@ 78b3c1ed:5033eea9

各ノードにポリシーがある理由 → ノードの資源（CPU、帯域、メモリ）を守り、無駄な処理を避けるため

なぜポリシーがコンセンサスルールより厳しいか 1.資源の節約 コンセンサスルールは「最終的に有効かどうか」の基準だが、全トランザクションをいちいち検証して中継すると資源が枯渇する。 ポリシーで「最初から弾く」仕組みが必要。

1. ネットワーク健全性の維持 手数料が低い、複雑すぎる、標準でないスクリプトのトランザクションが大量に流れると、全体のネットワークが重くなる。 これを防ぐためにノードは独自のポリシーで中継制限。

2. 開発の柔軟性 ポリシーはソフトウェアアップデートで柔軟に変えられるが、コンセンサスルールは変えるとハードフォークの危険がある。 ポリシーを厳しくすることで、安全に新しい制限を試すことができる。

---

標準ポリシーの意味は何か？ ノードオペレーターは自分でbitcoindの設定やコードを書き換えて独自のポリシーを使える。 理論上ポリシーは「任意」で、標準ポリシー（Bitcoin Coreが提供するポリシー）は単なるデフォルト値。 ただし、標準ポリシーには以下の大事な意味がある。

1. ネットワークの互換性を保つ基準 みんなが全く自由なポリシーを使うとトランザクションの伝播効率が落ちる。 標準ポリシーは「大多数のノードに中継される最小基準」を提供し、それを守ればネットワークに流せるという共通の期待値になる。

2. 開発・サービスの指針 ウォレット開発者やサービス提供者（取引所・支払いサービスなど）は、「標準ポリシーに準拠したトランザクションを作れば十分」という前提で開発できる。 もし標準がなければ全ノードの個別ポリシーを調査しないと流れるトランザクションを作れなくなる。

3. コミュニティの合意形成の場 標準ポリシーはBitcoin Coreの開発・議論で決まる。ここで新しい制限や緩和を入れれば、まずポリシーレベルで試せる。 問題がなければ、将来のコンセンサスルールに昇格させる議論の土台になる。

つまりデフォルトだけど重要。 確かに標準ポリシーは技術的には「デフォルト値」にすぎないが、実際にはネットワークの安定・互換性・開発指針の柱として重要な役割を果たす。

---

ビットコインノードにおける「無駄な処理」というのは、主に次のようなものを指す。 1. 承認される見込みのないトランザクションの検証 例: 手数料が極端に低く、マイナーが絶対にブロックに入れないようなトランザクション → これをいちいち署名検証したり、メモリプールに載せるのはCPU・RAMの無駄。

1. 明らかに標準外のスクリプトや形式の検証 例: 極端に複雑・非標準なスクリプト（non-standard script） → コンセンサス的には有効だが、ネットワークの他ノードが中継しないため、無駄な伝播になる。

2. スパム的な大量トランザクションの処理 例: 攻撃者が極小手数料のトランザクションを大量に送り、メモリプールを膨張させる場合 → メモリやディスクI/O、帯域の消費が無駄になる。

3. 明らかに無効なブロックの詳細検証 例: サイズが大きすぎるブロック、難易度条件を満たさないブロック → 早期に弾かないと、全トランザクション検証や署名検証で計算資源を浪費する。

これらの無駄な処理は、ノードの CPU時間・メモリ・ディスクI/O・帯域 を消耗させ、最悪の場合は DoS攻撃（サービス妨害攻撃） に悪用される。 そこでポリシーによって、最初の受信段階、または中継段階でそもそも検証・保存・転送しないように制限する。 まとめると、「無駄な処理」とはネットワークの大勢に受け入れられず、ブロックに取り込まれないトランザクションやブロックにノード資源を使うこと。

---

無駄な処理かどうかは、単に「ポリシーで禁止されているか」で決まるわけではない。

本質的には次の2つで判断される 1. ノードの資源（CPU、メモリ、帯域、ディスク）を過剰に使うか 2. 他のノード・ネットワーク・マイナーに受け入れられる見込みがあるか

将来のBitcoin CoreのバージョンでOP_RETURNの出力数制限やデータサイズ制限が撤廃されたとする。 この場合標準ポリシー的には通るので、中継・保存されやすくなる。 しかし、他のノードやマイナーが追随しなければ意味がない。大量に流せばやはりDoS・スパム扱いされ、無駄な資源消費になる。

最終的には、ネットワーク全体の運用実態。 標準ポリシーの撤廃だけでは、「無駄な処理ではない」とは断定できない。 実質的な「無駄な処理」の判定は、技術的制約＋経済的・運用的現実のセットで決まる。

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Nostr: a quick introduction, attempt #2

Nostr doesn't subscribe to any ideals of "free speech" as these belong to the realm of politics and assume a big powerful government that enforces a common ruleupon everybody else.

Nostr instead is much simpler, it simply says that servers are private property and establishes a generalized framework for people to connect to all these servers, creating a true free market in the process. In other words, Nostr is the public road that each market participant can use to build their own store or visit others and use their services.

(Of course a road is never truly public, in normal cases it's ran by the government, in this case it relies upon the previous existence of the internet with all its quirks and chaos plus a hand of government control, but none of that matters for this explanation).

More concretely speaking, Nostr is just a set of definitions of the formats of the data that can be passed between participants and their expected order, i.e. messages between clients (i.e. the program that runs on a user computer) and relays (i.e. the program that runs on a publicly accessible computer, a "server", generally with a domain-name associated) over a type of TCP connection (WebSocket) with cryptographic signatures. This is what is called a "protocol" in this context, and upon that simple base multiple kinds of sub-protocols can be added, like a protocol for "public-square style microblogging", "semi-closed group chat" or, I don't know, "recipe sharing and feedback".

@ 9063ef6b:fd1e9a09

🛠️ MkDocs on macOS

For my local documentation, I was looking for an open-source tool to create and manage my content. With MkDocs, I found a mature, widely used, and actively maintained solution.

I think this tool is worth writing an article about. I’m still new to it and don’t have much experience yet. What tools do you use to create your documentation locally?

📚 What is MkDocs?

MkDocs is an open source tool for building static websites from Markdown files, designed specifically for technical documentation.

---

✅ Key Features

| Feature | Description | |---------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 📄 Markdown-based | Write content in .md files (e.g., with Zettlr, VS Code, Obsidian) | | 🌐 Static site output | MkDocs renders a full HTML site with navigation, search, and styling | | 🎨 Themes available | Most popular: Material for MkDocs | | 🔄 Live preview | Use mkdocs serve to view the docs locally in your browser | | 🔧 Simple configuration | Controlled via a single mkdocs.yml file | | 🔐 No cloud required | Fully local, ideal for privacy and offline work |

---

📦 Is MkDocs open source?

Yes. MkDocs is fully open source and licensed under the MIT License – free to use, modify, and redistribute.

• 🔗 GitHub: github.com/mkdocs/mkdocs
• 🔗 PyPI: pypi.org/project/mkdocs

---

🔧 What can you build with MkDocs?

Examples include:

• Internal IT or team documentation
• Project or API documentation (e.g., GitHub projects)
• Manuals, Wikis, or checklists
• Offline technical knowledge bases

---

✅ Requirements

• macOS (e.g., Ventura, Sonoma)
• Terminal basics
• Python installed

---

🔧 Step 1: Install MkDocs

Install MkDocs locally for your user:

bash pip3 install --user mkdocs

(Optional) Add the Material theme:

bash pip3 install --user mkdocs-material

This gives your documentation a modern, responsive design.

---

🧭 Step 2: Make the mkdocs command available

By default, pip installs MkDocs in a directory not included in your PATH. To fix that:

a) Check install location:

bash python3 -m site --user-base

Example output:

/Users/yourname/Library/Python/3.11

The relevant binary path is:

/Users/yourname/Library/Python/3.11/bin

b) Add to PATH permanently (zsh):

bash echo 'export PATH=$PATH:/Users/yourname/Library/Python/3.11/bin' >> ~/.zshrc source ~/.zshrc

Replace Python version if needed (3.11).

---

🚀 Step 3: Start a new MkDocs project

bash mkdocs new my-docs cd my-docs mkdocs serve

Now open: http://127.0.0.1:8000

---

🎨 Step 4: Enable the Material Theme

Edit mkdocs.yml:

yaml theme: name: material

Then restart:

bash mkdocs serve

---

🧩 Alternative: Run via Python module

If you see this error:

zsh: command not found: mkdocs

… you can always run MkDocs via:

bash python3 -m mkdocs serve

---

📚 MkDocs Awesome Pages Plugin

The awesome-pages plugin for MkDocs automatically builds navigation from your folder structure – no need to manually define nav: in mkdocs.yml.

---

✅ Open Source

• License: MIT
• Repo: github.com/lukasgeiter/mkdocs-awesome-pages-plugin

---

🛠️ Installation

Install with pip:

bash pip3 install mkdocs-awesome-pages-plugin

---

⚙️ Configure mkdocs.yml

Add the plugin:

yaml plugins: - search - awesome-pages

⚠️ Remove the nav: section if you use this plugin – it will otherwise be ignored.

---

📁 Folder structure & .pages files

Navigation is based on the folder structure under docs/.

Example structure:

docs/ ├── index.md ├── installation/ │ ├── prerequisites.md │ └── setup.md ├── usage/ │ ├── start.md │ └── features.md

→ The plugin auto-generates a menu from this.

