reaktor egység szerződését aláírják Dukovanyban, Dél-Csehországban. A szerződés az ország történetének legnagyobb energetikai beruházása, értéke legalább 400 milliárd korona (16 milliárd euró, 18 milliárd dollár).

A szerződést eredetileg márciusban írták volna alá, de a vesztes pályázók (EDF, Westinghouse) fellebbezései, dél-koreai politikai bizonytalanságok és a cseh cégek lokalizációs igényei miatt csúszott.

A KHNP januárban rendezte a szellemi tulajdonjogi vitát a Westinghouse-zal, amely korábban azt állította, hogy a KHNP az ő technológiáját használja az APR1400 reaktorokban.

A szerződés aláírása Dél-Korea első külföldi atomerőmű-építési projektje lesz 2009 óta, amikor a KHNP négy APR1400 reaktort épített az Egyesült Arab Emírségekben, Barakahban.

Csehországban hat kereskedelmi reaktor működik: négy orosz VVER-440-es Dukovanyban, két nagyobb VVER-1000-es Temelínben. Az IAEA szerint ezek az egységek a cseh áramtermelés mintegy 36,7%-át adják.

---

Az USA-nak „minél előbb” új reaktort kell építenie – mondta a DOE jelöltje a szenátusi bizottság előtt

Az USA-nak minél előbb új atomerőművet kell építenie, és elő kell mozdítania a fejlett reaktorok fejlesztését, engedélyezését és telepítését – hangzott el a szenátusi energiaügyi bizottság előtt.

Ted Garrish, aki a DOE nukleáris energiaügyi helyettes államtitkári posztjára jelöltként jelent meg, elmondta: az országnak új reaktort kell telepítenie, legyen az nagy, kis moduláris vagy mikroreaktor.

Az USA-ban jelenleg nincs épülő kereskedelmi atomerőmű, az utolsó kettő, a Vogtle-3 és Vogtle-4 2023-ban, illetve 2024-ben indult el Georgiában.

„A nukleáris energia kivételes lehetőség a növekvő villamosenergia-igény megbízható, megfizethető és biztonságos kielégítésére” – mondta Garrish, aki tapasztalt atomenergetikai vezető. Szerinte az USA-nak nemzetbiztonsági okokból is fejlesztenie kell a hazai urándúsító ipart.

Vizsgálni kell a nemzetközi piacot és a kormányközi megállapodások lehetőségét az amerikai nukleáris fejlesztők és ellátási láncok számára, valamint meg kell oldani a kiégett fűtőelemek elhelyezésének problémáját.

1987-ben a Kongresszus a nevadai Yucca Mountain-t jelölte ki a kiégett fűtőelemek végleges tárolóhelyének, de 2009-ben az Obama-adminisztráció leállította a projektet.

Az USA-ban az 1950-es évek óta mintegy 83 000 tonna radioaktív hulladék, köztük kiégett fűtőelem halmozódott fel, amelyet jelenleg acél- és betonkonténerekben tárolnak az erőművek telephelyein.

Garrish korábban a DOE nemzetközi ügyekért felelős helyettes államtitkára volt (2018–2021), jelenleg az Egyesült Haladó Atomenergia Szövetség igazgatótanácsának elnöke.

---

Egyéb hírek

Szlovénia közös munkát sürget az USA-val a nukleáris energiában:
Az USA és Horvátország tisztviselői együttműködésről tárgyaltak Közép- és Délkelet-Európa energiaellátásának diverzifikálása érdekében, különös tekintettel a kis moduláris reaktorokra (SMR). Horvátország és Szlovénia közösen tulajdonolja a szlovéniai Krško atomerőművet, amely egyetlen 696 MW-os nyomottvizes reaktorával Horvátország áramfogyasztásának 16%-át, Szlovéniáénak 20%-át adja. Szlovénia fontolgatja egy második blokk építését, de tavaly elhalasztotta az erről szóló népszavazást.

Malawi engedélyezi a Kayelekera uránbánya újraindítását:
A Malawi Atomenergia Hatóság kiadta a sugárbiztonsági engedélyt a Lotus (Africa) Limited számára, így újraindulhat a Kayelekera uránbánya, amely több mint egy évtizede, 2014 óta állt a zuhanó uránárak és biztonsági problémák miatt. A bánya 85%-át az ausztrál Lotus Resources helyi leányvállalata birtokolja. A Lotus szerint a bánya újraindítása teljesen finanszírozott, kb. 43 millió dollár (37 millió euró) tőkével.

Venezuela és Irán nukleáris együttműködést tervez:
Venezuela és Irán a nukleáris tudomány és technológia terén való együttműködésről tárgyalt. Az iráni állami média szerint Mohammad Eslami, az Iráni Atomenergia Szervezet vezetője és Alberto Quintero, Venezuela tudományos miniszterhelyettese egyetemi és kutatási programok elindításáról egyeztetett. Venezuelában nincs kereskedelmi atomerőmű, de 2010-ben Oroszországgal írt alá megállapodást új atomerőművek lehetőségéről. Iránnak egy működő atomerőműve van Bushehr-1-nél, egy másik ugyanott épül, mindkettőt Oroszország szállította.

@ 8cda1daa:e9e5bdd8

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

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

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

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

The Problem: We Live in Digital Captivity

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

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

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

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

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

A Vision for Sovereign Society

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

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

So, What Is the Atomic Economy?

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

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

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

The Tech Stack Behind the Vision

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

1. Payments & Settlement

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

2. Discovery & Matching

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

3. Application Layer

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

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

The Human Impact

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

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

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

Why Bitcoiners Should Care

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

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

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

Join the Atomic Revolution

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

Bitcoin promised a revolution. The Atomic Economy delivers it.

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

Learn more and build with us at Synonym.to.

@ 08964cb5:51bf010f

«Reflexiones y Acción: Entre la Defensa del Patrimonio»

[English below][Deutsch unten]

Los recientes acontecimientos que han puesto en peligro mi patrimonio, así como los valores fundamentales que definen mi camino, me han llevado a tomar una decisión importante: iniciar una campaña de recaudación de fondos. Esta iniciativa no solo busca proteger lo que he construido con esfuerzo, sino también garantizar que pueda seguir adelante con proyectos y principios que son esenciales para mí.

Tu apoyo puede marcar una gran diferencia. Si deseas conocer más sobre esta causa o contribuir con tu solidaridad, te invito a visitar ›🔗 éste enlace.‹ "Reflections and Action: Safeguarding My Heritage"

---

“Reflections and Action: Safeguarding My Heritage”

The recent events that have jeopardised my assets and the core values that define my journey have led me to take a significant step: launching a fundraising campaign. This initiative aims not only to protect what I have built with hard work but also to ensure that I can continue moving forward with projects and principles that are essential to me.

Your support can make a real difference. If you’d like to learn more about this cause or contribute with your solidarity, I invite you to visit ›🔗 this link.‹

---

„Überlegungen und Handeln: Den Schutz meines Vermögens”

Die jüngsten Ereignisse, die mein Vermögen sowie die grundlegenden Werte, die meinen Weg bestimmen, gefährdet haben, haben mich dazu veranlasst, einen wichtigen Schritt zu gehen: den Start einer Spendenkampagne. Diese Initiative zielt nicht nur darauf ab, das zu schützen, was ich mit harter Arbeit aufgebaut habe, sondern auch sicherzustellen, dass ich mit Projekten und Prinzipien, die für mich unerlässlich sind, weitermachen kann.

Deine Unterstützung kann einen großen Unterschied machen. Wenn du mehr über diese Sache erfahren oder mit deiner Solidarität beitragen möchtest, lade ich dich ein, ›🔗 diesen Link zu besuchen.‹

@ aa8de34f:a6ffe696

19. März 2025

🔐 1. SHA-256 is Quantum-Resistant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

🕵️♂️ 2.1 The Public Key Never Appears

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

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

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

🔄 3. Bitcoin Can Upgrade

Even if quantum computers eventually become a real threat:

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

🔄 7. The Logarithmic Difficulty Adjustment Neutralizes Threats

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

---

🔥 Final Verdict: Quantum Computers Are Too Slow for Bitcoin

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

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

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

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

@ 4fe14ef2:f51992ec

Let's support Bitcoin merchants! I'd love to hear some of your latest Lightning purchases and interesting products you bought. Feel free to include links to the shops or businesses you bought from.

Who else has a recent purchase they’re excited about? Bonus sats if you found a killer deal! ⚡

If you missed our last thread, here are some of the items stackers recently spent and zap on.

Share and repost: N: https://nostrudel.ninja/#/n/nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqnlpfme... X: https://x.com/AGORA_SN/status/1918907693516914793

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/970896

@ 6e64b83c:94102ee8

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

Prerequisites

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

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

5. Domain Requirements:

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

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

8. Tools to use:

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

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

     # Make it executable chmod +x nak-*

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

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

Setting Up Citrine

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

Installing Required Tools

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

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

Cloudflare Authentication

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

Creating the Tunnel

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

3. Copy the tunnel ID after creating the tunnel

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

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

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

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

10. Validate your configuration: bash cloudflared tunnel validate

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

Preventing Android from Killing the Tunnel

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

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

Updating Your Outbox Model Relays

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

Decoding npub (Public Key)

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

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

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

To decode an npub string to its hex format:

bash nak decode nostr:npub1dejts0qlva8mqzjlrxqkc2tmvs2t7elszky5upxaf3jha9qs9m5q605uc4

Change it with your own npub.

bash { "pubkey": "6e64b83c1f674fb00a5f19816c297b6414bf67f015894e04dd4c657e94102ee8" }

Copy the pubkey value in quotes.

Create a kind 10002 event with your relay list:

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

Example format:

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

Save it to a file called event.json

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

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

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

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

bash unset HISTFILE nak key encrypt ... set HISTFILE

How to securely create NIP-49 encypted private key

```bash

Read your private key (input will be hidden)

read -s SECRET

Read your password (input will be hidden)

read -s PASSWORD

encrypt command

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

copy and paste the ncryptsec1 text from the output

read -s ENCRYPTED nak key decrypt "$ENCRYPTED"

clear variables from memory

unset SECRET PASSWORD ENCRYPTED ```

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

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

echo %SECRET%| nak key encrypt %PASSWORD%

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

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

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

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

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

4. Testing your relay:

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

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

@ 08964cb5:51bf010f

«Reflexiones y Acción: Entre la Defensa del Patrimonio»

[English below][Deutsch unten]

Los recientes acontecimientos que han puesto en peligro mi patrimonio, así como los valores fundamentales que definen mi camino, me han llevado a tomar una decisión importante: iniciar una campaña de recaudación de fondos. Esta iniciativa no solo busca proteger lo que he construido con esfuerzo, sino también garantizar que pueda seguir adelante con proyectos y principios que son esenciales para mí.

Tu apoyo puede marcar una gran diferencia. Si deseas conocer más sobre esta causa o contribuir con tu solidaridad, te invito a visitar ›🔗éste enlace.‹

---

"Reflections and Action: Safeguarding My Heritage"

The recent events that have jeopardised my assets and the core values that define my journey have led me to take a significant step: launching a fundraising campaign. This initiative aims not only to protect what I have built with hard work but also to ensure that I can continue moving forward with projects and principles that are essential to me.

Your support can make a real difference. If you’d like to learn more about this cause or contribute with your solidarity, I invite you to visit ›🔗this link.‹

---

"Überlegungen und Handeln: Den Schutz meines Vermögens"

Die jüngsten Ereignisse, die mein Vermögen sowie die grundlegenden Werte, die meinen Weg bestimmen, gefährdet haben, haben mich dazu veranlasst, einen wichtigen Schritt zu gehen: den Start einer Spendenkampagne. Diese Initiative zielt nicht nur darauf ab, das zu schützen, was ich mit harter Arbeit aufgebaut habe, sondern auch sicherzustellen, dass ich mit Projekten und Prinzipien, die für mich unerlässlich sind, weitermachen kann.

Deine Unterstützung kann einen großen Unterschied machen. Wenn du mehr über diese Sache erfahren oder mit deiner Solidarität beitragen möchtest, lade ich dich ein, ›🔗diesen Link zu besuchen.‹

@ b6524158:8e898a89

Steps: 1. Run a node one mynode 2. Upgrade to premium 3. Select your Bitcoin version (to Bitcoin Knots)

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/970504

@ f32184ee:6d1c17bf

Ads Fueling Freedom

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

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

Ulbricht’s Vision: A Decentralized Social Protocol

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

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

Ulbricht’s Principles

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

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

NextBlock’s Implementation of PROMO Protocol

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

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

Aligned Principles

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

[Blueprint Match, source NextBlock]

---

Who We Are

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

Our first product, Billboard, is launching this June.

Open for All

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

Our Vision

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

Read our Manifesto to learn more.

NextBlock is registered in Texas, USA.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

Digitalisierung ist der Schlüssel für Kontrolle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 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.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Tag des Sieges]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Pixabay]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 2e8970de:63345c7a

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

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

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

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

@ 40bdcc08:ad00fd2c

Introduction

Bitcoin’s OP_RETURN opcode, a mechanism for embedding small data in transactions, has ignited a significant debate within the Bitcoin community. Originally designed to support limited metadata while preserving Bitcoin’s role as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, OP_RETURN is now at the center of proposals that could redefine Bitcoin’s identity. The immutable nature of Bitcoin’s timechain makes it an attractive platform for data storage, creating tension with those who prioritize its monetary function. This discussion, particularly around Bitcoin Core pull request #32406 (GitHub PR #32406), highlights a critical juncture for Bitcoin’s future.

What is OP_RETURN?

Introduced in 2014, OP_RETURN allows users to attach up to 80 bytes of data to a Bitcoin transaction. Unlike other transaction outputs, OP_RETURN outputs are provably unspendable, meaning they don’t burden the Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO) set—a critical database for Bitcoin nodes. This feature was a compromise to provide a standardized, less harmful way to include metadata, addressing earlier practices that embedded data in ways that bloated the UTXO set. The 80-byte limit and restriction to one OP_RETURN output per transaction are part of Bitcoin Core’s standardness rules, which guide transaction relay and mining but are not enforced by the network’s consensus rules (Bitcoin Stack Exchange).

Standardness vs. Consensus Rules

Standardness rules are Bitcoin Core’s default policies for relaying and mining transactions. They differ from consensus rules, which define what transactions are valid across the entire network. For OP_RETURN: - Consensus Rules: Allow OP_RETURN outputs with data up to the maximum script size (approximately 10,000 bytes) and multiple outputs per transaction (Bitcoin Stack Exchange). - Standardness Rules: Limit OP_RETURN data to 80 bytes and one output per transaction to discourage excessive data storage and maintain network efficiency.

Node operators can adjust these policies using settings like -datacarrier (enables/disables OP_RETURN relay) and -datacarriersize (sets the maximum data size, defaulting to 83 bytes to account for the OP_RETURN opcode and pushdata byte). These settings allow flexibility but reflect Bitcoin Core’s default stance on limiting data usage.

The Proposal: Pull Request #32406

Bitcoin Core pull request #32406, proposed by developer instagibbs, seeks to relax these standardness restrictions (GitHub PR #32406). Key changes include: - Removing Default Size Limits: The default -datacarriersize would be uncapped, allowing larger OP_RETURN data without a predefined limit. - Allowing Multiple Outputs: The restriction to one OP_RETURN output per transaction would be lifted, with the total data size across all outputs subject to a configurable limit. - Deprecating Configuration Options: The -datacarrier and -datacarriersize settings are marked as deprecated, signaling potential removal in future releases, which could limit node operators’ ability to enforce custom restrictions.

This proposal does not alter consensus rules, meaning miners and nodes can already accept transactions with larger or multiple OP_RETURN outputs. Instead, it changes Bitcoin Core’s default relay policy to align with existing practices, such as miners accepting non-standard transactions via services like Marathon Digital’s Slipstream (CoinDesk).

Node Operator Flexibility

Currently, node operators can customize OP_RETURN handling: - Default Settings: Relay transactions with one OP_RETURN output up to 80 bytes. - Custom Settings: Operators can disable OP_RETURN relay (-datacarrier=0) or adjust the size limit (e.g., -datacarriersize=100). These options remain in #32406 but are deprecated, suggesting that future Bitcoin Core versions might not support such customization, potentially standardizing the uncapped policy.

Arguments in Favor of Relaxing Limits

Supporters of pull request #32406 and similar proposals argue that the current restrictions are outdated and ineffective. Their key points include: - Ineffective Limits: Developers bypass the 80-byte limit using methods like Inscriptions, which store data in other transaction parts, often at higher cost and inefficiency (BitcoinDev Mailing List). Relaxing OP_RETURN could channel data into a more efficient format. - Preventing UTXO Bloat: By encouraging OP_RETURN use, which doesn’t affect the UTXO set, the proposal could reduce reliance on harmful alternatives like unspendable Taproot outputs used by projects like Citrea’s Clementine bridge. - Supporting Innovation: Projects like Citrea require more data (e.g., 144 bytes) for security proofs, and relaxed limits could enable new Layer 2 solutions (CryptoSlate). - Code Simplification: Developers like Peter Todd argue that these limits complicate Bitcoin Core’s codebase unnecessarily (CoinGeek). - Aligning with Practice: Miners already process non-standard transactions, and uncapping defaults could improve fee estimation and reduce reliance on out-of-band services, as noted by ismaelsadeeq in the pull request discussion.

In the GitHub discussion, developers like Sjors and TheCharlatan expressed support (Concept ACK), citing these efficiency and innovation benefits.

Arguments Against Relaxing Limits

Opponents, including prominent developers and community members, raise significant concerns about the implications of these changes: - Deviation from Bitcoin’s Purpose: Critics like Luke Dashjr, who called the proposal “utter insanity,” argue that Bitcoin’s base layer should prioritize peer-to-peer cash, not data storage (CoinDesk). Jason Hughes warned it could turn Bitcoin into a “worthless altcoin” (BeInCrypto). - Blockchain Bloat: Additional data increases the storage and processing burden on full nodes, potentially making node operation cost-prohibitive and threatening decentralization (CryptoSlate). - Network Congestion: Unrestricted data could lead to “spam” transactions, raising fees and hindering Bitcoin’s use for financial transactions. - Risk of Illicit Content: The timechain’s immutability means data, including potentially illegal or objectionable content, is permanently stored on every node. The 80-byte limit acts as a practical barrier, and relaxing it could exacerbate this issue. - Preserving Consensus: Developers like John Carvalho view the limits as a hard-won community agreement, not to be changed lightly.

In the pull request discussion, nsvrn and moth-oss expressed concerns about spam and centralization, advocating for gradual changes. Concept NACKs from developers like wizkid057 and Luke Dashjr reflect strong opposition.

Community Feedback

The GitHub discussion for pull request #32406 shows a divided community: - Support (Concept ACK): Sjors, polespinasa, ismaelsadeeq, miketwenty1, TheCharlatan, Psifour. - Opposition (Concept NACK): wizkid057, BitcoinMechanic, Retropex, nsvrn, moth-oss, Luke Dashjr. - Other: Peter Todd provided a stale ACK, indicating partial or outdated support.

Additional discussions on the BitcoinDev mailing list and related pull requests (e.g., #32359 by Peter Todd) highlight similar arguments, with #32359 proposing a more aggressive removal of all OP_RETURN limits and configuration options (GitHub PR #32359).

| Feedback Type | Developers | Key Points | |---------------|------------|------------| | Concept ACK | Sjors, ismaelsadeeq, others | Improves efficiency, supports innovation, aligns with mining practices. | | Concept NACK | Luke Dashjr, wizkid057, others | Risks bloat, spam, centralization, and deviation from Bitcoin’s purpose. | | Stale ACK | Peter Todd | Acknowledges proposal but with reservations or outdated support. |

Workarounds and Their Implications

The existence of workarounds, such as Inscriptions, which exploit SegWit discounts to embed data, is a key argument for relaxing OP_RETURN limits. These methods are costlier and less efficient, often costing more than OP_RETURN for data under 143 bytes (BitcoinDev Mailing List). Supporters argue that formalizing larger OP_RETURN data could streamline these use cases. Critics, however, see workarounds as a reason to strengthen, not weaken, restrictions, emphasizing the need to address underlying incentives rather than accommodating bypasses.

Ecosystem Pressures

External factors influence the debate: - Miners: Services like Marathon Digital’s Slipstream process non-standard transactions for a fee, showing that market incentives already bypass standardness rules. - Layer 2 Projects: Citrea’s Clementine bridge, requiring more data for security proofs, exemplifies the demand for relaxed limits to support innovative applications. - Community Dynamics: The debate echoes past controversies, like the Ordinals debate, where data storage via inscriptions raised similar concerns about Bitcoin’s purpose (CoinDesk).

Bitcoin’s Identity at Stake

The OP_RETURN debate is not merely technical but philosophical, questioning whether Bitcoin should remain a focused monetary system or evolve into a broader data platform. Supporters see relaxed limits as a pragmatic step toward efficiency and innovation, while opponents view them as a risk to Bitcoin’s decentralization, accessibility, and core mission. The community’s decision will have lasting implications, affecting node operators, miners, developers, and users.

Conclusion

As Bitcoin navigates this crossroads, the community must balance the potential benefits of relaxed OP_RETURN limits—such as improved efficiency and support for new applications—against the risks of blockchain bloat, network congestion, and deviation from its monetary roots. The ongoing discussion, accessible via pull request #32406 on GitHub (GitHub PR #32406). Readers are encouraged to explore the debate and contribute to ensuring that any changes align with Bitcoin’s long-term goals as a decentralized, secure, and reliable system.

@ 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

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Screenshot OffGuardian]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 9bde4214:06ca052b

"It's gonna be permissionless or hell."

Gigi and gzuuus are vibing towards dystopia.

Books & articles mentioned:

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

In this dialogue:

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

@ c230edd3:8ad4a712

Chef's notes