---

🔍 Example mkdocs.yml with plugin

```yaml site_name: My Tech Docs theme: name: material

plugins: - search - awesome-pages

markdown_extensions: - admonition - toc: permalink: true ```

---

🔗 Further Resources

• 📘 GitHub: mkdocs-awesome-pages-plugin
• 📘 PyPI: pypi.org/project/mkdocs-awesome-pages-plugin

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Wild parrots tend to fly in flocks, but when kept as single pets, they may become lonely and bored https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHcAOlamgDc

Source: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-taught-pet-parrots-to-video-call-each-other-and-the-birds-loved-it-180982041/

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973639

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Why relay hints are important

Recently Coracle has removed support for following relay hints in Nostr event references.

Supposedly Coracle is now relying only on public key hints and kind:10002 events to determine where to fetch events from a user. That is a catastrophic idea that destroys much of Nostr's flexibility for no gain at all.

• Someone makes a post inside a community (either a NIP-29 community or a NIP-87 community) and others want to refer to that post in discussions in the external Nostr world of kind:1s -- now that cannot work because the person who created the post doesn't have the relays specific to those communities in their outbox list;
• There is a discussion happening in a niche relay, for example, a relay that can only be accessed by the participants of a conference for the duration of that conference -- since that relay is not in anyone's public outbox list, it's impossible for anyone outside of the conference to ever refer to these events;
• Some big public relays, say, relay.damus.io, decide to nuke their databases or periodically delete old events, a user keeps using that big relay as their outbox because it is fast and reliable, but chooses to archive their old events in a dedicated archival relay, say, cellar.nostr.wine, while prudently not including that in their outbox list because that would make no sense -- now it is impossible for anyone to refer to old notes from this user even though they are publicly accessible in cellar.nostr.wine;
• There are topical relays that curate content relating to niche (non-microblogging) topics, say, cooking recipes, and users choose to publish their recipes to these relays only -- but now they can't refer to these relays in the external Nostr world of kind:1s because these topical relays are not in their outbox lists.
• Suppose a user wants to maintain two different identities under the same keypair, say, one identity only talks about soccer in English, while the other only talks about art history in French, and the user very prudently keeps two different kind:10002 events in two different sets of "indexer" relays (or does it in some better way of announcing different relay sets) -- now one of this user's audiences cannot ever see notes created by him with their other persona, one half of the content of this user will be inacessible to the other half and vice-versa.
• If for any reason a relay does not want to accept events of a certain kind a user may publish to other relays, and it would all work fine if the user referenced that externally-published event from a normal event, but now that externally-published event is not reachable because the external relay is not in the user's outbox list.
• If someone, say, Alex Jones, is hard-banned everywhere and cannot event broadcast kind:10002 events to any of the commonly used index relays, that person will now appear as banned in most clients: in an ideal world in which clients followed nprofile and other relay hints Alex Jones could still live a normal Nostr life: he would print business cards with his nprofile instead of an npub and clients would immediately know from what relay to fetch his posts. When other users shared his posts or replied to it, they would include a relay hint to his personal relay and others would be able to see and then start following him on that relay directly -- now Alex Jones's events cannot be read by anyone that doesn't already know his relay.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

How to do curation and businesses on Nostr

Suppose you want to start a Nostr business.

You might be tempted to make a closed platform that reuses Nostr identities and grabs (some) content from the external Nostr network, only to imprison it inside your thing -- and then you're going to run an amazing AI-powered algorithm on that content and "surface" only the best stuff and people will flock to your app.

This will be specially good if you're going after one of the many unexplored niches of Nostr in which reading immediately from people you know doesn't work as you generally want to discover new things from the outer world, such as:

• food recipe sharing;
• sharing of long articles about varying topics;
• markets for used goods;
• freelancer work and job offers;
• specific in-game lobbies and matchmaking;
• directories of accredited professionals;
• sharing of original music, drawings and other artistic creations;
• restaurant recommendations
• and so on.

But that is not the correct approach and damages the freedom and interoperability of Nostr, posing a centralization threat to the protocol. Even if it "works" and your business is incredibly successful it will just enshrine you as the head of a platform that controls users and thus is prone to all the bad things that happen to all these platforms. Your company will start to display ads and shape the public discourse, you'll need a big legal team, the FBI will talk to you, advertisers will play a big role and so on.

If you are interested in Nostr today that must be because you appreciate the fact that it is not owned by any companies, so it's safe to assume you don't want to be that company that owns it. So what should you do instead? Here's an idea in two steps:

1. Write a Nostr client tailored to the niche you want to cover

If it's a music sharing thing, then the client will have a way to play the audio and so on; if it's a restaurant sharing it will have maps with the locations of the restaurants or whatever, you get the idea. Hopefully there will be a NIP or a NUD specifying how to create and interact with events relating to this niche, or you will write or contribute with the creation of one, because without interoperability none of this matters much.

The client should work independently of any special backend requirements and ideally be open-source. It should have a way for users to configure to which relays they want to connect to see "global" content -- i.e., they might want to connect to wss://nostr.chrysalisrecords.com/ to see only the latest music releases accredited by that label or to wss://nostr.indiemusic.com/ to get music from independent producers from that community.

1. Run a relay that does all the magic

This is where your value-adding capabilities come into play: if you have that magic sauce you should be able to apply it here. Your service, let's call it wss://magicsaucemusic.com/, will charge people or do some KYM (know your music) validation or use some very advanced AI sorcery to filter out the spam and the garbage and display the best content to your users who will request the global feed from it (["REQ", "_", {}]), and this will cause people to want to publish to your relay while others will want to read from it.

You set your relay as the default option in the client and let things happen. Your relay is like your "website" and people are free to connect to it or not. You don't own the network, you're just competing against other websites on a leveled playing field, so you're not responsible for it. Users get seamless browsing across multiple websites, unified identities, a unified interface (that could be different in a different client) and social interaction capabilities that work in the same way for all, and they do not depend on you, therefore they're more likely to trust you.

---

Does this centralize the network still? But this a simple and easy way to go about the matter and scales well in all aspects.

Besides allowing users to connect to specific relays for getting a feed of curated content, such clients should also do all kinds of "social" (i.e. following, commenting etc) activities (if they choose to do that) using the outbox model -- i.e. if I find a musician I like under wss://magicsaucemusic.com and I decide to follow them I should keep getting updates from them even if they get banned from that relay and start publishing on wss://nos.lol or wss://relay.damus.io or whatever relay that doesn't even know what music is.

The hardcoded defaults and manual typing of relay URLs can be annoying. But I think it works well at the current stage of Nostr development. Soon, though, we can create events that recommend other relays or share relay lists specific to each kind of activity so users can get in-app suggestions of relays their friends are using to get their music from and so on. That kind of stuff can go a long way.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

About Nostr, email and subscriptions

I check my emails like once or twice a week, always when I am looking for something specific in there.

Then I go there and I see a bunch of other stuff I had no idea I was missing. Even many things I wish I had seen before actually. And sometimes people just expect and assume I would have checked emails instantly as they arrived.

It's so weird because I'm not making a point, I just don't remember to open the damn "gmail.com" URL.

---

I remember some people were making some a Nostr service a while ago that sent a DM to people with Nostr articles inside -- or some other forms of "subscription services on Nostr". It makes no sense at all.

Pulling in DMs from relays is exactly the same process (actually slightly more convoluted) than pulling normal public events, so why would a service assume that "sending a DM" was more likely to reach the target subscriber when the target had explicitly subscribed to that topic or writer?

Maybe due to how some specific clients work that is true, but fundamentally it is a very broken assumption that comes from some fantastic past era in which emails were 100% always seen and there was no way for anyone to subscribe to someone else's posts.

Building around such broken assumptions is the wrong approach. Instead we should be building new flows for subscribing to specific content from specific Nostr-native sources (creators directly or manual or automated curation providers, communities, relays etc), which is essentially what most clients are already doing anyway, but specifically Coracle's new custom feeds come to mind now.

---

This also reminds me of the interviewer asking the Farcaster creator if Farcaster made "email addresses available to content creators" completely ignoring all the cryptography and nature of the protocol (Farcaster is shit, but at least they tried, and in this example you could imagine the interviewer asking the same thing about Nostr).

I imagine that if the interviewer had asked these people who were working (or suggesting) the Nostr DM subscription flow they would have answered: "no, you don't get their email addresses, but you can send them uncensorable DMs!" -- and that, again, is getting everything backwards.

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Your device, your data. TRMNL's architecture prevents outsiders (including us) from accessing your local network. TRMNAL achieve this through 1 way communication between client and server, versus the other way around. Learn more.

Learn more at https://usetrmnl.com/

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973632

@ 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/973630

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Nostr is not decentralized nor censorship-resistant

Peter Todd has been saying this for a long time and all the time I've been thinking he is misunderstanding everything, but I guess a more charitable interpretation is that he is right.

Nostr today is indeed centralized.

Yesterday I published two harmless notes with the exact same content at the same time. In two minutes the notes had a noticeable difference in responses:

The top one was published to wss://nostr.wine, wss://nos.lol, wss://pyramid.fiatjaf.com. The second was published to the relay where I generally publish all my notes to, wss://pyramid.fiatjaf.com, and that is announced on my NIP-05 file and on my NIP-65 relay list.

A few minutes later I published that screenshot again in two identical notes to the same sets of relays, asking if people understood the implications. The difference in quantity of responses can still be seen today:

These results are skewed now by the fact that the two notes got rebroadcasted to multiple relays after some time, but the fundamental point remains.

What happened was that a huge lot more of people saw the first note compared to the second, and if Nostr was really censorship-resistant that shouldn't have happened at all.

Some people implied in the comments, with an air of obviousness, that publishing the note to "more relays" should have predictably resulted in more replies, which, again, shouldn't be the case if Nostr is really censorship-resistant.

What happens is that most people who engaged with the note are following me, in the sense that they have instructed their clients to fetch my notes on their behalf and present them in the UI, and clients are failing to do that despite me making it clear in multiple ways that my notes are to be found on wss://pyramid.fiatjaf.com.

If we were talking not about me, but about some public figure that was being censored by the State and got banned (or shadowbanned) by the 3 biggest public relays, the sad reality would be that the person would immediately get his reach reduced to ~10% of what they had before. This is not at all unlike what happened to dozens of personalities that were banned from the corporate social media platforms and then moved to other platforms -- how many of their original followers switched to these other platforms? Probably some small percentage close to 10%. In that sense Nostr today is similar to what we had before.

Peter Todd is right that if the way Nostr works is that you just subscribe to a small set of relays and expect to get everything from them then it tends to get very centralized very fast, and this is the reality today.

Peter Todd is wrong that Nostr is inherently centralized or that it needs a protocol change to become what it has always purported to be. He is in fact wrong today, because what is written above is not valid for all clients of today, and if we drive in the right direction we can successfully make Peter Todd be more and more wrong as time passes, instead of the contrary.

---

See also:

• Censorship-resistant relay discovery in Nostr
• A vision for content discovery and relay usage for basic social-networking in Nostr

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Censorship-resistant relay discovery in Nostr

In Nostr is not decentralized nor censorship-resistant I said Nostr is centralized. Peter Todd thinks it is centralized by design, but I disagree.

Nostr wasn't designed to be centralized. The idea was always that clients would follow people in the relays they decided to publish to, even if it was a single-user relay hosted in an island in the middle of the Pacific ocean.

But the Nostr explanations never had any guidance about how to do this, and the protocol itself never had any enforcement mechanisms for any of this (because it would be impossible).

My original idea was that clients would use some undefined combination of relay hints in reply tags and the (now defunct) kind:2 relay-recommendation events plus some form of manual action ("it looks like Bob is publishing on relay X, do you want to follow him there?") to accomplish this. With the expectation that we would have a better idea of how to properly implement all this with more experience, Branle, my first working client didn't have any of that implemented, instead it used a stupid static list of relays with read/write toggle -- although it did publish relay hints and kept track of those internally and supported kind:2 events, these things were not really useful.

Gossip was the first client to implement a truly censorship-resistant relay discovery mechanism that used NIP-05 hints (originally proposed by Mike Dilger) relay hints and kind:3 relay lists, and then with the simple insight of NIP-65 that got much better. After seeing it in more concrete terms, it became simpler to reason about it and the approach got popularized as the "gossip model", then implemented in clients like Coracle and Snort.

Today when people mention the "gossip model" (or "outbox model") they simply think about NIP-65 though. Which I think is ok, but too restrictive. I still think there is a place for the NIP-05 hints, nprofile and nevent relay hints and specially relay hints in event tags. All these mechanisms are used together in ZBD Social, for example, but I believe also in the clients listed above.

I don't think we should stop here, though. I think there are other ways, perhaps drastically different ways, to approach content propagation and relay discovery. I think manual action by users is underrated and could go a long way if presented in a nice UX (not conceived by people that think users are dumb animals), and who knows what. Reliance on third-parties, hardcoded values, social graph, and specially a mix of multiple approaches, is what Nostr needs to be censorship-resistant and what I hope to see in the future.

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

Here’s Sean Voisen writing about how programming is a feeling:

For those of us who enjoy programming, there is a deep satisfaction that comes from solving problems through well-written code, a kind of ineffable joy found in the elegant expression of a system through our favorite syntax. It is akin to the same satisfaction a craftsperson might find at the end of the day after toiling away on well-made piece of furniture, the culmination of small dopamine hits that come from sweating the details on something and getting them just right. Maybe nobody will notice those details, but it doesn’t matter. We care, we notice, we get joy from the aesthetics of the craft.

This got me thinking about the idea of satisfaction in craft. Where does it come from?

Continue Reading https://blog.jim-nielsen.com/2025/craft-and-satisfaction/

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973628

@ 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.

@ 9c35fe6b:5977e45b

Sailing the Nile on the Dahabiya Gorgonia Nile Cruise offers an intimate way to experience the timeless beauty of Egypt. This elegant boat is ideal for travelers who seek calm, charm, and tradition. With only a few cabins onboard, guests can enjoy a more serene atmosphere compared to larger vessels. ETB Tours Egypt offers this unique cruise option as part of its Egypt vacation packages, blending cultural richness with comfort.

Cultural Encounters Along the Nile The Dahabiya Nile Cruises give you a chance to witness life along the riverbanks up close. Onboard the Gorgonia, travelers visit lesser-known villages, ancient temples, and local markets far from the tourist crowds. With ETB Tours Egypt, your itinerary includes authentic experiences guided by knowledgeable Egyptologists—an ideal choice for those seeking Egypt private tours.

Scenic Sailing with Modern Comfort Although traditional in style, the Dahabiya Gorgonia is equipped with modern amenities to ensure a pleasant journey. Guests enjoy spacious decks, elegant dining, and personalized service. Whether part of an All inclusive Egypt vacations or a custom-designed plan, this cruise ensures you travel in style without missing out on comfort.

Smart Choices for Smart Travelers ETB Tours Egypt also makes sure that the Dahabiya Gorgonia Nile Cruise is available as part of their Egypt budget tours, offering excellent value without compromising on experience. It's perfect for those who want to enjoy the best of Egypt without overspending. Flexible options are also available through their wide range of Egypt travel packages, making it easy to match your schedule and interests.

To Contact Us: E-Mail: info@etbtours.com Mobile & WhatsApp: +20 10 67569955 - +201021100873 Address: 4 El Lebeny Axis, Nazlet Al Batran, Al Haram, Giza, Egypt

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Nostr: a quick introduction, attempt #1

Nostr doesn't have a material existence, it is not a website or an app. Nostr is just a description what kind of messages each computer can send to the others and vice-versa. It's a very simple thing, but the fact that such description exists allows different apps to connect to different servers automatically, without people having to talk behind the scenes or sign contracts or anything like that.

When you use a Nostr client that is what happens, your client will connect to a bunch of servers, called relays, and all these relays will speak the same "language" so your client will be able to publish notes to them all and also download notes from other people.

That's basically what Nostr is: this communication layer between the client you run on your phone or desktop computer and the relay that someone else is running on some server somewhere. There is no central authority dictating who can connect to whom or even anyone who knows for sure where each note is stored.

If you think about it, Nostr is very much like the internet itself: there are millions of websites out there, and basically anyone can run a new one, and there are websites that allow you to store and publish your stuff on them.

The added benefit of Nostr is that this unified "language" that all Nostr clients speak allow them to switch very easily and cleanly between relays. So if one relay decides to ban someone that person can switch to publishing to others relays and their audience will quickly follow them there. Likewise, it becomes much easier for relays to impose any restrictions they want on their users: no relay has to uphold a moral ground of "absolute free speech": each relay can decide to delete notes or ban users for no reason, or even only store notes from a preselected set of people and no one will be entitled to complain about that.

There are some bad things about this design: on Nostr there are no guarantees that relays will have the notes you want to read or that they will store the notes you're sending to them. We can't just assume all relays will have everything — much to the contrary, as Nostr grows more relays will exist and people will tend to publishing to a small set of all the relays, so depending on the decisions each client takes when publishing and when fetching notes, users may see a different set of replies to a note, for example, and be confused.

Another problem with the idea of publishing to multiple servers is that they may be run by all sorts of malicious people that may edit your notes. Since no one wants to see garbage published under their name, Nostr fixes that by requiring notes to have a cryptographic signature. This signature is attached to the note and verified by everybody at all times, which ensures the notes weren't tampered (if any part of the note is changed even by a single character that would cause the signature to become invalid and then the note would be dropped). The fix is perfect, except for the fact that it introduces the requirement that each user must now hold this 63-character code that starts with "nsec1", which they must not reveal to anyone. Although annoying, this requirement brings another benefit: that users can automatically have the same identity in many different contexts and even use their Nostr identity to login to non-Nostr websites easily without having to rely on any third-party.

To conclude: Nostr is like the internet (or the internet of some decades ago): a little chaotic, but very open. It is better than the internet because it is structured and actions can be automated, but, like in the internet itself, nothing is guaranteed to work at all times and users many have to do some manual work from time to time to fix things. Plus, there is the cryptographic key stuff, which is painful, but cool.

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

CryptPad

Collaboration and privacy. Yes, you can have both Flagship instance of CryptPad, the end-to-end encrypted and open-source collaboration suite. Cloud administered by the CryptPad development team. https://cryptpad.fr/

ONLYOFFICE DocSpace

Document collaboration made simpler. Easily collaborate with customizable rooms. Edit any content you have. Work faster using AI assistants. Protect your sensitive business data. Download or try STARTUP Cloud (Limited-time offer) FREE https://www.onlyoffice.com/

SeaFile

A new way to organize your files Beyond just syncing and sharing files, Seafile lets you add custom file properties and organize your files in different views. With AI-powered automation for generating properties, Seafile offers a smarter, more efficient way to manage your files. Try it Now, Free for up to 3 users https://seafile.com/

SandStorm

An open source platform for self-hosting web apps Self-host web-based productivity apps easily and securely. Sandstorm is an open source project built by a community of volunteers with the goal of making it really easy to run open source web applications. Try the Demo or Signup Free https://alpha.sandstorm.io/apps

NextCloud Hub

A new generation of online collaboration that puts you in control. Nextcloud offers a modern, on premise content collaboration platform with real-time document editing, video chat & groupware on mobile, desktop and web. Sign up for a free Nextcloud account https://nextcloud.com/sign-up/

LinShare

True Open Source Secure File Sharing Solution We are committed to providing a reliable Open Source file-sharing solution, expertly designed to meet the highest standards of diverse industries, such as government and finance Try the Demo https://linshare.app/

Twake Drive

The open-source alternative to Google Drive. Privacy-First Open Source Workplace. Twake workplace open source business. Improve your effeciency with truly Open Source, all-in-one digital suite. Enhance the security in every aspect of your professional and private life. Sign up https://sign-up.twake.app/

SpaceDrive

One Explorer. All Your Files. Unify files from all your devices and clouds into a single, easy-to-use explorer. Designed for creators, hoarders and the painfully disorganized. Download desktop app (mobile coming soon) https://www.spacedrive.com/

ente

Safe Home for your photos Store, share, and discover your memories with end-to-end encryption. End-to-end encryption, durable storage and simple sharing. Packed with these and much more into our beautiful open source apps. Get started https://web.ente.io

fileStash

Turn your FTP server into... Filestash is the enterprise-grade file manager connecting your storage with your identity provider and authorisations. Try the demo https://demo.filestash.app

STORJ

Disruptively fast.‍ Globally secure. S3-compatible distributed cloud services that make the most demanding workflows fast and affordable. Fast track your journey toward high performance cloud services. Storj pricing is consistent and competitive in meeting or exceeding your cloud services needs. Give the products a try to experience the benefits of the distributed cloud. Get Started https://www.storj.io/get-started

FireFile

The open‑source alternative to Dropbox. Firefiles lets you setup a cloud drive with the backend of your choice and lets you seamlessly manage your files across multiple providers. It revolutionizes cloud storage management by offering a unified platform for all your storage needs. Sign up Free https://beta.firefiles.app

originally posted at https://stacker.news/items/973626

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Pequenos problemas que o Estado cria para a sociedade e que não são sempre lembrados

- **vale-transporte**: transferir o custo com o transporte do funcionário para um terceiro o estimula a morar longe de onde trabalha, já que morar perto é normalmente mais caro e a economia com transporte é inexistente.
- **atestado médico**: o direito a faltar o trabalho com atestado médico cria a exigência desse atestado para todas as situações, substituindo o livre acordo entre patrão e empregado e sobrecarregando os médicos e postos de saúde com visitas desnecessárias de assalariados resfriados.
- **prisões**: com dinheiro mal-administrado, burocracia e péssima alocação de recursos -- problemas que empresas privadas em competição (ou mesmo sem qualquer competição) saberiam resolver muito melhor -- o Estado fica sem presídios, com os poucos existentes entupidos, muito acima de sua alocação máxima, e com isto, segundo a bizarra corrente de responsabilidades que culpa o juiz que condenou o criminoso por sua morte na cadeia, juízes deixam de condenar à prisão os bandidos, soltando-os na rua.
- **justiça**: entrar com processos é grátis e isto faz proliferar a atividade dos advogados que se dedicam a criar problemas judiciais onde não seria necessário e a entupir os tribunais, impedindo-os de fazer o que mais deveriam fazer.
- **justiça**: como a justiça só obedece às leis e ignora acordos pessoais, escritos ou não, as pessoas não fazem acordos, recorrem sempre à justiça estatal, e entopem-na de assuntos que seriam muito melhor resolvidos entre vizinhos.
- **leis civis**: as leis criadas pelos parlamentares ignoram os costumes da sociedade e são um incentivo a que as pessoas não respeitem nem criem normas sociais -- que seriam maneiras mais rápidas, baratas e satisfatórias de resolver problemas.
- **leis de trãnsito**: quanto mais leis de trânsito, mais serviço de fiscalização são delegados aos policiais, que deixam de combater crimes por isto (afinal de contas, eles não querem de fato arriscar suas vidas combatendo o crime, a fiscalização é uma excelente desculpa para se esquivarem a esta responsabilidade).
- **financiamento educacional**: é uma espécie de subsídio às faculdades privadas que faz com que se criem cursos e mais cursos que são cada vez menos recheados de algum conhecimento ou técnica útil e cada vez mais inúteis.
- **leis de tombamento**: são um incentivo a que o dono de qualquer área ou construção "histórica" destrua todo e qualquer vestígio de história que houver nele antes que as autoridades descubram, o que poderia não acontecer se ele pudesse, por exemplo, usar, mostrar e se beneficiar da história daquele local sem correr o risco de perder, de fato, a sua propriedade.
- **zoneamento urbano**: torna as cidades mais espalhadas, criando uma necessidade gigantesca de carros, ônibus e outros meios de transporte para as pessoas se locomoverem das zonas de moradia para as zonas de trabalho.
- **zoneamento urbano**: faz com que as pessoas percam horas no trânsito todos os dias, o que é, além de um desperdício, um atentado contra a sua saúde, que estaria muito melhor servida numa caminhada diária entre a casa e o trabalho.
- **zoneamento urbano**: torna ruas e as casas menos seguras criando zonas enormes, tanto de residências quanto de indústrias, onde não há movimento de gente alguma.
- **escola obrigatória + currículo escolar nacional**: emburrece todas as crianças.
- **leis contra trabalho infantil**: tira das crianças a oportunidade de aprender ofícios úteis e levar um dinheiro para ajudar a família.
- **licitações**: como não existem os critérios do mercado para decidir qual é o melhor prestador de serviço, criam-se comissões de pessoas que vão decidir coisas. isto incentiva os prestadores de serviço que estão concorrendo na licitação a tentar comprar os membros dessas comissões. isto, fora a corrupção, gera problemas reais: __(i)__ a escolha dos serviços acaba sendo a pior possível, já que a empresa prestadora que vence está claramente mais dedicada a comprar comissões do que a fazer um bom trabalho (este problema afeta tantas áreas, desde a construção de estradas até a qualidade da merenda escolar, que é impossível listar aqui); __(ii)__ o processo corruptor acaba, no longo prazo, eliminando as empresas que prestavam e deixando para competir apenas as corruptas, e a qualidade tende a piorar progressivamente.
- **cartéis**: o Estado em geral cria e depois fica refém de vários grupos de interesse. o caso dos taxistas contra o Uber é o que está na moda hoje (e o que mostra como os Estados se comportam da mesma forma no mundo todo).
- **multas**: quando algum indivíduo ou empresa comete uma fraude financeira, ou causa algum dano material involuntário, as vítimas do caso são as pessoas que sofreram o dano ou perderam dinheiro, mas o Estado tem sempre leis que prevêem multas para os responsáveis. A justiça estatal é sempre muito rígida e rápida na aplicação dessas multas, mas relapsa e vaga no que diz respeito à indenização das vítimas. O que em geral acontece é que o Estado aplica uma enorme multa ao responsável pelo mal, retirando deste os recursos que dispunha para indenizar as vítimas, e se retira do caso, deixando estas desamparadas.
- **desapropriação**: o Estado pode pegar qualquer propriedade de qualquer pessoa mediante uma indenização que é necessariamente inferior ao valor da propriedade para o seu presente dono (caso contrário ele a teria vendido voluntariamente).
- **seguro-desemprego**: se há, por exemplo, um prazo mínimo de 1 ano para o sujeito ter direito a receber seguro-desemprego, isto o incentiva a planejar ficar apenas 1 ano em cada emprego (ano este que será sucedido por um período de desemprego remunerado), matando todas as possibilidades de aprendizado ou aquisição de experiência naquela empresa específica ou ascensão hierárquica.
- **previdência**: a previdência social tem todos os defeitos de cálculo do mundo, e não importa muito ela ser uma forma horrível de poupar dinheiro, porque ela tem garantias bizarras de longevidade fornecidas pelo Estado, além de ser compulsória. Isso serve para criar no imaginário geral a idéia da __aposentadoria__, uma época mágica em que todos os dias serão finais de semana. A idéia da aposentadoria influencia o sujeito a não se preocupar em ter um emprego que faça sentido, mas sim em ter um trabalho qualquer, que o permita se aposentar.
- **regulamentação impossível**: milhares de coisas são proibidas, há regulamentações sobre os aspectos mais mínimos de cada empreendimento ou construção ou espaço. se todas essas regulamentações fossem exigidas não haveria condições de produção e todos morreriam. portanto, elas não são exigidas. porém, o Estado, ou um agente individual imbuído do poder estatal pode, se desejar, exigi-las todas de um cidadão inimigo seu. qualquer pessoa pode viver a vida inteira sem cumprir nem 10% das regulamentações estatais, mas viverá também todo esse tempo com medo de se tornar um alvo de sua exigência, num estado de terror psicológico.
- **perversão de critérios**: para muitas coisas sobre as quais a sociedade normalmente chegaria a um valor ou comportamento "razoável" espontaneamente, o Estado dita regras. estas regras muitas vezes não são obrigatórias, são mais "sugestões" ou limites, como o salário mínimo, ou as 44 horas semanais de trabalho. a sociedade, porém, passa a usar esses valores como se fossem o normal. são raras, por exemplo, as ofertas de emprego que fogem à regra das 44h semanais.
- **inflação**: subir os preços é difícil e constrangedor para as empresas, pedir aumento de salário é difícil e constrangedor para o funcionário. a inflação força as pessoas a fazer isso, mas o aumento não é automático, como alguns economistas podem pensar (enquanto alguns outros ficam muito satisfeitos de que esse processo seja demorado e difícil).
- **inflação**: a inflação destrói a capacidade das pessoas de julgar preços entre concorrentes usando a própria memória.
- **inflação**: a inflação destrói os cálculos de lucro/prejuízo das empresas e prejudica enormemente as decisões empresariais que seriam baseadas neles.
- **inflação**: a inflação redistribui a riqueza dos mais pobres e mais afastados do sistema financeiro para os mais ricos, os bancos e as megaempresas.
- **inflação**: a inflação estimula o endividamento e o consumismo.
- **lixo:** ao prover coleta e armazenamento de lixo "grátis para todos" o Estado incentiva a criação de lixo. se tivessem que pagar para que recolhessem o seu lixo, as pessoas (e conseqüentemente as empresas) se empenhariam mais em produzir coisas usando menos plástico, menos embalagens, menos sacolas.
- **leis contra crimes financeiros:** ao criar legislação para dificultar acesso ao sistema financeiro por parte de criminosos a dificuldade e os custos para acesso a esse mesmo sistema pelas pessoas de bem cresce absurdamente, levando a um percentual enorme de gente incapaz de usá-lo, para detrimento de todos -- e no final das contas os grandes criminosos ainda conseguem burlar tudo.

@ 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! 🌸

@ 306555fe:fd7fdf12

{"contract_id":"f5523a8f242339bdd8585e5491a82c2d9a72ff51f7fadc3f7c6f766afe9c0f19","title":"T2- Freelance Development Agreement","content":"# Freelance Development Agreement\n\n## Parties\n\nThis Freelance Development Agreement (the \"Agreement\") is entered into as of [DATE] by and between:\n\nClient: [CLIENT NAME], with an address at [CLIENT ADDRESS] (\"Client\")\n\nDeveloper: [DEVELOPER NAME], with an address at [DEVELOPER ADDRESS] (\"Developer\")\n\n## Services\n\nDeveloper agrees to provide the following services to Client (the \"Services\"):\n\n1. Design and develop a web application according to the specifications outlined in Attachment A.\n2. Provide regular progress updates on a weekly basis.\n3. Deliver the completed project by the deadline specified in the Timeline section.","version":1,"created_at":1746583812,"signers_required":2,"signatures":[{"pubkey":"306555fee4433582b32f6d46f11b644da33896595016893d7da18c75fd7fdf12","sig":"8ad3a9e2a4ef70515853e051882ab11ebc7d56f15be46deb1520d6292711bc4eeb29c723c46a251c98134d06b8950931d19f61f6f8836e4932f0d6682fe8159e","timestamp":1746583928}]}

@ 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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Anglicismos estúpidos no português contemporâneo

Palavras e expressões que ninguém deveria usar porque não têm o sentido que as pessoas acham que têm, são apenas aportuguesamentos de palavras inglesas que por nuances da história têm um sentido ligeiramente diferente em inglês.

Cada erro é acompanhado também de uma sugestão de como corrigi-lo.

Palavras que existem em português com sentido diferente

• submissão (de trabalhos): envio, apresentação
• disrupção: perturbação
• assumir: considerar, pressupor, presumir
• realizar: perceber
• endereçar: tratar de
• suporte (ao cliente): atendimento
• suportar (uma idéia, um projeto): apoiar, financiar
• suportar (uma função, recurso, característica): oferecer, ser compatível com
• literacia: instrução, alfabetização
• convoluto: complicado.
• acurácia: precisão.
• resiliência: resistência.

Aportuguesamentos desnecessários

• estartar: iniciar, começar
• treidar: negociar, especular

Expressões

• "não é sobre...": "não se trata de..."

Ver também

• Algumas expressões e ditados excelentes da língua portuguesa, e outras não tão excelentes assim

@ 502ab02a:a2860397

สัปดาห์นี้ถือว่าเป็นเบรคคั่นพักผ่อนแก้เครียดนิดหน่อยแล้วกันครับ เรามาเล่าย้อนอดีตกันนิดหน่อย เหมือนสตาร์วอส์ที่ฉายภาค 4-5-6 แล้วย้อนไป 1-2-3 ฮาๆๆๆ

เคยได้ยินคำว่า Nuremberg Trials ไหมครับ ย้อนความนิดนึงว่า Nuremberg (Nürnberg อ่านว่า เนือร์นแบร์ก) คือชื่อเมืองในเยอรมนีที่เคยเป็นเวทีพิจารณาคดีประวัติศาสตร์หลังสงครามโลกครั้งที่ 2

“Nuremberg Trials” คือการไต่สวนผู้มีส่วนเกี่ยวข้องกับ อาชญากรรมสงครามของนาซีเยอรมัน หลังสงครามโลกครั้งที่ 2 ในปี 1945–46 พันธมิตรผู้ชนะสงครามได้จับตัวผู้นำนาซี นักการเมือง หมอ นักวิทยาศาสตร์ มาขึ้นศาล ข้อหาของพวกเขาไม่ได้แค่ฆ่าคน แต่รวมถึงการละเมิดศีลธรรมมนุษย์ขั้นพื้นฐาน อย่างการทดลองทางการแพทย์กับนักโทษ โดยไม่มีการขอความยินยอม

จากการไต่สวนนี้ จึงเกิดหลักจริยธรรมที่ชื่อว่า “Nuremberg Code” ซึ่งกลายเป็นรากฐานของการทดลองทางการแพทย์ยุคใหม่ หัวใจของโค้ดนี้คือคำว่า “Informed Consent” แปลว่า ถ้าจะทำอะไรกับร่างกายใคร ต้องได้รับความยินยอมจากเขาอย่างเต็มใจ และมีข้อมูลครบถ้วน นี่แหละ คือบทเรียนจากบาดแผลของสงครามโลก

แต่แล้ว...ในปี 2020 โลกก็เข้าสู่ยุคที่ใครบางคนบอกว่า “ต้องเชื่อผู้เชี่ยวชาญ” ใครกังวล = คนไม่รักสังคม ใครถามเยอะ = คนต่อต้านวิทยาศาสตร์ การยินยอมโดยสมัครใจ เริ่มกลายเป็นแค่คำเชิงสัญลักษณ์

ในช่วงหลังนี้เราอาจจะได้ยินข่าวหรือทฤษฎีในอินเตอร์เนทเกี่ยวกับคำว่า Nuremberg 2.0 กันนะครับ เพราะเริ่มผุดขึ้นตามกระทู้เงียบ ๆ คลิปใต้ดิน และเวทีเสวนาแปลก ๆ ที่ไม่มีใครอยากอ้างชื่อบนเวที TED Talk ซึ่ง กลุ่มที่ใช้คำนี้มักจะหมายถึงความต้องการให้มีการ “ไต่สวน” หรือ “เอาผิด” กับนักการเมือง นักวิทยาศาสตร์ แพทย์ หรือองค์กรที่เกี่ยวข้องกับ การออกคำสั่ง การบังคับ การเซ็นเซอร์ข้อมูลที่ขัดแย้งกับแนวทางรัฐ การเผยแพร่ข้อมูลโดยไม่โปร่งใส พวกเขามองว่า นโยบายเหล่านั้นละเมิดสิทธิเสรีภาพของประชาชนในระดับที่เปรียบได้กับ “อาชญากรรมต่อมนุษยชาติ” จึงเสนอแนวคิด “Nuremberg 2.0”

พวกเขาไม่ได้เรียกร้องแค่ความโปร่งใส แต่เขาอยากเห็นการทบทวน ว่าใครกันแน่ที่ละเมิดหลักจริยธรรมที่โลกเคยตกลงกันไว้เมื่อ 80 ปีก่อน

Nuremberg คือการไต่สวนคนที่ใช้อำนาจรัฐฆ่าคนอย่างจงใจ Nuremberg 2.0 คือคำเตือนว่า “การใช้ความกลัวครอบงำเสรีภาพ” อาจไม่ต่างกันนัก

ทีนี้เคยสงสัยไหม แล้วมันเกี่ยวอะไรกับอาหาร?

เพราะจากวิกฤตโรคระบาด เราเริ่มเห็น “วิทยาศาสตร์แบบผูกขาด” คุมเกมส์ บริษัทเทคโนโลยีเริ่มเข้ามาทำอาหาร ชื่อใหม่ของเนื้อสเต๊กกลายเป็น “โปรตีนทางเลือก” อาหารจากแล็บกลายเป็น “ทางรอดของโลก” สารเคมีอัดลงไปแทนเนื้อจริง ๆ แต่มีฉลากติดว่า "รักษ์โลก ปลอดภัย ยั่งยืน"

แต่ถ้ามองให้ลึกลงไปอีกนิด บางกลุ่มคนกลับเริ่มเห็นอะไรบางอย่างที่ขนลุกกว่า เพราะมันคือ “ระบบควบคุมสุขภาพ” ที่อาศัย “ความกลัว” เป็นหัวเชื้อ และ “วิทยาศาสตร์แบบผูกขาด” เป็นกลไก

จากนั้น…ทุกอย่างก็จะถูกเสิร์ฟอย่างสวยงามในรูปแบบ "นวัตกรรมเพื่ออนาคต" ไม่ว่าจะเป็นอาหารเสริมชนิดใหม่ เนื้อสัตว์ปลูกในแล็บ หรืออาหารที่ไม่ต้องเคี้ยว

ลองคิดเล่น ๆครับ ถ้าสารอาหารถูกควบคุมได้ เหมือนที่เราเคยถูกบังคับกับบางอย่างได้ล่ะ? วันหนึ่ง เราอาจถูกขอให้ "กิน" ในสิ่งที่ระบบสุขภาพอนาคตเขาบอกว่าดี แล้วถ้าเฮียบอกว่าไม่อยากกิน...เขาอาจไม่ห้าม แต่ App สุขภาพจะเตือนว่า “คุณมีพฤติกรรมเสี่ยงต่อโลกใบนี้” แต้มเครดิตจะสุขภาพจะลดลงและส่วนลดข้าวกล่องเนื้อจากจุลินทรีย์จะไม่เข้าบัญชีเฮียอีกเลย

ใช่…มันไม่เหมือนการบังคับ แต่มันคือการสร้าง “ระบบทางเดียว” ที่ทำให้คนที่อยากเดินออกนอกแถว เหมือนเดินลงเหว

Nuremberg 2.0 จึงไม่ใช่แค่เรื่องของอดีตหรือโรคระบาด แต่มันเป็นกระจกที่สะท้อนว่า “ถ้าเราไม่เรียนรู้จากประวัติศาสตร์ เราอาจกินซ้ำรอยมันเข้าไปในมื้อเย็น”

อนาคตของอาหารอาจไม่ได้อยู่ในจาน แต่อยู่ในนโยบาย อยู่ในบริษัทที่ผลิตโปรตีนจากอากาศ อยู่ในทุนที่ซื้อนักวิทยาศาสตร์ไว้ทั้งวงการ และถ้าเราหลับตาอีกครั้ง หลายคนก็กลัวว่า...บทไต่สวน Nuremberg รอบใหม่ อาจไม่สามารถเกิดขึ้นอีกต่อไป เพราะคราวนี้ คนร้ายจะไม่ได้ถือปืน แต่อาจถือใบรับรองโภชนาการระดับโลกในมือแทน

#pirateketo #กูต้องรู้มั๊ย #ม้วนหางสิลูก #siamstr

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Drivechain

Understanding Drivechain requires a shift from the paradigm most bitcoiners are used to. It is not about "trustlessness" or "mathematical certainty", but game theory and incentives. (Well, Bitcoin in general is also that, but people prefer to ignore it and focus on some illusion of trustlessness provided by mathematics.)

Here we will describe the basic mechanism (simple) and incentives (complex) of "hashrate escrow" and how it enables a 2-way peg between the mainchain (Bitcoin) and various sidechains.

The full concept of "Drivechain" also involves blind merged mining (i.e., the sidechains mine themselves by publishing their block hashes to the mainchain without the miners having to run the sidechain software), but this is much easier to understand and can be accomplished either by the BIP-301 mechanism or by the Spacechains mechanism.

How does hashrate escrow work from the point of view of Bitcoin?

A new address type is created. Anything that goes in that is locked and can only be spent if all miners agree on the Withdrawal Transaction (WT^) that will spend it for 6 months. There is one of these special addresses for each sidechain.

To gather miners' agreement bitcoind keeps track of the "score" of all transactions that could possibly spend from that address. On every block mined, for each sidechain, the miner can use a portion of their coinbase to either increase the score of one WT^ by 1 while decreasing the score of all others by 1; or they can decrease the score of all WT^s by 1; or they can do nothing.

Once a transaction has gotten a score high enough, it is published and funds are effectively transferred from the sidechain to the withdrawing users.

If a timeout of 6 months passes and the score doesn't meet the threshold, that WT^ is discarded.

What does the above procedure mean?

It means that people can transfer coins from the mainchain to a sidechain by depositing to the special address. Then they can withdraw from the sidechain by making a special withdraw transaction in the sidechain.

The special transaction somehow freezes funds in the sidechain while a transaction that aggregates all withdrawals into a single mainchain WT^, which is then submitted to the mainchain miners so they can start voting on it and finally after some months it is published.

Now the crucial part: the validity of the WT^ is not verified by the Bitcoin mainchain rules, i.e., if Bob has requested a withdraw from the sidechain to his mainchain address, but someone publishes a wrong WT^ that instead takes Bob's funds and sends them to Alice's main address there is no way the mainchain will know that. What determines the "validity" of the WT^ is the miner vote score and only that. It is the job of miners to vote correctly -- and for that they may want to run the sidechain node in SPV mode so they can attest for the existence of a reference to the WT^ transaction in the sidechain blockchain (which then ensures it is ok) or do these checks by some other means.

What? 6 months to get my money back?

Yes. But no, in practice anyone who wants their money back will be able to use an atomic swap, submarine swap or other similar service to transfer funds from the sidechain to the mainchain and vice-versa. The long delayed withdraw costs would be incurred by few liquidity providers that would gain some small profit from it.

Why bother with this at all?

Drivechains solve many different problems:

It enables experimentation and new use cases for Bitcoin

Issued assets, fully private transactions, stateful blockchain contracts, turing-completeness, decentralized games, some "DeFi" aspects, prediction markets, futarchy, decentralized and yet meaningful human-readable names, big blocks with a ton of normal transactions on them, a chain optimized only for Lighting-style networks to be built on top of it.

These are some ideas that may have merit to them, but were never actually tried because they couldn't be tried with real Bitcoin or inferfacing with real bitcoins. They were either relegated to the shitcoin territory or to custodial solutions like Liquid or RSK that may have failed to gain network effect because of that.

It solves conflicts and infighting

Some people want fully private transactions in a UTXO model, others want "accounts" they can tie to their name and build reputation on top; some people want simple multisig solutions, others want complex code that reads a ton of variables; some people want to put all the transactions on a global chain in batches every 10 minutes, others want off-chain instant transactions backed by funds previously locked in channels; some want to spend, others want to just hold; some want to use blockchain technology to solve all the problems in the world, others just want to solve money.

With Drivechain-based sidechains all these groups can be happy simultaneously and don't fight. Meanwhile they will all be using the same money and contributing to each other's ecosystem even unwillingly, it's also easy and free for them to change their group affiliation later, which reduces cognitive dissonance.

It solves "scaling"

Multiple chains like the ones described above would certainly do a lot to accomodate many more transactions that the current Bitcoin chain can. One could have special Lightning Network chains, but even just big block chains or big-block-mimblewimble chains or whatnot could probably do a good job. Or even something less cool like 200 independent chains just like Bitcoin is today, no extra features (and you can call it "sharding"), just that would already multiply the current total capacity by 200.

Use your imagination.

It solves the blockchain security budget issue

The calculation is simple: you imagine what security budget is reasonable for each block in a world without block subsidy and divide that for the amount of bytes you can fit in a single block: that is the price to be paid in satoshis per byte. In reasonable estimative, the price necessary for every Bitcoin transaction goes to very large amounts, such that not only any day-to-day transaction has insanely prohibitive costs, but also Lightning channel opens and closes are impracticable.