I found this recipe on beyondsweetandsavory.com. The site is incredibly ad infested (like most recipe sites) and its very annoying so I'm copying it to Nostr so all the homemade ice cream people can access it without dealing with that mess. I haven't made it yet. Will report back, when I do.

Details

• ⏲️ Prep time: 20 min
• 🍳 Cook time: 55 min
• 🍽️ Servings: 8

Ingredients

• 2 cups heavy cream
• 1 cup 2% milk
• 8 oz dark chocolate, 70%
• ¼ cup Dutch cocoa
• 2 tbsps loose Earl grey tea leaves
• 4 medium egg yolks
• ¾ cup granulated sugar
• ⅛ tsp salt
• ¼ cup dark chocolate, 70% chopped

Directions

1. In a double boiler or a bowl set over a saucepan of simmering water, add the cacao solids and ½ cup of heavy cream. Stir chocolate until melted and smooth. Set melted chocolate aside.
2. In a heavy saucepan, combine remaining heavy cream, milk, salt and ½ cup of sugar.
3. Put the pan over medium heat and let the mixture boil gently to bubbling just around the edges (gentle simmer) and sugar completely dissolved, about 5 minutes. Remove from heat.
4. Add the Earl Grey tea leaves and let it steep for 7-8 minutes until the cream has taken on the tea flavor, stirring occasionally and tasting to make sure it’s not too bitter.
5. Whisk in Dutch cocoa until smooth. Add in melted chocolate and whisk until smooth.
6. In a medium heatproof bowl, whisk the yolks just to break them up and whisk in remaining sugar. Set aside.
7. Put the saucepan back on the stove over low heat and let it warm up for 2 minutes.
8. Carefully measure out ½ cup of hot cream mixture.
9. While whisking the eggs constantly, whisk the hot cream mixture into the eggs until smooth. Continue tempering the eggs by adding another ½ cup of hot cream to the bowl with the yolks.
10. Pour the cream-egg mixture back to the saucepan and cook over medium-low heat, stirring constantly until it is thickened and coats the back of a spatula, about 5 minutes.
11. Strain the base through a fine-mesh strainer into a clean container.
12. Pour the mixture into a 1-gallon Ziplock freezer bag and submerge the sealed bag in an ice bath until cold, about 30 minutes. Refrigerate the ice cream base for at least 4 hours or overnight.
13. Pour the ice cream base into the frozen canister of your ice cream machine and follow the manufacturer’s instructions.
14. Spin until thick and creamy about 25-30 minutes.
15. Pack the ice cream into a storage container, press a sheet of parchment directly against the surface and seal with an airtight lid. Freeze in the coldest part of your freezer until firm, at least 4 hours.
16. When ready to serve, scoop the ice cream into a serving bowl and top with chopped chocolate.

@ fd78c37f:a0ec0833

Bitcoin is redefining finance, and in Asia—Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, and beyond—developers, entrepreneurs, and communities are fueling this revolution. YakiHonne, a decentralized social payments app built on Nostr, sat down with Gio (nostr:npub1yrnuj56rnen08zp2h9h7p74ghgjx6ma39spmpj6w9hzxywutevsst7k5cx), a core member of Thailand’s Sats ‘N’ Facts community, to explore their mission of fostering open-source Bitcoin development. In this interview, Gio shares the origins of Sats ‘N’ Facts, the challenges of hosting Bitcoin-focused events in Asia, and how these efforts are shaping adoption across the region.

---

YakiHonne: Can you tell us about yourself and how Sats ‘N’ Facts came to life? What sparked your Bitcoin journey?

Gio: I’m originally from Europe but have called Thailand home for six years. My Bitcoin story began while working at a commercial bank, where I saw the fiat system’s flaws firsthand—things like the Cantillon Effect, where money printing favors the connected few, felt deeply unfair. That discomfort led me to Andreas Antonopoulos’ videos, which opened my eyes to Bitcoin’s potential. After moving to Bangkok, I joined the open-source scene at BOB Space, collaborating with folks on tech projects.

Sats ‘N’ Facts grew out of that spirit. We wanted to create a Bitcoin-focused community to support developers and builders in Asia. Our recent conference in Chiang Mai brought together over 70 enthusiasts from Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, and beyond, sparking collaborations like a new Lightning Network tool. It was a milestone in connecting the region’s Bitcoin ecosystem.

---

YakiHonne: What inspired the Sats ‘N’ Facts conference, and how did you attract attendees?

Gio: The event was born from a desire to create a high-signal, low-noise space for Freedom Tech in Asia. While the U.S. and Europe host major Bitcoin events, Asia’s scene is still emerging under commercial stunts. We aimed to bridge that gap, uniting developers, educators, and enthusiasts to discuss real innovations—no altcoins, no corporate agendas. Our focus was on open-source projects like Bitcoin Core, Ark, Cashu, fostering conversations that could lead to tangible contributions.

Attracting attendees wasn’t easy. We leveraged local networks, reaching out to Bitcoin communities in neighboring countries via Nostr and Telegram. Posts on X helped spread the word, and we saw developers from Laos join for the first time, which was thrilling. Sponsors like Fulgur Ventures, Utreexo, and the Bitcoin Development Kit Foundation played a huge role, covering costs so we could keep the event free and accessible.

---

YakiHonne: What challenges did you face organizing the conference in Asia?

Gio: It was a steep learning curve. Funding was the biggest hurdle—early on, we struggled to cover venue and travel costs. Thankfully, our sponsors stepped in, letting me focus on logistics, which were no small feat either. As a first-time organizer, I underestimated the chaos of a tight timeline. Day one felt like herding cats without a fixed agenda, but the energy was electric—developers debugging code together, newcomers asking big questions.

Another challenge was cultural. Bitcoin’s still niche in Asia, so convincing locals to attend took persistence; there was no local presence for some reason. Despite the hiccups, we pulled it off, hosting 60+ attendees and sparking ideas for new projects, like a Cashu wallet integration. I’d tweak the planning next time, but the raw passion made it unforgettable.

---

YakiHonne: How does YakiHonne’s vision of decentralized social payments align with Sats ‘N’ Facts’ goals? Could tools like ours support your community?

Gio: That’s a great question. YakiHonne’s approach—merging Nostr’s censorship-resistant communication with Lightning payments—fits perfectly with our mission to empower users through open tech. At Sats ‘N’ Facts, we’re all about tools that give people control, whether it’s code or money. An app like YakiHonne could streamline community funding, letting developers tip each other for contributions or crowdfund projects directly. Imagine a hackathon where winners get sats instantly via YakiHonne—it’d be a game-changer. I’d love to see you guys at our next event to demo it!

---

YakiHonne: What advice would you give to someone starting a Bitcoin-focused community or event?

Gio: First, keep it Bitcoin-only. Stay true to the principles—cut out distractions like altcoins or hype-driven schemes. Start small: host regular meetups, maybe five people at a café, and build trust over time. Consistency and authenticity beat flashiness in the medium and long term.

Second, involve technical folks. Developers bring credibility and clarity, explaining Bitcoin’s nuts and bolts in ways newcomers get. I admire how Andreas Antonopoulos bridges that gap—technical yet accessible. You need that foundation to grow a real community.

Finally, lean on existing networks. If you know someone running a Bitcoin meetup in another city, collaborate. Share ideas, speakers, or even livestreams. Nostr’s great for this—our Laos attendees found us through a single post. Relationships are everything.

---

YakiHonne: Does Sats ‘N’ Facts focus more on Bitcoin’s technical side, non-technical side, or both?

Gio: We blend both. Our event had workshops for coders alongside talks for beginners on why Bitcoin matters. Open-source is our heartbeat, though. If you’re starting out, dive into projects like Bitcoin Core or Lightning. Review a pull request, test a Cashu wallet, or join a hackathon. One developer at our event built a Lightning micropayment tool that’s now live on GitHub.

There’s no shortage of ways to contribute. Community calls, forums, residency programs, and platforms like Geyser Fund are goldmines. YakiHonne could amplify this—imagine tipping developers for bug fixes via your app. It’s about iterating until you create something real.

---

YakiHonne: Your work is inspiring, Gio. Sats ‘N’ Facts is uniting Asia’s Bitcoin communities in a powerful way. What’s next for you?

Gio: Thanks for the kind words! We’re just getting started. The Chiang Mai event showed what’s possible—connecting developers across borders, reviewing and launching code and testing upcoming technologies. Next, we’re planning smaller hackathons and other events to keep the momentum going, maybe in Vietnam, Indonesia or Korea. I’d love to integrate tools like YakiHonne to fund these efforts directly through Nostr payments. Long-term, we want Sats ‘N’ Facts to be a hub for Asia’s Bitcoin builders, proving open-source can thrive here.

---

YakiHonne: Thank you, Gio, for sharing Sats ‘N’ Facts incredible journey. Your work is lighting a path for Bitcoin in Asia, and we’re honored to tell this story.

To our readers: Bitcoin’s future depends on communities like Sats ‘N’ Facts—and you can join the revolution. Download YakiHonne on Nostr to connect with builders, send Lightning payments, and explore the decentralized world. Follow Sats ‘N’ Facts for their next hackathon, and let’s build freedom tech together!

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ cefb08d1:f419beff

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

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

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

Next Round, elimination:

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

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

@ 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

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ ed5774ac:45611c5c

April 20, 2020: The day I saw my so-called friends expose themselves as gutless, brain-dead sheep.

On that day, I shared a video exposing the damning history of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's vaccine campaigns in Africa and the developing world. As Gates was on every TV screen, shilling COVID jabs that didn’t even exist, I called out his blatant financial conflict of interest and pointed out the obvious in my facebook post: "Finally someone is able to explain why Bill Gates runs from TV to TV to promote vaccination. Not surprisingly, it's all about money again…" - referencing his substantial investments in vaccine technology, including BioNTech's mRNA platform that would later produce the COVID vaccines and generate massive profits for his so-called philanthropic foundation.

The conflict of interest was undeniable. I genuinely believed anyone capable of basic critical thinking would at least pause to consider these glaring financial motives. But what followed was a masterclass in human stupidity.

My facebook post from 20 April 2020:

Not only was I branded a 'conspiracy theorist' for daring to question the billionaire who stood to make a fortune off the very vaccines he was shilling, but the brain-dead, logic-free bullshit vomited by the people around me was beyond pathetic. These barely literate morons couldn’t spell "Pfizer" without auto-correct, yet they mindlessly swallowed and repeated every lie the media and government force-fed them, branding anything that cracked their fragile reality as "conspiracy theory." Big Pharma’s rap sheet—fraud, deadly cover-ups, billions in fines—could fill libraries, yet these obedient sheep didn’t bother to open a single book or read a single study before screaming their ignorance, desperate to virtue-signal their obedience. Then, like spineless lab rats, they lined up for an experimental jab rushed to the market in months, too dumb to care that proper vaccine development takes a decade.

The pathetic part is that these idiots spend hours obsessing over reviews for their useless purchases like shoes or socks, but won’t spare 60 seconds to research the experimental cocktail being injected into their veins—or even glance at the FDA’s own damning safety reports. Those same obedient sheep would read every Yelp review for a fucking coffee shop but won't spend five minutes looking up Pfizer's criminal fraud settlements. They would demand absolute obedience to ‘The Science™’—while being unable to define mRNA, explain lipid nanoparticles, or justify why trials were still running as they queued up like cattle for their jab. If they had two brain cells to rub together or spent 30 minutes actually researching, they'd know, but no—they'd rather suck down the narrative like good little slaves, too dumb to question, too weak to think.

Worst of all, they became the system’s attack dogs—not just swallowing the poison, but forcing it down others’ throats. This wasn’t ignorance. It was betrayal. They mutated into medical brownshirts, destroying lives to virtue-signal their obedience—even as their own children’s hearts swelled with inflammation.

One conversation still haunts me to this day—a masterclass in wealth-worship delusion. A close friend, as a response to my facebook post, insisted that Gates’ assumed reading list magically awards him vaccine expertise, while dismissing his billion-dollar investments in the same products as ‘no conflict of interest.’ Worse, he argued that Gates’s $5–10 billion pandemic windfall was ‘deserved.’

This exchange crystallizes civilization’s intellectual surrender: reason discarded with religious fervor, replaced by blind faith in corporate propaganda.

The comment of a friend on my facebook post that still haunts me to this day:

Walking Away from the Herd

After a period of anger and disillusionment, I made a decision: I would no longer waste energy arguing with people who refused to think for themselves. If my circle couldn’t even ask basic questions—like why an untested medical intervention was being pushed with unprecedented urgency—then I needed a new community.

Fortunately, I already knew where to look. For three years, I had been involved in Bitcoin, a space where skepticism wasn’t just tolerated—it was demanded. Here, I’d met some of the most principled and independent thinkers I’d ever encountered. These were people who understood the corrupting influence of centralized power—whether in money, media, or politics—and who valued sovereignty, skepticism, and integrity. Instead of blind trust, bitcoiners practiced relentless verification. And instead of empty rhetoric, they lived by a simple creed: Don’t trust. Verify.

It wasn’t just a philosophy. It was a lifeline. So I chose my side and I walked away from the herd.

Finding My Tribe

Over the next four years, I immersed myself in Bitcoin conferences, meetups, and spaces where ideas were tested, not parroted. Here, I encountered extraordinary people: not only did they share my skepticism toward broken systems, but they challenged me to sharpen it.

No longer adrift in a sea of mindless conformity, I’d found a crew of thinkers who cut through the noise. They saw clearly what most ignored—that at the core of society’s collapse lay broken money, the silent tax on time, freedom, and truth itself. But unlike the complainers I’d left behind, these people built. They coded. They wrote. They risked careers and reputations to expose the rot. Some faced censorship; others, mockery. All understood the stakes.