So without a solution like Drivechain you'll be left with only one alternative: pushing Bitcoin usage to trusted services like Liquid and RSK or custodial Lightning wallets. With Drivechain, though, there could be thousands of transactions happening in sidechains and being all aggregated into a sidechain block that would then pay a very large fee to be published (via blind merged mining) to the mainchain. Bitcoin security guaranteed.

It keeps Bitcoin decentralized

Once we have sidechains to accomodate the normal transactions, the mainchain functionality can be reduced to be only a "hub" for the sidechains' comings and goings, and then the maximum block size for the mainchain can be reduced to, say, 100kb, which would make running a full node very very easy.

Can miners steal?

Yes. If a group of coordinated miners are able to secure the majority of the hashpower and keep their coordination for 6 months, they can publish a WT^ that takes the money from the sidechains and pays to themselves.

Will miners steal?

No, because the incentives are such that they won't.

Although it may look at first that stealing is an obvious strategy for miners as it is free money, there are many costs involved:

1. The cost of ceasing blind-merged mining returns -- as stealing will kill a sidechain, all the fees from it that miners would be expected to earn for the next years are gone;
2. The cost of Bitcoin price going down: If a steal is successful that will mean Drivechains are not safe, therefore Bitcoin is less useful, and miner credibility will also be hurt, which are likely to cause the Bitcoin price to go down, which in turn may kill the miners' businesses and savings;
3. The cost of coordination -- assuming miners are just normal businesses, they just want to do their work and get paid, but stealing from a Drivechain will require coordination with other miners to conduct an immoral act in a way that has many pitfalls and is likely to be broken over the months;
4. The cost of miners leaving your mining pool: when we talked about "miners" above we were actually talking about mining pools operators, so they must also consider the risk of miners migrating from their mining pool to others as they begin the process of stealing;
5. The cost of community goodwill -- when participating in a steal operation, a miner will suffer a ton of backlash from the community. Even if the attempt fails at the end, the fact that it was attempted will contribute to growing concerns over exaggerated miners power over the Bitcoin ecosystem, which may end up causing the community to agree on a hard-fork to change the mining algorithm in the future, or to do something to increase participation of more entities in the mining process (such as development or cheapment of new ASICs), which have a chance of decreasing the profits of current miners.

Another point to take in consideration is that one may be inclined to think a newly-created sidechain or a sidechain with relatively low usage may be more easily stolen from, since the blind merged mining returns from it (point 1 above) are going to be small -- but the fact is also that a sidechain with small usage will also have less money to be stolen from, and since the other costs besides 1 are less elastic at the end it will not be worth stealing from these too.

All of the above consideration are valid only if miners are stealing from good sidechains. If there is a sidechain that is doing things wrong, scamming people, not being used at all, or is full of bugs, for example, that will be perceived as a bad sidechain, and then miners can and will safely steal from it and kill it, which will be perceived as a good thing by everybody.

What do we do if miners steal?

Paul Sztorc has suggested in the past that a user-activated soft-fork could prevent miners from stealing, i.e., most Bitcoin users and nodes issue a rule similar to this one to invalidate the inclusion of a faulty WT^ and thus cause any miner that includes it in a block to be relegated to their own Bitcoin fork that other nodes won't accept.

This suggestion has made people think Drivechain is a sidechain solution backed by user-actived soft-forks for safety, which is very far from the truth. Drivechains must not and will not rely on this kind of soft-fork, although they are possible, as the coordination costs are too high and no one should ever expect these things to happen.

If even with all the incentives against them (see above) miners do still steal from a good sidechain that will mean the failure of the Drivechain experiment. It will very likely also mean the failure of the Bitcoin experiment too, as it will be proven that miners can coordinate to act maliciously over a prolonged period of time regardless of economic and social incentives, meaning they are probably in it just for attacking Bitcoin, backed by nation-states or something else, and therefore no Bitcoin transaction in the mainchain is to be expected to be safe ever again.

Why use this and not a full-blown trustless and open sidechain technology?

Because it is impossible.

If you ever heard someone saying "just use a sidechain", "do this in a sidechain" or anything like that, be aware that these people are either talking about "federated" sidechains (i.e., funds are kept in custody by a group of entities) or they are talking about Drivechain, or they are disillusioned and think it is possible to do sidechains in any other manner.

No, I mean a trustless 2-way peg with correctness of the withdrawals verified by the Bitcoin protocol!

That is not possible unless Bitcoin verifies all transactions that happen in all the sidechains, which would be akin to drastically increasing the blocksize and expanding the Bitcoin rules in tons of ways, i.e., a terrible idea that no one wants.

What about the Blockstream sidechains whitepaper?

Yes, that was a way to do it. The Drivechain hashrate escrow is a conceptually simpler way to achieve the same thing with improved incentives, less junk in the chain, more safety.

Isn't the hashrate escrow a very complex soft-fork?

Yes, but it is much simpler than SegWit. And, unlike SegWit, it doesn't force anything on users, i.e., it isn't a mandatory blocksize increase.

Why should we expect miners to care enough to participate in the voting mechanism?

Because it's in their own self-interest to do it, and it costs very little. Today over half of the miners mine RSK. It's not blind merged mining, it's a very convoluted process that requires them to run a RSK full node. For the Drivechain sidechains, an SPV node would be enough, or maybe just getting data from a block explorer API, so much much simpler.

What if I still don't like Drivechain even after reading this?

That is the entire point! You don't have to like it or use it as long as you're fine with other people using it. The hashrate escrow special addresses will not impact you at all, validation cost is minimal, and you get the benefit of people who want to use Drivechain migrating to their own sidechains and freeing up space for you in the mainchain. See also the point above about infighting.

See also

• Podcast episode with Ruben Somsen and Aaron van Wirdum explaining Drivechain
• Alternatives to Drivechain
• Drivechain comparison with Ethereum

@ 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

@ 57d1a264:69f1fee1

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading

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

@ 5d4b6c8d:8a1c1ee3

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

bitcoind decentralization

It is better to have multiple curator teams, with different vetting processes and release schedules for bitcoind than a single one.

"More eyes on code", "Contribute to Core", "Everybody should audit the code".

All these points repeated again and again fell to Earth on the day it was discovered that Bitcoin Core developers merged a variable name change from "blacklist" to "blocklist" without even discussing or acknowledging the fact that that innocent pull request opened by a sybil account was a social attack.

After a big lot of people manifested their dissatisfaction with that event on Twitter and on GitHub, most Core developers simply ignored everybody's concerns or even personally attacked people who were complaining.

The event has shown that:

1) Bitcoin Core ultimately rests on the hands of a couple maintainers and they decide what goes on the GitHub repository[^pr-merged-very-quickly] and the binary releases that will be downloaded by thousands; 2) Bitcoin Core is susceptible to social attacks; 2) "More eyes on code" don't matter, as these extra eyes can be ignored and dismissed.

Solution: bitcoind decentralization

If usage was spread across 10 different bitcoind flavors, the network would be much more resistant to social attacks to a single team.

This has nothing to do with the question on if it is better to have multiple different Bitcoin node implementations or not, because here we're basically talking about the same software.

Multiple teams, each with their own release process, their own logo, some subtle changes, or perhaps no changes at all, just a different name for their bitcoind flavor, and that's it.

Every day or week or month or year, each flavor merges all changes from Bitcoin Core on their own fork. If there's anything suspicious or too leftist (or perhaps too rightist, in case there's a leftist bitcoind flavor), maybe they will spot it and not merge.

This way we keep the best of both worlds: all software development, bugfixes, improvements goes on Bitcoin Core, other flavors just copy. If there's some non-consensus change whose efficacy is debatable, one of the flavors will merge on their fork and test, and later others -- including Core -- can copy that too. Plus, we get resistant to attacks: in case there is an attack on Bitcoin Core, only 10% of the network would be compromised. the other flavors would be safe.

Run Bitcoin Knots

The first example of a bitcoind software that follows Bitcoin Core closely, adds some small changes, but has an independent vetting and release process is Bitcoin Knots, maintained by the incorruptible Luke DashJr.

Next time you decide to run bitcoind, run Bitcoin Knots instead and contribute to bitcoind decentralization!

---

See also:

• How to attack Bitcoin, Anthony Towns' take

[^pr-merged-very-quickly]: See PR 20624, for example, a very complicated change that could be introducing bugs or be a deliberate attack, merged in 3 days without time for discussion.

@ 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/

@ 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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

início

"Vocês vêem? Vêem a história? Vêem alguma coisa? Me parece que estou tentando lhes contar um sonho -- fazendo uma tentativa inútil, porque nenhum relato de sonho pode transmitir a sensação de sonho, aquela mistura de absurdo, surpresa e espanto numa excitação de revolta tentando se impôr, aquela noção de ser tomado pelo incompreensível que é da própria essência dos sonhos..."

Ele ficou em silêncio por alguns instantes.

"... Não, é impossível; é impossível transmitir a sensação viva de qualquer época determinada de nossa existência -- aquela que constitui a sua verdade, o seu significado, a sua essência sutil e contundente. É impossível. Vivemos, como sonhamos -- sozinhos..."

• Livros mencionados por Olavo de Carvalho
• Antiga homepage Olavo de Carvalho
• Bitcoin explicado de um jeito correto e inteligível
• Reclamações

---

• Nostr
• Bitcoin
• How IPFS is broken
• Programming quibbles
• Economics
• Open-source software

---

Nostr GitHub Telegram Donate

@ 866e0139:6a9334e5

Autor: Nicolas Riedl. Dieser Beitrag wurde mit dem Pareto-Client geschrieben. Sie finden alle Texte der Friedenstaube und weitere Texte zum Thema Frieden hier. Die neuesten Pareto-Artikel finden Sie in unserem Telegram-Kanal.

Dieser Beitrag erschien zuerst bei Radio München.

---

Die neuesten Artikel der Friedenstaube gibt es jetzt auch im eigenen Friedenstaube-Telegram-Kanal.

---

Das Kriegsgrauen kriecht unter die Haut. Bilder von verstümmelten Beinen und Armen, von Kriegstraumatisierten schweigenden Männern, von Kriegsgräbern steigen auf. Als Mutter, Schwester, Tante, Großmutter wachsen die Ängste, dass sich ein Verwandter von der politischen und medialen Kriegslust anstecken lässt und tatsächlich die Beteiligung an den näher kommenden kriegerischen Auseinandersetzungen in Erwägung zieht. Einen wütenden Kommentar anlässlich der wachsenden Kriegstreiberei verfasste unser Autor Nicolas Riedl.

https://soundcloud.com/radiomuenchen/sofa-soldaten-an-die-front-von-nicolas-riedl?utm_source=clipboard&utm_campaign=wtshare&utm_medium=widget&utm_content=https%253A%252F%252Fsoundcloud.com%252Fradiomuenchen%252Fsofa-soldaten-an-die-front-von-nicolas-riedl

---

Nicolas Riedl, Jahrgang 1993, geboren in München, studierte Medien-, Theater- und Politikwissenschaften in Erlangen. Den immer abstruser werdenden Zeitgeist der westlichen Kultur dokumentiert und analysiert er in kritischen Texten. Darüber hinaus ist er Büchernarr, strikter Bargeldzahler und ein für seine Generation ungewöhnlicher Digitalisierungsmuffel. Entsprechend findet man ihn auf keiner Social-Media-Plattform. Von 2017 bis 2023 war er für die Rubikon-Jugendredaktion und Videoredaktion tätig.

---

LASSEN SIE DER FRIEDENSTAUBE FLÜGEL WACHSEN!

Hier können Sie die Friedenstaube abonnieren und bekommen die Artikel zugesandt.

Schon jetzt können Sie uns unterstützen:

• Für 50 CHF/EURO bekommen Sie ein Jahresabo der Friedenstaube.
• Für 120 CHF/EURO bekommen Sie ein Jahresabo und ein T-Shirt/Hoodie mit der Friedenstaube.
• Für 500 CHF/EURO werden Sie Förderer und bekommen ein lebenslanges Abo sowie ein T-Shirt/Hoodie mit der Friedenstaube.
• Ab 1000 CHF werden Sie Genossenschafter der Friedenstaube mit Stimmrecht (und bekommen lebenslanges Abo, T-Shirt/Hoodie).

Für Einzahlungen in CHF (Betreff: Friedenstaube):

Für Einzahlungen in Euro:

Milosz Matuschek

IBAN DE 53710520500000814137

BYLADEM1TST

Sparkasse Traunstein-Trostberg

Betreff: Friedenstaube

Wenn Sie auf anderem Wege beitragen wollen, schreiben Sie die Friedenstaube an: friedenstaube@pareto.space

---

Sie sind noch nicht auf Nostr and wollen die volle Erfahrung machen (liken, kommentieren etc.)? Zappen können Sie den Autor auch ohne Nostr-Profil! Erstellen Sie sich einen Account auf Start. Weitere Onboarding-Leitfäden gibt es im Pareto-Wiki.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

On "zk-rollups" applied to Bitcoin

ZK rollups make no sense in bitcoin because there is no "cheap calldata". all data is already ~~cheap~~ expensive calldata.

There could be an onchain zk verification that allows succinct signatures maybe, but never a rollup.

What happens is: you can have one UTXO that contains multiple balances on it and in each transaction you can recreate that UTXOs but alter its state using a zk to compress all internal transactions that took place.

The blockchain must be aware of all these new things, so it is in no way "L2".

And you must have an entity responsible for that UTXO and for conjuring the state changes and zk proofs.

But on bitcoin you also must keep the data necessary to rebuild the proofs somewhere else, I'm not sure how can the third party responsible for that UTXO ensure that happens.

I think such a construct is similar to a credit card corporation: one central party upon which everybody depends, zero interoperability with external entities, every vendor must have an account on each credit card company to be able to charge customers, therefore it is not clear that such a thing is more desirable than solutions that are truly open and interoperable like Lightning, which may have its defects but at least fosters a much better environment, bringing together different conflicting parties, custodians, anyone.

@ 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

@ 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.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

The problem with ION

ION is a DID method based on a thing called "Sidetree".

I can't say for sure what is the problem with ION, because I don't understand the design, even though I have read all I could and asked everybody I knew. All available information only touches on the high-level aspects of it (and of course its amazing wonders) and no one has ever bothered to explain the details. I've also asked the main designer of the protocol, Daniel Buchner, but he may have thought I was trolling him on Twitter and refused to answer, instead pointing me to an incomplete spec on the Decentralized Identity Foundation website that I had already read before. I even tried to join the DIF as a member so I could join their closed community calls and hear what they say, maybe eventually ask a question, so I could understand it, but my entrance was ignored, then after many months and a nudge from another member I was told I had to do a KYC process to be admitted, which I refused.

One thing I know is:

• ION is supposed to provide a way to rotate keys seamlessly and automatically without losing the main identity (and the ION proponents also claim there are no "master" keys because these can also be rotated).
• ION is also not a blockchain, i.e. it doesn't have a deterministic consensus mechanism and it is decentralized, i.e. anyone can publish data to it, doesn't have to be a single central server, there may be holes in the available data and the protocol doesn't treat that as a problem.
• From all we know about years of attempts to scale Bitcoins and develop offchain protocols it is clear that you can't solve the double-spend problem without a central authority or a kind of blockchain (i.e. a decentralized system with deterministic consensus).
• Rotating keys also suffer from the double-spend problem: whenever you rotate a key it is as if it was "spent", you aren't supposed to be able to use it again.

The logic conclusion of the 4 assumptions above is that ION is flawed: it can't provide the key rotation it says it can if it is not a blockchain.

See also

• Excerpt of discussion about DIDs and ION

@ 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.

@ 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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

rosetta.alhur.es

A service that grabs code samples from two chosen languages on RosettaCode and displays them side-by-side.

The code-fetching is done in real time and snippet-by-snippet (there is also a prefetch of which snippets are available in each language, so we only compare apples to apples).

This was my first Golang web application if I remember correctly.

• https://rosetta.alhur.es/
• https://github.com/fiatjaf/rosetta.alhur.es

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Thoughts on Nostr key management

On Why I don't like NIP-26 as a solution for key management I talked about multiple techniques that could be used to tackle the problem of key management on Nostr.

Here are some ideas that work in tandem:

• NIP-41 (stateless key invalidation)
• NIP-46 (Nostr Connect)
• NIP-07 (signer browser extension)
• Connected hardware signing devices
• other things like musig or frostr keys used in conjunction with a semi-trusted server; or other kinds of trusted software, like a dedicated signer on a mobile device that can sign on behalf of other apps; or even a separate protocol that some people decide to use as the source of truth for their keys, and some clients might decide to use that automatically
• there are probably many other ideas

Some premises I have in my mind (that may be flawed) that base my thoughts on these matters (and cause me to not worry too much) are that

• For the vast majority of people, Nostr keys aren't a target as valuable as Bitcoin keys, so they will probably be ok even without any solution;
• Even when you lose everything, identity can be recovered -- slowly and painfully, but still --, unlike money;
• Nostr is not trying to replace all other forms of online communication (even though when I think about this I can't imagine one thing that wouldn't be nice to replace with Nostr) or of offline communication, so there will always be ways.
• For the vast majority of people, losing keys and starting fresh isn't a big deal. It is a big deal when you have followers and an online persona and your life depends on that, but how many people are like that? In the real world I see people deleting social media accounts all the time and creating new ones, people losing their phone numbers or other accounts associated with their phone numbers, and not caring very much -- they just find a way to notify friends and family and move on.

We can probably come up with some specs to ease the "manual" recovery process, like social attestation and explicit signaling -- i.e., Alice, Bob and Carol are friends; Alice loses her key; Bob sends a new Nostr event kind to the network saying what is Alice's new key; depending on how much Carol trusts Bob, she can automatically start following that and remove the old key -- or something like that.

---

One nice thing about some of these proposals, like NIP-41, or the social-recovery method, or the external-source-of-truth-method, is that they don't have to be implemented in any client, they can live in standalone single-purpose microapps that users open or visit only every now and then, and these can then automatically update their follow lists with the latest news from keys that have changed according to multiple methods.

@ 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.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

lnurl-auth explained

You may have seen the lnurl-auth spec or heard about it, but might not know how it works or what is its relationship with other lnurl protocols. This document attempts to solve that.

Relationship between lnurl-auth and other lnurl protocols

First, what is the relationship of lnurl-auth with other lnurl protocols? The answer is none, except the fact that they all share the lnurl format for specifying https URLs.

In fact, lnurl-auth is very unique in the sense that it doesn't even need a Lightning wallet to work, it is a standalone authentication protocol that can work anywhere.

How does it work

Now, how does it work? The basic idea is that each wallet has a seed, which is a random value (you may think of the BIP39 seed words, for example). Usually from that seed different keys are derived, each of these yielding a Bitcoin address, and also from that same seed may come the keys used to generate and manage Lightning channels.

What lnurl-auth does is to generate a new key from that seed, and from that a new key for each service (identified by its domain) you try to authenticate with.

That way, you effectively have a new identity for each website. Two different services cannot associate your identities.

The flow goes like this: When you visit a website, the website presents you with a QR code containing a callback URL and a challenge. The challenge should be a random value.

When your wallet scans or opens that QR code it uses the domain in the callback URL plus the main lnurl-auth key to derive a key specific for that website, uses that key to sign the challenge and then sends both the public key specific for that for that website plus the signed challenge to the specified URL.

When the service receives the public key it checks it against the challenge signature and start a session for that user. The user is then identified only by its public key. If the service wants it can, of course, request more details from the user, associate it with an internal id or username, it is free to do anything. lnurl-auth's goals end here: no passwords, maximum possible privacy.

FAQ

• What is the advantage of tying this to Bitcoin and Lightning?

  One big advantage is that your wallet is already keeping track of one seed, it is already a precious thing. If you had to keep track of a separate auth seed it would be arguably worse, more difficult to bootstrap the protocol, and arguably one of the reasons similar protocols, past and present, weren't successful.

• Just signing in to websites? What else is this good for?

  No, it can be used for authenticating to installable apps and physical places, as long as there is a service running an HTTP server somewhere to read the signature sent from the wallet. But yes, signing in to websites is the main problem to solve here.

• Phishing attack! Can a malicious website proxy the QR from a third website and show it to the user to it will steal the signature and be able to login on the third website?

  No, because the wallet will only talk to the the callback URL, and it will either be controlled by the third website, so the malicious won't see anything; or it will have a different domain, so the wallet will derive a different key and frustrate the malicious website's plan.

• I heard SQRL had that same idea and it went nowhere.

  Indeed. SQRL in its first version was basically the same thing as lnurl-auth, with one big difference: it was vulnerable to phishing attacks (see above). That was basically the only criticism it got everywhere, so the protocol creators decided to solve that by introducing complexity to the protocol. While they were at it they decided to add more complexity for managing accounts and so many more crap that in the the spec which initially was a single page ended up becoming 136 pages of highly technical gibberish. Then all the initial network effect it had, libraries and apps were trashed and nowadays no one can do anything with it (but, see, there are still people who love the protocol writing in a 90's forum with no clue of anything besides their own Java).

• We don't need this, we need WebAuthn!

  WebAuthn is essentially the same thing as lnurl-auth, but instead of being simple it is complex, instead of being open and decentralized it is centralized in big corporations, and instead of relying on a key generated by your own device it requires an expensive hardware HSM you must buy and trust the manufacturer. If you like WebAuthn and you like Bitcoin you should like lnurl-auth much more.

• What about BitID?

  This is another one that is very similar to lnurl-auth, but without the anti-phishing prevention and extra privacy given by making one different key for each service.

• What about LSAT?

  It doesn't compete with lnurl-auth. LSAT, as far as I understand it, is for when you're buying individual resources from a server, not authenticating as a user. Of course, LSAT can be repurposed as a general authentication tool, but then it will lack features that lnurl-auth has, like the property of having keys generated independently by the user from a common seed and a standard way of passing authentication info from one medium to another (like signing in to a website at the desktop from the mobile phone, for example).

@ 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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

A Causa

o Princípios de Economia Política de Menger é o único livro que enfatiza a CAUSA o tempo todo. os cientistas todos parecem não saber, ou se esquecer sempre, que as coisas têm causa, e que o conhecimento verdadeiro é o conhecimento da causa das coisas.

a causa é uma categoria metafísica muito superior a qualquer correlação ou resultado de teste de hipótese, ela não pode ser descoberta por nenhum artifício econométrico ou reduzida à simples antecedência temporal estatística. a causa dos fenômenos não pode ser provada cientificamente, mas pode ser conhecida.

o livro de Menger conta para o leitor as causas de vários fenômenos econômicos e as interliga de forma que o mundo caótico da economia parece adquirir uma ordem no momento em que você lê. é uma sensação mágica e indescritível.

quando eu te o recomendei, queria é te imbuir com o espírito da busca pela causa das coisas. depois de ler aquilo, você está apto a perceber continuidade causal nos fenômenos mais complexos da economia atual, enxergar as causas entre toda a ação governamental e as suas várias consequências na vida humana. eu faço isso todos os dias e é a melhor sensação do mundo quando o caos das notícias do caderno de Economia do jornal -- que para o próprio jornalista que as escreveu não têm nenhum sentido (tanto é que ele escreve tudo errado) -- se incluem num sistema ordenado de causas e consequências.

provavelmente eu sempre erro em alguns ou vários pontos, mas ainda assim é maravilhoso. ou então é mais maravilhoso ainda quando eu descubro o erro e reinsiro o acerto naquela racionalização bela da ordem do mundo econômico que é a ordem de Deus.

em scrap para T.P.

@ 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.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

A biblioteca infinita

Agora esqueci o nome do conto de Jorge Luis Borges em que a tal biblioteca é descrita, ou seus detalhes específicos. Eu tinha lido o conto e nunca havia percebido que ele matava a questão da aleatoriedade ser capaz de produzir coisas valiosas. Precisei mesmo da Wikipédia me dizer isso.

Alguns anos atrás levantei essa questão para um grupo de amigos sem saber que era uma questão tão batida e baixa. No meu exemplo era um cachorro andando sobre letras desenhadas e não um macaco numa máquina de escrever. A minha conclusão da discussão foi que não importa o que o cachorro escrevesse, sem uma inteligência capaz de compreender aquilo nada passaria de letras aleatórias.

Borges resolve tudo imaginando uma biblioteca que contém tudo o que o cachorro havia escrito durante todo o infinito em que fez o experimento, e portanto contém todo o conhecimento sobre tudo e todas as obras literárias possíveis -- mas entre cada página ou frase muito boa ou pelo menos legívei há toneladas de livros completamente aleatórios e uma pessoa pode passar a vida dentro dessa biblioteca que contém tanto conhecimento importante e mesmo assim não aprender nada porque nunca vai achar os livros certos.

Everything would be in its blind volumes. Everything: the detailed history of the future, Aeschylus' The Egyptians, the exact number of times that the waters of the Ganges have reflected the flight of a falcon, the secret and true nature of Rome, the encyclopedia Novalis would have constructed, my dreams and half-dreams at dawn on August 14, 1934, the proof of Pierre Fermat's theorem, the unwritten chapters of Edwin Drood, those same chapters translated into the language spoken by the Garamantes, the paradoxes Berkeley invented concerning Time but didn't publish, Urizen's books of iron, the premature epiphanies of Stephen Dedalus, which would be meaningless before a cycle of a thousand years, the Gnostic Gospel of Basilides, the song the sirens sang, the complete catalog of the Library, the proof of the inaccuracy of that catalog. Everything: but for every sensible line or accurate fact there would be millions of meaningless cacophonies, verbal farragoes, and babblings. Everything: but all the generations of mankind could pass before the dizzying shelves – shelves that obliterate the day and on which chaos lies – ever reward them with a tolerable page.

Tenho a impressão de que a publicação gigantesca de artigos, posts, livros e tudo o mais está transformando o mundo nessa biblioteca. Há tanta coisa pra ler que é difícil achar o que presta. As pessoas precisam parar de escrever.

@ 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.

@ 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!

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

IPFS problems: Shitcoinery

IPFS was advertised to the Ethereum community since the beggining as a way to "store" data for their "dApps". I don't think this is harmful in any way, but for some reason it may have led IPFS developers to focus too much on Ethereum stuff. Once I watched a talk showing libp2p developers – despite being ignored by the Ethereum team (that ended up creating their own agnostic p2p library) – dedicating an enourmous amount of work on getting a libp2p app running in the browser talking to a normal Ethereum node.

The always somewhat-abandoned "Awesome IPFS" site is a big repository of "dApps", some of which don't even have their landing page up anymore, useless Ethereum smart contracts that for some reason use IPFS to store whatever the useless data their users produce.

Again, per se it isn't a problem that Ethereum people are using IPFS, but it is at least confusing, maybe misleading, that when you search for IPFS most of the use-cases are actually Ethereum useless-cases.

See also

• Bitcoin, the only non-shitcoin

@ 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.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Why IPFS cannot work, again

Imagine someone comes up with a solution for P2P content-addressed data-sharing that involves storing all the files' contents in all computers of the network. That wouldn't work, right? Too much data, if you think this can work then you're a BSV enthusiast.

Then someone comes up with the idea of not storing everything in all computers, but only some things on some computers, based on some algorithm to determine what data a node would store given its pubkey or something like that. Still wouldn't work, right? Still too much data no matter how much you spread it, but mostly incentives not aligned, would implode in the first day.

Now imagine someone says they will do the same thing, but instead of storing the full contents each node would only store a pointer to where each data is actually available. Does that make it better? Hardly so. Still, you're just moving the problem.

This is IPFS.

Now you have less data on each computer, but on a global scale that is still a lot of data.

No incentives.

And now you have the problem of finding the data. First if you have some data you want the world to access you have to broadcast information about that, flooding the network -- and everybody has to keep doing this continuously for every single file (or shard of file) that is available.

And then whenever someone wants some data they must find the people who know about that, which means they will flood the network with requests that get passed from peer to peer until they get to the correct peer.

The more you force each peer to store the worse it becomes to run a node and to store data on behalf of others -- but the less your force each peer to store the more flooding you'll have on the global network, and the slower will be for anyone to actually get any file.

---

But if everybody just saves everything to Infura or Cloudflare then it works, magic decentralized technology.

Related

• How IPFS is broken

@ 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

@ a9e24cc2:597d8933

𝐌𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐀𝐆𝐄  BlackHat_Nexus 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐀𝐍𝐘 𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐃 𝐎𝐅 𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐄 𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐀𝐂𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐓Fast, Available and Reliable for any of the following services 🤳 Recovery of lost funds🤳 Facebook Hack🤳 WhatsApp Hack 🤳 Instagram Hack🤳 Spying🤳 Windows Hacking🤳 Recover lost wallet 🤳 Credit score trick 🤳 Recover Password🤳 Gmail Hack🤳 SnapChat Hacking 🤳 Cellphone Monitoring 🤳 Tik Tok Hack🤳 Twitter Hack🤳 Lost Phone Tracking🤳 Lost IaptopTracking🤳 Lost Car Tracking🤳 Cloning WhatsApp🤳 Cryptocurrency Wallet🤳 Hacking🤳 Iphone unlock 🤳 Got banned 🤳 Private Number available🤳 Telegram hacking 🤳 Websites hacking 🤳 Hack University 🤳 IOS and Android hack 🤳 Wifi Hacking 🤳 CCTV hacking🤳 Hack Bot Game 🤳 Free fire hack 🤳 Changing of school grades 🤳 Cards 💳hackingNo 🆓 services 🚫WhatsApp +1 3606068592Send a DM https://t.me/BlackHat_Nexus@BlackHat_Nexus

@ 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.

@ 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!

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Who will build the roads?

Who will build the roads? Em Lagoa Santa, as mais novas e melhores ruas -- que na verdade acabam por formar enormes teias de bairros que se interligam -- são construídas pelos loteadores que querem as ruas para que seus lotes valham mais -- e querem que outras pessoas usem as ruas também. Também são esses mesmos loteadores que colocam os postes de luz e os encanamentos de água, não sem antes terem que se submeter a extorsões de praxe praticadas por COPASA e CEMIG.

Se ao abrir um loteamento, condomínio, prédio um indivíduo ou uma empresa consegue sem muito problema passar rua, eletricidade, água e esgoto, por que não seria possível existir livre-concorrência nesses mercados? Mesmo aquela velha estória de que é ineficiente passar cabos de luz duplicados para que companhias elétricas possam competir já me parece bobagem.

@ 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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

How IPFS is broken

I once fell for this talk about "content-addressing". It sounds very nice. You know a certain file exists, you know there are probably people who have it, but you don't know where or if it is hosted on a domain somewhere. With content-addressing you can just say "start" and the download will start. You don't have to care.

Other magic properties that address common frustrations: webpages don't go offline, links don't break, valuable content always finds its way, other people will distribute your website for you, any content can be transmitted easily to people near you without anyone having to rely on third-party centralized servers.

But you know what? Saying a thing is good doesn't automatically make it possible and working. For example: saying stuff is addressed by their content doesn't change the fact that the internet is "location-addressed" and you still have to know where peers that have the data you want are and connect to them.

And what is the solution for that? A DHT!

DHT?

Turns out DHTs have terrible incentive structure (as you would expect, no one wants to hold and serve data they don't care about to others for free) and the IPFS experience proves it doesn't work even in a small network like the IPFS of today.

If you have run an IPFS client you'll notice how much it clogs your computer. Or maybe you don't, if you are very rich and have a really powerful computer, but still, it's not something suitable to be run on the entire world, and on web pages, and servers, and mobile devices. I imagine there may be a lot of unoptimized code and technical debt responsible for these and other problems, but the DHT is certainly the biggest part of it. IPFS can open up to 1000 connections by default and suck up all your bandwidth -- and that's just for exchanging keys with other DHT peers.

Even if you're in the "client" mode and limit your connections you'll still get overwhelmed by connections that do stuff I don't understand -- and it makes no sense to run an IPFS node as a client, that defeats the entire purpose of making every person host files they have and content-addressability in general, centralizes the network and brings back the dichotomy client/server that IPFS was created to replace.

Connections?

So, DHTs are a fatal flaw for a network that plans to be big and interplanetary. But that's not the only problem.

Finding content on IPFS is the most slow experience ever and for some reason I don't understand downloading is even slower. Even if you are in the same LAN of another machine that has the content you need it will still take hours to download some small file you would do in seconds with scp -- that's considering that IPFS managed to find the other machine, otherwise your command will just be stuck for days.

Now even if you ignore that IPFS objects should be content-addressable and not location-addressable and, knowing which peer has the content you want, you go there and explicitly tell IPFS to connect to the peer directly, maybe you can get some seconds of (slow) download, but then IPFS will drop the connection and the download will stop. Sometimes -- but not always -- it helps to add the peer address to your bootstrap nodes list (but notice this isn't something you should be doing at all).

IPFS Apps?

Now consider the kind of marketing IPFS does: it tells people to build "apps" on IPFS. It sponsors "databases" on top of IPFS. It basically advertises itself as a place where developers can just connect their apps to and all users will automatically be connected to each other, data will be saved somewhere between them all and immediately available, everything will work in a peer-to-peer manner.

Except it doesn't work that way at all. "libp2p", the IPFS library for connecting people, is broken and is rewritten every 6 months, but they keep their beautiful landing pages that say everything works magically and you can just plug it in. I'm not saying they should have everything perfect, but at least they should be honest about what they truly have in place.

It's impossible to connect to other people, after years there's no js-ipfs and go-ipfs interoperability (and yet they advertise there will be python-ipfs, haskell-ipfs, whoknowswhat-ipfs), connections get dropped and many other problems.

So basically all IPFS "apps" out there are just apps that want to connect two peers but can't do it manually because browsers and the IPv4/NAT network don't provide easy ways to do it and WebRTC is hard and requires servers. They have nothing to do with "content-addressing" anything, they are not trying to build "a forest of merkle trees" nor to distribute or archive content so it can be accessed by all. I don't understand why IPFS has changed its core message to this "full-stack p2p network" thing instead of the basic content-addressable idea.

IPNS?

And what about the database stuff? How can you "content-address" a database with values that are supposed to change? Their approach is to just save all values, past and present, and then use new DHT entries to communicate what are the newest value. This is the IPNS thing.

Apparently just after coming up with the idea of content-addressability IPFS folks realized this would never be able to replace the normal internet as no one would even know what kinds of content existed or when some content was updated -- and they didn't want to coexist with the normal internet, they wanted to replace it all because this message is more bold and gets more funding, maybe?

So they invented IPNS, the name system that introduces location-addressability back into the system that was supposed to be only content-addressable.

And how do they manage to do it? Again, DHTs. And does it work? Not really. It's limited, slow, much slower than normal content-addressing fetches, most of the times it doesn't even work after hours. But still although developers will tell it is not working yet the IPFS marketing will talk about it as if it was a thing.

Archiving content?

The main use case I had for IPFS was to store content that I personally cared about and that other people might care too, like old articles from dead websites, and videos, sometimes entire websites before they're taken down.

So I did that. Over many months I've archived stuff on IPFS. The IPFS API and CLI don't make it easy to track where stuff are. The pin command doesn't help as it just throws your pinned hash in a sea of hashes and subhashes and you're never able to find again what you have pinned.

The IPFS daemon has a fake filesystem that is half-baked in functionality but allows you to locally address things by names in a tree structure. Very hard to update or add new things to it, but still doable. It allows you to give names to hashes, basically. I even began to write a wrapper for it, but suddenly after many weeks of careful content curation and distribution all my entries in the fake filesystem were gone.

Despite not having lost any of the files I did lose everything, as I couldn't find them in the sea of hashes I had in my own computer. After some digging and help from IPFS developers I managed to recover a part of it, but it involved hacks. My things vanished because of a bug at the fake filesystem. The bug was fixed, but soon after I experienced a similar (new) bug. After that I even tried to build a service for hash archival and discovery, but as all the problems listed above began to pile up I eventually gave up. There were also problems of content canonicalization, the code the IPFS daemon use to serve default HTML content over HTTP, problems with the IPFS browser extension and others.

Future-proof?

One of the core advertised features of IPFS was that it made content future-proof. I'm not sure they used this expression, but basically you have content, you hash that, you get an address that never expires for that content, now everybody can refer to the same thing by the same name. Actually, it's better: content is split and hashed in a merkle-tree, so there's fine-grained deduplication, people can store only chunks of files and when a file is to be downloaded lots of people can serve it at the same time, like torrents.

But then come the protocol upgrades. IPFS has used different kinds of hashing algorithms, different ways to format the hashes, and will change the default algorithm for building the merkle-trees, so basically the same content now has a gigantic number of possible names/addresses, which defeats the entire purpose, and yes, files hashed using different strategies aren't automagically compatible.

Actually, the merkle algorithm could have been changed by each person on a file-by-file basis since the beginning (you could for example split a book file by chapter or page instead of by chunks of bytes) -- although probably no one ever did that. I know it's not easy to come up with the perfect hashing strategy in the first go, but the way these matters are being approached make me wonder that IPFS promoters aren't really worried about future-proof, or maybe we're just in Beta phase forever.

Ethereum?

This is also a big problem. IPFS is built by Ethereum enthusiasts. I can't read the mind of people behind IPFS, but I would imagine they have a poor understanding of incentives like the Ethereum people, and they tend towards scammer-like behavior like getting a ton of funds for investors in exchange for promises they don't know they can fulfill (like Filecoin and IPFS itself) based on half-truths, changing stuff in the middle of the road because some top-managers decided they wanted to change (move fast and break things) and squatting fancy names like "distributed web".

The way they market IPFS (which is not the main thing IPFS was initially designed to do) as a "peer-to-peer cloud" is very seductive for Ethereum developers just like Ethereum itself is: as a place somewhere that will run your code for you so you don't have to host a server or have any responsibility, and then Infura will serve the content to everybody. In the same vein, Infura is also hosting and serving IPFS content for Ethereum developers these days for free. Ironically, just like the Ethereum hoax peer-to-peer money, IPFS peer-to-peer network may begin to work better for end users as things get more and more centralized.

More about IPFS problems:

• IPFS problems: Too much immutability
• IPFS problems: General confusion
• IPFS problems: Shitcoinery
• IPFS problems: Community
• IPFS problems: Pinning
• IPFS problems: Conceit
• IPFS problems: Inefficiency
• IPFS problems: Dynamic links

See also

• A crappy course on torrents, on the protocol that has done most things right
• The Tragedy of IPFS in a series of links, an ongoing Twitter thread.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Lagoa Santa: como chegar -- partindo da rodoviária de Belo Horizonte

Ao descer de seu ônibus na rodoviária de Belo Horizonte às 4 e pouco da manhã, darás de frente para um caubói que toma cerveja em seus trajes típicos em um bar no setor mesmo de desembarque. Suba a escada à direita que dá no estacionamento da rodoviária. Vire à esquerda e caminhe por mais ou menos 400 metros, atravessando uma área onde pessoas suspeitas -- mas provavelmente dormindo em pé -- lhe observam, e então uma pracinha ocupada por um clã de mendigos. Ao avistar um enorme obelisco no meio de um cruzamento de duas avenidas, vire à esquerda e caminhe por mais 400 metros. Você verá uma enorme, antiga e bela estação com uma praça em frente, com belas fontes aqüáticas. Corra dali e dirija-se a um pedaço de rua à direita dessa praça. Um velho palco de antigos carnavais estará colocado mais ou menos no meio da simpática ruazinha de parelepípedos: é onde você pegará seu próximo ônibus.

Para entrar na estação é necessário ter um cartão com créditos recarregáveis. Um viajante prudente deixa sempre um pouco de créditos em seu cartão a fim de evitar filas e outros problemas de indisponibilidade quando chega cansado de viagem, com pressa ou em horários incomuns. Esse tipo de pessoa perceberá que foi totalmente ludibriado ao perceber que que os créditos do seu cartão, abastecido quando de sua última vinda a Belo Horizonte, há três meses, pereceram de prazo de validade e foram absorvidos pelos cofre públicos. Terá, portanto, que comprar mais créditos. O guichê onde os cartões são abastecidos abre às 5h, mas não se espante caso ele não tenha sido aberto ainda quando o primeiro ônibus chegar, às 5h10.