These weren’t keyboard philosophers. They were modern-day Cassandras, warning of inflation’s theft, the Fed’s lies, and the coming dollar collapse—not for clout, but because they refused to kneel to a dying regime. And in their defiance, I found something rare: a tribe that didn’t just believe in a freer future. They were engineering it.

April 20, 2024: No more herd. No more lies. Only proof-of-work.

On April 20, 2024, exactly four years after my last Facebook post, the one that severed my ties to the herd for good—I stood in front of Warsaw’s iconic Palace of Culture and Science, surrounded by 400 bitcoiners who felt like family. We were there to celebrate Bitcoin’s fourth halving, but it was more than a protocol milestone. It was a reunion of sovereign individuals. Some faces I’d known since the early days; others, I’d met only hours before. We bonded instantly—heated debates, roaring laughter, zero filters on truths or on so called conspiracy theories.

As the countdown to the halving began, it hit me: This was the antithesis of the hollow world I’d left behind. No performative outrage, no coerced consensus—just a room of unyielding minds who’d traded the illusion of safety for the grit of truth. Four years prior, I’d been alone in my resistance. Now, I raised my glass among my people - those who had seen the system's lies and chosen freedom instead. Each had their own story of awakening, their own battles fought, but here we shared the same hard-won truth.

The energy wasn’t just electric. It was alive—the kind that emerges when free people build rather than beg. For the first time, I didn’t just belong. I was home. And in that moment, the halving’s ticking clock mirrored my own journey: cyclical, predictable in its scarcity, revolutionary in its consequences. Four years had burned away the old world. What remained was stronger.

No Regrets

Leaving the herd wasn’t a choice—it was evolution. My soul shouted: "I’d rather stand alone than kneel with the masses!". The Bitcoin community became more than family; they’re living proof that the world still produces warriors, not sheep. Here, among those who forge truth, I found something extinct elsewhere: hope that burns brighter with every halving, every block, every defiant mind that joins the fight.

Change doesn’t come from the crowd. It starts when one person stops applauding.

Today, I stand exactly where I always wanted to be—shoulder-to-shoulder with my true family: the rebels, the builders, the ungovernable. Together, we’re building the decentralized future.

@ cefb08d1:f419beff

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

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

@ 8d34bd24:414be32b

My post on the signs of the End Times according to Jesus got way too long. It was too long to email, so I had to split it into two posts. I recommend reading Part 1 before continuing. You also may want to read my post Signs of the Times: Can We Know? I also want to reiterate my caveat. Although I believe the signs suggests the Rapture and the Tribulation are coming soon, no one can know the exact hour or day, so I can’t say exactly what soon means (days, months, years, decades, or possibly more).

As a review here is the primary passage where Jesus answers His disciples’ question “What will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” Below the passage is the 8 signs He gave. We will pick up with point 5.

Jesus’s Signs of the End

As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

And Jesus answered and said to them, “See to it that no one misleads you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.

“Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another. Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many. Because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved. This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come. (Matthew 24:3-14) {emphasis mine}

Here is my summary of the signs Jesus said would identify the coming of the 7 year Tribulation:

1. Wars and rumors of wars. (Matthew 24:6a)

2. Famines (Matthew 24:7)

3. Earthquakes (Matthew 24:7).

4. Israel will be attacked and will be hated by all nations (Matthew 24:9)

5. Falling away from Jesus (Matthew 24:10)

6. Many Misled (Matthew 24:10)

7. People’s love will grow cold (Matthew 24:12)

8. Gospel will be preached to the whole world (Matthew 24:14)

The first 4 signs relate more to physical and political signs that the end times are near. The last 4 signs relate to spiritual matters.

5. Falling away from Jesus

One thing we are definitely seeing today is a falling away. This is most prevalent in the historically Christian Western nations in Europe and North America (and to a lesser, but significant, extent South America).

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:1-3) {emphasis mine}

For centuries Europe and North America were full of Christians or at least cultural Christians. Today that is no longer true. Christians are even being considered the hateful, criminal class and things like praying outside an abortion clinic is being punished with jail time. The Western nations can no longer be called Christian nations.

There are still a relatively large number of Americans who call themselves Christians, but the majority do not have a biblical worldview or live lives more like Christ than non-Christians.

“Seven out of 10 US adults call themselves “Christians” and yet only 6 in 100 (6%) actually have a biblical worldview.” In general, most Christian’s worldview does not align with the Bible, according to George Barna Surveys. In the most recent survey they found:

Many self-proclaimed Christians tend to believe a form of syncretism where they combine certain biblical principles with cultural ideas, scientism, and other religions to make “Christianity” into whatever they want to believe, just as the Bible predicted almost 2,000 years ago.

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. (2 Timothy 4:1-4) {emphasis mine}

This is both a sign of the end times and something to watch in our own lives. I pray you will analyze your own life and beliefs in the light of the Bible to make sure you aren’t integrating unbiblical principles into your worldview.

6. Many Misled

Closely related to the falling away is that many will be misled. We have reached the point that the majority of so-called churches teach ideas and principles contrary to the Bible. They focus more on entertainment, self-help, and making everyone feel good about themselves instead of teaching of sin and the need for forgiveness or teaching how to live lives honoring to Christ. Preaching obedience to God has become anathema in most churches.

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! (Galatians 1:6-9) {emphasis mine}

We are also lied to and/or misled by politicians, scientists, the media, and the culture in general. We are told that science has disproven the Bible, despite the fact that nothing of the sort has occurred. (See my series on a literal Genesis for some details. icr.org and aig.org are also good resources). Peter warned of this very view.

Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. (2 Peter 3:3-7) {emphasis mine}

God warned us that the last days would be far enough into the future that people would begin to mock the coming of the Tribulation & Millennium and deny the clear truths spoken of in the Bible. We are seeing this everywhere today.

We are also warned to be alert to deception so we, believers, are not misled.

Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-4) {emphasis mine}

7. People’s love will grow cold

You can feel love growing cold day by day. We no longer have community that works together, but have been broken into groups to fight against one another. Instead of friendly, logical debate with those with whom we disagree, we have name calling, hate, and even violence. Children have been taught to hate their parents and parents have been taught to not value children and to murder them for convenience. The church has been split into so many different denominations that I don’t know if it is possible to know what they all are and many are fighting in hateful manner against each other. Hate, depression, and selfishness seem to have taken over the world.

But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these. (2 Timothy 3:1-5) {emphasis mine}

Yes, spiritually and physically we are a basket case and it feels like the world is literally falling apart around us. This was predicted almost 2,000 years ago and is all according to God’s perfect plan. Most people turn to God in hard times and we have those in abundance. We do not need to despair, but need to turn to God and lean on Him for wisdom, faith, and peace. This is the birth pangs before the Tribulation and the Second coming of Jesus Christ. The news isn’t all bad, though.

8. Gospel preached to the whole world

The really good news is that the Gospel is being preached around the world. Parts of the world that had never heard the Gospel are hearing it and turning to Jesus.

All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord , And all the families of the nations will worship before You. (Psalm 22:27) {emphasis mine}

Wycliffe Bible translators is hoping to have at least started Bible translation in every active language by the end of this year (2025)

He says, “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a light of the nations So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth.” (Isaiah 49:6) {emphasis mine}

The Joshua Project tracks nations and people groups to determine which have been reached and which have not. It still looks like there is a large portion of the population that has not received the Gospel, but I also know people who are or have shared the Gospel to some of these people, so this map doesn’t mean that there are no Christians or that the Gospel has not been shared at all, but it does mean many people in these areas have not heard the Gospel and/or, that due to hatred of Christians, it is dangerous to share the Gospel and therefore has to be done slowly, carefully, and privately. Most of these unreached or barely reached people groups are areas that are predominantly Muslim, where those preaching the Gospel or those converting to Christianity are at risk of jail or death sentences.

As you can see, everything that Jesus said would come before the end is either escalating or here. We need to be ready and work to bring as many people to Christ as possible while we still have the opportunity because Jesus could come for us at any moment.

Share the Gospel with all those around you. Consider supporting missionaries, especially those going to unreached/least-reached areas. Maybe even consider becoming a missionary yourself. The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few.

May the God of heaven give us a heart for the lost around the world. May He give us the courage to share the Gospel with all those around us. May He align our priorities with His priorities, so we can be useful tools in the hands of God almighty.

Trust Jesus.

FYI, I hope to write several more articles on the end times (signs of the times, the rapture, the millennium, and the judgement), but I might be a bit slow rolling them out because I want to make sure they are accurate and well supported by Scripture. You can see my previous posts on the end times on the end times tab at trustjesus.substack.com. I also frequently will list upcoming posts.

@ cefb08d1:f419beff

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

@ 8f69ac99:4f92f5fd

A concepção popular de "anarquia" evoca frequentemente caos, colapso e violência. Mas e se anarquia significasse outra coisa? E se representasse um mundo onde as pessoas cooperam e se coordenam sem autoridades impostas? E se implicasse liberdade, ordem voluntária e resiliência—sem coerção?

Bitcoin é um dos raros exemplos funcionais de princípios anarquistas em acção. Não tem CEO, nem Estado, nem planeador central—e, no entanto, o sistema funciona. Faz cumprir regras. Propõe um novo modelo de governação e oferece uma exploração concreta do anarcocapitalismo.

Para o compreendermos, temos de mudar de perspectiva. Bitcoin não é apenas software ou um instrumento de investimento—é um sistema vivo: uma ordem espontânea.

Ordem Espontânea, Teoria dos Jogos e o Papel dos Incentivos Económicos

Na política e economia contemporâneas, presume-se geralmente que a ordem tem de vir de cima. Governos, corporações e burocracias são vistos como essenciais para organizar a sociedade em grande escala.

Mas esta crença nem sempre se verifica.

Os mercados surgem espontaneamente da troca. A linguagem evolui sem supervisão central. Projectos de código aberto prosperam graças a contribuições voluntárias. Nenhum destes sistemas precisa de um rei—e, no entanto, têm estrutura e funcionam.

Bitcoin insere-se nesta tradição de ordens emergentes. Não é ditado por uma entidade única, mas é governado através de código, consenso dos utilizadores e incentivos económicos que recompensam a cooperação e penalizam a desonestidade.

Código Como Constituição

Bitcoin funciona com base num conjunto de regras de software transparentes e verificáveis. Estas regras determinam quem pode adicionar blocos, com que frequência, o que constitui uma transacção válida e como são criadas novas moedas.

Estas regras não são impostas por exércitos nem pela polícia. São mantidas por uma rede descentralizada de milhares de nós, cada um a correr voluntariamente software que valida o cumprimento das regras. Se alguém tentar quebrá-las, o resto da rede simplesmente rejeita a sua versão.

Isto não é governo por maioria—é aceitação baseada em regras.

Cada operador de nó escolhe qual versão do software quer executar. Se uma alteração proposta não tiver consenso suficiente, não se propaga. Foi assim que as "guerras do tamanho do bloco" foram resolvidas—não por votação, mas através de sinalização do que os utilizadores estavam dispostos a aceitar.

Este modelo de governação ascendente é voluntário, sem permissões, e extraordinariamente resiliente. Representa um novo paradigma de sistemas autorregulados.

Mineiros, Incentivos e a Segurança Baseada na Teoria dos Jogos

Bitcoin assegura a sua rede utilizando a Teoria de Jogos. Os mineiros que seguem o protocolo são recompensados financeiramente. Quem tenta enganar—como reescrever blocos ou gastar duas vezes—sofre perdas financeiras e desperdiça recursos.

Agir honestamente é mais lucrativo.

A genialidade de Bitcoin está em alinhar incentivos egoístas com o bem comum. Elimina a necessidade de confiar em administradores ou esperar benevolência. Em vez disso, torna a fraude economicamente irracional.

Isto substitui o modelo tradicional de "confiar nos líderes" por um mais robusto: construir sistemas onde o mau comportamento é desencorajado por design.

Isto é segurança anarquista—não a ausência de regras, mas a ausência de governantes.

Associação Voluntária e Confiança Construída em Consenso

Qualquer pessoa pode usar Bitcoin. Não há controlo de identidade, nem licenças, nem processo de aprovação. Basta descarregar o software e começar a transaccionar.

Ainda assim, Bitcoin não é um caos desorganizado. Os utilizadores seguem regras rigorosas do protocolo. Porquê? Porque é o consenso que dá valor às "moedas". Sem ele, a rede fragmenta-se e falha.

É aqui que Bitcoin desafia as ideias convencionais sobre anarquia. Mostra que sistemas voluntários podem gerar estabilidade—não porque as pessoas são altruístas, mas porque os incentivos bem desenhados tornam a cooperação a escolha racional.