Com alguma sorte, um jovem de moletom, autorizado por dois ou três fiscais do sistema de ônibus que conversam alegremente, será o operador da catraca. Ele deixa entrar sem pagar os bêbados, os malandros, os pivetes. Bastante empático e perceptivo do desespero dos outros, esse bom rapaz provavelmente também lhe deixará entrar sem pagar.

Uma vez dentro do ônibus, não se intimide com os gritalhões e valentões que, ofendidíssimos com o motorista por ele ter parado nas estações, depois dos ônibus anteriores terem ignorado esses excelsos passageiros que nelas aguardavam, vão aos berros tirar satisfação.

O ponto final do ônibus, 40 minutos depois, é o terminal Morro Alto. Lá você verá, se procurar bem entre vários ônibus e pessoas que despertam a sua mais honesta suspeita, um veículo escuro, apagado, numerado 5882 e que abrigará em seu interior um motorista e um cobrador que descansam o sono dos justos.

Aguarde na porta por mais uns vinte minutos até que, repentinamente desperto, o motorista ligue o ônibus, abra as portas e já comece, de leve, a arrancar. Entre correndo, mas espere mais um tempo, enquanto as pessoas que têm o cartão carregado passem e peguem os melhores lugares, até que o cobrador acorde e resolva te cobrar a passagem nesse velho meio de pagamento, outrora o mais líqüído, o dinheiro.

Este último ônibus deverá levar-lhe, enfim, a Lagoa Santa.

@ b099870e:f3ba8f5d

When you work for others, you are at their mercy. The own your work; they own you.Your creative spirit is squaded. What keeps you in such position is a fear of having to sink or swim on your own. Instead you should have a greater fear of what will happen to you if you remain dependant on others for power. Your goal in every maneuver in life must be ownership, working the corner for yourself. When it is yours to lose -you are more motivated,more creative,more alive. The ultimate power in life is to be completely self-reliant, completely yourself.

A quote from The 50th Law

@ 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.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Jofer

Jofer era um jogador diferente. À primeira vista não, parecia igual, um volante combativo, perseguia os atacantes adversários implacavelmente, um bom jogador. Mas não era essa a característica que diferenciava Jofer. Jofer era, digamos, um chutador.

Começou numa semifinal de um torneio de juniores. O time de Jofer precisava do empate e estava sofrendo uma baita pressão do adversário, mas o jogo estava 1 a 1 e parecia que ia ficar assim mesmo, daquele jeito futebolístico que parece, parece mesmo. Só que aos 46 do segundo tempo tomaram um gol espírita, Ruizinho do outro time saiu correndo pela esquerda e, mesmo sendo canhoto, foi cortando para o meio, os zagueiros meio que achando que já tinha acabado mesmo, devia ter só mais aquele lance, o árbitro tinha dado dois minutos, Ruizinho chutou, marcou e o goleiro, que só pulou depois que já tinha visto que não ia ter jeito, ficou xingando.

A bola saiu do meio e tocaram para Jofer, ninguém nem veio marcá-lo, o outro time já estava comemorando, e com razão, o juiz estava de sacanagem em fazer o jogo continuar, já estava tudo acabado mesmo. Mas não, estava certo, mais um minuto de acréscimo, justo. Em um minuto dá pra fazer um gol. Mas como? Jofer pensou nas partidas da NBA em que com alguns centésimos de segundo faltando o armador jogava de qualquer jeito para a cesta e às vezes acertava. De trás do meio de campo, será? Não vou ter nem força pra fazer chegar no gol. Vou virar piada, melhor tocar pro Fumaça ali do lado e a gente perde sem essa humilhação no final. Mas, poxa, e daí? Vou tentar mesmo assim, qualquer coisa eu falo que foi um lançamento e daqui a uns dias todo mundo esquece. Olhou para o próprio pé, virou ele de ladinho, pra fora e depois pra dentro (bom, se eu pegar daqui, direitinho, quem sabe?), jogou a bola pro lado e bateu. A bola subiu escandalosamente, muito alta mesmo, deve ter subido uns 200 metros. Jofer não tinha como ter a menor noção. Depois foi descendo, o goleirão voltando correndo para debaixo da trave e olhando pra bola, foi chegando e pulando já só pra acompanhar, para ver, dependurado no travessão, a bola sair ainda bem alta, ela bateu na rede lateral interna antes de bater no chão, quicar violentamente e estufar a rede no alto do lado direito de quem olhava.

Mas isso tudo foi sonho do Jofer. Sonhou acordado, numa noite em que demorou pra dormir, deitado na sua cama. Ficou pensando se não seria fácil, se ele treinasse bastante, acertar o gol bem de longe, tipo no sonho, e se não dava pra fazer gol assim. No dia seguinte perguntou a Brunildinho, o treinador de goleiros. Era difícil defender essas bolas, ainda mais se elas subissem muito, o goleiro ficava sem perspectiva, o vento alterava a trajetória a cada instante, tinha efeito, ela cairia rápido, mas claro que não valia à pena treinar isso, a chance de acertar o gol era minúscula. Mas Jofer só ia tentar depois que treinasse bastante e comprovasse o que na sua imaginação parecia uma excelente idéia.

Começou a treinar todos os dias. Primeiro escondido, por vergonha dos colegas, chegava um pouco antes e ficava lá, chutando do círculo central. Ao menor sinal de gente se aproximando, parava e ia catar as bolas. Depois, quando começou a acertar, perdeu a vergonha. O pessoal do clube todo achava engraçado quando via Jofer treinando e depois ouvia a explicação da boca de alguém, ninguém levava muito a sério, mas também não achava de todo ridículo. O pessoal ria, mas no fundo torcia praquilo dar certo, mesmo.

Aconteceu que num jogo que não valia muita coisa, empatezinho feio, aos 40 do segundo tempo, a marcação dos adversários já não estava mais pressionando, todo mundo contente com o empate e com vontade de parar de jogar já, o Henrique, meia-esquerdo, humilde, mas ainda assim um pouco intimidante para Jofer (jogava demais), tocou pra ele. Vai lá, tenta sua loucura aí. Assumiu a responsabilidade do nosso volante introspectivo. Seria mais verossímil se Jofer tivesse errado, primeira vez que tentou, restava muito tempo ainda pra ele ter a chance de ser herói, ninguém acerta de primeira, mas ele acertou. Quase como no sonho, Lucas, o goleiro, não esperava, depois que viu o lance, riu-se, adiantou-se para pegar a bola que ele julgava que quicaria na área, mas ela foi mais pra frente, mais e mais, daí Lucas já estava correndo, só que começou a pensar que ela ia pra fora, e ele ia só se dependurar no travessão e fazer seu papel de estar na bola. Acabou que por conta daquele gol eles terminaram em segundo no grupo daquele torneiozinho, ao invés de terceiro, e não fez diferença nenhuma.

@ 90c656ff:9383fd4e

Bitcoin has revolutionized the way people conduct financial transactions worldwide. As a decentralized digital currency, it offers new opportunities for e-commerce payments and international money transfers. Its speed, security, and low costs make it an efficient alternative to traditional methods by eliminating intermediaries and facilitating global transactions.

Bitcoin in e-commerce

E-commerce has grown exponentially, and Bitcoin has emerged as an innovative solution for online payments. Large retailers and small businesses are starting to accept Bitcoin as a form of payment, offering benefits to both merchants and consumers.

• Advantages of Bitcoin for e-commerce:

01 - Low transaction fees: Unlike credit cards and payment platforms that charge high fees, Bitcoin transactions generally have lower costs. This benefits merchants, who can reduce expenses and offer more competitive prices to customers. 02 - Elimination of chargebacks: In traditional systems, chargebacks (forced refunds by banks or card operators) are a concern for merchants. Since Bitcoin transactions are irreversible, merchants avoid fraud and disputes. 03 - Global access: Anyone with internet access can pay with Bitcoin, regardless of their location. This allows businesses to expand their market internationally without relying on banks or local payment systems. 04 - Privacy and security: Bitcoin transactions protect user identity, offering greater privacy compared to credit card payments or bank transfers. Additionally, since there’s no need to share personal data, the risk of information theft is reduced.

• Challenges of using Bitcoin in e-commerce:

01 - Volatility: Bitcoin’s price can fluctuate rapidly, making it difficult to set fixed prices for products and services. However, some merchants use payment processors that instantly convert Bitcoin into fiat currency, minimizing this risk. 02 - Limited adoption: Despite its growth, Bitcoin acceptance is not yet universal. Many stores and popular platforms have not adopted it, which can make daily purchases difficult. 03 - Confirmation time: Although Bitcoin is faster than traditional bank transfers, confirmation times may vary depending on the network fee paid. Some solutions, such as the Lightning Network, are being developed to enable instant payments.

Bitcoin in money remittances

Sending money abroad has long been a bureaucratic, costly, and time-consuming process. Traditional services like banks and money transfer companies charge high fees and can take days to complete a transaction. Bitcoin, on the other hand, offers an efficient alternative for global remittances, allowing anyone to send and receive money quickly and affordably.

• Benefits of Bitcoin for remittances:

01 - Reduced costs: While banks and companies like Western Union charge high fees for international transfers, Bitcoin allows money to be sent with minimal costs, regardless of the amount or destination. 02 - Transaction speed: International bank transfers can take several days to complete, especially in countries with limited financial infrastructure. With Bitcoin, money can be sent anywhere in the world within minutes or hours. 03 - Global accessibility: In regions where the banking system is restricted or inefficient, Bitcoin enables people to receive money without depending on banks. This is particularly useful in developing countries where international remittances are an essential source of income. 04 - Independence from intermediaries: Bitcoin operates in a decentralized manner, with no need for banks or transfer companies. This means people can send money directly to friends and family without intermediaries.

• Challenges of Bitcoin remittances:

01 - Conversion to local currency: Although Bitcoin can be received instantly, many people still need to convert it into local currency for everyday use. This may involve additional costs and depend on the availability of exchange services. 02 - Adoption and knowledge: Not everyone understands how Bitcoin works, which can hinder its widespread adoption for remittances. However, growing financial education on the subject can help overcome this barrier. 03 - Regulations and restrictions: Some governments impose restrictions on Bitcoin usage, making remittances more complicated. The evolution of regulations may affect ease of use in certain countries.

In summary, Bitcoin is transforming e-commerce and money remittances around the world. Its ability to eliminate intermediaries, reduce costs, and provide fast and secure payments makes it a viable alternative to traditional financial systems.

In e-commerce, it benefits both merchants and consumers by lowering fees and enhancing privacy. In the remittance sector, it facilitates money transfers to any part of the world, especially for those living in countries with inefficient banking systems.

Despite the challenges, Bitcoin adoption continues to grow, driven by innovative solutions and recognition of its potential as a global payment method. As more businesses and individuals embrace this technology, its presence in e-commerce and international remittances will become increasingly relevant.

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!

@ 752f5d10:88491db3

Opinion about Trendo: Forex Trading & Broker (android)

L o s i n g $111,555 overnight was a crushing blow. The account lockout and subpar customer service that followed left me stunned. However, I gained invaluable insights from this ordeal : Conduct thorough research before committing Verify credentials and read reviews from multiple sources Be c a u t i o u s of un realistic promises Demand responsive and reliable support. Fortunately, I found chelsy__desmarais__54__A T__g=m=a=i=l__D=o=t__c_o_m, which helped me re-cover from this financial setback. W_h_a_t_s_A_p_p ; +1=8=5=9=4=3=6=4=2=1=1

WalletScrutiny #nostrOpinion

Join the conversation!

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

The flaw of "just use paypal/coinbase" arguments

For the millionth time I read somewhere that "custodial bitcoin is not bitcoin" and that "if you're going to use custodial, better use Paypal". No, actually it was "better use Coinbase", but I had heard the "PayPal" version in the past.

There are many reasons why using PayPal is not the same as using a custodial Bitcoin service or wallet that are obvious and not relevant here, such as the fact that you can't have Bitcoin balances on Bitcoin (or maybe now you can? but you can't send it around); plus all the reasons that are also valid for Coinbase such as you having to give all your data and selfies of yourself and your government documents and so on -- but let's ignore these reasons for now.

The most important reason why it isn't the same thing is that when you're using Coinbase you are stuck in Coinbase. Your Coinbase coins cannot be used to pay anyone that isn't in Coinbase. So Coinbase-style custodianship doesn't help Bitcoin. If you want to move out of Coinbase you have to withdraw from Coinbase.

Custodianship on Lightning is of a very different nature. You can pay people from other custodial platforms and people that are hosting their own Lightning nodes and so on.

That kind of custodianship doesn't do any harm to anyone, doesn't fracture the network, doesn't reduce the network effect of Lightning, in fact it increases it.

@ 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.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

My personal experience (as a complete ignorant) of the blocksize debate in 2017

In the beginning of 2017 I didn't know Bitcoin was having a "blocksize debate". I had stopped paying attention to Bitcoin in 2014 after reading Tim Swanson's book on shitcoineiry and was surprise people even care about Bitcoin still while Ethereum and other fancy things were around.

My introduction to the subject was this interview with Andrew Stone and Andrew Clifford from Bitcoin Unlimited (still don't know who these guys are). I've listened to it and kinda liked the conspiracy theory about "a group of developers trying, against miners and users, to control the whole ecosystem by not allowing blocks to grow" (actually, if you listen to this interview that announced the creation of Blockstream and the sidechains whitepaper it does sound like a government agent bribing all the Core developers into forming a consortium that will turn Bitcoin into an Ethereum-like shitcoin under their control -- but this is just a useless digression).

Some time later I listened to this interview with Jimmy Song and was introduced to two hard forks and conspiracies and New York Agreement and got excited because I didn't care about Bitcoin (I'm ashamed to remember this feeling) and wanted to see things changing, people fighting, Bitcoin burning, for no reason. Oddly, what I grasped from the interview was that Jimmy Song was defending the agreement and expecting everybody to fulfill it.

When the day actually come and "Bitcoin Cash" forked I looked at it with pity because it looked clearly a failure from the beginning, but I still cheered for it a bit, still not knowing anything about the debate, besides the fact that blocks were bigger on BCH, which looked like a very reductionist explanation to me.

"Of course it's not just making blocks bigger, that would be too simple, they probably have a very complex plan I'm not apt to understand", I thought.

To my surprise the entire argument was actually just that: bigger blocks bigger blocks. I came to that conclusion by listening to tomwoods.com/1064, a debate in which reasonable arguments faced childish claims. That debate gave me perspective and was a clear, undisputed win from Jameson Lopp against Roger Ver.

Actually some time before that I had listened to another Tom Woods Show episode thinking it was going to be an episode about Bitcoin, but in fact it was just propaganda about a debate I had almost forgotten. And nothing about Bitcoin, everything about "Bitcoin Cash" and how there were two Bitcoins, one legitimate and the other unlegitimate.

So, from the perspective of someone that came to the debate totally fresh and only listens to the big-blocker arguments for a long time, they still don't convince anyone with some common sense (as I would like to think of myself), they just sound like mad dogs and everything goes against themselves.

---

Fast forward to the present and with much more understanding of the issues in place I started digging some material from 2016-2017 about the debate to try to get more context, and found this ridiculous interview with Mike Hearn. It isn't a waste of time to listen to it if you're not familiar with the debate from that time.

As I should have probably expected from my experience with Epicenter.tv, both the interviewers agree with Mike Hearn about his ridiculous claims about how (not his words) we have to subsidize the few thousand current Bitcoin users by preventing fees from increase and there are no trade-offs to doing that -- and even with everybody agreeing they all manage to sound stupid. There's not a single phrase that is defendable in the entire interview, no criticisms make any sense, it makes me feel bad for the the guy as he feels so self-assured and obviouslyright.

After knowing about these and other adventures of stupid people with high influences in the Bitcoin world trying to impose their idiocy on others it feels even more odd and unexpected to find Bitcoin in the right track. Generally in politics the most dumb wins, but apparently not in Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is a miracle.

@ b099870e:f3ba8f5d

IN NOOKS ALL OVER THE EARTH SIT MEN WHO ARE WAITING, SCARCELY KNOWING IN WHAT WAY THEY ARE WAITING, MUCH LESS THAT THEY ARE WAITING IN VAIN. OCCASIONALLY THE CALL THAT AWAKENS-THAT ACCIDENT WHICH GIVES THE "PERMISSION" TO ACT—COMES TOO LATE, WHEN THE BEST YOUTH AND STRENGTH FOR ACTION HAS ALREADY BEEN USED UP BY SITTING STILL; AND MANY HAVE FOUND TO THEIR HORROR WHEN THEY "LEAPED UP" THAT THEIR LIMBS HAD GONE TO SLEEP AND THEIR SPIRIT HAD BECOME TOO HEAVY. "IT IS TOO LATE," THEY SAID TO THEMSELVES, HAVING LOST THEIR FAITH IN THEMSELVES AND HENCEFORTH FOREVER USELESS

Quote by Friedrich Nietzsche, currently reading The 50th Law and came across it

@ 66675158:1b644430

I don't believe in "vibe coding" – it's just the newest Silicon Valley fad trying to give meaning to their latest favorite technology, LLMs. We've seen this pattern before with blockchain, when suddenly Non Fungible Tokens appeared, followed by Web3 startups promising to revolutionize everything from social media to supply chains. VCs couldn't throw money fast enough at anything with "decentralized" (in name only) in the pitch deck. Andreessen Horowitz launched billion-dollar crypto funds, while Y Combinator batches filled with blockchain startups promising to be "Uber for X, but on the blockchain."

The metaverse mania followed, with Meta betting its future on digital worlds where we'd supposedly hang out as legless avatars. Decentralized (in name only) autonomous organizations emerged as the next big thing – supposedly democratic internet communities that ended up being the next scam for quick money.

Then came the inevitable collapse. The FTX implosion in late 2022 revealed fraud, Luna/Terra's death spiral wiped out billions (including my ten thousand dollars), while Celsius and BlockFi froze customer assets before bankruptcy.

By 2023, crypto winter had fully set in. The SEC started aggressive enforcement actions, while users realized that blockchain technology had delivered almost no practical value despite a decade of promises.

Blockchain's promises tapped into fundamental human desires – decentralization resonated with a generation disillusioned by traditional institutions. Evangelists presented a utopian vision of freedom from centralized control. Perhaps most significantly, crypto offered a sense of meaning in an increasingly abstract world, making the clear signs of scams harder to notice.

The technology itself had failed to solve any real-world problems at scale. By 2024, the once-mighty crypto ecosystem had become a cautionary tale. Venture firms quietly scrubbed blockchain references from their websites while founders pivoted to AI and large language models.

---

Most reading this are likely fellow bitcoiners and nostr users who understand that Bitcoin is blockchain's only valid use case. But I shared that painful history because I believe the AI-hype cycle will follow the same trajectory.

Just like with blockchain, we're now seeing VCs who once couldn't stop talking about "Web3" falling over themselves to fund anything with "AI" in the pitch deck. The buzzwords have simply changed from "decentralized" to "intelligent."

"Vibe coding" is the perfect example – a trendy name for what is essentially just fuzzy instructions to LLMs. Developers who've spent years honing programming skills are now supposed to believe that "vibing" with an AI is somehow a legitimate methodology.

This might be controversial to some, but obvious to others:

Formal, context-free grammar will always remain essential for building precise systems, regardless of how advanced natural language technology becomes

The mathematical precision of programming languages provides a foundation that human language's ambiguity can never replace. Programming requires precision – languages, compilers, and processors operate on explicit instructions, not vibes. What "vibe coding" advocates miss is that beneath every AI-generated snippet lies the same deterministic rules that have always governed computation.

LLMs don't understand code in any meaningful sense—they've just ingested enormous datasets of human-written code and can predict patterns. When they "work," it's because they've seen similar patterns before, not because they comprehend the underlying logic.

This creates a dangerous dependency. Junior developers "vibing" with LLMs might get working code without understanding the fundamental principles. When something breaks in production, they'll lack the knowledge to fix it.

Even experienced developers can find themselves in treacherous territory when relying too heavily on LLM-generated code. What starts as a productivity boost can transform into a dependency crutch.

The real danger isn't just technical limitations, but the false confidence it instills. Developers begin to believe they understand systems they've merely instructed an AI to generate – fundamentally different from understanding code you've written yourself.

We're already seeing the warning signs: projects cobbled together with LLM-generated code that work initially but become maintenance nightmares when requirements change or edge cases emerge.

The venture capital money is flowing exactly as it did with blockchain. Anthropic raised billions, OpenAI is valued astronomically despite minimal revenue, and countless others are competing to build ever-larger models with vague promises. Every startup now claims to be "AI-powered" regardless of whether it makes sense.

Don't get me wrong—there's genuine innovation happening in AI research. But "vibe coding" isn't it. It's a marketing term designed to make fuzzy prompting sound revolutionary.

Cursor perfectly embodies this AI hype cycle. It's an AI-enhanced code editor built on VS Code that promises to revolutionize programming by letting you "chat with your codebase." Just like blockchain startups promised to "revolutionize" industries, Cursor promises to transform development by adding LLM capabilities.

Yes, Cursor can be genuinely helpful. It can explain unfamiliar code, suggest completions, and help debug simple issues. After trying it for just an hour, I found the autocomplete to be MAGICAL for simple refactoring and basic functionality.

But the marketing goes far beyond reality. The suggestion that you can simply describe what you want and get production-ready code is dangerously misleading. What you get are approximations with:

• Security vulnerabilities the model doesn't understand
• Edge cases it hasn't considered
• Performance implications it can't reason about
• Dependency conflicts it has no way to foresee

The most concerning aspect is how such tools are marketed to beginners as shortcuts around learning fundamentals. "Why spend years learning to code when you can just tell AI what you want?" This is reminiscent of how crypto was sold as a get-rich-quick scheme requiring no actual understanding.

When you "vibe code" with an AI, you're not eliminating complexity—you're outsourcing understanding to a black box. This creates developers who can prompt but not program, who can generate but not comprehend.

The real utility of LLMs in development is in augmenting existing workflows:

• Explaining unfamiliar codebases
• Generating boilerplate for well-understood patterns
• Suggesting implementations that a developer evaluates critically
• Assisting with documentation and testing

These uses involve the model as a subordinate assistant to a knowledgeable developer, not as a replacement for expertise. This is where the technology adds value—as a sophisticated tool in skilled hands.

Cursor is just a better hammer, not a replacement for understanding what you're building. The actual value emerges when used by developers who understand what happens beneath the abstractions. They can recognize when AI suggestions make sense and when they don't because they have the fundamental knowledge to evaluate output critically.

This is precisely where the "vibe coding" narrative falls apart.

@ 90c656ff:9383fd4e

Digital wallets are important tools for storing and managing Bitcoin. They allow people to keep their private keys, access their funds, and make transactions in a practical and secure way. However, with several types of wallets available and the risks of incorrect use, it is essential to understand their features and follow good security practices.

What is a digital wallet?

A digital wallet is a software or device that stores the private and public keys linked to Bitcoin. Simply put, it doesn’t “store” Bitcoin itself but provides secure access to the network to verify and sign transactions.

Private keys work like a secret password that allows spending Bitcoins, while public keys are like account numbers that can be shared to receive payments. Keeping the private key secure is very important, as whoever has access to it controls the funds.

• Types of Digital Wallets

There are different types of digital wallets, each with specific features that meet various needs, whether for daily use or long-term storage.

• Hot Wallets

Wallets connected to the internet, designed for frequent use. Examples: Mobile apps, desktop wallets, online wallets.

Advantages:

01 - Accessible and easy to use 02 - Ideal for daily and quick transactions

Disadvantages:

01 - More exposed to cyberattacks such as phishing or hacking

• Cold Wallets

Wallets that keep private keys offline, increasing security. Examples: Hardware wallets, paper wallets, dedicated USB devices.

Advantages:

01 - High protection against hackers since they are not online 02 - Ideal for large amounts of Bitcoin or long-term storage

Disadvantages:

01 - Less practical for daily use 02 - Can be physically damaged or lost if not handled carefully

• Hardware Wallets

Physical devices, like Ledger or Trezor, that store private keys offline.

Advantages:

01 - Easy-to-use and secure interface 02 - Resistant to viruses and online attacks

Disadvantages:

01 - Higher initial cost 02 - Require care to avoid physical damage

• Paper Wallets

Involve printing or writing down private and public keys on a piece of paper.

Advantages:

01 - Completely offline and immune to digital attacks 02 - Simple and low-cost

Disadvantages:

01 - Vulnerable to physical damage such as water, fire, or loss 02 - Difficult to recover if lost

• Security in Digital Wallets

Protecting a digital wallet is essential to safeguard your Bitcoins from loss or theft.

Below are important practices to improve security:

• Private Key Protection

01 - Never share your private key with anyone 02 - Keep backup copies of the private key or recovery phrase in safe places

• Use of Recovery Phrases

The seed phrase is a sequence of 12 to 24 words that helps recover funds if the wallet is lost.

01 - Store the seed phrase offline and avoid taking pictures or saving it on internet-connected devices

• Two-Factor Authentication (2FA)

01 - Whenever possible, enable 2FA to protect accounts linked to online wallets or exchanges 02 - This adds an extra layer of security by requiring a second code to log in

• Updates and Maintenance

Keep the wallet software up to date to ensure protection against vulnerabilities

01 - Use only wallets from trustworthy and reputable developers

• Choosing the Right Wallet According to Need

01 - For frequent transactions, choose hot wallets but keep only small amounts 02 - For large amounts, use cold wallets like hardware or paper wallets, which are more secure

Risks and How to Avoid Them

• Hacker Attacks

Risk: Unauthorized access to hot wallets connected to the internet Prevention: Use cold wallets for storing large amounts and avoid clicking on suspicious links

• Loss of Access

Risk: Loss of private keys or the recovery phrase, making funds unrecoverable Prevention: Regularly make backups and store information in secure places

• Social Engineering and Phishing

Risk: Hackers trick people into giving up their private keys or personal information Prevention: Be suspicious of messages or websites that request your private keys. Never share sensitive data

• Physical Failures

Risk: Damage to devices or loss of paper wallets Prevention: Store backups in locations resistant to water, fire, and other threats

In summary, digital wallets are essential for the security and use of Bitcoin. Choosing the right wallet and following good security practices are key steps to protecting your assets.

Hot wallets offer convenience for daily use, while cold wallets provide strong security for long-term storage. Regardless of the type you choose, taking care of your private keys and recovery phrase is fundamental to ensure your Bitcoin remains under your control.

By understanding the types of wallets and implementing appropriate security measures, users can safely and efficiently take advantage of Bitcoin, maximizing the benefits of this digital revolution.

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!

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

idea: Per-paragraph paywalls

Using the lnurl-allowance protocol, a website could instead of putting a paywall over the entire site, charge a reader for only the paragraphs they read. Of course this requires trust from the reader on the website, but this is normal. The website could just hide the rest of the article before an invoice from the paragraph just read was paid.

This idea came from Colin from the Unhashed Podcast.

Could also work with podcasts and videos.

@ 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.

@ 005bc4de:ef11e1a2

May 6 marks my "Nostr birthday." This means I've been on Nostr for two years now. See my initial "Running nostr" note timestamped and archived on the Hive blockchain at https://peakd.com/bitcoin/@crrdlx/running-nostr

Two years ago, I really had no idea what Nostr was. I was asking, "What is this Nostr thing?"

And, I had no idea what I was doing then while using the front end clients. The clients were clunky and since the protocol was rather plastic (still kinda is). As evidence to my ignorance, the spinning wheels on Coracle.social just kept spinning. I didn't realize that since I was only following two people, one being myself, there was nothing to load from relays except my one "Running nostr" note. Hence, the Coracle wheels just spun in their mesmerizing manner. At least they're soothing to watch.

Yet, despite my ignorance, I had an inkling of a notion that Nostr was indeed something different, maybe special. Otherwise, I wouldn't have taken the time to capture an animated gif and make that Hive post to chronicle my first Nostr note.

For fun, I made another "Running nostr" note yesterday using Coracle.social. It still has those muted, earthy tones, but the wheels are not there anymore for long. Coracle, like Nostr, has come a long way in two years. It loads much faster now, which means less wheel spinning. I kind of miss the wheels for some reason, they build the drama and expectation of what might appear.

---

!HBIT

@ 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

@ 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. 🚀

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

SummaDB

This was a hierarchical database server similar to the original Firebase. Records were stored on a LevelDB on different paths, like:

• /fruits/banana/color: yellow
• /fruits/banana/flavor: sweet

And could be queried by path too, using HTTP, for example, a call to http://hostname:port/fruits/banana, for example, would return a JSON document like

json { "color": "yellow", "flavor": "sweet" }

While a call to /fruits would return

json { "banana": { "color": "yellow", "flavor": "sweet" } }

POST, PUT and PATCH requests also worked.

In some cases the values would be under a special "_val" property to disambiguate them from paths. (I may be missing some other details that I forgot.)

GraphQL was also supported as a query language, so a query like

graphql query { fruits { banana { color } } }

would return {"fruits": {"banana": {"color": "yellow"}}}.

SummulaDB

SummulaDB was a browser/JavaScript build of SummaDB. It ran on the same Go code compiled with GopherJS, and using PouchDB as the storage backend, if I remember correctly.

It had replication between browser and server built-in, and one could replicate just subtrees of the main tree, so you could have stuff like this in the server:

json { "users": { "bob": {}, "alice": {} } }

And then only allow Bob to replicate /users/bob and Alice to replicate /users/alice. I am sure the require auth stuff was also built in.

There was also a PouchDB plugin to make this process smoother and data access more intuitive (it would hide the _val stuff and allow properties to be accessed directly, today I wouldn't waste time working on these hidden magic things).

The computed properties complexity

The next step, which I never managed to get fully working and caused me to give it up because of the complexity, was the ability to automatically and dynamically compute materialized properties based on data in the tree.

The idea was partly inspired on CouchDB computed views and how limited they were, I wanted a thing that would be super powerful, like, given

json { "matches": { "1": { "team1": "A", "team2": "B", "score": "2x1", "date": "2020-01-02" }, "1": { "team1": "D", "team2": "C", "score": "3x2", "date": "2020-01-07" } } }

One should be able to add a computed property at /matches/standings that computed the scores of all teams after all matches, for example.

I tried to complete this in multiple ways but they were all adding much more complexity I could handle. Maybe it would have worked better on a more flexible and powerful and functional language, or if I had more time and patience, or more people.

Screenshots

This is just one very simple unfinished admin frontend client view of the hierarchical dataset.

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/summadb
• https://github.com/fiatjaf/summuladb
• https://github.com/fiatjaf/pouch-summa

@ 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.

@ 90c656ff:9383fd4e

Bitcoin is a new form of digital money that offers financial freedom and access to a global economy without traditional intermediaries. To take full advantage of this technology, it's important to understand how to buy, store, and use it safely and efficiently. This guide covers the main steps and best practices to incorporate Bitcoin into your daily life, emphasizing how to protect your assets and get the most out of them.

Buying Bitcoin is the first step to participating in its decentralized network. There are several ways to acquire Bitcoin, depending on individual preferences and needs.

• Exchange Platforms:

01 - How it works: Exchanges are online platforms that allow users to buy Bitcoin using traditional currencies like dollars, euros, or reais. 02 - Process: Create an account, complete identity verification (KYC process), and deposit funds to start trading.

Tips: Choose reliable exchanges with strong security and good reputations.

• Bitcoin ATMs:

01 - How it works: Some ATMs allow users to buy Bitcoin with cash or credit cards. 02 - Use: Insert the desired amount, scan your digital wallet, and receive the Bitcoin immediately.

• Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Buying:

01 - How it works: P2P platforms connect buyers and sellers directly, allowing them to negotiate specific terms. 02 - Tips: Check the seller's reputation and use platforms that offer escrow services or transaction guarantees.

Security is crucial when handling Bitcoin. Proper storage protects your funds against loss, hacking, and unauthorized access.

• Digital Wallets:

01 - Definition: A digital wallet is software or a physical device that stores the private keys needed to access your Bitcoin.

Types of Wallets:

01 - Hot wallets: Connected to the internet; suitable for frequent use but more vulnerable to attacks (e.g., mobile apps and web wallets). 02 - Cold wallets: Keep Bitcoin offline; more secure for storing large amounts (e.g., hardware wallets and paper wallets).

• Hardware Wallets:

01 - How they work: Physical devices like Ledger or Trezor store your private keys offline. 02 - Advantages: High security against digital attacks and easy to transport.

• Paper Wallets:

01 - How they work: Involve printing or writing down your private keys on a piece of paper. 02 - Precautions: Store in a safe place, protected from moisture, fire, and unauthorized access.

• Backup and Recovery:

01 - Best practice: Regularly back up your wallet and store your recovery phrase (seed phrase) in a secure location. 02 - Warning: Never share your recovery phrase or private key with anyone.

Using Bitcoin goes beyond investment. It can be used for daily transactions, purchases, and transferring value efficiently.

• Transactions:

01 - How to send Bitcoin: Enter the recipient’s address, the amount to send, and confirm the transaction from your wallet. 02 - Fees: Transaction fees go to miners and may vary based on network demand.

• Purchasing Goods and Services:

01 - Merchants that accept Bitcoin: Many businesses, both physical and online, now accept Bitcoin. Look for the Bitcoin logo or consult updated lists of accepting merchants. 02 - How to pay: Scan the seller’s QR code and send the payment directly from your wallet.

International Transfers: Bitcoin enables fast global transfers, often with lower fees than banks or conventional remittance services.

Bill Payments: In some countries, it's already possible to pay for services and even taxes with Bitcoin, depending on local infrastructure.

• Tips for Using Bitcoin Safely:

01 - Choose trusted wallets and services: Only use well-known, reputable wallets and exchanges. 02 - Enable two-factor authentication (2FA): Activate 2FA to protect your accounts on exchanges and online services. 03 - Don’t leave funds on exchanges: After buying Bitcoin on an exchange, transfer your funds to a wallet you control to reduce the risk of loss from hacks. 04 - Educate yourself: Understanding the basics of Bitcoin and digital security is key to avoiding mistakes and fraud.

In summary, buying, storing, and using Bitcoin might seem complex at first, but it becomes simple and accessible with time. By following best security practices and learning the basics, anyone can benefit from this innovative technology.

Bitcoin is not just a financial option; it’s a powerful tool that supports economic freedom and access to a global economy. With the right knowledge, you can integrate Bitcoin into your life securely and effectively.

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!

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Parallel Chains

We want merged-mined blockchains. We want them because it is possible to do things in them that aren't doable in the normal Bitcoin blockchain because it is rightfully too expensive, but there are other things beside the world money that could benefit from a "distributed ledger" -- just like people believed in 2013 --, like issued assets and domain names (just the most obvious examples).

On the other hand we can't have -- like people believed in 2013 -- a copy of Bitcoin for every little idea with its own native token that is mined by proof-of-work and must get off the ground from being completely valueless into having some value by way of a miracle that operated only once with Bitcoin.

It's also not a good idea to have blockchains with custom merged-mining protocol (like Namecoin and Rootstock) that require Bitcoin miners to run their software and be an active participant and miner for that other network besides Bitcoin, because it's too cumbersome for everybody.

Luckily Ruben Somsen invented this protocol for blind merged-mining that solves the issue above. Although it doesn't solve the fact that each parallel chain still needs some form of "native" token to pay miners -- or it must use another method that doesn't use a native token, such as trusted payments outside the chain.

How does it work

With the SIGHASH_NOINPUT/SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT soft-fork[^eltoo] it becomes possible to create presigned transactions that aren't related to any previous UTXO.

Then you create a long sequence of transactions (sufficient to last for many many years), each with an nLockTime of 1 and each spending the next (you create them from the last to the first). Since their scriptSig (the unlocking script) will use SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT you can obtain a transaction id/hash that doesn't include the previous TXO, you can, for example, in a sequence of transactions A0-->B (B spends output 0 from A), include the signature for "spending A0 on B" inside the scriptPubKey (the locking script) of "A0".

With the contraption described above it is possible to make that long string of transactions everybody will know (and know how to generate) but each transaction can only be spent by the next previously decided transaction, no matter what anyone does, and there always must be at least one block of difference between them.

Then you combine it with RBF, SIGHASH_SINGLE and SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY so parallel chain miners can add inputs and outputs to be able to compete on fees by including their own outputs and getting change back while at the same time writing a hash of the parallel block in the change output and you get everything working perfectly: everybody trying to spend the same output from the long string, each with a different parallel block hash, only the highest bidder will get the transaction included on the Bitcoin chain and thus only one parallel block will be mined.

See also

• Drivechain

[^eltoo]: The same thing used in Eltoo.

@ 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.

@ 80a6a657:536a97e2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

@ 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.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY and the "covenants" drama

There are many ideas for "covenants" (I don't think this concept helps in the specific case of examining proposals, but fine). Some people think "we" (it's not obvious who is included in this group) should somehow examine them and come up with the perfect synthesis.

It is not clear what form this magic gathering of ideas will take and who (or which ideas) will be allowed to speak, but suppose it happens and there is intense research and conversations and people (ideas) really enjoy themselves in the process.

What are we left with at the end? Someone has to actually commit the time and put the effort and come up with a concrete proposal to be implemented on Bitcoin, and whatever the result is it will have trade-offs. Some great features will not make into this proposal, others will make in a worsened form, and some will be contemplated very nicely, there will be some extra costs related to maintenance or code complexity that will have to be taken. Someone, a concreate person, will decide upon these things using their own personal preferences and biases, and many people will not be pleased with their choices.

That has already happened. Jeremy Rubin has already conjured all the covenant ideas in a magic gathering that lasted more than 3 years and came up with a synthesis that has the best trade-offs he could find. CTV is the result of that operation.

---

The fate of CTV in the popular opinion illustrated by the thoughtless responses it has evoked such as "can we do better?" and "we need more review and research and more consideration of other ideas for covenants" is a preview of what would probably happen if these suggestions were followed again and someone spent the next 3 years again considering ideas, talking to other researchers and came up with a new synthesis. Again, that person would be faced with "can we do better?" responses from people that were not happy enough with the choices.

And unless some famous Bitcoin Core or retired Bitcoin Core developers were personally attracted by this synthesis then they would take some time to review and give their blessing to this new synthesis.

To summarize the argument of this article, the actual question in the current CTV drama is that there exists hidden criteria for proposals to be accepted by the general community into Bitcoin, and no one has these criteria clear in their minds. It is not as simple not as straightforward as "do research" nor it is as humanly impossible as "get consensus", it has a much bigger social element into it, but I also do not know what is the exact form of these hidden criteria.

This is said not to blame anyone -- except the ignorant people who are not aware of the existence of these things and just keep repeating completely false and unhelpful advice for Jeremy Rubin and are not self-conscious enough to ever realize what they're doing.

@ 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

@ ffbcb706:b0574044

Markdown test italic bold in openletter Nostr https://openletter.earth/ Have a great day

@ e83b66a8:b0526c2b

I’m going to talk about Ethereum, hear me out.

Ethereum is a Turing complete consensus blockchain tokenised by its own currency Ether.

This idea by Vitalik Buterin was incredibly compelling and still is today, even though few real world use cases have emerged.

For example, as a company, I could pay a carbon tax in Ether, locked into a smart contract. If the temperate rises by more than “n” degrees year on year based on a known agreed external (blind) oracle, say a weather station located near my factory.

Fantastic, we now have an automatic climate tax.

In reality, few realistic applications exist, however the idea is very compelling and many flocked to Ethereum as a promise of the future. This inflated its utility token “Ether” into stratospherically high prices.

This, in turn, attracted speculative investors and traders only looking at the price signal of the token and no longer considering the utility. This created a bubble which has gradually deflated over time.

This is why we are seeing Bitcoin, which only attempts to be money, succeed relative to Ethereum.

As Ethereum fails, and Bitcoin development strides on, an opportunity arises to try to do what Ethereum and all the other related altcoins have so far failed to do. Computational utility. And to do this on Bitcoin, the most successful “Crypto”.

The first unintended hijack of Ethereums utility are the JPEGs we are seeing on our blockchain.

This latest drive to make Bitcoin Turing complete is potentially the final destination for developers keen to explore the potential of Bitcoins eco-system.

Perhaps Bitcoin is going to absorb all the altcoins. Perhaps that is the goal of Bitcoins developers.

I don’t comment whether this is good or bad, I’m just exploring whether this may be the agenda.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

A response to Achim Warner's "Drivechain brings politics to miners" article

I mean this article: https://achimwarner.medium.com/thoughts-on-drivechain-i-miners-can-do-things-about-which-we-will-argue-whether-it-is-actually-a5c3c022dbd2