Bitcoin é sem confiança (trustless), mas promove confiança.

Uma Prova de Conceito Viva

Muitos acreditam que, sem controlo central, a sociedade entraria em colapso. Bitcoin prova que isso não é necessariamente verdade.

É uma rede monetária global, sem permissões, capaz de fazer cumprir direitos de propriedade, coordenar recursos e resistir à censura—sem uma autoridade central. Baseia-se apenas em regras, incentivos e participação voluntária.

Bitcoin não é um sistema perfeito. É um projecto dinâmico, em constante evolução. Mas isso faz parte do que o torna tão relevante: é real, está a funcionar e continua a melhorar.

Conclusão

A anarquia não tem de significar caos. Pode significar cooperação sem coerção. Bitcoin prova isso.

Procuramos, desesperados, por alternativas às instituições falhadas, inchadas e corruptas. Bitcoin oferece mais do que dinheiro digital. É uma prova viva de que podemos construir sociedades descentralizadas, eficientes e justas.

E isso, por si só, já é revolucionário.

---

Photo by Floris Van Cauwelaert on Unsplash

@ 30b99916:3cc6e3fe

btcpayserver #lightning #lnd #powershell #coinos

BTCpayAPI now supports CoinOS.io REST Api

Adding Coinos.io REST Api end points support to BTCpayAPI. Here is what is implemented, tested and doumented so far.

Current REST APIs supported are now:

LND API https://lightning.engineering/api-docs/api/lnd/ BTCPay Greenfield API (v1) https://docs.btcpayserver.org/API/Greenfield/v1/ Hashicorp Vault API https://developer.hashicorp.com/vault/api-docs/secret/kv/kv-v1 Coinos.io API https://coinos.io/docs

Although this is PowerShell code, it is exclusively being developed and tested on Linux only.

Code is available at https://btcpayserver.sytes.net

@ dab6c606:51f507b6

Core idea: Use geotagged anonymized Nostr events with Cashu-based points to snitch on cop locations for a more relaxed driving and walking

We all know navigation apps. There's one of them that allows you to report on locations of cops. It's Waze and it's owned by Google. There are perfectly fine navigation apps like Organic Maps, that unfortunately lack the cop-snitching features. In some countries, it is illegal to report cop locations, so it would probably not be a good idea to use your npub to report them. But getting a points Cashu token as a reward and exchanging them from time to time would solve this. You can of course report construction, traffic jams, ...

Proposed solution: Add Nostr client (Copstr) to Organic Maps. Have a button in bottom right allowing you to report traffic situations. Geotagged events are published on Nostr relays, users sending cashu tokens as thank you if the report is valid. Notes have smart expiration times.

Phase 2: Automation: Integration with dashcams and comma.ai allow for automated AI recognition of traffic events such as traffic jams and cops, with automatic touchless reporting.

Result: Drive with most essential information and with full privacy. Collect points to be cool and stay cool.

@ c4b5369a:b812dbd6

Offline transactions with Cashu

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

What is ecash/Cashu?

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

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

How do normal Cashu transactions work?

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

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

What about offline transactions?

Sending offline

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

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

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

Receiving offline

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

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

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

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

Receiving offline from an untrusted sender

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to use this

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

Cheers,

Gandlaf

@ 90c656ff:9383fd4e

Bitcoin has been gaining increasing acceptance as a means of payment, evolving from being just a digital investment asset to becoming a viable alternative to traditional currencies. Today, many companies around the world already accept Bitcoin, providing consumers with greater financial freedom and reducing reliance on traditional banking intermediaries.

• Global companies that accept Bitcoin

Over the years, several well-known companies have begun accepting Bitcoin, recognizing its benefits such as security, transparency, and low transaction fees. Among the most prominent are:

01 - Microsoft: The tech giant allows users to add funds to their Microsoft accounts using Bitcoin. This enables the purchase of digital content such as games, apps, and software available in the Microsoft Store. 02 - Overstock: One of the largest online retailers that accepts Bitcoin for the purchase of furniture, electronics, and home goods. Overstock was an early adopter, signaling a strong commitment to financial innovation. 03 - AT&T: The U.S. telecommunications company was the first in its industry to accept Bitcoin payments, giving customers the option to pay their bills with cryptocurrency through BitPay. 04 - Twitch: While Twitch does not natively support Bitcoin donations or payments, many streamers use third-party services like NOWPayments, Streamlabs (with Coinbase integration), or Plisio to accept crypto tips and donations. This opens a path for Bitcoin support through external platforms, especially within the content creator community. 05 - Namecheap: A leading domain registrar and web hosting provider that accepts Bitcoin for domain registration and hosting services, showcasing Bitcoin’s usefulness in the digital economy.

• Small businesses and local commerce

Beyond large corporations, a growing number of small businesses and local merchants are embracing Bitcoin, particularly in cities that are becoming hubs for digital innovation.

01 - Restaurants and cafés: In cities like Lisbon, London, and New York, several cafés and eateries accept Bitcoin as payment, attracting tech-savvy customers. 02 - Hotels and tourism: Certain hotel chains and travel platforms now accept Bitcoin, simplifying bookings and removing the need for currency exchange for international travelers. 03 - Online stores: Many small e-commerce businesses offer Bitcoin as a payment option or even operate exclusively using cryptocurrency, benefiting from borderless, fast transactions.

• Advantages for businesses and consumers

The growing acceptance of Bitcoin is largely driven by its advantages:

01 - Lower transaction fees: Businesses can reduce costs associated with credit card fees and payment processors. 02 - No intermediaries: Direct peer-to-peer payments cut down on bureaucracy and reduce fraud risks. 03 - Global access: Bitcoin allows for cross-border payments without the need for currency exchange, ideal for international transactions.

In summary, the adoption of Bitcoin as a means of payment continues to expand, with companies of all sizes recognizing its strategic value. From large enterprises to independent creators and local shops, Bitcoin is gradually becoming a more practical and accepted financial tool. While challenges such as volatility and regulatory uncertainty remain, the broader trend points toward a future where paying with Bitcoin could be a common part of everyday life.

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

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

If you're an engineer stepping into the Bitcoin space from the broader crypto ecosystem, you're probably carrying a mental model shaped by speed, flexibility, and rapid innovation. That makes sense—most blockchain platforms pride themselves on throughput, programmability, and dev agility.

But Bitcoin operates from a different set of first principles. It’s not competing to be the fastest network or the most expressive smart contract platform. It’s aiming to be the most credible, neutral, and globally accessible value layer in human history.

Here’s why that matters—and why Bitcoin is not just an alternative crypto asset, but a structural necessity in the global financial system.

1. Bitcoin Fixes the Triffin Dilemma—Not With Policy, But Protocol

The Triffin Dilemma shows us that any country issuing the global reserve currency must run persistent deficits to supply that currency to the world. That’s not a flaw of bad leadership—it’s an inherent contradiction. The U.S. must debase its own monetary integrity to meet global dollar demand. That’s a self-terminating system.

Bitcoin sidesteps this entirely by being:

• Non-sovereign – no single nation owns it
• Hard-capped – no central authority can inflate it
• Verifiable and neutral – anyone with a full node can enforce the rules

In other words, Bitcoin turns global liquidity into an engineering problem, not a political one. No other system, fiat or crypto, has achieved that.

2. Bitcoin’s “Ossification” Is Intentional—and It's a Feature

From the outside, Bitcoin development may look sluggish. Features are slow to roll out. Code changes are conservative. Consensus rules are treated as sacred.

That’s the point.

When you’re building the global monetary base layer, stability is not a weakness. It’s a prerequisite. Every other financial instrument, app, or protocol that builds on Bitcoin depends on one thing: assurance that the base layer won’t change underneath them without extreme scrutiny.

So-called “ossification” is just another term for predictability and integrity. And when the market does demand change (SegWit, Taproot), Bitcoin’s soft-fork governance process has proven capable of deploying it safely—without coercive central control.

3. Layered Architecture: Throughput Is Not a Base Layer Concern

You don’t scale settlement at the base layer. You build layered systems. Just as TCP/IP doesn't need to carry YouTube traffic directly, Bitcoin doesn’t need to process every microtransaction.

Instead, it anchors:

• Lightning (fast payments)
• Fedimint (community custody)
• Ark (privacy + UTXO compression)
• Statechains, sidechains, and covenants (coming evolution)

All of these inherit Bitcoin’s security and scarcity, while handling volume off-chain, in ways that maintain auditability and self-custody.

4. Universal Assayability Requires Minimalism at the Base Layer

A core design constraint of Bitcoin is that any participant, anywhere in the world, must be able to independently verify the validity of every transaction and block—past and present—without needing permission or relying on third parties.

This property is called assayability—the ability to “test” or verify the authenticity and integrity of received bitcoin, much like verifying the weight and purity of a gold coin.

To preserve this:

• The base layer must remain resource-light, so running a full node stays accessible on commodity hardware.
• Block sizes must remain small enough to prevent centralization of verification.
• Historical data must remain consistent and tamper-evident, enabling proof chains across time and jurisdiction.

Any base layer that scales by increasing throughput or complexity undermines this fundamental guarantee, making the network more dependent on trust and surveillance infrastructure.

Bitcoin prioritizes global verifiability over throughput—because trustless money requires that every user can check the money they receive.

5. Governance: Not Captured, Just Resistant to Coercion

The current controversy around OP_RETURN and proposals to limit inscriptions is instructive. Some prominent devs have advocated for changes to block content filtering. Others see it as overreach.

Here's what matters:

• No single dev, or team, can force changes into the network. Period.
• Bitcoin Core is not “the source of truth.” It’s one implementation. If it deviates from market consensus, it gets forked, sidelined, or replaced.
• The economic majority—miners, users, businesses—enforce Bitcoin’s rules, not GitHub maintainers.

In fact, recent community resistance to perceived Core overreach only reinforces Bitcoin’s resilience. Engineers who posture with narcissistic certainty, dismiss dissent, or attempt to capture influence are routinely neutralized by the market’s refusal to upgrade or adopt forks that undermine neutrality or openness.

This is governance via credible neutrality and negative feedback loops. Power doesn’t accumulate in one place. It’s constantly checked by the network’s distributed incentives.

6. Bitcoin Is Still in Its Infancy—And That’s a Good Thing

You’re not too late. The ecosystem around Bitcoin—especially L2 protocols, privacy tools, custody innovation, and zero-knowledge integrations—is just beginning.

If you're an engineer looking for:

• Systems with global scale constraints
• Architectures that optimize for integrity, not speed
• Consensus mechanisms that resist coercion
• A base layer with predictable monetary policy

Then Bitcoin is where serious systems engineers go when they’ve outgrown crypto theater.

Take-away

Under realistic, market-aware assumptions—where:

• Bitcoin’s ossification is seen as a stability feature, not inertia,
• Market forces can and do demand and implement change via tested, non-coercive mechanisms,
• Proof-of-work is recognized as the only consensus mechanism resistant to fiat capture,
• Wealth concentration is understood as a temporary distribution effect during early monetization,
• Low base layer throughput is a deliberate design constraint to preserve verifiability and neutrality,
• And innovation is layered by design, with the base chain providing integrity, not complexity...

Then Bitcoin is not a fragile or inflexible system—it is a deliberately minimal, modular, and resilient protocol.

Its governance is not leaderless chaos; it's a negative-feedback structure that minimizes the power of individuals or institutions to coerce change. The very fact that proposals—like controversial OP_RETURN restrictions—can be resisted, forked around, or ignored by the market without breaking the system is proof of decentralized control, not dysfunction.

Bitcoin is an adversarially robust monetary foundation. Its value lies not in how fast it changes, but in how reliably it doesn't—unless change is forced by real, bottom-up demand and implemented through consensus-tested soft forks.

In this framing, Bitcoin isn't a slower crypto. It's the engineering benchmark for systems that must endure, not entertain.

Final Word

Bitcoin isn’t moving slowly because it’s dying. It’s moving carefully because it’s winning. It’s not an app platform or a sandbox. It’s a protocol layer for the future of money.

If you're here because you want to help build that future, you’re in the right place.

nostr:nevent1qqswr7sla434duatjp4m89grvs3zanxug05pzj04asxmv4rngvyv04sppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgs9tc6ruevfqu7nzt72kvq8te95dqfkndj5t8hlx6n79lj03q9v6xcrqsqqqqqp0n8wc2

nostr:nevent1qqsd5hfkqgskpjjq5zlfyyv9nmmela5q67tgu9640v7r8t828u73rdqpr4mhxue69uhkymmnw3ezucnfw33k76tww3ux76m09e3k7mf0qgsvr6dt8ft292mv5jlt7382vje0mfq2ccc3azrt4p45v5sknj6kkscrqsqqqqqp02vjk5

nostr:nevent1qqstrszamvffh72wr20euhrwa0fhzd3hhpedm30ys4ct8dpelwz3nuqpr4mhxue69uhkymmnw3ezucnfw33k76tww3ux76m09e3k7mf0qgs8a474cw4lqmapcq8hr7res4nknar2ey34fsffk0k42cjsdyn7yqqrqsqqqqqpnn3znl

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ d9a329af:bef580d7

To be clear, this is 100% my subjective opinion on the alternatives to popular music, as it has become practically a formula of witchcraft, pseudoscience and mysticism. There is nothing you can do to get me to listen to Western pop music from the late 2010's to now. I could certainly listen to almost anything... just not modern pop, which is now completely backwards.