There are basically two claims here:

1. Some corporate interests might want to secure sidechains for themselves and thus they will bribe miners to have these activated

First, it's hard to imagine why they would want such a thing. Are they going to make a proprietary KYC chain only for their users? They could do that in a corporate way, or with a federation, like Facebook tried to do, and that would provide more value to their users than a cumbersome pseudo-decentralized system in which they don't even have powers to issue currency. Also, if Facebook couldn't get away with their federated shitcoin because the government was mad, what says the government won't be mad with a sidechain? And finally, why would Facebook want to give custody of their proprietary closed-garden Bitcoin-backed ecosystem coins to a random, open and always-changing set of miners?

But even if they do succeed in making their sidechain and it is very popular such that it pays miners fees and people love it. Well, then why not? Let them have it. It's not going to hurt anyone more than a proprietary shitcoin would anyway. If Facebook really wants a closed ecosystem backed by Bitcoin that probably means we are winning big.

2. Miners will be required to vote on the validity of debatable things

He cites the example of a PoS sidechain, an assassination market, a sidechain full of nazists, a sidechain deemed illegal by the US government and so on.

There is a simple solution to all of this: just kill these sidechains. Either miners can take the money from these to themselves, or they can just refuse to engage and freeze the coins there forever, or they can even give the coins to governments, if they want. It is an entirely good thing that evil sidechains or sidechains that use horrible technology that doesn't even let us know who owns each coin get annihilated. And it was the responsibility of people who put money in there to evaluate beforehand and know that PoS is not deterministic, for example.

About government censoring and wanting to steal money, or criminals using sidechains, I think the argument is very weak because these same things can happen today and may even be happening already: i.e., governments ordering mining pools to not mine such and such transactions from such and such people, or forcing them to reorg to steal money from criminals and whatnot. All this is expected to happen in normal Bitcoin. But both in normal Bitcoin and in Drivechain decentralization fixes that problem by making it so governments cannot catch all miners required to control the chain like that -- and in fact fixing that problem is the only reason we need decentralization.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

neuron.vim

I started using this neuron thing to create an update this same zettelkasten, but the existing vim plugin had too many problems, so I forked it and ended up changing almost everything.

Since the upstream repository was somewhat abandoned, most users and people who were trying to contribute upstream migrate to my fork too.

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/neuron.vim

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Titelbild: Screenshot OffGuardian]

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ a95c6243:d345522c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dieser Beitrag ist zuerst auf Transition News erschienen.

@ c1e9ab3a:9cb56b43

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

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

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

Part I: The Scene and Its Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part IV: Redemption as Narrative Alchemy

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

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

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

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

Part V: Real-World Reflections and Dangerous Scripts

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

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

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

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

Part VI: Cultural Responsibility and Narrative Ethics

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

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

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

Conclusion: Reckoning with the Stories We Tell

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

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

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

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

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Flowi.es

At the time I thought Workflowy had the ideal UI for everything. I wanted to implement my custom app maker on it, but ended up doing this: a platform for enhancing Workflowy with extra features:

• An email reminder based on dates input in items
• A website generator, similar to Websites For Trello, also based on Classless Templates

Also, I didn't remember this was also based on CouchDB and had some couchapp functionalities.

• https://flowi.es
• https://github.com/fiatjaf/flowies

@ 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.

@ 5188521b:008eb518

Macaron returns, fluffs his white linen napkin, and takes his seat at their table, “Thank you, John, for extending my French people such great mercy as to be allowed to transact freely on the Bitcoin blockchain.” He extends his arm out towards a waiter, “Monsieur? Champagne for the three of us please!”

Vrrrm! “I can’t believe we were able to find an American Mustang in this French countryside. I am ripping down these narrow roads!” John celebrates.

“Bloody hell, slow down!” Lily begs as her oversized diamond dangle earrings sway side to side. “You’ve got nothing to prove, John. Big man in your yankee ten-gallon hat. Let’s just get there safely.”

John slows to give her a smoldering look, “Aww, my sweet British compatriot, you care about me!”

“Bollocks! I care about not dying!” Lily retorts. “Now focus on the mission. We need to save a boatload of English border collies — literally. Frenchman Macaron wants to groom them into French poodles!”

John wags a finger off the wheel to reply in his Southern drawl, “However, my sweet Lily flower, my US Hash Force intends to project power to coerce the French for the dogs’ release!”

Lily bats his finger away, “Yes, but may I remind you, my arrogant wanker, geographically challenged friend, MI6’s intel says to steadily power on any miners as His Majesty’s Hash Force may do. The border collies’ barge will take about an hour to flee France, cross the English channel, and safely reach our shores so we don’t want to burst their souffle too quickly. Oh, and the barge is armed with explosives controlled by a remote detonator. When Macaron asks for his bitcoin ransom payment in exchange for the dogs’ release, how do you cowboys plan to help from across the pond?”

John takes both hands off the wheel to flex his biceps, “Shock and awe, Lily. Full Throttle! We’re not giving the French a single sat. Instead, we’re diverting maximum energy to the U.S. Hash Force, of course!”

Lily guffaws, “And where is this sudden surge of readily available power supposed to come from undetected?”

“No need to worry my English crumpet! Our back of the envelope calculations suggest that, with a little help from the Texas of the North, there’s enough flared natural gas in the U.S. to run the entire Bitcoin network!” John proudly replies.

Lily’s jaw drops, “So miners have already stealthily built out the infrastructure to capture wasted natural gas flares for the benefit of the U.S. government, but are waiting to turn them on until commanded to by the U.S. Hash Force?!”

“Yup! As soon as Macaron sees our hash power come online, we’re going to try to start mining blocks on the Bitcoin network to Denial of Service (DOS) attack any UTXOs with a known history of French transactions.”

“A DOS attack, for peace?” Lily asks skeptically.

“Peace through strength, baby! If you don’t comply with America’s dog rights standards, you get censored. America saves British dogs again, and without a single shot fired!”

“Not fair! It’s only because our MI6 chainanalysis intel knows which Bitcoin addresses to censor on the blockchain we suspect belong to Macaron and his government that this plan even has a shot at succeeding. You’re lucky Macaron is even more self-assured than you Americans. That’s the only reason France doesn’t have a Hash Force of its own to project power back!”

John pulls the Mustang up to the front of the fancy French restaurant, Chandelier. Lily grabs her green purse that matches her elegant emerald ball gown, and they head inside to meet Macaron.

John and Lily spot Macaron sitting alone at the white linen table closest to the dance floor. He’s tapping his Louis Vuitton snake leather shoes, checking his Chanel watch, and fluffing his floofy black French Hermès beret. The red French ascot spilling out of his black and white blouse looks ridiculous.

John lets out a big sigh, and Macaron stands with open arms, “Lily, John, welcome to France!” Before John can flinch away, Macaron kisses him on both cheeks. He lifts up Lily’s hand for a kiss, “Mademoiselle.”

John raises his hand, “Waiter! I’ll take a bourbon, neat. And make it a double!” John calls out.

Slap!

“Hey, what was that for, Frenchie?” John asks as he rubs his face.

“Rude American, where are your manners?” Macaron asks as he pulls out a hidden red detonator clipped in the folds of his ascot. “Don’t drive me to prematurely push this button and blow up the boat carrying your English doggies! First, send me my bitcoin ransom payment. Then we can celebrate with drinks!” Macaron demands.

“In your dreams, Frenchie!” John presses his finger to his ear, “Uniform, Sierra, Alpha!”

Macaron turns to Lily and scoffs, “What is this rude American man doing, Lily?”

Annoyed, Lily answers, “Check your bitcoin UTXOs. Notice anything?”

Macaron frantically queries his Bitcoin node remotely from his cellphone and breathes a sigh of relief, “Phew. No, I don’t notice anything at all. All of my unspent bitcoin is still under the control of my government’s private key.”

“And it’ll stay that way, too!” John beats his chest. “You mess with the US, and you get the Hash Force! We just secretly doubled the difficulty to mine a block by turning on all of our miners — as many miners as the entire existing Bitcoin network! Now you’ll have to wait twice as long for your French bitcoin transactions to confirm! That is, unless you release the barge of dogs right now!”

Lily drops down to the table and buries her face in her palms to hide her embarrassment.

Flustered, Macaron furiously types out a long text message with the order to release the barge of English Border Collies to cross the English channel. “There, I’ve let the dogs out! Will you two please excuse me for a moment? I have to place a call with my government to confirm we haven’t lost our property rights to spend our bitcoin.

Beaming with pride, John falls back into his chair at the table. “We did it, Lily! Quick, give the command for His Majesty’s Hash Force to power on so we can 51% attack this guy!”

Lily finally stops rubbing her eyes, “John, that isn’t how any of this works!”

“What do you mean?” he asks.

“Within a 2,016 block difficulty adjustment period, doubling the hash power means the global Bitcoin network will mine new blocks twice as fast, not slower! At least, until the 2,016 block period ends and the difficulty adjusts so miners resume taking on average 10 minutes to generate a valid block. And sure, maybe the US has a political incentive to not collect the fees of any transactions of UTXOs with a known French association, but the rest of the network’s miners will happily profit from the sats you leave in the mempool! But most of all, the Bitcoin network is now just twice as secure from attack!”

John’s double bourbon finally arrives at the table. Selfishly focused on his own glass, he doesn’t bother to stop the waiter in case Lily wants to order a drink of her own. He drinks a big gulp, “But if you give the order for His Majesty’s Hash Force to power on, won’t we have over 51% of the hash power of the Bitcoin network? We can write Macaron’s bitcoin out of existence!”

Lily crosses her arms, “Not exactly. It’s not enough to just surpass half the hashrate. We also need to maintain a higher hashrate than the legacy chain to generate more chain weight to then reorg the other chain when we join the legacy network. We would have to be mining this heavier chain in secret, but in one bombastic order you just completely blew apart our whole plan! Now we’d need some sort of massive collusion somehow between existing miners, and some secret stealth miners, to have any power projection.”

John mutters under his breath, “Frenchie’s been gone a long time. Wonder what he’s up to….”

Macaron returns, fluffs his white linen napkin, and takes his seat at their table, “Thank you, John, for extending my French people such great mercy as to be allowed to transact freely on the Bitcoin blockchain.” He extends his arm out towards a waiter, “Monsieur? Champagne for the three of us please!” Macaron turns to John and Lily, “After my phone call, I am in much better spirits. Though I’m bitter you denied paying our bitcoin ransom, I’m grateful you’re furthering the security of the Bitcoin network.”

In his excitement, Macaron leans forward and claps his hands together, “You two are so lucky to be dining with me tonight. You won’t have to drink that sparkling-wine-swill you have in your home countries. Tonight, you’ll get to have proper champagne, from the Champagne region of France — my treat!”

John grunts in disgust, “Macaron, you can order champagne, but I’ve got my bourbon.”

Lily steps on John’s foot, “Ow! What was that for?” John shrieks.

“Aren’t you going to ask me if I want anything?” Lily asks.

“Huh?” John replies confusedly.

Macaron takes Lily’s hand, “Mademoiselle, in addition to champagne, can I get you anything else?”

Lily recoils her hand back, “Gin martini. Shaken, not stirred.”

“Lily, may I ask you another question?” Macaron asks sweetly.

“Bloody hell, what is it, Macaron?” she responds while rolling her eyes.

“Why do I get the feeling that forgetting to ask you what you’d like to drink isn’t the first time John has neglected to ask you what you wanted?”

Lily’s eyes light up as she leans in closer to Macaron, “Why, yes. This isn’t the first time John’s ever disregarded my needs. You know, he’s always only thinking about himself, his own ego, and he never misses a chance to interrupt me—”

“—That’s not true!” John interrupts.

Lily kicks him under the table, “See what I mean?”

Macaron whisks Lily’s hair behind her ear, “You have such beautiful earrings, Lily. Did John buy those for you?”

“No, John never buys me anything.”

“What do you mean?” John protests.

Lily shrugs him off and Macaron leans in closer to Lily to whisper just loud enough for John to hear, “You know, in my country, men like me know how to show a lady respect.”

John stands up and extends out his hand, “C’mon, Lily. I think it’s time I take you out onto the floor for a dance.”

She shakes her head, so he stomps on her feet under the table.

“Ow!” Lily shrieks.

“I insist,” John presses. “They’re playing my song, Don’t Stop Believin’. C’mon!”

On the dance floor, John pulls Lily close to whisper in her ear, “What are you doing? We’ve finished our mission. Let’s ensure the dogs safely cross the English channel and get out of here! The way you’re flirting with him we’ll never leave!”

Lily blushes, “John, are you that blind? If Macaron is suddenly being sweet to us, then he must be scheming something.”

“What’s that supposed to mean?” John shakes his head. “Look, there’s no time to argue. We can’t risk him blowing up the barge as long as he’s got that remote detonator clipped to his ascot! He’s in a jubilant mood for now, but those French can be so melodramatic. We’ve got to get the detonator to ensure the safety of the dogs until they reach safe harbor at your shores.”

John’s box step dancing pace quickens as he looks over to check on Macaron. He spots him placing an order with the waiter and grits his teeth, “He’s pure evil. He was willing to kill the English border collies if he didn’t get ransom payment for not grooming them into French poodles. Only the threat of our Hash Force forced him to comply with our demand for their release!”

Lily breaks away from John to do a twirl on the dance floor; her elegant flowy green dress tries to keep up. She flips her hair and winks at Macaron, “Maybe I should flirt with him some more? After all, he’s so handsome — and he listens to me!”

John stops dancing and stomps his feet.

“Aww, are you jealous, John?” Lily asks.

“Jealous?!”

Lily floats back to John, digs her nails into the back of his neck, and nibbles on his ear as she whispers, “John, you better dip me on this dance floor! Otherwise, I’m going to ask him to draw me like one of his French girls. C’mon John, Don’t stop believin’!”

Ahem Macaron clears his throat, adjusts his detonator-pinned ascot, and taps Lily on the shoulder.

“Mademoiselle, may I have this dance?”

“Oh, certainly,” she replies. “Better than this brute with two left feet!”

John grunts in dissatisfaction and bolts back to the table.

With Macaron distracted dancing with Lily for what feels like an eternity, John defiantly presses his finger to his ear. “MI6 — status report. What’s taking so long?” he mutters under his breath. “I hate seeing this Frenchie dance with an English lass who deserves so much better. It’s driving me crazy!”

“You just gotta distract him from detonation for ten more minutes,” a British accent replies. “Intel shows the puppy barge armed with explosives has almost reached us across the channel, and then we can safely disarm it.”

“USHF, come in,” John queries.

“We’ve got trouble! The global energy grid has spiked along the Asian seaboard, and among the French alps. Looks like a secret French Hash Force we’ve never detected is colluding with the existing Chinese, Japanese, and Tibetan miners!

They’ve stopped including American-linked bitcoin address transactions in their blocks! Can you politely get him to back down? We’ve already played our power-projection show-of-force card!”

“Ok, I’ll do my best to play nice with Frenchie, but no promises!” John cautions. As he watches Lily and Macaron dance with disdain, a waiter approaches him at the table.

“Here you are, monsieur. Your appetizer.”

“Appetizer? I didn’t order an appetizer! All I ordered was this bourbon.”

“I’m sorry monsieur, but the other gentleman of your party insists. He said he offers this delicacy as a gift. A token of appreciation for the mercy demonstrated today by you, the quote Big American Man enquote.”

John looks on the dance floor and sees Macaron give him a nod with a big wiley grin. Lily gives him the “go-ahead” signal, so John pops one of the hot slimy appetizer balls into his mouth.

“Mhmm! These are tastier than Ma’s Frito Pie!” he shouts as Macaron and Lily walk over to join him back at the table. John continues, “These remind me of the Rocky Mountain oysters we have back at home! Of course, I’m grateful they aren’t, if you know what I mean. What are they, anyways?”

“Escargot,” the Frenchman replies, “a local specialty.”

“Escar-what-now?” John asks.

“Snails!” Lily clarifies.

John gags and spits his half-eaten snail onto the floor. He stands up and slams his ten-gallon cowboy hat on the table. “Ok, that’s it! I’ve had enough! Macaron, stop playing nice. We know you’ve activated some secret alliance with the miners on the other side of the globe! What’re you up to?”

“John, don’t upset him! Think about the puppies!” Lily pleads.

“To heck with the puppies! I’m not letting this man stand up a Hash Force to DOS attack us! You hear that, Macaron? You mess with the best, and we’ll use kinetic force against your miners stashed in the caves of the French alps!” Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! Macaron wags his finger, and pulls out the detonator switch clipped to his ascot.

“Silly pompous American, did you forget I still have the detonator? Did you really think I was going to let you get away with rescuing your hideous English border collies? Life is one giant power projection game, and the way nation states survive is by mutually assured preservation. In exchange for taming the unwieldy fur of Tibetan Mastiffs, Chinese Chow Chows, and Japanese Shih-Tzu and Shiba Inus, these countries pledged their miners to our stealthy French Hash Force when we’re in need. Well, thanks to your little stunt, not only did I find the perfect opportunity to project power back at you arrogant Americans, but also dump these hideous dogs given to me onto your barge, so they’re the British Isles’ problem now!”

“But we’ll be overrun by doges!” Lily gasps in horror.

“Yes, Lily! That’s what you get for partnering with John! What do Americans say?” Macaron asks rhetorically. “That’s right, ‘No dogs left behind!’ But most of all, John, I just wanted one last dance with your girlfriend, and to watch you eat snails!” French nasally honking laughing sounds

Lily shouts back, “I’m not his girlfriend!” She pulls a whistle out of her purse and blows it as hard as she can, but it doesn’t make a sound. John looks at her confused, and Macaron honks even harder. The whole restaurant starts to rumble, and the chandeliers sway from the ceiling.

“What’s this!?” Macaron shouts.

Gradually, then suddenly a stampede of bulldogs comes barreling into the dining room, knocking over all the tables, and tackling Macaron! As he falls, the detonator gets knocked into the air, and Lily catches it just before it hits the floor.

John looks at her, bewildered, and stammers, “You…. you let the Bitcoin dogs out??”

“You think you wankers got all the tricks? The English have a few surprises too! Now c’mon, let’s flee out the back in my British Mini Cooper. And this time, I’m driving!”

---

Will Schoellkopf is the author of two books: Bitcoin Girl Save the World and The Bitcoin Dog: Following the Scent to the Bitcoin C++ Source Code. He hosts the Bitcoin podcast It’s So Early! and publishes a weekly newsletter, featuring his favorite Bitcoin Posts of the Week, at realbitcoindog.com. His work has appeared in the anthology 21 Futures: Tales from the Timechain, in print at Bitcoin Magazine, Citadel21, Stackchain Magazine and online at Satoshi’s Journal. Follow him on Nostr and X @realBitcoinDog, or email will@realbitcoindog.com

@ 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.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Module Linker

A browser extension that reads source code on GitHub and tries to find links to imported dependencies so you can click on them and navigate through either GitHub or package repositories or base language documentation. Works for many languages at different levels of completeness.

• https://github.com/fiatjaf/module-linker
• https://module-linker.alhur.es/
• https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/module-linker
• https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/dglofghjinifeolcpjfjmfdnnbaanggn

@ 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

@ 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.

@ 3bf0c63f:aefa459d

Using Spacechains and Fedimint to solve scaling

What if instead of trying to create complicated "layer 2" setups involving noveau cryptographic techniques we just did the following:

• we take that Fedimint source code and remove the "mint" stuff, and just use their federation stuff secure coins with multisig;
• then we make a spacechain;
• and we make the federations issue multisig-btc tokens on it;
• and then we put some uniswap-like thing in there to allow these tokens to be exchanged freely.

Why?

The recent spike in fees caused by Ordinals and BRC-20 shitcoinery has shown that Lightning isn't a silver bullet. Channels are too fragile, it costs a lot to open a channel under a high fee environment, to run a routing node and so on.

People who want to keep using Lightning are instead flocking to the big Lightning custodial providers: WalletofSatoshi, ZEBEDEE, OpenNode and so on. We could leverage that trust people have in these companies (and individuals) operating shadow Lightning providers and turn each of these into a btc-token issuer. Each issue their own token, transactions flow freely. Each person can hold only assets from the issuers they trust more.