Most examples of compositions for these genres will be my own, unless otherwise stated. The genres on this list are in no particular order, though my favorite of which will be first: 1. Bossa Nova

Bossa Nova is a subgenre of jazz from Brazil, created in the 1950's as a mix of standard jazz and samba rhythms in a more gentle and relaxing manner. This genre's most famous songs are Tom Jobim's The Girl from Ipanema (found in albums like Getz/Gilberto), Wave, and even Triste. Most of the music is written in 2/4 time signature, and any key is almost acceptable. It's called Afro-Brazilian Jazz for a reason after all. I have a ton of compositions I produced, from Forget and Regret, to Rabbit Theory, Beaches of Gensokyo Past, Waveside, and even Willows of Ice to name a few of them.

1. Metal

This is an umbrella term for many subgenres of this fork of hard rock, with more distorted guitars, speedy and technical writing, vocals that sound demonic (some subgenres don't have that), or sometimes, chaotic lyrics and downright nasty ones if you look deep enough. If you want to get into it, just make sure it's not Black Metal (it's weird), Blackened Metal (Any subgenre of metal that's been inserted with elements of Black Metal), Metalcore, or any other genre that has vocals that aren't the best to hear (these are vocal fries that are really good if you're into the weird demonic sounds). This isn't for the faint of heart. Instrumental metal is good though, and an example is my composition from Touhou Igousaken called A Sly Foxy Liar if you want to know what techincal groove metal is like at a glance.

1. Touhou-style

I can attest to this one, as I produced bossa nova with a Touhou-like writing style. Touhou Project is a series of action video games created by one guy (Jun'ya Outa, a.k.a. ZUN), and are usually bullet curtain games in the main franchise, with some official spinoffs that are also action games (fighting games like Touhou 12.3 ~ Hisoutensoku). What I'm referring to here is music written by ZUN himself (He does almost everything for Touhou Project, and he's really good at it), or fans that write to his style with their own flair. I did this once with my composition, Toiled Bubble, which is from my self-titled EP. I probably wouldn't do much with it to be fair, and stick to bossa nova (my main genre if you couldn't tell).

1. Hip-Hop/Rap

This can get subjective here, but old-school rap and hip-hop... give me more of it. Before it became corrupted with all kinds of immoral things, hip-hop and rap were actually very good for their time. These were new, innovative and creative with how lyrics were written. Nowadays, while we're talking about cars, unspeakable acts, money, and just being dirtbags, artists in this genre back then were much classier than that. I fit in the latter category with my piece entitled, Don't Think, Just Roast, where I called out antis for a Vtuber agency who wanted to give its talent a hard time. It didn't get much traction on YouTube, because I'm not a well-known artist (I'm considered a nobody in the grand scheme of things. I'd like to get it fixed, but I don't want a record deal... I'd have to become a Pharisee or a Jesuit for that).

1. Synthwave

This is a genre of electronic music focused on 80's and 90's synths being used to carry a composition. Nowadays, we have plugins like Vital, Serum, Surge and others to create sounds we would otherwise be hearing on an 80's or 90's keyboard. An example of this is my composition, Wrenched Torque, which was composed for a promotion I did with RAES when he released his Vital synth pack.

More are to come in future installments of this series, and I will adjust the title of this one accordingly if y'all have any ideas of genres I should look into.

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 99895004:c239f905

Yes, FINALLY, we are extremely excited to announce support for nostr.build (blossom.band) on Primal! Decades in the making, billions of people have been waiting, and now it’s available! But it’s not just any integration, it is the next level of decentralized media hosting for Nostr. Let us explain.

Primal is an advanced Twitter/X like client for Nostr and is probably the fastest up-and-coming, highly used Nostr app available for iOS, Android and the web. Nostr.build is a very popular media hosting service for Nostr that can be used standalone or integrated into many Nostr apps using nip-96. This is an extremely feature rich, tested and proven integration we recommend for most applications, but it’s never been available on Primal.

And then, Blossom was born, thank you Hzrd149! Blossom is a Nostr media hosting protocol that makes it extremely easy for Nostr clients to integrate a media host, and for users of Blossom media hosts (even an in-house build) to host on any Nostr client. Revolutionary, right! Use whatever host you want on any client you want, the flexible beauty of Nostr. But there is an additional feature to Blossom that is key, mirroring.

One of the biggest complaints to media hosting on Nostr is, if a media hosting service goes down, so does all of the media hosted on that service. No bueno, and defeats the whole decentralized idea behind Nostr.. This has always been a hard problem to solve until Blossom mirroring came along. Mirroring allows a single media upload to be hosted on multiple servers using its hash, or unique media identifier. This way, if a media host goes down, the media is still available and accessible on the other host.

So, we are not only announcing support of nostr.build’s blossom.band on the Primal app, we are also announcing the first known fully integrated implementation of mirroring with multiple media hosts on Nostr. Try it out for yourself! Go to the settings of your Primal web, iOS or Android app, choose ‘Media Servers’, enable ‘Media Mirrors’, and add https://blossom.band and https://blossom.primal.net as your Media server and Mirror, done!

Video here!

@ d9a329af:bef580d7

Everyone who sees it knows at this point that the matrix of control comes from the overdependence of proprietary software to do our everyday tasks. You can think of this like us being the cling wrap that will just not let go of these pieces of garbage software that don't allow you to see what is in their source code, and how they work. This will tend to lead to the unlawful collection of data (violating the most basic of privacy laws, despite unenforceable contracts that are enforced regardless), bad OPSEC that sees you being stalked and harassed over nothing significant. In the worst of cases, if you speak your mind where you aren't necessarily supposed to be able to do that, and you get doxxed, the worst cases could be far worse than one could imagine.

The solution to this, on the other hand, is using almost exclusively free/libre open-source software and GNU/Linux operation systems. If you're using certain proprietary software, hardening it to give as little data as possible to the entity responsible for it will also work, as long as you know which ones to use. This is a hard pass for a lot of people, but if you want to escape the control matrix of proprietary software, Winblows, HackOS, iHackOS, iBloatOS and stock Google AI Fever Dream, then researching which Free Software (notice the spelling) to use is your first bet. I had already done this for the past four and a half years, and will continue to do it as long as I live, seeing what new Free Software compliant applications and libraries come into the spotlight once things get locked down into walled gardens like what HackOS, iHackOS and BlindnessOS do on a regular basis.

Each of these pieces of software will be in a categorized list with a brief description of what the software is used for. There is a lot to take in, so research this yourself and see if these are right for you. These are the applications I personally use on a regular day-to-day basis, and they work for my needs.

1. Operating Systems (the core to your device)
2. GNU/Linux operating systems (for PCs) or GrapheneOS (for de-googled Android phones)

To be fair on this one, GNU/Linux is the combination of the Linux kernel with the GNU toolchain, which in turn allows any developer to make an operating system that is FOSS, not necessarily Free Software, especially with the Linux Kernel's proprietary bits of code. The Linux kernel is also used in the Android Open-Source Project (AOSP), and is used as the base of operating systems for Android phones such as GrapheneOS, the only AOSP custom ROM I would recommend based upon the research I had done on this (even if very little).

My recommendations on the Linux side of things are almost any Arch-based distribution (with the exception of Manjaro), Debian-based distributions like Linux Mint Debian edition, regular Debian, AntiX or Devuan, or a Fedora/RedHat-based distribution like Nobara Project (if you're a gamer), OpenSUSE (if set up properly) or even Bluefin if you want an atomic desktop (I wouldn't recommend Bluefin if you want to monkey with your operating system and DIY on many aspects of it). Once you learn how to set these up securely, privately and properly, you're on your way to starting your journey into digital liberation, but there's far more to go on this front.

1. Web Browsers (How you surf the internet)
2. Firefox Forks

This one is self-explanatory. I harden all the Firefox forks I use (LibreWolf, Waterfox, Cachy Browser, Floorp and Zen as some examples) to the nines, despite being unable to do anything about my fingerprint. This is why I use multiple browsers for specific purposes to counteract the fingerprint spying due to weaponized JavaScript. There are ways to circumvent the fingerprint-based espionage, and make sure the site fingerprint.com doesn't know that one's lying about what their user agent is, though it's not very easy to fool that site, as it's used by 6,000 companies.

• Brave Browser

This is the only Chromium-based browser I would recommend, as it's better when hardened against all the other Chromium-based browsers, including Ungoogled Chromium, which is almost impossible to harden due to security vulnerabilities. Despite that, Brave has some of the best features for a Chromium-based browser one can feel comfortable using, even though you'll have similar issues with Firefox-based browsers that aren't actually Firefox (and Firefox has its own issues regarding espionage from Mozilla)

1. Office Suites (If you need to do professional office documents)
2. LibreOffice

A fork of Apache's OpenOffice, made better with many features missing from even OnlyOffice and OpenOffice, this suite of applications is the go-to Free Software office suite for many people looking to switch from the proprietary software nether to the diamonds of free/libre open-source software. Though one may need to perform some extra steps to set up compatibility with G-Suite and Microsoft Office past 2015 potentially, it's still a good thing that people trust LibreOffice as their one-stop shop for office documents, despite being completely different from your standard office suite fare.

• OnlyOffice

The competitor to LibreOffice with the ease of Microsoft Office and G-Suite compatibility, OnlyOffice is another office suite that can be good for those who need it, especially since anybody who had used Microsoft Office in particular will be familiar with its layout, if not for a slight learning curve. As someone who's used G-Suite more (due to schooling that stunk worse than a decomposing rat in New York City), that's part of the reason why I switched to LibreOffice, though I tried some others, including OnlyOffice and Abiword (since I use a word processor a lot). This one is another solid option for those who need it.

• Wordgrinder

For those who like to use a terminal emulator like I do, Wordgrinder is a word processor with a terminal user interface (TUI) designed with just focusing on typing without distractions in mind. .wg is the file extension for documents made using Wordgrinder, especially since nowadays most word processors are cloud based. For those who live in a terminal, this is a good option to your terminal UI-based toolbox

1. Text editors
2. Vi, Vim, Neovim and other Vim-like editors

The classic VI Improved (Vim), a fork of the TUI modal editor, vi, with keybinds that will be confusing at first, but with practice and patience, bring about muscle memory to stay on the keyboard, and not necessarily touch the mouse, keypad on the right hand side, or even the arrow keys. These keybind skills will stay with one for the rest of their life once they learn how the modes in vi, Vim or vi-based editors work. It's a classic for those working in the terminal, and a staple in FLOSS text editing and coding tools once customized potentially to the nines to your particular style.

• VSCodium

The Free Software fork of Code OSS by Microsoft, but made to be similar in function to VSCode without Microsoft's espionage baked into it. It has almost exactly the same features as VSCode that one would need, and even any VSIX files from VSCode will work in VSCodium. This one is an easy switch from VSCode for those who use it, but don't want the forced telemetry.

• Emacs

The competitor to Vim, Emacs is an editor that is FLOSS in every way imaginable. It is one of the most customizable editors anybody could have ever conceived, though the programming language used in Emacs is a dialect of Lisp the developers had made themselves. There are more keybinds to memorize compared to Vim, though Vim keybinds can be added using the Evil Mode package in any Emacs package manager to get the best of both worlds in Emacs. Once one gets a handle of the steep learning curve for Emacs, it's customizable in every imaginable way almost.

These four categories will get you started on your privacy journey, though I covered things a developer might want. I have plans on more lists to compile once I get my ducks in a row on what I want to cover here on Nostr in a longform format. Feel free to let me know if you have recommendations for me to write about, and I can do some digging on that if it isn't a rabbit hole.

@ 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

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

Applesauce core changes

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

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

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

Applesauce Relay

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

Documentation: applesauce-relay

Features:

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

Example Usage: Single relay

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

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

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

Example Usage: Relay pool

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

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

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

Applesauce actions

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

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

Documentation: applesauce-actions

Example Usage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Applesauce loaders

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

Before:

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

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

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

After:

```typescript

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

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

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

return () => sub.close();

}); };

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

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

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

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

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

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

There where a few more changes, check out the changelog

Applesauce wallet

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

Documentation: applesauce-wallet

Example Usage:

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

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

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

@ 90c656ff:9383fd4e

Bitcoin was created to offer a secure and decentralized alternative to traditional money, enabling financial transactions without the need for intermediaries. DeFi, on the other hand, emerged as an expansion of this concept, proposing decentralized financial services such as lending, exchanges, and yield generation. However, despite its promises of innovation, DeFi carries numerous risks, making it a dangerous bet for those who value the security of their Bitcoin.

What is DeFi?

DeFi refers to a set of financial applications that operate without the intermediation of banks or traditional institutions. These platforms use smart contracts to automate transactions, allowing anyone to access financial services without relying on third parties. In theory, DeFi promises greater financial freedom, but in practice it is full of risks, scams, and technical vulnerabilities that can compromise users' funds.

• The risks of DeFi for Bitcoin holders

Bitcoin is the most secure digital currency in the world, protected by a decentralized and censorship-resistant network. Unlike DeFi, which is still in an experimental phase and has already suffered numerous attacks, Bitcoin remains solid and reliable. When someone places Bitcoin in DeFi platforms, they give up the security of direct custody and trust weaker systems.

The main risks include:

01 - Hackers and code flaws: Smart contracts are written by programmers and may contain bugs that allow massive thefts. Over the years, billions of dollars have been lost due to vulnerabilities in DeFi platforms. 02 - Liquidation risks: Many DeFi applications operate on collateralization systems, where users lock Bitcoin to obtain loans. If the market becomes volatile, those Bitcoins can be liquidated at lower-than-expected prices, causing irreversible losses. 03 - Scams and rug pulls: DeFi is full of shady projects where creators vanish with users’ funds. Without regulation and without guarantees, those who deposit Bitcoin in these platforms may never recover their funds.

• Keeping Bitcoin safe is the best choice

Bitcoin was created to be self-custodied, meaning each user should have direct control over their funds without relying on third parties. By sending Bitcoin to DeFi platforms, that security is lost and the asset is exposed to unnecessary risks. The best way to protect Bitcoin is to store it in a secure wallet, preferably offline (cold storage), avoiding any exposure to smart contracts or vulnerable systems.

In summary, DeFi may seem innovative, but the risks far outweigh the potential benefits—especially for those who value Bitcoin's security. Instead of risking losing funds on insecure platforms, the wisest choice is to keep Bitcoin safely stored, ensuring its long-term preservation. While Bitcoin continues to be the best digital store of value in the world, DeFi remains an unstable and dangerous environment where few win and many end up losing.

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

@ f683e870:557f5ef2

Spam is the single biggest problem in decentralized networks. Jameson Lopp, co-founder of Casa and OG bitcoiner, has written a brilliant article on the death of decentralized email that paints a vivid picture of what went wrong—and how an originally decentralized protocol was completely captured. The cause? Spam.

The same fate may happen to Nostr, because posting a note is fundamentally cheap. Payments, and to some extent Proof of Work, certainly have their role in fighting spam, but they introduce friction, which doesn’t work everywhere. In particular, they can’t solve every economic problem.\ Take free trials, for example. There is a reason why 99% of companies offer them. Sure, you waste resources on users who don’t convert, but it’s a calculated cost, a marketing expense. Also, some services can’t or don’t want to monetize directly. They offer something for free and monetize elsewhere.

So how do you offer a free trial or giveaway in a hostile decentralized network? Or even, how do you decide which notes to accept on your relay?

At first glance, these may seem like unrelated questions—but they’re not. Generally speaking, these are situations where you have a finite budget, and you want to use it well. You want more of what you value — and less of what you don’t (spam).

Reputation is a powerful shortcut when direct evaluation isn’t practical. It’s hard to earn, easy to lose — and that’s exactly what makes it valuable.\ Can a reputable user do bad things? Absolutely. But it’s much less likely, and that’s the point. Heuristics are always imperfect, just like the world we live in.

The legacy Web relies heavily on email-based reputation. If you’ve ever tried to log in with a temporary email, you know what I’m talking about. It just doesn’t work anymore. The problem, as Lopp explains, is that these systems are highly centralized, opaque, and require constant manual intervention.\ They also suck. They put annoying roadblocks between the world and your product, often frustrating the very users you’re trying to convert.

At Vertex, we take a different approach.\ We transparently analyze Nostr’s open social graph to help companies fight spam while improving the UX for their users. But we don’t take away your agency—we just do the math. You take the decision of what algorithm and criteria to use.

Think of us as a signal provider, not an authority.\ You define what reputation means for your use case. Want to rank by global influence? Local or personalized? You’re in control. We give you actionable and transparent analytics so you can build sharper filters, better user experiences, and more resilient systems. That’s how we fight spam, without sacrificing decentralization.

---

Are you looking to add Web of Trust capabilities to your app or project?\ Take a look at our website or send a DM to Pip.

@ 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

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 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

@ c631e267:c2b78d3e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 8d34bd24:414be32b

I used to hate end times prophecy because it didn’t make sense. I didn’t understand how the predictions could be true, so I wondered if the fulfillment was more figurative than literal. As time has progressed, I’ve seen technologies and international relations change in ways that make the predictions seem not only possible, but probable. I’ve seen the world look more and more like what is predicted for the end times.

I thought it would be handy to look at the predictions and compare them to events, technologies, and nations today. This is a major undertaking, so this will turn into a series. I only hope I can do it justice. I will have some links to news articles on these current events and technologies. Because I can’t remember where I’ve read many of these things, it is likely I will put some links to some news sources that I don’t normally recommend, but which do a decent job of covering the point I’m making. I’m sorry if I don’t always give a perfect source. I have limited time, so in some cases, I’ll link to the easy (main stream journals that show up high on web searches) rather than what I consider more reliable sources because of time constraints.

I also want to give one caveat to everything I discuss below. Although I do believe the signs suggest the Rapture and Tribulation are near, I can’t say exactly what that means or how soon these prophecies will be fulfilled. Could it be tomorrow, a month from now, a year from now, or 20 years from now? Yes, any of them could be true. Could it be even farther in the future? It could be, even if my interpretation of the data concludes that to be less likely.

I will start with a long passage from Matthew that describes what Jesus told His disciples to expect before “the end of the age.” Then I’ll go to some of the end times points that seemed unexplainable to me in the past. We’ll see where things go from there. I’ve already had to split discussion of this one passage into multiple posts due to length.

Jesus’s Signs of the End

As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

And Jesus answered and said to them, “See to it that no one misleads you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.

“Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another. Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many. Because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved. This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come. (Matthew 24:3-14) {emphasis mine}

Before I go into the details I do want to clarify one thing. The verses that follow the above verses (Matthew 24:16-28) mention the “abomination of desolation” and therefore is clearly discussing the midpoint of the tribulation and the following 3.5 years or Great Tribulation. The first half of Matthew 24 discusses the birth pangs and the first half of the Tribulation. The signs that I discuss will be growing immediately preceding the Tribulation, but probably will not be completely fulfilled until the first 3.5 years of the Tribulation.

I do think we will see an increase of all of these signs before the 7 year Tribulation begins as part of the birth pangs even if they are not fulfilled completely until the Tribulation:

1. Wars and rumors of wars. (Matthew 24:6a)

2. Famines (Matthew 24:7)

3. Earthquakes (Matthew 24:7).

4. Israel will be attacked and will be hated by all nations (Matthew 24:9)

5. Falling away from Jesus (Matthew 24:10)

6. Many Misled (Matthew 24:10)

7. People’s love will grow cold (Matthew 24:12)

8. Gospel will be preached to the whole world (Matthew 24:14)

Now let’s go through each of these predictions to see what we are seeing today.

1. Wars and Rumors of Wars

When you hear of wars and disturbances, do not be terrified; for these things must take place first, but the end does not follow immediately.” (Luke 21:9)

In 1947 the doomsday clock was invented. It theoretically tells how close society is to all out war and destruction of mankind. It was just recently set to 89 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been. It is true that this isn’t a scientific measure and politics can effect the setting, i.e. climate change & Trump Derangement Syndrome, but it is still one of many indicators of danger and doom.

There are three main events going on right now that could lead to World War III and the end times.

Obviously the war between Russia and Ukraine has gotten the world divided. It is true that Russia invaded Ukraine, but there were many actions by the US and the EU that provoked this attack. Within months of the initial attack, there was a near agreement between Ukraine and Russia to end the war, but the US and the EU talked Ukraine out of peace, leading to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians dying for basically no change of ground. Estimates of deaths vary greatly. See here, here, here. Almost all English sources list Russia as having many more deaths than Ukraine, but since Ukraine is now drafting kids and old men, is considering drafting women, and has most of its defensive capabilities destroyed, while Russia still seems to have plenty of men and weapons, I find this hard to believe. I don’t think any of the parties that have data are motivated to tell the truth. We probably will never know.

The way the EU (and the US until recently) has sacrificed everything to defend Ukraine (until this war known as the most corrupt nation in Europe and known for its actual Nazis) and to do everything in its power to keep the war with Russia going, things could easily escalate. The US and the EU have repeatedly crossed Russia’s red-lines. One of these days, Russia is likely to say “enough is enough” and actually attack Europe. This could easily spiral out of control. I do think that Trump’s pull back and negotiations makes this less likely to lead to world war than it seemed for the past several years. This article does a decent job of explaining the background for the war that most westerners, especially Americans, don’t understand.

Another less well known hot spot is the tension between China and Taiwan. Taiwan is closer politically to the US, but closer economically and culturally to China. This causes tension. Taiwan also produces the majority of the high tech microchips used in advanced technology. Both the US and China want and need this technology. I honestly believe this is the overarching issue regarding Taiwan. If either the US or China got control of Taiwan’s microchip production, it would be military and economic game over for the other. This is stewing, but I don’t think this will be the cause of world war 3, although it could become part of the war that leads to the Antichrist ruling the world.

The war that is likely to lead to the Tribulation involves Israel and the Middle East. Obviously, the Muslim nations hate Israel and attack them almost daily. We also see Iran, Russia, Turkey, and other nations making alliances that sound a lot like the Gog/Magog coalition in Ezekiel 38. The hate of Israel has grown to a level that makes zero sense unless you take into account the spiritual world and Bible prophecy. Such a small insignificant nation, that didn’t even exist for \~1900 years, shouldn’t have the influence on world politics that it does. It is about the size of the state of New Jersey. Most nations of Israel’s size, population, and economy are not even recognized by most people. Is there a person on earth that doesn’t know about Israel? I doubt it. Every nation on earth seems to have a strong positive or, more commonly, negative view of Israel. We’ll get to this hate of Israel more below in point 4.

2. Famines

In the two parallel passages to Matthew 24, there is once again the prediction of famines coming before the end.

For nation will rise up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will also be famines. These things are merely the beginning of birth pangs. (Mark 13:8) {emphasis mine}

and there will be great earthquakes, and in various places plagues and famines; and there will be terrors and great signs from heaven. (Luke 21:11) {emphasis mine}

In Revelation, the third seal releases famine upon the earth and a day’s wages will only buy one person’s daily wheat needs. A man with a family would only be able to buy lower quality barley to barely feed his family.

When He broke the third seal, I heard the third living creature saying, “Come.” I looked, and behold, a black horse; and he who sat on it had a pair of scales in his hand. And I heard something like a voice in the center of the four living creatures saying, “A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius; and do not damage the oil and the wine.” (Revelation 6:5-6) {emphasis mine}

We shouldn’t fear a Tribulation level famine as a precursor to the Tribulation, but we should see famines scattered around the world, shortages of different food items, and rising food prices, all of which we are seeing. (Once again, I can’t support many of these sources or verify all of their data, but they give us a feel of what is going on today.)

Food Prices Go Up

• Bird Flu scares and government responses cause egg and chicken prices to increase. The government response to the flu is actually causing more problems than the flu itself and it looks like this more dangerous version may have come out of a US lab.

• Tariffs and trade war cause some items to become more expensive or less available. here

• Ukraine war effecting the supply of grain and reducing availability of fertilizer. More info.

• Inflation and other effects causing food prices to go up. This is a poll from Americans.

- Grocery prices overall have increased around 23% since 2021, with prices on individual items like coffee and chocolate rising much faster.

• General Food inflation is difficult, but not life destroying for most of the world, but some nations are experiencing inflation that is causing many to be unable to afford food. Single digit food inflation is difficult, even in well-to-do nations, but in poor nations, where a majority of the people’s income already goes to food, it can be catastrophic. When you look at nations like Zimbabwe (105%), Venezuela (22%), South Sudan (106%), Malawi (38%), Lebanon (20%), Haiti (37%), Ghana (26%), Burundi (39%), Bolivia (35%), and Argentina (46%), you can see that there are some seriously hurting people. More info.

• It does look like general food inflation has gone down for the moment (inflation has gone down, but not necessarily prices), but there are many situations around the world that could make it go back up again.

• Wars causing famine

• Sudan: War has made an already poor and hurting country even worse off.

• Gaza: (When I did a web search, all of the sites that came up on the first couple of pages are Israel hating organizations that are trying to cause trouble and/or raise money, so there is major bias. I did link to one of these sites just to be thorough, but take into account the bias of the source.)

• Ukraine: Mostly covered above. The war in Ukraine has affected the people of Ukraine and the world negatively relative to food.

I’m sure there are plenty more evidences for famine or potential famine, but this gives a taste of what is going on.

Our global economy has good and bad effects on the food supply. Being able to transport food around the globe means that when one area has a bad crop, they can import food from another area that produced more than they need. On the other hand, sometimes an area stops producing food because they can import food more cheaply. If something disrupts that imported food (tariffs, trade wars, physical wars, transportation difficulties, intercountry disputes, etc.) then they suddenly have no food. We definitely have a fragile system, where there are many points that could fail and cause famine to abound.

The Bible also talks about another kind of famine in the end times.

“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord God,\ “When I will send a famine on the land,\ *Not a famine for bread or a thirst for water,\ But rather for hearing the words of the Lord*.\ People will stagger from sea to sea\ And from the north even to the east;\ They will go to and fro to seek the word of the Lord,\ But they will not find it**. (Amos 8:11-12) {emphasis mine}

We are definitely seeing a famine regarding the word of God. It isn’t that the word of God is not available, but even in churches, there is a lack of teaching the actual word of God from the Scriptures. Many churches teach more self-help or feel good messages than they do the word of God. Those looking to know God better are starving or thirsting for truth and God’s word. I know multiple people who have given up on assembling together in church because they can’t find a Bible believing, Scripture teaching church. How sad!

Although famine should be expected before the Tribulation, the good news is that no famine will separate us from our Savior.

Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? (Romans 8:35) {emphasis mine}

3. Earthquakes

We recently saw a major \~7.8 earthquake in Myanmar. Although it seems like we are having many major earthquakes, it is more difficult to determine whether there is actually a major increase or if the seeming increase is due to increasing population to harm, more/better instrumentation, and/or more media coverage. We are definitely seeing lots of earthquake damage and loss of life. I tend to think the number and severity of earthquakes will increase even more before the Tribulation, but only time will tell.

4. Israel will be attacked and will be hated by all nations

“Then they will deliver you [Israel] to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. (Matthew 24:9) {emphasis & clarification mine}

This verse doesn’t specifically mention Israel. It says “you,” but since Jesus was talking to Jews, the best interpretation is that this warning is to the Jews. At the same time, we are also seeing attacks on Christians, so it likely refers to both Jews and Christians. I’m going to focus on Jews/Israel because I don’t think I need to convince most Christians that persecution is increasing.

We have been seeing hatred of Jews and Israel growing exponentially since the biblical prediction of a re-establishment of Israel was accomplished.

All end times prophecy focuses on Israel and requires Israel to be recreated again since it was destroyed in A.D. 70.

Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things?\ Can a land be born in one day?\ Can a nation be brought forth all at once?\ As soon as Zion travailed, she also brought forth her sons. (Isaiah 66:8)

• “British Foreign Minister Lord Balfour issued on November 2, 1917, the so-called Balfour Declaration, which gave official support for the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” with the commitment not to be prejudiced against the rights of the non-Jewish communities.” In one day Israel was declared a nation.

• “On the day when the British Mandate in Palestine expired, the State of Israel was instituted on May 14, 1948, by the Jewish National Council under the presidency of David Ben Gurion.” Then on another day Israel actually came into being with a leader and citizens.

• “Six-Day War: after Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran on May 22, 1967, Israel launched an attack on Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian, and Iraqi airports on June 5, 1967. After six days, Israel conquered Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Sinai, and the West Bank.” On June 11, 1967 Jerusalem was conquered and once again became the capital of Israel.

If you read any of these links you can see the history of Israel being repeatedly attacked in an attempt to destroy Israel and stop God’s prophecy that Israel would be recreated and be used in the end times as part of the judgement of the world. This is a very good article on how God plans to use Israel in end times, how God will fulfill all of his promises to Israel, and how the attacks on Israel are Satan’s attempt to stop God’s plan. It is well worth you time to read and well supported by Scripture.

Since Israel became a new nation again, the nations of the world have ramped up their attacks on Israel and the Jews. The hatred of the Jews is hard to fathom. The Jews living in Israel have been constantly at risk of suicide bombers, terrorist attacks, rocket/missile attacks, etc. Almost daily attacks are common recently. The most significant recent attack happened on October 7th. Around 3,000 Hamas terrorists stormed across the border and attacked men, women, and children. About 1200 were killed, mostly civilians and even kids. In addition to murdering these innocent individuals, others were tortured, raped, and kidnapped as well.

You would expect the world to rally around a nation attacked in such a horrendous manner (like most of the world rallied around the US after 9/11), but instead you immediately saw protests supporting Palestine and condemning Israel. I’ve never seen something so upside down in my life. It is impossible to comprehend until you consider the spiritual implications. Satan has been trying to destroy Israel and the Jews since God made His first promise to Abraham. I will never claim that everything Israeli politicians and generals do is good, but the hate towards this tiny, insignificant nation is unfathomable and the world supporting terrorist attacks, instead of the victims of these attacks, is beyond belief.

Israel allows people of Jewish ancestry and Palestinian ancestry to be citizens and vote. There are Jews, Muslims, and Christians in the Knesset (Jewish Congress). Yes, Israel has responded harshly against the Palestinians and innocents have been harmed, but Israel repeatedly gave up land for peace and then that land has been used to attack them. I can’t really condemn them for choosing to risk the death of Palestinian innocents over risking the death of their own innocents. Hamas and Hezbollah are known for attacking innocents, and then using their own innocents as human shields. They then accuse their victims of atrocities when their human shields are harmed. The UN Human Rights council condemns Israel more than all other nations combined when there are atrocities being committed in many, many other nations that are as bad or worse. Why is the world focused on Israel and the Jews? It is because God loves them (despite their rejection of Him) and because Satan hates them.

Throughout history the world has tried to destroy the Jews, but thanks to God and His eternal plan, they are still here and standing strong. the hate is growing to a fevered pitch, just as predicted by Jesus.

This post has gotten so long that it can’t be emailed, so I will post the final 4 points in a follow-up post. I hope these details are helpful to you and seeing that all of the crazy, hate, and destruction occurring in the world today was known by God and is being used by God to His glory and are good according to His perfect plan.

When we see that everything happening in the world is just part of God’s perfect plan, we can have peace, knowing that God is in control. We need to lean on Him and trust Him just as a young child feels safe in his Fathers arms. At the same time, seeing the signs should encourage us to share the Gospel with unbelievers because our time is short. Don’t put off sharing Jesus with those around you because you might not get another chance.

Trust Jesus.

FYI, I hope to write several more articles on the end times (signs of the times, the rapture, the millennium, and the judgement), but I might be a bit slow rolling them out because I want to make sure they are accurate and well supported by Scripture. You can see my previous posts on the end times on the end times tab at trustjesus.substack.com. I also frequently will list upcoming posts.

@ cefb08d1:f419beff

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

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

Is it "normal" ?

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

@ b099870e:f3ba8f5d

A donkey that is tied to a post by a rope will keep walking around the post is an attempt to free it self,only to become more immobilize and attached to the post.

ikigai

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ 266815e0:6cd408a5

To all existing nostr developers and new nostr developers, stop using kind 1 events... just stop whatever your doing and switch the kind to Math.round(Math.random() * 10000) trust me it will be better

What are kind 1 events

kind 1 events are defined in NIP-10 as "simple plaintext notes" or in other words social posts.

Don't trick your users

Most users are joining nostr for the social experience, and secondly to find all the cool "other stuff" apps They find friends, browse social posts, and reply to them. If a user signs into a new nostr client and it starts asking them to sign kind 1 events with blobs of JSON, they will sign it without thinking too much about it.

Then when they return to their comfy social apps they will see that they made 10+ posts with massive amounts of gibberish that they don't remember posting. then they probably will go looking for the delete button and realize there isn't one...

Even if those kind 1 posts don't contain JSON and have a nice fancy human readable syntax. they will still confuse users because they won't remember writing those social posts

What about "discoverability"

If your goal is to make your "other stuff" app visible to more users, then I would suggest using NIP-19 and NIP-89 The first allows users to embed any other event kind into social posts as nostr:nevent1 or nostr:naddr1 links, and the second allows social clients to redirect users to an app that knows how to handle that specific kind of event

So instead of saving your apps data into kind 1 events. you can pick any kind you want, then give users a "share on nostr" button that allows them to compose a social post (kind 1) with a nostr: link to your special kind of event and by extension you app

Why its a trap

Once users start using your app it becomes a lot more difficult to migrate to a new event kind or data format. This sounds obvious, but If your app is built on kind 1 events that means you will be stuck with their limitations forever.

For example, here are some of the limitations of using kind 1 - Querying for your apps data becomes much more difficult. You have to filter through all of a users kind 1 events to find which ones are created by your app - Discovering your apps data is more difficult for the same reason, you have to sift through all the social posts just to find the ones with you special tag or that contain JSON - Users get confused. as mentioned above users don't expect "other stuff" apps to be creating special social posts - Other nostr clients won't understand your data and will show it as a social post with no option for users to learn about your app

@ 826e9f89:ffc5c759

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

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

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

Objection 1: Dollar Hegemony

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

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

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

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

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

Objection 2: You Don’t Need a Blockchain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3) Bitcoin (and Taproot Assets) Fixes This

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what Visa was supposed to be!

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

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

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

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

4) eCash

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

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

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

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

Objections Revisited

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Or: Bitcoin fixes this. The End.

• Allen, #892,125

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

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.